Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2019-09-17 Ordinance
Item Number: 10.a. +r P_ W�rm�M CITY O� IOWA CITY www.icgov.org September 17, 2019 Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 36.81 acres of land located south of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack Trail, from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) to Low Density Single - Family Residential (RS -5). (Pass & Adopt) ATTACHMENTS: Description Tamarack Ridge Traffic Evaluation Memo for 9-3 meeting PZ Staff Report Additional Memo to CM -Traffic Calming Neighborhood Correspondence to PZ Petition Submitted to PZ Additional Neighborhood Correspondence PZ Meeting Minutes 9/3 Mtg Correspondence to Council From Terry Protexter: Follow Up on City Council Meeting Ordinance & CZA r CITY OF IOWA CITY X1. MEMORANDUM Date: August 28, 2019 To: Geoff Fruin; City Manager From: Kent Ralston; Transportation Planner Re: Tamarack Ridge Traffic Evaluation At the August 201h Council meeting there was discussion about how the Tamarack Ridge rezoning will impact existing traffic and vehicle speeds on Hickory Trail; and whether the existing and proposed sections of Tamarack Trail should connect. The following provides more information on this issue. Using the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual (9`" Edition), staff estimates that the total traffic generated by the proposed (60) lots would produce approximately 571 trips per day to/from the development. The anticipated trips generated would either access N. 1St Avenue (via Hickory Trail) or Scott Boulevard (via the proposed connection of Tamarack Trail). For comparison, the existing Hickory Trail neighborhood has 121 households, and using the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition), generates approximately 1,152 trips per day using one access point. Provided the additional access to Scott Boulevard (via Tamarack Trail), the total additional vehicle trips using Hickory Trail would be nominal even when adding the proposed (60) lots. Figures 1-2 (below) outline the calculated trip generation and potential scenarios regarding the distribution of total neighborhood traffic. As shown in Scenario 1 (Figure 2), when 80% of the total neighborhood traffic (including the proposed 60 lots) is assumed to use Hickory Trail, and 20% is assumed to use the new Tamarack Trail access, the total additional traffic on Hickory Trail would be approximately 226 trips/day. Using the same distribution of traffic during the morning and evening peak hours, an additional 18 and 24 trips, respectively, would be expected on Hickory Trail. This equates to approximately one additional vehicle per three minutes during peak hours which would be imperceptible to most residents and would have minimal impact on overall level -of -service at the Hickory Trail / N. 1St Avenue intersection. In 2018, Scott Boulevard had an average daily traffic count of approximately 5,100 near the proposed connection of Tamarack Trail and N. 1St Avenue had an average daily traffic count of approximately 7,500 near the intersection of Hickory Trail (Iowa DOT). Given that the theoretical capacity of a two-lane arterial street is conservatively more than 14,000 trips per day, the additional traffic generated by the development alone will not over -burden Scott Boulevard or N. 1St Avenue as currently constructed. As discussed at the August 201h Council meeting, the intersection of N. 1St Avenue and Scott Boulevard currently experiences congestion during peak travel times. While the estimated additional trips from the development are relatively low compared with total average daily traffic volumes, any additional trips will have an impact on the intersection during peak hours. However, the City currently has a Capital Improvements Project scheduled for 2020-2021 to address this issue either by constructing a roundabout or by signalizing the intersection. Concerns were also raised with existing and future speeds on Hickory Trail. This issue will be addressed through a neighborhood traffic calming process. City staff are in receipt of a neighborhood petition and will begin working with the neighborhood to determine the level of support for traffic calming features. This neighborhood process will move forward regardless of August 28, 2019 Page 2 the outcome of the proposed development as dictated by the City's adopted Traffic Calming Program. At the August 20'h meeting, several council members discussed the merits of whether to connect the existing and proposed sections of Tamarack Trail. City Code 15-3-2: A(4) explicitly states that cul-de-sacs with a single point of access should be avoided. "Use of cul-de-sacs and other roadways with a single point of access should be avoided. Cul-de- sacs will be considered where it can be clearly demonstrated that environmental constraints, existing development, access limitations along arterial streets, or other unusual features prevent the extension of the street to the property line or to interconnect with other streets within or abutting the subdivision." Staff does not see any compelling demonstration of why the existing and proposed sections of Tamarack Trail should not be connected as proposed. Figure 1 — Trip Generation for Existing & Proposed Trips Land Use Time of Day Trip Generation Figure (210) Number of units Total Trips Generated Single -Family Residential Existing Trips Daily 9.52 trips/unit 121 1152 AM Peak Hour 0.75 trip/unit 91 PM Peak Hour 1 trip/unit 121 136 91 +18 PM Peak Hour 145 36 181 121 +24 Single -Family Residential Proposed Trips Daily 9.52 trips/unit 60 571 AM Peak Hour 0.75 trip/unit 45 PM Peak Hour 1 trip/unit 60 Daily 1206 517 1723 1152 +54 AM Peak Hour 95 41 Single -Family Residential Total Trips Daily 9.52 trips/unit 181 1723 AM Peak Hour 0.75 trip/unit 136 PM Peak Hour 1 trip/unit 181 Figure 2 — Trip Distribution Scenarios for Existing & Proposed Trips at Hickory Trail Access Hickory Trail Access Tamarack Trail Access Total Existing & Difference Between Proposed Existing Trips at Existing & Proposed Traffic Hickory Trail Trips at Hickory Generated Access Trail Access Scenario 1 + Existing Trips Delta Daily 1378 345 1723 1152 +226 AM Peak Hour 109 27 136 91 +18 PM Peak Hour 145 36 181 121 +24 Scenario2 + Existing Trips Delta Daily 1206 517 1723 1152 +54 AM Peak Hour 95 41 136 91 +4 PM Peak Hour 127 54 181 121 +6 Scenario 3 + Existing Trips Delta Daily 1034 689 1723 1152 -118 AM Peak Hour 82 54 136 91 -9 PM Peak Hour 109 72 181 121 -12 Scenario4 + Existing Trips Delta Daily 862 862 1723 1152 -291 AM Peak Hour 68 68 136 91 -23 PM Peak Hour 91 91 181 121 -31 To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ19-08 Tamarack Ridge GENERAL INFORMATION: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner Date: July 18, 2019 Applicant: TRD, LLC 221 E Burlington St Iowa City, IA 52240 319-631-1894 aic1974@outlook.com Property Owner: Doug Paul 319-331-4113 Requested Action: Rezoning from Interim Development Single - Family Residential (ID -RS) zone to Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5) zone. Purpose: Development of single-family housing Location: South of Scott Blvd and North of Tamarack Trl Location Map: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: District Plan: Neighborhood Open Space District: Public Meeting Notification: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: K 36.81 Acres Undeveloped, Interim Development Single - Family Residential (ID -RS) North: ID -RS — Interim Development Single - Family Residential South: RS5 — Low Density Single -Family Residential East: ID -RS — Interim Development Single - Family Residential ID -RP — Interim Development Research Park West: ID -RP — Interim Development Research Pa rk ORP — Office Research Park Zone Conservation Design Northeast District, Single -Family NE1 Property owners located within 300' of the project site received notification of the Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting. Rezoning signs were also posted on the site. June 27, 2019 August 12, 2019 The applicant, TDR, LLC has requested a rezoning from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) zone to Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5) zone for 36.81 acres of land south of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack Trail. The applicant has also submitted an application for a preliminary plat for this area. The preliminary plat will be discussed at a future Planning and Zoning Commission meeting; however, the preliminary plat is attached to show the intended subdivision design. The applicant has used the good neighbor policy. A good neighbor meeting was held on Monday, June 10. The summary of the meeting is attached. ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: The property is currently zoned Interim Development — Single Family 3 Residential (ID -RS). The Interim Development zoning designation applies to undeveloped properties without access to City services. The ID -RS zone district allows for nonurban uses of land, specifically crop -related agricultural uses. At this time a rezoning could occur due to the availability of existing City water and sanitary sewer service. Proposed Zoning: The applicant has proposed rezoning 36.81 acres to Low Density Single - Family Residential (RS -5). The RS -5 zone is primarily intended for single-family housing. The zone allows for some flexibility in housing types. For example, duplexes on corner lots. This zone also allows for some nonresidential uses, such as parks, schools, religious institutions, and daycare facilities. In terms of dimensional requirements, the minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet, the maximum height is 35 feet, and the minimum lot width (measured at the 15 -foot front setback line) is 60 feet. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan has designated this area for Conservation Design. The Conservation Design land use designation is applied to areas containing steep slopes, woodlands, or other sensitive features. The Northeast District Plan identifies this area for single-family residential development. The RS -5 zone is consistent with the general intended land uses and vision identified in the comprehensive plan and the Northeast District Plan. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The project site is located south of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack Trail. The area to the north, west, and east remains undeveloped. The area to the south and southwest is single-family residential development that is zoned RS -5. The proposed rezoning will extend the RS -5 zone district further north and continue the single-family development pattern. Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The site contains several sensitive areas, including critical and protected slopes and woodlands. The preliminary plat indicates that the development will disturb 12% of the critical slopes and none of the protected slopes. The City's sensitive areas ordinance allows the disturbance of up to 35% of critical slopes before a level II sensitive areas review is required. In terms of woodlands, the preliminary plat indicates that the development will meet the retention requirement of 50% per the sensitive areas ordinance. Table 1 provides a summary of the woodlands. Table 1. Woodlands Summa The City's sensitive areas inventory also identifies this area as having potential archaeological resources. The applicant has contracted with the Office of the State Archaeologist who is currently conducting an archaeological study. Despite the presence of sensitive features, a Planned Development Overlay (OPD) rezoning is not required because per the preliminary plat the applicant is not exceeding the requirements of the sensitive areas ordinance and is not requesting any modifications FA to zoning or subdivision code requirements. Traffic Implications and Access: Using the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manuai(91 Edition), staff estimates that the total traffic generated by the proposed (60) lots would produce approximately 571 trips per day to/from the development. The anticipated trips generated would either access N. 1St Avenue (via Hickory Trail) or Scott Boulevard (via the proposed connection of Tamarack Trail). For comparison, the existing development that accesses N. 1St Avenue via Hickory Trail has approximately 121 households and produces approximately 1,152 trips per day using one access point. Provided the additional access to Scott Boulevard (via Tamarack Trail), the total trips accessing N. 1St Avenue would likely be reduced even when adding the proposed 60 lots. In 2018, Scott Boulevard had an average daily traffic count of approximately 5,100 near the proposed connection of Tamarack Trail and N. 1" Avenue had an average daily traffic count of approximately 7,500 near the intersection of Hickory Trail (Iowa DOT). Given that the theoretical capacity of a two-lane arterial street is conservatively more than 14,000 trips per day, the additional traffic generated by the development alone will not over- burden Scott Boulevard or N. 1St Avenue as currently constructed. Currently, the intersection of N. 1St Avenue and Scott Boulevard experiences congestion during peak travel times. While the estimated additional trips from the development are relatively low compared with total average daily traffic volumes, the additional trips will have an impact on the intersection during peak hours. However, the City currently has a Capital Improvements Project scheduled for 2020 to address this issue either by constructing a roundabout or by signalizing the intersection. Additionally, staff proposes two conditions to reduce traffic speeds along the extension of Tamarack Trail: 1) At the time of final platting, payment of a tree planting fee at a cost of $500 per tree for the plantings of street trees within the public right-of-way. Trees will generally be located every 30' with modifications allowed due to drive -way distances. The Parks and Recreation Department will be responsible for identifying the appropriate locations for the trees and planting the trees; and 2) General compliance with the preliminary plat in that traffic calming measures, like the traffic circles, are incorporated into the final design of the extension of Tamarack Trail. Neighborhood Parkland of Frees in -Lieu of: Open space dedication or fees in lieu of are addressed at the time of subdivision. Based on the 36.81 acres of RS -5 zoning, the developer would be required to dedicate 0.79 acres of land or pay fees in -lieu. Due to the proximity of Calder Park, which is 0.3 miles from the southern edge of the project site, an in -lieu fee payment would be appropriate. Storm Water Management: Storm water management will be addressed during the subdivision process. The applicant has submitted plans for storm water management with the preliminary plat application, which will be finalized at final platting. Next Steps: Upon recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be scheduled for consideration of the application by the City Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission will also review the preliminary plat at 5 an upcoming meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ19-08, a proposal to rezone approximately 36.81 acres of property located south of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack Trail from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) to Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5), subject to the following conditions: 1) At the time of final platting, payment of a tree planting fee at a cost of $500 per tree for the plantings of street trees within the public right-of-way. Trees will generally be located every 30' with modifications allowed due to drive -way distances. The Parks and Recreation Department will be responsible for identifying the appropriate locations for the trees and planting of the trees. 2) General compliance with the preliminary plat in that traffic calming measures, like the traffic circles, are incorporated into the final design of the extension of Tamarack Trail. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Aerial Photograph 3. Preliminary Plat 4. Good Neighbor Meeting Summary Approved by: p p d a d m i n \stf re p\d o c u m e nt2 Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services PRELIMINARY PLAT & SENSITIVE AREAS SITE PLAN TAMARACK RIDGE IOWA CITY, IOWA LEGAL DESCRIPTION BEING A PART OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2019027 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 62 AT PAGE 399 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW' ) AND SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 4) OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL 20109027, THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID PARCEL S01°24'49"E, 1824.28 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL S87°08'19"W, 644.61 FEET, THENCE S88°03'52"W, 299.26 FEET; THENCE NO3°23'42"W, 1140.29 FEET; THENCE N35°56'44"E, 599.09 FEET; THENCE N18°30'51"E, 240.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SCOTT BOULEVARD; THENCE 61.79 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A 955.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE SOUTH (CHORD BEARING N86°43'55"E, 61.78 FEET); THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE N88°36'04"E, 476.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 36.81 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. o� I �Ep� E87 R m l I POINT OF BEGINNING n I NE CORNER OF AUDITOR'S RS -50 1 n 1 I PARCEL 20109027 -- - S01 24 49 E _ 1,824;28 I I _ - ix x - x_ x 9'x -x x - x _-] �X x x x x x x x x ,III _F I , I I _I 1 40 41 � 42 0 43 0 44 a 45 47 ry 135(l 36 0 37 0 3S 39 o d.33AC / 0.35 AC 0.26 AC 0.26 AC 0.26 AC 0.26 AC 0.26 AC 0.23 AC 0.24 AC 0.26 AC `� I 0.26 AC ` I 0.27 AC `� I 0.30 AC 1� I / o�0.3 aj cp _ �- _ ° 65- yy ZS' 20' 36' 34' 70' .. 70' �0 70 o��zl i 95' SIM CURVE TABLE CURVE # LENGTH RADIUS DELTA CHORD DIR. CHORD LEN. Cl 61.79 955.00 3°42'25" N86° 43' 55"E 61.78 PROJECT VICINITY MAP -CITY OF IOWA CITY OPROJECT 5 15 * THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING A 25' FRONT SETBACK 0.047 2. THIS PROPERTY LIES WITHIN FEMA PANEL 19103CO215E (2/16/2007). THERE ARE NO MAPPED FLOODPLAINS ON THIS PROPERTY. 3 3. THERE ARE PROTECTED SLOPES WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT. A BUFFER EQUAL TO 2 TIMES THE HEIGHT OF THE SLOPE IS PROVIDED. 0.007 LOCATION 0.007 CRITICAL SLOPE CALCULATION AREA (SF) AREA (ACRES) PERCENTAGE NDUBUQUE RD 12% NON -IMPACTED SLOPES 169,310 3.88 70% NON -IMPACTED SLOPES IN PROTECTED SLOPE BUFFER 42,537 0.98 18% CRITICAL SLOPES (PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT) 240,464 5.52 100% 5. THERE ARE WOODED AREAS WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT. CONSERVATION EASEMENTS ARE PROPOSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESERVING PORTIONS OF THE WOODED AREAS. PER IOWA CITY CODE, A MINIMUM OF 50% OF THE EXISTING WOODLANDS MUST BE PRESERVED. 0.011 WOODLAND PRESERVATION CALCULATION AREA (SF) AREA (ACRES) PERCENTAGE o° 27% BUFFER (50' WIDE) 171,460 3.936 21% PRESERVED WOODLAND 415,297 9.534 w w N COMMUNICATIONS PEDESTAL © ID COMMUNICATIONS MANHOLE z a o 0 2 E- F- UTILITY POLE 0 UI w O � UTILITY POLE WITH LIGHT OC5 LIGHT POLE Z Q Q O Y ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER [El 10 FIBER OPTIC HANDHOLE = Q ro FIBER OPTIC MANHOLE FO Fo GAS VALVE ® N SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE SS D SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT ® 0 II - "o) STORM SEWER INTAKE ®® ® ® 0 HYDRANT Ak WATER VALVE o EVERORE N rq T tizC� 9i� leek �� C ® e WATER MANHOLE OW Ow A� RaCston Creek W 0 0 D aR G ACCO 9L��A� y U q �� ROG�'`ES `�s GOG�R��� L z I Jun 27, 2019 - 11:15am S: NOT TO SCALE y Plats 190042 PrelimPlat.dw6 w1�Trc_ 1. ZONING AND ASSOCIATED MINIMUM LOT INFORMATION AREAS FOLLOWS: LOT PROPOSED MINIMUM MINIMUM MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACKS NUMBERS ZONING FRONTAGE WIDTH AREA FRONT SIDE REAR ALL RS -5 45' 60' 8,000 SF 15* 5 15 * THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING A 25' FRONT SETBACK 0.047 2. THIS PROPERTY LIES WITHIN FEMA PANEL 19103CO215E (2/16/2007). THERE ARE NO MAPPED FLOODPLAINS ON THIS PROPERTY. 3 3. THERE ARE PROTECTED SLOPES WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT. A BUFFER EQUAL TO 2 TIMES THE HEIGHT OF THE SLOPE IS PROVIDED. 0.007 4. THE TOTAL PERCENTAGE IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPE IS LESS THAN 35% OF THE TOTAL. 0.007 CRITICAL SLOPE CALCULATION AREA (SF) AREA (ACRES) PERCENTAGE IMPACTED SLOPES 28,617 0.66 12% NON -IMPACTED SLOPES 169,310 3.88 70% NON -IMPACTED SLOPES IN PROTECTED SLOPE BUFFER 42,537 0.98 18% CRITICAL SLOPES (PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT) 240,464 5.52 100% 5. THERE ARE WOODED AREAS WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT. CONSERVATION EASEMENTS ARE PROPOSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESERVING PORTIONS OF THE WOODED AREAS. PER IOWA CITY CODE, A MINIMUM OF 50% OF THE EXISTING WOODLANDS MUST BE PRESERVED. 0.011 WOODLAND PRESERVATION CALCULATION AREA (SF) AREA (ACRES) PERCENTAGE DISTURBED WOODLAND 219,157 5.031 27% BUFFER (50' WIDE) 171,460 3.936 21% PRESERVED WOODLAND 415,297 9.534 52% WOODLAND (PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT) 805,914 18.501 100% 6. THERE ARE NO STREAM CORRIDORS WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT. 7. ALL PROPOSED WATERMAIN TO BE 8". ALL PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER TO BE 8". IMPACTED QUANTITIES: CRITICAL SLOPES LOCATION AREA (AC) 1 0.047 2 0.052 3 0.057 4 0.007 5 0.007 6 0.198 7 0.004 8 0.072 9 0.109 10 0.024 11 0.037 12 0.011 13 0.030 - , - _"- n,- _ - -So -So - TOTAL 0.657 ,sp��0 Q� WOODLANDS LOCATION AREA (AC) 14 0.029 15 0.055 16 0.507 17 3.110 18 0.398 19 0.931 - E - E - FIBER OPTIC TOTAL 5.031 LEGEND: EXISTING PROPOSED UTI LITI ES EXISTING PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS (Lo) -(co) -coco- OVERHEAD LINE (OH) IDH -off oH- ELECTRIC (E) (E) - E - E - FIBER OPTIC E@ Fm -Fo-Fo- GAS G) G) - G - G - SANITARY SEWER a -ss -ss - STORM QST) (ST) -ST -ST - SUBDRAIN - , - _"- n,- _ - -So -So - WATER: DOMESTIC (W) (u) -W-W- COMMUNICATIONS HANDHOLE 12 �' COMMUNICATIONS PEDESTAL © ID COMMUNICATIONS MANHOLE PREPARED BY: GUY WIRE ANCHOR E- F- UTILITY POLE 0 UI w O � UTILITY POLE WITH LIGHT MICHAEL J. WELCH, PE LIGHT POLE Z Q ELECTRIC MANHOLE O O ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER [El 10 FIBER OPTIC HANDHOLE FO ro FIBER OPTIC MANHOLE FO Fo GAS VALVE ® N SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE SS • SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT ® 0 STORM SEWER MANHOLE ST "o) STORM SEWER INTAKE ®® ® ® 0 HYDRANT Ak WATER VALVE CURB STOP ® e WATER MANHOLE OW Ow SITE EXISTING PROPOSED CONTOUR - INDEX 100 100 CONTOUR - INTERMEDIATE 101 - iv FENCE: BARB WIRE -,-x-.- - - - -•-•-•-•-•-•-•- FENCE: CHAIN LINK - FENCE: CONSTRUCTION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - FENCE: WIRE -„-„-„-„-„-„-„- -„-„-„-„-„-„-„- FENCE: WOOD a SILT FENCE STREAM CENTERLINE SHRUBBERY CITY CLERK DATE SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN 12 �' TREE: DECIDUOUS SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN PREPARED BY: TREE: CONIFEROUS SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN SIGN 0 UI w O � SENSITIVE AREAS AREA BUFFER CRITICAL SLOPE (25-40%) IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPE (25-40%) PROTECTED SLOPE (> 40%) LLLL-L WOODLAND PRESERVATION IMPACTED WOODLAND KEY NOTES: 20' DRAINAGE AND STORM SEWER EASEMENT © 15' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT © CONSERVATION EASEMENT HATCHED AREA REPRESENTS AREA INCLUDED IN WOODLAND RETENTION CALCULATION f_% I I T I f -%-r . OUTLOT SIZE (AC) INTENDED USE A 11.32 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT & CONSERVATION EASEMENT ROW 3.43 RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATED TO CITY * OUTLOT A IS TO BE MAINTAINED AND OWNED BY HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION. OWNER / APPLICANT: TAMARACK DEVELOPMENT, LLC JOE CLARK 221 E. BURLINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52240 APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY: JOHN BEASLEY 321 E. MARKET ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245 0 N N r � Zr -I J � M 0N7 O ` U Oz VU U O X Q w w z t� z w w F - Q v v'1 O(D z L7 = zU LL. O ao 0 U V) w 0 w LU LU O LU_ U LU >Q 0 DC 0 U w = U a Q Q z 2 U Q O a z LU U z = 2U APPROVED BY THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA Q �� v w w QLU a J CITY CLERK DATE 12 �' w � o O z PREPARED BY: AXIOM CONSULTANTS, LLC Q - UI w O � MICHAEL J. WELCH, PE z Z Q a 60 E. COURT STREET w cwi) m N UNIT 3 z w w z p IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 w z Q 7 w = r1 V) PRELIMINARY PLAT TAMARACK RIDGE IOWA CITY, IOWA 4 501° 24' 49" E 1,824.28' I ' ' / _ 71 71'102 x -- - 7 �4 2 40'39' 38'' 74' - �' _ 41 � � 42 - 43 � � 44 � � 45 � 46 � � 47 / ,v - \ 350 36 0 37 0 38 0 39 0 40 0 0.35 AC 0.26 AC 0.26 AC 0.26 AC 0.26 AC 0.26 AC 0.23 AC 0.24 AC 0.26 AC I 0.26 AC I 0.27 AC I 0.30 AC I / rn / 0.36 4 AC - \ - 1 _ \ 1 Io49 rpvv 1 � 0.35 AC 50 M �i �� �/� w N �\ �� L- - - - - - - - - �,- - - - 5; L1 2S' 20 70' 70' 36' 34' _ / 0.39 AC m m m m ( 6 / 51 I 95' 70 �0 70 7 70 1 9 52 �. TAMARACK_TR IL - - - - - � , � - Is 52 15 31" 11,26 4a\ / - - 0.49 AC/ 60\ v 3 54 59 \ / 5 3 5 5 5 6 �'S�� 158 \ L - O-� 02 C\ I 061 AC o O� \ I i_ J - SS SS S, - SS SS - 70' - 7 - 65' 95' 70' 70' . Lu LU Dzw V) .,.�0.29 A Y U Ul)V o� LL, �Cc � z z G Q c� z G w "Q 0 w w N z / 7 9 - II � . 4 AC 33 � 0.32 AC _ 0.32 AC F _ � A0.32 AC _ 0.32 AC- _ 0.32 AC _ 0.29 AC x ';0 .3 3 U III/ \ o� m Ln I \ I r'6 3 1 0.47 AC / / 0.44 AC 0.44 AC 0.45 AC 0.45 AGS 0.54 AC \ .5 A 1 00- 7 6 792 0 2 74 ---- 1 1 2 74' 74 �s I f A =s 76, / 0.29 AC 9 77' N-)/ O 7 0.26 AC - OJ'O � J 1\ \ 70' 70 I / / 7 \// � 0.27 Acyyyl�l _ _ I J \ \\ 20 \ \\ \\ - - I 0133 Ac \ �5;� `- I / ( l 2 -^ \ I . I 3 N- \ \ - 'STORM WATE / - T RM WAT R _ I I \ ,� _ N 1 � - � � I , / I - � NAGEME \ \ \ \ \ x MANAGEME _ s - �' 0 5 AC 1 o.4s AC - 0.43 AC �0.4o N \ \ BASIN I I I I I kSIN \ ry) rI \ , 03VAC' 1 0.33 A �99, _97' 96' 181 94' CI 0.31 A 9, -�- lo At 0. &UTL�T/ ti 1 I_ 1s �I III N I \ � I � � \ \\ a - \11.32 AC0.36 AC\ \ M h/ 6 \s0114 mw '90 AGEM � �/ / / BASIN r \ o.79 Ac l / ) / / F \ 0.64 AC__ _ oo \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \148'\1 2-3 1,140.29 /\. 