Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-06-07 Ordinance ',", , " .. ..', ;;idr"', . ..."..:,1,:',<,.. ~: ' ,,', :'. ':,.':,,~'<\ ",,~t\' t re < ", : ,~'J "'1: ..:.."" , :~'. ' '.;'; .... ,,,.. .. " . : ,. :,i"~;- ;~.~ ...:~~~:;-~~.':"''''':''i.,~;.~:,;_,~:.;r;--..~;.:.~'r:':~;;''J.-:-.i':J~~~ <'i. ..: ','-'-':'::';':';~l.:..:~i~'~;;:"":\';:" ','':'\:C,,~~; l:!; ::~,:::';,;; :'::;~',,:.. ';'~:;;;;I,""C";\"~u.:...;<::..-! '-;'''''''-'''i.rL:...",,,,. ~~ A revised ordinance containing the legal description will be distributed at your work session. , i I I I I l I , i , DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REPEALING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE EASTERLY TEN FEET OF MAIDEN LANE LOCATED SOUTH OF COURT STREET AND NORTH OF HARRISON STREET , , " WHEREAS, on December 3, 1875, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 310 vacating the easterly ten feet of the Maiden Lane right- of-way between Court Street and Harrison Street; and WHEREAS, the City of Iowa City has not conveyed its interest in the vacated right-of- way; and WHEREAS, public improvements are now proposed in this area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF IOWA CITY, IOWA THAT: SECTION 1. VACATION. The City of Iowa City, Iowa, hereby repeals Ordinance No. 310 dated December 3, 1875, which vacated 10 feet of the east side of Maiden Lane from Court Street to Ralston Creek, legally described as follows: , ' " ,'I \ 'j (MMS TO SUBMIT LEGAL DESCRIPTiON) .\ 'I '. ,....-~ .,(\,1 r', '\ ' , , , 1 ,'\,' SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provi- sions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. if any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be Invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconsti- tutional, SECTION IV, EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordi- nance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law, Passed and approved this 1,1' I ~, . I i II II I It) \,...::-' MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Approved by City Attorney's Office ppdadmlnlvac9403,ord , "C~~o~_, l1..w....- ,,' ~ llto~ "," "Ii . ", :~: ~;~'. /-',:, ~ ~.,.~._'"'.._',..'"m''_'_''"'''..,,_,..''''' "~'r""" D "',. ::.;'(~,i:/:J'{'0..q{+(~;~!)Y':"\I'\ ,;," '.",.. ..' 'i. <~/:",~~~:i <l . \'", "',"'-..," ~\ . ' :,":',"', ' ,. , - .' j;"l": . ,.".....' "::' '", , -'.' , ">.;.?~,~;!,i),' " , " "";,'.. ~ .", ;-~. " ,~, .~ " ,:', . ".. ,::.:....:.:.!;~~.~;~"''-,.,cl,L;~.:..~~::..~\~~'..~;...,~~~:'.::.~.';.~)~~;~~~';;,,',r.l.'~O'-~,:~\o~~~,~~~'._ .__ " _ , _ ._.; _"_''-'__''~____'__ _.._.~.~y"".,,,;....,,.-.~.'_"~r"':.",,,",, _'.l",~..,~';".\" HaNaHAN, EPLEY, BRADDOCK & BRENNEMAN I Jay H. Horiohan Maurine Ai Braddock Michael J. Brenneman -', Patrick C. Peters Sarah S. Maiers Of Counsel: Lloyd A. Epley ATTORNEYS AT LAW 425 B Avenue Kolone, Iowa 52247 13191656.2916 330 East Court Street P.O. Box 3010 Iowa City, Iowa 52244 (319) 351.8100 FAX 1319) 351-0977 104 Jayne Street Lone Tree, lowe 52766 (319) 629.6400 Hille, Iowa 62235 (319) 679.2267 12 W Cherry St North L1barty, IA 62317 (319) 626.3440 ':' .., , I' June 2, 1994 .. .. Iowa City Council 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 " . ~ Re: Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Section 36-55(m) , ,I I "i ',,' , i '. Ii) '.;', , , Dear City Council: I am writing in support of the Planning & Zoning Commission's recommendation to amend the above Zoning Ordinance to permit religious institutions to be established or expanded with access to a coIlector street. ( (, .oJ,:" c-'! The proposed amendment directly affects First Mennonite Church of Iowa City at 405 Myrtle Avenue of which I am a member. Myrtle Avenue is a col1ector street. The Church is ready to build a Sunday School classroom wing