Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-09-12 Info PacketCity of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: September 1, 1995 Hemo for Record City Manager Material Sent to Council Only Agenda for the September 5, 1995, meeting of the City Councils of Iowa City and University Heights. Memorandum from Mayor Horowitz regarding Local Government Environmental~O Resource Council (LGERC) Copy of letter from Mayor Horowitz to the persons who attended the ~?~/ meeting regarding the Iowa City landfill. Memoranda from the City Manager: a. Sturgis Ferry Park b. Housing Policy Discussion c. Vacation ~7~ d. Pending Developmen~ Issues Material a, b. from the City Attorney: Memorandum regarding partial litigation update Copy of letter to the County Attorney regarding questions concerning rules for exit polls Copy of memorandum to Council Member Kubby regarding copy of article on CityVote 95-96 Material from the City Clerk: a. Memorandum regarding attendance chart ~7~ b. Copy of letter to sidewalk cafe proprietors ~77~ c. ~emorandum regarding the Iowa League of Cities meeting ~77~ Summary of the first meeting of the Iowa City Airport Master Plan ~ Resource Group. Agenda and minutes of the Council on Disability Rights and Education. J7~J Note from the Grant Wood PTO expressing appreciation for the East Side.J~ Loop bus. Agenda for the August 31, 1995, meeting of the Johnson County Board J?7q of Supervisors. Memo from City Clerk regarding Council Agenda & Information Packets ~]7~ given to City Council Candidates. Copy of Letter from Mayor to Iowa Civil Liberties Union regarding ~-/7~ national CityVote project. AGENDA JOINT MEETING OF CITY COUNCH~S OF IOWA CITY AND !JNIVE~ HEIGHTS SEIWEM~EI~ 5~ 1995 COUNCIL CHAMBEI~S 410 E. WASHINGTON STREET 7:00 ~ 9:00 pore. Introduction 2) Melrose Avenue P~oject 3) Neuzil Tract 4) Other Business City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: September 1, 1995 To: City Council ~ From: Mayor Susan M. Horowitz Re: Local Government Environmental Resource Council (LGERC) As you recall, this group~ was pulled together in September 1993 in both recognition of the growing complexity of .environmental programs which are the responsibility of local governments, as well as in response to somewhat of a crisis situation with the State Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). The U.S. EPA had threatened to remove enforcement authority (primacy) from DNR for not being adequately funded by the state legislature, that is, did not have enough staff. In order.to address these issues, the objectives of LGERC were as follows: Develop a collaborative process among utilities, local government, and IDNR for meeting the. challenge of maintaining environmental quality in areas of water quality, water supply, and solid waste; Provide an additional point of contact within a communication network for delivery, distribution, and solicitation of information generated by IDNR and other state agencies; Augment limited resources of IDNR by providing technical expertise for the regulated community; Provide opportunity for more open communication with IDNR at all levels, particularly concerning rulemaking. This process would hopefully enhance the substance of rules developed by I DNR and increase the level of acceptance and compliance with final rules by the regulated community. Iowa Section - American Waterworks Association; Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities; Iowa Rural Water Association; Iowa Society of Solid Waste Operations; Iowa State Association of Counties; Iowa Water Pollution Control Association; League of Iowa Municipalities; American Public Works Association, Iowa Chapter. 2 In the Fall of 1994 LGERC members proposed a water rate schedule designed to provide funds to satisfy EPA enforcement expectations and thereby maintain primacy of the ddnking water program with the DNR. After studying the costs of the ddnking water program, we found that IDNR's budget was: Management and administration, 11% General support - 3% Compliance and monitoring - 19% Routine technical activities - 56% Systems assistance - 3% Other activities - 8%. From this breakdown, we learned that about 40% of DNR's efforts are committed to providing overhead or general services; the remaining 60% is dedicated to previding technical support to utilities; such as public water systems. A DNR official has indicated that'more than 90% of this technical support goes to small systems. LGERC devised a water rate formula based on cost to provide services. A funding partnership evolved which suggested a portion of the funds for the primacy program should be provided through state general fund appropriations and a portion provided through a fee structure supported by water utilities. The thought was the appropriations funds would support regulatory and compliance efforts while the water supply fee structure would fund activities directly benefitting utilities such as technical assistance. LGERC's proposal was a base fee applicable to all water utilities in the state and a per capita fee to be applied for all systems serving 3300 or more persons. (Less than 3300 is EPA's definition of a small system.) The base fee would support about 75% of the total revenue to be generated by fees while the per capita charge provided 25% of the fee revenue. The consensus of LGERC was that the higher proportion base fee revenue correlated well with the higher proportion of technical services provided to smaller systems, therefore, rsfiecting a cost of service philosophy for the fee assessment. 3 Much greater detail with numbers exists. The per-capita amount would change each year to be adjusted to the changing levels that the legislature had dictated to IDNR over a five-year pedod. This original proposal was accepted by DNR and, through its advisory environmental protection commission, was sent to the legislature's Rules Committee, where it died. Conversations we have had with the Rules Committee members seemed to indicate the reality of the persuasive powers of the rural residents, small cities, campground operators, etc., etc., who were constituents of a majority of the Rules Committee. Ed Moreno and I testified before the EPC on this issue. -Now, this fall, the DNR and with EPC's blessings has proposed an emergency rule water rate schedule which is solely based on population. There is no consideration for applying the DNR's costs to water systems in proportion to the regulatory or technical services provided. It has been requested as an "emergency rule" (read: they need the money yesterday) to be retroactive to July 1, 1995. While hearings on this proposal will be going on around the state throughout October, it is already in effect. Bottom line is our citizens will be paying 14 cents more on their water bill for DNR to enforce regulations. (Note they already pay a state sales tax on water.) I am very disheartened by this action. The philosophical tension between large cities and small cities/counties is seen to preclude support from any of LGERC's association members to take this issue to court. The value of cooperation across environmental issues and pdvate and public associations would call for the continued involvement in LGERC. I don't mean that we should drop it. It has been an invaluable roundtable for personnel in solid waste, wastewater, and water issues, and, if I can work harder at it, in the field of public health. I feel you need this briefing because, while it ain't over yet, but 14-cent increase is going to hit us (and therefore our citizens) shortly, although just how I'm not yet sure. Any questions, let me know. ac~8-31 ~t August 29, 1995 CiTY OF I0 WA CITY Louise From 207 Monroe Street iowa City, IA 52246 Dear M~s r~~ Thank you for attending our work session on issues associated with the Iowa City landfill. Your community's interest and participation in the discussion is most appreciated. I am sure you recognize the complexities involved - those that are political as well as those that are financial and operational. We will continue our efforts to provide you information concerning landfill operations and future policies. As we mentioned, we offer educational/public information presentations to interested groups. Please feel free to contact our Solid Waste Superintendent, Floyde Pelkey (356-5183), or our JCCOG Solid Waste Planner, Brad Neumann (356-5235). Both are available to meet with those interested in landfill issues. Of course, you may also feel free to contact me to help arrange such presentations. A transcript or audiocassette of the meeting is available from our City Clerk, 356-5040. Your comments and concerns on the development of policies and related operational issues are appreciated. Again, thank you for participating. Sincerely yours, Susan M. Horowitz Mayor cc: City Council 410 EAST WASHINOTON $TRE£T e IOWA CITY. IOWA 52240-1926 · (319))5~-5000 · FAX (119I 3~6-$009 SECONDARY FILE LIST: 1. Joe Bolkcom Johnson County Board of Supervisors P.O. Box 1350 Iowa City, IA 52244-1350 ~ Mr. Bolkcom ~ 2, Allan Axeen, Mayor City of Coralville P.O. Box 5127 Coralville, IA .~ .~ Mayor Axeen ~ 3. Russell Bailey, Mayor City of Hills P.O. Box 485 Hills, IA 52235 <~ Mayor Bailey ~ 4. Douglas Morgan City of Kalona P.O. Box N Kalona, IA 52247-1213 Mr. Morgan., 5. Robert Weisor, Mayor City of Lone Tree P.O. Box 24 Lone Tree, IA 52755. Mayor Weisor ,, 6. Glenn Siders City of North Liberty Box 50 North Liberty, IA 52317 Mr. Siders ~, 7. Ed Kasper City of Oxford P.O. Box 122 Oxford, IA 52322 Mr. Kasper., 8. Dawn McCoy City of Rivemide P.O. Box 188 Riverside, IA 52327-0188 Ms. McCoy .~ LANDFILL.SEC 9. Glenn R. Potter, Mayor City of Tiffin P.O. Box 196 Tiffin, IA 52340., Mayor Potter., 10. Donald Swanson, Mayor City of University Heights 138 Koser Avenue Iowa City, IA 52246., Mayor Swanson., tl. Louise From 207 Monroe Street Iowa City, IA 52246 Ms. From .~ City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: September 1, 1995 To: City Council From: City Manager Re: Sturgis Ferry Park I cannot recall whether I had alerted you to an in-house committee of staff I recently created to review Sturgis Ferry Park and provide recommendations on improvements. The park, which is located adjacent to the Public Works yard and across from the Airport, has been somewhat of a "thorn" to me for some time. If we are to call it a park, it should be as attractive as our other recreational ireas and specifically one that serves as an entrance to our community. I have asked staff to review and make recommendations as to how we might improve this area. It is an old landfill site and therbfore will likely require substantial fill at substantial cost. it does have a boat launching area. With the restrictions on the property due to its proximity to the airport and its landfill status, we have limited potential for development. I wanted to let you know we are working on this project and it could be some time before we have formal recommendations. I would like to see us develop some type of plan we might implement and thereby improve, at least visually, the Sturgis Ferry Park. cc: Fix Up Sturgis Ferry Park Committee City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: August 31, 1995 City Council City Manager Mousing Policy Discussion I have scheduled Tim Shields-to be with us as a facilitator on Saturday, September 30. One of the documents I will refer to Tim for his review is CITY STEPS. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: August 30, 1995 TO: City Council FROM: CityManager RE: Vacation I plan a vacation day on Friday, September 8. Lorraine will have my itinerary. I will return to the City late Saturday evening. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: August 29, 1995 City Council City Manager Pending Development Issues bal-~$A A final plat approval of East Hill Subdivision, a 13.04 acre, 36-1ot residential subdivision located north of Muscatine Avenue, west of Dover Street and Perry Court. A request submitted by St. Wenceslaus Church for special exceptions to expand a religious institution, modify the front yard requirements along Fairchild Street and to modify the screening requirements for a parking area for property located in the RNC-12 zone at 618 Davenport Street. A request submitted by John ~,. and Ada L. Streit for special exceptions to permit a restaurant greater than 2,500 square feet in size, and to modify the parking requirements for property located in the CN-1 zone at 200 Scott Court. A request submitted by All Nations Baptist Church for a special exception to expand a religious institution for property located in the RS-5 zone at 1715 Mormon Trek Boulevard. A request submitted by the Johnson County Department of Human Services and the Johnson County Board of Supervisors for a special exception to permit a child care facility to be located in the RS-8 zone in the First Mennonite Church at 405 Myrtle Avenue. A request submitted by Gary Fitzpatrick for a special exception to permit parking on a separate lot for property located in the CB-5 zone at 521 S. Gilbert. A request submitted by Steve van der Woude for a special exception to permit a front yard modification for property located in the RS-8 zone at 519 Brown Street. A request submitted by the Iowa City Airport Commission for a variance from the flood plain regulations for property located in the P zone at 1801 S. Riverside Drive. City of iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: September 1, 1995 To: From: Re: The Honorable Mayor Susan M. Horowitz and Members of the City Council Linde Newman Woito, City Attorney ' ~_~,~ .. Partial Litigation Update In the Matter of City of Iowa City Wastewater Facilitv Nos.; Administrative Order; No. 95-WW- 16 Attached please find the City's Notice of Appeal, submitted to the DNR within the 30-day period. While this will trigger a contested case proceeding, which is an administrative trial, state law provides that at any time the matters may be stayed (or stopped) to permit informal discussion and settlement. 2. City of Iowa City v. City of University Heights; Quiet ~ritle Action University Heights was served with the quiet title petition August 21, 1995, by acceptance of service by their attorney. They have 20 days to answer, which means some court document should be filed by September 11, 1995. I pass on this information only because there may be questions at your upcoming September 5, 1995, meeting. Please call if you have questions. CC: City Clerk City Manager Assistant City Manager Public Works Director PCD Director Attachments Inw~Ogupdate.mmo IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER IN THE MATTER OF: CITY OF IOWA CITY WASTEWATER FACILITY NOS. 6-52-25-0-01 AND 6-52-25-0-02 ) ) ) ). ) ) ) TO: · Larry J. Wilson, Director Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Wallace State Office Bldg. Des Moines, IA 50319 NO. 95-WW-16 NOTICE OF APPEAL State of Iowa Pursuant to §455B.175(1), Code of Iowa (1995) and §561-7, Iowa Administrative Code {IAC), the City of Iowa City, as owner of the wastewater treatment facilities noted above, hereby gives notice of appeal of the Administrative Order No. 95-WW-16 issued July 24, 1995, by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources ("Department"). In furtherance of this Notice of Appeal, the City of Iowa City hereby states: 1. Background City of Iowa City, Iowa, has been working cooperafively and steadfastly with the Department's staff responsible for compliance with the City wastewater facilities' NPDES permits noted above. More specifically, in an attempt to discern the sources of mercury and copper which are appearing in the City's publicly owned treatment works (PO'I-~V) sampling and testing procedures for those metals, the POTW has successfully presented, and the Department has approved, a plan of action to address the levels of these two metals, as well as working with the community and the public at large. Indeed, the administrative order herein specifically notes that the City's proposal dated May 2, 1995, and submitted by Wastewater Treatment Division Superintendent Dave Elias, has been approved by the Department. Since the administrative order notes that the City has provided an acceptable 2 compliance plan, the City files notice of appeal herein to assert that there is no substantial evidence of violation of Chapter 455B, Iowa Administrative Code Rules, and thus the order should not stand. More specifically, the City points out the following facts: a. The City/POTW's .NPDES permit for the south wastewater treatment plant, issued in May 1990, permits the following discharging of pollutant level or effluent levels: -Mercury - .00008 parts per million or 80 parts per trillion -Copper - .032 parts per million or 32 parts per billion b. In January of 1993, the Department issued an administrative order to the City's POTW, requesting that the City determine the source of the copper and mercury metals, and perform a sewer evaluation survey in order to submit results of said survey to the Department's field office. This Order noted that the City's POTW had undertaken a sampling program in order to determine the source of the mercury, and was continuing to search for the source of the mercury and copper. c. On March 5, 1993, Wastewater Division Superintendent Dave Elias submitted a report to the Department, reporting on the following: 1. A sampling survey showed some indication that high levels of mercury were found near the University of Iowa biology buildings, but this information was not conclusive. 2. MercUry concentrations were not consistent from sample to sample, or from day to day. For example, individual sample points ranged from less than .05 to 4.54 parts per billion in the collection system. The NPDES permit allows discharge of 0.08 parts per billion on a 30-day average, or .13 parts per billion as a daily maximum. 4. The study also looked at determining a reliable headworks limit, since different days contrasted sharply. That is, data for February 2, 1993 showed .36 parts per billion in the influent, with .08 in the effluent. The sample taken on 1/-1 9/93 showed. 11 ppb in the influent, and .10 ppb in the effluent. 5. The report acknowledged that copper appeared to be ubiquitous in all main lines of both the University sewers and the City's sanitary sewers. 6. Finally, the report listed "actions for improved compliance," which included a) notice to University of iowa and Procter & Gamble to perform remedial actions and requiring follow-up; b) continued study of the chemistry of mercury and copper compounds within the treatment process, in an attempt to completely capture and contain the metal compounds in the digesters; and c) requesting a waiver from the effluent limitations as beyond the scope of existing acceptable scientific and mathematical standards. d. In a further effort to meet the Department's concerns, on May 2, 1995 Wastewater Treatment Division Supe.rintendent Dave Elias submitted a "plan for compliance with copper and mercury limits in wastewater effluent," setting forth a detailed plan to improve the City's compliance with copper and mercury limitations, including, inter alia, improved waste management practices for all contributors to the wastewater treatment system; public education campaigns concerning improved waste management practices; developing a fresh technical data base on mercury and copper concentrations including more appropriate methods of sampling and analysis; reexamination of suspected sources of metal contamination ~vhich may affect the accuracy of the sampling process and thus the testing process; settin~ forth a timeframe for all of the goals; and requesting cooperation and assistance from the Department and also from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The City also noted that professional literature points out that current testing and sampling procedures are showing detectable levels of mercury and copper to be much higher than actually exist. One explanation, the authors say, is that procedures for collecting samples and analytical techniques are "susceptible to contamination," and thus "much of the 4 data on dissolved metals in natural waters are now thought to be erroneously high," see "Measuring aquatic metals," Water Environment and Technology, January 1995, page 37, authored by Andrew J. Ladlet et al. More importantly, the City's Report to the Department pointed out that the EPA Office of .Water in 1993 recognized that not all metals are in a toxic form in a discharge stream from a POTW; and that by analyzing for dissolved forms and using the proper analytical methods, the actual toxic.portion could be identified in terms of affecting the environment. Finally, the City pointed out that the University Hygienic Lab is not presently equipped to perform tests for mercury and copper at the levels which the City's NPDES permits require. Thus, the State of Iowa's own laboratory facilities are not scientifically equipped to accurately test for mercury and copper now required by the City's NPDES permits. e. On May 25, 1995, Department staff informed CiW of Iowa City Public Works Director that the Department was in basic agreement with the concept of the Plan submitted May 2, 1995, stating: "We are in basic agreement with the concept of the plan, which includes continued monitoring; educational campaigns for general public, industrial facilities and the U of I; and investigating more precise methods of Hg sampling and analysis." In this 5/2/95 letter, the Department also requested the City require the University of Iowa to clean out and/or replace potentially contaminated drain traps as the probable source of copper and mercury, and also require the University of Iowa to implement a quality control program to eliminate this type of discharge into The POTW. f. On July 12, 1995, Wastewater Division Superintendent Dave Elias conveyed this directive to the University of Iowa, namely they should clean out and/or replace potentially 5 contaminated drain traps as a source of mercury and copper contamination into the City's POTW. g. On July 25, 1995, the City received a letter from the University, informing the City that the University would, indeed, replace 97 traps from the Chemistry Building, as requested by the City and the Department, and would work to cooperate with the Department as well as the City. h. On July 27, 1995, the City received the Order at issue herein, even though the Department had already approved the City's plan for compliance and the City was making progress on completing the Plan. 2. Notice of Appeal of Order requested as unwarranted under the facts herein Pursuant to Chapter 17A, Code of Iowa (199.5) and Chapter 561-7, Iowa Administra- tive Code, the City of Iowa Wastewater Facilities or POTVV, as owner of wastewater facility NPDES Permits No. 6-52-25-0-01 and 6-52-25-0-02, hereby appeals the Administrative Order No. 95-WW-16 as follows: a. Iowa City has worked cooperatively and diligently with the Department in attempting to review the sampling and testing techniques, review the possible sources of mercury and copper, and has submitted a plan of compliance action which the Department has approved. On this basis, there is no substantial evidence that the City's POTW has violated Chapter 455B, Code of Iowa, any order directed to the POTW from this Department, or any other re~onable rule. Since the July Order approves the City's compliance Plan and the City is making reasonable and continuing prog~'ess on the Plan, the Order is internally inconsistent and not appropriate under Section ~.55B.175, Code of Iowa (1995). As such, the Department has exceeded its scope of authority, and this Order should be reversed or modified as a matter of administrative law. 6 b. The City's POTW has worked cooperatively with the Department in assessing the problems noted above in paragraph 1, and has never refused to continue to work o~ the compliance Plan submitted and approved last May of 1995. Thus, this Administrative Order does not fall within the scope of the Director's authority under Section 455B.175(1), Code of Iowa, because the Department has already obtained the City's voluntary compliance. That is, as a matter of law the Administrative Order is "not necessary to ensure that the violation will cease," as required by §455B.175, Code, and is therefore outside the scope of the Director's authority. c. The Department's NPDES permits for the POTW requires that concentrations of mercury in the POT~V effluent be no greater than 80 parts per trillion. However, the EPA has only approved testing procedures for concentrations above 200 parts per trillion. Thus, the Department's actions to enforce a. standard for which EPA has not approved testing parameters are arbitrary, capricious and entirely unreasonable. d. The scientific technology needed to accurately and consistently test for mercury and copper concentrations in the POTW effluent does not exist. For example, Iowa City has split samples on more than one occasion and sent to two different laboratories with two very different results. For this reason, the Department's reliance on non-verifiable scientific methods is unreasonable and not based on "substantial evidence" needed to issue said Order. Thus, the Order should be revoked, §455B.175, Code of Iowa. e. As p~inted out in Dave Elias' letter dated May 2, 1995, the research literature, together with the EPA, is aware that the standard methods used to collect and analyze metals such as mercury and copper are revealing "erroneously high" results. Since the Department has adopted no standard technique that would enable the City's results to be more accurate, the Department is asking the CiW to do that which is not currently available either from the 7 State Hygienic Lab or other highly sophisticated laboratories, thereby rendering the Administrative Order unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law. f. Since the source of Iowa City's water is largely the Iowa River, which contains 2 ½ times the amount of mercury and copper concentrations which the POTW is permitted to return to the Iowa River, the NPDES permit rule is wholly unreasonable. The City therefore challenges the mathematical model used to set those limits as arbitrary, capricious, and wholly beyond reason and sound scientific practices. g. Bioavailability rules are now being used throughout the nation, and being encouraged by the EPA. The Iowa Department has no such rules which would point to what actually is available to harm fish and other aquatic plants or animals in order to truly protect the environment. The Cit. y requests that the Department consider adopting rules for levels of mercury and copper which would consider the bioavailability of said metals to harm the environment, and that said rules subsequently be applied to Iowa City. 3, Relief Requested For all of the above reasons, the City of Iowa City, Iowa POTW, owner of Wastewater Facility NPDES Nos. 6-52-25-0-O1 and 6-52-25-0-02, hereby files Notice of Appeal to Administrative Order No. 95-WW-16 and requests said Order be revoked, rescinded or modified as in excess of the Director's authority under Section 455B.175, Code of Iowa, as unnecessary tc.~seek compliance, and as arbitrary, capricious and wholly unreasonable. Additionally, the Order is not based on substantial evidence to show non-compliance, since the administrative'Order itself has approved the City compliance plan and schedule as of May 1995. Moreover, the Order is unreasonable and beyond the scope of the Director's authority because the scientific testing community cannot veri~ within the parameters of scientific 8 certainty the levels of mercury and copper leaving the POTW -- even when taken from the same sample. Since the Department has requested, and has approved, the City POTW's compliance plan, as contemplated in Chapter 4558, Code, Iowa City requests a contested case proceeding be commenced to decide the validity of the Administrative Order. Alternatively, the City requests the Department revoke or modify the Administrative Order as unnecessary under §455B. 173(2), Code of Iowa (1995) because Iowa City is making substantial progress in performing the approved Plan. As a further alternative, ~he City of Iowa City POTW requests a variance and exemption from the mercury and copper limits set forth in the POTW's NPDES permits be granted, after hearing, as contemplated in §455B.181, Code of Iowa (1995). Dated this c>~-,~5/~'~ day of. ~ ,1995. R~spectfully submitted, Linda Newman Wo~to, C~ty Attorney Civic Center 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 {319) 356-5030 ATTORNEY FOR CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA POTW FACILITIES CC: Attorney General's Office Hoover State Office Bldg. Des Moines, IA 50319 A.L. Goldberg, Field Office #6 August 31, 1995 CITY OF I0 WA 'CITY J. Patrick White, Johnson County Attorney Johnson County Courthouse Iowa City, IA 52240 Questions concerning "rules" for carrying out exit polls; CityVote exit poll in lieu of ballot Dear Pat: Based on the opinion articulated by both you and Johnson County Auditor Tom Slockett during our meeting on Monday, August 28, 1995, and in anticipation of your rejecting the City's resolution/advisory ballot passed last Tuesday, I request that you and Tom provide the City with some guidance on the general "rules" which the County Auditor will use in monitoring exit polls. 1 ask this for several reasons, the foremost of which is that exit polls are not specifically contemplated in the state statute, although the State Attorney General's office has several times issued opinions finding that exit polls were appropriate under Iowa's election laws. I also ask this because there are no rules adopted concerning "exit polls" under the Iowa Administrative Code. I ha~e also reviewed the prohibited actions or prohibited interferences with the election process under state law, and again assume that it will be your office, together with the Johnson County Auditor's Office, that will primarily be interpreting any rules governing exit polls. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter, and please call if you have questions. Cordially yours, Lin a~to City Attornoy cc: Tom Slockett, Johnson County Auditor The Honorable Mayor Susan M. Horowitz and Members of the City Council City Manager City Clerk Assistant City Manager City of iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: August 30, 1995 To: Karen Kubby, City Councillor From: Linda Newman Woito, City Attorney Re: Copy of article on CityVote 95-96 As requested, I am forwarding you a copy of the article concerning CityVote, dealing largely with First Amendment rights. By way of this memo, I will be happy to provide copies of the CityVote article to other Council members upon request. Just call Annie Rowley at x5030 to receive coples. CC: City Clerk City Manager Asslstant City Manager Attachment (Karen Kubby only) ac~30.r~tw City of iowa City MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: All Boards and Commissions Marian K. Karr August 29, 1995 Attendance Chart Please note item No. 2 on attached Rules Committee minutes of July 31, 1995. cc: City Council ~Q~I$SIOff ATTEffO~CE $EATEO ,T~ FEB lIAR APR flAY ,i'U~E 12-14-71 0 X X X X ll*Ol-~3 0 X X X X 11-01-93 X X 0 O/C X I-II-95 X X 0 X X 11-01-~3 X 'X X X X 11-01-93 X X X X X 1-21-94 X X X 0 0 11-01-73 0 X X X O/C 11-01-~3 X X X X X 12-14-94 0 . X 0 0 O/C 11-~-94 0 X ' I X X 3-08-95 X X X X ~ P~e~e~t 0: Absent O/C -" Called In Absence ~ = No I~eetln9 - -- ~ot a lieder JULY ~ SEPt, OCT HOV DEC Rev. 5-10-95 sb CoAttJoh FORfiTOOL 17 RULES COMMITTEE MEETING July 31, RULES COMMITTEE: Meeting COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT; STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: 1995 of July 31, 1995, Horowitz, Kubby Karr 8:45 a.m. Housing and Community Development Commission By-Laws (formerly Housing Commission and Committee On community Needs) The Rules Committee requested the following: 1. Rewrite application and republish vacancy notice to include language contained in Article 4-MEMBERSHIP "When possible, Council will appoint a person or persons with expertise in construction and/or finance, a person receiving rental assistance, and a person from the Local Homeless Coordinating Board." a~s Encourage .each Board and Commission to utilize a chart of ences (showing those present, absent, and excused absence). Kubby will furnish a copy of HACAP chart to City Clerk (copy attached). Clerk will then follow up with staff of each Board/Commission. This chart would be kept by staff for each meeting and furnished to Council whenever an appointment was being considered to a Board/Commission. The Rules Committee stressed the commitment each member should have to their respective Board/Commission, and emphasized the difference between an excused absence versus just being absent. 3. Article 5-MEETINGS. Section C. Directed the City Clerk to research the history of a City Council representative to the Commission. Information will be sent to Council for discussion prior to adoption of the by-laws. (See attached) The Rules Committee recommended adoption of the by-laws as presented and noted below: Article 5-MEETINGS. Section A. Remove the word "evening" from the second sentence. Meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Au9~/st 29, 1995 CITY OF IOWA CITY Dear Sidewalk Cafe Proprietor, On Adgust 28, 1995, at it's Work SesSion, the City Council asked that I send you the attached list of recommendations and concerns for access to the sidewalk cafes in the downtown area submitted by the Council on Disability Rights and Education (CDRE). Council has chosen not to include the suggestions in the ordinance at this time. We encourage you to consider these suggestions when you review the method of delineation used in your sidewalk cafe area. Again, these suggestions are not required. We ask your cooperation by incorporating them in your sidewalk cafe. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, Marian K. Karr, CMC/AAE City Clerk Attachment cc: City Council Ron Boose, Senior Building Inspector Andy Rocca, Acting Fire Chief David Schoon, Economic Development Planner August 11, 1995 Dear Mayor Horowitz: The Council on Disability Rights and Education (CDRE) committee on Public Accommodations has the following recommendations and concerns for access to the sidewalk cafes in the downtown area. 1) Detectable area for Individuals who are blind: · A lowered, taut, rope not mounted higher than seven Inches from the ground. o Planters, such as those In use by "Bllmple's". · Wrought iron fences which can be removed in the winter. · Staggered or-offset roping for entry way into the cafeo 2) Planning for adequate space for persons who use wheelchairs within the designated area (refer to ADA for standards on access isles). 3) Communication: · Once again, had persons with disabilities been included in the planning of these care's, it is most likely that the City Council would not need to solicit the CDfiE for the above suggestions on how to "better" their access. We are available if you need further input with this subject. Thank you for your time and consideration. CDRE Public Accommodations Committee City of iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: August 31, 1995 TO: Mayor and. Council FROM: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk~ RE: Iowa League of Citie~ Meeting The Iowa League of Cities will be meeting October 4-6 in Ames. The deadline for registration at a reduced rate is September 15. Please let me know as soon as possible if you are attending. IOWA CITY AIRPORT MASTER PLAN RESOURCE GROUP First Meeting Summary The first meeting of the Iowa City Airport Resource Group was July 20, 1995 at the Transit Center, 1200 S. Riverside Drive. Those attending were: Marty Kelly, Iowa City Area Development Group; John Green, Moore Business Forms; Ken Ranshaw, Property Owner; Linda Muston, Mercy Hospital; Rich Colgan, Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company; Joe Bolkcom, Johnson County Board of Supervisors; E.K. Jones, Iowa City Flying Service; R.J. Moore, Johnson County Zoning; Jeff Day/rison, JCCOG/IC Planning Department; Larry Wilson, University of Inwa/Oakdale Campus; Robert Wolf, Wolf Construction, Inc.; Erma Wolf, Wolf Construction, Inc.; Howard Horan, Iowa City Airport Commission; Richard Blum, Iowa City Airport Commission; Dale Helling, Iowa City Manager's Office; Naomi Novick, Iowa City Council; Sally Dierks, Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission; John Dane, Johnson County Farm Bureau; Manry Leysens, Pilot; John Beckord, Iowa City Area Chamber of Commerce; Ron O'Neil, Iowa City Airport Manager;, Jerry Searle, consultant fi'om McClure Engineering Company, and Karen Counuyman, consultant from Countryman Group Planners. Persons who indicated an interest in future meetings are: John Ockenfels, City Carton Company; Robert Bowlsby, University of Iowa Men's Athletics; Jeff Gauthief, University of Iowa Hospitals; Russ Schmieser, First National Bank representing the Chamber;, Brad Bevers, Hansen Lind Meyer Architects; Paula Jantz, University of Iowa Women's Athletics; Carol Barker, Barker Development Company; Casey Cook, Friends of the Iowa River Scenic Trail, and Deborah Conger, League of Women Voters. The meeting open with introductions of the Airport Commissioners, the airport manager, and consultants in attendance. Karen Countryman explained that the Resource Group is an advisory body selected with regard to member/merest in the airport, aviation, and land use in the airport vicimty. Results of Resource Group meetings will be incorporated into the plan wh/ch will be presented to the Iowa City Airport Commission, the entity with final authority over the plan. Near the outset of the meeting those in attendance were asked to introduce themselves and talk about their interest in the airport. It was stated that a total of four Resource Group meetings are scheduled with the next one planned for September 7, 1995 at 4:00 PM in the Transit Board Room, 1200 S. Rivers/de Drive. Iowa City Airport Master Plan First Resource Group Meeting Summary Page 2 Jerry Searle, Project Director of the Airport Master Plan briefly explained the role of the Iowa City Airport within the context of larger aviation systems. The National Plan of Integrated Airports consists of those airports; pubic, civil, and joint use (military/civil) with/n the U.S. and its territories considered necessary to provide a system of airports adequate to anticipate and meet the needs of the nation's civil aeronautics. It allows for commemial as well as general aviation airports. The Iowa State Aviation System Plan divides airports into two broad categories: commemial service airports - Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Sioux City,, Waterloo, Dubuque, Ft. Dodge, Mason City, and Burlington; and the balance - 113 publicly owned general aviation airports. The busiest general aviation airports in the State are Ames followed by Iowa City and Davenport. Major use comes fi'om business traffic as demonstrated by the mix of aircraft on the ramps. Two advantages the Iowa City Airport has for business traffic are minimal ramp time and ground travel. The FAA requires that the Airport Layout Plan (ALP), required of all FAA approved airports, go through the airport master plan process. It also is a requirement for the 90% FAA funding. The typical approach is to focus on current aviation activity levels at the airport facility and to project those activity levels over a 20 year period. However, in the case of Iowa City, in addition to consider/rig the present facility, it is important to look at the surrounding area to see how future development might impact the airport. Generally the FAA would prefer to support two ranways instead of three. That is only acceptable ira 95% w/rid coverage level can be obtained. To be approved by FAA the airport must meet cer',a/n design criteria. Some of those criteria are affected by off-site development, particularly when considering runway alignment shiPs to accommodate the possibility of two runways. The Iowa City Airport Commission is required to maintain a current ALP as a condition of having accepted Federal funding. The ALP must reflect existing condition as well as those facilities needed to accommodate present and future aeronautical activity. The Airport Master Plan process is one means of estimating aviation activity and identifying future needs. In addressing facility needs, an effort must be made to ensure the development of compatible land uses on and adjacent to the facility. An effort must also be undertaken to use local, state and federal monetary resources in a prudent manner. Jerry Searle introduced the concept of the conversion of the Iowa City Municipal A/rport into an Air Indusreal/Business Park. The concept was based upon the need to use resources in a prudent manner and maximize development Iowa City Airport Master Plan First Resource Group Meeting Summary Page3 opportunities inherent in the area to the west and south. He explained the basis of the proposal, and the imporance of attaining a consensus among all interest groups, land oYvners, and elected officials. The concept views the airport simply as one component of public investment in the infrastructure. Jerry Searle indicated that a preliminary development concept would be prepared by September 7, 1995. Resource Group members were given aerial halftones and obstruction charts of the airport area, and asked to consider various development scenarios. At the next Resource Group meeting on September 7th, Jerry will prese::t a Preliminary Development Concept for the airport area. He will ask the Resource Group to comment and offer alternative ideas. The goal is to reach a consensus on the Development Concept in order to be able to present the plan to the Airport Commission, City Council and Board of Supervisors. Comments will also be solicited from City Staff, IDOT and the FAA. IOWA CITY AIRPORT MASTER PLAN RESOURCE GROUP Second Meeting DATE: September 7, 1995 TIME: 4:00- 6:00 PM PLACE: Transit Board Room 1200 S. Riverside Drive AGENDA ITEMS: I. Development Concept Plan 2. Pavement Conditions 3. A/rpon Geometries Council on Disability Rights and Education MEETING AGENDA SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 - 10:00 A.M. CITY COUNCIL CHANIBERS CIVIC CENTER - 410 E. WASHINGTON ST. IOWA CITY, IA 52240 4. 5. 6. 7. Introductions Subcommittees/Reports a, Housing Transportation Public Accommodations d, Public Relations Other Reports Bylaws - Review CDRE Organizations and Structure Other Business Next Meeting Agenda - October 3, 1995 Adjourn CC: Iowa City City Council Johnson County Board of Supervisors CDRE MISSION STATEMENT The Council on Disability Rights and'Education (CDRE) is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to accessibility, full participation and inclusion of persons with disabilities. Our mission is to act as a comprehensive, community-wide educational resource for promoting disability awareness, to provide technical assistance and to encourage compliance with disability civil rights legislation, Our goal is the attainment of community-wide accessibility and the full participation of persons with disabilities to all facilities and services within our community, Council on Di.sability Rights and Education Members Present: MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 1, 1995 Marjorie Hayden-Strait, Nancy Ostragnai, Tim Clancy, Linda Carter, Mike Hoenig, Kevin Butt, Anne Rawland, Loren Schmidt, Dale Helling, Larry Quigley, Keith Ruff, Rita Sandhagen, Tony Brighton Kevin Burr volunteered to chair the meeting and called the meeting to order. The minutes of the meeting of July 11, 1995, were approved. Members in attendance introduced themselves. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Housin¢l: An apartment/condominium complex under construction was audited. The audit went well and the builder requested advice regarding the best utilization of space, The subcommittee will be looking at approximately 50 units which are currently planned for construction in the fall. Mike Hoenig requested some clarification regarding the function of the Housing Subcommittee in evaluating units for accessibility, etc. Burr explained that the supcommittee attempts to assist in defining what is accessible, safe, and meets the needs of tenants with disabilities, They use a checklist which is being further developed and a copy of that checklist will be provided in the next agenda packet. Quigley raised a question regarding the Citizen building, noting his observation that many of the bnits appear not to be accessible, Burr will check this out with the subcommittee and the builder. Transportation: The subcommittee did not meet during the past month. Concerns were raised regarding funding cutbacks at the federal level and what effect these will have on accessibility issues, There was a consensus that all federal representatives in both houses should be contacted regarding these concerns, Staff at the Evert Connor Center can provide addresses of all congressional representatives. Public Accommodations: In conjunction with the celebration of the fifth year anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Sahara Inc. was given an award for their efforts to provide accessibiliW to all patrons. The subcommittee hopes to make a similar award annually, Mike Hoenig asked if the subcommittee had addressed the issue he previously raised about sidewalk cafes. He was advised that the subcommit- tee had not met to address this but would be doing so in the near future. The subcommittee requested that Helling provide copies of information gathered thus far by the City Clerk. He will provide this information to Kevin Burt for distribution to the subcommittee members. Public Relations: This subcommittee did not meet in July. It was agreed that a news release would be drafted to inform the community of the award received by Sahara Inc. Council on Disability Rights & Education August 1, 1995 Page 2 BYLAWS Anne Rawland reported that a group consisting of Mace Braverman, Ethel Madison, Mike Hoenig, and herself will meet in September to work on bylaws. Marjorie Hayden-Strait volunteered to work with this group as well. OTHER BUSINESS Nancy Ostragnai advised that she had been part of a group which gave a presentation at an elementary school. She suggested that the CDRE give similar presentations to all schools. Kevin Burt advised that he was currently working on a program for high schools. It was generally agreed that the CDRE should further pursue this type of program. It was recognized that it would be challenging to approach different age groups with the same message. This matter will be further discussed. Larry Quigley announced that he is interested in a referendum to cause the City Code to be revised to conform to the ADA, He is interested in this issue being part of the November election ballot, Some positive and negative aspects ofthis proposal were discussed, Quigley advised that he will work with anyone who is interested in assisting in this effort, Marjorie Hayden-Strait reminded the group that October is Disabilities Awareness Month, She has received some documents which 'she invited anyone who is interested to review, Larry Quigley reminded everyone that Abilities Awareness Day will be on August 26 and there will be activities scheduled for the afternoon and evening on the Pedestrian Mall, The next CDRE meeting will be on September 5. Meeting adjourned. To: I0~ CIW CLERg From jo ho§artV 8-3895 9:82,1-, p, Z oF ~ Johnson Co,un0, Charles D. Duffy, Chahpe~on ~oe BoSom Stephen P. Lac~ Don Se~ Sa~y S~m~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' August 31, 1995 FORMAL MEETING Agenda 1. Call to order 9:00 a.m. 2. Action re: claims Action re: informal minutes of August I st recessed to August 3rd; August 8th recessed to August 10th, August 22nd recessed to August 24th and the formal minutes of August 24th Action re: payroll authorizations Business from the County Auditor. a) Action re: perufits b) Action re: reports Cr,..her 6. Business from the Zoning Administrator. a) Final comideration to amend the legal descriphon of Appl/cation Z9516 of Bill Young (Ordinance 05-18-95-Z4) for property described as being in the SW ¼ of Section 35, Township 81 North, Range 7 West of the 5~ P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa. b) Final consideration to amend the legal description of Application Z9311 o£ Jack Swanson (Ordinance 06-17-93-Z2) for property described as being on Lot 2 of Swanson's Second Subdivision, in the NW ¼ of Section 15, Township 81 North, Range 7 West of the 5-~ P.M. in John.non County, Iowa. c) Other 913 SOUTH DUBUQUE ST. P.O. BOX 1350 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244-1350 TEL: (319) 356-6000 FAX: (319) 356-6086 Tm ZON~ CZTY CLERK Agenda 8-31-95 Page 2 7. Business from the Director of S.E.A.T.S. a) Action re: Assistant Director position. b) Action re: MIS System for S.E.A.T.S. Department. Other 8. Business from the County Attorney. a) Executive Session re: strategy for administrative unit collective bargaining/discussion. b) Executive Session re: strategy for S.E.A.T.8.collective bargaining/discussion. c) Report re: other items. 9. Business from the Board of Supervisors. a) Action re: authorizing chairperson to sign right-of-way contraca with Howard and Leona EdWards for $11,741.50 and with Agnes Maier for $2,706.30 for Project BR08-905206). This structure is located on Maier Avenue. b) Action re: resolution closing FHWA Structure //257710 which is located on the Jotmson/Muscatine Road approximately 3/4 mile south of Highway 22. This bridge was damaged during the spring flood of 1995. c) Action re: quote from Quad States Industries of Orange City, Iowa for pavement markings throughout Johnson County of $12.50 per gallon for yellow latex and $11.00 per gallon for white latex. This will paint 72 miles of center line and 44 miles of edge line. d) Action re: resolution placing stop sign at the intersection of Baxter Avenue and Linn Johnson Road for north bound traffic. e) Action re: rescheduling September 12th meeting due to an ISAC meeting on Managed Care being held that day. f) Action re: FY 96 Emergency Medical Services Training Grant in the mount of $10,235.00. g) Discussion/action re:appointment to the Ambulance Advisory Committee. h) Other Agenda 8-31-95 10. Adjourn to informal meeting. Page3 a) Discussion re: rescheduling September 12th meeting due to an ISAC meeting on Managed Care being held that day. b) Discussion re: Assistant Director position. Discussion re: MIS System for S.E.A.T.S. Department. d) Inquiries and reports from the public. e) Reports and inquires from the members of the Board of Supervisors. f) Report from the County Attorney. g) Other 11. Adjournment City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: September 1, 1995 Filed City Council Candidates Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Council Agenda and Information Packets It has long been tradition to send a copy of the Council agenda materials and information packets to City Council candidates. Effective September 1 all candidates that have filed papers with my office will be receiving Council agenda and information packets delivered to their homes. If you have any questions please give me a call at 356-5041. cc: City Council August 31, 1995 CITY OF I0 WA CITY Cryss Farley Iowa Civil Liberties Union 446 Insurance Exchange Building 505 Fifth Avenue Des Moines, IA 50309 Dear Ms. Farley, On behalf of the Iowa City City Council, I would like to request that the ICLU review the City's efforts to participate in the national CityVote project. We would like for you to advise us about our position that this city has the First Amendment right to determine local ballot questions, You have already received a copy of the lengthy CityVote position document and other related material. With this letter, I am enclosing a copy of the 8/31/95 Resolution that this Council adopted by a 6-1 majority. In addition to a review of our First Amendment rights, we would lika, if possible, to get a sense of the time frame in which we could reasonably expect a legal resolution to occur. As you might expect, a legal appeal that goes past the November 7 election is not helpful to our immediate goal, although it is certainly relevant to the larger issue of local autonomy. Our City Attorney, Linda Woito, is available at 356-5030 if you have any immediate questions. We appreciate you interest in this matter, and look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible. Best wishes, Mayor Susan Horowitz "~ cc: Larry Agran Linda Woito Steve Atkins Tom Slockett City Council 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET · IOWA CITY. IOWA ~2240.1826 · I319) 3S6-}000 · FAX (319) 3S6-~009 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: Septanber 8, 1995 City Council City Manager Material in Information Packet Copy of letter from Mayor Horowitz to the Corps of Engineers regarding operating procedures. Copy of letter from the City Manager to the U.S. Environmental ~779 Protection Agency regarding the Ibwa City Landfill. ' Memorandum from the Assistant Director of PCD regarding Melrose ~7~d Avenue project. Memorandum from the Director of Parking and Transit regarding Melrose Avenue Bridge. Memorandum from the Director of Parking and Transit and the City Traffic_~_ Engineer regarding parking meters in loading zones. Memorandum from the City Attorney's office regarding Animal Waste Ordinance. Copy of letter from the Animal Control Supervisor to Evelyn Kral regarding the scooper law. Copy of memorandum from the Animal Control Supervisor to the Police Chief in reply to Council Member Kubby's memorandum. Memorandum from the Director of Parks and Recreation regarding College Green Park vandalism. Memorandum from the Airport Manager regarding global Memoranda from the City Clerk: a. Landfill discussion of August 21, 1995 b. Council Work Session of August 28, 1995 Copy of letter from the Economic Development Coordinator to John Gross regarding assessed value of property in the central business district. Memorandum from the City Attorney's Office regarding motion to reconsider,~711 Copy of letter from the Iowa Civil Liberties Union Foundation regarding J7q~ straw poll. positioning system. Agendas for the September 5 informal meeting and September 7 formal meeting of the Johnson County Board of Supervisors. P793 Memo from City Arty. re§arding comment re University Heights' attorney statement to Press-Citizen. Memo from City Clerk regarding Council Work Session of September 5, 1995.~?~ Copies of: Environmental Update and Request for a Finding of No ~7 ~ Significant Impact (FONSI). (dated 9/5/95) nviro.menta Assessment - elrose Av , =idge Const sc io 7 7 (dated March 1995) September 7, 1995 CITY OF I0 WA CITY Colonel Charles S. Cox Department of the Army Rock Island District Corps of Engineers Clock Tower Building P.O. Box 2004 Rock Island, IL 61204-2004 Dear Colonel Cox: This summers drought, as you can expect, has this city longing for rain. However, the heavy rains at the beginning of the summer set many of our citizens on edge with the potential of a 1993-repeat flooding. And so, while I am sure that the Corps' operating procedures have been adjusted and refined for flood control since 1993, I would appreciate your letting me know what is planned for the future. Also, since I am aware of the interest the University's Hydraulic Institute, and specifically Dr. Weidch, has in working with the Corps, I'd like to know what progress has been made to get that study moving. Please let me know if your schedule could include a briefing and tour of Iowa City. I would be delighted to arrange something for you. Best regards, Susan M. Horowitz Mayor CC: Chuck Schmadeke, Director of Public Works City Council September 5, 1995 CITY OF I0 WA CITY Mr. William A. Spratlin, Director Air, RCRA and Toxics Division United States Environmental Protection Agency Region VII 726 Minnesota Ave. Kansas City, KS 66101 Re: Clean Air Act Administrative Order Iowa City Sanitary Landfill Dear Mr. Spratlin: On August 2, 1995, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a Finding of Violation and Administrative Order to the Iowa City Sanitary Landfill alleging violation of federal regulations regarding the management of asbestos at that facility. This le~er is written in response to those documents. Of particular concern is the administrative order. The Iowa City Sanitary Landfill takes very seriously the operation of its facility and seeks to always comply with applicable law. The landfill is managed by a capable, professional staff who seek to stay fully abreast of applicable law. Further, we believe we have an excellent working relationship with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) and are frequently in communication with that department regarding our management of wastes and other environmental issues. We have been assured by IDNR that they believe us in compliance with applicable law. Thus, the unexpected receipt of the administrative order was disconcerting. We were also concerned when a subsequent telephone call to IDNR regarding the EPA action showed that IDNR was also unaware of the action and the underlying alleged violations. Our legal counsel has advised us that the administrative order appears to have been issued in violation of federal statutory requirement. It is our understanding that the administrative order was issued pursuant to Section 113(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (Act). That section of the Act provides that an order issued under subsection {a) is not effective until the person to whom it is issued has had an opportunity to confer with the Administrator concerning the alleged violation (see Section 113(a)(4) of the Act). We realize that it is EPA's position that the requirement to provide notice does not apply in this case because the law specifically exempts violation of section 112 of the Act (NESHAPS). However, the violation for which the Iowa City Sanitary Landfill is cited, failure to file an initial report, is not a violation of a NESHAPS standard, but rather is a violation of a notice requirement established by other authority, EAST WASHINGTON STREET e IOV/A CITY, IOWA $2240-1826 · I~19) 356-~000 · FAX ~319) 3~6-~00g Mr. William A. Spratlin September 5, 1995 Page 2 Notwithstanding this legal issue, the Iowa City Sanitary Landfill intends to proceed to address the issues raised in the Administrative Order and Finding of Violation. This is done without admission of the violation or other liability. Since the administrative order fails to state a specific time in which the report is to be filed, we shall assume the statutory one-year period applies. We appreciate that after receipt of the two documents, your staff has been helpful in responding to questions posed by our staff. However, we feel it would have been more appropriate and in keeping with the intent and letter of the Act for EPA to have used a less formal manner in which to bring these issues to our attention. We believe that EPA, IDNR and the regulated community would be best served to manage such matters as follows: If EPA and IDNR are interested in ensuring compliance with a multitude of environmen- tal regulations, those agencies should cooperatively provide education to the regulated community, especially with regard'to recordkeeping and reporting obligations. It is evident in this case that although we frequently discuss compliance matters with IDNR, which has been delegated the federal asbestos program, that they were unaware or unconcerned with the requirements alleged to have been violated. At the end of the inspection it would be appropriate for the inspector to bring the alleged violations to the attention of the landfill staff person or, at the least, to provide the landfill with a copy Of the inspection report with the suspected violations identified. This was not done in the Iowa City case. Iowa City is cognizant that EPA may consider the manner in which it addresses the alleged violations to be the least offensive or stringent of those provided by Section 1 1 3 of the Act. However, as you know, EPA is not required to take any of the formal actions set forth in the statute. Receipt of an administrative order carried with it a stigma that suggests the landfill is not properly managed. it suggests an intentional or extremely serious violation. While we concur that the landfill must comply with all applicable regulations, the violation cited allegedly occurred over four years ago and yet EPA is just now bringing the matter to our attention. The inspection took place almost one year ago, and yet EPA is just now bringing the alleged violation to our attention, If the alleged violation deserved the issuance of an administrative order, why was it not dealt with previously and in a more expeditious manner, In closing, let me restate that Iowa City will continue to seek to achieve full compliance with the law. In the future we hope we can count on EPA to help us achieve that compliance through proactive, informative means rather than reactive, enforcement means, Sincerely, City Manager Date: To: From: Re: City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM September 7, 1995 Mayor, City Council, City Manager Remaining schedule for decision making on Melrose Avenue Bridge replacement and street reconstruction At our discussion on September 5 with the University Heights City Council, I outlined the remaining steps in your decision making process for Melrose Avenue. Council should determine when you wish to schedule time to allow consideration of this matter, We expect to have all materials received from the environmental assessment/alternatives analysis consultant by September 15. At this time Council will be provided with a copy of the final environmental assessment/alternatives analysis report (the same one reviewed during the public comment period), the "Finding of No Significant Impact" (FONSI) document which will be provided to the Federal Highway Administration once Council selects the recommended alternative, and a summary report, As required by the federal process, the FONSI document contains a summary of public comments received, and the consultant's responses to the comments. The City Council must select a recommended alternative. As I stated at your September 5 meeting, six of the seven alternatives qualify for the FONSI designation. It is recommended that Council not select alternative 7, (new street through UI property) as it has been identified as having significant environmental impacts under the 4(0 public lands provisions of NEPA. The only other significant environmental impact identified by the consultant's report is that we will need to design the street reconstruction to avoid taking additional right-of-way from the 320 Melrose Avenue property. This property has been identified as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Rick Fosse has determined that there are a couple of options available for designing the road so that no additional property is needed from 320 Melrose Avenue. At this step of the process, Council should determine if they wish to have additional public comment regarding the street and bridge reconstruction, This is not required by the federal environmental assessment process. You will have available to you over 200 pages of public comment received during the public comment period for the environmental assessment. At Council's discretion you may hold additional hearings, meet with the focus group you established for this process, or determine that no additional public comment is needed. Following selection of a recommended alternative by the City Council, the consultant will complete the FONSI document and it will be sent to the Federal Highway Administration for concurrence. 2 Federal Highway Administration has indicated they will concur or disagree with the FONSI determination within a period of 30 days. FHWA has participated in our environmental assessment process every step of the way, and we expect they will concur with the Councirs recommendation. Following FHWA's concurrence with the FONSI designation, they have indicated we will have fulfilled all of their requirements with respect to the environmental assessment process. At this point the $1.3 million in federal funds for the street and bridge reconstruction will be released. 6. The Engineering Division will proceed with design of the street and bridge reconstruction. 7. FY97 construction of both projects. Let me know if you have any questions regarding this schedule or the environmental assessment process, Rick and I can provide any additional information you require. cc: Chuck Schmadeke Karin Franklin Rick Fosse Jc~og~temalnsch.m~o City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM September 7, 1995 To: Stephen Atkins, City Manager From: Joe Fowler, Director Parking & Transira's- Reference: Melrose Avenue Bridge I have been informed by Engineering that the Melrose Avenue bridge has deteriorated further and that they are placing additional weight limits on it. As a result passenger load limits have been placed on buses using the bridge. The routes effected are Hawkeye, Oakcrest, Westwinds, and Plaen View. This may result in passengers being denied rides. If it does occur it will most likely happen in bound on Melrose Avenue and Sunset Street and out bound at University Hospital. Iowa city Transit currently has three models of buses in the fleet, Scania, Orion, and Gillig. Due to the initial weight of the buses Scania has no passenger load limit, Orion has a 70 passenger limit and Gillig has a 65 passenger limit when using the Melrose Avenue bridge. These buses carry up to 80 passengers during rush hour. Due to wheel chair accessible routes one bus using the bridge must be a Gillig. Every effort will be made to keep as many Scania buses as possible on the other routes. It should be noted that 5 of the 10 Scanias are due to be replaced in the fall of 1996 and this will intensify the problem. I have attached a memo from Ron Logsden, Transit Manager, informing Transit employees of this restriction. cc Jeff Davidson, JCCOG Ron Logsden, ICT City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: September 6, 1995 TO: FROM: All Mass Transit Operators Ron Logsden, Transit Manager RE: Melrose Avenue Bridge Due to further deterioration of the Melrose Avenue bridge, the Engineering Department has placed a weight limit on the bridge. This weight limit affects the number of passengers we can transport while crossing the bridge. Due to the lighter gross weight of the bus, the Scanias are not effected by the weight limit. The Orions can have a maximum of 70 passengers and the Gilligs can have a maximum of 65 passengers when crossing the bridge. We will try to keep a Scania on all mutes that cross the bridge except for the accessible mute. If you have questions or suggestions on how to reduce the impact of this weight restriction on your mute or the system as a whole, please stop in and see me. Thank you in advance for your assistance in enforcing this weight limit. If we abide by the weight limit now, we will prolong the life of the bridge and hopefully be able to continue using the bridge until it is replaced. BRIDGEMB.DOC City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: September 5, 1995 To: City Council From: Joe Fowler, Director Parking & .'~a,, nsit ~ Jim Brachtel, Traffic Engineer..