HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-02-28 Public hearingCity of llowa City
ENIORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
February 24, 1995
Mayor and City Council Members
Marian K. Karr, City Clerk
Sidewalk Cafes
At your direction, staff explored the current regulations concerning plaza cafes, outdoor service
areas, and sidewalk cafes in hopes of encouraging more development of these establishments.
A committee was formed with representatives from the following depadments invited to
participate:
City Attorney/Linda Newman Woito
City Clerk/Marian Karr and Sondrae Fort
Fire/Jim Pumfrey and Andy Rocca
Housing and Inspection ServicesIRon Boose
City Manager/Lorraine Saeger
Parks and Recreation/Terry Trueblood
Planning and Community Development/David Schoon
Police/Captain Harney
Public Works/Rick Fosse
The main objective of the committee was to create uniform regulations for operation of all cafes
in the Plaza, the downtown area, and other commercial zones. Discussions centered on the
amount of unobstructed sidewalk area for pedestrian use; hours of operation; and the procedure
of establishing a Public Right-of-Way Business License. A random selection of business owners
(list attached) received a letter asking for input about concerns or problems they would face in
establishing such a use, as well as a draft of the proposed regulations.
Attached for your review are the responses received (7 out of 15 responded) from the business
owners along with a DRAFT of proposed Sidewalk Care regulations. Additional changes were
incorporated into the regulations as a result of the responses. This matter will be scheduled for
Council discussion on February 27. Staff is requesting a public hearing be set for March 7 on
the proposal. First consideration of the ordinance could be scheduled that evening if Council so
wishes.
cc: Committee Members
cclerk~siddug
SIDEWALK CAFES
DEFINITIONS:
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WA Y: Any public street, alley, roadway, sidewalk, walkway, right-of-way
or public way designed for vehicular, bicycle or pedestrian travel and dedicated to public use.
RESTAURANT: A business whose primary function is the service of food to customers and
which meets tile following criteria:
Serves hot meals prepared and cooked on the premises for consumption on the
premises;
B. Has food service menu from which customers may order;
Has an employee whose primary duty is the preparation of food and an
employee whose primary duty is to serve food to customers;
Has a kitchen separate from the bar equipped with a microwave oven, stove,
griddle, grill or broiler and a food refrigeration unit with a capacity in excess of
twenty {20) cubic feet;
Operates the restaurant service during at least sixty percent (60%) of the hours
that the business is open to the public; and
Holds itself out to be a restaurant and advertises itself as a restaurant if it
advertises.
SIDEVVALK CAFE: A sidewalk care is defined as an outdoor area located temporarily on a
public sidewalk or other public right-of-way adjacent to, contiguous to or directly in front of
a restaurant wilere food and beverages are taken for consumption by persons sitting or
standin§ at tables in that area. Permitted sidewalk cafes must abide by the requirements and
limitations as determined by City Council.
A, Permitted
1.
USE OF SIDEWALK CAFES:
USES;
Sidewalk cafes will be permitted in the public right-of-way or on other publicly-
owned property only in the CB~2, CB-5 and CB-10 zones (the downtown and
the commercial areas directly north and south of the downtown).
Sidewalk cafes in the City Plaza will only be permitted in Zone 1 as defined in
Title 10 Chapter 5 of The City Code, (the ten foot (10') strip directly abutting
the private property lines). Zone 1 extends the length of the City Plaza along
all sides of the Plaza.
2
The sidewalk cafe area must be adjacent to, contiguous to or directly in front
of a building housing a restaurant or food service establishment.
The sidewalk care, as part of a restaurant, must be licensed by the Department
of Public Health.
Usable Area:
A sidewalk care area may not extend onto the sidewalk in a manner that will
not allow a minimum of eight feet (8') of unobstructed sidewalk adjacent to the
street nor extend into Zone 1 of the City Plaza in a manner that will not allow
a minimum of eight feet (8') of unobstructed Plaza area remaining for
pedestrian use.
No tables and chairs shall be placed in corner areas defined by building lines
extended and no closer than ten feet (10') from an alley.
3,
The area for a sidewalk care shall be temporarily delineated by ropes or some
other suitable method which shall be clearly visible to pedestrians. Tables,
chairs, and other items are to be removed at the end of each day's operation
and the sidewalk cafe area restored to its normal condition as a pedestrian way.
No materials shall be stored on the public right-of-way.
A sidewalk care may not utilize any public amenities such as benches, seats,
or tables.
Days and Hours of Operation:
A Public Right-of-Way Business license and lease shall be issued in conjunction
with yearly renewals of Alcoholic Beverage Licenses/Permits or one (1) year
from the date of issuance for establishments not dispensing alcohol. The initial
application may be less than the one (1) year period to coincide with existing
Alcoholic Beverage Licenses/Permits, and will require full payment.
The sidewalk cafe may be operated and used any time of the year, weather
permitting.
Sidewalk cafes shall be set-up, operated, and restored to their normal condition,
as a pedestrian way, each day only between the hours of eight o'clock (8:00)
A.M. and nine o'clock (9:00) P.M.
Food and beverages must be available for service to patrons in a sidewalk care
during all hours of operation.
Sound Equipment:
1. Amplified sound equipment shall not be permitted.
3
E. Sidewalk Cafe License:
Establishments must apply and obtain a public right-of-way business license
and lease from the City prior to operation. Each applicant shall file an
application with the City Clerk on forms provided by the City containing all
pertinent information as the City may require. Establishments dispensing any
alcoholic beverage must do so under Chapter 123, Code of Iowa, and this
Code.
An application for a sidewalk cafe shall contain, at a minimum, a plot plan, a
picture or illustration of the amenities to be used, the seating capacity, and the
method for delineating the care. In addition, the application shall provide the
name and address of the owner of each immediate abutting property.
Applications will be handled by the City staff with the review and approval of
any use of the public right-of-way by the City Council as prescribed in this
Code. The City will notify the immediate abutting property owners by letter of
the nature of the application, and the date and time this item will appear on the
agenda for approval by the City Council. If the application is approved by the
Council, the City staff will be responsible for the administration of the
agreement and collection of fees.
An application for a sidewalk cafe shall include a lease executed bythe operator
of the restaurant or food service establishment and/or by the owner of the
building housing the restaurant or food service establishment, if not the
operator, and the City.
The City retains the right to withdraw, at its discretion, the public right-of-way
license at any time it deems such withdrawal to be in the public interest. All
licenses shall be signed by the City Clerk or designee, numbered consecutively
and a record thereof kept by the City Clerk or designee. The City Clerk or
designee may refuse to grant a license in any case based on health, safety and
public welfare concerns. (Title 5 Chapter 1 of this Code).
F. Maintenance:
This public right-of-way license shall in no way interfere with the City's or other
authorized utilities access to utilities of City facilities located and/or operated
within the City's right-of-way. In addition, every sidewalk cafe owner shall be
required to post sufficient insurance as determined by the City and shall enter
into an agreement holding the City harmless against any and all liability arising
from business interruptions, accidents or other actions arising from its
operation.
Sidewalk cafes located in the Urban Renewal Area, Iowa R-14, shall be subject
to the design review process of Title 14 Chapter 4 of this Code.
4
Operation of Sidewalk Cafes:
The City retains the right to limit the number of sidewalk cafes in "Permitted
Uses" of this article,
Advertising shall not be permitted except for the name of the establishment on
chairs, tables, umbrellas or other amenities as approved by the City. The
exterior of the amenities used in the sidewalk cafe shall be maintained in good
condition,
3. No blockage of building entrances or exits shall be permitted.
Additional restroom capacity may be required to comply with local building and
housing codes.
Occupancy limits shall be determined as set forth in Title 14 Chapter 5 of this
Code.
6. No additional parking shall be required for the operation of a sidewalk cafe.
Sidewalk cafe areas shall be subject to inspection at least annually or at any
other time at the discretion of the City.
The operation of any sidewalk cafe as defined herein shall be in conformity with
all applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.
A sidewalk care serving alcoholic beverages must have an employee present at
all times during the hours alcohol is consumed,
RESPONSES RECEIVED FROM RANDOMLY SELECTED BUSINESSES AND INDIVIDUALS
Section B1 refers to a minimum of eight feet of unobstructed sidewalk. Does this allow
you enough room to establish a sidewalk cafe?
YES 2 NO 5
If no, suggest a minimum footage of unobstructed sidewalk.
. 7~
- 4'
- 8' (necessary but not enough)
- enough for 6 tables of 4
What hours of operation would you prefer?
8-10
11-10
not interested
8-9/10
later than 8pro
11-9/10
What has hindered you from opening a sidewalk cafe?
~ not pemeived as a restaurant
- staffing
- lack of suitabte area
- supervising the area
- the City
- time of operation & time of year
4,
What do we need to do to make it easier or better for you to operate a sidewalk cafe?
- close Washington St.
- allow roll out awnings
- redraw entire proposed regulation or give up
- it would be nice to try it
Additional Comments:
- add arablance
create more business
customers would really appreciate it
not many spots this would work well
serving alcohol outdoors in these areas requires extra care
the current outside areas (like Fitzpatrick's) work better than the front sidewalk
how about different standards for CB-10 & CB-5 zones (our sidewalk is 71/2')
it would draw traffic to downtown Iowa City
LIST OF BUSINESSES AND INDIVIDUALS RANDOMLY CONTACTED
Vito's Airliner
Gringo's Pizza Hut
Kitchen Bo-James
Givanni's Subway
Sports Column Hamburg Inn
Mondo's Linn Street Cafe
Sanctuary Department of Public Health
Mark Ginsberg
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing
will be held by the City Council of Iowa City,
Iowa, at 7:30 p.m. on the 28th day of Febru-
ary, 1995, in the Civic Center Council Cham-
bers, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City,
Iowa; at which hearing the Council will consid-
er:
1. An ordinance conditionally amending the
use regulations of approximately 13.09
acres located at 655 Meadow Street from
RM-12 and RS-5 to RS-8.
Copies of the proposed ordinances are on file
for public examination in the office of the City
Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons
wishing to make their views known for Council
consideration are encouraged to appear at the
above-mentioned time and place.
MARIAN K. KARR, CiTY CLERK
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE A[VIENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE BY CONDITIONALLY CHANGING
THE USE REGULATIONS OF 13.09 ACRES OF
LAND LOCATED AT 655 MEADOW STREET
FROM RM-12, LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL, AND RS-5, LOW DENSITY
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO RS-8,
MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDEN-
TIAL.
WHEREAS, the applicant, East Hill Subdivi-
sion, Inc., has requested the City fezone 13.O9
acres of land located at 655 Meadow Street
from RM-12, Low Density Multi-Family Resi-
dential, and RS-5, Low Density Single-Family
Residential, to RS-8, Medium Density Single-
Family Residential; and
WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning will allow
the development of a medium density residen-
tial subdivision; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code § 414.5 (1993) pro-
vides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting an appli-
cant's rezoning request, over and above exist-
ing {egulations, in order to satisfy public needs
directly caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to ensure that
the proposed medium density residential devel-
opment provides for the protection of the
Ralston Creek floodplain and adequate vehicular
and pedestrian access for the permitted devel-
opment density; and
WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning to allow a
medium density residential development is
compatible with adjacent development and the
Comprehensive Plan for the area provided that
certain conditions contained in the Conditional
Zoning Agreement are adhered to; and
WHEREAS, the applicant acknowledges that
certain conditions and restrictions are reason-
able to ensure appropriate urban development
in this area of Iowa City; and
WHEREAS, the applicants have agreed to
develop this property in accordance with the
terms and conditions of a Conditional Zoning
Agreement to ensure appropriate urban devel-
opment in this area of Iowa City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA, THAT:
SECTION I. APPROVAL. The property de-
scribed below is hereby reclassified from its
present classification of RM-12, Low Density
Multi-Family Residential, and RS-5, Low Densi-
Ordinance No.
Page 2
ty Single-Family Residential, to RS-8, Medium
Density Single-Family Residential:
Parcel h
Commencing at a point on the cen-
terline of former U.S. Highway No. 6,
which point is 1107.0 feet east of the
southwest corner of the NW ~ of Section
13, T.79N, R.6W of the 5th P.M.; thence
N 0053' E., 970.93 feet to the Point of
Beginning; thence N 0053' E, 24 feet;
thence East 689.14 feet; thence S 0009'
W, 694.04 feet; thence West 495.5 feet;
thence N 0044' E, 670.39 feet; thence
S89°55' W, 200.91 feet to the Point of
Beginning.
Excepting therefrom the following:
Commencing as a point of reference at the
West Quarter Corner of Section 13,
T.79N,R.6W of the 5th P.M.; Iowa City,
Johnson County, Iowa, said point being on
the center line of Muscatine Avenue;
thence East 1310.46 feet along the center
line of said Muscatine Avenue; thence N
4044' E, 300 feet to the Point of Begin-
ning; thence N 90° E, 318.40 feet; thence
N 86008' W, 318.85 feet; thence S0°44'
W, 21.48 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Parcel I1:.
Commencing at the Southwest
Corner of the NW~A of Section 13, T.79N,
R.6W of the 5th P.M.; thence N
89°58'18" E, along the South Line of said
NW~4 1172.87 feet; thence N 0°51'46"
E, 365.32 feet to the Point of Beginning;
thence N 0°51'46" E, 604.08 feet;thence
N 89°50'32" E, 133.31 feet; thence S
O°47'12" W, 604.37 feet; thence S
89°58'18" W, parallel with the South Line
of said NW~A, 134.11 feet to the Point of
Beginning.
Parcel II1~
Beginning at an iron pin which is N
0053' E, 994.93 feet from a point 1107.0
feet east of the southwest corner of the
NW~ of Section 13, T.79N, R.6Wof the
5th P.M.; thence N 89042'40" E, 689.14
feet to an iron pin; thence N 0°9' 5, 32.6
feet to an iron pin; thence N 89057'53" E
1.65 feet; thence N 0°O'40" E, 110.35
feet; thence S 84°23'53" W, 151.19 feet;
thence N 0°17'20" W, 132.74 feet:
thence S 65°40' W, 138.51 feet to an
iron pin at the southwest corner of Lot
145, in the Revision of Part 2, Court Hill
Addition to the City of Iowa City, Iowa,
according to the plat thereof recorded in
Ordinance No.
Page 3
Plat Book 2, Page 169, Plat Records of
Johnson County, Iowa; thence N 83002'
W, 412.2 feet to an iron pin at the south-
west corner of Lot 150 in said Revision of
Part 2, Court Hill Addition to Iowa City,
Iowa; thence S 0028'40" W, 253.42 feet
to the Point of Beginning; all as per the
survey recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 38,
Records of the Recorder of Johnson Coun-
ty, Iowa.
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
this Ordinance as provided by law.
SECTION III. CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREE-
MENT.. The Mayor is hereby authorized and
directed to sign, and the City Clerk to attest,
the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the
property owners and the CiTy, following pas-
sage and approval of this Ordinance.
SECTION IV. CERTIFICATION AND RECORD-
ING, The City Clerk is hereby au[horized and
directed to certify a copy of this Ordinance and
the Conditional Zoning Agreement for recorda-
tion in the Office of the Recorder, Johnson
County, Iowa, upon passage and approval of
this Ordinance.
SECTION V. REPEALER. All ordinances and
parts of ordinances in conflict with the provi-
sions 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 unconsti-
tutional.
SECTION VII. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordi-
nance shall be in effect after its final passage,
approval and publication, as provided b,/law.
Passed and approved this
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a Municipal
Corporation (hereinafter "City"), and East Hill Subdivision, Inc., an Iowa General Partnership
(hereinafter "Owner").
WHEREAS, Owner, as legal title holder, has requested the City mzone approximately 13.09
acres of land located at 655 Meadow Street from RM-12, Low Density Multi-Family Residential,
and RS-5, Low Density Single-Family Residential, to RS-8, Medium Density Single-Family
Residential; and
WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning will allow the development of a medium density residential
subdivision; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code {}414.5 (1993) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting the rezoning request, over and above existing regulations,
in order to satisfy public needs directly caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to ensure that the proposed medium density residential
development provides for the protection of the Ralston Creek floodplain and adequate vehicular
and pedestrian access for the permitted development density; and
WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning to allow a medium density residential development is
compatible with adjacent development and the Comprehensive Plan for the area provided that
certain conditions am adhered to; and
WHEREAS, Owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to
ensure appropriate urban development in this area of Iowa City; and
WHEREAS, the Owner has agreed to develop this property i~ accordance with certain terms
and conditions to ensure appropriate urban development in this area of Iowa City.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual promises contained herein, the Parties agree
as follows:
East Hill Subdivision, Inc., is the owner and legal title holder of property located at 655
Meadow Street, which properly is more padiculady described as follows:
A. PARCELI:
Commencing at a point on the centerline of former U.S. Highway No. 6, which
point is 1107.0 feet east of the southwest comer of the NW '~ of Section 13,
T.79N, R.6W of the 5th P.M.; thence N 0"53' E., 970.93 feet to the Point of
Beginning; thence N 0053' E, 24 feet; thence East 689.14 feet; thence S 0009'
W, 694.04 feet; thence West 495.5 feet; thence N 0044' E, 670.39 feet; thence
S 89055' W, 200.91 feet to the Point of Beginning.
Excepting therefrom the following: Commencing as a point of reference at the
West Quarter Corner of Section 13, T.79N, R.6W of the 5th P.M.; Iowa City,
Johnson County, Iowa, said point being on the center line of Muscatine Avenue;
thence East 1310.46 feet along the center line of said Muscatine Avenue; thence
N 4°44' E, 300 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence N 90° E, 318.40 feet;
thence N 86°08' W, 318.85 feet; thence S 0°44' W, 21.48 feet to the Point of
Beginning.
-2-
B. PARCEL I1:
Commencing at the Southwest Comer of the NW'A of Section 13, T.79N, R.6W
of the 5th P.M.; thence N 89°58'18" E, along the South Line of said NW~
1172.87 feet; thence N 0°51 '46" E, 365.32 feet l, the Point of Beginning; thence
N 0°51'46"E, 604.08 feet; thence N 89"50'32" E, 133.31 feet; thence S 0°47'12"
W, 604.37 feet; thence S 89°58'18" W, parallel with the South Line of said NW'~,
134.11 feet to the Point of Beginning.
C. PARCEL Ill:
Beginning at an iron pin which is N 0°53' E, 994,93 feet from a point 1107.0 feet
east of the southwest corner of the NW~4 of Section 13, T.79N, R.6W of the 5th
P.M.; thence N 89"42'40" E, 689.14 feet to an iron pin; thence N 0"9' E, 32,6
feet to an iron pin; thence N 89°57'53" E, 1~65 feet; thence N 0"00'40" E, 110.35
feet; thence S 84"23'53" W, 151.19 feet; thence N 0°17'20" W, 132.74 feet;
thence S 65°40' W, 138.51 feet to an iron pin at the southwest comer of Lot
145, in the Revision of Part 2, Court Hill Addition to the City of Iowa City, Iowa,
according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 169, Plat Records
of Johnson County, Iowa; thence N 83002' W, 412.2 feet to an iron pin at the
southwest comer of Lot 150 in said Revision of Part 2, Court Hill Addition to
Iowa City, Iowa; thence S 0°28'40" W, 253,42 feet to the Point of Beginning; all
as per the survey recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 38, Records of the Recorder
of Johnson County, Iowa.
Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure that development of the subject
property is compatible with adjacent properties which are zoned RS-12 and RS-5.
Therefore, Owner agrees to certain conditions over and above City regulations in order
to ensure that development of the subject properly provides for the protection of the
Ralston Creek floodplain and adequate vehicular and pedestrian access for the density
of development permitted.
In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property from RM-12 and RS-5 to
RS-8, Owner agrees that development and use of the subject property will conform to
all requirements of the RS-8 zone as well as the following additional conditions:
Development of the property shall include dedication of the Ralston Creek
floodplain within the parcel to the City, including a public access easement from
an interior roadway within the subdivision to provide public access the dedicated
floodplain area.
The density of development of the subject property shall be limited to a total of
72 dwelling units, unless secondary access via a dedicated public street is
provided.
Development of the property shall be subject to the Owner participating with the
City in the development of a trail within the dedicated floodplain of Ralston
Creek.
The Owner acknowledges that the conditions contained herein are reasonable
conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code § 414.5 (1993), and that said
conditions satisfy public needs which are directly caused by the requested zoning
change.
The Owner acknowledges 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.
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 .running with the title to the land unless or until released
of record by the City. The Parties further acknowledge that this Agreement shall inure
to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives and assigns of the Parties.
Owner acknowledges that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be
construed to relieve the Owner from complying with all applicable local, state and
federal regulations.
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
publication of the Ordinance, this Agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County
Recorder's Office.
Dated this ~ day of , 1995.
OWNER
CITY OF IOWA CITY
By
East Hill Subdivision, Inc.'
By
Susan M. Horowitz, Mayor
Attest
Madan K. Karr, City Clerk
-4-
STATE OF IOWA )
) SS:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this day of , 1995, before me,
, a Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared Susan M.
Horowitz and Madan K. Karr, to me personally known, and, who, being by me duly sworn, did
say that they are the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City, Iowa; that the
seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of the corporation, and that the
instrument was signed and sealed on behalf'of the corporation, by authority of its City Council,
as contained' in Ordinance No. passed by the City Council on the
day of ,19 ., and that__ and Madan K. Karr
acknowledged the execution of the instrument to be their'voluntary act and deed and the
voluntary act and deed of the corporation, by it voluntarily executed.
STATE OF IOWA )
JOHNSON COUNTY )
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
On this day of ,1995, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
for the State of Iowa, personally appeared , to me personally
known, who being by me duly sworn did say that he is the of East Hill
Subdivision, Inc, the Iowa Corporation executing the within and foregoing instrument, that no
seal has been procured by the corporation; that said instrument was signed on behalf of the
corporation by authority of its Board of Directors; and that as officer
acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument to be the voluntary act and deed of
the corporation, by it and by him voluntarily executed.
ppdadmn~easthill cza
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ94-0020. 655 Meadow Street
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Contact person:
Requested action:
Purpose:
Location:
Size:
Existing land use and zoning:
Surrounding land use and zoning:
Comprehensive Plan:
Applicable Code requirements:
File date:
45-day limitation period:
60-day limitation period:
Prepared by: Scott Kugler
Date: January 6, 1995
East Hill Subdivision, Inc.
500 South Dubuque Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Phone: 351-8811
Ralph Stoffer
535 Southgate Avenue
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Phone: 354-1984
Rezoning from RS-5 and RM-12 to
RS-8.
To allow development of the site as
permitted by the RS-8 district regula-
tions.
655 Meadow Street, west of Dover
Street and north of Muscatine.
13.09 acres.
Vacant, RM-12 and RS-5.
North - Residential, single-family; RS-5
East- Residential, single and two-
family; RS-12
South - Funeral home; C0-1
West- Cemetery; RM-20
North portion of the site: Residential,
2-8 DU/A; South portion of the site:
Residential, 8-16 DU/A.
14-6D-3: Medium Density Single-Fami-
ly Residential Zone (RS-8).
December 9, 1994
January 23, 1995
February 7, 1995
SPECIAL iNFORMATION:
Public utilities:
Municipal water and sanitary sewer
facilities are adequate to serve this site.
Public services:
The City would provide necessary ser-
vices to the area, including police and
fire protection. Robert Lucas School is
located a short distance to the east of
this site, and Court Hill Park to the
northeast.
Transportation:
This site is located in close proximity to
two transit routes: the Towncrest
route along Muscatine Avenue to the
south, and the Rochester route along
Friendship Street to the north.
Physical characteristics:
Ralston Creek lies at the north edge of
the site. The site slopes upward gently
from the creek to the south, becoming
steeper near the south property line.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
East Hill Subdivision, Inc., has submitted an application to rezone 13.09 acres of undeveloped
property from RM-12, Low Density Multi-Family Residential, and RS-5, Low Density Single-
Family Residential, to RS-8, Medium Density Single-Family Residential, property located west
of Dover Street and north of Muscatine Avenue. The site is bordered by Ralston Creek and
single-family homes to the north, zoned RS-5, two-family or zero lot line dwellings to the east,
zoned RS-12, Gay Funeral Home to the south, zoned C0-1, and a cemetery to the west,
zoned RM-20. Most of the site is currently zoned RM-1 2, with the exception of approximately
250 feet (as measured along the west property line) along the northern portion of the site,
which is zoned RS-5. The proposed rezoning would establish RS-8 zoning on the entire site.
ANALYSIS:
The Comprehensive Plan identifies approximately the northern ½ of this site for residential
development at 2 to 8 dwelling units per acre. The balance is also identified for residential
development, but at a higher density of 8 to 16 dwelling units per acre. The proposed RS-8
zoning, which permits a maximum density of approximately 8 dwelling units per acre, is
consistent with the comprehensive plan for both areas.
The RS-8 zone would permit single or two-family dwellings, zero lot line dwellings, and
tcwnhouses. These uses would be consistent with the existing residential development
located immediately to the east of this site, which consists of mainly two-family or zero lot
line dwellings, with a few single-family homes located near the northeast corner of the site.
Gay Funeral Home, located immediately south of this site, contains a dense row of Arbor
Vitae along its north property line which would effectively screen the commercial area from
any new residential development that might occur on the subject site. Although there is a
single family neighborhood located directly to the north, it is separated from this site by
Ralston Creek. The retention of a buffer or open space along the creek would provide for a
good transition between the two areas if something other than single family homes are
proposed for the subject site.
The Department of Public Works sees a need to restrict development within the floodplain of
Ralston Creek for maintenance purposes. The applicant has stated his willingness to dedicate
the floodplain to the City. In addition, there is an opportunity to establish a greenbelt along
Ralston Creek, between Creekside Park and Court Hill Park. An easement on the Eagle Foods
property and an undeveloped right-of-way already exist to the west of this site. In addition
to the creek maintenance needs, dedication of the floodplain on this site would allow for the
creation of this groenbelt as an extension of the greenbelt proposed in the Neighborhood Open
Space Plan between Court Hill Park and Scott Park, possibly with a pedestrian and/or bicycle
trail. The dedication would also provide the transition between this site and the existing
single-family neighborhood north of the creek, as mentioned above.
The only point of access for residential development on this site is at the northeast corner of
the site near the intersection of Meadow Street and Perry Court. As a result, most of the
additional traffic that would be generated if this site is developed would be exiting through
the adjacent neighborhoods - either south along Dover Street out to Muscatine Avenue, or to
the north along Friendship Street to First Avenue or Court Street. However, the proposed
rezoning represents a decrease in density for most of the property and thus a smaller increase
in traffic than what would result if the property was developed under the current zoning.
The existing RM-12 zoning appears to be inappropriate for this site due to its limited access.
The single access to this site is a local street. The City's secondary access standards suggest
that the traffic volume threshold for a local street be 500 vehicles per day. A subdivision
concept plan for the property indicates that the applicant intends to create a 36 lot subdivision
of the property, resulting in the potential for 72 total dwelling units. At an average of seven
vehicular trips per day per unit, the proposed development would result in 504 vehicles per
day exiting and entering the site, which is at the traffic volume threshold. Therefore, staff
recommends that if the Commission is inclined to approve this rezoning, that it be conditioned
upon restricting the total number of dwelling units to 72, as shown on the concept plan,
unless secondary access is provided.
In general, the proposed rezoning would allow development consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood at a density more appropriate for this site than the current zoning would allow.
The dedication of the Ralston Creek floodplain for maintenance purposes would provide a
transition between the proposed development and the single family homes to the north, and
create an opportunity for a greenbelt trail along the creek. If the density of the proposed
development is limited to that shown on the concept plan the Cit¥'s secondary access policy
will be met, and the development should not overburden the surrounding street system.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that REZ94-0020, a request to rezone 13.09 acres located west of Dover
Street, north of Muscatine Avenue, be approved subject to the dedication of the Ralston Creek
floodplain to the City, including an access easement between the proposed Cascade Court and
the floodplain, and conditioned upon a restriction on the total number of dwelling units to 72
unless secondary access is provided.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map.
2. Pre-preliminary subdivision plat.
~mzOO20.sk
Approved by:
Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and
Community Development
LOCATION MAP
, REZ94-0020
1111111 I1~1-1 ~HI ,
! ,.1 1
M. Dean and R. Ellen Jones
RS-5 to RS-8
LOVER
IT
ST
SCHOOL
~ 8 ~
25
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
IOWA CITY PLANNING F/NO ZON[110 CUMMISS[(]Fi
NICHOLAS B. CNMARUK AND JO R~NE rRF,BERF-OHM~RUK
909 DOVER STREET
ZON~ c['rY, ~oN~ 52245
PHONE: (319) 539-0620 OR 339-0280
OBJECTION TO E~ST HZLL StJBDIVIS]ON, IMC. AF'PL[C~T[011 FOR REZOIIJlIG RM-12
~ND RS-5 TO RS-8 LOCATED AT 655 ME~I)ON ST. [REZ94-,)020]
FEBRUARY 2,1995
Dear Commission Members:
PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS for this site other than the_= on~as Sco~t KugZer
mentioned in his memorandum have taken place.
According to Dr. Paul Langehough, "~ ur:ed I;o llve on Fr~encl,:.hip St.. Dean
.Iones Owned everything behind the funelal I,ome to the creek and wuero 1he
Moose Lodge is now. There used to be ~ ¢:l,urch where the Lodge is at.
either 1960 or 1961, Dean Jones made an apr,lioatJon for a sLree~ accest: south
~,f Brookside, on Meadow St., south oF the (:~eek. Fhere Wa~: a big 9aCh, ring
l. hat ~ent do~n to city haZ1 and Dean Jt}nes [devel¢,pment] P~ uposal was
,lefeated. We were mottled about. children w..tlking to schoo] wit. h the added
traffic."
According to Jay Honahan, "8e&ween 1965
application was denied involving Dean ./ones
It>roper ~y."
1974, when
application
w.-:.s city attorney,
Lo develop the
questions raised at the last formal meeLjhu -- N,-~.~ did this s~Luagion I:appen
and Why WBsn'b there better street Plahnin~i when l.l~e surrounding area
,levelsped? -- were Oorrectly answered hy Sc,,gt Ku,iter AL last Monday night.'s
[nfornlal meeting when he sa~d, "Part ft[ th.:~'. ~ac. due be thr, cemebary styned t. he
]and. Tb was assumed the cemetary was go~11,] LO e.pand in~u ~hat ...rea. This
is subsbanBial;ed by Hr. John Daioe. A~.cor :l[ng ~u Mr Daine, "Z~ w..c; [z,.,ned]
[or cemeBary use all along. The city was w{~l] a~.:~ro o¢ [I,i.s [n~e~,l.~on. When
[.re sold i8 be Mr. Kampe (apProxima~el/ f~ve Year-.. ago) we always inl. ahded
· levetop ~8 as cemeBary lo~s. Kampe t.,,ld me he il~l. ended ~o develop i~ for
emeEary use." Mrs. Daine interjected. "l[.'s ptr. l[y sad aboul: wh.zg
l,eat ~ng." Mr. Oaine con~ioued, "Hr. OI. hou[ built the funeral home and
¢riginally intended Lo join i8 Lo ghe (omeLary."
· ,[yen t:his presumeion on [he par~ of LI ) City .zn,J the Land Owners, p~ovisions
~e 'e overlooked in ~he Oakes Headows //d,.lJ. tjon fo~ extension oF ~ sLr(?eg west
,rite ~he undeveloped RI~ area (the Easl. I-t[1] Lracl.) from Dover St. lh,] Oa~nes
;La~emenbs provide the reason no provJ,.jon for an access street [o Lira: East
lill sJbe was required.
[R~FFZC VOLUMES counted on Tuesday January 3t'st at. the south end of /'le tdow
treet and .~ust north of MUsealine ~ve~uo so Dover s~roet provide on~y a
,ur[:ial picture of traffic related problems whicl~ currently e;<~,sb re,
,e~ghborhood res~dent. s. When resided.t; are at home after peak PM dr~v-. L~me
before peak AN drive time, Dover sl.~eet (a spine street w~h ctu~er
~c)using) and Friendship street are sin, ere lane s['~eets due ~o curb s.~de
,urk~ng Nhioh cannot be avoided becaus~ of lack of off streel. parking. in
!
~esponse to all the curb szde parking (Jr, Do..,e~ street, Fire Chief Jim Fumfrey
I.~ughed and said, "I live over in that a~o.-~ ..~qd Friendship ?,[feet
narrow for e~[,ergency vehicles and t ~lould widon Friendship street." Ti.a['fic
related problems are resoundingly expl-essed by ~he almost FIFTY PER CEPF to
ct_~te filed protests.
Friendship street is a ColLector street. But with prop,,.~ed
I.~y definition,
development it would become a Hajor sireeL ;"l,aving t. he primary purl:,oc of
carrying through traffic and the secondary ,,u~pose o¢ providing accec, s Lo
· .~butting properly"). Given it's size and ~,.tt.ure, Friendship street iu
· ;,~itable to handle added traffic bur,Jen. Ot~e Lo the size and nature o, Oover
st. reel (along the 800 and 900 blocks) [t sl,,,uld be a local street. lb
,[ready more than a Subcollector ~treeL ("c~ lo]aEive~y low volume stre~:t
provides access to residential lobs and serve% 'some' through traffic.
Lower-order (access) streets"). ~. the onl;-' ~:pine sl:ree~ running no~ Li../5outh
totween Huscatine avenue and Friendship $~,'f~Ob, Dover street serves mo~c than
just 'some' through traffic and is not suiL.tble t.o handle added t. raflic
burden.
POSSIBILITY OF SECONDARY ACCESS appears no~,-e;:istant. Frank and Lorta:,',,3
'rauber, 2614 bluscatine avenue, said, 'When ~.~e sold off our 900 feet bc:.~nd our
house to Memory Gardens we put in the deed or .~ale that the only use c.. ~ be
for cemetary lots. Scott Kugler said, "]he [.,o-~sibility of providing a aLreet
through this area (tile north-west corner or the proposed devetopmenL) ..mJ the
cemetary without disturbing grave sites is ,luostionable." And City
':'.Labes, "~11 structures, including but not limited to mausoleums (thor,. J.s one
one foot above the floodplain), ..... shall be set back not less than Ihirty
feet (50') from any property line or sLreel; rigtlt-of-~._.~y line. ¢~]1 gr..ves or'
burial lots shall be set back not less than ten feet (!0') from any prL.)erty
line or street right of way."
PROPOSED LOCATION OF ENTRANCE DRIVE P-~LOI.IG I'IE;~DON STREET is pertinent t,.. safety
related issues (i.e., through traffic volume. on a.joining streets, pode,_'L~'ian
and bicycle safety, and emergency service ..~ccess). The traffic cour, L
conducted this past Tuesday, as a low, singJe day seasonal count, ~:oulJ
categorize Dover street as "Overburdened" should the Commission approve RS-8
and development proceeds accordingly. Curb side parking o~ Dover sire( L and
Frieedship street obstructs pot only drive~s v~e~.~, but that of pedestr~¢ns
(primarily children), bicyclists, and vehicles. backing out of drive~.::ys.
Emergeecy vehicles responding to a call in the East Hill subdivisio,q %.~,',,.i]d be
har, pered due to the size and nature of Dover s. treeL and Friend3hip str,.o~.
f'ire Chief Jim Pumfrey said, "A fire engine weighs 27,000 pounds (7,00,~ Lbs.
over tile load capacity of tile bridge on Neadou~ sitPeet just belo~ the ~:~.'zess
· :;tie). ~ ladder truck weighs 3,000-5,000 pounds more than an engine (._,r at
least 50% above the ten ton limit of this bridge)." The only adjacel~t otreet
.zccess to the point of access ~o the propose,J subdivi.sion is l'hJsca~i~:~ ..¢./enue
to Dover sLreeL to Perry court to t4eado~ sl.l'eOb. You have already hear:J Chief
Pumfrey's response to all the curb stele parking on Dover' street. I~, : :¢.ponse
to the grade of and curves on Dover sLreeb, Dove~ to Perry, Perry to ~t.
and Neadow Lo ~he site access drive Chief Pumfrey said he wuuld have hl.~,"~hal
Rocka review the situation.
Introduction of Shive and Hattery paving as-builL plans.
Siting Fire Department memoraedum of Au,.ju-st 5, l~92 to Jeff' Davidson, ;ire
,thief Pumfrey wrote, "One of the facLo~-,~. ~,ob melltiuned ill I.he IJLI pub] ,,.aLign
'Residential Streets' is the advantage ut: multiple access points provi.;Lqg
ea'se of access and faster response times for emcrgency vehicles. The
!
~,rovision of the cul-de-sac sireeL de'..;[gn, ~l~i Le providing unique Jden: [!.y to
· t development, quite frequently COilfilths ~.~;I.h Lho ability of provid[ht~ prompt
(m~ergemcy services, whether they bc I'J.~e, pot[t:.e, or ambulance. Fre.'lu,'n!;ly,
~r~,ergency service providers are encount:ered ~iLh having to t~ave! gro.'tl.
,listances to the location of an emergehcy dt,o to hav~ng to first travel Loa
'.;pine street,' and then to tile cul-de-.sac, t;hereby delaying the emer,3,.licy
~esponse. Zn some insba~lces in our ~tation location study, we have atLaS that:.
~.jenerally indicate an acceptable response t. lmf:; however, within these ..teas
have developments which have a much greater t,~sponse time due to the
..~vai].ability of access to that area by design ..... in your re-evalu..,.t.io:~ of
the Secondary ~ccess Policy, we are requesting thoughtful consideraLiol, be
~,~ovided to the special services provided h7 emergency responders.
we)l knou, any increase in response Lime re,t/ make the difference between
%uccessFul resolution of the emergency or a*~ u~successful resolution.
please ask your staff and Commission be closely examine tile needs of
(_;~ne rgenoy providers."
In 3elf Davidsoh's ~emorandum to the Com[t[J%;~oll dated October t2, ~992, the
goideline standards currently Jn use regarding Secondary ~ccess Policy states,
".q secondary means o¢ access shall be required ~hen there are physical
features uhich ~ould inhibit emergency vehicles access if the single mc.zns of
¢'~ccess Nere blocked. These physical features m..~y include but are not ).baited
to: slopes of 8~ or greatel', ....... Doe'-. this include Headow street at the
point
of access or the ground on either side of the access point?
~nn, at Nonday night's informal meeting you said of the Planning and ZL,,'~ing
Commission, "Ne are a recommending body." Has the Commission read all the
Protest To Rezoning objections?
~.n response to Hr. Gibson's concern to people Jn the community not 9eLI-ing
accurate information, has the Commission read I.he letter I wrote to Lhc.
