HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-02-2004 Planning and Zoning Commission
Planning and Zoning Commission
Agenda
Informal Meeting
Monday, August 2, 2004 - 7:30 p.m.
RECREATION CENTER MEETING ROOM B
222 SOUTH GILBERT STREET
Planning and Zoning Commission
Agenda
Formal Meeting
Thursday, August 5, 2004 - 7:30 p.m.
Emma J. Harvat Hall
410 E. Washington Street
A. Call to Order
B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
C. Rezoning Item:
REZ04-00019 Discussion of an application from Mark Holtkamp for a rezoning
from Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) zone to Low Density
Multi-Family Residential (RM-12) zone for .54 acres of property located at 211
Myrtle Avenue. (45-day limitation period: August 29)
D. Other Items:
E. Consideration ofthe July 15, 2004 Meeting Minutes.
F. Adjournment
u
Commission Meetin s:
Informal
October 4
October 18
November 1
Formal
Se tember 2 Se tember 16 October 7
October 21
November 4
.. .. -..,
"-1
'-ï
=-"··-"1 ._
~
G
~
~
~
~
G
..._.._u ..
;¡f~
i;
~!
81.._."'-.._........··
0')
....
o
o
o
I
~
W
a:
v
o
I
LO
I
CO
(/)
E
Q)
.:!:::
as
~
c:
Q)
C>
«
-
o
c:
o
+=
as
(.)
o
...J
z
o
-
C/)
C/)
-
~
:E
o
()
ø
z
-
z
o
N
o
Z
«
ø
z
-
z
z
«
...J
a..
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
Item: REZ04-00019, 211 Myrtle Avenue
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Contact Person:
Phone:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Lot Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
Applicable Zoning Code sections:
Comprehensive Plan:
File Date:
45-Day Limitation Period:
."-~--_.,--
STAFF REPORT
Prepared by: Tokey Boswell, Planning Intern
Date: August 5, 2004
Mark Holtkamp
PO Box 3284
Iowa City, IA 52244
same as above
3195941062
Rezoning of approximately .54 acres from Medium
Density Single-Family Residential, RS-8, to Low
Density Multi-Family Residential, RM-12.
To allow for development of up to eight multi-
family dwelling units.
211 Myrtle Avenue
Approximately 0.54 acres (23,360 square feet).
Single-family residence, RS-8
North: University of Iowa, Public, P
South: Residential, RS-8
East: Residential, RS-8,
West: Residential, RS-8
14-60-3, RS-8 specifications
14-60-7, RM-12 specifications
The Comprehensive Plan places this property in
the Southwest Planning District. The Southwest
District Plan indicates that the area is appropriate
for single-family and duplex residential.
July 15, 2004
August29,2004
2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
This property is located at the intersection of Olive Street and Myrtle Avenue, which slopes down
to Riverside Drive and the Iowa River. There is a large, four-bedroom single-family house on this
half-acre lot. The size of the lot would allow for division into four separate parcels for single-family
homes (with 5,000 square foot lots), or three parcels for the existing home and two duplexes (with
8,700 square foot lots) under the current RS-8 zoning. The applicant has requested a rezoning to
Low-Density Multi-Family Residential, RM-12, which would allow for construction of up to eight
multi-family units. Rezoning would also allow the number of unrelated occupants per unit to
increase from three to four.
Olive Street is a cul-de-sac that runs south from Myrtle Avenue to the Iowa Interstate Railway line
at its southern terminus. The street features a dozen primarily owner-occupied homes on 60'
wide lots. The RS-8 zone continues to the west, with single-family homes and duplexes along
Myrtle. Directly north of the property, across Myrtle Avenue, there is a large property owned by
the University of Iowa. A portion of this space is currently used for a child-care center and a
parking lot. The majority is open space that slopes to Riverside Drive. Campus Planning has
indicated that they have not yet developed long-term development goals for the property. East of
the property in question, there is one single-family home zoned RS-8, and then there is a
transition to high-density multi-family housing.
ANALYSIS:
Comprehensive Plan: This property is located in the Southwest Planning District. The
Southwest District Plan land use map labels this property and all adjoining parcels as "Single-
Family/Duplex Residential". The District Plan was crafted around a series of citizen-generated
planning principles that reflect the priorities of area residents. The first three principles are of
relevance in this instance, and are summarized below.