~ Re: Parking Meters in Loading Zones We have been asked to explore the option of installing short term, 30 minute, parking meters in the loading zones in the CBD. Before entering this discussion, we believe it is important to review the history that has resulted in the present configuration of parking. In 1972 the Iowa City City Council adopted Resolution 72-132 establishing long range consider- ations for a parking policy for the City of Iowa City. In summary this resolution states that Iowa City shall provide parking in attendant controlled parking facilities and will eliminate all on-street metered parking in conjunction with a strong transit system and encouraging bicycle use. As a result of this policy 1,226 existing metered spaces were eliminated and 1,350 off-street attendant controlled spaces were built between 1972 and 1981. In May of 1981 then City Manager Neai Berlin proposed a major overhaul of CBD parking. Prior to this time the City issued stickers identifying private, unmarked vehicles as commercial vehicles. 520 of these permits were issued and these vehicles were competing with signed delivery vehicles for the 29 spaces reserved for commercial vehicles. Because of the high demand for short term parking Mr. Berlin proposed and Council approved converting the parking meters in the core of the CBD from 1 hour to 30 minute meters. In addition the use of stickers to'identify commercial vehicles was eliminated and Section 23-235 of the City Code was modified to require commercial vehicles to use loading zones if space was available within 150 feet. These two policy decisions have provided the direction for staff in establishing the current parking policy. The installation of parking meters in current loading zones is a direct contradiction to existing policy. (We have attached resolution/policy for yo.ur review.) As with any decision there are pros and cons with the metering of loading zones. These are items that have come to our attention as we have reviewed this issue: PRO · Easy for the public to understand · Enfomement is easier, no chalking tires and returning later · Increased revenue, estimated at $3.00 per space per day CON · Public may view it as removing free spaces o Force more commemial vehicle deliveries into the traveled lane · Congested streets may discourage visitors to the CBD · Reduced access for emergency vehicles (memo from Fire Department attached) 2 If Council determines they wish to pursue the installation of parking meters in loading zones, we propose that it be done on a trial basis in a limited area. We have reviewed the current parking patterns and believe that the 100 and 200 blocks of South Clinton Street would be the appropriate place for such a trial. The street in this area is wider than most CBD streets, there are few store fronts to deliver to on the west side of the street, and there is no metered short term parking at the west end of the Pedestrian Mall. This would add approximately 12 metered spaces. Other areas that were reviewed and not recommended were: 10 block of South Clinton -- large delivery vehicles making extended stops and high usage by buses 100 and 200 blocks of Washington Street -- narrow street, angle parking, many store fronts 100 and 200 blocks of Iowa Avenue m deliveries would block the only traveled lane 100 and 200 blocks of South Capitol -- high delivery activity The installation of parking meters in loading zones may seem a minor decision. However, it does have major implications on how parking in the CBD will be viewed and planned for in the future. Do the policies of the 1970's and 80's still apply when reviewing the direction of current and future usage patterns in the CBD? Can this decision be made independent of a review of the existing policy? cc: Bill Dollman, Parking Manager tp3o3 MEMORANDUM Iowa City Fire Department DATE: September 1, 1995 TO: FROM: RE: Joe Fowler, Parking & Transit Direc~r Andy Rocca, Acting Fire Chief ~,'~ Central Business District Loading Zones It is my understanding that there is discussion regarding removing the loading zones downtown in the central business district. I am opposed to the removal of the loading zones in the central business district if vehicles that normally would park in these zones are relocated to the center of the streets in the downtown area. As I stated at City staff on August 30, 1995, the downtown area is currently congested with traffic and access for fire apparatus is difficult, at best. Maneuvering fire apparatus through congested traffic and vehicles parked in the middle of streets would severely hamper operations of the Fire Department. I bring this to your attention so that other alternatives for the loading zones may be looked at prior to eliminating them from the downtown business district. If you would like to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to call. AJR/bdm cc: Tom Hansen, Acting Fire Marshal City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: May28. 1981 To: From: Re: City Council/ Loa~ i ng/Unl oadi ng i n CBO The City's most recent parking policy was passed April 4, 1972, as Resolution 72-132. The intent of 72-132 was to set a direction for changes in the CBD parking system. It called for the elimination of al~l street metered parking and the construction and operation of off-street parking facilities. Generally, this direction has been followed with the elimination of 1226 spaces from June 1972 until March 1981, and the addition of 1,350 off- street attendant controlled spaces during the past two years. These changes encompass the entire Parking System, not just the ~BD. The removed spaces include 466 in off-street metered lots, 300 off-street attendant controlled {on Urban Renewal property), and 460 on-street metered spaces. The changes brought about by eliminating street metered parking and providing streetscaping have greatly enhanced the beauty of our central business district. However, these changes combined with increased activity in the CBD also have produced new problems. At the present time, the City of Iowa City provides 29 on-street spaces reserved for commercial vehicles. In addition to marked vehicles being used to make deliveries to the CBD, we have established a policy of issuing permits to unmarked vehicles being used for commercial purposes. At the present time, 520 of these permits have been issued. The high demand and limited supply have caused an overflow of commercial vehicles into the traveled lanes of traffic and "no parking anytime" areas. This problem will increase during the next two years as the City begins its alley repaving program and forces more commercial vehicles onto the streets for delivery. In order to relieve traffic congestion in the CBD and eliminate confusion on the part'of the public as to who can park in what loading zone, the following changes in the CBD are proposed: Convert the parking meters on the 100 and 200 blocks of East Washington Street, the 10 block of South Clinton Street, and the 10 block of South Dubuque Street to half-hour meters. This will add 53 short term spaces. This change will reduce meter feeding and increase turnover in the CBD. Patrons wishing to make one quick stop to pick up an item generally should be able to locate a space. This also will eliminate the problem of CBD employees using street meters for long term parking. Long term parkers will use meters located further from the CBD core or park in the City's off-street facilities. Eliminate the use of the 520 commercial vehicle stickers. The City has received numerous complaints of misuse bypermit holders and the general public does not understand why they cannot park in an area where two or three other passenger cars are parked. The use of these permits is unworkable. By increasing the number of short term spaces, these vehicles will be accommodated throughout the downtown instead of concentrated on Clinton Street. Allow only marked commercial vehicles to use the loading zones in the CBD when they are available and strictly enforce usage of the loading zones. This should reduce double parking for deliverypurposes. At the present time, vehicles are parking in front of the store where they are delivering instead of using loading zones a half-block away. Elimination of non-marked commercial vehicles will free loading zone spaces for marked vehicles. This will reduce double parking and traffic congestion. Loading zones will be strictly enforced for use by non-commercial vehicles and abuse of the stated time limit, 30 minutes by commercial vehicles. Loading zones will be signed for permitted parking on Sundays. In order to initiate this policy, the City Council most take the following steps: Direct the Traffic Engineer to install half hour parking meters in the 100 and 200 blocks of East Washington Street, the 10 block of South Clinton Street, and the 10 block of South Dubuque Street. Modify Section 6.01.09 of Ordinance No. 77-2835. This would eliminate the use of commercial stickers issued by the Finance Director. It would limit the use of commercial vehicle loading zones to vehicles displaying a sign or other insignia permanently attached to the vehicle. Amend paragraph #11 of Section 23-235 of the City Code. The section now reads: "No commercial vehicle used for pickup or delivery of merchandise or goods or passengers sh~ll be stopped or parked in a lane of traffic when parking space or spaces are available at the cubr." The proposed amendment ~s. "No commercial vehicle used for pickup or delivery of merchandise or goods or passengers shall be stopped or parked ih a lane of traffic when a parking space, loading zone or any other space is available at the curb or in an alley within 150 feet of any building where pickup'or delivery is to be made. The proposals were reviewed with the Board of Directors of the Downtown Association on Hay 19. They have no objections to the proposals. bdw4/3-5 CC: Dale Helling Rosemary Vitosh Joe Fowler Harvey Miller Jim Brachtel RB$OLUTION NO. , 72-~2 I~SOLUTION ESTABLISHING LONG RANGB CON$IDERATIOI~$ FOR A P~IN~ POLI~ FO~ ~ CI~ OF ~O~A C~ Z0~A. ~EI~AS, the City l~auager of the City of Iowa City, Iowa! has made certain reco~nandationa to the City Council conce~uin8 :he pat~8 syst~ o~ the City of Iova City, Io~a, after ~a~ys~s by ~h~ staf~ of the City of ~o~a City, Io~a, and ~g~, the City ~ctl of ~he City of Io~a City, Zone, has received reco~eudacions ~d said analysis and has detectned that ~t ~s In the b~st interests of uhe C~ty of ~ovs C~uy, Io~a, uha~ ~he C~ty Co~ci~ fo~ul~e a S~eral pa~k~8 policy, ~corpo~a~$n~ ~he reco~da~$uns of the parkin~ 8ys~e~ analysis. I0~A, un 1. ~at the City Council hereby reco~$z~ ~d dete~i~es ~hat local 8ove~en~ ~1 provide the ~Jor share of futura paring ~eq~ir~uts ~ the c~tral b~siness district ~ the City of Ioea City, ~o~a. 2. That the City Co~cil de~ it in the public interests to cranially slimeate all on-street metered parki~ in the c~tr~ b~ess district ar~. ~. ~a~ ~he ~lty .~cil hereby establishes ~d dete~ that policy of ~he City of Io~a City, Iowa, ~11 be to concentrate parkint facili- ties in convenie~t ~d economical off-accsec locations ~ the c~tr~ b~iness district area ~d the areas adJacen: thereto. i. ~e: ~he City ~cil hereby datemines cha~ to put the p=ovisions this Resolution inco sEEact, the iollowini steps shall be t~ as ~ be approved by the City ~uncil in the fucurel a. Perkins meters on-street ~11 be eli~naced ~n etaEss as off-e~ree~ facilities are constructed; b. Future of/-screet par~n~ needs ~11 be provided for in the construc~ion of multi-sto~ parkln~ facilities compli~Ca~ surface iota; c. Off-eCr~e~ parkin~ facilities shoed be at~d~t operated ~huneve~ possible ~d it sh~l be the 8oal of :he Council to es~ablish attend~t cun:rolled o/f-arras: faci- d. The planaiu~ aM cunscruction of all off-street facili~ies, ~hether ~ul~l-stoq or surface loc~, shall be so deslined :o be asthetically pleasi~8 ad a complier ~o the do~- to~ buoiness s, All par~n~ facility conscruc~ion shall be coordinated ~he developmen~ of a viable m~s ~rausporca~iun syst~ for the City o[ Io~a City, Io~a, and ~ha surro~din8 re~lon~ and specific ~rov~sion fo~ ~lcycle use and f. ~ere is hereby directed ~ ~ha s~a~f develop a de~ailed -2- Resolution No. 72-~32 parkin8 plan to carry out tho overall policy contained this Resolution. :he provielane of thio Resolution. It wee moved by Hickereon and seconded by Resolution as read be adopted, and upon =ol~ call there That the Clty~anaser is hereby authorized and directed to carry out AYES ~ NAYS:, ABSI~T: Connell ..Sis__' __ Czaruecki ,,, ~ ,, F, AYOr~ ATTEST,' City Clerk that the Paseod and approved thio 4 day o£/g~, A.D., 1972. April Date: September 7, 1995 To: From: Re: Stove Arkins, City Manager Anne Burnside, Assistant City Attorney Animal Waste Ordinance You mentioned recently that there is interest in the ordinance which Des Moines has just adopted which requires pet owners to dispose of their pets' excrement. Iowa City, as you know, is ever on the cutting edge of legislative matters, and often well in front of the edge. Attached, for example, please find a copy of Section 8-4-6E Solid Waste Removal. I believe this ordinance has been a matter of record since 1978. Violation of this ordinance could be charged as a simple misdemeanor or as a municipal infraction. If you need additional information, please let me know. Section 8-4-6E Solid Waste Removal. Any person who shall walk a pet animal on public or private property shall provide for the disposal of the solid waste material excreted by the animal by immediate removal of the waste. Evelyn Kral 602 Whiting Avenue Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Ms. Kral, I have received your letter and news clipping regarding dog feees scooper laws. I agree that Iowa City has some citizens that allow their dogs to defeeate in public areas and who don't pick the feees up. I'm pleased to tell you that Iowa City does have an ordinance specifically to deal with this problem. The ordinance has been in effect since 1980. A violation of this ordiannee is a misdemeanor and carries a $90.00 fine. We do our best to enforce the law, unfortunately we can't be everywhere at one time. When we get complaints of a large number of people violating the law in a certain area of town, we try t9 set up regular patrols on various shi~ to deal with the problem. I have to say, I've lived in many other communities and on the average, the citizens in this community are better at keeping their dogs on leashes and picking up after them than in other cities. We will run a patrol in the area of Shimek School and attempt to alleviate the problem out there. Thank you for your concern and assistance on keeping our City streets clean and feces free. Should you have any other animal related problems or questions please feel free to contact me at 356-5295. OU~ Lisa C. Goodman ~ Supervisor Animal Control 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: August 14, 1995 -R. J. Wl.kulhake, Police chief Lisa C. Goodman, Supervisor, Animal Control KAREN KUBBY MEMO OF JULY 31, 1995 In response to the memo of July 31, 1995, received by City Councilor Karen Kubby, I felt it necessary to make you aware of the reasons behind changes in the Iowa City Code Title 8 Chapter 4, Pet Animal Control. Ms. Kubby has made. reference to code sections 8-4-6 A. I. subsections a,b,and c, 8-4-6 1. c, and 2. d., 8-4-6 2. G., and 8-4-3 I. Code 8-4-6 A. deals with pets at large being prohibited. The major change in the code was with the word enclosed, which appears in subsection a. This change makes it a violation of the code to have a pet animal on private property that is not enclosed or where the animal is not tethered or under the control of a leash. In simpler terms, an animal must be-either confined within a dwelling, enclosed yard, tethered, or on a leash under the control of the owner or custodian. The wording and therefor meaning of the code was changed for the following reasons. 1. Animals are naturally protective of their property and owners. They also become protective of what they perceive to be their property. A dog for example, will protect the area they can see, which may extend past the boundaries of their owners property. This is seldom a problem if there are barriers set up to prevent an animal from going beyond the property line onto public property. Fences and tethers act as these barriers. 2. All citizens may choose to own an animal and in turn use public property available to them for passage or to walk their animal for exercise. Problems occur when citizens want to use a public right of way and are prevented from doing so due to an animal. Animals by nature will protect their property or owners from strangers or strange animals. Numerous citizens are bit annually while passing properties where animals are maintained. Dogs and cats walked legally on leashes by their owners, are attacked each year by animals able to leave their yards at will. Although there are various other laws that deal specifically with animals that mn loose on public property, I feel it is important to prevent the animals from getting to that point. Even the best of animal trainers will agee that animals are unpredictable, and may react to something much faster than their owners could ever respond to prevent a problem from occurring. 3. Although the publics health and safety is most important, animals that may leave their properties at will, cause a variety of other problems such as, harassment or killing of wildlife, spread of disease including those transmittable to humans, defilement onto public fi'equented areas, and breed fieely causing unwanted litters, mixed breeding, and the passing on of poor genetic or behavioral problems. In 1994, 370 dogs and cats were euthanized at the Iowa City Animal Care and Control Center. Of these, most were by animals that were able to leave their properties and breed at will, or that received injuries or illnesses while loose. In 1994, 521 dogs and cats were reclaimed by owners. At least 50% of these animals left their properties while their owners were standing close by but were unable to stop the animal once it decided to leave. Section 8-4-6 1.c and 2.d pertain to pets in motor vehicles. The code states animals must be properly restrained within a motor vehicle. This law is interpreted to mean an animal may be maintained, during movement, in an area of the vehicle which is specifically made for passengers. The vehicle code for the state of Iowa states that passengers must only ride in areas specifically made for passengers. Animal Control believes animals'fall into the def'mition of passengers. Annually on the nations highways and streets animals are thrown from the open areas of moving vehicles, not only causing severe injury or death to the animal, but causing vehicle accidents and injuries to citizens. The Animal Control division has allowed citizens to maintain animals within the inside of the cab, an enclosed tmek bed, or in an open bed if the animal is within a pet carrier or cross tethered with a halter to prevent the animal from being thrown out. Ms. Kubby states, it is unlawful for an animal to stick its' head out a window of a motor vehicle unless it is tethered, is a misinterpretation of the law. The law states that animals must be properly restrained while within a motor vehicle. This would mean that an animal must not be able to physically reach a citizen that may be legally walking past a vehicle. I.E. A dog leaning out of a vehicle or bed of track and aggressively approaching someone or biting them. The law does not mention tethers. It is important to note that this is a city in which people often walk or ride bicycles to get around town. They also must have reasonable access to public parking and the ability to get in and out of vehicles that may be parked in close proximity to vehicles containing animals. 8-4-6 G. deals with assistance animals. I agree with Ms. Kubby that our portion of the code which deals with animals that assist disabled or differently abled persons with everyday functions is outdated. Although it is true that animals other than dogs have been trained to assist people, it is still not very common. In addition some of the training of these animals is not being done by licensed or professional trainers and therefor may not qualify the animal under the city code. I believe the code should be changed to the following; Service dogs and assistance animals. A differently abled person with a service dog or assistance animal, or a person qualified to train a. service dog or assistance animal, has the right to be accompanied by that animal, under control, in any public or public access place or building without being required to make additional payment for the service dog or assistance animal. The person is liable for damage done to any premises or facility by a service dog or assistance animal. Definition of service dogs and assistance animals. (This would need to be added to section 8-4-1 DEFINITIONS) For purposes of this section "service dog" means a dog specially trained or in the process of being trained by a recognized training facility to assist differently abled persons, whether described as a service dog, a support dog, an independence dog, or otherwise. "Assistance animal" means a simian or other animal specially trained or in the process of being.trained under the auspices of a recognized training facility to assist differently abled persons. 8-4-3 I. Exceptions in licensing and vaccinating: I agree with Ms. Kubby that the portion of this section which applies to "keanel dogs" should also apply to "kennel cats". I recommend the following changes in the code. The licensing provisions of this Chapter shall not be applied to animals whose owners are nonresidents temporarily within the City, kennel dogs or cats which are kept or raised in facilities licensed pursuant to the Code of Iowa, as amended, solely for the bona fide purpose of sale and which are kept under coustant restraint. We also need to add a portion to Code section 8-4-3 E. It should read. Differently abled citizens with service dogs and assistance animals shall be issued a fi'ee license tag, which shall be displayed for the purpose of identification and rabies verification. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: August 15, 1995 To; From: Re: Lisa Goodman, Animal Control Supervisor ~ Linda Newman Woito, City Attorney City Council Referral to Animal Control Advisory Committee The City Council has asked me to refer a number of issues to the Animal Control Advisory Committee, for their review - as well as for your review. It is our understanding that the Animal Control Advisory Committee is now taking time to review the animal control provisions in our City Code, and maybe making some recommendations. As the Advisory Committee does this review of the current City Code, the City Council asks you to look at the following: The "pet at large" definition was made more stringent, and now requires a person to have your own pet, including dog or cat, on a leash in your own yard. Prior provision required that the pet was no{ "at large" so long as the pet was on the owner's own property, and did not have to be leashed. Pets in a motor vehicle. It is now unlawful to have a dog in the back of your truck or hanging its head out the window unless it is leashed. Please review this as being somewhat more stringent than necessary. Assistire animals. Under the current City Code, only seeing eye dogs are mentioned as exceptions in the City Code. There may be other species of animals who are trained to aid persons with disabilities, and the City Council would like you to look at this issue. Rather than "seeing eye dogs," mentioned in Title 8, §4-6-G for food establishment, and Title 10, §7-7A concerning cemeteries, perhaps we should look at a more generic term like "animals that are trained to assist persons with disabilities." Kennels. The City Council would like to have the Advisory Committee look at whether kennels for animals other than dogs should be included in the regulation of persons who breed and sell animals, see Title 8, §4-3-1. Thank you very much for your assistance, and please call if you have questions. City Council City Clerk City Manager Assistant City Manager TO: FROM: DATE: RE: CITY OF IOWA CITY PARKS AND I{ECREATION DEPAR~NT NEMOl~ D~31~ City Manager Parks & Recreation Director September 5, 1995 College Green Vandalism Within the past two weeks we experienced two separate instances of vandalism in College Green Park. The first incident resulted in eight broken light bulbs and globes, and three broken light refractors. The second incident resulted in a stolen park bench... one of the nice ones purchased by Project Green. The bench was bolted into concrete, but stolen nevertheless. The cost for replacement materials (excluding staff time) is as follows: Light bulbs Light globes Light refractors Park bench Freight (est.) TOTAL 8 @ $12.16 = $ 97°28 8 @ $116.25 = 930.00 3 @ $52.00 = 156.00 1 @ $599.00 = 599.00 60.00 $1.842,28 Everything is on order, and the vandalism will be repaired as soon as possible. The globes and bench, however, will not arrive for three to four weeks. I am becoming increasingly concerned about vandalism in this park. While the items mentioned previously are the most severe incidents to date, we have also experienced a number of spray painting episodes, sign breakage, telephone breakage, picnic table theft, and other smaller items. I have written a memo to Chief Winkelhake, requesting that his officers be made aware of this apparent trend. IO CITY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Office Phone (319) 356-5045 & MEMO D~E~ September 1, 1995 TO: Iowa City Airport Commission/City Council FROM: Ron O'Neil, Airport Manager ~. Global Positioning System The attached article was taken from the Iowa Aviation Bulletin. The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a na¥igational system, triangulating signals from satellites, that allows you to find your exact location anywhere in the world. When the system is completed, a GPS receiver will use four to twelve satellites to determine your position. · There are now 24 satellites in the system, with plans to increase that number to 30. This will allow for more accuracy and better. coverage. The satellite system is under the direction of the Department of Defense and the military version is accurate to within less than three meters. The version available to civilian aviation is accurate to within 100 meters. With the installation of a ground-based assistance system, that accuracy will be enhanced to about 7 meters, or approximately 22 feet. The ground-based system is scheduled to be installed by the year 2001. By the year 2001, the FAA has determined that 8400 GPS procedures will be developed. To date, the National Flight Procedures Development Office has developed 163 stand-alone GPS approaches. Of the 163 developed, only 17 have been published and certified for use. One of those approaches is to the Iowa City Airport. Iowa City was the first airport in our four-state Central FAA Region to receive a GPS approach and the only airport in the State to have this type of approach. Airport requirements for GPS Many airport operators believe that obtaining a charted GPS instrument ap- proach procedure lot their tarport is quite easy and involves little or no cost. How- ever, that may not always be true. Re- quired impr(~vements for a GPS approach to your airport may be very costly and take a great deal of time to complete. Even though hoground-based NAVAID is required for non-precision and Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) pre- cision GPS approaches. improvements may be required. Often overlooked are the requirements for runway*taxiway de- sign, lighting and signage, and dOcumen- tation which must be met before such an approach can be used. For example: The airport must have an up-to-date airport layout plan (ALP) that shows the runways that are intended to have instru- ment approaches, along with other spe- cific information. Minimum runway lengths will be re-. quired, depending on desired minimums. The separation between various ele- ments of the airport (runways, taxiways, building lines, etc.) must meet the appro- priate design standards for the desired minimums. The airport must have clear approaches and clear obstacle- free zones (OFZ). The airport must have accurately sur- veyed runway coordinates, beadrigs and elevations. The airport may have to have appropri- ate runway marking and lighting, depend- mg on desired miramums. An approach light system may be re- quited, depending on desired minimums. While GPS may be a relatively low-cost means tot providing more precise Cockpit instrumentation and guidance, the cost of modifying the layout of a particular airport may be prohibitive. Even though the cost of modifying airports might be eligible for stateand federal airport improvement fund- ing, there is no guarantee that they would be funded; such projects would have to compote with many other high priority safely and capacity needs throughout the state or country. GP$ RWY 30 218 AL-682 (FAA) 1320 1150 /~ 2249 ~ w~ A t 100.1 1260.1 1180-1 oacuNo J 13204 GP$ P'"Y 30 NC-1, 25 MA? t995 IOWA CITY MUNI K)WA cnY. IOWA m~ :Ol :o i, ol,,ol,- ~Oy~. ~Y. ~OWA IOWA CITY The first 'stand.alone " opS approach (QPS RWY 30 Iowa City) In the fouros~te Cantral Region published May 20, 1~6. City of Iow;a City MEMORANDUM Date: September 8, 1995 To: Mayor and City Council From: City Clerk Re: Landfill discussion, August 21, 1995 - 7:05 pm in Council Chambers Council presen{: Horowitz, Kubby, Lehman, Novick, Pigoft, Throgmorton. Absent: Baker. Staff present: Atkins, Helling, Woito, Karr, Ogren, Nebmann, Pelkey, Davidson, Schmadeke, Smith. LANDFILL DISCUSSION Mayor Horowitz welcomed participants to the meeting with area mayors and council members regarding County landfill issues. Participants included: Glenn Siders, Mayor Pro tern, North Liberty Russell Bailey, Mayor, Hills Ed Kasper, Mayor Pro tern, Oxford Robert Weisor, Mayor, Lone Tree AI Axeen, Mayor, Corelville Glenn Potter, Mayor, Tiffin Douglas Morgan, City Administrator, Kalona Don Swanson, Mayor, University Heights Joe Bolkcom, Johnson County Board of Supervisors Louise Frohm, City Council, University Heights Dawn McCoy, City Council, Riverside Representatives of N&N Sanitation City Manager Atkins presented a factual overview of the general issues and operation of the Iowa City Landfill and responded to questions. (A complete transcription is available in the City Clerk's office.) City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: September 8, 1995 To: Mayor and City Council From: City Clerk Re: Council Work Session, August 28, 1995 -6:30 pm in the Council Chambers. Mayor Horowitz presiding. Council present: Horowitz, Baker, Kubby, Lehman, Novick, Pigott, Thregmorton. Staff present: Atkins, Woito, Karr, Franklin, Davidson, Boothroy, Schoon, Helling. Tapes: 95-99 & 95-100, Both Sides; 95-101, Side 1. REVIEW ZONING MATTERS Reel 95-99 Side 2 PCD Director Franklin presented the following Planning and Zoning items for discussion: [8/29 formal council agenda, p&Z items] Settin.q a public headng for September 12 on an ordinance amending the Zoning Chapter bv chan.qin.q the use' requlations on an approximate 2.02 acre tract of land located east of Lakeside Ddve and south of Highway 6 from ID-RS, Intedm Development Single~Family Residential, to RM-12. Low Density, Multi-Family Residential. (Whispering Meadows/REZ95-0012) Public headng on a resolution to annex a 3.05 acre tract located north of American Legion Road and west of Arlington Drive. (VVatts/ANN94-0008) Resolution to annex a 3.05 acre tract located north of American Le.qion Road and west of Arlinqton Drive. (Watts/ANN94-0008) Public headng on an ordinance amending the Zonino Chapter bv chanqin(~ the use regulations of a 3.05 acre tract located north of American Legion Road and west of Arlington Ddve from County RS, Suburban Residential, to RS-5, Low Density Sinqle- Family Residential. 0Natts/REZ94-0013) Ordinance amendinq the Zoning Chapter bv changinq the use requlations of a 3.05 acre tract located north of Amedcan Leqion Road and west of Adinqton Drive from County RS, Suburban Residential, to RS-5, Low Density Single-Family Residential. (VVatts/REZ94-0013) (FIRST CONSIDERATION) Public headng on an ordinance amending the Zoninq Chapter bv changing the use requlations of an approximate 29 acre tract of land located west of Mormon Trek Boulevard and south of Rohret Road from RS-5, Low Density Single-Family Residential, to OPDH-8, Planned Development Housing Oveday. (Mormon Trek Villaqe/REZ95- 0009) 2 Asst. PCD Dir. Davidson, developer Gary Watts and MMS consultant Larry Schnittjer presented information and responded to questions. Novick requested that City staff and developers look at the house for moving or salvage. Public headn.q on an amendment to City Code Title 14, Chapter 6, Article V, "Minor Modification Procedures," to allow parking for persons with disabilities in the front vard of a commercial zone even when located adjacent to a residential zone. Ordinance amendin.~ the-Zonin(~ Chapter bv changing the use reclulations of an approximate 250 acre Prepertv located north of 1-80 and west of N. Dubu(~ue Street from County A1, Rural, RS, Suburban, and RS3, Suburban Residential, to P, Public. (water plant/REZ94-0018) (Second consideration) Ordinance amending Title 14, Chapter 4, "Land Control and Development," Article C, "Historic Preservation Regulations," and Chapter 6, "Zoning," Article J, "Ovedav Zones" to allow the City to desi.(:lnate histodc landma,'ks and conservation districts. (Second consideration) Ordinance vacating a 20~foot wide alley located east of Gilbert Court and immediately north of Lot 4 of Block 3, Lyon's Addition. (MilderNAC95-0002) (Pass and adopt) Ordinance amending Cib/Code Title 14, Chapter 6, entitled "Zonin.q," Article S, entitled "Performance Standards," Sections 10B and 10C, concerning the location .of underground stora.~e tanks. (Pass and adopt) Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance bv amending the use regulations of an approximate 103.86 acres, which includes the Hiqhwa¥ 218/Hi~lhwav 1 mtemhanqe and propertv located in the southwest quadrant of the interchange from County RS, Suburban Residential, to C1-1, Intensive Commercial. (Winebrenner/REZ95-0011 ) (Pass and adopt) Franklin requested that Council defer this item to September 12 to allow time for a decision by the City Development Board regarding annexation. M. Resolution approving amendments to the by-laws of the Planning and Zonin.q Commission. SARATOGA SPRINGS/BURNS PROJECT: Franklin reported the Planning and Zoning Commission has deferred the Saratoga Springs project to no later than March 1996 to allow Council time to resolve housing issues. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION BY-LAWS (Item #9) Reel 95-99 Side 2 Council agreed to Novick's recommendations to amend the proposed Housing ~nd Community Development Commission by-laws as follows: Article 4, Section C - Delete "new members shall be appointed to the Commission as vacancies occur." Article 4, Section F - Questioned "if a position/appointment becomes vacant" phrase. Novick will follow-up with City Clerk prior to formal action. 3 In response to a request from Mayor Horowitz, Council agreed to the following: Article 5, Section C - Delete "and City. Council representative" from the last sentence. BROADWAY STREET HOUSING PROJECT UPDATE Reel 95-99 Side 2 HIS Director Boothmy presented the Broadway SIreet housing project update. Council directed staff to pursue the sale of Broadway to HACAP and authorized the public housing to resubmit an amended disposition/development plan as outlined in Boothroy's August 25 memo regarding Broadway sale/development of public housing. Staff Action: Amended plan scheduled for Council action September '12, and resubmitted to HUD. (Boothroy) ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICIES, STRATEGIES, AND ACTION (items #6 & #7) Reel 95-99 Side 2 PCD Director Franklin and Economic Development Coordinator Schoon presented information. Council reviewed the "Economic Development Policies, Strategies, and Actions For the City of Iowa City" document and proposed changes. PRESIDENTi'AL STRAW POLL (item #18) Reel 95-100 side 1 City Attorney Woito and Council Member Baker presented information about the presidential straw poll. SIDEWALK CAFES Reel 95-101 side 1 Council directed the City Clerk to retain the letter for consideration in 1997. Kubby suggested forwarding the letter to existing sidewalk cafe permit holders suggesting voluntary compliance. Staff Action: Letter sent to all existing sidewalk cafes (an.d included with information distributed to prospective holders) on August 29. (Karr) COUNCIL AGENDA/TIME Reel 95-101 side 1 (Consent Calendar 3F(2) - letter from E. Kral regarding Des Moines scooper law. Kubby requested that the correspondence be forwarded to the Animal Control Advisory Committee and that a letter be sent to E. Kral telling her that Council forwarded her letter. (Consent Calendar #3.f.(3)) Letter from Regina Alatalo regarding traffic problems at Highway 1 and Kitty Lee Road. Kubby requested that Council forward a copy of correspondence sent to IDOT regarding [raffic problems at Highway 1 and Kitty Lee Road. In response to Kubby, Atkins stated that he will wdte a follow-up letter to the Corps of Engineers regarding expansion of the watershed management concept. Kubby noted that she put the article "Public Management" in Council's packet and requested Council schedule discussion regarding the City's philosophy of collective 10. APPOINTMENTS: Housing & Community Development Gommission: 1 year- Linda Murray, James Harris, Elizabeth Swenson 4 bargaining. In response to Kubby, Asst. City Mgr. Helling requested that the collective bargaining discussion be held in closed session. Kubby noted Council received correspondence (packet of August 11) from Gloria O'Donnell regarding definitions of adult day care. Kubby raised concerns about lighting issues on Rohret Road. Staff will follow-up. . Novick presented information about the legislative policies committee. Baker requested the addition of local option income tax with no restrictions or no exemptions for state employees. Novick reported that the City of Cedar Falls was putting in their own fiber optic cables. Asst. City Mgr. Helling noted Cedar Falls had an electdc utility and some equipment already in place. Novick announced that the citizens resource group on the airport master plan is meeting September 7, 1995. Lehman stated that he asked City Mgr. Atkins to check into an ordinance giving preference to local contractors on City contracts. Reel 95-101, Sides 1 & 2 2 year - Christina .Ran_dall, Charles Eastham, Ann Donovan 3 year - John Falb, Tim Ruxton, Gretchen Schmuch Adjournment at 10:30 p.m. September 6, 1995 CITY OF I0 WA CITY John Gross Technigraphics, Inc, PO Box 1846 Iowa City, IA 52244-1846 Dear John: As you requested, I am sending you information regarding the total assessed value of all taxable property in the central business district (which is the area generally bounded by Iowa Avenue, Gilbert Street, Burlington Street, and Capitol Street) and the total amount of annual property taxes collected from this property. The total assessed value as of January 1, 1994, for both building and land values, was approximately $83.5 million. {Note: The taxable property value for commercial property is equal to 100% of its assessed value). Based on this value, the total amount of property taxes payable during fiscal year 1996 (July 1, 1995 through June 30, 199(~) by central business district property owners is approximately $2.67 million of which ~1.08 million (40.6%) is paid to the city, $1.055 million {39.5%) is paid to the school district, and $460,000 (17.2%) is paid to the county. If you need further explanation of these numbers or require additional information, please give me a call at 356-5236. Sincerely__ David Schoon Economic Development Coordinator cc: S. Arkins · K. Franklin EAST WASIIINOTON STREET · IOWA CITY. IOWA $324Q-I1~'6 · (~19) 356-~000 · FAX (319) City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: September 8, 19956 To: From: Linda N. Woito, City Attorney. Anne G. Burnside, First Assistant City Attorney Re: Motion to Reconsider You asked for a succinct discussion of the following questions: Must a motion to reconsider be made the same day the main motion was decided, or may it be made at a later time? 2. Is a motion to reconsider a debatable motion? Must a motion to reconsider be voted upon at the meeting where reconsideration is moved, or may the vote be taken at a later time? If a motion to reconsider carries, can the main motion be considered at the same meeting? May the main motion be considered at a later meeting? adopted? What is the correct procedure for a motion to rescind a resolution earlier Discussion According to Robert's Rules of Order, Revised: 1. A motion to reconsider may be made "only on the date the vote to be reconsidered was taken, or on the next succeeding day". This office has consistently interpreted this rule to mean that the motion may be made at the next meeting of the body. The quoted language refers to actions undertaken by a body such as Parliament or Congress which meets on successive days in each term. A body such as a board, commission or City Council which meets weekly or monthly cannot take action "on the next succeeding day", and to give this portion of the rule logical effect, it must be interpreted to mean at the next meeting of the body. Applied to the City Council, a matter considered at a meeting on September 5, 1995 could be raised for reconsideration by motion made at the next regular meeting on September 12, 1995. 2. A motion to reconsider is a debatable motion when the main motion to be reconsidered is itself debatable. If a motion is made to reconsider the adoption of a resolution, the motion would be debatable because a motion to adopt the resolution was debatable. 3. A motion to reconsider has a very high rank. It may be made at any time, even when other motions are pending. It has the effect bf preventing action on any other matter until a vote on the motion is taken. From this I conclude that the vote on a motion to reconsider must be taken at the same meeting where the .motion was made, and cannot be deferred, postponed or tabled to a later date. 4. The matter being reconsidered, unlike the motion to reconsider, may bb postponed to a later time. However, the matter may not be postponed indefinitely. The Rules make clear that notice of reconsideration should be given. Further, a motion to reconsider, once the motion has passed, may not be amended or reconsidered. From this I conclude that an appropriate motion might be worded as follows: I move for reconsideretlon of the resolution adopted by this Council on (September 5, 1995 which directed the County Auditor to place a straw poll upon the ballot at the election scheduled for ,, and that reconsideration of the resolution occur at a meeting of this Council to be held on or before ,, with notice as required by the Code of Iowa. It would only be possible to take action on the reconsideretlon at the meeting in which the motion for reconsideration is made if the item has been previously posted. If no agenda item regarding reconsideration of the straw poll resolution is posted at least 24 hours prior to thc meeting on September 12th, no action on the substantive matter can be taken. I note that it is necessary for a date certain to be stated for consideration of the motion The Rules make clear that a reconsideretlon may not be amended or postponed indefinitely. In a footnote, the Rules describe a tactic used in Congress to kill future reconsideration of a matter which has just passed: a proponent of the matter immediately moves reconsideration of the matter and at the same time, moves the reconsideretlon be laid on the table. If the motion to table is adopted, the effect is to kill the motion to reconsider, making future action by this route impossible. Any vote may be rescinded by a majority vote provided notice of the motion has been given at the previous meeting or in the posted agenda for the present m. eeting. A resolution may be rescinded without notice by a two-thirds vote of the members. A motion to rescind is identical to a motion to amend something previously adopted by striking out the entire resolution, or some portion of it. It is a debatable motion which may be made by any member of the Council. The resolution adopted by Council regarding the straw poll may be rescinded by a majority vote of Council, after notice, or by a two-thirds vote without notice. I would note, however, it has not been the practice of this Council nor the recommendation of this office that substantive matters ever be undertaken without notice absent true emergency. I do not perceive any emergency in the matter of the straw poll vote. Please let me know if you have additional questions regarding these matters. CC.' City Council City Clerk City Manager Assistant City Manager -" IowaCMl Liberties Union ~' ' '~i~ AN AFFILIATE OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES 446;~sb~an~ Exchange B~dg Des Moines. IA 50309 September 5, 1995 Mayor Susan Horowitz City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA. 356-5000 Re: CityVote Dear Mayor Horowitz: Thank you for contacting the Iowa Civil Liberties Union with yoth" request for assistance. We take special pleasure whenever we have an oppor,Xtnity to work with local governments in defending constitutional rights and freedoms. You specifically ask for our opinion concerning whether the city has a "First Amendment right to determine local ballot questions," but I imagine that the city is ultimately interested in whether we can assist in getting the "CityVote" straw poll placed on the Iowa City municipal election ballot in spite of the Secretary of State's ruling that to do so would exceed the home role powers granted to your city. The situation is indeed intriguing, and although I have not had time to thoroughly review the research and materials delivered by City Councilor Larry Baker, I will endeavor to meet your desire for a timely reply with our unresearched response. Please understand as you read this that we can provide our organizational opinion or consult with your attorneys, but we cam~ot endeavor to provide Iowa City with true legal advice absent the formation an attorney-client relationship. At this point we are simply 'assessing the case for its "civil liberties" merit° Letter to Mayor Susan Horowitz S. eptember 5, 1995 The facts as we [mderstand them are as follows: P~Oo 2 Your effort to include the nationwide "CityVote" presidential candidate preference poll on the ballot is a seemingly laudable attempt by your municipality to create a public forum on an important political issue. Apparently this vote will serve local needs and concerns in a number of ways that are of benefit to both Iowa City and its collective citizenry. The County Auditor prepares and certifies the ballot, but (if I understand the law correctly) must answer to the Secretary of State on-what can or cannot be done. (§47.1 Iowa Code). The Secretary of State upon leaming of your plan to participate in "CityVote" solicited a formal opinion from the Attomey General as to whether Iowa City could include the issue on its municipal election ballot. Both the Attorney General of Iowa and the Secretary of State have concluded that authority to place issues on the ballot exists only pursuant to Iowa's "home role" statute and have further ruled that, because the "CityVote" is not upon a local issue, it cannot be conducted under such authority, Any court action to overram the decision of the Secretary of State or any noncompliance by the county auditor needs to be completed in time to print the ballots which I assume is very near. First, in regard to your express question: We are not prepared to accept that governmental subdivisions have a constitutional right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment or the Iowa Constitution. The legal basis for such a right seems dubious to us and has implications that seem unnecessary to explore or resolve in the present context of this case. Even if Iowa City was asserting the right collectively on behalf of its citizens, it is not at all clear that citizens of Iowa City are sufficiently joined in interest on this issue to warrant "organizational standing". II. Our reservations do not, however, preclude the possibility of issues arising under the First Amendment. In this case the gtate of Iowa is foreclosing a forum that would otherwise be available. There does not appear to be any Letter to Mayor. Susan Horowitz S.eptem..be? 5, 1995 Pege 3 content discrimination or discrimination among particular speakers, therefore relaxed standards of judicial review may well apply and hamper legal efforts to overturn the Secretary of State's decision. Even so, the state will have to establish that it is pursuing a legitimate governmental purpose or function in denying Iowa City the authority to hold a straw vote on presidential candidates. One possibility is the state's authority to police the conduct of local elections, the other is Article II, Section one of the United States Constitution, which gives the states power to prescribe how presidential electors are selected. In any event, this may be one point of attack since the state does not seem to be asserting any very serious concerns other than a technical lack of statutory authority. Another point of attack might be the lack of suitable alternative forums. Generally, First Amendment law tends to tolerate the foreclosure of certain avenues of speech so long as sufficient alternative forums exist. By arguing that there is no comparable alternative to a citywide vote, either qualitatively or quantitatively, 'supporters of City Vote may make significant legal headway. The primary difficulty it seems to me is the hierarchical model of government that currently holds legal sway in this country. This special straw vote may not be seen as a traditional form of speech that would be immune from government interference. It may be characterized instead as a "special forum" that is within the discretion of government to create or destroy at will. Under the hierarchical theory of government, the decision of the Secretary of State in refusing to permit the foram, would be analyzed as the only governmental action being taken in this case. If the act of creating the foram is deemed discretionary, then the city and its supporters may not have sufficient standing to challenge the decision.1 I do not know whether Iowa's home role statute provides an answer to this problem. I do know that defining the scope of municipal home role has not I This case might be on a much better footing under the First Amendment if the "CityVote" were being placed on the ballot through some sort of voter initiative or ballot access process sanctioned by home rule. In that event, the Secretary of State's position might become untenable, because it would be directed against specific first amendment activities of certain identifiable persons who would have unnassailble standing, Letter to Mayor Susan Horowitz .,..S. ?p!?mber. 5.:. 1995 ............. . P~ge4 been a big item on the ICLU's traditional legal agenda. Given time and internal debate, we might conclude that augmenting the power of municipalities to place questions on the local ballot is an area upon which we should focus. But we cannot commit to that cause at this point. CONCLUSION Our initial ~pr~ssion is that this case would be interesting but difficult from a First Amendment standpoint. It is doubtful that the First Amendment issues could be sorted out quickly enough to make a difference in time for the next election .. the likelihood of success may not merii an emergency injunction. There appear to be serious standing problems in establishing a fight to challenge the decision of the Secretary of State under any First Amendment theory. The most logical challenge for Iowa City to bring as a municipality, would probably focus on establishing the extent of its local discretion under Iowa's home role statute. In this case the First Amendment issues would become tangential and would only flavor the debate over proper statutory interpretation of the home rule provisions. ff the time and further.analysis of the issues pemdtted, the ICLU might be positively oriented to providing legal assistance directly or indirectly to Iowa City. However, at this point we cannot commit our resources to such. Perhaps you will keep us advised of developments and the evolution of legal issues in this dispute as they arise, and as time goes on we may reconsider. In the meantime, however we can only offer our expressions of support for your efforts to improve upon the political life of your community. Again, thank you for contacting us in connection with this dispute. R l~,~11yYo)a's,/ ,;. . / ? / '//I/Ill.// ~andall C, W~son, ICI.U L~gal Director Td¢pho~e: 515/243-3988 To'* IO~ C~TY John~n Counl~- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Charles D. Duffy, Chairperson Joe Bolkcom Stephen P. Lacina Don Sehr Sally Slutsman September 5, 1995 INFORMAL MEETING 1. Call to order 9:00 a.m. Agenda Review of the informal minutes of August 29th recessed to August 31st and the formal minutes of August 31st. 3. Business fi'om the Board of Supervisors. a) Discussion re: b) Discussion re: 'c) Discussion re: d) Repom e) Other Fringe Area report regarding Iowa City. cleanup day. cleanup by Secondary Roads Department. 4. Discussion from the public. 5. Recess. 913 SOUTH DUBUQUE ST. P.O. BOX 1350 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244-1350 TEL: (319) 356-6000 To: IO~ CI~ CL~K From jo hogarty ~-6~5 8:38am p, 2 of 3 Johnson Counly Charlos D. Duffy, Charon Jo~ Bolkcom St~ph~n P. LacUna Don S¢I~ Sally Slutsman BOARD OF SUPERVISORS September 7, 1995 FORMAL' MEETING 1. Call to order 9:00 a.m. Agenda 2. Action re: claims 3. Action re: ' informal minutes of August 29th recessed to August 31 st and the formal minutes of August 31st. 4. Action re: payroll authorizations 5. Business from the County Auditor. a) Action re: pei-nfits b) Action re: reports c) Other 6. Business from the Zoning Administrator. a) First and second consideration to amend the legal description of Application Z9452 of Steve Mann (Ordinance 11-17-94-Z3) for propel~ described us being in the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 2; Township 78 North; Range 8 West of the 5th P.M. in Johnson County, Iowa. b) Other 913 SOUTH DUBUQUE P.O. BOX 1350 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244-1350 TEL: (319) 356-6000 FAX: (319) 356-608/ To: IOg~ cTrY CI. ERI( From: ,io hogarty g-e~-g5 8:3Ba,. p. 3 or 3 Agenda 9-7-95 Page 2 7. Business from the County Attorney. a) Report re: other items. 8. Business from the Board of Supervisors. a) Motion declaring two pickup tracks (1980 Ford F350 Super Cab with 126,268 miles and a 1980 Ford F350 pickup with 165,279 miles) as surplus property and no longer of use to the county and authorizing County Engineer to take them to Sharpless Auction. b) Action re: Grant application for Family Preservation and Support Services Program/Johnson County Decategorization Project in the mount of $7,090.00 and authorize the chairperson to sign. fitds is an additional grant in the amount of $7,090.00. The original amount granted was $20,000.00. These monies are ear marked to hire a five month staff position to assist with planning.) c) Other 9. Adjourn to ~nformai meeting. a) Inquiries and reports from the public. b) Reports and inquires from the members of the Board of Supervisors. Report from the County Attorney. d) Other 10. Adjournment. City of iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: September 8, 1995 City Council City Attorney Comment re University Heights' to Press-Citizen attorney statement I spoke with University Heights' attorney, Steve Ballard, regarding his "clarification,' in the Press-Citizen printed Wednesday, September 6, 1995. Steve Ballard simply wanted to clarify that University Heights had never claimed ownership of the Melrose Avenue Bridge. Rather, the claim was that the city limits line begins at the westernmost end of the bridge. In any event, the City Council for University Heights has every right to confer with their attorney in executive session before filing an answer to the quiet title petition ~- so the above matters are premature. CC: City Manager Assistant City Manager City Clerk City of iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: September 11, 1995 To: Mayor and City Council From: City Clerk Re: Council Work Session, September 5, 1995 - Joint Iowa City and University Heights Meeting - 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers Iowa City Council: Horowitz, Baker, Kubby, Lehman, Novick, Pigott, Throgmorton. Iowa City staff: Atkins, Woito, Karr, Franklin, Davidson, Fosse, Smith. University Heights Council: From, Jacobson, Jones, Martin, Swanson, Yarbrough. Tapes: 95-104, All; 95-105, Side 1. INTRODUCTION: Reel 95-104, Side I Mayor Horowitz welcomed participants to the Iowa City-University Heights joint meeting regarding Melrose Avenue, Neuzil tract, and other issues. MELROSE AVENUE PROJECT: Reel 95-104, Side I City of Iowa City and University Heights Councils discussed Melrose Avenue bridge project. Asst. PCD Director and Transportation Planner Davidson, Iowa City Engineer Fosse, and Iowa City PCD Director Franklin presented information. Davidson explained the remaining process available to the Iowa City City Council regarding making a decision on the width of the street and bridge. NEUZIL TRACT: Reel 95-104, Side 2 City of Iowa City and University Heights Councils discussed a jointly funded appraisal, purchase and joint development of the Neuzil tract. Iowa City PCD Director Franklin presented information. Iowa City City Council directed staff to investigate the purchase of the property and agreed to get together with University Heights for further discussion. OTHER BUSINESS: Reel 95-105, Side 1 Iowa City Mayor Horowitz announced the Mercy Hospital has invited the Iowa City and University Heights Councils to a reception for new CEO Ron Reed on Tuesday, September 12, 4:30 p.m. at Mercy Hospital. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. (A complete transcription is available in the City Clerk's Office.) cleriCcub9-5 ~tn September 5, 1995 BRW INC. Planrang Engineering Urban Oes~gn Thresher Square 7~XI Third Stree! So. MmneaDolis, MN 55415 612/370-G700 Fax 612/370-1378 Mayor Horowitz and Members of the City Council City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mayor Horowitz and Members of the City Coundl: The purpose of this letter is to concisely present a summary of primary impacts associated with the altematives addressed in the Melrose Avenue Environmental Assessment (EA), identify BRW's recommended Preferred Alternative for the project, and outline the remaining steps in the federal environmental review process. Project Background Milwaukee Mmneapohs Orlando Phoenix Pnrflond ~n D,ego An Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act process for federally funded projects and meets requirements of 42 USC 4321 et.seq. The report describes the seven alternatives under study in the EA, including the No-Build Alternative, and identifies potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts that would result from construction and implementation of each of the alternatives. Prelin~nary mitigation measures are identified, where appropriate. Under federal environmental rules for an EA, the definition of alternatives can be limited to one Build Alternative. The Melrose Avenue EA complies with the impact assessment requirements, and also serves as an alternatives evaluation. A preferred alternative was not identified in the Environment Assessment. The alternatives studied in the Melrose Avenue EA include the following: Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Alternative 3: Alternative 4: Alternative 5: No-Build Alternative Two-Lane Bridge and Two-Lane Road With a Left Turn Lane at Hawkins Drive New Two-Lane Bridge and Three-Lane Road Three-Lane Bridge and Three-Lane Road Four-Lane Bridge and Four-Lane Road Alternative 6: Four-Lane Bridge and Five-Lane Road Alternative 7: New Street Located to the North of Existing Melrose Avenue Mayor Horowitz Members of the City Council September 5, 1995 Page 2 Summary of Impacts The impacts associated with the No-Build Alternative and Alternative 7, are presented separately because of their unique impacts, in relation to Alternatives 2 - 6. The summary section for Alternatives 2 through 6 focuses on how the alternatives differ with regards to potential sodoeconomic and environmental impacts. Please refer to the Environmental Assessment and Request for the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) document for additional detail in each of the specific issue areas addressed during the environmental review process. Alternative 1: No-Build Alternative The following impacts have been identified under the No-Build Alternative: The eventual closure of the Melrose Avenue bridge would impact accessibility into University Heights from the east, and Iowa City from the west. · Traffic operations on Melrose Avenue would not be improved. · Pedestrian and bicycle safety would not improve. Emergency vetti. cle accessibility through the corridor would not be improved as well as travel times for buses on Melrose Avenue. The No-Build Alternative is not consistent with the JCCOG's Arterial Street System Plan. Alternative 7: Construct a New Road North of Existing Melrose Avenue Under Alternative 7, the following adverse impacts would occur: A natural wooded area would be impacted, along with associated wildlife. o This roadway corridor includes three potential archaeological sites. The proposed roadway would cut through the University of Iowa's recreational fields. A 4(0 evaluation would be required for this Mayor Horowitz Members of the City Council September 5, 1995 Page 3 alternative. Therefore, the analysis would need to show that there are no prudent or feasible alternatives to this proposed alignment. Alternative 7 would not be consistent with the Arterial Street System Plan, the University's Campus Planning Framework and the Sports and Recreation Facilities Long Range Plan. Traffic operations on existing Melrose Avenue would not experience a significant improvement. Alternative 7 would not satisfy the identified project goals in relation to traffic operations, pedestrian/bicycle accessibility on Melrose Avenue, and system planning. Emergency vehicle and transit operations would not improve on existing Melrose Avenue. Because of the steep slope conditions in the area, impacts to vegetation in relation to erosion could occur. The estimated construction cost for Alternative 7 is $3,345,000. A total of 19, 519 square meters (209,880 square feet) of right-of-way would need to be acquired for this alternative. Alternatives 2 through 6 Under Alternatives 2 through 6, the impact evaluation conducted as part of the EA concluded that there would not be adverse impacts associated with the these alternatives in the following areas: Parklands/Open Space Air Quality Noise Energy Surface Water Drainage Wetlands/Floodplains Wildlife and Endangered Species Based on the evaluation conducted for the EA, Alternatives 2 through 6 would require the removal and potential replacement of the existing trees on the block bounded by South Grand Avenue and Grand Avenue Court (north side of street). The land to the north of Melrose Avenue is University of Iowa property. Mayor Horowitz Members of the City Council September 5, 1995 Page 4 In comparing Alternatives 2 through 6, the primary areas where there is the potential for adverse impacts and/or beneficial impacts include: Urban Design/Visual Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety/Accessibility Community Resources/Neighborhood Impacts Cultural Resources Transportation Urban Design/Visual Impacts - Under Alternatives 2 through 5, landscaping and lighting fixtures could be incorporated into the final design to provide streetscape enhancements. The streetscape design should incorporate features which acknowledge the relationship of the roadway as an access to the University while respecting the lower-density scale of the adjoining residential I~ses. Under Alternative 6, the five-lane roadway, right-of-way constraints would limit the ability to provide streetscape enhancements. In comparison to the other design alternatives, the five-lane design would have the greatest visual impact in the corridor. The roadway would be a very dominant element in the corridor and it would create the biggest visual "barrier" between the University and the neighborhood south of Melrose Avenue. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety/Accessibility - Under Alternatives 2 through 5, continuous sidewalks would be provided on the north side of Melrose Avenue. Under Alternative 6 (five-lane roadway), there would not be sufficient right-of- way to accommodate a northern sidewalk in the five-lane section of the corridor. Under Alternative 3 and 4 (three-lane roadway), the shoulder area would provide a non-through lane of traffic area for use by bicyclists. Under the two- four- and five-lane alternatives, bicyclists would share the roadway with automobiles and buses. Community Resources/Neighborhood Impacts - Under Alternatives 2 through 6 existing community facilities in the project area would not be acquired/ relocated to accommodate the project. Pedestrian accessibility to surrounding day care facilities would be improved under Alternatives 2 through 5, since they provide continuous sidewalks on both sides of Melrose Avenue. Cultural Resources - The cultural resource investigation completed as part of the environmental review process indicated that up to fifteen feet of additional right-of-way north of the existing right-of-way line would be needed at 320 Mayor Horowitz Members of the City Council September 5, 1995 Page 5 Melrose Avenue. 320 Melrose Avenue is currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Acquisition of right-of-way at this property would require the preparafion of a 4(0 evaluafion. Regardless of the alternative selected, the roadway would be designed, and/or right-of-way acquired to the south to avoid acquisition of land at 320 Melrose Avenue. Transportation - Roadway segment analysis indicated that, with design year traffic forecasts, a two-lane roadway would provide a mid level of service (LOS) D, a three-lane roadway a LOS D, a four-lane roadway a LOS C, and a five-lane roadway a LOS B operation. (See attached Level of Service Figure) Analysis of compiled accident data indicates that as volumes rise and roadways are widened, the presence of left-turn lanes is the most important predictor of accident experience. The three- and five-lane alternatives have left-turn lanes. The four-lane undivided urban arterial typically has the highest accident rate of any urban roadway. The addition of a left-turn lane has proven to reduce accidents by as much as sixty percent. Summary of Issues Raised During EA Review and Comment Period During the EA review and comment period, five comment letters were received from governmental agencies. Thirty-nine comment letters were received from individuals/organizations. Verbal comments were also received at the April 19, 1995 Public Meeting. A summary of the key issues raised regarding the EA are presented below: Overall goals and objectives of the proposed project, specifically focusing on pedestrian/bicycle facilities and level of service (operations) on Melrose Avenue. o Process for defining the alternatives considered in the EA. Definition of Alternative 7 (new Melrose Avenue alignment) alignment location. Concern that a preferred alternative had been selected prior to the completion of the EA document. Uncertainty regarding University Heights involvement regarding the approval of the bridge design. Mayor Horowitz Members of the City Council September 5, 1995 Page 6 The City of University Heights position regarding the design of the Melrose Avenue bridge. Questions regarding the consideration of the Melrose Avenue diagonal through University of Iowa property. o Concern regarding pedes~ian safety crossing Melrose Avenue. Concern that the right-of-way under the t~ee-lane design alternative was excessive, and that it could be readily changed to a four-lane roadway by the City. Request for additional information regarding the definition of the study area for cultural resources. Questions regarding the methodology/scope for assessing social impacts. · Analysis of the Melrose Avenue and Golfview/Koser Intersection. o Request for a traffic analysis for Melrose Court. · Concern that the City's environmental policies were addressed. * Concern regarding accessibility onto Melrose Avenue. Concern that the EA analysis included indirect impacts. The Request for FONSI document (attached) includes response to the comments made on the EA. Recommended Preferred Alternative In making a recommendation regarding the preferred alternative for Melrose Avenue, the original project goals were considered. Specifically, the preferred alternative should best fulfill the project's goals, while minimizing adverse impacts to the surrounding environment. The Melrose Avenue project goals considered include: To improve the ability of motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists to use Melrose Avenue with a higher degree of safety. This includes both through movements and movements from intersecting streets. Mayor Horowitz Members of the City Council September 5, 1995 Page 7 To improve the ability of Melrose Avenue to function as a major transportation link, while being sensitive to the residential neighborhoods along the south side of Melrose Avenue. · To provide improved access to major traffic generators. o To upgrade the existing deteriorated Melrose Avenue Bridge. To provide facilities which are in compliance with the American Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations. Each of these goals are presented in the Melrose Avenue Environmental Assessment. Based on the project goals identified above, the information revealed during the impact evaluation, and the comments received on the EA; BRW recommends Altemative 4, the Three-Lane Bridge and Three-Lane Road as the preferred alternative for the Melrose Avenue Bridge and Street Project. Justification for this recommendation is presented below. The three-lane road/bridge design improves pedestrian safety and accessibility throughout the corridor (e.g. continuous sidewalks are provided on both the north and south sides of the road). The three-lane road/bridge design improves bicycle safety and accessibility conditions throughout the corridor. Under this alternative, traffic operations would improve in direct relation to public transit vehicles ability to pullover in the shoulder area. · This alternative would address the bridge deficiency issue. The three-lane road/bridge design would improve safety conditions for vehicles pulling out of private drives along Melrose Avenue. It also would provide a safe storage area for vehicles turning left from Melrose Avenue h~to Lhe driveways. Three-lane roadways typically have a sixty percent and three percent lower accident rate than four-lane undivided roadways and two-lane roadways, respectively. Mayor Horowitz Members of the City Council September 5, 1995 Page 8 The three-lane road/bridge design would improve traffic flow conditions on Melrose Avenue by providing increased capacity. Under this alternative, landscaping and lighting treatments could be incorporated into the design to enhance the visual amenities in the corridor. The three-lane road could be designed to avoid direct taking of 4(0 protected property within the corridor (the Cannon Gay House at 320 Melrose Avenue). In response to comments received regarding the three-lane road/bridge design originally presented in the Environmental Assessment, the 14.6 meter (47.9- foot) back of curb to back of curb roadway width could be reduced to 14.3 meter (47 feet) without violating I-DOT's alternative Urban Design guidelines. Next Steps in the Environmental Review Process The next step in the federal environmental review process for the city of Iowa City to identify a preferred alternative for the Melrose Avenue project. Following the City's determination, the Request for the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) document will be completed, and submitted to the Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for review and the FONSI determination. Following the FONSI determination by the FHWA, the FONSI document will be distributed to the agencies/organizations/individuals who received a copy of the Environmental Assessment. Please let either of us know if you have any questions. Sincerely, BRW, INC. Howard Preston, PE Jeanne wit~ig, AICP HP:JW/jmh Enclosure cc: Jeff Davidson Rick Fosse LOS F LOS E 24.000 22.000 20,000 14.000 ~ ............. 2.00O ~[ LOS C ] LOS B I0000 I . .Existing 13,500 VPD 6.000 ? LOS A LOS F - - - LOS D ......... Alt 7 LOS E 14,400 VPD .... LOS F Alts. I & 2 LOS E LOS D LOS C · - 14,000 VPD -/ ...... -t- --- -- _Airs..3_&_4 _ .~ Alt. 5 AIt. 6 t LOS D 18,000 VPD - 5 ........................ ~_LOSF / ................ OS.__~_~_tS. t6.00VPD-LOSB 18;600VPD-- Lose~ Lost LOSB _-~_o_-~v_ ....~ .... LOS B LOS A LOS A LOS A 2-Lane 3-Lane 4.Lane Undivided 5.Lane Type of Roadway Note: Alternative Daily Traffic Volumes are Forecast Year 2015. MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECONSIRLL-qlON ~Y Iowa C~ty, Iowa CITY OF IOWA CITY 112 Figure 34 Roadway Segment Capacity (Mekose Avenue) DRAFT 915195 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION STATE OF IOWA Department of Transpo¢~ation CITY OF IOWA CITY Department of Planning and Conununity Development ENVIRONI~,~t. NVI'AL UPDATE AND REQUEST FOR A FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPAC'~ (FONSI) for Melrose Avenue from the City Limits of Iowa City and Unive.~it.y Heights to Byington Road PURPOSE AND FORMAT OF THE REQUEST FOR FONSI GENERAL PROJECT BACKGROUND An Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act process for federally fi~nded projects and meets requirements of 42 USC 4321 et.seq. The report describes the seven altematives under study in the EA, including the No-Build Alternative, and identifies potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts that would result from construction and implementation of each of the alternatives. Preliminary mitigation measures are identified, where appropriate.. The Request for the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been prepared according to the Iowa DOT Action Plan, and 23 CFR Part 771. The Environmental Assessment for Meh'ose Avenue was distributed in March 1995. The Notice of Availability for the EA, and notification regarding the project public hearing was published as a legal notice in the Iowa Cihj Press-Citizen on March 17, 1995. A press release regarding the Melrose Avenue project, and public hearing was also submitted to the Cedar Rapids Gazette and the Daily lowan. The Melrose Avenue EA document was distributed on March 14, 1995. A public hearing was held on the Melrose Avenue EA on April 19, 1995 at the Iowa City public library. A copy of the public hearing transcript is attached to this document. In compliance with the Iowa DOT Action Plan regarding information presented at public hearings for EA projects, the following information was presented by Mr. Howard Preston, BRW Inc.: · General Description Regarding the Purpose and Format of the Public Meeting . Background regarding the Environmental Assessment Review Process · General project background · Description of the alternatives under consideration in the Environmental Assessment · Sununary of results of Environmental Assessment results · Review and comment period process/timeline Following the formal presentation, a general question and answer period and opportunity for public comment took place. The public meeting provided an opportunity to solicit both written comments and verbal comments. All comments received at the public meeting are considered part of the official record for the Melrose Avenue EA. A court reporter transcribed the public meeting. Summaries of the EA document were available at the meeting, along with complete EA documents for people to review. The meeting location was handicapped accessible. The EA review and comment period dosed on May 8, 1995. All written comments received on the EA document are included as part of this document. The review and comment period time for the Melrose Avenue EA met and exceeded both federal and state environmental review requiyements for federal EA documents. Upon review of the comments received on the EA document, it is concluded that only minor revisions to the EA are required. Rather than rewriting and publishing the entire EA, supplemental information and corrections to the EA text and figures are included in this document. The Melrose Avenue EA document dated March, 1995 should be consulted for a complete discussion of the affected envii'ortment and the environmental consequences of the proposed project. This environmental update and Request for FONSI document indudes the following information: Signature page Project Description Corrections/Supplemental Information to the EA Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Responses to Comments Appendices Individual Comment Letters Public Hearing Transcript PROJECT DESCRIPTION ALTERNATIVES STUDIED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The alternatives studied in the Environmental Assessment were developed by the City of Iowa City, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Iowa Depa~hJtent of Transportation (IDOT) and the Melrose Avenue Focus Group. The designs prepared for each of the alternatives under study in the EA document were conceptual in nature. As indicated in the EA, more detailed design will be completed for the preferred alternative. A brief description of the Alternatives studied in the EA are presented below: Alternative 1: No-Build Alternative Under the No-Build Alternative the Melrose Avenue bridge over the Iowa Interstate Railroad and reconstruction of Melrose Avenue from the city limits of Iowa City and University Heights tc Byington Road, woulci not be implemented. Because of existing deficiencies, the Melrose Avenue bridge would eventually need to be closed. Thru traffic lanes would continue to be 4.72 meters (15.5 feet) with border areas to the north and south of the roadway at 5.34 meters (17.5 feet). The sidewalk on the south side of the roadway would be maintained at 1.22 meters (4 feet). No provisions for bicycle paths would be provided. Alternative 2: Two Lane Bridge and Two lane Road With A Left Turn Lane at Hawkins Drive Under Alternative 2, a new two lane bridge, and design modifications to the existing two lane road would be constructed. Specifically, the new bridge would include a 3.9 meter (12.8 feet) thru lane in each direction, 1.8 meter (5.9 foot) shoulders, and 2.4 meter (8 feet) sidewalks. To the east of the bridge, Melrose Avenue would include an 3.3 meter (10.8 feet) turn lane at Hawkins Drive, with thru lanes of 4.25 meters (13.9 feet). East of Hawkins Drive, the thru lanes would be 3.3 meters (10.8 feet) with 2.6 meter (8.5 feet) shoulders. The sidewalk to the south of Melrose Avenue would be 1.5 meters (4.9 feet) and 2.4 meters (7.9 feet) to the north. Alternative 3: New Two Lane Bridge and Three Lane Road Under Alternative 3, the Melrose Avenue bridge would be designed the same as under Alternative 2. To the east of the bridge, 3.3 meter (10.8 feet) thru lanes, and a median turn lane would be provided. 2.35 meter (7.7 feet) shoulders on both the north and south sides would also be provided. The sidewalks on the south side would be 1.5 meters (4.9 feet). On the north side of Melrose Avenue, the sidewalks would range from 1.5 meters (4.9 feet) to 2.4 meters (7.9 feet) depending on the right-of-way constraints. Alternative 4: Three Lane Bridge and Three Lane Road Under Alternative 4, a new three lane bridge over the Iowa Interstate Railroad would be constructed with the following design features. Thru Lanes: Turn Lane: Shoulders: Sidewalks: 3.6 meters (11.8 f~et) 3.6 meters (11.8 feet) 2.9 meters (9.5 feet) 2.4 meters (8 feet) East of the bridge, 3.3 meter (10.8 feet) thru and turn lanes would be provided, along with 2.35 meter (7.7 feet) shoulders. The sidewalks on the south side would be 1.5 meters (4.9 feet). On the north side of Melrose Avenue the sidewalks would range from 1.5 meters (4.9 feet) to 2.4 meters (7.9 feet), depending on right-of-way constraints. Alternative 5: Four Lane Bridge and Four Lane Road Under Alternative 5, a new four-lane bridge over the Iowa Interstate Railroad would be constructed with the following design features. Thru Lanes: 3.8 meters (12.47 feet) and 3.3 meters (10.83 feet ) in each direction Sidewalks: 2.4 meters (8 feet) East of the bridge, 3.3 meter (10.8 feet) and 4.0 meter (13.1 feet) thru lanes would be provided in each direction. In the block bounded by Stadium Park Road and Hawkins Drive, the sidewalk on the south and north sides of Melrose Avenue would be 1.5 meters (4.9 feet). East of Hawkins Drive, the sidewalk width, on the north side of Melrose Avenue could be increased to 2.4 meters (7.9 feet). The sidewalk on the south side of Melrose Avenue would be 1.5 meters (4.9 feet). 4 Alternative 6: Four Lane Bridge and Five Lane Road Under Alternative 6, a new four-lane bridge over the Iowa Interstate Railroad would be constructed, with the following design features: Thru Lane (westbound): 4.1 meters (13.5 feet) Turn Lane: 3.3 meters (10.83 feet) Thru Lanes (eastbound): 3.3 meters (10.83 feet) and 3.8 meters (i3.5 feet) Sidewalks: 2.4 meters (8 feet) East of the bridge to Hawkins Drive, eastbound thru lanes at 3.3 meters (10.8 feet) and 4.1 meters (13.5 feet), a 4.1 meter (13.5 feet) westbound thru lane and a 3.3 meter (10.8 feet) turn lane would be provided. On the approach to Hawkins Drive, the northern right lane is signed as right-turn lane only. This design is required to meet the right-of-way constraints and bridge taper requirements. For the remainder of the corridor, 3.3 meter (10.8 feet) and 4.1 meter (13.5 feet) thru lanes in each direction and a 3.3 meter (10.8 feet) turn lane is provided. A 1.5 meter (4.9 feet) sidewalk on the south side of Melrose Avenue would be provided. Due to right-of-way constraints, sidewalks would not be provided on the north side of Melrose Avenue in the five-lane section. A 1.5 meter (4.9 feet) sidewalk would be provided in the block bounded by the bridge and Hawkins Drive. Alternative 7: New Street Located to the North of the Existing Melrose Avenue Alternative 7 is proposed as a two-lane roadway 20.12 meter (66 foot right-of-way) on a new alignment to the north of existing Melrose Avenue. The thru lanes are proposed to be 3.3 meters (10.8 feet), with 2.6 meter (8.5 foot) shoulders. The new roadway would connect with Hawkins Drive, at its northern ternunating point. From Melrose Avenue, east of the University Golf Course, the roadway would proceed in a northerly direction crossing the University's undeveloped wooded area, the Iowa Interstate Railroad (above-grade), land currently used as recreational fields and connect with Hawkins Drive, just to the north of the baseball stadium. Under Alternative 7, existing Melrose Avenue would remain open. Therefore, it is assumed that due to the existing serious condition of the bridge, reconstruction would eventually be required. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The "preferred alternative" is defined as the alternative that the City believes best fulfills the project's goals, while giving consideration to economic, environmental, technical and cost conditions. (To be identified by the City Council of Iowa City) CORRECTIONS/SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DOCUMENT Based on comments received during the Environmental Assessment (EA) comment period, additional, and/or revised analysis has been completed for several issue areas. This section includes corrections and/or supplemental information to technical data presented in the EA. COMMUNITY FACILITIES This section corrects information presented in Section 5.2.1 of the EA Community Facilities. Specifically, the Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Assodation commented that the following corrections should be made to this section. They are noted below: · Roosevelt High School is an elementary school located less than one-half mile south of Melrose Avenue. · The Brookland Woods Child Care Center is located at 309 Melrose Avenue. · The cultural centers located at 303 and 308 Melrose Avenue are owned by the University. · The properties at 511 and 707 Melrose Avenue are owned by churches. The two churches in the study area include St. Andrew Presbyterian Church at 1300 Melrose Avenue and First Mennonite Church at 405 Myrtle Avenue. Several child care facilities located on Melrose Avenue were documented in the EA. The Impact Evaluation should be supplemented as follows: Pedestrian accessibility to surrounding day care facilities would be improved under Alternatives 2 tl~rough 5 and 7, since they provide continuous sidewalks on both sides of Melrose Avenue. NEIGHBORHOOD/COMMUNITY CHARACTER This section provides corrected and supplemental infom~ation to Section 5.2.2 of the EA, Neighborhood/Community Character. Corrections Under Alternative 1, No-Build, the existing Melrose Avenue bridge would eventually be closed, due to deteriorated conditions. The closure of the bridge would have a significant adverse impact on the residents/businesses of University Heights because it would impede their access to destinations to the east. Supplemental Information Because Melrose Avenue is classified as a malor arterial roadway it serves both the immediate neighborhoods and the surrounding overall community. The immediate neighborhoods include the Melrose Avenue residential neighborhood to the south, the University of Iowa to the north, and the City of University Heights to the west of the Melrose Avenue study area. In assessing the impacts to the neighborhood/community, the following areas were considered: Would there be significant displacements to minority or ethnic populations? Would the neighborhood or community boundaries be split or significantly altered? Would service areas of community facilities be interrupted? Would access to community facilities be reduced? Would existing patterns of circulation be disrupted? W~Juld the "cohesion" of the neighborhood and community be altered? Would the project add a new transportation corridor? LAND USE AND ZONING This section provides supplemental information to Section 5.2.3 of the EA, Land Use and Zoning. The land use section of the EA, documented the land use and zoning classifications to the north and south of Melrose Avenue. The impact analysis cross referenced the Community Facilities, Neighborhood/ Community Character, Parklands, Urban Design/Visual impact and Transportation Sections. The FHWA Technical Advisory Manual, T6MO.8A states that the land use impact evaluation should "identify, the current development trends and the state or local govemment plans and policies on land use and growth in the area which will be impacted by the proposed project." The proposed action is not anticipated to alter existing or planned land use in the immediate area because it will not provide additional access to surrounding properties The assessment of the proposed action's consistency with the environmental policies of the City is included in the Key Issues Section. With regards to the statement in the EA "integrity of the surrounding area," the analysis considered direct and indirect impacts to the areas one- half mile to the north and south of Melrose Avenue. Because Melrose Avenue is classified as an arterial roadway, the analysis also addressed the impacts of the proposed action on the wider community. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT No changes have been made to Section 5.2.4 of the EA, Economic Development. RIGHT-OF-WAY No changes have been made to Section 5.2.5 of the EA, Right-of-Way (ROW). It should be noted that ROW impacts identified in the EA reflect worst-case conditions. The more detailed design completed for the preferred alternative will minimize ROW acquisition to the greatest extent possible, particularly at environmentally sensitive areas (i.e. vegetation, historic resources). PARKLANDS No corrections have been made to Section 5.2.6 of the EA, Parklands. As stated in the EA, no direct taking of parkland would be required under Alternatives 1 through 6. Based on the timing of the Melrose Avenue project in relation to the University of Iowa Long Range Plans for Park and Recreation Facilities, Alternative 7 would impact designated 4(0 protected land. URBAN DESIGN/VISUAL RESOURCES This section clarifies and presents supplemental information to Section 5.2.7, Urban Design/Visual Resources, of the EA document. Several written comments were received requesting clarification regarding the existing conditions section for the aforementioned area. The EA included the following statement: The visual environment is relatively uniform in that it is similar from end to end. It is unique in that it is dramatically different on the north side of the roadway from that on the south side. For clarification, this has been corrected to state the following: The visual environment of the study area can be characterized as being relatively uniform in terms of surrounding land use features from east to west. However, the study area is quite unique in that land use features to the north of Melrose Avenue are primarily related to the University of Iowa, and to the south, land use is primarily residential in nature, including both single and multi- family structures as well as day care fadlities. The EA document presented two landscape/lighting options to reflect clear zone requirements. Following the selection of the preferred alternative, the City will work closely with the Iowa DOT and FHWA regarding the final design of the roadway, including clear zone requirements, and appropriate landscaping/lighting. PUBLIC SAFETY There are no changes to Section 5.2.8 of the EA, Public Safety. PUBLIC TRANSIT There are no changes to Section 5.2.9 of the EA, Public Transit. AIR QUALITY This section supplements information contained in Section 5.3.1 of the EA, Air Quality. Specifically, actual air quality monitoring was not conducted for the Melrose Avenue project. As stated in the EA document, a background Carbon Monoxide (CO) concentration of 5.0 PPM one-hour average has been assumed in the air quality analysis. This type of practice, and assumed background CO concentration, particularly in an attainment status area is consistent with EPA guidance for air quality analysis. The 5.0 PPM actually represents a worst case scenario for background CO concentrations. The air quality analysis conducted for the Melrose Avenue project meets, and exceeds the level of analysis required for an EA document in an attainment area. NOISE This section provides supplemental information to Section 5.3.2 of the EA, Noise. Specifically, the noise analysis for each of the alternatives concluded that "predicted noise levels range from 61 to 63 dBA. All of the predicted levels are well below the Federal Noise Abatement Criteria level of 70 dBA that applies in residential areas." Based on the existing and predicted noise conditions in the surrounding project area, the implementation of the Pomerantz Pavilion is not anticipated to significantly increase noise levels associated with traffic on Melrose Avenue. 9 ENERGY No changes have been made to Section 5.3.3 of the EA, Energy. SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE No changes have been made to Section 5.3.4 of the EA, Surface Water Drainage. HAZARDOUS WASTE/SOIL CONTAMINATION This section corrects information presented in the Appendix of the EA document. Specifically, an electronic file search of state and federal files was conducted as part of the EA. Since the time the file search was conducted in June 1994, a revision to the state Leaking Underground Storage Tank file was completed. The correct information for Site 42 from the EA is as follows: BOYD LAW BUILDING GRAND AVENUE AND RIVERSIDE DRIVE IOWA CITY, IOWA 52242 Facility County: Owner Name: Owner Address: Leak Date: Substance: Media Affected: Remedial Status: Johnson University of Iowa Physical Plant Department Iowa City, Iowa 52242 11/01/90 Diesel Soil/Land/Sand Case Closed/Cleanup Completed WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS No corrections have been made to Section 5.3.6 of the EA, Wetlands and Floodplains. VEGETATION No corrections have been made to Section 5.3.7 of the EA, Vegetation. It should be noted that the impacts identified in the EA reflect worst case impacts, consistent with federal environmental regulations. During the design of the preferred alternative, measures to minimize the elimination of existing vegetation will be made, wherever practical, specifically in the area bounded by South Grand Avenue and Grand Avenue Court. A detailed landscaping plan will be prepared as part of the final design of the preferred alternative. The U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service commented (see Appendix for March 24, 1995 letter) that "Due to the largely urban/developed nature of the area, only the new alignment, alternative 10 has the potential for impacts to Federal Trust spedes, primarily migratory birds." WILDLIFE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES The information presented in this section supplements the information included in Section 5.3.8 of the EA, Wildlife and Endangered Species. The FHWA Technical Advisory Document T. 6640.8A states that "Impacts to fish and wildlife resulting from the loss, degradation, or modification of aquatic or terrestrial habitat should be discussed." Under alternatives 1 through 6, the urban environment of the project area minimizes the potential adverse impact of the proposed action to surrounding wildlife. The existing location of Melrose Avenue already serves as a natural barrier for urban wildlife. The study recognizes that Brookland Park is located to the south of Melrose Avenue, and a ravine area to the southeast. However, it is anticipated that there would not be a discernable level of impact to either of these sensitive areas associated with alternatives under consideration. The database search conducted by the Iowa DNR did not reveal any threatened or endangered species in the study area. A copy of the Iowa DNR letter is included in the Appendix of the EA document. The most significant impact to existing wildlife and vegetation would occur under Alternative 7. CULTURAL RESOURCES This section corrects a figure presented in the Phase I and II Architectural History Survey and supplements the information presented in Section 5.3.9, Cultural Resources, of the Environmental Assessment document. Correction Figure 1.0, Location of Project Area, in the Architectural History Survey incorrectly outlines the Melrose Avenue Study Area boundaries. The study area for the survey is defined by the Area of Potential Effect (APE), which includes all properties within the ROW construction zone and the first tier of adjacent properties. Supplemental Information The mitigation section of 5.3.9, Cultural Resources, indicated that a Phase I and II Architectural Survey was being conducted along with the EA document, and that the Survey report would be cmnpleted prior to the final environmental review decision for Melrose Avenue. On February 15, 1995 the City of Iowa City submittbd a draft of the Phase I and II Architectural History Survey to Dr. Lowell Soike of the Iowa Historic Preservation Bureau. The aforementioned report was submitted for their review and comment in accordance with Section 106 compliance requirements and the National Preservation Act of 1966. In response to the February submittal, the Historical Society of Iowa (Dr. Lowell Soike) submitted a comment letter addressing recommendations made in the February draft report (See Appendix). Specifically, the SHOO agreed with the majority of the findings regarding non-eligible properties within the Areas of Potential Effects (APE) and concurred with the listing of three properties on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Their comment letter did however request additional information regarding the following properties: · 309 Melrose Avenue 521 Melrose Avenue · 727 Melrose Avenue · 741 Melrose Avenue o 805 Melrose Avenue · 817 Melrose Avenue · 1009 Melrose Avenue In response to the Sl IPO's request regarding additional information on the above referenced properties, a letter dated April 12, 1995 (See Appendix) was drafted and submitted to the SHPO, along with a revised copy of the Phase I and II Architectural History Survey report. On June 9, 1995 the SHPO submitted a letter which concurred with the findings of the revised report, and stated that each of the above referenced properties are not eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion "A", "B", "C" or Criterion Consideration (Exceptions) "A" - "G". As indicated in the Cultural Resources section of the EA, an adverse impact to the NRI-IP property at 320 Melrose Avenue could occur if right- of-way would be required to accommodate the proposed roadway. The SHPO concurred with this conclusion. Because of the significance of this property, the city will take action to design the preferred alternative alignment such that additional right-of-way would not be required to the north of Melrose Avenue, at this location. The Key Issues section of this document presents additional information regarding the methodology and scope of analysis for the cultural resource evaluation. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM The information presented in this section corrects and supplements the information presented in Section 5.4, Transportation System of the Environmental Assessment. 12 Corrections Figure 32 of the EA has been corrected. The figure included in the EA accurately indicated the Year 2015 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for Alternatives 5 and 6, but incorrectly stated the percent growth from 1994 to 2015 (Figure 1). Table 12 of the EA document provided intersection level of service for year 2015. To illustrate the information presented in this table, Figures 2 through 5 have been prepared. Supplemental Information Typically, the installation of a traffic signal is a response to congestion or long delays experienced on minor street approaches. Currently there are no traffic signals on Melrose Avenue east of the traffic signal at Hawkins Drive. Therefore, through traffic on Melrose Avenue east of Hawkins Drive currently experiences little or no delay.. Although the installation of a traffic signal may reduce delay or increase access for the side streets, it would be at the expense of through traffic on Melrose Avenue that currently does not stop. In addition, signalized intersections typically have an accident rate that is twice that of unsignalized intersections. If an intersection is being considered for signahzation, a signal warrant analysis should be conducted using the methods described in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. If the traffic volumes at an intersection meet the requirements for signalization, other factors such as safety and spacing bet>teen signalized intersections should be considered before installing a traffic signal.  14 600 14,400 (,65 ~ (6;~%) (67%) GRAND AVE. 18,600 17,900 12,600 (44%) (33%) (22%) ~.CI=~ OF IOWA CITY N w+~ 'N o s c a 1 e s MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE REODNSIRUCHON STUDY ~Iowa City, Io'~a MELROSE AVE. I 30,200 (44%) BORON ST. u.I Legend: 000 Ye~w 2015 ADT (00%) Percent Growth from 1994 to 2015 Figure ! Forecast Average Daily Traffic Volumes-Alternatives 5 & 6 Z h-LOS F N No scale s MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION STUDY Iowa City, Iowa Source: Level of Service is ba~ed on the methods of the 1985 Hzghway Ca[.2~aty Manual Chapter 9, "Signalized Inter~ections," and Chapter I0, "Unslgnallzed Inlersedlons." CITY OF IOWA CITY GRANDAVE. MELROSE AVE. L LOS E LOS B ~ - Signalized Intersection I~ - Stop Controlk~ AR3coach ,---LOSF Figure 2 Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service (Year 2015) Alternatives 1 & 2 BURLINGTON S~ > LU [.--LOS F MELROSE AVE. N w+s 'No Scale s IV1ELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECONSTRLL"'HON STLYDY .. ow aCi.ty., Source: Level of Servtce ~s based on the methods of the 1985 Htghway Capacity Manual, Chapter 9, "Signalized Intetseclions," and Chapter 10, 'Uns~gnahz~ Intentions." CITK OF IOWA CITY LOS D- GRAND AVE. LLOS F ~ ~LOS F n-' .~. CO B;RLINGTON ST. uJ Legend: ~ - Signalized Intersection ~ - Stop Controlled Approach RSure 3 Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service (Year 2015)Alternatives 3 & 4 G RAND AVE. u..i LOS F LOS D N W+E NO Scale S MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION STUDY Iowa City, Iowa MELROSE AVE. LLOS F LOS D- Source' Level of Service ,s based on the methods of the 1 g 8 5 Highway Capacity Manual, Chapter 9, "Signalized Inlersechons," and Choptee I O, "UnSignaliZed InterSectiOnS." CITY OF IOWA CITY /-- LOS F BURLINGTON ST. UJ LU > LeBend: ~ - Signalized Intersection ~ - Stop Controlled Approach Figure 4 Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service (Year 2015) Alternatives 5 & 6 GRAND AVE. <C t~ MELROSE AVE. LLOS F ' '~ LOS B - LOS D /- LOS F li N W+E ~O Sca[¢ s MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION STUDY Io a Cit ,, Iowa Source: Level of Service ~s based on Ihe methods of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, Chapter 9. "Slgn-,~hzed IntersectionS," a~ Chapter 1 O, "UnslgnaliZ~ Inter~chons." CITY OF IOWA CITY ~ [Z_~_· Legend: (~ - Signalized Intersection ~ - Stop Controlled Approach Figures Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service (Year 2015) Alternative 7 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION A description of several of the key impact areas under each of the alternatives studied in the EA are presented below. Alternative 1 No-Build Alternative Under Alternative 1, No-Build, the existing poor traffic conditions along Melrose Avenue would remain. Additionally, because of the existing deficiencies, the bridge would eventually need to be dosed. Pedestrian and bicycle accessibility and safety would not be improved in the corridor. Speed limits on the Melrose Avenue bridge would need to be reduced for heavy vehicles. Accessibihty into the University of Iowa Campus and residential areas to the south would be adversely impacted due to traffic congestion at intersections. Accessibility to University Heights would also be adversely impacted in relation to the eventual closure of the Melrose Avenue bridge. Emergency vehicle accessibility through the corridor would not be improved as well as travel time for buses on Melrose Avenue. There would be no air quality or noise violations under this alternative. The No-Build alternative would not be consistent with the Johnson County COG's Arterial Street System Plan, which identified Melrose Avenue as an arterial street, and a coratrotted project for bridge and roadway improvements. In addition, the University of Iowa's Campus Planning Framework has incorporated the reconstruction of Melrose Avenue in their planning efforts. Urban design improvements to the corridor would not be implemented under this alternative. Alternative 2 Two Lane Bridge and Two-Lane Road With A Left Turn Lane at Hawkins Drive Under Alternative 2, traffic operations would be slightly improved over existing conditions. In addition, sidewalks would be constructed on the north ~ide nf Melrose Avenue, thereby ina?oving peclestrian safety and accessibility. To accommodate the expanded right-of-way to the north of Melrose Avenue, from South Grand Avenue to Grand Avenue Court, existing trees along the northern boulevard would need to be removed and replaced. Poor travel time conditions during peak periods would remain, thereby adversely impacting transit and emergency vehicles. The inclusion of additional landscaping and lighting fixtures throughout the corridor could serve as a visual improvement to the neighborhood 19 character of the area. There would be no air quality or noise violations under this alternative. Similar to the No-Build alternative, Alternative 2 is not consistent with the Arterial Street System Plan, or the University's Campus Planning Framework. The construction cost for Alternative 2 would be $1,780,000. 2,588 square me~ers (27,833 square feet) of right-of- way within the University of Iowa, would be required. Alternatives 3 and 4 Two Lane Bridge and Three-Lane Road/Three Lane Bridge and Three Lane Road The impact summary for Alternatives 3 and 4 have been combined because the difference in the alternatives relates only to the bridge design (two lane versus three lane). Therefore, the variation in the environmental impact analysis is only minor. Under Alternatives 3 and 4, sidewalks would be provided along both sides of Melrose Avenue, as well as shoulders for bus pullouts and bicyclists. Similar to Alternative 2, existing vegetation to the north of Melrose Avenue between South Grand Avenue and Grand Avenue Court wotrld need to be removed and replaced. The block bounded by Stadium Park Road and Hawkins Drive has the greatest right-of-way constraints. Therefore, to accommodate a continual sidewalk in this area (north side of Melrose Avenue), the existing south curb line is shifted to the south in the aforementioned block. The inclusion of additional landscaping and lighting fixtures throughout the corridor could serve as a visual improvement to the neighborhood character of the area. There would be no ai~ quality or noise violations under this alternative. Both of these alternatives would improve traffic operations along the corridor, thereby making them consistent with the Arterial Street System Plan, and the Campus Planning Framework. The construction cost for Alternatives 3 and 4 would be $1,985,000 and $2,155,000 respectively. 2,588 square meters (27,833 square feet) of right-of-way within the University of Iowa would be required. 67 square meters (722 square feet) of right-of-way would be required to accommodate the three-lane bridge design (Alternative 4 only). Alternative 5 Four Lane Bridge and Four Lane Road Under Alternative 5, traffic operations would improve over the No-Build condition. With the improved travel conditions in the corridor, there is a beneficial impact to accessibility into facilities to the north and south of Melrose Avenue. An additional thru-lane would allow a continual flow of traffic at bus stop locations. Emergency vehicle accessibility would be improved. Because of right-of-way constraints, bicyclists wouid not have a separate travel lane. Similar to Alternatives 3 and 4, the proposed 4.7 meters (15.4 feet) of new right-of-way to the north of Melrose Avenue would provide adequate room for sidewalk facilities, except for the block bounded by Stadium Drive and Hawkins Drivb. On this block the proposed right-of-way is reduced because of the location of the University's tennis courts. To accommodate continual sidewalk facilities on the north side of Melrose Avenue, the south curb line in the aforementioned block is shifted to the south. As presented in the Urban Design section, landscaping on both the north and south sides of Melrose Avenue could improve the character of the corridor, while partially screening the views of the University from the residential neighborhood to the south. There would be no air quality and noise violations under this alternative. The existing vegetation on the block bounded by South Grand Avenue and Grand Avenue Court would need to be removed and replaced to accommodate the boulevard and sidewalk facilities. Construction cost for Alternative 5 is estimated.at $2,155,000. Right-of- way impacts assodated with the road reconstruction are the same as under Alternatives 3 and 4. The proposed bridge would require 67 square meters (722 square feet) of right-of-way. Alternative 6 Four Lane Bridge and Five Lane Road Under Alternative 6, traffic operations would experience the greatest improvement over the No-Build condition. Similar to Alternatives 3-5, improved travel conditions improves accessibility to University of Iowa facilities to the north of Melrose Avenue, and the residential area to the south. In addition, transit operations and emergency vehicle accessibility through the study corridor would improve. Alternative 6 would be consistent with the Arterial Slzeet System Plan and the Campus Planning Framework document. Similar to Alternatives 3-5, right-of-way constraints in the block bounded by Stadium Drive and Hawkins Drive would require the shift in the south curbline in the block. Existing vegetation in the eastern section of the alignment would need to be removed to accommodate the extended border area. The expansion of the roadway to a five lane fadhty would increase required pedestrian crossing time. Therefore, road expansion would be considered an adverse impact to pedestrians crossing Melrose Avenue from the north and/or the south. Because the majority of the right-of-way would be required to accommodate the five-lane road, additional landscaping to buffer the impacts of a roadway would not be as significant as the landscaping proposed under Alternatives 3-5. There would be no air quality or noise violations under this alternative. The construction cost for Alternative 6 is estimated at $2,290,000. Right-of-way impacts would be the same as under Alternatives 4-5. Alternative 7 Construct a New Road North of Existing Melrose Avenue Because this roadway is proposed to be located on a new alignment, impacts to existing conditions would be more significant than Alternatives 1-6. Under Alternative 7, the existing Melrose Avenue bridge would be reconstructed. Specifically, the alignment would be located in an undeveloped area with steep slope conditions. A natural wooded area and associated wildlife would be adversely impacted. There are three potential archaeologica. 1 sites also located within the study corridor, which 21 could be adversely impacted under this alternative. Additional analysis would be required to determine site location and significance. At the northern end of the alignment, the roadway would cut through the University of Iowa's reczeational fields. A 4(0 evaluation would be required for this alternative, which would need to show that there are no prudent or feasible alternatives to the proposed roadway. Alternative 7 would not be consistent with the Arterial Street System Plan, the University's Campus Planning Framework, and the Sports and Recreation Facilities Long Range Plan. Because existing Melrose Avenue would be maintained as a two-lane facility, traffic operations would not experience a significant improvement tinder Alternative 7. Therefore, emergency vehicle accessibility and transit operations would not experience a significant improvement over existing conditions. Alternative 7 would not satisfy the identified project goals relating to LOS operations, pedestrian/bicycle accessibility and system planning. The estimated construction cost for Alternative 7 is $3,345,000. A total of 19,519 square meters (209,880 square feet) of right-of-way would be need to be acquired for this alternative. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE To be included following identification of the Prefet~'ed Alternative Summary of Impacts Summary of Mitigation !I · ~m~ 22 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS The EA for the Melrose Avenue project was distributed in March 1995 to agencies and organizations on the official distribution list as well as additional agencies/organizations which had either requested a copy of the document and/or that could be affected by the proposed project. The comment period for the agencies and organizations that received copies of the EA officially closed on May 8, 1995. The methodology for responding to comments received on the EA is based on the general guidelines of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Written respomes have been provided for comments pertaining to analysis conducted for and documented in the EA. Specifically, responses have been prepared for statements noting: incorrect or unclear information or content requirements. Comments agreeing with information contained in the EA or statements, general opinions, statements of fact, or statements of preference were not formally responded to, but are included in this section. Comments focusing on design issues were not responded to at this stage, however, design concerns will be addressed in coordination with appropriate agencies during final design. Responses were not drafted for statements of preference, however, they were considered in the selection of the Preferred Altemative. The following table provides a listing of the governmental agencies which commented on the EA document. AGENCY/GOVERNMENTAL UNIT United States Department of Interior Iowa Department of Natural Resources State Historical Society of Iowa (two letters) City of University Heights (Don Swanson and Steve E. Ballard) City of Iowa City (Karin Franklin) In addition to the governmental agencies identified above, comments on the Melrose Avenue EA were received from the following individuals/organizations: 23 INDIVIDUAL/ORGANIZATION Michaelann Widness Jan Cureton Mary Murphy and Gregg Geerdes Gregory Kovaciny Friends of Historic Preservation Helen Brom Thomas Baldridge John Widness Elizabeth McKay Mar), Hall Reno Carole J. Moore John A. NesbitL Editor CCB (with attachments of Community Betterment Bulletins) April 3, 1993 May 15, 1993 July 3, 1993 November 20, 1993 April 5, 1995 April 12, 1995 April 15, 1995 April 19, 1995 May 8, 1995 Linda Fincham William Buss Wallace Taylor (On behalf of Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association) Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association University Heights Community Organization Jane Huit George Haskell and Nancy Dejmal Mr. and Mrs. Brad L. Smith Mark and Carole Ramsey Irving B. Weber (two letters) Thomas Conway J. Keith Bateman Edward E. and Dordana F. Mason Lorie Braverman Charles Grose Jacques and Victoria Bourgeaoq Christine Harrington Joanne and Donald McCloskey Todd Black Janet Hoffey Rich Wretman University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics The University of Iowa John Nesbitt (with attachment- from public hearing) John Nesbitt (with attachment - from public hearing) Darrell Yeahey Sam Granato 24 SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES Justification for the Project This section is presented to clarify issues raised regarding the overall goals of the project, particularly for pedestrian/bicycle accessibility and safety, and traffic operations on Melrose Avenue. In compliance with FHWA rules and Iowa DOT Action Plan guidelines regarding the information presented in a federal Environmental Assessment Document, the Melrose Avenue EA includes a chapter titled, Purpose and Need for the Project. In identifying the goals of the project, auto traffic, transit users, pedestrians and bicyclists were considered. The EA document cites the following regarding the need for the Melrose Avenue project: o Level of Service on Melrose Avenue · Pedestrian/Bicycle Fadhties · System Planning · Bridge Deficiencies The level of service (LOS) analysis conducted as part of the Melrose Avenue EA indicated that Melrose Avenue currently operates at LOS D, with intersections at LOS C or worse. By year 2015, under current conditions, the Melrose Avenue roadway segment would operate at LOS D or lower. Because Melrose Avenue is classified as an arterial roadway in the JCCOG's Arterial Street System Plan, it should facilitate the major movement of traffic. With an arterial classification, Melrose Avenue services vehicles not only destined to the University of Iowa, but to other east and west locations, such as downtown Iowa City. The intersection capacity analysis indicated that even with improvements to Melrose Avenue, as defined in the Alternatives section of the EA, LOS at Melrose Avenue and Hawkins Drive is forecast LOS D or lower. Although this is not a desirable traffic operations condition, the land use constraints in the area prevent designing an intersection which could adequately accormnodate traffic volumes during peak periods. Altematives 3 through 6 would improve traffic flow conditions on Melrose Avenue by providing increased capacity. It should be noted that the capacity analysis is based on peak period traffic conditions. Therefore, the LOS results for both the roadway segment and intersections represent worst cast conditions in the corridor. During most periods of the day, traffic volumes would be lower than the peak periods, resulting in better traffic operation conditions. With regard to bridge and pedestrian facilities, each of the proposed alternatives was designed to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and 25 accessibility to the greatest extent possible. The degree to which these goals can be achieved varies by alternative, and is constrained by right-of- way availability, and impacts to surrounding property. DEFINITIONS OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN EA Several written comments questioned the definition of alternatives considered in the EA document, specifically that the EA did not consider other feasible alternatives. In response, the EA document stated on pages 7 and 25 that the Melrose Avenue Focus Group assisted the City of Iowa City in developing the alternatives studied in the EA. Representation of the Focus Group is presented on page 130 of the EA. The City of Iowa City is the project proposer, and local governmental unit responsible for the project. The Melrose Avenue EA addresses the potential impacts of each of the alternatives developed at the November 15, 1993, Focus Group meeting. With regard to Alternative 7, a new alignment to the north of existing Melrose, through the University of Iowa property, is proposed. Under this alternative, Melrose Avenue would remain a two-lane facility, and the Melrose Avenue bridge would be maintained. The site constraints impacting the location of the Alternative 7 alignment are discussed in the following section. DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVE 7 ALIGNMENT LOCATION Several comments were raised both at the public hearing and through written comments addressing the identified location of Alternative 7. Specifically, the issue was raised regarding the University of Iowa's plans for Finkbine Golf Course, the relocation of Kinnick Stadium, and the University's plan to construct a new roadway north of Melrose Avenue, which would connect with Hawkins Drive. In response, Section 5.2.6, Parklands, of the EA stated the following: In April 1992, the University of Iowa completed the Sports and Recreation Facilities Long Range Master Plan. Key elements of the plan which relate to the proposed Melrose Avenue project include the following: Finkbine Golf Comse and Expansion Reserve: This area will remain "as is" until university space needs dictate the relocation of Finkbine to another location to provide space for university facility growth. Relocation could be to the area west of Hawkeye Drive or off-campus. Existing Open Space: 26 The natural wooded areas southeast of existing Finkbine and along Clear Creek will remain as open space and neutral area for passive recreation use. Lower Finkbine Area: To remain as a recreational area. The University's Master Plan identified three Phases of Development. Under phases I/ (10-20 years) and ~rl (approximately 20 years) the Finkbine golf course area may be used for future academic expansion. Preliminary land use concept plans developed as part of the above referenced Master Plan identified a north/south collector roadway directly to the west of the existing golf course. These preliminary plans were reviewed by the committee, and screened from further analysis. The plans are currently included as an appendix to the Master Plan to document the planning process. The Athletic Facilities Long Range Plan does not include a north/south roadway directly connecting to Hawkeye Drive. The University of Iowa does not have plans to construct a north south arterial roadway through the campus, to connect with Hawkeye Drive. In addition, the construction of a major roadway north of existing Melrose Avenue would not be consistent with the University's plan to encourage pedestrian and bicycle traffic rather than auto traffic through the university. As stated in the EA, the location of the Alterative 7 was constrained by the surrounding land use, including Finkbine Golf Course, which is assumed to remain in the present location, slope issues, and recreational facilities to the north of the railroad tracks. Because of the identified site constraints, and the fact that the University Golf course would remain in its existing location at the time Melrose Avenue would be constructed, the alignment location for Alternative 7 has not be revised. DECISION ON PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Several written comments were made which indicated that the City had already selected the four-lane roadway and bridge as the preferred alternative. In response, the Melrose Avenue EA, March 1995 does not identify a preferred alternative. Each of the seven alternatives, including the No-Build, were assessed at equal levels. The EA documents the results of the technical analysis completed for the project. The City of Iowa City is the governmental unit that identifies a preferred alternative and makes a recommendation to IDOT and the FHWA. The City specifically directed the consultant under contract, BRW, Inc., to assess each of the seven alternatives. The decision was reached at the initiation of the EA, that a preferred altemative decision would not be made by the City until after the EA was completed and distributed, a public meeting held, and comments were received and reviewed. 27 It should be noted that a preferred alternative can be identified in an EA document, provided that adequate rationale is presented documenting the alternative decision-making process. UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS APPROVAL OF BRIDGE DESIGN/POSITION ON ROADWAY/BRIDGE DESIGN The City of University Heights "unanimously adopted a resolution (February 8, 1993) opposing construction of three-or-four land bridge (Steven Ballard's comment letter, May 8, 1995)." The City of University Heights has also adopted a resolution at its July 12, 1993 council meeting formally stating its commitment to maintain Melrose Avenue as a two- lane residential street. During the public heating for the Melrose Avenue project, one of the key discussion topics related to the corporate limit boundaries for the City of Iowa City. The exact location of the corporate limits impacts right-of-way acquisition procedures, and authorization by ~ contracting authority to obtain access onto surrounding property during construction activities. In response, the City of Iowa City has initiated legal action to determine the boundary of the corporate limits. Under federal rules, approval of the bridge design by the City of University Heights would not be required. MELROSE AVENUE DIAGONAL Several comments questioned whether or not the analysis took into consideration the proposed Melrose Avenue diagonal at the east end of the study area. In response, during the data gathering phase and review of existing documents pertinent to the Melrose Avenue Study, BRW reviewed the Traffic Study and Planning Analysis conducted by Barton- Aschman Associates for the University of Iowa (January, 1993). Included in the aforementioned document was a preliminary study regarding the Melrose Avenue/Grand Avenue connector. This two-way connector would extend in a diagonal direction frem Melrose Avenue just east of South Grand Avenue to Grand Avenue at Byington Road. This diagonal is being considered as part of the University's Long Range Plan. The conceptual alignments prepared for the study all would have land use and roadway modification impacts. Because of the uncertainty surrounding the timing and feasibility of the "diagonal", it has not been considered as a "planned" or "programmed' project to be addressed (e.g. cumulative impact) in this EA. 28 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY The issue regarding pedestrian safety crossing Melrose Avenue was raised at the pubhc meeting and in written comments. In response, pedestrian safety is a very complex issue that is affected by a variety of roadway related features, induding: · Volume of vehicles o Volume of pedestrians · Sight distance/visibility to/from pedestrians · Parked cars · Transit operations o Vehicle speeds o Pedestrian patterns · Street lighting · Availability/access to/degree to which pedestrian provisions are complete (i.e. sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, etc) In response to comments made at both the Melrose Avenue public hearing, and written comments received, BRW conducted a literature search and contacted traffic safety specialists at the Iowa Depm hnent of Transportation, the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the FI-IWA offices in Iowa and Minnesota regarding the direct relationship between the width of a roadway and the frequency of pedestrian accidents. The above mentioned efforts did not result in revealing any documented information regarding the above referenced relatienship. Therefore, even though it may seem intuitively obvious that since a wider roadway exposes pedestrians to traffic for several additional seconds, there is no evidence to suggest that this fact alone will necessarily result in a higher frequency of pedestrian accidents. The following roadway characteristics were also considered with regards to pedestrian safety: Melrose Avenue has now and will continue to have a basically straight/flat alignment. · No design features will limit sight distance. · On-street parking is not allowed, therefore, parked cars are not a limiting issue in this corridor. · The Melrose Avenue project proposes to upgrade and complete the pedestrian sidewalk system. · Melrose Avenue is now, and will continue to be a low speed urban roadway. It is reasonable to conclude that the pedestrian environment should be at least as good as the current situation, and most likely improved. During the more detailed design on the preferred alternative, provisions to improve pedestrian safety crossing Melrose will be considered (e.g. pedestrian crosswalks/street lighting). 29 THREE-LANE DESIGN The issue regarding the design of the three-lane roadway was raised at the public meeting and in written comments. In addition, the design of the three-lane roadway and how it serves bicyclists was discussed. This section responds to both of these issues. City, County and State roadway agencies are frequently selecting the three-lane cross section for improvements to urban and suburban arterials, primarily because of the excellent safety record that has been documented. Three lane roadways typically have a lower accident rate than four-lane undivided roadways. This reduction in accident rates is basically the result of the three-lane roadways ability to accommodate left turns in separate designated, coniinuous system of left turn lanes, instead of from the inside thru lane on a four-lane facility. When three-lane roadways were initially studied in the early 1970s there was concern about the potential for head-on accidents in the center/ common left-turn lane. Subsequent studies concluded that head on accidents are not a problem provided the only maneuvers in the center lane are low speed left tums. High speed maneuvers such as passing are prohibited. As a result, three-lane roadways (even in urban areas) must be signed NO PASSING and designed to accommodate emergency stopping/parking. This basically requires the addition of shoulders for emergency stopping so that through traffic can proceed around the parked/stopped vehicles without having to use the center/common lane for the passing maneuver. Typical three-lane roadway widths (back of curb to back of curb) varies from 13.7 meters (45 feet) to 16.8 meters (55 feet) depending on traffic volumes, the percentage of heavy commercial vehicles in the traffic stream and vehicle speeds. The 14.6 meter (47.9 foot) (back of curb to back of curb) width was recommended for the Melrose Avenue three-lane alternative ba;ed on a review of the basic existing and forecast traffic volumes, the expected percentage of heavy commercial vehicles and vehicle speeds along Melrose Avenue. The three-lane roadway width (back of curb to back of curb) could be reduced to 14.3 meters (47 feet) without violating I-DOT's alternative Urban Design guidelines. (Note: A 14.3 meter (47 foot) wide four-lane undivided roadway would require a variance from the I-DOT's Alternative Urban Design guidelines.) As indicated above, the identified should area would serve as space for stalled vehicles to pull-out of the thru lane of traffic without hindering traffic flow. The shoulder area under the three-lane alternative also provides a non-thru lane of traffic area for use by bicyclists. The shoulder area would not be designated a bike-lane. However, during the more 30 detailed design phase for the preferred alternative, the City will address the issue regarding appropriate bicycle signage to improve bicycle safety conditions on Melrose Avenue. DEFINITION OF STUDY AREA FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES Questions surrounding the definition of the Area of Potential Effect (APE), for the Architectural survey were made both at the public hearing and in written comments received on the Melrose Avenue EA. In response, page 1 of the Architectural Survey states the following: The scope of work for this investigation was designed to provide a report that identified the architectural resources that may be potentially affected by the proposed project within the Area of Potential Effect (APE). The APE includes all properties within the right-of-way construction zones, and-the first tier of adjacent properties. The investigation and subsequent report also evaluates the significance of those resources to determine their potential or listing on the National Register of Historic Places 36 CFR Part 800.2 defines the Area of Potential Effect as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The determination of the APE for this project followed the general process outlined below: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Review of the federal rules regarding the deftnition of the APE Review of the proposed alternatives for the project, and general land use of the study area. Field review of the Melrose Avenue corridor Applying experience on other transportation related projects in defining the APE Discussion with other members of the environmental review team regarding design of the proposed alternatives and results of other areas of the environmental assessment Recommendation and concurrence by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding the definition of the APE. It is important to point out that the SHPO makes the final determination regarding the definition of the APE. The Citv's consultant, BRW Inc. and BRW Elness Architects, coordinated with the Iowa SHPO regarding the definition of the APE at the onset of the Phase I and II Architectural Survey. As indicated in the previous section, the SHPO has approved the Melrose Avenue Phase I and II Architectural Survey dated April 1995, which defines the APE as "all properties within the right-of-way construction zones, and the first tier of adjacent properties." Based on the scope of the proposed project, alternative designs and associated impacts, adverse impacts to structures several blocks south of Melrose Avenue are not anticipated. The EA also provides the basis for determining that the properties in the study area do not comprise a historic district. ASSESSING SOCIAL IMPACTS This section provides background information regarding the socioeconomic assessment conducted for the Melrose EA. Community Facilities The FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.SA states that for an Environmental Impact Statement level of analysis, the EIS should discuss the following items for each alternative "commensurate with the level of impacts and to the extent they are distinguishable." Although the level of analysis conducted for an ElS document is typically more detailed than for an EA document, the general ElS methodology and scope of analysis was followed for the Melrose Avenue EA. (a) Changes in the neighborhoods or community cohesion for the various social groups as a result of the proposed action. These changes may be beneficial or adverse and may include splitting neighborhoods, isolating a portion of a neighborhood or ethnic group, generating new development, changing property values, or separating residents from community facilities. (b) Changes in travel patterns and accessibility. (c) Impacts on school districts, recreation areas, churches, businesses, police and fire protection, etc ( including both direct and indirect impacts). (d) Impacts of alternatives on highway and traffic safety as well as on overall public safety. (e) General social groups specially benefited or harmed by the proposed project. The effects of a project on the elderly, handicapped, non-drivers, transit-dependent and minority and ethnic groups are of particular concern and should be described to the extent these effects can be reasonably predicted. In section 5.2.1 of the EA document, Community Facilities, an inventory of community facilities was conducted, based on field review and existing data sources. Community facilities identified included schools, fire stations, child care facilities, cultural centers, and University of Iowa facilities. The inventory was conducted to determine how each of the alternatives under study in the EA could potentially impact study area ¢! 