._~dSacent proper~y oNners? In this letter, r objective]y as possible, s~u. hted
,Jirectly from tile staff report and reflected Ihe sentiments of local pieperry
o~nel's as their objections attest. The traf~i( related (ssues of
concern are not a figment of those protestJng'5 imagination. Ne ].ivo lhere,
~,~e experience it. Tile neighborhood input, by providing their opb~ions :crier
Lo and including the last formal meeting, .tctuat]y shaped the letter
requesting action. Thus far, 57 property o~ners are prote'sting rezo~,~,.,j to
tile level development Nill be allo~ed for the, very same reasons as e~l~el, the
,Jevelopment issue on this site came up ..,t the Lime Dr. Langehough and I.r.
Honahan describe in quote.
['he land is still of economic value to He,,ory Gardens, Inc. in the for,., of
cemetary lots.
Co, please, and may I quote from ~4RTICt. E r~. PLAII AND ZON£NG COHM[SSIOll, you
..... guide and achieve a coordinated and harmonious development of th(~ City
in accordance with tile' City's present and futui'e needs to the end thaL ;.he
hea].Lh, safety, order, convenience, prospe~ [Ly ,.~nd general welfare el I:',~.~
community may best be promoted."
Thank You
Nicholas B. Chmaruk
Jo R. Trabert-Chmaruk
~E~THER : COOL
~ `3 I 2
[ 0 I
J I 0 0
J 2 0 ~ 0
0 29 14 ~8 16
2 19 12 18 !!
B 14 8 16
2~ 25 27 ~
21 16 24 a
13 26 22 ~
]1 20 17 ~
16 17 19 ~
O 2 2 ~
hO0
5:00
6:00
t5
25
l:~O 24
2:00
3:00 39
4:00 36
5:00 40
boo 20
3:00 16
?:00 II
~O:00 6
0
0
{.
'OT~J.S 322 281 423 367 152 5~ { ~ * * ~ * ~ '~ 415 334
COHBI~ED TOT6L8
2:00
4:00
5:00
h':00 23
12:0~) P~ 49
!:':":'
2:0.) 32
bOO 70
~.0~ 75
5:uO
6:00 55
7:,)0 41
3:00 32
?:00 24
10:00 12
:hO0 I
I
0
4
2
43
31
22
4O
,18
69
72
37
39
2~
18
4
4 ~
(,
1
16
11
28
603 790 211 { ~ ~ * 749
UTE £00E: 59876t8B IOWA CITY PAGE:
SI[E : DOVER 100' D OF 8ROOKSlOE
FILE:
dEAT~ER : COOL
~ER~TOR : GI K~ D~TE:
'!RE RONDAY 30 TUESDAY 31 WEDNESOAY I TRORSOAY 2 FRIOAY 3 SATUROAY 4 SgtlOA¥5 ~EEK AVERAGE
hO0 ~ I 0 i 0 t ~ ~ ~ * t { 0
2:00 ~ I 0 0 I ~ ~ * t ~ t 0 0
4:00 * { 0 I I + ~ ~ ~ ~ t I
~:00 t 7 2 9 9 ~ t + ~ ~ t 8 5
8:00 ~ 28 21 ~2 25 ~ * ~ * * * 25 23
!2:00 PH 16 23 15 7 * * t ~ t ~ ~ + ' ~ 15
7:00 2~ 13 {3 14 * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2{ 13
h('O 15 12 12 18 ~ ~ * ' t t * + 13
lO:00 4 2 5 7 ~ ~ t t t ~ ~ 4 4
:hO0 2 0 I i ~ J ~ ~ + t ~ i 0
'OVALS 287 237 T61 319 82 105 t t t t t t ~ f 353 3!3
COttill ~EO TOTALS
..,
~:,JO 26 ]7 t
::':'0 27 30 ~ ~ 28
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 12, 1992
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Jeff Davidson, Asst. Director of Planning & Community Development ~
Re: Re-evaluation of City of Iowa City Secondan/Access Policy
The City's policy regarding secondary access is part of a larger set of policies which govern
subdivisions and additions of property to the city. The rights of the City to control land use
decisions were enacted by statute in 1931 and incorporated into Section 409A of the .Code of
.I.o,,ya. The rat onale for the statute is summarized in the following 1969 excerpt from the Iowa Law
Review. --
Once an area of the City is developed, the cost of change becomes prohibitive,
and it becomes evident that a subdivider has cast the pattern for the future of the
community. Since urbanization of raw land at the City's edge is now the most
important development area, it is here that the most significant public influence
should be exeded. Although the individual subdivider may see his particular
subdivision as a complete unit, the planning agency or commission must
necessarily view it as a segment of an entire community.
The excerpt goes on to say that for the general health of the community the city must ensure that
public services and facilities can be provided to new subd'vis~ons and additions in an effective
manner. This specifically includes streets which can handle the anticipated traffic which will be
generated.
Existing Policy
The City's policy on secondan/ street access is summarized on page 67 of the Iowa City
Comprehensive Plan, attached for your information. The focal point of this policy is the following
statement:
The need for secondary access will be determined by the following factors
including but not limited to the size of the subdivision, the topography of the land,
the density of housing, the adequacy of existing streets serving the area, and the
,existing and projected development of adjacent land.
This provides a broad policy statement on the City's requirements for secondary access to
subdivisions. This policy has become necessary because of the pattern of residentiaJ
developmenl which has evolved over the past 30 years. Traffic concerns have given increasing
favor to discontinuous street systems in newly developing areas.
2
A look at an Iowa City street map illustrates this pattern of development. The pre-1965 areas of
the city are characterized by grid street systems. A grid street system provides many alternatives
for traffic to circulate. Post-1965 developments are characterized by much less continuity in the
street system, an obvious effort to decrease traffic on residential streets, This is epifomized by
the cul-de.sac, a street design which provides for no circulation of traffic. A series of cul-de-sacs
puts pressure on the connecting "spine street," which must bear the brunt of all the traffic
generated by the cul-de-sacs.
There are varying opinions as to whether a residential area should have one or several entrances.
As summarized in the ULI publication Residential Streets, the advantages of multiple access
points include:
Reduced congestion and internal traffic volumes due to alternative routes,
Diffusion bf traffic impacts to the external road system.
Continuity in the internal street system for service, delivery, and maintenance vehicles.
The advantages of a single access point include:
Elimination cf through traftic and shortcutters.
Increased security.
A greater sense of neighborhood identity.
The rationality of the City's secondary access policy was established in the 1981 Iowa Supreme
Court case Oakes Construction Co, v. The City of Iowa City, Iowa. This was an appeal of a
Oistrict Court judgment upholding disapproval by the City of a preliminary subdivision plat. The
Supreme Court upheld the City's position of the necessity for secondary access to a 44 dwelling
unit subdivision. Testimony from City staff members outlined the following reasons why a single
means of access to the propnsed subdivision would be inadequate:
The ability of the overall street network in the vicinity to circulate traffic would be
inadequate.
It would exacerbate existing traffic problems and negatively impact the adjacent
neighborhood.
Emergency vehicle access wou{d not be adequate.
Non-local traffic would be added to a street with an elementary school.
As previously stated, the vagueness ot the Comprehensive Plan language has led fo va~/ing
interprelations ol when a secondary means of access should be required to a development. On
occasion City statf has used a specific standard of 29 lots as being the point at which secondary
access should be required. It is believed this originated from a calculation based on a 900 foot
cul-de-sac under the City's former R1-B zoning classification. It is clear that a blanket standard
such as this is not acceptable for all circumstances.
Proposed Standards for Requiring Secondary Access
II is recommended the City's policy or~ secondary access be based on the existing language in
the Comprehensive Plan, but that there be more specific standards on when secondary access
should be required. Staff has proposed the following checklist of criteria for consideraIion.
3
Secondary access shall be required if a proposed development will result in any portion
of. the single access road being overburdened with traffic. "Overburdened" shall be
defined as a projected traffic volume which exceeds the midpoint design volume as
designated in the Iowa City Cpmprehens ve Plan for a local or collector street:
Local street: 500 vehicles per day
Collector street: 2500 vehicles pe{ day
Projected traffic volumes shall be determined by taking the most recent Average Daily
Traffic count which is available, and adding to it projected traffic generation using the Trip
Generation manual published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers. In the absence of a
recent traffic count, projected traffic volumes shall be calculated by using the ITE trip
'generatibn rates for both existing and projected development.
A secondary means of access may be required when there are physical. features which
would inhibit emergency vehicle access if the sihgle means of access were blocked.
These physical features may include but are not limited to: slopes of 8% or greater,
floodplains as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, wetlands as
· designated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a bridged or culverted waterway,
vegetation with a trunk diameter over two inches, a grade separated highway, or a
railroad.
A secondary means of access may be required if the street which would provide the single
means of access is a local or collector street, along which there are existing or proposed
facilities that would create pedestrian-motor vehicle conflicts. These facilities may include
but not be limited to schools, daycare centers, and parks.
Secondary access may be required when there are special populations along the single
access road that increase the probability of emergency vehicle access being required.
These special populations may include but not be limited to elderly persons or persons
w'th d sab hbes. .
For a situation requiring secondary access, a single means of access. may be permitted
as a temporary condition. A temporary condition shall be defined as one where there is
a written assurance from the City Council or a private dove oper that the road which would
provide secondary access will be constructed within three years.
I will be present at your November 2 meeting to discuss this matter. If these standards meet with
your approval, staff will develop language suitable for the City's subdivision regulations.
jccogtp~2ndaccs.mmo
1.00
Traffic Considerations in
Subdivision Planning
and Layout
1.01 Objectives in Subdivision
Planning
The primary objective of subdivision
design is to provide maximum livability.
This requires a safe and efficient access
and circulation system, connecting
homes, schools, playgrounds, shops,
and other subdivision activities for
people living there.
Transportation considerations in
subdivision design may be classified in
two general areas: (a) the actual layout
of the streets and pedestrian systems as
related to land use, and (hi the engineer-
ing dimensions for vehicular, pedes-
trian, and any bicycle facilities. But
neither the street system nor the indi-
vidual design element should be
analyzed separately. They must both be
considered in order to design a safe and
efi'icient transportation system.
1.02 Application
There are four broad functional clas-
sifications of streets within urban areas.
as reviewed below:
Local streets represent the lowest
categoD'. Their primary function is to
serve abutting land use. Typical residen-
tial ~verage Daily Traffic (ADT) ranges
from 100 to 1,500, with ^.M. peak-hour
traffic about 7 to 8 percent and P.M.
peak-hour traffic about 10 percent of
ADT.,~
Collector streets have the primary
purpose of intercepting traffic from in-
tersectmg local streets and handling
this movement to the nearest major
streets. A secondary function is service
to abutting land use. Collector streets
also may carry bus lines within a resi-
dential subdivision. ADTs are typically
1,500 to 3,500 in residential areas, with
similar proportions of peak-hour traffic
as for the local streets.
~Iajor streets have the primary pur-
pose of carrying through traffic and the
secondary purpose of providing access
to abutting property. ADTs are typically
in excess of 3,500,
Limited access roaffs have the sole
purpose of carrying through traffic and
provide no direct access to abutting
properties.
The ranges in ADT may, of course,
overlap, and the above figures are not
intended as design criteria.
These guidelines are limited to design
characteristics of local and collector
type streets in residential subdivisions.
The street needs to service other types of
denser uses, such as retail, office, or
industrial, vary widely in operational
requirements. Their design should be
based upon detailed traffic analysis,
which more closely approximates de-
sign procedures for major streets except
for lower speeds and strong emphasis on
access to abutting properties.
Special subdivisions exist for which
these guidelines may only partially ap-
ply. These include mobile home parks,
recreational developments, airplane
landing runway or waterway-oriented
developments, and cluster housing. By
their nature, such subdivisions do not
necessarily fit into the planning
framework of the customary residential
areas. The need for special design
criteria, on a case.by-case basis, is rec-
ognized in most jurisdictions by the
planned unit development concept.
1.03 Principles of Systems Layout
Basic principles exist that should be
recognized and used in designing circu-
lation and access systems in new resi-
dential subdivisions of conventional
layout. These principles concern the de-
sign of entire street systems rather than
individual elements of the system, and
so express concepts rather than specific
dimensions. In applying them, however,
specific guidelines for pavement widths,
intersection design, and related design
features are desirable,
The design of local transportation'
systems must recognize the factors of:
(a) safety--for both vehicular and
pedestrian traffic. (b) efficiency of
service--for all users, (c) livability or
amenities--especially as affected by
traffic elements in the circulation sys-
tem. and (d) economy--of land ose,
construction, and maintenance, again
as affected by or related to the circula-
tion system.
Each of the following principles is an
elaboration on one or more of these four
factors. These principles are not in-
tended as absolute criteria, since in-
stances may occur where certain princi-
ples conflict. The principles should.
therefore, be used as concepts for
proper systems layout, as illustrated in
Figure 1.
1. Adequate Vehicular and Pedestrian
Access Should Be Pro,ideal to All
Parcels.
The primary function of local
streets is service to abutting prop-
erties. Street widths, placement of
sidewalks, pattern of streets, and
number of intersections are related
· ccts scrvlng only a few homes need only be twenty feet wide
:m used b5' c~vil engineers to describe
.poets of road &sign such as sharp-
:s~ oi' curves and steepness of slopes.
b~ musl?'. the geometry required Iota
:?riughway w~th a 65 m.p.h. speed
· utt ~s chffcrcnt than that needed for a
-talcanal street with a speed limit of
' m p.h..-\t high speeds, for example.
· ',~.~! ::'ct~ rcqturcs more gradual curves: at
~ i ..: ~pccds, cars cart easily negottate
c s[lar[)cst oF cu~.'es.
) i: Rcs~dcntkd streets should be de-
:.:cd ,,~th ughter turns than major
· .id~ These ughter turns force dr~vers
,.;o ~h),.vcr. wbde also adding to the
:ual rotcrest of the street. At inter-
_t,ms. d~c turn radius can be kept
~i :~.dlcr. forcing cars to come to a full
· q~ i)ciorc lurmng rather than making
rolhng ~top. '
~ · Jn dclcrnllm~g geometry and
· :,'el x~tdth. the need for providing
'ncr~cncx vehicle access must be ad-
dressed. But this does not mean that
residential streets have to be oversized.
Today's modern fire fighting vehicles
are more maneuverable than earlier
equipment. and oversized trucks such
as hook and ladder typically do not
respond to ftre calls in single-family
residcnttal areas. If fire truck accessi-
bility is a special concern in a commu-
nity. it would be more economical to
purchase trucks that fit local streets.
rather than build all streets to meet the
needs of the largest si:e fire trucks.
WORKING FOR CHANGE
In Albuquerque. New Mexico.
LarD· Collins. the development direc-
tor o f Si','age Thomas Homes, suggested
to the planning commisston that the
cuy amend its street standards in con-
juncuon with its ongoing revision o[
Albuqucrquc's Development Process
' Defining
'-... Stree
Development codes or subdirt.
sion regulations can recognize vari-
able street needs by specifying a
hierarchy of streets. In Residential
Streets, a joint publication of the
American Society of Civil Engineers,
the National Association of Home
Builders, and the Urban Land Insti-
tute, the following four-tiered hierar-
chy is recommended:
o Arterial streets are high-volume
streets that conduct traffic between
towns and activity centers and con-
nect communities to major state and
interstate highways. Typically. resi-
dences are not 1o~:ated on arterials,
· Collector streets are the princi-
pal traffic arteries within residential
or commercial areas. They carD,
relatively high traffic volumes and
should be designed to promote the
free flow of traffic, including public
transit buses and school buses. Some
residences may front on these streets.
. Sfibcollector streets are relative-
ly low-volume streets that provide
access to residential lots and septe
some through traffic to lower-order
(access) streets.
, Access streets are the lowest-
volume streets. Their purpose is to
handle traffic between dwelling units
and higher-order streets. They usual-
ly carry no through traffic and in-
clude short streets. cubde-sacs, and
courts. Access streets serve only a
few dwelling units.
Resources
Residential Streets can be pur-
chased from the!National Association
of Nome Builders Bookstore.
1-800-223-2665.
I'1 ',\',,l',,t, ( tl',I\II~J$IONERS Jot R\ ~1. ', OI.L M E I '~UM§I:R I NOVEMBER I DECEMBER I q91
LE IC
KROEGt R
REALTORS
Dubuque e Iowa City, IA 52240 ® (319)351.8811
January 27,1995
Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission
c/o Bob Miklo
Civic Center
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Planning and Zoning Commission:
I am writing to formally consent to the extension of the deadline for action on
East Hill Subdivision to the February 2nd meeting.
Also, I would like to clarify our position on the rezoning of the parcel.
Currently, the parcel is zoned RM12 and RS5 and would allow a potential density
of 117 units. After discussion with the City Planning staff, we agreed that a _
density of 72 units, or rezoning to RS8 to confom~ with adjoining property,
would be the most appropriate use. This zoning would limit us or any potential
successors to that density.
We intend to develop the property into condominum duplexes to be sold to owner
occupants. If you have any flirther qaestions, I will be happy to answer them at
the February 2nd meeting.
Thank You.
Sincerely~
Gene Kroeger
GK:sr
TO: ,~. -. i ,~
We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or mare of the area ~i Ihe ~.~3perty
Included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of ~,'/enty percent or more of the
property which Is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of Ihe properly for
which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezonlng of the fcilowing property:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
This palilion is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezonlng
shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of a~l the
members of the council, all in accordance with §414.5 ol the Cods of Iowa.
s)
Property AddreSs
STATE OF IOWA )
)
JOHNSON COUN'~'~')
On this ,') ~day o! t'g~'~/~¢'~'" ,19~i~, before me, the undersigned, a NctaP/Public in and
for said County and State, personally appoared ~]-'/)r,l~-g L ~ (',~ ~, and
to me known to be the identical persons named in and who
executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same
as their voluntary act and dead.
in and for the Sta[~_.~f Iowa
Property Address
STATE OF IOWA )
) SS:
JOHN80N COUNTY )
On this .~' day of t'~u~(,,H~ , ~ 9_~..~, before me, the undersigned, a Nolary Public tn and
lot said County and Stale, personally appeared /?:~ I e~n[ /~](.,~,;(~,~ and
(o me known to be the identical persons named in and who
execuled the within and loregoing Jnst[ument ~md acknowledged [hat they executed the same
as their voluntary act and deed.
'
Notary Public in and for the S.[~e_.~
ODJEOTION STATEMENT
As owners of property located within 200 feet of the exterior bounder ea of the affected
property~ protesting the rezonlng, we have stated ol jectlons to the specific rezon ng under
consideration -- RM- 12, Low Dens t¥ Muir-Family Resld(:nt , and RS-5 Low ~re.n.~ ty Sing e-Family
Residential, to RS-8, Medium Density Single-Family Re~;identlal located ~t 6.)~ MeHdow Street
(west aiDover Street, north o~Muscatlne Avonno), These stated objections are:
.,.
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY
On this ~lday of ~../:._~ t9..oz~_, boo e mr, the undersigned, a Natal/Public in and
for said'~_,oun[y and State, personally appeared __..~rqe*' [.-. I~1('~C1~> and
Io me known to be [he identical persons named in an~'who
execuled the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they sxeculed the same
as their volunlary act and deed.
Nolary t'~ bhc ~n and for the_State of Iowa "'
OBJECTION STA'r£ML:NT
As owners of property lOtSled within 200 feet of the exterior boundaries el~ the affected
property protesting the rezonng~ we have stated ob actions to the specific rezon ng under
cons deralton -- aM- t2, Low Density Molt-Family Re~ (lent a, and RS-S, Low Density Single-Family
Residential, to RS-B, Medium Density Sincjle-Farnily Residential located at 655 Meadow Str,eet
(west of Dover Street, north of Muscatlne/'tvenua). These stated objections are.
An)' fi]rlhcr dcvcloputcnh regardless o£whether il is Pu'~t. 12, ES-S, or ES-8, within the statol area that would
ea[isc addilioaal eaffJc Io {he seCli0n of Dover jusl north of Musealine Aveau¢, t~'ill add more aaffJc Io a
dangarena and congested traffic arr. a. From my residence al 9.10 Dover '.v~lhJn the last h',~ )'~ars. wc have
our own vchichi damaged while pahed on the congested sireel.
a head on collision oflwo vehicles,
a child riding a biqcle hil by a car,
numerous near miss collisions.
The downhill 'S" cu~,c when traycling nodh on Dover from Museslinc cresles a hazard duc Io the I'acl thal
intronmrs drivers race around Ihe curvc al dangareas slx'ed s. This makns bachlag oul of my drive,my a risky task
in the roehung when several I~na§cfs use Dover seecl Io rcoch Friendship from Musealine. When Iraveling
North at the end of DO',*CL an uphill lurn follo;ved by a sharp sinely ticgtco rum offers another 'challenge" for the
drivers Illat enjoy racing around lures.
~or de,'dopmeal. I urge you fid a selulion Illat will no[ allow addilional {ralT~c in this area. To my kno:% Icdgc, no
oo¢ iavolv~ in Ihe Dover slr~l Ira .file accidents have bees seriously bun, but I'm certain that there ,,,.'ill I~serious
-_~'~?ts~'~'F .................. ~F~'~Ft'~-fi-d'dF'~ ...........
STATE OF IOWA ) '
JOHNSON COUN'~Y )
On Ihis ~ ~'day ol-J,~,~,,u , t9 ~.~ before ~ th~ undeistgned a Nolary Pub c in and
for said County and State, pe(sonally appeared --~.DLr-,'C,~' ~ .'-F'd~/,) 7o/. ) and
Io me keown to be Ihe identical persons darned in and who
executed the within and loregoing Inslrumonl and acknowledged that they executed the same
as their voluntary act and deed.
.c.i~n,and fo~to el Iowa
TO:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, being lhe owners of iwenty percent or more of the area of the prope~
included in the proposed zoning change, or [he owners of twenty percent or mere of the
property which Is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the prope,'ly for
which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby prolest the rezon[hg of tile following properly:
This petilion is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the tntenllon that such rezoning
shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the
members of the council, all In accordance with §414,5 of the Code el Iowa.
By:
Owner(s) of
PropertyAddress
STATE OFIOWA )
) ~:
JOHNSON-COUNTY) ....
On this _. day ot ,19. , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
for said County and State, personally appeared and
to me known to be the idenlJcai persons named in and who
execuled the within and foregoing [hst~uhlenl and acknowledged that they executed the same
as their volunlay act and deed.
Nolary Public in and for the Stale of Iowa
By:
Owner(s} of Propedy Address
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY
On this. day of , 19. , balers me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
for said County and Slate. personally appeared and
to me known to be Ihe idenllcal persons named in and who
executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same
as their voluntary act and deed.
Nolary Public in and for the State el Iowa
To: The property owners of 20% or more of the area located within 200 feet of the
exterior boundaries of the affected property,
From|
Nick Chmaruk, Neighborhood Advocate
909 Dover Street
Iowa City, IA 52245
Phone: 339-0620 or 339-0280
RE:
Background:
East Hill Subdivision, Inc, (land developer) application to the Iowa City Planning and
Zoning Oommision to REZONE the field bordered to the south by George L, Gay Fun,
Home, to the north by Ralston Creek, to the west by Memory Gardens Oemetary, I
to the east by Dover Street to be developed as a residential subdivision (propose
rezoning RM-12 and RS-5 to RS-8 at 655 Meadow Street],
Formal Protest to the rezoning of this property,
Dear Neighbor:
The letter you received from the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission datod
January 1 ~, 1995 stated a majority of the 13,09 acre field is currently zoned for
Low Density. Multi-Family Residences referred to as RM-12, RM-t2 designates up
t2 living units per acre occupying the property' in the form ol~ duplexes, condos,
apartments, A small area at the north end of the field paralleling Ralston Creek is
currently zoned for Low Density Single-Family Residences, referred to as RS-5, R~
designates up to five living units per acre occupying that pt(Sporty In the form of
single family homes,
The Planning and Zoning Commission staff report of January 6, 1995 recommends
the Commission approve the rezoning application by Fast Hill Subdivision, Inc,, This
rezoning proposal would change the current RM-12 and RS-5 zoning to Medium
Density Single-Family Residences referred to as RS-8, RS-i~ designates up to eight
living units per acre occupying the whole property, The concept plan by the land
developer sh. ows 36 lots with 72 living units in the form of duplex-;s occupying thi
property if trio rezonlng is approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and
subsequently passed by the City Council,
Issues of
Importance:
Of Major
Concern=
,,A. ccordlng to the Commission staff report, If development of this site ic ;o occur
the existing (current) RM-t2 zonng appears to be nappropr ate for t ].~ ste due
its limited access, The Single access to this site is a local street,,,,,,Thc only point
access for residential development on this site Is at the northeast corner of the si
near the intersection of Meadow Street and Perry' Court,,,,.the additional traffic the
would be generated If this site Is developed would be [travelling] through the
adjacent neighborho(~ds -- either along Dover Street or along Friendship Street,"
According to the Commission staff report, "The proposed rezoning represents a
decrease in density for most of the property and thus a smaller increase in traffic
than what would result if the property was developed under current zoning." The
report admits current zoning "appears to be Inapproprlate for this site due to Its
limited access," Therefore, one could conclude that under current zoning,
development would not occur. The current zoning, RM-12 (Low Density Mult-Famil'
Residential) went into effect when the new City Zoning Code was adopted in t 98,3.
At that time Memory Gardens, Inc. was granted a special exception for the
cemetery to expand with cemetery lots within the current proposed development
site,
Even with the proposed rezoning, access and related'.traffic~/problems are still of
concern, The staff report continues, "The single access-to'this site is a local stre~
~The C~_ty's secondary access standards suggest that the traffic volume threshold
,;for a:local street be 500 vehicles per day," With the creation of a 36 lot
%~ubd!v-Islon, If rezonlng goes through, 72 living units could ensue resulting In an
'..~ :~verage of seven =vehicular trips per day per unit, Seven vehicular trips per day
- - per unit X 72 units 504 vehicles per day entering and exiting the subdivision
.~t~, oug[~ a stogie access pont creating considerable additional traffic along Dover,
~-~-- ~,~endshlp, and Meadow Streets, and Perry Court, The projected 504 vehicles
..... ~'l~t_ erlnb~-and exiting the proposed subdivision site per day exceeds the Clty's
;~-~' ~-~Fconda~y access standard calculation for traffic volume threshold,
~f Valor
once'n:
Action
Request:
Reminder:
T, he 8bove 50.4 fluJure. takes Into. sccount only, access on thcJ local street withis the ' ~
aevelopment site, It close not searess tl~e eYdStlng or a~d.~l traffic Impsat on Dovel "~
Friendship, and Meadow Streets and Perry Court, Dover Street Is densely populatea ~
~a.nd th. er_e Is con?lderable_ curb-side parking on both Dover Street and Frlendshl13
~tree~, uover Street to ~'erry Court to M,eadow Street Is used as a hlgh-speecJ
shortcut, The am,o, unt of traffic Is increasing on all four streets especially around peak
drive times and wdl continue to do so as development continues toward Scott 81vd,
and Eagles Supermarket opens, With development o¢ the proposed subdivision, there
would be an Increased number of children walking to and from the already crowded
Lucas School, crossing these streets and this dense area of access, All traffic
congestion comes to one point at peak drive times before and after school, Speclflc
site distances from the curves at the access point to the proposed subdivision are
not good, The hilly terrain and almost blind c. urves on the adjoining local streets
leading to and from the proposed access pmnt to the subdivision pose a safety
hazard,
For the above reasons, a case can be made t, hat If the rezonlng for the proposed slte
ia approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and subsequently passed by the
City Council~ what will result at the point of access.on Dover Street on Friendship
Street, on Meadow Street, and on Perry Court will be prob eros of traffic access,
trafRc congestlon~ traffic concentration, traffic flow, children's safety, and accidents
waiting to happen,
The adjacent neighborhood property owners along Dover Street and Friendship Street
Invite the Planning and Zoning Commission to take these traffic problem factors Into
consideration before rendering a decision whether or not to recommend rezonlng to
the City Council, The one and only access point to the proposed subdivision site will
create traffic problems way beyond the ones that already exist at the present time,
The way Friendship Meadow, and Dover Streets and Perry Court were planned
originally, no one could have forecast the traffic problems that exist currently on
the,~? local streets, The a,djacent neighboring street property owners' existing traffic
proDrams would be exacerbated by rezonlng the proposed subdMslon site,
Even though 31 signatures were obtained from Dover Street residents January 19,
1995 opposing the rezoning of RM-12 and RS-5 to RS-8 located at 655 Meadow Street,
It Is necessary to follow formal protest guidelines, Enclosed please iind a Protest of
Rezoning form and Objection Statement form. If you wish to protest the rezonlng
application by East Hill Subdivision, Inc,, please complete these forms. Then In the
presence or-.Notary Public Suzanne Streltz, 847 Dover Street (phone 338-3044) sign and
date the forms, So take your completed forms to Suzanne~s house to be notarized on
Tuesday January 24th between 7',00 and 9:00 pm Friday January 27th between 5 O0
and 7:00 pro, or call her for an appointment, There will be NO CHARGE for notarlzlng
these forms. For legal reasons, the City Council will only consider notarlzed Protests to
Rezoning,
Please do not put off completing and having notarlzed these Protest and Objection
forms If you are opposed to the rezonlng, Time is of the essence, February 2rid Is the
next hearing date before the Planning and Zoning Commission, It Is crucial to have as
many completed forms as possible for submission on that date.
If you have any questions regarding this letter please do not hesitate to contact me at
339-0820 or 339~0280,
Sincerely,
Nick Ohmaruk
909 Dover Street
OBJECTION STATEMENT
Aa owners of property located wlth[h 200 feet of the exterior boundarMs of the affected
property protesting the rezonlncj, we have stated objections to the speclF c rezon[hg under
consideration -- RM-12, Low Density Mu t-Fern y Residential, and RS-S, Low Density Single-Family
Residential, to RS-O, Medium Density Single-Family Residential located at 655 Meadow Street
(west of Dover Streeh north of Muscatlne Avenue). These stated objections are:
Dover Street, betweea Meadow Street and Muscatine Avenue, already carries far more
traffic than the typical residential eeighborhood street. Because it is one ofonly two semi-
direct access routes between Friendship and Muscatine belwcen First Avenue and Scott
Boulevard, it carries an exlraordinary amount oftraffle. Ofparticular concern at this pohil
is Ihe amount of truffle it carries to facilitate transportation of slureats to and from
Southeast Junior High from north of Museurine and the transportation of students to and
from City t Iigh School from the south side of Musearias. Rezoning will sigoifi canfly
exacerbate this traffic problem.
All of the homes on this portion of Dover a~e zero lot line structures, moat with single car
garages. Because mail is delivered to curb side mailboxes, parking is already a significant
problem and the traffic is already much heavier than was anticipated or planned for a
residential neighborhood. On a recent morning, I counted 55 cars in a 15 minute petled
traveling on this portion orderer Sireel. None ellhem were from this neighborhood
This short portion of Dover Street, tbe equivalent of 2~3 blocks, has two steep hills with
four ninety degrce curve? lfv~gs h[~f ~esigfied to ~arry this much traffic-.it certainly was
not designed co be the high s~'eed shodc~t-to Southeast Junior Itigh and City High School
and a way of avoiding Fim'AvenlIe'in traveling to and from the north and south side of
East Iowa City that it has obviously become. At certain times ortho day, it would be
easier to back out onto Muscatine Avenue than it is to gain acce.~ to Dover Street from
our driveway.
Any attempt at fezsuing must exclude any direct access onto Dover Street. This street,
with two hilts and four ninety dcgrce curves, was not designed to carry the current Ioa{'~f
trat~c. Please do not approve any fezsuing which will exacerbate the problem
3-- ¢n
party flooress
STATE OF IOWA ) I ',A ,l/ z . au mmarzl
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On Ihis ~.L~-day of .J~:~::~, 19qS-, before me, Ihe undersgned, a Notary Public in and
lot said County and ~lute, personally appeared -~. ,.,..? !. s /Vt. '7--,-,~ ~ L and
Is me known to be the identical persons named in and who
executed [he within and foregoing Instrumenl and acknowledged [hat [hey executed the uame
as Iheir voluntary act and deed.
TO:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, being the OWners of twenty percent or more of the area of the properb/
included In the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty percent or more of the
property which Is located wilhin two hundred feet of the exterior bound~es of lhe prope~ for
which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezonlng of the following property:
This petiUon Is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezoning
shaJl not become e~fective except by the favorable vote of at lesst three-fourths of all the
members of the Coundl, a~l In accordance ~ §414.5 of the Code of iowa.
Owner(s) of
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY
Property Address
.Onthls~.~.~.~' dayof '~.,3 l~Jg~[,b;)forsme ,h
mr s~d Coun~ ~d~ie, -srsona"~ - ~ ~'~ uj:~ers~nea, a Nol~ Public tn and
execu{ed the ~(hin ~d fore-oin- t ..... ~u~m~ persons named in and who
~ ~ .~[mmem ~a ackn~ledg~ ~at they exerted the same
~ ~elr volunl~ a~ ~d de~.
By: I
Owner(a) of
Property Address
STATE OF IOWA )
On this ~ day of ~, 19~, bed'ore me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
for said County and-~aate, personally appeared
executed the '~,fihin~d foregoing Ins~ment ~d a~o~edged and
to me kno~ to b~e iden~l persons ~ed ~n an~who
as their volunla~ a~ and deed. ~at ~ey exerted the same
Nola~/Public In and for the Stale of Io~{~ ' -
OBJECTION STATEMENT
As owners of property located within 200 feet of the exterior boundaries of th:) affected
property, protesting the rezon rig, we have stated objections to the specific rezonlng under
consideration -- RM- t2 Low Density Mu t-Faro y Residential, and RS-5, Low Density Single-Family
Residential, to RS-8, Medium Density Single-Family Residential located at 655 Mendow Street
(west of Dover $treet~ north of Muscatlne Avenue). These stated objections are.
The devetopment of this site will result in Increased traffic on Dover Street, Due
to lack of off-street parking this street Is for the most part a one lane
thoronghPare with heavy traffic going both ways due to the fact that most
people find Dover Street to be a handy shortcut across ~alston Creek.
During rush hour time for business and for school this means ! cannot safely hack
out of my driveway before a car comes into site around the bend and has to
slow, stop. or even pass my vehicle trying to get into traffic. This ts
a situatiom which will result in am accident at some future point in time.
During morning rush time, it means waiting in 1lee to get onto Muscatine due to
that will probably happen at the Dover/Muscatlne intersection, Southbound
pedestrian traffic 1s also heavy at this hour with students who attend
Should this area become developed and populated. serious consideration should Oe
given to the following:
1. boor dell. very of mall rather than street delivery thus freeing
parking spaces not currently being used because the sail will
not deliver if somesac is parked in front or your mailbox.
2. Sidewalks on the Noose Lodge property allowing pedestrian
traffic on both sides of the street thus allowing Lucas
students easier and safer access to school.
Relaxation of City rules to allow more concrete areas in
small yards to accomodate off street parking for those of
us who would like to widen our existing driveways.
4, Note traffic control through enforcement of speed limits and
a consideration for 4-way stop at the intersection of ~uscatine
~wner(~} ot Property Addr~ ., .~ ~ ~
STATE OF iOWA ) <, ~ ~
JOHNSON COU~ ) ~ ~
..
On Ihis day of. ,19 , be/ore me, Ihe undersigned, a Nola~ Publi~ and
for said Coun~ and State, peresnelly appeared and
to me known Io be the identical persons named in and who
executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged ~a[ they executed the same
as [hei~ volunta~ a~ and deed.
Notary Public In and for lhe State of Iowa
TO:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
10WA CrTY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, balng the owners of twang/percent or more of the area of the property
Included In the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty percent or more of the
property which Is located within two hundred feat of the exterior boundaries of the proporb/for
whtch the zoning change Is proposed, do hereby protest the rezonthg of the following property:
?De Field bordered to Lhe souLh by George b. Gay Funeral Home, to the north
by Galato. Creek, to the vest by 14emory Gardens Cemetary, and to the east
by Dover Street to be developed as a residential subdivision (proposed
rezoaing R14-t2 and RS-5 to [IS-8 at 655 Meadow Street).
This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention thai such rezoning
shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at lee. st thrse-fourths of all the
members of the courtall, 8JI in accordance ~ §414,5 of the Cods of Iowa.
9~13 Dover Street, Io',,'a City, ~[.~
52245 9~3 Dover Street, Iowa City, IA
Owner~ of Properly Address
522~5
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY
On thlso?_.~.~ day of~, 19 ~'..~, before m~p., the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
for said County anU.[.,State, pe~onaily appeared ~Jdn~ ,~. ~(?(*'~. and
to me known to be the Identical persons named in and who
executed the within and foregoing Ins~romant and acknowledged that they executed [ha same
as thair vaiunt~uy act and deed.
By:
Owner(s) of Property Addres~ (-. r..) -.-
STATE OF IOWA )
JOHNSON COUNTY ) --
On this __ day of !9 , bslors me, the undersigned, a Note,,,/Public in and
for said County and State, personalN appeared and
to me known is be the Identical persons named in and who
executed [he within and foregoing thstTument and acknowledged that they execuled the same
as their voluntary act and deed.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
TO:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, being the owners of [wenty peruant or more of the area of the property
included in the proposed zoning change, or Ihe owners of twenty percent or more of ~a
property which is laceled v,~thin two hundred feet el Ihe e.'dedor boundaries of the properly Ior
which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest {he rezoning of the following prope~:
This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with Ihe intention Ihat such rezoning
shaft not become effective except by the laverable vote of at least three-fourths of all the
members of the councfi, all in accordance with §414.5 el the Code el Iowa.
Owner(s) of Property Address
) ~:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this -{~f'~dey of '.L,~__~_u~_, 19_~_~__., bolero me,,th~ undersigned, a Nota~ Publ c in ~d
for s~id ~oun~ and ~lale, pe~sona[ly appeared ~o/~ ~ ~n~ and
.~c ~n~ ~ra~-C'hm~ known Io be the [dentill persons named in and who
execuled the ~thin and foregoing inslrument ~d acknowledged ~at ~ey executed the sams
~ their volunt~ a~ ~d deed.
By:
Owner(s) of Property Address
STATE OF IOWA )
)
JOHNSON COUN~P~ )
On this day of '-- _~ ,~,~e""i'~'~ne, the undersigned, a Nolary Public in and
Ior said Counly and Slale, personally appeared and
to me known to be the identical parsons named in and who
executed the wilhln and toregoing instrument and acknowledged that Ihey execoled the same
as their voluntary acl and deed,
Notary Public in and for the State el Iowa
OBJECTION STATEMENT
As owner8 of property located within 200 feet of the exterior bounderlea of the affected
property protesting the rezonlng, we have stated objections to the specific rezon ng under
consideration .- RM- f2, Low Oenslty Mult-Family Realdent a and -':
Reeldential, to RS-I], Medium Densltv In ]le-Fnmtlw p.,--~- [ RS?,,Lo~ Density Single-Family
~west o~ Dove wm.~ .~.;~,'(~.~22:;~_ ,~,.uu.[a ~ca~e~ nt ~55 Merelow Street
. r S ...., ,,~.,. u, ,~,u~uumm m'enueb IReBe 81~ted objections arm
f.,~ ~ t~ ~'~.e~,... ~,~, ~ s~.6 g~,~x, ~ s~.r.. ~ ~,~ ~w.'~ s,~,
~[~' e~'a~,~qi;,/t,~ c~/~.'.. ~ ~ ~..n..'.a--...~ ~, ~'~ ~ ~t~, ""'~;
.................. ........
...... . ..... toparty
) as:
JOHN80N COU~ )
n this~day oJ ~, 19~, before me, ?o undersigned, a Nolaw Public in and
r said Coun~ and ~lalet p~qn~ly appeared ~lC~oJa~ ~ C~r~ and
~ ~Y~ - ~h~e known Io be Ihe Idenlical persons named in and who
execuled the within and lorngoing insltumenl and ~cknowledged that ~ey execuled the same
as Iheir volunla~ a~ and deed.
Ilc In . ~
STATE OF IOWA )
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On thts,.~/-~ay of r"~..~, 19~'~, before me, the undersigned. a Notan/Public in and
for said County and ~tate, per~natl~ appeared C/.3g,'-.~/' /K'. ~'~c~"~',a~- and
to me known to be the identf~at persons named in and who
executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same
as their voluntaP/act and deed.
Not~y I~blic ~n and for the St'ate offal
TO:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, being the owners ol twenty percent or more of the area ot the property
included in the proposed zoning chan(js, or the owners of twenty percent or more of the
properly which Is located within two hundred feet of the extedor boundaries o[ the proparty for
which Ihe zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezonlng ot the following propar[y:
This petilion is signed and acknowledgeJ by each of us wilh the inlanl~on that such rezoning
shall nol become effsctk'e except by the lavorable vote of at least three4ourths of all the
members of the council, all In accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa,
Owns?i-s) of
'~roperty Addre~,s
STATE OF IOWA )
) es: I,~co~ass:~m~s I
JOHNSON COUNi'Y ) - ~ - '~ ' ~(o I
~n this .~/~ay of ~ ~9~_, before me, the undeml;ned, a Nota~ Public in and
[~aid Coun~ and~.S[a? Fe~nally appeared ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t~c~ and
'~d~ ~ ~¢r ~ to me kuown to be Ihe Identi~ persons named in and who
execuled the within and foregoing insffument ~d acknowledged that they executed the same
as their volunt~ s~ ~d deed.
By:
~ttuy P~311c In and for the State of Iov~
Owner(s} of
Property Address
STATE OF IOWA )
) $S:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this ~ day ol 719--- betore me, the undersigned, a Notap/Public in and
for said County and State, pars-~nally appeared and
to me k.own to be Ihe identical persons named in and who
executed Ihe wilhin and foregoing instrumonl and acknowledged that they executed the same
as Iheir voluntary act and deed.
No[ay Public in and for the State of Iowa
OBJECTION STATEMENT
As owners of property located within 200 feet of the exterior boundaries of the affected
property, protesting the tezonlng, we have stated objections to the specific rezonlng under
consideration -- RM-12, Low Density Mult-Famlly Res~dentlnl, and RS-5, Low Density Single-Family
Residential, to RS-8, Medium Danalty Single-Family R.~sldentlal located at 655 Meadow Street
(west o~ Dover Street, north o[Muscatlna Avenue). Theee ateted obJectlon~ are.
On lhis~'bday of C~, 19~G, belore ,.e. the anders~n~d[ a Nota,'y Pubtic in and
fo(saldOo~n~yan~.3½~al.e:,~rs.o. nall~"~peared ~,-,J,.~ '/? e /oc/~ and
[~ch¢,-~ /::- b~/~uh to me kno~ ~o '~ ~e idenll~ persona named in and who
executed ~e wi~in and loregoing Ins~ment am ~cknowledged Ihal ~ey execuled the same
as their volunta~ a~ and deed.
N~a~ubllc ~n and br
TO:
PROTEST OF FIEZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CiTY COUNCIL
IOWA crP,/, IOWA
We, the undersigned, being lhe owners of twenty percent or more of the area of the property
included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty percent or more of the
prope~ which is located within two hundred feet of the extedor boundaries of the prope~ for
which the zoning change Is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property:
This petilion Is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the Intention that such rezoning
shall not become etiective except by the favorshie vote of at least three-fourths of all the
members of the council, all In accordance with ~414.5 of the Code of Iowa.
Owner(s) of Property Address-
STATE OF IOWA ) i, tfC~M~_ ~ .~l j
)
JOHNSON COUNTY )
-
On this ~.~ day of i~).~g..~tz_~__, 19 '~<~, before me_~.the undersigned, a Notch/Public In and
for said'County and Slate, peYeonaliy appeared "l'~.~'[,,t~-~ j~ JJo~ and
to me known [o be the identical persons named in and who
executed the wlihln and loregoing lastnJment and acknowledged that they executed the same
as their voluntary act and deed.
~mar'/ bllc In and for the Stale of Io~
By:
Ow'nar(s) of
Properly Address
STATE OF IOWA ) ......
)
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On Ihls day of ,19__, before me, the undersigned, a Nota~ Public in and
for said County and Stele, personally appeared and
to me known to be the Identical persons named In and who
execulsd the wlihin and loregoing Instrument and acknowledged that they executed the s~me
as their voluntaP/act and deed.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
OBJECTIO",I STATEMENT
As owners of property located within 200 lest of the exterior boundaries of the affected
property, protesting the r'ezonlncJ, we have ntated objections to the speefc rezonlng under
consideration -- RM-f2 Low Density Muir-Family Resldanttal~ and RS-5, Low Density Single-Family
Reslden!lal, to RS-8, Medium Density Single-Family Reslden?l located at 655 Meadow Street
{west of Dover Street, north of Muscatlne Avenue), These stated objections are:
STATE OF iOWa )
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On Ihls ~'day of~, 19q F, before mo,~o unders,gned, a Nola~ Pub c in and
Ior said Coun~ andStale, pdrsonally a~peared '~r ~¢ra 1~ - ~c~ and
to me known to be the identical persons n~ed in and who
executed the within and foregoing Instrument and acknowledged that Bey execuled the same
as Iheir voluntaw a~ and deed.
TO:
PROTEST OF RF. ZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, Ihe undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of th9 am'~'of theproperty
Included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty percent or more of the
propedy which Is Iocaled within two hundred leel o! the exterior boundaries of the properi,/for
wh? Ihe zoning change is proposed, do hereby prolest the rezoning of the following property:
This petition Is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the Intention that such rezoning
shall not become effective except by the favorable vote o! at least three-tour~hs of all the
members of the council, all In accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa.
Owder(e) of ~.' Propedy Address
JOHNSON- COUNTY ) --
tO me known to be the ldentlca persons named in and who
exerted the within ~d foregothg inslrument ~d acknowledged that tl~ey executed the same
as the[~ volunt~ a~ ~d de~.
o~~n and for ~o
By:
Owner(e) of Property Address
STATE OF IOWA )
) .es:
JOHNSON COUNTY ) '~,'.
On this dayof 19 ', ~i~'m me, the underalgnad, a Nolary Public in and
for said County and State, personally appeared and
to me known to he the Identical persons named in and who
execulsd the within and toregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same
as their voluntary act end deed.
Nolary Public in and for the State of Iowa
OBJECTION STATEMENT
A8 owners of property Iocsted within 200 feet ~)f the exterior boundaries of The affected
property protesting the r, ezonleg, we have state. ! objections to the ~peciflc rezonincJ under
consideration -- RM-12, Low Dens y Mult-Famliy Rc ;identlal, and RS-5, Low ~enslty Sing e-Famlty
Resldenllal, to RS-8, Medium Density Single-Family Residential Iccpted et 6~5 Meadow Street
(west o~ Dover Street, north of Muscatlne Avenue), These stated objections are:
............ -- .....
STATE OF IOWA ) j_~i~ j suz~u~ ~,m..m. smr~j
JOHNSON COU~ ) . ~- 2:~._ J
~n ~ls~ay el ~, lg~ before me, the undersigned, a Nola~ Public in and
r sa~d Coun~ and ~ale, pel~on811~ appeared ~ J~o~ ~ cv h ~ J - ~ss and
Io me known to be lhe tdsnli~l persons named in and who
execuled the wilhin and foregoing insl~umenl and acknow,edged [hal ~ey execu ed Ihe sams
as Iheir volunta~ 8~ and de~.
TO:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CiTY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, being file owners of twen(y peruant or more of the area of the property
included in the proposed zoning change, or file owners of twenty parcent or more of the
property which Is located withtn two hundred feet ot the exterior boundaries of the property [or
which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby !.rotest the rezoning of the IoUowing propcrty:
This petition Is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intanlicn thai such rezonthg
shaft not become effective excepl by the favorable vole of at least films-four[he of all the
members of file council, all tn accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Io#a.
Owner(s) ol
Property Addres's.
J.J.sLrz. ec~ aem~r t STSrd'iZ
STATE OF iOWA ) ~~J
On fills ~ day ol ~, i9~, before me file undersigned, a Nolaw Pub c n and
lot said Coun~ anti,late, p~onal~ appeared ~ ~. Ciak and
to me ~nown Io be file identi~ persons named in and who
executed the ~lhtn ~d foregoing ins~umenl and acknowledged ~at ~ey executed the same
as ~eir volunt~ a~ ~d deed.
~No~a~ubfic In and for ~e State of I~a
By:
Owner(e) of Properly Address
STATE OF IOWA )
JOHNSON COUNTY) .-
, .:."r:.,-!
On this day ot - ' '--Tlg~'""7'~, 10T'e~e, the undersignod, e Notary Public in and
for said County and State, personally appeared and
1o me known to bo the identical persons named In and who
executed the wilhtn and loregoing Instrument and acknowledged Ihat they executed file same
as their voluntary act and deed.
Nolar'/Public In and for the State of Iowa
OBJ£OTION STAT£MFNT
As owners of property located within 200 feet of the exterior boundaries of the af[ected
property protesting the rezon rig, we have stated ob ectlons to the speclf C rezontng under
consideration -- RM-t2, Low Density Muir-Family Res dentlal, and RS-5, Low Densl[y SInqle-Famlly
Residential, to RS-8, Medium Density Single-Family Residential located at 655 Meadow Str.eet
(west of Dover Street, north of Muscatlne Avenue). These stated obJectlonE are.
STATE OF IOWA )
)
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this ~ {/~ay of {~t~.~.~ , 19~' ~,, before me, the unders gnedj a Notary Public in and
for sald~oounty and l~,i~nallyappeared /~,on.'3 ~-' L-l'h~- and
to me known to be the tdentlc~{ parsons named in and who
executed the within and forageing Instrument and acknowladgad that they execuled the same
as their voluefa~ act and deed,
sad Io, tha si;to of
TO:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, Ihe undersigned, being the owners el twenty percent or more of the area of the-property
included in the proposed zonthg change, or the owners of twenty I~ercent or more ot the
property which is located within two hundred feet of the extedor boundaries of the propen',/for
which (he zoning change is proposed, do hareby protest the rezonthg of the following property:
This psiilion ~s signed and acknowledged by each of us with the InlenUon lhal such ~ezon ng
shall not become effective except by Um favorable vote of at least three-fourths of a the
members ot' the COuncil, all in accordance with §414.5 o~' the Code el Iowa.
'
Owner(e) of
Property Address ·
S~ATE OF IOWA ~[~l'~e~,~ I
~: P.J.q ~-~:.~ I
JOHNSON COUNTY & ,~- m ~ ' ~ - e ~ I
uounE anontam, personally appeared ~/, c ,( ~c ~ n ~
to me known Io be the identi~l persoils named in and who
exe~led the ~thin and ~oregothg instrument and acknowledged ~at ~ey executed ~e same
~ their volunt~ a~ ~d deed.
By:
Owner(s) o~'
Property Address
STATE OF 10WA )
)
JOHNSON COUNTY )
~ ........_,,T..~ ....~._ ~_..,...~
On this day of = , ,
..... ~--: :,J~[g. Le_nle'._~.'gie undersigned, a Nolary Public in and
lot said'County and Slate, personally appeared
and
to me kuown to be the identical persons nanled in end who
execuled the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same
as their voluntai'y act and deed.
Nolary Public in and for the State el' Iowa
OBJECTION STATEMENT
._ g q, va stated objections to the specific rez~'nlng under
consloeratlon -~ RM-'I 2, Low Density Muir-Family Residential, and RS-5, Law Density Sin(de-Family
Residential, to RS-B, Medium Density S ng e-Family Residential located ~ 655 Meadow Street
(west o[ Dover Street, north o~Muscatlne Avenue). These sta~ed objections are:
_~., ~ ... >.' / ,~',. ~.~.~cG.~
~. , .~ >',
STAT~ OF IOWA ) F~ls~m~l
JOHNSON COU~ )
On this 2~aay of ~ , 19q52 bolere me, ~o undersigned, ~ No a~ P~ ic in and
lot said'CounW snd ~lato, peis6nal~ appeared Eh'~ ~e~) ~. ~o g and
to me known to be ~e identical parsees named in and who
executed the within and foregoing Instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same
as Iheir volunla~ a~ and deed.
TO:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, being the owners el tweniy percent or more of the areE'er ~.n
the ,~roperty
included in the proposed zoning change, or [he owners of twenty Percent or more of the
properly which Is located within two hundred feet o! the exterior bo;~ndadas ot the property for
which the zoning chan~ is propelled, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property:
This pealion is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the inlenlion that such rezonlng
shall not become e~te~ve except by the favorable vote of at least Ihres4ourths of all the
members of the council, all In accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa.
Owner(s) ol
Property Address
STATE OF IOWA )
) ~s:
JOHNSON cou Il" '1 !
~,hls~dayo,~, 9~.beloreme. theundersl~.ed, aNota Publ,
said Uoun and ~ ~ c in and
~, ~, ~la~e, p~Ysonally appeared ~d~,~d ~ F'a '- ~ '
/Vk~FC L ~lq~ to ' ' ~ ana
~ ' ~ me known to be ~e Identical persons name~ and who
executed the ~Jn ~d foregoing ns ~ument ~d ac~owledged ~at ~ey executed the same
as ~elr volunt~ a~ ~d deed.
By:
Owner(s) of
Properly Address
STATE OF IOWA )
) as',
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this day of
, ,u , oelore me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
for sai-~'~-~7~, ............ ' '-~'"'" ......
,., ,~,,u,.y ana ~late, personally appeared
and
to me known to be the idenlical persons named in ancOwho
executed the within and foregoing thslrument and acknowledged that they
as their voluntary act and deed. executed the ;.ams
Notary Public In and for the State of Iowa
OBJECTION STA'rEM£NT ---i
Aa own~ra of property located within 200 f~t
property, prote~tlng the ~ezonln~, we h~ve stated ?lectlons to the specific rezo~l~u~r
consideration -- RM-t2~ Low Dens ty Mu t-Faro ly Reslc antlal, and RS-5, Low Density S~ngle-Famlly
Residential, to RS-8, Medium Density Slngle-F~mll~ E~ldentlal located at ~55 Meadow Street
(west o~ Dover StFeet~ north o~Mu~catlna Avenue). Thes6 stated objections are.
STATE OF IOWA )
) ss:j,.~..,j ~,co,~. ~_,~I
JOHNSON COUNTY )
~ Iheir volunta~ a~ ~d deed.
We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of the area of the prol~rty
included in the proposed zoning change, or the ownera of twenty percent or more of the
prope~ which Is located within two hundred feet of the exlerior boundaries of the propm"ty for
· which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CiTY COUNCIL
iOWA CITY, IOWA
This petilion Is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the Intention thai such rezoning
shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the
members of the courtall, a~l In accordance with §414.5 of the Code.of Iowa.
Owner(e) of Property Addms~.
STATE OF IOWA )
) s~:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this.'~q ~day of ~--~'~, 19 ~.~, before me, the undersi;ned, a Notary Public in and
for seid'~ounty and tate~'--'~-e~na~l~"appoared ~.'he r'~ ] /~/. ~,~,,~,17/ and
to me known to be the iden~caJ persons named in and who
executed Ihe within and foregoing Instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same
as their votuntay act and deed,
N~y ~lbltc In a'~for the Slate efta
By:
Owner(s) of
Property Addrose
STATE OF IOWA )
JOHNSON COUNt' )
On this __ day of ,19__, belore me, the undersigned, a Nolary Public in and
for said County and State, personally appeared and
to me known Io be the identical parsons named in and who
executed the within and foregoing thsttumant and acknowledged that they executed the same
as their voluntary act and deed.
Notary Public In and,f_d~' {dhe'~l~6'bf rd~ ~.~. '.,
OBJECTION STATEMENT
As owners of property located within 200 feet of the exterior boundaries of the affected
property, protesting the ~'ezonlng, we have stated ob ecti. ns to the specific rezon ng under
consideration -- RM- 42, Low Density Mut -Family Resident a, '~nd RS-5, Low Den=try Dngle-FarnIly
Residential, to RS-8 Medium Density S ngle-?amIiy RDaiderib ]1 located at 855 M .'adow Street
west of Dover Streat~ north of Muscatlne Avenue). These stated objections are:
- - ~F~-~FF~-A'daF~ ...........
STATE OF IOWA )
)
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On thlso'~'/~'day of ~, 19 '~", before m3. the understoned, a Nolary Public in and
for said Co0nty and Stale, p~sonall,~-a-i~peamd E71-~g~-,~/ J~. ~.,.~/~/o/- and
to me known to be Ihe identical person': named in and who
execuled the within and toregoing Insirurnenl and acknowledged that Ihr,y executed the same
as their volunla~y acl and deed.
iO
From~
RE:
Background:
Issues of
Importance=
· Of Major
Concern:
The property owners of 20% or more of the area located within 200 feet of the
exterior boundaries of the affected property,
Nick Chmaruk, Neighborhood Advocate
909 Dover Street :.:; ~.~.
Iowa City, IA 52245 -- ; j
Phone: 339-0620 or 339-0280 :--' :'~
East Hill Subdivision Inc, (land developer) application to the Iowa ~.~ Plan n~nd
Zoning Commlslon to REZONE the fieldbordered to the south by G~droe~, G~V Funeral
Home, to the north by Ralston Creek, to the west by Memo.ry G~rUer~s'~eme~ary, and
to the east by Dover Street to be developed as a resldenual subdlvlsig~n (proposed
rezonlng RM-t2 and RS-5 to RS-8 at 65.5 Meadow Street),
Formal Protest to the rezoning of this property.
Dear Neighbor:
The letter you received from the iowa City Planning and Zoning CommiesIon dated
January 11, 1995 stated a majority of the t3,09 acre field is currently zoned for
Low Density Multi-Family Resldenqes referred to as RM-12, RM-~2 designates up to
~2 living units per acre occupying the property In the form of duplexes, condos, or
apartments, A small area at the north end of the field paralleling Ralston Creek is
currently zoned ~or Low Density Single-Family Residences, referred to as RS-5, RS-5
designates up to five living units per acre occupying that property In the form o~
single family homes,
The Planning and Zoning Commission staff report of January 6, 1995 recommends
the Commission approve the rezonlng application. by East Hill Subdivision Inc,, This
rezonlng proposal would change the current RM t2and RS-5 zon ng to Medium
Density Single-Family Residences referred to as RS-8, RS-8 designates up to eight
living units per acre occupying the whole property, The concept plan by the land
developer shows 36 iota. with 72 living units in the. form o~ duplexes occupying this
property if the rezonlng ~s approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and
subsequently passed by the City Council,
According to the Commission steel report, If development of this site Is to occur
"the existing (current) RM- 12 zon ng appears to be nappropr ate t:or ths ste due to
its limited.access. -'~he-Slngle access to this site Is a local street,,,,.The only point of
access for residential development on this site Is at the northeast corner of the site
near the Intersection of Meadow Street and Perry Court,,,,,the additional traffic that
would be generated If this site Is developed would be [travelling] through the
adjacent neighborhoods -- either along Dover Street or along Friendship Street,"
According to the Commission staf.f report, "The proposed rezonlng represents a
decrease In density for most of the property and thus a smaller increase In traffic
than what would result i~ the toparty was developed under current zoning," The
report admits current zoning ~'ar to be Inappropriate for this site due to Its
ppears
limited access," Therefore, one could conclude that under current zoning,
development would not occur, The current zoning, RM-12 (Low Density Mult-Famlly
Residential) went Into effect when the new City Zoning Code was adopted In t983.
At that time Memory Gardens, Inc, was granted a special exception for the
cemetery to expand with cemetery lots within the current proposed development
site,
Even with the proposed rezonlng, access and related traffic problems are still of
concern, The staff report continues, "The single access to this ~lte Is a local street,
The Clty~s secondary access standards suggest that the traffic volume threshold
for a local street be 500 vehicles per day," With the creation of a 36 lot
subdivision, I¢ rezonlng goes through, 72 living units could ensue resulting In an
average of seven vehicular trips per day per unit, Seven vehicular trips per day
per unit X 72 units - 504 vehicles per day entering and exiting the subdivision
through a single access point creating considerable additional traffic along Dover,
Friendship, and Meadow Streets, and Perry Court, The projected 504 vehicles
entering and exiting the proposed subdivision site per day exceeds the Clty's
Secondary access standardcalculation for traffic volume threshold,
Action
Request:
Reminder:
T, he 8boys 50.4 f sure take. .... ~.,.. , ..... ,-,-
development site, It does not address the e~lst~g or adde~tr8~c Impact on
Frlendshlp~ and Meadow Streets and Perry Court Dover Street 18 densely populated
and there Is considerable curb-side parking on both Dover Street and Friendship
Street. Dover Street to Perry Court to Meadow Street Is used as a high-speed
shortcut. The amount of traffic Is Increasing on a four streets especially around pea
drive t mss and will continue to do so as development continues toward Scott Bird,
and Eagles Supermarket opens. With development o~ the proposed subdivision, there
would be an Increased number of children walking tc and from the already crowded
Lucas School, crossing these streets and this dense area o~ access. All traffic
congestion comes to one point at peak drive times before and after school, Specific
site distances From the curves at the access point to the proposed subdivision are
not good, Th~llly t~rrain and a[most blind curves on the adjoining local streets
leading to and from the proposed access point to the subdivision pose a safety
hazard,
For the above reasons, a case can be made that if the rezoning for the proposed site
is approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and subsequently passed by the
City Council, what will result at the_point of accession Dover Street, on Frtendmhip
Street, on Meadow Street, and on ~,erry Court will be problems of traffic access,
traffic congestlon~ traffic concentration, traffic flow~ children's safety, and accidents
waiting to happen.
The adjacent neighborhood property owners along Dover Street and Friendship Stree~
invite the Planning and Zoning Commission to take these traffic problem factor,~ Into
consideration before rendering a declatch whether or not to recommend rezonlng to
the City Council, The one and only access point to the propos~.d subdivision site will
create traffic problems way beyond the ones that already exist at the present time,
The way Friendship, Meadow, and Dover Stroets and Perry Court were planned
originally, no one could have forecast the traffic problems that exist currently on
these local streets. The adjacent neighboring street property owners' existing traffic
problems would be exacerbated by rezonlng the proposed subdivision site,
Even though 3 t signatures were obtained from Dover Street residents January 19,
1995 opposing the rezonlng of RM-12 and RS-5 to RS-8 located at 855 Meadow Street,
It is necessary to follow formal protest guidelines. Enclosed please find a Protest of
Razoning form and Objection Statement form If you wish to protest the rezoning
application by East Hill Subdivision, Inc., please complete these forms, Then In the
presence of Notary Public Suzanne Streltz, 847 Dover Street (phone 338-3044) sign an(
date the forms, So take your completed forms to Suzanne's house to be notarlzed on
Tuesday January 24th between 7:00 and 9:00 pro. Friday January 27th between 5:00
and 7:00 pro, or call her for an appointment. Ther~ will be NO CHARGE for notarlzlng
these forms, For legal reasons, the City Council will only consider notarlzed Protests to
Rezoning.
Please do not put off completing and having notarized these Protest and Objection
forms If you are opposed to the rezonlng. Time is of the essence, February 2rid Is the
next hearing date before the Planning and Zoning Commission. It Is crucla to have as
many completed forms as possible for submission on that date,
Ifyou have any questions regarding this letter please do not hesitate to contact me at
339-0620 or 339-0280.
Sincerely,
Nick ~,hma~Jl¢
909'~ov~treet
TO:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND C,rl'y COUNCIL
IOWA crI"Y, IOWA
We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent of more el the area of the property
included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of hven[,/ percent of more of the
property which Is located within two hundred lest of the exterior boundaries of the property for
which Ihe zoning change Is proposed, do hereby protest the rezonlng el the following property:
This palllion is signed and acknowledged by each o! us with the intention that such fezoning
shell not become ehective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths o! all the
members of the council, all In accordance with §414.§ of the Code of Iowa.
Owner(s) of
Properly Addre".ss
JOHNSON ~:~[~r~") ,
On this ~ day of ~, 19¢~, before me, the undersigned, a Nota~ Public in and
[or said Coun~ and State, personally appeared /~r ~'~ ~y ~cb~ and
to me known Io ~ ~e identical persons named in and who
execuled the within ~d foregoing Inalrumant and ackn~ledged ~al they executed the s~e
as their volunta~ a~ ~d deed.
By:
Owner(s) of Prope~ Address
STATE OF IOWA )
)
JOHNSON COUNT~
On this J.~' day of 6...~'~t~"~..~)ef°~e mo, the undersigned a Notary Public in and
or sad County and State, personally ~ppeared and
to me known to be the identical persons named in and who
execuled the within and foregoing Instrument and acknowledged that Ihey executed the s:~me
es their volunto7 act and deed.
Nola~y Public in and for the State of Iowa
OBJECTION STATEMENT
/~a owners of property located within 200 feet of the exterior bou, ldarles of the affected
property protesting the fezon ng, we have statr. d obJectlone to the specific rezont.rt~ under
consideration -~ RM-12 Low Density Muir-Faro y Residential, and RS-5, Low Density SIn.~lle*Famlly
Residential, to RS-B, Medium Density Single-Family Residential locate(: at 655 Meadow Street
(west of Dover Street, north of Muscatlnc Avenue). These .~ rated oblectlons are:
By: __
-__~'~Fo-7'-~' _-~ ............ i~F'6per ty ~d'BF~T~'~ ...........
STATE OF IOWA ) l~j J
JOHNSON COU )
On Ihle ~'"1 day o[ *-~?__..~.~, 19 ~, before me, th~pnde~signed, a Nota~ Public in and
~or said Coun~ and Slate~e~sonall~pear~ ~r,~ ~ ~ ~ and
{o me kno~ to be Ihe tdenlical perso,is named in and who
executed ~e within and toregoing inslrument and acknowledged Ihat thoy execuled Ihe same
as ~elr volunt~ a~ and deed.
TO:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IOWA CrlY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, being Ihe owners ol Iwanty percent or more of the area ot the property
included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of hventy percent or more of the
property which Is located within two hundred leer o! the exterior boundaries of the property for
which the zoning change Is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the follo',,,,Ing property:
This peUUon is signed and acknowledged by each ot us with the inlsnUon that such rezoning
shall nol become effective excepl by the laverable vote of at least three-fourths of all the
members of the council, all In accordance wilh §414.5 of Ihe Code of Iowa.
Owner(s) of
ropefly Address
-..,.
STATE OF IOWA )
JOHNSON'COUNTY') -- . "-
os th sof baloro,ne, the undsrsigned, a Note./Pub,c end
for said County and 8late, pe/~onall~ appeared ' 0 ,~v,~ ~' <~!~,,.,ip and
to me known to be tl~e identical persons named in and who
executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same
as their voluntary act and deed.
an for the State o~m
Sy:
Owner(e) of Properly Address
STATE OF IOWA )
)
JOHNSON COUN'P( ) :
On this day of ! . .. 1~ ..,,..~ote me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
for said County and Slain, personally appeared. and
to me known to ly] the idenUcal persons named in and who
exsculed the within and rotegoing Instrument and acknowledged that they execuled the same
as their voluntary act and deed.
Notary Public in and for the Stale of Iowa
OBJECTION STATFMENT
As ownere el~ property located within 200 [eet of the exterior boundaries of th'~ affected
property~ protesting the fezonlng, we have stated objections to the specific rezontng under
consideration -- RM-~2, Low Dens ty Mu t-Faml y Residential, and RS-5 Low ~nslty Single-Faro
Residential, to RS-8, Medium Density Single-F~mily Residential located at 6~a Meadow Street
(west el Dover Street, north o~ Mu~catlne Avenue). These stated objections are;
. ~/ · . . ~ - '~ /
STATE OF IOWA ) J'/"Z%lit, z~i~En sm~z I
)
)
0
n ~his R ~ ~ay of ~, ld ~ ~[o~e m~, ~e ~nde~s gne~, a No~a~ Pu~,~ ~n aria
for said Coun~ and State, personafly appeared _ ]~t~c. F ~ and
[o me known [~ b(~ Ihe identl~l persons named in and who
executed the ~thin and foregoing instrument and r,cknowJedged lhat they execuled lhe same
as Ihetr volunta~ a~ ~d deed.
bli~ in and for the Slate o~a
TO:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IOWA CP/Y, IOWA
We, Ihe undersigned, being the owners el twenly percent or more el the area el the property
included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of Iwanty percent or more of the
property which is located within bye h~ndred feet of Iha exterior boundaries of the property for
which the zoning change Is proposed, do hereby protest the razoning of Ihe following property:
11~is petilion is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the Jnlantion that such rezoning
shall not become effective excepl by the favorable vote el at leasl three-fourths of all the
members of the council, all In accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa.
Owner(s)
Prope~y Addr~s
JOHNSON COUNTY ) - -
iOo~ Ishail~I'~ou~ayaor! '~, 19,~/~, belore me, the underslgnedj a Nolary Public in and
to me known 1o be the idanllcal persons named in ~nd who
executed the wilhln and foregoing instmmant and acknowledged thai they executed the same
as their voluntary act and deed.
Owner(e) of
Property Add/~ss
STATE OF IOWA )
)
JOHNSON COUNTY ) ' ' =' · .'
!
On this day of '""~, tg.-.m-be, iore inb, Ihe undersigned, a Notmy Public in and
for said County and Slate, personally appeared and
to me known to be the identical persons named in and who
executed the wilhth and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they execuled the same
as their voluntary act and deed,
No'_ary Public In and lot the Slate of Iowa
OBJEOTION STATEMENT
As owners of property located within 200 feet of the exterior boundaries o' t:[e affected
property protesting the fezon rig, we have stated objections to the specific, v. onlng under
consideration -- RM*t2, Low Density Malt-Family Residential, and RS-5, Low ~re.n~11,. Single-Family
Residential, to RS-B, Medium Density Single-Family R';eldentlal located at 6as Mm, dow Street
(west of Dover Street, north of Muscatlne Avenue), These sated obJe(:Jons are:
'7o-~ P~,.
-- ~F6-~ r'A~'~d~FfiiT
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On Ihis-~r~day of ~/,m~-, lgq~', before me, he underslened, a Nolary Public in and
for said~'~unty and lals"~osonal~/ appeared ?'~[r~a.~, ~'o~je~/oa_~v-~,e.~.-- and
_ to me known to ~e Ihe identical persons nan~d in and who
executed the wilh{n and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same
as Iheif volunta,T act and deed.
TO:
PROTEST OF RF. ZONINQ
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IOWA crry, IOWA
We, Ihe undersigned, being the owners of h'ien~y psi'cent or more of Ihe area of ~ property
included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty percent or more ol the
property which is located wilhln two hundred feel o! the exterior bounda'les o! the property
whlcb.~the zoning change is proposed, do hereby prolest the rezoning of Ihe following properly:
,4,,-
Thi~ pe~itlan le signe~ and acknowledged ~ eech of us with the in~en~on thai such rezoning
BY:./'~///,/,,I a ~,~ ~,n(~. ~
Owner(s) ol Property AddreSs
STATE OF IOWA ) , -
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this ?~ day of J~/3f/OY~.. 19q~, belore me, the undersigned, a Nota,'y Public In and
for said County and Stale, personally appeared S~.r ,~. /-At .,' .. ,~ .~ and
to me known to be the idanllcal persons named in and who
executed the within and foregoing inst~umant and acknowledged that they executed the same
as lhelr volunta~/act and deed.
No ~/P.~blic In and for tho State of
By:
Owner(e} of
Property Address
STATE OF IOWA )
)
JOHNSON COUNTY )
;
On this day of .; t 9 , before 'rile, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
lot said County and State, personalty appeared and
to me known to be the Idenlical persons named in and who
executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same
as their voluntary act and deed.
Nola~y Public in and for tho State of Iowa
OBJECTION S'i'ATEM£NT
Aa ownera of property located within 200 [eet of the exterior bounderlea of the affected
property protesting the rezonlng we lave stated ob act one to the specific rezonlng under
:onelderaUon -- RM- 12, Low Denairy Mult-Famlly Res dent el, and RS-5, Low D~.nslty Single-Family
Residential, to RS-B, Medium Density Sfngle-Famlly Residential located at G$5 Meadow Street
(west of Dover Street, north of Muscatlne Avenue). These stated objections are:
- ' '. ", ,'~'c~oy ~'/] ~/I ~'u~ ft~,'t~
. uwnar(s) o~ ~/ --~' F~FC~ 'NdaF~ .........
STATE OF IOWA ) j~ls~.~e~...~.~I
) I
JOHNSON COUNTY )
to me known to be Ih, idenUcal persons named in and who
executed the within and foregoing instrument and ack~:e:'~ledged thai they execuled the same
as Ihelr voluntary act and deed.
and f te of Iowa
TO:
PROTEST OF liEZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned. being Ihe owners el twenty percent or more of the are~-'~)f th~[~,,~roperty
included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty percent or more of the
property which Is Iccaled within two Ilundred feel el Ihe extedor boundaries of the property for
which lhe zoning change is proposed, do hereby prolest the fezchine of the following property:
Thio petilion Is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the inlenlion that such rezoning
shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of al least three-fourths of all the
marebeta of the council. all In accordance wfih §414.5 of the Ccda el Iowa.
Owner(s) of
Property Address
for said County an lal~nally appeared ~ ~',t~ /~-/~z).w and
to me known 1o he the identical persons named in and who
executed the within and foregoing Jnslrument and acknowledged that they execuled lho same
as their volunla~y act and deed.
)la~ Pdblic In and for the Slate el Iow~
By:
Owner(s)
Property Address
STATE OF IOWA )
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this __ day of ~ ~--' .~3 '___.,~ef0f§ me. the undersigned, a Notap/Public in and
lot said County and Stale, personally appeared and
Io me known to be the identical persons named i~-~nd who
executed the within and foregoing inslrument and acknowledged that they execuled the same
as Ihalr volunlary act and deed.
Nola~y Public i~1 and for the Slate of Io,~¢a
OBJr,CTION ST "IT'MENT
As ownere of property located within 200 feet (, the exterior bournlet es o[ ':,n affected
property protesting the rezonlng, we have stated object ohs to the peclftc ,,?;ontncj under
consideration -- RM-~2~ Low Density Mull-Family R~ stdantlal, and ES-5, Low Den.,i;Z Single-Family
Residential, to RS-8, Medium Density Single-Famil~ Residential located ~t 655 Meadow Street
(west ol Dover Slreet~ norlh o~ Muscatln Avenuq). These stated objections are:
:' ,:' - ,Z{':':' :: '1
By:
........... - -'PFa"~h~,-/~a'aT/~ lie ......z" ....
STATE OF IOWA ) ,,,,,.n, i
JOHNSON COUNTY )
~n ~hai~d'~C~o'~d. ay o' ~ 19 ~ ~', before me, the undersigned. a Nolary Pub,,c in and
unty and ~ate, pe~onal~ apdared -~ r~ ~ ~. ~ ~3 and
[o me known to be [h~ ~denli~l peruOhS named in and who
executed ~e. wi[hin and toregoing insl~umenl and acknowledged that ~c~, executed the same
as their voluntaE a~ and deed.
'~nd for the State of Iow~
TO:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CiTY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, iOWA
We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of the are~-~f thec~rop~ly
included in the proposed zoning change, or th:? owners of twenty I~ercent or more of the
property which Is located within two hundred lec, of the axledot boundaries of the proprely for
which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby. ,rotest the rezoning of the following prope~:
This peliUon Is signed and acknowledged by each o! us wilh the intention Ihat such rezoning
shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least thres-fourlhs ol all the
members of the council, all In accordance with §414.5 of the Code of iowa.
Owner(s) ot
Property Address
STATE OFIOWA )
On thls~Eday of ~, 19~ ~, before ino ~e undersized, a Nola~Public in and
f~r said~n~ andSlate, persona y appeared ~ ~ ~ ~, /5~ a d
E h~Fh~ ~ ~/~F to me known to bo the idena~l persons named in ~d who
executed the wi~in ~d foregoing Inslrumant and acknowledged ~at ~ey examted the same
as their volunt~
n and for the State of I(:~
Sy:
Owner(s) of Property Address
STATE OF iOWA )
) es:
JOHNSON COUNTY ~. "T"T,; ,..'"7~. ,. ~' *"- '
On Ihis -- day of '. ......... ~S.:c--..~.bmk)m me, Ihe undersigned, a Notary Public in and
tot said County and Stale, personally appeared and
to me known Io be the IdanUcaJ persons named in and who
executed the within and foregoing Instrument and acknowledged that Ihey execuled Ihe same
as lhelr votuntmy act and deed.
Nota~/Public in and for the Slate of iowa
OBJECTION S3' ~'rEMENT
As owners oF property located within 200 feet (,' the exterior boumlarlen of fi.;~ affected
property protestln(] the rezonlng, We have state ' objections to the '.:peclfic r,Y onlng under
consideration -- RM-~2, Low Density Muir-Family Rc dentlal, and RS-S, low DenshV .~.;inqle-Famlly
Residential, to RS-S, Medium Density Single-Family '.n. eldentlal located nt 655 M,.' dnw Street
(west of Dover Street, north of Muscattn('~vsnue). These stated obJr... '[)~s are:
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUN'I'Y
On this i.~4~day of ~:N:~:~b_, t9~", before ,:,,~, the undersign?~.d, a N..olar~ Pub c n and
for said Coun~ a~d~tale, p~rsonaiy appeared ~c~ '~ ~ ' ~"/~ and
~p~ ~, ~, 'J~ ~ to me known to b~.~le dentical pe~son~ named in and who
execuled the wilhtn and foregoing instrument and :.cknowledged Ihat Ihey exerted Ihe same
as their volunla~ a~ and deed.