. Citizens stressed the importance of providing a diversity of housing in the District, including
homes for first time buyers, mid-sized homes, estate-style homes, townhouses,
condominiums and apartments. The appropriate design and mix of housing types is important
to the creation of livable neighborhoods.
. Citizens emphasized the importance of preserving and stabilizing close-in, diverse
neighborhoods. Citizens expressed a desire for better enforcement of existing zoning and
nuisance laws and a re-examination of existing zoning patterns in the older parts of the
District. There is also concern about the encroachment of university uses into the
neighborhoods south of Melrose Avenue.
The general goals for the District are reiterated in a more specific manner for the sub-area in
which this and adjoining property falls. The Roosevelt Sub-area section of the District Plan
concludes with a list of goals for the neighborhoods within its borders. These goals, in the
order they appear, are to:
1. Stabilize existing single-family neighborhoods in order to allow households of all types to
live close to the UI and downtown Iowa City.
2. Encourage the development of high-quality multi-family housing that is compatible with
surrounding development to meet the needs of a variety of households including singles,
young families, UI students and elderly populations.
3. Identify and preserve historic properties.
4. Avoid concentrations of high-density multi-family zoning directly adjacent to low-density
single-family zones; facilitate down-zoning where appropriate.
5. Review and apply Multifamily Design Standards to higher-density development.
6. Encourage the rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
3
The combination of the general and specific goals mentioned above indicates to staff that
redevelopment is warranted only when new structures will help stabilize the neighborhood and
are well designed. The current zoning designation of RS-8 allows for a mix of housing types
and diversity - a large duplex with frontage on Myrtle could blend in well next to this large
single-family home, with a more modest duplex serving to transition to the smaller homes on
Olive. This scenario, as opposed to a repetitive line of multi-family units on Myrtle, seems to
staff to be a more appropriate design and mix of housing types. The current zoning would also
allow the construction of up to 3 single family homes in addition to the existing house on the
property. None of the Southwest District Plan goals indicate a need for rezoning this area for
higher-density development.
Staff feels that the proposed rezoning is directly contrary to several of the sub-area goals,
numbers 1, 3, and 6 in particular. Rezoning this property to a higher density may impact the
future land use of this largely isolated single-family area around Myrtle and Olive, with other
property owners requesting similar rezonings. The railway, the University and the high-density
areas nearby already hem in the area around Olive and Myrtle, and the proposed rezoning may
further isolate the single-family portion of the neighborhood.
The proposed redevelopment of the property, if the rezoning was granted, includes removal of
the existing home at 211 Myrtle. This is contrary to the rehabilitation and historic preservation
goals. Marlys Svendsen, a Historic Preservation Consultant, has noted that this structure is an
architectural anchor for the community and may qualify for National Register of Historic Places
nomination due to its location and architectural details.
Spot Zoning: Rezoning this property for a higher-density use may be an action of illegal "spot
zoning". Spot zoning occurs when a small area of land in an existing neighborhood is singled
out and placed in a different zone from that of neighboring property. This problem typically
arises when a community rezones a small parcel of property held by a single owner, and the
rezoning permits land uses not available to the adjacent properties. Those indicators are met in
this circumstance. Rezoning a parcel for uses not available to neighboring properties can
generally be upheld if the rezoning is supported by an existing comprehensive plan and the
parcel to be rezoned has physical characteristics that materially distinguish it from neighboring
property. Staff feels that this rezoning would create an island of multi-family within the existing
single-family neighborhood, which is a warning flag for spot zoning. If this particular property is
rezoned it would indicate that multi-family zoning would be appropriate for similarly situated
properties in the neighborhood. Further, the rezoning is not supported by the Comprehensive
Plan or the Southwest District Plan, and would likely fail judicial test.
Traffic Implications: There is some difference between the possible development scenarios
for this property under the current RS-8 zoning and the proposed RM-12 zoning in terms of
traffic generation. If the land was rezoned to RM-12, maximum occupancy would be 32
unrelated persons in eight units; under the current zoning two new duplexes could be built on
the site and the maximum occupancy would be 15 unrelated people in five units. The increase
in density would lead to increased traffic in the area. Access from this property to Myrtle
Avenue (via Olive Street) should not be a problem, but the intersection of Myrtle and Riverside
Drive is approaching the need for a traffic signal.
