HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-12-10 Bd Comm minutesr]
MINUTES
IOWA CITY HOUSING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 20, 1974
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Branson, Bosserman, Claypool, Sheets, Fountain.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Retish, White.
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
Seydel, Hillis.
GUESTS PRESENT:
® Jim Mullendore.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
None.
REQUESTS TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR
None.
r.TST OF MATTERS PENDING COMMISSI
11
None.
ION OR STAFF ASSISTANCE:
IL DISPOSITION:
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTION TAKEN:
1.. Branson called the meeting to order.
Bosserman moved that the minutes of the November 6, 1974
meeting be approved as written. Fountain seconded the motion.
Motion passed unanimously.
2. There was no public discussion.
•
-2-
3. Coordinators Report.
Seydel reported that 3 new applications and 1 resubmission
of an application have been received since the last meeting.
Four leases will be available as of December 1. Seydel is
presently negotiating on 2 units.
Seydel discussed.the 62 units of elderly housing and
actions that will be required on the 62 units. Seydel contacted
the 7 persons who bought developers packets, as a result
of the extension,and asked each of them if they would be
submitting a proposal. Seven proposals cannot be expected
since 3 of the purchasers are involved with one firm and
2 purchasers are involved with one firm. Two of the
purchasers will probably not submit proposals.
The proposals are not to be opened until 2:00 P.M.
December 2, 1974. After they are opened,February 25, 1975
is the next key date. February 25th is the day that application
approval expires. An agreement must be entered into with the
selected developer by this date.
The proposals will be analyzed here and the Commission
® will have to make a recommendation to the Council. The Council
will consider the proposals and make a recommendation to FHA in
Des Moines. FHA will analyze the proposal and get back to
US. After approval the developer will be notified that he has
been selected. After this notification the developer's
architect must certify that the plans will comply with city
zoning, codes, etc.
Seydel suggested that the Commission go ahead immediately
after the proposals are submitted and try to have a recommendation
to the City Council within 10 days so that they could consider
it before the Christmas holidays. Seydel also -suggested that
the developers be invited to present their proposals to joint
sessions of the Housing Commission and City Council.
Branson suggested special meetings be set up to consider
proposals. The first meeting wassetfor December 4, 1974
at 7:00 P.M. in the Community Development Conference Room.
The regular Housing Commission meeting will be held that
morning for regular business. Other meetings will be scheduled
as needed.
E
E
4. Old Business.
Branson reported that she attended the Governor's Task
Force on Housing meeting in Davenport on November 12. Also
attending the meeting were Seydel, Claypool and Fountain.
Branson reported on her meeting with University officials
and student representatives concerning housing in Iowa City
and generally what. students are going to do next fall.
Branson was most interested in discussing with them their
long range housing plans. The university is only interested
in next fall. The University's stand on housing is that the
University is a University and not a housing agency their
attitude is that they are not interested in expanding housing
for married students.
As a result of the meeting members of the student senate
have decided they are going to conduct some type of survey
with the students regarding the housing situation as it
affects students. Branson suggested to them that she would
like to appoint someone from the Housing Commission to work
with them. Claypool has agreed to serve in this capacity.
Thea Sando ha"s asked to be appointed as a citizen to work with
them. She feels the students could gain by contact with the
elderly.
Branson suggested at the meeting that next fall the
Housing Commission might work as a clearing house for
some of the students and elderly citizens who might want to
get together and work agreements mutual to each other. For
example, students who might want to do work for elderly
persons in exchange for cheaper rent.
In regard to units lost in Iowa City: 365 units in all
will be removed by Urban Renewal. 42 of these are still in
existance. As of June 8, 1970 the University had 1,109
units of married student housing. As of October 8, 1974 the
University had 759 units of married student housing.
Discussion on response to Mayor Czarnecki's Memo of
october 15, was deferred until next meeting.
5. New Business.
The sale of a portion of Chauncey Swan plaza was briefly
discussed. Branson will attend the public hearing on November 22.
E
-4-
6. Sheets moved and Bosserman seconded the motion that
the meeting be adjourned. Motion passed unanimously.
The next regular meeting will be December 4, 1974, 8:30 A.M.
Special meeting to discuss Developers Packet --December 4,
1974, 7:00 P.M.
Approved �,��"""�
MEMBERS PRESENT: Madsen, Henry, Ogesen, Cain, Larew
MEMBERS ABSENT: Galiher and Horner
STAFF PRESENT: Wollmershauser, Schmeiser, Child
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL:
1. To adopt the ordinance amending the Zoning Code regarding
fence and shrub heights (Z-7420).
2. To approve 5-7412, final plat of Oakwoods Addition, Part
6B; a replat of a portion of Oakwoods Addition, Part 6.
3. To vacate the alley in Block 86, Original Town of Iowa
City (V-7407), subject to the establishment of a utility
easement located in the alley or agreement with the utility
companies for relocation of the utilities.
REQUESTS TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR INFORMATION OR STAFF ASSISTANCE:
® None
LIST OF MATTERS PENDING COMMISSION -COUNCIL DISPOSITION:
1
1. 73-1526. Provision of Neighborhood Parks in New Subdivisions
-- Final report dependent upon outcome of a steps and
procedures report.
2. 72-04. Board of Adjustment Appeal Amendments.
3. C-7403. Dr. George McCormick's letter regarding lot
restrictions for multi -family zoning. Council referral:
10/4/74.
4. C-7404. Madison Street closure. Council referral: 10/17/74.
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTIONS TAKEN:
Chairman Madsen called the meeting to order and asked if there
were any corrections or additions to the minutes of the November
14, 1974 meeting. Mr. Henry suggested that the minutes be amended
on page 3, first, paragraph, to read: "Mr. Henry cited as an
additional objection instead of "Mr. Henry voiced his objection".
A motion to approve the minutes as amended was made by Mr. Henry
and seconded by Dr. Ogesen. The motion carried unanimously.
}
-2-
Z-7420. Ordinance amending Zoning Code regarding fence and
shrub heights. Also includes amending Municipal Code Chapter
3.38, in particular 3.38.8.A. Council referral: 9/11/74.
It was moved by Dr. Ogesen and seconded by Mr. Henry to recommend
to the City Council adoption of the ordinance amending the Zoning
Code regarding fence and shrub heights (Z-7420). The motion
carried unanimously.
Z-7424. Rezoning of lot approximately 80' by 80', R3B to C2.
Request made by St. Mary's Church for the purpose of constructing
a parking lot. Date filed: 11/11/74. 45 -day limitation:
12/24/74.
A motion was made by Ms. Cain and seconded by Ms. Larew to refer
the request made by St. Mary's Church for the rezoning of a
lot approximately 80' by 801, R3B to C2, to the City Attorney
for a legal interpretation concerning accessory uses and whether
the Board of Adjustment has jurisdiction.
Notice was made of the 45 -day limitation and it was requested that
an answer be received from the City Attorney prior to the December
12, 1974 meeting.
• The motion carried unanimously.
S-7412. Final plat of Oakwoods Addition, Part 6B. A replat of
a portion of Oakwoods Addition, Part 6. Originally filed:
7/11/74. 45 -day limitation: waived. Revised plat filed:
11/8/74.