TO:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND Cr]'Y COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of the area o! the property
(ncludad in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty percent or more of the
propity which Is located within two hundred Ieet of the exte~or boundaries of the property for
which the zoning change is proposed, do lietoby prolest the rezontng of the following property:
his petition i$ signed and acknowledged by each el us with the intention Ihat such rezoning
shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least Ihree-fourths of all the
members of the council, all in accordance with {}414.5 of the Code of Iowa.
Owner(s) o!
Property Addre'as
STATE OF IOWA )
JOHNSON
On ,his ~ day of. ?~. 19~. be[ore me. ,he undersigned. a Ncta~ Public in and
(or said Coun~ and State, person~ly appeared I~r,'J ~ ~c~ ~ and
. to me known to be Ihe idanfi~l persons named in and who
executed the within ~d ~oregoing Instrument ~d acknowledged Ihat they executed the same
~ their volunt~ a~ ~d deed.
Ey:
Owner(s) of Propen',/Address
STATE OF IOWA )
)
JOHNSON COUNT~ ,.~.~
On this ,L,i da el ~ ~lc~' '"
Y .~_~- -,~befo~e mo, the undo s gned, a Nota~/Public i[~ and
re sa~d County and State, pe~'sonally appeared and
to me known to be the identical persons named in end who
executed the wilhth end foregofng Insbument and acknowledged that they executed tl'~a s=me
as Iheir voluntary act and deed.
Notary Pubtic in and for the State of Iowa
OBJECTION STATEMENT
Ae owners of property located within 200 ~'eet of the exterior bouudarles of the affected
property protesting the fezon ng~ we have stated objections to the specific rezonlng under
consideration -- RM-12 Low Density Mull-Fern y Residential, and RS-5, Low Density 51ncjle-Famlly
Residential, to RS-8, Medium Density Sinqle-Famlly Residential Iocote(: at 6.55 Meadow Street
(west ol Dover Street north of Muscatln(Avenue). These .~ rated oblsctions are:
By: -
.......... ~T~-~T~,-~'d~ ...........
) ss: '
JOHNSON COUN'PI' )
On ~is ~ day of ~ ,19 ~. before me, Ihe undersigned, nNota~ Public in and
for said'Coun~ and Slate~ p~nall~peared ~r.~y ~ and
~o me kno~ to be ~e Idenlical perso.s named in and who
executed ~he wilhin and foregoing Instrument and acknowledged [hat [h~y executed Ihe same
as ~elr volunla~ a~ ~d deed.
TO:
PROTEST OF REZONINQ
HONORASLE MAYOR AND CrI'Y COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of the area of the properly
included in the proposed zoning change, or Ihe owners of twenty percent or more of the
property which is located wilhln two hundred feet el the extedor boundaries of the properly for
which the zoning change is proposed, do l~orsby protest the rezoning of the following properly:
This palilion is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the Intenilon that such rezoning
shall not become effective except by the favorable vole of at least thmo-iourlhs of all the
members of the councg, all In accordance with §4t 4,5 of the Code of Iowa.
Owner(e) of
STATE OF IOWA ) r-~l~,l~eug~"ffsTm~nz]
JOHNSON COUNTY') -- -..
On ~is ~ay of ~, 19~ borers me, ~e undersigned, a Nola~ Public In and
for said Coun~ and ~ate, peSonelly a~poared ' 0 ~ ~ ~ and
to me known to be t~e identical persons named in and who
execuled the within ~d foregoing instrument and acknowledged ~at ~ey executed the same
as ~elr volunt~ a~ ~d deed,
By:
Owner(s) of Property Address
STATE OF 10WA )
)
JOHNSON COUNI'Y )
On this day of ! ... ~..te.. _i,J;l~l~'~'Jl~, the undersigned, a Nota~/Pubic in and
for said County and Slate, personally appeared. and
to me known to I~ Ihe identical persons named in and who
executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they execuied the same
as their voluniao/act and deed,
Nota~ Public in and for the State of Iowa
OBJECTION STATEMENT
__As o_w.n. ers o! pr..oper.ty I,ocate. d within. 200 feet of the exterior boundaries of th,3 affected
__wnerts~or ._
STATE OF IOWA )
· JOH. O. COUNTY )
On ~ls ~V~day ol '~, 19~ , belore me, the ~ndersigned, a Nola~ Public in and
~or said Coun~ and 81ale, personally appea~ed _ ~14q~. ~ ~ and
to me known to b(= the tdenli~l persons named in and who
executed Ihe ~lhin and foregoing inslrumenl and r, cknowledged Ihat Ihey executed the same
as Ihelr volunlaw a~ and deed.
-
~bli~ in and for the Slal~a
TO:
PROTEST OF REZONiNG
HONORABLE MAYOR AND cFr'Y COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of the area ol the p,'operty
included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty percent or more cf the
propedy which Is located within two hundred feet ol the axleriot boundaries of the property for
which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezonlng of the following property:
This petition is signed and acknowledged by each ol us with the intention that such rezoning
shall not become ellactive except by the lavorabls vote of at least three-fourths of all the
members of the council, all in accordance with §4t 4.5 of the Code of Iowa.
Owner(s) of ~'
Property Add;~
JOHNSON COUNTY ) ..
On I ''
lot ou
executed the within arid foregoing instrumenl and acknowledged that they executed the same
as their voluntary act and deed.
By:
Owner(e) of v
Property Addh~ss
STATE OF IOWA )
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this __ day of '"'"""~'~":;H., e--- ,.-.robe, iore in~, the undersigned, a Nota~ Public in and
Ior said County and Slate, personally appeared and
to me known 1o be the Identical persons named In and who
execuled the within and foregoing insli'ument and acknowledged thai they executed the same
as their volunlary act and deed.
Nolaq/Public in and for the Slate of iowa
OBJECTION STATEMENT
As owners of property located within 2~0 feet of the exterior boundaries o' ~:~e affected
property protesting the r~ezon ng~ we ha .,e stated objections to the specific ,'e ontng under
consideration -- RM-12 Low Density Mu t-Family Residential and RS-5 Low Den~lt · Single-Family
Resident a, to RS-8, Medium Density SIn(~le-Farn y R,;sldent a located at 655 Me; dew Street
(west of Dover Street, north of Muscatlne Avenue). These satad obJa(:'.ione are:
STATE OF IOWA )
JOHNSON COU~ )
r sa~a uoun~ an~ ~tale, p~sonally appeared A~ltba~ ~G~ and
[o me known to be Ihe idenllcal persons na~d in and who
executed the wilhin and foregoing Instrument and acknowledged that Ihoy exoculed the same
as ~elr volunt~ a~ and deed.
TO:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE ~,~.YOR AND CfiY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of the area of tl~ property
included in the proposed zoning change, at the owners of twenty percent or more ct the
properly which Is located wilhln two hundred test of the extedor boundaries of the properly for
which~ths zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning at the loftowing property:
This psiilion is signed and acknowledged by each of us with Ihs intention Ihat such rezoning
shall not become effective except by Ihe favorable vote of at least three-fourlhs of all the
members of the council, aJl In accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa.
By: &trlw/ p .~./.~/'A~ )
Owner(s) ot
Properiy Addre~i_s.
STATE OF IOWA ) ','
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On thls-~ day ol ~, ~97~, before me, the undersigned, a Nola~ Pubtic In and
for s~d Coun~ and State, personall~ appeared ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ and
to me known [o be the identical persons named In and who
execuled ~e ~lhln and ~oregoing ins~ument and acknowledged ~at ~ey executed the same
~ ~etr volunt~ a~ ~d de~.
By:
Owner(s) of
Propen'y Address
STATE OF IOWA )
)
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this __ day el .-, 19 . before rnih'the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
for said Courtly and Slate, personafly appeared and
to me known to be the idenUcal persons named in and who
execu[ed the within and loregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same
as their volunla~y act and deed.
Notary Public In and for the State of Iowa
OBJr-CTION S'~'ATEMENT
As owners of property located within 200 feet of the exterior boundaries of the affected
property protesting the rezonlng~ we have stated ob actions to the specltlc rezon ncJ under
;onsideration -- RM-'12, Low Density Mult-Fsmlly Res dent a, and RS-5, Low Dnnslty Single-Family
Residential, to RS-8, Medium Density Single-Family Residential located at 655 Meadow Street
(west of Dover Street~ north o[Muscatlne Avenue). These stated objections are:
in,,,
STATE OF IOWA ) J~[I s~eu.~T~mz I
JOHNSONCOUP) "~' ' ~-~-q~j
th s DH.~ -
On ~ dayof ~, lg.~, before me, I ~ undersigoed, eNola~Public hand
for said Coun~ and ~ale, pe~onally appeared ~(h ~AA and
to me known Io be th-, identical persons named in and who
execuled the wi[hin and foregoing ins[mment and ack~:ewledged thai ~ey ex~uled Ihe same
as thelr volunta~ a~ and deed.
and fdr'~e Slate of Iowa
TO:
PROTEST OF RE,ZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, Ihe undersigned, bethg the owners st t-..,~'. ........... ~: -::' ';
--~-t7 pUlUUlI[ or mora or tJ~a area-Of th roperty
included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty I~ercent or mor~e el the
properly which Is located within two hundl'ed feet of the exterior boundaries of the properly for
which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby prolest the rezoning of the lollswing property:
This palilion is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intenllon that such rezonthg
shall not become ellactive except by the laverable vote o! at least throe-lourths st all the
members of the council, aJl in accordance with §414.$ of the Code of Iowa.
Owner(s) of
Property Address
STATE OF IOWA )
On this ~ day o~ ~, 19 ~, before mo, '
~or said Coun~ andtale, ~ers~n~ly a~peared the undersigned, a Nota~ Public In and
.~ r4 ~ ~ and
Io me ~nown Io be ~e idenlical persons named in and who
execuled the within ~d foregoing inslmment and acknowledged ~at they executed the same
~ ~elr volunta~ a~ and deed.
By:
Owner(s) of
PropertyAddress
STATE OF IOWA )
) $a:
JOHNSON COUNTY '~ .... ,.,....*'*""-~"~., ~, ~ .....
On this. day of L ~. ,18 -"'T~3efOi~mo, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
for said County and Slate, personally appeared and
to me known to be Ihe idenlical persons named J[~'and who
execuled the within and foregoing inetrun;ant and acknowledged that they executed the same
as their voluntary act and deed.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
OBJECTION S? "FEM£NT
As owners of property located within 200 feet (, the exterior boun,larles o~ ,=,r~ affected
property~ protesting the rezonlncJ, we have state~ objections to the ~ pacific ;.c:onlng under
consideration -- RM-t2, Low Density Mu t-Family Rf ~ldentlal and RS-5 [ow Den.,K/Single-Family
Residential, to RS-8, Medium Density Single-Faro y Resident a ocated ~t ~55 Meadow Street
(west o~ Dover Street, north o( Muscatln. Avenue), These stated objections are;
· '. ,1' -.2:: .......
By: .....
.... owh-~'F{'~E'F .........-b+ .......'~F6-p~Ft~-£&aF~ ~'E ......
JOHNSON COUN'fY ) ,
On ,his -~ ~'~day of ~19 ~] ~', belore me, I~ unders gned, e Nola~/Public in and
for sald Coun~ and ~a[e, pe~onal~ appeared .:~ r~ I~ p. ~ ~q and
Io me kn~n 1o be Ih~] Idenli~l persons named in ~d who
execuled the wilhln aid foregoing inslrumenl and 8ckno~edged that Ih~y axe.led [he same
as their volunla~ a~ ~d deed.
.ola~ Po~Jic in and {or the $1ele of Iowa
TO:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CI~ COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, being the owners ot twenty percent or more of the
Included in the proposed zoning change, or the; owners of twenty ~ercont or more o! the
property which is located within two hundred leo el the exterior boundaries of the properly for
which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby .,rotest the rezoning of the following proparJy:
This petilion Is signed and acknowledged by each of ue with the Intanlion thai :~uch rezoning
sh&ll not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourlhs ot all the
merebore of tha council. a~l In accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa.
Owner(s)
Prope.,ly Address
STATE OF IOWA ) j.~%J'~.,~m~R.~-n'smm'z I
J
JOHN8OK'OOU~ )
On Ihis~//day of ~, 19~ ~, before me the undersized, a No a~Pubmic In and
f? said Coun~ and~late~eJsonally appeared ~c~,~ J
I ~' I~ ~P and
C. k, ~p~-D ~,/S~,~p to me known to ~ the identical persons named i~ and who
exerted the withth ~d foregoing ins~ument and acknowledged that ~ey executed the
as ~el~ volunl~ ~ ~d deed.
o't~ I~bllc In and for the Slate of h:~
By:
Owner(s) of Propen'y Address
STATE OF IOWA )
)
JOHNSON COUNTY ')7'T'~, .... C"-
On this day of ........... .~t ~.befo/e me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
tot said County and State, personally appeared and
Io me known to be the idenllcal persons named in and who
execuled Ihe wilhln and loregoing Instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same
as Ihalr volunlay act and deed.
Notary Public in and for the Slate of Iowa
OBJEOTION ST JEMENT
As owner8 of property located within 200 feat (,' the exterior boundarian of H.a artected
property protesting the rezonlng, we have state ' objections to the '.,pacific r.,'- onlng under
consideration -- RM-i2 Low Density Mult-Famlly Rc :;lent el, and RS-5, ow ~n~~ ;,, .Single-Family
Residential, to RS-G, Medium Oenslty Single-Family '.asideariel located ut 6;~;~ N,,.' ,low Street
(west of Dover Street, north ofMuscatln(~venue). These staled obJc-. '0:m are:
STATE OF IOWA )
JOHNSON COUN'[Y )
On this ~'~day of .~,~:~, f9q~", before I;,9, the underslgn?~d, a N.? an/Pub c n and
_. lot said County an~d.,~tate, personally appeared _ _ [~ev,.t'~_.. .~3 · ~,'/.~/-,-,t~, and
(~ll ~J._ ~L ~ ,
.... ,~,'~,- 'X) G J ~*Jp to me known o b,- ~s dent cal persons named in and who
executed the within and foregoing instrument and. cknowledged that they execuled the same
as their voluntary act and deed.
lic Ih and for the State of
TO:
PROTEST OF REZ, ONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
iOWA CITY, iOWA
We, the undersigned, being the ownors of h'/enb/percent or more ol the are~ ~f the.~roper[y
Included In the proposed zoning ch,:mge, or Ihe owners of twenty percent or more of the
property which Is Iocaled within hvo hundred leer of the extedor boundaries ol the prope~ for
which the zoning change ts proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following prope~:
This petilion Is signed and acknowledged by ee:.h of us v, dth the intention that such rezoning
shall not become effe~ve except by the lavo~able vote of at least three-fourlhs ol all the
members of the council, aJl In accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa.
Owner(s) of
Prope~Addr~e
STATE OF IOWA ) ~1 ~ ~.n. ~T~alZ[
JOHNSON' COUNTY ) ' '
O ~-'
n lhis',.~ day of ~ 19~ before me, the undem[gned, a Notaw Public in and
~r sald~n~ and ~a~e, ~nMly appeared ~+~l~eh ~ · ~t+z ~ and
~0~[ ~ ~ . ~ ~ z ~'~ -t; me Iraown o ~ [he identical persons named i~ a,~ ,vho
execuled lhe within and ~regoing ins~umen~ and acknowledged that they execu[ed the same
~ [heir volunt~ a~ ~d de~,
By:
Owner(e) of Property Address
STATE OF iOWA )
) es:
JOHNSON COUNTY }
''
On this day o!
for said County and Stale, personall~ appeared me, the undersigned, e Notary Public in and
and
Io me known to be the identical persons named in and who
executed Ihe within and loregoing Insl~ument and acknowledged Ihat they executed the same
as their voJunta~y act and deed.
NoWry Public In and for the State of iowa
~_~
O~JECTION ST,~TEMENT -' ~
~: - *~
As owners of property located within 200 feet of the exterior boundarle~ th~ffected
property protesting the rezonng, we have stated object one to the speclfid'rezO~ng under
consideration -- RM-~2, Low Density Muir-Family Residential, and RS-5, Low ~nslt~ Single-Faro
Re31dentlal, to RS-O, Medium Density Single-Family Residential located nt 6~ Meadow Street
(west o~ Dover Street, north oFMuscatlne Avenue). These stated objections are.
STATE OF IOWA ) l~"~rar/.~e~n~a. rs~.~.Zi
": I
On Ihi,~~ day of ~ 1~ ~. be om me.~e undersigned. ~ Nola~ Public in and
lot said C~n~ an~.~nall~poared ~o~ /I I~ and
~¢~{~t~ ~ ~C+Z~1o me known to be Ihe identi~l parsons n~med in and who
execuied ~e wilhin ~d ~o~oing Instrument and acknow edged that ihey execu[ed Ihe same
as Iheir volun a~ a~ and deed.
for ~e State of Iow~
TO:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND C~FY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, Ihe undersigned, being the owners el twenty percent or more of lhe area.:~the
included in the proposad zoning change, or ~he owners of twenty I~ercent or more-of the
property which is Iocalsd wilhin two hundred feat of Ihe exterior boundaries of the property for
which lhe zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rszoning of the following proparty:
This peUIIon is signed and acknowledged by each of us with Ihe InlenUon Ihat such rezoning
shall not become effects except by the favorable vote of al least three-tour[he of all the
members of the council, aJl in accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa.
.-: .
Owner(s) of
Property Addre$~
STATE OF IOWA ) J,f'~t! suT~e~%e,~Trsma~z I
On this 2~day o~ ~ 197~, before me, the ande[st~ned, a No a~ Public k: and
f?r~id Coun~ ~d at~nally appeared ~c~. ~. ~rb o and
~ ~ ~. ~r~o (o me known ~o be Ihe identical persons named in an~who
executed the wilhin ~d toregoing ins~m~nt and acknowledged that th0y execuled the same
as their volunl~ a~ ~d deed.
By:
Owner(e) of
Property Address
STATE OF IOWA )
)
JOHNSON coul~rY ) *.
On this ~ day of .... ,'Te"'""~'~b- %Tdr~"ifi~3~'t~le undersigned, a Nolap/Public in and
for said County and Slale, personally appeared and
to me known to b-~-the idanUcal persons named in and who
executed the within and loregoing tnstru~,mnl and acknowledged Ihat they executed the same
as Iheir volunlaP/act and deed.
Nola~y Public in and for the State of Iowa
OBJECTION STATEMENT
Ae owners of property located within 200 fast of the exterior boundarles"bf th~'-affect'~d
property protearing the rezonlng we have stated t)b actions to the specific rezonlng un-]er
consideration -- RM-12, Low Density Malt-Family Residential, and RS-5, Low Density Slngle-Pamlly
Residential to RS-8, Medium Density Single-Family R('sidentlal located st 655 Meadow Street
(west of Dover Street, north ofMuscetne A/onus, These stated obJectlone are:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On thle..~'/~ day of C~.ku~..',.%r, 19~ .~', before me, the undersigned, a Nota~ Public tn and
for said County and tat"~r~'~nal[~; "appeared /. e i .s /.. ~',. ~ .~ and
~-~/~ 0, Hlr'l(~ to me known to be the identical persons named in and who
executed the within and foregoing Instrument a,~d acknowledged that they executed the same
as their voluntary act and deed.
- ~y ~_)~blic in and' for the Slate el Iowa(y
TO:
PROTEST OF RE;ZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND cr'l"Y COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of the a'ea of the ~ops~
included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty percent or more of the
properly which Is located within two hundred Iset of the axleriot boundaries of the property for
which the zoning change Is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property:
Bordet-ed to the south by Gay's Funera! Ilome, to the nori-.h
by EaIston Creek, to the west by Memory Gardens Cemetary,
and to the east by Dover St., Indicated by the single ad-
dress~ 655 Meadow Street.
This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us wilh the intention that such rezoning
shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least thres-fou,,lhs of all the
members of the council, all In accordance wl'th §414.5 of the Code of Iowa.
By: Donald L, Green
Owner(e) of "~
~ e~5/g27/q~' & 935 Dover
Property Address
STATE OF IOWA )
) ~:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this ')-.q day of ~, 1975'-, before me, ~ undalslgned, a N,~tary Public In and
tot said County and'State, I~ereonally appealed I')o~,~ld L~ L~,'~...~ and
to me known to be the identical persons named in and who
executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same
as their volunity act and deed.
'-'Ni3t~ry(P'ubllc In a~d for the State of ~}va
By:
Owner(s) of Property Address
STATE OF lOW? ..-,),~__.
JOHNSON COX'S!
On this., day of , , t9 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
for said County and State, personally appeared and
to me known to be the Identical persons name. d in and who
executed the within and foregoing Instrument and acknowledged that they executed [he same
as their voluntary act and deed.
Notary Public In and for the Slate of Iowa
OBJECTION STATEMENT
owners of property located w~thln 200 [eat of the exterior boundaries of the a [acted
property protesting the rezon rig, we have stated objections to the sped~c refining under
consideration -- RM-12, Low Dens ty Mu t-Family Residential, and RS-5, Low genslt~ Single-Family
Residential, to RS-8, Medium Density Stn, lk~-F~mlly Residential located et 655 Meadow Street
{west o~ Dover Street, north of ~usc,]tlne Avenue). These stated obJections are:
The amount of traffic that ~ould be generated within this deveiopement
would ~n all likeIihood cause unsafe conditions at It's proposed
single access poiet and at the other street intersections immedtateIy
associated ~itb it. Many people use Meadow St, to e~oss Eelston
Creek. It seers to be the favorite route of peapie to the north
of us to use in order to get to ~ucas School, Mercer Park, ned
the businesses In the ?owncrest area. ?his traffic frae the north,
along with the northbound traffic from Dover St., Perry Ct., Brook-
side Dr., nod ~ast~ood Dr, all converges on Meadow St,, One Iook
at this proposed access point tntuitiveiy suggests problems that
~ould require very little practical experience to confirm.
Added to tJ~e pure traffic congestion problem is the roblem
.of "sight distances". A car traveling from Perry ct.Ptoward
Meadow has to navigate a sharp right turn on an extreme downgrade.
In optimum conditions this would be hazardous to autos and pedestrians
crossing from the proposed access point, but in the winter when
there is alwa~s-sr~.~.,r~.,.,.~-~.~..~.eror~.-~his hill there would not be an
way to avoid a~'~9~..~-~t,~ery low speeds. Turning rt ht y
on a downhill ~{r~ on'~ao~.~] ice tends to make a ~- ~g'~
hard to stop~ and hitting the brakes to hard causes a skid even
further into opposfqg traffic. Cars camming from the proposed
development ~ould greatly Increase the probability of serious
accidents,
! hope that the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council
make a very serious attempt to understand the problems of auto
and pedestrian traffic at the proposed location. A single access
point into a developemeet of this size is in itself questionable,
but an access onto Perry Ct. / Meado~ St. presents very real problems.
-~----,-,-- .................. _~_51_9~_~_9_3_3 & 935 ~owr s~.
_u..wnens~o~ ..... 'PF~-.deF~ ~daF~'~ .......~ -
JOHNSON COUNTY } , -
On IhisA7~'~da,, of r-,.,..... ,~-'
· ._g~.~ 1 g '~ be or( me, ~he undersigned, a Notary Public in and
or sad County and ~ate, pa[sonall};"~,;paared '-t")or.~_t~ [. ~,'~ ~ m. and
Iom(, k:~own ~u be the Identical persons named in and who
executed ;he wilhin and fore.{~ing In.r~u:uen[ a{iu acknowledged iha[ they executed the same
as Iheir volunta~ a~ and deed.
TO:
PROTEST OF lIEZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CrTY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, being ~he owners ol Iwenty percent or more of Ihe area of the property
included in the proposed zoning change, or Ihe owners of twenty percent or more of the
property which is located wilhin two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries ol the property for
which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezontng of the following property:
This psiilion is signed and acknowledged by each of us with Ihe Inlenlion lhal such rozoning
shall not become effective except by the lavorable vote ot at least three-lourths ot all the
members of the council, all in accordance wilh §414.5 of the Code of Iowa.
(e) of
STATE OF IOWA )
)
JOHNSON 'COUNTY') '-
Proper~ Addres~ oo,~rr',er~
On thle,_)..~ day of '~'4I L,\ ,19 c~,~, bslore me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
for sa!d County and Slate, personally appeared /~;// ~'?l.v~..--, ] ~nd
· ~47 ,'-~ ,'t ( ~,.3C.J tO me known to bu the identical persons named n and who
executed the within a~d foregoing instru,nenl and acknowledged that they execulsd Ihe same
as their Vciunt~L'y act end deed.
Not/a~f P~'lic In ah'd fdr ~'State o, Iowa
By:
Owner(s) of Propath/Address
STATE OF IOWA
sa:
JOHNSON COUNTY
On this day of _, 1 9 , belore me, the undersigned, a Nota~ Public in and
for said County and State, personally appeared _ and
to me known to bo the identical persons named in and who
executed the within and toregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same
as their vciunta~/act and deed,
Notary Public In andJ. c~rJhe State.of Iowa
OBJECTION STATEMENT
As owners of property located within 200 feet of the exterior boundaries of the affected
property~ protesting the Pezonlng, we have stated objections to the specific rezonlng under
consideration -- RM~12~ Low Dans ty Mu t-Family Residential, and RS-5, Low Density Single-Family
Residential, to RS-8, Medium Density Single-Family Residential ler. ated at 655 Meadow $tr,eet
(west of Dover $treet~ north of Muscetine/',venue), These stated objections are,
'~"~71 ur ~ property Address -
~ATE OF IOWA )
) ~:
JOHNSON COU~ )
'On ~is~ day of. _ '~, 19~before me t~ ur, dersi~d, a Nota~ Public in and
~r~aid~oun~ and State, p~nally appe~ed ~ ~y¢~ and
as their volunla~ a~ ~d deed.
Public in and forr the Slate ol Iowa
TO:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
property which Is Iocaled wilhln two hundred leer of the axleriot boundaries el Iha propertt tar
which Ihe zoning change Is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning o! the lollowing property:
This peliUon is signed and acknowledged by each of us wilh the intention that such rezoning
shall not become e~fecUve except by the favorable vote el at least three-tourlhs el all the
members of the council, all in aCcordance with §414.5 of Ihe COde of Iowa.
Owner(s) o! Property Address '
JOHNSON COUNTY-I es:
fOo~ this ,~ ~7 ~ay el ~19 d~ be,ore me~, the under,s,;ned, a ~ota~ Publ c in and
said County and ~ate, pe~onally appeared (..,,t,x~l~, ~/.~.~ ~ /4>',,~v.fo~/.i and
to me known Io be the identical pasons named in and who
executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same
as their voluntay act and deed.
By:
Owner(e) of
"PropertyAddress
STATE OF iOWA )
JOHNSON COUNTY )..,' '":~'.;,,T'"'.
On Ihia day ot :, 19 . '~"me, Ihe undersigned, a Notary Public in and
lot said County and Slale, personally appeared and
to me kliown to be the identical persons named in and who
executed the within and foregoing inslrument end acknowledged that they executed the same
as their voluntary act and deed.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa -
OBJECTION STATLMENT
~. ., v[utu~t ng me fezohms, we nave stated ol~Jections to the epeclllc r~'onlng under
consideration -- RM-12, Low Density Muir-Family Resident el, and RS-5, Low ~ns ty Single-Faro y
Residential, to RS-8, Medium Density Single-Family Re~tdentlal located et 6~ Meadow Street
(wes[ o~ Dover Street, north of Muscetlne Avenue). These etated objections are,
STATE OF IOWA ) |/~,1 ~-~:~e~r~,~ I
~n :"'~.~'~ay o1..~, :9~ ,before ~, tho unde,~igned, a .ota~ Public in and
or sale ~un~ anentate, p~sonally appeared ~'~e/~ 'J~l~]~ '~ ~ i~Jo, 15 and
[o me known to be the ide~llcal p~sofis n~ed in and who
executed the wRi~in and foregoing ins[rumen[ and acknowledged that ~ey executed [he same
as their volunla~ a~ and deed.
a~G'for the $[a~f Io~
TO:
PROTEST OF RE;ZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, being the owners of h,~enty percent or more of the area~i the ~ope~
included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twanty percent or more of the
prope~ which is Iocaled within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property
which the zoning change Is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property:
This petilion is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intenUon that such rezoning
shall not become effective except by the lavorable vote of at least three-fourlhs of all the
members of the courtall, all in accordance with §414,5 of the Code of Iowa.
Property Address ·
Owner(s) of
STATE OF OWA )
)
JOHNSON COUNTY )
,On this ,)']~day of .--~4,d~-~, f9 ~', before me, ~e undersigned, a Notary Public in and
mr said County and ~ste, pe?sonaJly appeared ~¼.3~..~4 ~-. L.~, ~ and
~¢~'~ ~. L~. r.~ ,',~ to me known to be the identical persons named in and who
executed the within and loregoing Instrument and acknowledged Ihat they executed the same
as their voluntay act and deed,
By:
Owner(s) of Properly Address
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY
On this __ day of ., 1 §. , before me, the undersigned, a Notaq/Public in and
tot said County and State, parsonal{y appeared and
to me known to be the identical persons named In and who
executed the wilhin and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same
as their voluniao/act and deed.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
OBJFI3TION STAlmEMFNT
A8 owm3rs of property located within 200 I'est of the extedor beundsrl~§:of tl~ affacted
property protesting ths tezon ncj, we have steted objections to ths specific rezoning under
consideration -- RM-t2 Low DenBity Mu t-Farnl y Resldentlsl, end RS-S, Low ~ensity Single~Family
Residential, to RS-~3, Medium Density Single-Family Resldenlial located et 6~.5 Meadow Street
(west of Dover Street~ north of Museurine Avenue). The~e sisted obJectlena are;
Dud ng the year Ihat wc have lived on Dover Sireel, it has become apparent Ihat a very lar§c part of
the residential area on and near Fricndship sireel uses Dover Slrcet for access to Musealine
Avenue. WcdoubtthatcityplannersintcndcdforDovcrSIrccttobcsuchahi§ht~affmarea. In
addition, Ibc right angle cun'c in Dover Strecl in Ihc 903 block provides paor v s b y around the
corner toward the Moose parkin§ lot. Any addilioaa[ t ra~rfic will create an e,';trcmc ha:,~'~rd
~dcstriaas, bmyclisls and ntolnris~s.
Dccau$c or the Jargc itumber of sin§lc car ~arages ~d two ear famili~ on Dover Slrcct, belh s~dcs
of the street must be used for parking. The slrect ,arrows to one lauc in pl~ccs, delx:ndieg upon
the placement of the parked c~rs. Addslionel Iraf tic w~eld only cxu~rb~tc Ihc problem.
When the Moose club is holding cvcnL'~, such ~ bin~o or a weddiug reccptmn, an additmnal
parking Icad is often placed on Dover Street. When those evenis end and traffic makes ils way
Musealine Avenue, the traffic can be backed up,for blocks. Additional traffic would aggravate
problem. - ·
uwnerls~o r .... PF~T~-E~T~ ...........
JOHNSON COU~ )
On lhs 2~t~a. ot ~ .... n~
x ~ 19, ~[, be o o me, Ihe understgn~ a Nola~ Public In and
for said Coun~ and 6late, pe~onally appeared ~.0~S ~' ~e ~1~ and
~ L . L ~ ~ S ~ ~ to me kno'~n lu be the Iden~cal pe~so~s nam~ and who
executed the ~lhln and lorngoing instrument and acknowledged Ihal ~ey oxeculed the same
as their volunla~ a~ ~d deed,
TO;
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIl.
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty psicent or mere of Ihe ar~'~!~f th~'-prep;;dy
Included in Ihe proposed zoning change, or [he owners of twenly ~ercent or m~e o! th~
properly which is located wilhln two hundred feet el Ihe exterior boundaries of the pmperiy for
which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby plotset [he rezoning of the following property:
This pslitton Is signed and acknowledged by each ot us with lhs inlenllon [hal such mzoning
shall not become ef/eclive excepl by the laverable vole of at least [hres-loudhs el all Ihe
members of the council, all tn accordance with §414,5 of the Code of Iowa.
Owner(s) of --
Property Addres{
STATE OF OWA )·
JOHNSON COU~ ) .
0 ' ~) '
~ oun~ and~l~le, ~onal~appeared ~ss~11 ~. ~ and
~E. o(~ ~ ~' ~ Io me known Io be the Identical persons named in and who
execuled the wilhJ~ and loregoing inslrumenl and ~cknowledged lhal ~ey executed the same
~ ~lr volun[~ a~ ~d deed.
By:
Owner(s) of
Property Address
STATE OF IOWA
es:
JOHNSON COUNTY "'
On this day of t'
- · ', ..---..~ -¥-t9._T_~_? hi)lord'me, [he undersigned, a Notary Public in and
for said Count./ and elsie, personally &ppeered
and
to me Iraown to be Ihe idenlical persons named in and who
execuled the wilhln and foregoing Inslrumenl and acknowledged that they execulsd the same
as their voluntary act and deed,
Nota~,/Public in and lot the State of Iowa
OBJECTION STATEMENT
C3
s owners of property located within 200 fee' -' -;-,, · ....... '..
property, protest no the re'~nn ~n ,.,. h;; ..... ~ ,~, ~.,~. ~xtenor ooun~anea o~ t~e affected
consideration -- RM-f~ /nw ~.;;~ ~?.,[,~u ,~e~.~, ~:'.ctlons to the ~peclflc rezoninn
Resident al to RS-8 ' ........ ~ ,v,u~-ram~y .~eslaC,,~,al, and RS-S, [ow Density
[west o, Dover Street~ north o[ [4uscatlna A~ .kue), These stated objections are:
On Ihis ~ day ol ~, 19~, belore me, he u~tders ned a ' ·
executed Ihe ~lhin and fore~ing ns umonl and ad(~;~ l~dged Ihal Ihey execu[ed Ihe same
as heir volunta~ a~ and deed.
;.. -~ , .';.
We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more o! the erea .~i he I~operty
included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of Iwenly percent or mor§~f the
properly which is Ioceted within l,.vo hundred feet ot the extedor bounderies of the property for
which the zoning change Is proposed, do hereby protest the rezonthg of the tollowing property:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IOWA cFrY, IOWA
This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with Ihe intention that such rezoalng
shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the
members of the council, all in accordance with §414.5 el the Code of Iowa.
Owner(s) of
Property Address -
) ~:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
.On thls,..~ day of ( '?~-~_.~C_., 19 ~, before me,,~he undsrslgned, a Notary Public in and
mr said County and~J~ate,.p~sonatiy appea~ed /t/~r(;,~ ./~c~.C(:h (' ~r~l.~'~'.,~ end
to me kn(~'~n'f6-b'e the identical persons named-in end who
executed the within and foregoing Instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same
as their volualay act and deed. '
By:
Owner(s) of
Properly Address
STATE OF IOWA )
, OHNSON
On this day of , lg .... before me, the undersigned, a Nota~ Public in and
~o~ said Coun~ and State, person~ly appeared snd
to me kno~ to be Iho Idenfi~ persons n~ed in and who
executed ~e ~thtn and toregoing Instrument ~d acknowl~ged ~at ~ey execuled the same
es their volunla~ a~ ~d de~.
Notmy Public in and for the State el Iowa
OBJEOTION STATEMENT
As owners of property located within 200 feet of the exterior boundaries of the airacted
property protesting the razonlng, we have stated objections to the specific rezonlng under
consideration -- RM-12~ Low Density Mult-Famlly Reslden(lal, and RS-$ Low Density .~lngle-Fam
Residential, to R.~-8, Medium Density Slngle-Fsmlly Resldenllal located at 6,55 Mead()w Street
(west ot~ Dover Street~ north of Muscatlne Avenue). These stated objections are:
By: ...........
I~r opa r t ~'-~d'~T~'~ ............
STATE OF IOWA )
)
JOHNSON COUNW }
On this2~"~ay o,/'~.;~.~..~, 19 qS'"', belore me, Ihe und.ers gnod, a NotaP/I'.,blic in and
for said'County anc~ la{e~----"~'~nall~ ~ppeared
to me known to be the idenlical persons named in and who
executed the within and loregoing lnslrumonl and aclmowledged Ihat they exscuted !hs same
as their volunta[y act and deed,
TO: :' :', :-:
We, the undersigned, being the owners of N/anty percent or more of the area:~f ths.~ops~y
included in the proposed zoning change, or the ownera of twenty percent '~r more-of the
property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for
which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following prope. rty:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IOWA CFFY. IOWA
This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the Intention that such rezoning
shall not become effective except by the favorable vote ol at least three-fourths of all the
members of the council, all In accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa.
Owner(s) of
Property Address-
STATEOF IOWA ) [~1 suz, u~ euN~-r~ s~z I
JOHNSON COUNTY ) -
.On thls.~'/ day of ./_.,~:f:.~_~, I9C~, before me., the undersigned, a Notary Pub c in and
~or said County and ~{ate, peSonelly appeared ~.,/l~,'~.~ ~ .~ ~ru.r,.~.r.,,,(Lv~ and
/~-~ 1_~c~,,,. i~v~, ~3~r,jcg ~4~Av~to me known to be the IdenlJca] persona named in an~' who
executed the within and toregoing Instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same
es their voluntary act and deed.
Sy:
Owner(a) of
PropertyAddress
STATE OF IOWA )
) s~: : ~.?,._~.,~,~,,~.~|.,..~,.~
JOHNSON COUNTY ) .~ ¢,, .'~,t::'~,ta,~Y~ It.j~!I
On this day o~ .19~. before me, the undersigned, a Not~ Public in and
for said Coun~ ~d State, personal~ appe~ed and
to me known to be the Idenliml per. ns named in and who
executed the within and forgoing Ins~menl and ackno~edgsd that ~ey exacted ~e same
as their volunta~ a~ and d~.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
OBJEOTION STAT! '",lENT
property, protesting the rezonJng, we have stated o, ict OhS to the specific 'ez~nlng ~ rider
consideration .. RM- 12, Low Density Muir-Family Res dt ,,lie, and RS-5, Low Density Single-Family
Residential, to RS-8, Medium Density Single-Family Re;.i ,]n;ial located at 655 Meadow ~'treet
(west o[ Dover Street, north of Muscatlne Av,..:u(,). These stated objections are:
~ ~ ~.. . -e / "'
F~., //-~,[~d{ ' '
~ D . ~'.~ .
- -- Prop ~Tt~ress -
STATE OF IOWA )
~, u y . k~olore me the undotslgned, a Nola~ Public in and '
lot said Coun~and~lgto, ~t~nally appeared ~r/g3
~ · - .,.~ ~.vwn Io De Ihe id~nlic
::~ut~d t~e within and foregoing instrument a. d u 'knowl;d-~ ,~?~ns n~ed ,n ~d who
me~r volunta~ a~ and deed .. ~ mat moy oxecu...d the same
. . ~[a~ Fu~ in and for the S ate of Ira, -
/ , f .,_
TO: c'~-
We, the undersigned, being the owners of [wanty percent or more of the areaF(~'the I:~operty
included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners o[ lwenly percent or more~of the
properly which Is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the propath/for
which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the razonthg of the following property:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
This palilion is signed and acknowledged by each ot us with the intention that such rezoning
shall not become effective except by Ihe favorable vote of e{ least threo-fourlhs of all the
members of the council, all In accordance with §414.5 of Ihe Code of Iowa.