Neighborhood Concerns: Some Olive Street residents have indicated that there have had
poor relations with past tenants and landlords of 211 Myrtle. The house has been cited for
over-occupancy and upkeep violations several times. Residents have also noted noise and
parking problems at this address. Residents may feel that the proposed rezoning will result in
the removal of the existing house and may alleviate some of these problems.
4
Staff finds that the current objectionable aspects of the home at 211 Myrtle are not related to
the zoning designation, but are property management issues. Property upkeep and tenancy
regulations are the responsibility of individual landowners, and no change in zpning can
guarantee a favorable change in landlord or tenant behavior. The proposed rezoning would
allow up to 32 unrelated people on this property, while the current designation allows only 15.
This increase in tenancy may aggravate the problems neighborhood residents currently cite.
The applicant has indicated his intention to build a six-unit townhouse-style apartment building
on this property. Because this is not a Planned Development Housing Overlay zone, rezoning
cannot guarantee that the applicant's plan would be built or the exact placement of structures
and parking areas on the site. Rather the rezoning will confer on the property the right to build
up to 8 multi-family units and will increase the potential occupancy of unrelated tenants per unit
from 3 to 4 persons. These property rights are transferable with the land, and a subsequent
proposal may nullify the site plan proposed by the applicant.
The applicant has stated that he would like to sell the multi-family units for $200,000 each, and
that if they do not sell at that price they would be rented out. Research on similar units in the
city indicates a value under $150,000. The City cannot enforce whether the units are sold or
rented, or who lives in those units. The nature of tenants is not regulated by the zoning code,
and undergraduate students as well as families can occupy any multi-family development.
SUMMARY:
Staff finds that the current negative associations with this property are due to the conditions of
property management, and are irrespective of the zoning designation. Staff believes that the
most precise indicator of land use policy for the property can be found in the goals for the
Roosevelt sub-area of the Southwest District Plan. Those goals include:
· Identification and preservation of historic properties, and encouragement of the
rehabilitation of the existing housing stock. - Marlys Svendsen has indicated that the
existing home at 211 Myrtle does have historic qualities as an individual building and in
context of the larger neighborhood. Razing this home to build new units is clearly contrary to
these two goals.
· Stabilization of existing single-family neighborhoods. - The Olive Street community
seems to be a stable, moderately priced, single-family neighborhood. Rezoning this property
to RM-12 would appear to be a spot zoning and may lead to additional requests for rezoning
in this neighborhood.
· Avoidance of concentrations of multi-family zoning directly adjacent to low-density
single-family zones and facilitation of down-zoning where appropriate. - There is no
support in the district plan for the "up-zoning" of 211 Myrtle to a higher density.
It is staff's opinion that the proposed rezoning would not help stabilize the Olive Street
neighborhood and may invite further rezonings for multi-family development. Further, staff feels
that the current zoning designation allows adequate opportunities for appropriate infill
development of the sort specified by the Comprehensive Plan. Most importantly, the proposed
rezoning may represent an illegal spot zoning that is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan and the
Southwest District Plan.
5
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REZ04-00019, a request to rezone approximately 0.54 acres located at
211 Myrtle Avenue from Medium-Density Single-Family Residential, RS-8, to Low-Density Multi-
Family Residential, RM-12, be denied.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Maps
2. Application Documents
Approved by: ~ c
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner,
Department of Planning and Community Development
S:llnternslUrban PlanningIREZ04-00019, 211 Myrtle
·
,
CJ)
..-
o
o
o
I
-=:t
~ ~ .. ::. 9 A.VMH~ sn ~[] ~
~ - r- a:
~I~- ~;I\~:J b~[
I--? 0 ~ -= 10 J \
I L: B CO iW= ;1.. II \ it) 1ql
~ .~ III \ ~ $~
a: ~ "l
-
~
~ I--
'CO -1'-- JI-
G J "NI181~ I--
¡.Ã --.-/ l-
I I.. ..
~ 1J >1d >1'10 a:: 1 -
.... 1 I-
~ 1d ONVl'OO," \ / "'" 13VI::L2ill n
~ ~N '-
~
~~ ~
~ «
~\ \ 1Jl< a:: Q)
~
G 3^ V <J3111~ >-
\ 1/ ~cf\(-- ~ ~ ~
z ....