A motion was made by Dr. Ogesen and seconded by Ms. Larew to
recommend approval of S-74121 final plat of Oakwoods Addition,
Part 6B.
Ms. Cain stated that the P&Z Commission had noted in their informal
meeting on November 25, 1974 that Oakwoods Addition, Part 6B, is
located in the Ralston Creek Watershed. She said it was her
understanding that the City Council had not yet taken any action
on the request for a moratorium on future development in the
Ralston Creek Watershed.
The motion to recommend approval of 5-7412 carried unanimously.
V-7407. Vacation of alley in Block 86, Original Town of Iowa
City (block bounded by Clinton, Market, Capitol and Bloomington
Streets). Requested by University of Iowa. Council referral:
® 11/8/74.
,
•
C
A motion was made by Dr. Ogesen and seconded by Ms. Cain to
recommend the vacation of the alley in Block 86, Original Town of
Iowa City (V-7407), subject to the establishment of a utility
easement located in the alley or agreement with the utility
companies for relocation of the utilities. The motion carried
4-0 with Ms. Larew abstaining because of a conflict of interest.
C-7405. Objections to prohibited and non -conforming signs in
sign ordinance. Council referral: 11/6/74.
It was moved by Ms. Cain and seconded by Mr. Henry to ask the
City's legal staff for an opinion about the amortization of signs
in regard to the letter submitted by Attorney William Sueppel.
The motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Madsen indicated that there would be no Planning and
zoning Commission meeting the week of December 23-27 unless
a need should arise for a special meeting.
The meeting adjourned.
r f.c�c.�-Q.cJ A?•
Louise B. Larew, Secretary
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rogers
Bolnick
Matson
Baum
Amidon
Winder
Dalrymple
Sando
MEMBERS ABSENT: McCall
Moorhead
OTHERS PRESENT: Julie Zelenka
Jim Sangster
Faith Knowler
(Parks & Rec.)
(Social Services
Committee, JCRPC)
Carol Spaziani ( ti 11)
Mary Neuhauser (Riverfront Comm.)
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION & FORMAL ACTIONS TAKEN:
® Carol Spaziani, Chairone of the Social Services Committee of the Johnson County
Regional Planning Commission, presented that Committee's recommendation for
Title I funding for a human needs analysis and comprehensive human needs plan.
The proposed one year analysis and planning process would be designed to comple-
ment the proposed Iowa City Comprehensive Plan, which Ms. Spaziani referred to as
"environmental", rather than human needs oriented.
Julie Zelenka submitted to the commiteee the November 21 minutes of the Riverfront
Commission, urging this committee to give highest priority to the development of a
Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Zelenka also answered some informational questions pre-
viously submitted by the committee to the city staff. Materials were distributed
describing the City's urban renewal plans. Zelenka agreed to have the staff further
investigate city plans regarding Ralston Creek, estimate the costs of a recycling
facility for Iowa City, and secure a summary of projected major sewer projects.
Specifics regarding the Comprehensive Plan proposed by the city staff would, accord-
ing to Zelenka, be forthcoming on December 10. Zelenka also distributed the survey
of community goals completed by Citizens for a Better Iowa City, as requested by
the committee.
Sharon Neessen Matson submitted a draft of a letter to community and student organ-
izations, in which the committee requests each group's analysis of community needs
and ideas for possible projects. (Each group asked to poll its members, and to
send a representative to the committee's December 11 public meeting and/or submit
its recommendations in writing to the committee, c/o the City Manager.) The letter
® was accepted with minor revisions.
Ira Bolnick reported on his compilation of some 75 community and student organiza-
tions designated to receive said letter.
Minutes
® Citizens' Steering Committee for the
Housing and Community Development Act
November 25, 1974
Page 2
Julie Zelenka reported that a preliminary random sample needs survey of individual
citizens would be impossible in the limited time available, and that such a survey
(if possible) would only duplicate the more complete survey called for under the
city's Comprehensive Plan.
The committee decided that a preliminary survey was desirable, inasmuch as it would
reach people not represented by the groups being contacted by letter. Several
members volunteered to work with Ms. Matson and members of the Urban and Regional
Planning Dept., U. of Iowa, in drawing up and pretesting a questionnaire.
In addition, the committee decided to request copies of existing needs surveys and
statistical data from the groups being invited to the December 11 public hearing.
The committee also designated a need for a publicity campaign to make known the
committee's task and activities, and particularly to publicize the December 11 meet-
ing and encourage all citizens to attend.
REQUESTS TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR INFORMATION OR STAFF ASSISTANCE:
It was agreed that the committee shall request $200.00 from the City Council (or
® from discretionary funds of the City Manager) to cover the possible costs of:
1) 5,000 handbills to be distributed in shopping areas by volunteers, to supple-
ment a publicity effort through the local media; and 2) computer analysis of
survey results. Unanimous.
The committee also discussed its role in sponsoring neighborhood meetings and
helping to set up a structure of citizen participation in the future administra-
tion of Community Development funds. This was seen as a future task of the
committee.
Finally, Harry Baum reported that Willard (Bud) O'Dell has agreed to join the
committee, filling the position left by Cathy Young's resignation.
Respectfully submitted,
Ira Bolnick
Committee Member
E
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
® SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION AND FORMAL ACTIONS TAKEN:
Rogers
Bolnick
Matson
Baum
McCall
Dalrymple
Sando
Winder
Amidon
Moorhead
Carol DeProsse
Julie Zelenka
Pat Hanrahan
Jeannie Williams (United Way
Planning Division)
Sarah Fox (Parks & Recreation)
Jim Sangster ( 11 it )
Mary Neuhauser (Riverfront Comm.)
Jim Shank (Goodwill Industries)
Harry Baum reported that Bud O'Dell will be unable to participate as a Committee member.
Pat Hanrahan submitted recommendations on behalf of the United Way Planning Division.
United Way advocates funding under Title I, if possible, of: (1) the Mark IV Social
Service Center, (2) the Mayor's Youth Employment Program, (3) the Johnson County Infor-
mation and Referral Service. All three are presently funded in part or whole by other
sources, but will be in need of additional funding this year.
The Committee discussed the general question of whether social services could be funded
under Title I (viewing Iowa City as an "impacted area" perhaps), and agreed that a test
case such as the Mark IV Social Service Center or the Mayor's Youth Employment Program
would be appropriate. In addition, the question of alternative funding was raised: How
thorough must the advocates of a project be in seeking alternative sources before they
are eligible for funding under Title I? Mr. Hanrahan agreed to research both questions
with respect to the proposed projects. Also, Julie Zelenka offered to report to the
Committee on the status of General Revenue Sharing Funds.
The Committee was amenable to the inclusion of funding for the Information and Referral
Service within the realm of city and county comprehensive planning.
Mr. Hanrahan also reported the endorsement by the United Way of the development of a
social services coordinating and resource center (using, for example, a renovated old
® Post Office), as discussed at an earlier Committee meeting.
Jeannie Williams, from the United Way Planning Division, informed the Committee of a
resolution by the United Way that Title I advance planning funds should be used to
hire a human needs planner as early as possible. Furthermore, the planner should be
added to the staff of the Johnson County Regional Planning Commission, and should coop-
erate closely with City staff in the development of its Comprehensive Plan.
said that a letter of resolution would be forthcoming.