Owner(s) of y
Property AddreSs '
STATE OF iOWA )
JOHNSON 'COUNTY I
On thls'~'~"Jl~day ofl~)~/),~_~.~r._., 1 g ~,~,, before me, the undersl;ned, a~ota~y Fublic ,n'and
for sald'C(~unty anti.tale, p6fsonally appeared .~'~.V4. Vl /~ , C)o,4~¢llt// and
to me known to be the identical persons named in ~nd who
executed the within and foregoing inslrument and acknowiedged that they executed the same
as Ihelr voluntap/act and deed.
Nol~ry~ublic In and for the Slat~ ol Iow~
By:
Owner(s) of Property Address
STATE OF IOWA )
) ~: ........... ..~
JOHNSON COUNTY ) ]h. ,.h.~,.. .........
( ~.,I,..,~,~.C0~..4 )'
Onlhs da of · .... 'f -'~'
Y _ , g , berate me the undersigned, a Nola~ Public in and
lot sad Coun~ ~d State, personafi~peared and
to me known to be the idanUll persons n~ed in and who
execuled the within and tomgoing Insbumanl and acknowledged that they execuled the same
as their volunl~ a~ ~d deed.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
OB~OTION STb, TEMENT
As owners of property located within 200 feet of the exterior boundarl~ of tl~ affected
property~ protesting the rezon rig, we have stated objections to the specific rezonln(3 under
consideration -- RM- t2, Low Dens ty Muir-Family Residential, and RS-5 Low ?.ens ty Single-Family
Residential, to RS-O, Medium Density Single-Family Residential located at 6;~5 Mendew Str.eet
(west of Dover Street, north of Muscatlne Avenue). These stated objections are,
JOHNSON COUNTY I as: . _
On Ihis~-~ %ay of_{~,'~u-~ , 19~,G, before me, Ihe undersigned, a No ary PubJic in and
lot said Counly and- lateenally appeared ~3~-U~ /~ (-]¢,nrlo..I ~/.-- and
o me known to be he dentlcal persons namb~d in and who
executed Ihe within and loregoing instmrnenl and acknowled§ed lhat Ihey executed Ihe same
as their voluntao/act and deed.
Nota'rr/P~ic in and for
TO:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IOWA CF(Y, IOWA
We. the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of the area (~L-'l'hs p~.erty
included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty percent o;' more of the
property which is Iocaled wi[hin two hundred [set o! the exterior boundaries of the property for
which Ihe zoning change is proposed, do hereby prolest Ihe rezoning el Ihe lollowing property:
This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us wilh the Inlanllon Ihat such rezoning
shell not become effective excepl by Ihe favorable vole of at least three-!ourlhs o! all the
members of the council, all In accordance wilh §414.5 el the Code of Iowa.
Owner(s)
Properly Address
STATE OF IOWA ) !~,~l~.~saa~a-~a~m~z I
JOHNSON COUNTY )
~ -
~n [his ~7 day of ~, ~9~, before me~,l~e undersigned, a Nola~ Public In and
,~j~ Cou.~ andSlate, p~onally appeared ~[,.. ~¢~m,~~ and
~ ~..~n~ to me known Io be Ihe iden cal persons ame~who
executes Ihe wilhin a~ foregoing ins~ment and acknow edged that Ihey executed ~e same
as ~eir volunla~ a~ ~d deed.
By:
Owner(s) of
Property Address
STATE OF IOWA )
)
JOHNSON COUNTY~
On Ihis day of ,19 , be!ore me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
tar said County and State, personally appeared __ and
to me known to be the idenllcal persons named in and who
execuled the wilhin and foregoing instrumenl and acknowledged that they executed the same
as fheir voluntary act and deed.
Notary Public in and Ior the Slate of Iowa
OBJECTION STATEMENT
As owners of property located within 200 feet of the exterior boundaries of the affected
property protesting the rdzonlng, we have stated object OhS to the .';pacific rezontng under
consideration -- RM-t2, Low Density Muir-Family Residential, and RS-5, Low Density Single-Family
Residential, to RS-B, Medium Density Single-Family Residential located nt 655 Mendow Street
(west of Dover Street, north of Muscatln8 Avenue). These stated objections are:
STATE OF IOWA )
On Ibis ~ day of ~ 19 ~, be ore me, Jbe undersigned, a No a~ Public in and
Io~aid Coun~ and lal~nall~peared ~/g ~ ~ ~ 1' l~5 and
//~/I ~q~ lB me known to be he idenlical person~named in ~d who
executed Ihe wilhin ~d loregoing inslrumenl and acknow edged lhaI Ih~y execuled Ihe same
as Ihek volunla~ a~ and deed.
TO: ~ .. ~.> .....
We, the undersigned, being the eyreere of [wenD/percan or more o the area ~ [he L~_ party
included n the proposed zoning change, or the ~mers of twenty percent or morO"nor the
properly which Is located within two hundred feet of the ex[edor boundaries of the property fat
which fhe zoning change is proposed, do hereby prolest the rezoning of the following property:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IOWA CFFY, IOWA
'[his petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us ',',';lit the intention that such rezoning
shall not become effective except by Ihe favorable vote of at least Ihree-foudhs of all fhe
members of the council, all In accordance with g,H4.5 of [he Code of Iowa.
efts) of '~ , Properly Address
o ,ow^ I
) as: I~/(X~a/i~F..,s I
JOHNSON COu~ ) ' -' ~ -~ -q~._~
On this ..~' day o! ~,,9~. belore lite, Ihe.. undersigned, a Nota,'y P_.ubllc in and
for said County and ~tale, p~sonaliy appeared .'~o ~ ~. ~o~ ~ and
to me known to be the identical persons named ~n and who
executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that ~my executed the same
as ~elr volunt~ a~ ~d deed.
'~In ~d for Ihe la~wa
By: "-
C:~vner(a) of
Property Address
STATE OF IOWA )
JOHN80N COUNTY ) .'- "',~'~- ~.~"~'~'.' ......
On this day of "~'--' ,~'T9"'~----"~ 6~ me', Ihe undersigned, a Nolary Public in and
lot said CounD/and State, personally appeared and
Io me known Io be the identical persons named in a'~'~ who
execuled the within and foregoing tnslrument and acknowledged Ihat they execuled the same
as Iheir volunlaw a~ and deed.
Notary Public in and for the Slate of Iowa
OBJEO'I'ION STATEMENT
As owners of property located within 200 leer of tile exterior boundarl~ of t~ affected
property~ protesting the rezonlng, we rove stated )bJect OhS to the specific rezonlncj under
consideration -- RM-t2, Low Density Muir-Family Resl(lentlal~ and RS-5, Low Density Single-Family
Residential, to RS-13, Medium Density Single-Family Re.~ldentlal located at 655 Meadow Street
(west of Dover Street~ north ofMuscatlne AvlnHa), These stated objections are;
JOHNSON COU~ )
~0~ said Cou~ and ~la{e, p~onall~ appea~ed ~h ~ ~, ~ ~Q ~' and
to me known ~o be the idena~l persons named in and who
executed ~e within and fo[egoing insl[ument and ack, ,vwledged {hat ~hey executed lhe same
as their volunta~ a~ a~d dsed,
TO:
PROTEST OF:
HONORABLE MAYOR AND crTY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY. IOWA
40NING
We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of the area el the property
included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty [~orcent or more of the
property which is located within two hundred feet of lhe extedor boundaries of the property for
which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest Ihe rezoning of the following property:
This poilUon Is signed and acknowledged by each of us with Iha Intenlion that such rezontng
shall not become effective excepl by the favorable vote of at leasl three-fourths el all the
members of the council, all In/accordance with §4t 4.5 el the Code of Iowa.
-/ Owner(s) of P,'operly Address
Owner(s) of
STATE OF IOWA )
) ~:
JOHNSON COUNTY')
On lhls o,C.d"-day of \~ , f9 ? ,~before me, th~.7.,~derslgp~d a Notary Pub c in and
for said County and State, Fersonally appeared "/"~ ~'r~4.,.~'."--~ and
to me known to be the identical pomens named in and who
executed the within and (oregoing instrument and acknowiedged thai they execuled the same
as their voluntary act and deed,
Nola~/Public In and for the State of Iowa
,~! OFFICIAL SEAL
Properly Address
STATE OF IOWA )
)
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On Ihis,.~-'~ay of ~ ,19 ~ ,-~','~belorc me, the u dersig~e'd, a Notary
. .. Public in and
,or sa,d Coun nnd S,ste, pe,sonal, appoele, and
to me known Io be Ihe identical persons named in and who
executed the wilhln and foregoing thslrument and acknowledged that they executed Ihe same
as their voluntary act and deed,
Notary Public in and for the Slale of Iowa
- . 1~74
.As owners of property located within 200 feet o~ ~he exterior bou ~darles of the r floated
property protesting the rezon ng we have. stated objections to the specff c rezonincj under
cons deretlon -- RM-t 2, Low Density Muir-Family Res · entlal, and RS-5, Low Densit'y, Sl~:gle-Famfiy
Residential, to RS-8, Medium Density Single-Family I[rmldentlal located at 655 Meadow Street
{west o~ Dover Street, north o~ Muscatlne/~venue). These staled objection:; are.
STATE OF IOWA ) -~c. o ~-
) ss: -:, ~ ~'
JOHNSON COU~ ) o: - ~
On Ih s~day o ~ 19~ e [ ~' ~
'~ . .~ c o i;m, the u~erslgne~Nota~ Publican and
mr said Coun~ and State, personally appeared . ~/=~ /~'~ ~ and
1o me known Io ~ Ihe identical persons named in and who
execuled Ihe ~lh~n and loregoing Inslrum0nl and .:,:knowl0dged lha~ they executed the same
as their volunta~ a~ and deed.
Nolmy Public In and for the State ol Iowa
TO:
PROTEST OF REZONk'-!G
HONORABLE k~YOR AND CiTY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We the undersigned, being the ownore of twenty percent or more of the are~ ~f th~.~orop~m/
included in the proposed zoning change, or Ihe eYreere of twenty percent or m~e o the
prepare/which Is located within two hundred feet of Ilia exterior boundaries el the property Ior
which the zoning change Is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the lottowing prepare/:
Thls patilion is signed and acknowledged by each el us wilh the intention that suctl rezoning
shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the
momber~f the council,. all in accordance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa.
Owner(a) of Property Addre~
JOHNSON' COUNTY )
On this ..,7-~ day el ~.~'",-~,~., 19 ~.~, before me, the undm'slgned, a Notary Public in end
for said County and Slate, I~ersonally appeared ..g'-~rJ<_ /~, ~ .~ h/~/~- and
to me known to I:e Ihe identical persons named in er,d who
executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same
as their voluntary act and deed.
By:
Owner(s) of Prepare/Address
STATE OF IOWA )
JOHNSON COUN'~ ) : ,.~ .. :.. ,,, !
On this day o! ' ~'~'""~'1'~''","1~*~'~, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
tar said County and State, personally appeared and
to me known to be Ihe identical persons named in and who
executed the within and loregoing instrument and acknowledged that they execuled the same
as their voluntary act and deed,
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
OBJECTION STATEMENT
As owners of property located within 200 feet of the exterior bou.darles of the affected
property protestingthe ro'zonlng~ we have .'Itcted ob ec ions to the specific rezontng under
consideratlpn -- RM- ~2, Low Density Mult-Fem y Residential, and RS-5, Low Density Sklgle-Famlly
Residential, to RS-8, Medium Density Slngle-F.nmlly Residential located at 655 Meadow Street
(west of Dover Street, north of Mus~.atln(, Avenue). These staled objections are:
By: ......
STATE OF iOWA ) .... [I
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On Ihis,-~ ~ day of _L.'~, 1~'~, belore meJha unde~igned, a Nota~ Public ~n and
~Or said Coun~ and late~nafiy a~peared ~ ~, ~C~ I~ and
to me known to be Ihe iden~cal perso::s named in and who
execuled ~e ~lhin and foregoing inslrumenl and ac:.nowledged Ihal Ihey executed ~e same
as their volunta~ am and deed.
PROTEST OF REZONiNG
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CiTY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned. being Ihe owners of twenty percent or more of the area~'~i
included In the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty parcant~"'mor~o¥~'~
property which Is located wilhin two hundred feet of Ihs exterior boundaries of the pr(~oerty for
which the zoning change ts proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following prope~:
This peUUon is signed and acknowledged by each el us with the tntenlion that such rezoning
shall not become e[[ecUve except by the favorable vote of at least three.lou~lhs of all Ihe
members of the council, all In accordance with §414.5 of the Code of k,wa.
Ownar(s) of
Properly AddreSs
STATE OF IOWA ) r
JOH.SON coup)
On this ~ '1 ~ay of ~u,4,~ 197~ before me, ~e unds,sijned,. Nola~ Public in and
/~cs //. (e,i~,t P [o me knawn to be ~he idenUcal persons named in and who
examled the within and foregoing inslmmont and acknowledged ~ha/~uy executed Ihe same
as ~elr volunt~ a~ ~d deed.
I~.lblic In an'~'for the State el Iowa~
By:
Owner(s)
Property Address
STATE OF IOWA )
S'
JOHNSON COUhJ~P.~;);
On this day ~'"~-~e[ore me the undersigned, ~ Nota~ Public in and
~or said Coun~ and Stale, personally a~pea~ed
to me known to be the identical persons n~ed in and who
executed the within and ~omgcing InsOlent and acknowledged that they executed ~e same
as thel~ volunta~ a~ ~d deed.
Notaft Public in and for the State el Iowa
OBJECTION STATEMENT
A8 owners of property located within 200 feet of the exterior be
pr.o.perty protesting the rezonlnn ~, ..... underlee of the affected
conmeeratlon -. RM-f9 l,.,., n~..m~' ~,~,.~vo ~mtad objections to the specific rezonlnn
Realdenfial ~ o~:~%',:~,:~ ~.~,~ ~ t-~am y Res dant[aJ, and RS-5 LOw Den [t~-~
, , .- ,,--~, ,v,~u,um uensltv 5inole-Fnmllv ~.-,~ ....... L sl - _lngla-Famfiy
[waster Dover Street .~r;h~t~,.~'""/-~uumm ocate~at G55Meadowgtreet
, ....... ,~,u~atlne Avenue), These stated objections are:
STATE OF IOWA )
) $$:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this .,~'~ day of c.d.
~ c.~ ~, before me, Ihe unders gned, a~Notary P blic in and
for said Counht and $1ale,.P~onally a eared :tt~r It. 5
ex~cu'ed ....... . ,,,~ ,,~,,,,~ u,,~ pul~ons nameo In and wh
jct me Within ano foregoing ns rumon and ack,.,.,,, n.~., ,._ L o
as their voluntary act and deed ..... ,,,,uuu ,Ha~ mOy executed the same
TO:
PROTEST OF RE;ZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
iOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of the area of the,'J)rope~
included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty percent or mo3'e of the
properly which Is located within two hundred last of the exterior boundaries of the properly for
which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest lhe rezoning of the following properly.:
This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the Intention that such rezoning
shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least thrse-fourths of all Ihe
members of the coundl, all In accordance with §414.5 of the C<~e el Iowa.
Owner(e) of
Properly Address -
STATE OF IOWA )
)
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this -'~O day of .~0.~,_~., ._ ,1~ , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public In and
for said County ancJ State, pe~nall~-'~'~pssrsd'~.~)o,,:,~o,<,. C. ~01(t,',~,.. and
to me known Io be the identical persons named in and who
executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executad the same
as their voluntmy act and deed.
Notan/Public In and for the State
By:
Owner(s) of Property Address
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY
On this day of ,19. , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
(or said County and State, personally appeared and
to me known to be the identical palone named In and who
executad the within and foregoing Instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same
as their voluniao, act and deed.
Notmy Public In and for the State of Iowa
OBJECTION STATEMENT
As owners of property located within 200 feet of the exterior boundaries of the effected
property protest ng the ~'ezonlng we have stated objections to the specific rezon ng under
consideration -- F'M-i2, Low Density Muir-Family Residential, and RS-5 Low Densky S ngle-Famlly
Residential, to RS-8, Medium Density Single-Family Residential located at 655 Meadow Street
(west o~ Dover Streat~ north o[Muscatlne Avenue). These stated objections are:
OWA
)
JOHNSON COU~ )
~nlhis~ day of,_.~ 19~ befor~,theunderslgqed. a .ola~ Public in and
r said ~oun~ and Stale, per~nal~ appeared ~19o~ 0. Kolo.¢l[ and
Io me kno~ to be the Iden~cal persons named in and who
execuled the ~thin and foregoing inslrumenl and acknowledged Ihal Ihey execuled the same
as Iheir volunta~ a~ and deed.
TO: ~...
We, Ihe undersigned, being Ihe owners of twenly percent or more of the are~:~f tha~rop~r['y
Included in the proposed zoning change, or Ihe owncre of twenty percent or rndre of the
property which is lecaled within two hundred feel el tile extedor boundaries el the properly for
which Ihe zoning change is proposed, do hereby p~otest the rezon ng of he following property'
PROTEST OF RE. ZONING
HONORASLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
This petition Is signed and acknowledged by each of us wilh the intanlion that such rezoning
shall not become effective except by the favoral~te vote of at least three-fourths st all the
members of the council, all In accordance w~th §414,5 el Ihe Code of Iowa,
Owner(s)
~ropsdy Addrests.
STATE OF IOWA ).
) es: ~
JOHNSO~ COONt~ ) ~'
On this. / ~'~ay of .~'~.~,¥~-,~ , 19.~, before nm, ~o undersigned, a Nota~ Public in and
for said Coun~ and Stale, ~ersonslly appeared ~ ~ ~c~/~ and
Io me known Io be the identical persons named in an~' who
execuled the within and fotegoin~ insirumant ~d acknowledged that ~ey executed the same
as ~eit volunt~ a~ ~d deed. mnj l . uxl
Nola~ Public In and for the Slate of Iowa
By:
Owner(e) of Property Address
STATE OF IOWA )
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this day of ,19 , before me, the undersigned, a Nolary Public in and
for said County and Slale, personally appeared and
Io me known 1o be the idenlicsl persons named in and who
execuled Ihe within and loregoing inslrument and acknowledged Ihat they execuled the scme
as their volunlan/act and deed,
Nolan/Public in and for the Slale of Iowa
OBJECTION STATEMENT
As owner8 of property located within 200 feet of the exterior boundaries of the affected
property protesting the rezon ncj~ we have sinted ob octlena to the specific rezonlncj under
consideration -- RM-t2, Low Density Mult Faro y Residential, and RS-S, Low Density Single-Family
Residential, to RS-O, Medium Density Single-Family Residential located at 655 Meadow Street
(west of Dover Street, north of Muscatlne Avenue). These stated objections are:
_ __~uweer(e) ~_-_.... _-~-.~.~_./.x.--~_.___ vroperty Addrase ....
~TATE OF IO'NA )
) SS:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this [ day of. _.~_~__~_.~_, 199.5', before me, [he unders gned, a Notary Public in and
for said Coun~ and Slale, personally appeared ~ ~ ~-~&~ and
to me kno~ ~o be the iden~cal persons named in and who
executed Ihe wiihin and [o~egoing inslrument and acknowledged Ihat lhey executed tim same
as Iheir volunla[y a~ ~d deed.
Nola~ Public in and for ~e Slale el Iowa
TO:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
iOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, being the owners o! twenty percent or more of tile are~ol' the~.rope'rt~
included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty percent or mob of the
property which Is located wilhln two hundred feel o[ the exterior bound~rlas of the property for
which lite zoning change Is proposed, do hereby protest the rezontng of the following property:
This petilion is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention Ihat such rezoning
shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least ihree-foodhs ot all the
members of the council, all in accordance wilh §414.5 of the Code of I(~'~a.
Owner(a) ot Property Addre~
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSO~-COUN.~..y.
On this ~ day of. v',~ ~,,.o ,.,.~, 19 '~.~-, before no, Iho undersigned, a Notary Public in and
for said County and Slale, personally appeared .Z_,.s .~ ~,~'v.,-,,.~ and
'~ to me known to be Ihe (danlical p~rsons named in and who
executed Ihe wilhin and loregoing instrument and ~cknowledged that they executed the same
as their volunf~y act and deed.
Notary Public In and for the State ot iowa
By:
Owner(a) of Property Address
STATE OF IOWA )
) aS:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this day of , f9 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
for said Counly and State, polsonally appeared and
to me known to be the idenUcal persons named in and who
executed Ihe wilhln and foregoing Instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same
as their volunla~y act and deed.
Notary Public in and (or the State of Iowa
Aa owners of property located within 200 feet, th
pr.o.perty. protestIn(3 the razonl n .... ~ ...... a e.x. terlor boundaries ot the
cons)aeration .~ RM-i~ ~..., n.'.nm-n..g.' .,.?..~vu t~at( , obJs¢:~mns to the s~e..In ..... _?ecte. d
Resident ~1 ~ o~ ,. ;',"~,.~ u._.~[~/Muir-i-emily R~- klsntlnl an~t ~ ~ . '-".-~."~'" '.°-~u!?ng unaar
(west oi~ Dover Sire,.* ,,,..;~ -~¥';..-'."'-';'.'Y ~..~uerlua~ ~ocetee at 655 Meadow Stre Y
- ~.~...,.u. ~r nnu~Catmrl[ I'~vsnue). These ateted objections era= et
t
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY
On this ~ day of .19 , before me, Ihe undersigned, a Nolaq, Public in and
(or said County and'State. perSJnal~ appeared
executed the wllhJn and foregibing Insbumant and acknowkdged that they executed and
to me known to b-~'~e id(.nUcal pemon~nnamed in and who
as their voluntaP/act arid deed. the same
~'o~ Public I~'and for the State of Iowa
From:
RE:
Background:
Issues of
Iraper rance:
· of Major
Concern:
The property owner8 of 20% or more of the area located within Zuu L~et of the
exterior boundaries of the affected property.
Nick Chmeruk, Neighborhood Advocate :'
909 Dover Street -'"- c.> ..
Iowa CIty, lA 52245 :~'. ca .
Phone: 339-0620 or 339-0280 -'
;~aa.t HllLSubd!v. lslon, Inc. (land developer) application to the Iowa b~t~/' Pl~'finlng ~nd
onmg uommm~on to 9EZONE the fieldbordered to the south by GaDrge .1~ Gay Funeral
Home, to the north by Ralston Creek, to the west by Memory Gardens Cemetery, and
to the east by Dover Street to be developed as a residential subdivision (proposed
fezcains RM-12 and RS-5 to RS-8 at 655 Meadow Street).
Formal Protest to the rezonlng of this property.
Dear Neighbor:
The letter you received from the Iowa City Plmmlng and Zoning Commission dated
January 1 t, 1995 stated s majority of the f3.09 acre field ts currently zoned for
Low Density Multi-Family Residences referred to as RM- '12. RM-f2 designates up to
12 living units per acre occupying the property in the form of duplexes, condos, or
apartments. A small area at the north end of the field paralleling Ralston Creek is
currently zoned for Low Density Single-Family Residences, re~erred to as RS-5. RS-5
designates up to five living units per acre occupylag that property In the form of
single family homes.
The Planning and Zoning Commission staff report of January 6, t 995 recommends
the Commission approve the fezcains application by East H Subd v s on, nc Ths
rezoning proposal would change the current RM-12 and RS-5 zoning to Medium
Density Single-Family Residences referred to as RS-8. RS-8 des gnates up to e ght
living units per acre occupying the whole property. The concept plan by the land
developer shows 36 lots with 72 living units in the form el~ duplexes occupying this
property if the rezonlng is approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and
subsequently passed by the City Council.
According to the Commission sta.~f report, If development of this site Is to occur,
"the existing (current) RM-12 zoning appears to be Inappropriate for this site due to
Its limited access. The Single access to this site Is a local street....The only point
access for residential development on this site Is at the northeast corner of the site
near the intersection ot Meadow Street and Perry Court....the additional traffic that
would be generated If this site Is developed would be [travelling] through the
adjacent neighborhoods -- either along Dover Street or along Friendship Street."
According to the Commission staff report, "The proposed rezonlng represents a
decrease In density for most of the property and thus a smaller Increase in traffic
than what would result if the property was developed under current zoning." The
report admits current zoning "appears to be Inappropriate for this site due to Its
limited access." Therefore, one could conclude that under current zoning,
development would not occur. The current zoning, RM-t2 (Low Density Muir-Family
Residential) went into effect when the new City Zoning Code was adopted in t9B3.
At that time Memory Oardens, Inc. was granted a special exception for the
cemetery to expand with cemetery lots within the current proposed development
site.
Even with the proposed fezcains, access and related traffic problems are still of
concern. The staff report continues, "The single access to this site is a local street.
The Clty~s secondary access standards slightest that the traffic volume threshold
for a local street be 500 vehicles per day." With the creatiorJ of a 36 lot
subdivision, if fezcains goes through, 72 living units could ensue resulting in an
average of seven .vehicular trips per day per unit. Seven vehicular trips per day
per unit X 72 units 504 vehicles per day entering and exiting the subdivision
through a single access point creating considerable additional traffic along Dover,
Friendship, and Meadow Streets, and Derry Court. The projected 504 vehicles
entering and exiting theproposed subdivision site per day exceeds the Ctty's
Secondary access standardcalculation for traffic volume threshold.
~f Meier T. he ~lbove 50.4 figure. takes Into.eccount only. acco.as DO ,th~ [oc~j street wlthlo_ the
oncarn: eavelopment alta, It Goes not soaress t~a existing] or aDDSOl traH~c Impact on uover,
Friendship, ~nd Meadow Streets and Perry Court. Dover Street Is densely populated
and there Is considerable curb-side parking on both Oover Street and Friendship
Street, Dover Street to Perry Court to Meadow Street Is used as a high-speed
shortcut, T,m amount of traffic Is increasing on el! four streets especially around peal(
drive times .~nd will continue to do so as development continues toward Scott Bird,
and Eagles .~;upermarl(et opens. WId dave spinant of the proposed subdivision, there
would be an increased number of children walEIng to and from the already crowded
Lucas School, crossing these streets and this den.so area of access, All traffic
congestion comes to one point at peak drive times before and after school, Specific
site distanceA from the curves at the access point to the proposed subdress are
not good. The httty terrain and almost bnd curves on the adjoining local streets
leading to and from the proposed access point to the subdivision pose a safety
hazard.
For the above reasons, a case can De made that if the rezonlng for the proposed site
la approved by the Olannlng and Zoning Cornrniasion and subsequently passed by the
City 0ouncll~ what will result at the ~o?st of accas.~.on Dover Strcot~ on Friendship
Street, on Meadow Street, and on P.,rry Court wlll be problems of traffic access,
traffic congestion traffic concentration, traff c flow~ children's safety, and accidents
waiting to happen,
The adjacent neighborhood property owners along Dover Street and Friendship Street
Invite the Planning and Zoning Commission to take these trsftlc problem factors into
consideration before rendering a decision whether or not to recommend rezonlng to
the City Council, The one and onl,/access point to the proposed subd v s on site wil
create traffic problems way bey( ,Id the ones that already exist st the present tlrne,
The way Friendship, Meadow ass Dover Streets end Perry Court were p armed
orlglnally~ no one could have forec'sst the traffic problems that exist currently on
thea.e local streets, The adjacent neighboring street property owners' ex st ng traffic
problems would be exacerbated by razesing the proposed subdivision site.
Action Even though 31 a{gnatursa were obtained from Dover Street residents January t9,
Request: 1995 opposing the razesing of RM-12 and RS-5 to RS-8 located at 655 Meadow Street,
It Is necessary to follow formal protest guidelines, Enclosed please find s Protest of
Razesing form and Ob action Statenlent form, If you wah to protest the rezoning
application by East HII Subdlvlalon~ Inc,~ please complete these Forms. Then In the
presence. of. Notary Public Suzanne Streitz 847' Dover Street (phone 338-3044) sign and
data the forms. So take your competed forms to Suzanne's house to be notarlzed on
Tuosd_a~, January 24th between 7:tJO and 9;00 pro, Friday January 27th between
and 7:uu pro, or call her for an appointment, There will be NO CHARGE for notarlzlng
these forms, For legal reasons, the City Council will only consider notarlzed Protests to
Rezonlng,
Reminder= Please do not put off completing and having notarlzed these Protest and Objection
forms If you are opposed to the razesing, Time is of the essence. February 2nd Is the
next hearing date before the Planning and Zoning Commission, t s crucial to have as
many completed forms as possible for submission on that date,
Ifyou have any questions regarding this letter pie]so do not hesitate to contact me at
339-0620 or 339-0280,
Sincerely,
Nick Chmarul(
909 Dover Street
PROTEST OF REZONING c% r._.
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND Ci'i'Y COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
~c~,u~h:d~rr~dtl~:ig_n. ed, being th.e owners of hventy percent or more of the area~,:ihe
propssee zomng change, or th,~ owners of twenty percent
property which is located wilhin two hundred feet of the axleder boundaries of the property for
which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning o[ Ihe following property:
l~is podlion Is signed and acknowledged by each of us wilh the intention that such rezoning
shaft not become elfeclive except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourlhs of all the
members of the coundl, all in accordance with §414.5 of the Code of low&
Owner(s) of ,
Properly Address
SUZ,~'tE aU.~EIT Sr a~
JOHNSON -COUNTY- I
~ ,n'aD, belem ,he. the undersigned, a Nota~ Public in and
[8~ate, pe~ y.ppeared ~ L. ~ss(~h and
to me ~nown to be the ~enlical persons named in and who
executed the wi~in and ~oregothg ths~lnent and acknowledged ~at riley executed ~e same
~ thek volunt~ a~ ~d de~.
,'~u~u~yu'uoec n and for Ihe~Jlatecellowa
By:
-..
Owner(s) o!
Properly Address
STATE OF IOWA )
)
JOHNSON COUN'I~.- 1
On Ihis. day or;~.,,,..,.~.. , fO"-"~'6~f~re me, the undersigned, a Nolary Public in and
lot said County and State, personally,' appeared and
to me known to be the identical persons named in and who
execuled the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that Illey executed the same
as Ihelr voluntary act and deed.
· ~oolar~, Public in and tar the State of Iowa
OBJECTION STA'~'EMENT
As owners of property located within 200 feet of '.he exterior boundaries of the affected
property~ protesting the rezonlng, we have stated objections to the speclf c razonlng under
consideration -- RM-12, Low Density Mult-Famlly Residential, end RS-$~ Low Density Single-Fatally
Residential, to RS-8~ Medium Density Single-Family Residential located at 655 Meadow Str,eet
(west of Dover Street~ north of Muscatlne Avenue). These etated objections are,
i3'~ni]r~)-o~- .... ~' .... ~'r ope'r'{y' AS-areas
) ~:
'JOHN80N COU~ ) .
On ~ls ~ day o1~, 19~ f before me, ~o undersiqned. a Nola~ Public In and
forsaldCoun~and~late, pemonallya~peared~r~ ~. ~o~ and
to me kno~ to be th~ idenll~l persons named in and who
execuled ~e within ~d foregoing Instrument and acknowledged that ~ey execut~ ~e same
as Ihetr volunta~ a~ ~d deed.
~a~ ~blic In and for ~e Stale of Iow~
~f M~jor
Action
Request:
Reminder:
~, ~ ~u[ soareSS me existing or aaaeotraHic Impact on Dover,
Friendship, and Meadow Streets .and Perr. y Court Dover Street Is densely populated
and there Is conslderab e curb-s~de parking on both Dover Street and Friendship
Street. Dover Street to Perry Court to Meadow Street Is used as a high-speed
shortcut, The amount of traffic Is increasing on all four streets especially around peak
drive times and will continue to do so as development continues toward Scott Blvd.
and Eagles Supermarket opens, With development of the proposed subdivision, there
would be an Increased number of children walking to and from the a ready crowded
Lucas School, crossing these streets and this dense area of access. All traffic
congestion comes to one point at peak drive times bale. re and after school, Specific
site distances from the curves at the access point to the proposed subdivision are
not good, The hilly terrain and almost blind curves on the adjoining ocal streets
leading to and from the proposed access pont to the subdivision pose a safety
hazard,
For the above reasons, a case can be made that if the rezoning for the proposed site
is approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and subsequently passed by the
City Council~ what will reault at the point of accession Dover Street, on Friendship
'Street, on Meadow Street, and on Perry Court will be problems of traffic access,
traffic congestion, traffic concentration, traffic flow, children's safety, and accidents
waiting to 13appen,
The adjacent neighborhood property owners along Dover Street and Friendship Street
Invite the Planning and Zoning Commission to take these traffic problem factors Into
consideration before rendering a decision whether or not to recommend rezonlng to
the City Co..u. ncil, .'1-.he one and only access point to the proposed subdivision site will
create trattlC problems way beyond the ones that already exist at the present time,
The. way Friendship, Meadow and Dover Streets and Perry Court were planned
originally, no one cou d have forecast the traffic problems that exist currently on
these local streets, The adjacent neighboring street property owners~ existing traffic
problems would be exacerbated by rezonlng the proposed subdivision site.
Even though 31 signatures were obtained from Dover Street residents January 19,
19.95 opposing the rezonlng of RM-12 and RS-5 to RS-/3 located at 655 Meadow Street,
It m necessary to follow formal protest guidelines. Enclosed please find a Protest of
Rezonlng form and Objection Statement form, If you wish to protest the rezonlng
application by' East Hill Subdlvlslon~ Inc,, please complete these forms, Then in the
presence. of Notary Public Suzanne Streltz /347 Dover Street (phone 338-3044) sign and
data the forms, So take your competed forms to Suzanne~s house to be notarized on
Tuesday January 24th between 7:00 and 9:00 pro, Friday January 27th between 5:00
and 7:00 pro, or call her for an appointment, There will be NO CHARGE for notarlzing
these forms. For legal reasons~ the City Council will only consider notarlzed Protests to
Rezoning,
Please do not put off completing and having notarlzed these Protest and Objection
forms If you are opposed to the rezoning, Time is of the essence, February 2rid Is the
next hearing date before the Planning and Zon ng Commission, t Is crucial to have as
many completed forms as peas b e for submission on that date,
If you have any q~estlons regarding this letter please do not hesitate to contact me at
339-0620 or 339 0280,
Sincerely,
909 Dover Street
To~
From:
RE:
Sackground;
Issues of
Importance;
. Of Major
Concern~
Nick Chmaruk, Neighborhood Advocate
909 Dover Street
Iowa City, IA $2245
Phone:
'The property owners of 20% or more of the area located within 2._00 f~t of the
exterior boundaries of the affected property,
339-0620 or 339-0280
East Hill Subdivision, Inc, (land developer) application to the Iowa Q[~y Pl~Snlng and
Zoning Commlelon to REZONE the fieldbordered to the south by GeOrge E~ Gay Funeral
Home, to the north by Ralston Creel(, to the west by Memory Gardens Cemetery, and
to the east by Dover Street to be developed as a residential subdivision (proposed
rezonlng RM-12 and RS-5 to RS-8 at 655 Meadow Street),
Formal Protest to the rezoning of this property,
Dear Neighbor:
The letter you received from the iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission dated
January 11, t995 stated a majori;.y of the t3,09 acre field Is currently zoned for
Low Density Multi-Family Residences referred to as RM-t2, RM-t2 designates up to
12 living units per acre occupying the property In the form of duplexes, condos, or
apartments, A small area at the north end of the field paralleling Ralston Oreek Is
currently zoned for Low Density Single-Family Residences, referred to as RS-5, RS-5
designates up to five living units per acre occupying that property In the form of
single family homes,
The Planning and Zoning Commission staff report of January 6, 1995 recommends
the Commission approve the rezonlng application by East Hill Subdivision, Inc,, This
rszonlng proposal would change the current RM-12and RS-5 zoning to Medium
Density Single-Family Residences referred to as RS-8, RS-8 designates up to eight
living units per acre occupying the whole property, The concept plan by the land
developer shows 36 lots with 72 living units in the form of duplexes o,ccupylng this
property If the rezonlng Is approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and
subsequently passed by the City Council,
,,A. ccordlng to the Commission staff report, If development of this site Is..t_e~'occur~
the existing (current) RM-12 zoning appears to be Inappropriate for ttffrs site due to
Its IIm[te.d.[tcc. e~s, .The_Single access to this site Is a local street,,,,,,The only point of
access for residential development on this site Is at the northeast corner of the site
near the Intersection of Meadow Street and Perry Court,,,,,the additional traffic that
would be generated If this site Is developed would be [travelling] through the
adjacent neighborhoods -- either along Dover Street or along Friendship Street,"
According to the Commission staff report, "The proposed rezonlng represents a
decrease In density for most of the property and thus a smaller Increase in traffic
than what would result If the p, roperty was developed under current zoning," The
report admits current zoning appears to be Inappropriate for this site due to Its
limited access," Therefore one could conclude that under current zoning .
dave opment wou d not occur, The current zoning, RM-12 (Low Density Mult Family
Residential) went Into effect when the new City Zoning Code was adopted In t983,
At that time Memory Gardens, Inc, was granted a special exception for the
cemetery to expand with cemetery lots within the current proposed development
site,
Even with the propo[~ed rezonlng, access and related traffic problems are still of
concern, The staff report continues, "The single access to this site Is a local street,
The Clty's secondary access standards suggest that the traffic volume threshold
for a local street be 500 vehicles per day," With the creation o¢ a 36 lot
subdivision, If rezonlng goes through, 72 living units could ensue resulting In an
average of seven =vehicular trips per day per unit, Seven vehicular trips per day
per unit X 72 units 504 vehicles per day entering and exiting the subdivision
through a single access point creating considerable additional traffic along Dover,
Friendship, and Meadow Streets, and Perry Court, The projected 504 vehicles
entering and exiting the proposed subdivision site per day exceeds the Clty's
Secondary access standard calculation for traffic volume threshold,
TO:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CRY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, lie undordgned, being Ihe owners el h','enl7 percent o¢ rno[o of the aras of [he property
included ~n (he proposed zoning change, or Ihe o',~nors el twanby percent o,' more o! the
Propm(y whfch IS located within two hundred feel of lie exterior' boundmien of lie Properly for
which ~he zoning change Is proposed, do hereby prolest lie rozonlig of Ihe lollowing proporb/:
ll'.ie pe[iUon b signed and acknowledged by each el us with the intention that such rezon[ng
Ownor(s) of Property Address
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUN1Y
On liIs __ day of ,19___, balers me, lie undersigned, a NolaP/Pub[is in and
for said Counly and Stale, pemonagy appea~ed and
to me known Io be [he IdanUcal persons named in and who
executed lie within and foregoing ins[hJmant ar,d ack. nowiedged liar they executed the same
as lick vo~unis.~ act and deed.
