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.