Ms. Williams
Sarah Fox made a presentation on behalf of the Parks and Recreation Commission, in which
she listed recommendations for possible expenditure of Title I funds. These included: (1)
Funding of evaluation and planning studies, specifically: a comprehensive community
development plan, a human needs analysis and comprehensive plan, a River Corridor study,
and an outside -consultant study of Ralston Creek. (2) Funding of acquisitions of parks
and open spaces and their development was recommended for the River Corridor, Hollywood
Manor Area, and Northeast Neighborhood. (3) Funding was recommended for development and
rehabilitation of existing park and recreation facilities, including public tree plantings,
neighborhood park improvements, City Park improvements, and several other needed improve-
ments (bikeways, etc.). (4) Funding of improvements which would remove barriers to the
elderly and the handicapped was recommended. (5) Funding of recreational programs and
services was also included. In her report, Ms. Fox included specific proposals within
each recommendation.
Ms. Fox suggested the need, in each instance of proposed projects, to run through the pro-
cess of application for alternative funds prior to application for Title I funds. The
Committee wondered aloud at the lack of centralized information and effort in the area
of applications for State and Federal funding.
Mary Neuhauser presented the recommendation by the Riverfront Commission of funding for
®an outside -consultant study of Riverfront Corridor acquisition and development. The amount
requested is $30,000, and alternative sources of funding have been explored.
11
The Committee will discuss at a later meeting the materials submitted in support of
each of the presentations.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
The Committee decided unanimously to recommend that the City Council request Iowa City's
10% advance Title I funds from HUD immediately. In addition, it was agreed to endorse
the recommendation of the United Way regarding the hiring of a human resources staff
person with the J.C.R.P.C.
REQUESTS TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR INFORMATION OR STAFF ASSISTANCE:
The Committee asks that the City staff compile a list of attempted applications for human
needs to date. Such a list will help the Committee in designating those projects which
have fairly well exhausted alternative sources of funding.
Respectfully submitted,
Ira Bolnick
Committee Member
IB:mbm
AFF
PORI
' rj
14
JR
47
-74
I�pw�► ( 1 i.7
:f I %/ _. ll 1, 1 . 1r / .1 �• ( a ` f I' ' ii i I P 1 1 i•it .•
1 (a a ; ..•//rn..-./ •t pr �..Cr_f // r -..,yr A �Y/J�/' •1 I ri(.e�"7�rT�� ///�/
�r w1 1 ,/ s/ h, 7L J/tet' w►J • `/ / I 1, I '' ���I� �N X19 �/.�"JYf.:
�EPART,MENT- ®F_NITY .DEVMnF1
Dept. of Comm. Development Conference Room
A. Call to Order by Chairman
B. Roll Call
C. Approval of Minutes
1. Meeting of November 26, 1974
D. Zoning Items
1. Z-7424. Rezoning of lot approximately 80' x 801,
R3B to C2 (vic. in 100 block on North Linn Street,
just south of alley). Request made by St. Mary's
Church for.purpose of constructing a parking lot.
Date filed: 11/11/74. 45 -day limitation: 12/24/74.
2. Z-7425. Rezoning of plot of ground, R3B to C2, on
north side of Jefferson Street east of St. Mary's
Church. Request made by J. W. Glasgow. Date filed:
11/25/74. 45 -day limitation: 1/9/75.
3. Z-7426. Rezoning of tract, CH to C2, requested by
John Lee and Harding Construction Co. (vic. east
side of First Avenue north of American Legion Road).
Date filed: 11/26/74. 45 -day limitation: 1/10/75.
E. Informational Item
1. Spot Zoning
F. Discussion Items
1. C-7404. Closing of Madison Street between Washington
Street and Iowa Avenue. Requested by University of
Iowa. Council referral: 10/17/74.
2. C-7405. Objections to prohibited and non -conforming
signs in sign ordinance. Council referral: 11/6/74.
3. P-7317. Proposed ordinance creating a University
Zone (U).
4. P-7410. Proposed ordinance creating a Mobile Home
Residence Zone (RMH).
G. Adjournment.
Regular meeting -- December 12, 1974
U
0
SUBJECT:
Planning & Zoning Commission
December 12, 1974
Z-7425. Application submitted
by J. W. Glasgow to rezone a
tract of land located east of
North Linn Street and north of
Jefferson Street from an R3B Zone to a C2 Zone; date filed:
11/25/74; 45 -day limitation: 1/9/75.
STAFF
ANALYSIS:
east of a single family dwelling at
Jefferson Streets, west of a single
property petitioned for rezoning by
and a parking lot in a C2 Zone, an
Street from the University of Iowa.
The subject tract consists of
two lots with an existing
single family home and a multi-
family dwelling and is located
the corner of North Linn and
family home, south of
St. Mary's Church (Z-7424)
d north and across Jefferson
The staff is of the opinion that the subject request is clearly
a case of illegal "spot zoning". By reference to a Supreme
Court decision concerning spot zoning included with this Staff
Report, the statement was made: "in Hermann v. City of Des
Moines (1959), 250 Iowa 1281, 97N.W.2d 893, we held an ordinance
which rezoned one lot in the middle of a block surrounded by
single family dwellings illegal spot zoning. We pointed out it
was 'similar in all respects of use,.character, and adaptability
to the surrounding property' and was used as a single family
dwelling at the time of the change of zoning".
Apart from the above legal implication, there is no validity
from a zoning standpoint to rezoning the subject tract which is
adjacent to single family dwellings on both sides to a C2 Zone
which permits virtually any commercial use. Adverse effects
which would be generated by certain commercial uses would devalue
adjacent property which zoning is designed to protect.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
It is the staff's recommendation
the application be denied.
r7n
di
if;
Wil
"00
A7
rl
9
E
SUBJECT:
Commission I
Z-7426. Application submitted
by Pat Harding Construction Co.,
Inc. and John and Marian Lee
to rezone a tract of land
located east of First Avenue and north of American Legion Road
from a CH Highway Commercial Zone to a C2 Commercial Zone; date
filed: 11/26/74;45 -day limitation: 1/10/75.
STAFF Although the applicants have
ANALYSIS: stated that the intended use
for this property is for
"retail sales and office
structures", there are no retail or office uses permitted in the
C2 Zone that are not already permitted in a CH Zone with the
exception of tire shops (?) and implement stores. The obvious
purpose, therefore, for requesting a C2 Zone is because of the
less restrictive requirements in parking and front yard setback.
Though certain regulations in the C2 Zone are less restrictive
and for obvious reasons, certain uses such as public garages
and used car lots are permitted which, from a planning consider-
ation, may not be desirable in the established commercial area
at First Avenue and American Legion Road.
The Zoning Code as originally adopted is composed of zones with
uses which are accumulative from zone to zone, but each zone
was established for a particular reason. The Cl Zone, for example,
is the most restrictive commercial zone and could be labeled the
local shopping district. According to the Land Use and Zoning
report submitted by Harland Bartholomew and Associates, who
drafted the Zoning Code,, the "Cl Local Commercial District is
found in several areas _serving the residential neighborhood".
Characteristically, the zone should include uses which provide
services for the convenience of one or more neighborhoods. The
CH Zone, unlike the Cl Zone, is intended to provide uses which
cater to the motoring public, and the C2 Zone, a "general
business" district, includes uses which normally are associated
with a large commercial area such as the central business district.