onto the existing structure but will not be permitted to expand under the present coIlector street restriction. No parking is permitted on Myrtle Avenue and none is required since the Church has adequate off street parking. The proposed expansion is not designed to increase traffic to the Church since the proposed use is for , Sunday School classrooms for youth and adults who are already in attendance at the Church. )" , , '~ \ ~r'~' I '.. I ~ I ~ Looking at the overal1 Zoning Code, I must agree with the Planning & Zoning Commission's finding that the initial reasons for limiting expansion of religious institutions along col1ector streets real1y has no basis as long as parking and other considerations can be controIled under other City ordinances. r; l' , . '" , " I', IJ0N :(f)il,3~n rr,8, DEPI:r:mr:m , J IqO~ ."" .,/ ,( 0" --. '.' ".,; ,: ,,".',' ,',. .,". ~:;?::;.:i,':':.~1"";~\'~"'''.,.''.'''''.:'.'N''''r~-7. :"f"':i; , \ ~-"'-,i, "i'::\i'(),"':'~.AY:' '" ,,' ,?5'"lklh; '''''\,.,',:)' :",;~':'..<:,; :' '~;:""," ,,. 'if:,'" ., , " , ' - ,~':"; ,':: -, ,'" ,::.::::':::,~\.;t";I., '~,: _ . ',;.' " . '-,)' "\, , '.' , ' ",', .'" , , , "" '''''l'' , , ~ -.) "", ;;... 4J-' .-;:_,~"L~~':__:'.i~~::;..c..L-:.:..;O;....~,L:,-"""",~;L:::...;,..,,~.,._.~.:.._', " ",' . ,"',,'" '-",' , ,,-, ' , .' ,- ", ' : ,",::.._~:",:,~~"".",,,,,~,-,>,,--~,<-':,1~ ....t~,.....:-~::.;,:.\~,!:l'.'.....;..:::,;.c,.:,.~.;:, ,;,:,.,.. ~-r,.:,.' ~ ;.:;:,. ,:;"l,:;',.:"\ ':: , ' " '." \. ;_;)~'~,'. ,~,~\ C, (I-,-;...:,:~('.,~ c.. . <',:4':.....";...,.';"';_-:,,, \, . ..,' Iowa City Council June 2, 1994 Page Two , , ! , I I , , , We would ask that the Amendment be passed in an expedited reading so that the Ordinance, as it affects First M~nnonite Church would be determined by June 14th to lessen further delays on our buildi~g project. Thank you. Very truly yours, , I HaNaHAN, EPLEY, BRADDOCK & BRENNEMAN " :~ ~~,~ I I I BY; Michael J. Brenneman MJB/jv " r/- .!. . i' I' ':.. (,' "i:I! .7""'....,,~.-".-,.,--- '-,\',-li:)r-' ,- I " 0 " ""',,',' 'i'"",'.,..,'" ,',> ,".. """, lqa ~': " "'''''.:1(' - i, "',',. ~:'i::i:"O,;:'::-T'\',;i\.,.T,.::..:\,..,,,....,.~~t~_....-'~-5~' '..1'0''. . ,.",' ,,'~~'::.:A:.:(,):,: '." :':: ",,,,,,..,,,,,;,,,,;; l.._....--:~ , ' .. '_h' ,.,,' " 2."~.t..ij ,\ , , Io~' , , r1 1 I, . I i I I '~,' \ ' , ,I "I" i~:1 ,,' ;1;11 ,,\ W , , (f' i:., 0 . ," ~ ' ,;. . ',~r; . ,.\1., .., ',.. 0' ,~, ~ ", ".. . . , . ,1" '. .. .-,. >-,,-,;.,._,~ .... , ',';'.,-,-;,.,.-,.. ,_.:',~'...,..".,. A,".--..,- ]);s1- ~/~/9'f lAY 23 .. TO: Iowa city Board of Adjustment and Melody Rockwell FROM: First Mennonite Church of Iowa city Michael Brenneman ") ," f') i"':"~:, :~'. '-'., ; I . , ,1,:,';",._..1 RE: June 8, 1994 hearing of EXC94-0007 On May 11, 1994, the above matter was deferred based on the fact that the city had not mailed notice to surrounding landowners. I am writing in anticipation of the upcoming hearing both to affirm the staff report recommending granting the exception and to respond to various statements.and allegations made on May 11th in opposition to request. The staff recommendation conforms with our original application in finding that the proposed encroachment is not substantial in relation to the requirement, will not increase the population density or affect the use of municipal facilities, will not change the character of the neighbor, is the most feasible location for an addition to the church based on present structures and lay of land, and we feel that interests of justice would be served in granting the requested special exception. I would first like to give further input on the side yard encroachment issue. The city has determined an encroachment of 19 feet by measuring the height of the building from grade five feet from the face of the building, (as