3:w 3�w Oz Oz_ 0' J D_' -:i 60' TYPICAL 26' ROADWAY SECTION NOT TO SCALE I Jun 27, 2019 - 11:15am S: 0 N N 0 Z J � m -- 0 NOZ U Oz V° U 0 X Q w LU Z z LU w H Q Ln LU (7 z Q U Li0 z O I- CL U V) LU 0 w LU z w U Ol J ■i O LU cV w � 0 . Lu LU Dzw V) .,.�0.29 A Y U Ul)V o� LL, �Cc � z z G Q c� z G w "Q 0 wQ U w N z z r'6 3 1 0.47 AC / / 0.44 AC 0.44 AC 0.45 AC 0.45 AGS 0.54 AC \ .5 A 1 00- 7 6 792 0 2 74 ---- 1 1 2 74' 74 �s I f A =s 76, / 0.29 AC 9 77' N-)/ O 7 0.26 AC - OJ'O � J 1\ \ 70' 70 I / / 7 \// � 0.27 Acyyyl�l _ _ I J \ \\ 20 \ \\ \\ - - I 0133 Ac \ �5;� `- I / ( l 2 -^ \ I . I 3 N- \ \ - 'STORM WATE / - T RM WAT R _ I I \ ,� _ N 1 � - � � I , / I - � NAGEME \ \ \ \ \ x MANAGEME _ s - �' 0 5 AC 1 o.4s AC - 0.43 AC �0.4o N \ \ BASIN I I I I I kSIN \ ry) rI \ , 03VAC' 1 0.33 A �99, _97' 96' 181 94' CI 0.31 A 9, -�- lo At 0. &UTL�T/ ti 1 I_ 1s �I III N I \ � I � � \ \\ a - \11.32 AC0.36 AC\ \ M h/ 6 \s0114 mw '90 AGEM � �/ / / BASIN r \ o.79 Ac l / ) / / F \ 0.64 AC__ _ oo \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \148'\1 2-3 1,140.29 /\. 3:w 3�w Oz Oz_ 0' J D_' -:i 60' TYPICAL 26' ROADWAY SECTION NOT TO SCALE I Jun 27, 2019 - 11:15am S: 0 N N 0 Z J � m -- 0 NOZ U Oz V° U 0 X Q w LU Z z LU w H Q Ln LU (7 z Q U Li0 z O I- CL U V) LU 0 w LU z w U Ol J r -I O LU cV w � 0 0 Lu LU Dzw V) o ww U Y U Ul)V o� z J U J WQ U w w 1 LU O 0 DC O DC Y U Q J a LL, �Cc � z z G Q c� z G w "Q 0 wQ U z U r J U w w O a :� z Q J �o z o 0L (D U a rn a z w 0 m N Q Q z w :2 LL z z O w w w N z z AXIOMCONSULTANTS CIVIL • STRUCTURAL - MECHANICAL • ELECTRICAL • SURVEY • SPECIALTY MEMORANDUM PROJECT: Tamarack Ridge (190042) DATE: July 10, 2019 TO: Anne Russett — City of Iowa City SUBJECT Good Neighbor Meeting Summary A Good Neighbor meeting was held on June 10, 2019 for the Tamarack Ridge Development. Invitations were mailed to each household located on Tamarack Trail, Hickory Trail, Hickory Place, Cypress Trail, Bluffwood Drive, and Evergreen Court. This exceeds the 300 -foot requirement, but the development team felt it was important to make all those potentially impacted aware of the project. The meeting was held at First Presbyterian Church of Iowa City located at 2701 Rochester Avenue in Iowa City. The meeting lasted from 5:30pm until 7:00pm and an open house format was used. In addition to myself, the developers, Joe Clark and Doug Paul, were present. We had two large concept plans laid out for the neighbors to review and Doug, Joe, and I answered questions and provided an overview of the development. The meeting was well attended; however, only one of the meeting attendees signed in on the available sign in sheet. The concerns expressed by the neighbors can be summarized as follows: - What will be proposed zoning be? Will there be multi -family development? - The proposed single-family lots are narrower than those currently on Tamarack Trail. At time of the meeting the narrowest lots were 68 -feet wide. Will this negatively impact the property values for the existing residents? - The proposed side yard setbacks are only 5 -feet (consistent with city RS -5 zoning). Will houses being built closer together have a negative impact on the character of the existing neighborhood? - There will be additional traffic on Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail as the new residents travelled south to 1St Avenue rather than north to N. Scott Boulevard. - Will the extension of Tamarack Trail to N. Scott Boulevard encourage drivers to cut through the neighborhood to avoid the 4 -way stop and N. Scott Boulevard and 1 st Avenue? - Will the existing wooded areas be removed or cleared for the development? - Some neighbors were under the impression that the land within the proposed development was part of a preservation area and could not be developed. Other neighbors expressed support for the project and were please to learn that the development would be RS -5 single- family zoning, would preserve wooded areas within the conservation easements, and would incorporate traffic circles along the extension of Tamarack Trail to provide traffic calming measures and discourage traffic from traveling too fast through the neighborhood. Sincerely, Michael J" Welch, PE Associate Principal r CITY OF IOWA CITY X1. MEMORANDUM Date: August 1, 2019 To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner Re: Tamarack Ridge Rezoning — Traffic Calming On July 18, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of a rezoning from Interim Development — Single Family Residential (ID -RS) to Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5) for approximately 36.81 acres south of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack Trail subject to the following conditions: Owner shall develop a landscaping plan that identifies the location and species of 75 right-of-way trees to be planted by Owner or its successor(s) in interest along Tamarack Trail. Said trees shall be planted prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each lot, or, if said certificate of occupancy is issued during a poor planting season, by May 31 following issuance the certificate of occupancy. Said landscaping plan shall be approved by the City Forestry Division prior to the approval of any final plat subdividing any of the above-described real estate. Said landscaping plan shall include a diverse mix of trees planted generally 30' apart, though the City recognizes that exact locations may vary depending on driveway locations, signage and other utility conflicts. Final location and species of the trees shall be approved on a lot -by -lot basis prior to issuance of a building permit for each lot; and 2. Substantial compliance with the preliminary plat in that the traffic circles are incorporated into the final design of the extension of Tamarack Trail. The applicant has agreed to these conditions, which were proposed by staff due to concerns related to traffic speeds. Considering the existing topography, sensitive areas, and development constraints, street connections to the west and the east of the proposed development are highly unlikely. Without these connections the block length is longer than desired, which results in concerns related to travel speeds. Therefore, staff is recommending the following to help reduce speeds on the proposed extension of Tamarack Trail: 1. A curb -to -curb width of 26 feet, which is the minimum allowed per code. This will be addressed through the platting process. 2. In addition to the traffic circle that exists at the end of Tamarack Trail, two additional traffic circles along the proposed extension of Tamarack Trail. This is addressed through the proposed conditions. 3. Street trees planted in the right-of-way, which are identified as a speed reduction mechanism by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). This is also addressed through the proposed conditions. The traffic circles will be the most effective means of reducing speeds. These physical barriers in combination with the reduced pavement width and the street trees will help address staff's concerns related to travel speeds. From: James Broffitt <jbroffitt@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2019 1:44 PM To: Anne Russett Subject: Re: Tamarack Ridge (REZ 19-08) CORRECTION... The widest front measurement is 163'. -On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 1:38 PM James Broffitt <ibroffitt mail.com> wrote: Dear Ms. Russett; Thank you for the invitation to contact you regarding the extension of Tamarack Trail. My wife and I currently reside at 1078 Tamarack Trail. Our home is the last one at the north end of this street on the east side. While I do not object to extending the street and adding houses, I am concerned with the widths of the proposed lots. I don't have a list of the widths of these new lots; however, I understand they are on the order of 65. This figure was communicated orally by Doug Paul, the land owner. There are currently 23 houses on Tamarack Trail. I listed the widths of the fronts of these lots. The narrowest is 80.78', the widest is 124' and the median width is 90'. The widths of the proposed lots are substantially less than the current lots on Tamarack Trail, and I believe this inconsistency will be detrimental to this area. I respectfully request that the expansion not be approved until the property lines are reestablished so that the lot widths are more in line with existing lots on Tamarack Trail. Sincerely, Jim Broffitt Jim Broffitt 'brofitt@gmail.com (319) 530-4710 (cell) Jim Broffitt jbroffitt@gmail.com (319) 530-4710 (cell) 1 Anne Russett From: Regina Block <ragbiock@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 6:08 PM To: Anne Russett Cc: Bob Subject: Planning &Zoning Commission - new development off Tamarack Trail -- Please read before -Thursday's meeting! Dear Ms. Russett: My husband and I own a lot at 1049 Tamarack Trail and got an invitation to the upcoming meeting on Thursday and also visited with the developers recently and saw the plans. We both want to express our wishes to the Planning and zoning Commission to Iowa City to not have Tamarack Trail be a through street. We understand there are other people in our neighborhood who feel the same. It would make a lot of us happy if we could preserve the privacy of our neighborhood and keep the traffic as is rather than have an increase in traffic. Please consider this option which would involve changing the developer's plans at the current end of Tamarack Trail, such that there might be cul-de-sacs on each side. We will not be able to attend the meeting on Thursday, but would like to express our strong desire to keep Tamarack Trail a very quiet street. Thank you. Robert and Regina Block Regina (Gina) Block owners of lot at 1049 Tamarack Trail email: ragblockOgmail.com July 16, 2019 Dear Planning and Zoning Commission Members, Regarding the proposed Tamarack Ridge subdivision, i would like to present a concern and a solution. I am a 24 -year resident of Hickory Trail and am concerned about increased Hickory Trail traffic from the 61 homes in the proposed Tamarack Ridge subdivision. Hickory Trail, a local residential street, saw increased traffic and increased traffic speeds with the 2004-2007 construction of Tamarack Trail. Further lengthening Tamarack Trail and adding an additional 61 houses is not compatible with Hickory Trail's character as a local residential street. The combined Hickory Trail -Tamarack Trail would be a mile -long thoroughfare lined with over 100 homes with no gridwork of intersections to calm traffic. This problem can be avoided and the local neighborhood feel of Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail can be maintained by a simple solution: The Tamarack Ridge subdivision should enter and exit from Scott Blvd., and have no physical connection with the current Tamarack Trail. The current Tamarack Trail ought to be capped at the north end with a house. Building Tamarack Ridge with entrance and exit to Scott Blvd., and with no connection to the existing Tamarack Trail, is a win-win solution for the City of Iowa City, the landowner, the developer, and the residents of Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail. A new Tamarack Ridge subdivision with many new homes would be built, but traffic increases on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail would be prevented The Hickory Trail neighborhood has had only one entrance for over 30 years. There is no need for an additional entrance. Please request a different plan in which the Tamarack Ridge subdivision exists as a separate entity on Scott Blvd. Thank you for your service on the Planning and zoning Commission. Sincerely, Mary Anne Berg 2775 Hickory Trail Iowa City, IA Petition The undersigned residents have been made aware of the proposed new Tamarack Ridge development connecting to the north end of Tamarack Trail. Concerns arise regarding the volume of new homes created and the resulting increased traffic on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail. As proposed, Hickory and Tamarack Trails, which currently serve 95 homes plus a 16 -unlit condo building, would form a mile -long thoroughfare serving 154 homes plus the 16 -unit condo building, with no residential gridwork of .. intersections for traffic control and no alternative routes to diffuse traffic. Traffic to downtown Iowa City and N. 151 Avenue would primarily exit the neighborhood at Hickory Trail and VAvenue, an already burdened intersection. We request that: 1) the city study the current and projected traffic situation on Hickory Trail prior to approving this project z) the city insure that the quality of the Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail neighborhoods are not harmed by increased traffic from the new development. 3) The city pursue options to mitigate the issues presented by the new development, including diverting Tamarack Ridge traffic from Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail through physical separation such as a gate or cul-de-sacs separating the neighborhoods Neighborhood residents in agreement with this petition: Name Address: q�07 I Name: 42a�� Address: Name: Address: 1A1, fd�e n Name -dress: Add q22lv��'e Name ! �,r.a Address: I rtc `' �/• Name Address: 1Q Races w ink V Name:r�� Address: p i4wre rte., Cf� Name: Address: eve-Irtc-eer, t 1C -GQ Name:�c dress: 4 q Petition The undersigned residents have been made aware of the proposed new Tamarack Ridge development connecting to the north end of Tamarack Trail. Concerns arise regarding the volume of new homes created and the resulting increased traffic on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail. As proposed, Hickory and Tamarack Trails, which currently serve 95 homes plus a 16 -unit condo building, would form a mile -long thoroughfare serving 154 homes plus the 16 -unit condo building, with no residential gridwork of intersections for traffic control and no alternative routes to diffuse traffic. Traffic to downtown Iowa City and N. 1st Avenue would primarily exit the neighborhood at Hickory Trail and 11 Avenue, an already burdened intersection. We request that: 1) the city study the current and projected traffic situation on Hickory Trail prior to approving this project 2) the city insure that the quality of the Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail neighborhoods are not harmed by increased traffic from the new development. 3) The city pursue options to mitigate the issues presented by the new development, including diverting Tamarack Ridge traffic from Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail through physical separation such as a gate or cul-de-sacs separating the neighborhoods Neighborhood residents in agreement with this petition: Name: Address: lod �l Name: - Address: a4o����dSS Name: &Ivy Ccon2-5 Name: '1111,4 r4 Name: Nar�Ve: Name's 6 Address: $ib C�Press C�F .p ' G Address: y�PVCS' Address: 2 f V7 A V Address: �'Z 4xlfO�; /�� . Name/y/ {I'y', 1{` 1 Address: Name: dress: 4 Petition The undersigned residents have been made aware of the proposed new Tamarack Ridge development connecting to the north end of Tamarack Trail. Concerns arise regarding the volume of new homes created and the resulting increased traffic on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail. As proposed, Hickory and Tamarack Trails, which currently serve 95 homes plus a 16 -unit condo building, would form a mile -Tong thoroughfare serving 154 homes plus the 16 -unit condo building, with no residential gridwork of . intersections for traffic control and no alternative routes to diffuse traffic. Traffic to downtown Iowa City and N. V Avenue would primarily exit the neighborhood at Hickory Trail and V Avenue, an already burdened intersection. `� ) (D We request that: i) the city study the current and projected traffic situation on Hickory Trail prior to approving this project 2) the city insure that the quality of the Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail neighborhoods are not harmed by increased traffic from the new development. 3) The city pursue options to mitigate the issues presented by the new development, 'including diverting Tamarack Ridge traffic from Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail through physical separation such as a gate,,or cul-de-sacs separating the neighborhoods Neighborhood residents in agreement with this petition: Name: L V4�J 4t-)64--- Address: '(D Name: ✓ d v� ; Name: e:r', cc.1�e Name: Address: o -2_T - Address: Address: 4 063 1 �.MUACk- __FKA+ I Address: /0,O ®Y�.. Jr_;J; / e3,. ,.�_ cess: P ,) 0 Name. Name: r Name: Address: Address: /0M J&WAJd(-,1 Address: �0 3 S _ 7-etARVAZZA V 0. q Petition The undersigned residents have been made aware of the proposed new Tamarack Ridge development connecting to the north end of Tamarack Trail. Concerns arise regarding the volume of new homes created and the resulting increased traffic on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail. As proposed, Hickory and Tamarack Trails, which currently serve 95 homes plus a 16 -unit condo building, would form a mile -long thoroughfare serving 154 homes plus the 16 -unit condo building, with no residential gridwork of intersections for traffic control and no alternative routes to diffuse traffic. Traffic to downtown Iowa City and N. 1"t Avenue would primarily exit the neighborhood at Hickory Trail and 1' Avenue, an already burdened intersection. We request that: 1) the city study the current and projected traffic situation on Hickory Trail prior to approving this project 2) the city insure that the quality of the Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail neighborhoods are not harmed by increased traffic from the new development. 3) The city pursue options to mitigate the issues presented by the new development, including diverting Tamarack Ridge traffic from Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail through physical separation such as a gate or cul-de-sacs separating the neighborhoods Neighborhood residen in agreement with this petition: Name: , Address: 3S_ 7 L -V, Te Name:���s�� Af0/74Z 4j0,47 Name: Name: ; ®'t'A� Ky'17 r Name: 1 L C y0 —CA � Name:¢� y,,,, ; +`�� ��Io Name:$tik $ S AW Name:' Address:%7j 0 Address: �,� �A'iLKOPy et Address: )a �Aoy'`r Oac e_ Address:,2- g 6 -,7/-/' /" /'/" Address: llq b �� aN Tyres Address: Address: Name: _7LV_l rr� 6' Yl OAX 1 101'6 lCk- `` Address: -r%b Petition The undersigned residents have been made aware of the proposed new Tamarack Ridge development connecting to the north end of Tamarack Trail. Concerns arise regarding the volume of new homes created and the resulting increased traffic on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail. As proposed, Hickory and Tamarack Trails, which currently serve 95 homes plus a 16 -unit condo building, would form a mile -long thoroughfare serving 154 homes plus the 16 -unit condo building, with no residential gridwork of intersections for traffic control and no alternative routes to diffuse traffic. Traffic to downtown Iowa City and N. tat Avenue would primarily exit the neighborhood at Hickory Trail and 1A Avenue, an already burdened intersection. We request that: 1) the city study the current and projected traffic situation on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail prior to approving this project 2) the city insure that the quality of the Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail neighborhoods are not harmed by increased traffic from the new development. 3) The city pursue options to mitigate the issues presented by the new development, including diverting Tamarack Ridge traffic from Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail through physical separation such as a gate or cul-de-sacs separating the neighborhoods Neighborhood residents in agreement with this petition: Addres� me: Address: N e: Address: V HxAA, �� .�c 7—Z q5o Name:Address:��� ZNa?e: Address: �w BIILA� `off Name:` Address: 'OV, OL 948 �f' �°' r - •� Name: Address: $S Name: Address: Name: Address:y` 1 � 6�fi?z-_4� � � ` c. 9 _" I biz Petition The undersigned residents have been made aware of the proposed new Tamarack Ridge development connecting to the north end of Tamarack Trail. Concerns arise regarding the volume of new homes created and the resulting increased traffic on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail. As proposed, Hickory and Tamarack Trails, which currently serve 95 homes plus a 16 -unit condo building, would form a mile -long thoroughfare serving 154 homes plus the 16 -unit condo building, with no residential gridwork of intersections for traffic control and no alternative routes to diffuse traffic. Traffic to downtown Iowa City and N. 1A Avenue would primarily exit the neighborhood at Hickory Trail and 1-t Avenue, an already burdened intersection. We request that: 1) the city study the current and projected traffic situation on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail prior to approving this project 2) the city insure that the quality of the Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail neighborhoods are not harmed by increased traffic from the new development. 3) The city pursue options to mitigate the issues presented by the new development, including diverting Tamarack Ridge traffic from Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail through physical separation such as a gate or cul-de-sacs separating the neighborhoods Neighborhood residents in agreement with this petition: Name: Yisfi Tr) r V,) Address: -Z-7s5 L "� �v� Gh�►" Name: LJh1^-' J 224S Address: -- j,.,_G�G � Name: �(�' ,V9Y_41 y Address: �,q A4': fid V � Name �l� J 0�1 Address: 2*3,1 Name: �"'t Address:,S�;:tGJ26 Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Petition The undersigned residents have been made aware of the proposed new Tamarack Ridge development connecting to the north end of Tamarack Trail. Concerns arise regarding the volume of new homes created and the resulting increased traffic on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail. As proposed, Hickory and Tamarack Trails, which currently serve 95 homes plus a 16 -unit condo building, would form a mile -long thoroughfare serving 154 homes plus the 16 -unit condo building, with no residential gridwork of intersections for traffic control and no alternative routes to diffuse traffic. Traffic to downtown Iowa City and N. 1d Avenue would primarily exit the neighborhood at Hickory Trail and 1�, Avenue, an already burdened intersection. We request that: 1) the city study the current and projected traffic situation on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail prior to approving this project 2) the city insure that the quality of the Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail neighborhoods are not harmed by increased traffic from the new development. 3) The city pursue options to mitigate the issues presented by the new development, including diverting Tamarack Ridge traffic from Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail through physical separation such as a gate or cul-de-sacs separating the neighborhoods Neighborhood residents in agreement with this petition: Name: rD 2c tir,L I ,ekt ��,,�-Address• Name: �.�`Address: Name: CEIA_Atjarw Address: Z(.61 IMCOL 1 11M, 9c,01A 52 -.-Ir Name:AV OA lel VM A&ddress: 7-62—, —ro-A l t , Name: Address: �N5 C� P ( Caro. P_'_� fPL' F Name: 6,ejr �� Address: � (CrYcD `� Tft 1'(. ,J Name: ft[)6� VRn I" 5 Address: �'r}C �_dq -FKa Name: �-i 1( kd ( e L"045 Address: 21, 7f 4� r -- Name: ,J Ae, d,')) i n Address: 27� 4 -H Petition The undersigned residents have been made aware of the proposed new Tamarack Ridge development connecting to the north end of Tamarack Trail. Concerns arise regarding the volume of new homes created and the resulting increased traffic on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail. As proposed, Hickory and Tamarack Trails, which currently serve 95 homes plus a 16 -unit condo building, would form a mile -long thoroughfare serving 154 homes plus the 16 -unit condo building, with no residential gridwork of intersections for traffic control and no alternative routes to diffuse traffic. Traffic to downtown Iowa City and N. 1-t Avenue would primarily exit the neighborhood at Hickory Trail and 1-t Avenue, an already burdened intersection. We request that: 1) the city study the current and projected traffic situation on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail prior to approving this project 2) the city insure that the quality of the Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail neighborhoods are not harmed by increased traffic from the new development. 3) The city pursue options to mitigate the issues presented by the new development, including diverting Tamarack Ridge traffic from Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail through physical separation such as a gate or cul-de-sacs separating the neighborhoods Neighborhood residents in agreement with this petition: ) `J Name: , 5,L Address: .2V 0 ,,4C/ d , y. 1iZh Name: 4,1,a,/'VGc.�Address: pD 1 �. �� Il N7 _ I Name: M" Name: 10.4 4�a� Name: _hVA Y4 Name • -OLUD-1- 77 MCI, NaZ�k Name: Name: a Address: c L_© R Address: Address: 1 r , Address: Address: Address: tz Address: ,.9 2 0 S— )H':r-C Et: GAY TgA rl- Petition The undersigned residents have been made aware of the proposed new Tamarack Ridge development connecting to the north end of Tamarack Trail. Concerns arise regarding the volume of new homes created and the resulting increased traffic on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail. As proposed, Hickory and Tamarack Trails, which currently serve 95 homes plus a 16 -unit condo building, would form a mile -long thoroughfare serving 154 homes plus the 16 -unit condo building, with no residential gridwork of intersections for traffic control and no alternative routes to diffuse traffic. Traffic to downtown Iowa City and N. la Avenue would primarily exit the neighborhood at Hickory Trail and 1-1 Avenue, an already burdened intersection. We request that: 1) the city study the current and projected traffic situation on Hickory "frail and Tamarack Trail prior to approving this project 2) the city insure that the quality of the Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail neighborhoods are not harmed by increased traffic from the new development. 