But, the commercial area at First Avenue and American Legion
Road was never intended to be larger than a local shopping area
serving at most two neighborhoods, nor should be. In the original
comprehensive zoning map proposed by Harland Bartholomew and
Associates, a small area at First Avenue and American Legion
Road (Muscatine Avenue) was illustrated as zoned Cl.
Generally, a community the size of Iowa City can support at most
one or two thriving commercial centers or business areas larger
than a local shopping center. Not enough emphasis can be given
to the postulate that complete service of all the natural trade
area of the City will.not furnish enough business to support
•
more than two -or three "community" shopping areas in fierce
competition with one another.
From a planning consideration, therefore, the staff would not
suggest that any impetus be given to the augmentation of the
business area by additional C2 zoning. The staff would suggest,
however, that a close examination of existing requirements be
made. If the parking requirement, in particular, is too
restrictive for retail uses normally associated with a local
shopping area, then the Zoning Code should be amended accordingly.
According to the Community Builder's Handbook prepared by the
Community Builders Council of the Urban Land Institute, perhaps
one of the best single sources of information relative to
community development, a ratio of 5.5 parking spaces per 1000
square feet (1 parking space/182 square feet) of gross leasible
area, the total floor area designed for tenant occupancy and
exclusive use, including basements, mezzanines, and upper
floors, if any, is recommended as a standard to meet the demand
for parking space for retail development generally. The minimum
parking requirement of one space per each 100 square feet of a
retail"use would ,appear, therefore, to be too restrictive.
® The CH Zone requires a greater setback than in any other commercial
;.one to allow for clear vision and safe ingress and egress from
and to major thoroughfares and highways where a CH Zone is
normally located. A C2 Zone, which as previously stated would
normally be located in a large commercial area, requires no
setback for pedestrian.customer convenience. When commercial
uses are located within a.residential neighborhood and within
close proximity of residential development, yardage and bulk
requirements should be enforced to reduce the impact upon the
residential area.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
Based upon the reasons above
stated, it is the staff's
recommendation the following
action be taken:
1. The subject application be denied.
2. Section 8.10.25 of the Zoning Code be amended to require
one parking space for every 180 square feet of floor area
for retail stores.
STAFF A comprehensive look at the
COMMENT: commercial area at First
Avenue and American Legion
® Road should be made with the
possibility of rezoning much of the area to Cl. Does the City
really want creameries, motels and hotels and any unprecedented
retail uses as permitted in a CH Zone or public garages, used
•
car lots, typewriter and similar service shops, upholstering
establishments, print,furnace, heating, air conditioning,
typewriter, sheet metal, plumbing and tire shops, implement
stores, bottling plants and truck terminals as permitted in
a C2 Zone located in a neighborhood convenience center?
. .
or:.
9
I
t•
.:
1-1
DATE: December 12, 1974
Planning and Zoning Commission
Don Schmeiser
Spot Zoning
The term "spot zoning" has often been misused and
given as a reason.for denying a rezoning appli-
cation. Spot zoning per se is not necessarily
illegal as exemplified in the attached Supreme
Court decision and may in certain instances
actually constitute good planning practice.
Spot zoning, in a legal sense, "results when a
zoning ordinance creates a small island of property
with restrictions on its use different from those
imposed on the surrounding property". "The size
of the spot zoned, the uses of the surrounding
property, the changing conditions of the area, the
use to which the subject party has been put and
its suitability and adaptability for various uses
are all matters to be considered in determining
whether there is a reasonable basis for singling
out certain property from the neighboring property"
but the distinction between illegal and legal spot
zoning is generally made on the basis of whether
the "zoning of a small tract of land is similar
in character and use to surrounding property for
benefit of the owner and not pursuant to a compre-
hensive plan for the general welfare of the community"
The attached Supreme Court case is submitted for
your information to assist you in making decisions
in regard to spot zoning situations.
DS:sc
I
evidenceto support the verdict or the - spot zoning, was valid.
cumulative effect of assigned errors depriv-
ing the defendant of a fair trial. For the Reversed.
reasons above stated, we reverse and re- Becker, J., dissented and filed opinion;
mand for a new trial. LeGrand, J., took no part.
Reversed and remanded.
All Justices concur.
•
c T en eewa
T
Lawrence P. JAFFE and Jane M. Jaffe,
Appellees,
V.
CITY OF DAVENPORT, a Municipal Corpo-
ration, Rex C. Matthews and Cliff
Bourdeau, Appellants,
and
Eagle Food Centers, a Maryland Corpora-
tion, and John A. Kolllas, Inter-
vanore-Appellants.
No. 61063.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
Sept. 2, 1970.
I. Zoning 4=6
Municipalities have power to enact and
amend zoning ordinances under their police
power. I.C.A. § 414.1 et seq.
2. Zoning 4=672, 673
Zoning ordinances are entitled to same
presumption of validity as other legislative
enactments and if their reasonableness is
fairly debatable, court will not interfere
with action of zoning authority by substi-
tuting its judgment for that of legislative
body.
3. Zoning 4=682
Party asserting invalidity of zoning or-
dinance not invalid on its face has burden
of proving it is arbitrary, unreasonable or
discriminatory by showing it has no real
or substantial relation to public health, com-
fort, safety or welfare.
4. Zoning e=35
Spot zoning, while not looked upon
Action in equity attacking validity of
With favor, is not necessarily illegal.
ordinance which amended comprehensive
coning ordinance by changing portion of
5. Zoning 4=101
tract that had been zoned R-5 single-family
dwelling to C-1 neighborhood shopping dis-
If ordinance constitutes piecemeal or
trict zone. The Scott District Court, James
haphazard zoning of small tract of land
R. Havercamp, `J., declared complained -of
similar in character and use surrounding
ordinance void and enjoined any action
r
property for benefit of owner and not
thereunder. Defendants and intervenor ap-
suint to comprehensive plan for general
pealed. The Supreme Court, Stuart, J„
welfare of community, it is arbitrary, up-
held that where tract had been used for
reasonable and invalid.
truck farming and was located at'- busy
intersection controlled by traffic lights in
6. Zoning 4=35
fast growing "understored" older residen-
Spot zoning is valid if it is germane to
tial area, and on increasingly commercial-
object within police power and there is rea-
ized street along which it was hard to sell
sonable basis for making distinction be -
residences, ordinance changing zoning of
tween spot zoned and surrounding property.
•
- J�
Clio as
7. Zoning X819 C1ty of Davenport which amen ed the com-
. Determination of whether spot zoning Pr`ehenprve zoning ordnance by changing a
f ned.b,'in
should be permitted is primarily legislative portion o a tract o .group ow y
matter and is largely within zoning au- ` tervenor john`Kollias.from"R-5 residential
thority's discretion. to C-1 neighborhood shopping center. = The
other intervenor, Eagle Food Centers, has
8. Zoning 4809 an option to purchase the rezoned tract.
Size of spot zoned, uses of surrounding The trial court held the ordinance consti-
property, changing conditions of area, use tuted illegal spot zoning, declared it void
to which subject property has been put and and enjoined, any action thereunder. De -
its suitability and adaptability for various fendants and Eagle Food Centers appealed.
uses are factors which must be considered We reverse.
in determining whether there is reasonable
basis for singling out certain property from
neighboring property.