per the Universal Building Code) and adding one half the vertical rise of the pitched roof as per Iowa city ordinance. We maintain that the area we have excavated for light and egress has no actual impact on the neighboring property, and therefore the height of the building should be taken as an average elevation as grade falls from North to South beyond the retaining wall. We further maintain that the ordinance which calls for the addition of one half the vertical rise of the pitched roof to the overall building height was intended to be applied to cases where the gable end of a structure is parallel to the property line. In our case the ridge of the roof runs parallel to the line, and the actual high point occurs twenty-two feet further to the west. ..I I o ! ,!' Our numbers work as follows: (elevation 0' -0" = lower level finish floor) Grade falls 11 1/2 ft. (from +10 ft. to - -1/2 ft.) thus the average fall is 5 3/4 ft. Adding this distance to the elevation at the south end of the building (-1-1/2 ft.) results in an average grade at +4-1/4 ft. The elevation at the roof edge of structure is + 21 ft., resulting in a vertical rise from average grade of 16 3/4 ft., and thus a required set back of 33 1/2 ft. '. /LJo, .. ~. .-1 ~ ,~' o~'" - .~,:--..,..""", "..-,..'''".. " '''''''''\'''''. 15 10; ,..,. ,""",'" ,," .('ji~J.~~ ,. , J r~' \ ',\ , ~ ., I ~, , 1'1 I II J 'l'kl' '(il\~ it :(~; }~O~ I '1"0";' 'It:.. .. :) ., I'i ,;. . ". , ., \.~I.'. , , " , "''l'" . If the distance from the structure to the property line is 26 ft. this results in an encroachment of 7 1/2 ft. We must also remember that the adjoining property sits approximately 5 1/2 ft. above average grade. It is not the height of the building at the northernmost point of the new construction that causes the building height to become an encroachment. At the northernmost point the proposed building is only 11 feet tall, and back 26 feet, well within the set back requirements. It is when the measurement formula of taking the average height of the building as the ground slopes downward toward the back of the lot that the formula creates a setback concern. At the mid-point where the building height is 16 3/4 feet above grade, the proposed building is south of any buildings of the neighbor to the east. The stated concern of sunlight blockage is just that. A stated concern without any true substance. If that truly were a concern of the neighbor, the tree on the church lot which has been removed blocked much more sunlight from the neighbor's lot than the proposed building ever will. The combination of the tree removal and the new building will result in much more access to sunlight onto the neighbor's lot than before. Our land survey also indicated that the neighbor's garage is located within 2 feet of the boundary line between our properties, thus encroaching into the 5-foot required setback for additional buildings in an RS-8 zone. Again, if the concern is really as the neighbor states it that the proposed building will loom over his garage; our response is that the 11 feet above grade building doesn't loom over his building and some responsibility for the problem, if indeed it is a problem, must be borne by the neighbor himself for building a building that itself encroaches into the city's yard set back requirement. Finally, the 2-foot setback for every 1 foot in building height is a requirement placed only on a religious institution in this zone. If this proposed construction were being done by a residential neighbor, it could be placed within 5 feet of boundary and no exception would even need to be applied for. I also want to give you the specific proposed use of the proposed construction. The lower level will consist of 10 classrooms to be used primarily by the youth of the church for