3) The city pursue options to mitigate the issues presented by the new development, including diverting tamarack Ridge traffic from Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail through physical separation such as a gate or cul-de-sacs separating the neighborhoods Neighb rhood residents in agreement with this petition: Name: QA� Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Petition The undersigned residents have been made aware of the proposed new Tamarack Ridge development connecting to the north end of Tamarack Trail. Concerns arise regarding the volume of new homes created and the resulting increased traffic on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail. As proposed, Hickory and Tamarack Trails, which currently serve 95 homes plus a 15 -unit condo building, would form a mile -tong thoroughfare serving 154 homes plus the 16 -unit condo building, with no residential gridwork of . . intersections for traffic control and no alternative routes to diffuse traffic. Traffic to downtown Iowa City and N. V Avenue would primarily exit the neighborhood at HickoryTrail and 11 Avenue, an already burdened intersection. We request that: 1) the city study the current and projected traffic situation on Hickory Trail prior to approving this project 2) the city insure that the quality of the Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail neighborhoods are not harmed by increased traffic from the new development. 3) The city pursue options to mitigate the issues presented by the new development, including diverting Tamarack Ridge traffic from Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail through physical separation such as a gate or cul-de-sacs separating the neighborhoods Neighborhoodresidentsin agreement with this petition: Name:1"i{Ov-�1 lV�Ii� rlf�Vdress: �3� (k, Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Petition The undersigned residents have been made aware of the proposed new Tamarack Ridge development connecting to the north end of Tamarack Trail. Concerns arise regarding the volume of new homes created and the resulting increased traffic on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail. As proposed, Hickory and Tamarack Trails, which currently serve 95 homes plus a 16 -unit condo building, would form a mile -long thoroughfare serving 154 homes plus the 16 -unit condo building, with no residential gridwork of intersections for traffic control and no alternative routes to diffuse traffic. Traffic to downtown Iowa City and N. V Avenue would primarily exit the neighborhood at Hickory Trail and 1st Avenue, an already burdened intersection. iI ` We request that: 1) the city study the current and projected traffic situation on Hickory Trai!prior to approving this project 2) the city insure that the quality of the Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail neighborhoods are not harmed by increased traffic from the new development. 3) The city pursue options to mitigate the issues presented by the new development, including diverting Tamarack Ridge traffic from Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail through physical separation such as a gate or cul-de-sacs separating the neighborhoods Neighborhood residents in agreement with this petition: Name: Address: Name: tp dress: /E> 1 .� Name:MCADlbh Address: Namei Y Address: Q.� F� Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: From: Danielle Sitzman Sent: Friday, August 09, 2019 3:43 PM To: Anne Russett; Kellie Fruehling Subject: FW: Tamarack Trail continuance Attachments: As residents of Tamarack Trail 52245 we would like to request that you seriously consider several issues concerning the continuation of Tamarack Trail into a proposed subdivision called Tamarack Ridge.docx -----Original Message ----- From: j.kardos@mchsi.com [mailto:j.kardos@mchsi.com] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2019 3:15 PM To: Susan Mims <Susan-Mims@iowa-city.org>; Jim Throgmorton <Jim-Throgmorton@iowa-city.org>; Danielle Sitzman <Da nielle-Sitzma n@iowa-city.org> Subject: Tamarack Trail continuance As residents of Tamarack Trail we attach for your information our statement of concerns about the continuance of Tamarack Trail, which is currently being considered by the Planning and Zoning commission. Thank you for your attention, Jan and John Kardos, 956 Tamarack Trail, 52245 As residents of Tamarack Trail 52245 we would like to request that you seriously consider several issues concerning the continuation of Tamarack Trail into a proposed subdivision called Tamarack Ridge. After attending the July 181h Planning and Zoning Commission meeting we are convinced that more professional and in depth studies need to be made regarding the viability of connecting a new 60+ lot subdivision to the existing HickoryTrail/ Tamarack Trail subdivision. 1. Our primary concern is that the traffic from the proposed subdivision (60 units implies at least 120 vehicles) would increase traffic on the original Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail to a dangerous level. These streets are too narrow and curvy to accept the extra traffic. Besides, all cars travelling from the new subdivision would be entering the old subdivision as the road slopes downhill ending in a dangerous curve at Hickory Trail. The Planning Commission's proposal to plant a canopy of trees in the new subdivision "to slow traffic" has no practical validity. Will the canopy be there within the next 30-50 years? Besides, the current utilities in our subdivision are in the tree line between the street curb and the sidewalk. Where would the new subdivision locate its canopy? It goes without saying that most traffic going out of the new subdivision will be heading south on Tamarack because that is the direction toward downtown Iowa City business, cultural, educational, and religious locations. This traffic will not only be going down Tamarack but likely will also be returning on Tamarack. 2. The City claims that all subdivisions must have 2 exits. Our subdivision has existed for 30 years with one exit. If anyone had ever proposed a need for another exit, a much more used exit would be connected to Rochester Ave. Traffic from our subdivision through the new subdivision would be miniscule. As you can see on the aerial photos even residents on the existing Tamarack Trail have very little reason to go north. The rest of the subdivision would be going out of their way to go to Scott via the extension. 3. Drainage issues are the second serious concern. We would like to see more professional studies on where the rainwater drainage from the new subdivision would travel and collect. Drainage over Hickory Trail sidewalks already exists at several locations... especially visible in winter where icy areas form regularly. To the highly taxed residents of our subdivision it seems that all the disadvantages of a Tamarack Trail continuance are subject to us: the loss of the current level of privacy, the extra traffic and resulting safety concerns for our children, as well as, the extra drainage concerns. Not to mention the distinct possibility that if the continuance is approved we will be subject to a very longtime dealing with construction vehicles passing through the neighborhood for as long as it takes to build 60 new residences. We and the residents of our subdivision have been strong supporters of Iowa City, the University of Iowa, the Iowa School district, Hickory Hill Park, Meals on Wheels and the Harvest Preserve to mention a few ways we interact with the city. We feel we deserve more consideration for our obvious concerns about this issue. Jan and John Kardos, 956 Tamarack Trail Anne Russett From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Sent from my Phone Begin forwarded message: Danielle Sitzman Monday, August 12, 2019 11:03 AM Anne Russett Fwd: Tamarack Trail - Tamarack Ridge Development Concerns Traffic Flow Distances & Time Factors-maps.pdf, ATT00001.htm From: "terryprotextor@email.com" <terryorotextor@gmaiI.com> To: "Jim Throgmorton" <Jim-Thro morton Iowa-ci .or >, "Bruce Teague" <Bruce-Teague@iowa- city.org>, "John Thomas" <John-Thomas@iowa:citv.ore>, "Danielle Sitzman" <Danielle-Sitzman_@iowa- city.org> Subject: Tamarack Trail - Tamarack Ridge Development Concerns We reside at 1007 Tamarack Trail and would like to request that you seriously consider several issues concerning the continuation of Tamarack Trail into the proposed subdivision called Tamarack Ridge. After attending the July 18th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, we are convinced that a more in-depth studies need to be undertaken regarding the viability of connecting a new 60+ lot subdivision to the existing Hickory Trail/ Tamarack Trail subdivision. Our primary concern is that the traffic from the proposed subdivision (60 units implies at least 120 vehicles) would increase traffic on the original Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail to a dangerous level. The streets are too narrow and curvy to accept the extra traffic. Cars travelling from the new subdivision would be entering our subdivision as the road slopes downhill ending in a dangerous curve at the Tamarack/Hickory Trail corner. This additional traffic though our neighborhood would impact the safety of our neighborhood's children and bicycle traffic. Having lived in our subdivision for over 20 years, we understand the traffic flow. Most traffic going out of the new subdivision will be heading south on Tamarack to 1st Avenue then on to HyVee, City High, Regina, UI, UIHC, downtown Iowa City businesses, cultural, educational, and religious locations. This traffic will likely also be returning via Tamarack Trail. If the new development's traffic does go north on the new development's street to Scott Boulevard, it would add an additional 0.50 to 1.25 miles to access the destinations mentioned above. Common sense tells you that people will take the shortest distance to these locations. This is contrary to the City staff s suggestion that it would reduce traffic through our neighborhood. There's no doubt that there will be a bottleneck, even if only 60+ cars exit our subdivision at Hickory Trail and 1st Avenue. There are already issues with morning traffic trying to get onto 1st Avenue and backed up at the stoplight of Rochester and 1st Avenue. There has been no comprehensive traffic study done by either the city staff or the developer on the traffic flow impact from Hickory Trail onto 1st Avenue. The information provided in the City staff's recommendation is not based on a "study", simply estimates based on old traffic counts. The new development only needs the north access to Scott Boulevard for traffic to leave the subdivision. We have attached a document and map, which illustrates the travel distances and traffic flow options. 2. City staff states that all subdivisions must have two exits for fire and safety. Our subdivision has existed for 30 years with only one exit, without any problems. Let's look at the facts. The distance to the fire station on Scott Blvd and Dodge Street from 1.077 Tamarack Trail, (the last house on our Tamarack Trail street), via Hickory Trail, North on 1st Ave to the Scott Boulevard/Dodge Street is 1.5 miles. The distance from that same address north through the new subdivision to Scott Boulevard is 1.35 miles distance. We're talking about a difference of 0.15 miles or 792 feet. That's less than a five second response difference for an emergency vehicle traveling 40 miles an hour to get to that home. Therefore, the two -egress access safety logic is flawed and irrelevant. There are numerous neighborhoods throughout Iowa City with only one egress, i.e. the Peninsula, a gated Lexington Avenue and numerous cul-de-sac streets throughout Iowa City. We have attached a document and map, which illustrates the fire/safety travel distances and travel time for emergency vehicles. City Staff has stated that a cul-de-sac at the south end of the new development's street is not an option. Clearly the City Code does allow for exceptions. The "..should be avoided.." language is not an absolute statemen. As stated in Iowa City Code - Chapter 3, 15-3-2 Streets and Circulation, paragraph 4: "Use of cul-de-sacs and other roadways with a single point of access should be avoided. Cul-de-sacs will be considered where it can be clearly demonstrated that environmental constraints, existing development, access limitations along arterials streets, or other unusual features will prevent the extension of the street to the property line or to interconnect with other streets within or abutting to the subdivision." Our request to not connect Tamarack Trail to the new subdivision meets all of factors outlined in the paragraph's last sentence. I Drainage issues are the third serious concern. We would like to see a more professional studies on where the rainwater drainage from the new subdivision would travel and collect. Drainage over Hickory Trail sidewalks already exists at several locations. We're concerned about the three stormwater basins in the new subdivision. There is a 20 -foot elevation drop from the top to the bottom of the new subdivision. The basins drain into our subdivision and the property to the west through small ravines. We hope the civil engineers are correct about the drainage. We have a petition signed by 74 homeowners against connecting our Tamarack Trail street to the new development. As highly taxed subdivision residents, it seems that all the disadvantages of a Tamarack Trail continuance falls on us; the loss of the current level of privacy, the extra traffic and resulting safety concerns for our children, and the protracted construction vehicles traffic passing through the neighborhood for as long as it takes to build 60 new residences. Our recommendation is that the Tamarack Trail street does not connect to the new development. We recommend that the south end of the new development's street have a cul- de-sac abutting our Tamarack street's exiting north cul-de-sac. The abutted cul-de-sacs would have sidewalks to allow for pedestrian traffic between the subdivisions. This will provide families with access to the park in our subdivision. We and the other residents of our subdivision have been strong supporters of Iowa City, the University of Iowa, the Iowa School district, Hickory Hill Park, and the Harvest Preserve to mention a few ways we interact with the city. We feel we deserve more consideration for our obvious concerns about this issue. We hope the Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council and city staff will be "Citizen friendly" and "neighborhood friendly" in their decision process. Thank you for allowing us to share our positions and concerns on connecting our Tamarack Trail to the new development. Sincerely, Terry & Vicki Protextor 1007 Tamarack Trail 3 n] m �?. 'o m Ind 16 0 L 2 n WOMM A n] L 2 n ' ® s '. i A 40 t I MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION J U LY 17, 2019 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Max Parsons, Billie Townsend MEMBERS ABSENT: Phoebe Martin, Mark Signs STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Welch, Joe Clark, Terry Protextor, Steven Polyak, Mary Ann Berg, Knute Carter, Michelle Edwards, Claude Laroche, Debra Brandt, Jan Kardos, Stephen Locher, Ruth Bradley (2669 Hickory Trial) RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ19-08, a proposal to rezone approximately 36.81 acres of property located south of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack Trail from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) to Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5), subject to the following conditions: 1. 90 street trees will be installed, either by payment of a tree planting fee at a cost of $500 per tree for the plantings of street trees within the public right-of-way or through installation prior to certificate of occupancy as determined though staff and developer negotiation. Trees will generally be located every 30' with modifications allowed due to drive -way distances. The Parks and Recreation Department will be responsible for identifying the appropriate locations for the trees. 2. Compliance with the preliminary plat in that traffic calming measures, like the traffic circles, are required and incorporated into the final design of the extension of Tamarack Trail. CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Dyer moved to elect Hensch as Chair. Parsons seconded the motion and the vote passed 5-0. Hensch moved to elect Parsons as Vice Chair. Townsend seconded the motion and the vote passed 5-0. Parsons moved to elect Signs as Secretary. Townsend seconded the motion and the vote passed 5-0. Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 2 of 14 PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CASE NO. REZ19-08: Applicant: TRD, LLC Location: South of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack Trail An application submitted by TRD, LLC for a rezoning of approximately 36.81 acres of property located south of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack Trail from Interim Development Single - Family Residential (ID -RS) to Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5). Russett began the staff report with a map of the proposed rezoning area. The property is currently zoned Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and most of the area around the proposed rezoning is also zoned ID -RS except the area to the south and southwest where there is an existing single-family neighborhood that is zoned RS -5. In addition to the proposed rezoning, the applicant has also submitted an application for a preliminary plat for this area which will be discussed at a future Planning & Zoning meeting. The applicant also held a good neighbor meeting in June, the meeting was well attended as the applicant sent out invitations beyond the required distance in the good neighbor policy. All the neighbors along Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail were invited. Russett next showed the preliminary plat and sensitive area map to show the general layout of the proposed lots as well as the sensitive areas. She noted there are two areas staff analyzes for rezonings, the first is compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan has designated this area for Conservation Design due to the areas containing steep slopes, woodlands, or other sensitive features. The Northeast District Plan identifies this area for single- family residential development. The RS -5 zone is consistent with the general intended land uses and vision identified in the comprehensive plan and the Northeast District Plan. The second criteria staff looks at is compatibility with the existing neighborhood. Most of the area around the proposed rezoning is undeveloped, however to the south is an existing single-family residential neighborhood so this project would extend that single-family residential neighborhood further north to Scott Boulevard. Russett noted there are some environmentally sensitive features on the site which include critical and protected slopes. Based on the preliminary sensitive area plan the proposed development would disturb around 12% of the critical slopes and the Code allows for disturbance of critical slopes up to 35%. The project is also showing no protective slopes being impacted. With regards to the woodlands on the site, 18.5 acres, and the Code has a retention requirement of 50% of woodlands to be preserved and remained. The proposed preliminary plat shows that 52% of the woodlands would be preserved with the development. Russett added there is also the potential for archaeological resources and the applicant is working with a consultant on an archaeological study. In terms of traffic implications and access Russett stated the preliminary plat identifies 60 single- family lots as well as the extension of Tamarack Trail to Scott Boulevard. Staff estimates the extension of Tamarack Trail and the additional access point to Scott Boulevard could reduce total trips accessing North 1 sc Avenue to the west. Scott Boulevard and North 1 sc Avenue are both arterials and have the capacity to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 3 of 14 proposed development. During peak hours there is congestion at North 1 st Avenue and Scott Boulevard and the City is proposing improvements at that intersection, which is budgeted in the 2020 Capital Improvements Program to address the congestion issues. The preliminary plat does show Tamarack Trail extending to Scott Boulevard, due to the topography and heavy terrains street extensions to the west and east of this development are not feasible which will result in a longer block length. With those longer block lengths staff has concerns with traffic travel speed and therefore the preliminary plat does incorporate components to help reduce those speeds. One is reduced curb to curb paving of the roadway to 26 feet which is the minimum allowed by the Code and the other is the incorporation of traffic circles to reduce speed. To further address concerns to speeding staff proposes two conditions: 1. At the time of final platting, payment of a tree planting fee at a cost of $500 per tree for the plantings of street trees within the public right-of-way. The Parks and Recreation Department will be responsible for identifying the appropriate locations for the trees and planting of the trees. Parks and Recreation Department will not be responsible for watering or upkeep on the trees. Staff is proposing 90 trees along the public right-of-way. 2. General compliance with the preliminary plat in that traffic calming measures, like the traffic circles, are incorporated into the final design of the extension of Tamarack Trail. Russett noted the benefits of street trees as it relates to traffic calming, the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) identity street trees as a speed reduction mechanism. Street trees can create vertical walls within a roadway creating a physical and psychological barrier for drivers that result in lower speeds compared to non -treed streets. Adding these street trees will also help achieve the vision in the North District Plan to create a pleasant streetscape to slow down traffic and encourage bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Russett acknowledged staff has received several calls and correspondence related to this proposed rezoning, she handed out three emails to the Commission that she received after the publication of the agenda packet. The concerns in the emails are primarily related to the preliminary plat and the extension of Tamarack Trail as well as width of the proposed lots. In terms of next steps, upon recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be scheduled for consideration of the application by the City Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission will also review the preliminary plat at an upcoming meeting. Staff recommends approval of REZ19-08, a proposal to rezone approximately 36.81 acres of property located south of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack Trail from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) to Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5), subject to the following conditions: 1. At the time of final platting, payment of a tree planting fee at a cost of $500 per tree for the plantings of street trees within the public right-of-way. Trees will generally be located every 30' with modifications allowed due to drive -way distances. The Parks and Recreation Department will be responsible for identifying the appropriate locations for the trees and planting of the trees. 2. General compliance with the preliminary plat in that traffic calming measures, like the traffic circles, are incorporated into the final design of the extension of Tamarack Trail. Hensch asked if something is found on the archeological survey what happens to the project. Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 4 of 14 Russett said it depends on the result, it is possible to require a planned development overlay rezoning and need to come back for a new approval. Hensch is concerned about the traffic calming condition and feels it is very vague and wondered if there was a way to make sure whatever recommendation the City has about traffic calming must be adopted. Hektoen stated staff has reviewed the preliminary plat and it reflects the recommendation regarding traffic calming, but they could change the language to drop general compliance and specifically state inclusion of traffic circles. Baker asked about road width on Tamarack Trail, if the proposed curb to curb distance is 26 feet for the new road. Russett said it is 28 feet, so it will narrow just a bit. Baker also commented on the estimated number of trips per day and asked if there were any traffic studies that could anticipate north/south traffic. Russett said that is usually done through an estimate traffic engineers and transportation planners would come up with, it may be 50/50 but would be an estimate. Finally Baker asked about the trees as a traffic slowing device and how trees would slow down traffic. Russett stated if trees are planted in the right-of-way and closer to the roadway they can create a canopy and a visual wall for the driver. There are studies that demonstrate drivers do slow down and drive slower on tree -lined streets as it creates a sense of the driver being enclosed and not so open. Baker asked if there would be on street parking allowed. Russett said parking would be allowed on one side of the street. Dyer questioned whether the outlots are suitable to have trails in them and access from the road. Russett stated that Outlot A shown on the preliminary plat is very steep but she can't answer for certain if it would be appropriate. Dyer noted some developments the Commission has approved has had a walkway between the houses so people could get to the wild areas and wondered if that was possible in this development. Hensch asked what the percent of grade was on the protected slopes. Russett replied 40% or greater. Parsons asked when Tamarack Trail was constructed. Russett is unsure, Dyer believes maybe five years ago. Hensch opened the public hearing. Mike Welch (Axiom Consultants) is representing the applicant. Generally speaking they agree with staff's findings, and when they look at what was available from a practicality standpoint for the preliminary plat compared to the North District Plan they feel they are putting a lot less density in the development than what was shown in the North District Plan. He noted that Tamarack Trail is stubbed to the north, the water main and sanitary sewer are all set to extend so it seems as this development is consistent with the intentions of the previous development and the overall North District Plan. Hensch thanked the applicant for inviting neighbors from the surrounding area, more than just the 300 feet, to the good neighbor meeting. He added the report of the meeting was also very Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 5 of 14 well written and appreciated by the Commission. Hensch noted on the Comprehensive Plan it notes multifamily on the north side but this proposal is only single-family. Welch confirmed that is correct. Welch also noted the concept plan they presented at the good neighbor meeting did show 61 lots but after the feedback from neighbors on lot widths they did reevaluate and changed it to 60 lots. Dyer asked about the access to the undeveloped land and if any of it was suitable for trails. Welch replied that most of the area is very steep but on the east side, there are some woods in the southeast corner in a conservation easement and the lots extend back into that easement. On the west side the lots all back up to Outlot A which will be owned by the subdivision so depending on how the covenants is written there could be access granted to that area. Dyer reiterated that in some developments there is access between a couple lots to get back to the undeveloped area. Hensch asked if the stormwater management basins will be dry most of the time. Welch confirmed those are designed as dry bottom basins. Hensch asked if they do fill will they have controlled drainage off or just stay full and evaporate out. Welch said it is restricted drainage out, they will meet City Code on the release. Welch acknowledged there was concerns it would drain out to the backyards on Tamarack Trail but the way the grades are it will go further west into the ravines and cross Hickory Trail by 1St Avenue. Hensch asked if the City Engineer has signed off on all the stormwater plans. Welch said they have submitted preliminary plans and tomorrow they will submit a response to the preliminary plat and will include responses to the stormwater plans. Parsons asked since Scott Boulevard is an arterial street had they considered a variety of housing, especially close to Scott Boulevard, such as townhouses or duplexes or any of that mixture. Welch said it was considered briefly, but right now there is a demand for single family lots, especially in this part of town, so the developer chose to go that direction. Joe Clark (359 Green Mountain Drive) is one of the developers of this land, he wanted to talk about the condition regarding the trees. It is a new concept for everyone, but he has no problem with the condition, neither of the conditions, he wants it to be safe and for traffic to go slow. He would like to set it up the trees in the covenants rather than paying a fee upfront, so he wondering if they could work through that. If not, then he understands but was just alerted today they would have to put in 90 trees at $500 apiece and it was unexpected. He isn't sure it will calm people, the trees will take years to grow up to a point where they will actually calm. He is asking today for an opportunity to put it into a covenant and have the homeowners association pay for them at the end of the 10 year period it takes to build out this subdivision or to have each lot owner responsible for putting two trees on each lot as they finish their homes. Hensch said he has seen data on trees as traffic calmers and is a believer, how to go about this is likely a legal question. Parsons asked if $500 is what each tree is anticipated to cost. Russett said the $500 amount was given by the Parks and Recreation Department, based on what they are generally charged for trees from other contractors, but it does not include maintenance and watering of the trees. Hensch stated it is best to put in a variety of good trees and not scrub Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 6 of 14 trees to enhance the neighborhood. He also is an advocate of getting those trees in as soon as they can so they can start growing, and not happen over a 10 year period. Clark said the trees will not be able to be put in early because there will be construction going on. The quickest way to do it would be to put it onto the lot owner, the trees would be put in at different times and the size of the trees may grow differently. As a lot gets a certificate of occupancy it should be the owner's responsibility to put in the trees within six months or a year. It would be a requirement and enforced by the HOA. Clark said he is willing to put down some earnest money to make sure this happens. Dyer asked if the developer could just put the trees in as the houses are finished so there would be some control over what the trees would be. Clark said they can control all that through the covenants, what types of trees, how many, where they are placed, etc. Dyer responded they don't have good experience with developers putting in the trees that were required to be put in. Clark is willing to take the guidance of the Commission on what types of trees they want to see on the sites. Hensch said they usually defer to whatever the City Forester recommends. Baker asked if this particular issue had to be settled tonight or can it be resolved at the platting process. Russett said staff is proposing this as a condition of the rezoning. Townsend asked if this had to be a through street and can't just have a hub at the end. Russett said it wouldn't meet the City's Subdivision Code regulations if it were a cul-de-sac. There are restrictions on the locations of cul-de-sacs, the applicant would need to demonstrate it is impossible to put the street through, there is clearly a stub there so we know it can go through, there is also a maximum length on cul-de-sacs which this would exceed and finally from a planning perspective the City wants interconnected neighborhoods to allow emergency access and also give people the options to access to places from different ways. Hektoen noted as far as the administration of the trees and fees they could craft something, it doesn't have to be decided tonight, it would have to be decided before the rezoning is approved but if that is something the Commission wants to give staff and the applicant discretion to continue discussing further they can craft the recommendation that way. Baker noted the goal is to get the trees in within a timely manner, the applicant is suggesting the owner be responsible within six months or a year and Baker feels that is too late and the occupancy certificate should be contingent on the trees immediately being planted. He states that is just one way to approach it but doesn't feel it has to be resolved tonight. Clark noted he would be totally fine with the trees having to be planted at the time of occupancy. There will be times in the year when it may not be possible which is why he suggested six months or so. Townsend asked if the same result could be accomplished with speed bumps instead of trees. Russett acknowledged speed bumps are a traffic calming measure but they also create issues for snow plows, when staff reviewed this area they felt the best options were the traffic circles Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 7 of 14 and the trees. Terry Protextor (1007 Tamarack Trail) came forward to speak against the proposed application if the new subdivision connects to Tamarack Trail. They are against Tamarack Trail being extended north into a new subdivision. Protextor stated he has lived in the Bluffwood Addition for over 23 years, they lived on Bluffwood Drive for 10 and then built their home on Tamarack Trail 13 years ago. When Tamarack was developed, around 2004, they were told it would not be extended, the harvest preserve was to the east and ACT owned to the north and it was their decision to build their home on Tamarack because it was not a through street, it was a quiet neighborhood. Protextor said he has spoken to a number of the neighbors and everyone is concerned about the traffic issue going through. The proposed development does create problems. They have a petition signed by 74 people (that were actually available for signature in the last two days) out of the 120 homes to show the message that they are concerned. The new development has proposed 60 homes which will result in approximately 120 cars transporting that street on any given date, to the south, maybe to the north. Protextor noted there has been no true traffic study of the Hickory Trail connection to 1St Avenue, nor has there been a traffic study to connect Tamarack Trail north to Scott Boulevard. Therefore we are dealing with algorithms or formulas to determine traffic flow where they really need to do a traffic study or live in the community for which this is happening to. Protextor stated there will be bottlenecks, as stated he has lived there for 23 years and there has always been traffic issues on 1 sl Avenue, particular to get off Hickory Trail to go south on 1 sl Avenue. Protextor stated if the development goes through it has been suggested in the report earlier that traffic may choose to go north and dilute out the traffic coming south through Tamarack Trail, but that is not logical because it is anywhere from a half mile to a mile and a quarter longer to go up Scott Boulevard and around to 1St Avenue or to the east. People will travel the shortest distance to get from point A to point B. This is a common sense issue, not even a traffic study issue, the new subdivision will travel down Tamarack Trail to Hickory Trail out to 1St Avenue. The only ones that will go north to Scott Boulevard will be the ones going out for supper or to go to a few businesses that are that way or east onto Dodge Street to get to the interstate. Protextor stated this additional access, which will be at least 60-80 cars per day going through a quiet neighborhood with a lot of children (kids on bicycles all the time) is seen as a major safety issue. The distance from the fire station on Dodge Street and Scott Boulevard to the last house on Tamarack Trail is 1.5 miles. If you go north on the new street it will be 1.3 miles, 783 feet difference, a five second difference. To say they need additional access doesn't make any sense, that subdivision has been around for over 40 years and no one seemed to be interested until now. Protextor stated their recommendation is basically to keep the existing cul-de-sac at the north end of Tamarack Trail and put a cul-de-sac at the south end of this new street and not cutting it through. They can put sidewalks through for pedestrians and bicycles. He also wanted to note there is concern about the stormwater basins, there are developers in this community and city engineers who have made major mistakes in some of their development of drainage systems. Churchill Meadows has a major issues that is affecting a home to the south of that development. In closing Protextor stated this should be a citizen friendly community, or neighborhood friendly community, not a development only friendly community. Baker asked who told them at the time they built their house that Tamarack would never be Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 8 of 14 extended. Protextor believes it was their builder and other people in the neighborhood. Baker asked if anyone from the City told them that and Protextor said no. Steven Polyak (950 Evergreen Court) said on the west side of the proposed development there is a dense wooded area with a significant slope that goes down into an environmentally sensitive area. The area from Scott Boulevard north all the way down to the creek below Hickory Trail is a significant elevation difference. Al the water goes from the high elevation to the creek through the sensitive areas and he is concerned as an Evergreen Court resident that water drainage will increase into his property. He feels there is no way the water flow will be unchanged, it may be handled in a different way through the development but doesn't feel enough study has been done to see how it will affect the Evergreen Court neighborhood. Polyak said having all that water flow into their area would affect their property values, affect mosquitoes, wildlife, it could significantly the natural areas there not built upon. His biggest concern is when all those lots get built the water has to flow somewhere, and it will flow down, and the first house to be affected will be his. He is in the northwest corner and the lowest lot in the area. Polyak plans to hire a civil engineering firm to come out and do a study to see how the area could be affected by the water flow. And then he may hire counsel to advise him on what to do about it because if something does happen in the future, he wants to have addressed it in advance. He wants to make sure his property is protected, but also wants to note the possible significant environmental impact as the water flows down on the east side between Evergreen Court and Tamarack Trail. He has already seen a bit of change in that area due to all the rains, so as the environment continues to change it may be affected more. Polyak reiterates to make sure the water drainage issues are addressed before moving forward with this proposal. Baker asked if Polyak has spoken with the City Engineer who studied this issue for the staff report. Polyak said he got a letter in the mail about this meeting and that is the only way he knew about the proposed development so he hasn't had a chance to evaluate the situation, he just knows how the water flows and wanted to address the issue at this meeting but why he will be hiring a civil engineer to address any possible issues. Russett stated the stormwater management will be reviewed at the platting stage, when staff reviews the preliminary plat the Public Works department will be looking at the stormwater management basins shown on the plat. Mary Ann Berg (2775 Hickory Trail) stated she has lived in the neighborhood for 24 years and saw a large increase in traffic when Tamarack Trail was built and her experience in the neighborhood when she goes somewhere it is usually south and east so her feeling is many people from the new neighborhood would be going on her street. Hickory Trail is a straight street and speeds get pretty fast in front of her house. She is concerned about the increase of traffic. She said in the report staff states they think traffic on Hickory Trail will be reduced and she doesn't agree with that with most houses being built and most people going in the direction of south and east. Berg added she also lives on a creek which is at the bottom of the area Polyak was just speaking about and she wanted to clarify that Axiom Consultants said these basins would be draining into the ravines that go into further west and ends behind Cyprus Court. Where will the three basins empty. Additionally, can the outlots that will be behind these lots Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 9 of 14 only be used by people in that neighborhood, or can people in the area go in there. She also wanted to know how wide the street wide easements would be where the trees will be, because she has had people plant crabapple trees in their easements and then one cannot walk on the sidewalks and the cars hit them on the streets. She is also curious about a home owners association, she doesn't believe she has one in her neighborhood and wonders if that would just be a private club up in that area. Knute Carter (922 Tamarack Trail) has a process question regarding the recommendations, Hensch asked about the language on the second point and when reading it just says these things need to be incorporated into the final design. So Carter asks what the lengths are between the final design and final product. What are the ramifications for if the final product is not done. Hensch stated tonight the Commission may or may not vote on the rezoning and these are conditions of the rezoning and the details will be worked out in the plat. Parsons added this will not be the last time this application will be before the Commission. Carter asked when does what is on the plat have to be realized. Russett said the condition is recommending the traffic circles that are shown on the preliminary are then shown on the final plat and then on the construction drawings of that roadway that are approved by Public Works and then that is what is required to be built. Michelle Edwards (2745 Hickory Trail) lives on the same side of the street on Hickory Trail as Mary Ann Berg, her house is also by the creek. She wants to speak to the traffic problem she is sure will happen with this development. She stated they already have a problem with speeding on their street, which by the way is tree lined, so she doesn't' have much confidence trees are a preventative measure. In addition, these are family housing, most of the people will be going to Regina, Hoover, City High, HyVee places that will be the shortest way via Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail so she does not believe it will be less traffic. Also the kind of traffic developing on Scott Boulevard is already quite a bit with the new addition by Blackstone and the new Oaknoll development. Claude Laroche (931 Tamarack Trail) and wanted to bring up the topic of speed bumps or humps on Tamarack Trail and possibility Hickory Trail. Russett brought up a point he hadn't considered about the interference with snow plows which is a good point. He has however seen a number of streets in Iowa City that have speed humps already. Laroche stated their neighborhood has a number of small children, he counted 24 in just his little area on Tamarack Trail, and so there is a concern about the safety with the increased number of traffic. He agrees with the other commenters regarding the increase in traffic and people taking the shortest route. Laroche questions what is the threshold for putting in a speed bump since there are some in Iowa City, is it a population density issues or subjective up to the discretion of the staff. Hensch replied he is unsure the process but assumes it is based on demonstrated problems and could be discussed with City staff. Laroche asked then at the present time there are no plans to put in any type of speed bumps or humps. Hensch replied not in this particular condition, the Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 10 of 14 Commission usually follows what the City staff recommends. Laroche feels speed humps or bumps would be far more effective than planting trees. He had read up on traffic calming methods, a lot of them started over in Europe and are being adopted in cities around here now and it may possibility make sense but he is still in favor of speed bumps. Russett acknowledged she can talk with Laroche after the meeting about the speed hump process for their street. Mike Welch (Axiom Consultants) wanted to comment on the wooded area and where the drainage will go. The three basins will discharge into the ravine that starts near Cyprus Court and got towards Tamarack Trail. Even the south basin will discharge out of the north side of the basin. The discharge will avoid completely the people on Evergreen Court. Welch noted as part of their stormwater plans they do look beyond their property and see where the stormwater will go and the downstream area. Another comment about stormwater basins is they do reduce that stormwater flow that is seen, it will hold the water back. He does acknowledge with development there is more runoff but the purpose of the basins is to control the runoff. Baker asked about Outlot A and how will have access. Welch said that is up to the developer, typically they see it as private, if it were to be public access then it would be a park and the City is not interested in taking this on as a park. Since it will be private property owned by the association access would be limited to association members. Russett added it would be owned and maintained by the homeowner's association. Debra Brandt (973 Tamarack Trail) stated she is a researcher by training and when she hears someone has a study the first thing she does is pull out Google Scholar and look. In reference to the tree lining she looked at a literature review from a transportation company and tree lined streets had little effect on speed limits, leading at less than a one mile per hour reduction of speed. Therefore Brandt would like to read the study the City has that states it will benefit. Secondly, she lives on Tamarack Trail and if anyone has been at the corner by ACT at 5pm, when you say streets can handle traffic, what does that mean, does it mean they are deep enough to handle the wait of traffic, or that there some formula they use to measure the amount of time to get through an intersection. Russett stated that both Scott Boulevard and 1St Avenue are arterial streets and based on them being arterials, and the widths and the lanes, there is an average capacity of average vehicle trips per day. Not wait times, number of vehicles. Brandt asked then when there is traffic backed up from the corner of ACT backed up to almost the intersection of Hickory Heights that is permissible. Russett acknowledged there are peak periods where there is congestion but the number of vehicles on those streets is not greater than the number of vehicles the arterial streets can accommodate. Brandt stated then getting through intersections or time waiting is not a factor. She added Rochester and 1St Avenues have the same issue at peak times. Hensch noted that intersection at 1St Avenue and Scott Boulevard is on the 2020 Capital Improvements Projects to mitigate the congestion issues. Brandt feels more thought needs to be given and challenges the traffic planners to think about those intersections and how an additional 60 houses averaging 2.5 cars per house will dump 120 more cars into these intersections and forecast what that will do to these traffic patterns. Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 11 of 14 Brandt added that when planting trees on the side of the roads is not only trees that provide the canopy and psychological barrier to driving fast, the thought is if you can't see very well you will slow down but as it has been pointed out if there are children in the neighborhood, those trees can also hide children and going one mile per hour slower down the street, as the article indicates, that is a bad combination. Brandt is not opposed to progress, she loves this City and knows this area is going to be developed, but she feels they need to think about how to make it neighborhood friendly, builder friendly and combining those. Jan Kardos (956 Tamarack Trail) and wanted to pursue why does the road have to be connected. She also would like to add what others have said, all this traffic is going toward Regina and toward downtown Iowa City, and it will also come back and it definitely is the shortest way for that subdivision to cut through. She is very concerned about traffic. She also questions where the construction equipment will go, will it come down Tamarack Trail as well, and will they have to suffer all that. It seems like it is possible to make a restriction that all construction equipment come from Scott Boulevard. Finally the intersection of 1St Avenue and Scott Boulevard is problematic and people do try to avoid it. She feels this development could go on without the connection to Tamarack Trail. Stephen Locher (839 Bluffwood Drive) has lived in this neighborhood since 1994 and stated the 1St Avenue and Hickory Trail intersection is a tricky intersection to get through, traffic is coming downhill on both sides, Hickory Trail has a stop sign and people on that 25 mph street are going 35 and 40 mph. The problem of speeding on Hickory Trail has been a conversation point for years, there are many children, and there will be even more bottleneck at that intersection if people will be using Tamarack Trail from this new development. He asks for the Commission and staff to think about any way to make that a safer intersection. Ruth Bradley (2669 Hickory Trial) came tonight because of the concerns about traffic but as she has been sitting and listening to the discussion about the water drainage issues. Her house is on the south side of Hickory Trail and back up to the creek. The creek curves toward their house and then away but often as the creek drains it does not make those curves very well and in the five years they have lived in this house this spring has been the worse and the water had come up four feet into their yard at least four times. She is concerned about the added water to that creek and coming back into their backyard. Fortunately their house is up high enough they don't have flood issues but they spent $500 on plants and a consultant to fix the bank of the creek from eroding into their yard. She would like the City Engineers to be aware of this potential problem. Hensch stated that is the advantage of the basins, it will allow all that extra water to stay in the basin and wait for the large volume of water to pass through and a restrictive release will slowing let the water out. Terry Protextor (1007 Tamarack Trail) wanted to follow up on a couple things, first he shared with the Commission the traffic flow options with the distances he was trying to express earlier and reiterated no one is going to go north on Tamarack Trail to Scott Boulevard to get out of this subdivision, they will come through Tamarack Trail. He also wanted to touch on the issues with Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 12 of 14 water runoff, not through the basins and not through the storm drains, but basically because the houses will be placed so close together in this development water will run down the front yards and there is a slope between the top of Scott Boulevard at the first site to the entrance to Tamarack Trail, it is about 1800 feet, there is a 20 foot drop in that elevation and obviously that is a slope and water doesn't care if it is a slow slope. So now he is concerned there will be water going down everyone's front yards. Additionally with regards to basins draining properly, if one looks at the new development Churchill Downs on Rochester, that basin was constructed incorrectly, the City is aware now, the City Engineers that did the work didn't catch it, the developers engineers didn't catch it and the property to the south has already experienced over $30,000 worth of runoff damage so he wants everyone to be cautious when they say the three storm basins will take care of it. Hensch noted that is why professional engineers carry professional liability insurance. Protextor said so did he when he was in health care but he also didn't try to harm any patients in the process, so please don't harm their property in the process. As far as cul-de-sacs he looked at all the rules and guidelines Russett alluded to and the key word is "guidelines". They are only guidelines and the City staff can interpret those as rules but guidelines is a flexible term and as he looked at the reason for creating additional access points there are five different items and if you look at them carefully none of them apply to the houses on Tamarack Trail. Someone needs to review that, he will go back and look at it from a legal standpoint. Also there is precedent for cul-de-sacs, the Peninsula has one access point, and he could start circling in the city map all the different cul-de-sacs around Iowa City that have only one egress point. So if the citizens of this community, development, say they don't want that access to come through and they want cul-de-sacs then someone needs to listen. Hensch closed the public hearing. Parsons moved to recommend approval of REZ19-08, a proposal to rezone approximately 36.81 acres of property located south of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack Trail from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) to Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5), subject to the following conditions: 3. 90 street trees will be installed, either by payment of a tree planting fee at a cost of $500 per tree for the plantings of street trees within the public right-of-way or through installation prior to certificate of occupancy as determined though staff and developer negotiation. Trees will generally be located every 30' with modifications allowed due to drive -way distances. The Parks and Recreation Department will be responsible for identifying the appropriate locations for the trees and planting of the trees. 4. Compliance with the preliminary plat in that traffic calming measures, like the traffic circles, are required and incorporated into the final design of the extension of Tamarack Trail. Dyer seconded the motion. Baker asked if approving this motion is also approving the extension of Tamarack Trial. Hensch replied no, the preliminary plat will come back before the Commission. Baker asked if the property to the west and east could be potentially developed. Hensch said the property to the west is protected slopes. Baker asked if there was a development to the east, Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 13 of 14 there would need to be access off Scott Boulevard because there is no possibility from this development to any other new development. Russett said based on what is on the preliminary plat at this time there is no extension to the east. She added the land on the east side is in a preserve. Parsons feels RS -5 is appropriate for this area. Hensch agrees and says it is actually less than what is in the Comprehensive Plan. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JUNE 20, 2019 Parsons moved to approve the meeting minutes of June 20, 2019 with typographic errors noted. Baker seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett gave a couple updates, the rezoning at Orchard Court was adopted by the Council at the last meeting. The rezoning on South Gilbert Street near Big Grove was also adopted by Council. Russett reminded them there is a Planning & Zoning/City Council work session on July 24 at 5pm. There will be a packet sent out prior to the meeting. Baker asked about current regulations, he recently stopped into the new gas station at 1St Avenue and Muscatine Avenue and 12 gas pumps are blaring music all the time and wondered if that is permitted use. Russett will look into that. Baker said it was extraordinarily irritating and could be heard across the street. Hensch thanked Russett for giving updates on Council adoptions. He also noted the good neighbor report from Axiom Consultants was well done and extremely helpful. Adiournment: Townsend moved to adjourn. Parsons seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2018-2019 KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member 3/15 (W.S.) 4/2 4/5 (W.S) 4/16 4/19 5/3 5/17 6/7 6/21 7/5 8/16 9/6 9/20 10/18 12/20 1/3 BAKER, LARRY -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X O/E X X DYER, CAROLYN O/E X O/E X X X X X O/E X O O/E O X X X FREERKS, ANN X X X X X O/E X X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- HENSCH, MIKE O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE X X X X X X X X O/E -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- TOWNSEND, BILLIE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X O/E X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member 1/17 (W.S.) 2/4 2/21 3/7 3/21 4/4 4/18 5/16 6/6 6/20 7/18 BAKER, LARRY X X X X X X X O/E X X X DYER, CAROLYN O/E X X X X X X O/E X X X FREERKS, ANN -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- HENSCH, MIKE X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X MARTIN, PHOEBE X O/E X X X O/E X X X X O/E PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X X X X X X SIGNS, MARK X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E THEOBALD, JODIE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X O/E X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member Kellie Fruehling From: Danielle Sitzman Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 11:20 AM To: Kellie Fruehling; Geoff Fruin; Eleanor M. Dilkes Subject: FW: Follow Up on City Council Meeting Attachments: USDT - Federal Highway Administration - Road options- Midblock Closure.pdf, City Council Meeting presentation 8-20-19.pdf, low_speed_design_criteria_residential_streets_ballard.pdf, eng_ctm_spd_14.pdf Importance: High From: Terry Protextor [mailto:terryprotextor@mchsi.com] On Behalf Of terryprotextor@gmail.com Sent: Friday, August 23, 201911:13 AM To: Jim Throgmorton <Jim-Throgmorton@iowa-city.org>; Bruce Teague <Bruce-Teague@iowa-city.org>; Rockne Cole <Rockne-Cole@iowa-city.org>; John Thomas <John-Thomas@iowa-city.org>; Susan Mims <Susan-Mims@iowa-city.org>; Pauline Taylor <Pauline-Taylor@iowa-city.org>; Mazahir Salih <Mazahir-Salih@iowa-city.org> Cc: Danielle Sitzman <Danielle-Sitzman@iowa-city.org> Subject: Follow Up on City Council Meeting Importance: High Dear City Council Members, Thank you for hearing our points of concern and suggesting that we work with the developer and city staff at the city council meeting. I did want to clarify one comment that was made after the public comment time was closed. We did mention one example option, that was not to connect Tamarack Street to the new development street. I mentioned in my comments and noted on the PowerPoint, that we had several other options that the City Council and City staff could consider. I've attached US Department Transportation - Federal Highway Administration information related to ways to limit street throughput. We understand the city engineers, city staff and the planning and zoning commission concerns about having two egresses for our adjoining neighborhoods for fire and safety purposes. The US Department of Transportation information that I've attached illustrates an option that allows for emergency vehicles to maneuver between two different areas without opening up public traffic between two neighborhoods. Disregard the first picture in the PDF. The limiting access option illustrated in Figure 3.22.2 and its application accomplishes both the safety and traffic concerns. We have a couple more options which we can share City staff as well. We would like to set up a meeting with Joe Clark, Doug Paul and City staff to discuss these options. I have also providing several articles which pertain to street safety and residential neighborhoods, which you may find informative. Thank you in advance for reviewing this email. Best regards, Terry Protextor 1007 Tamarack Trail Background • 74 homeowners have signed a petition against connecting our Tamarack Trail street to the new development. We can secure more signatures. • It seems that all of the disadvantages of a Tamarack Trail continuance falls on our neighborhood. The loss of: 1. loss of our quite and peaceful neighborhood 2. the significantly increased traffic 3. resulting safety concerns for our families and children 4. We built or bought our homes on Tamarack Trail, because of these factors. We were told that ACT had no plans to develop the property, plus Harvest Preserve was our neighbor to the East. Proposal & Recommendations • One of our recommendations is that the Tamarack Trail street does not connect to the new development. • The south end of the new development's street would have acul-de-sac abutting our Tamarack street's exiting north cul-de-sac. The abutted cul- de-sacs would have sidewalks to allow for pedestrian traffic between the subdivisions. This will provide families with access to the park in our subdivision. • We have identified several other options to mitigate increased traffic, improve safety and allow city emergency vehicles to reach our neighborhood and the new development. • We would ask that the City Council slow down the process and request that the City staff, the developer and our neighborhood's concerned citizen group meet to work out a fair and appropriate solution to this issue. Neighborhood Safety • Traffic from the proposed subdivision (60 units implies at least 120 vehicles) would increase traffic on the original Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail to a dangerous level. City staff have indicated 500+ cars per day. • No comprehensive traffic stud done by either the City staff or the developer for the Hickory Trail —1st Ave. intersect or the Scott Blvd - 1st Avenue intersect. City staff indicated that traffic will also go North out of the new subdivision. Why? • The current Tamarack &Hickory Trail streets are long and curvy. Cars travelling from the new subdivision would be entering our subdivision as the road slopes downhill ending in a dangerous curve at the Tamarack/Hickory Trail corner. Traffic studies document that the longer the street the faster cars will go. • This additional traffic though our neighborhood would impact the safety of our neighborhood's children and bicycle traffic. • Most traffic out of the new subdivision will head south on Tamarack to 1st Avenue to access HyVee, City High, Regina, UI, UIHC, downtown Iowa City businesses, cultural, educational, and religious locations. • Traffic flow illustration — next slide: use ACT Circle North © !f Travelodge by `I Wyndham Iowa City Sinclair Q Fire Station 4 es o ul[apque sad t Iowa City Community School District... Hickory Hill Park ACT 9 M Traffic Routes Out of New Development Scott 131vd 9 Harvest Preserve 4 S,-6tt &%4b. R©ute #2 Q HOOVER �al m "Ick—y Troll ROUte #1 Basket Cases aa] No Dalry Queen Store Route #3 a Regina Catholic 4BlackStone Education Center Rh Firstlonra Hy -Vee Drugstore `�► Church of City Wig &Pen East 4p z Bickford Senior Living 4 -rudoor 'GTadgIQ. 4zz E+- W—t 8—ch r ROchester AYe � Hus[Ings Ave 1077 Tamarack - North on New Tamarack - East on Scott Blvd - Rochester - 1st Ave & Rochester Corner2.35 miles 4 Fire and Emergency Safety • City staff states that all subdivisions must have two exits for fire and safety. Our subdivision has existed for 30 years with only one exit, without any problems. • Let's look at the facts. The distance to the Scott Blvd and Dodge Street Fire Station to 1077 Tamarack Trail via Hickory Trail, North on 1st Ave to the Scott Boulevard/Dodge Street is 1.5 miles. • The distance from that same address North through the new subdivision to Scott Boulevard is 1.35 miles distance. A difference of 0.15 miles or 792 feet. That's less than�i second response time difference for an emergency vehicle traveling 40 miles an hour to get to that home. The map on next slide illustrations the routes. • City staff stated that the street could be blocked. Probability? • The two -egress access safety logic is arbitrary and not uniformly applied. • There are numerous neighborhoods throughout Iowa City with only one egress, i.e. the Peninsula, a gated Lexington Avenue and numerous cul-de- sac streets throughout Iowa City. ACT Circle North 4P 4p T ravolodge by Wyndham Iowa Ciiy Sinclair 9 OiJ Fire Statior 5` q 1 Iowa City School Di Hickory Hill mark use ACT Fire/Safety Routes �% Stt Blvd ; Basket Cases p QMarvest Preserve Uaj o- 7 Dairy Queen Store 9 a 101 BlackStone Regina Catholic 4p,. Education Center i- M R'h First PrQsbyterian 'ss� Hy -Vee Drugstore `r' Church of Iowa City a �_ Wig 8. Pen East Bickford Senior Living Q' Tutlor 6r G ST � C 2 S 14aohgster45 Rv6 `a p .......... ..... .. .. ...... ..... -... '..................... __.._._.................._.__. ._.._._.. O� g' ♦P' Q E qM w4C Braneh P E .iasiingv avo __.__.__.._.._._.................._.._._ _.__.._ _.. __.__ _.._.._. __.._.__. _._.. __. _.._.._.. _.__.._._ ......... ......... ......... .. .. ..... ... .. .. .. .. .. ....... :Fire &Safety Travel Distance to Fire Station ..................... ..................... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ........................................... , ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:.................. Route #:Route Directions 1077 Tamrack - Hictory Tri - 1st Ave - Scott Blvd to Fire Station: 1.50 :miles ..................................................................................................................... 1077 Tamarack - West on Scott Blvd to Fire Station: 1.35 :miles....... ..................... :.................. ........................ .............................. ............................................................ Difference: ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ................................................................................................:..................: 0.15 :miles ....................... : :.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:...................:....................... :....................:...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:....................... Emergency Vehicle Traveling 40 mph: 792 : feet : ...................... ......... ............... ......... ............... ............... ............ ........................ the additional 792 feet would take an additional: ........................ ........................ ........................ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ........................ 5.0 ............ ............ seconds ............ .... : 101 Follow up on abutting Cul -de -Sacs' Option Iowa City Code -Chapter 3, 15-3-2 Streets and Circulation, paragraph 4: • "Use of cul-de-sacs and other roadways with a single point of access should be avoided. Cul-de-sacs will be considered where it can be clearly demonstrated that environmental constraints, existing development, access limitations along arterials streets, or other unusual features will prevent the extension of the street to the property line or to interconnect with other streets within or abutting to the subdivision." •The "..should be avoided.." language is not an absolute statement. If it said "..shall be avoided..'; that would bean absolute statement. References pertaining to Street Safety and Traffic Option • US Department of Transportation —Federal Highway Administration 3.22.2 Full Closure Located Midblock • US Department of Transportation —Federal Highway Administration Engineering Speed Management Countermeasures: ADesktop Reference of Potential Effectiveness in Reducing Speed, July 2014 • Low Speed Design Criteria for Residential Streets Andrew Ballard, P.E. and David Haldeman, E.I.T. let's come together look at all options as a "community:' Concerned Citizens, City Staff and Developer 3.22 Full Closure DES'CRIPTIONAND GENERAL PURPOSE A full street closure is a physical barrier placed across a street to close the street completely to through vehicle traffic (see Figure 3.22.1). Full closure can be done at either an intersection or midblock. A full closure can be designed to allow bicyclists and pedestrians to pass through. [A full closure is also called a cul-de-sac or dead end.] It is important to consider where the diverted traffic is likely to shift, in particular the availability, capacity, and appropriateness of the alternative routes. As stated in Module i, traffic shifts can create new issues that need to be addressed. A single full closure may simply shift traffic (and its associated problems and issues) onto other local streets. In order to shift through traffic to collector and arterial streets that can more effectively handle the traffic demand, a full closure can be installed in a group or cluster of full closures or other traffic calming measures that reduce cut -through volumes. (Afield study of two full closures measured an average reduction of 3 mph for 85th percentile speeds (Source: FHWA, Engineering Speed Management Countermeasures: A Desktop Reference of Potential Effectiveness in Reducing Speed, July 2014) http://www.lhwa.dot.Kovlspeedmgtlref mats/end count/20141reducinK speed cfm7 Figure 3.22.1. Full Closure at Local Street Intersection with Collector (Source. Dubois & King, Inc.) APPROPRIATE APPLICATION Appropriate Application — Full Closure Type of Street Appropriate for a subdivision or local street (see Figure 3.22.2) Appropriate in both an urban and suburban setting Intersection or Applicable at an intersection or midblock Roadway Segment Roadway Cross- Appropriate only for a two-way street Section Typically used only on a roadway with an urban cross-section (i.e., curb and gutter) but it is not necessary Can be applied both with and without a bicycle facility Can be applied on a roadway with on -street parking Speed Limit As long there is adequate advance warning, the appropriate speed limit is not constrained; Soutb Carolina uses a 30 mph maximum for any street on which a full closure is installed Vehicle Traffic Can be appropriate if the traffic volume is relatively low; South Carolina uses a Volume maximum of 4,000 daily vehicles on a residential street and 6,000 daily vehicles within a central business district Emergency Route Not appropriate along a primary emergency vehicle route or street that provides access to a hospital or emergency medical services Transit Route Not appropriate along a bus transit route Access Route Not appropriate along a primary access route to a commercial or industrial site Grade Can be installed on a crest vertical curve only if there is adequate stopping sight distance or if appropriate warning signs are provided Maximum grade should comply with local standards and criteria 99 sx s a 'j . r Low Speed Design Criteria for Residential Streets Andrew J. Ballard, P.E. and David M. Haldeman, E.I.T. Background The City of San Antonio receives many complaints regarding speeding in residential areas. Citizens perceive speeding on residential streets as a safety issue and as a quality of life issue. As a result, there has been significant demand to retrofit traffic calming features on existing residential streets. Although the City's Speed Hump Program has effectively addressed speeding on many existing residential streets, new neighborhoods continue to be developed in a way that subsequent installation of traffic calming devices is requested. Residential streets in San Antonio and its extraterritorial jurisdiction historically have not been designed to dissuade speeding. According to State law and City ordinance, the prima facie speed limit on residential streets is 30 mph. In an effort to reduce the need to retrofit new streets with traffic calming features, the City of San Antonio initiated a study to determine street characteristics that discourage speeding. The goal was to establish and codify street geometric criteria for the development of streets in new neighborhoods that would produce operating speeds that do not exceed the 30 mph speed limit. Ordinance Development Oversight Committee To increase the likelihood of support for, and approval of, a new City ordinance governing design criteria for residential streets, City staff invited representatives of neighborhood groups and land developers to participate on the oversight committee. The committee members who were most engaged in the process were those who develop single-family residential subdivisions for the lower end of the San Antonio housing market, where land development profit margins are presumably thinner. During its half-dozen meetings, spanning as many months, the oversight committee discussed the need for the ordinance, the legitimacy of the City's speed data, "what if' cases, etc. The use of an oversight committee was somewhat rocky, but definitely beneficial. The group effort resulted in the ordinance gaining support from the land development community, the necessary City committees and commissions and ultimately, approval from the City Council. Data Collection/Study Methodology The data that was the focus of the study came from 66 residential streets in the San Antonio area where the posted speed limit is 30 mph. The data collected included unimpeded street length, street width, condition at the endpoints, 85th percentile speed, and traffic volume. For the purpose of this study, the following definitions were used: 1. Unimpeded street length — the length of the street segment between speed impediments, e.g., stop signs, traffic signals, sharp turns, cul-de-sacs, etc. 2. Street width — the width of the street as measured from face -of -curb to face - of -curb or from the edge of pavement on each side of an uncurbed street. 3. Condition at endpoints — those features that require significant deceleration or a stop to negotiate. 4. 85th percentile speed — that speed at or below which 85 percent of all traffic is moving. For the purpose of this study, the 85th percentile speed was determined by the placement of traffic counters at the midpoint of the unimpeded street length. The 85th percentile speed used for the study was the average 85th percentile speed for the two directions of travel. 