9. Zoning 4=151
Existing zoning restrictions are subject
to reasonable revision as need appears and
zoning ordinances can be amended any time
circumstances and conditions warrant such
action.
10. Zoning X168
Ordinance that amended comprehen-
sive zoning ordinance by changing zoning
of portion of tract, which had been zoned
R-5 single-family dwelling, which had been
used for truck farming, and which was
located at busy intersection controlled by
traffic light in fast growing "understored"
older residential area, and on increasing-
ly commercialized street along which it was
hard to sell residences, to C—I neighborhood
shopping district zone was not unreason-
able, arbitrary or capricious, and thus,
though constituting spot zoning, was valid.
I.C.A. § 414.1 et seq.
Richard A. Larsen, Asst. City Atty., for
appellants.
Wells, Brubaker & de Silva, Davenport,
for appellees.
Doerr, Dower & Rehling, Davenport, for
Eagle Food Centers.
STUART, Justice.
This is an action in equity attacking the
validity of Ordinance Number 30600 of the
We have considered several zoning cases
recently. Hanna Y. Rathje (Iowa, 1969),
171 N.W.2d 876; Anderson v. City of
Cedar Rapid•_. ,_bwa, 1969), 168 N.W.2d
739; DePue v. City of Clinton (Iowa,
1968), 160 N.W.2d 860; Keppy v. Ehlers
(1962), 253 Iowa 1021, 115 N.W.2d 198;
Plaza Recreational Center v. City of Sioux
City (1961), 253 Iowa 246, 111 N.W.2d
758; Hermann v. City of Des Moines,
(1959), 250 Iowa 1281, 97 N.W.2d 893;
Brackett v. City of Des Moines (1954), 246
Iowa 249, 67 N.W.2d 542; Keller v. City
of Council Bluffs (1954), 246 Iowa 202, 66
N.W.2d 113.
[1,2] The legislature has given munici-
palities the power to enact and amend zon-
ing ordinances under their police power.
Chapter 414, 1966 Code of Iowa; Ander-
son v. City of Cedar Rapids, supra, 168
N.W.2d at 742; Plaza Recreational Cen-
ter, supra, 253 Iowa at 251, 111 N.W.2d
at 762; City of Bloomfield v. Davis County
Community ` School District (1963), 254
Iowa 900; 903, 119 N.W.2d 909, 911. Such
ordinances are entitled to the same pre-
sumption of validity as other legislative
enactments and if their reasonableness is
fairly debatable, the court will not inter-
fere with the action of the zoning authori-
ty by substituting its judgment for that of
the legislative body.Hanna v. Rathje,
supra, 171 N.W.2d at 880 and citations;
Plaza Recreational Center v. City of Sioux
City, supra, 253 Iowa at 252, 111 N.W.2d
at 763; Hermann v. City of Des Moines,
supra, 250 Iowa at 1285, 97 N.W.2d at 895;
Brackett v. City of Des Moines (1954), 246
M•!
lin, copra, Vol. 8 § 25.83, pp. 223-
[6,71 Spot zoning is valid if it is ger-
mane to an object within the police power
and there is a reasonable basis for making
[3] The party asserting the invalidity the distinction between the spot zoned and
of a zoning ordinance not invalid on its the surrounding property. Keppy v. Ehl-
face has the burden of proving it is arbi- ers, supra, 253 Iowa at 1023, 115 N.W2d
trary, unreasonable or discriminatory by at 200; Hermann v. City of Des Moines,
showing it has no real or substantial rela- supra, 250 Iowa at 1287, 97 N.W.2d at 896;
tion to the public health, comfort, safety Keller v. City of Council Bluffs, supra,
or welfare. Hanna v. Rathje, supra, 171 246 Iowa at 214, 66 N.W2d at 120; Me-
N.W2d at 880; Anderson v. City of Cedar Quillin, supra, Vol. 8 § 25.84. The de -
Rapids, supra, 168 N.W2d at 742; Plaza termination of this question is primarily a
Recreational Center v. City of Sioux City, legislative matter and is largely within the
supra, 253 Iowa at 253, 111 N.W.2d at 76::;'` zoning authority's discretion.
Hermann v. City of Des Moines, supra, 250
Iowa at 1285, 97 N.W.2d at 895; McQuil-
lin, supra, vol. 8A §§ 25279, 252%, 25.310.
Spot zoning 'results when a zoning or-
dinance creates a small island of property
with restrictions on its use different from
those imposed on the surrounding proper-
ty. Keller v. City of Council Bluffs, su-
pra, 246 Iowa at 206, 66 N.W.2d at 116;
McQuillin, supra, Vola 8 § 25.83 p. 223.
[4] The term is descriptive, rather than
legal, and although such action is not
looked upon with favor by the courts, it is
not necessarily illegal.. Hermann v. City
of Des Moines, supra, 250 Iowa at 1285, 97
N.W2d at 895; Keller v. City- of Council
Bluffs, supra, 246 Iowa at 213-214, 66 N.
W2d at 120; McQuillin, supra, Vol. 8 §
25.83 p. 223, § 25.84 p. 231.
[5] If the ordinance constitutes piece-
meal or haphazard zoning of a small tract
of land similar in character and use to the
surrounding property for the benefit of the
owner and not, pursuant to a comprehensive
plan for the general welfare of the com-
munity, it is arbitrary, unreasonable and
invalid. Anderson v. City of Cedar Rapids,
supra, 168 N.W2d at 744; Keppy v. Ehlers,
supra, 253 Iowa at 1023, 115 N.W2d at
200; Hermann v. City of Des. Moines, su-
pra, 250 Iowa at 1284, 1288, 97 N.W2d at
895, 897; Keller v. City of Council Bluffs,
supra, 246 Iowa at 206, 66 N.W.2d 116;
[8] The size of the spot zoned, the uses
of the surrounding property, the changing
conditions of the area, the use to which the
subject party has been put and its suita-
bility and adaptability for various uses are
all matters to be considered in deter-
mining whether there is a reasonable basis
for singling out certain property from the
neighboring property. Keppy v. Ehlers,
supra, 253 Iowa at 1024, 115 N.W2d at
200; Hermann v. City of Des Moines, su-
pra, 250 Iowa at 1285-1287, 97 N.W2d at
895-896; Keller v. City of Council Bluffs,
supra, 246 Iowa at 206, 214, 66 N.W2d at
116, 120; McQuillin, supra, Vol. 8 § 25.84.
[9] Zoning is not static and any exist-
ing restrictions are subject to reasonable
revision as the need appears and the ordi-
nances may be amended any time circum-
stances and conditions warrant such ac-
tion. Hanna v. Rathje, supra, 171 N.W2d
at 879; Anderson v. City of Cedar Rapids,
supra, 168 N.W.2d at 743.
Each case must be decided on its own
facts. Keller v. City of Council Bluffs,
supra; McQuillin, supra, Vol. 8A § 25282.
The difficulty lies not with the law set out
above but with its application to the facts
of this case, which follow.