.',lolay Public In and for lie State of Io...Ja
Property Address
STATE OF IOWA )
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this ~ day of /~e'~,~.~,.,., 1 g.~, before me, lie undersigned, a Nolmy Public in and
for said Counb/ and Slale, personally appeared ~N(; ~.~y ~,~.x~ and
Ol~16 ~. m~6~ I0 me kn~m lo be ~o identical per.ns named In and who
exerted ~e ~li and for~othg ins~menl ~d ackno~ged ~at ~oy excculed the same
as ~ait voi~la~ a~ ~d de~.
Nolao. Public in and for the Stele o! iowa
OBJECTION STATEMENT
As owners of property located within 200 feet of the exterior boundaries of the effected
property protostln(j the rozonlr~ we have stated objections to th~ spec[[Ic rozonlncj under
consideration -- RM-t2, Low Dens ty Muir-Family Residential. and RS-S, Low Oensity $ n(j e-FamJIy
Residential. to RS-O, Medium Density SinGle-Family Residential located at 6S5 Meadow Street
(west of Dover Street, nOrlh of Muscatine Avenue. Those statr~ object OhS are:
i
STATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY
On this -- day of . t9 . before a~a, the undersigned. a Notay Public ~.q and
for ssld County and Slate. ~ ap~ed _ ~d
Io me kn~ [o b': ~e idaariel pe~ns n~ ~ en~ who
exe~t~ ~e ~in a~ t~ ~s~ment ~d uc~edg~ ~at ~ey exe~t~ am s~
~ ~efr volun~ a~ and d~
Th~ property owners of 20% or more of the area located within 200 feet of the
;" exterior boundaries of the affected property,
From:
Nick Chmaruk, Neighborhood Advocate
909 Dover Street
Iowa City= IA 52245
Phone: 339-0620 or 339-0280
RE:
Background;
East Hill Subdivision, Inc, (land developer) application to the Iowa Oity Planning and
Zoning Oommision to REZONE the field bordered to the south by George L, Gay Funeral
Home, to the north by Ralston Creek, to the west by Memory Gardens Oernetary, and
to the east by Dover Street to be developed as a residential subdivision (proposed
rezoning RM-12 and RS-5 to RS-8 at 655 Meadow Street), ,._-
Formal Protest to the rezoning of this property, ":-' r,] ...--
Dear Neighbor= .' ,~
The latter you r~ceived From the Iowa City Planning and Zoning 0ommr,~loo.~at~d
January 11, t995 stated a majority of the 13,09 acre field is c~rently zoned for
Low Density Multi-Family Residences referred to as RM-12, RM.=I~. d~gnates up to
12 living units per acre occupying the property in the form of oraplex.e~, condos, or
apartments, A small area at the north end of the field paralleling
currently zoned for Low Density Single-Family Residences, referred to as RS-5, RS-5
designates up to five living units per acre occupying that property In the form
single family homes,
The Planning and Zoning Commission staff report of January 6, 1995 recommends
the Oommission approve the rezoning application by East Hill Subdivision, Inc,, This
fezchins proposal would change the current RM-12 and RS~5 zoning to Medium
Density Single-Family Residences referred to as RS-8, RS-8 designates up to eight
living units per acre occupying the whole property, The conc=.pt plan by the land
developer shows 36 lots with 72 living units in the form of duplexes occupying this
property if the rezoning is approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and
subsequently passed by the Oity Oouncll,
Issues of
Importance~
According to the Commission staff report, if development of this site is to occur,
'"the existing (current) RM-~2 zoning appears to be inappropriate for this site due to
its limited access, The Single access to this site is a local street.,,,,The only point of
access for residential development on this site is at the northeast corner of the site
near the intersection of Meadow Street and Perry Court,,,.,the additional traffic that
would be generated IF this site is developed would be [travelling] through the
adjacent neighborhoods -- either along Dover Street or along Friendship Street,"
According to the Commission staF~ report, "The proposed rezoning represents a
decrease in densky for most of the property and thus a smaller increase In traffic
than what would result If the property was developed under current zoning," The
report admits current zoning "appears to be Inappropriate for this site due to Its
limited access," Therefore, one could conclude that under current zoning,
development would not occur, The current zoning, RM-12 (Low Density Mult-Family
Residential) went into e~Fect when the new City Zoning Code was adopted in 1983.
At that time Memory Gardens, Inc, was granted a special exception for the
cemetery to expand with cemetery lots within the current proposed development
site,
OF Major
Concern:
Even with the proposed rezoning, access and related traffic problems are still of
concern, The staff report continues, "The single access to this site is a local street,
The City~s secondary access standards suggest that the traffic volume threshold
for a local street be 500 vehicles per day," With the creation of a 36 lot
subdivision, If fezchins goes through, 72 living units could ensue resulting In an
average of seven =vehicular trips per day per unit, Seven vehicular trips per day
per unit X 72 units 504 vehicles per day entering and exiting the subdivision
through a single access point creating considerable additional traffic along Dover,
Friendship, and Meadow Streets, and Perry Oourt, The projected 504 vehicles
entering and exiting the proposed subdivision site per day exceeds the Clty~s
Seccndary access standard calculation For traffic volume threshold,
~f Malor
onc~n:
The bove 504 fig r takes Into ccou t on a casa o th Ioc street withi ~e '
Friendship, and Meadow Streets ~nd Perry Court, Dover Street I~ densely populated
and there I~ considerable curb-side parking on both Dover Street ond Friendship
Street, Dover Street to ~erry Oourt to Meadow S~reet I~ u~d a~ a hlgh-~peed
shortcut, The ~mount o~ traffic Is increasing on all ~our streets especially around peak
drive times and will continue to do so as development continue~ toward ~cott Bird,
and E~gles Supermarket opens, With development of the proposed subdivision, there
would be ~n Increased number o~ children ~lkln~ to and from the already crowded
Lucas ~chool~ crossing these streets and this dense area of access. All traffic
congestion comes to one point at peak drive times be~ore and after school, Specific
site distances from th~ curves at the accoss point to the proposed subdivision are
not ~ood, The hilly terrain and almost blind curves on the adjoinin~ local streets
leadrag to and from the proposed access point to the subdivision pose a safety
hazard,
For the above reasons, a case can be made that if the rezoning for the proposed site
is approved by the Planning and Zoning Cornmission and subsequently passed by the
Olty 0ouncil~ what will result at the point of access.on Dover Street, on Friendship
Street, on Meadow Street, and on Perry Court will be problems of traffic access,
traffic congestion, traffic concentration, traffic flow, children's safety, and accidents
waiting to happen.
The adjacent neighborhood property owners along Dover Street and Friendship Street
Invite the Planning and Zoning Commission to take these traffic problem factors Into
consideration before rendering a decision whether or not to recommend rezonlng to
the City Council, The one and only access point to the proposed subdivision site will
create traffic problems way beyond the ones that already exist at the present time,
The way Friendship, Meadow, and Dover Streets and Perry Court were planned
originally, no one could have forecast the traffic problems that exist currently on
these local streets, The adjacent neighboring street property owners' existing traffic
problems would be exacerbated by rezonlng the proposed subdivision site,
Action
Request:
Even though 31 signatures were obtained from Dover Street residents January
1995 opposing the rezonlng of RM-12 and RS-5 to RS-6 located at 655 Meadow Street
it is necessary to follow formal protest guidelines, Enc osed p ease f nd a Protest of
Rezoninc~ form and Objection Statemen[ form. If you wish to protest the rezoning
application by Fast Hill Subdivision, Inc,, please complete these forms, Then in the
presence of Notary Public Suzanne Streltz,/347 Dover Street (phone 33/3-3044.) sign and
date the forms, So take your completed forms to Suzanne's house to be notar~zedon
Tuesday January 24th between 7:00 and 9:00 pro, Friday January 27th between 5:00
and 7:00 pro, or call her for an appointment, There will be NO CHARliE for notarlzlng
these forms, For legal reasons, the City Council will only consider notarized Protests to
Rezoning,
Reminder: Please do not put off completing and having notarized these Protest and Objection
forms If you are opposed to the rezonlng, Time is of the essence, February 2nd is the
next hearing date before the Planning and Zoning Commission, It Is crucial to have as
many completed forms as possible for submission on that date,
If y~o.uc have any questions regarding this letter please do not hesitate to contact me at
339 0620 or 339-0260,
Sincerely,
,-~90~_Dov. a.'r~treet
TO:
PROTEST OF REZONING
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CIT~ COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the uederelgned, being the owners of twenty percent st more of t~e a,'ea el the properly
Included rn Ihe proposed zoning change, or the owners of twanly percent or more el me
properly which is loceled within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaiss el the pmpedy for
which the zoning change Is proposed, do hereby protest the razesing of the following property:
This peliD0n Is signed aed acknowledged by each el us with Ihe Isleetlon thai such razesing
shall sol become elfacUra except by the favorable vole of at least throe.fourths 01 all the
members of the council, all in ascotdance with §414.5 of the Code of Iowa.
Owner(e) of Prope~ Address
STATE OF IOWA )
)
JOHNSOk"COUNI'iK')
On this / ]~'day of. _. e ~.,.z~_.~,~:c~, 19 95, beinre me, the undersigned, a Notmy Public In and
for said~Flb/and Slate, personni~'~pe~red /J ~( F. /~ed,,-;,-1,. and
to me known to be the IdenUcai persons nam6'd In and who
Nofay PubI~ In and for the State of Iowa
By:
Owmr(e) of Propen',/Address
STATE OF IOWA )
) as:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this __ day of .19__, before me. the undersigned, a Nola~ Public in end
for said County and Slate, personally appeared and
Io me known Io be the idenUcel persons named in and who
executed I~e within and inmgning lnslmmenl and acknowledged that they execuled the same
e~ Ihair voluela~ act and deed.
Notsty Public In and for the $1ale o_[.Iowa ;.~
~o ';.~
OBJECTION S']'.~.TEMENT
As owners of property located within 200 feet of the sxtsr or bound]riss ~ the a tected
property, protest ng the razehint we have state I obJec OhS to the spec rezoning under
consideration .. RM- 12, Low Density Muir-Family Re eden el end RS-5, L w De 15 y Sthgle-FamJly
Residential, to RS-D, Medium Oenslty Single. Family Residential located ~t 655 Meadow S rest
(west el Dover Street, north o[Muscetlno Avenue. These sated objections are:
Further development in this area would exacerbate the existing Iralfic congeshon
on Dover Sireel north of Muse. aline Avenue. Not only is Oover Skeet used by
residents of the sireel. it is also used by olhers as a "short-cut" Io bypass F~rst
Avenue. It would nol appear to me Ihal Ihis section of Dover Skeet was
designed to acoommodale a ve~,/high volume of iraff~c It i$ hilly, has curves at
both ends, and has parking on both sides of the sfreeL When vehicles meet,
one must y~eld Io lel the other pass since fhe sireat is eel wide enough. L~miting
sireel parking for residents would pose a hardship for meal, because the majority
ot the condos have only a single-car garage and driveway.
As the volume of traffic on Dover Sireat increases, so too does Ihe chance of
personal ~niury. Th~s is a particular concern for the many children who use this
street when allending the nearby schools.
F~ lhese. reasons, I slrongly object to the proposed razehint and development
el:the si!_~ descr,bed above.
~'ATE OF IOWA
JOHNSON COUNTY
~y anu ~tate, pelsonaliy appeared /~}-~, I g' AJ,~¢.[~-~ and
executed Ih'~-~lh ..... to .me known to be the idenUcal 'persons namedJ tn and who
Nola-/ Public in and for the Slale o[ Iowa
T~ ?
From:
The property owners of 20% or more of the area located within 200 feet of the
exterior boundaries of the affected property,
Nick Chmaruk, Neighborhood Advocate
909 Dover Street
Iowa City, IA 52245
Phone: 339-0620 or 339-0280
RE:
Background:
East Hill Subdivision Inc, (land developer) application to the Iowa City Pl~nnlna and
Zoning Commlslon to REZONE the fieldbordered to the south by (~orae74j., Ga~v. Funer~
Home, to the north by Ralston Creek, to the west by Memo[-y Gard'~r~sL~ern~,~lry, ant
to the east by Dover Street to be developed as a residential subdlvlsl~ (proposed
rezonlng RM-12 and RS-5 to RS-8 at 655 Meadow Street). '--'- -
Formal Protest to the rezoning of this property.
Dear Neighbor: ~':
The letter you received from the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission dated
January 11, 1995 stated a majority of the 13,09 acre field is currently zoned for
Low Density Multi-Family Residences referred to as RM-12, RM-12 designates up tc
t2 living units per acre occupying the property In the form of duplexes, condos, or
apartments, A small area at the north end of the field paralleling Ralston Creek Is
currently zoned for Low Density Single-Family Residences, referred to as RS-5, RS-.
designates up to five living units per acre occupying that property In the form of
single family homes,
The Planning and Zoning Commission staff report of January 6, 1995 recommends
the Commission approve the rezonlng application by East Hill Subdivision Inc,, This
rezonlng proposal would change the current RM-12and RS-5 zon ng to Meal um
Density Single-Family Residences referred to as RS-8, RS-8 designates up to eight
IMng units per acre occupying the whole property, The concept plan by the land
developer shows 36 lots wlth 72 living units In the, form of du, plexes o,ccupylng this
property if the rezoning Is approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and
subsequently passed by the City Council
Issues Of
Importance:
,,A. ccordlng to the Commission staff report If development of this site Is to occur,
the existing (current) RM-12 zoning appears to be Inappropriate for this site due to
Its IIr~Lte~'~.c~ass, .The~lngle access to this site Is a local street,,,,,,The only point of
access for residential development on this site Is at the northeast corner of the site
near the Intersection of Meadow Street and Perry Court,,,.,the additional traffic that
would be generated If this site is developed would be [travelling] through the
adjacent nelghborhoo~ds -- either along Dover Street or along Friendship Street,"
According to the Commission staff report, "The proposed rezonlng represents a
decrease In density for most of the property and thus a smaller increase In traffic
than what would result If the property was developed und3r current zoning," The
report admits current zoning "appears to be Inappropriate for this site due to Its
limited access," Therefore one could conclude that u~n.d. er current zonlng~
deveopment would not occur, The current zoning, RM t2 (Low DenstyMut Faro y
Residential) went Into effect when the new City Zoning Code was adopted In 1983.
At that time Memory Gardens, Inc, was granted a special exception for the
cemetery to expand with cemetery lots within the current proposed development
site,
· Of Major
Concern',
Even with the proposed rezonlng, access and related traffic problems are still of
concern, The staff report continues, "The single access to this site Is a local street.
The Clty's secondary access standards suggest that the traffic volume threshold
for a local street be 500 vehicles per day," With the creation of a 36 lot
subdivision, If rezonlng goes through, 72 living units could ensue resulting In an
average of seven vehicular trips per day per unit, Seven vehicular trips per day
per unit X 72 units - 504 vehicles per day entering and exiting the subdivision
through a single access point creating considerable additional traffic along Dover,
Friendship, and Meadow Streets, and Perry Court, The projected 504 vehicles
entering and exiting the proposed subdivision site per day' exceeds the Clty's
Secondary access standardcalculation for traffic volume threshold,
Major
oncern:
Action
Request:
Reminder:
dTehe above 504 figure takes nto. occount or.'. access DO .tho .Ioc.~J s.tr¢'et with o the"
Velopment site, It does not aadre~s the e.'lstlng or ad~e~ trattlC rapact on Uover',
Friendship, and Meadow Streets and Perry Court Dover Street a dent, ely populated
and there Is cons datable curb-side parking on both Dover Street and Friendship
Street, Dover Street to Perry Court to Meadow Street Is used as a hi(h-speed
shortcut, The amount of traffic Is increasing on all four streets especially around peak
drive times and will continue to do so as development continues toward Scott I]lvd,
and Eacjles Supermarket opens, With development of the prcposed subdivision, there
would be an Increased number of children walking to and from the alreltdy crowded
Lucas School, crossing these streets and thl.~ dense area of access, ~11 traffic
congestion comes to one point at peak dr v,e. times before and after school, Specific
site distances from the curves at the acces... point to the proposed suodlvlslon are
not good, The hilly terrain and almost blind c.:Jrves on the ..adjo. inlng local streets
leading to and from the proposed access pc, it to the subdivision pose a safety
hazard,
For the above reasons, a case can be made t!lat If the fezchinS for the proposed site
ia approved by the Planning and Zoning Cornr. liesion and aub'~equently passed by the
City Council, what will remult at the point of ~ 'cams.on Dover Strmetj on Friendship
Street, on Meadow Street, and on Perry Cou~ t will be problems of traffic access,
traffic congestion, traffic concentration, trafFc flow, children's safety~ and accidents
waiting to happen,
The adjacent neighborhood property owners along Dover Street and Friendship Street
invite the Planning and Zoning Commission to ~ake these traffic problem factors into
consideration before rendering a decision wh~ther or not to recommend rezonlng to
the City Council, The one and only access p,.~int to the proposed subdivision site will
create traffic problems way beyond the one~ that already exist at the present time,
The way Friendship, Meadow, and Dover Strc~,]ts and Perry Court were planned
originally, no one could have forecast the traffic problems that exist currently on
these local streets, The adjacent nelghborin~ street property owners' existing traffic
problems would be exacerbated by rezonlnc~ the proposed .qubdivlslon site,
Even though 31 signatures were obtained frol.i Dover Street residents January i9,
199S opposing the fezchins of RM-12 and RS-5 to RS-8 located at 655 Meadow Street,
It Is necessary to follow formal protest guidelines. Enclosed please find a Protest of
Rezoning form and Objection St.atement form, I,~ you wish to protest the fezchins
application by East Hill Subdivision, Inc,, please complete these forms, Then in the
presence of Notary Public. Suzanne Streltz, 84;' Dover Street (phone 336-3044) sign and
date the forms, So take your completed Forms to Suzanne's house to be notarIzed on
Tuesday January 24th between 7:00 and 9:00. pro, Friday January 27th between 5:00
and 7:00 pro, or call her for an appointment. There will be NO CHARGE for notarlzing
these forms, For legal reasons~ the City CounL;I will only consider notarized Protests to
Rezoning.
Please do not put off completing and having notarlzed these Protest and Objection
forms If you are opposed to the rezonlng, TIr,,e is of the essence, February 2nd is the
next hearing date before the Planning and Zol Ins Commission, It Is crucial to have as
many completed forms as possible for submls4ion on that date.
If y~o.ur have any q~estlons regarding this letter please do not hesitate to contact me at
339 0620 or 339 0280,
Sincerely,
909 Dover Street
City of iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
February 2, 1995
Planning and Zoning Commission
Scott Kugle~, Associate Planner
REZ94-0020. East Hill Subdivision- 655 Meadow Street
At the January 19, 1995, meeting regarding this matter, the Commission asked staff for additional
information regarding the following items: 1. previous development proposals that may have been
filed for this site or a portion of this site; 2. existing traffic volumes on Dover Street south of the
entrance to the proposed development and along Meadow Street north of this entrance; 3. the
possibility of secondary access being provided through the Memorial Gardens property to the west of
the site; and 4. why the location of the entrance to the developmeat as shown on the concept might be
the preferred location. The following is a discussion of those issues.
Previous Development Proposals:
Staff was unable to find any record of a previous development proposal filed for this site that
proposed access along Meadow Street. However, information was found regarding proposed
development on a portion of this site, with access onto Muscatine Avenue, and there is some
indication that a development may have been proposed on the RS-5 portion of the subject site, but
never formally filed with the City. Staff has also researched the history of the Oakes Meadows
development, which includes the properties along Dover Street immediately east of this site, hoping to
find some information regarding the East Hill site and/or information regarding the decisions that
have led to the present development pattern in this area.
An application was filed in 1977 by Alvin Streb for a Planned Area Development (PAD) to allow a
72 unit apartment complex on the western parcel of this site (shaded in light gray on the location
map). The proposal included one access onto Muscatine Avenue. The staff report indicated concern
that the proposed PAD would result in an increase in the number of dwelling units allowed with no
provisions for any useable open space within the development. Other than a storm water retention
basin, the whole site was occupied by either parking or buildings. The Planning and Zoning
Commission denied the proposal and the project was never developed.
Staff also had discussions with Douglas Boothroy, Director of the Department of Housing and
Inspection Services, who was a member of the planning staff in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Mr.
Boothroy recalls a proposal by Dean Jones to develop the portion of this site that is currently zoned
RS-5 (shown in black on the location map). The main point of contention with the surrounding
property owners, as Boothroy recalled, was the fact that Mr. Jones intended to reroute Ralston Creek
to the north so that it would have run along his northern property line. Boothroy did not .recall
increased traffic being a concern, and felt if it was it was overshadowed by the concerns over the
creek relocation. No information regarding this proposal could be found in the files of either the City
Clerk or the Department of Planning and Community Development. Boothroy indicated that the
discussions may have been preliminary discussions with Mr. Jones and the neighborhood and a formal
petition may never have been filed.
Another concern expressed at the January 19 meeting was in regard to incremental street planning,
and why the surrounding property was allowed to develop in such a manner that resulted in this
property having only one access point. In reviewing the file for the preliminary plat of the Oakes
Meadows Addition, located along Dover Street, it was discovered that the possible development of
this site was contemplated by the staff and reported to the Commission. In the Staff Report dated
October 6, 1977, it was noted that only one means of access, from Meadow Street, was to be
provided for the Oakes Meadows subdivision (at that time no connection from Dover Street to
Muscatine Avenue was being proposed by the developer). It was reported that "[t]his access would
also necessarily serve any development in the future of the R1A area directly west" (referring to the
East Hill site). Because of this access situation for both areas, a secondary access to Muscatine
Avenue was required. In addition, the Staff Report stated that "provisions need to be made in this
subdivision (Oakes Meadows Addition) for extension of a street west into the undeveloped RIA area
(the East Hill tract). This street should intersect with Meadow Street extended (now Dover Street) at
a point approximately 450 feet from the intersection of Brookside Drive and Meadow Street." This
would have provided a second access for the East Hill site. The subdivision was eventually approved
with a secondary access to Museatine Avenue, but for some reason no provision for an access street
to the East Hill site was required. Therefore, the East Hill site was left with only the single point of
access.
Traffic Volumes:
The City does not have any traffic counts for the streets surrounding the entrance to the proposed
development. However, the City's Traffic Engineer will be analyzing the situation and will advise
staff of his assessment prior to the Commission's formal meeting on February 2, 1995.
Possibility of Secondary Access:
A question was raised regarding the possibility of a second access being provided through the
Memorial Gardens property to the west of this site. A portion of the proposed development, mostly
lying in the Ralston Creek ftoodplain, is contiguous with the cemetery located on the Memorial
Gardens property. However, the possibility of providing a street through this area and the cemetery
without disturbing grave sites is questionable. The developer has been asked to obtain a plan showing
the existing layout of the cemetery to determine whether or not a street for secondary access is
possible.
Proposed Location of Entrance Drive along Meadow Slreet:
Although discussions about the actual design and layout of the proposed development are not pertinent
to the discussion of a rezoning, questions were raised regarding the location of the proposed entrance
road along Meadow Street. Staff stated that the City Engineer preferred this location during a pre-
preliminary review of the proposal, but did not know the specific reasons for this preference. Staff
has discussed this issue with the City Engineer and obtained the following information. The
alignment of the entrmace street with Perry Court, creating a "T" intersection with Meadow Street at
that point is not an ideal situation. During winter months, vehicles travelling south toward Muscatine
Avenue may experience problems traveling up this bill if forced to stop at this intersection near the
top of the hill. Moving the entrance road farther north and lower on the hill along Meadow Street
would provide no increase in safety or sight distance, and at some point would begin to conflict with
the inters~tion of Meadow Street and Brookside Drive. Locating the entrance road farther to the
north would 'also result in the loss of some proposed lots. Sinc~ it would provide no increase in
safety, there is no justification to r~uiring the relocation of the entranc~ street to the north and
thereby limiting the use of this portion of the property.
AT'rACHMENTS:
1. Location Map.
M. Dean and R, Ellen Jones
RS-5 to RS-8
il
~OUTH£A3T I ~
~"'-,.~,~ '12 '-~
Memory Gardens Group,
RM-12 to RS-8
Data:
To:
From: "~/
Re:
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
December 9, 1992
City Council & City Manager
Jeft Davidson, Assistant Director of Planning & Community Development
Re-Evaluation of Secondary Access Policy
In response to the Planning and Zoning Commission's list of pending issues, staff recently
prepared a. set of proposed standards for when a secondary means of access should be
required for a development. You are probably aware that this issue has routinely been an item
of controversy. There are existing developments in Iowa City which may not expand beyond
their current size until secondary access can be provided. In most instances this is not
possible because of physical features or unwilling adjacent property owners.
Staff prepared five standards relating to when secondary access should be required. The
standards relate to when the amount of traffic on a street becomes excessive, the presence
of physical features which would constrain emergency vehicle access, pedestrian-vehicle~
conflicts, special populations, and permitting a single means of access as a temporary
measure..?__he_se standa_r.d.s_.w.o~_ld. f.orm a set of criteria incorporated into the City's subdivision
regulations for determining when secondary access should be required. The standards were
designed to give tlexibility in evaluating each development proposal on its own merits.
P&Z discussed the proposal'and basically agreed with the concepts presented. However, they
stopped short of taking action to include the standards in the subdivision regulations, which
would have brought them to Council's attention. Instead, staff has been directed to use the
standards as guidelines in the preparation of staff reports for P&Z and the City Council.
Therefore, the staff will not bring an ordinance amending the subdivision regulations to the
Council, unless the Council directs us to do so.
Let me know if you have any questions regarding this matter.
cc: Director of Planning & Community Development
Director of Public Works /~ _~. ~1~
City Attorney ,,~ 0~ f~-D4g'~"~',f) ,
Planning & Zoning Commission ~. ~~- ~
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 12, 1992
To:
From;
Re:
Planning and Zoning Commission
Jeff Davidson, Asst. Director of Planning & Community Development
Re-evaluation of City of Iowa City Secondary Access Policy
The City's policy regarding secondary access is part of a larger set of policies whi,r h govern
subdivisions and additions of property to the cry. The rights of the City to control land use
decisions were enacled by statute in 1931 and incorporated into Section 409A of thu Code of ~'
Iowa. The rationale for the statute s summarized in the following 1969 excerpt from the I(~wa Law
i
Review.
Once an area of the City is developed, the cost ol change becomes prohibitive,
and il becomes evident that a subdivider has cast ~he pattern for the future of the
community. Since urbanization ol raw land at the City's edge is now the most
~ impodant development area, it is here that the most significant public influence
should be exeded. Although the individual subdivider may see his padicular
subdivision as a complete unit, the planning agency or commission must
necessarily view it as a segment ot an entire community.
The excerpt goes on to say that for the general health of the community the city must ensure that
public services and facilities can be provided to new subdivisions and additions in an effective
manner. This..speci~ically includes-streets which can handle the anticipated traffic which will be
generated. /~,
Existing Policy
'l;he City's policy on secondary street access is summarized on page 67 of the Iowa City
Comprehensive Plan, attached lot your information. The focal point of this policy is the lollowing
statement:
The need for secondary access will be determined by the following faclors
,,~ including but not limited to the size o~' the subdivision, the topography of the land,
the density ol housing, the adequacy of exisling streets serving the area, and the
existing and projected development ol adjacent land.
This provides a broad policy statement on the City's requirements for secondary access to
subdivisions. This policy has become necessary because of the pattern of residential
development which has evolved over the past 30 years. Traffic concerns have given increasing
favor to discontinuous street systems in newly developing areas.
2
A look at an Iowa City street map illustrates this pattern of development. The pre-1965 areas of
(he city are characlerized by grid slreet systems. A grid street system provides many alternatives
Ior lralfic ~o circulate. Post-1965 develop;newels are characterized by much less continuity in the
s[reel system, an obvious e~fort to decrease lrallic on residential streets. This is epitomized by
Ihe cul-de-sac, a street design which provides Ior no c'rcu ahon of traffic. A series of cul-de-sacs
puts pressure on [he connecting 'spine street," which must bear the brunt of all the traffic
generated by ~he cul-de-sacs.
There are varying opinions as to whether a residential area should have one or several entrances.
As summarized in the ULI publication Restden !el Streets, the advantages of multiple access
points include: "
1. Reduced congestion and internal tratfic volumes due to alternative routes,
--,),2. Diffusion ot traffic impacts to the ex[ernal road system,
.,,~3. Continuity in the internal street system for service, delivery, and mair~tena~ce
vel~eles.
The advantages of a single access point include:
1, Elimination of through traffic and shodcul' rs. ~ ~"~' ~ .7.: c:, -'-"
2, Increased security. .Oo ~ ;'~-. ~ '~'"i
3. A greater sense of neighborhood identity. ~ ~ -- .-..
The rationality of the City's secondary access policy was established in the 1981 iowa Supreme
~ Court case Oakes Construction Co. v. The City of Iowa City, Iowa. This was an appeal of a
District Coud judgment upholding disapproval by the City of a preliminary subdivision plat. The
Supreme Court upheld the City's position of the necessity for secondary access to a 44 dwelling
unit subdivision, Testimony from City stall memb~ :s ouUined the following reasons why a single
means of-access to the proposed subdivision wo.:~;::l be inadequate:
1. The abilily of the overall street nelworl, in the vicinity to circulate traffic would be
inadequalo.
2. It would exacerbate ~xisting trattic prc.:Yems and negatively impact the adjacent
neighborhood.
3. Emergency vehicle access would not be ~Jeeuale,
4, Non-local Ira~fic would be added to a street v~th an elementary school ./~t
As prewousty staed, the vagueness o~ the Com[vehensive Plan language has le~va~n~
interpretations o[ when a seconda~ means o~ ac('oss should be required to a development. On
occasion City stall has used a specific standard o~ 29 lots as being the point a~ which seconda~
access should be required. It is believed this ori~=i~)ated ~rom a calculation based on a 900 foot
cul-de-sac under the City's former R1.B zoning c~..ssification. It is clear that a blanket standard
such as this is not acceptable for all circumstanc~ ;.
Proposed Standards for Requiring Secondary. tccess
It is recommended the City's policy on seconda0, :ccess be based on the existing language in
the Comprehensive Plan, but Ihat there' be more ..:,ecilic standards on when secondary access
should be required. Staff has proposed the follow.. ~g checklist of criteria for consideration.
e
3
Secondary access shall be required if a proposed development will result in any portion
of Ihe single access road being overburdened with traffic. "Overburdened" shall be
defined as a projected traffic volume which exceeds the midpoint design volume as
designated in the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan for a local or collector street:
e
Local street: 500 vehicles per day
Collector stree!:' 2500 vehicles per day
Projected traffic volumes shall be determined by taking the most recent Average Daily
Traffic counl which is available, and adding to it projected traffic generation using the Tr_.L[E
Generation manual published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers. In [he absence of a
recent trallic count, projected traffic volumes shall be calculated by using the ITE trip
generation rates for both existing and projected development.
A seco.nd.a. ry means of access shall be required when there are phys ca features which
would mh~b!t emergency vehicle access if the single means of access were hocked.
These physical features may include but are not limited to: s opes of 8% or greater,
floodplains as designated by the Federal Eme. rgency Man.agemenl Agency, wetlands as
design?ed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a bndqed or culverted w~t~.rw~v
~aeilgr~t~l~.on withe trunk diameter over b,vo inches, a grad~ separated ~i-~]'h~
A secondary means of access shall be r~quired if the street which would provide the
single means of access is a local or coll,.;ctor street, along which there are existing or
proposed facilities that would create pedestrian-motor vehicle conflicts. These facilities
may include but not be limited to schools, daycare centers, and parks.,(-.? ?. ~.~ ,/~
Sec, ondary access .may_be .required when there are special populations along the s~
access road that increase the probability of emergency vehic e access beir~g requir d.t
These special populations may include but not be mited toe derly pursons ~r p~rson,~?.~
with disabilities. . . //~...
· .
Fore situation requlrlrlg secondary acces.,, a single means of access may be permJ[t~
a.s .a temp.o?ry c.ondition. A temporary .co.r.dilion shall be defined as one where' the road
,wn~cn wou~d pro...v~de secondary access ~s included in the City's adopted three year Capital
Improvements Frogram. --
I will be present at your November 2 meeting to discuss this matter. If these standards meet with
your approval, staff will develop language suitable tor the City's subdivision regulaiions.
icccgtp~ndaccs.mmo
1.01 Objectives in Subdivision
Planning ~
The prirnary:objectivd:of ~ubdivision
Jesign is. to.provide m~ximum livability:~,
Fhis. requires.~, safe and efficient access,~
md -circulation .syste m,-~:~nnecting.~
~omes,' schools,~- playgrounds?'shops,
md ~other-~subdivision,activities for
:eople living there..,,
Transportation:considerations in'~
ubdivision design.raay be classified in,
wo general areas: (a) the'actual layout
,f the streets and pedestrian systems as'
-elated to land use, and (b) the engineer-
1.00
Traffic Considerations in
tlDo..lvlslon
and Layout
also may carry bus lines within a resi-
dential subdivision. ADTs are typically
1,500 to 3,500 in residential areas, with
similar proportions of peak.hour traffic
as for the local streets.
~[ajor streets have the primary pur-
pose of carrying through traffic and the
secondary purpose of providing access
to abutting property. ADTs are typically
in excess of 3,500.
Limited access roads have the sole
purpose of carrying through traffic and
provide no direct access to abutting
properties.
ng dimen_sion. s.. for,:veh c.u ar,- pedes..The ranges in ADT may, of course,
finn, and_.a.n.y.,b.i_?y,.cte~4a(A.'l.'~ .es.:Bu.~_..?verlap., _and the above figures are not
~ntended as design criteria
~either the street syste~'nor'the indi-,~' ' ' .
· idual design':element,should be .,- Theseguidelinesarelimitedtodesign
.nalyzed separately: They:must both be,
:onsidered in order to design a safe and ~'
:ificient tran~por. tat.!.o~n ..sys~m..~
1,02 Application
characteristics of local and collectors.,
type s. treets in residential subdivisions.
The street needs to service other types of
denser uses, such as retail, office, or
industrial, vary widely in operational
requirements. Their design should be
1.03 Principles of Systems Layout
Basic principles exist that should be
recognized and used in designing circu-
lation and access systems in new resi-
dential subdivisions of conventional
layout. These principles concern the de-
sign of entire street systems rather than
individual elements of the system, and
so express concepts rather than specific
dimensions. In applying them, however,
specific guidelines for pavement widths,
·-),intersection design, and related design
features are desirable.
The design of local transportation
systems must recognize the factors of:
(a) safety--for both vehicular andS.::::
pedestrian traffic, (bl efficienc~ of
service--for all users, (c) liuabilit~ or
amenities--especially as affected by
traffic elements in the circulation sys-
tem, and (d) economo--of land use,
construction, and maintenance, again
as affected by or related to the circula-
There are four broad functional clas-
~fications of.streets within urban areas.
s reviewed below:
' Local streets.represent the lowest
ategory. Their primary function is to
erve abutting land use. Typical residen-
.al Average Daily Traffic (ADT) ranges
'ore 100 to 1,500, with A.M, peak-hour
~affic about 7 to 8 percent and P.M.
eak-hour traffic about 10 percent of
,Collector streets have the primary
urpose of intercepting traffic from in-
:rsecting local streets and handling
his movement to the nearest major
;feets. ^ secondary function is service
based upon detailed traffic analysis,~, tion system.
which more closely approximates deJ'~'4 Each of the following principles is an
i ' "~,~'elaboration on one or more of these four
s gn procedures for major streets exceot~o
for lower speeds and strong emphasisc~n % factors. These principles are not in-
access to abutting properties. ~ ,t~"~,tended as absolute criter a. since in-
Special subdivisions exist for which
these gradelines may only partially ap-
ply. These include mobile home parks,
'recreational developments, airplane
landing runway or waterway.oriented
developments, and cluster housing. By
their nature, such su"~-'bubububububu'D~v~sion.{ do not
necessarily fit into the planning
framework of the customary residential
areas. The need for special design
criteria, on a case.by-case basis, is rec-
ognized in most jurisdictions by the
stances may occur where certain princi-
ples conflict. The princi,les should.
therefore, be used as concepts for
proper systems layout, as illustrated in
Figure 1.
1. Adequate k~hicular and Pedestrian
Access Should Be Provided to All
Parcels.
The primary function of local
streets is service to abutting prop-
erties. Street widths, placement of
sidewalks. pattern of streets, and
abutting land use. Collector streets planned u nit development concept. number of intersections are related
D fining
Streets
::cs~ o1' c.urves and steepness-of slopes.
91),~ iousl,:'. tl~e geometD. required for a
-uperh~gh~ay with a 65 m.p.h. speed
m~t ~s different than that needed for a
-cs~dcnual sircot with a speed hmtt of
2~ m p h. At h~ghspeeds.~orexample.
,a~ct5' rcqutrcs more gradual cu.'es: at
.,~ speed3. cars can easily negouate
Rcsldcnual streets should be de-
-~?cd '.u~th lighter turns than major
-oads These t~ghter turns force drivers
~ go 51o~cr. whde also adding to the
,suni rotcrest of the street. At inter-
cz't~ons Ihc turn radius can be kept
-mallet. forcing cars to come to a
-'op bcforclurnmg rather than making
In deform.nag geometry and
~ 4feet ~dtl~. the need for providing
mcr~cn~} vehicle access must be ad-
Development codes or subdivi.
sion regulations can recognize vari.
able street needs by specifying a
hierarchy of streets. In Residenlial
Streets, ajoim publication of the
American Society of Civil Engineers.
the National Association of ttome
Builde?, and the Urban Land Insti-
tute, the following four-tiered hietar.
ch¥ is recommended:
~ Arterial streets are high-volume
streets that conduct traffic between
towns and activity centers and con-
nect communities to major state and
interstate highways. Typically, resi-
dences are not located on arterials,
'& . Collector streets are the princi-
pal traffic arteries within residential
or commercial areas. They carD·
relatively high traffic volumes and
should be designed to promote the
free flow of traffic. including public
transit buses and school buses. Some
3erects ~crx mg only a few hollies nccd only be two~tv fcrt wide ' ~"' h'"" residences may front on these streets
.~ ,~ qu~ ~ · 5fibcollectors~ree~s are relative.
~,~ bt~ ~.. ly low-volume streets that prov de
:crm used bvcivil engineerstodescribe dressed But this does not mean th~'~ access ~o residential Io~s and sere
~pcc~s o[road design such as sharp- res[dcntialstreetshavetobeoversi:ed.
some through traffic to lower-order
(access) streets.
