Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-05-09 CorrespondenceMARY C. NEUIIAUSER STATE SENATOR Twenty-Th ird Johnson County HOME ADDRESS Iowa City. Iowa 5~.zIO April 20, 1995 Iowa City City Council 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 CO.'d MITTE ES Appropriations Education Ethics, Vgcc Chair Human Renu?cos Judiciary Ways & ,Means Oversight. A~ ,v Government A~b~Watio~u bcon~,~ tree, Dear Council Members: Thank you for writing to me about tha Oeath Penalty. I do not support the Death Renalty, and I voted against it. I am afraid that an innocent life may be taken. The criminal justice is not infallible and mistakes ar~ made. Nevertheless, if execution could be shown to be a significant deter- rent, it might be justified. It cannot be shown. Iowa had the low- est murder rate in the United States, unlike states which have many executions a~d high rates of m,Jcder. In Iowa we already have a death penalty for murderers. It is life imprisonment without possiblility of parole. In addition prisoners can be required to work to 2ay restitution to the family nf ~he victim. I think we have more serious crime problems which are n)t being adequately addressed while we concentrate our attention on the Death Penalty. Our courts are being swamped by an enormous in- creese in Dumastic Abuse complaints, and the result of abuse in anti-social behavior of children. I very much appreciate you taking the time to write me such a thoughtful letter. Sincerely, M~ry Neuhauser, State Senator NN:jh April 23, 1995 City Council: t understand that S.E.A.T.S. services is to be renewed by bidding for the contract. As it is now, it is excellent. I do not need this service as yet although I am a senior citizen. ! have seen the care and concern the drivers of the vans show for the elderly riders, and I hope the new contract will be let with concern that this service maintain its high standard. Sincerely, Betty J. Stevens 1480 Grand Avenue Iowa City, IA 52246 , f Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association 629 Melrose Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa 52246 April 26, 1995 Iowa City City Council Civic Center 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear City Council Members: Enclosed please find the statement that the Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association has prepared indicating our position on the recently released Mekose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction Envkonmental Assessment (EA) We are sending this statement to you, the University Heights City Council and the University of Iowa to inform you of our position on the project. It was determined at the April 19 hearing on the EA that University Heights must consent to the bridge reconstruction before federal funds will be released for the project In addition, it is clear from the EA itself that more than one alternative will be required to truly solve the Melrose Avenue problem. We believe that a negotiated solution involving all the interested parties is achievable and, indeed, represents the only real hope of finding a design for growth that will serve the community well for the long term. We urge you to contact the University Heights City Council for the purpose of initiating the necessary negotiations. Furthermore, before a decision is made on the Mekose reconstruction project, we encourage you to solicit community input on this important issue by holding a formal public hearing. Our Association remains ready to work with you and the rest of our community in finding an acceptable solution to this long-standing problem. Very truly yours, S,~ering Group, Mekose Avenue Neighborhood Association ¢'.0 : :E ,-- c~Univ~r~ity Heights City Council, Press Citizen ~ ' >- _' Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association 629 Melrose Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa 52246 April 26, 1995 University Heights City Council c/o Donald Swanson 138 Koser Avenue Iowa City, IA 52246 Dear City Council Members: Enclosed please find the statement that the Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association has prepared indicating our position on the recently released Mekose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstl'ucfion Envkonmental Assessment (EA) We are sending this statement to you, the Iowa City Council and the University of Iowa to inform you of our position on the project. It was determined at the April 19 hearing on the EA that University Heights must consent to the bridge reconstruction before federal funds will be released for the project. In addition, it is clear from the EA itself that more than one alternative will be required to truly solve the Melrose Avenue problem. We believe that a negotiat~,.d solution involving all the interested parties is achievable and, indeed, represents the only real hope of finding a design for growth that will serve the community well for the long term. We urge you to contact the Iowa City Council for the purpose of initiating the necessary negotiations, Our Association remains ready to work with you and the rest of our community in finding an acceptable solution to this long-standing problem. Very truly yours, Steering Group, Mekose Avenue Neighborhood Association low&City Council, Press Citizen ~','lelrose Avenue Neighborhood Association 629 Melrose Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa 52246 Hunter R. Rawlings III President The University of Iowa 101 Jessup Hail Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear President Rawlings: April 26, 1995 (0 As you know, the City of Iowa City was required by the Iowa Department of Transpotation and the Federal Highway Adminisu'ation to perform a study of the impacts resulting from the reconstruction of the Melrose Avenue bridge and the one-hair mile of Melrose Avenue between the bridge and Byington Road. Attached please find the statement that the Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association has prepared indicating our position on the recenfiy released "Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction Environmental Assessment" (EA). We are sending this statement to you, the Iowa City Council and the University Heights City Council to inform you of our position on the project. It was determined at the April 19 hearing on the EA that University Heights must consent to the bridge reconstruction before federal funds will be released for the project. In addition, it is clear from the EA itself that more than one aircreative will be requked to truly solve the Melrose Avenue problem. We believe that a negotiated solution involving all tile interested parties is achievable and, indeed, represents the only real hope of finding a design for growth that will serve the community well for the long term. To our knowledge, the most recent articulation of the University's position on the Mekose project is contained in Mr. Douglas K. True's letter of February 26, 1993 to the Mayor and City Council of Iowa City. It is our hope that after reading our group's statement, the University will see the need to modify its position and will agree to participate in the necessary negotiations. Oar Association remains ready to work with you and the rest of our community in finding an acceptable solution to this long-standing problem. Very truly yours, Steering Group, Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association co. UIHC, University Heights City Council, the Board of Regents, Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association 629 Melrose Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa 52246 Mr. Howard Preston BRW, Inc. c/o Jeff Davidson Assistant Director Depar~nent of Planning & Community