[10] The real estate in question has
been zoned R-5, single family dwelling dis-
JAFi'>Q �. OITY OF DAVEMEM Iowa 557
ctt. a. za x was ass
23- trict since 1925 -a 9. part of t.comprehen its.- protested the rezoning. .In 1968 re -
sive plan for =Davenport. On:-Novembeer�-sistance dropped to 248%of the area and
15, 1967 the City,Council passed_ ordinance 26.owners.
rer
number 30600 reclassifying and°rezoning it
Wee as C-1 neighborhood shopping district. Witnesses ';for both sides agree the tract
Ding in question is most suitable for commercial
I'.2d
Fl
ng
:he
ta-
ire
he
rs,
at
.u -
at
fs,
at
14.
it -
le
n-
c-
s,
+
n
2. 1
it
:s
3
The rezoned property is a tract of over
two acres approximately 222 feet wide and
435 feet long located on the southeast cor-
ner of the intersection of Locust Street and
Lincoln Avenue in Davenport. Both
streets are heavily traveled four -lane thor-
oughfares. Locust Street is one of , the
main cross-town streets. Lincoln Avenue
connects the residential areas to the manu-
facturing districts to the north. The traf-
fic at the intersection is controlled by a
traffic signal
The rezoned tract is in an older residen-
tial area, but has always been undeveloped
and is used as a truck garden. It is bor-
dered on the east and south by other small
vaunt tracts of land. oned R -S. For about
six blocks east, six blocks north, 16 blocks
south and one and one-half blocks west
the real estate is used for residential pur-
poses except for two non -conforming uses
two blocks east.
Westfair Shopping Center and several
other • small stores are located in an area
zoned C-1 and C-2 starting about 400
feet west of the intersection.- There is
some undeveloped land in these zones over
three blocks west. The population in this
portion of the city has increased greatly
in recent years and the trend is expected
to continue. The real estate manager for
Eagle Food Center testified that the area
within a mile of the intersection was "un-
derstored" about 50%.
Kollias made unsuccessful efforts to have
the property rezoned in May 1959, January
1963, March 1963, December 1964 and De-
cember 1965. In 1964 or 1965 Lincoln
Avenue was straightened and widened to
four lanes. Locust Street was widened to
four lanes all across Davenport in 1967 and
1968. In 1965 572% of the area and 34
property owners within the required lim-
development The increased volume of
traffic and the accompanying noise, odors
and dangers make it less desirable for resi-
dential purposes. Although there was evi-
dence the neighborhood was stable, there
was also evidence Locust Street is becoming
commercial its entire length. It is difficult
to sell residences on Locust for residential
purposes. One witness testified this plot
would probably never be developed for
residential use.
The director of the city planning com-
mission was a witness for plaintiffs. He
did not feel the widening of the streets
indicated a change in the acceptability of
the property for single family dwellings.
On cross-examination he testified:
"As a matter of zoning policy, 1 am in
favor of commercial development on major
intersections and Lincoln and Locust is a
major intersection.
"The highest and best use of the subject
property is commercial.
"I do not suggest that the City Council
was wrong in rezoning this property even
though I cannot agree with it."
The action taken by the council under
ordinance 30600 constituted spot zoning.
However,. we do not believe it acted un-
reasonably, arbitrarily or capriciously.
There was a reasonable basis for differ-
entiating between this tract of ground and
the surrounding tracts.
The comprehensive zoning ordinance con-
templated and authorized this type of ac-
tion. Article XVI of the Zoning Ordinance
of 1964 for the City of Davenport states
that a Fl Neighborhood Shopping District
"is intended to provide for individual or
small groups of retail and customer service
establishments serving primarily the con-
M Iowa 179 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
of
a local neighborhood, and
the
cases may be helpful in bringing some order
venience
character,
appearance, and 'operation
of
to the decisions.
which are compatible _ with the character
of the surrounding area". Therefore, it
can hardly be argue) that the designation
of a small area for this purpose violates
the spirit and intent of the cityzoning
scheme.
Under the evidence the council could
very well have taken the view that the
public would benefit by having an addi-
tional neighborhood shopping district in the
area. It is a fast growing area that is
"understored" at the present time. We
recognized the advantages of a neighbor-
hood shopping center in Anderson v. City
of Cedar Rapids, supra. See also Mc-
Quillin supra, § 25.115.
As the council could decide the need for
this type of center existed, the question
narrows to its action :in designating this
particular property to serve that public need.
This particular tract seems well suited to
serve that purpose. It is within a.residen-
tial district but has never; been used for
residential purposes. Its location at a very
busy intersection controlled by a traffic
light makes it best suited for commercial
development. This factor makes it un-
desirable for residential construction.
Homes on Locust Street are hard to sell as
residences and there is good reason to be-
lieve it will be commercial its entire length
in the future. Therefore the designation
of this area as commercial is not contrary
to the spirit of the comprehensive plan.
We cannot say it does not contribute to the
general welfare of the community.
The difference in use provides a reason-
able basis for zoning this tract C—I while
the other three corners of the intersection
are left R-5. Residences are located on all
tots similarly located and have been sub-
jected to residential use for many years.
Therefore they are not similar in character
and use to the rezoned tract.
Although each case must be decided on
its own facts a comparison with similar
In Keller v. City of Council Bluffs
(1954), 246 Iowa 202, 66 N.W.2d 113, we
gave our approval to an amendment to a
zoning ordinance which reclassified three
lots on which was located a four story, 16
room residence in a single family dwelling
district so the home could be used as a
nursing home. The fact that the home had
little or no appeal as a private home was
given considerable weight. Here, the loca-
tion of the vacant lot gave it little or no
appeal for residential development. We
believe there would be less adverse effect
on this transitional neighborhood by placing
a commercial development on a strategic
corner than rezoning a large old dwelling
in the middle of a residential area.
In Hermann v. City of Des Moines
(1959), 250 Iowa 1281, 97 N.W.2d 893, we
held an ordinance which rezoned one lot
in the middle of a block surrounded by
single family dwellings illegal spot zoning.
We pointed out it was "similar in all re-
spects of use, character, and adaptability
to the surrounding property" and was used
as a single family dwelling at.the time of
the change of zoning. This case is dis-
tinguishable because of the comparative
sizes of the tracts rezoned, different uses
to which the properties were being put, and
the suitability for the usages permitted
within the existing classification.
In Keppy v. Ehlers (1962), 253 Iowa
1021, 115 N.W.2d 198, we disapproved of an
ordinance which rezoned one corner of an
interstate intersection light industrial and
left the other three corners agricultural
when all the land had been similar in use
and was equally adaptable to light industry.,
Although Anderson v. City of Cedar
Rapids (Iowa 1969), 168 N.W2d 739, 743-
745, is not strictly a spot zoning case as it
involves the extension of a neighborhood
shopping center, it contains language which
expresses the modern approach toward
shopping center zoning and the public bene -
0
M
CITY OP- DAVZ1MRT •Iowa 559,
Qltiss170NWla661.