5. Traffic volume — the 24-hour traffic volume for both directions collected at the midpoint of the street. Although many factors are thought to influence a driver's speed, the study was based on the premise that long streets, particularly unimpeded street lengths, tend to have higher operating speeds. To evaluate the effect of unimpeded street length on operating speeds, existing streets of varying lengths were selected for study. The general range of unimpeded street lengths was between 400 and 2000 feet. Since vehicle speeds were to be evaluated near the midpoint of the unimpeded street length, it was also deemed important to include only streets where the majority of vehicles would travel the entire length of the street, i. e., streets without major traffic generators along the unimpeded street length. Streets with major generators would have lower measured speeds, since a significant portion of the traffic would decelerate near the count location. Unimpeded street lengths were determined using the City's basemaps. Once the streets had been identified for study, speed and volume data were collected at the midpoint of the unimpeded street length. Field investigations were performed to collect additional data including street width and condition at the endpoints. Figure 1 illustrates a plot of unimpeded street length vs. 85th percentile speed for the 66 data points in the study. Upon inspection of Figure 1, it is evident that there is a clear relationship between vehicle speed and unimpeded street length. Typically, as unimpeded street length increases, so do vehicle speeds. The blue line on the graph represents the desired operating speed of 30 mph, the legal speed limit. Further inspection of the graph suggests that for every unimpeded street length, there is a corresponding range of operating speeds. The variation in operating speeds for any given unimpeded street length is undoubtedly a result of other factors that are known to influence operating speeds, e. g., street width, on -street parking, etc. Of particular interest are those data points that represent the higher operating speeds for any given unimpeded street length. If these streets exhibit common characteristics, then those factors could be addressed in new land developments. Therefore, the next step in the process involved a qualitative analysis of each of the data points where operating speeds were high. The qualitative evaluation of each of the higher -speed data points revealed certain common characteristics of these streets. It was noted that most of these streets were entrance streets for the neighborhood, often intersecting a major arterial, and typically carrying a greater volume of traffic than the lower -speed streets. Some of these streets were subject to non -neighborhood 45 40 a 35 b 30 25 00 20 15 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 Unimpeded Street Length (Ft) Figure 1. Unimpeded Street Length vs. 85th Percentile Speed type, cut -through, traffic but all of them served as major collector streets for their subdivision. Traffic speeds on streets with these characteristics are typically the subject of complaints by residents regarding the need for traffic calming features. Therefore, disallowing construction of new streets with these undesirable characteristics could yield significant benefit in terms of reducing the number of future unhappy residents. Due to the identification of common characteristics among those streets with higher operating speeds, the data set of 66 streets was then separated into two distinct groups. Figure 2 illustrates the two data sets as categorized by either high-volume entrance/collector streets or low-volume interior neighborhood streets. With the understanding that vehicle speeds and unimpeded street lengths tend to be proportional to one another, designing streets with lower vehicle speeds requires shorter unimpeded street lengths. To gain a better understanding of the value for the unimpeded street length that yields the desired operating speeds, best -fit curves were determined for each data set, as shown in Figure 3. Of particular interest is the unimpeded street length that corresponds to the intersection of the best -fit curve with the horizontal line at the 30 mph speed. This unimpeded street length was the basis for the criteria that were developed which are aimed at producing streets with operating speeds that do not exceed the legal speed limit. New Ordinance As a result of the findings in the preceding figures and through discussions within the oversight committee, the following design criteria were established. New streets projected to carry less An - 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 Unimpeded Street Length (Ft) Figure 1. Unimpeded Street Length vs. 85th Percentile Speed type, cut -through, traffic but all of them served as major collector streets for their subdivision. Traffic speeds on streets with these characteristics are typically the subject of complaints by residents regarding the need for traffic calming features. Therefore, disallowing construction of new streets with these undesirable characteristics could yield significant benefit in terms of reducing the number of future unhappy residents. Due to the identification of common characteristics among those streets with higher operating speeds, the data set of 66 streets was then separated into two distinct groups. Figure 2 illustrates the two data sets as categorized by either high-volume entrance/collector streets or low-volume interior neighborhood streets. With the understanding that vehicle speeds and unimpeded street lengths tend to be proportional to one another, designing streets with lower vehicle speeds requires shorter unimpeded street lengths. To gain a better understanding of the value for the unimpeded street length that yields the desired operating speeds, best -fit curves were determined for each data set, as shown in Figure 3. Of particular interest is the unimpeded street length that corresponds to the intersection of the best -fit curve with the horizontal line at the 30 mph speed. This unimpeded street length was the basis for the criteria that were developed which are aimed at producing streets with operating speeds that do not exceed the legal speed limit. New Ordinance As a result of the findings in the preceding figures and through discussions within the oversight committee, the following design criteria were established. New streets projected to carry less 45 40 x a 35 �. 30 25 20 15 45 40 35 30 25 0 oc 20 15 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 Unimpeded Street Length (Ft) Figure 2. Data Differentiated by Traffic Volume ■ ■ W �♦ ilm M W'. go, IPA mom M-9 IV'E edit 11 "EmnM"M ■ W* High Volume, Entry/Collector ♦ High Volume, Entry/Collector St. ■ Low Volume, Residential St. Low Volume, Residential S 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 Unimpeded Street Length (Ft) Figure 2. Data Differentiated by Traffic Volume 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 Unimpeded Street Length (Ft) Figure 3. Best -Fit Curves for Each Data Set than 500 vehicles per day (vpd) are limited to a maximum unimpeded street length of 1200 feet. New streets projected to carry more than 500 vpd will be limited to a maximum unimpeded street length of 900 feet. However, a maximum length of 700 feet is applied to new streets which are projected to carry more than 1000 vpd and have one or more of the following additional characteristics: 10, Wo ilm M W'. go, IPA mom M-9 IV'E "EmnM"M W* High Volume, Entry/Collector Low Volume, Residential S 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 Unimpeded Street Length (Ft) Figure 3. Best -Fit Curves for Each Data Set than 500 vehicles per day (vpd) are limited to a maximum unimpeded street length of 1200 feet. New streets projected to carry more than 500 vpd will be limited to a maximum unimpeded street length of 900 feet. However, a maximum length of 700 feet is applied to new streets which are projected to carry more than 1000 vpd and have one or more of the following additional characteristics: • intersect an arterial street • function as neighborhood entrance streets • are likely cut -through streets • have widths of 40 feet. In addition, the ordinance prohibits single-family residential lots from fronting onto collector streets. This requirement supplements a pre-existing ordinance that prohibited such lots from fronting onto arterial streets. The value of this new requirement is in reducing the likelihood of future residents' moving into a home and then discovering that the street which their house faces carries more traffic than they desire. Traffic Calming Alternatives Some proposed land developments are located on difficult terrain or on sites with shapes that make it difficult to adhere to the maximum unimpeded street lengths required by the ordinance described above. Consequently, the ordinance also allows the land developer to achieve the desired operating speeds by incorporating traffic calming features into longer streets. Traffic calming features allowed by this ordinance are traffic circles, median islands, speed humps, and T -intersections. In addition, for streets with less than 500 vpd, one -lane slow points are allowed as traffic calming features. Summary The new ordinance does not ensure all traffic operating speeds on new residential streets will not exceed the 30 mph speed limit. However, it does mandate design criteria that will greatly reduce the number of new streets that would have otherwise resulted in operating speeds which the occupants of abutting properties would have found objectionable. In addition, it prohibits residential frontage on collector streets; this will also lead to fewer new problems with residents' concerns of speeding traffic. Authors' Information Andrew J. Ballard, P. E., Member City Transportation Engineer City of San Antonio P. O. Box 839966 San Antonio, TX 78283-3966 Email: AndrewB@sanantonio.gov David M. Haldeman, E.I.T. Senior Engineering Associate City of San Antonio P. O. Box 839966 San Antonio, TX 78283-3966 Email: DHaldeman@sanantonio.gov This chart summarizes studies about engineering countermeasures used to manage speeds. Studies where an increase in speed were reported are also shown since this information is also relevant in selection of countermeasures. (vpd) Mean Speed (mph) 85 Ih %tile Speed (mph) Safety Speed Volume Countermeasure Focus Area Roadway Reference Sites Limit Period Location Notes Before After Before After Change Before After Change Vertical Deflections Within the Roadway pedestrian urban local 1 (1999) 178 — 48 o to — — 35 27 -8 — various 140443 pedestrian urban local 2 (2005) 7 — 400 to 401 to _ — 32 26 -6 — VA 4362 3384 Speed Hump—rounded, pedestrian urban local 3 (2000) 4 — 475 to 433 to — — — 36 31 -5 — WA raised area placed across 1506 1343 the roadway, typically 12 to pedestrian urban local 4 (2005) 1 25 1300 — 22 23 1 37 29 -8 1 -mon FL 14 feet long 218 to pedestrian rural/urban local 5 (2002) 3 25 — 24 18 -6 28 22 -6 1 -mon IA 746 pedestrian urban — 1 (1999) 4 — — — — — — 36 29 -7 — — with speed table pedestrian urban — 1 (1999) 2 — 2456 to 2593 to — — — 38 25 -13 — — with choker 3685 2931 Ow U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Safe Roads for a Safer Future Investment in roadway safety saves lives http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov Countermeasure Safety Focus Area Roadway Reference Sites Speed Limit Volume Before 3323 (vpd) After 2321 Mean Before — Speed (mph) After — Change — 85 Ih %tile Before 35 Speed After 28 (mph) Change -7 Period Location Notes Speed Cushion—raised pedestrian urban — 1 (1999) 1 — — various area typically 6 to 7 feet wide that allows most 1042 to 693 to 26 to emergency vehicles to pedestrian — — 2 (2005) 2 — 1556 1563 _ — — 31 to 37 30 -5 to -7 — VA straddle the hump pedestrian urban — 1 (1999) 72 — 198 to 242 to — — — 37 31 -6 — various 14500 14400 pedestrian urban residential 6 (2003) 19 — 198 to 364 to — — — 38 29 -9 — GA Speed Table—a long speed 2102 2061 hump typically 22 feet in pedestrian rural 2-lane 7 (2007) 1 — 1200 — 27 24 -3 33 29 -4 1-mon IA length with a flat section in community the middle and ramps on rural 218 to removable speed the ends pedestrian community local 5 (2002) 3 25 746 — 24 18 -6 28 22 -6 1-mon IA table pedestrian urban — 1 (1999) 2 — 6500 to 6400 to — — — 37 29 -8 — — with center island 8440 6780 pedestrian urban residential 8 (2001) 1 30 1600 — 34 23 -11 38 27 -11 within 12- MN raised crosswalk mon Raised Intersection—a pedestrian urban — 1 (1999) 2 — — — — — — 37 38 1 — various raised plateau, with ramps on all approaches, where pedestrian urban local 9 (2004) 1 30 30 0 12-mon NY roads intersect Horizontal Deflections/Roadway Narrowing pedestrian urban — 1 (1999) 4 — to 31 t — — 34 30 -4 — various 61050 Choker/Bulb-out—mid- pedestrian urban residential 10 (1997) 6 — — — — — — 30 29 -1 — — block curb extensions that narrow road by extending pedestrian urban residential 8 (2001) 1 — 9 50 to — 34 31 -4 38 34 -4 within 12- MN choker with the sidewalk or widening 1050 mon crosswalk the planting strip950 pedestrian urban residential 8 (2001) 1 — to — 33 31 -2 37 34 -3 within 12- MN choker+"SLOW" 1050 mon + landscaping pedestrian rural 2-lane 11 (2010) — — — — 39 39 0 — — — — simulator curb + gutter community bulb-outs Neck Down—intersection 2800 to 4660 to curb extensions that pedestrian urban — 1 (1999) 3 — 8110 5660 — — 29 30 1 — various narrow a road by extending the width of a pedestrian urban local street 9 (2004) 2 23 25 2 27 31 4 12-mon NY sidewalk Countermeasure Safety Focus Area Roadway Reference Sites Speed Limit Volume Before 1380 to (vpd) After 90 to Mean Before — Speed (mph) After — Change — 85 1h %tile Before 33 Speed After 27 (mph) Change -6 Period Location Notes pedestrian urban — 10 (1997) 2 — — various Chicanes—curb 2 00 extensions that alternate 1380 to 790 to at least 4 from one side of the street pedestrian urban residential 3 (2000) 4 — 1965 1993 31 22 -g years WA to the other forming s -shaped curves, also pedestrian urban arterial (school 12 (1998) 1 — 8000 — — — — 31 28 -3 — Canada includes lateral shifts which zone) shift traffic to one side of pedestrian rural 2 -lane 11 (2010) — — — — 39 30 -9 — — — — simulator the road for an extended community distance and then back rural pedestrian 2 -lane 11 (2010) — — — — 39 33 -6 — — — — simulator painted chicane community pedestrian urban — 1 (1999) — — — — — — — — — — — various pedestrian urban — 1 (1999) 2 — 6500 to 6400 to — — — 37 29 8 — — 8440 6780 pedestrian urban local street 9 (2004) 1 — — — 30 28 -2 36 33 -3 12-mon NY pedestrian rural — 13 (2002) 2 — — — — — — 44 38 -6 1-mon MN within pedestrian rural community 13 (2002) 1 30 900 — 34 29 -5 44 38 -6 2-wks MN (2 -lane) within pedestrian rural community 13 (2002) 1 30 900 — 35 31 -4 44 38 -6 6-wks MN (2 -lane) Center Island—raised or community combined painted island along the pedestrian rural entrance 7 (2007) 2 25 2669 — 31 29 -1 36 35 -1 1-mon IA +tubular centerline that narrows (2 -lane) channelizers travel lanes community pedestrian rural entrance 14 (2008) — 35 — — 41 43 2 51 50 -1 — simulator median (2 -lane) community median + pedestrian rural entrance 14 (2008) — 35 — — 41 40 -1 52 46 -6 — simulator (2 -lane) gateway community pedestrian rural entrance 14 (2008) — 35 — — 41 41 0 52 50 -2 — simulator median in series (2 -lane) community median in series pedestrian rural entrance 14 (2008) — 35 — — 41 40 -1 51 46 -5 — simulator with crosswalk (2 -lane) community 593 to temporary pedestrian rural entrance 15 (2013) 3 25 1448 — 28 27 1 35 34 -1 1-mon IA curbing (2 -lane) Countermeasure Safety Focus Area Roadway Reference Sites Speed Limit (mph) Volume Before 593 to (vpd) After Mean Before Speed (mph) After Change 85 Ih %tile Before Speed After (mph) Change Period Location All Notes community temporary pedestrian rural entrance 15 (2013) 3 25 1448 29 27 -2 35 33 -2 12-mon IA curbing (contd) Center Island— (2 -lane) raised or painted island community along the centerline that pedestrian rural entrance 16 (1999) 5 — — — 38 29 -9 44 33 -11 — Austria braking islands narrows travel lanes (2 -lane) roadway rural 2 -lane 17 (2008) 8 50 to 55 — — — — -4 — — -5 — Austria painted island + departure edge line ruralnarrowing pedestrian 2 -lane 7 (2007) 2 30 1680 — 28 29 1 34 35 1 1-mon IA with pavement community marking ruralnarrowing pedestrian 2 -lane 7 (2007) 2 30 1680 — 28 29 1 34 35 1 12-mon IA with pavement community marking narrowing using pedestrian urban residential 18(1984) 2 — — — 34 34 0 — — — 1 -wk FL edgeline+ centerline Reduce Lane Width with intersectionedgeline + Markings—narrowing of intersection rural (2 -lane) 19 (2008) 9 50 to 55 — — — — -4 — — -5 3-mon PA, KY, MO, FL centerline the lanes using pavement markings, median, etc. roadway high speed 2.7 ft. lane width departure urban intersection 20 (2008) — — — — — — -4 — — — — — reduction 4 -lane roadwaynarrowing using departure urban freeway exit 21 (2000) — — — — 31 30 -1 — — — 1-mon VA herringbone markings roadway rural day 2 -lane 22 (2005) 3 — — — 57 58 1 — — — 1-mon TX edgeline+ departure centerline roadway rural night 2 -lane 22 (2005) 3 — — — 60 59 1 — — — 1-mon TX edgeline (existing departure centerline Road Diet—reducing pedestrian urban 4 -lane undivided 23 (2001) 1 — — — — — -4 — — — — CA 4 -to 3 -lane the number of lanes by reallocating roadway space pedestrian urban 4 -lane undivided 23 (2001) 1 — — — 35 32 -3 — — — — IA 4- to 3 -lane for other uses (e.g. bike lanes, center turn lanes, pedestrian urban 4 -lane undivided 23 (2001) 1 — — — — — — — — -1 — IA 4- to 3 -lane medians, parking, shoulder 5400 to lanes, etc. pedestrian urban minor arterial 8 (2001) 1 35 — 45 43 -2 51 49 -2 — MN 4- to 3 -lane 9100 Safety Speed Volume (vpd) Mean Speed (mph) 85 Ih %tile Speed (mph) Countermeasure Focus Area Roadway Reference Sites Limit Period Location Notes Before After Before After Change Before After Change Surface Treatments and Markings pedestrian rural high-speed 20 (2008) 3 70 — — — — — — — -1 5-mon — intersection Transverse Rumble Strips—raised or grooved pedestrian rural intersection 24 (2003) 11 — — 55 54 -1 1-mon TX patterns installed on roadway rural 2 -lane 25 (2005) 3 46 46 -0 49 52 3 1 wk KY cars the roadway travel lane departure or shoulder pavements work zone (2- 1 250 to perpendicular to the direction work zone rural lane) 26 (2000) 2 — 1850 _ _ — -2 — — — 1 -day TX cars of travel work zone rural work zone (2 26(2000) 2 — 1250 to — — — -2 — — — 1 -day TX trucks lane) 1850 pedestrian rural community 15 (2013) 3 — 843 to — 38 37 -1 44 44 0 1-mon IA entrance (2 -lane) 1947 Transverse Bars—lines community 8 43 to placed across the lane pedestrian rural entrance (2 -lane) 15 (2013) 3 — 1947 _37 38 1 44 43 -1 12-mon IA perpendicular to direction of travel work zone rural work zone (4 39 (2003) 1 — — — — — -2 — — -2 — Canada lane divided) work zone rural work zone 40 (2001) 1 70 18000 — 64 63 -1 68 67 -1 — KS roadway rural freeway to 36 (2003) 39010 — 64 49 -15 70 53 -17 20-mon WI departure freeway ramp roadway rural freeway to 37 (2008) — 30 adv. 18000 — 47 47 0 53 52 -1 1-mon TX departure freeway ramp roadway rural freeway to 37 (2008) — 30 adv. 18000 — 48 48 0 53 53 0 6-mon TX departure freeway ramp roadway rural 5 -curve (2 -lane) 38 (2006) 1 35/15 — — — — — 37 33 -4 15-mon OH departure adv. pedestrian rural intersection 8 (2001) 1 30 4000 — 36 32 -4 41 35 -6 1 -wk MN Converging Chevrons— pedestrian rural intersection 8 (2001) 1 30 4000 — 36 34 -2 41 39 -2 2 -yr MN on -pavement chevrons pedestrian rural intersection 8 (2001) 1 30 4000 — 36 31 -5 41 35 -5 4 -yr MN pedestrian rural community 7 (2007) 2 25 2200 to — 30 29 -1 36 35 -1 1-mon IA entrance 2420 pedestrian rural community 7 (2007) 2 25 2200 to — 30 29 -1 36 33 -3 12-mon IA entrance 2420 roadway rural freeway to 35 (2010) — — 18000 to — 31 29 -2 35 33 -2 1-mon GA departure freeway ramp 18600 roadway rural freeway to 35 (2010) — — 18000 to — 31 30 -1 35 34 -1 9-mon GA converging departure freeway ramp 18600 chevrons Countermeasure Safety Focus Area Roadway Reference Sites Speed Limit Volume Before — (vpd) After — Mean Before — Speed (mph) After — Change -1 8511 %tile Before — Speed After — (mph) Change -1 Period Location Notes pedestrian rural intersection 20 (2008) 4 — — — pedestrian rural community 7 (2007) 3 25 to 30 886 to — 39 38 -1 47 46 -1 1-mon IA entrance 1870 with DSFS pedestrian rural community 7 (2007) 2 25 to 30 234 to 263 to 39 34 -5 47 42 -5 1-mon IA —"YOUR SPEED entrance 662 646 XX" pedestrian rural intersection 27 (2010) 1 — 4,450 — 53 51 -2 62 60 -2 6-mon New Zealand herringbone pattern pedestrian rural community 28 (2011) 1 — 2800 — 37 29 -8 — — — — Italy with dragon's entrance teeth intersection (2 with RPM + intersection rural lane) 29 (2013) 1 37 — — 42 31 -11 48 3 -13 12-mon Spain reflectors to guardrail intersection rural intersection 30 (2000) — 62 — — — — -6 — — — simulator Australia full lane width intersection rural intersection 30 (2000) — 62 — — — — -4 — — — simulator Australia optical speed bar roadway rural horizontal 25 (2005) 3 46 46 0 49 49 0 1 -wk KY transverse bars Optical Speed Bars— departure curves transverse stripes on travel roadway rural horizontal 25 (2005) 3 — — — 46 45 -1 49 51 2 1 -yr KY transverse bars lane (sometimes spaced departure curves progressively closer to roadway 4- lane create the illusion of traveling faster) departure rural undivided 31 (2007) 2 45 12000 — 55 52 -3 — — — 1 -wk VA transverse bars roadway rural 4- lane 31 (2007) 2 45 12000 — 56 49 -7 — — — 3-mon VA transverse bars departure undivided roadway rural curve (2 -lane) 32 (2007) 2 45-65/ 48 49 1 52 56 4 4-mon NY, MI, TX optical speed bar departure 40 adv. roadway rural curve (2- 31 (2007) — — 5215 — 46 44 -2 — — — 1 -wk VA optical speed bar departure lane) roadway departure rural curve (2 -lane) 31 (2007) — — 5215 — 46 45 -1 — — — 3-mon VA optical speed bar roadway rural 2 -lane 33 (2009) — 55 day 45 — — 64 62 -2 71 69 -2 1 -wk AZ optical speed bar departure night roadway rural 2 -lane 33 (2009) — 55 day/ — — 64 59 -4 71 68 -3 3-mon AZ optical speed bar departure 45 night roadway rural curve (freeway) 34 (2008) — 50 — — 57 54 -3 60 59 -1 1 -wk WI optical speed bar departure roadway rural freeway exit 32 (2007) 1 65/ — — 38 34 -4 44 39 -5 4-mon NY, MI, TX optical speed bar departure ramp 30 adv. roadway rural 2 -lane 27(2010)i — 2500 — 51 50 -1 60 59 -1 2 -wk New Zealand herringbone departure Countermeasure Safety Focus Area Roadway Reference Sites Speed Limit Volume Before 2500 (vpd) After — Mean Before 51 Speed (mph) After 48 Change -3 851h %tile Before 60 Speed After 60 (mph) Change 0 Period Location Notes (conte Optical Speed roadway rural 2 -lane 27 (2010) 1 — 6-mon New Zealand herringbone Bars—transverse stripes departure on travel lane (sometimes roadway herringbone spaced progressively closer departure rural freeway ramp 21 (2000) 4 — — — 33 30 -3 — — — 2 -wk NY, VA markings to create the illusion of traveling faster) pedestrian rural intersection 27 (2010) 1 — 4,450 — 53 52 -1 61 61 0 2-wks — Herringbone pedestrian urban residential 8 (2001) 1 30 950 — 28 29 0 32 33 1 — MN roadway urban curve (2 -lane) 41 (1998) 1 35/15 5000 — 34 33 -1 — — — 2 -wk VA with curve symbol departure day adv roadway urban curve (2 -lane) 41 (1998) 1 35/15 5000 — 35 32 -3 — — — 2 -wk VA with curve symbol "SLOW"Legend on departure night adv Pavement roadway 55/none 780 to with curve departure rural curve 15(2012) 2 to 35 1880 _ 49 48 -1 54 53 -1 1-mon IA symbol+bars roadway 55/none 780 with curve symbol departure rural curve 15 (2012) 2 to 35 18800 — 49 48 -1 54 53 -1 12-mon IA +bars mph pedestrian rural within 7 (2007) 1 25 2200 — 30 30 0 35 34 -1 1-mon IA community pedestrian rural within 7 (2007) 1 25 2200 — 30 29 -1 35 33 -2 12-mon IA community pedestrian rural within 7 (2007) 1 25 2420 — 28 28 0 32 3 -1 1-mon IA with lane community narrowing Speed Limit XX Pavement pedestrian rural within 7 (2007) 1 25 2420 — 28 29 1 32 33 1 12-mon IA with lane Legend community narrowing pedestrian rural community 7 (2007);15 5 25 to 35 1009 to — 37 35 -2 42 40 -3 1 mon IA with red colored entrance (2013) 2850 pavement pedestrian rural community 7 (2007);15 2 25 to 35 1009 to — 40 39 -1 46 45 1 12-mon IA with red colored entrance (2013) 2850 pavement pedestrian rural community 15 (2013) 3 25 to 35 1009 to — 35 34 -1 40 39 -1 1 mon IA colored pavement entrance 3070 + dragon's teeth roadway curve "50 MPH"+ Curve Symbol departure urban (divided 4 -lane 42 (2005) 1 — — — 67 60 -7 — — — 1-mon TX highway) "CURVE roadway departure rural curve 42 (2005) 1 — 990 — 56 61 5 — — — 3-mon TX AHEAD" Pavement Legend roadway departure rural curve 42 (2005) 1 — 1160 — 60 59 -1 — — — 3-mon TX Vertical Delineation Center Island Using pedestrian rural community 7 (2007) 2 25 2669 — 30 29 -1 36 35 -1 1-mon IA Tubular Channelizers community entrance (2 -lane) Countermeasure Safety Focus Area Roadway Reference Sites Speed Limit Volume Before — (vpd) After — Mean Before 46 Speed (mph) After 46 Change 0 85 1h %tile Before 49 Speed After 50 (mph) Change 1 Period Location Notes roadway rural curve (2 -lane) 25 (2005) 3 — 1 -wk KY Post Mounted departure Delineators—reflective roadway rural curve (2 -lane) 11 (2010) — — — — 43 35 -8 — — — — simulator one side of curve buttons place on post at departure edge of road roadwayboth sides of departure rural curve (2 -lane) 11 (2010) — — — 43 34 -9 — — — — simulator — curve Streaming PMD roadway rural curve (2 -lane) 11 (2010) — — — 43 24 -19 — — — — simulator departure — Chevrons with Reflective roadway rural curve (2 -lane) 46 (2010) 2 56 54 -2 65 63 -2 1-mon TX Post departure Reflective Post Added to roadway departure rural curve (2 -lane) 47 (2012) 4 — 830 to 2280 — 50 50 0 56 55 -1 1-mon IA Existing Chevrons roadway rural curve (2 -lane) 47 (2012) 1 — 1710 — 54 53 -1 59 57 -2 12-mon IA departure Layered Landscaping— pedestrian P rural community entrance (2 -lane) 14(2008) — 35 — — 43 44 1 54 53 -1 — simulator at treatment roadside plantings used to create vertical friction300 community ft. pedestrian rural entrance (2 -lane) 14 (2008) — 35 — — 42 40 -2 51 45 -6 — simulator downstream of treatment Landscaped Median roadway urban Tcollector 48(2000)i — 11400 10900 37 33 -4 43 37 -6 — CO with curbside departure islands Dynamic Signing with striping roadway urban collector 55 (2013) 1 30 — — 33 27 -6 36 30 -6 2-mon CO between travel/ departure parking lanes + Speed Activated Speed signing Limit Sign—a blank out roadway with physical sign that displays"SPEED departure urban collector 55 (2013) 2 30 — — — 39 34 -5 1 -yr CO narrowing + LIMIT XX" for vehicles pedestrian refuge exceeding threshold speed roadway departure urban collector 55 (2013) 3 30 — — — — — 37 33 -4 1 -yr CO roadway urban collector 55 (2013) 1 30 37 32 -5 3 -yr CO departure pedestrian rural community 15 (2013) 2 25 980 to — 33 30 -3 42 28 -4 1-mon IA entrance 2240 Speed Limit Sign with LED pedestrian rural community 15 (2013) 2 25 980 to — 33 30 -3 42 38 -4 12-mon IA entrance 2240 Countermeasure Safety Focus Area Roadway Reference Sites Speed Limit Volume Before — (vpd) After — Mean Before 49 Speed (mph) After 44 Change -5 85 Ih %tile Before 55 Speed After 49 (mph) Change -6 Period Location Notes pedestrian urban school zone 50 (2005) 3 35 to 45 1 -wk TX pedestrian urban school zone 50 (2005) 3 35 to 45 49 42 -7 54 51 -3 4-mon TX pedestrian rural community 7 (2007); 15 1 25 295 367 38 37 -1 46 45 -1 1-mon IA entrance (2013) pedestrian rural community 7 (2007); 15 1 25 295 318 38 37 0 46 45 -1 12-mon IA entrance (2013) pedestrian rural community 51 (2006) 4 30 to 45 — — 46 41 -5 51 46 -5 1-mon MN entrance pedestrian rural community 51 (2006) 4 30 to 45 47 40 -7 51 46 -5 12-mon MN entrance pedestrian rural community 52 (2009) 12 25 to 40 — — 42 36 -6 — — — 1 -wk PA entrance intersection urban signalized 50 (2005) 2 45 to 55 51 47 -4 57 54 -4 1 -wk TX intersection intersection urban signalized 50 (2005) 2 45 to 55 — — 51 49 -2 57 55 -2 4-mon TX intersection roadway urban collector 53 (2004) 4 25 2700 to — 29 28 -1 34 32 -5 1-mon WA departure (2 -lane) 4900 Speed Feedback Sign— displays the speed of drivers roadway urban collector 53 (2004) 4 25 2700 to — 28 27 -1 33 28 -5 2 -yr WA traveling over the threshold departure (2 -lane) 4900 speed with the message roadway collector/ minor "YOUR SPEED XX departure urban arterial 54 (2009) 16 25 -2 1 -yr WA roadway urban collector/ minor 54 (2009) 16 25 -3 5 to 8 -yr WA departure arterial roadway urban collector/ minor 54 (2009) 16 30 to 35 — — — — — — — -4 1 -yr WA departure arterial roadway urban collector/ minor 54 (2009) 16 30 to 35 — -6 5 to 8 -yr WA departure arterial roadway urban 2 -lane 54 (2009) 9 25 to 35 — — — — — 40 36 -4 1-mon WA departure roadway urban 2 -lane 54 (2009) 4 25 to 35 — — 37 33 -4 12-mon WA departure roadway urban 2 -lane 54 (2009) 9 25 to 35 — — — — — 39 35 -4 2 to 3 -yr WA departure roadway urban 2 -lane 54 (2009) 11 25 to 35 — — — — — 38 33 -5 4+ yr. WA departure roadway urban curve 54 (2009) 1 30 — — — — — 41 38 -3 1-mon WA departure (2 -lane) roadway urban curve 54 (2009) 2 30 to 35 — — — — — 42 38 -4 2 to 3 -yr WA departure (2 -lane) Countermeasure Safety Focus Area Roadway Reference Sites Speed Limit Volume Before (vpd) After Mean Before Speed (mph) After — Change — 85 Ih %tile Before 41 Speed After 35 (mph) Change -6 Period Location Notes roadway urban curve (2- 54 (2009) 1 30 4+ yr. WA departure lane) roadway departure rural interstate (curve) 56 (2006) 2 45 adv. 16750 — 56 53 -3 — — — 2 to 4-mon OR passenger cars roadway rural interstate (curve) 56 (2006) 2 45 adv. 16750 — 51 49 -2 — — — 2 to OR trucks departure 4-mon roadway 50 to AZ, FL, IA, OH, departure rural curve (2 -lane) 57 (2013) 11 65/30 to — — — — -2 — — -3 1-mon OR, TX, WA 50 adv. roadway 50 to AZ, FL, IA, OH, departure rural curve (2 -lane) 57 (2013) 11 65/30 to — — — — -3 — — -3 12-mon OR, TX, WA 50 adv. (contd) Speed Feedback roadway 50 to AZ, FL, IA, OH, Sign—displays the speed departure rural curve (2 -lane) 57 (2013) 11 65/30 to — — — — -2 — — -2 2 -yr OR, TX, WA of drivers traveling over the 50 adv. threshold speed with the roadway 55/20 message "YOUR SPEED XX" departure rural curve (2 lane) 50 (2005) 2 adv. 36 33 -3 42 39 -3 1 wk TX roadway rural curve (2 -lane) 50 (2005) 2 55/20 36 35 -1 42 40 -2 4-mon TX departure adv. roadway departure rural curve (2 -lane) 58 (2012) 3 — 455 to 710 — 54 51 -3 61 57 -4 1-mon MN passenger cars work zone rural interstate 62(2011) 3 55 28000 — 61 57 -4 66 61 -5 1 -wk NE passenger cars work zone rural interstate 62 (2011) 3 55 28000 — 58 55 -3 62 59 -3 1 -wk NE trucks work zone rural interstate 62 (2011) 3 55 28000 — 61 56 -5 66 60 -6 5 -wk NE passenger cars workzone rural interstate 62 (2011) 3 55 28000 — 58 56 -3 62 59 -3 5 -wk NE trucks work zone rural arterial 63 (2006) 1 — — — — — — 66 63 -3 — TX roadway urban 2 -lane 54 (2009) 9 25 — — — — — 34 32 -2 1 to WA departure 6-mon roadway urban 2 -lane 54 (2009) 3 25 — — — — — 33 -31 -2 12-mon WA departure roadway urban 2 -lane 54 (2009) 5 25 33 31 -2 2 to 3 -yr WA departure Speed Feedback Sign with roadway urban curve 54 (2009) 1 25 36 31 -5 1 to WA Action Message—"YOUR departure (2 -lane) 6-mon SPEED XX"+"SLOW DOWN" roadway urban curve 54 (2009) 1 25 36 31 -5 4+ yr. WA departure (2 -lane) intersection rural signalized 20 (2008) 3 50 to 55 — — — — -2 — — -1 — WA, TX at sign intersection work zone rural interstate 63 (2006) 1 — — — — — — 65 63 -2 — TX pedestrian rural community 7(2007)i 25 2870 — 31 26 -5 59 52 -7 3-mon IA SLOW DOWN 25 entrance Q Countermeasure Safety Focus Area Roadway Reference Sites Speed Limit Volume Before 455 to (vpd) After — Mean Before 54 Speed (mph) After 50 Change -4 85 Ih %tile Before 61 Speed After 57 (mph) Change -4 Period Location Notes roadway rural curve 58 (2012) 3 — 12-mon MN PC departure (2 -lane) 710 Speed Feedback Sign roadway rural curve 58 (2012) 3 — 455 to — 53 50 -3 53 50 -3 1-mon MN center of curve, plus New Curve Advisory departure (2 -lane) 710 Speed Sign roadway rural curve 58 (2012) 3 — 455 to — 53 50 -3 53 49 -4 12-mon MN center of curve departure (2 -lane) 710 "YOUR SPEED XX" pedestrian rural community 7 (2007); 15 2 25 to 30 234 to 263 to 39 34 -5 47 42 -5 1 mon IA with optical speed entrance (2013) 662 646 bars "SLOW" pedestrian rural recreational area 13 (2002) 1 35 — — 36 36 0. 