the sunday School educational instruction. There will also be a men's and women's restroom, a storage room and a mechanical room located on the lower level. The upper level or first floor will have 8 classrooms to be used primarily by the adult Sunday School educational instruction. These may also be used for other gatherings or committee meetings. Two pastor's offices, a secretary's office and a men's and women's restroom will also be located on this level. t ~, ~ j ~ ,- ,~- 0",):; ....:....a ".. . . , i i , o , , " " ,\, ~", '. , ,( '; (-'\ \1 \\ " : I I i! If. ~ ."1 tfr-- 0 ~--- , .. .. , ,;. . '\t" :' .~\ I" , " ....' , '~"I' ; ".. . . :.' , ,:',,:'::_::~":~:.;'~..- .:..:,; , ,,~;- ...::.<,.., A._._.._..,. ...''",'-''_..._".:.;,,: . ;...\.'..<.'....-,;:~_1 ,.... The parking issues raised by the objector are clearly separate from the exception request before the Board but since they were raised at the public hearing, I will take time to respond to them here. Ever since the church was built on its present location in 1961, persons have parked on the church lot during weekdays while they worked nearby. This mainly involved members of the church who worked at U of I Hospitals & Clinics, which is within walking distance of the church lot. Due to the shortage of parking within the city, members of the several Mennonite churches located south of Iowa city approached First Mennonite Church of Iowa City and asked if they too would be permitted to use our parking lot on weekdays. permission was granted on an informal basis and no charges were ever discussed or assessed. Donations from those individual may have been made from time to time but purely on a voluntarily basis. Over time, more and more persons discovered our lot with its close proximity to UIHC but the church's response remained the same. In 1986, the U of I's new Law School opened located within walking distance to the north of the church lot. The word soon spread among the law students that a free parking lot existed near the school and our lot was overrun by weekday parkers. Our long-time parkers with prior permission found it difficult to find parking places due to these new parkers as did our members gathering for committee or other mid-week meetings. The neighbors complained about the dust being raised from the increased traffic on our dirt/gravel lot to the east of our lot. The congregation debated the options of blocking off the lot completely during weekdays or instituting some manner to regulate the parking as well as address the neighbors' concerns. Chain locking the lot off during weekdays was not a desired response since it would eliminate parkers with permission who saw our lot as a Godsend in their daily commute to work and because of the practical problems of locking our members out of our facility during weekdays. The solution that was finally implemented was two-fold. The church would pay to pave the east area lot to please the neighbors' dust concerns and would issue parking permits to all members and other permitted parkers. The cars without permits would be notified that they were parking on private property without permission and would be told to park elsewhere or stop in the church office to get permission. The church secretary's hours were increased so that she could make daily rounds throughout the parking lot, placing notices on the windows of cars without parking permits and for the added time spent in meeting with parkers who then came to the church office to discuss the matter. Due to the increased secretarial costs, the paving costs and the decision to hire expanded snow removal care of the parking lot in the winter, and as a means to better regulate the parking, the congregation decided to set a fee for these new parkers. ..I b - ,0".,.]", , ~ ...' ..:::J' '" IlIo ~ "", "."'1:"..', I' '. '! i~' 0, ,',~,..