HomeMy WebLinkAboutA007 - memo summarizing arguments in favor of rezoning from James Prescott � r
-Y . c1,
TO: Ames City Council_
FRCI': James Prescott, represpnt^tive of the Forth Hyland 1,eighborhood Association
RE: Re-zoning to R1-6 of Forth Hyland properties
The following summarizes arguments in favor of re-zoning the Forth Hyland section
to R1-6.
(1) Existing uses. Some 24 owned properties are single family representing 92%
of the area's residents. Only two structures or 8;1, are duplexes. Twenty-two of the
26 property owners approve the re-zoning request representing about 859 of the property
owners affected.
(2) Character of the proposed re-zoned area: Several characteristics of the area
should be noted:
(a) The lot size is substantially in excess of lots located west from Iowa
Avenue. Indeed, the west side of Iowa )%vcrue appears to have about 66% less
average square footage than lots on the east side of that street. The zoning map
indicates the above average size of lot -in the proposed area to be re-zoned, which
suggests that it is a distinctive area justifying an R1-6 designation.
(b) The total area affected is only about 10 acres, so the requested re-zoning
influences only a srLq.11 percent of the aggregate supply of the city's land currently
committed to duplex. development.
(c) The area contains some old and distinguished residences whose values could
be adversely influenced by high density development. Indeed, ve suggest that if this
area is not a single-family zoned section of the city there shculd not be an R1-6
designation in the zoning law. Prior to July, 10°O the designnt.icn (R2) was the only
low density residential district allowing sir-le family Lots of less than 10,000
square feet. We hclieve this was an unwarranted rc,striction which precluded a single-
family zoning designation; in our view, this area has never justified an R2 desig-
nation.
(d) Some older property oirners may be expected to leave the area in the future
with uncertain prospe^ts for future development. ExistirC, owners with rrore permanent
expectations of residence within the area are concerned abcut the effects of these
changes on their property values.
(3) Additional arRnTMerts for re-zoning:
a) The Council should note that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
unanimously in favor of the re-zoning request.
Ao — ) Dissident owners in the proposed re-zoning area should rote that a redesig-
nation to R1-6 does not. nreclurie future single family or even dirlex development.
Zoning variances can he sought with t1le agreerent of neiChhnrs who are a small nor-
tior of prorr,rtl , - 1•r_ i., r' i_; r , e" i-tion. (".bout °5 of the present
owners will give up prospective profits from low density development. )
(c) The "HamrQr amendment" precludes cor.vorsion C' sin-.le family-residences
to duplexes, but does rot preclude new duplex development in R2 zoned areas. The
multiple lot ownership patterns in the proposed re-zoned area suggest that the latter
could be a significant market development in +.,!-,is part of !,res.
(d) Arguments relating to population-emeloyrrent growth in Ares during the next
several years also seem unconvincing. Iowa State enrollr-ents declined this year with
similar declines expected in the future; I al-so expect th,t facul+,y resignaticns
plus retirements will be in excess of newly hired faculty menbers. (Budgetary con-
striints in my own d(,1-,-3rtmFnt have simply prevented filling existing positions for
several years. ) The Iowa D.C.T. has laid off personnel and other federal agencies
located in Ares are unlikely to receive generous appropriations increases in the
next several years. These prospects do not suggest that higher density development
in Ames is a viable argument for opposition to lower-density residential zoning, even
if the present request represented a substantial percentage of the low density housing
market in Ames.
d
a
Finally, it shoul:i -. ,fed that zoning laws try to pronote compatible land uses
and the maximum return to rroper�,y development when property buyers"know what they are
buying". Incompatible uses and/or development changes wl ich depreciate property values
encourage relocation and lower returns to property sellers within a community, be it
owners or realtor representatives. In our view, if the proposed rezoned area is not
"single family", there is no neighborhood in Ames that justifies an R-1 designation.
i
1