43 44 1 1-mon MN roadway rural curve (2 -lane) 59 (2002) 3 30 to 50 — — 39 35 -4 _ _ _ _ United departure Kingdom Speed Activated Curve roadway 50 to AZ, FL, IA, OH, Warning Sign and"SLOW departure rural curve (2 -lane) 57 (2013) 11 70/35 to — — — — -2 — — -2 1-mon OR, TX, WA DOWN" Action Message 50 adv. roadway rural curve (2 -lane) 57 (2013) 11 50 to 70/35 to — — — — -3 — — -2 12-mon AZ, FL, IA, OH, departure 50 adv. OR, TX, WA roadway rural curve (2 -lane) 57 (2013) 11 50 to 70/35 to — — — — -2 — — -2 2 -yr AZ, FL, IA, OH, departure 50 adv. OR, TX, WA "TOO FAST FOR CURVE" roadway rural curve (interstate) 60 (2003) 1 50 — — — — -3 — — — — WI trucks departure "50 MPH CURVES"+ roadway rural interstate 61 (2000) 5 55 to 65/50 to — — 64 63 -1 — — — — CA passenger cars "YOUR SPEED XX" departure 60 adv. "50 MPH CURVES"+ roadway 55 to "YOUR SPEED XX" departure rural interstate 61 (2000) 5 65/50 to — — 58 56 -2 — — — — CA trucks 60 adv. workzone rural 2 -lane 64(2007) 3 45 — — — — -3 — — -3 — SC Flashing Beacon workzone rural multi -lane 64 (2007) 1 45 — — — — -3 — — -3 — SC workzone rural interstate 64(2007) 1 45 — — — — -6 — — -5 — SC Variable Speed Limit roadway rural freeway 65 (2005) 2 — — — 82 77 -5 — WA departure Curve Warning Sign with roadway Flashers— flashing lights departure rural 2 -lane curve 25 (2005) 2 — — — 47 46 -1 51 50 -1 — on sign Safety Speed Volume (vpd) Mean Speed (mph) 851h %tile Speed (mph) Countermeasure Focus Area Roadway Reference Sites Limit Period Location Notes Before After Before After Change Before After Change Static Signing roadway 70/45 & departure rural 2 -lane 46 (2010) 2 50 adv. 57 55 -2 65 64 -1 1-mon TX Chevron Signs—use of roadway rural 2 -lane 25 (2005) 1 — 48 48 0 52 52 0 1 -wk KY at PC standard chevron signing departure roadway 70/45 & with full post departure rural 2 -lane 46 (2010) 2 50 adv. 56 54 -2 65 63 -2 1-mon TX delineation Chevrons with Full Post roadway 50 to Delineation departure rural 2 -lane 47 (2012) 4 55/35 to — — 50 50 0 56 55 -1 1-mon IA 50 adv. roadway Curve Sign + Flags departure rural 2 -lane 25 (2005) 3 46 45 -1 49 49 0 1 -wk KY at PC Arrow (MUTCD: W1-6) roadway rural 2 -lane 25 (2005) 1 43 44 1 46 47 1 1 -wk KY at PC departure Intersection Treatments Roundabout—large, pedestrian rural — 66 (2005) 19 — — 20400 — — — 48 28 -20 — MD, CA, WA, raised, circular islands MI, Canada at the middle of major Y intersection 1 to 3 intersections, around which intersection suburban (2 -lane) 67 (2005) 1 — — 5500 — — — 32 24 -8 years MI all oncoming vehicles must 11000 to traverse intersection urban — 68 (2005) 1 — 12000 15500 — — — 47 33 -14 — CO Traffic Circle—circular, TX, WA, CA, raised island placed 240 to 269 to CO, NC, OH, within the middle of an intersection urban — 1 (1999) 45 — 10910 8280 — — 34 30 -4 — OR, FL, GA, MD, NE, MA, intersection MN, AZ Access Control Half -Closure pedestrian urban — 1 (1999) 11 — 29540 151 t — — 30 24 -6 — — Diagonal Diverter pedestrian urban — 1 (1999) 7 — 474 to 177 to — — — 28 27 1 — — 2057 574 Full Closure pedestrian urban — 1 (1999) 2 — 1540 to 850 to — — — 18 13 -3 — — 1980 1080 Choker + Speed Hump pedestrian urban — 1 (1999) 2 — 2456 to 2593 to — — — 38 25 -13 — — 3685 2931 Half -Closure + Median 10160 to 1120 to Barrier pedestrian urban — 1 (1999) 2 — 10320 2120 — — — 38 32 -6 — — 12 Safety Speed Volume (vpd) Mean Speed (mph) 851h %tile Speed (mph) Countermeasure Focus Area Roadway Reference Sites Limit Before After Before After Change Before After Change Period Location Notes Gateway Entrance Treatments pedestrian rural community 49(2000) 1 40 — — 45 41 -4 50 46 -5 1-mon United red bars +signing entrance Kingdom + bulb -outs pedestrian rural community 49 (2000) 1 20 35 24 -11 41 30 -11 1-mon United narrowing + entrance Kingdom speed cushions pedestrian rural community 49 (2000) 1 20 — — 35 15 -10 41 30 -11 12-mon United narrowing + entrance Kingdom speed cushions community United red box + speed pedestrian rural entrance 49(2000) 1 30 — — 40 30 -11 47 35 -13 1-mon Kingdom limit + dragon's teeth + signing community United red box +speed pedestrian rural entrance 49(2000) 1 30 — — 40 33 -8 47 38 -9 12-mon Kingdom limit + dragon's teeth + signing community United red box +speed pedestrian rural entrance 49(2000) 1 30 — — 38 33 -5 43 39 -4 1-mon Kingdom limit + dragon's teeth + signing Entrance Treatments— community United red box +speed multiple treatments placed pedestrian rural entrance 49 (2000) 1 30 — — 38 32 -6 43 36 -7 12-mon Kingdom limit + dragon's at community entrance teeth + signing to reduce speeds into community United red patches + community y pedestrian rural entrance 49(2000) 1 30 — — 41 39 -2 47 47 0 1-mon Kingdom °SLOW"+dragon's teeth + signing community United red patches + °SLOW"+dragon's pedestrian rural entrance 49(2000) 1 30 — — 41 37 -4 47 44 -3 12-mon Kingdom teeth + signing red lines of pedestrian rural community 49 (2000) 1 40 — — 51 45 -6 60 51 -9 1-mon United decreasing size entrance Kingdom and width + signing red lines of pedestrian rural community 49 (2000) 1 40 — — 51 45 -6 60 53 -7 12-mon United decreasing size entrance Kingdom and width + signing pedestrian rural community 49(2000) 1 40 44 39 -6 50 43 -7 1-mon United red box +speed entrance Kingdom limit+ signing pedestrian rural community 49 (2000) 1 40 — — 44 38 -7 50 43 -7 12-mon United red box + speed entrance Kingdom limit+ signing Notes: Information is presented to one significant digit unless the study only provided integer values. In some cases the study only provided resulting changes in speed rather than providing the actual before and after value. 13 Abbreviations common state destinations are used and are not listed here (e.g. Iowa = IA) advisory (adv) intersection (isect) month (mon.) pedestrian (ped) post mounted delineator (PMD) rumble strips (RS) run off road (ROR) years (yrs.) References 1. Ewing, R. 1999. Traffic Calming: State of the Practice. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC. 2. ACV. Effectiveness of Traffic Calming Measures in Arlington County. Arlington County, VA. 2005. 3. Marek, J.C. and Walgren, S. "Mid -Block Speed Control: Chicanes and Speed Humps" City of Seattle, WA. 2000. www.seattle.gov/Transportation/docs/ITErevfin.pdf 4. Ponnaluri, R.V. and P.W. Groce. "Operational Effectiveness of Speed Humps in Traffic Calming" ITE Journal. 2005. pp. 26-30. 5. Smith, D., S. Hallmark, K. Knapp, and G. Thomas. Temporary Speed Hump Impact Evaluation. Center for Transportation Research and Education at Iowa State University. July 2002. 6. Bretherton, W.M."Do Speed Tables Improve Safety." Presented at the 2003 Annual Meeting of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. August 2003, Seattle Washington. 7. Hallmark, S.L, E. Peterson, E. Fitzsimmons, N. Hawkins, J. Resler, and T. Welch. Evaluation of Gateway and Low -Cost Traffic -Calming Treatments for Major Routes in Small Rural Communities, Phase I. Center for Transportation Research and Education, Iowa State University. Ames, Iowa. November 2007. www.intrans.iastate.edu/research/projects/detail/?projectlD=-226410767 8. Corkle, J., J.L. Giese, and M.M. Marti. 2001. Investigating the Effectiveness of Traffic Calming Strategies on Driver Behavior, Traffic Flow, and Speed. Minnesota Local Road Research Board, Minnesota Department of Transportation. October 2001. 9. NYCDOT. Downtown Brooklyn Traffic Calming Study. New York City Department of Transportation. 2004. 10. M. William. "Evaluation of Speed Control Measures in Residential Areas:' Traffic Engineering, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC. March 1977. 11. Molino, J.A., B.J. Katz, M.B. Hermosillo, E.E. Dagnall, and J.F. Kennedy. Simulator Evaluation of Low -Cost Safety Improvements on Rural Two -Lane Undivided Roads: Nighttime Delineation for Curves and Traffic Calming for Small Towns. Science Applications International Corporation. McLean, VA. February 2010. 12. Macbeth, A.G. 1998."Calming arterials in Toronto" Presented at the 1998 Annual Meeting of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 13. Kamyab, A., S. Andrle, and D. Kroeger. Methods to Reduce Traffic Speeds at High Pedestrian Areas. Center for Transportation Research and Education. Ames, Iowa. March 2002. www.ctre.iastate.edu/ research/detail.cfm?projectid=1052946660. 14. Dixon, K., H. Zhu, J. Ogle, J. Brooks, C. Hein, P. Aklluir, and M. Crisler. Determining Effective Roadway Design Treatments for Transitioning from Rural Areas on State Highways. Oregon State University. FHWA- OR-RD-09-02. September 2008. 15. Hallmark, S., S. Knickerbocker, and N. Hawkins. Evaluation of Low Cost Traffic Calming for Rural Communities-Phasell. Center for Transportation Research and Education, Iowa State University. September 2013. www.intrans.iastate.edu/research/projects/detail/?projectlD=43176957. 16. Berger, W.J. and M. Linauer. "Speed Reduction at City Limits by Using Raised Traffic Islands." Proceedings from the 2nd KFB-Research Conference. Urban Transport systems. Lund, Sweden. 1999. 17. Hughes, W., R. Jagannathan, and F. Goss. Two -Low Cost Safety Concepts for Two -Way Stop -Controlled, Rural Intersections on High -Speed Two -Lane, Two -Way Roadways. Federal Highway Administration. FHWA-HRT-08-063. September 2008. 18. Lum, H.S. "The Use of Road Markings to Narrow Lanes for Controlling Speed in Residential Areas." Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal. June 1984. pp. 50 to 54. 19. VHB. Two Low -Cost Safety Concepts for Two- Way STOP -Con trolled, Rurallntersections on High -Speed Two -Lane, Two -Way Roadways. Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. FHWA-HRT-08-063. Sept. 2008 14 20. Ray, B., W. Kittelson, J. Knudsen, B. Nevers, P. Ryus, K. Sylvester, I. Potts, D. Harwood, D. Gilmore, D.Torbic, F. Hanscom, J. McGill, and D. Stewart. NCHRP Report 613: Guidelines for Selection of Speed Reduction Treatments at High -Speed Intersections. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 2008. 21. Retting, R.A., H.W. McGee, and C.M. Farmer. "Influence of Experimental Pavement Markings on Urban Freeways Exit -Ramp Traffic Speeds" Transportation Research Record. No. 1705. 2000. pp. 116-121. 22. Tsyganov, A.R., R.B. Machemehl, and N.M. Warrenchuk. Safety Impact of Edge Lines or Rural Two -Lane Highways. Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin. FHWA/Tx-05/-5090-1. September 2005. 23. Knapp, K. and K. Giese. Guidelines for the Conversion of Urban Four -Lane Undivided Roadways to Three -Lane Two -Way Left Turn Lane Facilities. Center for Transportation Research and Education at Iowa State University. April 2001. 24. Fitzpatrick, K., M.A. Brewer, and A.H. Parham. Left -Turn and In -Lane Rumble Strip Treatments for Rural Intersections. Texas Transportation Institute. September 2003. 25. Vest, A., N. Stamatiadis, A. Clayton, and J. Pigman. Effect of Warning Signs on Curve Operating Speeds. Kentucky Transportation Center. KTC-05-20/SPR-259-03-1 F. August 2005. 26. Fontaine, M., R Carlson and G. Hawkins. Evaluation of Traffic Control Devices for Rural High -Speed Maintenance Work Zones: Second Year Activities and Final Recommendations. FHWA/TX-01 /1879-2. Texas Transportation Institute. Texas Department of Transportation. 2000. 27. Martindale, A. and C. Urlich. Effectiveness of Transverse Road Markings on Reducing Vehicle Speeds. NZ Transport Agency Research Report 423. October 2010. 28. Dell'Acqua, G. "Reducing Traffic Injuries Resulting from Excess Speed: Low Cost Gateway Treatments in Italy" Journal of the Transportation Research Board. No. 2203. 2011. pp. 94-99. 29. Martinez, A., D.A. Mantaras, and P. Luque. "Reducing Posted Speed and Perceptual Countermeasures to Improve Safety in Road Stretches with a High Concentration of Accidents." Safety Science. Vol. 60. 2013. pp. 160-168. 30. Godley, S.T.,T.J.Triggs, and B.N. Fildes. "Speed Reduction Mechanisms of Transverse Lines" Transportation Human Factors. Vol. 2, No. 4. 2000. pp. 297-312. 31. Arnold, E.D. and K.E. Lantz. Evaluation of Best Practices in Traffic Operations and Safety: Phase l: Flashing LED Stop Sign and Optical Speed Bars. Virginia Transportation Research Council. VTRC 07-R34. June 2007. 32. Katz, B.J. Pavement Markings for Speed Reduction. Science Applications International Corporation. McLean, Virginia. December 2004. 33. Latoski, S.P. "Optical Speed Zone for Rural Two -Lane Highways." ITE Journal. March 2009. pp. 30-35. 34. Gates, T.J., X. Qin, and D.A. Noyce. "Effectiveness of Experimental Transverse -Bar Pavement Marking as Speed -Related Treatment on Freeway Curves" Journal of the Transportation Research Board. No. 2056. pp. 95-102. 35. Hunter, M.P., A. Guin, S. Boonsiripant, and M. Rodgers. Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Converging Chevron Pavement Markings. Georgia Department of Transportation. FHWA-GA-10-0713. October 2010. 36. Drakapoulos, A., and G. Vergou. Evaluation of the Converging Chevron Pavement Marking Pattern in One Wisconsin Location. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Washington, DC. July 2003. 37. Voigt, A.P. and S.P. Kuchangi. Evaluation of Chevron Markings on Freeway to Freeway Connector Ramps in Texas. Texas A&M University System. 2008. 38. ATSSA. Low Cost Local Road Safety Solutions. American Traffic Safety Services Association. Fredericksburg, Virginia. March 2006. 39. Hildebrand, E. D., F. R. Wilson, and J. J. Copeland. "Speed Management Strategies for Rural Temporary Work Zones" Proceedings of the Canadian Multidisciplinary Road Safety Conference XIII. Banff, Alberta: Canadian Association of Road Safety Professionals. 2003. 40. Meyer, Eric. "A New Look at Optical Speed Bars" Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal. November 2001. pp. 44-48. 41. Retting, R.A., and C.M. Farmer."Use of Pavement Markings to Reduce Excessive Traffic Speeds on Hazardous Curves." Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal. September 1998. pp. 30-36. 42. Chrysler, S.T. and S.D. Schrock. Field Evaluation and Driver Comprehension Studies of Horizontal Signing. FHWA/TX-05/0-4471-2. Texas Transportation Institute. February 2005. 43. Kannel, E.J. and W. Jansen. In -Pavement Pedestrian Flasher Evaluation: Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Center for Transportation Research and Education. Iowa State University. 2004. 44. Prevedouros, P. Evaluation of In -pavement Flashing Lights on a Six -lone Arterial Pedestrian Crossing. University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI. 2000. 45. Shepard, F.D. Traffic Evaluation of Pavement Inset Lights for Use during Fog. Virginia Highway and Transportation Research Council. Charlottesville, Virginia. VHTRC 78-R25. December 1977. 46. Re, J.M., H.G. Hawkins, Jr., and S.T. Chrysler."Assessing Benefits of Chevrons with Full Retroreflective Signposts on Rural Horizontal Curves" Journal of the Transportation Research Board. No. 2149.2010. pp. 30-36. 15 47. Hallmark, S.L., N. Hawkins, and O. Smadi. Evaluation of Low -Cost Treatments on Rural Two -Lane Curves. Center for Transportation Research and Education at Iowa State University. July 2012. www. intrans.iastate.edu/research/projects/detail/?projectlD=-1352703394 48. Buchholz, K., D. Baskett and L. Anderson. "Collector Street Traffic Calming: A Comprehensive Before -After Study" Presented at the 2000 Annual Meeting of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2000. 49. DOT. Traffic Calming in Villages on Major Roads. Traffic Advisory Leaflet 1/00. March 2000. Department for Transport. www.ukroads.org/webfiles/TAL%201-00%20Traffic%20calming%20in%20 villages%20on%20major%20roads.pdf 50. Ullman, G.L. and E.R. Rose. "Evaluation of Dynamic Speed Display Signs"Journal of the Transportation Research Record. No. 1918. 2005. pp. 92-97. 51. Sandberg, W., T. Schoenecker, K. Sebastian, and D. Soler. "Long -Term Effectiveness of Dynamic Speed Monitoring Displays for Speed Management at Speed Limit Transitions" 2006 Institute of Transportation Engineers Annual Meeting and Exhibit Compendium of Technical Papers. 52. Cruzado, I. and E.T. Donnell. "Evaluating Effectiveness of Dynamic Speed Display Signs in Transition Zones of Two -Lane, Rural Highways in Pennsylvania"Journal of the Transportation Research Board. No. 2122. 2009. pp. 1-8. 53. Chang, K., M. Nolan, and N.L. Nihan. "Radar Speed Signs on Neighborhood Streets: An Effective Traffic Calming Device?" Proceedings of the 2004 Institute of Transportation Engineers Annual Meeting and Exhibit. Lake Buena Vista, FL. August 2004. 54. CBTD. Stationary Radar Sign Program: 2009 Report. 2009. City of Bellevue Transportation Department, Bellevue, Washington. 55. CEC. "Recent Accomplishments" www.ci.englewood.co.us/inside-city-hall/boards-and-commissions/transportation-advisory-committee/recent-accomplishments. City of Englewood, Colorado. Accessed June 2013. 56. Bertini, R.L., C. Monsere, C. Nolan, R Bosa, and T. Abou EI-Seoud. Field Evaluation of the Myrtle Creek Advance Curve Warning System. SPR 352. FHWA-OR-RD-05_13. Portland State University. June 2006. 57. Hallmark, S.L., N. Hawkins, and O. Smadi. Evaluation of Dynamic Speed Feedback Signs on Curves: A National Demonstration Project. Center for Transportation Research and Education at the Institute for Transportation. Iowa State University. April 2013. www.intrans.iastate.edu/research/projects/detail/?projectlD=-1352703394 58. Knapp, K. Knapp and Ferrol Robinson. The Vehicle Speed Impacts of Dynamic Horizontal Curve Warning Sign on Low -Volume Local Roadways. Minnesota Department of Transportation. May 2012. 59. Win nett, M.A. and A.H. Wheeler. Vehicle Activated Signs -A Large Scale Evaluation. Road Safety Division, Department for Transport. TRL548.2002. 60. Drakopoulos, S.U. and Georgia Vergou. 1-43 Speed Warning Sign Evaluation. Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. November 2003. 61. Tribbett, L., P. McGowen, and J. Mounce. An Evaluation of Dynamic Curve Warning Systems in the Sacramento River Canyon. http://www.coe.montana.edu/ce/patm/pubs/files/2000curve.pdf. Western Transportation Institute. April 2000. 62. Pesti, G. and P.T. McCoy. "Long -Term Effectiveness of Speed Monitoring Displays in Work Zones on Rural Interstate Highways" 801h Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. January 2011, Washington, DC. 63. Brewer, M.A., G. Pesti, and W. Schneider IV. "Improving Compliance with Work Zone Speed Limits: Effectiveness of Selected Devices" Journal of the Transportation Research Record. No. 1948. 2006. pp. 67-76. 64. Mattox, J.H., W.A. Sarasua, J.H. Ogle, R.T. Eckenrode, and A. Dunning."Development and Evaluation of a Speed Activated Sign to Reduce Speeds in Work Zones" Proceedings of the 2007 Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. January 2007. 65. Ulfarsson, G.F., V.N. Shankar, and P. Vu. "The Effect of Variable Message and Speed Limit Signs on Mean Speeds and Speed Deviations" International Journal of Vehicle Information and Communication. Vol. 1. Nos. 1/2. February 2005. pp. 69-87. 66. Ritchie, S. and M. Lenters. "High Speed Approaches at Roundabouts." Presented at the Transportation Research Board National Roundabout Conference. Vail, CO. 2005. 67. Waddell, E. and J. Albertson. "The Domondale Mini: America's First Mini -Roundabout. Presented at the Transportation Research Board National Roundabout Conference" Vail, CO. 2005. 68. Ariniello, A. "Are Roundabouts Good for Business?" Presented at the Transportation Research Board National Roundabout Conference. Vail, Colorado. 2005. 69. Elvik, R. and T. Vaa. Handbook of Road Safety Measures. Elsevier, Oxford, United Kingdom. 2004. 70. Schultz, G., D. Thurgood, A. Olsen, C.S. Reese. "Analyzing Raised Median Safety Impacts Using Bayesian Methods" Presented at the 90th Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. 2011. is 71. Schultz, G.G., K.T. Braley, and T. Boschert. "Correlating Access Management to Crash Rate, Severity, and Collision Type"TRB 87th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers CD-ROM. Washington, D.C. 2008. 72. Yanmaz-Tuzel, O. and K. Ozbay. "A Comparative Full Bayesian Before -after Analysis and Application to Urban Road Safety Countermeasures in New Jersey." Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 42, No. 6.2010. pp. 2099-2107. 73. Zegeer, C. V., R. Stewart, H. Huang, and P. Lagerwey. Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Executive Summary and Recommended Guidelines. FHWA-RD-01-075. McLean, Va., Federal Highway Administration. 2002. 74. Bared, J., W. Hughes, R. Jagannathan and F. Gross. Two Low Cost Safety Concepts for Two Way Stop Controlled, Rural Intersections on High Speed Two Lane, Two Way Roadways. FHWA-HRT-08-063. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 2008. 75. Knapp, K.K., K.L. Giese, and W. Lee. "Urban Minor Arterial Four -Lane Undivided to Three -Lane Conversion Feasibility: an Update" Presented at the 2"d Urban Street Symposium, Anaheim, California. July 2003. 76. Persaud, B. and C. Lyon. Evaluation of Lane Reduction "Road Diet" Measures on Crashes. Highway Safety Information System Summary Report. USDOT, FHWA. FHWA-HRT-10-053. 2010. 77. Gates, T. J., D.A. Noyce, V. Talada, and L. Hill, L. "The Safety and Operational Effects of Road Diet Conversion in Minnesota." 2007 TRB 86th Annual Meeting: Compendium of Papers CD-ROM. Washington, D.C. 2007. 78. Lyles, R.W., M.A. Siddiqui, W.C. Taylor, B.Z. Malik, G. Siviy, and T. Haan. Safety and Operational Analysis of 4 -lane to 3 -lane Conversions (Road Diets) in Michigan. Michigan Department of Transportation Report Num RC -1555.2012. 79. Pawlovich, M.D., W. Li, A. Carriquiry, and T. Welch. "Iowa's Experience with Road Diet Measures: Use of Bayesian Approach to Assess Impacts on Crash Frequencies and Crash Rates" Journal of the Transportation Research Board. No. 1953. 2006. pp. 163-171. 80. Harkey, D.L., R. Srinivasan, J. Baek, B. Persaud, C. Lyon, F.M. Council, K. Eccles, N. Lefler, F. Gross, E. Hauer, and J. Bonneson. Crash Reduction Factors for Traffic Engineering and ITS Improvements. NCHRP Project 17-25 Final Report. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. 2008.Srinivasan, R., J. Baek, and F. Council. "Safety Evaluation of Transverse Rumble Strips on Approaches to Stop -Controlled Intersections in Rural Areas" Presented at the 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. 