Development 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 April26,1995 Dear Mr. Preston: As representatives of the Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association, we are writing in response to the solicitation for comments in connection with the recently released Me[rose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction Environmental Assessment (EA). ~_t is evident that your f'u-m has devoted much time to gathering and analyzing the information needed to help the pardes involved make an intelligent decision on the Melrose Avenue project. Some of our questions have been answered by the document. However, a review of the EA by members of the Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association has raised a number of questions and concems. In the attached statement, we first summarize what we consider to be our overriding concerns with the EA. We then continue with a more detailed discussion of these concerns. Finally, we outline our Asseciation's postion on the Melrose project. We hope that ultimately our statement will help in the efforts to reach the best solution for the Mekose reconstruction project. Very Ixuly yours, ./c L.t ~ C-~'~'/'-/- · Steering Group, Mekose Avenue Neighborhood Association cc. Iowa City City Council; University of Iowa; IJIH(2; University Heights City Council; Board of Regents, U.S. Rep. Jim Leach; Daniel M. Mathes; Roger Anderberg; Mr. Wailace Taylor, Esq.; Steven E. Ballard, Esq.; Dr. Lowell J. Soike; Iowa City and University Heights neighborhood associations; Iowa City Press Citizen: ~ 10wan: CR Gazette.~l).9..a Moines Re~ster: Iowa ~ ]~ ~7ommuni _ty l~0t~erment ~ulletin: KCRG; KGAN; First Mennonite Church; St. Andrew Chumh; ICAN; Environmental Advocates; Friends of Historic Preservation; Historic Preservation Commission, Members of Focus Group, Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association 629 Melrose Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa 52246 STATEMENT OF CONCERNS, QUESTIONS AND OUR POSITION RE THE MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS P{~ge. I. SUMMARY OF CONCERNS ........................................................................2 II. DISCUSSION OF POINTS RAISED 1N THE SUMMARY A. Study area, i.e,, "Project Corridor", is too restrictive ...................................2 B. Congestion at key intersections remains problematic ....................................4 C. Dimensions of the bridge and street alternatives are excessive .........................5 D. Pedestrian and bicycle safety is not a priority ............................................5 E. Consideration of access points is largely ignored ........................................6 F. By-pass of Melrose to the north not adequately explored ..............................6 Ill. MELROSE BRIDGE AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION: OUR POSITION A. Neighborhoods are worth preserving ......................................................7 B. No single alternative solves the problem ...................................................7 C. Wider alternatives exacerbate the problem ................................................7 D. We support a true Mane bridge .............................................................7 E. We support a lrue 3-lane road ...............................................................7 F. We support the EA on walkways for pedestrians and lanes for bicyclists .............8 IV. FOR THE LONG TERM: SHARED PROBLEM, SHARED SOLUTION .........................8 APPENDIX: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ERRATA ..........................................9 Page 1 of 10 NEIGHBORHOOD'$ CONCERNS ABOUT MELROSE EA (CONT.) I. SUMMARY OF NEIGHBORHOOD'S CONCERNS ABOUT THE MELROSE AVENUE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) A careful analysis of the environmental assessment by members of the Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association has raised a number of concerns about the study, the most significant of which include: Study area, i.e., "Project Corridor", is too restrictive. The consultants rarely look beyond Melrose Avenue in considering the environmental impacts of the 7 alternatives. The adjoining neighborhoods off the 6 small cul-de-sacs, the 2 side through-streets (especially Melrose Court and its feeder streets), and University Heights have not been adequately studied. · Congestion atkey iit;ersections remains problematic. According to the EA itself, three of the five major intersections in the corridor will show no improvement in congestion levels regardless of the alternative selected. All five are expected to operate at the lowest levels of service by the year 2015. What we have now and will continue to have is a half-mile stretch of road with a bottleneck at each end and one in the middle. · Dimensions of the bridge and street alternatives are excessive. The bridge alternatives suggested by the consultants are so wide that the proposed 2- and Mane bridge options can both accommodate 4 lanes of traffic. A similar situation exists with respect to the street alternatives. The proposed 5-lane Melrose extending from South Grand Avenue to Byington Road seems particularly unnecessary. · Pedestrian and bicycle safety is not a priority. The one-half mile stretch of Melrose Avenue under investigation is a high-density area not only for vehicles but also for pedestri~s and bicyclists. Crossing the street is given little consideration, both in terms of how difficult it will be and where it will be done. · Consideration ofaccesspoints is largely ignored. The EA fails to discuss how difficult and dangerous it will be for vehicular traffic to exit from the more than 30 driveway and side street access points along the project corridor. · By-pass of Melrose to the north is not adequately explored. Alternative 7 is given short shrift in the EA for several reasons, one of which is the fact that, taken by itself, it offers less direct improvement to the Melrose congestion than any of the other options. However, when paired with another alternative, we believe that alternative 7 can play a significant role in a long-range solution for transporting vehicular traffic destined for the Hospital and University. DISCUSSION OF POINTS RAISED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S SUMMARY* A. E'm!~ area, ~ 'Tro. ie,.ct 17orridor". iX taa restricn've. We believe this to be the largest conceptual flaw in the EA. Although there is no stated definition of the study area in the document, the sections dealing with Weftands/Flood Plains (2.88), Wildlife and Endangered Species (2.90), Cultural Resources (,p. 90), and Traffic Operations Analysis (2. 