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