· Access streets are the lowest.
volume streets. Their purpose is to
handle traffic between dwelling units
and higher-order ~treets. They usual-
ly carry no through traffic and in-
clude short streets. cubde-sacs, and
courts. Access streets serve only a
few dwelling units.
Today's modern fire fighting vehicles
are more maneuverable than earlier
equipment and oversi:cd trucks such
as.hook and ladder typically do not
respond to fire calls m single-family
resideanal areas. If fire truck accessi-
bility is a special concern in a corn mu-
nit5'. it.would be more economical to
purchase trucks that fit local streets.
rather than budd all streets to meet the
needs of the largest st:e fire trucks.
WORKING FOR CHA,',;GE
In Albuquerque. New Mexico,
Larn.-Collins. the development direc-
tor of S~vage Thomas Homes. suggested
to the planning comm~sston that the
city amend its street standard~, in con-
juncuufi w~th its ongoing rcv~slon of
Alhuqucrquc's Development Process
Resources
Residential Strects can be pur-
chased from the:National Association
of Home Builders Bookstore.
1-800,223-2665.
XIgl'R I NOVESIS£R I DECEMBER 1991
I-3.0 Separate Turn Lanes
3.1 Separate turning lanes ma.~. be included on arterial streets but will,
as a r~le, not be found on other streets. ~here separate turning
lanes are required on the basis of a capacity analysis of the inter-
section, then a width of 12 feet will be used for major ~terial
', streets where substantial truck traffic is involve~ andtC~_l feet
, in width for minor arterial streets. .. :: ~ ~
~ I-4.0 Parking Lane Width _q:.. ~ .,
.~ .- ~ 4.1 Parking lanes will not be provid~ on arterial stre~.:, ~ '=~:
~AfF ~ 4,2 ~ere provxded for on local res~dentxal and collector struts,
~U~ the parking l~e shall be 8 feet in width.
t~ ~ ~4.3 ~ere provided for w~thin the co~ercial busxness dxstr~ct, p~Zt~Z
~"...~, . ) be 9 feet in ~th. ~ ' ~
~'~.~ 7I-5.0 Rtght-of-Wa7 ~idth
~ .
~ 5,1 ~e right-of-~ay ~ill be 8~ feet xn~idth for arterial streets~
~ 66 feet for collector and xndustr~al streets and 50 feet for
local streets. ~[s ~dth does not provide for m~ians or
boulevards that might be constructed within the right-of-~ay,
5.2
If medians or boulevards are to be constructed then additional
right-of-way may be required depending upon the design and width
of the median.
I-6.0 Shoulders
6.1 ~/here no durb and gutter is constructed there shall be a 10 foot
gravel or rock shoulder.
I-7.0 Medians
7.1
Generally speaking. medians will be found only in arterial streets.
The width may vary anywhere from a minimum of 16 feet to a maximu~
width of 30 feet. At intersections~ medians may be used to pro-
vide for separate left turn storage lanes.
7.2
Medians or boulevards constructed as part of local streets shall
conform to the same design standard, as set forth for arterial
streets.
I-g.0 Street Grades
8.1 The maximum street grade for arterial and industrial streets shall
be g%, for collector streets 10% and local streets 12%,
MEMORANDUM
Iowa City Fire Department
Date: August 5, 1992
To: Jeff Davidson --- ---.
From: Jim Pumfrey, Fire :-~; ~ ....
Re: Re-evaluation of City./~f iowa City Secondary Access Policy
We realize that in determining a secondary access policy, there are many factors which must be
considered in development of the policy. We believe that the excerpt you cited from the Iowa
Law Review should form the basis for the City's policy. We cannot afford to be naive to the
impact of future development(s). Our secondary access policy should include a series of arterial
streets which provide rapid access and logical continuity within the City. Perhaps we should look
at a system of arterials, which could then develop into a system ol cul-de-sacs creating a hybrid
system. This would be the best of both worlds,
One of the factors not mentioned in the ULI publication Residential Streets is the advantage of
multiple access points providing ease of access and faster response times for emergency
vehicles. The provision of the cul-de-sac street design, while providing unique identity to a
development, quite frequently conflicts with the ability of providing prompt emergency services,
whether they be fire, police, or ambulance. Frequently, emergency service providers are
encountered with having to travel greater distances to the location of an emergency due to having
to first travel to a "spine street," and then to the cul-de-sac, thereby delaying the emergency
response. In some instances in our station location study, we have areas that generally indicate
an acceptable response time; however, within these areas we have developments which have
a much greater response time due to the availability of access to that area by design.
In your re-evaluation of the Seconda,-y Access Policy, we are requesting thoughtful consideration
be provided to the special services provided by emergency responders. As you well know, any
increase in response time may make the difference between a successful resolution of the
emergency or an unsuccessful resolution. Again, please ask vm,r st~ff Rnd O, nmrni~,~inn fn
closely examine the needs of all emergency providers.
s-/-.
14-4A-1
14-4A-2
SECTION:
14-4A-1:
14-4A-2:
CHAPTER 4
LAND CONTROL AND DEVELOPMENT
ARTICLE A. PLAN AND ZONING COMMISSION
Commission Established;
Membership
Powers and Duties
development plans and plats or
replats of subdivisions in the City
which show streets, alleys or other
areas intended to be dedicated for
public use.
14-4A-1: COMMISSION ESTABLISHED;
MEMBERSHIP: There is hereby
established a City Plan Commission of
seven (7) members who shall be appointed
by the Mayor, subject to the provisions of
the Code of Iowa, as amended, and the
approval of the City Council. (1978 Code
§27-16)
14-4A-2: POWERS AND DUTIES: The
City Plan Commission shall act
as the Zoning Commission of the City and
have the following powers, in addition to
any other conferred by law:
Make such surveys, studies, maps,
plans or plats of the whole or any
podion of the City and of any land
outside the City which, in the opinion
of the Commission, bears relation to
the City's Comprehensive Plan. The
Commission shall submit such sur-
veys, studies and plans to the City
Council along with its recommenda-
tions and it may publish the same.
· Make recommendations to the City
Council regarding planned housing
I. See Chapter 6 o! this Title,
Make recommendations for street,
park, right of way, boulevard, traffic.
way or other public improvements or
for the vacation thereof.
Carry on comprehensive studies of
present conditions and future growth
of the City in order to guide and
achieve a coordinated and harmoni-
ous development of the City in accor-
dance with the City's present and
future needs to the end that the
health, safety, order, convenience,
prosperity and general welfare of the
community may be best promoted.
Prepare a Zoning Ordinance' regard-
ing the height, number of stories and
size of buildings and other structures,
the percentage of ground that may be
occupied, the size of yards, courts
and other open spaces, the density of
population, and the location and use
of buildings, structures and land for
commercial, industrial, residential or
other purposes. To this end, the Com-
mission shall prepare a preliminary
report regarding any proposed amend-
ments to the Zoning Ordinance and
hold public hearings thereon. After
such hearings have been held, the
14-4A-2
14-4A-2
Commission shall also submit a final
report and recommendations to the
City Council. The Commission shall
hold public hearings on and make
recommendations to City Council
regarding repealing amendments to
the Zoning Ordinances.
Conduct public hearings on and adopt
a Comprehensive Plan and recom-
mend to the City Council, from time to
time, as conditions require, amend-
ments, supplements, changes or mod-
ifications to the Comprehensive Plan.
Do all things necessary or advisable
in order to carry out the intent and
purpose of this Article and State law.
(1978 Code §27-17; 1994 Code)
1. See Chapter 6 of this Title.
Iowa City
14-6D-6
14-6D-7
3. Tree Regulations: See Article R of
this Chapter.
4. Performance Standards: See Adicle
S of this Chapter.
5. Nonconforming Uses, Structures
and Land: See Adicle T of this Chap-
ter.
G. Special Provisions:
a. A minimum of twenty five percent
(25%) of the residential units in the
development must be in place prior to
the development of commercial or
service uses in the development.
b. Commercial and service uses
shall not exceed five percent (5%) of
the land area of the' RFBH develop-
ment or five (5) acres, whichever is
less.
1. In no instance shall
RFBH be less than ten
2. Manufactured housir
comply with the provlsi,
4, Article D of this Title
sions of the Code of Io'
ed.
Of the development
dequate landscaping
between dwellings
~rmi~ted in subsection
~'~,n_,o screen the uses
djacent and abusing
3. The following provlsi(
ed to help ensure that c
service uses in an RI
compatible in scale anc
residential neighborho
submitting a request
permit or installing stc
the developer shall p~
pre-application confere
Director of Planning and Community
Development to discuss the applica-
tion of these provisions to the subject
property. Prior to issuance of a build-
ing permit or the installation of storage
facilities, a site plan and elevation
drawings demonstrating compliance
with the following guidelines shall be
submitted to the City for approval by
the Director of Planning and Commu-
nity Development. Alternative design
solutions may be approved if it is
demonstrated that the alternative
~rr~eets the intent of this Section. Deci-
~mns of:Ihe Director may be appealed
~ the. -~ Council:
se of berms and ever-
n, walls and fences
achieve this require-
City
~trian orientation of
service uses shall be
.:gh site design, build-
· ~d sidewalk construc-
3610, 3-8-94; 1994
14-6D-7: LOW DENSITY MULTI-FAMI-
LY RESIDENTIAL ZONE
(RM-12):
Intent: The Low Density Multi-Family
Residential Zone (RM-12) is intended
to provide for high density single-fami-
ly residential development and low
density multi-family residential devel-
opment. Dwellings in this zone should
have access to all City services and
facilities.
14-6D-7
14-6D-7
1. Detached single-family dwellings.
2. Duplexes.
3. Multi-family dwellings.
C. P. rovi~io~nal Uses:
,.e-'.~ra 1. Dwellings allowed in this zone with
· ,~ ;.,;,- ~r.a maximum of two (2) roomers in each
· ' /'"~.' dwelling unit, provided additional
-:"<"~' ,~'/'~ off-street parking spaces shall be
~' .~ ~ , . .
,' .~ ~.~¢~furmshed at the ratm of one-half (l/t)
,, ~r-.p, ,r space per roomer for single-family
~ ' .. ~ ~ dwelhngs and duplexes.
- ,p,¢v
..~ f ~. 2. Family care facilities.
3. Rooming houses, provided the total
floor area shall not exceed three hun-
dred thidy (330) square feet for each
two thousand seven hundred twenty
five (2,725) square feet of lot area,
and there shall be at least one hun-
dred (100) square feet of floor area for
each roomer.
4. Zero lot line dwellings and
townhouses, provided they are devel-
oped in accordance with the require-
ments of Article L of this Chapter.
5. Accessory apartments, subject to
the requirements of Article L of this
Chapter.
D. .Special Excepti_~_oos:
· ' ~;'/~' 1. Cemeteries and mausoleums, sub-
" . ;...'" ject to the requirements of Article L of
t t
.. ~1~ ,,~/'~' ~ th~s Chapter.
..~ ' i~ ~ .~ ~
2. Child care facilities, subject to the
requirements of Article L of this Chap-
ter.
3. Funeral homes, subject to the re-
quirements of Article L of this Chap.
ter.
4. Group care facilities, provided there
is at least seven hundred fifty (750)
square feet of lot area for each occu-
pant.
5, Neighborhood centers, subject to
the requirements of Article L of this
Chapter.
6. Religious institutions, subject to the
requirements of Article L of this Chap-
ter.
7. Schools, generalized private in-
struction.
8. Schools, specialized private instruc-
tion, subject to the provisions of sub-
section G2 of this Section.
9. Transient housing, provided there is
at least seven hundred fifty (750)
square feet of lot area for each per-
manent resident and two hundred
(200) square feet for each temporary
resident.
Dimensional Requirements: The fol-
lowing table of dimensional require-
ments shall apply to the uses in this
zone, This Section does not permit
the creation of a nonconforming lot to
attain higher densities of develop-
ment:
·
City
14-6L-1
14-6L.1
hundred (800) square feet or have
more than two bedrooms,
8. The accessory apartmenl shall
have at least three hundred (300)
square feet of floor area.
9. No minimum lot area per unit shall
be required,
10. Prior to the issuance of an acces-
sory apartment permit, the owner shall
file, in the office of the County Re-
corder, a declaration of covenants
stating that the right to maintain an
accessory apartment ceases upon
transfer of title, and that the dght to
maintain an accessory apartment in
no way constitutes approval of the
dwelling as a duplex, The owner shall
provide a copy of the declaration to
the Department of Housing and In-
spection Services prior to the issu-
ance of the accessory apartment per-
mit.
11. Prior to issuance of an accessory
apartment pe.rmit, the owner shall
submit a notarized affidavit to the City,
verifying that the owner will occupy
one of the dwelling units on the pre-
mises, except for bona fide temporary
absences, and that one of [he occu.
pants is elderly or handic,~pped. In
order to continue the accessory apart-
ment use, the owner must submit a
notarized affidavit certifying compli-
ance with this requirement by January
31 of each year.
12. The permit shall be effective for
three (3} years. At the end of every
three (3) years, renewal of the acces-
sory ap. artment permit should be
granted after completion of a routine
housing inspection verifying that the
property remains the principal resi-
dence of the owner and that all of the
conditions of ~his Chapter have been
met.
B, Airports, Heliports and Hellstops':
1, The area shall be sufficient to meet
the Federal Aviation Agency's require-
ments for the class of airport pro-
posed,
2. Existing tall structures or natural
obstructions outside the proposed
airport which would proti'ude above
the approach zones' established for
the proposed runways or landing
strips shall not be permitted to remain.
3. Certification that airport traffic will
not intedere with the flight pattern of
the Iowa City Airport or any other
nearby airport shall be obtained from
the Federal Aeronautics Administra-
1i.On'
emeteries and Mausoleums:
Any new cemetery shall be located
on a site containing not less than
twenty (20) acres.
2. All structures, including but not
lirnited to mausoleums, permanent
monuments or maintenance buildings,
shall be set back not less than thirty
feet (30') from any property line or
street right-of-way line, All graves or
burial lots shall be set back not less
than ten feet (10') from'any property
line or street right of way.
D. Child Care Facilities: The following
requirements shall apply when more
1. See also Subsect~on 14-6A-4H of th~s Chapter.
Iowa City
14-60-7
14-6D-7
1. Minimum lot
area
2. Minimum lot
area per unit
3. Minimum lot
width
4. Minimum lot
frontage on a
public street or
an officially
approved place
5. Minimum
yards:
a. Front
b. Side
c. Rear
6. Maximum
building bulk:
a. Height
b. Building
coverage
c. Floor area
ratio
7. Minimum
building width
Single- Single-
Family Family
(non zero (zero lot Town- Duplexes &
lot line) line) houses other uses Multi-family
4,000 sf 3,000 sf 3,000 sf 6,000 sf 8,175 sf
4,000 sf 3,000 sf 3,000 sf 3,000 sf 2,725 sf
35 ft 20 ft 18 ft 45 ft 60 ft
20 ft 20 ff 18 ft 35 ft 40 ft
20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft
(1) Five feet for the first 2 stories, ~lus 2 feet for each additional story.
(2) For townhouse units, 0 feet or 10 feet.
(3) For zero lot line dwellings, 1 at 0 feet and the other at 10 feet,
20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft 20 ft
35 ft 35 f~ 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft
50% 50% 50% 50% 50%
None None None None None
20 feet for at least 75% of the building's length. This provision shall
not ~apply to zero lot line dwellings
Iowa City
IOWA CITY CITY COUNCIL
F P. C'H:
NICHOLAS 8. CHNARUK AND JO RENE TRABERT-CHMARUK
909 DOVER STREET
IOWA C][TY, iOWA %224%
PHOr, IE: (319) 339-0620 OR 339-0280
PROTEST OF REZONZNG RM-12 AND P.~ ~ TO RS-8
STREET
[,Ai F: FESREAR~d 28. 1995
LOCATED AT
Dee, ~ iLy COt.lnCll Members;
'1~) ~al:e, over SIXTY PER CENT of the 77 property owners, within 200
fa.?., of the exterior boundary of the applied for ~ezoning site. haw;
· :uL,,r, itted signed and notarized protests of rezoning with etated
r,b)',ct;ons. There is no controversy in the community about what is
· .3oo~_ ,~or the neighborhood. Wtth over SIXTY PER CENT of ~.he orop,~'rty
o~m6;.*. protesting the rezoning, and I respectfully add there wtll be.
mu~ :, i hope the Cit/ Council respects these f~led statements in
,)p,,, :J':ion to rezoning ',:he
The.-e ,)biections sight traffic ~elated .::nd safety problems :,~hich
cu~,ent]y exist and that ~.~ould be exacerbated should rezoning occur
and 'he developer's coqcept plan makes it through f. he subdiviszon
pl.:nning stage. These ob.'jections address problems regarding traffic
,:on,.,estion, traffic volume, peak drive-time traffic, children'c
sa,et;., congested curb-side parking, ~treets not designed for thfs
~e~l of traffic, single pofnt of ~ccess to the site, added traffic,
exjc.[;,r,g traffic and it's behavior, through traffic, cluster housing
and Jense population, emergency vehicle access, and hilly/blind
:.loping curves.
F,)il,.wing the first meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, on
January 19, addressing I.h~s application of rezoning, six property
owor-~s met and I was designated to be :~dvocate. I have provided you
w~'.h * copy of the letter ~ circulated to property o~ners ~ibhin 200
fee[ of ~he rezoning site. I have also provided you with the prepared
staL~ment read before the Planning and Zoning Commission February 2nd.
I ,el, d~at the members of ~he City Council please read each of them
and .,tee read the signed and notarized objection statements.
Regarding the objection of traffic volume. the January 5lst single day
tr.:¢fic count which tool< place three days after a major ice storm does
not provide an accurate or reliable baseline from ~hich to project
added traffic impact. City Traffic Engineering totals of 790 vehicles
on Dover Street and 680 vehicles on Meadow Street does indicate more
vehicular traffic on Dover Street than on Meadow street. I have
prov~.ded you with DOT seasonal change statistics which over the past
four veers find between 21% and 27% increase in daily traffic due to
seasonal traffic volume change.
Dover Street without any additional traffic is already by definition
overburdened. Staff member Scott Kugler said at the February 2rid
Planning and Zoning meeting, "Dover- Street is built to local street
standards, although it functions as a minor collector." By adding
even half of the projected 504 vehicular trips into and out of the
proposed development site with the single acc.ss, the City guideline
'ocai streets recof~meAded ut
~.xc-~eded. Mr. Kugler addea, ":hat
.qihe .~ bit, but bhaL it is JIJEf a
¢.i .t. ,:-quiremeet.
vehi:le trips .ocr day :~otJJd be
%hey may actually exceed this.
puideline and not a hard
~¢ere to check :-dth fraffic Engineering ,led the Police
· ,*meal you ':~J]l find the, e have been many ca]Is from Dover ¢tr:~et
concerning traffic p~obl~ms. This is because Dover Sb~eeL
~p~ne sLreet connecting Friendship and flussatiric and is the 3nl~
bet~een ~cOLL 8oul.ava~t'd and First G./eRue. fhe '.)ehav~or of
IbrDugh t;affio, using Dover Street as <: short cut presents
for ,esidents. lL :s nol. the neighborhood iesi.Jents fault
C~ by Planner: have !eft themselves with only : single access
pigposed development %zLe. The history speaks for itseif
:,, ,3';5, ~hen the new zonind code ~as :dopt. ed, ,he current zoning of
Lb: ¢ast majority o~ the sita, RH-12, aJ. tows for speci¢: e::ception for
-: ,. roelely. ~ccording Lo Hr. ~ohn (.,sine, "We a]~ay: intended to
: v::]op it. for cemetery use. RS-S and RS-5 do :sot provice that
'~,,..~:.~l except:on. Development oR this oiLe was denzed between i960
.':74 b~caHs8 local lesident5 "~ere wor r[ed about children ~a:kin9
.hool w) th the added traffic," acco~dinq [o Dr. Paul Lang:~hough.
ion. d:¢,n, who ~as r:Jty Attorney bet~een t9C5 and i~74 conf~rmed
li~... 'Application ~as der~ied invo]ving Dean Jones application :o
.k .... I,~p Lhe property. O~tz>
If, ihe 1981 iowa Supreme Court case OAKS CONSTRUCIION CO. V. THE CITY
OF iOWA CITY, IOWA. Lhe Supreme Court upheld the C~ty's posiLion of
t'ne ,,ecessity for secondary access to a 44 dwelling unit subdivision
(Which is the 800 and 900 blocks of Dover Street where ~.~e live).
Te:.ljmony from City staff members outlined the following reasons ~hy a
sJ,-,gle means of access to the proposed subdivision ~ould be
i earlequake:
l) fhe ability of the overall street net~ork in the vicinity to
circulate traffic would be inadequate.
~) :L :~ould exacerbate existing traffic prob:ems and negatively impact
th.. adjacent neighborhood.
¢) Imergenoy vehicle access ~ould not be adequate.
4~ '~on-loca] traffic ~ould be added t.o a street with an elementary
school.
rhe.:e reasons Jeff Davidson .ighted in his October 12, 1992 memorandura
Lo l he City Council regarding Re-evaluation of Secondary ~ccess
Policy, are ~hat us residents of Dover street and Friendship street
are ::oncereed about. Dover street and Friendship street cannot handle
the anticipated traffic ~hich will be generated should rezoning pass
ar, d subsequent development occurs on this site. In the memorandum,
Jeff Davidson concluded, "It is recommended the City's policy on
se,::ondary access be based on the existing language in the
Comprehensive Plan, BUT that there be more specific standards on when
secondary access should be required." (See p.3 of the memo for Staff
t:het-kl~st of criteria.)
In., memorandum from Jeff Davidson to the City Council on December 9,
J992, the Planning and Zoning Commission stopped short of including
secondary access standards in subdivision regulations, which would
haw~ brought them to the City Council's attention. Instead, Staff has
been directed to use the standards as GUIDELINES. I request, due to
what the neighborhood is incountering with regard the issue of this
:, ~lic,~tion foi rezoning and tentativ,~ concept plan by the developer
t.. :.ai)d 72 liviog units co the site should rezo,qing pass, ~hat the
:' Council before votii]g on the fezcoins application ,)lease revie,4
th. L ity's secondary access policy and estoblish some l~ir,d of standard
o ,,etghbor;]ood ~e'cidentc do not feel this subdivision is being
-:.;~oaded down Lhe~r L. hro.~ts. Guidelines simply mean that on the
-,d,)mcL of '~ecoodary .,ccess. the CJ.~y can do ~h~Lover ~ dar,~ed :~el[
?~e Chief Pumfr-ey sent ~ memorer~dum on ~UgLISt 5, [992 t3 58¢[
regarding Re-eva]uation ot= City ot lows city Secondary ~ccess
The concept p~n of the developer fo~ the site shows ~ large
de-sac subdevelopment ~ithin 8 sub-diviszon which Chief Pumfrey
his literoe ...quit~ frequently conflicts with I. he ~'.bil&by of
,vialins [)tempt eme~gency services .... thereby delaying bhc emergency
.'~'-;¢.onse. (Copy of memo ;.ncluded~
[,~ ine minutes of Lhe Planning and ,fenlog Commissioh February 2, 1995
,~:eet.[og, Commission roerebel 3akobsen said Lhat from purely t pt,?.nning
F:o]lit. of vJe~.~, it :s better Lo have a development within the City.
~h.~[, t~ndergoJng an a~]ne)~ation procedure .... developmen~ of a,] in-.city
t 1:3 .-;hould occur before more ]and i5 annexed. Cu; rantly Oakland
cel,,etery is ~lmo~.t full. The City is in process to anne)< two .,crc5 of
H~uJ. ory Hill park for cemetery expansion. Ever since I did my
u,-,delgraduate curriculum at the University ot Iowa in the 1770'5 l
,iaw~ seen Hickory ,Hill p.~rk encroached uDon. Memory Garden% Inc. has
cu~ rent zoning ~,hich .~11ows for cemetery special except(on to meet
burial demand ~ay into the future.
Given tile preponderance of objection evidence from those protesting
fezcoins, it is evident that the current traffic related problems on
ho~.h I)over and Friendship streets are at their zenith. Sighting
Sec:I:~on 409~ of the CODE OF IOW~ excerpted in 1969 in the "Iowa Law
J~evi~;w", "Once an area o~ the City is developed, the cost of change
t,ecomes prohibitive, and it becomes evident that a subdivider has cast
the pettern for the future of the community." [That occurred when our
sireeL, Oakes Subdivision, was built.) The excerpt continued, "Since
urb4Hization of rm~ land at the City's edge .~s now the most important
deve!opment area, it is here that the most significant public
infloence should be exerted."
Shire and Hattery did the paving and the as-built actuals of Dover
street, Perry court and Meadow street shows s. ome alarming facts.
Headow street at the point of access to the proposed subdivision is at
a °..o% grade as is the curve immediately adjacent to tile access point.
]he inside radius of that curve is only 25 feet. The one and only
access point to the concept plan 7°~ unit subdivision is dangerous,
uns,.,fe, extremely precarious and ill-conceived. It is impossible to
imagine 504 vehicles entering and exiting through that one access
point without having accidents waiting to happen.
Tile application for rezoning is downzoning, I recognize that.
Everything I have said in this statement recognizes the problares
associated with that downzoning which is what these protests address.
What happens with the downzoning and subsequent development is what we
strongly protest because of the marked impact., the negative impact it
~ill have on our community. We protest RS-8 for stated reasons. That
does not mean we welcome development at RM-12, we do not and neither
does Planning and Zoning Staff.
i,, II'-3 Staff Report of January ~.. 1995, Scott Kuglar said, "Th~
,~:..-,htng RPI-[2 zoning appears t.o bo inapp~'opr±4~te for ~h~s s~e due
~i- ~rr~i[ed .~ccess." ¢,5 the objection~ to rezonino to RS-8 state,
f¢'--} ~;he sar, e ~,ay as Scott does but ~e feel that ~ay abot.lt RS-8 also,
~ i,or.,e the (:.it.y CouncJ) ~i~] agree that rezoning to RS-8 is no qu~ck
i': ho ~nt.~nd~ocl< the s~te. If I. he City Council can provide a
..e~:.¢,d~,ry acoess to fhe o~be that does not ~rnpact on us in a negative
~..... r.,:. does the singte access. then ~,e have no beef, nothing to
p~o,..-.st or object to. ~ut ~here the single acc:ess is and the nature
..~,,~ ,,~l~ty of our streets ~ith tra'¢fic related problems .~s they
· :~, ,ont)y ex&st, ho~ can you ~xpect US to bo~ do~n to such a plan.
::.i, ,,Terely,
il,, hoias B. Chr, aruk
c.,),) rove[- Street
To: ¢
From:
RE:
Background:
Issues of
Importance:
Major
Ooncern:
The property) owners of 20% or more of the area located within 200 feet o~ the
exterior boundaries of the affected property,
Nick Chmaruk, Neighborhood Advocate
909 Dover Street
Iowa Cityj'lA 52245
Phone: 339-0620 or 339-0280
East Hill Subdivision Inc, (land dev.eloper) application to the Iowa City PIs;~nlng and
Zon ng Oommision to REZONE the fieldbordered to the south by 61eorge L, 6lay Funeral
Home, to the north by Ralston Oreel(, to the west by Memory Gardens Cemetery, and
to the east by Dover Street to be developed as a residential subdivision (proposed
rezoning RM-12 and RS-5 to RS-8 at 655 Meadow Street],
Formal Protest to the rezoning of this property,
Dear Neighbor:
The letter you received From the Iowa Oity Planning and Zoning Oommission dated
January 11, 1995 stated a majority o¢ the t 3,09 acre field is currently zoned for
Low Density Multi-Family Residences referred to as RM-12, RM-t 2 designates up to
12 living units per acre occupying the property In the Form o¢ duplexes, condos, or
apartments, A small area at the north end of the field paralleling Ralston Oreek is
currently zoned for Low Density Single.-Family Residences, referred to as RS-,~, RS-5
designates up to five living units per acre occupying that property In the ~orm of
single family homes,
The Planning and Zoning Oommission st¢,ff report of January 6, 1995 recommends
the Oommission approve the rezoning application by East Hill Subdivision, Inc,, This
rezoning proposal would change the current RM-12 and RS-5 zoning to Medium
Density Single-Family Residences referred to as RS-8, RS-8 designates up to eight
living units per acre occupying the whole property, The concept plan by the land
developer shows 36 lots with 72 livinq units in the form of duplexes occupying this
property if the rezonlng is approved by the Planning and Zoning Oommission and
subsequently passed by the Olty Oouncil,
,.A.c~rdlng tp the Commission staff report, if development of tills site Is to occur,
'th~ ~;xistin~ (current) RM-t2 zoning appears to be inappropriate for this site due to
its I[~tll~ed ~.!pess, The Single access to this site Is a local street,.,,,The only point of
acc'Sss for, l!~sidentlal development on this site is at the northeast corner of the site
near the in;~]rsectlon o'f Meadow Street and Perry Oourt,,,,,tl~e additional traffic that
would be generated If this site Is developed would be [travelling] through the
adjacent neighborhoods -- either along Dover Street or along Friendship Street,"
According to t'l~e Commission staff report "The proposed rezonlng represents a
decrease In derislty for most of tile property and thus a smaller Increase in traffic
than what woul,d result If the property was developed under current zoning," The
report admits current zoning "appears to be inappropriate for this site due to Its
limited access," Therefore, one could conclude that under current zoning,
development would not occur, The cu;'rent zoning, RM-12 (Low Density Mult-Family
Residential) went into effect when the new City Zoning Code was adopted in 1983,
At that time Memory Gardens, Inc, w~s granted a special exception for the
cemetery to expand with cemetery I~[s within the current proposed development
site,
Even With the proposed:rezoningj access and related traffic problems are still of
concern, The staff: report contlnues~ "The single access to this site is a local street.
The City~s secondary access standards suggest that the traffic volume threshold
for a local street be 500 vehicles per day,'r With the creation of a 3 ~ lot
subdlvlslon~ If rezonlng goes through, 72 living units could ensue rdsu ting In an
average of seven vehlcular trips per day per unit, Seven vehicular ;rips per day
per unit X 72 units = 504 vehicles per day entering and exiting the subdivision
through a single access point creating considerable additional traffic along Dover
Friendship, and Meadow Streets, and Perry Oourt, T ~e projected 504 vehicles
entering and exiting the proposed subdivision sl.t.e per day exceeds the Clty's
Secondary access standardcalculation for traffic volume threshold,
uoncern: oeve~ppment site, It Odes not aaaress me existing or added tronic Impact,or uover,
Frlend~h p, and Meadow Streets and Perry Court, Dover Street is densely ,~opulated
and there Is considerable curb-side parking on both Dover Street and Friendship
Street, Do~eF Street to Perry Oourt to Me~dow Street is used as a high-speed
~hp~t~t, "~? ~m~nt o~ traffic is increasing on all four streets especially s, round peak
anve llmes',aMM Will conbnue to do so as development continues toward Scott Bivd,
and Eagles Supermarket opens, With development of the proposed subdlvk;ion, there
~uOUld ~e,an ~ncreas~d n.umber o¢ childre~ walking to and from the already crowded
c~, ~7oo~, crossing tMese streets an~ d~is dense area o~ access, All tr~t~Hc
cpn~.8t~on comes to one point at peak drive times bedore and a~ter school. Speci¢ic
rate ,gistencee from the curves at the a(:c,ass point to the proposed subdivision are
n t ~oed, The hdly terrain and almost bhHd curves on the adjoin ng deal streets
leading.'to.and from the proposed access point to the subdivision pose a sadsty
For the above reasons, a case can be m;;de that i~ the rezoning ~or the proposed site
is a~pFoved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and aubaequently paaeed by the
O ty C~nc ~hat will result at the pont o~ access on Dover Street on Friendshi
Sr ~
t eel~;.~ M~ 1~ow Street~ and on Pe ry Court wdl ~e robiems o~ traHic access
, , P
tra ¢14 {Ji)ne' 5jhn, traffic concentration, t, aH,c flow, ch,ldren's sadsty, and accidents
The ~dJa~e[t ~elghborhoOd property owners along Dover Street and Fr endship Street
Invite the Ph ming and Zoning Odinmission to take these tra¢Hc problem ~actors Into
consideratlor bedore renderinq a decision whether or not to recommend rezonlng to
the Oity Oouncil, The one and-only access point to the proposed subdivision site will
create tradBc problem8 way beyond the ones that already exist at the present time.
The:way Friendship Meadow and Dover Streets and Perry Oourt were planned
orlginally~ no one cou d have dorecast the traHic problems that exist currently on
these local streets, The adjacent neighboring street property owners~ existing traHic
problems;w~uld be exacerbated by rezoning the proposed subdivision site,
Action Even't~ough 31 signatures were obtained from Dover Street residents January 19,
Request= 1995 opposing the rezoning o¢ RM-12 and RS-5 to RS-8 located at 655 Meadow Street~
It is n~cessary to Collow ¢ormal protest guidelines, Enclosed please ¢lnd a Protest o¢
Rezonlng ¢~rm and Objection Statement Corm, I¢ you wish to protest the rezon ng
appllcationI~ East Hill Subdivision~ Inc. please complete these Corms. Then In the
presence ~'~jN~tary Public Suzanne Streitz, 047 Dover Street (phone 338-3044) sign and
date the Corms, So take your completed R~rms to Suzanne~s house to be notarized on
Tuesday January 24th between 700 an( 9~00 pro, Friday Januarv 27th between 5~00
and 7~qO pm~ or call her for an appointment, Tl~ere will be NO OHARGE dot notarlzlng
these,:¢6¢ms, For legal reasons~ the Oity Oouncil will only consider notarized Protests to
Rezodlng;
Rem{nder: Please do,Hot, put o¢~ complet}ng and hay{no notar{zed these Protest and Ob{ect{on
¢orm~ j¢.ypM:~Fe o~p~sad ~o the reFoning, T~me {s o~ the essence, February 2rid {s the
next Rearlno'date petore the Plann{no and Zoning Corem ss on t s cruc a to have as
man~ domplated forms as possible ~or submission on that date,
Idy~ .tlaVe any questions regarding this letter please do not hesitate to contact me at
:.!1,',, :'.',: :.
Nlck; Ohm
MEMORANDUM
Iowa City Fire Department
Date:
August 5, 1992
To:
From:
Re:
Jeff Davidson
Jim Pumfrey, Fire Chief~
Re-evaluation of City,:,~f Iowa City Secondary Access Policy
We realize that in determining a secondary access policy, there are many factors which must be
considered in development of the policy. We believe that the excerpt you cited from the Iowa
Law Review should form the basis for the City's policy. We cannot afford to be naive to the
impact of future development(s). Our secondary access policy should include a series of arterial
streets which provide rapid access and logical continuity within the City. Perhaps we should look
at a system of arterials, which could then develop into a system of cul-de-sacs creating a hybrid
system. This would be the best of both worlds.
One of the factors not mentioned in the ULI publication Residential Streets is the advantage of
multiple access points providing ease of access and faster response times for emergency
vehicles. The provision of the cul-de-sac street design, while providing unique identity to a
development, quite frequently conflicts with the ability of providing prompt emergency services,
whether they be fire, police, or ambulance. Frequently, emergency service providers are
encountered with having to travel greater distances to the location of an emergency due to having
to first travel to a "spine street," and then to the cul-de-sac, thereby delaying the emergency
response. In some instances in our station location study, we have areas that generally indicate
an acceptable response time; however, within these areas we have developments which have
a much greater response time due to the availability of access to that area by design.
In your re-evaluation of the Secondary Access Policy, we are requesting thoughtful consideration
be provided to the special services provided by emergency responders. As you well know, any
increase in response time may make the difference between a successful resolution of the
emergency or an unsuccessful resolution. Again, please ask your staff and Comrnission to
closely examine the needs of all emergency providers.
TO:
FROM
RE:
DATE:
IOWA CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIOH
NICHOLAS B. CHHARUK AND JO RENE TRABERT-CHIfARUK
°09 DOVER STREET
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52245
PHONE: (319) 559-0620 OR 339-0280
OBJECTION TO EAST HILL SUBDIVISION, INC. APPLICATION FOR REZONING RH-12
AND RS-5 TO RS-8 LOCATED AT 655 MEADOW ST. [REZ94-0020]
FEBRUARY 2,1995
[)oat' Commission Members:
PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS for this site other than the ones Scott Kugler
mentioned in his memorandum have taken place.
A,.cording to Dr. Paul Langehough, "I used to live on Friendship St.. Dean
Jones o'~ned everything behind the funeral home to the creek and wile re the
I'k.,ose Lodge is now. There used to be a church where the Lodge is aL. Ill
either t960 or 1961, Dean Jones made an app].ication for a stree8 access south
o[ Brookside, on Headow St., south of' I.he creek. fhere was a big gathering
that weut down to city hail and Pean Jones [development] proposal was
defeated. We were worried abou[ children walking to school with bhe added
traffic-.
According to Jay Honahan, "Between 1965 ~lnd 197.1, when [ was city attorney,
application was denied involving Dean Jones application to develop the
proper ty."
Questions raised_ at LI)_e_ last forlnal meeLing -- How did this situation happen
and Why wasn't there better street planning when the surrounding area was
developed? -- were correctly answered by o- ..
~cott Kugler al. lasb Monday night's
informal meeting ~hen he said, "Part o~ tha~ was. due to the cemetary owned the
Jand. It was assumed the cemetaly was going ~o expand into that area." This
is substantiated by Hr. John Daine. ~ccording ~o Mr Daine, "It was [zoned]
For cemetary use all along. The city was well aware of this [ntention. Whe~
we sold it to Hr. Kampe (approximately five years ago) we always intended to
cleve[op it as cemetary lots. Kampe told mfme he ~ntended to develop it for
cemetary use." M~s. Daine interjected, "It's plet. ty sad about what we're
hearing." Mr. Oaine continued, "Mr. O~hout built the funeral home and
originally intended to join it to the cemetary."
; Given this presumtion on the part of the City and the Land Owners, provisions
it v~ere overlooked in the Oakes PleadoNs ~ddition for extension of a street west
i into the undeveloped RIA area (the East Hill tract) from Dover St. The Daines
statements provide the reason no provision for an access street to the East
Itill site was required.
'FRAFFIC VOLUMES counted on Tuesday January $1st at the south end of Meadow
street and just north of Nuscatine Avenue on Dover street provide only a
parLial picture of traffic related problems which currently exist for
neighborhood residents. When residents are at home after peak PM drive time
and before peak AM drive time, Dover street (a spine streeL with cluster
housing) and Friendship street are single lane streets clue to curb side
parking which cannot be avoided because of lack of off street parking. In
response to all the curb side parkinq ~m Dover '.:treet, Fire Chief Jim Pumfrey
laughed and said, "I live over in lh~l. ,_~rea ..~h,I F~ tendship street is too
narrow for emergency vehicles and I ~,~,~uld ~id.;~ F~iendship street." Traffic
related problems are resoundingly expressed by I.t,e almost FIFTY PER CENT to
date filed protests.