~-" '\ " :~Lt~,~,:,,; , , 'i'i';' ,',I,. " ",':',', '. ',~'," ',::' "t"" , ':'W,I .. '_',',' t',.-. ,'_,'.. , , , ,~,~' 'r_. " I', ' f" .- 'f , , . ,~:' ,c." , ____ __m,~,_-'_.._____""-,__",,_,ft .."....S, ". ",\ " It may be difficult for an outsider looking in but it was not seen by the church itself as a commercial undertaking. Phrases such as a "mission" to law students and other daily workers were used. At worst, some in the congregation may have viewed it as a way to offset the increased costs generated by this parking lot "monster". The one neighbor who had complained about our dust now thanked was for the paved parking solution. The presence of lights in the parking arose in a similar manner. Concerns were raised about safety for those parkers working the U of IHC night shift and the law students who parked at later hours of the night, and again a congregation decision was made to purchase lighting to improve the safety of the area. To bring you up to present, following the discussions before the Board of Adjustment on May 11, 1994, changes have been implemented in the church's parking lot practices. The present parkers permission cards were to expire on May 15, 1994 since that ends another term at the law school. Persons asking for summer or future permits are being told that none can be given at this time due to city regulations we are trying to address. Members of First Mennonite Church and ,the wider Mennonite church will continue to be given parking permits at no charge. To not repeat the flocking-to-a-free-lot problem that we had in the past, we are working on a plan to have persons who truly need and desire to use our,parking area to be given a parking permit. charges will no longer be assessed. Parking lot maintenance such as snow removal and other church costs will no longer be guaranteed and the parkers will be notified of this. We will attempt once again to find that uneasy point of balance between providing a place for those needing parking and controlling the influx of the parking masses and the costs associated with it. The result of these changes may mean more parkers on a less maintained lot but that remains to be seen. Whatever it means, the church will follow the directions given it under the city's regulations. A copy of the new parking policy is atta~hed. For anyone desiring further details on the beginnings and growth of First Mennonite Church in Iowa City and on its stated mission and purpose, I am providing several copies of a book published in 1977 detailing this church's presence in Iowa city. I , I i , ..1 i , .' '\ ,,' (~~ \ "', , ~ I:' I I ~ i , I I~ Il, j sec\wpdocs\misc\menn ,'..:,,-, --' ,'r',', . .(' 1'/0' . .. .. . ...... ; ,;<!,,:,i;'o,;:;~~'JJri"T"\"""'<""""'" "~ :....: ~'--'..T~..5<", .. 1 a ~.: _ ,:",; -"i,'<2~~1:':; ',', '..", i~i':t..-,:",:,,< ','j:,',:J::,.-: I:," , :f.:, ., ,;",;,:,'~',.'"",. 1 \. ", , :_,t ".,J 'j If -0 ~- '," 'i' '" ~,\.' ,\ ' ,~,(;,~~\\ :'_"_K'! ~~~~l/>'\':,I "," ", "<"::'::. ..~t\\'t ;. . ;'.",.'1 I:,':'. " , ' " . -;' . ~. ,-': "'. " \,' :, .', .", .: -,__:..-'~';"""': '.:.....~i.,.-...:..:u...:..;>...;.;.'<:~,,::.:~".1,.;,:l~;iJ<''';,~,-~;...~\.',~ <'::''':~-~l~ ~~ ':~i;U",-J.',.;I':"":"" \",tl.l,.~"",,~;:~ ,'~A ~"." ,,.;,.'~ . " ' I'~ " . , , ~~ ,',1 PARKING POLICY OF FIRST MENNONITE CHURCH , The parking lots at First Mennonite are considered prlvalf:l property and unless your car Is an authorized vehicle, you are illegally parked. Park!ng policy Is as follows: . 'r: 1. Registration: Please register your car wilh lhe church office. Upon registering your car you will receive a sticker to be placed on the back driver's side window. Carswilhout stickers are subject to towing by the police at the owner's expense, If you ever drive another car and cannot transfer the sticker, nolify the orfice wilh a note In the mailbox or a phone call. Dependlng'upon the location of your car, we may need to contact you In ord(3r to move It for a fun~,ral or other large gathering. --, 2. Charges: As a religious Institution, we are not allowed to run a "commercial business" :~" I.e., charging a fee for parking In this lot. Therefore there will no longer be a charge for , " . ' parking, However; a~ I'm sure you are aware, we have expenses such as snow removal, mowing, painting stripes, and keeping records. We will acceptdonalions \0 help defray Ihese 90s Is. The donale,d funds will continue 10 be kepi in a ,separale "', accounl and used pnly foMhe care and admlnlslratlon of this lot. ' " , ~.' .' . \' 'I 3. Priority for Issuing permils will be a) membership In Ihe Mennonile Church, b) special " ,~ lJeeds, c) dale of re'quesl, and wlllln'no way be relaled 10 donations. ~::, 4. Please do nol park In the upper cemenl area 'which Is Intended for persons with short. .~ I:' ~' lerm business allhe church or staff members. Park In the lower 101, preferably In Ihe \, c""'\ easl section rather Ihan directly behind Ihe building. \,' 5. Parking permits are valid for Monday through Friday only: :,1 ',!' , , 6. Flrsl MelJ~onllfil Church is nol responsible for Ihen or damage due 10 nalural causes, (T vandalism or any other cause. If funds are available, snow will be removed from the driveways but you will be responsible for digging oul your own car. ',I II~ .I . (' -- ,,:, 0 . ""'(' '- ' , --\ 1Cfo1" "\\,~~-_..,,, ':' ""'''-'''-":'''''''''-'~'''''"'''''-'''r''-'''''' ":'f"';"": ~_.' ':',', 'l>:i':;:,:6,::,."::~",)i.;"::'i":i:p;,:>,,,"',' ,: ',',"..:,?~,::.,_~,JJ~;, - ,,; "."',- " _5m . ,', I ' .\,.~E:D' ~Iew: .J I '\L I , I - \.~ / ~ / I ' """ / ) ,Z' ~I'; / 0 , / ~ _ ~ ./r..., ~ ~ ~E- r...... ;LB2 :I c e \L",~ '/ .\ \. ~..."'. . 'RS8."')' ~ rn~' MLOSE AVE ~ t ~ _;~ ~ ~ ; D \ I ,fcu" I _ \ ' ,=,:::" _ ~ \ \ 'elll\ ' _ ,,\.. '- \_~\\ \ llo..1Z IE RM ~ T \ I ;. 12~ ~-ar= ~ RS8./ ~ ~ ~: ~ ~ / ~=; ,~\~.~1 \l~ r~' I ~-Q o'l:ll." RM20! . J ' 'P~H - ~ '" ROOSEVE~T L- _ 1-"""" .. (1ic-. s-:-' I I P - I-- ~ ... - .x.....w' w ~,~;;' . SCHOO~ ,,11 Qi I f( L -'\ 8ENTONST ~......I~ ~ ~ =~ ,.=, I' 4~ - · --' ::'1- OollG~ASS >'TI T~"" __ 1, .. ~ EffiIffiB3 · - i~ .,.1-- = DOUGLASS CT J I \oJ ~..::< II ~ [lln I I n ~ C\ 'vll I=I~~ .rl.!"!" r:;.~,J ,,,,,, I..... ... CC 2 ~ l rIrr'~ ,"~ ~ , ",.,' 1...........- 1"'~T0 L -;t 11 -'-I - ~ 11 ell' I r7i\ ' II i ~~ . I ~-- I' pi ~ _ --. I \ ^ II III. i ... .... I \ ~ ERHEST ST 1'4 ,. ft _ .. _ I ~. . .... ... ... PI -rrn '4 (.,;., . 1__"" ./ I ~ ..... ,.; ~ , ,~ { -..\ , \ ' , I ,\ i \;, (~i-- , r \ I" I I i ~~' : I. : I i )' , i ~I, Vi , '}~;Il; , :,,\ '''1\1~ . ~i:!,,~i' :., :\;,1'; 'IJ:f.i " , h~'. I l.....'- ,Ir" 0 ,~ .' . '~~ :,\ r" ~ '. P' . :.' , ~, , .. \\ ,- - LOCATION MAP EXC94-0007 405 MYRTLE AVE --- - i \. RM _ 20 8: III .. i 'i l~, ~ - STURGIS FERRY PARK -'~ ~~ -... ~~- _0,]'", )Q01 i5' 10, ..".,--,':, m~'" " ~', ,~,o~ '.. ,', ~{,: \ , ! .j , i I I 1 (-. ,~,'" e ')" '---.,-- --- :': .' . ." ",,:.,/. ',: .' ',:.:;-.t"\ll" , .'; ': "~~ ,';." ,,;. . i'. ,.... " , "':, ':,',', 1., , , ......;.:' '... ~" .' " _, ,~: {':~.:_ .,...."." "'';''~'':':'.~ .:";l:';LI,' ~:c'!J",:':':~..I:~~"".!J.;~:;':;.):'l:;;L:":';::L'~':;1~.s..:.:~;:':'~:J~;~:~i~~:i,:X..:.:,',,~;:,~ 'c~;:': ':-.:~-:':'i ~ :'_: ';~ ~,~';:,.:\.:;: ,j~::::'~:: /"i ;~'~I:,.:.t~!:::L;:':;':~ ',:\~~,;' ';,Lw:,~ ~ rr0-~ ORDINANCE NO. QI.-'lh21 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 36 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, ENTITLED "ZONING" BY PERMITTING ALL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS LOCATED IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS SERVICE ZONE (CB-2) TO EXPAND WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS. , I'" 1 j , 1 I i " I (} WHEREAS, it is in the City's interest to encourage religious institutions in the downtown and near downtown areas; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance currently allows only those religious institutions which existed on August 7, 1962, to expand without complying with the off-street parking requirements; and WHEREAS, permitting all religious institutions located in the CB.2 zone to expand without complying with the off-street parking requirements will encourage religious institutions in the near downtown area. NOW, THEREFORE, BEITRESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT: SECTION I. AMENDMENT. Chapter 36, Article \I entitled "PRINCIPAL USES AND REQUIREMENTS", Division I entitled "ZONES", Section 36-20 entitled "Central Business Service Zone, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, is hereby amended by repealing subsection (g)(1) and adopting a new subsection (g)(1) to read as follows: (g)(1), Religious institutions may expand without complying with the off.street parking requirements, SECTION II, REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY, If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be In effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law, Passed and approved this 7th day of June, . 'u'A:'~~)" i::hruJfj . ,,1fAYOR ,:,,- (,(',f'I,' f) .. 'I )!Jd:- ArrEST:~~.;f,'~ ," CITY CLERK '. , I ,\ , ,I' '.,," 1'-113 1"P' '\ ",' jL_~' ,..,..; ,.";..;,',;,0,:,,,::.:),... "-,(;':'-.,.--.'\'\'-'--~"~--; "-""'~.5-::,'lo"'i\: __...;~._ .."-'(."r..r.,": '~"" ,....~__"~},<'''i:?'';<.; ""," ". "';';",' "t"/;'''::'',';;''_~:'.r.,,!/~)'' , , I':, , ,'L" ' ..,;..,=;.;,'" ,,:" ~..,:",\' ,:;,.,:_:;i:;,';':;", '!. " i I D (~'~ \ '\ " ,;fill ,,'";~ ! Ii I I ' i ~ , I ~ >(:0- "r,:\~ ..": . ."'''1 ,',,' ,,\,', '..., _.,',..'. " ',:', ,: "~ ':'-" ,:': ,:' ,.t.,\I'" ...." "',.".. ','1 - I \~. ~ ~ ';' " :" ".. . .~. , ,_ ._-'_--:-.:..:..:"..,..;..~."".",..':!-:';.'.'Z:~ )~;;'~:~i,~;';~::~ ..I;.:,'.,,;.;~,...V:,~ ';;; :~,~,~,:.;-:.~~';;....'.,:..:. ,.', .,,,;;",',;:, ~ ',' . ' _.~<,..,.,'A ,,"C:',:,:,,,. ',-- ' _,.,t:':;I:"..,;.-..~,:,'t'_">:'';<~'',:~:,,'; Ordinance No, 94-3621 Page 2 Approved by -\, ,. ~ 5"-5-'1</ i I I' , ! j' I 'j , City Attorney's Office ppdadmlnlrellnsl.ord - , , "I I , 1.' . ,'~ , " ,,,,, f.l\ ' ,&.'"; 'I!' ,'" 1'1/3' ,Z>:": "',:,, "i,'..:=.l.''''t~:::'''.::''o''~''~'~'-''''~''"""_...., ,,' :~,' " .."" ,0 ,,' ,u' ",,_.._.,-' ' , .:..:.."..:,.~"::::::.s,;,:,,,' ". ,,' , ' (...,:'0'..,'(' J .,,1',; ," ':l5'.'ruCl1, ,...,~':':",t;"/~..:!,:/"', , , ",., ;~;]{:.,;.~~r' ' ..,.:.,.'." ;/ ,--" " ..""",', . ': '..'.~ ':~::t ;, ' '" .t,\I" , "', ' ';:.:...'1 .J.. ,",'.-', d~" , " ' .' . 'J', .. , ',' . . , '. , ",,' , , . " "., ''','', ,_.,.~_"",:,:,-_~~.....~""-""",.",,,-,,,,,,,,-,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~,,, , ,';, Ordinance No. 94-3621 Page 3 , (, ; ~j~",~ I::'" (~! " ,\ .' '''''--" I \ ~ " (,,', ,,_'''-V'' r , ,,0 '~' , , , , It was moved by Novick and seconded by Pigott as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: :," ,"/ , , that the Ordinance AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x Baker x Horowitz x Kubby 'I( Lehman x Novick x Pigott x Throgmorton ",I ., , '.,..i ":i I '.,1 First Consideration 5/10/94 Vote for passage: AYES: Kubby, Lehman, Novick, Pigott, Throgmorton, Baker, Horowitz. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. ",I': " Second Consideration 5/24/94 Vote for passage: AYES: Throgmorton, Baker, Horowitz, Kubby, Lehman, Novick, Pigott. NAYS: None ABSENT: None Date published fi/15/94 ! ,I J'-II.3 \ ,. " ,',.'.p"-):_'-.','",,,.,.. "..~. ..p-','.._. ,. .i;3;;i/;;;~):~1~N)~~;\-7~.,~~1~,Jig;, '., ,,' .. ,,",'.