105) suggest that it consists of the half-mile segment of Mekose Avenue from the bridge to Byington Road. What is the definition of the "Melrose Avenue Study Area"? Is this the same as the "project corridor"? * Points to be specifically addressed by BRW, Inc., are in boldface type. Page 2 of 10 NEIGHBORHOOD'S CONCERNS ABOUT MELROSE EA (CONT.) What is the definition of the phrase "integrity of the surrounding area" as used in Section 5.2.3? Doesn't using this expression, which suggests consideration of the neighborhood taken as a whole, contradict the fact that only the impacts along Melrose Avenue per se were considered? This narrow scope of investigation fails to take into account the nature of the neighborhood. Of the 163 addresses included in the City's Melrose Avenue neighborhood mailing list, only 30 are located directly on Melrose Avenue. The remainder, which comprises more than 80% of the neighborhood's residents, live on one of the 2 side through-streets (Melrose Court and Grand Avenue Court), the feeder streets off Melrose Court (Brookland Place and Brookland Park Drive), or the 6 small neighborhood cul-de-sacs (Lucon Drive, Melrose Circle, Melrose Place, Triangle Place, Oak Park Court and Olive Street). We believe that a study which fails to take into account potential impacts to more than 80% of the households within the neighborhood is, by definition, incomplete. How was the decision on the scope of the EA made? Why was it drawn so narrowly, when a widening of the street and bridge will have enormous impacts on both the Melrose Avenue and University Heights neighborhoods? The failure both to assess the impacts from the proposed alternatives on Melrose Court and to include the Melrose Court intersection in the intersection capacity analysis is pa~l/cularly troubling. Of those households not located directly on Melrose Avenue, almost three-foarths use Melrose Court as their sole access to Melrose Avenue. As was pointed out at the public hearing on April 19, despite its unassuming appearance, Melrose Court plays a significant role in the transportation system on the west side of Iowa City. It is the only through-street to the south between Riverside Drive and Koser Avenue. Drivers can use Melrose Court to get to Benton Street via Greenwood Drive. where are located numerous large apartment complexes as well as Roosevelt Elementary School. In addition, they can reach Riverside Drive without encountering the Riverside/Grand Avenue congestion by means of an illegal turn at Myrtle Avenue (which is done with impunity). MeLrose Court continues to experience problems with cut-through traffic speeding down this nan:ow 18.5 ft street Why were impacts on Melrose Court and on the Melrose Court intersection omitted from the EA? How much spill.over traffic onto Melrose Court can he anticipated as a result of the various alternatives, particularly the wider ones which the EA suggests can be expected to attract more traffic to the Melrose Avenue area (p. 84)? How will this increase in traffic onto Melrose Court affect the heavy volume of pedestrians which, in addition to University students, also includes school children walking to/from Roosevelt Elementary School and/or one of the 5 day care centers along Melrose Avenue? What is the current LOS of the Melrose Court intersection, and what will be the projected LOS under the various alternatives? Another significant area in which the choice of corridor seems altogether too restrictive is the area of cultural resources. We wish to make two points in connection with the cultural resource investigation conducted in the neighborhood. First, the only properties surveyed for historical sign/ficance were those along Melrose Avenue, three of which are already on the National Register of Historic Places. It is likely that there are other histodcaily significant houses in our neighborhood as well as that of University Heights. Three possible candidates located perhaps 100 yards off Melrose Avenue include numbers 4, 5, and 6 Mekose Circle (see Appendix). In addition, we believe Grand Avenue Court warrants consideration by virtue of its unique relationship to the University campus as well as to downtown. Why was the cultural resource investigation confined to just those properties directly on Melrose Avenue? The second point to be made with respect to the cultural resource investigation is that, in focusing on specific properties, the EA misses the larger issue: the impact on a neighborhood that has significant historic character as a whole. In support of this point, the Iowa City Historic Page 3 of 10 NEIGHBORHOOD'S CONCERNS ABOUT MELROSE EA (CONT.) Preservation Commission's Hi~tori9 Preservation Pllm identifies the Mekose Avenue neighborhood as a "conservation district". Our neighborhood, running north and south from Melrose Avenue to Greenwood Drive/Myrtle Avenue and east and west from Riverside Drive to University Heights, has a unique history and character, combining some of the old rural flavor of the area (as evidenced by a number of original farm houses and wooded areas) with stable, family residences and pedestrian access to the City and University. We believe that it may be a nearly perfect example of the "Town and 6own Era" (1890-1940), an era of historic significance, containing a varied mix of ~leeted Victorian homes, "Craftsman" style houses, cottages and bungalows. In doing the cultural survey, what is the justification for singling out one street from a neighborhood that has historic significance as a whole? l~ow could the investigation fail to consider the entire Melrose area as well as the University Heights neighborhood? Most critically, ours is a fragile neighborhood, bounded on the north by the University and on the south by high-density apartments, largely inhabited by students. The widening of Melrose Avenue and the substantial increases in traffic it would inevitably bring would adversely affect the attractiveness of the neighborhood. Further deterioration of the housing along Melrose Avenue and the streets feeding Melrose through sale, subdivision and a decline in owner occupancy could directly affect residences throughout this small area. These developments could increase ~ransience and undermine the current stability leading to rapid deterioration in the quality of life and the character of the neighborhood. Why was the issue of possible land-use changes not addressed? What is the likely economic disadvantage resulting from the significant downward pressure on property values in a neighborhood bordered by a fast road with growing traffic flow, not only along Melrose Avenue itself but on all the side streets and cul.de-sacs that open onto Melrose? We feel it is crucial that the EA consider the environmental impact on the neighborhood as a whole, not just on the "Melrose Avenue con'idor." We believe that such a narrow focus, as is currently evident throughout the EA, leads to a gross underestimation of the environmental impacts of the proposed widening, especially from those alternatives that will lead to increased traffic volume. Finally, why does the EA fail to address the impacts to University Heights in any meaningful way? It is difficult to understand how an investigation of the impacts to the Melrose Avenue corridor could exclude an entire municipality, particularly one in which Melrose Avenue plays such an integral part. It is even more difficult to understand how the process of preparing the EA could have moved forward before it was determinod that University Heights would have to sign off on the bridge proposal in order for federal funds to be released. Do the consultants acknowledge that the City of University Heights will be required to sign off on the bridge proposal before federal funds will be released? If so, why did this fact not play a larger role in shaping the proposed alternatives? Congestion Itt t~ it~tersections rema#~s l~robleman'c A review of the intersection capacity analysis (pp. 111 and 115) indicates that of the 5 studied intersections, only two (at Hawkins Drive and Byington) are expected to show improved levels of service (LOS) and then only under the wider alternatives. By the year 2015, however, each of the 5 intersections will be operating at a LOS of D, E or F regardless of the alternative selected. Since these constraints will likely remain a problem, to what extent is it reasonable to improve the road segment in between? What is the rationale for considering the roadway segment capacity without taking into account the intersection capacity? Is there a point to having the road segment operate at an LOS of C when the intervening intersections are operating at an LOS of I) or F? It is stated that "economic development/redevelopment fo[ the