«
-' ~ ....
"" J 00 0\ C\I
- 0
J0\ « ..
I> (VO-L ,\ f- Z
-<-.. 0
---
~I L ",0 "\ QJ--- ~
:::. 0 5
c. QJ 0
,.." ~ 'J: :} U)-.C:
I~ 9' o U l-
ii v-1t 00 OV) 8
">\'10 Q:: -
e:~ ~
k~l .- ~
BS! 't!1. t:
::r: f- en
~~
T) _ I --......~__
--
--
l-
I--
I--
0)
c
.-
0..
0..
ro
~
~
+-'
.-
o
ro
sO
a
-
"f-
a
~
+-'
.-
o
~
- ìi>~
~~ ~ð
È"~ 8 c
i< ~~ ~
<>œ DE
I:!J Ji
- -
,~
Y1\7t r
g --'
~~]~
ü
(f) I
I ~ ~II
-\J~ ~
.....
[J\
\
(Y
1Fd
-::;>
qL
o
I (f)
I
--I
I L _...J i-
~ ..L _.
I _/ I
« -I
I:~ ~
I -- ---'-'
0::::
~
~D
r
-
I:~ r - - ~ L c
I I~ I W"--"b-'
I - J
Ð I_I~ I Iv 1 0
~~n I
1 -j II
/
.
-I--..
I
D
L- I
I 1 r ~ -1 [ 0
1
0~
~ J1~
íW
- -
_.-'~ L
-=--
[
¡l
U
--
2.=1
..
l\
/ !
I
~
MAK PROPERTIES
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
lOW A CITY/CORALVILLE
P,O. Box 3284
Iowa City, IA 52244-3284
(319) 594-1062
(319)351-0256 FAX
July 14, 2004
Statement as to why zoning change is warranted:
The property located at 211 Myrtle Avenue is currently in an RS-8 zone. This zoning would
allow for a subdivision where two additional duplexes could be placed on the lot along with the
existing house.
In the past month, I've had two neighborhood meetings to discuss the development of this lot.
The neighbors addressed various concerns regarding this subdivision with the existing zoning.
They stated that they would like to see a development that would increase the value of the
neighborhood. There were also concerns about the future maintenance of the properties and to
possibly allow more green space to the south of the lot.
I suggested the possibility of rezoning the property to allow for townhouses similar to the ones
built on Monnan Trek Boulevard. The townhouses I proposed would be approximately 1650 sq.
ft with 4 bedroom- 3 Vz baths. The neighbors said they would prefer the townhouses be sold to
allow owner occupied units as compared to rentals. I agreed, and would like to sell the units for
approximately $200,000 each (if they did not sell I would keep them to rent to residents or
graduate students).
The townhouses would also be set up in an association, which would have monthly dues to pay
for lawn care and snow removal, thus taking care of the exterior maintenance concerns. The
layout of the townhouses facing Myrtle A venue allows for a grass buffer to the rear of the
property and keeps turning traffic off of Myrtle A venue. The neighbors agreed that the
townhouses would fit better into the area and would be a better development for the long tenn.
Thank you,
~~
I feel that the townhouses would add value to the neighborhood and fit in nicely with the
surroundings. The RM-12 zoning would allow for this development and enhance the entire ~
neighborhood. Q ~
~O <-
po -~ c::
::J r-
Cj"
=ìO U1
.-<,
ill :Þo_
--:0 --=:..
0-,,-
:;E"
»
11
Please give me a call if you have any questions or concerns at 319-594-1062.
,-
,
m
n
'.J
co
U1
-./
~
MAKPROP£1!T1U
1I""'~A..t;;::~A...~A~!
_N:ikMI!IIan,.~TI'i
¡!¡¡¡Ii
, ,
sll!
, .
'15 3MlO
1¡>
.
N
?
~
¡-
8
8
,,~,IY
.r,O;::
8
..L/'JOA't'P.I.O"1
....I·.......I::)WOI
'""""'"
;;v.......ru~
~
"
~
I-
8 r :::>
C)
>-
u.i «
;¡; -I
r w I-
..J C)
b2 -I
>- ~
8 ::E
(~)
'---
.Þ-,$'Þ'I
~; ; If)
101