Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council remands Cedar Cross rezoning request to commission to consider R3 after neighborhood debate
Summary
Owners seeking to rezone 405 and 575 Cedar Cross Road from R1 to R4 asked council to approve the change; after public comment and council discussion the council remanded the request to the Zoning Advisory Commission to consider R3 instead.
DUBUQUE, Iowa — The Dubuque City Council on April 7 remanded a petition to rezone 405 and 575 Cedar Cross Road back to the Zoning Advisory Commission for consideration of an R3 zoning designation rather than the owners’ requested R4.
Julie Murfeld, who with her husband owns the parcels, told the council the family had pursued several options and cited changing circumstances that made residential development difficult: “We tried to sell it as residential…We considered moving theirs ourselves. We even pursued putting our business on there.” She asked council to allow the property to be rezoned to enable a sale.
Several neighbors spoke against the R4 rezoning during public input. Emily Wilson (3135 Nightingale Lane) said she was worried about traffic and infrastructure, noting the area becomes especially busy during sports‑complex events and that Nightingale still contains some properties without municipal sewer or water. “There is a lot of traffic. I believe it will cause a strain on the local infrastructure,” she said. Jesse Kemp (3400 Nightingale Lane) questioned the need for more apartments given local vacancy rates and argued the change could increase the owner’s land value.
Council members debated the balance between adding housing supply and preserving neighborhood character. Planning staff and the Planning Services Director (Wally) described the area as a “mosaic of different uses” that was developed originally under county rules and annexed into the city; staff noted similar transition areas elsewhere in Dubuque but also said the parcel’s irregular shape and frontage create unusual constraints.
After extended discussion, Councilmember Roussell moved to remand the rezoning back to the Zoning Advisory Commission for consideration of R3; Councilmember Farber seconded. The motion passed 7–0. City staff said that remanding imposes no new application fee and that the commission will re‑notify property owners within 200 feet and hold a new public hearing on the R3 request.
Council members and staff emphasized the development review process will still apply if a developer returns with a site plan; R3 would cap multifamily at six units per lot while R4 allows up to twelve units per lot, based on lot area and other rules.
