The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1974-04-23 Bd Comm minutesXA s- APPROVE. ' A-•n'Yz i:�_�e�^ a �. '� ..F,�;g - _-y _:S �=; ,-zZ.�.F�-`.'f .�. �-a� .>,d�-, .`F: v -i _' _ _ _ _ I _ - ysientazi.ve �►gc.nua y.F Plannins 8 >Zoning=.Commission _- "Iowa�City,` Iowa rwest °ot ,lots tronting on 5ixtn-Hvenue) . xeques c riicci by Robert. and =Dana Wolf.. Date {sled; 3/15/74 Oe fer-red: - 4/1`1/x74' 45 day ].imitation : 4/29/74 L'. =Subdivision -,Item': 1. S-:..7406. :_ Grolmus Addition', Part 2. Preliminary plat >ofsubdiviaion, filed' by Pe an Oakes '(vic. east of Prai-rie du Chien Road and; north of Virginia Avenue) . Date filed': 4/-8/74. _ 45 `day _limitation: 5/23/74 F. ``.Discusson i :. - .Ttems 1. P-,7315. Sidewalk Policy.Studye 2. P- 7317. University -_Zone:-.District (U) . G. - Adjournment Next regular, meeting April 25, 1974 _ STAFF'REPORT :(SUPPLEMENT) • Plannin g _& Zoning Commission K' x April 25;` 1974`' SUBJECT: "-. 'Z-7;405. Application submitted by'Robert and Erma Wolf to rezone an :83 acre tract of land located` .north of H Street, west of lots fronting`on Sixth Avenue, and south and eastof ;RalstonCreek-.;from: an R1B 'zone to an R2 zone. Date filed: 3%15/74'; 45-day limitation: 4%29/74. - STAFF - The Staff had previously ANALYSIS: recommended, in a Staff Report dated April 11, 1974. _the _approval`of the above application.-On'April 26,__19.73,:a, Staff Report was _written recommending ,denial of a' request.to:rezone certain property', common ly.=referred "=to `as -the Richardson !.Tract' located within close proximity":toahe`subject property and east of Sixth Avenue, south=of..H: Street, west,'.of.Fifth Avenue, and north of the. C. R.J. &P .?Railroad "'from an', R1B.' zone: to an R2.-zone-(see attachb plat),. This'supplemental'"Staff .Report i intended to ".=resolve the question that if'the-two properties are both similar in nature:, and located ;in- the.:same areas why would the Staff not recommend-.denial of;_the:subject application for the same reasons _given previously: _ It appeared evident: from_the- 1973 Staff= Report there was no _ justification for rezoning ;the;Rchardson:,Tract to an R2 zone - even on-_he basis.. of the;="buffer ,zone" concept so explicitely defined: _;The =Staff is in complete:. agreement with the previous- report and thPaction;wh"ich ahe:City.subsequently took but are of the opinion: there are`_other reasons,'whichdo justify 'rezoning the subject=property,,includng the following: -` - 1. There would•.be-no adverse affect on adjacent property, 2. 'An R2 zone would permit development of the tract, 3. --The construction _of duplexes would be an asset and an improvement.tol-the residential area, and _4. Any.1further expansion of_zone is _unlikely because of existing ;development`. - _ Since in--the-.'l973 Staff Report:mention-was made of the "unwise policy" of- rezoning ,land:for:-the'profitable.interests of the land holders, Item2 should be fully discussed. Rezoning for economic -` reasons . per, se is ._not `only-`-an` unw se policy, but under certain ' - circumstances.unl"awful. ;However, :zoning for economic-reasons may properly present`-.---Aneed for an amendment to a zoning ordinance as in the =following example. In the case of-Mallory v. West J -»ci!- 4LR %h3 �� SJ''i�[ •F �� `] �l �' d y - I•k 4� T x...'1t r'! - yl, '( + 11artkoid'. Some of the same property: Re'zohi argum I e L nts':'could s :onnectibut-'decision,- the- idision or_•the ,town council dalzone to commercial, held question for business.develop- t1i6.._1and- could -be -.put, and ;residential I use --on a sound I of -neighboring residential town council had not acted le,-_�'an,dl,there wasno abuse of -'a.---rqommon. law- principle of e I rty . - which is= -not necessarily d int, any planning stan po iel-basis,ofconformance with Tlan-.exceptwhen changing irly in, are areas itsons including economic a I -afe not adversely,_ affected. "changed R2zoning had been he :`south of the subject ;subsequently constructed.. If Ill' duplexes the subject tract ngunitswould conceivably situation would result in an m-l-1-the.:-0evelopment of single s -,assvmed that prospective iv6l- --a - cross -the street from .,Of__'�.the tract,, it is not homes,,dver-a seventy year he site..which-raises the 11i_' -;adapted to single family If Z'the. property is ever to It- 6hanqe in- -zoning is of be and. ;perhaps were presented ticli a_r_ddonTract to- an R2 zone. erence-An the -Staff's --opinion, --"f 6rrezoning. The subject o ;R2;zoning on two sides :ity.. -An >R2 zone thence - of the -zoning which -is .ngi s I ingle-family homes which , is'o n"'Tract.,which incidentally kbie characteristics for ty,,s isolated by RlB zoning homes', ;many of which face the ,-*R2._.'couldp re haps-be construed _ • -to be "spot" or piecemeal zoning. STAFF - For,, the reasons afore- RECOMMENDATION:mentioned, the the `Staff = supports - _:` recommendation to rezone - -the- subject property to an R2 zones COMMENT: The two petitions for rezoning demonstrate the need'for a study of the area to ;determine the --most appropriate land uses. and zoning of'the-area. If as aresult of.' the study; changes in zoning for all or part of .the area are necessary, ;they should :be made at one-time rattier than on a'lot-by-lot basis.' _ 6 WCKLV- i C c 5 6 7 f3,ti AO' SOS'. SUBJECT _ Chien Roadand`:-,.'four, .:10 4/8/.74;.45-day„limitat. �.. 7.... --- the Plat: 2.--- The;title should_be 1 page :2 ,4 1 Possible Agenda April 231974-.- 16. Consider auctioning of real estate.: