Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-11-01 Ordinance• ORDINANCE NO. • AN ORDINAL AMENDING CHAPTER B.10( TIE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF IC1,A CITY, BY LIMITING CONSTRUCTION WITHIN A DESIGNATED AREA FOR A MAXIMUM PERIOD OF SIX M RrHS PENDING THE ENACi4IM OF A NEW ZONING ORDINAL. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF IaIIA CITY, IOM I SECTION 1. PURPOSP. The purpose of this ordinance is tA�pmvide adequate time for the completion of the new Comprehensive Plan and the proposed Zoning Ordi, nance. It will prevent construction of potential non- conforming uses that would frustrate the Plan which has been the product of extensive study by the City Council, various Connissiones, staff and citi- zen participation. SET ION 2. AMENDMENTS. Section 8.10.4 is hereby amended by adding the following section: D. In order to provide sufficient tine to com- plete the Comprehensive Plan and enact a new zoning ordinance, construction in the area here- inafter described shall be limited to the erec- tion of single family dwellings and duplexes and the repair, but not expansion, of existing struc- tures. The area affected by this interim ordinance is described as follows: Beginning at the center of the intersection of Dubuque and Brawn proceeding southerly along the center line of Dubuque to the intersection with Jefferson, then proceeding easterly along the center line of Jefferson to the intersection with Governor, then proceeding northerly along the center line of Governor to the intersection with Dodge, then proceed- ing southerly along the center line of Dodge to the intersection with Brawn, and then westerly along the center line of Brown to the point of beginning. The present CH zone beginning at the inter- section of North Dodge Street and Prairie du Chien Road; then north to St. John's Alley, then in a northeasterly direction to St. Matthias Alley, then southerly along St. Matthias Alley approximately 501, thence northeasterly to North Dubuque Road, then southerly to the intersection of North Dubuque and Conklin Street; extended then south- westerly to Summit Street; thence Summit Street north to the point of beginning. SECPIDN 3. The Building Inspector is hereby author- izedenge the Zoning Map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon • -2- the 2 the final passage, approval and publication of this Ordinance as provided by law. SECTION 4, The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this Ordnance to the County Records of Johnson County, Iovao upon final passage, approval and publication as provided by law. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall bacon effective upon pub ication and shall remain in effect for six months or until the enactment of a new zoning ordinance for the area herein des- cribed, whichever is sooner. Passed and adopted this day of , 1977. MARY C. NEUHAUSER, MAYOR ATTEST: ABBIE STOLFUS, CITY CLERK It was moved by and seconded by_ that the Ordinance be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENri 1st consideration Vote for Passage: 2nd consideration Vote for Passage: Date of Publication RECEIVED & APPROVED EY .THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT 9t•77 /�/ • 0 Comment: The purpose of this ordinance is to provide adequate time for the completion of the new Comprehensive Plan and the proposed zoning ordinance. The City Council, various commissions, staff and residents have invested considerable time and expense in planning for the orderly development of the City of Iowa City. An interim ordinance preserves the status quo pending the completion of the new Comprehensive Plan. It will prevent construction of potential non -conforming uses that would frustrate the new Plan. Construction within the designated area will be limited to single family dwellings and duplexes and the repair, but not expansion, of existing structures. The ordinance will remain in effect for six months or until the enactment of a new zoning ordinance, whichever is sooner. y CITY OF IOWA CITY N1I_R 4V� L WASIIIPJ��UNJ SI K_NA UIY IOWA 52240 (319)35A l8u,_, October 27, 1977 The Honorable Mayor and City Council of Iowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 For: Building Moratorium Dear Mayor and Council Members: Recently the City Council asked the Legal Department to report on the authority of the City Council to adopt a moratorium on building and develop- ment on the north side of Iowa City pending completion of the new Compre- hensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Angela Ryan has prepared a nemrandum of law in this subject which con- tains a discussion of the legal points involved and case authority. Our research leads us to believe that, in specific instances where the need to preserve the status quo pending the completion of planning work could be dermnstrated, a moratorium of six months or more might well be supported by the courts. Die believe that a strong argument could be made by the City in favor of a development moratorium which would be limited in time for the purpose of per- mitting the completion of plans and studies with respect to a particular area. Such a moratorium would permit the collection of necessary data and inforrotion to enable the City Council to determine whether zoning category changes are needed in order to protect the public welfare and interest. In order to enhance the prospects for such a mroratorium ordinance to be upheld by the courts, it should be made a part of the zoning ordinance. This roans that the ordinance would have to be adopted only after the usual public notice and hearings have been given in order to permit affected property owners and others in the area to have their input into the decision making process. Further, the adoption of such an ordinance would be subject to the extra- ordinary vote requirements of 68.10.32 of the City Code if the requisite number of objectors filed a petition with the City prior to the final vote by the Council. 11 • I would be happy to discuss this matter with the City Council at an infor- mal or formal session. Respectfully submitted, 4� Jo w. Hayek t Attorney .7MI:mtm 1461ty of Iowa CHO MEMORANDUM DATEi October 26, 1977 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Angela Ryan, Asst. City Attorney RE: zoning Moratorium FACTS The City is preparing a new comprehensive plan. Upon adoption of the plan, it will consider a new zoning ordinance which may extensively change land use classifications. It is the City's concern that construc- tion which will not be in conformity with the proposed zoning ordinance will begin during the period required for study, public hearings and enactment. QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does the City possess the requisite constitutional or statutory authority to enact an interum zoning ordinance? 2. If it is authorized, must the procedures of Chapter 414, 1977 Code of Iowa, for notioe and hearing be complied with? 3. Are the provisions of the proposed interim ordinance a reason- able exercise of the police paver? CONCLUSION 1. In other jurisdictions with enabling acts substantially similar to Iowa's, there is a conflict in cases as to whether a municipality has the authority to enact an interim ordinance. However, the majority posi- tion states that it has such authority. 2. The procedures of Chapter 414, 1977 Code of Iowa, for notice and hearing rust be followed for the enactment of an interim ordinance. 3. In determining reasonableness, the courts consider the duration of the moratorium, the progress of study, the prospects for passage of the new ordinance, and the extent of the restriction. DISCUSSION One of the strongest arguments against the validity of interim ordi- nances is that zoning ordinances are put into effect which have not been properly enacted. As a general rule, the restrictions of a zoning ordi- nance may only be prospective. 101 C.J.S. Zoning, 838. Despite their retroactive effect, interim ordinances have been held valid in several jurisdictions. In Dmmiham v. Alexandria, 58 F.2d 789 (Va. 1932), the Court upheld the validity of an interim ordinance to be enforced pending adoption of a comprehensive plan. It stated: "It seems to the court that it would be a rather strict application of the law to hold that a city, pending the necessary preliminaries and hearings incident to proper decisions upon the adoption and the terms of a zoning ordinance, cannot, in the interim, take reasonable mea- sures temporarily to protect the public interest and welfare until an ordinance is finally adopted. Other- wise, any movement by the governing body of a city to zone would, no doubt, frequently precipitate a race of diligence between property owners, and the adoption later of a zoning ordinance would in many instances be without effect to protect residential communities - Like locking the stable after the horse is stolen." In at least six states, interim ordinances are expressly authorized by state law. The statute will generally limit the period for which interim controls may be in effect and specifically exempt a municipality from the 0 -3- r notice and hearing requirements of zoning ordinances. In jurisdictions without this express authority, the cases are in conflict as to whether an interim ordinance way be enacted. This conflict is due in part to the divrrsil:y of c nstiLutional and/or statutory provisions in these states. Courts have frequently noted this conflict and staLed that it will servo no useful purpose to discuss decisions from other jurisdictions. State v. Arnold, 34 N.E.2d 777, 780 (Ohio 1941). The Iowa Court had occasion to rule on an interim ordinance in Downey V. Sioux City, 208 Iowa 1273, 227 N.W. 125 (Iowa 1929). In Downey, the City had enacted an ordinance which prohibited the construction of apartment houses in a district. The City claimed that the ordinance was an emergency measure and that it would soon pass a general zoning ordinance. Since the City had not yet adopted a general zoning ordinance, it could not rely upon what is now Chapter 414 for its authority to enact an interim ordinance. Under the Dillon's Rule, municipalities had only that authority expressly granted or necessarily iffplied. The court held that the applicable statute which merely allowed the regulation of development did not include the power to restrict or prohibit development, and, therefore, the ordinance was invalid. The City of Sioux City cited the landmark case of Miller v. Board of Public Works of the City of Los Angeles, 234 P. 381 (Cal. 1925) in support of its argument that the city had the authority to pass an interim ordinance. The Iowa Court rejected Miller stating: [D)elegations of power by the state to municipali- ties are strictly construed and convey no powers except those expressed or necessarily inplied to carry out the object of the grant; hence the municipal police power is derived wholly from the state. This is not true under the -4- California 4 California law, as under the Constitution of that state the right to exercise the police power is granted in the Constitution to the municipality, and where the corpora- tion derives its police power from the Constitution, it is as broad as that possessed by the legislature itself, except that it must be confined to local affairs." At 128 The advent of Home Rule in Iona and the abrogation of Dillon's Rule by Article III, 940, of the Iowa Constitution, "The rule or proposition of law that a municipal corporation possesses and can exercise only those powers granted in express words is not a part of the law of this state," clearly undercut the Court's rationale for rejecting Miller and render Downey unauthoritative on the question of Iowa City's power to enact an interim ordi- nance under Chapter 414. However, since California's home rule grant and enabling act are substantially different from Iowa's, neither is Miller con- trolling. In jurisdictions with enabling acts substantially similar to Chapter 414, the majority position seems to be that interim controls are not beyond the authority of the municipality. Darlington v. Board of Councilmen, 140 S.W.2d 392 (Ky. 1940). However, in many of these jurisdictions, the interim ordinance was held invalid because the municipality failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the enabling act for zoning ordinances. By impli- cation, it is argued that had these requirements been satisfied, the interim controls would have been held valid under enabling acts which did not expressly authorize them. In State ex rel Kramer v. Schwartz, 68 A.2d 182 (Pa. 1949), the court held that the enabling act which was substantially similar to Chapter 414 did not authorize an interim ordinance. It distinguished Miller on the basis of its different constitutional provision and enabling act. In Alexander v. Minneapolis, 125 N.W.2d 583 (Minn. 1963) and Lancaster Develop- nr�nL, LL(J. v. Itivcr I-brnst, 228 N.N.2d 526 (111.AF4). 1967), the courts held Lhnl. o rosolution suslxndiral a prolx,rly enactcxd zoninq ordinance was invalid. In dicta, they stated that an ordinance also would have been held invalid as beyond the authority of the municipality to enact. Because building permits may be sought from the time of public notice to the enactment of the interim ordinance, municipalities have sought to circum- vent the notice and hearing requirements of a zoning ordinance. One approach has been to argue that the interim ordinance is not a zoning ordinance. A. J. AbermanInc. v. City of New Kensington, 105 A.2d 586 (Pa. 1954). Its validity would probably be challenged on the basis of 9364.1 which requires that ordi- nances must be consistent with state law. Many municipalities passed resolutions which prohibited the issuance of building permits. The courts have consistently held that a resolution cannot suspend a validly enacted zoning ordinance. Alexander v. Minneapolis, supra; Lancaster Development, Ltd. v. River Forest, supra. All jurisdictions except Oklahama (McCurley v. E1 Reno, 280 P. 467 (Okla. 1921)) have held that procedural requirements of the enabling act must be strictly complied with. Following MoCurley, a number of municipalities relied upon it and passed ordinances without following the procedural require- ments. Other jurisdictions uniformly rejected Mocurley as not in harmony with the weight of authority or with sound principles. State v. Schwartz, 82 S.W.2d 68 (M. 1935); Kline v. Harrisburg, supra, p. 189. Therefore if the City decides to enact an interim ordinance, it should follow the procedures of Chapter 414 for notice and public hearing. Cities have also attempted to obtain the same results without the benefit of an interim ordinance by administratively denying building permits. Many courts have condemned this practice because the building inspector is an e -6- • o(h6 nistrative agent and must follow the lA teral provisions of existing regu- lations. Lee v. Board of Adjustment of City of Rocky Mount, 37 S.E.2d 128 (N.C. 1946). However, some jurisdictions have upheld the refusal to issue building permits while the new ordinance is pending. Chicago Title and Trust Company v. Palatine, 160 N.E.2d 697 (Ill.app. 1959). An important factor is whether an applicant's right to a building permit becomes vested at the time the application is filed (Hunter v. Adams, 180 Cal.App.2d 511 (Cal. 1960)) or whether it becomes vested after construction has begun. Brackett v. City of Des Moines, 67 N.W.2d 542 (Iowa 1954). Iowa follows the latter rule. There- fore, building permits could be revoked after the ordinance has been adopted if the permittee has not begun construction and thereby acquired a vested right. The difficulty lies in determining when he/she acquires a vested right. An important factor is the good faith of the parties. In Huff v. Des Moines, 56 N.W.2d 541 (Iowa 1952), the Iowa Court stated: Almost from the date of the building permit . . . and well prior to any change in the ordinance, appellants knew steps were being taken to restrict, if not prohibit, the construction of the park. In the fact of this they deliberately wont ahead with their project. We find no vested rights in appel- lant's nor equitable circumstances . . . At 57. In considering the reasonableness of an interim ordinance, the courts have considered not only its duration, but the progress of the study being made, its nearness to completion and the prospects for passage. Campana v. Clark, 197 A.2d 711 (N.J. Super. 1964). In Campania, the court held that thirty-one months was not unreasonable. In Darlington v. Board of Councilman, supra, the court upheld a two-year moratorium. obviously, the shorter the dura- tion of the interim control, the less likely it will be invalidated on unreason- ableness grounds. The City can certainly demonstrate that it has been preparing a new comprehensive plan and is acting in good faith. • 0 The restrictions should also be tailored as narrowly as possible, e.g., if residential uses will be cumulative, single family construction could be allowed during the moratorium; if a particular area will definitely remain unchanged, it could be exerted. WILLIAM L. REARDON WILLIAM i.SUEPPEL ROBERT N. DOWNER JAMES P. HAYES JAMES O. MCCARRAGHER THOMAS J. CILEN MARKT. HAMER THOMAS D.HOBART MARGARET T. LAINSON MEARDON, SUEPPEL. DOWNER & HAYES LAWYERS 100 SOUTH LINN STREET IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 City Council City Administration Building Iowa City, IA 52240 Re: Consolidated Properties Ladies and Gentlemen: October 10, 1977 TELEPHONE 330-8222 AREA CODE 310 The above client owns property north of North Dodge Street in the vicinity of the DX Service Station and Home Town Dairies. This property (which is commercially zoned at this time) has been the subject of many inquires and some offers from interested prospective purchasers. If the proposed moratorium is enacted it would certainly affect the market- ability of this property and would impair any prospective sale by reducing the value of it. It is the contention of my client that the proposed moratorium is illegal and this letter constitutes notice to the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that such an enactment may be the subject of litigation seeking the recovery of damages from the City of Iowa City, Iowa, for the owner. Very truly yours, r-- �lii Mea lion WLM /kj j i OC 12 51971 •ILIUIL JIOLFL)z, CITY CLERIC 39 MEARDON, SUEPPEL, DOWNER & HAYES WILLAM L. MCAROON LAWYERS WILLIAM F. SUEPPEL TELEPHONE ROBERT N. DOWNER 100 SOUTH LINN STREET JAMES P.HAYES )38.9222 --' IOWA CIT', IOWA 52240 AREA CODG316 JAMES O.MCCARRAGHCR -^ THOMAS J. CILCK _�,,^,, .' MARK T. HAMER _ ?") -" THOMAS D. HOBART October 10, 1977 MARGARET T. LAINSON i LJ City Council City Administration Building Iowa City, IA 52240 Re: Wayne Kempf - Ken Albrecht Ladies and Gentlemen: The above-named individuals, or partnerships in which they are in- volved, are the owners of the Social Services Building and a substantial amount of land located between Dodge and Governer Streets and north of Eagles Supermarket. This property is within the area designated as being subject to a moratorium. The purpose of this letter is to relay to you the objections of the above- named property owners to such a proposal and to indicate to you that we feel that such an enactment would be illegal and confiscatory. WLM/kjj Very truly yours, 1 OCT2 51977 1!'. fiTOLFU C1 i Y CLERK _ 1 r - _ I r i City Council y City Administration Building + Iowa City, IA 52240 1' Re: Home Town Dairies' Ladies and Gentlemen: The purpose of this letter is to protest the proposed moratorium involving the property of Home Town Dairies of 1109 North Dodge Street, Iowa City, Iowa. It is necessary that my client make its operation more efficient by re- arranging structures on its property which would enhance its appearance. Accordingly, my client has spent a considerable amount of time and money to, develop plans for this purpose and will submit them sometime within the near future for the purpose of obtaining building permits. The proposed moratorium would constitute a hardship for my client and its enactment would be unfair and discriminatory. This is especially true since a dairy has operated in this particular site for more than 40 years. The property is adjacent to a heavily traveled highway and in a commercial area. Any change in zoning which would make this property a nonconforming use or prevent its use for the purpose of operating a dairy would be confiscatory and constitute a "taking" of the property of my client for which compensation is required under the provisions of the Iowa Constitution. In addition to the foregoing, it is our contention that a moratorium as proposed would be illegal under the laws of the State of Iowa. Very truly yours, G rw�jh d " C / WLM/kjj OCT2 51977 1uL1� `;Ti U U6 MEARDON, SUEPPEL, DOWNER & HAYES WILLIAM L. MCARPON LAWYERS WILLIAM F. SUEPPEL TELEPHONE ROBERT N. DOWNER 100 SOUTH LINN STRCET JAMES P. HAYES 338-0222 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 AREA CODE 319 JAMCS 0. MCCARRAGHER THOMAS J. CILCK MARK T. HAMER THOMAS D. HOBART MARGARET T. LAIN50N October 10, 1977 _ 1 r - _ I r i City Council y City Administration Building + Iowa City, IA 52240 1' Re: Home Town Dairies' Ladies and Gentlemen: The purpose of this letter is to protest the proposed moratorium involving the property of Home Town Dairies of 1109 North Dodge Street, Iowa City, Iowa. It is necessary that my client make its operation more efficient by re- arranging structures on its property which would enhance its appearance. Accordingly, my client has spent a considerable amount of time and money to, develop plans for this purpose and will submit them sometime within the near future for the purpose of obtaining building permits. The proposed moratorium would constitute a hardship for my client and its enactment would be unfair and discriminatory. This is especially true since a dairy has operated in this particular site for more than 40 years. The property is adjacent to a heavily traveled highway and in a commercial area. Any change in zoning which would make this property a nonconforming use or prevent its use for the purpose of operating a dairy would be confiscatory and constitute a "taking" of the property of my client for which compensation is required under the provisions of the Iowa Constitution. In addition to the foregoing, it is our contention that a moratorium as proposed would be illegal under the laws of the State of Iowa. Very truly yours, G rw�jh d " C / WLM/kjj OCT2 51977 1uL1� `;Ti U U6 octooer 2j, ll,?/ To the members of the City Council of Iowa City: John Balmer Pat Foster :iary Ieuhauser David Perret Carol de Frosse i,= Selzer Hobert Vevera 0'i ABiJD,I ..J F. r, CITY C! :_;;r, We are writing to urge your support for the proposed moratorium on building permits for multi -family dwellings on the north side of the city. regardless of what your current attit6de may be towards a zoning change which would preserve the present character of this area more permanently, we feel that the public interest will best be served now by a vote for the moratorioum. No one will be irreparably„harmed if building permits are merely delayed for a'few months while a zoningch'ange is fully considered. If, then, the Council decrees that apartment building may proceed apace, developers will have only suffered^a relatively minor delay. If, on the other hand, the 'Zoni'ng Commission and then the Council, upon completion of their study, determine to change the zoning, but developers have been permitted to initiate construction in the interim, the damage to the present character of the neighborhood will not be correctible, and the pu.pose of the zoning change will have been partially thwarted. Therefore it seems clear to us that a moratorium at this time is highly desirable in Order to preserve the city's options. 'Anccrely, 316 Kimball Gond Iowa City 3989 Tuesday, Koveiubcr 1st, 1977 I'd like to start by introducing myself. I'm iiathleen ',.;urpiiy. My husband, James Liurphy, and I own ,.athleen's I.orner--a furniture business located at 532 K. Dodge :;t. 1Pe own the property at this location. For some time vie have been planning to expand our business facilities. To this end we purchased the two pieces of property next to our store at 532 N. Dodbe. Phe additional properties are 705 2. Church at. and 711 B. Church St. All of these properties are currently zoned C-2. Last spring we began to contact builders to dray; up plans, with construction to begin around January 1st, 1978. Because of the proposed building moratorium, vie have accelerated our building plans. Pie have submitted our plans and made application for a building permiit this aiternoon-- Pov. 1st. It will take about a week •to have these plans reviewed. rhe plans call for additional display space next to our present store, a storage uuilding and off-street parking. It should be noted that a retail furniture business does not generate a great deal of traffic. Such a business does, however, require a large amount of display space •to operate effectively. Since this property lies within the district covered by the proposed moratoriwm, vie feel that its passage would adversely affect us in the following ways: 1) If the moratorium delays our building plans for six months, we will suffer a 1015-25% increase in inflationary building costs --a significant amount of money. 0 0 P. 2 2) If the moratorium prevents us from building now, and our property is subsequently downgraded from its current C-2 zoning status, then all the time, money and effort invested in this business location to date will be lost, because we carniot continue to operate without additional space and building improvements. If the council feels it is appropriate to pass the IJorth East Side building moratorium, we ask that they make a provision exempting properties such as ours which are zoned for commercial use, which are currently being used commercially and for which specific buildinG plans have already been drawn up --plans which in no way relate to apartment construction, which is the main reason for the moratorium in the first place. Respectfully, liathleen ,durphy J It PROPOS SrdPT -77 R1A Sir, A. l� I:V Vit► 0 0 October 31, 1977 City Council Civic Center Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Gentlemen: I am a retired postal employee and my wife and I owned Jointly and lived in the property at 523 E. Church Street, Iowa City, Iowa, for more than 40 years. Mrs. Meyers died on August 30, 1977, and I decided to entertain offers for sale of the property. An apartment house is located adjacent to my property and there are several rental properties in the immediate area. The present zoning of the property would permit use of it for an apartment. Consequently, we placed a value reflecting that use in my wife's Estate and I had a number of prospective purchasers contact me over the past few months. However, when your proposed moratorium was made public, all interest in my property ceased. In view of the above, I feel that I have been damaged by your actions. This letter constitutes notice to you of this damage and if the moratorium is enacted as proposed and does not have a legal basis, I intend to present claim to you for my damages which, in any event, would amount to the interest on the selling price occasioned by your action. Is it not possible for you to exempt this property from the proposed moratorium in view of the unusual circumstances? I will appreciate hearing from one of your representatives within the immediate future. Very truly yours, John J. Meyers F�70 OCT3o11977 ABBIE STOLFUS CITY CLERK 3989 6 0 BARKER LAW OFFICE 311 IOWA AVENUE - P.O. BOX 2000 CHARLES A. BARKER IOWA CITY, IOWA R. SCOTT BARKER 52240 JOHN O. CRUISE MICHAEL W. KENNEDY November 1, 1977 To The Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Iowa City Iowa City, Iowa 52240 AREA CODE 319 TELEPHONE 351•BIBI Re: Proposed North Side Building Moratorium We represent Allen J. Wolfe who has recently purchased property located at 1110 North Dodge Street in Iowa City. This property is approximately across the street from the Hometown Dairy and is described as follows: Lot 4 in Block 3 in St. Matthias Addition. For your information the property is currently zoned to permit commercial development and was so zoned when the purchaser acquired it by real estate contract on June 29, 1977. You should further know that the purchaser immediately began planning for commercial development and has expended time, effort and funds from the date of purchase to date to that end. Please be advised that Mr. Wolfe is taking the position that the proposed moratorium is illegal as planned and that he is prepared to take whatever steps are necessary to protect his rights. This letter should be filed as a part of the official record on the public hearing in the above matter set for today. Ver tr y4ar Charles A. Bker CAB/dc F NOV '119 7' 1977 P ABBIESTOLFL;.. CITY CLERK 3989 . ORDINANCE NO. 77-2868 • '' AN ORDINANCE M41MING CHAPTER. 8.10, TIE ZONING ORDINANCE OF TIE MUNICIPAL CODE OP THE CI'T'Y OF IO;,A CITY, CT BY LIMITING CONSTRUCTION WITHIN A DESIGNATED AREA FOR A MAXIMUM PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS PENDING THE ENAcnI NT OF A NEW ZONING ORDINANCE - BE IT ORDAINED B1' THE CITY OF IaR CITY, IOM I SECTION 1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is t�irvvp de adequate time for the coopletion of the new Conprehensive Plan and the proposed Zoning ordi- nance, It will prevent construction of potential non- conforming uses that would frustrate the Plan which has been the product of extensive study by the City Council, various Comnissiones, staff and citi- zen participation. SECTION 2, AMENDMENTS. Section 8.10.4 is hereby amended by adding the following section: D. In order to provide sufficient time to complete the Comprehensive Plan and enact a new zon- ing ord., construction in the area hereinafter de- scribed shall be limited to the erection of single family dwellings or the conversion of single family dwellings to duplexes, and the repair but not ex- pansion of existing structures. The area affected by this interim ordinance is described as follows: Beginning at the center of the intersection of Dubuque and Brown proceeding southerly along the center line of Dubuque to the intersection with Jefferson, then proceeding easterly along the center line of Jefferson to the intersection with Governor, then proceeding northerly along the center line of Governor to the intersection with Dodge, then proceed- ing southerly along the center line of Dodge to the intersection with Brown, and then westerly along the center line of Brown to the point of beginning. The present CH zone beginning at the inter- section of North Dodge Street and Prairie du Chien Road; then north to St. John's Alley, then in a northeasterly direction to St. Matthias Alley, then southerly along St. Matthias Alley approximately 501, thence northeasterly to North Dubuque RDad, then southerly to the intersection of North Dubuque and Conklin Street; extended then south- westerly to Summit Street, thence Summit Street north to the point of beginning. SECTION 3. The Building Inspector is hereby author— ized to change the Zoning Map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon 3 989 Ord. #77-20 _2_ • the final passage, approval and publication of this Ordinance as provided by law, SECTION 4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and airy to certify a copy of this Ordnance to the County Records of Johnson County, Iowa, upon final passage, approval and publication as provided by law. SECTICN 5. EFPECPIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall became effective upon publication and shall remain in effect for six months or until the enactnent of a new zoning ordinance for the area herein des- cribed, whichever is sooner. Passed and adopted this lst day of November , 1977. MARY C. TURAUSER, MAYOR ATTEST; u".o J ABBIE STOLFCS, ci7y CLERK It was moved by deProsse and seconded by Perret that the ordinance be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENTi x Balmer x deProsse x T Foster x Neuhauser x T Perret x Selzer x T Vevera 1st consideration Moved by deProsse, seconded by Foster, that the rule Vote for Passage: requiring ordinances to be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the 2nd consideration meeting at which it is to be finally passed be Vote for Passage: suspended, the first and second consideration and vote be waived, and the ordinance be voted upon for Date of Publication final passage at this time. Ayes: deProsse, Foster, Neuhauser, Perret, Selzer, Vevera. Nays: none. Adopted, 7/0. RECEIVED X APPROVED BY .TRE LEGAL DEPARTMENT 01011 Aro M No, AWINrVAM AM11DING C1111 MUI 8.101 0 7.CCIIi,G OIOIRq)=- OF 711L KNICIPAI, M)G OF 7'IQ CI'1'y OF IOW> CITY, BY LIMITING MISMrTIM W171131I A DESIGIA7'1, ARM FOR A A9h.MUM PERIOD OF SIX Wtili IS PENDING 71M DMIM" OF A NMq ZCNAG ORi�I;JItiJCT•,. BE IT OMAINe) BY 71Ri CPPV OF 1Ct.4 CIN, IC6,Z',n SLLrICN 1. PURR -6L. The purpose of this ordinance is to rop vide aculeate time for the ocrjAction of the new Coaprchclnsive Plan and the proposed Zoning Ordi- nance, It will prevent construction of potential non- conforming uses that Mould fnhstrate tl:e Plan which has been the product of extensive stuiy ty the City Council, various Commissioner, staff and citi- zen participation. SIXTION 2. AM11nv MIN"I5. Section 8.10.4 is hereby arerd0d by adding the following section: D, In order to provide sufficient time to con- plete the Conprehensitt Plan and enact a now zoning ordinance, construction in the area here- irufter described sluill be limilod to the crr:- tion of single family dhellingsTiv_hrl the repair, but not expansion, of existing structures. f The area affected by this interim ordinance i,s describ-,d as follows: ,,Or'oR Beginning at the center of tt� intersr tion Of Dubhxlue and Rrv..an proceeding southerly along Ute crater line of Dutxrnnc to the intersection with Jefferson, then proceeding easterly along the center line of Jefferson to tar_ intersection with Governor, then proceeding P northerly along the center line of Crncror to the int:crsection with Dodge, then prcLecl- OCT 1 11,19%) ing southerly along the centrr line of n-dgc to the intersection with Brom, aiA ten A B B I E S TO L(' V westerly along the center line- of BM,n to CITY CLERIC the point of beginning. The present CII zone trginninq at Ur_ intcr- Section of North Dxige Street and Prairie du Chien Ri»d; then north to St. John's Al.lev, then in a northeasterly direction to St. Matthias Alley, telt southerly along St, Matthias Alley approximately 501, thence northeasterly to North Dubuque Road, then southerly to the intersection of North Ixilxr7ur acyl Conklin Strout; exteldcd the -n south- westerly to Summit Street; thence Sutnit Street north to the point of. lrginning. SI)MON 3, The Building Inspector is hrroby author- ized to change the Zoning Map of the City of. Iowa City, lana, to conform to this armnctrent upon f -2- • • the f11L11 pf155ngC, approval and pul;lication of flus O1dimance as provided by law, SDCPICN 4, The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of. this Ord mncr: to the County Records of Johnson County, Icaa, upon final passage, approval and publication as provided by law. Sfrrl(V 5, FTFx1'I\B DATT". 171is Ordimncc shn11 Eecuree Kf FtIve upon -pub ani shall remain in effect for six rmnths or until the enactrzent of a new zoning ordinance for the arca herein des- cribed, whichever is sconer. Passed and adopted this d-ly of 1977, wy C, m' 16'+US'R' 114y0R AMEM': PyTi SSMLFIIS, CITT CLLPA It was roved by and scmrxicd by that the Ordinance be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AIM: NAYS: ARSINF1 1st comsidcration Vote for Passage: 2nd consideration Vote for Passage; Date of Publication RECEIVED & -I'Rmz;D BY TIM LLCM. DLPAii7I:37T *city of Iowa CH* MEMORANDUM DATl: November 2, 1977 TO: Atty. John Ilayok FROM: City Clerk Abbic Stolfus RE: Moratorium After reviewing the action taken on setting the public hearing on the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, I have come to the following conclusions: Sept. 27th Council set public hearing for 10/25. Notice was not ready by publication date. Oct. 11th Council reset public hearing for 11/1. Ryan provided notice at 8:45 A.M. on 10/12, to meet publication deadline. Later that day a xerox copy of the ordinance was provided for me, which I must have added to the Council meeting folder of the 18th, which is where Vicki found it when indexing that meeting and packet. I also remember seeing it, as I remember thinking, after all that running around to make a copy available for Atty. White, (and we were so busy, and behind in indexing making it difficult to find anything requested from us) and we had it all the time. Vicki remembers me telling them this. When Atty. White asked for a copy, he says on the 18th, we couldn't find ours. I didn't even remember adding the Ord. to the meeting folder. We get many additions and reports on Council meeting days. We got a copy from Ryan who drafted it, and also made another copy for our office. While indexing, Vicki had noticed that the Ord. was not file - stamped, so she determined that altho it could have been filed anytime between the 12th and 14th, the 14th was the final date that is should be on file for examination by the public, so used that date for filing both the meeting folder copy and the second copy from Ryan. Atty. White was the first person requesting a copy, which altho was not file -stamped, was made available to him by our office which fulfills the requirement in the notice. If you have any questions, please advise.