,-r
fits which result. We reaffirm the Ian
such surrounding undeveloped property; and
guage found; therein :without; repeating. it
in fact, to;the surrounding_ developed prop-; _
here.
erty'of similar R-5 classification. Nothing
is shown by the evidence which lead to the
We hold the reasonableness of ordinance
conclusion that the rezoned tract is some -
number 30600 is fairly debatable and that
how distinguishable from the undeveloped
the City Council of Davenport acted within
R-5 area adjecent thereto, upon which re-
proper legislative discretion.. The ordi-
strictions are still maintained. It is neces-
nance does not violate the spirit of the com-
prehensive zoning plan. The council could
sary to be able to draw such conclusion
reasonably conclude it contributed to the
from the evidence in order to justify any
general welfare of the community. Area_
reasonable belief that the circumstances
considered by the Council created a fairly
sonable basis existed for differentiating be-
debatable issue and the City acted in other
tween the tract rezoned and the property
than an arbitrary and capricious manner in
located on the other three corners of the
enacting the Ordinance. It is obvious that
intersection. Therefore we hold the ordi-
nance valid as the courts cannot substitute
property as past the undeveloped R-5 ad -
their judgment for that of the zoning au-
jacent property left unchanged. It is equal-
thority.
ly obvious that such undeveloped R-5 land
The judgment of the trial court is re-
is as vulnerable to all the other variables
versed and the injunction dissolved.
considered by the City in passing the Ordi-
nance.
Reversed.
MOORE, C. J., and LARSON, MASON,
RAWLINGS, REES and UHLENHOPP,
JJ., concur.
BECKER, J., dissents.
LeGRAND, J., takes no part.
BECKER, Justice (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
Judge Havercamp's trial court opinion
reaches the real issue here:
"Ordinance Number 30,600 creates a C-1
Neighborhood Shopping Center District
island completely surrounded by R-5
Single -Family Dwelling District. Addi-
tionally, the Ordinance in rezoning this
tract, segregates a portion of undeveloped
R-5 land from other undeveloped R-5 land.
The property rezoned by this Ordinance is
similar in character, adaptability and use to
"When one parcel or tract is singled out
in an amendatory ordinance removing
therefrom restrictions imposed upon the
remaining portions of the same zoning dis-
trict, there must be substantial and reason-
able grounds for such discrimination. It is
of primary importance whether this tract of
land has a peculiar adaptability or is merely
carved out of a similar tract or area equally
suited to the requested reclassification. See
Keppy v. Ehlers, Supra, 2.53 Iowa 1021, 115
N.W.2d 198.
"The Court holds that the rezoning of
this tract, irrespective of the fact that land
adjacent thereto is likewise situated, con-
stitutes an illegal spot zoning."
There is little more to be said. Had the
other land similarly situated been rezoned
at the same time, I believe the action would
have been legal. Absent such action this is
clearly a case of discriminatory spot zon-
ing. The trial court's judgment should be
sustained.
7-2 Z7
a
J
IF
c
C,
r
fill
lz
t i•"/lYgi. .r• .(Q.y /, p:_�'J�i • % y.,. 7� ��FRO
•i i/r ilfN%f1 ���
Cl
A. Call to order by Chairman
B. Roll Call
C. Approval of Minutes
1. Meeting of October 24, 1974
D. Zoning Items
1. Z-7420. Ordinance amending Zoning Code regarding
fence and shrub heights. Also includes amending
Municipal Code Chapter 3.38, in particular 3.38.8.A.
Council referral: 9/11/74.
2. Z-7421. Rezoning of tract of land, about 3/4 acre,
R1A to Ml (vic. South Riverside Drive near inter-
section with Highway 218 -- west of old landfill.
Requested by Charles Walden. Date filed: 10/7/74.
45 -day limitation: 11/21/74.
3. Z-7422. Consideration of rezoning 13 lots in the
Summit Street area, R3A to R2. The lots are in the
Kauffman and Summit Hill Additions located along
and adjacent to the intersection of South Summit Street
and East Court Street south of Burlington Street.
4. Z-7423. Consideration of rezoning, R3A to R3, an
area generally bounded by.Dodge, Burlington and Summit
Streets and the CRI&P RR on the south and more parti-
cularly as follows:
A. All parcels_ on both sides of Governor Street from
Burlington Street to Bowery Street excepting the
parcels adjoining Burlington Street and including
the two (2) parcels on the north side of Bowery
Street east of Governor Street and the two (2)
parcels on the north side of Bowery Street west
of Governor Street.
B. All parcelsonboth sides of Governor Street from
Bowery Street to the CRI&P RR and including parcels
in 155 feet on the south side of Bowery Street
west of Governor Street.
C. All parcels on both sides of Lucas Street
rom
Burlington Street to the CRI&P RR except parcels
adjoining Burlington Street and including four (4)
parcels on the north side of Bowery Street east
of Lucas Street, 140 feet on the south side
Bowery Street east of Lucas Street and all parcels
on the north and south sides of Bowery Street
west of Lucas Street extending to the centerline
of the alley between Lucas and Dodge Streets.
D. All parcels on both sides of Dodge Street between
Burlington.Street and the CRI&P RR except parcels
adjoining Burlington Street and including parcels
on north side of Bowery Street to centerline of
alley between Dodge and Lucas Streets and on
north and south sides of Bowery Street to center-
line of alley between Dodge and Johnson Streets.
E. Other Items
1. C-7403. Letter from Dr. George R. McCormick concerning
lot restrictions in multi -family zones. Council
referral: 10/4/74.
2. C-7404. Closing of Madison Street between Washington
Street and Iowa Avenue. Requested by University of
Iowa. Council referral: 10/17/74.
F. Discussion Items
1. Consideration of nuisances caused by C and M Zones
contiguous to residential zones. Letter and petition
enclosed.
2. P-7317. Proposed ordinance creating a University
Zone (U).
3. P-7410. Proposed ordinance creating a Mobile Home
Residence Zone (RMH).
4. Informal discussion of Melrose Lake area.
5. C-7405. Objections to prohibited signs and non-
conforming signs in sign ordinance. Council referral:
11/6/74.
6. Mandatory dedication of park land.
G. Adjournment -
0
Regular meeting -- November 14, 1974
0
El
0
SUBJECT:
STAFF REPORT
Planning & Zoning
November 14, 1974
Z-7420. Ordinance amending
Section 8.10.27.A FENCE
REQUIREMENTS of the Zoning
Code. Council referral:
9/11/74.
STAFF In a staff report dated
COMMENT: October 24, 19741 it was
stated that the distance
from a street right-of-way
intersection to the intersection of setback lines on a corner
lot is .71 of the required setback. While true, it was
erroneously stated that "if the triangular space, therefore,
were determined on the basis of a.diagonal line connecting
two points measured the distance of the required setback
divided by .71 from the street right-of-way intersection, a
building would never protrudebeyond the distance at which a
fence or a planting were prohibited (assuming the streets
were perpendicular to each other)". Rather than dividing
the required setback distance by .71, the required setback
should be multiplied by two to produce the same effect.
b IV�GIv�vrzr+■ ,.
TO: Planning and 'Zoning Commission
Attention: Don Madsen
FROM: Iowa City City Council
RE: Referral
DATE: Ocotber 4, 1974
At their regular meeting on October 11 1974, the Iowa City
Council received the attached letter from George McCormick.
The motion was adopted to refer the letter to Planning and
Zoning Commission for report back.
Abbie Stolfus
City Clerk
�e
Dear Sirs:
I respectfully request a reexamination and hopefully a change
of certain zoning restrictions which presently penalize some
property owners in multiple -zoned areas and do not serve the
intended purpose of preserving the character and charm of the
neighborhoods in the old part of Iowa City but rather serve the
opposite purpose of degenerating the old neighborhoods.