32 facilities in terms of accessibility, and safety (e.g. pedestrian accessibility to and from sites). In addition, the analysis took into account how the location of primary activity centers in the study area impacts the ~xavel pattems of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit-users, and autos. Section 5.2.1, of the EA, Community Facilities, presents the findings of the EA analysis. Please note that several corrections to study area community facilities has been made based on wri~en and verbal comments received on the EA. These corrections are included in the Supplemental Information/Corrections section of this document. Neighborhood/Community Character Section 5.2.2, Neighborhood/Community Character of the EA focused on how each of the proposed alternatives would impact bicycle/pedestrian accessibility, visual impacts, and accessibility to surrounding land uses. The analysis for Alternative 7 identified an impact associated with a change in the surrounding land use associated with a new roadway, for residents in University Heights. The analysis for Alternatives 1 through 6 drew upon the fact that Melrose Avenue currently serves as a transportation corridor for east/west traffic. Because the roadway is currently in place, it would not add a "new" barrier to north/south movements, and would not directly cut off access to neighborhoods to the south, or the University to the north. The neighborhood/community impact analysis considered not only the residential homes directly to the south of Melrose Avenue, but also the residential neighborhood which extends to the south. Similarly, the analysis not only considered University of Iowa fadlities directly to the north of Melrose, but additional facilities within the campus. To adequately assess pedestrian and bicycle impacts, the analysis recognized that pedestrians and bicyclist are traveling from both the south and north of Melrose Avenue, through the aforementioned neighborhoods. In addition, the analysis took into consideration that the Melrose Avenue neighborhood is not limited to the first row of homes directly south of Melrose Avenue, but is comprised of longstanding homes to the south as well. Impacts to the surrounding neighborhood can be caused by increased traffic, noise, vistlal changes, etc. Studies show, and the traffic model for the City of Iowa City assumes that as traffic congestion reaches a certain point, vehicles will divert to alternative routes. In the case of Melrose Avenue, this diversion could be directed onto Benton Street to the south, or be diverted through the Melrose Avenue neighborhood. This potential increase in tl'affic through the neighborhoods would be considered an adverse impact. Direct visual impacts associated with the proposed alternatives would primarily be experienced by residents directly to the south of Melrose Avenue. 33 MELROSE AVENUE AND GOLFVIEW/KOSER INTERSECTION Written and verbal comments were received regarding the traff~c analysis conducted at the intersection of Melrose Avenue/Golf'view Koser Avenue. In response, Melrose Avenue and Golfview/Koser Avenue is currently an all-way stop controlled intersection. The City of University Heights has plans to signalize the intersection. Each of the proposed alternatives matches the existing roadway width east of the intersection. Therefore, the choice of alternative should have no effect on the intersection. However, signalizatlon of the Melrose Avenue/Golfview-Koser Avenue intersection shotfid have a positive effect on traffic operations on Melrose Avenue, reduce queue lengths and provide a better level of service. Coordination of the new signal with the existing signal at Hawkins Drive should be considered to provide progression along Melrose Avenue. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FOR MELROSE COURT Written and verbal comments were received questioning why Melrose Court was not included in the traffic analysis conducted for Melrose Avenue. In response, because of Melrose Court is not considered a major roadway within the region, it is not included in the regional traffic model. The scope of work for the Melrose Avenue EA identified six major intersections within the study area to conduct traffic counts and level of service analysis. Melrose Court was not considered a major intersection because of its limiting design, its exclusion from the regional model, and the traffic volume levels. One of the purposes of the EA document is to provide information to decision makers regarding the alternatives under consideration. The impact analysis should focus on primary differences between the alternatives under consideration, both beneficial and adverse. Based on professional experience, and existing and forecast traffic condition on Melrose Avenue it was determined that traffic volumes would not change significantly on Melrose Court in relation to the alternatives under consideration in the EA. Because of identified concerns regarding traffic operations on Melrose Court, a traffic analysis was conducted at this intersection. A surmnary of the results is presented below. Melrose Court is currently an unsignalized intersection. Traffic on Melrose Avenue currently experiences minimal delay at the intersection. Traffic on Melrose Court experiences some delay, waiting for a gap in traffic. Regardless of the build alternative, vehicles on Melrose Court continue to experience some delay waiting for a gap in traffic. A possible mitigation measure for long delays on a minor street approach of an intersection is signalization. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) lists several warrants that identify when traffic volumes at an intersection justify signalization. An analysis of available traffic count data indicates that Melrose Court had an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume of 1400 re.hides per day (vpd) in 1984. Assuming a one percent annual growth in traffic on Melrose Court, the estimated year 1994 ADT is 1550 vpd, a 10 percent increase in traffic. The Year 2015 forecast volume is 1900 vpd, a 30 percent increase in traffic. The warrants listed in the MUTCD are based on hourly volumes. Using a 10 percent peak hour factor, and a 50/50 daily directional split, the volume of traffic on Melrose Court entering the Melrose Avenue/Melrose Court intersection during the PM peak hour is 70 vhp (1984), 80 vhp (1995), and 95 vhp (2015). Based on the Peak Hour Volume Warrant, the Minor Street Approach needs 100 vehicles per hour in order to meet the warrant requirements, no matter what volume is on Melrose Avenue. Therefore, the intersection of Melrose Avenue at Melrose Court is not expected to meet the requirements for signalization during the next twenty years. If long delays and/or congestion is experienced at the intersection in the future, a complete traffic signal warrant analysis should be conducted, based on the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES Several comments were received both at the public hearing and written comments questioning whether or not Iowa City's Environmental Policies were considered during the preparation of the EA. In response, the analysis in the EA did take into account the environmental policies included in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the City's Sensitive Areas Inventory was reviewed to identify potential natural "sensitive areas" within the study area. As indicated in the EA, Alternative 7 would impact environmentally sensitive areas with regards to wooded and sloped areas, and potentially archaeological sites within undeveloped areas of the corridor. Because of the built up environment surrounding existing Melrose Avenue, there would not be an impact to undeveloped natural areas under Alternatives 1 through 6. The Urban Design/Visual Resources section of the EA also addresses environmental policies identified by the city. Specifically, the urban design section discusses potential landscaping/lighting plans for Melrose Avenue. Landscaping of Melrose Avenue as proposed in the EA, would serve as a buffer for surrounding land uses. However, it is recognized that landscaping and lighting will not completely eliminate views from the south onto the University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics. This is not within the scope of the Melrose Avenue prolect. In addition, at the onset of the project, one of the primary goals of the proposed action was to improve the pedestrian and bicycle accessibility and safety within the corridor. This issue has been consistently addressed throughout the document, and the project. Improved sidewalks on both the north and south side of Melrose Avenue have been identified. ACCESSIBILITY ONTO MELROSE AVENUE Several comments raised the issue regarding driveway access onto Melrose Avenue, and potential safety issues surrounding private access. In respome, traffic engineering studies do indicate that there is a relationship between the number of access points and level of accidents. However, the proposed action would not increase the number of access points onto Melrose Avenue. Based on the proposed design for the various alternatives, the three-lane alternative would improve safety conditions for vehicles pulling out of private drives along Melrose Avenue. This can be concluded because the three lane alternative provides for a shoulder area on both the north and south sides of the roadway. The three-lane alternative also provides a safe storage area for vehicles turning left from Melrose Avenue into the driveways. The four and five-lane alternatives have traffic lanes on the curbline, providing no reaction room for vehicles pulling out of driveways. This design is less safe than the two and three- lane alternatives, which have shoulder areas. INDIRECT IMPACTS Written comments were submitted which questioned the EA's assessment of potential indirect effects. In response, NEPA defines an indirect effect as: Indirect effects which are caused by the action and are later in time or further removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water, and other natural systems, including ecosystems. As stated in the land use and zoning, surface water drainage, wetlands and floodplains, parklands (except Alternative 7) wildlife and endangered species, noise, and air quality sections of the EA, there would not be significant direct impacts under any of these areas. Therefore, there would not be significant indirect impacts to semifive areas outside the one block area to the north and south of Melrose Avenue. The potential for significant indirect effects was considered during extensive field review for the Phase I and II Architectural History Survey Report. Primary areas considered included noise, vibration, change in land use/neighborhood character, traffic and surrounding air quality. As discussed in the impact evaluation, the proposed alternatives would not cause adverse impacts in any of the areas. Therefore, it was determined that historic structures outside the defined APE would not be adversely impacted. 36 With regards to economic development, the proposed alternatives could impact development potential primarily outside the direct study area boundaries. Development potential involves many different factors, one of which relates to accessibility and travel-time savings. Indirect economic benefits assodated with the proposed alternatives would therefore relate to improved east-west travel conditions in the City. Under Alternatives 1 through 6, because the area to the south of Melrose Avenue is an established and stable residential area, and the area to the north consists of the University of Iowa, the alternatives would not change the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate. Alternative 7, however, would change the character of existing land use, north of existing Melrose Avenue, to Hawkins Drive. CORRECTIONS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING TRANSCRIPT Note that the "speaker" on the following pages/lines was Roger Anderberg, Iowa DOT: · Page 49, lines 3 and 19 · Page 50, lines 2,7,10 · Page 51, lines 2 and 10 · Page 52, lines 8 and 21 Note that the "speaker" on the following pages/lines was the Mayor of University Heights: Page 57, line 3 The following word corrections should be noted: · Page 57, line 3, change bipartism to high artist · Page 66, lines 19 and 20, change admissions to emissions · Page 78, line 1, audience: Mayor of University Heights 37 Mulfi-Pa~e TM Hearing- M~lro~o Avenue Janet ~wald, CSR, RPR (319) 338-0390 438 Cr~rden Street, iowa City, IA 52245 H~!ring - Melro~ Avenue Multi-Page r~ Page 2 ] PROCEEDINGS 2 (April 19, 1995, 7:05 p.m.) 3 MR. PRESTON: Welcome tonight to tonight's 4 meeting. My name is Itoward Proscan. I'm with BRW. We'~c 5 the consulting engineering firm out of Minneapolis that 6 the city retained to conduct the environmental assessment 7 for Melrose Avenan improvement. This is Jeanne Wit~ig 8 also of BRW. 9 Just by way of some background, l'm a traffic 10 engineer in charge of our traffic engineering group in oar 11 Minneapolis office. Wc have nine other offices around the 12 country that do similar types of traffic studies, 13 environmentalreports. I'minchargcofourtraffic 14 engineering group for the Midwest. 15 Jeanne is in charge of doing oar enviromnental 16 reports and docttmentatien for all the projects in the 17 Midwest, and she and I have workext together regularly en 18 these kinds of projects. And we're also currently working 19 on two other major corridor s~dies, environmental 20 studies, one in Minnesota and the one in the State of 21 Nebra,,d~. But I'll tell you right now this one is more 22 filu, certainly more challenging. The issues arc very 23 unique. 24 So with that, a little bit of an in[roduction, 25 what I'd Like to do is go through a little bit of agenda, Strce~, Iowa C~ty, IA 52245 Page 3 I talk about some of the format, get into the preparation. 2 (A discussion was held Off the record.) 3 /VlR. PRESTON: If everybody con sec this, this is 4 just an agenda. It talks a liUlc bit about what we'll be 5 getting into this cvenin~o. We'll talk about the ptlrpuso 6 and format for the meeting. We want to talk about the 7 actual environmental assessment review process. I'll give 8 you a little bit of backgreund about the pmjerA talk 9 about the alternatives and help der'me those, give you a l0 little bit of a haclqp'unad iaformatioo about the 11 altl~llatives, talk a little bit about the summary ofutlr 12 ruslllta. But I think many of you have taken the 13 opportunity to look at our documents and particularly the 14 summary, talk about the public comment period and 15 basically say what's next, what happens next, and then let 16 you have some idea o£ what you can expect as far as the 17 continuation of this project or the completion of this 18 project and what happens aftca- that. 19 The propose of the public henring tonight - ] 20 guess there's really three thingg or two things that arc 21 objectives and ooe statemeut thut we'd like to makc. The 22 two objectives are to prorids some information to you 23 about what the process has been, about what the study has 24 done, looked at, some of the basic conclusions, and then 25 to providc you with an opportunity to present either Page 4 I written testimony, written comments, questions that will 2 bccomc part of the official record or provide oral 3 testimony, ond we will have the court reporter in the room 4 in the back to allow you to do that. And either way yoar 5 comments, whather presellted in wlitin§ - and I'll get 6 into a little more detail about that in just a minute -- or presented to the court reporter will become part of the 8 official ;ranscript of fi',c project and either way your 9 comments will carry the same weight. So ff you choose to 10 put something in writing, that's f'mc. We'll provide you with some help with that; and if you choose to speak to 12 the court reporter tonight, that's t'mc also and we'li gct your comments into the official transcript that way. 14 And the last item l just want to point out hare is that we're conducting this meeting and the format of the meeting is coosistunt with the guidelines that the 17 Iowa DOT has and the Federal Highway Aclminish-ation with 18 regard to conducting public roestings relative to an environmental process like this. So we arc consistent 20 with those kinds of guidelines. 21 And the last point I want to make here is there 22 will bc no decisions made tonight. We don't make 23 decisions. All we do is provide information to the city staff, who provides it to the council, who will bc -~ who always has been and will continue to be the Page 1 - Pag~ 4 Multi-Page H~mrin§ - Melrose Avenue Page5 I decision-making body relative to this project. What we're 2 trying to do is just s~pty provide mfornmtion to help 2 3 ~ m~e in~ormod decisions. 3 4 TM format for tbe xceedrig tonight, we,re going 5 to ~alk - I will speak lo you for just a little while, I 6 hope on lenger than twtzllty mimlt~ or half an hour, to 6 7 give you this background information and provide some of 7 8 this educational information that will help you understand 9 wh~e we've Izen, what we've done, and where we,re going. 10 Tn~e will be a brief, I hope, opportunity for 10 11 yOU tO ~ ~Omme. tlts Or questions relative to 1 12 ¢larifie~afioas, anything that we've pn~amted in the 12 13 document as far ~s tbe presentation tiffs evening. 13 14 Then we will go into just an inferran! 14 15 question/answerpcriod. l would invit~ you to come up acd 15 16 I'll be by one of the sets of inyouts Or th~ other. 16 17 Jannn¢ wili b~ them. 17 18 If you have questions regarding your specific 18 19 property or issues that are specLfic to yottr particular 19 20 situation, please come up to us during that informal 20 21 qocstion/asswerpcfiod. We'll be happy to spond whatcver 21 22 time it tsk~ to provide you with information hopefully 22 23 satisfactorily so that you walk away from here tonight 23 24 with a heRer understanding of what's going on. 24 25 At the anm~ time during this informal 25 Page 6 ! qtmtion/answor period we will be taking your written 1 2 comments. We have a place to do that, and again the court 2 3 reporter will be in the back of the room and we'll be 3 4 a-~kinB you to sign up if tl~at's what yan cheese to do just 4 5 to give us a little structure as far as we den't want 5 6 everybody trying to go back in and speak with the court 6 7 reporter at the same time. 7 8 So I mentioned we have a letter for you that you 8 9 can pick up that says it's comments relative to the public 9 10 hearing tonight. It requcsts that you put your name aad 10 11 addr~sdewzL We have the name and address of the 11 12 goalleman, Mr. Jeff Davidcon, City Planner, who will be 12 13 coordinating the receipt of all thos~ written comments. I 14 We will provide you with this so that ff you choose to 14 15 make a writtan comment, you con use this Or if you cheese, 16 you can write any kind of letter or add pages to it Or 16 17 whatever. 17 18 And I will mention that there is a closing 18 19 period relative to comments to this environmental 19 20 document. That closing period is May 8th. So ff you 20 21 leave here tonight end choose to make writtan comments, 21 22 they would -- they should be into the city staff by May 22 23 8th. 23 24 In addition, we talked about a sign-up, request 24 25 to speak, and again this is only trying to provide some 25 Janet Cacenwald, CSR, RPR (319) 338--0390 438 Garden Stroot, Iowa City, IA 52245 Page amiciurn so that everybody doesn't get back them at the same time, and we would ask you to fili tbo~ out. We will have somebody standi~ at the back of the room, and we will t~y to take them in tbe order that you turn them in. So that we just, again, have an orderly kind of a you need to ~ to the court reportor to make whatever tdnds of atatq.',~..mts or ~ wtmt.~ver kinds of quitions you may have. That will become an official part of the U~nseript of this meeting. And so eith:r way, written coremvats or your oral testimony tonight, will hecome pm of the official transoript of the meslin~. AUDIENCE: Excoae me. Could I nuse a question about the format? MR. PRESTON: Sure. AUDIENCE: I don't understand in a public hearing why the public testimony is going to be given in private rather than in public? I mean, it so,ns to me one of the things that I'm bere for is to beer the views of my neighbors on this question ond I would appreciate having the public dincussion in public. It can he recorded for your benefit just as easily by the court reportor. But is there a reason why it has to be done individually and in privat,~? MR. PRF~TON: We just ches~ to do it that way Page: because we thought it was the most ¢fficicot and orderly way of doing it. It conforms with all of the guidelines and it allows us to circulate out hem and answer privat~ questions or answer comments, talk u~ basically in an informal situation while those kinds of commen~s, you~ comm~ms, official comments am b~ing made to the court r~porter. So it's a format that has worked well for us. It's a format fl~t's consistent with the guidelines. It's a very efficient format so that everybody has all the opportunities they want in Order to provide theft comments and information and it's worked very wall. So that was the rationale for that. This is not -- thc-re's no requ/mment that all of you and your neighbors he able to hear one another and theft comments. Ifs just something that has not been considered to be necessary, and so we've ¢honm to do it this ~,~y. AUDIENCE: Will there be another opportunity for a renl public hearing whe~: people can hear each other,s MR. PKESTON: Tigre will b~ a number of additional opportunilies, primarily with the city council b~cause th~m a~ a number of actions that the council will ultimatdy have to ~.ke prior to this b~ing a construction projoct; and however they choose to conduct Page 5 - Page Hearing - M~lro~o Avenu~ P~e 9 I thcir heafin~ tlm's cea~niy up to the prerogstive of 2 the enuncfi and l won't pre~d to spesk for them. So 3 you'll have to ,~k the city coancil how ~ will do that 4 but there will be other oppommities down tha l~e to 5 attend city council 6 7 AUDIENCE: Does local tradition account for 8 any~hng in toxins of in Iowe City a pabli¢ hooting is a 9 public hearing? 10 MR. PRESTON: I don't have an answer to that 11 qtlestion. We p~ted this format to the city stsff, who 12 presented it to whoever they had to go to to get approval forit, end it was approved. So tlmt's - that was our 14 proposal to the staff, who aceopted our proposal. AUDIENCE: Excuse me. Maybe the way to halfway 16 racet that would ha to have the comments available so that 17 lx~ople could see MIL PRESTON: Oh, absolutely. There's no trying to hide the cornmerits. There will be an official 20 hamscript published which includes all the written 21 ¢~mments and all of ~ oral comments provided to the 22 court mpoFa~r this evening~ and that will become a part 23 of the official record. So if you choose to see whatever 24 your neighbors have to say, those comments will all be available as pan of the official record of this project. Page 10 I AUDIENCE: We can get a copy of that on request? 2 MR. PRESTON: Absolutely. The same way you 3 could even get access to tha environmental dcotanents of 4 the city mat. So that was the in,at. Tlmak you for 5 your question. That kind of cleared things up. I forgot 6 to mention that. ? Yes, there will I~ an official transcript which 8 inciudes, again, all of the written com~aats, all of the 9 oral testtmany, all of the exhibits iaciuded tonight. All 10 of those kinds of things will become a part of the 11 official tramcfipt of the meeting, and it will be as 12 available to you as the environmental document is. 13 AUDIENCE: I don't want to belabor this, bat in 14 terma of efficiency if people do want to listen to 15 specific individuals giving oral testimony to the 16 reporter, is that an opportunity that's available this 17 evening? Is there a room that we might be able to 18 accommodate this? Cenainiy it's not an objection by the 19 city-- 20 MR. PRESTON: The more we have available is in 21 the hack of th~ roenx If you choose to go in ther~, there 22 is nobody at the door trying to keep anyone else out. So 2:1 I don't see that that's an issue, although I don't know. 24 Them may I~ 8omelmdy who would feel uaconffortablo making 25 their comments with people who do not ahan: their same Janet Greenwald, CSR, RPR {319) 338-0390 438 G-ardtm 8tn~t, Iowa City, IA 59.245 Multi-?agom Page 11 1 feeling, on the issue. Tim may make tlmm uncomfortable. 2 And if someone asks for the room to be cleamxl, I guess 3 that's l~tween you end th~za. Bat no one will make any 4 eftart to try to keep anyone out of the room. The next part of the - yes, air. 6 AUDIENCE: Just a little history. The makeup of 7 the Foco8 GfoIlp was limited, and thare werc sorac 8 objeetien8 on the limitstiol~a of the Fo~tls C,-l'oup, and then the attending endienco at the Foens CJronp was n~ninded 10 that they would be excused or eseerted from the room if 11 fi~y made any comments. SoiathcbeatintercatoftheEA fi-rm and so forth, thcm seeam to be a enntinulng history of ciosing down discmaion, which I think is unfortnnatc. 14 MR. PRESTON: Pm not sure if there's a response necessary. We've made no effort to close down comment. 16 The purposc of the mee~ing tonight is to providc you with information and provide an oppommity for all of you to 18 make your comments or questions a part oftha official record through your tea'6meny to the court reporter. 20 So that's the - those ~e the abjectives of the 21 meeting and we have set up a format ~hat allows us to achieve those objective. Beyond that there was no intent, one way or the other, of 8qtlaqhing public 24 di~cu.~ion. It just isn't nece~arily a part of this kind of a hearing. Page 12 The next thing I would like to do is briefly 2 speak about the environmental assessment process and talk 3 about some of the key factors that are a part of that 4 proeeas end go ovcr some of the kcy issues that were 5 analyzed and then basically provide a ~mmmary of what 6 happened in the concimions as far as that anvironmental 7 report is concerned. 8 One of thc key pieees that entcrs into a 9 decision to follow through this process is the fact that 10 there is federal funding anticipated for the bridge 11 replaccment, and as a result of that federal funding there 12 is same requirements es far as following a particular 1:1 environmental proc~s. There are three basic lcvcl~ of environmental 15 review. There's something ealied a categorical cxelusien 16 down at the bottom of the page, and there'8 something 17 called environnletltsl impsc! statement. Those are 18 basically the ends of the apecream. 19 Aa environmental impact ~tstemont is typically 20 a.~eciated with projects that are large in scope und have 21 thcpulential forenvironmmtal hapam. The categorical 22 exclusion is typically associatcd with projccts that are 2:1 not majer but there is no dollar lknit Ifs just 24 comidered not major and for which there a~ few or no 25 si~iflennt environmental cftceta. ,trod what the word - Page 9 - Page 12 Heath§- Melrose Avenue Multi-Page TM Page 13 ~ w'o~ the phrase ngans, categorical exclusion is those 2 projcets that arc categorically excluded from any 3 rcq 'uuwm~tsforfurtherenvirommmtalrovinw, If tha~ are projects for which either tbe seopc 5 or the environmautal impacts - that t~ level of 6 envffonmental impact is unsure, ther~ is a middl~ process 7 callad tbe environmentsl assess~t. TI~ is what we am 8 doing now. 9 I'd like to point out that the city originally I0 went through a process tb., resulted in eno d~rminatioo 11 that this proj~t was a ¢atagorinal exclusion. However, 12 as a l~11t of rome additional com~.ents that ~ city 13 reconsiderad and decided to initiat~ this environr~tal 14 ~_ent process in ord~' to take anoth~' look at th~ 16 any of t~ proposed ennstruction alternatives. ! 7 T~ purpose of tbe environmental asse..~ment, 18 ¢k~arly tbe primary purpos~ is to inform the public and 19 fig d~ision m,~ about the project, about the potential 20 for environmental impacts and what litigation w~asor~ may 2! be appropriate then to go along with thos~ impacts. And 22 the bottom line or tbe end result of an environmental 23 aase~ssment preco~ is ene of two things. It besicaliy concludes whether or not there am 25 significant environmental impacts, in which ~ in order 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 14 1 to move on, an environmental impact statement would have 2 to be prepared, which would go into further depth as far 3 as analyzing those environmental impacts and presenting 4 mitigations, or conversely, if it is d~rmined that an $ environmental impact statement is, in fact, not required, 6 then there is the other ceurse, which is a findbig of no 7 significant impact and something called a negative 8 declaration, which is basically a declaratien that says 9 there are no sigailieant environmental impacts, which 10 would be the end of the process then which would allow the t 1 city to move forward. So that's the key conclusion that will come out 13 of this, not tonight but after we're donc with this 14 process, after we're done taking your comments, after 15 we're done r~punding to the conunents. This will be brought up to the city council, and the cry council will make a determination as to a preferred alternative and as to wbether or not this project reXlUir~ any further environmental impact ar, s~,.sment or whether or not there is sufficient evidence to suggest that thare is no si~ificant impact associated with those environmental algmatives. From that point it would go to the Iowa Department of Trensportation and ultimately to the Federal Highway AdminJ. Stmtion for enncurrence. But it is J~n~t Crre~nwald, CSR, RPR O19) 33§-0390 438 Garden Street, Iowa City, IA 52245 initially a local decision. The cootent of our onviromuental asseg~ment, many of you probably have bad a eb~ce to look at it. A 4 summary, a d~griplion of tlg project as far as tbe location is couceroed, a ~t of the pur~ end uced for tl~ projo t, a description of ~ alteruatives, 7 identification of social, ecouomie, and enviromuental 8 impacts, comments and coordination. Again this is the piece that would be your comments plus comm~.nts from the 10 regulatory agencies who have also had an opportunity to review the document and appondic~s that would contain 12 technical information relative to the traffic analysis, relative to tbe sir quality or traffic noise monitoring' those kinds of things. 15 What l'm going to do is put up a list of the 16 various issue areas that were looked at, and I will not ~rY to read all of these bat generally say tbere aro five 18 key issue areas. One is environmental. The second would be community related kinds of impacts, consistency with community plans, zoning ordinances, those k/rids of things. 21 Cultural resources, wkich is archeology, historic structures, transportation or traffic service kinds of 23 issues, and then eonsuuction related impacts. 24 So those would be the five general areas. The specific list is included in the document; and if you Page Pag¢l¢ would like additional information about any of those 2 individual topic areas, we'd be happy to talk about those kinds of things later on or provide you with additional 4 information about this. 5 Just to provide you with some additional background, BRW has been on the job for a little over a year. eve been doing the assessment process. We've h:ca wofl~h'~g on the layouts that you see before you. They've gone titrough multiple levels of ~eview by the city 10 staff, by the state. eve been working on exhibits like we have in the back of the room, which Iql call the 12 illustrative cross sections, and then the photo simulation that would u'y to ilhismue the differences between the 14 various alternatives as far as the amount of right-of-way that would be acquired, as far as the street widths, as far as accommodation of ped~ariens would be concerned, !7 tho~ k/rids of things. 18 So that's been the process that we've been going 19 through, and that'~ taken as about twelve months to get us 20 to the point we're at today. 21 The preparation of this environmental 22 assesment, as we have mentioned earlier, is a result of the federal funding and the requirements, the federal envimnmcetal review requirements that go along with that. We've looked at seven alternatives inuludiag a no-build [ [ [ I. [ I I I l Multi-Page Pag~ 17 I alternative, and w~I]] ~ i~to th~ ~pfion of ~o~ 2 ~j~aminu~. ~'s~~ 4 ~ ~ Io~ D~, ~on~ ~o~ ~ple, ~o~of~. We'veob~a~of 6 ~. We ~d ~c ~. We ob~ ~c 7 fr~ ~ ~ ~d ~. We ~d mo~g of ~c ~ of thin~ ~du~ ~ ~d l ~ I'd j~ ~ ~ po~t o~ ~ at ~ ~t ~d ~e ~ ~ not ~ a p~f~ ~ve We ev~ ~ of ~ ~v~ obj~v~y, ~ ~i.~= ~ ~ ~e l~el of ~y, ~d ~ pr~ for 15 ~ cl~out~tp~we've~ 16 ~ ~t ~ of ~ ~ ~t you ~y provi~, 17 ~at ~ ~ 18 ~ ~ ~ o~lv~ ~d 19 ~, ~ew 20 ~ ~ wo~d ma~e a ~mm~ to ~ ~W ~, who 21 wo~d ~ 22 ~ian. ~y ~m~ ~e p~iew of ~ ciF ~c~. ~ ~ v~ ~c ~fo~on but some ~ ~ wo~d help put ~s ~ ~ve. It's Page 18 I primarily driven by tl~ project, and the alternatives that 2 deal with hoproving Melrose is driven by suuctural 3 deficiencies of the bridg~ over the railroad and the need 4 to replace that bridge at some point and time because of 5 the vital role that Melrose Avenue pleys in the oyes'all 6 transportation system of the City of Iowa City. 7 In addition, th~ are traffic serviec issues 8 and pedestrian issu~ that need to bc addressed. The 9 project is about cight-~enths of a kilometer, end what 10 youql scc through all the documents, we've had to include 11 dualunits. Whilc we were in the precess of pmparin8 12 this docuracnt, Federal Highway decided that all of these 13 documents had Io be in metric units. We've chosen to also 14 include th~ EB~li~h units. 1 811es8 it's an educational 15 process for all of us. SO youql have to bear with us in ! 6 our figures in all of our documents. We show both sets of 17 uni[s. 18 I'd just lik~ to briefly describe what we 19 understand as the justification for the project. Again 20 there's no priority order or ranking as far as th~ 21 presentation of tl~ese irons. Bridge deficiencies is a 22 key. Traffic service requirements is a key issue dealing 23 with the levels of congestion that are out on the roadway. 24 Bicycle and pedestrian fasfllt~,s, and then assistant 25 planning kiuds of considerations. How does the - what is Janet Greenwald, CSI RPR (319) 338-0390 438 Garden Street, Iowa City, IA 52245 Page 1~ 1 tl~ role of Mekose Avenne m ~ overall transportation 2 plan for th~ r~ion, for the community, and how does 3 traffic operations out tha~ today and in tim future, if 4 there were no improwments, affea~ tl~ sts~di~g of tha~ 5 roadway and that overall transportation system? 6 Briefly again, just a description of the 7 alt~nativas that wear evaluated, these were alternatives 8 that the city developed in conjunction with the focus 9 groups. So these are not alternatives that we developed. 10 Alternative numbo' one,, we call it the no-build. 11 It's basically a requiremeut of this level of 12 gaviroanlantal dogumentafion. It provides a baseline of 13 comparison for comparing any of the build alternatives. 14 Altonaativg number two is a two-lane bridge and 15 a two-lane roadway with the addition, as noted, of a left 16 turn lane at Hawkins. 17 Alternative number three is a two-lane bridge 18 and a three-lane roadway, three lanes being one through 19 lane in each direction and a system of left-turn lsncs in 20 the esnt~r of that roadway. 21 Altertlative number four is a thre~-lmle bridge 22 and a three-lane roadway so it provides a consister 23 section between the bridge and the roadway. 24 Alternative numbca' five, four-lane bridge and a 25 four-lane road. Page 2C I Alternative number six, a four-lane bridge and a 2 five-lane roadway. So that's two through lanes in each 3 direction and a center system of left-turn lanes. 4 And then alternative number seven is -- 5 basically it's a new alignmoot that goes behind to the 6 north of the homes that are University Heights, goes 7 through a part of the golf course, and then comes over 8 onto university property over on the Hawkeye Carver Arena. 9 So that's the new ali~nmant and I'll refer to it simply 10 that way. 11 What I'd like to do now is provide a brief - 12 and I think I can do this in about three or four 13 minutes -- s~mmary of what we've concluded are the impact 14 associated with each of the alternatives, and I'll simply 15 go it~n by item as we came down the list her~. 16 Alternative number one, which is the no-build, 17 we concluded that that does not meet traffic service 18 requirenlonts; that there is ~ hiEb levels of 19 congestion on that roadway if the~'s nothing done. It 20 does not address the s~-untural deficiency of that 21 existing bridge. It does not address the pedestrian 22 movement issue. It is not consistent with the city's 23 comprehensive transportation plan, with that kind of level 24 of scrvic~ and that kind of fanction for this arterial 25 roadway. Page 17 - Page 2¢ Multi-Pagem H~aring- Melrose Avenue Page 21 1 ~a~ve n~ ~o, w~ch ~ ~ ~1~ 1 2 r~y, it d~ not ~t ~ ~c ~ ~ 2 3 ~d ~ it ~ not ~n~t ~ ~ ciF's 3 4 ~p~ve ~ pl~. 4 5 ~t I'~ ~ ~ ~ m ~c fl~v~ ~, 5 5 fo~, five, ~d ~ ~d ~y ~y ~t ~ ff ~o~ 6 7 ~ g~y or ~y m~ ~ ~c ~ 7 9 ~ fore, or ~ five ~d ~ ~t ~ ~ ci~'s 9 10 ~h~ve ~on p~. 10 11 Briefly ~ a ~e bit ~ut ~o~ 11 13 fl~v~, ~o, ~, fo~, five, ~d ~. So l'm 13 14 elimin~g fl~ve en~ ~ nwb~ forj~ ~s 14 15 p~c~m ~ ~d fl~ve n~ ~v~, w~ch is t5 16 ~newali~m~t. So~yof~b~dfl~v~ t6 18 is, ~ ~pfion, ~bly d~ po~bly ~n~fion 18 20 ~ of ~o~ fl~afiv~ ~ b~d 20 22 ~p~ on v~emti~, ~d ~'s pfima4y flong ~e 22 23 no~ si& of ~e r~d ~ B~n~n ~d ~d ~'s 23 24 a row of ~ ~ ~t bo~ ~ ~at wo~d have ~ ~ 24 25 ~ov~. But ~t's ~five of wMt fl~afive. 25 ~e22 I M1 of ~ fl~v~ wo~d ~t h ~ving m ~e 1 2 ~ ~ do~. 2 3 ~ of ~ b~d fl~mativ~ ~ve simil~ 3 4 ~p~m relative ~ c~ ~. ~ is a ~or 4 5 a~ui~6~ of fi~tmb~y ~ on ~e no~ ~& from 5 6 one pro~ ~t's ~nsl~ m ~ haofic. So ~ 6 7 ~tive of w~ch b~d fl~afive, ~e~ ~ s~w 7 9 ~e~ ~ ~ fi~tmf-~y ~ulsition 9 10 ~pac~. It's ~out ~-six h~ squ~ me~ 10 11 world ~ve m ~ a~ pr~y flo~ he no~ si& 11 12 of~eroad. ~efl~afiv~t~ebfi~e~ ~2 13 mo~ wo~d ~ ~t ~ seine minor ~uisifien, ~ut 13 14 ~v~w-five ~ ~ en ~ ~u~ sl& of ~e r~ 14 15 but~tdo~j~tto~bfi~e. So~e 15 16 ~t-oS~y ~ifion ~pac~ ~ p~ simile. 16 17 None of ~o~ bund ~mativ~ ~o~ ~e 18 p~t ~t ~R in ~y ~ q~i~ or ~c 18 19 noi~ ~p~ ~d none of ~o~ b~d fl~ativ~ ~ult 19 20 ~ ~y o~ ~ of ~vk~t~ ~p~t ~st we 20 21 ad~ ~ it ~ q~ or p~k l~d or w~ver. 21 22 ~ w~ no o~ ~vko~l ~n~u~ or ~pac~ 22 23 ~a~ ~ ~y of ~o~ b~d ~mafiv~. 23 24 ~afiv~ five ~d ~ w~ch ~ ~e 24 25 fo~-l~e ~d ~e fiwl~e, do not provide ~mpl~ 25 ]~ ~w~ CS~R (319) 338-0390 438 ~ S~ Iowa Cid, ~ 52245 Page 2 pedestrian circulation systems because of the -- in order to provide that it would have required relocating some of the tennin courts and we identified that as an impact and it was decided not to cxtend that road or the sidewalk across that ~ea in order to avoid impacting en the aniveralty's tenni~ courts. And finally I'll talk just a little bit about alternative number seven, which is the new ~li~ment to the north of Melrose that ends up going past the uaiversity's ball park. That altem~ve dce~ not address the su'uctural deficiencies of that existing bridge. It does not address the traffic service deficiencies that we've identified existing on Melrose. It results in significant, in our opinion, environmental impacts to environmentally sensitive property that's behind that golf c, ourse that's on land that's been identified as environmentally sensitive by city inventory. It has steep slopes, erodible soils, it's heavily wooded, and it also results in impacts to park land or lsnd that has some special protection thaes designated 4-? by fedend guidelines and which suggests that the only way that would be considered a viable alternative, if there were no other rinsible alternatives, which clearly is not the case. So I think there's no question that alternative number seven has the great~t potential for environmental consequences. Page 2z What l'd like to do to ffmish up is just to give you basically a rundown of what you can anticipate, a brief schedule of events, and then I think Jeff Davidson would like to say a word or two possibly; is that correct? Okay? Basically the schedule, we have the release of the document, which is in mid-March, the public heating teni~ht' sS I have mentioned before, the close of the comment period on May 8th. That means that we would really like to get your comments in by that time period so we can begin our evaluation of those comments. If you are a day late, I would expect that we would still accept your comments. It's not hard and fast like the IILS if you're not in by midnight on the right night. There's no Anyway, we would like. you to get your comments in as early ~ you c~n and holvefully no later than the 8~h. After that these are dates that we would even suggest is the earliest possible dnte. It may, in fact, be beyond that. A determination, this FONSI, it's a t'mdmg qf no slgnificam impact, or a determination for a need for ElS, that Comes after the comment period is closed. It Comes after we and the city staff have had an opportunity to evaluate those Comments, provide responses to the si~ifieent Comments, and prepare a doeumcot that Page 21 - Page 2z Multi-Pago Hearing- Melrose Avenue P~4~ 25 I identif~ a pmfc~,d altcmafivc and lays out ratinhale 1 2 for cilt~r this f'mdin8 of no si~o~ificant impact or 2 3 rationale for supporting a dccisioo to require HIS. 3 4. The n~xt item, th~ second from the bottom, that 4 5 line, it says SHPO clesrun~. Thatstendsforstot~ 6 historic pr~:rvation offreef. 'lh¢~ is a ueparate 6 ? doom~n_~ t that we have prepared relative to cultural 7 8 resources and historic properties. That dooument is being 8 9 reviewed by the state historic preservation officer, and 10 we anticipato that there would be a dsoision out of that 10 11 agency some time in May or June of this year, and which 11 12 all Iesd8 down to th~ enrliest po,~ibl¢ time frame for a 12 13 roadway projeer would betbe '96-'97 time frame,, assuming 13 ~4 that tbe r~alatory agencies sign off on tbe enviroumental 15 d0orrnqq_ t3 and that the ~ity council raakvs3 a d~ialon one 15 16 way or the other. 16 17 So with that I will close up my pieco of this. 17 18 Jeff, if you would have any comments. 18 19 MR. DAVIDSON: I just wanto:l to mnke OhO cammeat 19 20 to the group before Howard finished. There is one item 20 21 that is at varian~ with eithor the information that all 21 22 of you have read in the report or in the discussions that 22 23 any of you - und I have discussed this project with many 23 24 of you at length -- that is at variance with a direassioa 24 25 that I may have had with you. And that is with respect to 25 Page 96 I one of the process items that Howard just clarified, aad I 1 2 want to further clarif7 so that everybody knows what is 2 3 going on. 3 4 I was misinformed until this afternoon, when 5 Jeanne and Howard corrected it for too, about the order of 6 th¢citycouncil'sdiscassioo of this mattor and the 6 7 approval by the Federal Highway Administration. I had 7 8 indicated to many of you that the Federal Highway 8 9 Administration got the report after tbe public comment 9 10 period, they algned off on it, and then it came back for 10 no. ! 1 the city council's decision. That is not the process. 1 12 ~ process is that after the public comment 12 13 period it will go to the city oouncil essemiatly for them 13 14 to dseide which of the altemativas they want to seleek 14 15 Once that alternative is selected, it will then go to the 15 16 Federal Highway Administration. Whey have to a~gn off on 16 17 it before the ¢i~ can ruegive any federa! funds, which -- 17 18 I don't know if Howard mentioned - the combined amount 18 19 for tim bridge and the street is about one point three 19 20 mill!oil dollars. 20 21 $o at least at the pm,~nt time the oity would 21 22 not proceed with the projeer until Federal Highway 22 23 Adminintration had signed off and the money could be 23 24 relensed to us. $o I want to make ante everybody is 24 25 clear. The oouneil does have to make a decision on the 25 Janat Greenwald, CSR, RPR (319) 338-0390 438 Gordon Street, Iowa City, IA 52245 Page 27 alt~aives prior to it going to tl~ Federal Highway Admini~'atiun for tlgir MR. PRESTON: With that, I would l~kc to ~ it up for your questions. And again, I guess if you h~ve c~mmants that you want to be part of the official n:cord, plensc wait until we ge~ th~ court rcpor~r in th~ back room and make those cx, ann~nts or questinns to ~ and in tl~t capacity th~ will, in fact, become a part of official record. . If thio am clarifications of the material presented tonight, I'd like to try to focus on those kinds of thingg. And ~ if you have individual issu~ you would like to deal with, ! would rcquest that you wait uutil we b~xk up and have our informal queZon/answer period, and I will stay here as long as it takes to deal with whataver kin& of comments ~r questiota you may have. YeS, ms'am. You have a question? AUDIENCE: ! just wondsmd, in your environn~ntal assessment did you at all look at the impact of the fcc&r str~ts into Melrose Avenue, either traffic, l~k:strian traffic, noise levels, what that's going to mcan to feeder streets and where those feeder streets ar~? MR. PRESTON: Yes, ma'am, we did. AUDIENCE: I didn't sec that mentioned. MR. PRESTON: Ther~ was -- there va~rc unise Page 28 levels taken at about forty locations along the roadway. There were traffic volumes -- AUDIENCE: On Melrose Avenue? I'm talking about feeder streets unto Melrose Avenue - MR. PRESTON: Yes, yes, and we looked at traffic operations and the feeder su'oets of Hawkins and Grand and Byington. I can't remember all of them. AUDIENCE: What about Melrose Court? MR. PRESTON: We did not look at Melrose Court, AUDIENCE: That's the main feeder stmetl MR. PRESTON: But we don't anticipate that them would be any difference in the level of impact ortho level of operations on those roadways. It's not a function of the alternative that's selected. So without having -- AUDIENCE: Yes, it is. MR. PRESTON: We're trying to identify the differences between the ulternafives. We don't expect there would be significant difference, depending on those AUDIENCE: That depends on what you do to Melrose Avenue, though. If you widen it, it's going to change Melrose Court. MR. PRESTON: Melrose Avenue will change, yes. Page 25 - ~age 28 Hem'ing- Melrose Avenue Page 29 1 AUDIENCE: Melrose Court will change. 2 AUDII~NCE: Son.one 1~ ~ ~ up ~ 3 ~t ~'t g~t ~o~ ~ bo~k ~ ~v~i~ ~vc. 4 A~GE: ~ a ~c ~, haw ~ you 5 ~om ~'s gong ~ ~ d~ ~ ~ ~-f~t 6 s~t ~you ~ M~ Av~? It's ~ ~y 7 ~ g~ ~ f~ ~ to B~n ~ 8 D~ve ~d ~d It's ~ o~y ~ ~d ~ 9 ~c's got ~ gn m~ ~d it ~d ~fom. 10 We'v~ ~ ~s ha~ ~ ~ ci~ ~f~. 11 A~CE: For ~. 12 A~IENCE: B~ ~ ~p ~ ~t ~dit's~yoa~. ~'snoo~choi~. 15 ~d ~ a ~c ~n~, I ~n't ~ow how you ~d act 17 ~ P~TON: ff yoa wo~d ~e ~om 18 m p~ of ~ ~r~ pl~ m~ ~om ~m~. 19 A~NCE: I ~ m~ ~ 20 ~ P~N: ~m's free. 21 A~NCE: But ~ ~ cl~fion ~ ~ wh~ 22 yo~ ~in~ng ~, ~d I w~d~ -- 23 M~ P~TON: We ~'t exper sight 24 ~ ~ ~ ~o~t of ~pa~ ~ ~y of ~ 25 ~ m a ~t of ~ ~ff~t ~mafiv~ ~g ~30 2 A~CE: If you ~id~ ~ law 3 p~g lot si~ifi~R ~o~ ~ ~t ~e c~t h~ ~ ~t ~me out of ~, why wo~d you not ~nsi&r 5 M~ffom ~ w~ch ~y wo~d have much more 6 ~t? 7 ~. P~TON: l'm not s~ we ~usid~ law -- ~c ~ve~y fr~ ~ law ~hool? 9 A~NCE: Y~. 10 ~. P~TON: l'm not ~ wMt ~ appropfia~ 11 ~po~ wo~d ~ o~ ~ wh~ we ~ ~s, 12 i~ m~fi~s ~th ~ help of ~e ci~ 13 ~d p~ of ~ ev~fioa p~ it w~ p~y a ~cfion of wh~ ~ hM ~c vol~ exi~g 15 i~ng r~dwa~ ~at were an ~ ~o~ s~t 17 cv~. 18 I don't ~ink ~at it wo~d ~e a si~ifi~t 19 ~c~ wh~ ~t ~fion w~ inchid~ or not 20 ~ ~ ov~ ~ pr~ or &~nafion of 21 ~ ~ ~ vinous ~v~. 22 Y~, sff. 23 A~NCE: How ~fiv~ ~ yo~ mnd~ioas 24 abo~t ~e v~o~ ~p~ of ~ ~v~ ~d 25 p~ ~e ~l~e opfi~ m ~ ac~ J~ ~w~d, ~ ~R O19) 338-0390 438 ~don S~g Iowa Cid, ~ 52245 Multi-Pa~e ~ ~ Page 3 I corb-to-curb mov~.nt? Nothing like a detailed quition 3 I'm saying that tbe road width is fairly wid~ 4 forthcthr~lane. Infact, it's as wide as t~ 5 four-lan~. How seasitive are your three-lane conclusions 6 to the actual curb-ta-curb program? MP~ PR.ESTON: We established the design features 8 for the various alternatives so that they would be in 9 cooforesee with the city's guidelines for the design of 10 arterial streets and the State of Iowa's design II recomm~detions, d/sign guidelines for urban arterials. 12 Since thc~ is federal fundinS involved and since it comes 13 through the s~.e, there v~11 have to be an evaluatien of 14 wheaever it got to that point where an alternative was 15 sel~i, a design completed, the Iowa D.O.T. would review 16 it for conformance with those guidelines. These desks 1'7 that we've got showu on th~ cross sections are in 18 conformance with those guldel/nes. So arc you saying how sensitive is it if it 20 changed by half a foot? AUDIENCE: No. No. 22 MR. PRESTON: It would probably not chsnge our 23 conclusions. But it would result in the city having to 24 request a var/ance from the design guides, which may 25 uot - that's up to ~c purview of the state then to Page 3~ I decide whether or not there is, in fact, a reason to vary 2 from those design guides. 3 There is a very sign/tic, ant reason for having 4 shoulders adjacent to a three-lane roadway. Three-lane 5 roadways are, in part, safe with the center lane reserved 6 for left tums because passing is not allowed in that ? center ar~a. So if you did not have a shoulda' that could 8 accommodate emergency stopping, a blown tim, a radiator 9 hose that breaks, whatever, if them was oo room for that 10 disabled vehicle to get off of the roadway, tberc would be n no w~y for another vehicle to p~ it exc~pl goin~ into 12 the c~ter lane, which is illegal. The striping will 13 suggest it's illegal. 'Ihere will be signs that say no 14 passing on that kind of an operation. 15 So it is absolutely a vital part of the overall 16 design for a ~ee-lane roadway to have some shoulders. There's a dual purpose also, which is that it can accommodate bicydas who don't like to be on the sidewallq~ 19 it can aceommodate transit vehicles pulling over to drop 20 people off and give an opportunity for other vehicles to 21 pass. 22 So our designs, our conclusions am not sensitive to the point of a half a foot eithex way but the deskgas are based on accepted documented design guides, 25 and we are in conformance with those if then: wer~ Page 29 - Page 3~ Hem'ing - l lros Avonu Mulfi-Pag m Page 33 I subst~l/al changeS. 2 For example, going ~m n ~e r~my 3 ~ &offi~ ~ no &offi~ ~at's m~g I 4 ~'t ~m~d m ~ wo~d ~ ~ fom~ 5 ~ who ~ ~ p~ ~ ~ it ~ a ~ ~ w~ch it's 6 ~. Youdon't~t~p~up~ve~mske 7 ~ ~ ~v~. 8 Y~, s~. 9 A~CE: ~ i~ of q~five v~ 10 q~fi~five ~ yo~ ~o~ ~ yo~ ~ ~d so 11 fo~ ~ w~ ~ at ~ F~ ~o~. ~d ~ q~mfive, ~d ~ Io~ Ci~ ~ ~d ~ U~v~i~ of Io~ ~mfive ~ ~t it ~ofld ~ ~t ~ ~y ~ m of q~hmfive facto~ i.e., ~c ~m~dmon. But ~e -- Iota Cid, ~ ~, h~ ~ mb~ 19 ~om~ po~ ~t ~ f~ a poh~ of p~g ~d pm~ ~, ~, b~g ~, b~ ~ for ~, ~ of vflu~ familiar weH-~ ~d so fo~ a n~ of q~m~ve fac~ 24 ~d ~t'8 ~ Io~ Ci~ po~ w~ch dd not ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ly ~ ~ W~ mpon or in ~ Pago 35 I land takings, we would have documented ~e acrea~ of 2 paxks. That lends Rself to the. quantitative assassn~nt. Thcrc are pmficulo. r areas you can't put a 4 number on. You can't put a number on tbe benefit to 5 having pedestrian facilities or bicycle facilities or 6 safety issues for pedestrians crossing Melrose Avenue or 7 accessibility into the 8urroundin~ areas. Those are 8 things you can't put numbers on. And our document did 9 oddmss ench of tho~ ar~as, and the fed~xul rules talk 10 about what ldnd of impact assessment you should conduct 11 for those areas that don't lend tbemselves to actual 12 numbca's, and we followed those regulations. 13 AUDIENCE: I'll go back to the very fwst thing 14 you lyied to ¢ito, which was the park land. And in terms 15 of park, recreation, leisure behavior, although it is not 16 a public city park land or a state or a fcd~rul park lane[, 17 this Melrose development thoroughfare project has a 18 tmmondous impact on il~ existing recreation, park, open spacg and leisure activities in that area. So the~ is an 20 impact. 21 Now it was said repeatedly this cannot be m~'l~ed and quantified, which I was very surprised to h~r, b~ausc I called the Uinvcrsity of Iowa Institutes on Social Rcseareh, arid I think I could id~tify about a hundred social research institutes in the United States Pag~ 34 I summary. Further to that, in Johnson County in the 1980s 3 tbere wen: a series of environmental ass~smonts that wer~ 4 conducted by U.S. and IDOT under their regulations and 5 rules and so forth, and they included social and economic factors, which would be entirely appropriate for the 7 Melrose mvironmmtul assessment. 8 At the focus meeting people cited the 9 deskability of having qualitative measurements taken 10 because that~s wheie the enrly impact was going to be. 11 And the federal and state officers supported the people 12 who said that, mid it was feasible. But it appears that 13 there's really quite inadequate attention to the 14 qunlitative factors that are involved in an urban and 15 environmental assessment. 16 Could you give us a little background on why 17 those things were excluded from this report? 18 MR. PRESTON: Specifically'/ 19 AUDIENCE: Anyplace you want to start. 20 MR. PRESTON: Jeanne, would you like to comment 21 on that, please. 22 MS. WITZIG: Sure. There are specific areas that lend themselves to the quantitative kind of 24 assessment, like you had indicated: Tha traffic, the 25 noise, the air quality. If these were particular park Janot Gro nwald, CSR, RPR O19) 338-0390 438 Cs d a Stmot, Iowa City, IA 52245 Page 36 I that can mceanre this kind of thing, and we m~asurc the 2 quality of a hundred cities evory otber day. We measure 3 about a hundred small towns in air quality and so forth. 4 So I am surprised that there are no qualitative 5 or it's inadequate. 7his would not be a problem except 6 that the quantitative approach, th~ traffic counts and so 7 forth, feed into what the homenwners and the neighborhoods 8 do not want whereas the qualitative measurements and 9 assessments do feed into what th~ homeowners an: trying to 10 pr~cn've and protect and what is set forth in the Iowa 11 City city council 1985 unanimously adopted urban 12 environmental policies. 13 MR. PRESTON: Is there a question there? 14 AUDIENCE: The question is still going. I 15 havun't beard an answer to why this was not addressed 16 becaune the tupe and the notes of tbe focus meeting will 17 show that this was raised as an issue, and 1tmt tl~ state 18 and federal officers said, y~, there can be qualitative 19 measures. 20 MR. PRESTON: Well, it's our opinion that we did 21 address ~hose. There's a section on neighborhood 22 eharagter, tbem's a section on economies, economic 23 development. There's a section on land use and zoning. 24 There's a sc~tian on park lands and open space. There's a 25 section on urban design and visual r~ourec~. Page 33 - Page 36 Hearing - lVlclrosc Avenue Multi-Page TM Peso 37 AUDIENCE: I would contest each of 2 soctions - MR. PRESTON: That's you~ prerogative, sir, and 4 wc would lilm you to make those commits so that those 5 becom~ part of the reco~d and we will have an opportxmity 6 to raspond te thoso if thoff am onasidomd to be 7 sisnffic~nt comm~mts. 8 Yes, sir. AUDIENCE: My qu~-tion actually relates to that 10 and it has te do with the way in which the environment 11 ass~s~l was defm~. As I looked at tha environmental ass~sm~nt, it senm~d to me that ti~ d~f'mition of the impa~ted or affected envirom-~m was ~entislly the 14 spac~ of Melrose Avenue and the adja~nt, immediately Mjac~at properties. Onoo you g~t onto the feeder stmots, a ~ of neighborhood, a sms~ of an 17 environment, a natural oovirenment is totally absent. 18 mcan, th~ is no enviromnent. In fact, them am v~-y sig~fi~t wildlife 20 habitats just off Melrose Avenue, off of the 21 adjacent to Melrose Aw~nue that ai~n't addressed at all ~ are mor~ than squirrels and songbirds in those 23 nalur~l habitats. Th~ is, in fa~t, n historic character 24 to ~ neighborhood b~tween Mclro~ and ~wood that is quite si~fificant that me~ts ooc of the gmeTal historical Pag~ 38 I preservation criteria in terms of town and gown era 2 construction. 3 Your entire focus is on the National Register of 4 Historic Properties oo Melrose Avenue. Our sense, as 5 people living in a neighborhood, is that there is an 6 environment that is going to be affected by this project ? that exists beyond the air space of Melrose Avenue, and I 8 guess I want to lmow why the definition of the environment 9 assessexl was so narrowly conenivod? 10 MR. PRESTON: My corameat would be because that's 11 how we do those kirlds of environmental assessments. 12 That's how we've done them in all the other projects wa've 13 ever done that have been accepted by state agennies and 14 the Fedenl[ Highway Admiresration. That's what we 15 understand our responsibility is is to look at those kinds 16 of environments that may be affootod. 17 So my comment is I think we adequately address~ 18 those kinds of environmental issues. ff you choose to 19 ~ issue with that, that's your opinion and you can 20 please avail yourself - 21 AUDIENCE: That's precisely how cities 22 deteriorate is because those wider environmental effects 23 are not considered. ~he construction of the environment 24 is so narrow. 25 MR. PRESTON: Yes, sir. Jauot Omonwald, CSR, RPR 019) 438 Cardon Strut, Iowa Cid, IA 52245 Page ALUDI]~NCE: lu your alternative you have a 2 two-liu~ bridgeo you have a three*lane bridge,, and a 3 four-l{u~ bridge. Can you comment en ~be differenu: in 4 width8 oF tho aotoal stl'uglur~ hetwl~ the two, thll~ 5 and four? I'm naive, but lookino.. at your stuffit looks 5 like they're pretty much all the same width. 7 MR. PKESTON: Well, they are close. 8 AUDIENCE: Right. Let me cut right to my question. . I live in University Heights, and I'm petrified 11 about the impact of ~ because University Heights is 12 commi~;~d to rnaiutai,ing a residential community with oul} a two-lene road through our community, and I am fearful that l'm going to have to lobby our council hard not to 15 sign anto anything that will have the ability to be 16 restriped at a lat~ date for more lenes of traffic. 17 I mean, why were there no narrower bridges that 18 would make folks in University Heights not paranoid that you were going to later condemn our section of the road 20 and turn it into a four-lane highway? MR. PRESTON: I think thea'e's a key kgal question there which is still being addressed, which is I don't think the City of Iowa City man condemn property in University Heights. AUDIENCE: The state can. Page 1 MR. PRESTON: But the state has nothing to do 2 with this. 3 AUDIENCE: Oh, yes, it does. 4 MR. PRESTON: This is a city project -- 5 AUDIENCE: Wen: you hired by the City of Iowa 6 City to only design bridges that could later be restnlxxt 7 for more traffic? 8 MR. PRESTON: No. 9 AUDIENCE: You were not? 10 MR. PRESTON: No. 11 AUDIENCE: Then why aren't there narrower 12 bridges? Why is the two-lane bridge the same width as a 13 four-lane? 14 MR. PRESTON: It is not the same width. It is 15 almost the same width, but it's not the sarac width - 16 AUDIENCE: Could it ever be striped to hold 17 three lanes or - 18 MR. PRESTON: COUld it ever, could it physically 19 be done -- 20 AUDIENCE: Yes. Would it be legal to have that 21 width of the two-lane striped for four lsncs of traffic? 22 IvlR. PRESTON: Legal is not the appropriato term, 23 1 don't believe. I mean, neither the state nor the 24 federal govermnent is an enforcement agent. So ff -- 25 could the city physically stripe this roadway, which is a ' Page 37. Page 4{1 Hearing - Melros~ Avonu~ Multi-PageTM Pag~ 41 I two-lanesestion, asafour-laneroadway? It- 2 physically they could do it. It would not be in 3 conformance with any of the design guides that are 4 estab!ish_,xl by the Iowa Depaflment of Transportation for 5 urban roadways. So that's one qu~tian. 6 The ~lan¢ bridge, the three-lane bridge has 7 a seedon on it that is exactly the same width as the g four-lane bridge. So could it be restripod, physically? 9 Yes. It's been my experience that when ~ge~cies develop a three-lane roadway -- I'll tell you a story. 12 It"s absolutely true. You have to take my word for that. 13 The firat ~lane arterial roadway in the Twin Cities was developed with exactly what you've said in mind. TI~ state legislamve dictated to an urban county the width and the maximum number of lanes of a particular roadway. It's Lexington Avenu~ through the city of Roseville in Rar~qeyCounty. The connty design engineer said, l'llget cvenwithtbem. I will design a roadway that's threc 20 lanes wide that I can convert to a fourqune roadway the very next time I decide to put pavomant marking~ down. 22 Eighteen ycers later it's still a thl'~y,,--Ian¢ roadway, and it's become tl~ model for Ramsey County and all other urban counties for the development ofthvee-lane urban arterials because it is safe, it accommodates pedestrians Page 42 ! and bicycles better than any otlm' design, and there ~ 2 never been any reason to go away from that three-lane 3 roadway. 4 So the answer, the summary to your question is 5 the city did not direct us to come up with any particular 6 design or width of that roadway other than to use good 7 engineering sense and to meet the basic guidelines set out 8 for urban arterials by the Iowa Department of 9 Transportation. Those were the two criteria that fine city 10 gave us. 11 Yes, sir. 12 AUDIENCE: Well, my question is related to 13 Mike's, and that is: According to the summary that I 14 have, what is described, you have three widths of bridges 15 described. One is a two-lane bridge, twelve point eight 16 meters. A two-lane bridge is -- these are maximum 17 widths -- nineteen point six meters, three-lane bridge is 18 twenty-two point thee two meters, and tl~t's es wide as 19 it gets. The four-lane bridge is twenty-two point three 20 two meters. 21 MR. PRESTON: Correct. 22 AUDIENCE: There is no three-lane bridge. 23 MR. PRESTON: Yes, there is. 24 AUDIENCE: It's the same as a four-lane bndgel 25 MR. PRESTON: That's correct. lanot Or nwald, C81L RPR (319) 338-0390 431t Garden Stre~ Iowa City, IA 52245 Page 43 AUDIENCE: Is it not possible to build a 2 three-lane bridge which is ~mewhere between a two and a 3 four? MR. PRESTON: Is it physically possible? Yes. 5 But not - it's not possible to do that and meet the 6 design criteria for those kinds of roadways. 7 AUDIENCE: I may be -- I'm not trained as an 8 endneet. I may be excesaivdy naive, but it seems to 9 me- 10 MR. PRESTON: There was no move room. That's as 11 wide as we could get it. So wouldn't it have been nice to 12 include pedestrian amenities with a four or a five-lane 13 roadway? The answer is yes. There was physieally no more 14 room. We weve coastralnod by the fight-of-way on both 15 sides. We couldn't make it any wider. 16 So that's why there is no difference between the 17 three and the four. Tant's why with the fourqane bridge 18 or a fivelane roadway I made the comment that them is 19 incomplete pedestrian fanilities beoause we simply ran out 20 of room or we had to talk about acquiring land from either 21 the tennis courts, from the university affecting those 22 tennis courts or acquire significant smounts of land on 23 the other side of tbe road. 24 So physically there just wasn't any more room. 25 That's the reason that the widths are the same. It would Page 44 I have been nice to have the fourqane wider in order to 2 provide those amenities. It wasn't possible. 3 Yes, sir. 4 AUDIENCE: May I direct your attantion to page 5 one twenty-three? 6 MR. PRESTON: Sure. 7 AUDIENCE: Okay. Once this bridge is built, it 8 says here under alternative urban design criteria for 9 residential, that the two lanes may be used for four lanes 10 of traffic. Do I have that correct or am I looking at 11 tlmt wrong7 12 MR. PRESTON: I'm sorry. It says what? 13 AUDIENCE: Bridge width, existing, forty-font 14 feet for a four-lane. And then the new bridge width for 15 alternative two and three is forty-five point three feet. 16 MR. PRESTON: Okay. 17 AUDIENCE: That, in a smse, does not ray -- 18 does Oat not say that a two-lane bridge can be restripod 19 to four lanes unce it's built? 20 .MR. PRESTON: I think we answered that question 21 before. Yes, it's physically possible to do that but I 22 don't lhink that would meet the design oritaia. 23 AUDIENCE: It says it meets the design criteria 24 on ~ page, doesn't it7 25 MR. PRESTON: I don't believe so. Page 41 - Page 44 Hearing - M~lro~e Avenue P~ ~5 I A~CE: I'm ~. I ~'t ~d - 1 2 ~ P~TON: I ~ w~t you're ~g. I ~ 2 3 I'd ~vc ~ l~k ~ ~. PI~ ma~e ~ ~m~t. 4 Wc'B ~ a l~k ~ ~. 4 5 Y~ ~. 5 6 A~CE: ~ ~ F~ ~ ~e ~oup vo~ ~ 6 7 ~prov~ w~t ~ go~ ~ ~ op~ or ~w n~ 7 8 ~v~, ~ no~ r~ ~d you ~d ~ ~dy ~d ~ 9 no~r~n~vc. I'd~vc~y~tmy 9 10 M~ of w~t ~ go~ on M ~ r~m ~ ~ 10 11 ~ ~iv~ ~ ~e a ~n~i~ ~ ~ woMd ~ow 11 12 ~t ~ ~si~ 12 13 But one of~ sim~ of ~ of ~ h~ ~d 13 14 ~ m~ ~d ~ nei~rh~ ~iafi~s ~d m fo~ 15 ~ ~ ~ get ~ ~c off Meko~ ~ ~um ~ 16 pmbl~ ~ F~ out o~ ~ys of g~g M ~d out ~ 16 17 ~t we don't ~vc ~ ~on~ md ~ fo~ ~d 18 ~c ~pfion of~ nc~erh~ 1~ of~o~c 19 v~ofhom~,~dmon. ~dalotof~oR~g~o 20 M~, ~ 1970, ~ developmint of a ~vid BcI~ 20 22 W~ ~way ~ ~om ~ ~w~ ~v~ ~ S~n~ 22 23 ~d Momon Trek p~k ~u~c ~ ~ No~t 23 24 P~ge ~a option, ~d I woMd ~y I ~ v~ 24 25 ~ppoM~ ~ ~s is a wo~g ~t~ativc app~h 25 P~c 46 I to geR~ ~fic off Mcko~, ~at none of ~ w~ 1 2 ~vclo~ or p~ ~ help d~ ~ ~ prohim ~ 2 3 ~t we don't ~ ~ ~c tach of y~ or no ~d m an. 3 4 ~y w~ none of ~ mnside~? 4 5 ~ P~TON: I'm so~. None of wha~ 5 6 ~vclop~t of o~ roadways? 6 7 A~NCE: ~ ~ options ~t have ~ 7 8 d~<~ ~d ~ ~om ~d ~b~ ~d so fo~. 8 9 ~. DA~SON: Jo~, I ~ink you wc~ cv~ 9 10 ~, ~c F~ ~oup ~ ~ ~ ~v~ ~m~v~ 10 11 ~d ~o~ wc~ ~ on~. 11 12 A~I~CE: Well, ~t's g~d ~ ~c d~ of 13 ~o ~g ~d so fo~ but wc'~ ~g to ~lvc ~ 14 probl~ ~d ~s is -- ~ ~ ~mc ways ~ gnt ~t 14 15 ~ficoffofM¢~. ~dsoit's~v~ 15 16 ~ppoM~ ~t now w¢ ~vc a h~ ~o~d doH~ 16 17 ~t ~d we don't ~vc ~y ~ ~ ~ to whale ~y of 17 18 ~ ~ ~yg~ or ~. 18 19 K ~¢ ci~ ~cll ~id~ ~ go ~ ~ pl< 20 ~at ~ ~blg ~ UMv~ Hgi~ ~d ~c 20 21 n~berhood ~i~ions ~d so fo~ ~ wc'm back ~ 22 ~g ~ fi~ out what ~ do ~ ~fic. 22 23 ~. P~TON: ~n yo~ q~on ~ ~ 23 24 A~NCE: My q~tion is -- I ~ Jeff 24 25 ~it. I'mv~ppoM~~v~ 25 J~ ~w~ CS~ ~R O19) 338-0390 438 ~d~ S~ Iowa Cid, ~ 52245 well known altcrnslives. The university city council has boon submitting the~ for yesrs and yesrs und years. Why these couldn't work their way into the systea~ of ~.~essment is beyond me. MIL PRESTON: Do you thin]¢ tbe~ is a reasonable expectation that vehicles destined for the uaiversity would tsk~ those other routes? AUDIENCE: Oh, absolutely. No question about it. Pad a number of ~ people are city council l~rSonS who have made these proposals, and people w~ very well informed on the development of Iowa City and University Hei~hts for over f'dby ~ears. MR. PRESTON: Anything else7 Yes, ma'am. AUDIENCE: I have a couple of quitions. It's my understanding that Univemity Heights needs to agree to a bridge proposal in order for federal funding to be forthcoming. Has that, in fact, been determined to be the case? MR. PRESTON: l'll have to defer that to the city staff. I don't know the answer to that question. AUDIENCE: Bryant or Brian Barker of Federal Highway Admini~'ation is here -- could you answer that question? AUDIENCE: I couldn't hear it. AUDIENCE: It's my understand/ng that University Page 4: Heights needs to siga off on the bridge proposal in order for federal funds to be released for the bridge reconstxuctian project. Is that, in fact, the ease7 AUDIENCE: Well, in a roundabout way it may be the case. That's why we're having a meeting to get public comment. If there's a group against it, we may have to go ahead and do an unpa~t study. So in a s~nse that's correct. But I do not know what the neighborhood -- as far as federal regulations go, whether the neighborhood has to sign off on it, I don't know -- AUDIENCE: That's why we're having the meeting to get the comment. If them are enough comments that negatively say, no, we dan't want this, then we're going to take a hard look at it. So yes, the city would o- the people by realting the eommonts 8how that there might be ar impact. But as far as physically signin~ off on it, I don't know if that's the case. AUDIENCE: He doesn't understand the question. AUDIENCE: You understand that there are two mcorporated communities here, one each end of the bridge. AUDIENCE: That's corracL AUDIENCE: The question is does the incorporated city on one cud of t]~ bridge have to approve what the incorporated city on the other end of the bridge is going to do? It do~;n't have anytiring to do with neighborhoods, Pago 45 - Page 4: [ [ Hearing - M~lros~ Avent~ Mulfi-Pa~e ~ Page 49 I R doe~n't have anything to do with groups. Ithastodo 2 with cities. AUDIENCE: I would look at that as wlmt 4 construction needed to be done to rn~k,~ the facility work. ff that entire bit of consha~ction could be done within Iowa City, then I don't think that Univ~sity Heights 7 would be involved in that. But if tbe construction 8 extends into Univ~mity Heights, tben it would b~ roy estixo,te. that that city council would have to be involved 10 in what does occur in their - within their onrporate 12 AUDIENCE: Well, excuse m~. I don't think there's a qunstion about that so rough in terms of 14 obt~ining right-of-way or emiqont domsln power, things of 15 thatnatu~. But thc question is whether tl~ Federal HiEhway fund will not bc relsascd unless co-equal 17 jurisdictinnsagrcconthedesignoftl~bfidg¢. Thon 18 it's a qualitatively diff~,ut question. AUDIENCE: Well, it sounds ]{k~ wc probably n~ed akgal opininnlLere, but l would be surpriscd, l guess, 21 if ull of the eonstrection were done in Iowa City that the 22 city cottaoil of University Heights would have to get an action. 