region could occur as a result of Page 4 of 10 '. NEIGHBORHOOD'S CONCERNS ABOUT MELROSE EA (CONT.) improved travel time in the corridor" (Section 5.2.4, p. 51). Is it reasonable to expect much improvement in travel time given the projected LOS for 3 of the 5 intersections included in the EA? C. Dimensions of the bridgl: and street alternatives (ire excessive Simply stated, the dimensions of alternatives 2 through 6 seem excessive. Why are the bridge and street proposals wider than their descriptions would suggest? The new 2-lane bridge, at 45.3 feet, is wide enough to support 4 lanes (at 10.8 ft.) of Ixaffic. The 3- lane bridge is exactly the same width (54.5 fee0 as the 4-lane bridge, and each could support 5 traffic lanes. A similar situation exists with respect to the road proposals. The new 2-lane road is 38.7 feet (or 3 lanes) wide. The 3- and 4-lane roads are both 47.9 feet (or 4 lanes) wide. Since wider streets and bridges cost more to build and maintain, how much could be saved by constructing a true, i.e., narrower 3-lane bridge and road? Because they entail unnecessary disruption of the neighborhood and premise the possibility of even greater disruption in the future, these wide altematives suggest more disadvantages than advantages. We consider the failure to offer an analysis of a narrower 3-lane option an unacceptable deficiency of the EA. Why wasn't an analysis of a narrower 3-lane option considered in the EA? What is the narrowest width of each of the proposed bridge and street alternatives that would qualify for federal funding? Since all of the alternatives suggested by the consultant are in some way at variance with the federal/IDOT guidelines, could a variance be sought for a bridge/road with narrower dimensions? Why is it necessary to widen Melrose Avenue between South Grand Avenue and Byington? It seems ill-advised to add another lane to an intersection that already oversees the merging of 2-lane Byington Road with Grand Avenue (current LOS is E). Given the insignificant level of eastbound traffic on this road segment, was any consideration given to changing the present westbound lane to an eastbound lane, thereby converting this portion of the road to one-way eastbound? This road segment includes 2 National Register residences, one on each side of the street. The residence on the north side of Mekose Avenue stands to lose up to 15 of front yard, including 2 old trees. Will these facts be considered when a recommendation is made for this portion of the project? D. Pedestrian flfld bicycle ~ i~ ~ a I2rforitv There are really three issues here. First, pedestrian safety is discussed in the EA generally in terms of wide sidewalks or other walkways on each side of the road (pp. 22, 49 and 61). There is only one reference (p. 50) to the difficulties one might encounter crossing the street. However, because the private homes, apartments, day care centers, etc., lie south of Melrose while the Hospital, athletic facilities and westbound city and CAMBUS stops are to the north, the nature of foot traffic is to cross the street in a north/south direction. Will crossing the street become more difficult and/or more dangerous as the width of the road is increased? With respect to bus stops, was the possibility of constructing bus bays considered? Would it be possible to construct bus bays while maintaining the south curb by shifting the center of the street slightly to the north within the existing right-of~way? A related second issue concems crosswalks. It is difficult now to cross Melrose Avenue at certain times of the day. How will the degree of difficulty in crossing the street be affected by the various alternatives? We believe much of the traffic crosses Mekose Avenue at the Melrose Court intersection, a suggestion that seems to be supported by the pedesaian count survey (Table 1, p. 20) included in the EA. The intersection at South Page 5 of 10 NEIGHBORHOOD'S CONCERNS ABOUT MELROSE EA (CONT.) Grand/Melrose Avenue (which included mid-block crossings west of the intersection) accounted for the second highest pedestrian count between 4 PM-6 PM of the 5 intersections that were studied; of the number counted at the South Grand intersection, more than half were heading south and east, i.e., in the direction of Melrose Court. Why are there no provisions for crosswalks in the EA? Hawkins Drive and South Grand Avenue are the locations likely to include crosswalks, but as noted above, because of Melrose Court's connection with the neighborhoods, apartments and elementary school to the south as well as its proximity to the bus stops and University facilities, that su~et must be carefully considered as well. Where will crosswalks be located? Will zebras and/or a pedestrian crosswalk light like that on Clinton Street he considered? Finally, the EA refers to the Comprehensive Plan's requirement for wide sidewalks to accomodate bicyclists. In the case of the 4. and 5-lane alternatives, is it intended that bicyclists share the sidewalks with pedestrians? How were the widths of the bicycles lanes for the street and bridge alternatives determined? Is there a standard width for bicycle lanes? E. Consideran'on ~ access points is !a_rgely ignored One of the stated project goals of the EA is "to improve the ability...to use Melrose Avenue with a higher degree of safety"...[including] "movements from intersecting streets" (p10). The EA points out that one of the characteristics of the south side of Melrose Avenue is "the large number of access points for the many narrow residential streets which connect to Melrose Avenue and the numerous residential driveways (p. 60)," The EA also discusses how accessibility into the neighborhoods will be improved under certain alternatives (pp. 49 and 51). The problem, however, is not so much turning into these access points from Melrose Avenue but is vather one of turning back out onto Melrose Avenue from a driveway or cul-de-sac. Will re. entering Melrose Avenue from one of the many access Eoi.nts be made more d~fflcult and/or more dangerous as the width of the road ~s increased? F. ~ af~g.l.~ to the north not adequately q~lored There are 2 points to be made here. First, how was the route selected for Alternative ~ (Figure 13 a/b)? This is not the location that our Association had discussed prior to the initiating of the EA process. Numerous individuals and groups, ours included, had suggested a route which runs north of Melrose Avenue immediately to the west of the University Athletic Club, along what is currently a service road to the Fmkbine commuter lot. This route has several advantages: 1) it is located entirely on University property; 2) it avoids the need. to traverse the wooded section in University Heights; and 3) it may avoid some of the grade problems associated with the Alternative as it is currently situated. Second, Altemadve 7 is considered in the EA only as a stand-alone option and, as such, is quickly dismissed. When paired with another alternative and considered for some time in the future, would a combination of actions in which some variation of Alternative 7 were included offer a sensible solution for accommodating our west side transportation needs beyond the target year of 20157 llI, MELROSE BRIDGE AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION: OUR POSITION The position of the Melrose Avenue Neighbethoed Association on the bridge and street reeons~etion project is as follows: Page 6 of 10 NEIGI-IBORHOOD'S CONCERNS ABOUT MELROSE EA (CONT.) A. Neighborhoods are worth preserving. Our neighborhood, like all the others in Iowa City, is worth preserving. Neighborhoods provide a community with its distinctive character and vitality. We believe that the selection of the wider bridge and street alternatives (Alternatives 3-6) for the Melrose reconsla-uction project will have undesirable, irremediable effects on Iowa City in general and on our neighborhood in particular. Older neighborhoods like ours are especially vulnerable. Once gone, such neighborhoods cannot be replaced; a piece of our historical legacy as a community is forever lost. This concern is one that we share with other older Iowa City neighborhoods. B. _N_.q sin Ig~ alternative solve~ the problem, Dam included in the EA cotfram our belief that the problem of traffic congestion on Melrose between University Heights and the Iowa River will not be solved by any one proposal. Regardless of the alternative selected, three of the five major intersections in the project corridor show no improvement in current traffic congestion, and by the year 2015, all 5 are expected to be operating at the lowest levels of service. As as result of the continuing problems at the Koser and Riverside intersections, even a significant widening of the road will result in litfie more than a "superhighway connecting 2 bottlenecks". C. Wider alternatives exacerbate the p.