2010. 81. Srinivasan, R., J. Baek, and F. Council. "Safety Evaluation of Transverse Rumble Strips on Approaches to Stop -Controlled Intersections in Rural Areas." Presented at the 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. 2010. 82. Liu, P., J. Huang, W. Wang, and C. Xu. "Effects of Transverse Rumble Strips on Safety of Pedestrian Crosswalks on Rural Low -Volume Roads in China" Presented at the 90th Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Washington, D.C. 2011. 83. Agent, K. R. and F.T. Creasey. Delineation of Horizontal Curves. UKTRP-86-4. Frankfort, Ky., Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. 1986. 84. Griffin, L. I. and R.N. Reinhardt. A Review of Two Innovative Pavement Patterns that Have Been Developed to Reduce Traffic Speeds and Crashes. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Washington, D.C. 1996. 85. McGee, H.W. and F.R. Hanscom. Low -Cost Treatments for Horizontal Curve Safety. U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. FHWA-SA-07-002. December 2006. http://safety. fhwa.dot.gov/roadway-dept/horicurves/fhwasa07OO2/index.cfm#toc 86. US DOT. Toolbox of Countermeasures and Their Potential Effectiveness for Roadway Departure Crashes. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. FHWA-SA-07-013. August 2008. 87. Gan, A., J. Shen, and A. Rodriguez. Update of Florida Crash Reduction Factors and Countermeasures to Improve the Development of District Safety Improvement Projects. Florida Department of Transportation. 2005. 88. Montella, Alfonso."Safety Evaluation of Curve Delineation Improvements Empirical Bayes Observational Before -and -After Study" Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. No. 2103. -Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC. 2009. pp. 69-79. 89. Veneziano, David, Zhirui Ye, Jim Fletcher, Jon Ebeling, and Frederica Shockley. Evaluation of the Gateway Monuments Demonstration: Safety, Economic and Social lmpactAnalysis. State of California, Department of Transportation, Landscape Architecture Program, and Division of Research and Innovation. September 2009. www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/research/docs/final_gateway_monument_ eval.pdf. Accessed July 2013. 90. Schoon, C. and J. van Minnen."The Safety of Roundabouts in the Netherlands." Traffic Engineering&Control. Vol. 35, No. 3. 1994. pp. 142-148. 91. Qin, X., A. Bill, M. Chitturi, and D. Noyce."Evaluation of Roundabout Safety" Presented at the Transportation Research Board 92nd Annual Meeting. January 2013. Washington, DC. 17 92. Isebrands, H. "A Statistical Analysis and Development of a Crash Prediction Model for Roundabouts on High -Speed Rural Roadways" Presented at the 91 st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board Paper No. 12-4191, Washington, D.C. 2012. 93. Persaud, B. N., R.A. Retting, P.E. Garder, and D. Lord."Observational Before -After Study of the Safety Effect of U.S. Roundabout Conversions Using the Empirical Bayes Method"Journal of the Transportation Research Record. No. 1751. Washington, D.C., Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. 2001. 94. Rodegerdts, L. A., M. Blogg, E. Wemple, E. Myers, M. Kyte, K. Dixon, G. List, A. Flannery, A., R.Troutbeck, W. Brilon, N. Wu, B. Persaud, C. Lyon, D. Harkey, and D. Carter. NCHRP Report 572:Applying Roundabouts in the United States. Washington, D.C. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. 2007. 95. De Brabander, B. and L. Vereeck. "Safety Effects of Roundabouts in Flanders: Signal Type, Speed Limits, and Vulnerable Road Users" Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 39.2007. 96. Gross, F., C. Lyon, B. Persaud, and R. Srinivasan."Safety Effectiveness of Converting Signalized Intersections to Roundabouts:' Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 50. pp. 234-41. July 2013. 97. Srinivasan, R., J. Baek, S. Smith, C. Sundstrom, D. Carter, C. Lyon, B. Persaud, F. Gross, K. Eccles, A. Hamidi, and N. Lefler. NCHRP Report 705: Evaluation of5afetyStrategies at Signalized Intersections. Washington, D.C., Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. 2011. 98. Uddin, W., J. Headrick, and J.S. Sullivan."Performance Evaluation of Roundabouts for Traffic Flow Improvements and Crash Reductions at a Highway Interchange in Oxford, MS" Presented at the Transportation Research Board 91 st Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers, Washington, D.C., 2012. 99. Srinivasan, R., J. Baek, D. Carter, B. Persaud, C. Lyon, K. Eccles, F. Gross, and N. Lefler. Safety Evaluation of Improved Curve Delineation. FHWA-HRT-09-045. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. 2009. 100. ITE. Traffic Calming State of the Practice. Institute of Transportation Engineers. August 1999. PRESENTATION TO FOLLOW: m ~" ! CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street lova City, lova 52240- 1 826 (3 19) 356-5000 (3 19) 356-5009 FAX ww",Jcgov.org US Department of Transportation Traffic Calming ePrimer https://safety.fhwa.dot.Roy/speedmRt/ePrimer modules/modu1e3.cfm#mod35 Traffic Calming Options Used by Other US Cities • Emergency Vehicles Only Closure • Chokers • Chicane • Median Barriers Reference: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Current Tamarack Trail North End s • 3 9 ) A av Traffic Calming Fact Sheets May 2018 Update Choker A Cummun" W Tates MBUan Pf Mec3�ona�a Descripti,an: Curb extension is a lateral horizontal extension of the sidewalk into the street, resulting in a narrower roadway section If located at an intersection, it is called a comer extension or a bulb -out If located midblock, it is referred to as a choker Narrowing of a roadway through the use of curb extensions or roadside islands Applications: Can be created by a pair of curb extensions, often landscaped Encourages lower travel speeds by red ucinq motorist margin of error One -lane choker forces two-way traffic to take turns going through the pinchi point If the pinch point is angled relative to the roadway, it is called an angled choker Can be located at any spacing desired May be suitable for a old -block crosswalk Appropriate for arterials, collectors, or local streets (Source: City of An Arbor, 1i r) [Source= Delawares DOT] Traffic Calming Fact Sheets May 2018 Update I W= A community of Tranipurls"n Pr preWpnP Chicane Description: ■ A series of alternatinq curves or lane shifts that force a motorist to steer back and forth instead of traveling a straight path ■ Also called deviations, serpentines: reversing curves, or waists Applications: Appropriate for mid -block locations but can be an entire block if it is relatively short Most effective with equivalent low volumes on both approaches Appropriate speed limit is typically 35 mph or less Typically, a series of at least three landscaped curt} extensions ■ Can use alternating on street parking from one side of a street to the other Applicable on one -lane fine -way and two-lane two-way roadways ■ Can be used with either open or closed (Le_ curb and qutter) cross-section Can ti -e used with or without a bicycle facility 1 a. (Soufc e: De law re Uepartmc+nt of Transportation) • We ask that the City Council slow down the plat approval process for two weeks. AND • Direct City Staff to work with our Neighborhood Concerned Citizen Group to find a logical and appropriate solution to our increased traffic concerns. Let's come together and truly work as a "community." Concerned Citizens, City Staff and Developer PRESENTATION CONCLUDED CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street lova City, lova 52240- 1 826 (3 19) 356-5000 (3 19) 356-5009 FAX ww",Jcgov.org Ib - a Prepared by: Jade Pederson, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5230 (REZIM8) Ordinance No. 19-4805 An ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 36.81 acres of land located South of Scott Blvd and North of Tamarack Trail, from Interim Development — Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) to Low Density Single- Family Residential (RS -5). (REZ19-08) Whereas, the applicant, Tamarack Ridge, LLC, has requested a rezoning of property located South of Scott Blvd and North of Tamarack Trail, from Interim Development — Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) to Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5); and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan has designated this area for conservation design due to the presence of sensitive areas and the Northeast District Plan identifies this area mostly for single-family residential development; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed rezoning and determined that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan provided that it meets conditions to calm traffic, particularly through the use of traffic circles and planting of right-of-way trees; and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2019) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and Whereas, due to the design of Tamarack Trail, the need for traffic calming is necessary and will be met by conditions imposed herein to install traffic circles on the Tamarack Trail extension and plant trees in the public right -of way; and Whereas, the owner and applicant have agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate development in this area of the city. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I Approval. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein, property described below is hereby classified Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5): Beginning at the Northeast corner of said auditor's parcel 20109027, thence along the East line of said parcel S01°24'49"E, 1824.28 feet to the Southeast corner of said parcel; thence along the South line of said parcel S87°08'19"W, 644.61 feet, thence S88°03'52"W, 299.26 feet; thence NO3023'42"W, 1140.29 feet; thence N35056'44"E, 599.09 feet; thence N18030'51"E, 240.00 feet to the South right of way line of Scott Boulevard; thence 61.79 feet along said South line on a 955.00 foot radius curve concave South (chord bearing N86°43'55"E, 61.78 feet); thence along said South line N88036'04"E, 476.00 feet to the point of beginning. Described area contains 36.81 acres and is subject to easements and other restrictions of record. Section II. Zoning Map. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of the ordinance as approved by law. Ordinance No. 19-4805 Page 2 Section III. Conditional Zoning Agreement. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s) and the City, following passage and approval of this Ordinance. Section IV. Certification and Recording. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance, and record the same in the Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law. Section V. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section VI. 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 VII. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this 17th day of September .20 19 /� zjk— Ma or Attest: City Clerk App oved by City Attorneys Office �s t Ordinance No. 19-4805 Page 3 It was moved by Mims and seconded by Thomas Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x Cole x Mims x Salih x Taylor x Teague x Thomas x Throgmorton First Consideration 08/20/2019 Vote for passage: AYES: Taylor, Teague, Throgmorton, Mims. NAYS: Thomas, Cole, Salih. ABSENT: None. that the Second Consideration 09/03/2019 Vote for passage: AYES: Mims, Taylor, Teague, Throgmorton, Cole. NAYS: Salih, Thomas. ABSENT: None. Date published 09/26/2019 Prepared by: Jade Pederson, Planning Intern,410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 358-5230 (REZ19-08) Conditional Zoning Agreement This agreement is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"), and Monument Farms, LLC (hereinafter "Owner"), and Tamarack Ridge, LLC (hereinafter "Applicant"). Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 36.81 acres of property located South of Scott Boulevard and North of Tamarack Trail; and Whereas, the Applicant has requested the rezoning of said property from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) to Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS - 5); and Whereas, the conditions established in this agreement address public needs, including installation of traffic circles on the extension of Tamarack Trail and planting of trees within the public right -of way to address concerns related to travel speeds caused by the block length of Tamarack Trail within the proposed development; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions regarding the incorporation of traffic circles in the final design of the Tamarack Trail extension as well as the development of a landscaping plan that identifies the location and species of 75 trees to be planted in the public right-of-way, the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2019) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, In order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and Whereas, the Owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to ensure the development of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the need for traffic calming; and Whereas, the Owner agrees to develop this property in accordance with the terms and conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement. Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Monument Farms, LLC is the legal title holder of the property legally described as: Beginning at the Northeast corner of said auditor's parcel 20109027, thence along the East line of said parcel S01 °2449"E, 1824.28 feet to the Southeast corner of said parcel; thence along the South line of said parcel S87°08'19"W, 644.61 feet, thence S88"03'52"W, 299.26 feet; thence NO3°23'42"W, 1140.29 feet; thence N35056'44"E, 599.09 feet; thence N18°30'51"E, 240.00 feet to the South right of way line of Scott Boulevard; thence 61.79 feet along said South line on a 955.00 foot radius curve concave South (chord bearing N86"43'55"E, 61.78 feet); thence along said South line N88°36'04"E, 476.00 feet to the point of beginning. Described area contains 36.81 acres and is subject to easements and other restrictions of record. 2. The Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast district plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2019) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change. 3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner and Applicant agree that development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the zoning chapter, as well as the following conditions: a. Substantial compliance with the preliminary plat (attached) in that the identified traffic circles are incorporated into the final design of the extension of Tamarack Trail. b. Owner shall develop a landscaping plan that identifies the location and species of 75 right-of-way trees to be planted by Owner or its successor(s) in interest along. Tamarack Trail. Said trees shall be planted prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each lot, or, if said certificate of occupancy is issued during a poor planting season, by May 31 following issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Said landscaping plan shall be approved by the City Forestry Division prior to the approval of any final plat subdividing any of the above-described real estate. Said landscaping plan shall include a diverse mix of trees planted generally 30' apart, though the City recognizes that exact locations may vary depending on driveway locations, signage and other utility conflicts. Final location and species of the trees shall be approved on a lot -by -lot basis prior to issuance of a building permit for each lot. 4. The Owner and Applicant, and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2019), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change. 5. The Owner and Applicant and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. 6. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released of record by the City of Iowa City. The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties. The Owner and Applicant acknowledge that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner or Applicant from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 8. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and 2 publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense. Dated this 1--�_ day of Agbo st , 20i2. City of Iowa City Ji Throgmorton, Maior Attest: Kelltb Fruehling, C' y Clerk Approved by: Y146622,d City Attorney's Office r 1y City Of Iowa City Acknowledgement: State of Iowa ) ) ss: Johnson County ) :=W 73'oe, ckrK 8/13%[9 BY q� Ha1 —F tom. kA �e. SLG _ sl Monument Farms, LLC This instrument was acknowledged before me on 20j3 by Jim Throgmorton and Kellie Fruehling as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City. Ae— NotVry Public in and for the We of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) I._. VJAJ CHRISTINE OLNEY Title (and Ran&se Commission Number 606232 *i M Commission Expires Iowx J Tamarack Ridge, LLC Acknowledgement: State of ALMA County of `ICYNn�Of) This record was acknowledged before me on 2019 by One C6rK (Name(s) of individu (s) as iUem,1nr Moa+a c�aj' (type of authority, such as officer or trustee) of T marack Rid e, L fli otary Pub'c' and for a State of Iowa APa1A(S,� LAURA JUAREZ 0 9 Commission Number 803529 (Stamp or Seal) _* My C mispision E�xp7,.ir�es Title (and Rank) My commission expires: 0317-c1 )WZD Monument Farms, LLC Acknowledgement: State of WC( County of�OY1yL50n This record was acknowledged before me on 2019 by Do!41 ..r J PAO (Name(s) of indivi ual(s) as b'i .�; k " (type of authority, such as officer or trustee) of Monument Farms, LnC. �OP�L 6.,0 nA�- o ary Public m nd for the ate of Iowa 4Pa�Acs LAURAJUAREZ o v Commission Number 803529 My Cp/1R�ljfiMoonn�Expiires �OWP _D?&g now (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) My commission expires: o3/za l Uzo al PRELIMINARY PLAT & SENSITIVE AREAS SITE PLAN TAMARACK RIDGE IOWA CITY, IOWA Y.tRTmr14.mwAl S W.i9�. PG8 Nn u LEGEND: 4� i07� t47 Comm tRl•lm ON= NIfN 1OEM 1• . IEryG}X M BELi1 W 9 m t0)• wlpm tTm� ® o EimEs: OF IOWA CITY ' ROJECT VICINITY MAP -CITY A ll mM m O O SITE f➢5iJ14 imn mm+ssml� amn.IwNiLN....NNLNwwm. muwmn SMMVEMW imwx .rswm �� ��'.'� S ".✓ u s 7w �+we NL.o-v�n N`��_ sry.EMwmrNry„N�onaaoN,Nn w�'a.N,Na.�NewL�N.. Lorry Ip POFUI ¢mNWN�mNdMF WY LEGEND: 4� i07� t47 Comm tRl•lm ON= tm7� 1OEM 1• to= W 9 m t0)• wlpm tTm� ® o wmm� �0 � LEGEND: — 1• 1 W 9 9 ® o m � m A ll mM m O O SITE f➢5iJ14 imn OB� muwmn SMMVEMW REV NOM: o : BNryN.�L.NSL,sN..,�N,N.a:LNLN, O o,asory �°FNR.w�.oNryaw.00aµo.L.EN�N outwTs:� 331 E. BYRLIUMNV IOWACIIY.. M. OfYREnE NTE WE.000PTSIA UNir3 Imrnrnr, Iowa sum D. 3 0 0 Item Number: 11. �, CITY OF IOWA CITY �'�COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 17, 2019 Ordinance amending Title 10, entitled "Public Ways and Property," Chapter 9, entitled "Parks and Recreation Regulations," to provide for the operation of electric assist bicycles, electric scooters and electric skateboards in parks. (Second Consideration) Prepared By: Susan Dulek, Ass't. City Attorney Reviewed By: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Julie Seydell Johnson, Park & Rec. Director Fiscal Impact: none Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Ordinance Executive Summary: Recently Council amended the City Code to treat the operation of electric assist bicycles, electric scooters and electric skateboards the same as the operation of bicycles on streets and sidewalks, but did not include their operation in parks. This ordinance provides that electric assist bicycles, electric scooters and electric skateboards are to be operated in parks in the same manner as bicycles. Background /Analysis: ATTACHMENTS: Description Ordinance Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030 ORDINANCE NO. 19-4806 Ordinance amending Title 10, entitled "Public Ways and Property," Chapter 9, entitled "Parks and Recreation Regulations," to provide for the operation of electric assist bicycles, electric scooters and electric skateboards in parks. Whereas, recently enacted Ordinance Nos. 19-4786 and 19-4802 amended the City Code to treat the operation of electric assist bicycles, electric scooters and electric skateboards on streets and sidewalks the same as the operation of bicycles on streets and sidewalks, but neither ordinance included their operation in parks; Whereas, the operation of electric assist bicycles, electric scooters and electric skateboards in parks should be the same as the operation of bicycles; and Whereas, it is in the best interest of the City to adopt this ordinance. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. Amendments. 1. Title 10, entitled "Public Ways and Property," Chapter 9, entitled "Parks and Recreation Regulations," Section 2, entitled "Prohibited Actions in Parks," Subsection J is amended by adding the underlined text and deleting the strike - through text as follows: J. Bicycles, E -Devices, And Nonmotorized Vehicles: 1. No person shall travel upon or operate a bicycle, electric assist bicycle, electric scooter, electric skateboard, or nonmotorized vehicle within Chauncey Swan Park or Black Hawk Mini Park. 2. Persons may travel upon or operate bicycles, electric assist bicycles, electric scooters, electric skateboards, and nonmotorized vehicles in all other City parks except where posted as prohibited. , preper#y. A person who operates a bicycle, electric assist bicvcle. electric scoot persons or Property. 3. This provision shall not apply to a person with disabilities using a nonmotorized device designed for a person with disabilities. 4. Electric assist bicycles, electric scooters, and electric skateboards mean the same as defined in Title 9, Section 1 of this Code. Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision 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. Ordinance No. 19-4806 Page 2 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 1 thday of September , 2019. M orOV Attest: City Clerk Approved by City Attorney's Office Ordinance No. 19-4806 Page 3 It was moved by Mims and seconded by Thomas Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: x x x x x x x ABSENT: Cole Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Throgmorton that the First Consideration 09/03/2019 Voteforpassage: AYES: Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton, Mims,Salih. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Cole. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published 09/26/2019 Moved by Mims, seconded by Taylor, that the rule requiring ordinances to be considered and voted upon for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, the second consideration and vote be waived and the ordinance be voted upon for final passage at this time. AYES: Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton, Cole, Mims, Salih. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Item Number: 12. 'r AL CITY OF IOWA CITY =� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT September 17, 2019 Ordinance amending Title 3, entitled "Finances, Taxation and Fees," and Title 9, entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," to provide uniform fines for bicycle and electric device code violations. Prepared By: Susan Dulek, Ass't. City Attorney Reviewed By: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: none Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: ordinance Executive Summary: Council recently passed ordinances to regulate the operation of electric assist bicycles, electric scooters and electric skateboards on streets and sidewalks the same as the operation of bicycles. Similarly, the penalty for violating a code provision by an operator of a bicycle, electric assist bicycle, electric scooter, or electric skateboard should be the same. This ordinance sets all fines at $15.00. Background /Analysis: ATTACHMENTS: Description ordinance r �! Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 3193565030 ORDINANCE NO. Ordinance amending Title 3, entitled "Finances, Taxation and Fees," and Title 9, entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," to provide uniform fines for bicycle and electric device code violations. Whereas, recently enacted Ordinance Nos. 19-4786 and 19-4802 amended the City Code to regulate the operation of electric assist bicycles, electric scooters and electric skateboards on streets and sidewalks the same as the operation of bicycles; Whereas, the penalty for violating a code provision by an operator of a bicycle, electric assist bicycle, electric scooter, or electric skateboard should be the same, and the fine amount should be $15.00; and Whereas, it is in the City's interest to adopt this ordinance. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. Amendments. 1. Title 3, entitled "Finances, Taxation and Fees," Chapter 4, entitled "Schedule of Fees, Rates, Charges, Bonds, Fines and Penalties," Section 9, entitled "Violation of Various Code Sections" is amended adding the following new Section 11, entitled "Bicycle and E -Device Violations": is amenaea Dy aaamg the tollowing new section 8 entitled "Penalty": Violation of this chapter is a simple misdemeanor punishable by a fine of $15.00. 3. Title 9, entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapter 10, entitled "Electric Devices," is amended by adding the following new Section 3 entitled "Penalty": Violation of this chapter is a simple misdemeanor punishable by a fine of $15.00. Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision 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 day of 2019. Mayor Attest:_ City Approved by City Attorney's Office Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by _ Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: First Consideration 09/17 Vote for passage: AYES: Mims, Salih, Taylor Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published Cole Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Throgmorton 2019 Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton, Cole, NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. that the