Let me say first that I am not against apartments and I fully
realized when I moved into my present neighborhood 6 years ago that
it had been R3B for a number of years. I would prefer to see the
older homes converted to apartments, thus keeping the original
character of the neighborhoods from the exterior rather than seeing
houses torn down to putup newer 6,9, or 12 plexes. I have no
qualms with the square -footage restriction requirement needed for
each unit (e.g. 750 ft2 per unit for R3B and 1,000 ft2 for R3A)
nor do I have a complaint with the required 1 1/2 parking spaces
off street to the rear or side of any building per rental unit.
The following lot restrictions, however, penalize certain
property owners and serve to devalue our property in this period
of inflation.
1) Minimum lot size for multiple family use is 5,000 ft2
2) Minimum lot frontage must be 40 ft.
3) The house must sit at least 20 ft. from the front lot line,
25 ft. from the rear lot line, and 5 ft. from each side
lot line.
These restrictions should be deleated as they serve no useful
purpose other than devaluating the property. Most of the older
homes in the North end were built at about 10-15 ft to the front
lot line, many lots in the middle of the blocks are 40 ft in width
by 150 feet deep, and many corner lots had the back 75 ft. sold
off many years ago.
I can see the new; rules applied to areas now zoned Rl or R 2
which are now being changed to R3 or R3A or R3B, however, to
make such stipulations on property located in areas zoned R3A or
R3B 20 or more years ago merely means that a particular parcel
is in reality spot zoned R1A in a block of apartments.
As an example of the problem.I can use my 98 year old house,
however, many others are in similar situations. The lot is 65 ft.X
7Sft. and the house sits 12 ft to the front line 12 feet to the
rear line and from 10-12 ft, to each side line. The house could
easily be converted to -a duplex with 5 rooms on each floor and 4
parking spaces to the rear -:of the house. If this were permissible
40 I could ask $35,000 for the house and at the same time its
exterior would appear as it does today and add to the charm of the
G
only
one
The two-year lapse of use restriction for non -conforming use
also penalizes those who purchase a multiple -use house and convert
it to single family use. For, instance my house had been a rooming
house for 40 years - if I had continued that use and made no
improvements or repairs for the past 6 years I could today sell
the house for at least $35,000. However, I restored the house to
a single family dwelling, spent at least $10,000 on it and it has
as a result been devalued to $18,000.
I would urge you to consider such a rule that if a house in an
R3A or R3B area was converted to single family use that its
multiple use classificationbe maintained for sale purposes even
though it were used for a nycmber of years as a single family unit.
Hopefully this would encougage a better mixture of families and
apartment dwellers in the area near the University. Currently
most intelligent families are selling as quickly as possible and
fleeing to the edges of town. I like living close in but will be
forced to move to the edge of town because of the lossin equity
and devaluation of the property.
By changing the ordinance as I have suggested:
1) The developing of more large new apartment buildings
in the old part of town would be slowed down as cheap
devalued property would no longer be available.
2) A single family property owner in the old part of
town would have the same opportunity for his equity
to increase as does the owner in new parts of town.
3) The neighborhoods would retain their character and
charm and
4) No property would decrease in value during this
period of inflation unless it were purposely allowed
to deteriorate.
cc Ed Czarntki
Planning and Zoning
Sincerely.
Dr. George R. McCormick
230 East Fairchild St.
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
0
Commission
SUBJECT: C-7403. Council referral in
regard to a letter submitted
by Dr. George R. McCormick
concerning lot restrictions
in the R3 District; date
referred: 10/4/74.
STAFF No general zoning regulations
ANALYSIS: can be written which will
absolutely apply in every
situation. For this reason,
a zoning ordinance will contain separate provisions for special
exceptions to the general standards in unique situations or
procedures for making application to a board of adjustment
which has the authority to grant variances in the general
standards or special exceptions in certain cases. If what
may be described as a unique or peculiar situation becomes
or exists as more common in character, then it is a question
of the reasonableness of the general zoning regulations.
It would appear in Dr. McCormick's case that the Zoning Code
does contain special provisions to ameliorate the problem
expressed in his letter dated September 27, 1974 attached
hereto. Section 8.10.24.0 states: "any building that is
in violation of the provisions of Section A above (area regu-
lations) or of Section 8.10.23.A (yard regulations) on August
71 1962, may be repaired or remodeled provided such repairs
or changes do not 'create additional violations of any part
of this Chapter;
Dr. McCormick states that his lot is 65 feet by 75 feet (4875
square feet) and the house sits 12 feet from the front lot
line, 12 feet from the rear lot line, and 10 to 12 feet from
each side lot line. The property is presently and was since
1962 in violation of the front and rear yard requirements
and the area requirement since 20 feet is required for the front
yard, 25 feet for the rear yard and 5000 square feet for a
single family dwelling or rooming house (lodging or boarding
house). Because the property is zoned R3B, there are no
new violations created•if the house is remodeled to a duplex
and actually one less violation if remodeled for not more
than six multi -family units since the area per unit in square
feet would become conforming. He must, in any case, conform
to the parking provisions.
The problems expressed by Dr. McCormick are more common than
not and would be expected at any time a vast area of predomi-
nately single family dwellings is rezoned for multi -family
use. It could be argued, however, that it is not a case of
the reasonableness of the zoning regulations but in the zoning
classification itself. -Be it as it may, to reverse the zoning
in much of the older areas zoned R3A or R3B to a single family
zone would also create a multitude of problems. The City is,
E
therefore, confronted with a dilemma and the unavoidable I
alternative of allowing special exceptions in such cases.
It could also be argued that the area, lot frontage and
yardage requirements do serve a useful purpose. They
admittedly are to a certain extent arbitrary but insure that
land is not overcrowded with buildings and structures and that
adequate light, air and open space are provided for the health
and safety of the residents. Philosophically then, if a
single family dwelling, which is in violation of the area and
yardage requirements initially, is converted to a multi -family
dwelling, the rate of deficiency of open space increases pro-
portionately. For this reason, the staff would suggest that
certain revisions in the Zoning Code be made which would serve
the dual purpose of ameliorating problems expressed by Dr.
McCormick but provide for the retention of available open space.
Two possible alternative revisions are suggested as follows:
1. A provision that if a single family lot in a multi -family
zone is adjacent to multi -family dwellings on all sides
within the block, then the single family dwelling may
be remodeled to a duplex regardless of existing or
resultant violations.
2. The establishment of ratios of building coverage to lot
area in residential zones. Though a lot may be in violation
of certain yards and/or frontage requirements, a single
family dwelling may be remodeled to a duplex or multi-
family dwelling if the ratio of building coverage can be
complied with.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
including the above for possible
exception section of the Zoning
It is the staff's recommen-
dation that a special
committee be formed to
review various alternatives
revision of the special
Code.
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
Attn: Don Madsen
FROM: Iowa City City Council
RE: Referral
r7 W
JDUM =
DATE: October 29, 1974
At their regular meeting an October 29, 1974, the Iowa City
City Council officially received a letter from Dorothy Darling
323 Highland Drive, regarding the closing of Madison Street.
The Motion was: adopted to refer the letter to the Design
Review Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Abbie Stolfus
City Clerk