~ The EA also conf'u'ms the existence of the "If you build it, they will come" phenomenon:..some of the project alternatives will attract more traffic than other alternatives" (p. 84). D. We support a true ):lane bridge, We support a true 3-lane bridge, i.e., a narrower version of the one included in alternatives 2 and 3 that could not be restriped as a 4-lane bridge at some point in the future. If obtaining federal funding for the slightly narrower "new 2-lane bridge" proposed by the consultants will necessitate requesting a variance from the FI-PNA and IDOT, one should be requested. E...~ sut~port a true 3-lane ro~, As with the bridge, we support a true 3-lane street like those m alternatives 3 and 4 (consisting of 2 through lanes and a center left-turn lane), but, again, one that is narrower than the version proposed by the consultants and that could not be striped for 4 lanes. Of the 3-lane concept, the EA states: · "The 3 lane alternative provides optimal balance between traffic carrying capacity of roadways, pedestrians and bicycle facilities, scale of roadway to adjoining uses, and visual amenities in the corridor "(p.72). * "Left-tarn lanes have been proven to reduce accidents by as much as 60%" (p. 118). · "The 4-lane undivided urban arterial (no left turn) has the highest accident rate of any urban roadway" (p. 125). Urban roadways have been converted to 3-lane design with increasing frequency because of theh' excellent safety records" (p. 118). We favor investigating the possibility of consmacring bus bays along Melrose by shifting the center of the street slightly to the north within the existing right-of-way. Such a street realignment could enhance clear zones and buffer areas on both sides of Melrose. What the neighborhood wants is an improved, functional "city street" that does not threaten the character of the neighborhood and that maximizes the safety of vehicles and pedes~ans. We believe that an actual three lane street is the best alternative. It is less cosfly than a four- lane road striped for three; it will require less land and less clear-cutting of the adjacent landscape; as a road that would be only slightly wider than the current two lane road; it preserves the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood; it may allow space for bus bays to insure the free flow of traffic and the safe discharge of passengers; it means a narrower, less dangerous road for pedestrians to cross; it allows for ample bicycle lanes; and it offers an e~cient roadway that does not promise to become at some future time a disruptive thoroughfare. We believe that a true 3-lane bridge/3-1ane road, especially when paired with a new roadway (alternative #7) that provides direct access to University Hospital and its Page 7 of 10 NEIGHBORHOOD'S CONCERNS ABOLIT MELROSE EA (CONT.) parking facilities, will create an efficient roadway that preserves and even enhances the historic and fragile Melrose neighborhood. F. We support the EA on walkways for oedestrians and lanes for bicyclists. We enthusiastically support the provision in the EA for adequate north and south side walkways for pedestrians and lanes for bicyclists. However, the issue of getting safely across Melrose Avenue needs addition~fi attention. IV. FOR THE LONG TERM: SHARED PROBLEM, SHARED SOLUTION The Mekose Avenue situation has no simple solution. In addition to all the issues raised in the EA, there are 2 other factors to be considered. First, it was finally confmned at the April 19 hearing on the EA that University Heights must consent to the bridge reconsu'uction before federal funds will be released for the project. Second, it is clear from the EA that no one alternative taken by itseft will solve the problem--not now, and certainly not for the long term. More than one action will be required to successfully address this issue. We believe that it should be the University which undertakes this second action, and we believe that this action should consist of the consu'uction of a new road to carry vehicular traffic into the hospital complex by some means other than Melrose Avenue. In other words, this action should be some variation of Altemative 7. Why should the University participate in the search for solutions to the Melrose Avenue fro~,lem? The answer, quite simply, is because it has cenuibuted significantly to the problem, in a number of ways. UI and UIHC are major generators of traffic along Melrose Avenue, and the growth of UIHC accounts for a significant portion of the projected increases in traffic congestion in the area. The steps taken by the University towards the creation of a "pedesu'ian campus" have resulted in vehicles being displaced onto city streets at the periphery of the campus--streets like Melrose Avenue. It was the University that closed Newton Road to 2-way waffic some years ago, thereby eliminating one alternative to Mekose Avenue on the west side of town. Finally, it would be naive to think that the University has finished work on the west side campus. The EA states (p. 54) that the University has plans to relocate Finkbine Golf Course to another location when space needs warrant. In addition, the 1992 Sports ~n~t Recreation Facilities Long Range Master Pl0n includes plans for a convention center and hotel to be constructed off Mekose Avenue west of Mormon Trek Road across from West High School. It is unclear whether traffic resulting from this cons~ction has been included in the EA's projected future traffic growth on Melrose Avenue; if it has not, those numbers have probably been seriously understated. Could the U~versity implement Altemative 77 We believe the answer is yes, although not immediately. This altemative is largely dismissed in the EA for several reasons: 1) it requires a large acquisition of property from the University; 2) it doesn't address the bridge problem; 3) the land in question in categorized as 4(f) property, i.e,, undeveloped property that may not be improved unless it can be shown that there is no alternative to doing so; and 4) its construction would disturb Finkbine Goff Cotu~ and the athletic fields. However, a closer look at each of these objections indicates that none poses a real obstacle. 1) The University al~ady owns the property in question, so no right-of-way will be needed. 2) and 3) As soon as City Council selects an alternative from the EA, the bridge problem is taken care of by another means, and the 4 (f) categow question is resolved, since at that point there really will be no alternative for bringing traffic into the hospital. 