By definition, Friendship street is ,~ Oollector ~:treet. But ~,ith proposed
development it ~ould become a Major street I"h~ving the primary purpose of
carrying through traffic and the seco~d~ry pu~po.se o~ providing ~cce.~s to
abutting property"). Given it's size. ;d~d ~'~aturo, Friendship street Js not
suitable to handle added traffic burdun. Due i.~, the size and nature of Dover
street (&long the 800 and 900 b~ocks) [t ~:.hnu]d l,e & loca~ street. It is
already more than a Subcollector streel. (".~ t~tal. ivety ~o~ volume street that
provides access to resJdehtia~ Jots 4u~d sea,e. 'some' through traffic to
lo~er-order (access) streets"). ~s I.h~ ont,' ':pine street running no~ th/south
between MuseatOne avenue and Friendsh.ip sti,ol, t~over street serves more than
just 'some' through traffic and [s not suJ[...[¢Je bo handle added traffic
burden.
POSSIBILITY OF SECONDARY rACCESS appe~r.~ non-e.~iotant. Fr,:.~nk and Lorrc,:~o
Tauter, 2614 Muscatine avenue, said, 'Nhee v~e sold off our 900 feet be6[nd ou~
house to Memory Gardens ~e put in the ,leed ~)[ '?le that the only use c,-:n be
for cometary tots. Scott Kugle[ said. "ThR ',,,.s' ibility of providing ..: s[roet
through this area (the north-~esL cornr~r ol the proposed development) and the
cemetary N1thout disturbing grave siLe~_; is ,;tu:stionable." And City
stales, "A~i structures, including but not !1i,~[!.ed to mausoleums (t. hor~ is one
one foot above the floodplain), . .... sha].J be. s:et back not less than 'hirty
· feet ($0') from any property line or street r[ghl:-of-~ay line. All cjr..ves or
burial lots shall be set back not loss thal~ Lr:n feet (10') I'rom any property
line or street right of ~ay."
PROPOSED LOCATION OF ENTRANCE DRIVE ¢~LONG NEAOON STREET is pertinent to safety
related issues (_i.~_~_~hrqt2gtl]_.tt]affic volum() on ajoining streets, pede'.'trian
and bicycle safety, and emergency sorvice ;.:ccess). The traffic count
conducted this past Tuesday, as a low, single day seasonal count, would
categorize Dover street as "Overburde;~ed" should the Commission approve RS-8
and development proceeds accordingly. Curb s~d~; parking on Dover stre[,t and
Friendship street obstructs not only drivers vio~, but that of pedestrians
(primarily children), bicyclists, and vehicle? 6~cking out of drive~;ays.
Emergency vehicles responding to a call in the East Mill subdivision I~c-uld be
hampered due to the size and nature of Dover street and Friendship street.
Fire Chief Jim Pumfrey said, "A fire engine weighs 27,000 pounds (7,000).bs.
over the load capacity of the bridge on Meadoo~ street just below the access
site). A ladder truck weighs ~,000-S,000 pounds more than an engine (t~r at
least 50~ above the ten ton limit of this bridge)." The only adjacent street
access to the point of access to the proposed subdivision is Muscatine avenue
to Dover street to Perry court to Meado~ street. You have already heard Chief
Pumfrey's response to all the curb side parking on Dover street. In ~esponse
to the grade of and curves on Dover street, Dover to Perry, Perry to HeadoN,
and Meado~ to the site access drive Chief Pumfruy said he would have M:~rshal
Rocka review the situation.
Introduction of Shive and Hattery paving as-bui)t plans.
Siting Fire Department memorandum of August 5, 1992 to ¢eff Davidson, Fire
Chief Pumfrey wrote, "One of the factors not me~tioned in the ULI publication
'Residential Streets' is the advantage of multiple access points providing
ease of access and fastel- response times for em(~rgency vehicles. The
'provision of the cul-de-sac street design, ~.~hile providing unique id~,~d. ity to
.z development, quite frequently conflicts ~,~il.h l.he ability of providJi, i prompt.
emergency services, whether they b~ fire, police, or ambulance. Frequ~ntly,
emergency service providers are encountered ~iLh having to b~avel grossLet
distances to the location of an emerge~]cy due be having to first travel be a
'spine street,' and then to the cul-de-sac, thereby delaying the emer(;ency
response. In some instat]res in our staLion location study, we have a~eas that
(2enerally indicate an acceptable response time; ho~:ever, within these areas we
have developments which have a much greater response time due be the
availability of access to that area by design ..... In your re-evalu¢~l.3. on of
the Secondary Access Policy, we are requesting thoughtful considerat:%o;~ be
provided to the special services provided hy emergency respot~ders. ~,s you
well know, any increase in response time m~.y m.~ke the difference bet~-~,..~n a
successful resolution of the emergency or .in unsuccessful resolution. Again,
please ask your st~ff and Commission Lo closely examine the needs of all
emergency providers.
In Jeff Davidson's memorandum Lo the Commis.-~ion dated Octob(~r 12, 1992, the
guideline standards currently in use regarding Secondary Access Policy states,
"A secondary means of access shall be required when there are physica(
features ~hich would inhibit emergency vellicles ~ccess if the single moans of
¢access were blocked. These physical features m:~y include but are not limited
to: slopes of 8% or greater, ....... " Does this include Meado~.~ streel. at the
point
of access or the ground on either side of the access point?
~nn, at Monday night's informal meeting you sa~d of the Planning and Zoning
Commission, "Ne are a recommending body." Has tile Commission read all the
Protest To Rezoning objections?
In response to Mr. Gibson's concern to people in the community not getting
accurate information, has the Commission read lhe letter I wrote to the
adjacent property owners? In this letter, [ objectively as possible, sighted
directly from ~q~-~%~&~T-re~6Ft and reflected the sentiments of local property
owners as their objections attest. The traffic. related [ssues of major
concern are not a figment of those protesting's imagination. Ne live there,
~e experience it. Tile neighborhood input, by providing their opinions prior
to and including the last formal meeting, actually shaped the letter
requesting action. Thus far, 57 property owners are protestling rezoning to
the level development ~ill be allowed 'for the very same reasons as when the
development issue on this site came up at the time Dr. Langehough and
Honahan describe in quote.
The land is still of economic value to Memory Gardens, Inc. in the form of
eemetary lots.
So, please, and may I quote from ARTICLE A. PLAN AND ZONING COMMISSION, you
". .... guide and achieve a coordinated and t~armonious development o¢ the City
in accordance with the City's present and future needs to the end that the
health, safety, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare ol the
community may best be promoted."
Thank You,
~o R. Trabert-Chmaruk
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 12, 1992
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Jeff Davidson, Asst. Director of Planning & Community Development
Re: Re-evaluation of City of Iowa City Secondary Access Policy
The City's policy regarding secondary access is part of a larger set of policies which govern
subdivisions and additions of property to the city. The rights of the City to control land use
decisions were enacted by statute in 1931 and incorporated into Section 409A of the Code of
Iowa. The rationale for the statute is summarized in the following 1969 excerpt from the Iowa Law
Review.
Once an area of the City is developed, the cost of change becomes prohibitive,
and it becomes evident that a subdivider has cast the pattern for the future of the
community. Since urbanization of raw land at the City's edge is now the most
~ impodant development area, it is here that the most significant public influence
should be exerted. Although the individual subdivider may see his padicular
subdivision as a complete unit, the planning agency or commission must
necessarily view it as a segment of an entire community, '~t.- ,.-~! ~ ~ ~
The exc ' f"'-ti';"v'~ V.. ~
erpt goes on to say that for the general health of the community the ~i~y~ust (;nsure t,hat ~
public services and facilities can be provided to new subdivisions and additions,, in an effe,c,,t ve ~
manner. This specifically includes streets which can.han~he anticipated traffic which w~11 be
generated. . '""/Fr
Existing Policy
T;he City's policy on secondary street access is summarized on page 67 of the Iowa City
Comprehensive Plan, attached for your information. The focal point of this policy is the following
statement:
The need for secondary access will be determined by the following factors
including but not limited to the size of the subdivision, the topography of the land,
the density of housing, the adequacy of existing streets serving the area, and the
existing and projected development of adjacent land.
This provides a broad policy statement on the City's requirements for secondary access to
subdivisions. This policy has become necessary because of the pattern of residential
development which has evolved over the past 30 years. Traffic concerns have given increasing
favor to discontinuous street systems in newly developing areas.
2
A look at an Iowa City street map illustrates this pattern of development. The pre-1965 areas of
the city are characterized by grid street systems. A grid street system provides many alternatives
for traffic to circulate. Post-1965 developments are characterized by much less continuity in the
street system, an obvious effort to decrease traffic on residential streets. This is epitomized by
the cul-de-sac, a street design which provides for no circulation of traffic. A series of cul-de-sacs
puts pressure on the connecting "spine street," which must bear the brunt of all the traffic
generated by the cul-de-sacs.
There are varying opinions as to whether a residential area should have one or several entrances.
As summarized in the ULI publication Residential Streets, the advantages of multiple access
points include:
Reduced congestion and internal traffic volumes due to alternative routes.
Diffusion of traffic impacts to the external road system.
Continuity in the internal street system for service, delivery, and maintenance vehicles.
The advantages of a single access point include:
1. Elimination of through traffic and shortcutters.
2. Increased security.
3. A greater sense of neighborhood identity.
The rationality of the City's secondary access policy was established in the 1981 Iowa Supreme
Coud case Oakes Construction Co. v. The City of Iowa City, Iowa. This was an appeal of a
District Court judgment upholding disapproval by the City of a preliminary subdivision plat. The
Supreme Court upheld the City's position of the necessity for secondary access to a 44 dwelling
unit subdivision. Testimony from City staff members outlined the following reasons why a single
means of access to the proposed subdivision would be inadequate:
1. The ability of the overall street network in the vicinity to circulate traffic would be
inadequate.
2. It would exacerbate existing traffic problems and negatively impact the adjacent
neighborhood.
3. Emergency vehicle access would not be adequate. ~
4. Non-local traffic would be added to a street with an elementary school..f~'
As previously stated, the vagueness of the Comprehensive Plan language has le'~l--~'-oo varying-"~-'~_
interpretations of when a secondary means of access should be required to a development. On
occasion City staff has used a specific standard of 29 lots as being the point at which secondary
access should be required. It is believed this originated from a calculation based on a 900 foot
cul-de-sac under the City's former R1-B zoning classification. It is clear that a blanket standard
such as this is not acceptable for all circumstances.
Proposed Standards for Requiring Secondary Access
It is recommended the City's policy on secondary access be based on the existing language in
the Comprehensive Plan, but that there be more specific standards on when secondary access
should be required. Staff has proposed the following checklist of criteria for consideration.
3
Seconda. ry access shall be req. uired if a proposed .develop.merit w II result in any portion
designated in the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan for a local or collector street:
Local street: 500 vehicles per day ~ ?..~
Collector street:' 2500 vehicles per day
Projected traffic volumes shall be determined by taking the most recent Average Daily
Traffic count which is available, and adding to it projected traffic generation using the Tr_.~p_
Generation manual published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers. In the absence of a
recent traffic count, projected traffic volumes shall be calculated by using the ITE trip
generation rates for both existing and projected development.
A secondary means of access shall be required when there are nhvsical fea*-mo ,,,h,.~.,
ould ~nh~blt emergency vehm. le access ~f the single means of access were blocked.
Thes. e p. hysicai features may include but are not limited to slopes of 8% or nreater M
f!oo?pla ns as designated by the Federal Eme, rgencyManagement Agency, wetlY. rids a~; ~'~/~
oeslgn.a. md by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a bridcled or culverted waterwin, I
vegetahon with a trunk diameter over two inches, a .qrac~ secarated hinhwa --,
railroad. _ _ o y, or a '~L.~_~
A secondary means of access shall be required if the street which would provide the
single means of access is a local or collector street, along which there are existing or
proposed facilities that would create pedestrian-motor vehicle conflicts. These facilities
may include but not be limited to schools, daycare centers, and parks.~.. ? ~..~ ~/,
Secondary access may be required when there are spec,al populations ~ogg the s~'~
access road that increase the ~rob~ili~ of emerg?cy vehicle access being requir~d.t
These special populations may ,nclude but not be mired to elder y persons ~r p~rson~
wilh dis~ilities.
For .... .
a mtuatmon requmnng secondary access, a single means of access may be pe~iR~-~
a~.temp~?~ c~gdition. A tempora~ condition shall be de?ned as one ~her~ the road
~Cr~?~,ae seconda~ access is included in the CiWs adopted three year
P ogram.
I will be present at your November 2 meeting to discuss this matter. If these standards meet with
your approval, staff will develop language suitable for the City's subdivision regulations,
jccoglp~2ndaccs.mmo
City of iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
December 9, 1992
City Council & City Manager
Jeff Davidson, Assistant Director of Planning & Community Development
Re-Evaluation of Secondary Access Policy
In response to the Planning and Zoning Commission's list of pending issues, staff recently
prepared a set of proposed standards for when a secondary means of access should be
required for a development. You are probably aware that this issue has routinely been an item
of controversy. There are existing developments in iowa City which may not expand beyond
their current size until secondary access can be provided. In most instances this is not
possible because of physical features or unwilling adjacent property owners.
Staff prepared five standards relating to when secondary access should be required. The
standards relate to when the amount of traffic on a street becomes excessive, the presence
of physical features which would constrain emergency vehicle access, pedestrian-vehicleS-
conflicts, special populations, and permitting a single means of access as a temporary
measure. These standards would form a set of criteria incorporated into the City's subdivision
regulations for determining when secondary access should be required. The standards were
designed to give flexibility in evaluating each development proposal on its own merits.
P&Z discussed the proposal and basically agreed with the concepts presented. However, they
stopped short of taking action to include the standards in the subdivision regulations, which
would have brought them to Council's attention. Instead, staff has been directed to use the
standards as guidelines in the preparation of staff reports for P&Z and the City Council.
Therefore, the staff will not bring an ordinance amending the subdivision regulations to the
Council, unless the Council directs us to do so.
Let me know if you have any questions regarding this matter.
CC:
Director of Planning & Community Development
Director of Public Works
City Attorney
Planning & Zoning Commission
Aui'omatic
Traffic Recorder
Monthly Report
DECEMBER 1994
DECEMBER 1995
DECEMBER 1992
l/w/ __ Z I. 15' ~
.OWO
o1:
Deportmen+
TF a n 8 p o r-i- a-I- i on
OFFICE
UNITED STATES
PREPARED 8¥
OF TRANSPORTATION DATA
IN COOPERATION ?tlIlt
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL tfiGtlWA'f ADMINISIRAIION
IEI. EPIt0NE
515/239-1289
COMPARISON OF THE AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC FOR EACH MONTH OF 1994 AND 1993
AND ANNUAL DAILY AVERAGE
NORTHWESTERN AVE N OF 2~TH ST AMES 1993 ,-%2'167 2437
905~85 % +4.43 -2.7~
OITY
%
MUNICIPAL STREETS
(CONTINUED)
dULY. . AUG, SEPT. OCT. NOV, DEC. ANNUAL
232~ '2251 '2599 .2896 2674 2648 'o.~528
2525 2443 259~ 2711 258~ 27~4 '~677 ~=~J
13761 14763 14627 1~6_~.6 / 134~9 12262
· 14336 13946 12739
NORTHWESTERN AVE N OF 2~TH ~T' AMES
906-52
IA 5 3,8 tar S OF US 34 ~O;~AVIA 1991 2~26 2362 2548 2791 3392 3546 3540 3424 3172 ~87! 248{3 2533 2890
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANS,
SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT
AND ESTIMATED COST FOR
THE ROHRET ROAD
RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, PHASE 2
IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
TO ALL TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA, AND TO OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS:
Public notice is hereby given that the City Council of
the City of Iowa City, iowa, will conduct a public hearing
on plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated
cost for the construction of the Rohret Road Recon-
struction Project, Phase 2, in said City at 7:30 p.m. on
the 28th day of February, 1995, said meeting to be held
in the Council Chambers in the Civic Center in said City.
Said plans, specifications, form of contract and estimat-
ed cost are now on file in the office of the City Clerk in
the Civic Center in iowa City, Iowa, and may be inspect-
ed by any interested persons.
Any interested persons may appear at said meeting of
the City Council for the purpose of making objections to
and comments concerning said plans, specifications,
contract or the cost of making said improvement.
This notice is given by order of the City Council of the
City of Iowa City, Iowa and as provided by law.
MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
il
PH-1
MICROFILMED
BY
C
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES
RETAKE
O - 84
It
i
!
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANS,
SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT
AND ESTIMATED COST FOR
THE ROHRET ROAD
RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, PHASE 2
IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
TO ALL TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA, AND TO OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS:
Public notice is hereby given that the City Council of
the City ol Iowa City, Iowa, will conduct a public hearing
on plans, specifications, form of contract and estimated
cost for the construction of the Rohret Road Recon-
struction Project, Phase 2, in said City at 7:30 p.m. on
the 28th day of Febmaw, 1995, said meeting to be held
in the Council Chambers in the Civic Center in said City.
Said plans, specifications, form of contract and estimat-
ed cost are now on file in the office of the City Clerk in
the Civic Center in Iowa City, Iowa, and may be inspect-
ed by any interested persons.
Any interested persons may appear at said meeting of
the City Council for the purpose of making objections to
and commenls concerning said plans, specifications,
contract or the cost of making said improvement.
This notice is given by order of the City Council of the
City of Iowa City, Iowa and as provided by law.
MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
PH-1
( 77
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BUDGET ESTIMATE
Fiscal Year July 1, 1995 - June 30, 1996
City of Iowa City, Iowa
The City Council will conduct a public hearing on the proposed 1995-1996 Budget at the Civic Center in the Council
Chambers on February 28, 1995, at 7:30 p.m. The Budget Estimate Summary of proposed receipts and
expenditures is shown below. Copies of the detailed proposed 1995-1996 Budget may be obtained or viewed at
the Civic Center Administrative and City Clerk offices and at the Iowa City Public Library.
The estimated total. tax levy rate per 81000 valuation on regular property is .................. $12.998
The estimated tax levy rate per 81000 valuation on agricultural land is .................... ~ 3.00375
At the public hearing, any resident or taxpayer may present objections to, or arguments in favor of, any part of the
proposed budget.
REVENUES & OTHER FINANCING SOURCES
Taxes Levied on Properties
Less: Uncollected Property Taxes. Levy Year
-Net Current Property Taxes
Delinquent Property Taxes
TIE Revenues
Other City Taxes
Licenses & Permits
Use of Money & Property
Intergovernmental
Charges for Services
Special Assessments
Miscellaneous
Other Financing Sources
TOTAL REVENUES & OTHER SOURCES
EXPENDITURES & OTHER FINANCING USES
Community Protection {police, fire, street lighting, etc.)
Human Development {health, library, recreation, etc.)
Home & Community Environment (garbage, streets, utilities, etc.)
Pericy & Administration (mayor, council, clerk, legal, etc.)
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
Less:
Debt Service
Capital Projects
Net Operating Expenditures
Transfers Out
TOTAL EXPENDITURES/TRANSFERS OUT
Excess of Revenue & Other Sources Ove~ {Under)
Expenditures/Transfers Out
BEGINNING FUND BALANCE JULY 1
ENDING FUND BALANCE JUNE 30
BUOGET RE.ESTIMATED ACTUAL
FY 1995.96 FY 1994.95 FY 1993.94
1 1%264,133 18,483,636 17,149,814
2
3 19,264,133 18,483,636 17,149,814
4
5
6 440,000 440,000 427,228
? 612,855 609,005 565,387
8 1,501,214 1,467,700 2,351,765
9 13,634,575 18,264,184 11,752,011
10 24,204,351 21,302,354 21,116,281
11 54,485
12 1,464,326 2,386,716 2,837,842
13 109,390,081 48,156,609 31,267,067
14 170,511,535 111,110,204 87,521,880
15 9,934,419 9,963,493 8,958,977
18 6,569,653 7,60%171 6,953,324
17 124,940,369 66,062,311 33,821,559
18 5,607,773 4,830,118 4,794,186
19 147,052,214 88,465,093 54,528,046
20 9,427,250 8,825,716 7,710,936
21 92,014,458 34,296,499 -0-
22 45,610,506 45,342,878 46,817,110
23 22,641,307 42,796,067 23,951,646
24 169,693,521 131,261,160 78,479,692
25
818,014 (20,150,956) 9,042,188
26 27,863,674 48,014,631 38,972,4~Z
27{ 28,681,688 27,863,675 48,014,631
26 ?eb.t995
:.embers oi' the
Arts festivals,jazz festlva±s,and Friday
n]ght music on the plaza are all very nice,
but there's a limit to the nice things we can
afford.
A!'ter -the exorbitant increases in the water
and sewer rates; not many of us are in the mood
to pay for other people's parties.
rr 'these or~an]zations can't exist on their
own,they shoula be allowed to fade away,not
become another dependent of the taxpayer.
SincereLy, /
1~12 Crosby Lane
iowa City
The Longfellow Neighborhood Association
"for trow aref for t~ future"
February 24, 1995
City Council
410 East Washington
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear Members of City Council,
At the February meeting of the Longfellow Neighborhood Association, the Exe~.ut~ve
Committee and those present voted unanimously to request that the city initiate the
purchase of property adjoining east and west sides of Ralston Creek and along the OR
and P RR track at the ADS site.
Preliminary results of a current survey of neighborhood residents indicates that a
majority of respondents' first priority for neighborhood improvement is the development
of a Ralston Creek trail at the ABS site. These results reconfirm the data collected
from the earlier survey and are also expressed in the draft version of our neighborhood
5 year plan.
The IC open space committee study indicates a park land deficit of 2.9 acres in our
area. The ADS site is the only land available to remedy this deficit. During the past
2 1/2 years we have consistently worked to obtain a usable green beltway at this site.
In all discussions with city staff and owner, the neighbors agree that land located on
the west side of the creek is most desirable because it is visible and accessible to
residents.
We have worked too long to give up now. We need open space. ADS is the only
space left in the neighborhood. We know that there are funds available. Thank you for
your prompt consideration. If you have questions, please contact Jill Smith (337-3480)
or Pam Ehrhardt (351-8531).
Sincerely,
The Longfellow Neighborhood Association Executive Committee
CC:
City Manager
Neighborhood Services Coordinator
City Clerk
Planning and Community Development
Parks and Recreation Commission and Department
CONVENTION
VISITORS BUREAU
Mayor and City Council
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Riverview 5quare 408 First Avenue Coralville, Iowa 5224 I-2,106 319-337-6592 ~
February 24,1995
Dear Coundl;
At their Board Meeting Tuesday, CVB Directors discussed the City's wish to obligate $10,000 of the
CVB's hotel tax allotment to fund the Iowa Arts Festival and the Iowa City Jazz Festival.
While the CVB Board whole-heartedly believes these two events add significantly to the quality of
life in Iowa City and Coralville, they are opposed to the city mandating whom and how much the CVB
funds...especially considering that the bureau already had a funding program designed to serve not two,
but up to 10 organizations.
For this reason, the bureau elects to receive 25% of the hotel tax less the $10,000, and in effect, take a
cut in the funding formula from the Iowa City City Council.
The CVB Board of Directors is made up of industry professionals, elected officials, and business
community representatives and has given a lot of thought and consideration to programs that provide
funding for spedal events and conference-hosting organizations. Over the past 10 years, the CVB has
granted $49,977 to these organizations averaging $592 per grant.
For the coming year, the bureau had developed an even better funding program that would have
provided promotional funds to the same multitude of organizations. Because of the city's obligation of
$10,000 of what was part of the CVB funding, that program will not be a possibility for FY '96.
We ask two things with this change in funding:
1) That the City Council begin now to consider a 5-year plan for bureau support to facilitate long-
range planning for the bureau, the festivals and the city's commitments to each, and
That the $10,{300 be deducted in four $2,500 allotments, one from each of the four revenue checks
we would be receiving for Fiscal Year '96.
Finally, the Board feels that it is imperative that the City Council have a clear understanding of the
mission and goals of the bureau for the CVB to best promote the Iowa City area. Because we are a
marketing organization, and the hotel tax tax dollars used to fund the bureau are the very dollars we
helped draw into this community, we feel strongly that the most effective use of those dollars is a
reinvestment in continued marketing.
Sincerely,
Executive Director
800-28 ~-6592
319-337~995 $ (FAX)
I?
i&
/?
°~C l TY COUNCIL
CITY OF IOWA CITY
IOWA CITY, IOWA
SUNDAY, FEB 26~ 1995
RE: BUDGET HEARINGo..TUESDAY FEB 28, 1995
MAYOR AND COUNCIL PERSONS:
WHILE THE CITY SPENDS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON ROHERT ROAD...
MILES FROM THE CENTER OF TOWN...THERE EXISTS AN ACCIDENT
WAITING TO HAPPEN TWELVE BLOCKS FROM THE CENTER OF TOWN THAT
NEEDS ATTENTION.
THAT IS THE FOSTER ROAD, BJAYSVILLE LANE ROAD AND "OLD" NORTH
DUBUQUE STREET INTERSECTIONS. THIS COUNCIL SHOULD TRY TO
DRIVE FROM OLD NO DUBUQUE STREET TO BJASVILLE LANE~
IN THE NEAR FUTURE TWO 24 INCH WATER MAINS WILL CROSS THE
PRESENT NORTH DUBUQUE FOUR LANE ROAD AND ANGLE OVER TO
BJAYSVILLE LANE. MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE CITY LEADS ME TO
BELIEVE THAT THESE NEW PIPE LINES WILL HAVE TO BE RELOCATED
WHEN THIS INTERSECTION BECOMES A TRUE FOUR WAY INTERSECTION
WITH SIGNAL LIGHTS.
THIS BUDGET SHOULD CONTAIN AN AMOUNT TO DESIGN AND IMPLEMENT
A SAFE FOUR WAY INTERSECTION AT FOSTER ROAD AND NORTH DUBUQUE
STREET ...... WITH TRAFFIC LIGHTS AND UTILITY PRE-PLANING!
HOPEFULLLY .....
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52245
0
Petition in Suppor of Additional Senior Center Staff
We, the undersigned, are participants and volunteers at the Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center who
benefit and prosper due to the wide variety and excellent quality of the programs and activities that are offered
here. We recognize that it takes committed and dedicated staff to make this possible.
To those of us who are involved at the Center, belonging and being active here gives a focus to our lives,
allowing us to use our skills and talents to learn and grow, to socialize, to safeguard our health and to use
our considerable energies to contribute to our own well-being, that of other seniors, and to the community.
We urge you to provide funding for one full4ime Communications Specialist and one pad-time Video
Production Specialist which the Senior Center Commission has requested to allow greater growth and
outreach of the programming to serve an ever expanding population of seniors.
Name
Address
Telephone
7/f 3
Petition in Support of Additional Senior Center Staff
We, the undersigned, are padicipants and volunteers at the Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center who
benefit and prosper due to the wide variety and excellent quality of the programs and activities that are offered
here. We recognize that it takes committed and dedicated staff to make this possible.
To those of us who are involved at the Center, belonging and being active here gives a focus to our lives,
allowing us to use our skills and talents to learn and grow, to socialize, to safeguard our health and to use
our considerable energies to contribute to our own well-being, that of other seniors, and to the community.
We urge you to provide funding for one full-time Communications Specialist and one part-time Video
Production Specialist which the Senior Center Commission has requested to allow greater growth and
outreach of the programming to serve an ever expanding population of seniors.
Address
Telephone
Petition in Support of Additional Senior Center Staff
We, the undersigned, are participants and volunteers at the Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center who
benefit and prosper due to the wide vadety and excellent quality of the programs and activities that are offered
here. We recognize that it takes committed and dedicated staff to make this possible.
To those of us who are involved at the Center, belonging and being active here gives a focus to our lives,
allowing us to use our skills and talents to learn and grow, to socialize, to safeguard our health and to use
our considerable energies to contribute to our own well-being, that of other seniors, and to the community.
We urge you to provide funding for one fullqime Communications Specialist and one part-time Video
Production Specialist which the Senior Center Commission has requested to allow greater growth and
outreach of the programming to serve an ever expanding population of seniors.
Name Address
· '~' "~ ,~ .. Telephone
.' 'X' ,/t ~C" 4~¢' "'" ~~ ' '
'- . -- " ' .x :- 7/0
Petition in Support of Additional Senior Center Staff
We, the undersigned, are participants and volunteers at the Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center who
benefit and prosper due to the wide variety and excellent quality of the programs and activities that are offered
here. We recognize that it takes committed and dedicated staff to make this possible.
To those of us who are involved at the Center, belonging and being active here gives a focus to our lives,
allowing us to use our skills and talents to learn and grow, to socialize, to safeguard our health and to use
our considerable energies to contribute to our own well-being, that of other seniors, and to the community.
We urge you to provide funding for one full4ime Communications Specialist and one pad-time Video
Production Specialist which the Senior Center Commission has requested to allow greater growth and
outreach of the programming to serve an ever expanding population of seniors.
Name Address Telephone
February 12, 1995
IOWA/ILLINOIS eddlot] Dubuqee. Iowa
A Iri-stnle snnpshol: $1.50 ' 5 seclions, 50 pages
The Iowa Cily-
Johnso~ Counly
Senior Citizen Cenler
is in the city's telmet
post office building.
A Debttqoo group
wanis to ose the
collier as a model Ior
Maynard Welk, 78, teacIs happily as his partner s
Iowa City's center
for seniors the envy
of Dubuque group
By Domlelle Eller
~ovo,,,,,o,,~ h~, ~ "~.?.L['U'..°~dt'd .*..,~ ~.,?t..
iI
· ~ ........... u f,uu, [Id~ ue a; me senior citizen ceatef. {Ill photos by Mark Hirsch)
Center of their
tffoldenYears
The Iowa City-
Johnson Coonty
Senior Cillzen Cenle~
is in tile city's tommr
pos! office building.
A Dubuque group
wanIs tu use Ihe
irl [ }ll[)tl¢llle
1
/,
Maynard Welk, 7§, teaels happily as his padher sinks a tough shot during pool game at tim semor cdlzen center. fill pitotos by Mark Hirsch)
Iowa City's center
for seniors the envy
of Dubuque group
By Donnelie Eller
]l rldit'lle ¢~z hil!h sell(ml Ihll, ills [
"lt WaS unlmliovnble." said Bette
Mei~el, direeLm nf ihe Iowa {:it)'-
8oeior centor/rum to pa.qe 6A
Lucille Howe. 85, enjoys lunch with her roonlmale Franklin Fallwell. 81, in lite cafoleria
at Iho senior cilizel'~ Center.
Senior cen~er
Continued from Page 1A
Fro' exampit.. l.)ubttqup's elderly could
d~oir Limo in fro~ of '1'% some take eve~
titudes '~
takers· Some peo'ple believe, I~ [can
A exa ~der Kern 85. relaxes while soaking his feet at tile Visit-
inc,.j Nurse Association feel clinic in Ihe basement of the iowa
City-Johnson County Senior Citizen Center,
"l~et'irement is ~ p/~tc'e ~:o
begin again.
years to do what you,
damn well please."
-- Bette Meisel, directo¢ of the
Iowa City-Johnson County Senior Citizen Center
\,
FiC*I'V h, ¢~,-hostlng n sh.w. *'Mature Focus.'* · *
Wh.. a~',s,'l s:,vs th' c&~tpr offers eve/'ythin~. sho's not ~ ~ ~ '
I I.qr.n Moo. IUI. who v,,lunteers in the Eidercraft shop, '~Z2'[~: ~*~ ~<~ N.~ Willa Jones
~ ' ~ Shannon.
Advice to elderly: Exercise your po~itica~ muscles
Jim Owens, 67, takes aim while playing pool in the basement of
the senior citizen center.
Advice
8y Donn~lle ElIer
The eRiefly have Lhr, polllira! muscle
dJr<'ch'~r of Lhe Iowa Cit.'~'-Johrlson Court-
to elderly: Exercise your political
City and county governments provld-
ed $1.8 million in morley from taxes to
pay for the Iowa City ccnter. housed in a
former LI.S. Post Office bulldinE
The city and county also share the
cosL of annual operations. :
"Taxpayers demand the best here, and
they get it," said Melsel.
A Dubuque task force lrmking at cre-
ating a center in Dubuque plans to seek
donations from private individuals,
support for programs," said attorney O.
Tom Reilly, who leads tile 23-member
task force. "We don't want services dic-
tated hy some other agency {,r govern-
ment We don't want the tail wagging
the dog."
Depending on the site. ti~e task force
anticipates needing $250,000 to reha-
bilitate a building for a conten
The group, which grew out of an
American Association of Retired Per-
sons committee, is looking at space in
the former Imperial Bowling Lane. he-
hind Kennedy Mall.
}low much it ,,vill cost to operate the
fncility every year is not known, Reilly
said. The group hopes to rent space to at
Ieast [we agencies providing services to
the elderly: Project Concern and Elder-
bridge Agency on Aging.
'rh(: Dubuklue Community I)eve]op-
group get $50,000 in federal community
building for use.
The agency on aging also has a
$50.000 grant fm
which could be
"First of all,
Reilly said.
Meisel says
shouldn't z'ule ot
She says tryi~
without tax su
do willrout the center Jim Owens, 67, takes aim while playing pool in the basement of
the senior citizen center.
to elderly: Exercise your politica m
2 Meisel.
rLe¢l yot!
usc es
eel $1,8 million in money from taxes
former U.S Post Office building
they get it." said MeisC[.
support for programs," said attorney O
Tom Reilly, v,,ho leads the 23-member
task force "Wedon't want se~icesdic-
rated hy sorne other agency or govern-
meat We don't want the tail wagging
the dog."
[bopending on tlm site, the task force
anticipates needing $250JI00 [o reha-
bilitate a building for a center.
The group. which grew out of an
American Association of Retired Per-
sons committee, is looking at space in
the former Imperial Bowling l.ane, be-
hind Kennedy Mall.
}low much it wiI] cost to operate the
facility every year is not known. Reilly
said. The group hopes to rent space to at
least two agencies providing services to
the elderly: Project Concern and Elder-
bridge Agency on Agin~
Thq Dubuhue Community Develop-
meat Commission has recommended the
group get $50,000 in federal community
building /or use.
$50,00(1 grant for a congregate meal site,
which could be crvated at the proposed
"First of all. wc need to get a place,
l{eilly sn~d
shouldn't rul'e out asking local ~ovcrn-
NOTICE OF MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, ON THE
MATTER OF THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF
$8,260,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
(FOR AN ESSENTIAL CORPORATE PURPOSE),
OF SAID CITY, AND THE HEARING ON
ISSUANCE THEREOF.
PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that the
Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will hold
a public hearing on the 28th day of February,
1995, at 7:30 o'clock p.m., in the Council
Chambers, Civic Center, 410 E. Washington
Street, Iowa City, Iowa, at which meeting the
Council proposes to take additional action for
the issuance of $8,260,000 General Obligation
Bonds for an essential corporate purpose of
said Ciw, in order to provide funds to pay costs
of the construction, reconstruction and
repairing of street improvements; the
construction, reconstruction, extension,
improvement and equipping of a sewage
treatment plant and sanitary and storm sewers;
the reconstruction and improvement of
waterways, and real and personal property,
useful for the protection or reclamation of
property situated within the corporate limits
from floods or high waters and the
reconstruction, improvement and repair of the
waterworks.
At the above meeting the Council shall
receive oral or written objections from any
resident or property owner of said City, to the
above action. After all objections have been
received and considered, the Council will at this
meeting or at any adjournment thereof, take
additional action for the issuance of said bonds
or will abandon the proposal to issue said
bonds.
This Notice is given by order of the Council
of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, as provided by
Section 384.25 of the City Code of Iowa.
Dated at Iowa City, Iowa, this l?th day
of February ,1995.
MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
February 28 , 1995
The City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, met in requjar
session, in the Council Chambers, Civic Center, 410 E. Washington
Street, Iowa City, Iowa, at 7:30 o'clock P.M., on the above
date. There were present Mayor Pro tem N0vick , in the
chair, and the followin9 named Council Members:
Baker, Kubby, Novick, Pigott, Thro§morton
kbsent: Lehman, Horowitz
-1-
4,H LE 8/~, CO0{'{EY, DOBV~FEiLER, H AY~'{Ii3, ${,{F{'H & ALLI{EE, ~
The Mayor announced that this was the time and place for the
public hearing and meeting on the matter of the issuance of
$8,260,000 General Obligation Bonds in order to provide funds to
pay costs of the construction, reconstruction and repairing of
street improvements; the construction, reconstruction, extension,
improvement and equipping of a sewage treatment plant and sanitary
and storm sewers; the reconstruction and improvement of waterways,
and real and personal property, useful for the protection or
reclamation of property situated within the corporate limits from
floods or high waters and the reconstruction, improvement and
repair of the waterworks, an essential corporate purpose, and that
notice of the proposed action by the Council to institute
proceedings for the issuance of said bonds, had been published
pursuant to the provisions of Section 384.25 of the City Code of
Iowa.
The Mayor then asked the Clerk whether any written objections
had been filed by any city resident or property owner to the
issuance of said bonds. The Clerk advised the Mayor and the
Council that no written objections had been filed. The Mayor
then called for oral objections to the issuance of said bonds and
no were made. Whereupon, the Mayor declared the time for
receiving oral and written objections to be closed.
(Attach here a summary of objections
received or made, if any)
-2-
AHE~P,S. CO0~'I~Z DOI~FI~IIZi~ IIAYS'I~ $Mi"fl{ & ALUSE£, PC.
NOTICE OF MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, ON THE
MATI'ER OF THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF
NOT TO EXCEED t~240,000 PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
(FOR A GENERAL CORPORATE PURPOSE),
AND HEARING ON ISSUANCE OF SAID BONDS
PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that the
Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will hold
a public hearing on the 28th day of February,
1995, at 7:30 o'clock p.m., in the Council
Chambers, Civic Center, 410 E. Washington
Street, Iowa City, Iowa, at which meeting the
Council proposes to take action for the
issuance of not to exceed $240,000 of General
Obligation Bonds, hearing interest at the rate of
not tn exceed 9% per centurn per annum, said
bonds to be issued for the purpose of providing
funds to pay costs of the construction and
equipping of soccer recreation fields.
This Notice is given by order of the Council
of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, as provided by
Section 384.26 of the City Code of Iowa.
At any time before the date of said meeting,
a petition, asking that the question of issuing
such bonds be submitted to the legal voters of
said City, may be filed with the Clerk of said
City in the ma~.ner provided by Section 362.4
of the City Code of Iowa, pursuant to the
provisions of Section 384.26 of the City Code
of Iowa.
Dated at Iowa City, Iowa, this ].?~;h day
ofFebrua~'y ,1995.
MARIAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK