HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-08-26 Bd Comm minutesDirector's -Report
FINANCIAL
:-t
vell
do
•il Il,' I1/�i
I • I��`_1
fTil!FoTil' V'trIl: 1b AM 11 AlIXI
-2
•
5.
P-7317. Creation of University Zone (U).
6.
P-7503. Revision of Ml and M2 Zones. Initiated by Pt,Z.
H. Pending
Items:
1.
5-7510. Large Scale Residential Development -- Preliminary and
Final 'Plats. Elderly Housing Project onnortheast corner of
Dubuque and Court Streets. Submitted by Old Capitol Associates.
Date filed: _7/2/75. '45 -day -limitation: waived.
2.
5-7505. "1750 Rochester" -- preliminary platblock
-(vic._1700
on north side of Rochester Avenue). PAD submitted by Plum Grove
Acres, Inc. PF,Z referred to Parks and Recreation Commission'.
- -
Date filed: 4/21/75. 45 -day limitation: waived.
3.
Z-7426. Rezoning of tract, CH to C2, east side of First Avenue
-
north of American Legion Road. Requested by John Lee and Harding
Construction Co. Date filed: 11/26/74. - -
4.
P-7410. Creation of Mobile Home Residential Zone (RM11).
5.
-C4405. Objections to prohibited and non -conforming signs in -Sign
•'
Ordinance. Council referral: 1/10/75.
6.
Possibility of residential uses in CO Zone as a special use.
-
Initiated by P$Z.
7.
Valley Plain (VP) and Valley Channel (VC) Zones to be shown on
Zoning Map for entire length -of Iowa River within corporate; limits
of Iowa City.- Initiated.by PBZ._;
8.
'
Request of a status report concerning a program be established to
define and
identify buildings and neighborhoods of historical
-or
architectural significance and possibility that provisions .be incor-;
porated into City Code to preserve and ,,protect -these. -:sites. -:Request _
made to City, Council:- 9/26/74.
9.
Request for a no -action policy on River Corridor until final action
on River Corridor Study.. Request made by Riverfront Commission:
• STAFF REPORT
Planning E Zoning Commission
-` August 28, 1975
SUBJECT: Z-7506. Rezoning of a -tract of land
located east of the Westinghouse
Learning -Corporation, -south of -the
northerly corporate limits, and west
of Highway 1.
STAFF___ After recent litigation in the Iowa
ANALYSIS• District 'Court -in -and for Johnson
County, 'it was resolved"that the R1A
zoning; classification of the subject
property owned by Plum Grove Acres; Inc. is invalid -and. that "reasonable
_-_- commercial uses should be permitted". It -was the Court's further resolution
"that any use permitted under highway commercial zoning classification (CH)
as definedinexisting ordinances of the City of Iowa City would appear to be
reasonable commercial uses and that such uses ,are consistent with the compre
hensive_plan for development of the City" The Court stated, however, that
it cannot "abridge _the ;City's -right to attempt to enact.a valid: zoning _ordinance
vis -a -vis -Plaintiff's property which is more restrictivethan CH zoning". By
_court order, therefore, the City` must' within 70 days of July 30, 1975 (October -
8) rezone the subject tract to a commercial zone '-which`is not arbitrarily,
unreasonable and discriminatory" and bears a "substantial relationship`to the
public health, safety or welfare, including the maintenance of property values".
• Hanna v. Rathje, 171 N.W.2d 876 (Iowa 1969).
The subject '2.99_acre tract of land is -located northeasterly of.the Westinghouse
Learning Corporationzonedan ORP -Office and Research Park Zone, south of
undeveloped land located in the county and in an - Agricultural Zone, and
west • across, Highway 1 from undeveloped' land also Al`utilized-fori"agricultural
purposes and located in an R1A Single Family Residence Zone. A new single
family dwelling has been constructed along Highway l in the county immediately
north of 'the land zoned'R1A. Southeasterly of the subject tract is the-High-
lander-located
igh-lander located in a CH Highway Commercial Zone.
The-proper-zoning_of the subject tract must be "in accordance with a comprehensive
-plan with` reasonable consideration -for the most appropriate use'of the land
" (Iowa Code, -414.3). The Comprehensive Plan of the, City,, developed by
Harland Bartholomew and Associates in -1961 and "adopted" by the City,; did not
consider 'land use projections. in -the -vicinity -of the Interstate 80 inter-
- change with Highway l since that area was not within the corporate limits
of the City at that time. 'In January, 1968, a reportprepared by the Iowa -
City Planning Department and entitled "The North Side Study" did, however,
establish a' policy`' guide for development decisions in the subsequent annexed
areas within North Iowa City. Certain problems, objectives, and general
and specific policies mentioned -within -the report that have particularsignifi=
cance to the development and zoning of the subject tractor surrounding
property are presented in the following analysis.
• "Random or unlimited land development in any one section.of the community may
result in under or over utilization of various public facilities at the expense
-2-
F_-I
LJ
of the entire community.- Therefore, the City will use its 'influence to shape
the development of the community so as to make optimum use of all public-.
investment" (page 10). This general _-policy -has no relevance to the zoning '
of the subject tract but does relate to the future development of adjacent
undeveloped property. The North Highway 1 corridor is not presently -nor
physically capable of -being -served by.public>sanitary -sewer--facilities;
existingbusiness establishments, the Westinghouse Learning: Corporation and
the Highlander, haveeachconstructed their own lagoons for the primary
treatment of sewage wastes. Neither lagoon, -however, has the scapacity-to
treat additional sewage flows. -= Any 'future development, therefore, must be
served alternatively by septic tanks subject to the approval of the County
Board -of -Health or by private lagoons subject to the approval.of the State
Department of Environmental Quality until the "cast -west -trunk sewer" has
been extended up the Iowa River, along North Dubuque Streetto Interstate
80 and -parallel to Interstate '80 to Highway I forservice connections.
It is -the City's policy to discourage development in areas where septic tanks
are essential and DEQ's policy to discourage the construction of private
lagoons. It is equally -the City's policy to absolutely refrain from
installing sanitary sewers at public expense prematurely of development
since it is the -developer's -and/or the subdivider's normal obligation to
install sanitary sewers at their expense. It -is of utmost importance that
some means be employed to preserve, the undeveloped land for agricultural
use until ready for urban type development. The appropriate application
• of zoning is one method.
"Commercial developmentinthe vicinity of the I-80/Highway 1 interchange will
be permitted" -(page '12).'- The only commercial_ uses existing -at -the time of the
study were the Howard Johnson complex and the new American College Testing
facilities. In accord with the above specific policy,, the Westinghouse
Learning Corporation and the Highlander were -subsequently constructed. Though
all uses were zoned a CH Highway Commercial Zone including the Westinghouse`
Learning, Corporation and -the American College Testing Center,fprimarily_because
'-they didn't "fit" in any other zone, the -staff is unable to .find any reference
to the desirable implementation of a CH Zone for any,and all commercial
development to occur. The ex:post facto establishment of the ORP Zone was
merely intended to provide a zone more` applicable to office and research type---
facilities.
ypefacilities.
"As land is developed, transitional or _[step-down' zoning will be used when
going from low to high densities -- or from residential to non-residential
uses. In the "absence of transitional zoning as a means of insulating sharp
changes in land "use, buffer strips of; open space will be required" (page 11).
Zoning is essentially a means of insuring that land uses are properly situated
in --relation to one another. "Under the guise of zoning,arbitrary and unreasonable
restrictions upon- the use and enjoyment of property; prohibition of use which
does not interfere with the equally rightful use and enjoyment by others of
their,property,or deprivation of property without 'due process of 'law may
not be made." - Anderson v. Jester, 206 Iowa 452, 221 N.W.354. - That is to
• say the zoning established on a -particular tract of land is valid only if it ;
does not interfere or adversely.affect adjoining property. The zon e establish_d
on the subject tract and the uses permitted under that zone must be compatible
with existing uses and anticipated future land use development. -
-3
• '"1'he present 'highway, commercialzoning along North Dodge Street (Highway
1) could lead to strip commercial development and severe traffic -problems"
(page, 6). -It can be substantiated that the subject undeveloped tract of
land is similar in character, adaptability and use: to the undeveloped
property to the north and across -Highway 1 to the east: "If the ordinance
(zone) constitutes piecemeal or haphazard zoning of a small tract of land
similar in character and use to the sourrounding property for -the benefit of
the owner and not pursuant to a' comprehensive_ plan for the general welfare
of the community,; it is arbitrary, unreasonable and invalid." Anderson v.
City ofCedarRapids, supra, 168 N.W.2d at 744; et al. Is the establishment
of a CH Zone on the subject tract .illegal spot zoning?, "Spot zoning,; is valid
if -it is germane to an _object within the police power and there is a -
reasonable basis for making the distinction between the;spot._zoned and -the
surrounding property." Keppyrv. Ehlers, supra; 253 Iowa at 1023, 115-
N.W.2d at 200; et al. It, would -appear that no evidence would lead to the
conclusion that the subject tract is somehow' distinguishable from the `
undeveloped areas adjacent thereto.- And contrariwise, if the subject property
is -zoned -for commercial use, to deny adjacent property owners equal rights
is discriminatory since no reasonable grounds appear to exist for any
differentiation. ,Thus,,the problem of strip commercial development along
Highway l is of legitimate concern.
The question is not whether the property should be rezoned to a commercial
zone (that was resolved in court) butwhatcommercial zone -that is innkeeping',
_ with the Court's mandate and zoning law.. In; the absence of a comprehensive .
plan for development along the Highway 1 corridor (the Court had referred to
a comprehensive plan for development of this area; the "North Side Study"
isnot a comprehensive plan), the staff -submits: that the tract -must nonetheless
be zoned in accordwithadjacent existing and probable -future --land uses for
--
the "maintenance of property values". `
It must be assumed that at some point along the North Highway 1 corridor
there will be a transition from; commercial use to residential use, save
infinitival strip commercial development. That transition according to the
existing -Zoning Code would take place at the boundary of the RIA Zone east
of Highway 1. Presumably, at least at_this stage, if it can be assumed that
the Zoning Code is.a valid ordinance, residential' development will occur
within the area zoned"R1A'.
The Westinghouse_ Learning, Corporation is located in an ORP Zone which is
designed for the exclusive use and quality development of international
headquarters, large office buildings, and research activities on land provided
for large, attractively landscaped sites. The -low intensity and limiting
restrictions established -within the zone. provide for uses which are compatible
with residential use. The ORP Zone's application to,the subject tract is
paradoxical, however, because` theminimum lot size requirement is seven acres.
A commercialzonemost similar to the ORP Zone, permitting in essence the
-same uses on a -smaller -scale with no lot size restrictions, is the CO Commercial
• Office Zone. The CO Zone, like -its counterpart, provides -for -land and
structures compatible with residentinl use az a lopi,cil transition.
-4-
•
commercial zones
permit uses which could be highly incompatible to
residential
All other
residential use if located
in such a manner that -will expose
Alternatively, the PC Planned Commercial
development to_its adverse
in
influences. would
the C1 Zone and many:uses the
Zone, which permits uses whHich establishes
since development by landnuse
dee must be submitted
demand this protection
location and extent of
thepla
the features of the development
a
the
and approved by the City.
summation, commercial zones which are not arbitrarily_;unreasonable and
are the CO and PC
In
discriminatory, according
to the -Court's_ -interpretation, _
provide -a suitable transition
:The CO Zone would .and the PC Zone could
Zones.and _
1Northtfurther
l development a
between commercial and residentiathe HighwayI corridor.
commercial development along
expansion of strip
the foregoing analysis,
Based the
STAFF
_upon
it is the recommendation
RECOMMENDATION:`
the subject tract be.zoned either
CO or PC.
y
2
• examined.` It is well worth the Commissioners' efforts to read the report
in its entirety:
Since the aforementioned report impartially demonstrates the need for an
east-west connecting street' between Woodside Drive and Marietta Avenue,
Leamer.Court and/or Olive Court in University Heights, the 'staff will play
the _"devil's advocate" in pointing out-the advantages of a private street
system ;which would not provide access to the Neuzil Tractor circulation
through the areas.
On page 5,of the Report, reference was made to the "virtual landlocking
of the Neuzil Tract". Of course, if the property ;is landlocked, any;,
further discussion is 'redundant, and the subject LSRD plan should be
denied unless revised to provide access to the Neuzil.Tract. The Tract,
-access.point but three -Marietta
however, is provided with not only one
Avenue, Leamer Court-and-Olive Court. All three streets-lead _dpreviou
to the arterial,_streets,_Melrose Avenue and: Sunset, Street. ,In previous
encounters with the Town Council of University Heights however, mention
of the use-of-these streets as "thoroughfares for large volumes of traffic';
which they felt would degrade the residential quality of the areas through
which the traffic would pass, prompted threat to vacate and-barricade
access to the Neuzil Tract. .The law is rather-specific as to the deprivation
of free access to private property along a street. The--unresolved-legal
question, however, is whether access can be closed to.property situated
• outside of a city's corporate limits.
On page 12 of the Report, mention is made that 'the primary directions of
travel are north to Melrose Avenue and east on Greenwood Drive and Benton
Street. These primary travel directions are inhibited by the lack of
direct streets in these general directions and the CRIF,P Railroad tracks.
Within -the "study area, there is no adequate ,provision for north-south travel
via a collector<street,.or much less a'through local street that would tie
together Melrose Avenue, the Neuzil and Thompson; Tracts andBentonor
Greenwood Drive." There is t unquestionably a dire need'for a direct route
to Melrose Avenue. In view of existing development,ihowever, it is virtually
impossible to establish-a direct route. At-best, a sinuous route via
Greenwood Avenue, Woodside Place, Woodside-Drive, a street through he
subject property and the Neuzil Tract, `-and .Olive Court, Is which are
inadequate for large volumes of traffic, would be the shortest route.
In planning principle, it is-undesirable to channel large volumes of
vehicular traffic through a residential neighborhood.,, This, point was
expressed in a Staff Report dated May,.8, 1975 in review of the preliminary
plat of Bel Aire Addition, Part 6 and the extension -of Glendale Road east
to connect with First Avenue. To reiterate, large traffic flows on Olive
Court,' Leamer-Court and Marietta Avenue would` undoubtedly disrupt the
livability of the existing-single family homes adjacent thereto - the
very reason University Heights had previously:objected so vehemently.
• To the applicant, private streets are an important feature not because
they'll be less expensive to construct (the proposed str-- are dssi�al
•
according to City specifications, i.e., 28 feet of concrete paving _
seven -inches in thickness) but because the exclusivedevelopment proposed
demands -non -through traffic for seclusion._ In addition, private streets
are the responsibility of the owner of the complex to maintain, keep free
from snow, etc.
In summation, the above analysis of the street circulation -problem is in
no way intended to be biased toward either alternative; both have advantages
and disadvantages. Of the two alternatives, the decision will rest with the
Commission and; the City Council.
-
The Planning Division has reviewed the plan in accordance with the require-
ments of a preliminary LSRD plan. The plat has been revised to -incorporate
deficiencies noted by the staff, --but as of this date, neither the staff
nor the Engineering Division has completed final review.
STAFF The alternatives available to the
RECOhAENDATION: Commission are (1) -the plan be
referred to the Legal Staff for
- = an opinion concerning the _question
of the closing of streets and access rights and be deferredpending final
review -by the staff, 'or``(2)-the plan be denied unless revised to'accommodate
a public_ street` through the area.
•
FILE
11511;)0 1211 M,
NUMBER:
GRAPHIC SCALE = 1nz 660'. S