4) As was mentioned above, the Alternative 7 which we have suggested (as opposed to that proposed in the EA) runs along an already existing service roM and would compromise neither the Finkbine Golf Course nor the athletic fields. However, since we are suggesting that Alternative 7 be implemented in conjunction with the relocation of the golf Page 8 of 10 NEIGH~ORHOOD'S CONCERNS ABOUT MELROSE EA (CONT.) course, the new road could be located virtually anywhere within the current golf course site. The sports facilities plan mentioned previously actually includes the design for just such a road running from Mormon Trek east to the Finkbine Commuter Lot. Unfortunately for the City of Iowa City, the University, as a state institution, is not subject to local review of its campus planning, even when such planning has direct impacts on the larger community. Therefore, the final question to be asked is: would the University implement Alternative 7? Marvin Pomerantz, past president of the Board of Regents, stated in 1990 that the Regents and "the University adminislxation [recognize] that our teaching hospital has a major business dimension". If it were in its business interests to do so, the University would, we believe, consider implementing some version of Alternative 7. Individuals representing the University and UlttC have indicated in the past that it i.~ in their business interests to have a transportation system that provides for the safe and efficient movement of patients, students, employees, visitors to their various facilities. We therefore believe that UI and UIItC are likely to be sufficiently motivated to employ their considerable resources in the search for an answer to the Melrose Avenue question. And we believe City Council should allow them to do so. In order to come to a decision on what to do about Melrose Avenue, it will be necessary for the City to make a serious effort to enlist the cooperation of those parties who are, by virtue of circumstance, involved in this process. At the same time, it is incumbent upon all the parties--the Iowa City and University Heights City Councils and the University-to participate fully in this process which hopefully will lead to an acceptable decision for all. We believe that a negotiated solution is achievable and, indeed represents the only real hope of finding a design for growth that will serve the community well for the long term. APPENDIX: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ERRATA The following points are presented separately because many of them are more technical rather than conceptual in nature. We consider it important to include them nonetheless. 5.2.1 Community facilities. Fanest Horn School should not be considered a part of the Melrose Avenue neighborhood. Roosevelt High School is actually an elementary school less than one-half mile south of Melrose Avenue. The child care facility located at 309 Melrose Avenue is the Brookland Woods Child Care Center. The cultural centers at 303 and 308 Mekose Avenue (Afro-American and Chicano/American Cultural Centers) are University properties and should be designated as part of an unbroken sweep of campus which includes the four facilities identified as "community facilities". The buildings at 511 and 707 Melrose Avenue are not churches but are instead properties owned by churches; although they are indeed buildings open to a certain public, they do not generate traffic in the same way as a church would. The 2 churches that are in the study area am St~ Andrew Presbyterian Church at 1300 Melrose Avenue in University Heights and First Mennonite Church at 405 Myrtle Avenue. 5.2.2 Neighborhood/Community Character. What is the definition of the term "neighborhood character" used in the EA? How is this term different from "community character"? Failt~e to address these points is significant, since at the focus meeting the consultants had a specific mandate to study those features of neighborhood which are not quanthSable, but objectively real nonetheless. This is evident in small details as well as in Page 9 of 10 NEIGHBORHOOD'S CONCERNS ABOUT MELROSE EA (CONT.) large aspects of the discussion. For instance, the neighborhood is characterized, among other things, by badly maintained sidewalks and border strips. It would not have been difficuit to discover that the City has ruled that sidewalks need not be replaced until after Melrose Avenue has been rebuilt. Nor would it have been hard to determine that the state of the border strips is the direct result of construction tracks backing out over them over a long period of time, a factor outside the control of householders. A conscientious description must take small but telling features of this kind into account. 5.2.7 Urban Design/Visual Resources. On p. 55, the EA describes the south side of Melrose Avenue, from University Heights to Byington Road, as being relatively uniform visually, from end to end. On p. 56 and 57, the claim is made that the residential area varies gready in character along the length of the Avenue. The contradiction needs clarification. Suggested mitigation measures on p. 61 include "the acquisition and conversion to other uses of the most severely impacted properties...." How can such an action be considered a possible mitigation measure? This is part of the problem. Conversion of residential properties to other uses has happened throughout the neighborhood, particularly at the eastern end, adding to the destabilizing pressures on the area. 5.3.1 Air Quality. The "particulates" generated by increased traffic were not modeled nor are current levels measured. Should this be done? The consultants did no actual monitoring of CO levels along Melrose but instead based their conclusions on modeling. Is this adequate? 5.3.2 Noise. "The smallest change most people can notice for a time varying noise source such as traffic is 3 dBA" (p. 86), which, at a level of 70 dB, is equivalent to a doubling of noise (p. 80). How can a ~ of noise reprosent the smallest noticeable change in noise levels? In Table 6 (p. 84), Site 2 has the biggest variance in the monitored noise level (65 dBA) and the modeled noise level (59.8 dBA). Is this expected? Might it be due to the presence of the stone surfaced UIHC building across the street from Site 2 reflecting sound? Is it possible that the projected increase in noise from the project (% maximum of 2 dBA") will be greater than expected due to the close proximity to the street of the large building surfaces of the new hospital building and parking ramp? 5.3.8 Wildlife. The problem of considering the environmental impact only on the "Mekose Avenue corridor" is evident in this section. A very rich wildlife habitat, just behind (to the south o0 the corridor would likely be affected. That area, especially between Melrose Court and the law school, has a rich variety of animals (deer, raccoon, owls, etc.). Why was this not considered? 5.3.9 Cultural Resources. We believe that there are other properties within the neighborhood that deserve consideration as being historically significant. Three such houses include those located at 4, 5 and 6 Melrose Circle. Number 5 Melrose Circle, currently the residence of Dr, and IVa's. Edward Mason, was built in 1924 by a Cedar Rapids architect, Mark Anthony (Anthony's only other house in Iowa City is located in the historic Woodlawn District). Number 6 Melrose Circle, owned by Larry Peterson, was built in 1927 and was included among the finalists in a Better Homes & Gardens contest many years ago. There are likely other historically significant houses in our ne. ighborh.ood and in the University Heights neighborhood. These structures need to be considered m the EA. 5.4 Transportation. The percentages used in Figure 32 (p. 108) appear to be incorrect. These should be corrected. Why do Alternatives 2 and.7 have such narrow lanes and narrow sidewalks (p. 124, paragraphs 3 and 4). The 2-lane alternative should have fewer limitations on lane and sidewalk width and more space for bicycle lane. s. Page 10 of 10 CURT & NANCY SKAY 825 ST. ANNES DRIVE IOWA CITY, IOWA 52245 (319) 338-3701 MAY 1ST, 1995 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS %CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 E. WASHINGTON IOWA CITY. IOWA 52240 DEAR COUNCIL MEMBER: I AM WRITING IN YOU IN REGARD TO THE YEGGY PROPERTY LOCATED ON ST. ANNES DRIVE. WE MOVED INTO OUR HOME 7 YEARS AGO. ACROSS THE STREET WHERE THE YEGGY PROPERT Y IS LOCATED WAS A VACANT LOT. WITHIN A YEAR AFTER WE MOVED IN, THIS VACANT LOT BECAME A LOT FULL OF JUNK. THE NEIGHBORS, INCLUDING OURSELVES BEGAN COMPLAINING ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON ACROSS THE STREET. THE CITY BEGAN TAKING ACTION, CITING THE YEGGY'S AND BEGINNING A COURT CASE AGAINST THE YEGGY'S IN REGARD TO THIS PROPERTY. AFTER YEARS OF WORK IN THE COURT, THE CITY HAD A SUPREME COURT ORDER FOR THE YEGGY'S TO CLEAN UP THE LOT. THE CITY TOOK 2 1/2 DAYS TO CLEAN OUT THE LOT WHICH THE EXPENSE WAS ATTACHED TO THE YEGGY'8 PROPERTY TAX. ABOUT SIX MONTHS AFTER THIS, THE YEGGY'S BEGAN AGAIN TO LOAD THE PROPERTY WITH JUNK. AFTER COMPLAINTS FROM NEIGHBORS AND OURSELVES, THE CITY CITED THE YEGGY'8 AND BROUGH COURT ACTION AGAINST THE YEGGY'S FOR BEING IN CONTEMPT OF COURT. FINALLY IN DECEMBER OF 1994, THE COURT DECIDED THAT THE YEGGY'S WERE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND GAVE THE YEGGY'S UNTIL FEBRUARY 28TH, 1995 TO CLEAN UP THE LOT. THIS WAS NEVER DONE BY THE YEGGY'S. IN MARCH 1995 1 CONTACTED LINDA, THE CITY ATTORNEY TO FIND OUT WHAT ACTION THE CITY WAS GOING TO TAKE. THE COURT CAN NOW EITHER FINE THE YEGGY'S OR PUTTHEM IN JAIL SINCE THEY WERE FOUND IN CONTEMPT OF COURT. I WAS 'I'OLD BY LINDA THAT THE CITY INTENDS ON NOT TAKING ANY ACTION BECAUSE THE CITY WAS BEING HARRASED BY THE YEGGY'8 AND IT JUST WASN'T GOOD PUBLIC RELATIONS! IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS, I HAVE COMPLAINED NUMEROUS TIMES TO THE CITY. I HAVE EVEN GONE TO COURT WITH THE CITY TO FIGHT THIS CASE SEVERAL TIMES. i AM TOTALLY UPSET THAT THE CITY DOE8 NOT HAVE ANY PLAN8 TO ENFORCE A SUPREME COURT ORDER. THE YEGGY'8 HAVE TAKEN AWAY MY RIGHT FOR PEACEFUL ENJOYMENT IN MY OWN HOME. ON EASTER MORNING I WOKE UP TO JUNK BEING CLATTERED AROUND. IT 18 A CONSTANT EMBARRASSMENT TO LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM A JUNK YARD, ~,~EN WE PURCHASED THE HOME IT WAS JUST A VACANT LOT WITH A OLDER HOME SITtING NEXT TO IT. MY PROPERTY VALUE HAS NOT INCREASED LIKE IT SHOULD HAVE. HOUSES JUST AROUND THE CORNER FROM MY MINE ARE SELLING FOR $40,000- $50,000 MORE THAN MINE AND ARE SMALLER HOUSES, THEN WHAT MY HOUSE IS BEING APPRAISED AND ASSESSED AT. SEVERAL TIMES WE HAVE CONSIDERED SELLING AND JUST GETrING OUT OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT WE JUST CAN'T CONSIDERING HOW MUCH WE WOULD LOOSE SINCE OUR HOUSE SHOULD BE WORTH 80 MUCH MORE IF WE WEREN'T LIVING ACROSS THE STREET FROM A JUNK YARD VERSUS A VACANT LOT. I AM ASKING THE CITY COUNCIL TO PLEASE PUT THIS ISSUE ON YOUR AGENDA FOR YOUR NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING. I AM ASKING YOU TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE YEGGY'8 SINCE YOU HAVE THEM RIGHT WHERE YOU WANT THEM, IN CONTEMPT OF COURT AND LET THE YEGGY'S KNOW THAT THEY CAN'T DISOBEY THE LAW! WHEN THEY DISOBEY THE LAW, THEY ARE HURTING OTHERS. WHEN THE CiTY DOES NOT TAKE ACTION, I BELIEVE THEY ARE EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE THEY ARE CAUSING TO THE NEIGHTBOR8. I AN1 ASKING THAT YOU CONTACT ME WHEN YOU PLAN TO DISCUSS THIS AT THE OPEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING SO THAT I AND THE NEIGHBORS CAN PLAN TO ATTEND TO LET YOU KNOW HOW WE FEEL. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR GIVING THIS YOUR CONSIDERATION! SINCERELY NANCY'S WORK NUMBER - 338-3701 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: April 27, 1995 To: The Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council and City Clerk From: James Brachtel, Traffic Engineer Be: Parking Prohibition on the West Side of the 500 Block of South Linn Street As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3 of the City Code, this is to advise you of the following action: ACTION: Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A10 of the City Code, the City Traffic Engineer will direct the installation of NO PARKING CORNER TO HERE on the west side of the south end of 500 South Linn Street so as to create a no parking any time zone from the intersection of South Linn Street with Prentiss Street north to a point 40 feet north of the intersection. This action will take place on or shortly after May 12, 1995. COMMENT: This action is being taken at the request of the Iowa City Streets Department so as fo provide and ensure a location for staging necessary equipment to clear debris from the upstream side of the Ralston Creek culvert under Prentiss Street during times of emergency and high water. The removal of the on-street parking supply in the area will be minimal. Iq. oo City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: April 27, 1995 To: The Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council and City Clerk From: James Brachtel, Traffic Engineer Be: Parking Prohibition on the East Side of Lakeside Drive As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3 of the City Code, this is to advise you of the following action: ACTION: Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A10 of the City Code, the City Traffic Engineer will direct the installation of NO PARKING 8 A.M. TO 5 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY on the east side of Lakeside Drive from a point 100 feet south of the intersection with the frontage road to a point 500 feet south of the frontage road. This action will take place upon the completion of additional sidewalk along the east side of Lakeside Drive. COMMENT: This action is intended to provide an area of parking for individuals driving to the Whispering Meadow Wetlands Park. It is the intent of the prohibition to provide for evening and weekend parking but to prohibit parking during the normal work day. I¥ol May 9, 1995 CITY OF I0 WA CITY Charlie Duffy, Chair Johnson County Board of Supervisors 913 S. Dubuque Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Charlie and Members of the Board: An application has been submitted to Johnson County by Celeste Holloway and Tom Bockenstedt to rezone 1.99 acres of a 10.6 acre tract from A1, Rural to RS, Suburban Residential. The property is located in Fringe Area 4 in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Rapid Creek Road and Lynden Heights Road. At its April 20, 1995, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended, by a vote of 6-0, that the City Council forward a comment to the County Board of Supervisors finding that the request to rezone the 1.99 acre parcel from A1 to RS is consistent with the mutually agreed upon Fringe Area Policy for Area 4, and should be approved. Council agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and therefore respectfully forwards a comment to the board that the requested rezoning of the 1.99 acre parcel from A1 to RS is consistent with the mutually agreed upon Fringe Area Policy for Area 4, and should be approved. Sincerely, Susan M. Horowitz Mayor 410 EAST WASHI~OTON STREET e IOWA CITY. IOWA 32240.112§ · (319) 3S6-~000 · FAX (319) 3:~6-$009 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: April 13, 1995 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Charles Denney, Associate Planner Re: CZ9513; Rapid Creek Road and Lynden Heights Road Backqround The applicant, Tom Bockenstedt, is requesting rezoning of 1.99 acres of a 10.6 acre parcel from County A1, Rural, to RS, Suburban Residential, for property located in Fringe Area 4 in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Rapid Creek Road and Lynden Heights Road. Analysis The subject property is located in Fringe Area 4 and should be reviewed for conformance with the policies for Area 4 included in the current Fringe Area Agreement. For Area 4, the Fringe Area Agreement calls for a limited amount of residential development on properties east of Highway 1. The agreement also includes four standards to be followed for residential development. The development will not require construction or reconstruction of a public road by the City or the County. The proposed development will not have a negative impact on surrounding properties. Conflicts between residential development and existing farm uses should be minimized. The development should allow for the protection of natural areas such as steep slopes, wetlands and forested areas. The subject property is located east of Highway 1. The requested rezoning from A1 to RS will allow the construction of one single-family house in an area of existing residential uses. The applicant has indicated that he plans to construct a new home on the lot proposed for rezoning and that once the home is completed the existing home located on the larger parcel will be demolished. Rezoning the property to RS and construction of a single-family dwelling would be in compliance with the policies for Fringe Area 4, and meets the four standards enumerated for residential development within Fringe Area 4. An access easement between the rezoned residential parcel and Lynden Heights Road should be shown on the plat. 2 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council forward a comment to the County Board of Supervisors finding that the request to rezone 1.99 acres of this 10,6 acre parcel is consistent with the mutually agreed upon Fringe Area Policy for Area 4 and should be approved. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map. 2, Application. b~cz9513 ~('~~ (~, ' ~¢~,¢ ~/ , Approved by: 'l ~,~-~ I(ari~t Franklin, Director Del~artment of Planning and Community Development CZ ~S0;5 LO~' ~ HOLLO~AY SUgD, 1 ~ 0 °E~ - ~ '31 fit - I I o HERBERT HOOVEr ~ - ~ ~ .340t~ ST JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA APPLICATION TO REZONE DATE u~-~-~..9 NUMBER: ? (- ~' ' 75/,.¢ TO BE FILED WllH 'I'HE OFFICE OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. 10: JOtlNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS JOHNSON COUNTY ZONING COMMISSION TIlE UNDERSIGNED IS THE O.~CONTRACT PURCHASER, CONTRACT OWNER, OPTION PURCHASER) OF ]tie FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY LOCATED iN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF Iq~opot~J' TOWNSHIP, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA AND REQUESTS THAT YOUR COMMISSION CONSIDER THE RECLASSiFICATION OF SAID PROPERTY FROM A,[ DISTRICT TO g$ DISTRICT LOCA1ED AT (LAYMAN'S DESCRIPTION): 'Sg ~t.q4~c~'~ ~.~.T~[ c.~'¢~. P-.d ~ AREA 1'0 BE REZONED IS COMPOSED OF '1.'~'~ ACRES OF A /~.~' ACRE TRACT AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: {PLEASE A'ri'ACH LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND SITE PLAN OF AREA TO BE REZONED). · ./ PROPOSED USE: 0~1~ V'e~n~. r~.l~l~e~¢~Z ~o~,~, NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF OWNERS OF RECORD: Tile APPLICATION SHALL CONTAIN: A MAP OF LARGE ENOUGtt SIZE TO SltOW THE PROPERTY FOR REZONING OUT-LINED IN RED, Tile PROPERTY WlTIIIN 500 FEET OF TIlE PROPERTY FOR RE-ZONING OUTLINED IN BLUE A DIAGRAM DRAWN TO SCALE (NO SMALLER THAN ONE INCH EQUALS ONE HUNDRED FEET) SIlOWING THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED OR EXISTING ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY. A LIST OF NAME AND ADDRESSES OF THOSE PERSONS OWNING PROPERTY WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE PROPERTY OF TIE OWNER OF RECORD, TWO CHECKS MADE PAYABLE TO THE JOHNSON COUNTY TREASURER: ONE IN THE AMOUNT OF TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) FOR A REZON]NG SIGN, THE OTHER IN AN AMOUNT WHICH VARIES DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF TttE APPLICATION." g' t '_" A SIGNED RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE STABILITY OF THE CURRENT ROAD SYSTEM, A COVER LEHER EXPLAINING THE PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT IS TO OBTAIN AND POST THE REZONING SIGN ON _l~e~]~- ~i,~CRIBED PROPERTY ' FILED CONTRACT OWNE~URCHASER, OPTION PURCHASER ~ENT TELEPHONE: 3~- o~ 535 Southgale Avenue Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Phone (319) 354.1984 Thomas Anthony, RLS Ralph Stoffer, PE, RLS March 6, 1995 Johnson County Zoning Commission Johnson County Board of Supervisors Johnson County Administration Building 913 S. Dubuque St. Iowa City, IA 52240 Re: Bockenstedt Zoning Parcel Dear Commissioners and Supervisors: On behalf of Torn Bockenstedt we are submitting this rezoning request for your review and subsequent approval. The parent tract is Lot 1 of Holloway Subdivision, which lies in the SE quadrant of Rapid Creek Road and Lynden Heigl~ts Road. Lot 1 contains 10.6 acres with an existing residence, barn, well, septic system, and storage building. Tom wishes to build a new home in the vicinity of lhe east shed. The existing house will be removed upon occupancy of the new home. The existing well will continue to be used. A new septic system will be installed. The existing entrance will be retained. When the existing house is removed, the north wall of the garage will be reconstructed so the garage can continue to be used. Please give this application favorable consideration. Thank you. Sincerely, TA:pm cc: Tom Bockenstedt LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tom Bockenstedt - Zoning Parcel A portion of Lot 1, Holloway Subdivision, Johnson County, Iowa, described as follows: Beginning at a point 260 feet south and 70 feet west of the NE corner of said Lot 1; thence South - 248 feet; thence West - 350 feet; thence North - 248 feet; thence East - 350 feet to the Point of Beginning. Said Zoning Parcel contains 1.99 acres. ¢I ILED MAR - 9 1995 LOT 2 LOOZ~TfON MAp M~ -9 t~ ZONING $ITE PLAN May 9, 1995 CITY OF I0 WA CITY Charlie Duffy, Chair Johnson County Board of Supervisors 913 S. Dubuque Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Charlie and Members of the Board: An application has been submitted to Johnson County by Celeste Holloway and Tom Bockenstedt to rezone 1.99 acres of a 10.6 acre tract' from A1, Rural to RS, Suburban Residential. The property is located in Fringe Area 4 in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Rapid Creek Road and Lynden Heights Road. At its April 20, 1995, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended, by a vote of 6-O, that the City Council forward a comment to the County Board of Supervisors finding that the request to fezone the 1.99 acre parcel from A1 to RS is consistent with the mutually agreed upon Fringe Area Policy for Area 4, and should be approved. Council agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and therefore respectfully forwards a comment to the board that the requested rezoning of the 1.99 acre parcel from A1 to RS is consistent with the mutually agreed upon Fringe Area Policy for Area 4, and should be approved. Sincerely, Susan M. Horowitz Mayor 410 EAST WASI~INOTON STREET · IOWA CITY. IOWA $2240-1816 · (319) ~$6-$000 · FAX (.119) J$6-~009