Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA005 - Neighborhood rezoning request dated September 16, 1990 September 16 , 1990 BANDSHELL NEIGHBORHOOD REZONING REQUEST Brief History of Bandshell Neighborhood 1884 . without "A city park was established from Blair and Company cost to the city. " "A sidewalk was built from Douglas east to the cemetery. " -- Ames Community History In 1884 the area we call Bandshell Neighborhood was established. From that time the neighborhood has been the home for generations of Ames ' citizens . The area was single family homes until city rezoning in the 1960 ' s allowed multiple-family units . In the early 1970 ' s the area faced the closing of its neighborhood school . However the 1980 ' s saw a return of families to the area. Although there are probably a group of factors that have contributed to the neighborhood' s rebirth, two factors stand out . Those factors are the growing interest in historical preservation and the growing need for affordable housing in our community. As families returned to the neighborhood, residents joined together to help insure the continued revival of the neighborhood. Bandshell Neighborhood has worked to: -- insure installation of pollution control devices at the Ames Electric Utility; -- develop a HUD grant for the area encompassing our neighborhood; -- install playground equipment at Bandshell Park; -- promote and develop a "Crime Watch" program in our neighborhood; monitor zoning and parking concerns in the neighborhood; foster a working relationship with the City to help improve neighboring city facilities . In May , 1990 , Bandshell Neighborhood Association became a part of deliberations on whether a special use permit should be issued for the property located at 722 Crawford Avenue . The neighborhood opposed issuance of the permit because we felt the complex would lower our property values and in traffic beyond an acceptable limit . This incident sparked a renewed interest in the rezoning of our area from R-3 to R-2 . Rezoning Process During the summer months , neighborhood residents began the rezoning (and LUPP map revision) process . The task was time consuming and arduous . An overview of the process is as follows : 1 . From the auditor ' s office , workers obtained a listing of all property owners in the area and their mailing addresses . 2 . On a large map of the area, workers wrote each property owner ' s name and mailing address . 3 . Workers assigned a parcel number to each property and cross-referenced the list to property ownership forms . 4 . An attempt was made to contact each property owner and explain our rezoning effort . A packet explaining the rezoning was developed and made available to property owners . 5 . Workers went to individual property owners and asked them to become rezoning petitioners . (At least 50% of the property owners by land area were required to petition for the change . ) 6 . The rezoning and LUPP map change rationales were written . This included researching the legal description of the area. The Rezoning Committee of Bandshell Neighborhood Association estimates that they have spent over 200 hours working on this process to date . Neighborhood residents contributed the money necessary to pay the $110 filing fee . The rezoning effort met with an overwhelming positive response . -- Over 90% of the property owners who live in the area petitioned the city for rezoning. -- Owners of 19 rental properties joined in petitioning for the rezoning change . -- We were pleased that two owners of multiple-unit housing joined our rezoning efforts . Trends and Character of Bandshell Neighborhood Statistics gathered in the rezoning effort confirmed what neighbors had known all along -- the character of Bandshell Neighborhood is low density (R-2 ) residential . Statistics based on the percent of housing types by land area are as follows : -- West of Crawford Avenue 69% single family and duplex 16% multiple units 15% public -- East of Crawford Avenue , in Eastwood apartments 65% single family and duplex 35% multiple units -- East of Crawford Avenue , excluding Eastwood apartments 80% single family and duplex 20% multiple units The current trends in the neighborhood are obvious to the residents . No new apartment structures have been built in this area since 1980 . Instead, seven properties have been converted from 2 or more units back to single family, owner occupied homes in that time . Young families are drawn to the affordable housing and aesthetics of our neighborhood. In the last 3 years , the area east of Duff Avenue had enough children for their own kindergarten . Our school-age youth, who were once easily absorbed in the Roosevelt school population , now are bused to Meeker Elementary School . As one long time neighborhood resident stated, "What a pleasure to see all the school buses in the morning . " Questions About the Rezoning Request Following are questions we felt the Commission may have about our rezoning proposal . 1 . How does this rezoning proposal benefit the community? a. Affordable Housing There seems to be a growing consensus in our community that we need to be able to offer affordable housing choices for lower and middle income family units . How can the City of Ames provide that option in our commmunity? There must be , of course , housing stock available in the appropriate price range , but there must be one more thing--attractive , stable neighborhoods . "When people choose housing they take into account not only the quality of service associated with the particular dwelling unit but the attractiveness of the neighborhood as a place to live . " (Urban Economics and Public Policy; James Heilbrun; p. 301 ) Bandshell Neighborhood can offer that option for affordable housing in a stable nieghborhood with this rezoning proposal . Rezoning the area to reflect its current low-density residential character gives the area the stability necessary to rehabilitate and restore housing stock . b. Historic Preservation "A country without a past has the emptiness of a barren continent and a city without old buildings is like Alan without a memory. - Bandshell Neighborhood contains an interesting collection of housing stock. Four blocks of the neighborhood are Blair ' s Second Addition to Ames and contain homes built in the late 1880 ' s and early 1900 ' s . Homes of individuals who shaped Ames ' history are part of Bandshell Neighborhood. In fact , the first home built in Ames following its incorporation stands at 717 Crawford. We believe rezoning protects our community' s architectural and historic treasures by providing a stable environment for restoration. C . Community Image Bandshell Neighborhood acts as a "window" to several important civic areas--the cemetery, Bandshell Park, Ames Electric Utility , and the Central Business District . What kind of image does our community want to represent through this "window?" Now the image is of an area marked by a collection of architecturally interesting housing and established trees and lawns . It is an area where individuals can feel secure and comfortable . The stability necessary for this community image comes from the maintenance of the delicate balance of owner-occupied and rental properties . Our rezoning proposal will assure that the balance , and the community image , is maintained and improved. 2 . Does an R-2 zoning designation for this area contribute to urban sprawl? Any issue effecting land use requires a careful analysis of the "big picture . " We feel that rezoning our area does not contribute to urban sprawl . The important ingredient in this equation is land area use . If more apartments are built in our neighborhood, what happens to families who seek a stable neighborhood? They will flee the neighborhood to new affordable housing in Ames or elsewhere in Story .County. Because the family is looking for single family housing, the land area required to meet this demand could be greater than the land area displaced by the apartment . The urban spawl equation cannot be solved with a simple answer of "build up" without changing the American dream of home and yard ownership. It makes more sense to stabilize existing neighborhoods and allow housing stock in place to be rehabilitated. It seems to us that allowing more density in a developed residential area does not prevent urban sprawl . It only develops an urban slum. 3 . Why did we not petition for an R-1 zoning designation? We realize that our neighborhood has a mix in housing styles and feel that we have benefited from knowing people in various living situations . In many ways , we like the mix. It provides a dynamic living area. We understand that people need a place to live in Ames . An R-2 designation still allows for some density infill if it is needed. It also provides the option for some property owners to rent out part of their home while becoming established in the home ownership market . We feel ours is a moderate position . We are not trying to drive out the renters or eliminate the multi-units . We are trying to obtain a legal protection that will encourage property owners to stay in the neighborhood and attract new property owners to live in the area . We also want absentee landlords to know that ours is a vital low density area that encourages property maintenance and responsible rentals . 4 . Why should the LUPP be changed? Why should the whole area east of Crawford Avenue be zoned R-2? Except for the Eastwood apartment complex , which we feel should stand by itself , the area east of Crawford Avenue in our petition is overwhelmingly low density land use . The homes lining Crawford Avenue are moderate sized houses most likely built in the 1920 ' s . The homes lining East 6th Street in that area are predominantly moderate sized houses built in the mid-1950 ' s . The area is locked behind the low density area immediately to the west . All traffic to and from the area must pass through the low density area . Any major traffic increase would be very detrimental to the low density areas . The planning staff has indicated that they have problems with this area because of the Eastwood apartment complex . If the whole area is zoned R-2 , they have a large complex that does not match a low density designation , eventhough it is a permitted use in R-2 . If the Eastwood complex is excluded from the R-2 zoning , they are left with only Eastwood being R-3 . They prefer not to have small areas zoned differently from surrounding areas . One solution the planning staff has suggested is to leave more area east of Crawford as R-3 . We feel this is an unfortunate problem, but leaving an R-3 zoning on a portion of the area surrounding Eastwood is not a good solution . The residents along East 7th Street have had to live with increased and irresponsible traffic , loud and abusive language, and drunken and bizarre behavior late at night . All of this traffic and activity must pass though the neighboring low density area. It has caused much anxiety and anger from neighboring residents . We feel that encouraging more dense development at the east end of our area would be another drastic mistake . The increased traffic and activity would have a devastating effect on the low density area immediately to the west . The best solution for this area, although perhaps not ideal from a planners perspective , is what we have proposed in our petition. The Eastwood apartment complex may not fit the low density land use , but would be a permitted use in an R-2 area . We feel that is the best that can be done with the current situation. An alternative that would be acceptable to us would be to remove the Eastwood apartment complex from the rezoning and leave it R-3 . To include any or all of the East 6th Street homes in a remaining R-3 area , as city staff has proposed to us , would be unacceptable , for the reasons stated previously. When trying to correct a problem, please do not leave behind a mess . 5 . Under an R-2 zoning designation , what are the possibilities for development of the property at 722 Crawford Avenue? A request last spring to develop a 12 unit apartment building on this lot sparked the neighborhood to action on this rezoning effort . At that time , the special use permit needed for the development was denied by the Zoning Board of Adjustment . The lot at 722 Crawford Avenue is unusually large for our neighborhood. It measures 60 feet by 390 feet . Comments have been made that because of its size , the only practical use for that lot is multi-unit development . We disagree with those thoughts . First of all , because of its narrow width, it is not very well suited for large development . If the area is zoned R-2 , we feel various options could be explored. A single family home or duplex could be constructed on the existing lot . The large backyard could be used for garden , play area, or orchard. That might be very attractive to some home buyers . The lot could be purchased by the city for cemetery use . For long range planning, that may be a reasonable choice for the city. One city cemetery employee stated that additional area around the maintenance building might be useful . The lot could be divided into two pieces with the city purchasing the back part and the front part used for low density residential development . If the city did not want to purchase the back part , perhaps a trade could be worked out where the city would take the back of the lot and give the lot owner an equal portion of street front lot next to the existing lot . The cemetery would still maintain the same amount of land and the property owner would end up with two normal-sized street front lots . Perhaps these lots could be used to construct two of the lower priced new homes the city would like to have built . The point is--there are many options available for that lot . We need to plan for our city with a new imaginative vision . We have included for your information a recent Iowa Supreme Court decision on downzoning. We believe the court ' s decision reflects the validity of our reasons for requesting the downzoning of our neighborhood. This decision is copied from the July, 1990 , issue of Land Use Law and Zoning Digest . amendments. The court stated that the fact that the Rezoning zoning amendment prohibits the most beneficial use of the property is not 42 ZD 221 — Iowa enough reason to find the amendment to Downzoning developable densities be unreasonable,capricious,or discrimi- from 14 multifamily units per acre to natory.The court then examined the city's eight single-family units per acre is rea- reasons for downzoning the property.The sonable when comprehensive plan calls city found that the prior zoning would in- f for eight to 16 units per acre. crease the traffic flow in the area past its Neuzil a. City of Iowa City, Supreme Court current accommodation and that the 1990, 451 N.W. of Iowa[highest NW. courr�, Decided January 24, downzoning would reduce the potential 2d 59 for such burdensome traffic increases.The court commented that traffic considera- Facts.Iowa City downzoned an 81/2-acre tions are reasonable grounds for amen- tract of land from a district allowing ding zoning ordinances. The city found multifamily dwellings and up to 14 units that downzoning would also help main- per acre to a district allowing single-family tain present property values in the area. or duplex dwellings and only eight units The court commented that such a con- per acre.The landowners challenged the sideration bears a substantial relationship downzoning in court, and the trial court to the public's health,safety,welfare,and ruled in favor of the city.The owners ap- comfort.The city also considered the en- pealed, and the appeals court reversed in vironmental and aesthetic impact. The their favor. The city appealed. court noted that such considerations were Holding. The highest court held that the proper because they concerned the area's zoning amendment was valid. The court safety and security as well as the general considered ,the following facts and cir- public's comfort and welfare. The court commented that its decision was in- cumstances relied on by the owners to fluenced by the fact that the zoning support their claim: the property's prox- amendment was consistent with a com- imity to the city's largest employer; the prehensive plan the city adopted seven availability of city utilities; that the prop- years prior to the amendment.The court erty's size permits large-scale develop- concluded that the city acted within its au- ment; that housing on the property thorized power in downzoning the prop- reduces the need for private transporta- erty and that the zoning amendment was tion and public transportation is avail- not unreasonable, capricious, or dis- able; the existence of access streets to the criminatory. tract;that the property is adjacent to other A dissenting justice stated that the fun- multifamily dwellings; and that the area damental justification for amending a has been zoned for multifamily use since zoning ordinance is a change in conditions 1962. The landowners argued that There making the amendment reasonably neces- i was no change in circumstances justifying sary to protect the public interest.The jus- the downzoning.The court noted that,in tice noted that the trial court found no order for the landowners to win,it would significant change. The justice further have to adopt Maryland's rezoning rule stated that the object of zoning is to put requiring a change in circumstances or a property to its best use. The justice mistake in the original zoning. But this reasoned that, because the property is court pointed out several shortcomings of located near the city's largest employer, this rule. First, the court noted the the city's action ignored the property's criticism that there are many cir- best use and general public's interest in cumstances in which change is desirable, having housing convenient to that including changes in ideas. Second, the employer. court said that the rule gives the original zoning a greater presumption of correct- I ness than an amendment. This latter ef- fect, the court found,is inconsistent with the rule that,in legislative matters,a mu- nicipality may not bind its successors. Thus, the court rejected Maryland's change/mistake rezoning rule and kept its rule applying the same standards to both the original zoning and subsequent 44nd Use ,haw qnd ,Z017i,,? D%yes� duly BANDSHELL NEIGHBORHOOD ti Ak I A IJ Concert in the Band Shell Photo courtesy Iowa Tourism OVER 100 YEARS OF PROVIDING HOMES FOR AMES FAMILIES