24 AUDIENCE: Who would be the appropriate person to address that question, to give that son of a legal Page 50 I opinion? 2 AUDIENCE: I guess I don't know other than the 3 city lcgni staff themselves. 4 AUDIENCE: It's not a decision that soroe $ Assistant Attorney C_~aeral froro the United States is in 6 on? I mcan, is it a f~derul question? 7 AUDIENCE: Not as far as I know -- 8 AUDIENCE: Never built a project that requires 9 the-- J0 AUDIENCE: I'm not aware of any project insid~ l I one city that needs the concurronec of the othcm. As far 12 as I know, what occurs within the corporate limits of the 13 city, th~ city and the state and the federal govermu~t 14 deul with. I'ro not aware other th~n what we're doing 15 here. Tho assessmont doesn't cross the corporate limit. 15 In other words, ff this were ~ntkuly ar, Iowa City thing, 17 this is an environroontsl as~.,ssmont that would include 18 that portion -- 19 AUDIENCE: ] understsnd that. But the point is 20 that something like two millimeters beyond the end of the 21 project you have a situation in which that municipality 22 has said that stxect will remain two traffic lanes, 23 period, cnd of discussion. And I don't see any reason why 24 that wouldn't raise a flag to somebody.making an 25 assessmcut of the width of th~ arterial going the otber Janot Gr~mwald, CSR, RPR (319) 338-0390 438 Garden Strut, Iowa City, IA 52245 Page 51 I di~ct/on, going east. 2 AUDIENCE: As I undcrstsnd what the proposal is, 3 the logical tel'mini of this project would not, in fact~ 4 requi~ the widening of Melros~ Avenu~ further west than 5 tl~ w~t bridge approach; am I incorrect? AUDIENCE: I think that's true. But it soem~ to 7 me that one would say n four-lane bridge or a five-lane 8 street is ridiculous when you are going to immediately 9 narrow to two lanes. 10 . AUDIENCE: Maybe I haven't studied the document 11 in dcpth~ but I think what BRlvl -- BRW has done hem is try 12 to show that the ds,sign, as they propose - and I don,t think they know ond I don't think I know whether that, in 14 fael, goes into University Heights or not -- but whatever 15 yon see they have on the boards - oo the walls tonight 16 would, in fact, work now and for the fore,cable future. Would you agree with that? 18 MR. PRESTON: Most of the alternatives, in fact, 19 8how some minor amount of reconstraction beyond what has 20 been idonfified as the corporate boundary between Iowa City and University Heights, minor amounts of 22 reeonstmction. 23 This is the approximate boundary or the 24 corporate limits between the two corninfinities. We've 25 probably extended, I can't recall exactly how far we've Page 52 I got, urn, probably a hundred feet into University Heights, 2 and then depending on the amount of width on the road, 3 would have some transition that gets us back to the 4 existing curb-to-curb section soroewhere within that 5 hundred feet. So it's on that immediate west approach 6 there is some widening that is, in fact, within the city ? of University Heights. 8 AUDIENCE: I would s',and corrected ff there is a 9 legal reason for that, but it would seem to roe then the 10 city council of University Heights does, in fact, have to 11 sign off on what construction is done within their 12 corporate limits. But please., Pro not an attorney. 13 AUDIENCE: No. I understand that. But froroan 14 engineering standpoint, does this not raise a question to 15 an ongmeer that it doesn't roake sense unless you have 16 plans in the future for widening the street further to the west? Why would you build this, excuse me, grandiose 18 bridge? Several of there -- two of the proposals have it 19 four lanes wide, and you're going to course it immediately 20 into two lanes. 21 AUDIENCE: The bridge is a part of that 22 transition is roy understanding, and, in fact, the traffic 23 figures in the assessment, it seems to roe, do show that it 24 is an impmvcmont in the traffic operations of that portion of Melrose Avenue that are being proposed for this Page 49 - Page 52 Hearing - 1V~lros~ Avenue Page 53 ! project. 2 In oth~ words, I think Illat both the stat~ and 3 the federal government are intere~,d in this projent as 4 proposed being a stand-alone feasible and prudent 5 investment. 6 AUDIENCE: Marvelous. I would question your 7 &fruition of some of tho~ adjectives like predmt. 8 AUDIENCE: Again, speaking from University 9 Heights, 1 think anyone can understand tho incredible 10 paranoia we feel having Avenue of the Saints dumping four 11 lanes of rodfie right up to University Heights and thon 12 narrowed immediately to a two-lan~ and thun going right to 13 a four-lone bridge and m~'be a five-lane roadway. It 14 dousa~t make SellSO to us. ! 5 I thinIt really if th~ was no intontion of ever 16 restriping your bridge, it would have beon a good faith 17 gesture to University Heights to include a true three-lane 18 bridge. Imena, we have un basis on which to trust 19 anything that has happened in this entire proceedings from 20 day one to now, and we're scared and we're bothered by it, 21 and we don't thinIt that you actllaily care a hoot about our 22 entire town, which all of this truffle is going to dump 23 into. I know there's no question pending. 24 MR. PRESTON: Yes, sir. 25 AUDIENCE: I thinIt this is at least the second Page 54 I meeting that I have sat through in the last three years in 2 which this kind of questien has been raised, and it's 3 perfectly clear that no one from the eity has so far taken 4 the time to f'md out wher~ the boundaries are. What is in $ University Heights, and what is the boundary for Iowa 6 City? And it seems to me that somebody would have SOttied 7 lhat before spending this much money to try to get to a 8 legal impasse that would make it all usei~s. 9 AUDIENCE: And we're committed to that legal 10 impasso. 11 AUDIENCE: We should recall in the Iowa City 12 city staff and so forth, as well as the city council, this 13 has ~ going on sinc~ tha early SOvonties based on a 14 uniwrsity dev¢inpmont plan in the mid- and late sixties 15 and so forth. So th~'s a great ~ of insensitivity to 16 thinIt that an isslle that has boen up in th~ air this long, 17 twenty-five years, is suddenly going to roll over hecauso 18 someone does four-lane bridg~ and striped two, thru, and 19 four lunen. 20 I'm going to get be~k to this qualitative thing 21 again, and ff Pm misquotiag the f~md ofliecrs or tl~ 22 state offleers, and so forth, I'll b~ giad to go to tha 23 city top~ on tho~ issu~ where they were raised at the 24 focus committ~ and them was support for th~ idea. And 25 what's more, the~ urban environmental issue, as I've Janet ~wald, CSR, RPR (319) 338-0390 438 Garden Strict, Iowa City, IA 52245 Multi-PagerU Page I ~ discussing; qualitative, are in the Iowa City urban 2 environmental policies which were adopted by tho city 3 council. Andlthinkthat'stheresponsibilityofthe 4 city staff to input to you, and a number of these othea's 5 were environmontal. ~ts that were conduc, t~ in 6 Jolmsen coonty in the 1980s. And I'll run over these. 7 Aesthetic, architectural, and visual, buffer 9 Johnson County EA, and we've got community con~'oversy 10 that's not being addres,.n~L Community cohesion, we're not 11 addrosaingthatis~le. The enltore that exists there, 12 environment, in terms of tna-sonul prol~rty, has not been 13 addmssod, and that was in the Johnson Cotmty EA, run 14 prm, iously andex the aegis of the feds and the state. 15 We've got the economic community and neighborhoed 16 property, and there's a tremendous impact potentially on 17 Melrose that this can't go forward - or on the Univem'ty 18 Heights people that this can't go forward without being 19 considered. There's a whole commercial institutional 20 movement into this area, changing the thing. 21 Historic preservation, which actually Riggered 22 this. The account that you gave of the environmontal 23 clmmnee pixx:edum and so forth was not entirely 24 accurate, and I have submitted about a seven hundred and 25 fifty word statement that describes actually what Page I happened. The historic conservation of all the home~ that 2 are not an a ragistry but certainly need to ho preserved. Tho merentien, that doesn't have to be a public 4 park, et cetera. It can be the recreations available by 5 virtue of: the space, the open space and play areas and so 6 forth. 7 Pollution of air. And the safety, there is no 8 question that people are very concerned about the safety. 9 The security. Nurses are already concerned about what 10 it's going to be like walking to the hospital now that 11 this becomes a thoroughfare. And finally the social 12 well-being. 13 Now those are ull in the EAs that have been done 14 here before in Johnson County. They appenr very 15 pronunently m the urban envtronmental policies adopted by 16 the city council, and it is terribly disappointing that 17 these things wen: not adclmased by an ou~da anjcctivu 18 group that would come in with as many facts and f?~n/rus as 19 possible rather than causing more problems in terms of the 20 two-lane can really be a £our-lanel 21 MR. PRF~TON: Yes, sir. 22 AUDIENCE: I am unfamiliar with the philosophy 23 or ethics regarding the objectivity of the text of the 24 envlronmontal assessment. Are you hired as an advocate or 25 are you supposed to appear, at least, objective? Page 53 - Page 5~ H~'ing ~ Mclros~ Av~nu~ Multi-Page TM Page 57 I MR. PRESTON: Objective. 2 AUDIENCE: Okay. And the sacond question I have 3 is us a town which by survey has a very bipartisan per 4 capita ratio, I'd like to know the base line criteria that 5 was used for a large number of references to aesthetic 5 d~ign description in most typ~s of asacssmont. 7 MR. PRESTON: I don't know what you're refcxring 8 to, but we'll look into that. 9 MS. grITZIG: In t~xms of -- 10 AUDIENCE: What did you say, that this looks 11 good and this dcesn't look gcod? Wlgm is your bas~ line 12 there? MS. ~I'IZIG: I don't thi~ that We arc roak~o a 14 judg~t. We are ident/fying what is existing out there, and within our visual aase~,~meut -- and those am standard words we're required to use is an onviro~eutal assessmut 18 document~ that we didn't m~k~ up those words. Those am words we need to use. Visual and aesthetics are words that am used in 21 envlrol~mental doo~ts to assess the visual urban design type of envfi'onmant that a proposad project is goin§ throagK Our visual im~3es that am up thare are trying 24 to display what a roadway would look l~ke with the three and the four-lane alternative with proposed type of Page 58 landscaping. That's not a sot dcul. h's to givc you on idea, a fenl for what it might look like. So none of thosa things arc sot in ston¢. It's an usscsamant. AUDIENCE: But you have -- in oue part of the 5 document you talkcA about this housa looks -- I'm paraphrasing here - I'ra not sum what the words were, 7 such ~ ab~do-?ed ,.vl~_.,~:~,,~o ,~g hc,',:~ Iook~ nice because 8 it had all of thcsc trecs in ic gVno is to docide which 9 looks good and which doesn't look good? How do you define 10 that7 I1 MS. WI'IZIG: We aren't raaking that kind of 12 definition. Within tie separate report that was done on 13 the cultural resources, the historic architectural survey 14 that was done, there are various criteria that are set out 15 by federal law to determine ff a propen'y is ~ifiesut. 16 And we arc using the professional oxperianec and working 17 with the SHPO office on raakin8 that determination. There 18 are scverul homes that are on the national ragist~. 19 Those arc indicated. And an assessment is being done on 20 all the propcrees along Melrose Avenue as well. 21 AUDIENCE: I'ra sorry. You're not auswcring ray 22 question. 23 MS. WITZIG: I faust not understand it then 24 correctly. 25 AUDIENCE: Let's see ff I can frad exactly what Janet Grom~wald, CSR, RPR (319) 338-0390 438 Garden Street, Iowa City, IA 52245 Page 59 1 thai is. 2 AUDIENCE: While h~'s lueldn~: can I just follow 3 up on that looking at the homcsjus~ on Melr~e Avenue? Much of our neighborhood is not on Melrose 5 Avenue. Th~ am a hundred sixty-thng addresses in the 6 neighborhood listing that con~ out born the City 7 D~t. Tairty homes, thiny addresses arc on Melrose 8 Avenue. More than eighty tgrcent are on thcsa four small 9 cul-&~sacs and the two sick~ through streets, Grand 10 Avenue, Court, which has already been talked about -- 11 excuse me. Melrose Court and then Grand Avenue Court ~2 dido't get raentlaned. So that more than eighty persent was not really 14 investigated in t~*ras l~ot only of tile impect's di~ct but 15 the indirect as well. And, ura, yonksow, whenwewere 16 t~lkin~ about the historical survey, why was 17 overlooked? I mean, tigre are -- l live on Melrose 18 Ciml¢. There are two beaul~ul houses from around the 19 turn of the century not in the national register at the 20 end of ray sm~ Thos~ wemn"t even raantioned. 21 Why was it decided to oaly look at Melrose 22 Avonue? 23 MS. WI'IZdG: I am not the arehitect~al 24 historian, but just to briefly go through the process, 25 there is what's called an acea of potential ¢ff~t that's Page 60 I deter'mined where there ar~ indirect and direct effects 2 assueiated with a project. A diner effect is doltned as a direct taking, 4 an acquisition of land or aoquisition of property or a 5 sU'ucture. Thee am the indirect ¢ffgts to a historic 6 pralgrty. Thos~ can be associated with a change in the 7 character of the area. Noise, vibration, coasmiotion 8 related type of unpacts. The area potontial effect is 9 deterfont. We make the r~commondstion and it nee. ds to be 10 then approved by the SHPO office. So it's something that 11 they have to sign off on as well. And we are c, urmatly in 12 the process of that report and it's in its draft stages. 13 AUDIENCE: What is your recommendation in terms 14 of the area to be affected to the SRPO office? MS. WI]zIG: I would like to check with sources 16 on oxactly the number and the lecauon of all the 17 properties I don't want to speak incorrgctly on that. I 18 can follow up on that. 19 AUDIENCE: Could we get an answer to that fairly 20 soon? I raesn, during the commentary period? MS. WITZIG: Right. Ihevethcdacument- 22 MIL PRESTON: We'll respond to it. 23 AUDIENCE: Tonight. 24 MS. WITZIG: I will try to get an answer to you Page 57 - Page 60 Heaxing - M~Irose Avenu~ Multi-Pag~m Page AUDIENCE: Joe has his data. But m the 2 interest of the University of Iowa, which is, I think 3 we're all agro~ its ethic includes ae~helies, 4 culture, history, humanities, llbegal ar~s, social 5 warfare. The Univemity of Iowa is vea'y intent on being 6 dedicated to those thln~. And we've only talk,xl about ? the environmental impact qualitatively on the neighborhood 8 that bounds the univea'sity. 9 What's going to be the impact of this 10 thoroughfare on this four-lane bridge and the four-lane 11 highway and so forth back onto the unive, sity onto all of 12 the activities there, the hospital and the schools and the 13 classroams und so forth with this thundering traffic going 14 through all the ti.tne? Is that a part of your qualitative -- 15 is that appropriate for your qualitative study'? 16 MR. PRESTON: I think we'll wait and see what 17 comments the university provides and we'll respond to 18 those if we have to. 19 AUDIENCE: But you chose not to explore that as 20 a part of an environment assessment in terms of historical 21 properties, pollution, secllrity and safety and so on? 22 MR. PRESTON: No. We addressed the issue of 23 historic properties. We know there is one that e.xis~s on 24 the north side of the road, and that's part of our 25 cultural re~ouree assesement. Page 62 I We looked at traffic operations. We looked at 2 safety. We looked at air and noise considerations. We 3 looked at visual considerations. All of those things 4 were, in fact, ennsidered. 5 MS. WfizlG: The property within the university 6 was looked at, too, in our inventory just as it was suuth 7 of Meh'ose Avenue in terms of looking at what kind of 8 community facilities are there, wbe~ the parks are. All 9 those arens that you've listed. That's part of our atudy 10 as well. We're not limiting it to just Melrose and south 11 but we're also looking north, which goes into the 12 university. 13 AUDIENCE: But you don't look beyond the first 14 row ofhoases. There's a whole bunch of people live 15 beyond the fn'st row of houses on Melrose. 16 MS. WflZIG: We did. We extended our study area 17 not direedy in some areas but our inventory for areas 18 such as parks or community fadlities, looked at half a 19 mile on cach side of the road. 20 AUDIENCE: The grade school in the area is what? 21 What's the name of the sobeel? 22 AUDIENCE: Roosevelt. 23 AUDIENCE: Roosevelt- 24 AUDIENCE: It's Hem. 25 MS. WITZIG: Pardon me? Janet ~wald, CSR, RPR (319) 338-0390 438 Garden Street, Iowa City, IA 52245 Page 62. I AUDIENCE: It's Hem. 2 MS. WHZIG: So we have that incorrect? 3 AUDIENCE: I think so. 4 MS. WITZIG: We will correct that in the f'mal 5 ~ooun~at. I apologia. 6 AUDIENCE: I have one of many here but this one ? is most descriptive and does make a major judgment in the 8 assessment or at least it is an ae,,sfl~tc thing. "Also 9 the houses with extensive landscaping and treatments make 10 the street appear more embellished and comfortable whereas 11 the houses with little or no landscaping or treatment 12 appear to make it bare and inhospitable. is that not an 13 aesthetic discussion? I mean, this is just one of many in 14 the dacumenk 15 MS. WHZIG: We're using a professional judgment 16 en haw it affects the character of the overall arca. 17 We'se not trying to pinpoint a particular property. It's 18 to try to get a fecl for the overall corrider. 19 AUDIENCE: But who is making the judgment? Wha 20 criteria-- 21 AUDIENCE: That's what I was trying to pin down. 22 Wl~re do you get this7 Whare is the base line for this 23 assessment? 24 MR. PRESTON: We haven't had -- 25 AUDIENCE: Like I said, there's more artists per Page I capita in this town than praetcally anywhere in the 2 country, and 1 think that they might have some 3 disagreement, and they are professionals also. 4 MS. VIqlZiO; Then they should make comments with 5 r~gards to that and we can -- MR. PILESTON: We can re,end to those through 7 the comment process. AUDIENCE: What's the answer to the question 9 about who made the determination and what criteria? 10 MR. PRESTON: Professional staff in our f'mu who 11 have experience dealing with visual and aesthetic issue~ 12 relative toenvh'onmental documents. They are landscape 13 architects or they are architects. Those are the people 14 that do the visunl assessment. I did not do a visual assessment. Engineers did 16 not do the visual assessment. Wildlife biologists did not 17 do the visual assessment. Economists did not do the 18 visual asse&sment. It was either architects or landscape 19 architects who have worked with us on these kinds of 20 projects previously made the visual ~ent. AUDIENCE: Is this Ixue on both side~ of the 22 meet? On the north side -- Uees, bushy, end 23 plantings-- MS. WIIzIG: That's taken into acconnt in the 25 description of the existin§ conditions. As Howard Page 61 - Page& H~dng - Mdros~ Av~u~ Multi-PageTM Pag~ 65 I indicated in th~ pr~entatiun, between Orend Avenue Court 2 ~d So~ ~d Av~, ~0~ ~ ~ ~h 3 ~v~ ~0~ ~ wo~d ~ ~ ~ mov~ ~d 4 ~ 5 A~NC~: ~ abo~ ~ 6 ~, ~o~d ~ ~ ~ ~d bu~ ~d ~bs ~? 7 MS. ~O: I ~e ~ p~ 8 ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ou~ of ~ i~fi~ of a 9 pmf~ ~a~v~. 10 ~ P~TON: ~t's up m ~ cid. 11 A~NCE: ~ ~ r~ for 12 ~ PR~N: Y~. 13 A~CE: Wi~ ~ 15 ~ ~ ~d~ ~ may~ hog ~, for ex~plc, ~s ~ a fiv~ you ~ probl~ ~ h~ ~ d~t-of-~y ~d ~ ~ of ~. So-- A~CE: Sid~ ~d ~v~g r~ 20 ~. P~TON: ~g en 21 ~ p~ly ~ ~t ~ Mj~i ~ ~ ~s 22 ~ ~'s a probl~ ~ly en ~ mu~ ~de 23 ~d m~ of ~ ~ of ~ no~ ~ ~'s m~ but 24 ~t's a dmi~ ~ ~ ~ ci~ wo~d ~e up Page 67 I flow would continue and be even and keep going the same 2 way it is, which is unrealistic because you know you have 3 a bottlen~k at beth ends. What I'm wondering is did you 4 take into account the effect of tbe bottlenook at both 5 ends? In oth~' words, the analogy would be ~ with a 7 fluid. And as you increase the diameter of the pipe in 8 the center -- I mean, that's thnge-dimeusinnal but this is 9 only two-dinmuSiooal -- but as you move from two lancs to 10 five l~nes, there's only so many plac~ at th~ ends, the 11 £uncet s~ at the end, for relessing that traffic, does 12 not c1~8c. 13 Therefore, the amount of stagnant traffic would 14 increose and would seem to n~ resiisticnily. ButwhatI'm 15 wondering is did you think about those sort of things and 15 blliJd these into your adinissien s~dnrd cvuluations7 17 IvlR. PRESTON: Yes. 18 AUDIENCE: Okay. 19 ' AUDIENCE: Where in the report? I didn't see 20 that. 21 MR. PRESTON: They're in the written de~criptinn 22 of what we did. 23 AUDIENCE: Right. Where? 24 MS. WITZIG: in the air qtlality I~ctinn und 25 there are various - Page 66 I AUDIENCE: Will you do another noise measurement 2 now with the building up, with that conerote? 3 MR. PRESTON: No. 4 AUDIENCE: Do Y9u get a higher reading when it 5 bounces off eemont? 6 MR. PRESTON: I don't know that. We can look 7 into that. We'll respond to that comment. 8 I don't think we anticipated doing any more 9 noise monitoring out on the site. I could look at the 10 date. That building may have bern up or partially up at 11 the time we did the noise monitoring. So I don't know. 12 AUDIENCE: When did you do it? 13 MR. PRESTON: Some time last summer. 14 AUDIENCE: No. 15 MS. WITZIG: It was in May. It was right before 16 school got out last year, in '94. 17 MR. PRESTON: So we could respond to that. 18 Yes, sir. 19 AUDIENCE: I have a question about admissions. 20 You did an impact study on admissions? 21 MR. PRESTON: Wcdid an assessment of air 22 quality, yes. 23 AUDIENCE: Okay. I was wondering because I can 24 think of two ways of doing this. 25 One way would be just to assume that the Irafile Jauot Gre, enwald, CSR, RP.R (319) 338-0390 438 Oaxd~n Streoh Iowa City, IA 52245 Page 68 I AUDIENCE: You estimmed how long cars would be 2 standing and - 3 MR. PRESTON: Yes. 4 MS. WflZIG: We look at idling title, design 5 speed. We look at cold wenther stam, mix of trdfie. 6 All those are built into an air quality model that's run. 7 AUDIENCE: But in relationship to the impact of 8 the congestion on either end of Mekose? 9 MR. PRESTON: Yes. 10 AUDIENCE: I didn't see it. 11 MR. PRF_~TON: Yes, ma'am. 12 AUDIENCE: My other question was about 13 pedestrian safety, which is an issue of great anncam for 14 many of us. It's very diffiouh to cross Melrose Avenue. 15 There are mentions of pedes~xian safety, of 16 course, in the environmental assessment but they am 17 almost always discussed in terms of ~4de sidewalks ou the 18 north side or the south side· So that once you're on the 19 north side or the south side, you have plenty of more. 20 It's much better tlum going over the lumpy terrain that 21 oxist8 oi1 the north side now. Th8I'8 not really what 22 we're enn~med about. We're concerned about getting 23 across the street. ~-4 Buses, getting damped off from a bus is another 25 sort of rulated ~ You know, it's difficult - I ride P~o65-P~¢68 Houfing - Melrose Avontin Multi-Pagem Page 69 1 ~e bus so I know - to get across two tanas at the end of 2 the afternoon. You havc to 8o out the back door and run 3 around the back of the bus and smad lit~-'ally in the 4 middle of the road so that you oniy have oae lone to wult 5 to clear. 6 ~ Melrose Avanu~ is much wider, I mean, tbe 7 oniy place whare I anw a referonce to the difficulty in 8 crossing tbe stxcet was wben you talked about your 9 five-lane siteraative, and you said at grade cros,~n~ 10 would be difficult with five lanes, which I'm sure would I 1 be the cas~. But it would be nice to know what degrce of 12 difficulty we would expect to encounter with a three-lane 13 road or a four-lone road or, I mean, it would ha nice to 14 know. 15 MR. PRESTON: l'm not aware of ony research that 16 would ha able to answer that question. I'm not aware 17 18 AUDIENCE: Are you saying tbere uren,t safety n.mhers, statistics based on type ofroed? MR. PRESTON: Not that I'm aware of. 21 AUDIENCE: But if you make a comment about 22 plantings and landscaping and houses with no vegetation, why wouldn't you be led to make a quulitativc assessment 24 of pe.,opl¢ erassing the street? Like it would be more difficult if we had four lanes thou it would be if we had Page 70 I three lones or two lanes. 2 AUDIENCE: There is a table in the report that 3 does say that. I dou't remember but it does say that. 4 Grades down to four-lone option, as far as pede~a'mn 5 erossings, in favor of the threelane options. It's one 6 of those tlat papers. 7 AUDIENCE: Okay. Thank you. 8 MR. PRESTON: Yas, sir. 9 AUDIENCE: I guess the question, though, related 10 here is you show this on your summary as a positive with 11 respoet to bicycle and pedestrian safety and bicycle and 12 pedestrian circulation all the way up through alternate 13 five. And I guess the concern, I think, that we have here 14 with respect to the pedestrian is not so much the lateral 15 pedestrian traffic, which we would reco?ve would be 16 safer with wider shoulders and better sidewalks and so on, 17 but with much the same issue that the folks were tolkinE 18 about with all of the residences on tha south side of the 19 street ond all of the places that they're going on the 20 north side, there are people erossing that street in 21 droves the full length of the gaeet. And if you haven't 22 oddtossed that question, that is, by far, the most 23 significant negative impact of this project on pedestrian 24 traffic is their ability to got from one side of the 25 street to the other. Janot G-rccnwald, CSR, RPR (319) 338-0390 438 Crardon Street, Iowa City, 1A 52245 And I guess the qucstion is: Is that not - Page 7[ 2 should that not have ~ a ~ consideration that 3 would have given bicycle and pedestrian circulation and 4 safety a oegativc of any of the wider choices7 5 MR. PRESTON: We'll reconsider that comment, 7 Y~ sir. 8 AUDIENCE: With mgurd to the pedestrian% have 9 you anticipated traffic lights to control pedestrian traffic cross col~!mn$? 11 MR. PRESTON: Only at Hawkins. 12 AUDIENCE: l'm just wondering if you haven't 13 considered the po~ibility of having traffic lights 14 sporadically along the roadway? 15 MR.. PRESTON: No. 16 AUDIENCE: And ff so - it hasu't been 17 eonsidged? 18 MR. PILF~TON: Not to this point, no. 19 AUDIENCE: h; it a.~m_,~t that them will be 20 traffic control lights? MR. PRESTON: No. AUDIENCE: It's not assumed? 23 MR. PRESTON: No. AUDIENCE: It might be necessaryl MR. PRESTON: That's a reasonable comment. Page 72 We ll take a look at that. MR. DAVIDSON: Howard, the city has considered 3 when the new parking ramp is constructed, that we would 4 certainly want that set up to take a wartic signal ff it 5 was warranted in the future. 6 MR. PRESTON: Anyone else? ? AUDIENCE: Yes. 8 MR. PRESTON: You've had a number of 9 opportumtie~. I was -- 10 AUDIENCE: I really appreciate it, too -- 11 MR. PRESTON: I was wondering if there was 12 anybody else that wanted to make a comment. 13 AUDIENCE: We all appreciate you, John. AUDIENCE: The last time in one of these 15 meetings I asked about buffers, the answer I got was, 16 well, we build this bullcling and then we put out 17 planting~ 18 Now I mink we all are agreed that a buffer is 19 more than just plontings in front of a building, and I'm 20 very concerned about the buffer area in here on Melrose as 21 it's portrayed. Ofcoume, thare'safipploeffectfrom forth. But the buffer area is so dimirlished that it would 24 seem to me that that's almost a stop growth situation 25 khare. $o what criteria do you have for an adequate Multi-Page Hearing - l~lroso Av~nu~ Pag~ 73 I b~ m pro~t n~bo~ pro~ 2 so fo~? ~t ~ w~t m~, ~? 2 3 ~. P~TON: I'm not ~ wc h~ ~y ~a 3 4 for b~. ~ ~ z,~e~o~. 4 5 A~CE: ~t a ~on wh~ ~y 5 6 you ~ve not ~t ~ ~ ~ of b~ wM~ ~ a 6 7 p~ ~m~ ~ pinning ~ ~d ~on. 7 8 ~ P~TON: I ~inb we've ~ it ~ 8 9 ~ ~ve ~ we've providM ~e ~ ~at 9 10 ~ ~at pl~ ~ p~ble ~d ~t ~ woffid 10 11 ~ ~ adv~ ~l~ve to ~ vi~s ~d ~e~ of 11 12 ~ ~ ff l~p~g ~ ~olu~ ~ p~ of ~ 12 13 proj~t. But it'sup~eiWm~ueff~y 13 14 woffid eh~ m do ~t. 14 15 MS. ~IG: ~e of ~ i~, ~o, ~ ~ 15 16 lm~ - I don't ~t ~ in~pt yon but l ~ 16 17 ~ follow up on ~t - ~ ~ v~ imag~ ~w ~o 17 18 ~t ~*~, ~d ~ ~on why it's explm~ ~ 18 20 ~ue ~mm~ ~e~ ~d of i~ of w~t ~ ~ 20 21 plm~x-nm~off~tof~er~. Soffa~ 21 22 v~ off, ~ey don't ht a ~ ~ a ~ ~ 22 23 ~ ~ a ~v~ ~i~t. 23 24 ~d ~t ~ a limit~g f~r ~d ~ ~ ~at 24 25 ~ ~ W ~ p~ ~ ~proj~t pr~ 25 P~e 74 I on, w~ ~d of l~p~g or ~1 li~ f~ 1 2 ~ffid ~ ~plm~ ~ ~ roadmy. It's not a level of 2 3 d~ ~t we ~i~y g~ imo ~ ~ ~v~o~ 3 4 ~ i~g a ~ific l~p~ ply. 4 5 ~ ~ pro~ ~ of do~g ~. 5 6 AUD~NCE: ~ohably ~po~t ~ ~ind ~ple, 6 7 ~, ~t ~ a ~v~i~ plug d~mt mmewh~ ~ 7 9 mf~ ~ ~s ~d of b~l~ ~ ~ ~o~d not 9 10 ~ b~g f~ mu~ ~ ~e ~11oton Pav~on 10 11 ~ it wo~d ~ ~ b~ t~ 12 O~y. You've got it. ~h~o~n, 12 13 ~'s~Pappajo~. Now~em'sevmnewb~l~, 13 14 ~d you'd ~ve no pl~ for a b~ ~. Now ~t 14 15 ~'tyo~probl~. Yunn~eityo~probl~ 15 16 now. But~atw~aprobl~t~eip~by~ 16 17 ~v~i~ pl~n~ wh~ ~ey ~d no-bufl~g ~yond 17 18 ~Hoton, ~d ~em's no~g ~ ~ ~iv~i~ pl~ ~t 18 19 I ~ve ~ ~t giv~ ~y ~on for b~ldinE 20 ~fion~ b~l~. ~d ~'s un room for a b~ 20 2~ ~ne ~, ~t 1~ b~. 22 ~. P~TON: Go ~. 22 23 A~NCE: ~ yo~ ~d yo~ ~v~ 23 24 ~t w~ you ~s~ ~ ~ ~ ~t ~e 24 25 ~p~ ~ U~v~i~ Hei~ or ~ ~om ~e ~p~t on 25 J~ ~w~ ~ ~R (319) 338~390 438 ~ S~t, Iowa Cid, ~ 52245 Page 75 University Heights? MR. PRESTON: We were not given either instructdons. We were simply instructed to conduet a profess~onni objective environmental assessment. AUDIENCE: Wen: you awaxe of the situation? MR. PRESTON: Yes. We met with your mayor, we met with your attorney prior to starting this. So yes, we were aware -- very aware of the situation -- AUDIENCE: And is there referonc~ to the impact on University H¢ight~ in your document? MR. PRESTON: I don't remember MS. WrlZ1G: Its primary impacts, in other words, there would bc construction-related impacts that are identified dq~odl,~ on the design of the bridge, if it would need to be closed, if it would need to be maintained, th~ impacts to the bo3iness dkacfiy to the west of the bridge, the parking space there. Urn, yes, it's a limited evnitlation based on the lirait of the project. AUDIENCE: Vf/lat is tim minimum width for an arterial that the federal ftmding wfil pay for? Is it forty-five point throe? Is that the smallest you can go and still fall within the guidelines? MR. PRESTON: I don't know right ofl~and. When we're done with this, you can oome up and we'll look Page 76 through the design documents and I'll giro you the best understanding I can. But it's - AUDIENCE: It's not in there that I can sec. AUDIENCE: You don't address what the minln~um requirements are for, uh, an arterial street bridge in there anywhere, and I was thinking perhaps you can enlighten me. MR. PRESTON: I will make an effort to do so. AUDIENCE: After this gentleman. AUDIENCE: Just a curious omission. On page -- Table S-1 where you're talking about consistent with community transportation plan, you list mapact on Iowa City, impact on Uinvorsity of Iowa, impact on JC-COG, but you don't have a line item for impact on University Heights, which is by far the most significant impact on our community, and you don't have a line item for it. You've got it several other plaees there. But the most significant impact that you have on us is on the nagative impacts that you have on our transportation plans. But there's no Line item on the summary showing that. MR. PRESTON: Jeanne, do you recnil? MS. WITZIG: Well, when we met at the initiation of the project and asked the qucstiun, we wanted to get as much information as we can on University Heights. We Page 73 - Page 76 Hoari:u. g- Melrose Avenu~ Multi-?age TM ~ P~ 77 I ~ if there was a comp~enalve phn that we ~d 2 ~dua~ ~ proj~t's ~p~ on, ~d we w~ ~ld ~ 3 ~ ~ not ~ adop~ ~p~ve p~. A~NCE: ~d I noti~ ~ foomo~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~fian, but I think we ~ ~vc a ~sp~ 6 p~ ~ ~ m not ~ Me~. ~ P~N: ~ you ~Md ~ve ~n~ pro~ 8 ~t m ~ pl~,wc~ ~ ~ Mm ~=t MS. ~lO: We ~ ~t ~t. 10 A~NCE: It o~t m ~ pm~ obfio~. We've 11 ~ do~g ~S for ~¢n~ ~ -- ~-fiv~ y~. ~t d~ ~ ~t ~e ~ ~ve ~valo~. ~~~nodm~ ~mh~w plm -- A~CE: Wi~ ~ d~ ~ Jeff, you ~ 17 tell ~ %~ ci~ ~unc~ I ~ow, ~ Mve ~ 18 le~ ~ ~e Ci~ of Io~ Cid, we Mv¢ ~op~ ~ o~ ci~ ~mcil h~ a~p~ a ~c percy on Moffo~ Av~. We've~ doMg~ forage-five y~. 21 ~ m d~ ~ ov~ ~ ply, ~e d~t ~ 22 o~ ~omfi~ pl~ d~ not Mclude ~d~g Meff~ Av~, md ~at's -- ~ o~t ~ ~ obvious. ~ P~TON: ~ we met ~ yo~ ~yor, we 25 ~ Page 78 AUDIENCE: On behalf of Univemity Heights, I'd 2 like tojast say, wc are going to submit a formal 3 statement. We are not going to make our statement this 4 evening. All we're goingto maintain is for a two-laue 5 street. Didn't want to take up people's time. We've mot 6 with BRW. We've made our points clear. Our disagreement 7 of the asaeesment we made clear in our statement. 8 Certainly we can see what the citizens have to say 9 tonight. 10 MR. PRESTON: Yes, air. AUDIENCE: Just in the Focus Group, the notes -- impact areas for evaluation, number twelve, human and built environments and human and built environments A through K where pedestrian safety, bicycle uafety, property values, emergency vehicles, public ~ransit, 16 vehicle accer, s. ingress, cgreas, abutting property, 17 economic consequences, impact on ueighborhonds, impact on 18 community at largo, Iowa, University oflowa campus. So 19 that was the message in the Focus Group. 20 But could you tell us a little bit more about 21 what the impact on properties is going to be, 22 personal properties? Because penpie are very concerned that Molros~ is going to go, and then the streets both 24 ways will go after that. So there are a lot of homeowners that are very concerned about the impact of this Janet wald, CSR, RPR (319) 338-0390 438 G don Strut, 1owa City, IA 52245 Page I development building project. Could you interpret to us 2 what you found in your environmental assessment? 3 MR. PRESTON: Jeanne, would you Like to commentii 5 MS. WflZiO: There isn't a particular area to docummt identified as proplm'y values, but, I mean, we ? looked at other examples in other areas where a roadway 8 project in a ~imilar type of aren, what bappenad to the 9 property values, and there was essentially not an adverse 10 impact, end in various eases property values increased. There are so many variables when you're h'yin8 to identify 12 tbe propmy values and how tbey fluctuate, urn, that to idealily just this as aa impact would be minlcarlin$ 14 We - that was essentially the limit of the evaluation. AUDIENCE: But that was an expectation coming 17 from tho Focus Group beeauso that was agreed upan, voted on, admitted, amended, and so forte So that is, once 20 MR. PRESTON: Anything 21 ¥~, ma'am. 22 AUDIENCE: Oh, I'm sorry. 23 Given that the level of service on three of the 24 five intersections that you looked at really doesn't 25 change very much, ragardleas of the selection of one of Page 81- I these alternatives, to what extent do you need to improve 2 this half mile stretch of Metroso Avenue? I mean, can you really look - can you really take it out of the context of this much longer arterial street and justify making major improvements when you're still going to have a level of service at F, at Riverside, and Grand, F at Koser and 7 Mekose, E or F at Hawkins Drive? And I know this question has been asked many timcs before, but you mentie:? 9 the level of service, that's vcry clear, but you don't go 10 on then to say despite these problems with these 11 inu:rsections, we feel the ueed to, you know, make Mekese 12 Avenue five lanes or something like that. MR. PRESTON: Well, certainly we've never said that. Wo'vcjuat-- AUDIENCE: No, no, no. would happen if one of these alternatives wcrc 18 implcmanted. 19 You know, this is -- the level of service issue 20 is cxttamely difficult in this particular case to deal 21 with bacause, you're right, it is a reasonably short 22 section of roadway. We can evaluate operations at the intersections, and, you know, we end up with some problem~ in ~ future with ._a~mmodating all of the expected traffic volumes. It s hard to take that into account but Hearing - Melrose Avenue Page 81 I we've tried to provide tha decision maltera, again, with 2 "what ifs". If this happens, what would be the 3 consequences? And we've tried to provide that information 4 relative to the level of service. So, you know, we've locked at that, we've 6 dcoummted it. It's what the analysis inaica~ is likely 7 to happen. So it's not -- it's not as much of an 8 improvement as - certainly not in the futureo and 9 certainly not with tl~ two-lane alternatives and, you're 10 right, at some. oftl~ into-sections things don't change verymu~h That's primarily at tbe un6gualiv,M 12 intersections, and that's prima41y because the level of 13 aervico at the unsignali?ed intersections is a illaction of 14 Wbether or not tbere's udequa~ gaps in traffic. And tbere are not adaquate gaps todsy and it certainly doesn,t get any better in tbe future. 8o-- 17 AUDIENCE: But Hawkins Drive is signalized at Riverside- 19 MR. PRESTON: Yes, it is. AUDIENCE: The only unaignalized part is University Heights, and it's my understanding that there's some discussion about putting a aigrml there es well. 23 MR. PRESTON: Clearly the more lanes you provide,, the better the level of service. But, on the other hand, there are all these other issues that we're Page8 ! issue. That's clearly independeut. If you put the signal 2 there, yotlr road ~ will ~ able to aucommodate more 3 traffic than what it ac~O-~O~_at_e3~3 today. 4 AUDIENCE: Right. But what effect would that 5 have on tl~ other roadway to the east? 6 MIL PRESTON: None. 7 AUDIENCE: The volume and capacity and those 8 issues, it would affect them. 9 MR. PRESTON: To a point where there may be son~ 10 diversions. But we css't -- there's no way of estimating 11 that. So we use the regional travel medel to txy to 12 estimate those things and include cempensation for 13 intea-seeAioc traffic control, and it takes those kinds of 14 things intoacenont. So it would simply n~an that you 15 could accommodate greater volumes of traffic on your 16 section of Melrose Avenue if you put in a traffic signal 17 instead of that all-way stop condition that's there today. 18 AUDIENCE: I have another question and it deals 19 wi~ an air quality issue. 20 MR. PILESTON: Okay. 21 AUDIENCE: The study was eauducted looking at 22 carbon monoxide levels? 23 MR. PRESTON: Right. 24 MR. P~N: What monitoring method was used in 25 order to obtain these estimate, s? Page 82 I trying to point out also relative to environmental kinds 2 of issues and prol~rty acquisition issues and 3 accommodation of pedestrians and those kinds of things. 4 So there clearly are trede-9ffs associated with any 5 decision that gets made ~lative to what kind of 6 improvement is appropriate. It depends on which criteria 7 you consider to be the most important. 8 AUDIENCE: But you had that -- you had our 9 traffic study from University Heights. It was delivered 10 via through JC-COG to you some time ago, and in that it 11 talk~ a little bit about signalifing that intersection, 12 and with time I delivered that -- 13 MR. PRESTON: I'm sorry. Which intersection? 14 AUDIENCE: It would be Melrose, Koser, Golfview 15 in University Heights. It was pointed out to Jeff our 16 intention to put traffic lights at that intersection. Now 17 we're further along than that at this point and time 18 We're actually looking at funding sources, and for you to 19 not include that possibility -- 20 MR. PRESTON: Well, we haven't excluded that 21 possibility. If you put a traffic signal there, it would, 22 in fact, increase the amount of traffic that that 23 intersection was capable of handling. 24 AUDIENCE: Correct, 25 MR. PRESTON: So I don't see where that's an Janet Crroonwald, CSR, RPR (319) 338-0390 438 G-ard~n Street, Iowa City., IA 52245 Page 8, MR. PRESTON: I don't believe there was any 2 monitoring that was done. Do you -- AUDIENCE: No monitoring was done? You actuall: 4 have a site description here with five site locations. 5 MS. W1WZIG: That's based on modeling with 6 regards to the level of traffic and -- 7 AUDIENCE: So you actually don't have monitoring 8 data that you were relying upon to generate these numbers? 9 MR. PRESTON: That's sorrect 10 MS. WITZIG: There is no violation of any air 11 quality standards in the area under any of the 12 alternatives, and actually the document went beyond what 13 is typically mqnirecl, particularly for an area that's 14 identified as an attainment area for carbon monoxide, 15 ozone, and volatile -- 16 AUDIENCE: Based on monitoring measurements, 17 ba.ged on monitoring mea.xl~n:izlcnts that you have provided 18 prior to doing this, you actually do know for a fact that 19 the CO levels never approached fifteen, twenty parts per 20 million for a onehour period along Melrose Avenue? 21 That's tbe thing. 22 You used a model to pull these numbers is what 23 you're saying. And what I've asked is it's not based on 24 actoal air monitoring data. 25 MIL PILESTON: That is correct. We're agreeing, Page 81 - Page 84 Hearing- Molrose Avenue Pa~e 85 1 thai is com:ct. Th~ was no monitoring done. 2 AUDIENCE: Okay. MR. PRESTON: Y~, sir. AUDIENCE: Is it reasonabl~ to anticipate the 5 university and maybe sen~ of Iowa City may ~pand into, 6 li~e, into thc hespital or to tbe law building or to othgr 7 facilities ~ th~ stadillm might be expanded or rsplacod 8 with a biggex stadium, fontball stadium? And ff so, what 9 would b~ the ~ frame? Do we have any way of eithex 10 gue~ing or knowing what t~ univcn~ity has in mind for 11 th~ filllira, what Iowa City has in mind for fumm 12 expansion? 13 I'm just lo~kin$ at -- I know we have a lot of 14 problem~ today but Pm Ionking, say, twenty years ahead, 15 wbat wili it be lik~ iu twenty years? MR. PRESTON: Your que~ons ar~ probably better 17 diree. tedtothcuniv~xsity. I~crtaiuly- 18 AUDIENCE: That's what I wondered. MI~ PRESTON: I make no claim~ to be able to undexstund what thefre doing. TI~ r~gional traffic model 21 ~ additional &vclopment in the area becau~ thexc arc substantial increases in traffic volumes through the university area that ~ documented in that r~ioaal travel model, wbiab is a function of incresses in land developn~nt. So there is some level of increase. I don't Page 86 I know what that is. 2 AUDIENCE: I know where to §o to find the 3 answer, but I just have a feeling that that eye clinic 4 won't bo the last. ljusthaveafesling. 5 MR. PRESTON: This is off the record. 6 (A discussion was held off the record.) 7 AUDIENCE: It's my ondexstanding that ffwe 8 havan't given it, we can do it now and that that can be 9 reincorporated into a ddfeacnt version of this document? 10 MR. PRESTON: Yes, sir. AUDIENCE: Okay. So this is a draft, so to 12 sp~k? MR. PRESTON: Well, -- 14 AUDIENCE: I mean, to the extent that you might 15 make modifications? MR. PRESTON: The process will be this document 17 went out to you, to the agencies, to the punic. Comments are coming in. When all the comment period closes and all tile agency comments are in, and we've been able to look at 20 all the comingfits whan we reeeived thont, we will look at, 21 prepan: an addendum to this document that will include any 22 corrections or mvisians or responses to this particulur 23 commer~lt. So if you provide that information, we will take 24 a look at it -- 25 AUDIENCE: When will that be available? Janet Crroonwald, CSR, RPR (319) 338-0390 438 G-ard~m Strut, Iowa City, IA 52245 Page 8~ MR. PRESTON: We're anticipating some time in 2 June. lt'safanodonofwhonwegetallofthcn:sponses 3 back from the agencies. Som~ agencies go b~ond the clo~ 4 oftbaCOnYmentpexiod. And depending on wbo they axe, w~_, 5 may wait, if nece~ary, to g~t their comments. So I would 6 antioipato that thex~ would be some msolutien of this 7 eithex in May or June depending on the -- how rapid a 8 r~poase v~ get to 9 AUDIENCE: Anothm- question ragarding air 10 quality. On page smtonty-six you talk about, in addition 11 to CO levels, tim proNean of patticulat~ and it segans 12 clear, from tl~ de,scriptian in tl~ paragraph in the middle 13 of that page, that the l~vel of pmiculatos is directly 14 correlated to the volum~ of traffic, tun, anlik~, to some 15 clegn~ anyway, the problem with CO. And yet th~'~'s no 16 evidanc~ that there's boon any attempt to mesan~ or, for 17 that matter, model what the effect in terms of 18 particulates on air quality would be with the diffm-ont 19 alternatives. You simply say that they'd be higher. 20 MR. PRESTON: I don't - I'm not aware of any 21 model that models particulates. So we've used the models 22 to estimat~ the carbon monoxi& and those kinds of things. 23 I'm not am of any modeis. 24 Do you know of that., Jeanne? 25 MS. wrIZIG: I'm not aware of that, bet we'll Page 81 I have the air quality cxpert cheek into that. 2 MR. PRESTON: Sure. Wc'II take a look. 3 Yes, sir. 4 AUDIENCE: The Focus Group that gave you these 5 options to consider, I'd like to go on record as saying 6 that University Heights was not allowed to have citizen 7 n:presentation on thin Focus Group although we requested 8 it v~rbally and in v, xitmg. 9 Now as a citizen of University Heights, I guess 10 I'm asking: Is then: any ohance to get a narrower 11 three-lane bridge into this list of options? I mean, just 12 vierang from an impartial point of view, it se~ms like an 13 outsider would say, boy, they'r~ in a tough spot, too bad 14 they don't have a narrower throe-lane bridge. Mayl~ those 15 folks in University Heights would vima, that favorable. Is 16 thm"~ any ¢hanc,~ of that ? I? MR. PRESTON: You'd b~.,ttor dirc~t that question 18 to the oity staff. 19 MR. DAVIDSON: I think I can answer that 20 question. 21 As with all capital tmprov~ra~nt projects the 22 City of Iowa City undertakes, the city council makes a 23 deeision on what the seOl~ of tl~ design is; sad if they 24 fenl that they want to investigate anything, they will 25 dir~t staff to do that, and ray, If and tl~ city ongin~r Hearing - Melrose Avenue Multi-Pagem Page 89 I will have to n~,~ond. Uh, very frequently, in fact, in 2 mostcases, they de suggest to us, can you do this? Yes, 3 weenn. Tnenpleesedoit. There are other occasions when they suggea ~ thinge that for one reason or enother are not ressonable. 6 Obviously with the inclusion of fedend money on this 7 projocathalhamstfingsusalittle. Butthat'snlweysa 8 trage-off that wc have when w~-ifyotlus~fi~fed~.l 9 meney, we do have to play by th~ ml~. So that will - I 10 ~ to provide an answer to your que,~ion, that is 11 som~in~ th~ city council will have to decide when they 12 mal~ a decisien on what tl~ Senl~ oftha project would be. AUDIENCE: Wouldn't it mnk~ sense to incinde 14 that ~ all altern~ve in tbe enVirom~etltal a.~X~l~lllt so 15 tha city ecrmall has the information that's comparable to 1~ tbe other alternative? MR. DAVIDSON: Tbe best way I can answer that is 18 to say th~ ecusultant was given dir~tion in a r~tuest for 19 proposal that they respendad to to accommodate ev~,ythi~ 20 that's happenin~ in tl~t ar~ the neighborhood concerns, 21 the trottic concerns, tbe l~l~trian ecncems, and they 22 have proposed to ~ how tl~y would do that. Certainly ff anyone in this room disagn~ with 24 how ~ propose to do that, that's what we want to hear, officially and on the record. So that when the city Page 90 I colln¢il onln~ to mal~e their decision, tbey have the 2 benefit of both, what the censult~t recommends how to do 3 it, and any agreement, and believe it or not there ~ 4 some people in tiffs room that do agree, and certainly the 5 disogresment that people have with how that is proposed to 6 be done. ? AUDIENCE: Howard, I have the impression of our S earlier exchange that if you were ~ with virgin 9 territory and asked to design a three-lone bridge, you 10 would design one that was twenty-two point three two 11 meto~ wide or something close to that. And, therefore, 12 ff you were dealing with virgin territory and esked to 13 design a four-lane bridge, you would come up with a design 14 that would be considerably wider than twenty-twO point 15 thr~ two matea; is that cornget? 16 MR. P1LF~TON: I'm not sure. The issuc -- 17 AUDIENCE: You said you wantad all these 18 amenities and they Ere built into this twenty-two point 19 thre~ two meter wide bridge when it's three lanes. 20 MR. PILESTON: Right. 21 AUDIENCE: Wide shoulders, bike lanes, etc. 22 MR. PRESTON: Right. 23 AUDIENCE: And I thought you indicated that if 24 you bed the space and you were directed to desige a 25 four-lene bridge, -- Janet ~wald, CS1L RPR (319) 338-0390 438 G-ard~n Stre~t, Iowa City, IA 52245 Pl~ge 91 I MR. PRESTON: We provided the minim,.nn width of 2 this four-lane bridge. It's the minim~lm lane width that 3 the state would ask for, and in the end they require on 4 additional four feet. They require that the bridge be 5 four fe~t wid-'r, approximstdy, thi~ point nin~t-four 6 fea wider on beth sides of the approaching roadway. ? That's part of their guidelines. Ta~t's to give some 8 additional reaction to the bridge rails. 9 AUDIENCE: 10 MIL PRESTON: Because they're an obstacle for 11 vehicles that Ere traveling along tbe road 12 AUDIENCE: l'm just trying to clarify. ffyou 13 were dealing with a field - 14 MIL P~ON: The answer to that is a maybe. It 15 would be - we could discuss it with the city. Would you 16 like wider shoulders on this bridge? And that's a 17 ft,mction of ar~ ther~ shouldos on the roadway, are there 18 bicycle l,~nes an the roadway? ff we had no censUaints, 19 we'd probably have twelve-fect lanes ~ of 20 eleven-foot lanes. 21 So it may be -- yes, 1 mean, if there were 22 absolutely - if there were no environmental issu~ or 23 constraints or neighborhood constraints, it would likely 24 be wider than that twenty-twO point three two meters. It 25 would very likely be $i~onificanfiy wider than that. That P~ge 92 I is the minlmanl width -- 2 AUDIENCE: $o it is a matter o£ the narrowness 3 of tbe erossing over the raikoad tracks that limits -- 4 pretty much limits how wide it can be under any 5 circum~anecs. 6 MR. PRESTON: To a certain extent. I mean, 7 that's obviously one of the ecnstrsints. T~e difference 8 is on the three-lane bridge we have shoulders. Again 9 because if you only have one lane in each direction and a 10 vehicle breaks down, do you want that entire bridge or one 11 dir~lion oi~ traffic plugged up? 12 Our response to that was no. We think it's 13 appropriate to have shoulders on the bridge to accommodate 14 emergency stopping or dimbled vehicles or bicycles or 15 whl~ver. 16 With the roar-lane we didn't do that, and why 1'~ was that? Well, we don't have shoulders on the tea of 18 the roadway. With that four-lane option we didn't have 19 provisions for anything for bicycles on the roadway. We 20 wont with narrower lanes. Since there's two lanes in each 21 direction, ira vehicle breaks down and stops in one of 22 those lanes, it affects the operation, it affects the 23 capacity, it ercates a bottleneck, it creates other 24 hazards but it doesn't stop the traffic entirely in one 25 direction. $o it's really apples and oranges as far as Page 89 - Page 92 Multi-Parc Hearing- Meh'ose Avenue P~c 93 I whats happening on the bridge between the thrce and tl~ 2 four-lane. And it haplxmS tha~ it's a coincidence that 3 th~ narrowest four-lane seeden happens to be the same 4 width as the threc-lano section. AUDIENCE: Understand. AUDIENCE: Do you have an accidont count en stretch in the past at this point in years? The aceidents 8 that have occurred on that two-lane bridge -- 9 IVlR. PILESTON: I don't remember what exactly. We 9 10 requested accident information. We received some aocident 10 information. I'm not sure -- I would have to lonk at it, 12 what it is. If you have a 8pex:ifio question about it, we 12 13 couldlook into that. I don't rocall exactly the details 13 14 of the information that we roceived. We can look into 14 15 that. 15 16 Anything else? 1 17 AUDIENCE: In the report Mr. Steike, who is a 17 18 historian, Bureau of Historical Prostration, cited a 18 19 second look at thls undorafting, i.e., the Meltuse project 19 20 leads us to reach two additional comments, the effect of 20 21 whiab snggests the projocts be tenperiod fu,st, the bridge 21 22 may have an adverse effect on nearby propertins, re 22 23 National Registry of Historic Places. 23 24 Second, the ¢ity's action will need to satisfy 24 25 the requirements of Iowa Code 314.24, avoid historic sites 25 Page 94 I ffreasonablealtemativesareavadable. Audjustwbere 1 2 is that in the report? I've only got the statutory. 2 3 MS. WITZIG: All ~ letters, the letters that 3 4 you're refgaTing to are within the appendix of the 4 5 document and refer to -- 1 believe it's either in the 5 6 project description or the ultemative development process 6 7 of why the EA is being done versus the categorical 7 8 exclusion. All that documentation is m there. t 8 9 AUDIENCE: I mean, but the solution to 9 10 eddreesing the Cede 314.24, how that is done or if that is 10 11 done? 11 12 MS. WrlZIG: Well, fight now what we're doing is 12 13 a phase one and a phase two urchitectural survey that is 13 14 being coordinated through his office. We have been 14 15 working with him very closely in these past few weeks with 15 16 regards to impas~, and that is an in-draft kind of 16 17 document that will be done at the sume time as the EA. 17 18 AUDIENCE: Thank you. 18 19 MS. WITZIG: Yup. 19 20 AUDIENCE: One last question. Who polices or 20 21 oversee~ that in this ca~ BRW dce~ an acceptable job with 21 22 this environmental assessraent? What agency would that be? 22 23 MR. PRESTON: I would guess it has to do with a 23 24 number of agencies. The city, obviously, is the -- 24 25 AUDIENCE: I mean, that would have the expertise 25 Jaaot Greenwald, CSR, RPR (319) 338-0390 438 Oardon Street, Iowa City, IA 52245 ~ PRESTON: Well, the document was submitted to city, to the State Department of Transportation, to the Federal Highway Adminiatrafiou. Jeanne, help me out. are the rest of the agencies? MS. Wi'IZIG: The draft form, prior to having it released, was submitted to those agencies. Right now the document has been circulated to about thirty-five ~ different agencies, individuals that are reviewing the document. So the Iowa D.N.R., the Army Corps, Fish and Wildlife Service are reviewing it and indicating for their particular area of expertise or areas that they may be The final docisien on whether or not there's a need for an EIS and ff the document adequately addresses the environmental impms, the Federal Highway Admini~xafion is the f'mal agency that signs off on that. MR. PRESTON: After all of these other agencies have provided their cormants. MS. WlTLIG: Right. MR. PRESTON: So the document is being evaluated by, you said, thirty-five agencies, individuals? MS. WfI/_,IG: Approximately. MR. PRESTON: So it includes a broad spectrum of environmental, regulatory, and obviously the State Highway Page 9[ and Federal Highmy Administration. AUDIENCE: Could we have a list of who those agencies are -- MR. PRESTON: Is it in the document? MS. WI'IZIG: It's not in the document but it could be provided. It's public information. MR. PILESTON: Sum. AUDIENCE: Is there any difference in the amount of acee~s in the~e different alternative routes? Is it limited access -- MR. PRESTON: No. AUDIENCE: It's not limited? MR. PRESTON: No. Anybody who has a driveway there today will have a driveway there in the future. city to try to acquire rights of access to properly. So it's, you know, it's a residential arterial and, as far as (A discussion was held off the record.) AUDIENCE: One question. These qualitative assessments and instruments and so forth, is there a source of those through the Federal Government, national institutes research centers and so forth because we seem not to be able to find them? Is there some kind of a Homing - Molroso Avenu~ Mulfi-Pago m 1 souroe of these or do none of ~hem exist? 2 MR. PRESTON: I'm sorry. I mia~d your 3 question. 4 AUDIENCE: Th~se qualitative evaluation 5 insm~ts and nss~mauts and so forth that we've talked ? ~. WflT~lG: The8 ~ various fsd~al docktruants 8 ~ -- I n~m, ther~ are particul~r re. famous tha~ ! 9 mean, a~ in r~gul~tory kind of l~agu~¢ and th~ ~ere 10 ~re also other documea~s that ~ccompany thos~ ~ha~ expinin ! ! ~b~ ~n more laym~n's t~ans. He~ is wlmt ~ nmlly 12 m~ans and §oes in, issu~ ar~ by is~u~ ~rco, wh~ n~eds to 1~ be covered or should be coyertl. 14 AUDIENCB: Just as there was a list on this 1~ oth~ thin~; c. ana list b~ provided of tlgge ingrum~ts, 16 where tl~y are and what thoy are? 17 MS. WITZIO: Sure. Iraeau, that's-- they're 18 redial documents 19 MR. PRESTON: Allythin~ ¢1s07 I will stick 20 around. Woql stick around as long as you havo questions. 21 But we d like tolust break up and havo a - 22 AUDIENCE: Will the r~cord of rig court reporter 23 that's taken of this discussion lgcomo part of the 24 official r~cord? 2~ MR. PRESTON: Yes. Page 98 1 Tigre will be a ramscript provided. 2 You're welcome to stay. I don't think they're 3 going to throw us out of hero for anoth,r forty *ninute~. 4 CFlfis record of the hearing was concluded at 5 9:20 p.m.) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 ~anot Crroonwald, CSR, RPR (319) 338-0390 438 Cardon Strcog Iowa City, IA 52245 Pago 97 - Page 99 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Rock Island Field Office (ES) 4469 - 48th Avenue Court Rock Island, Illinois 61201 COM: 309/793-5800 FAX: 309/793-5804 March 24, 1995 Mr. Jeff Davidson City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mr. Davidson: This responds to the Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction Environmental Assessment (EA) distributed by BRW Inc. for the City of Iowa City. We have reviewed the subject document and offer the following comments. Due to the largely urban/developed nature of the area, only the new alignment alternative (#7) has the potential for impacts to Federal trust species, primarily migratory birds. It is likely that the impact will be simply to further fragment the wooded area, reducing its value to both resident and migratory wildlife. The Fish and Wildlife Service has, to date, not been consulted about federally threatened or endangered species, nor is a list of these species that may occur in the project area part of the subject document. Based on our knowledge of the project area, none of the alternatives will affect federally listed threatened, endangered or proposed species er their habitats. we have no other comments, or concerns at this time. Singerely, [ Field Supervisor WF:sjg TERRY E. BRANSTAD. GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES LARRY J. WILSON. DIRECTOR March 3~1, 1995 Mr. Jeff Davidson City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 RE: Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction Environmental Assessment, City of Iowa City, Iowa. Dear Mr. Davidson: The Iowa Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the Environmental Assessment for the Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction. We have searched our records of the project area and found no records of rare species or significant natural communities. While our data are not the result of thorough field surveys, based on our knowledge of the site and the project, we do not think the project will affect protected species or rare natural communities. Thus, we do not recommend further field surveys of the site. No other environmental concerns were identified during this review. This letter is a record of review for protected species and other environmental impacts of the project. It does not constitute a permit and before proceeding with the project, you may need to obtain permits from the DNR or other state and federal agencies. Thank you for inviting our comments on the impact of the above. referenced project on protected species, rare natural communities and other environmental concerns. Sincerely, i -~? .! / / LAR~Y'~I. WILSON, DIRECTOR IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES WALLACE STATE OFFICE BUILDING / DES MOINES. IOWA 503 ! 9 / 515-281.5 ! 45 / TDD 51 ~242-5967 11,22 FROM, P~G£ 2 June 9, 1995 In reply refer to RC# 920452018 Jeff Davidson, Assistant Director Department of Planning and Community Development City of Iowa City 4.10 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 RE: FHWA (DOT) - BRMM0fi6(1)-8N-$2 - JOHNSON COUNTY - IOWA CITY, IOWA - BRIDGE REPLACEMENT OVER THE IOWA INTERSTATE PAILROAD AND WIDEN MELROSE FOP, APPROXIMATELY 1000 FEET - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RECEIVED FOR ARCHITECTURAL/HISTORICAL REPORT. Dear Mr. Davidson: Titis is to acknowledge receipt of additional information requested in our letter of March 21, 1995 concerning certain properties identified in the report on historical/architectural resources that had been submitted on the above referenced project. We provide the tbllowing comments and recommendations with regard to the specific properties located within the identified area of potential effects about which our agency had asked for additional clarification or information. We costcur with the consultant's opinion that the following properties are nut eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion "A", "B", "C" ur Criterion Consideration (Exceptions) "A" - 1. S-2 309 Melrose Avenue 2. 521 Melrose Avenue 3. S-18 727 Melrose Avenue 4. S-19 741 Melrose Avenue 5. S-22 805 Melrose Avenue 6. S-25 817 Melrose Avenue 7. S-30 1009 Melrose Avenue loW,1 (.'ily, Iowa 52240 Des Moim,.~. Iowa 50319 l~.~x 372 (319) .335-3'./10 (515) 281-5111 Clernu)nt, low;} ~2135 3UN-2?-~S 11~22 ! D ~ PAG£ :3 That completes our review of the report. Should you have any questions regarding our findings and recommendation% please feel free to contact mc at (515) 281-3306. Sincerely, Lowell $. Soike, Ph,D. Historian, Community Programs Bureau CC.' Roger Anderberg, Iowa DOT, Local Systems Dan Mathis, Federal Highway Administration Randy Faber, Iowa DOT, Office of Project Planning MaryAnn Naber, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Dennis Gannon, Iowa City Engineers Office Steve Ballard, City Attorney, City of University Heights Scott Kugler. Iowa City Historic Pr~s~'rvation Commission Patricia Ohlerking, Community Programs Bureau, State Historical Society of Iowa March 21, 1995 In reply refer to RC# 920452018 Jeff Davidson, Assistant Director Department of Planning and Community Development City of Iowa City · 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 5225,0-1826 RE: FHWA (DOT) - BRM-4066(I).gN-52 - JOHNSON COUNTY - iOWA CITY. IOWA - BRIDGE REPLACEMENT OVER THE IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD AND WIDEN MELROSE FOR APPROXIMATELY 1000 FEET · ARCHITECTURALqllSTOR1CAL REPORT. Dear Mr. Davidson: We ]lave review'~l the report on historicallarchit~ctural resources submitted to our Bureau concerning thu above referenced project. We provide the following comments and recommendations, Non-eligiblu PropeRies We concur with the consultant's opinion that the following properties are not eligible tbr listing in the National Register under Criterion "A°. 'B". "C" or Criterion Consideration {Exceptions) "A" - S-I 303 Melrose Avenue S-3 315 Melrose Avenue S.4 407 Melrose Avenue S-5 421 Melrose Avenue S-7 511 Melrose Avenue S-9 ' 601 Melrose Avenue S.]0 ~)5 Melrose Avenue $-11 607 Melrose Avenue S. 12 609 Melrose Avenue S-13 1 Melrose Circle S. 15 701 Melrose Avenue S-16 707 Melrose Avenue S- 17 711 Melrose Avenue $-20 2 Melrose Court 5-21 801-O3 Melrose Avenue $-23 807 Melrose Avenue $.24 811 Melrose Avenue S.26 821 Melrose Avenue S-27 909 Melrose Avenue goat. It' brand fax Iransmittal memo {3 4{12 luwa Avenue 1ov..a City. Iowa 5~40 apitol Comk~lcx Des Moines, Iowa 51)319 /g~gl 9RI.glll Moatauk Box 372 ('h,rm~:nt. Iowa $-28 $-29 N-I N-2 N-3 1005 Melrose Avenue 1007 Melrose Avenue 1006 Melros~ Avenue modern clinlc 322 Melrose Avenue 308 Mclrosc Avenue '['ltosc findings wc give with some rcJucIance because in most ca,,es there was no explanation given for what made each properly ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places. National Regislet Eligible Proverties Tile following properties are listod in the National Register of Historic Places: 503 Melrose Avenue 629 Melrose Avenue 320MelroseAvenue Ptatt-$olgr House (listed February 3, 1973) Billingsley-Hills-Widness I louse (listed January 21, 1983) Cannon-Gay House (listed Oclobcr '7, 199~,) S. 14 N-4 Such listed properties must be reviewed under ~h¢ r~uigmems of 36 CFR Part 800. In accordance with part 800.5 whereby file Agency Official appli~ the Criteria or' Effect, it is our opinion as a consulting par~y thai. if the project's final alignment will affect any of the: eligible pwperties, the undertaking will pose an ~vctsc eff~t ~ defm~ in Pan 8~.9~)(1). It is recommended tha~ IDOT a~ F~WA initiate tM consul~tion pro~ss outl~ in Pan 8~.5(e) to s~ek ways to avoid or reduc~ the adverse effects of the project on the prope~ tn ~mulmtion wi~ our staff. ~d.~ditional Information ~r Restrob Recontmend~ At this time. we are unable ~o concur with the comulmut's opinion that ccriaiu properties fail to meet National Register criteria. More information o~ additional clarification is needed on the following properties: I. S-2 309 Melrose Avenue 2. The circa 1905 date of construction sugg~ts thai this older appearing hulldine may have been relocat~ here, perhaps as the result of hospital expansion. More information requested a.q to the possible association of thc building with paxt events. 521 Melrose Avenue 3. $-18 Based on the photograph provided, it would ap~ar that this building deserves closer examinalion as being potentially eliBible under Criterion "C' as a ralher unique interpretation of the four square. 727 Melrose Avenue It is difficult to discern the characterislics of the property from tile photocopy of the photograph provided and from the accompanying description and analysis. PAG£ ~ 4. $-22 Melrose Avenue The building ought to be examined wi,hin the con,ext of large mold-family buildings constructed in Iowa City during this era. 5. 805 Melrose Avenue The information and analysis of this Lustton house suggests [hat a ca~e might be made for it meeting Natio,~al Regis,or criteria ;onsidcration 'O". which concerns less-than- fifty-year-old buildings. The reasons cited for this property heine ineligible are kss than convincing. The conclusion reached is that "i[ does not maintain the integrity or condition that the other Iowa City Lug,tons do" (p. 26), I~ut tile basis for this finding is u,~clear. The "integrity" determinations appear to res, as much on interior as exterior features, and yet. there is no indication that similar comparative examinations were made of interiors within the other five Lustrun houses. Table 1 (p. 3?) iz~dicatcs that the property is in "good condition." Overall. we wonder, is this pml~rty perhaps eligible for Itsdog as part of a thematic group-the Luslron's of Iowa City? Lustton houses have been listed in the National Register and Iowa City seems to have a sizable number of them for a city of this size. 6. $-30 817 Melrose Avenue The consultant identifies this as "one of the oldest houses in the general area" tim, is considered to be "ineligible due to the lack of integrity." Bm apart from the integrity issue of the porch entry, what integrity is lacking? 1009 Melrose Avenue It is difficult to discern the characteristics of this building from the single photograph provided and from the sparse description and analysis. We look forward to receiving the additional information at your earlies, convenience, Should you have any quesdong regarding our findings and recommendations. please feel free tn contact me at (515) 281-3306. Sincerely, l.owull J. Soike, Ph.D. I listorian. Community Programs Bur~u Roger Anderbcrg. Iowa DOT, Local Systems Dan MathIs, Federal Highway Administratlo,t Randy Faber, Iowa DOT, Office of Project Planning D~nnis Oannon. Iowa City Engineers Office Stev~ Ballard, City Attorney, City of University Heights MaryAnn Naber, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Scott Kugler, Iowa City liistoric Preservation Commi;sion Patricia Ohlerking, Community Progr~.s Bureau, State Historical Society of Iowa n~ Mayor Don Swanson 138 Koser Ave. University Heights, Iowa 52246 May 8, 1995 Jeff Davidson City oflowa City Civic Center 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mr. Davidson: The City of University Heights is committed to its vision of maintaining the residential character, the quality of life and the safe environment of University Heights. Widening Melrose Avenue within University Heights would have a significant negative impact in all three of these Because the City of University Heights will not widen Melrose Avenue within its borders, it opposes the three and four lane bridge alternatives as plans that have negative consequences without benefits. The three and four lane alternatives all would hamper University Heights businesses by eliminating on street parking. These alternatives also would mean taking more land from private citizens for the bridge approaches than is involved under the current two lane plans. I speak not only for the council but for the overwhelming majority of University Heights' citizens. No one issue has so strongly aroused as much concern in University Heights. More citizens have attended council meetings or contacted council members about this issue than any previous topic. Almost without exception these citizens have been of the opinion that Melrose Avenue in University Heights should not be widened and a wider bridge should be opposed. Sincerely, Don Swanson Cc: Mr. Roger Anderberg, Iowa DOT Mr. Huboft A. Willard, Division Administrator, Federal Ilighway Administration Mr. Howard Preston, Senior Transportation Engineer, BRW IOWA CITY, IOWA May 8, 1995 Mr. Jeff Davidson City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Re: Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Environmental Assessment Dear Jeff: At the public hearing April 19, 1995, concerning the draft environmental assessment for the above-referenced project, Howard Preston seemed to indicate that he was unaware of the University Heights City Council's official position with regard to reconstruction of the Melrose Avenue bridge. At its regular monthly meeting February 8, 1993, the University Heights City Council unanimously adopted a resolution opposing construction of a three- or four-lane bridge. Moreover, University Heights City Council adopted a resolu- tion at its regular monthly meeting July 12, 1993, formally stating its commitment to maintain Melrose Avenue as a two-lane residential street through our coramunity. My handwritten notes indicate that these positions were communicated to Mr. Preston, Richard Nau, and Jeanne Witzig, all of BRW, Inc., when they met with Mayor Donald Swanson and me on May 5, 1994. In any event, in behalf of the City of University Heights, I hereby request that this formal position be included in the environmental assessment. Thank you for your cooperation and attention to this mat- ter. SEB:sf Very~ruly yours, LEF~ HAUPERT & TRAW Steven E. Ballard cc: Mayor and Council Members City of University Heights STATEMENT BY KARIN FRANKLIN, DIRECTOR OF P&CD, CITY OF IOWA CITY, ON THE MELROSE AVENUE STREET & BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS The purpose of the Environmental Assessment was to evaluate each of the alternatives presented by the Melrose Avenue Focus Group and determine whether there were significant adverse impacts from any of the alternatives that would warrant an Environmental Impact Statement. This information would fulfill the requirements of NEPA and assist the City Council in making its decision regarding the number of lanes and accommodations for alternative modes of transportation on Melrose Avenue. As a member of the Melrose Avenue Focus Group, I have reviewed the documents submitted by BRW, consultants for this assessment, and generally find the report to be complete, balanced, and fair in treating each of the alternatives. The report is based on recognizing that Melrose Avenue will continue to function as an arterial street within the community and will serve as a transportation corridor for many residents and visitors to Iowa City, beyond those affected in the specific project area. Balancing all of the interests involved in this project is the task of the City Council in making their final decision about the magnitude of the project. The environmental assessment evaluates the impacts of each of the alternatives and provides information to the City Council about the consequences of their decision-making. This assessment should give the Council a picture of what alternatives are clearly environmentally acceptable. One point of the report with which I disagree is the conclusion in Table S-1 under Neighbor- hood/Community Character. Alternative #1 (the No Action option) is shown as having no significant impact on University Heights. Given that this alternative ultimately results in closing the Melrose Avenue Bridge, it would seem that this consequence would have a significant adverse impact on the citizens of University Heights by impeding their access to emergency services at University Hospitals, and requiring longer trips to reach University Hospitals, the main campus and downtown Iowa City, Otherwise, I find this report acceptable in meeting the requirements of the environmental assessment process and informing the City Council bf potential impacts of the various alternatives, 629 Melrose Avenue Iowa City, IA 52246 May 6, 1995 Mr. Howard Preston BRW, Inc. c/o Jeff Davidson Assistant Director Department of Planning & Community Development 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Mr. Preston: This letter is in response to the Mekose Avenue Bridge and Street Reconstruction Environmental Assessment (EA). My comments and questions are as follows: 1. Everyone familiar with the Melrose Avenue situation knows that the widths of the street and bridge have always been centxal to the debate. This being the case, how is it possible that you would consider it appropriate to use a "one-size-fiB-all" approach in designing the street/bridge alternatives? As a example, the new 3-lane road is the same width as the new 4-lane road. This does not have to be the case, however. Dan Mathis at the FHWY indicated to us that the 3-lane road as you have proposed it is wider than necessary. According to Mr. Mathis, the standard width for shoulders/bicycle lanes is 5-6 ft., but yours are drawn at 7.7 ft. He was at a loss to explain the dimensions as proposed in the EA. Designing a road or bridge that is wider than necessary is not a cost-free option for the city, of course, since federal funds will not cover 100% of the consu-uction costs. There are other intangible costs as well, some of which will be significant. Please explain the rationale for suggesting the dimensions used in the EA. 2. There are 3 points discussed in detail in our Association statement that are important enough to warrant mentioning again here. First, I believe the scope of the study is too narrow. In her memorandum of April 28, Jeanne Witzig said that "the Area of Potential Effect (APE) includes all properties within the right-of-way construction zones, and the first tier of adjacent properties". What determined that these are the appropriate parameters to use? What constitutes the "first tier of adjacent properties"? Perhaps in some neighborhoods these parameters would be adequate, but in our particular situation, i.e., a small densely populated area, the APE as you have drawn it excludes the majorit), of the neighborhood where impacts will most assuredly be felt. In addition, I don't understand how you can make a judgment about the potential historical significance of the neighborhood as a whole by studying only one section of Melrose Avenue. The Historic Preservation Commission's Historic Preservation Platt designated a much larger portion of the neighborhood as a conservation district. Second, you stated at the April 19 hearing that you omitted the Melrose Court intersection from the intersection capacity analysis and also excluded Melrose Court from the EA in general because you were not specifically directed by city staff to do otherwise. I believe that this was a major oversight that must be addressed. Melrose Court plays a serious role in traffic movement to/from Melrose Avenue, and any analysis of the area that fails to include this street and intersection will understate the impacts on traffic flow, pedestrian safety, intersection congestion, etc. When including this intersection in the pedestrian count analysis, it is imperative that both AM and PM peak counts be performed to obtain a complete picture of the movement of pedestrians along Melrose Court. Third, the situation with respect to the numerous access points along this stretch of Melrose Avenue requires additional consideration. There are times of the day when it is exceedingly difficult to reenter traffic on Melrose Avenue from a driveway, side street or parking lot. Since you have stated that the wider alternatives will attract more waffle to the area, and since most of these access points are in close proximity to other access points, how can it be possible that it will not be more difficult to exit driveways, side streets and parking lots under the wider alternatives? 3. In the many documents that you reviewed in preparing the EA, why did you fail to consider the 1owa City Urban Environmental Policies? This document specifically addresses points included in the EA, such as the importance of buffers between land uses, and the need "to preserve and protect the unique am'ibutes of Iowa City's public and private neighborhoods". 4. When you state that the wider alternatives will armlet more traffic, does this include truck traffic? In other words, are the wider alternatives likely tc draw more large trucks to tile area from, say, Hwy. 2187 5. Why does the EA have so litfie to say on the subject of land-use changes? The notion that the city purchase the most severely affected houses along Melrose Avenue and convert them to other uses suggests that you don't perceive this to be a problem. Most of us in the neighborhood would strongly disagree. It is difficult to maintain a neighborhood's integrity when private residences are being continually cansformed into rental units, day care centers, cultural buildings or apartment complexes. The situation involving the 2 houses adjacent to the bridge is particularly worrisome. When the Dodge Street bridge on the east side of town was widened from 2 to 4 lanes, it is my understanding that the houses in the immediate vicinity of the bridge were tom down, and aparnnent buildings went up in their place. When one drives down Dodge Suee~ one notices a rather dramatic shift in character adjacent to the bridge. It is not difficult to imagine a similar situation occurring with respect to the 2 houses near the Melrose bridge, and given the pressure on the neighborhood that already exists at the east end of the street, I believe this would not bode well for the rest of Melrose Avenue. 6. In discussing the impacts to the 3 National Register properties, the EA states that "other impacts including noise, vibration, pollution and related should be reviewed as they apply to all three properties as a part of the overall engineering design and construction". What exactly does this statement mean? Surely you aren't suggesting that these impacts will occur only during the consauction phase? 7. Finally, I would like to point out that many people have always assumed that Melrose Avenue would be widened to 4 or more lanes because of its designation as an arterial street. Fortunately, the EA has highlighted the serious problems which would result from the wider alternatives. However, some individuals may still be tempted to support the 4 or 5 lane option because: 1) it represents the most significant action that can be taken, negative impacts notwithstanding, and 2) an arterial street requires significant action. I hope that you will not fall victim to that same kind of thinking but will instead bear in mind that the stateel project goals of the EA include consideration of people as well as cars. I look forward to your responses. Truly yours, May 5, 1995 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I would like to protest the action of the Iowa City Council in accepting the BRW, Inc Environmental Assessment. Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction report. It is obvious that the Council and the University have decided that they want a 4 lane arterial on Melrose Avenue without regard to the resident. s of the area. In addition to the problems caused by the construction, you have given no consideration to the destruction it would cause: · to property values in the area. · the decrease in safety caused by the close proximity of the street to homes. · the increase of ffaffic bottlenecks at intersections of Riverside Ddve and Grand Avenue, and Melrose Avenue in Univers~ Heights. · increase in the air and noise pollution of the area. · infringements on the rights and needs of the citizens of University Heights. The real ogre in this debate is the University of Iowa Hospitals. They stated that they had had the project of the new Eye Treatment Center and the accompanying parking ramp in mind for many years. That may be so, but in the same manner that they have dealt with many other Incidents, they not only failed to not~ anyone of their plans, they never gave a thought to how their expansion would affect the homes and lives of those who live around them. It is no secret that the hospital administration considers itself all powerful, and doesfit care who gets trampled in the process. For example, why did they change the entrance to the Emergency Treatment Center from its safe, less traveled location on the north side of the hospital, to the south side, where ambulances would have to travel Melrose Avenue? One of these days there is going to be a terrible accident, when an ambulance comes in during an athletic event. Since they have a new psychiatric wing, why didn't they build the new Eye Treatment Center on the site of the old Psychiatric building, which apparently has outlived its usefulness These unilateral actions by the University, aided and abetted by the Iowa City Council are examples of why people lose faith in their government, and unfortunately, at leest in one instance, resulted in the tragic events in Oklahoma City last month. Anger and laCk of faith in government does not apply solely to the Federal government. It can also apply to state or local government. In addition, what would be gained by making the Iowa City part of Melrose Avenue and the bridge 3 or 4 lanes? You would have additional traffic tie ups at the bridge and the entrance to University Heights, which would probably result in many more accidents. The people who live on and around Melrose Avenue in Iowa City and in University Heights chose those locations because they wanted to live in a quiet residential area close to schools and work. Many of them walk or ride bicycles to work, which cuts down on automobile traffic. They put up with minor evening traffic jams, and mass invasions on 5 or 6 Saturdays every fall, because the area meets their needs, and they are willing to invest in it. Don't destroy these valuable neighborhoods. Protect theml Look for and find a better solution which takes the above objections into consideration Sincerely, ,.'Jan W. Cureton 241 Koser Avenue 3 Oak Park Court Iowa City, Iowa 52246 May 6, 1995 Jeff Davidson Assistant Director Department of Planning & C~unity Development 410 East Wm.~hington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Mr. Davidson: We are writing to offer our comments on the proposed Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction project and on the Environmental Assessment prepared for this proposed project. This proposed project has the potential for significant social, economic, and envirormmntal impact. While we wish to give recognition to the work put into the City of Iow~ City's Environmental Assessment (EA), we believe that the City's EA does not sufficiently "identify and discuss all reasonable alternatives and measures which might mitigate adverse environmental i~cts" (23 c~'R 771.119). As residents of Oak Part Court, we consider Melrose Avenue and its adjoining and neighboring streets to be part of our neighborhood. The EA fails to adequately address how the contemplated traffic will impact the character of our neighborhood in its totality, including the area surrounding Melrose Avenue, the pedestrian nature of the neighborhood, and wildlife present. we believe that 'a four lane roadway (whether it is four lanes or four lanes masquerading as three lanes) will attract an ever increasing amount of traffic which will change the character of our neighborhood by introducing visual, audible and atnDspheric elements that are out of character with our neighborhood. We appreciate the primarily residential character of our neighborhood. The nonresidential elements present (aside from the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics) do not substantially detract from the residential character and in some cases support it. The current "cu~,u~rcial businesses. include day care centers whose rmise is not unpleasant. The same cannot be said for increased traffic. There is also Roosevelt Elementary school in our neighborhood. ~ne EA did not seem to address the safety issues surrounding the presence of children walking to and from school, adults taF~ng children to and from daycare, turning on and off ~;~lrose Avenue, etc. We would like the EA to address issues such as these. We also believe the proposed project will increase the amount of vehicles in the neighborhood in general. For example, vehicles frequently use (often in excess of the speed limit) Melrose Court to reach Myrtle Avenue. Please note that drivers routinely turn left from Melrose Court onto Myrtle Avenue despite a sign to t~e contrary. We would like the EA to address the impact that increased traffic on Melrose Avenue will have on neighboring streets. We believe this impact could be significant. The EA's statement that "It]he urban environment of the project area would include a minimum variety of wildlife, primarily song birds and small mammals (i.e. squirrels)" (FA p. 90) is an understat~ at best. While the project area's definition seems unclear, we frequently see a large variety of wildlife in and around our neighbofnsod. For example, we often see and/or hear owls, raccoons, opossums, woodpeckers, deer, h%a',~','."ngbirds, etc. The back of our property includes and is bordered by a ravine %fo_ich these birds and animals frequent and/or reside in. The ravine J_~cludes mature woodlands and a creek, both of which support a variety of wildlife which includes, but is not limited to, "song birds and small mammals" and the wildlife mentioned above. The increased number of vehicles and corresponding noise and air pollution will impact the wildlife and envirom~ent surrounding the proposed project. Further evaluation of the i~pact of the alternatives on the environment and wildlife along with a discussion of mitigating measures is wal~nted. We also believe that a four lane r~ad will negatively impact the property values in the neighborhood both on Melrose Avenue and on streets in the vicinity since the higher incidence of vehicles on Melrose will im~ct the traffic on side streets as well. We are concerned that families may migrate f~u~,~ our neighborhood to quieter neighborhoods with less traffic ar~ that the proposed project will drive purchasers away frc~ our neighborhood, thereby resulting in less owner occupied dwellings and in a deterioration of the neighborhood. We are also puzzled by the lack of attention given to where the traffic will go once it reaches University Heights. We are not aware of any plans to increase the width of Melrose Avenue in University Heights, and it seems to us that the proposed project will resort in a bottleneck at University Heights. It would seem beneficial for the City of Iowa City and University Heights to work jointly towards resolving Melrose Avenue issues. In summation, we believe that any sort of four lane road and bridge and traffic resulting from the same (plus the incr~n~=~ noise and di~nis,hing air quality) would diminish the integrity of our neighborhood, the individual homes within our neighborhood, and adversely impact the residential and pedestrian character of our neighborhoed. We ~uld, however, support the solution proposed by the Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association--that is a true 3 lane bridge and true 3 lane road. We also strongly believe that University should participate in resolving Melrose Avenue issues by utilizing its assets (e.g. property) to address the matter which it has created. Sincerely, Mary M. Murphy and GREGORY KOVACINY 521 Clark Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-5617 voice: h.319-338-0655 w.319-356-5206 FAX 319-356-5494 May 4, 1995 Jeff Davidson, Transportation Planner Johnson County Council of Governments/City of Iowa City Civic Center/410 East Washington Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Jeff, I am writing as a concerned citizen and dedicated bicyclist in support of Melrose Avenue and Bridge Reconstruction Alternative 3 with possible variations I will outline in this letter. As a 20-year resident of Iowa City, a charter member of Bicyclists of Iowa City (founded 1976), and a member of the Longfellow Neighborhood, I am concerned that some of the options (Alternatives 5 and 6 with 4 close behind) put forth for Melrose Avenue and Melrose bridge reconstruction have a high potential for damaging the character of that neighborhood as well as exacerbating traffic and safety problems in the area instead of reducing them. Neighborhoods are fragile entities, and careful efforts must be made to preserve their unique qualities so important to making Iowa City the positive community it is. Alternatives 4-5-6 should be dismissed for the reasons put forth clearly and candidly by the Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association. To have significant lane expansions for a 112 mile corridor only to be pinched down at the bridge and at the Fieldhouse/Law School area can only add to problems. Regarding Alternative 4--an important distinction to make is that the 4-lane roadway Option B with the wide outside lanes generally works very well for bicyclists. If this corridor were to extend for a greater length without the pinch points at either end which currently exist, I would recommend this as the best option. However, again given the pinch points, this option throws bicyclists, as it does cars, into a squeeze play roadway space--conflicts and potential accident situations will arise for other than the most experienced and road-savvy cyclists. Alternative 3, the New Two Lane Bridge and Three Lane Road appears to solve some of the current problems, recognizes and makes provision for the significant bicycling that occurs in this area, and minimizes damage to the area as mentioned above. Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association has addressed many positive aspects of this Alternative, so I will concentrate on the bicycling component. (A brief aside regarding the bridge--if a "True Three Lane Bridge" as recommended by Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association is done, it would help left-turning maneuvers but would presumably not have dedicated space for bicyclis*.s as is suggested for the rest of the corridor by Option 3. If true width bike lanc~ were added (min. 5 feet) this would appear to open the future possibility of turning the bridge into a 4 lane bridge. As 1 mention later, dropping bike lanes suddenly is not a good idea. Comments in this paragraph should be kept in mind while reading the rest of my letter). As all parties have noted. none of the Alternatives are really ideal, and traffic problems will not be solved with any of them, although from my perspective I see Alternative 3 as offering the most potential for a "all- win" situation. There are also problems with Alternative 3 which I would like to address. and offer some solutions in the hopes they ,gill be considered as perhaps Alternative 3A. These suggestions would make Alternative 3 an even safer ;}roposal, particularly as it applies to bicycle users. Letter from Gregory Kovaciny to Jeff Davidson re.' Melrose Avenue. 5-4.95 Alternative 3 calls for shoulders of 7.7 feet, which are indicated as being striped bicycle lanes. As you know, AASHTO minimum width is 5 feet for bike lanes. I am a proponent of going above minimums where needed and where space is available. Somewhm wider bike lanes provide greater "comfort leve!" for less experienced cyclists. I appreciate the consideration given bicyclists in this Alternative. If striped bicycle lanes are ultimately decided upon, the 10.8 thru lane could be increased to 12 feet and the bicycle lane safely narrowed accordingly and still be above AASHTO guideline minimums. Of great concern to me is the safety impact STRIPED bike lanes will have on bicycling in this particular corridor. As one of the Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association documents mentions, there are "more than 30 driveway and side street access points along the project corridor." Areas with numerous intersections are not well-suited to bicycle lanes. The Rohret Road bike lane project, for example, has very few intersections involved, which make striped bike lanes a reasonable choice in that corridor. In the Melrose area, striped bike lanes would have a number of potential problems. Most novice or intermediate bicyclists are reluctant to leave the striped area of the bike lane and merge when making left turns--consequently they turn directly across the lane of same direction traffic at a 90 degree angle, instead of properly merging into the traffic lane to make their left turn. This situation can be reduced in part by using the recognized standards of either removing the solid line or changing solid stripes to dashed lines within 50 feet of an intersection. Both are listed in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). However, this will not address the need for bicycle left turn maneuvers mid-block, such as intersections only on the opposite side of the street. Less experienced cyclists see the solid line as meaning they must stay within it. Cars making right turns do essentially the same and turn from their inside lane position directly across the path of the striped bike lane, instead of merging to the right-most part of the roadway and then turning right. This would most likely occur at the numerous driveways. A case could be made that because the bike lane line is solid, motorists are theretbre not allowed to turn into driveways, or bicyclists allowed to turn left except at major intersections. Obviously this would cause problems. And, as you know, when bike lanes are empty, cars stay out of them, which prevents the natural "sweeping" action along the curb area and requires additional and regular maintenance of the bike lanes to prevent build~ up of debris from becoming a riding hazard. In a busy area such as the Melrose corridor, this becomes an even more important issue than areas with bike lanes and lesser traffic/pedestrian/bicycle levels. Also, the concept of "bus bays" introduced in neighborhood documents combined with striped bicycle lanes would appear to be conflicting uses of tile roadway space. This should be examined more closely. These problems would not be as probable with a "wider thru lane"--meaning 13-14 feet. Lanes of this width are still narrow enough not be "squeezed" into a second traffic lane, but are quite shareable by cars and bikes simultaneously. This is a design concept recognized and utilized successfully by bicycle planners. The "hybrid bicycle lane" design is a newer idea which should be given serious consideration if it is felt some sort of' street markings are necessary. for bicyclists. The "hybrid bike lane" is being tried in a number of locations in the U.S. with good results from my understanding The Bicycle Federation of America or Bicycle Forum can provide you with details and locations where this sort of facility is in use. It is a combination of the wide lane/bike lane concepts. In this facility there are no striped lines painted, but instead in the right most area bicycle graphics are painted on the street along with the inclusion of the MUTCD bike lane "diamond" indicators, and signage indicating presence of bicycles. Motorists are also instructed to merge to the right (as is usually the case in non-bike lane right turns) into the "hybrid" space, as bicycle traffic allows, to make their right turns. I have ridden good examples of striped w/dashed bike lanes with the right turn motor vehicle merge in Madison, and see the logic as sound. Letter frotn Gregory Kovaciny to Jeff Davidaon re: Melrose Avenue - 5-4-95 If it is felt that some sort of physical demarcation is necessary for the "bicycle area," then perhaps "dashed lines" (which, as I mention above, are one option regularly used in bike lanes 50 feet prior to street intersections) should be considered for the entire facility. This would give bicyclists "their space." and still acknowledge and "allow" that the bicyclist needs to exit that area for left turning or hazard avoidance moves, and also that the right turning motor vehicle will be "allowed" to enter the space, in-turn, at intersections and driveways, though not as a general motor traffic lane. The above approaches (wide lane. hybrid lane, dashed lane throughout) involve more natural traffic maneuvers. and still recognize the needs and safety requirements of bicyclists of the intermediate and experienced rider categories (FHWA Design Bicyclist designations) currently using this roadway, and most likely to continue using a reconstructed Melrose corridor. An added concern to having striped bicycle lanes versus some other bicycle treatment in this 1/2 mile corridor is what happens at the Grand Avenue/Grand Ave. Court/Byington area, and at the other end, the Melrose Bridge?? Do the bicycle lanes abruptly end? Restriping of Melrose west of the bridge would be possible for bike lanes, although probably not necessary with the current lane widths west of the bridge. Looking at the other end of this corridor, bike lanes should definitely NOT be added to the Grand Avenue/Burlington or Byington Nil/Burlington areas. With the constant dorm bus traffic/bus stops on the one hand, and the steep downhill on the other, these are not suitable traffic situations for bike lanes. Bicyclists using this area need to have as much of the roadway as necessary in the given circumstance to ride safely. Having bicycle lanes along a roadway suddenly end sends a confusing message to bicyclists, and itself becomes a potential conflict point between motor vehicles and bicycles. As far as the concern about bicyclists using a wide sidewalk area directly adjacent to the roadway, this option should be removed from consideration. All major bicycling organizations are opposed to separate bicycle facilities adjacent to the roadway--they simply cause too many conflicts between user types. particularly at intersections. Ill recall correctly. adjacent bicycle sidewalk facilities might also jeopardize certain funding possibilities. The European model does not work in this situation. There will be riders who. for whatever teason, are not comfortable on *any* street facility, no matter how exemplary. and will ride on the sidewalk, but th~s should not he designed in. Given proper width, recognition (such as bike lanes. "wide thru lane" or "hybrid lanes"), and informative signage, a large percentage of bicyclists find riding in the street "comfortable" and quite doable. And, as you koow. most urban bicycle accidents are not the "hit-from-behind" type, but occur at intersections and driveways. On this point, the design of the intersection should not be made more difficult to move through safizly. These are added indicators that striped bike lanes do not offer the flexibility needed in this corridor, and a solution such as one of those mentioned above which allow proper merging of bicyclists and motorists in the roadway space is a more logical choice. Thank you for giving these ideas consideration. Please forward these comments to the consultants working un this project. It is important to preserve the character of the Melrose Avenue area. To construct MORE than 3 traffic Fanes with either wide thru lanes or shoulders for bicycle use and pedestrian sidewalks would be permanently detrimental to the area, and consequently. to the City as a whole Alternative 3 i~ ~he best of the choices presented. and could he made safer with consideration of the above ideas. Considering and including bicycles ~n whatever construction plan is finally decided is important. Please let me know if you need any clarification on any of the ideas I have put forth in this letter. Yours truly, Planner, Michael Harrington. file:melr5045.1et FRIENDS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION P.O. Box 2001, Iowa City, Iowa S2244 7 May 1995 Jeff Davidson City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Jeff, While the Board of Friends of Historic Preservation does not feel it understands all of the implications of the proposed options for widen- ing Melrose Avenue and does not wish to state a position at this time, the Board does have concerns. We would like to ask the City to take into consideration how the various options would impact the three houses that are on the National Register of Historic Places. There are, of course, other significant houses on Melrose Avenue and on surrounding streets that will also be impacted by whatever decision is made, but we are particularly concerned about the National Register properties. Best wishes, Paula Brandt President ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS/QUESTIONS I wish to offer the following written comments/questions on the proposed Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction project. Address: Please submit your titten comments at the meeting or send them to: Jeff Davidson City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (319)356-5252 Comments must be received by May 8, 1995. I1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS/QUESTIONS I wish to offer the following written comments/questions on the proposed Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction project. I find the EA on the Melrose Avenue Bridge & Street project deficient in the following areas: 1. There is no "real" three-lane bridqe option offered; despite BRW's explanation, I question if this proposed bridge for three lanes need be so wide~ 2. The intersection of Melrose Ave. & Melrose Court is virtually iqnored; this fits nicely with the fact that the problem of pedestrians is Qiven barelv more attention. I don't understand why the aj~thnritieq ~eem to be waiting for an accident to h~ppen before they are willing to see this problem; 3. By limitinq the scope of the EA to just the properties immediately adjacent to Melrose Avenue, BRW has missed the whole concept of the neiqhborhood as the residents see and live it~ 4. Alternate 7 seems to have beeodesigned to make it appear unattractive; orevious suqqestions' for this type of by-pass placed it in less fraqile terrain; also, no consideration seems to have been qiven to the idea of pairing Alternate 7 with one, or more, of the other alternatives to ascertain what longer- ranqe solution this "pairinq" miqht provide. 4. In the cate(lory of pettiness, I f'ind BRW's mislabeling of certain institutions, e.g., Roosevelt, the Law college, & two church-owned preperties, as an example of how thorough a job it did or didn't do. Name: Thomas Baldri dge Address: 306 Melrose Court Date: 6 May 1995 Please submit your written comments at the meeting or send them to: Jeff Davidson City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (319)356-5252 Comments must be received by May 8, 1995. May 5, 1995 Mr. Jeff Davidson Assistant Director, Deparlxnent of Planning & Community Development, 410 East Washington Slxeet, Iowa City, IA 52240 re. Questions & Concerns on Melrose street and bridge EA Dear Mr. Davidson: I am responding to the call for public comments on the environmental assessment of the Melrose street and bridge reconstructian project being done by BRW, Inc. of Minneapolis, MN. I have the following concerns and questions that I would like BRW to respond to and to address in their final EA report. In their report on the area's architectural history entitled, "Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconsmcfion: A Phase I and II Architectural History Survey", BRW shows a map of the Iowa City in which the area of the project corridor is shown (map on p 11, see enclosed enlargement of this map). The area shown is a rectangle, the long axis of which runs parallel to Melrose Avenue where the street and bridge reconslxuction is to take place. The ends of the long east-west axis showing the project area are the exact ends of the project (i.e., the bridge at the east border with University Heights and the Univ. of Iowa Law School where Melrose Avenue meets Byington Avenue). The narrow north-south axis swaddling Melrose Avenue itself is asymme~ic in that the area of the rectangle includes approximately 3 times as mugh area to the north of Melrose as it does to the south. Why does the rectangle include such a large area to the north of Melrose and such a small one to the south? Anyone acquainted with this area knows that it is the University of Iowa with its many buildings which lies to the north. They also know there is no historical building on this site with the possible exception of the original gothic portion of UIHC. (This by the way is never mentioned in the EA.) Because the changes being proposed for the s~'eet and bridge will have significant long term impacts on the adjoining neighborhoods, it makes no sense to include such a large part of the University to the north and so little of the Melrose Neighborhood to the south and so little of University Heights neighborhood to the west. These two areas are where potential smactares of historical significance reside, not to the north. This being the case, shouldn't the areas investigated in these two neighborhoods be enlarged from the area's architectural history standpoint, and from all other standpoints in the environmental assessment? If not, why not? There are 3 houses on Melrose Circle which were built in the 1920's (numbers 4.5, and 6) which are only 50-75 feet below where the rectangle is drown that I believe should be considered as residences with potential for being considered on the National Historic Register. In addition, since these structures are on a cul-de-sac whose only access is on to Melrose Avenue, shouldn't these three structures on Melrose Circle be included in the EA? Shouldn't other regions of the neighborhood also be included? One of the reasons that an EA is being done is so that the City will be eligible to receive federal highway funds for the reconstruction project. With all the ongoing building being done by the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics on their new buildings along Melrose, is it possible that what they are building will have an environmental impact on the neighborhood from many standpoints, e.g., noise, sound, visible presence, etc.? It seems wrong to me to be building something before a decision has been arrived at with respect to whether or not building the street and bridge will have a significant impact on the area. Should the University and UIHC be required to stop all new and present construction in the project corridor until a decision on the Melrose reconstruction project has been completed? If not, why not? Does the fact that they are a recipient of federal funds add additional weight with respect to why the University and UIHC should be required to stop all present construction until a decision has been made? If the source of funding for the construction is relevant in terms of whether construction may continue. during.the EA process, this issue should be carefully scrulh'xized by requiring the University to clivul[e their.sources of this fun.&.'ng. As a state institution, shouldn't the sources of th~s funding be made pubbe anyway so as to remove any element of public distrust? With the new UIHC structures having a hard surface facade so close to the street, and with more structures planned for the future, it would seem that noise along the street would be accentuated in the areas along the street wherever these building exist. I live directly across the street from the Pomerantz Pavilion (formerly referred to as the "Final Phase") and I am impressed that street noise in our home is greater now that the Pomerantz Pavilion is nearly complete. Was this factor of reverberated noise evaluated in the EA? Based on the EA itself and long range plans of the University, it seems that the section of the Melrose street project between South Grand Avenue and Byington Avenue has the greatest excess of proposed roadway width relative to what is needed given the existing and future traffic predictions. Have you considered this in your plans for this section of the street? If this is true and if the City concurs and goes along with these plans, this section of road will become a dead end. I perceive this as having positive aspects for the 4 day care centers in this area and the Boyd Law School On the other hand, it will have an adverse effect for those few remaining private residences on Grand Avenue Court. How should this situation be dealt with in terms of the EA for the street portion of the Melrose project? I look forward to responses to these questions in the final report you will be providing to Iowa City City Council in the very near future. Yours truly, John A. Widness encl. enlarged map of EA study area for architectural history copy. Lowell Soike, Ph.D., State Historical Society of Iowa MAY 6, 1995 Mr. Howard Preston BRW, Inc. c/o Jeff Davidson Assistant Director Department of Planning and Community Development 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Mr. Preston: In regard to the Environmental Assessment of Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction Project, I wish to make the following statement. I find it inconceivable that the impact of changes to Melrose Avenue upon Melrose Court was not even given consideration. In view of the long history of concern about the traffic on Melrose Court, and the various efforts that have been made to make that traffic avenue safe for motor vehicle and the heavy pedestrian traffic to and from the school, nursing home complex and park, this is like putffng ones head in the sand. Melrose Court is the ONLY access to the south between Riverside Drive on the east and George Street in University Heights, on the west. Melrose Court, was built for a court and Is only 18-19 feet wide. Back in 1978 when a solution to this traffic problem were being considered, the traffic counts made by the City Engineering Department confirmed there were between 2500 and 3000 cars a day using that street. Closing the street totally was not successful, but limited turning options at the intemection of Myrtle, Melrose Court and Greenwood, stop signs, and improvements on Grand Avenue and Byington intersection have helped to discourage cut through traffic from the south to the University Hospital complex. Many of us now use the south access via Benton Street rather than get into the Melrose Avenue traffic. Widening Melrose to three lanes would be of help to all the traffic moving in all directions, I think we could all agree. However widening Melrose will increase traffic, ( this was said In your report, as well as all other studies made in previous years), along with the University building going on, and there seems to be no concern about how that increased traffic will get out. With barriers at Riverside Drive on the east, and 2 lane road through University Heights, it seems obvious to me that many people will choose to escape via Melrose court. Are we to anticipate 3000 cars a day on our 18 foot street? This seems to me to be a significant question, and not one to be Ignored as though it doesn't exist. To pretend that the neighborhood does not exist beyond the first row of houses on Melrose, is absurd. This is a pleasant and interesting cluster of houses, built to accomodate the town and gown nature of this area. and has served this well. It is currently inhabited by many families who benefit from living near to the University Hospital complex. Excessive widening of Melrose Avenue and ignoring the traffic affect on Melrose Court gives a clear message that this neighborhood has no meaning or value. From reading the Environmental Assessment and listening to the comments about the restrictions placed by the city on what you were to consider, it seems dear that the purpose of your efforts was to make $ report that would give the answers that were wanted, and to meet the requirements for such a report. A thorough and honest consideration of the issues was not desired, flor was it given. ' -Elizal~, th B.~ McKray ' . 603q~rookland Park Drive, Iowa City, 52246 Mad Address: 410 Melrose Court Iowa City, Iowa 52246 April 24, 1995 BRW, Inc. c/o Mr. Jeff Davidson City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 To whom it concerns: ! am writing to cmnmcnt on the Environmental Assessment for the Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction Project. My interest in the outcome of your study stems from my involvement in the Melrose Avenue community: I am a homeowner on Melrose Court, and one of my children attends Melrose Day Care Center. I use Melrose Avenue as a driver, pedestrian, bicyclist and bus-rider. It is clear that the Melrose Avenue bridge must be rebuilt and that Melrose Avenue must be improved. The environmental ~scssment will be instrumental in aiding comnmnity Ic~dcrs in their decision making. HoweveL there are several features of the ~se~ment in its present form that are lacking, especially the omission of Melrose Court from the study. The omission of Melrose Court from the discussion of the impact of ~ widened Melrose Avenue is g serious defect. Melrose Court, g narrow street, is the only through street south of Melrose Avenue between Koscr ~nd ~versidc Drive. Increased circulation on Melrose Avenue will have ~ big impact on Melrose Court. ~om the tra~c flow peak PM rates in Table 10, it would appear that curre~tly appro~mately 100 of the nearly 800 cars traveling c~tward during the evening rush hour(s) are lost between Hawkins Drive and South Grand Averam, presumably because they have turned onto Melrose Court. As indicated in sevcr~ plies in the document, an increde in the number of lanes will increde the number of vehicles per day on Melrose Avennc beyond the projected increde in traffic on a two lane Melrose Avenue. One ~so ~sumcs that traffic on Melrose Court will increde commensurately, given that the bottlenecks at ~verside Drive and University Heights arc unchanged. page 2 April 24, 1995 Partial pedestrian counts from Melrose Court were obtained at Intersection 3 and are shown in Table 1. Apart from the Riverside Drive intersection, the number of pedestri- ans southbound from the Mekose Avenue-South Grand Avenue intersection is by far the largest. While the Riverside Drive crossing has a pedestrian bridge, the mid-block cross- ing at Melrose Court is currently unregulated for through traffic. More than two lanes of moving traffic would present a tremendous hazard to crossing pedestrians. Given this, it is not at all clear that the three lane road option will have a beneficial impact on pedestrian safety. In several sections of the assessment, the statement is made that the current roadway does not adequately accommodate bicycles and pedestrians. I woi~ld argue that the current hazard to bicyclists is due to the poor level of maintenance of the road, not due to anything intrinsic to the two lane configuration as it is now. Pedestrians would be better served with both southside and northside walkways. One does not need to widen the road to add sidewalks to the north side of the road. Increasing the road width to the equivalent of four lanes, whether or not it is striped for three lanes of cars, would qualitatively change the character of the Melrose Avenue neighborhood. In addition, the projected increase in traffic volume for the three, four and five lane alternatives would degrade the quality df life in the ne,ghborhood, affecting more than just the residents along Melrose Avenue. I am concerned that these qualitative factors were not adequately addressed in the environmental assessment. Sincerely, Mary Hall Reuo Jeff Davidson City of Iowa City 410 East Washington St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 1 Melrose Circle Iowa City, Iowa 52246 May 4, 1995 Dear Sir: As a resident of the Melrose Avenue Neighborhood, I have concerns regarding the Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction Environmental Assessment. Each day many pedestrians cross Melrose Avenue. It is already difficult to cross the street at almost any time of the day and especially so during peak traffic times. The crossing surely will be more difficult and dangerous with a wider road. Will crosswalks and stop lights be included in the project? Access to Melrose Avenue by automobile is also difficult. To make a left turn onto Melrose Avenue from Melrose Circle or any of the other side streets and driveways takes time and patience now. Widening Melrose Avenue will make a left turn virtually impossible. Will we then have to turn right onto Melrose Avenue and travel a distance before we can eventually turn left? Thirdly, why are the bridge and street proposals wider than necessary? Surely constructing a true narrower Mane bridge and road would be less costly to build and maintain. This is an important item for all taxpayers. Thank you for considering my concerns. Yours very truly, Carole J. Moore Comnunity Betterment Bulletin Published by Community Press 362 Koser Avenue IC-UH, IA 52246-3038 319/337-7578 Iowa CityPlanning/JCcog (Jeff Davidson, Karen Franklin) BRW Inc. of Minneapolis (Howard Preston) c/o City Hall Iowa City, IA 52240 8 May 1995 [EA-C~. 178] Dear Colleagues, Please find attached comments on the Iowa City-BRW Inc. Melrose EA. The fact is that we have had a computer breakdown and have not been able to get our final copy out of the "machine" and I have to provide preliminary drafts and old copies of Bulletins. But, the content of the various articles is the important thing and that is what you have. Please find attached, which makes up the entire stat~nt of questions and inquiries, a series of Community Betterment Bulletins. If you need any interpretation please do not hesitate to call on me. We expect to publish complete set of Bulletins in the next 30 days and ! we would be pleased to take your orders for san~. It is requested that the Bulletin not be reprinted or copied without permission. We would be pleased to receive your order for the full publication and I will send you an order form. Let me close thanking everyone at Iowa City City Administration and BRW Inc. for their cooperation and assistance. ce , ~oh/nCe. Nisb ttt~ Vol. I, 1993 No. 5, Alternatives for Melrose No. 8, Rating Scale No. 9, Melrose Dilemma No. 16, Scoping Committee Report Vol. III, 1995 5 April, 16 Point EAby CBB 12 April, H~eow~ers-Neighbors 15 April, Heights CCMeeting 19 April, Look at Options; Disappointment 8 May, Final Note on Failed BRW InCo cc: UH-CC, Rep. Leach; U.S. and Iowa - Des Moines; BRK-PRK; MANA; ROOS; UHCO Saturday, April 3, 1993 Newsstan~ Melrose-UHeights Community Bul letin , Melrose- UHeights Co~m~nity Bulletin * , Vol. I, No. 5, Saturday, April 3, 1993 * · Serving - City of University Heights, Melrose Cowanunity, WEST Iowa City * , "telling readers what is going and why" · Published and Copyrighted by Community Press * · ~ditor-Reporter: John Nesbitt, C-Press, 362 Koser Ave. -- 319/337-7578 * · University Heights, IA 52246-3038 - ~) reprint/copy without permission * · ********************************************************************* [ALT. 146] In ~is Issue L SPECIAL =- Part I in a Series on Alternatives and Options Alternatives to the Proposed Iowa City-UIHospital Thoroughfare: Part I: The Belgum, Weber, Hawkins, Good, and Northwest Passage Options 2. iCl'U'I~ospital Buffer Zone With Melrose Residence, Classic Case ... Incom- patible Functions...In.a.d. quate Buffe~ Z. one, urban Planner Karen Countryman 3. IC-CUHeights Boundary Disput.e.: Nate Moore Reports Paying Taxes to Iowa City for Property Owned on West Side of Melrose Bridge 4. U-H-C-O and M.A.N.A. Meet: U-H-C-O Plans Traffic Count, Letter Campaign, Fund Raising; and, M.A.[~A. Di---~usses Street Plans, EIS, Legal Options 5. SPECIAL -- No. 1 in a Series on Documents A Mandate and A Shield for Iowa City Neighborhood ... The 1985 Ii)wa City Urban Enviroment Policies ... Neighborhoods [excerpts] Special -- Part I in a series on Alternatives and Options Alternatives to the Proposed Iowa City-UIHospital Thoroughfare: Part I, The Belgu~, Weber, ~awkins, Good, and Northest Passage Options Series: This is the first in a series of articles on alternatives to the Iowa City-UIHospital Thoroughfare. For decades professional architects, engi- neer's and planners with Iowa City, UIowa, UIHosptial and JC-COG have dictated building, road and develop~mnt plans for community and campus at large. The amateurs of many neighborhoods can provide alternatives and options using their co~m~unity values, com~ons sense, imagination, leisure time and personal resources. These amateur options may be helpful to planning. From the West. The options suggested below route UIHospital traffic from the northwest, west and southwest. They serve UIHospital and preserve two neighborhoods, Melrose Community in Iowa City and City of University Heights. Traffic Central. A UIHospital "Traffic Central" is created where Hawkins Drive and Kinnick Stadium Lane meet. At Traffic Central drivers may go to a series of parking sites and hospital entrances (additional parking and entran- ces are also located in back of the hospital). Telecom*USA Map. Readers may use the color map of Iowa City in the Telecom*USA (black cover) telephone book to trace the options cited. Option 1--~eDavidBelgumArterial Rev. David Belgum, former Mayor of University Heights and UI-Hospital Chaplain, has reintroduced a 1970s proposal. At Melrose Ave. and Emerald, bring a four-lane road north around the University Heights and Melrose Cobraun- ity to stadium Lane to Traffic Central. (See eelg~ Letter of Nov. 17, 1993). Optio{~ ~ The Irving Weber Railroad Arterial Iowa City's pr~ier historian and street plan expert, Irving Weber, pro- poses that at the intersection of Mormon Trek a~ the Rai~lroad Line (just south of Highway 6), bring a new road alongside the railroad cut to the parkieg lot to the Kinnick Stadium Lane to Traffic Central. Optiolab. The lrvingWeber RailroadArterial fromMax Hawkins Drive Come off Highway 6 to Hawkins Drive and make a new road south to the Railroad Line/cat, follow the new Weber Road to the parking lot, then to Kinnick Stadium Lane to Traffic Central. optios 3 -- Tke Stanley Good Mon~nn-Trek Park-Shuttle Sl,stem Former Unversity Heights City Councilor and Ulowa Social Work Faculty Member Stanley Good proposes that UIHospital staff and students use a Mormon Trek Parking Lot west of Mormon Trek (south of Hawkeye Apart.~ents) and Shuttle to/from UIHospital. Staff should share-a-ride to the Mormon Trek lot. The Park-Shuttle plan would free space at Traffic Central for patients/visitors. Option 4 -- Northwest Passage Arterial Option This option would bring traffic from the northwest and west to Highway 6, off Highway 6 directly south to UI-Hospital Taffic Central via: a. Max Hawkins Drive (a new road direct to Traffic Central), b. Newton Road (a new section of road to Traffic Central), or c. Veterans Road (new road through the VA Parking Lot to T-Central). Readers Ideas Welcomed. Readers are invited to submit ideas, proposals and suggestions on alternatives and options to the IC-UIHospital Thoroughfare. See the Masthead for the Bulletin address and telephone nu~r. ~ IC-UIHospital Buffer Zone With Melrose Hasidenee, '~lassic Case .. Incom- patible Functions..Inadguate Buffer Zone," Urban Plan~er Karen Countr~ INTERVIEW, March 29, 1993: Karen S. Countryman, THE COUNTRYMAN GROUP, B.A., Master of Urban Planning at New York University, practicing planner since 1968, regional, county, and city: Westchester County and New York City; Summit County, Towns of Frisco and Silver Thorne, Colo.; and, Southwest Illinois Regional Planning Co~mission. To contact Ms. Countryman, call 319/354-3749. Bulletin: Is the distance of UIHosptial from Melrose houses adequate? Countryman: There is a planning concept called"performance zoning," that means incompapitable functions such as businesses and residences can be in proximity to one another if there is an adequate buffer zone between them. The UIHospital business with cars and ambulances and the Melrose residen- cies with children playing, pedestrians and cyclists present a classic case in planning of incompatible functions seperated by an inadquate buffer zone. Bulletin: How doesperformance zoning work in the Melrose situation? Countryman: The right of way (sidewalks, streets, and buffer areas) between UIHosptial and the Melrose Avenue residents as proposed is very lim- ited. In order to protect the residents and pedestrians we need wide sidewalks, wide areas between the sidwalk and street for plantings, and so on until pedestrians, especially children, walkers, and cyclists can walk and r{de comfortably and safely. The way the Eye Clinic and other buildings are located on Melrose Avenue, the provision of a sidewalk, four-lanes, and a sidewalk does not allow for an adequate landscape buffer to seperate the 'business" from the "residence." Bulletin: Is there any solution to the performance zoning problem? Countryman: The primary solutions are: 1o to divert traffic off Melrose, bringing traffic in and taking traffic out by other roadways; and, 2. to develop some type of service road within the UIHospital complex, which serves as a feeder to all hospital services. 3. IC-CUHeights Boundary Dispute: Nate M~ore R~orts Paying Taxes to Iowa City for Property Moore Owns on West Side of M~Irose Bridge UNI~I~Y HEIGHTS, Iowa, Melrose Bridge. Nate Moore, former Mayor of the City of University Heights and owner of the building that houses UHeights's four comnercial and professional enterprises, stated on March 28, 1993, "I have been paying property taxes to Iowa City on land I own west of the Melrose Bridge for many years because that la~ is in Iowa City." The Moore statement contradicts the understanding expressedby City of University Heights officials at the March 25, 1993, City Council meeting. (See Bulletin, March 27, 1993, page 3, "No. 3. UHeights City Council.") Officials of the City of UHeights have considered the '~oundary Dispute" to be a signifi- cant barrier to Iowa City's plan to build a four-lane thoroughfare starting with the Melrose Bridge. The critical guestion in the dispute is, "Is the land immediately west of the Melrose Bridge in Iowa City or University Heights?" If the land i~=diate- ly west of the existing Melrose Bridge is in the City of University Heights then Iowa City can not proceed with the construction of the proposed Melrose Bridge without the City of University Heights agreeing to and signing an Iowa Code Chapter 28E, Joint Exercise of Governmental Powers agreement. (1) How- eve----~, if Iowa City owns the disputed land then ~owa City can build the bridge on that land without a "28~' and without concurrence bf the City of UHeights. (1) The Iowa Code 28E agreement is an agreement between any two public authorities (city, county, state, or an Iowa agency with the U.S.) on a joint activity such as an agreement for construction or for services° The City of UHeights City Council has directed CUHCityAttorney Steve Bal lard to investigate the boundary situation. Attorney Bal lard had not ren- dered an opinion to the CUHeights City Council as of March 25,1993o 4o U-H-C-Oand M.A.N.A. Meet: U-H-C-O Plans Traffic Count, Letter Campaign, Fund Raising; and, M2~N.A. Discusses Street Plans, ElS, 5egal OptfoPs UNIYF~IT~ HEI(~qTS, Iowa, Melrose Avenue. The Steering Committee of the University Hei9hts' C~unity Organization met Sunday, Mar. 28, at 1~24 Melrose Avenue (the Gannon Residence), to review their traffice count project, letter campaign, and fund raising activities; and, the members of MoA.N.Ao met Monday, Mar. 29, 1993, at 701 Melrose Avenue at the Melrose Day Care Center, where they reviewed plans for UI-UIHospital street and construction plans, the need for an Environmental Impact Statement, and legal options. For Information: Call M.A.N.A.: 319/354-4171; and, U-H-C-O: 319/338-6882. Special Series -- Number 1 in a Series of/on Do~ts [THP~147,3] A Mar,~ate ar~ A Shield for Io~ra City Neighborhcxx]s -1985 iowa City Urban Enviro~ntal Policies -. Neighborhoods" (1) Introduction. This is excerpted from the official "Iowa Ci~t Urban Envi- ronmental Policies ... Neighborhoods .... " The concepts and principles em- braced by Iowa City serve all neighborhoods as a mandate to maintain, preserve and enhance the quality of neighborhoods and neighborhood life; and, as a safeguard and shield from those co~nercial, developer, publi~ and private agencies, institutions and forces which would degrade, demean or destroy the gual ity of neighborhoods a~d. neighborhood 1 ire. "I.Co Urban Environment Policies ... The features which make the City of Iowa City such an attractive place to live and work have been identified and it has been determined that the following elements are of importance when consi- dering what features of Iowa City should be protected an.d.. preserved: "1. Iowa City is a very special city combining many of the benefits of small town livin9. with the cultural and recreational opportunities of a large metropolitan area. "2. A number of elements both natural and constructed, contribute to the atmosphere of this community, and it is important to protect and preserve these elements. "3. These elements include not only natural features but also neighbor- hoods, scenic vistas, entranceways to Iowa City, public areas and buildings. "4. These elements and the interaction between these elements provide a sense of community and integrity to the City and contribute to the general aesthetic and visual impression projected by the City. "5. The econcemic and social welfare of Iowa City is sustained and enhan- ced by the sense of community and aesthetic values provided by the natural and constructed environment .... "Buffer Areas and Open Space, Definition and Rationale for Preservation: Buffers between land uses, such as commercial and residential ... serve to screen one use from another, and help to decrease the adverse affects -- such as noise, traffic, air pollution... Policy: It is the policy of theC. I.C. to preserve and promote the creation of buffer areas and open space .... "Neighborhoods and Structures, Defi~'~on and Rationale for Preservation: Neighborhoods provide familiar surroundings -- buildngs, places to walk, people -- a sense of security and community stability~ Neighborhoods may be private -- a place where groups of people live; or they may be public ... It is within Iowa City's '~rivate" neighborhoods that people find the benefits of small town living' and in the "public" neighborhoods that one can enjoy the diversity often found in the larger city. "There are within Iowa City historic neighborhoods and structures which provide roots for the resident of the neighborhood and perpetuate a legacy of historic', architectural and cultural achievement for all of Iowa City. So~e of Iowa City's neighborhoods and structures, through not historic, provide an identity for their residents which adds to the residents' sense o~f wel~l being. Likewise, there are public places within Iowa City which have become unique gathering places for the people and add to the entire City's sense of co~]- ity. "Policy: It is the policy of the Clty of Iowa City to preserve and protect the unique attributes of Iowa City's public and private neighborhoods, as identified by the City, for the general welfare of the community at larg.e.." (1) Adopted Unanimously by the Iowa City City Council, April 9, 1985: Ambr~co~'~aker, Dickson, Ehdahl, Mayor McDonald, Strait, and Zuber. Saturday, May 15, 1993 --No. 8 New~star~ Mel rose-UHeights Co~l~uni ty Bul letin k * Melrose- UHeights Co~-~nity Bulletin * , Vol. I, No. 8, May 15, 1993, Saturday * ~ Serving University Heights, Melrose Co~T~unity, West Iowa City , "telling readers what is going and why" * Published and Copyrighted by O~m~nity Press · Editor-Reporter: John Nesbitt, C-Press, 362 Koser Avenue -- 319/337-7578 ~ University Heights, IA 52246-3038 - no reprint/copying withOnt permission * Special Issue: Enviro~a~ntal Assessa~t R~ti~3 Scale A Rating Scale for Assessing Selected Be~efical and ~verse Eoviro~mental Effects and Con~ Resulting from a Project I~ing the E~virora~.nt Copyright by Communit~ PreSS and John A. Nesbitt [8CA. 148] Introduction. The U.S. Congress enacted the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969 to counteract the environmental problems caused by "construct now, take the profits, and worry later or never" about the adverse environmental effects and degradation. Since 1969 The NEPAct has required that the beneficial or adverse impact be determined by an Envi~ental Assessment (EA) or Environ- mental Impact Statement (EIS) ~efore a project plan or proposal is implemented. Options. When the EA or ElS finds adverse consequences the options are: · modifify the plan to mitigate or eliminate the negative impact. · pursue an alternative plan to get the same result with less damage. · if mitigation or alternatives are not feasible, then stop the project. EA and EIS. The aims of the EA and EIS are to find the preferred alterna- tives that will eliminate or mitigate the resulting adverse consequences. The consequences (elements, components) considered are the same for both the EA and the EZS. But, the EIS does not require a Scoping Meeting (where components are selected), or publication in the Federal R..egister, and so on. Tn__~e EA i_~s: · conducted when there is doub't' a'~odt the need for an EIS with two possible results: Result No. 1. a FONSI: Finding of No Significant Impact yielding an ap- proval to lmpl~ment the plan or proposal. Result No. 2. a finding is made that there may be adverse environmental conseqnences and then an EIS is required. · EAs are reviewed by a "lead [primary] agency: and t~e U.S. EP~ · EAs are limited to existing information (EIS prepares new information). · Draft EAs are prepared and submitted to the lead agency within six weeks to three months (the EIS may require six months to one year). · after lead agency review, the EA is final. Rating Scale. The instrument that follows has been designed for volunteer aT~d professional users in appraising the environmental impact that a specific project will have when completed. Acknowledgements. The researcher is indebted to elected officials and staff of Iowa City and University Heights, librarians at the UIowa and Iowa City libraries, Iowa City neighborhood associations, staff at I-DOT, U.S. FHWA- Iowa and U.S. FHWA-Region, U.S. Rep. Jim Leach, local "Greens," the organizers and participants in the Imagine Iowa Conference, and many neighbors. A Rating Scale for Assessing Selected Benefical and Adverse Enviror~:al Effects and Co~ [~esulting fr~ a Project Im~ng the Environment Definitiops NoM: N._~o o_~r Mino. r. Impact -- There will be NO or MINOR significant benefi- cial or adverse impact on the bunyan, natural or physical environment, in terms of aesthetics, air, health, nature, pollution, social, water, etc., conditions. SIG: Significant -- There will be a signficant descernible and/or measureable beneficial or adverse impact on the human, natural or physical environment in terms of aesthetics, air ... conditions. PRO: Profound -- There will be a profound descernible and/or measure- able beneficial or adverse impact on the aesthetics, air o.. conditions. Project: Name: Here: Construction of Melrose-UHeights Four-Lane Bridge. and Thoroughfare Bounded on Ea~-~Riverside Drive, West byHWY 218, over Iowa Interstate ~_~_~-~ignated Arterial-Commercial, Residentia'---1 Fringe Instructions: 1. Assume that the Project has been completed. 2. Rate the Im~c% by using: a. Personal objective or subjective judgements; b. Di'eci- plinary, professional or scientific principles, criteria, measurements; c. Or, use both a. and b. 3. Follow additional instructions bottom p. 3, top p. 4. Environtel Consequences IMPACT Adverse ~ 0 -- Besefit circle your rating for each element Pl{O SIG NoM SIG PRO -2 -1 ~ +1 +2 1. Aesthetic, Architectural and Visual. The appearance of houses, streets, open space, landscaping, schools, buildings, and so on. Footnotes (1){2)(3)(4) The impact of PROJECT will be: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 2. Buffer Area Between Functions. (A buffer area is the separation of houses, walks, recreation, etc., by landscaping, open space, or other shield from noise, air pollution, risks, toxics, etc., caused by business, commerce, indus- try, manufacturing. Footnote (4) (See IC Urban Env. Policy on buffer areas.) The impact of PROJECT will be: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 3. Co~munityControve£sy. Controversy is public disagreement, expression by citizens of concerns about public policies, practices, procedures, results and $eruie~ Ftn~. (3) (See Environmental Assessments; comments on controversy.) The impact of PROJECT wi 1 1 be: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 4. Co,unity Cohesion. Cohesion is resident/neighbor values and practices that protect, msintain, e~,hance the community/~eighborhood. Footnote (3) The impact of PROJECT will be: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 5o Cultural. The small town and rural community ethic, or spirit, or way of life in Iowa versus the impersonal, institutional, or corporate values. Footnotes (1)(2)(4) (See IC Comp. Plan Urban Environmental Policy on culture.) The impact of PROJECT wi 1 1 be: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Economic: Personal Property. The property values of single family in- dividually owned ho~es. Footnotes (1)(2)(3)(4) The impact of PROJECT wil 1 be: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 7. Eco~m~ic: C~x~nity/Neighborhood Property. The general level of all resi- dent property values in the community/neighborhood. Footnotes (1) (2) (3) (4) The impact of PROJECT wi 1 1 be: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 2 8. Economic: Commercial/Institutional Activity. The introduction of large scale enterprise and activity into a community/neighborhood perceived as being single-family residential, light service business, etc. Footnotes (1)(2)(3)(4) The impact of PROJECT will be: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 9. Historic Preservation. Properties listed and/or proposed for listing on the National Registry of Historic Places, or state, or local, or other listing of places. Footnotes (1) (2) (3) (4) (See Secretary of the Interior's "Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation.") The impact of PROJECT will he: -2 -1 ~ +1 +2 1~. Historic Conservation. Properties not on a registry of historic places but valued highly because they are very, have unique architicture o~ mater- lals, some historic value because of owner or event, etc. Footnote (4) The impact of PROJECT will be: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 11. Recreation. Recreation includes: leisure (passive: talking, strolling, walking) and recreation (actives' fitness, running), parks (vest pocket), play areas o~ spaces, open space, and related amenities; recreation should be con- sidered in relation to the following: * Infants, Children, Teens, Young Adults, Familles, Seniors, Aged. * People with disabilities, all age levels. * Quality of Recreation, as defined above. Footnotes (2)(3)(4) The impact of PROJECT will he: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 12. Pollution: Quality of Air. Footnoes (1)(3) [~d. Note: PO[~LUTION may be pollution of air, soil, sound and/or water.] The impact of PROJECT will be: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 13o Pollution: Quality of Sound. Sound/decibel level from vehicular traffic: the number of vehicles, types, speed, functions; the number of trips; and related vehicular noise; and, other noise. Footnotes (1)(3) The impact of PROJ~CTwill be: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 14. Safety. The level of risk, safety hazards, etc., related to: * Vehicles: number, types, n~ber of trips, speed, and functions. * Infants, Children, Teens, Young Adults, Families, Seniors, Aged, Disabled. * People: walking, co,mute-walking, running, Diking, co,rmube-biking. * People in locale re business,commerce, institution, etc. Footnotes (1)(3) The impact of PROJECT will be: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 15. Security. A sense of being protected, sheltered from crime and violence. Footnote (4) (See IC Comprehensive Pla~ Urba~ E~v. Policy on security.) The impact of PROJECT will De: -2 -1 0 +l +2 16. Social Well Being. A sense of well being, esteem, identity, stabillity. Footnotes (1)(4) (See IC Co~p. Plan Urban Env. Policy on social well being.) The impact of PROJECT will be: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 TOTAL Each Column .................................... - - +/- + + TOTALAll Columns DIVIDED by_16_=EQ[]ALS'~' Impact Score (average) Carry "E" Environmental Impact Score to the top of page 4. U +1.6 to +2.0 Score - profound .......... ....~enerlt to ..... Environment +0.6 to +1.5 score -- Significant ........... Benefit to ..... Environment -0.5 to +0.5 Score = No or Minor ............ Impact to ..... Environment -0.6 to -1.5 Score = Significant,...Adverse Effect on ..... Envirol~ent -1.6 to -2.0 Score = Profound ....... Adverse Effect on ..... Environment Compliance of ~ ~oj~ PI~~i Wi~ U.S., S~, ~ ~1 ~vir~l ~ot~ion S~ ~ ~r ~viro~l ~r~ i~ion: ~k ~ Proj~'s ~vel of ~li~ in ~ A. FC = Ful. 1. compliance C. NC = Noncompliance B. FC = Partial conlp1 lance D. NA = Not applicable National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470a Archeological-Historical Pres. Act, 156 U.S.C. 469 Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1857h-7 Clean Water Act (U. So W-P-C-Act) 33 U.S.C. 1251 State of Iowa Land-Use Plans/"'Action Plan," 1990 Johnson County Land-Use Plans Iowa City C-Plan Urban Environmental Policy-85 A. Bo C. D. (1)--National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Title I ... (b) Public Law 91-190, U.S. Statues91st Congress, 1969, Vol. 83, Wash. D.C., pp. 852-853. (2)--A. U.S. Dept. of Transportation; Federal Highway Administration. Guid- ance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(F) Documents; FHWA Technical Advisory, T 6640.8A. U.S.: OPI, October 30, 1987. 50 pp. and appendices. (2)--B. U.S. Dept. o/t Interior; Bureau of Reclamation. National Environ- mental Poli~ Act Handbook. Denver: U.S. DOI, BR, 1990. (2)--C. United States. Code of Regulations: Highways, U.S.C. 23, 771- 772.13.; and, Council on Environmental Quality, U.S.C. 40, 1500-1517.7. (2)--D. U.S. Tit. 36~--CFR Po68, Sec. o/t Int. Stds. Hist. Pres. July 1, 1992. (3) --A. io EA: ii. EA: iii. EA: iv. EA: (3)--B. Environmental Assessments (EA): Coralville Lake Sugar Bottom Group Campground, IA, 12 Oct. 1983. Sugar Bottom Subimpoundments Coralville Lake, IA, July 1984. 2. Improvement of U.S. 71 in Dickinson County, IA, June 23, 1989. Improvament of 86th Street, Polk County, IA, August 1992. E~vironmental Impact Stat~nents (EIS): i. Envlror~ental Impact Statement for Coralville Lake and the Dewnstre~m Area of Influence to Columbus Junction, Iowa, April 1975, 1977. ii. Iowa 158, Buch. cry., DfgY 520 to Independence, I-DOT, 1980. iii. 'Arterial F~Y 508 sn Polk Coounty from IA 5 to 1-80, I-DOT, 1982. (4)--A. City of Iowa City, Council, Add. to 1983 Comp. Plan. Urban Environmental Policies (buffer, neigb~horhoods); adopted April 9, 1985. (4)--B. City of Iowa City, Comprehensive Plan, 1978, 1983, 1985, 1989. Copyright by Community Press and John A. Nesbitt, Ed.D., Prof. Emeritus, Park-Recr./Recr. Ther., Univ. Iowa; and Pres., Recreation for Disabled, Inc., 362 Koser Av, UHeighta-ICity, IA 52246-3038; 319/337-7578 [SCA. 148] 4-15-93. 4 Saturday, July 3, 1993 -- No. 9 Newstand: $1.00 Melrose-UHelg~ts Community Bul letln , * Melrose---UHelghts C(~,~nlty Bulletin * * , Vol. I, No. 9, July 3, 1993, Saturday * · Serving Melrose Community, University Heights, and West Iowa City * , "telling readers what is going and why" * · Published and Copyrighted by C.o~a~ity Press * · Editor-Reporter: John Nesbltt, C-Press, 362 Koser Avenue -- 319/337-7578 * · University Heights, IA 52246-3038 - no reprint/copying without permission 1. M-U Community Bulletin E~dorses Bruno Plgott for IC City Council 2. M-U' CB Commends CCCand. Kathy Moyers, Primary Cand. Kenneth Wessells 3. The Melrose Dilemma and Question Put to Iowa City Council Candidates 4. Answers on Melrose Dy ...Kathy Moyers ...Bruno Plgott ...Kenneth Wessells 5. UH City Council Plans Joint Meeting with Iowa City CC by Jan Cutecon L The Melrose-UHelghts Co~i~/nity Bulletin E~do'rse~ Bruno Pigott Because of.. Bruno Plgott's values, experience, comm{tment, skills and Dotentlal · {~anaging enllgAtended growth through Iowa Clty's Urban Environmental Poli- cies, advancing quality of life through I6wa Clt~ Comprehensive Housing. AffordaDl l lty. Study' and creating Iowa City pro-people-~eigbDors-%9olicies; · protecting neighbors and neighborhoods f~om unfettered development of UIowa and UIHospltal's Melrose Thoroughfare Plan, UIowa East-West Campus perl~eter deterioration, UIowa Melrose property Duy-UD, and planned UIowa Hotel on Mor~n Trek, Academic Buildings on FlnkDlne G-Course, UIowa Road through FlnkDlne; and · bul ldlng co~unlcatlon, cooperation and coordl~atlo~ among citlzen-nelghDors and Iowa Clty's co~erclal, private and public institutions; and, Plgott's voluntary service with ... Special Olympics, Community Needs, Envlro~ental Advocates, Foreign Relations, Co~nlty Tt]eater ... P~gott's professional service with the Stanley Foundation and United Press International; and, public service with t~ U.S. House of Representatives .... 2. ~ Melrocc~3Helghts Co~mm~nity Bulletin Co~ -. Moyers~ Wessells * Mrs. Kathy Mo){ers., primary winner and ~ Candidate, for her co,unity spirit; Iowa'C{ty will benefit from ~er continued public involvement. * Mr. Kenneth Wessells, Primary Candidate, for ~ls advocacy of people's quality of '/~fe and of neighborhoods; Iowa City will Denef~t from his continued advocacy of quality of life goals and opposition to developers. 3~ T~e Melrose Dilemma ar~ Questio~ Put to IOWa Czty Council Candidates Submitted oy M-U Community Bul letl~ to Candidates on June 2, 14, 30, 1993 THE 6ILEMMA o.o 1. 2~ Year Melrose War. For 20 years and more the ~esldents of Melrose, UHe~gnts, Roosevelu and West Iowa City haw resistcd deuelopment of t~e Melrose Thoroughfare -- a four-lane or five-lane roadway and bridge that ~s being designed to facilitate 24,0~0 vehicles per day on Melrose. 2. 2(~ Year Public Exclusion. For 20 years and more these same residents ~ave seen excluded from UIowa, from UI-Hospital and fro~ Iowa City City Govern- ment planning ~lg~ environmental i,~pact development on West Iowa City. 3. 2~ Years Not Info~med. For 20 years and more these same residents ~ave not ~een advised of the planning Dy Iowa City on the Melrose development: example a. witness the 1987 W~, Inc. (Noel W. Willis) report on the deterior- ation of Melrose Bridge and recommendation that it De replaced with a four-lane bridge; and, example b. witness the ~%~NW, Inc. 1992 application for an "environ- mental clearance" submitted to and approved Dy I-DOT and U.S. FHWA for the Melrose Thoroughfare Proposal (four- or five-lane road and four-lane bridge). 4. Adverse E Impact. It is clear that Melrose T~oroughfare and Bridge will have significant adverse enviro~ntal impacts on 16 Envlro~ental Assess- ment elements. It should De anted that these 16 elements are drawn from the IC City council Urban Envlrona~ntal Policies, t~e Coralville and Sugar Bottom U.S./I-DOT Environmental Assessments, U.S. Guidelines on EISs and EAs Dy U.S. DOI and U.S. FHWA, and r~e 1969 National Environmental Protection Act. 5. No "Scooping" Role. While negotiations and scoping for the Melrose Thoroughfare "environmental assessment" are ~elng conducted between Iowa City staff and the I-DOT/U.S. FHWA staff, no opportunity has been prov%ded to the public at large (1) or the respective Melrose, Roosevelt, UHelghts and West Iowa City aelgb~Dors nor to the CiTy Counc~i of ~he City of University Heights to influence the selection of Environmental Assessment elements. [(1) Ed. Note. This MU-CB statement was submitted to candidates on June 2; on June 17 t~e IC City Manager announced plans for a "scooping group" including the public that was approved Dy IC City Council on June 21-22, 1993.] Re 5 Above: This "scoping" step In the EA process is very important ~ecause the elements selected for evaluation will have a major influence on the determination of whether the four-lane or five-lane Melrose Thoroughfare and Bridge has an adverse or beneficial impact on ~ne environment. For example, "~ldllfe and/or Wilderness" is/are potential EA element(s). But, no snail darter nor spotted owl will De endaegered by the Melrose rougefare and Bridge. Thus, t~e EA would "find no significant impact on wlld- £1fe." But, "Safety" is also a potential EA element. Walking pre-school child- ren, adults, K-12 students, UIStudents, and UIHopltal patients; and, work c~muters who are walking and cycling and recreatlonallsts of all ages (walk- ing, running, strolling), will ~e at significantly increased risk because of the nigh volu:ne, fast (35 mph to 55 mph) traffic consisting of cars, vans, trucks, motorcycles, etc. (See Element No. 14, Safety. in the 16-point U~ban Environmental Assessment Rating Scale.) In terms of "safety" the risk aod endangerment of people on/around Melrose Thoroughfare will De significantly increased in terms of injury and fatality. T~E QUESTION ~OR CANDIDATES .. Regarding t_~e Four-Lane Melrose Thoroughfare (road and bridge) Proposal and given the deflclencles in planning and practices unfavorable to nighDot- citizen participation, what help mey the puollc and the respective neighbor- hoods expect from you if you are elected to the Iowa City City Council? 4. Answe£s of, Melrose by _.Katl~ ~'~ers _.Bruno Pigott ._~_th Wessells Mrs: Kathy Mo~ers .- L In Favor of ~ Four-La~e Bridge and **********~****** 2~ In Favor of a Fo~lr-~e or %~z~ ~ Ave~ "I am waiting for the Environmental Assessment and the Environmental I~pact Study. I don't think that any decision regarding Melrose should De made until those reports a~e available. At this tithe with the information that I ~ave I would De in favor of a four-lane bridge for Melrose Avenue that would incorporate very safe bicycle and pedestrian paths. This, to me, is most essential -- that the bike paths and pedestrian pathways De Incorporated into the bridge and be very safe. Considering t~e fact that bridges last 50 to 70 yearst I think it would ~e shortsighted and fiscalIf irresponsible to build any less ulan a four-laee bridge. [Regarding Melrose Avenue] "I would be in favor of a compromise, perhaps, on the three lane Melrose Avenue that would work into that [Melrose Four-Lane Bridge] picture. That ~s where my judganent fails at the present time wlt~ the ~nformatlon that I ~ave. T~e 1985 Urban Environmental Policy is certainif a general guidelines to use ~n planning nelg~Dorhoods. They are following it for the most part. I think that the City Council ~s trying to follow the guide- lines for nelg~Dornoods." Mrs. Kathy Moyers, 417 Hutchison Ave., IC, IA 52247 -- 338-2693. Mr. Bruno Pigott .. L ~galnst the Four-Lane Bridge and Thorougb. fare ***~*~*******~* 2. Supports Full Cltl~ Involvement in Plannir~ "I am against the Four-Lane Melrose T~orougnfare. We must have full citizen partlclpatlon in t~ese decision at the beginning and not at the end. Melrose could be t~e first Of a series of traffic bulld-up prool6~s where tPm easy solution is always road widening; tnls will ~urt our neighborhoods. I support alternatives to automobile transportation -- such as walking, $~cycles, SEATS. I oppose Increasing bus fares. I support the Iowa City City Co~ncll's Urban Environmental Policies as critical to enlightened growt~ of Iowa C~ty and to quality of our neighborhoods -- the Policy ~s a mission statement for each of IowaC~ty nelgnsornood groups. [Ed. Note. Currently, Bluff Wood, Goose- town, Grant Wood, Hat lock/WeeDer, Longfel low, Lucas Farm, Melrose, M11 let O~chard, Northside, Roosevelt, Ty'n Cae, Village Green, CUH-UHeig~ts, etc.] "Goosetown, Longfellow, KlrRwood, Melrose, Northside and V~llage Green and other 'deflc~ency'/proDlem areas around Iowa City are all confronting t~e effects of unfettered development. They are suffering in terms of road widen- lng, a~d could soon s.~ffer loss of open space and play space. '~Jnfettered developme~%t on ~he edge of town causes traffic buildups and neighborhood degradation in-town and downtown. Unthinking development widening projects degrade the quality of life in Iowa City. Enlightened growth is criti- cal to t~e vitality of our c~ty. Enllghtended growth ~s necessary to the Iowa Clty's economic competltlveness. We must have enlightened growthS. Thoughtless, unfettered development must not destrof our c~t~;. 'We m~st put citizens at the Deg~nnlng of t~e process of enlightened growth -- ,not at the end of unfettered development." Mr. Bruno Plgott, 629 E. Jefferson, IC, IA 52245 -- 339-1968. Mr. l~ru'~etix Wessels .. L Against t/%e Melrose Four-Lane Bridge and ****~*********~**"* 2. Against the Four-Lane Melrose Avenue/T~oroughfare "I am against the Melrose Thoroughfare Proposal -- against a four-la~e road and a four-lane bridge. These projects fit ~nto a general plan to make Iowa City a Digger and buslet environment. Iowa City Staff 1~ really working with bus~ness interests rather than citizen interests. I hope that the people in the Melrose and UHelg.~ts neighDornoods are successful ~n resisting t~e widening of t~e road and the orldge. "Regarding the Buffer Areas~-t.~ece was a two block-long row of lilac Dus~es on Melrose that was torn down as the UI-Hospltal proceeded with its building plan. The Duffer was torn out without any thought. T~e Iowa City official Urban EnvlroP~ental Policy aoo~t maintaining ouf~er a~eas in not being foilowed." Mr. Kenneth Wessels, 724 North Dodge, IC, IA 52245 -- 338-7061. MELROSE-U#EIGATS COMMUNITY BULLETIN Serving the £itg ef Ool~ler~itg Heights, Melrose £ommunitg, & West Io~ge £it9 News about what~ going on., and whyl UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS CiTY COUNCIL PLANS FOR JOINT MEETING WITH IOWA CITY COUNCIL By Jan Cuteton The Univers~ Heights Council considered and acted upon a number of issues at their meeting on Monday, June 14th, The majOr topic was the upcoming joint meeting on Thursday, June 17th with the Iowa City Council to discuSS the proposed widening of Melrose Avenue and bridge. Although this will be a public meeting, the public will not be allowed to comment on the issues discussed. The joint meeting is primarily designed to open lines of communication and diSCuSsion between the two Councils. A considerable discussion ensued aborn what ele- ments should be included in the environmerrtal as- sessment which the DOT and Federal Highway Admin- istration have ruled must be held before any approval will be given to the work. John Nesbitt provided com- ments and letters from several iowa City officials, which indicated that they were considering only such envi- ronmental concerns as wildlife, water quality and drainage, plants, trees, etc. None of the elements listed included the impact on people who live in the area, (e.g. noise, safety, residential quality, property values, etc.). Joe Gannon, displayed plans created by the University of Iowa, for the nex~ ten and twenty years. The public has never been informed of these plans, or the effect which their implementation would have on the community. Neabltt suggested several other environmental assessment documents which would be more pertinent to community needs and offered to make the information available to the council before the Joint-Meeting. Dr. John Widness representing the Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association (MANA) submitted their reply to an article which appeared on June 8th in the Press-Citizen, in which the iowa City Manager. Steve Atkins, rejected public involvement in the environmen- tal aSsesmerit. MANA's letter to the FederaJ Highway Administration requested that the public be included in assessment process, with the assurance that they would be happy to talk with anyone at any time about any matter affecting the community. Mike Kaneilis sug- geeted University Heights and Melrose Avenue citi- zens should attend the Joint City Councils Meeting, even though they would not be able to express their opinions. The point was made that if iowa City decides to make the bridge 4 lanes without University Heights approval, it will lose most of the federal funds available for the project. The discussion concluded when the Council agreed that their stand at the joint council meeting would be that the citizens of University Heights are inalterably opposed to the widening of Melrose Avenue within its boundaries. In addition, the Council took the following actions:: · Approved renewal of the Transit Agreement with iowa City. and t~ SEATS suT~lemental ta,~d ser- o Ruled that damage caused by sump pump flow will not be assessed to the propaly, but if repav~ng is requffed, an assessment will be made for these costs. · Announced that residents will be informed of the fact mat on July 1st, the new stioker price for refuse pick Ul~ by N & N Sa~itatioc will be $1,00, Yard waste bags will inerease to $1,75, These are avail- able at Melrose Markat. Annual stickers for house- hold garbage will be available in June for use be<jim ing July first. Those stickers must be purebased at N & N Sanitation in Corelville. · Announced that street repairs and striping would be completed as soon as the weather permits. · Agreed to send a letter to all real estate offices, re- omphasiz~ng the single family residence re(~uire- ~_~mts_in University Haghts. · Re-emphasized the regulation that residents must getj~ermission to plant trees in the area between the Street and the sidewalk, The roots of certain types of trees damage the sewers, leading to the house and to the street. Residents will be given advice on what Idnds of trees create the least damage and a~e pe~n[ssible. · Univers~ Heights will have ~ own police cars by September. Residents who wish to do so can now write to: Univers~ Heights Police Dep~., P.O. Box 3001, iowa City, IA 52244 ScO_~ HighlightS - ----- No. 16 - ---~ News Stand $1.00 Special Issue: IC-UI Melrose Development Enviror~nental Assessment Vol. I, No. 16, Saturday, Nov. 20, 1993 Pub/Copyright by Community Press, 362 Koser Av, IC-UH, IA 52246-3038 Editor: John A. Nesbitt; Assoc. Editors: Jan Cureton, W. Stanley Good , .......................... T~s Iss~e ............... [SCO. 157] Scoping committee Approves NEW ROAD North of Melrose ALTERNATIVE But Rejects ,,Neighborhood Cohesion.. °Quality of Life" as Un-quantifiable A-EPA Helps Neighbors B-Mefabers/Public C-Highlights D-Decisions (~ su~l~tal Inf¢...~atio~ (the space limitation precluded including the following information in the original Bulletin) 1o FA Background Information for Scoping Information 2o Notes on Discussion at Scoping Meeting 3° Commentary on Scoping Meeting I! Traffic Alternatives to Widening Melrose Avenue by W. Stanley Good, former City Councilor, City of University Heights III UH Council Meets Nov. 8: Parking, N&N Service, Scoping by Jan Cureton, Correspondent, Community Betterment Bulletin Scoping~tteeApgroves A NI~ ROAD North of Melrose ALTEI~TIVEBut I~jectS ,,Neighborhood Cohesion ooo Quality of Life" as Un-guantifiable by John Ao Nesbitt, Editor, ICACo~munity Bulletin A--EPALAWHELPS NEIGHBORS: UoSo-I-DOT Advises I-City to Involve "The Public" Iowa City, I0~% -- The 1969 Environmental Protection Act (EPA) helped I- City Area neighbors as advice from the U.S.-I-DOT highway offices yielded I- City invitations to ~ublic representation (MANA, City-UHts, I-City) on the I~- City-Ulowa Melrose Devei~pment Project; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Scoping Co~mitteeo B--S~0PINGC~Tr~.~.M~: Develope-rs, Neighbors, Fed-I-DOTsA~ PUBLIC A Melrose Scoring. Committee was appointed by I-City to review a DRAFT Melrose Environmental Assessment (FA) Request For Proposal (RFP). The City Council approves the final Draft. The Committee Members were: CIC-Acosta-Weirich, Consultant (on EA) to I-City P.Co Development Department. ICDD-Franklin: I-City Planning and Develo[~ment Department, Director° (IC Professional Resources: Attorney Gentry, Engineers Fosse and C~nnon, JC-COG-Developer Davidson, IC-Neighborhood Services Klingaman) o UIowa-Gibson: University of Iowa Facilities (development) Planning, Director° Ui-HOSP-Echternacht: UIowa Hospital/clinics, Associate Director (development). UoS.HWA-Parker: U.S. Highway Administration, Iowa Division. I-DOT-Anderber~: Iowa-Dept. of Transportation, Urban Systems-Local Systems° (U.S.-IA Professional Resource: I-DOT-Budd, Projects Officer). MANA-Champe: Melrose Avenue Neighborhoed Association, Chair. 1 (Observers: MANA Members Baldridge, M. Ramsey, C. Ramsey). UHts-Swanson: City of University Heights-City Council, Mayor-Elect. (UHts Observers: Attorney Ballard, Councilor Jones, Clerk Maloney). Iowa City Invitee-Arganbright AND Iowa City Invitee-Buss. (Observers: Good and Nesbitt of the Co~unity Betterment Bulletin.) C--HI(~{LI(}rl~/~ M~rINS ~ on Devilophir, N'h~ds, EPA Issues CIC-Acosta-Weirich outlined the one-time-only-4-hour meeting and cautioned t~e public-observers that any interruptions would result in ejection. UHts-Swanson stated the [3Heights objection to Iowa-City-denial of UHts' appeal for "Scoping Committee Membership" for U-H-C-O-Univo HtSo Corn. Or~.. MANA-C~ampe advocated the NEW ROAD north of Melrose alternative for HOSP entry-exit to carry part of the HOSP traffic away from Melrose Avenue. I-DOT-Anderber~g. said if Melrose Bridge is rebuilt it must be built to "standard" to receive U.S. funding. [Ed: est. fr~m $850,000 to $1,500,000.] UHts-Swanson stated City of U-Heights does not intend "to accommodate" the Draft assumption of a 3-1ane street from the bridge into the City of UHeights. MANA-Champe said the Draft RFP contained too many "unclear" assumptions and submitted "MANA-Melrose EA ~uestions". ICDD-Franklin said access can't be taken except b_~ condemnation. Iowa City-Buss suggested language for the RFP's NEW ROAD alternative. MANA-Champe questioned the 2-lane bridge/2-1ane road alternative because a related statement is expected from UIowa-ADM V.P. Rhodes. led: MANA has com- municated with the Iowa Board of Regents and UIowa-hDM/President]. UI-Gibson sukmitted a "UIowa Melrose EA Draft Supplement" and said the UIowa Sports-Recreation Plan (SRP) would bring more traffic to Iowa City/Mel- rose. [~d]. The UIowa SRPlan has NOT been presented to public, UHts, etc.; it includes academic, athletic, convention-hotel, parking, recreation buildings, fields, lots, road on Finkbine/Mormon Trek; see Iowa City Ma~o, July 1993.] UHts-Swanson reported that City of UHts is taking bids on traffic lights for the bridge approach intersection of Melrose-Koser-Golfview. CIC-Acosta-Weirich said the Melrose EA must include environmental assess- ment of environmental impacts on the City of University Heights. UI-HOSP-Echternacht sukmitted a "UI-HOSP Melrose EA Draft Supplement." MANA-Champe noted the submission of "supplements" by UIowa-Gibson and UI- HOSP-Echternacht and requested a similar opportunity for MANA. UHts-Swanson sukmitted "City-UHei~hts Melrose _EA guestions" re: distance assu~tions; UHeights business impact; UHeights parking i~pact; and Melrose EA use of U.S.-I-DOT "social, Economico..Env. Assessment Matrix." led: U.S.-I-DOT Socio-Econ impacts-definitions were used in EAs at C-ville/S-Bottom.] UI-Gibson, "We are not loading the Draft RFP." ICit~. Invitcc~Buss cited the lack information in the Draft RFP on public's continuing involvement in Melrose EA process. [Ed: the one-time Scoping is an I-City-controlled/directed activity. No info. is provided on what, who, where, when, how on info., docs. to public or public input at EA stages.] UI-Gibson AND UI-HOSP Echternacht expressed the necessity of determining costs/costs benefits of alternatives, especially the NEW ROAD alternative. !-DOT-Anderberg said cost benefit study is not environmental assessment. UI-Gibson said t~e NEW ROAD will delay Melrose and can't be arterial because of the UIowa. S~orts Recreation Plan (above) which "is internal." UHts-Swanson suggested use of impact-terms "aesthetics, economics, com- munity cohesion" used previously in local EAs by U.S.-I-DOT. [Ed: I-City Urban Environmental Policies cite "protect and preserve... neighborhoods, scenic vistas...sense of co~munity...general aesthic and visual impression...economic and social welfare...preserve and promote buffer areas and open spaces,..sense of security and ca~munity stability. . .roots. .. identi- ty...well being." Aesthetic(s) is used in EPA: law, manuals, FAs/EISs.] UI-Gibson, "What is community cohesion? What does it mean?" ICDD-Franklin, "How do we measure community cohesion?" U.S.HWA Parker, "An important part is a public hearing to get input." UI-HOSP-Echte~nacht said the EA consultant needed to be "objective." CIC-Acosta-Wei~ich said the Melrose EA consultant who receives the con- tract "can be objective in reporting non-quantifiable impacts." U.S.HWA-Parker, "The EA should cover and include all points." ICDD-Franklin said that "community controversy" can stop a project. UI-Gibson, "Why know community cohesion? Can community cohesion be a criteria that causes a project to go one way or another?" CIC-Acosta-Weirich, "The EA must assess all impacts?" MANA-Champe said that the human element is important but it is not discus- sed until after the EA is completed; "you can't leave out quality of life." ICDD-Franklin, "I don't know how to define quality of life." MANA-Champe said that designing social environmental impact assessments can be part of the RFP contract; "people know how to define quality of life." UI-Gibson, "Neighborhood cohesion and community cohesion can't be defined; the assessment should be of the impact on the community at large." MANA-Champe, "Property values will go down." U.S.H-Parker, "Community values surveys have been done." IDOT-Budd, "We have used community values in the past under social. For ex~nple, social ]~npact of splitting the neighborhood, ethnic neighborhoods or elderly relocation, school boundaries and emergency services." ICDD-Franklin, "We have addressed" the community, Melrose residents. MANA-Champe, said neighborhoods want a say; there is disparity in UIowa- UI-HOSP versus the neighborhoods; "the neighborhoods are not less significant°" MANA-Champe, "Will the Melrose Project eliminate buffer zones?" Iowa Cit~; Invitee-Buss, said assessment can be performed on the "effect on residences and on the impact on living patterns." UI-Gibson, "What are neighborhoods." MANA-Chamlse, "I-City's Klingaman has a map of I-City neighborhoods." ICDD-Franklin, "How can you evaluate aesthetics." CIC-Acosta-weirich, "There are aesthetic evaluations by architects." UI-G1Dson, "The I-City City Council cat] deal wit~ social ]~mpacts." UI-HOSP-Echternacht, "When we reach a point in building we landscape." MANA-Cham~e, "How do we deal with safety when UIowa-HOSP controls traffic and curb cuts?" ICDD-Franklin, "We must look at the impact of a NEW ROAD on traffic congestion levels ooo the NEW ROAD is just a big driveway." 3 UI-Gibson, "If a NEW ROAD is built we suppose that it will take all the traffic off Melrose; the NEW ROAD won't do that." UI-Gibson, "the FA consultant should give the EA his best shot so that UIowa doesn't get accused of shoving" this on people. UHts-Swanson asked about conflict of interest bidding safeguards, Iowa Cit~. Invitse-Arganbright: generally declined co~ent/inpot. D---D~I$IO~-~/I~I~I)~IOI~ to 1-City Council The $coping Committee adopted the following ALTERNATIVES, RESOURCES, and IMPACTS for inclusion in the RFP reco~nended to the I-City City Council. [Ed. This article is based on meeting notes; official reports/transcripts should be obtained from the ICDD-Franklin, IC City Hall, 319/356-5232.] *---ALTm~N~IVE~ FOR ASSESSmenT: ClC-Acosta-Weirich is rewriting the EA alternatives following Melrose Scoping Co~nittee discussion of the following: *~No action. *~Repair only. *--Two-lane bridge/street. *--Three lane bridge/street. *--Four-lane bridge/four-lane street. *--four-lane bridge/five-lane street. *--NEW ROAD north of Melrose. 1--Naighberhoo~s reso~rcee, 3--UIo~a/HOSP, 5--Cultural reeoarc~_, 7~Bus routes, 9--Small business, 13--Becreational facilitiee, 15--Alternative land use opportunities, 2--Arterial road, 4--Day care centers, 8o-Rai lroad, 10--Run~_!~ trails. 14--Parking lots. *--IMPACT AREP~ FOR EV~r~TION: 1--Air quality, 2--Noise, 4~etla~s, 5-~ater ~ality, ~s~ric ~~, 10--Hazardous waste, ~--~u ~ ~lt ~ir~t (s~ ~. >>> 3--Wildlife/wildlife habitat. 6--Floed Plain. g--Cultural resource. 11--Propertyacquisition. 12--4~mmn ~1 b~ilt ~vir~t: a--pedestrian safety. b--bicTMe ~afety. d~emergenc-f vehi~-]-. e--public transit. i--i~t o~ neighborhoods, j--impact ~ c~ty at large. c--property values. f--vWn~cle aocess. ~c consequm~ms. E--~3PP~ ~ON -- Although prepared for the original issue of the Bulletin, space limititations precluded including this information which is provided now. 1o E~ Back~o~d Information for S~oping Infofaction *--Official Scoping Committee: 1 Professionals, 1 Official, 1 Neighbors, 2 Public-Iowa City-Invitees -- for full official titles, etc., see Community Bulletin, V-I, N-15, Nov. 15, 1993. 4 .--Scopi~9 Impozta~ce. The Melrose Environmental Assessment Scoping Meeting, held Nov. 15 at the Iowa City Public Libary was important because: 1--The Melrose Projects impacts all of Iowa City, all Iowa City neighborhoods and all of the City of University Heights. 2--The meeting served to show-case publicly the basic positions on growth, building, etc., of respective parties were clearly juxtaposed -- homeowners and renters versus developers. *--~img Document. The document under review was the: Iowa City Development Dept. "Melrose Scoping Co~a~ittee Packet"; Draft REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL "Environmental Asses~uent for the Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction. I-City : City of I-City , Sept. 27, 1993. 5 pp. and attachments including: Sept. 28, 1993 Evelyn Acosta-Weirich [EnVo Consultant employed by City of I-City ] letter of instructions-agenda genda for Nov° 15, 1993 Scoping Meeting; July 2, 1993 Memorandum by City of I-City City Attorney Linda Newman Gentry, 7 pp.; June 17, 1993 Memorandum by City Manager (Steve Atkins) Re: Melrose Avenue Environmental Assessment~ 3 ppo Supplemental Statements submitted to Nov. 15, 1993 Meeting by: UIowe, UI- Hospital, and MANAo These documents are available from the respective agencies/ authors/ publishers° *--Basic Goals. The essential aims, goals, values, and methods of the participants in the Scoping Meeting: University of Iowa and University Hospital -- Goals are to build hospital° academic-athletic facilities, to park vehicles (lots, r~mps) and to channel traffic to/from Melrose Avenue. Iowa City Government -- Goals are to widen Melrose to 4-6 lanes, to expand the Melrose bridge to 4-6 lanes, and to provide parking (lots, ramps) ..o the Melrose voting positions of the respective City Councilors at the time of the most recent City Council election. U.S.-Io~ Highways-Transportation -- Goals are to implement the EPA Law, Regulations and Guidelines. Neighbors -- Goals to protect neighborhoods, the homes, homeowners, renters values, methods and desired outcomes as expressed by the Iowa City Urban Environmental Policies -- the UEPs are essentially a missio~ stat~m~lt and protective shield for homeowners, renters, families, neighbhors and ~eighborhoods. *-4 _i eris / of I~ a~ [h~ersity ~os~it~l T~affic o~ Meks. The University of Iowa and University Hospital are and will increase their channeling traffic management problems onto Melrose in disregard of the negative impact that this will have on the Melrose and adjacent hemes, housing, and neighborhoods. The Iowa City-University Hospital 4-6 Lane Melrose Avenue and Bridge Project Plan will have a profoundly adverse urban environmental impacts on all of Melrose Avenue and adjacent streets and properties° However, in comparison to the facility design, traffic managent, and aesthetic amenities that have been purposely designed into the present University Hospital, this profound adverse impact is typical of this overall impact of the Iowa CitT-University 5 [ [ F I. 1 I Hospital "plan" for Melrose properties. *--~ West Side Big Plan -- UI a~ IC. The UNIVERSITY OF IOWA West- Campus and IOWA CITY West-Side-Development Plans includes: A--~ UI W~ (5%MPUs BIG PLAN includes: 1--New UIowa Mormon Trek Convention-Hotel Center; 2--The Former Finkbine Golf Course conversion to New Finkbine Academic Buildings and New Finkbine Road; 3--Additional Atheltic Department Facilities, Additional Student Recreation Fields; 4--Additional Hospital buildings as needed; and 5mFuture use by University of Iowa of UI's Melrose property inventory (that property currently owned and new acquisitions as they come on the market in conjunction with the luther deterioration of the Melrose residential properties). B--IO~ CITY ~-"i~IDE BIG PLaN includes the following: 1--Support and facilitate University of Iowa's overall planning and building by providing/building avenues/~sridges/streets/parking, etCo, as desired by UIowa regardless of the I-City Urban Enviror~ntal Policies and the profound adverse effects of UI develolx~ent on all of Melrose Avenue and contiguous property including Melrose Avenue in its municipal neighbor, the City of University Heights. 2--Provide/build avenues/bridges/streets/parking in support of the Iowa City Population Growth Goal -- creating as many thoroughfares transecting the I-City from perimeter to center as possible, eog., Highways 80-380-218-1-6 to downtown I-City and back to highways. ~--4Ini~.rsity Heights. The City of University Heights has had strained relations with the City of Iowa City for 30 years; and, University Heights has been ignor~ by the University of Iowa and by University Hospital in matters related to the width of Melrose Avenue and Bridge, in development planning aed in traffic management (traffic being route(] on Melrose through University Heights) · During 1993 and 1994 there has been a rapproach~nt between Iowa City Governance and University Heights Governance ~ which City Councilors of both cities consider important progress in Metro-area exchange of information and amiability° Unfortunately, each time a major crisis or controversy erupts Iowa City and University of Iowa suggest that they should talk with more interest groups more often -- after the crisis or controversy subsides the need for communication and even cooperation is forgotten. 2o No~ o~ Di~io~ at Sc~ing Meetirg *--Em:lu~ I~i~ Quality. There was continuing debate on measuring "qualitative" versus "quantitative" indices of urban enviroPmento However, there was no discussion of the qualitative factors citied in the Iowa City Urban Environ~ntal Policies. Iowa City Development Director Karin Franklin repeatedly called for the exclusion of qualitative factors (see Iowea City Urban Envirormental Policies) and the inclusion of "rational, functional, quantitative" factors and data such as traffic counts° 6 The IOWa City Planning and Development Department Draft RFP-Request For Proposal omitted terms such as "visual .o. architectural ... aesthetic". However, those terms do appear in the Iowa City Urban Environmental Policies, in the 1969 National Environmental Protection Act-Law and in U.S. EPA Regulations, Manuals and Guidelines. *--%~ne DriP=way. ICDD Franklin moved to table a word change proposal re ~ 7 and subsequently Franklin called the ~ 7 NEW ROAD "a big driveway" that would not achieve the goal of relieving Melrose Avenue° *--The I~eigbhorhood Move-~gut -- The EnviroD_,~9_ntal Movement. It was acknowledged during the Scoping meeting that the impact of the Melrose Develol~r~ent Project is city-wide and that the Environmental Assessment would include assessing city-wide impacts. However, the Iowa City Area neighborhood mov~ent was represented only by the MANA--Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association rather than representatives of a coalition or council of neighborhoods associations. Further, there was no representation of some approximately 30 "environmental groups" that are active in the Iowa City Area and have expressed an interest in develop~ento 3. C!~alle~-~n ~te~ on Scoping ~ee~ir~j *--Misei~g fr~m the Discussiofi -- Values, ~ of Fa:ilies, H~,mars- l~mtezs, l~eighbortloods: The Iowa City 1985 Urban Environmental Policies were conspicuously absent from the discussions. Iowa City Development Director Franklin did not cite or use UEPolicies policies. The Iowa City City Council and Management, Iowa City Department of Planning and Development and Johnson County Council of Governments interprets the UEPolices as abstract, non-quantifiable, inappropriate for planning, and 'having no teeth' (as contrasted with a city ordinance which is enforceable). [Ed. Gover...~t at any level that relies ~a regulations and not r~on is destined to enter into a continuing adversarial relationship with its respective public -- city, county, state or U.So] If this "no application" interpretation of the meaning of the Urban Environmental Policies is accurate their should be sc~e explanation as to the intentions of the Iowa City City Council which evidently undertook to waste time, effort and money in authorizing a Drafting Co~nittee to prepare the UEPolicies and which ultimately took action to adopt the UEPolicies u~animously and made the UEPolicies an official part of the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan. If the Iowa City City Council and City Government has, in fact, the intention of not considering the UEPolicies then what should the public expect from other historic, conservation, preservation, etc., "policies" that IoWa City authorizes, prepares and adopts? In fact, the Iow~ City UEPolicies are no more abstract and no more non- quantifiable than the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. People can live by principles. Government at all levels can be guided by principles. The quality and quanti~y of implementation of principles of behavior can he measured, assessed and evaluated° 7 In fact, there are hundreds of social research centers and institutes affiliated to universities such as the University of Iowa as well as non~ affiliated centers and institutes in the United States which can measure the status of 'urban environmental policies' as well as quality of life. In fact, urban and regional planning science and practice can assess and evaluate the status of urban quality of life and the probable effect or impact of developmetn on the urban quality of life. In fact, studies are conducted regularly by research centers, urban planning institutes, etc., that are in turn published in professional journals as well as in popular media including newspapers and newspaper chains such as the Gannett chain. Essentially, the Iowa City Planning and Development Department, the University of Iowa and the Johnson County Council of Governments have limited their assessment and evaluation criteria, instrument design, data collection, extrapolation of data, interpretation and decision making to deal only with traffic, parking, streets and bridges. These institutions have choosen not to deal with the quality of life imposed by physical development at University Hospital, on the University of Iowa campus, on Iowa City's streets and in Iowa City's neighborhoods. It is an irony that while the University of Iowa is dedicated to Liberal Arts and H~m~anities as well as aesthetics and culture in the abstract but may be unable to apply principles of Liberal Arts, Humanities, aesthetics and culture to daily living as in the case of campus life, corrmunity life, neighborhoed life and related° The criteria and instrument design has been planned to support development, expansion and building plans for traffic, parking, streets and bridges. In turn, the design, data collection, extrapolation, and interpretation as well as the decision-making has further supported development, expansion and building plans. Traffic Alternatives to Widening Melrose Avenue W. Stanley Good, former City Councilor, City of University Heights False Reasotii~o In the recent election campaign, some persons commented about the need to plan for conditions twenty or thirty years ahead° They used this as a reason for building a four-lane bridge on Melrose Avenue, along with widening all of Melrose Avenue to four lanes. ~ulti-lan~s D(~l't Work. There is, however, much experience now to show that multi-lane roads attract traffice and thus soon become overloaded. Rather than continuing to rely on autos (the majority carrying only the drive) we should plan creatively for other means of transporting people° ~Fr_~" -- O~r~. Both the University and Iowa City have b~en quite creative in developing alternatives to "freeways." That term is oxymoron° Please show me any multi-lane road that is free[ For instance, the use of hte Hancher parking for daytime parking, using Cambus to move people to other parts of the campus, or downtown. In addition, it is used for evening parking for basketball games, with 8 Hoover, the signs could be moved upon written requests by the residents on Highland Avenue with the provision that the signs may be put up again if the previous parking problare reoccurs. Pesticide $tu~. Rachel Wallace, a graduate student at the University stated that they are doing a study on the use of pesticides on lawns. They have prepared a presentation concerning safe use of such chemicals, which they would like to show residents of University Heights. The Council will hold a general meeting on Dec. 13th., at St. Andrews Church, to ~fnich the public is cordially invited to in order to see this presentation. C~rba~e Collec~cion. The question of garbage collection arose, since' a newspal~er article had state that N and N Sanitation would cease its service on Nov. 1st. According to Ballard, N and N will continue service until they find another suitable contractor to take over the service. Leaf Pick-Up day will be held as announced on Saturday, Now~ber 13th. Mawr Swanso~ to Att~ Me-lrose-~ Focus froup. Don Swanson, Mayor-elect, will represent University Heights at the Environmental Assessment Focus Group on November 15th. The purpose of the m~eting is to reco~a~end criteria for an environmental evaluation of the effect of widening Melrose Avenue [and bridge]. Iowa City Denies U-H-CO Request for Focus Group Invitation. The U- Heights City Council had requested that Joe Gannon, president of U-H-C-O: University Heights Community Organization, be allowed to participate in the Melrose EA Focus Group. The request was denied by Iowa City Manager Steve Arkins. I~ts Nee~ for Additions, R~airs. There was discussion on repairs of sidewalks and driveway additions. It was noted that the U-Heights City building code states that residents must get a permit from the City Engineer for additions or repairing of these items. 11 II April 1995 -- CBBulletin Report on PROFOU~D ADVERSE Melrose IMPACT C~ITY B~l'l'v~f~T volune III -- 5 April 1995 Serving Homeowners, Renters, Families, Neighborhoods and Subdivisions In Johnson County, Iowa Published and Co~ighted by C~TY PRESS, 362 Koser Avenue, IC-0t{, IA 52246-3938 Editor: John Nesbitt; Assoc. Editors: J. Cureton, J. Gannon, W.S. Good *************************************************************** [CBB.178//9-12] C mmity ettez mt l le'- ia Report on ~e Profound Adverse ~viro~n~l Cons~ences of ~e "197~-95 Io~ City Four-Lane* E-W Highly wi~ Fo~-Lane Melrose Avenue and Melrose Bridge USI~ a l~i~ Ur~ ~r~ ~ ~ ~e for Assessi~ ~neficial or Adverse Eff~ and Cons~uen~s ~us~ by Alterations of ~e ~viro~n~l (1) ~SESS Io~ ~ty's 1970-95 Fo~-Lane Melrose Highly Plan, 1-80 to IC-UI to 1-80, Wi~Four-~ne Melrose Avenue and Four-~ne Melrose Bridge~ich COWLES: 1. The UIo~HOSPITAL 1965 "Build Sou~ to Melton" Plan; ~d, ~e 2. The UIowa Fi~bine Building and Road Pi~ Environmental Consequences IMPACT . ................ Adverse -- 0 -- Benefit PRO SIG NoM SIG PR0 Definitions NOM: No or Minor Impact SIG: Significant Impact PRO: Profound Impact -2 -1 0 +1 +2 The Rating Scale is based on: 1. 1985 Io~a City Urban Environmental Policies, City Council adopted unan.; 2o 1980s Environmental Assessments co~ducted in Johnson County by U.So/Iowa; 3. 1969 to present U.S. EPA Laws, Regulations and Guidelines; and, 4. 1993-94 EA-EIS manuals of U.S. Dept. Highway Adm., U.S. DOI, etc.; and, (1) The complete Rating Scale is available from Cc~munity Press in the 15 May 1993 issue of the Community Betterment Bulletin. For additional information see Cowmunity Betterment Bulletin: *--"Iowa-SHS Flip-Flops on Historical Clearance; Facts of the Four-Lane Plan for Throroughfare Not Presented When 'Melrose Bridge Concept' Reviewed," pp. 1, 2, March 27, 1993. "--"NOo 2, Documents Series: Melrose-UHeights Environmental Consequences: A Comparative Checklist of Concepts of Affected Environmental and Environmental Consequences Expressed in Enviro~fltal Assessment and EnviroNmental Impact Statement Document That Relate to the Melrose-UHeights Environmental Assessment," pp. 2, 3, April lg, 1993. *--"A Rating Scale for Assessing Selected Beneficial and Adverse Environmental Effects and Consequences Resulting from a Project Impacting the Environment," pp. 1-4, May 15, 1993. RATlinG: 3--Community RATING: 4--Communi ty RATING: 5--Culture RATING: 6--Economic: RATING: 7--Economic: RATING: 8--Economic: community Betterment Bulletin Summary of Impact of the Melrose Project. l~Aesthetic, Architectural and Visual RA~ING: Significant A~verse r ~t 2--Buffer Area Between Functions Controversy Profom~ Advarse r..pact Cohesion Profom~ m~erse ~ Profo~ ad~-rse ~[mct Personal Property Profom~ Adwerse Impact C~ity/Neig~orh~ Pro~r ty ~ or ~r ~ C~er ical/Insti tutional Activity 9--Historic Preservation ~TI~: ~of~ ~ ~ 10-Historic Co~ervation 11-R~reation 12-Pollution: Quality of Air ~TI~: ~of~ ~ ~ 16-Social Well ~ing SCDRING: -28 + -1 : -29 DIVIDED BY 16 Rating Scores -2 -2 >-2< -2 >-2< -2 >-2< -2 >-2< -2 >-2< -2 O'FE~T.T. RATING: -2 >-2< -2 >-2< -2 >-2< -2 >-2< -2 >-2< >-2< -2 >-2< -28 EQUALS -1.815 of Environmental -1 0 +1 +2 -1 0 +1 +2 -1 0 +1 +2 -1 0 +1 +2 -1 0 +1 +2 -1 0 +1 +2 -1 0 +1 +2 -1 0 +1 +2 -1 0 +1 +2 -1 0 +1 +2 -1 0 +1 +2 -1 0 +1 +2 -1 0 +1 +2 -1 0 0 0 -1o85 is a Profound Adverse Effects .and Consequences Ratin~ ENVIRONMETNAL ASSESSMENT: The UI Melrose 4-Lane or More Highway Avenue and 4-Lane Bridge Development will receive profound adverse environmental in~act in 14 Environmental Assessment effected impact areas; the adverse impact effecting all the people, 6,000 residents and pedestrians, homeowners and renters, homes and property directly on Melrose and on the people, homes and neighborhoods either side of Melrose and on adjacent streets. The Aesthetic, Architectural and Visual area will receive a significant adverse impact. The Economic: Communit~ Property will receive no or minor impact. 1--Aesthetic, Architectural and Visual -2 -2 0 +1 +2 RATING: Profo~ Adverse Impact >-2< The AAV will be significantly degraded especially in terms of open space and landscaping, Beyond that the effect will be continuing degradation because of increase in volume, speed and size of vehicles that use the Melrose Thoroughfare, homeowner flight replaced by multiple renters and cars, etc. 2--Buffer Area Betweea Fuactiuns -2 -1 0 +1 +2 RATING: Profound Advexse Impact >-2< The buffers will be profoundly degraded resulting in a further or complete loss of separation between thoroughfare and pedestrians, further loss of separation between residences and thoroughfare, further loss of separation between industrial (University Hospital) operations and people-homes- neig~lborhoodSo 3--C~'~m~anity Controversy -2 -1 0 +1 +2 RATING~ Profound Adverse Impact >-2< The Community Controversy will be profoundly increased over the already high level of controversy that has prevailed since the late 1960s when the effects of the decision of Iowa City to expand Melrose Avenue and Bridge to 4- lanes to 6-lanes to create a flow of traffic fro~ and to Highway 80 through Iowa City. The Community Controversy will decrease as homeowners along Melrose sell their property either to the University of Iowa for future use or sell to landlords for rentals. 4--Coamuni ty Cohesion -2 -1 0 +1 +2 RATII~i: Profound Adverse Impact >-2< The Community Cohesion with/toward Iowa City will further decreased as the citizen-residents of Melrose-Iowa City and University Heights witness a total disregard of planning principles by Iowa City, University Hospital and the University of Iowa not only in the planning and construction of camplexes such as University Hospital but also toward property which they do not own and in theory should not control; further, community cohesion will be further undermined by the failure of iowa City Governance to protect, maintain, and enhance tl~e Melrose neighborhoods. 5--Culture -2 -1 0 +1 +2 RATING: Proformal adverse Iapact >-2< "Culture" descriptors in the Iowa City Urban Environmental Policies include Iowa ~uall town, neighborhood, rural community ethic or spirit. The Iowa City plan for Melrose will drive out "culture." Iowa City and UIowaHOSPITAL development will yield more of an unfortuneate labyrith of traffic patterns, Melrode-routed traffic volume, parking lots/ramps, a lack of cycle and pedestrians -- and buyup of UIowa residential housing all of which depress the area culture° 6--Economic: Personal Property -2 -1 0 +1 +2 RATING: Profound Adw._rse Impact >-2< There will be a profound adverse economic effects on personal property -- the value of single-family owned homes will be jedordized leading to sale of these homes to the University of Iowa and to landlords for multiple-room rentals. The rentals will produce more people for less space per person and more cars to be parked in less parking space per car. The rental properties will exhibit less care and upkeep because landlords are less attentive to appearance than resident-owners. 7--Economic: Community Property -2 -1 0 +1 +2 RATING: Profoflnd Adverse Infaact >-2< There will no or minor effect on Economic: Community Property. 8--Economic: Commerical/Institutional Activity -2 -1 0 +1 +2 RATING: Profound Adverse Impact >-2< The Economic: Cozmercial/Industrial Activity (the UIowaHSOPITAL) has already increased on Melrose causing profoundly adverse effects. The failure to provide alternate routing for traffic effect will be profoundly adverse. However, the anticipated steady, increase in hospital service expected throughout the 1990s and 2000-2010 may not occur; hospital activity may decrease° Thus, the full adverse effect may not be realized. It should be noted that the University Heights business center has been kept small by design and plan. There is no drive on the U-Heights City Council for business growth. However, if Melrose Avenue in University Heights between Sunset and the Bridge becomes a 4-lane or more street this will cause many current homeowners to sell to escape the deteriorating conditions. These are two of various options for the land that comes available: *--Purchase of homes by landlords for conversion to multiple-renter houses; or, *--Development of a Uni~ersitl~ Heights a~ Hospital Mi.i-Mall providing: Cleaners, Copy-Print Shop, Deli-Pizza Shop, Gas-Service Station, Groceries- Casey/Quicktrip, Electronics-Radio Shack, Flower Shop, Gift Shop, Meat Shop, Medical (chiropractor, dentist, GP, internist, urologist, etc.), Medical tkluipment and Supplies, Pharmacy, Restaurant, Video/Music, etc. -2 -1 0 +1 +2 >-2< have a profoundly adverse impact on -2 -1 0 +1 +2 >-2< 9--Historic Preservation RATING: Pzofound~h~_rseT..~act The Melrose Development will "Historical Preservation" properties 10-Historic Conservation RATING: Vrofou~d~lverseImpact The Melrose Development will have a profoundly adverse impact on the historic conservation properties. (See "Conservation" in "Rating Scale°") 11-Recreation -2 -1 0 +1 +2 RATING: Profo~IAd~erse I~ >-2< The Melrose Development will have a profoundly adverse impact on the leisure, park, play, and recreation features of Melrose Avenue, Melrose in Iowa City and University Heights. Recreation functions are inherent in traditional neighborhoods requiring little or no public park dept. funding or control° 12-Pollution: Quality of Air -2 -1 0 +1 +2 RATING: ProfoumlAdverse~ >-2< The Melrose Four-Lane Plan will have a profoundly adverse impact on the quality of air increasing the pollutants and creating an increasingly less healthy environment. 13-Polluction: Quality of Sound -2 -1 0 +1 +2 RATING: Profou~/~se ~ >-2< The Melrose Highway Plan will have a profoundly adverse impact on the noise level increasing it to that associated with a major city co~raercial and/or manufacturing and/or industrial level as contrasted with the far lower level of noise associated with the former Melrose neighborhoods to the current low-density, high cost, suburban-rim, single-family housing being fostered by Iowa City in the new suburban rim of Iowa City. 14-Safety -2 -1 0 +1 +2 RATING: Profound~h~erseImpact >-2< The Melrose Four-Lane Highway will have a profoundly adverse impact on the level of safety experienced by pedestrians and bicyclists. Melrose with its 20 entry points was perceived in 1973 by the Melrose residents. On a continuing basis the UIowaHOSPITAL fails to provide adequately safe or convenient pedestrians walkways. Evidently, the UIowaH0SPITAL presumes already that the best, safest way to/from the hospital is to drive and park. People situated closeby who could walk to University Hosptial -- staff and patients -- will have cause to ride in cars for safety. 15-Security -2 -1 0 +1 +2 RATING: Profound~d~erse T?act >-2< The Melrose Four-Lane Avenue-Bridge will have a profoundly adverse impact on the security of the Melrose Avenue area -- in and adjacent to Melrose in Iowa City and University Heights. Female personnel at University Hospital have already expressed concern about the current and future increasingly insecure nature at night of the complex. 16-Social Well Being -2 -1 0 +1 +2 PATING: Profou~dAchie, rseImpact >-2< The Melrose Development will have a profoundly adverse impact on the "social well being" (a term used in the Iowa City Urban Environmental Policies). /~,April 1995 -- ICoBRW Inc. EA Fails to Address Homeowaer, N'hood Concerns ************************************************************** News Stand $1.00 C~I~Y BE~i'~ Bt]nrJ~TIN volume III -- 12 April 1995 "telling what is going on, why and how" Serving Homeowners, Renters, Families, Neighborhoods and Subdivisions of Johnson County, Iowa, U.S.A. ~bli~ a~ ~ight~ by C~ty Press, 362 Koser Av, IC-UH, IA 52246-3038 -- 319/337-7578 Editor: John Nesbitt; Assoc. Eds.: J. Cureton, J. Gannon, W.S. Good **************************************************************** [CBB. 17B//5-8] ~ IC-B~InCo (*) EAFails to AddressH(~eowner, Neighborhood Concerns (*) BRW, Inc., Howard Preston, Project Manager (612/370-0700) 700 Third Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55415 --- Cost to IC: $101,462 FULL 200 ppo REPORT on MRW-Melrose-FA Distribution: 21 copies to U.S. Agencies, City Staff, Focus Group Members 4 copies to public: C & IC Libraries, City Clerk, City Development SUMMARY 11 pp. REPORT: 50 printed and available on request frc~a IC. ACTION SCHEDULE: Public Comment: 14 March to B May, 1995: written state%~ents accepted Public Hearing: 19 April, 1995, 7-9pm: verbal statements accepted FONSI Determination or Need for EIS: May 1995 Phase I/II SHPO Clearance: May 1995 Melrose Four-Lane HIGHWAY/Avenue/Bridge Construction: 1996-1997 ~The 1993 Iowa City Council Election In November 1993 in conjunction with the Election of City Councilors the Iowa City Kirkwood, Melrose, and Su~mit Neighborhood Associations as well as other nei9nborhood groups and urban environment groups stated their respective goalsand their concerns. They about concerned about more people, more cars, more parking problems, more crime, more fires, more school crowding, more taxes and more unwanted developed, for example, the proposed New Airport. In response, every candidate campaigning for Iowa City City Council proclaimed her or his concern about the issues brought by homeowners and neighborhoods, their lo__y~_~ to Iowa City citing how long they or their families had lived in Iowa City, why they came to Iowa City or chose to stay in Iowa. They spoke of their affection for the essense of Iowa City -- its neighborhoods, its small town ambience, it Iowa ethic, its artJests and writers, its liberal arts and humanities tradition, its visual aesthetics. But, their concern for resident concerns and their loyalty and affection for a s~eical ~lace called Iowa City has not translated into policies and decisions in behalf of the citizen concerns and demonstrated loyalty to the Iowa City tradition. For example, "neighborhood" concerns, loyalties and affections were not adequately addressed by the 1995 Iowa City-BRW Inc. Melrose Four-Lane Highway Environmental Assessment. Iowa City designed the criteria (the things they would measure and the standards for beneficial and adverse impact) for the Melrose urban environmental assessment Iowa City and wrote the RFP -- Request For Proposal that resulted in a$100,462 contract with B~4 Inc. of Minneapolis. But, in criteria and the RFP Iowa City failed to use: Local Resource ~ 1. 1980s environmental assessments conducted U.S.-Iowa agencies in Johnson' C~u~ty which included criteria addressing natural, economic and social effects. and consequences of developments. The Johnson County Assessment included property, co~a~unity controversy but the Iowa City criteria did not. The Iowa City-BR~ Inc. Melrose Four-Lane Environmental Assessment chose to reject the economic and social factors studied in those 1980s enviromm~ntal assessments in favor of non-economic and non-social factors° Local Resource ~_ 2. 1985 Iowa City Urban Environmental Policies adopted unanimously by the Iowa City City Council in 1985 (current City Councilor Naomi Novick served on the drafting committee and current City Councilor Larry Baker voted for the policies). The conceptS and principles embraced by Iowa City in these policies should serve all Iowa City homeowners and neighborhoods and neighbhorhood life providing a safeguard and shield for homeowners, renters and neighbhorhoods from commercial, governmental, private, and public-state developer agencies, institutions and organizations the activities of the groups that will degrade, demean, or destroy the quality of Iowa City neighborhoods and neighborhood life. Local Resource # 3. The third criteria that Iowa City-BRW Inc. should have used in the enviror~ental assessment are the public statements made by Iowa City neighborhood and environmental groups in the 1993 Iowa City City Council election campaign. These are important concerns and positions which express the opinions and judgements of citizens, homeo~mers, renters, the "town" and the "gown," the seniors -- all citizens° The following are 1993 City Council campaign concerns (1) (2) cited by homeowners, citizens, neighborhoods m,d community groups that are pertinent to the Iowa City-BRW Inc. Melrose EA and to the pending decisions of the Iowa City City Council on the Melrose Four-Lane Highway, Avenue and Bridge. These concerns should have been reflected in criteria, RFP and the Melrose FA Report: 1. Stop widening avenues/bridges/streets ~ which increases traffic, causes environmental problems, and causes neighborhood problems .... Preserve historic heritage° Reduce neighborhood parking. Develop public transportation. 3. 4. 5. 6. Protect old neighborhoods. 7. Find alternatives to cars. 9. Gangs [gangs are one result Of development which destroys urban environmental quality of life, fragments neighborhoods, displaces stable residents, etc.] 10. Speeding traffic° 15. Support for neighborhood open space. 16. Lack of action/take action on Iowa City "Urban Env. Neighbor hoods" 18, The Melrose Four-Lane Highway Worst Case Scenario, Policies...re 19. Neighbors (homeowners, renters, groups) are ignored. 20. Appeal for a two-lane Melrose Bridge. 21. Seek Regents'help [re University of Iowa peremptory actions in co~unity re planning, building, roads, traffic management, land-buying, etc.]° (1) See neighborhood, envirop_m~ntal, and community group questionnaires, flyers, candidate brochures, etc., Iowa City Neighborhood Service files, IC Public Library pamphlet files, etco (2) Se Community BetteLTnent Bulletin, November 13, 1993, "22 Neighbor Concerns, Issues Expressed at CANDIDATE FORUMS," po 4.) But, the criteria used by Iowa City in designing the assessment and writing the RFP did not include criteria from the Johnson County EAs (~1 above) nor from the Iowa City Urban Environmental Policies (#2 above) nor 1993 Citizen Public Statements (~3). The Iowa City-RBW Inc. Melrose EA serves as a bad model for Iowa City and its Planning, Engineerirg, Parking, Public Works, etc., function in the conduct of urban environmental assessment on the effects of development in any and all of Iowa City's residential neighborhood and areas. The Iowa City BR~/ Inc. model demonstrates that development in Iowa City is in the hands of "Gro-Gro Developers" and not homeowners who have the largest, private, collective dollar investment in Iowa City. Further, the Melrose EA neighborhood and environmeantal groups in Iowa City shows that Iowa City City Government has and will continue to align with the "Gro-Gro Developers" and fail to follow its own Urban Environmental Policies when these policies are a barrier to Iowa City's pursuit of its development agenda, as is the case with the Four-Lane Melrose Highway. The Scopil~g Cc~ttee/[~ Group. The Scoping Committee/Focus Group convened by Iowa City Administration failed to invite representation of Iowa City's recognized neighbhorhood groups as well as the environmenatl protection oriented groups° The Scoping Committee/Focus Group was weighted heavily in favor of developers -- Iowa City Government, University of Iowa, UlowaHOSPITAL, Johnson County, and the at-large Iowa City SELJ~CTED citizens. The Iowa City selected citizens had no expertise in the scoping process, environmental assessment, and nor in citizen, homeowner and neighborhood concerns in Iowa City in general and in Brooklyn Park, Melrose, Roosevelt and University Heights in particular° The UHCO-University Heights Community Organization was excluded from direct representation. While it is understandable that the public at large was not given an opportunity to comment (any co,reenters were threatened with expulsion) during the working session -- Iowa City could have provided an opportunity for presentation of written statements before or during or after the meeting. These written statements could have been accepted from some 50 neighborhood and environmental groups active in the Iowa City Area. All Iowa City neighborhoods have an interest in the "environmental assessemnt process" in terms of "Your Backyard Today, My Backyard Tomorrow." All Iowa City neighborhoods can benefit from greater insight about what is going on, about both published and incremental development plans, about regulations and policies that are observed and not observed, knowing the process, knowing the who, what, where, whe~, why and how planning decisions are made. (Ed. Note. Incremental plans are usually not published and are implemented on an ad hoc basis, e.g., when one building or road is completed then the next building or road is built and landscaped.) The following CRITERIA cited by the Scoping Co~ittee were not dealt with adequately by the Iowa City-BRW Inc. Melrose Highway' EA: Since 1973 when the Melrose Avenue Civics Association appealed to Iowa City and UIowaHOSPITAL to return Melrose Avenue to a "true" two-lane street Iowa City and UIowaHOSPITAL incessantly increased the traffic in small incremental bits. The standard of quality of various environmental factors is is not now compared to a time 10 or 15 years in the future. The standard is the quality of these factors in 1973. These concerns were documented in the 1973 Melrose Avenue Civics Association and in the 1993 Some [12] Questions About the Melrose Project. These two documents question the credibility of the Iowa City and UIowaHOSPITAL developers assumptions, rationale, methodology, data, data interpretation, and depiction of the future in terms of urban environmental quality of life. It is impossible for many urban environmental factors not to suffer profound adverse impact from the Melrose Four-Lane Highway. Since 1973 when the first of many formal homeowner-neighbor protests were submitted there have been profound adverse impacts. And, more will come with the Melrose Four-Lane Highway completion. These adversely impact homeowners, children and youth, seniors and people with disabilities, pedestrians, bikers, patients, students, and medical staff. For example, buffers are not, as some Iowa City and University planners suppose, "landscaping" that is put in place after a building or thoroughfare has been installed. Buffers are real separations of functions such as an industrial function being separated from a residential functions in terms of: a. architecture, b. aesthetics (man-made and natural) c. air quality, d. approaches and entryways, e. health, f. leisure and recreation, go open space, h. safety, i. security (from harm), j o sense of well being, k. sound quality (noise)o Four Copies for the Public° Only four copies of the 200-page IC-BRW InCo report were made available for the public. The Report is an educational tool which should be distributed automatically to the 50 Iowa City Area neighborhood groups, community betterment, enviro~ental, etc., groups. Surely there was $550 in the $100,462 budget to print 50 reports at $11o00 each for community dissemination. ,1 15 April 1995 ~ U-Heights Critical Reaction to IC-BRW Inc. Melrose EA ************************************************************** News Star~ $1.00 Volume III -- 15 April 1995 "telling readers what is going on, and why and how" Serving Homeowners, Renters, Neighborhoods, and Subdivisions of Johnson County, Iowa, U.S.A. Publisbeda~d C~ight~byC~ty Press, 362 KosexA~enue~ IC-UH, IA 52246-3~38 Editor: John A. Nesbitt; Assoc. Editors: Jan Cureton, W. Stanley Good Critical Reactions by the U-Heights Public and City Councilors to the ICC-BBg;-Melrose-EA at the City of University City Council Meeting "IC-BRW-Melrose-EA" = Iowa City $100,462 BRW, Inc. of Minneapolis Melrose Four-Lane Environmental Assessment UNIVl~ITY HF/(~, Iowa -- Public citizen and councilor questions and criticisms of the "ICC-B}~;-Melrose-EA" were voiced April 11, 1995 during the "Public Input" period at the first public City of University Heights City Council meeting held since the release of the ICC-B~-Melrose-EA. The AGENDA for the U-Heights City Council meeting included: *-Public Input *-Minutes of March Meeting ~-Treasurer's Report *-Payment of Bills *-Legal Report ~-Engineer's Report *-Police Chief Report *-Finance Committee Report *-Fire/Police Report *-Building, Zoning and Sanitation Committee Report *-JC-COG Report *-Streets and Sidewalk Co~uittee Report *-NEXT MEETING -- May 9, 1995 The following are highlights of questions, criticisms, and discussion of the $100,462 ICC-BRW-Melrose-EAo The Environmental Assessment is of the Iowa City plan to build a new road and a new bridge on Melrose Avenue. [Edo Note: the numbers and letters are to provide a guide to different items and paragraphs; they do not reflect an agenda or set of questions.] 1o Ir~-~siste~cyof Data ar~ Conclusions. Various data in the ICC-BRW- Melrose-EA do not seem to support the conclusions and interpretation found in ICC-BRW-EA text; conversely, of course, interpretation is not supported by the various data. 2o Al~e~oate~ 1 ar~ 2 (") A~e Best B~t Not R~. The text of the ICC-B~-Melrose-EA seems to recommends the 3-lane choices as best; but, the data actually suggests that Alternatives No. 1 and No. 2 are best. Often, there appears to be dys-synchonization between data, interpretations, conclusions and recommendations in the $100,462 ICC-BRW-Melrose-EAo The Alternates in the ICC-Bt~4-Melrsoe EA are: 1 Alternate 1 -- Alternate 2 -- Alternate 3 m Alternate 4 -- The No-Build Alternate. Two bane Bridge, Two Lane Street, Left Turn Lane at Hawkins Dr. [Edo Note: The Two Lane Bridge may easily be converted to more lanes by restzi~i~; this creates the view that Iowa City can at its option cause a profound change in the configuration of the traffic patterns, the volurge of traffic, etc., which could cause an increasingly more profound negative impact on all the homes and neighborhoods bordering Melrose Avenue in University Heights and Iowa City. New Two Lane Bridge and Three Lane Street. []~. Note: The fact of the restripping option figures into all the Alternatives 3 through 6 bridge and road designs. There is no manner in which the intentions and actions of Iowa City and the University of IOWa-HOSPITAL may be anticipated and, based on experience from 1970 to 1995, it must be assum~ that Iowa City and University of Iowa-HOSPITAL will plan and build without regard to the desires of the City of University Heights, the UniversityHeightsVISION PLAN, and the University Heights constituent neighbhorhoods; and, without regard for the desires of Iowa City homes, homeowners, renters and neighborhoods that are effected, i.e., Melrose, Roosevelt, etco Three Lane Bridge and Three Lane Street. [Mdo Note: As stated in the CBBulletin Alt. 4 will cause profound adverse impacts on all neighborhoods bordering Melrose Avenue -- see CBB Special Issue on the IOC-BM~-Melrose-EA. ] Alternate 5 -- Four Lane Bridge and Four Lane Thoroughfare. [~d° Note: As stated in CBB Alt. 5 would cause profound adverse ~pact on neighborhoods bordering Melrose Avenue.] Alternate 6 u Four Lane Bridge and Five Lane Thoroughfare° [~k]. Note: As stated in CBB Alt. 6 would cause profound adverse impact on neighborhoods bordering Melrose Avenue.] Alternate 7 -- New Street Located to the North of the Existing Melrose Avenue° [~d. Note: As stated in CBB Alto 7 was only one of the options available to reduce traffice being channeled by Iowa City and University of IoWa-HOSPITAL onto Melrose. The rejection of Alt. 7 in the ICC-BRW-Melrose-EAmay not be supported if approached from a different philosophical position than that supported by IoWa City and University of IOwa-HOSPITAL. Further, the range of options cited in CBBulletin, April 3, 1993 have not been addressed. The proposed alternatives include: 1. The BelgumArterial, 2.a. W~RailwayArterial, 2.b. We~ Railway from Hawkins, 3. The Go~ Mormon-Trek Park-Shuttle, and, 4. The Northwest Passage Arterial. 3. Feel of the Report. The ICC-BRW-EA-Report has the "feel of scientific firm conducting a study for a tobacco ca~pany." a 2 4o 2-Lanes ~ .... 3; 3-La~es ~_ 4. In the ICC-BRW-FA, the added bike-lanes, walking-lanes, turning-lanes, etc., associated a given 2-car-lanes bridge design or a 3-car-lanes bridge design allow the 2s and 3s to be restripped to 3-car-lanes or 4-car-lineso Thus, in the ICC-BRW-EA-Report the number of lanes associated with various drawings must be presu~ to provide increase lanes just by restripping. 5. Bicycles ~ Q~tio~. The use of bicycle lanes in the ICC-BRW- EA seems inconsistent with JC-COG-Johnson County County of Governments opinion of bike lanes; that is, JC-COG holds the view that a bike lane to the right of the car lane has three liabilities/risks: 5-A--T~ Risk° Cars turning right turn into the bike-lane causing risk; 5-B--Pass Risk. Cars use the bike-lane to pass on right causing risk; 5-{~--Bike Lar~ Risk. Cars tend to drive in the bike-lane causing risk. 6. Q~estions ~x~t JC-COG $truc~e, Gonflicts of Interest. There are concerns about the JC-COG-Johnson County Council of Governments structure (voting strength, control of decision making) and conflicts of interests a~ng ~mbers of the JC-COG (serving Iowa City and serving Johnson at the same tiao) 7. JC-(X)G Rejectio~ of U-Heights "Vision". There was discussion of the resistance of the JC-COG to the City of University Heights "City Vision Plan" that was suk~tited to JC-CGO. The UH-Vision was rejected by the JC-COG by a vote of 9 against the UH- Vision Plan and 1-1/2 for (Iowa City City Councilor Throgmorton voting with U- Heights, 1 vote and UHeights City Council Jones ~ 1/2 vote). The Throgmorton- Jones vote in support of the UH-Vision Plan was a symbolic stand against the JC-COG decision. The view was expressed that JC-COG should not have the authority to reject a JC-COG City-Me~er ' s individual "planning vision." [~d. Note. The City of Iowa City and the University of Iowa have enough votes a~ng the JC-COG ~ambership to control the JC-C(]G decisions. The JC-COG action rejecting the UH-Vision Plan demonstrates the continuing coincidence of JC-COG studies, data, reports, and recommendations with the goals and plans of both Iowa City and the University of Iowa-HOSPITAL. 8. Trans~rtation -- Yes; Bridge ~ No. It was reported that University Heights had voted for the JC-CX]G Transportation Improvement Plan with the absolute stipulation-reservation that this approval vote was not to concur with nor to allow more than two lanes on the Melrose Bridge in any proposed repair or building. [~o Note. The JC-COG and Iowa City have used votes such as the general vote approving the JC-COG Iowa Street Plans to claim that the City of University Heights has approved the widening of Melrose Bridge to larger than two lanes. Increasingly the UH-Representative to JC-COG scrutinizes proposals to assure that UH-Votes are not misinterpreted by Iowa City and others. 9. Party Li~e. The ICC-BIqW-Melrose-EA is perceived by s(~ne as following the "Iowa City Party Line." 3 1~o St~in~ 3-/4-/5-/6-Lane Brid~es. The are various n~ans by which University Heights may reject/denie/resist the Iowa City-University of Iowa/Hospital plan to force a 3-/4-/5-/6-Lane Melrose Bridge Building Plan on the City of University Heights. The means include: I~-Ao The Land° The fact that University Heights exercises total and cc~lete legal authority over the land West of the Melrose Bridge; Iowa City can not force University Heights to allow a 3-/4/5-/6-lane Melrose Bridge to be built° i~-B. The 28-E i%gre~-~t. The State of Iowa 28-E Public Agreef~ent Code that requires that two public authorities (for example, Iowa City and University Heights) must agree on a project (for ex., the Melrose Bridge) which impacts the two cities. i~-Co Legal Bo~ at Bridge. The historic understanding and continuing practices that affirm and reaffirm that the land West of Melrose Bridge is the University Heights and forms the legal boundary line between Iowa City and University Heights. i~-D. I-DOT Positios. The Iowa Department of Transportation could exercise its authority over Melrose Avenue and Melrose Bridge directing that they become three, four, five or six lanes. However, the I-DOT has stated repeatedly that they will not pursue this course of action because: l~-D-i. The C~)st. The I-DOT would have to assume financial responsibility for the property and they don't have the money -- they have been short of funds for 20 years. 1M-D-ii. Bad Pre~t. for the I-DOT in the state. places) want I-DOT to take sibility) for local roadways, bridges, etc. afford it. I-DOT doesn't want this and can' Taking over Melrose would set a bad precedent Many cities and counties (an entire line up of over responsibity (including financial respon- t l~-D-iii. Legislators and I-D~. If either Iowa City or the University of Iowa-HOSPITALS officials and lobbyists had approached their State of Iowa legislators (representatives and senators) and if the legislators in turn had approached I-DOT on behalf of the Iowa City and University of Iowa-HOSPITALS "Melrose Plan" -- the legislators would have carried back an I-DOT message along the lines of "I-DOT doesn't want Melrose no matter what parking and traffic problems Iowa City and UIowa-Hospital believe they have." l~-D-iv. Concurrence Needed. Even if I-DOT wanted to exercise its authority by taking over the Melrose Avenue in University Heights, it is still necessary for I-DOT to receive the voluntary concurrence of the City of University Heights for the I-DOT action; and, the City of University Heights has informed Iowa City, Johnson County and the State of Iowa-I-DOT that it will not approve anything more than a 2-lane Melrose Avenue and Bridge in and hnpinging on the City of University Heights. 4 11o Ca='lie~-i-~ Dizec-ti~o There was discussion of the conflicting directions of the City of University Heights versus Iowa City-University of Iowa-HOSPITALS. 12o Ca~mmication, Cooperation. In 25 years there has been only one joint meeting of the respective City Councils of Iowa City and University Heights;but, COC a~d a number of serious conflicts. This failure to meet together precludes comuuication and cooperation between Iowa City and University Heights. 13. Planning i. Isolation. It seems that the University of Iowa formulates building plans in seclusion -- then 25 years later when groups criticize UIowa says, '"~hy should people be concerned -- we have had these plans for 25 years." 19 April 1995 -- The IC-BRW Inc. Melrose $100,000 Disappointment 33333,333***3*3**3******3**********3************************** News Stand $1o00 C0~ITY B~Fi'~MENT B[JLLETIN Volume III, 19 April 1995 "telling people what is going on, why and how" Serving Homeowners, Renters, Families, Neighborhoods and Subdivisions of Johnson County, Iowa, U.SoA. Published and Copyrightedb¥ Cc~ty Press, 362 Koser Av, ICity-UHeights, IA 52246-3038 -- 319/337-7578 Editor: John Nesbitt; Associcate Editors: J. Cureton, J. Gannon, W.S. Good No reprinting or copying without written publisher pemissiono ********************************************************************* [CRG. 179] FULL TEXT OF "Look at Melrose Options," The Cedar Rapids Gazette, April 23, 1995, Johnson County, page 2o Subtitle: The IC-BRW Inc. Melrose Assessment Is A$100,000 Disappointment Subtitle: The IC-BRW Inc. Melrose Asses~nent Is A Big Disappointment Iowa City wants to build a four-lane or five-lane Melrose Avenue and Bridge Thoroughfare in west Iowa City. The Melrose Thoroughfare will traverse residential areas in Iowa City and University Heights. The thoroughfare has potential adverse urban environmental and socioeconomic impacts. Thus, Iowa City must conduct an assessment before getting U.S. funds. Iowa City awarded BRW Inc. of Minneapolis a $100,00 contract to conduct the required assessment of alternatives. At the first public presentation of the BRW Inc. assessment report Melrose homeowners made it clear that the report fell short of their expectations. The BRW Inc. assessment failed to report adequately the potential economic, environmental and social impacts of the proposed project. BRW Inc. presented a series of seven (7) alternatives° But, five of the alternatives were essentially one alternative -- a four-lane bridge stripped for two-lanes, three-lanes or four-lanes° Homeowners know that a four-lane Melrose Bridge will draw traffic from other routes. The BRW Inc. alternatives failed to present assessments of six homeowner proposed alternative routes to the UIowa Hospital and Campus coupled with an actual two-lane bridge° This is what homeowners in Iowa City and University Heights had expected. One alternative route -- a New North Road to be built by UIowa from Mormon Trek to UIowa campus -- was rejected in the BRW Inc. assessment. Residents got the New North Road idea from the current 0Iowa building plan. Ulowa plans to build academic buildings on Finkbine Golfcourse and to build a New North service road to the UIowa campus. If the New North Road were built now it will carry traffic to/fr~ UIowa campus withouit using Melrose Avenue. But, the BRW Inc. firm cited a wooded area impact that could block the New North Road being built° 1 The BRW Inc. assessment failed to study a series of five. homeowner proposals that would funnel traffic to/from UIowa CAMPUS and off Melrose. These proposals i~clude: 1. The David Belgu~ Arterial; 2. The Irving Webber Railway Arterial; 3. The Webber Railway Arterial to Hawkins; 4. The Stsnle¥ Good Mormon Trek Shuttle; and, 5. The Northwest Arterial. The failure to even consider the five alternative routes is a significant loss to homeowners. Residents want to solve any current or future, real or imagined Iowa City and UIowa traffic problems while protecting and preserving the neighborhoods. But, a major thoroughfare will just draw more and more traffic and destroy the neighborhoods. Iowa City and the UIowa are willing to sacrifice these old neighborhoods in Iowa City and University Heights to move more traffic, more quickly from the growing low-density, elite housing rim to downtow~ Iowa City businesses, commerce, government, hospitals, university and parking° The "Public Hearing" held by BRW Inc. at the Iowa City Public Library on 19 April to introduce the Melrose report went off track quickly. At 7:00 pro, BRW Inco staffers said their "procedure" required individual oral statements be made to a court reporter in the back of the room -- privately, one person at a time. But, Melrose neighbors appealed for public discussion. There were so many questions that at 9:15 the court recorder had to leave without taking individual oral statements. During the two hour session BRW Inc. homeowners cited the Focus Group meeting of November 1992 in which specific requests were made for qualitative n~asursments and for assessment standards leading to findings and conclusions. Homeowners and neighborhood associations challenged the BRW Inc. assessment for its failure to provide adequate assessment of the Melrose Thoroughfare's adverse impacts on: *--neighborhoods, the community at large, and the UIowa campus; *--economic factors including property (home) values and public acquisition (UIowa and others); *--traffic patterns in terms of e~ergency vehicles, ingress/egress abutting properties; *--public transportation; *--safety for pedestrians and cyclists; and *--historic properties and recreation. Michaelanne Widness~ President of the Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association said, "I felt that BRW Inc. Melrose EA (environmental assessment) was incomplete." M.AoN.A. circulated a document expressing concern about: *--"The 2-lane bridge can accommodate 4-lanes." *--The adjoining streets and neighborhoods have not been studied." *--"Melrose Court ... is virtually excluded from the study." *--"The issue of safety .o. is given little consideration°" *--"Potential ~npacts of the 7 alternatives on University Heights are largely ignored." Joe Gannon, Co-Chair of the University Heights Coa~unity (homeowners) Organization, said, "The only thing acceptable to University Heights homeowners is a two-lane Melrose Bridge and a two-lane Melrose Avenue in U-Heights. In this period of budget cuts and waste elimination we must say 'enough is enough. ' "It is a waste to build a massive four-lane bridge when all we need is a two-lane bridge° And, a two-lane bridge is all that the U-Heights homeowners and the U-Heights City Council are going to allow° To save money, Iowa City should narrow Melrose Avenue before it reaches the.bridge°" The BRW Inc. Melrose environmental assessment -- in process since March 1993 at a cost of $100,000 plus unknown city costs -- is a major disappointment, a step backward and a loss of a once only opportunity. The possibility of applying scientific and professional objectivity to resolving a 25 year old social and economic community controversy has been lost. The decision to build or not to build the Melrose Thoroughfare Bridge is, again, a decision solely of the Iowa City City Council. The Iowa City City Council will choose between pushing Iowa City's growth up 100,000 population or protecting its homeowners and preserving its neighborhoods. John A. Nesbitt, 362 Koser Avenue, University Heights, IA 52246-3038 Editor, Community Betterment Bulletin, serving Johnson County, Iowa 319/337-7578 Additional David versus Goliath The City of University Heights has informed the City of Iowa City that U- Heights will approve only a two-lane bridge and only a two lane Melrose Avenue in University Heights. But, Iowa City, Iowa City's JC-cog, UIowa and UIowaHOSPITAL have been determined since 1965 and 1970 to build a four or five or six lane Melrose Avenue and Melrose Bridge from the Iowa River through University Heights to Highway 218. Ironically, the "Little David" U-Heights has a go(x] win record against the "Big Goliath" Iowa City. Since the 1940s University Heights has relied on c~fense -- and won battle after battle. The question: Can U-Heights win again? Iowa City has gambled, or invested, $100,462 in an environmental assessment design that circomvents the urban environ~ntal consequences of the Melrose building project. Homeowners and neighborhood groups have challenged the rationale, assumptions, methodology, data, data interpretation and conclusions. But, the Iowa City-BRW Inc. Melrose EA may still get Iowa City UoSo construction funds. But, Iowa City, UIowa, UIowaHOSPITAL, and JC-cog will lose if they win. The Melrose Highway will have a profound adverse urban environmental consquences on all the Iowa City West Side° The impact will be the same as the Ill impact that has destroyed thousands of American neighborhoods and has torn at America's social fabric. The Melrose Highway will create a situation like the 1-80 Highway through Des Moines. Iowa City and University Heights homeowners, renters, and neighborhoods expected the Iowa City-BRg; Inc. Melrose Environmental Assessment to provide: Qualitative Assessment of aesthetics, buffer areas, property values, pollution, safety, and social factors which would address homeowners concerns in line with the 1985 Iowa City Urban Environmental Policies° The Iowa City-BRW Inc. Melrose EA provided: Quantitative Assessment such as traffic counts that are the stock in trade of city and county planners who want to move more traffic faster, no matter the damage to the human comaunities, no matter the adverse urban environmental consequences. The Melrose homeowners expected qualitative assessment because: 1. The 1980s U.S.-State environmental assessments in Johnson County provided a model for Melrose because the Johnson County EAs dealt with community, economic, and social assess~nents as well as natural assessment. But, community, economics, social, etco, were excluded from the BRW Inco Melrose EA; and, 2. In 1985 the Iowa City City Council unanimously adopted "Urban Environmental Policy" to protect and preserve aesthetics, buffers zones, economic interests, neighborhoods, recreation, well being, etco A 16-point environmental assessment scale was prepared based on Iowa City's UEPolicies. But, Iowa City's ow~ policies were omitted from the Iowa City-BRW Inc. Melrose assessment. Evidently, the Iowa City urban ethics of 1985 don't match the Iowa City growth plan of 1995 -- so Iowa City just ignores is own policies° Joe Gannon, U-H-C-O Co-Chair, said, "In this town of artists, we have hired BRW Inc. consultants to tell us what aesthetics are° Iowa City's most revered citizen -- Irving Webber -- lives on Melrose and he opposes the Four- Lane Melrose Project." In summary, the Iowa City-BRW Inc. Melrose EA alternatives: ~--provide a large four-lane bridge and a small four-lane bridge whether stripped 2-lanes, 3-lanes, or 4-lanes; *--do not adequately assess the actual 2-lane brigde option in terms of the traffic allowed and the impact on the neighborhoods; u~]d, *--do not adequately assess the five proposed alternatives (Belgum, Webber 1 and 2, Good, and VA or other alternatives proposed by BRW Inc.) -- any one or a mix of alternatives that would route traffic to and from the UIowaHOSPITAL but off Melrose. This would serve the hospital's goals and needs while saving the Melrose area homes and neighborhoods. 4 Look at Melrose options NeSbRt homeowner p~ t~t wo~d f~e] ~c to/~m ~e U o~ ] ~p~ ~d o~ ~e~. ~ pm~ ~clude: A pro~ by David ~ to bund an ~eri~ away from for ~ ~eri~, a pm~ by S~ey ~ to ~ a shu~e pro~ to boEd ~ ~eri~ ~hind ~e Vcte~'s A~watlan M~I~ ~ntsr. ~agin~ Iowa City ~d U of l ~c pmble~ neighSthe. But, a ~jor · oreug~ w~ j~t ~aw des~y ~e nei~rh~s lowo C[~ and ine U of I ~ nei~rh~ ~ Iowa CI~ and Unlve~l~ Helgh~ to move mo~ ~c more qnlc~? ~m · e ~w~g low.densl~. elite ~e "pabllc he~lag/' held by BRW at ~e Iowa Cl~ ~bl[r Llb~ an Apr~ 19 to o~-~ck quick?. AI 7 pm.. 8RW s~e~ ~ld "P~" ~u~ ~at ~dtv~du~ o~ s~tsmen~ ~ back o~ ~e r~m -- privatsly. Me~ nel~ ap~ for public d~ian. made for qualmfive ~ment s~ l~d~g to ~d~ ~d ~ncluslom. for Its fa~ to provide ad~ts ~mant o~ ~e Me~ ~om~'s adve~ · Nelgh~rh~ds, the community at large. and the U of I campus. · F. cenomlc factors Including property (~ome) values and public acquisition (U oil and others). · Traffic paRems in terms of emergency vehicles. ingrnss/egre~ abutting properties. · P~bUc t~a~sportatlmL · Safety for pedestrians and cyclists. · · Historic properties and recreation. Mtchaobnne Wtdness. president of the Meli~ise Avenue [~efghborhood Association (MANA), said. "I felt that the BRW Inc. Metrose (econoone impact) was incomplets." MANA ctrcnlated a document expressing concern about the fact that; e The two. lane bridge can accommodate fottr lanes. · The adjoining elmeels and neighborheods have act been studied. · Me[rose Court... Is virtually excluded from the study. · The Issue of safety . . ts glven [tRio considerarian · Potential impacts of the seven ~lternative~ on University Heights are largely Ignored, Joe GeJ'mon. oo-ch~ir of the University Heights Community Organtantioo. s~td. "The only thin8 aceopmble to University Heights homeowners is a two-lane Me]rase bridge and a two-lane Melrose Avenue m University Heights. in this period of budget cuts and waste elimination. we must say 'enough lo enough.' "It Is a waste to bund a maaslye food-lane bridge when all we need is a two-lane bridge. And, a tw(~iane bridge is aU that University Heights homeownem and the University Heights City Cou~ncfi age going to allow." The nEW Me[rose environmental assessment -- in process since March 1993 at a cost of $100,000 plus unknown city costs -- is a major disappein~ent. a step b~ckward and a loss of a once-anly opperttmtty. The poastbdity of applying scientific and professlonnl objectivity m resolving a 25-yea.r-nld social and economic community controversy has been 1OSL The decision to bund or nol to buUd the Melrose thoroughfare bridge Is, again, a decision solely of the inwa Clt7 Council. The CouncU wfil choose between pushing Iowa Clty's growth up to 100.~0 popu~aUon or protecting its homeowners and preserving its neighborhoods. John Nesbltt, a resident flnI. uers~ He~iu, s sb'~ce 1912, ~ ~t. tor of ~anl~ ~lt~ By John town CRy w~ to bo~d a fo~-~ne or Me~o~ Avenue ~d b~d~e MY TUrN iowa cl~ ~d ~nlvemliy f~ds Iowa Ci~ aw~ded nEW ~c. · e ~st public p~enmtlon of Me~o~ hom~wne~ made It cle~ ~m the m~ fe~ sho~ of ~e BEW ~m~ fa~ m~n ed~uatsly ~e ~tsnt~ BRW p~ent~ a ~rl~ of · e ~te~tlv~ were ~nt~y fo~-~e Me~e Avenue bri~e w~l ~w ~c from o~er ~e BRW ~temattv~ fa~ rout~ to ~e Unlve~l~ of New No~ R~d to ~ bufit by the U of ] ~m Moron ~k Bo~ev~ to ~e U of I ~p~ -- w~ reJ~[~ m ~e ~ment. ~e U of I p~ to build a~demlc bu~ on ff ~e New No~ R~d bu~t now, g wo~d ~ ~c to/from ~e U of I ~p~ But. tbo BRW fi~ clt~ a ~ oozed ~ ~cl ~at co~d ~e BRW ~ment faU~ to 9a 8 May 1995 -- A Final Note on the Failed IC-B~ Inc. Melrose EA ************************************************************** News Stand $1o00 CG~TY BKt-i'~I~M]~ BUI~IN Vol~ae III -- 8 May 1995 Serving Homeowners, Renters, Neighborhoods and Subdivisions of Johnson County, Iowa, U.S.A. l~blished and Gop~ighb~l by C~ty Press, 362 Koser Avenue, IC-UH, IA 52246-3038 ~ 319/337-7578 Editor: John Nesbitt; Assoc. Editors: J. Cureton, J. Gannon, WoS. Good No reprinting or copying with permission of the publisher. ******************************************************************** [UHCOo179] *--The Failures to Perform Effective Assessments in the Iowa City-BRW Inc. Melrose Four-Lane HIGHWAS Avenue and Bridge Urban Enviror~nental Assessment *--Reaffin~atio~of University HeightS C~r~unity (241 Neighbors) Organization Endorsement ONLY of a Two-Lane Melrose Bridge and Avenue The Co-Chair of the University Heights Community Organization, Joe Gannon of 1124 Melrose Avenue, has issued a Melrose FA report in which he states: *--UHCO maintains its two-lane Melrose Avenue and Bridge position. *--UHCO endorses the UIowa Finkbine Street in the UIowa 1992 Master Plan. *--UHCO cites the failure to the Melrose EA to address the 5-lane HWY 6. ~--UHCO cites the failure of the Melrose EA to address: 1o Safe buffers. 2. Decreased quality of life. 3. Increases in various bottlenecks. 4. Absence of assessment of Melrose impact on University Heights. "The BRW Inc. Environmental Assess~nent, Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstrution report appears to be written as an adjunct report to Iowa City's 1970 plan to build a four-lane thoroughfare through faraily neighborhoods to Highway 218." The BRW Inc. EA Report by design fails to address 16 major urban environmental factors which if they were assessed would profound and significant adverse environmental effects and consequences which disallow the U.S. and Iowa Governments to provide funds for the Melrose Four-Lane Highway Project. The Iowa City Melrose Four-Lane Highway plan fails to invoke Iowa City's own 1985 Urban Environmental Policies of Iowa City). The fact that Iowa City would contract an official U.So EPA related environmental assessment without addressing the adverse urban environmental consequences of its Melrose Project on its neighbor, the City of University Heights, is difficult to understand. The $100,462 Iowa City-BRW Inco Melrose Four-Lane FA report serves as a buttress to the plan that Iowa City has had since 1970 to build this highway on Melrose through the City of University Heights. But, University Heights has resisted this plan for 25 years and continues to say, "no." For both Ionia City and University Heights, the BRW Inc. EA methods and procedures fail to provide scientific criteria and/or professional standards for the assessment of 16 urban environmental factors, for various Johnson County envirorm~ental factors, for for environmental factors cited in the 1969 Environmental Protection Act law, regulations, standards, guidelines and manuals down to the present tin~. The Iowa City-BRW Inc. Melrose EA even fails to carry out the specific instructions of Scoping Committee/Focus Group. See: *--1985 IC Urban Environmental Policies; *--1980s reports of U.S.-Iowa EAS conducted in Johnson County; 3--1969 to 1993 U.S. EPA laws, regulations, manuals; and, *--1993 Melrose FA Scoping Co,mittee/Focus Group, informal notes, formal notes, tapes of meeting, Iowa City RFP and contract. During the 19 April 1995 Public Hearing the BRW Inc. presentation personnel offered many non-professional, non-scientific a~tal explanations for judgements and conclusions that appear in the report. The University Heights C(x~unity Organization challenged these procedures. The BR~ Inc. anecdotes were not referenced nor footnoted in the report. This is a failure of BRW Inc. procedures to follow/fulfill U.S. and Iowa law, regulations, policies and practices for EAs. Homeowners and neighborhood groups suppozted the "Finkbine Street" depicted in the "April 1992 UIowa Sports and Recreation Master Plan," a Finkbine Street starting near Hawkeye Park Road, carrying vehicles from Mormon Trek to UIowa Finkbine facilities connecting to Hawkins Drive. This is one measure that will meet expressed Ulowa traffic needs while -taking traffic off Melrose and contributing to saving neighborhoods hoods° Although the BRW Inc. report cited an adverse environmental impact for Finkbine alternative it is presumed that the UIowa will proceed with building this road as the UIowa S-R Master Plan (above) progresses° Ulowa owns the land, does not need UoS. construction funds, and will build as it wishes. In addition to the Finkbine Street, homeowners and neighborhood groups have expected the Iowa City-BRW Inc. Melrose EA to assess each of a series of alternative routes that would take UIowaHOSPITAL traffic off Melrose Avenue. These should have been considered one at a time and in combinations in determining which one or more alternate routes would best reduce traffic on Melrose the most. The BRW Inc. EA methods chose to fail to deal with or resolve many adverse environmental impacts, for example, the adverse en~irmental impacts caused by the BO~LENECKS at: 1. RIVERSIDE-GRAND; and, 2o UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS. The expanded new Melrose Thoroughfare will draw an increased volume of traffic w~ich will further confuse the already confused BOTTLENECKS. The BRW Inco report fails to provide any credible, reliable assurance of an absence of profound adverse urban environmental impacts that will be caused by building the Melrose Thoroughfare. The Melrose Bridge is the lynch pin of the Iowa City's drive to achieve a Four-Lane M~lrose Highway. The Iowa City proposed Melrose Bridge would be massive -- by even major city standards° *--The current 01' Melrose Bridge .... o ...... · ..... 43 feet, 6 inches. *--The Burlington West Bound Bridge (4 lane) ...... 63 feet, 10 inches. *--The Iowa City Proposed New Melrose Bridge ...... 70 feet, 10 inches° (IC-ENG) *--The S.F. Golden Gate Bridge (6 lane, 3/3) ...... 90 feet, 00 inches. (HLM-RCH) The University Heights City Council and University Heights Community (neighborhood) Organization have both reaffirmed their committment to a two- lane bridge which can not be restripped to three or more lanes. Essentially, this is perceived by University Heights as pro~tien, a "concrete insurance policy," against new Iowa City maneuvers and machinations designed to achieve the Iowa City's and IC-JCcog Four-Lane Highway goals. The new Melrose bridge should be to be no wider than the old bridge including the two protected walkways. In the final analysis the City of University Heights and the University Heights Community Organization resistence to the Iowa City and UIowHOSPITAL drive to build a Four-Lane Highway serves to save Iowa City and the Hospital from themselves. RECEIVED MAY 8 [' I 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS/QUESTIONS I wish to offer the following written comments/questiom on the proposed Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction project. Date: 'cvxo~3 ~ ,\ctck 5 Please submit your written comments at the meeting or send them to: Jeff Davidson City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (319)356-5252 Comments must be received by May 8, 1995. May 8, 1995 Mr. Howard Preston BRW, Inc. % Jeff Davidson Assistant Director Department of Plann & Community Development 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mr. Preston: In response to the Environmental Assessment of the Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction Project, I have the following comments: I attended the open meeting conducted by BRW and have read the submission of the Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association (MANA). I believe that MANA has done a very thorough job of evaluating your report, and ithas raised some serious questions. Without meaning to minimize other points, I would stress the concerns about the narrowness of the project area studied and the fact that traffic congestion does not appear to be alleviated by any proposal (or at least not adequately alleviated). In particular, I would stress that there is not any publicly known solution to the bottleneck that would continue to exist at the western end of the bridge (in University Heights) and perhaps at the eastern end of Melrose Avenue as well. It would seem an important aspect of any assessment that the solution or solutions to these traffic problems be publicly known and publicly discussed. I hope that you will consider this comment and the several suggestions contained in the MANA submission. Very truly yys, William G. Buss 747 West Benton Street P. 01 WALLACE L TAYLOR ^'n'oRNEY A~' LAW May 8, 1995 Mr. Howard Preston BRW Inc. % Jeff Davidson Department of Planning and Community Development 410 East Washington Street Iowa Ctty, Iowa 52240 RE2 Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Construction Environmental Assessment Dear Mr. Preston: The £ollowlng are my comments on behalf of the Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association regarding the en¥ironmen[al assessment which your firm has prepared £or the proposed Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction Project. The purpose of an environmental assessment, of course, is not %o choose an alternative or even to present sufficient information upon whicl~ a decision can be made, but rs%her %o determine wheth~ the project would ~mpose a significant impact which would justify the preparation of the environmental impact statement. We believe that ~here are several inadequacies in %he environmental assessment and that even on the basis of the assessment as presented, a significan& impact was shown, at least with so~e of the alternatives, and a;~ environmental ~mpaet statement should be prepared. The primary problem with the environmental assessment is that it defines ~oo narrowly the cont~mt of the proposed action. The action must be analyzed in several centex%s, such as the society as a whole, the affected region, affected interests, and the locality. In addition, the environmental assessment must analyze indirect effects. Combinin9 these ~wo requirements in relation to this particular project means that the entire Melrose Avenue neighborhood must be considered. The environmental assessment o~ly looks at the houses right on Melrose Avenue. The NEPA Re~ulatloDs define indirect effects as those which are caused by ~he proposed projee% and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are s~lll reasonably fore- seeable. Certainly, as discussed ~n detail in the comments of the Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association, the on persons in the neighborhood other than those who live right on Melrose Aven~e ~o~ld be significantly affected. P. 0! .r:. The regulation goes on to sa~ that indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate. We believe that the environmental assessment did not adequately address these factors, especially with respect to the Melrose Avenue ~elghborhood not directly on Melrose Avenue. Ono o~ the most important effects of this project uhlch the environmental assessment does not adequately address is the historic character of the neighborhood. The Only historic properties mentioned in the environmental assessment were three (3) houses on Melrose Avenue which have already been placed on the National Register of Historic Places. A ~-~ter from Dr. Lowell Seiko of the State Historic Preservation Office dated March 21, 1995, expressed that office'u concern with the limited scope with this review. Dr. Seiko notcd that there w~re six (6) properties which SHP0 felt may well be eligible for ~nclu$ion in the National Re~ister. Dr. Soil:O recommended more infoIma~ion or research on those properties. In addition, Dr. Seiko noted twenty-~ive (25) other properties which may not be eligible, but th~ ~i~ding was made wi~h some reluctance because no explanation was given for a finding that those properties were not eligible for placement in the National Register. Properties which are eligible for inclusion in the National ReGister of Historic Places do no% need tO be directly damaqed in order to require the findin~ that the project will pose an adverse effect On the historic properties. Therefore, more analysi$ should have been undertake~ to determine the effect of the project on the entire historic character of the Melrose Avenue neighborhood. I )lope these comments are helpful toward the decision to prepare st, foment [or this project. consideraLien. to you and will lead an environmental impact Thank you for your ~LT/dls Copy to; John & Michaelanne Widness 629 Melrose Avenue Iowa City, Iowa 52246 Wallace L. Taylor Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association 629 Melrose Avenue, Iowa City, Iowa 52246 Mr. Howard Preston BRW, Inc. c/o Jeff Davidson Assistant Director Depa~,nent of Planning & Community Development 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 April 26, 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 Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Recons~cfion Environmental Assessment (EA). It is evident that your fh'm has devoted much time to gathering and analyzing the information needed to help the parties 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 concerns. In the attached statement, we f'trst 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 Association's posfion 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. {1 Very truly yours, / \: ~' O cu'.,t-,k...,~ , ·. i,, /r.p Steering Group, Melrose Avenue Neighborhoed Association cc. Iowa City City Council; University of Iowa; UIHC; University Heights City Council; Board of Regents, U.S. Rep. Jim Leach; Daniel M. Mathes; Roger Anderberg; Mr. Wallace Taylor, Esq.; Steven E. Ballard, Esq.; Dr. Lowell J. Soike; Iowa City and University Heights neighborhood associations; Iowa ¢ily Press Citizen; Daily lowan: CR Gazette: ~ Moines ]~.gisten Iowa City Magazine: Community Betterment Bulletin: KCRG; KGAN; First Mennonite Church; St. Andrew Chumh; ICAN; Environmental Advocates; Friends of Historic Preservation; Historic Preservation Commission, Members of Focus Group, I1 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 Ass~sMEr,rr TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa~e I. SUMMARY OF CONCERNS ........................................................................2 H. DISCUSSION OF POINTS RAISED IN 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 3-lane bridge .............................................................7 E. We support a true 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'S CONCERNS ABOUT MELROSE EA (CONT.) I. SUMMARY OF NEIGI-IBORHOOD'S CONCERNS ABOUT THE MELROSE AVENUE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA) A careful analysis of the envkonmental 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 Mekose 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 intersections 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 mad with a bottleneck at each end and one in the middie. Dimensions of the bridge and street alternatives are excessive, The bridge alternatives suggested by the consultants are so wide that the proposed 2- and 3-lane 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 pedestrians 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 of access pobtts 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 s~eet 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 dkect improvement to the Melrose congestion than any of the other options. However, when paired with another alternative, we believe that ultemative 7 can play a significant role in a long-range solution for transporting vehicular traffic destined for the Hospital and University. H. DISCUSSION OF POINTS RAISED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S SUMMARY' ,4. Study area. i.e.. "Project Corridor", is too restrictive, We believe this to be the largest conceptual flaw in the EA. Although there is no stated definition of the study area in the documcnt, the sections dealing with Wetlm~ds/Flood Plains (p.88), Wildlife and Endangered Species (p. 90), Cultural Resources (p. 90), and Traffic Operations Analysis (p. 105) suggest that it consists of the half-mile segment of Melrose Avenue from the bridge to Byington Road. What is the defini!io.n. of Lh.e "Melrose Avenue Study Area"? Is this the same as the "project corridor"? * Points to be specifically add/essed by BRW, Inc., are in boldface type. Page 2 of 10 I) NEIGHBORHOODIS CONCERNS ABOUT IV~LROSE 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 Cour~ and Grand Avenue Court), the feeder streets off Melrose Court (Brookland Place and Brook/and 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 wtfich 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 Mekose Court intersection in the intersection capacity analysis is particularly ~xoubling. Of those households not located directly on Melrose Avenue, almost three-fourths use Mekose Court as their sole access to Mekose Avenue. As was pointed out at the public hearing on April 19, despite its unassuming appearance, Melrose Coon plays a significant role in the transportation system on the west side of Iowa City. It is the only through-sweet to the south between Riverside Drive and Koser Avenue. Drivers can use Mekose Court to get to Benton Street via Greenwood Drive, where are located numerous large apartment complexes as well as Roosevelt Elementary School. In additoh, 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 narrow 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 be 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 significance were those along Melrose Avenue, three of which are akeady on the National Register of Historic Places. It is likely that there are other historically 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 Melrose Circle (s~ 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 Iv~LROSE EA (CONT.) Preservation Commission's Historic Preservation Plan identifies the Melrose Avenue neighborhood as a "conservation district". Oar 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 Gown Era" (1890-1940), an era of historic significance, containing a varied mix of selected 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? How could the investigation fail to consider the entire Meh'ose 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 atwactiveness of the neighborhood. Further deterioration of the housing along Melrose Avenue and the streets feeding Melrose fitrough sale, subdivision and a decline in owner occupancy could directly affect residences throughout tiffs small area. These developments could increase transience and undermine the current stability leading to rapid deterioration in the quality of life ~d 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 neighborhoed as a whole, not just on the "Melrose Avenue corridor." 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 t~affic 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 determined 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? B. Congestion at I~¢y intersections remains problematic 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 D or F? It is stated that "economic development/redevelopment for the region could occar 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 S intersections included in the EA? C. Dimensions o~ the brid~.e g~.~2e. et alternatives ace 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 traffic. The 3- lane bridge is exacdy the same width (54.5 feet) 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 promise the possibility of even greater disruption in the future, these wide alternatives 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 thai 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 Melrose 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 Cttd bicycle s _aTe~ is not a priori_ty 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 hays considered? Would it be pnmible to construct bus hays 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 concerns 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 Melrose Avenue at the Melrose Court intersection, a suggestion that seems to be supported by the pedestrian 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.) GrandgVlekose 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 Mekose Court's connection with the neighborhoods, apa~ iments and elementary school to the south as well as its proximity to the bus stops and University facilities, that street must be carefully considered as well. Where will crosswalks be located? Will zebras and/or a pedestrian crosswalk light like that on Clinton Street be considered? Finally, the EA refers to the Comprehensive Hun'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. Con.~ideration of access points i~ largely ignored One of the stated project goals of the EA is "to improve the ability...to use Mekose 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 Mekose Avenue is "the large number of access points for the many narrow residential streets which connect to Mekose Avenue and the numerous residential driveways (p. 60)." The EA also discusses how accessibility into the neighborhoods will be improved under certain altemafives (pp. 49 and 51). The problem, however, is not so much turning into these access points from Melrose Avenue but is rather one of turning back out onto Melrose Avenue from a driveway or cul-de-sac. Will reentering Melrose Avenue from one of the many access points be made more difficult and/or more dangerous as the width of the road is increased? F. By-pass o~ Meh'ose to lite north not adequately explored There are 2 points to be made here. First, how was the route selected for Alternative /17 (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 Finkbine 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, Alternative 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 III. MELROSE BRIDGE AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION: OUR POSITION The position of the Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association on the bridge and slreet reconstruction project is as follows: Page 6 of 10 NEIGHBORHOOD'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 reconstruction 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. No $int, le altemative solve~ the prQblem, Data included in the EA confirm 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 waffic congestion, and by the year 2015, all 5 am 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 little more than a "superhighway connecting 2 bottlenecks". C. Wider alternatives exacerbate the problem. The EA also conf'mns the existence of the "If you build it, they will come" phenomenon:...some of the project alternatives will attract more waffic than other alternatives" (p. 84). D. We support a true 3-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 restripod 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-IWA and IDOT, one should be requested. E. ,We support a hue 3-lane road, As with the bridge, we support a n'ue 3-lane shuet like those in 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 waffic canying capacity of roadways, pedesu'ians and bicycle facilities, scale of roadway to adjoining uses, and visual amenities in the corridor "(p.72). o "Left-turn 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 convened to 3-lane design with increasing frequency because of theh' excellent safety records" (p. 118). We favor investigating the possibility of conshucting 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 Metrose. 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 pedestrians. We believe that an actual three lane street is the best alternative. It is less costly 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 mad; 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 efficient 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 NEIGI-IBORHOOD'S CONCERNS ABOUT MELROSE EA (CONT.) parking facilities, will create an efficient roadway that preserves and even enhances the historic and fragile Melrose neighborhood. F. We sut~oon the EA on walkways for pedestrians and 10n¢~. for I>jcycli~;tS. We enthu~fisfically support the prodsion in the EA for adequate north and south side walkways for pedestrians and lanes for bicyclists. However, the issue of getting safely across Mekose Avenue needs additional attention. IV. FOR THE LONG TERM: SHARED PROBLEM, SHARED SOLUTION The Melrose 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 confirmed at the April 19 liearing on the EA that University Heights must consent to the bridge recons~ction before federal funds will be released for the project. Second, it is clear from the EA that no one alternative taken by itself 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 cons~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 Alternative 7. Why should the University participate in the search for solutions to the Melrose Avenue problem? The answer, quite simply, is because it has contributed significantly to the problem, in a number of ways· UI and UIHC are major generators of traffic along Melrose Avenue, and the growth of U1HC 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 "pedestrian 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 traffic some years ago, thereby eliminating one alternative to Melrose 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 and Recreation Facilities Long Range Master Pllm 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 construction 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 University implement Alternative 7? We believe the answer is yes, although not immediately. This alternative 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 Finkhine Golf Conrse and the athletic fields However, a closer look at each of these objections indicates that none poses a real obstacle. 1) The University akeady 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) category 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 mad and would compromise neithar the Finkbine Golf Course nor the athletic fields. However, since we are suggesting that Alternative 7 be implemented in conjunction with the relocadon of the golf Page 8 of 10 [1 NEIGHBORHOOD'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 Boant of Regents, stated in 1990 that the Regents and "the University administration [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 UIHC have indicated in the past that it is in thek 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 UIHC are likely to be sufficiently motivated to employ their considerable resources in the search for an answer to the Mekose 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 cormnunity 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. Ernest Hom 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 Mekose 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 are St. Andrew Presbyterian Church at 1300 Mekose Avenue in University Heights and First Mennonite Church at 405 Myrtle Avenue. 5.2.2 NeighborhoodIComrnunity Character. What is the definition of the term "neighborhood character" used in the EA? How is this term different from "community character"? Failure 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 quantifiable, but objectively real nonetheless. This is evident in small details as well as in Page 9 of 10 NEIGHBORHOOD'S CONCERNS ABOUT ~IROSE 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 difficult 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 detemiine 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 Mekose Avenue, from University Heights to Byingten Road, as being relatively uniform visually, from end to end. On p. 56 and 57, the claim is made that the residential area varies greatly 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 pan of the problem. Conversion of residential properties to other uses has happened throughout the neighborhood, particularly at the eastern end, adding to the alestabilizing 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 Mekose 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 riB, is equivalent to a doubling of noise (p. 80). How can a 11~ of noise represent 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 ("a 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 "Melrose Avenue corridor" is evident in this section. A very rich wildlife habitat, just behind (to the south of) the corridor would likely be affected. That area, especially between Mekose 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 Mrs. 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 Dislrict). 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 neighborhood and in the University Heightq neighborhood. These structures need to be considered in 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 lanes. Page 10 of 10 University Heights Community OrganlzaOon Joe Gannon, Co-Chairman 1124 Melrose Avenue Iowa City, IA 52246, The University Heights Community Organization (UHCO) resolutely endorses the 241 University Heights residents who signed the 1993 petition in support of maintaining the bridge, and Melrose Avenue through the town of University Heights, as two lanes. Endorsing the petition supports the following recommendations: The curb to curb width of the bridge should not exceed 31 feet. Th~s is the widest two-lane dimension that cannot be re-striped to become more than two laues after completion. This measurement does not include two eight foot sidewalks. The Environmental Assessment. Melrose Avenue Street & Bridge Reconstruction report, prepared by BRW Inc., recommends the measurement of 45.3 feet for a two-lane bridge. This bridge measurement can be re-striped after completion to become a three or four lane bridge. The apparent value of a three lane bridge would be to enter Stadium Park Road. However, the University's concept for a "walking campus" would close this road. The April 1992 University of Iowa Sports and Recreation Facilities Lon~ Range Master Plan to create a "Finkbine Street" (it ~s NOT to be assnmed that we concur with all of the plan's recommendations). This portion of the plan would divert traffic away from family neighborhoods and meet University of Iowa Sports, Hospitals and Clinics traffic needs. The street is depicted as oommencing at the intersection of Hawkeye Park Road and Mormon Trek Boulevard, then crossing Finkbine Golf Course to intersect with Hawkins Drive at the Finkbine Commuter Parking Lot. It is presumed that the University of Iowa will proceed with their master plan. The BRW Inc. report establishes a two-lane bridge and street as the. best intersection level of service (page 123) for forecasted volumes of traffic. However, they do not appear to recognize their own findings. In addition, the positive impact on the traffic flow between Melrose Avenue, Mormon Trek Boulevard and Hawkins Drive as a result of the remodeled five-lane Highway 6 is not addressed. Adverse environmental impacts resulting from the creation of a three or four-lane bridge that were not addressed or considered in the BRW Inc. report include the following: 1. The lack of a safe buffer area between neighborhood homes and the street. 2. A decreased quality of neighborhood life, aesthetics, and property value. The exacerbation of bottleneck traffic at the intersections of Riverside Drive and Grand Avenue, and Mekose Avenue in University Heights. 4. The absence of information, or assessment, of the impact upon University Heights. The BRW Inc. Environmental Assessment, Melrose Avenue Street & Bridge Reconstruction report appears to be written as an adjunct report to Iowa City's 1970 plan to build a four-lane thoroughfare though family neighborhoods to Highway 218. University Heights Community Organization Joe Gannon, Co-Chairman 1124 Melrose Avenue Iowa City, IA 52246 The University Heights Community Organization (UHCO) resolutely endorses the 241 University Heights residents who signed the 1993 petition in support of maintaining the bridge, and Melrose Avenue through the town of University Heights, as two lanes. Endorsing the petition supports the following recommendations: The enrb to curb width of the bridge should not exceed 31 feet. This is the widest two-lane dimension that cannot be re-striped to become more than two lanes after completion. This measurement does not include two eight foot sidewalks. The Environmental Assessment. Melrose Avenue Street & Bridge Reconstruction report, prepared by BRW Inc., recommends the measurement of 45.3 feet for a two-lane bridge. This bridge measurement can be re-striped after completion to become a three or four lane bridge. The apparent value of a three lane bridge would bc to enter Stadium Park Road. However, the University's concept for a "walking campus" would close this road. The April 1992 University of Iowa Sports an.d Recreation Facilities Long Range Master Plan to create a "F'mkbine Street" (it is NOT to be ashmined that we concur with all of the plan's recommendations). This portion of the plan would divert traffic away from family neighborhoods and meet University of Iowa Sports, Hospitals and Clinics traffic needs. The street is depicted as commencing at the intersection of Hawkeye Park Road and Mormon Trek Boulevard, then crossing Finkbine Golf Course to intersect with Hawkins Drive at the Finkbine Commuter Parking Lot. It is presumed that the University of Iowa will proceed with their master plan. The BRW Inc. report establishes a two-lane bridge and street as the best intersection level of service (page 123) for forecasted volumes of traffic. However, they do not appear to recognize their own findings. In addition, the positive impact on the traffic flow between Melrose Avenue, Mormon Trek Boulevard and Hawkins Drive as a result of the remodeled five-lane Highway 6 is not addressed. Adverse environmental impacts resulting from the creation of a three or four-lane bridge that were not addressed or considered in the BRW Inc. report include the following: 1. The lack of a safe buffer area between neighborhood homes and the street. 2. A decreased quality of neighborhood life, aesthetics, and property value. The exacerbation of bottleneck traffic at the intersections of Riverside Drive and Grand Avenue, and Melrose Avenue in University Heights. 4. The absence of information, or assessment, of the impact upon University Heights. The BRW Inc. Environmental Assessment. Melrose Avenue Street & Bridge Reconstruction report appears to be written as an adjunct report to Iowa City's 1970 plan to build a tbur-lane thoroughfare though family neighborhoods to Highway 218. F 1 I. I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS/QUESTIONS I wish to offer the following written comments/questions on the proposed Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction project. Address: Date: Please submit your written comments at the meeting or send them to: Jeff Davidson City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (319)356-5252 Comments must be received by May 8, 1995. May 3. 1995 Jeff Davidson City of Iowa City 410 East Washignton Street Iowa City, IA 52240 I] Dear Mr. Davidson: I am writing in response to the request for comments regarding the proposed expansion of Melrose Avenue. Like many residents, I suspect, I have mixed feeling regarding the proposed expansion. While I am reluctant to see the area I live in change, I recognize that the occasional traffic congestion created by University oflowa commuters, and the chaos of sporting events creates a problem for Iowa City as a whole. Weighting my own interests against the interests of the community, I have reconciled myself to some form of expansion, and for that reason have not written before. Having said that, I still was surprised by the information I received from the Melrose Association regarding the magnitude of some of the proposed changes. It is dear from discussions with University Heights residents that opposition to traffic expansion through that area may be the single most unifying factor in that community. Given the more or less permanent bottleneck separating Melrose Avenue from Highway 218 and the other local traffic restrictions at Hawkins, Melrose Court and Grand. the proposal for expanding this region of Melrose to five or even four lanes seems destructive without purpose and riscally wasteful. As a daily pedestrian commuter to the VA Medical Center, through almost constant University construction over the past three years, I have witnessed the traffic problem at close range and I cannot see where radical expansion of this section of road will improve traffic flow already saturating Grand Avenue at Riverside Drive Unless a plan to equivalently widen Melrose Court and Myrtle and open them to major traffic flow is in the long-range plan, expansion of Melrose beyond three lanes won't provide much relief If this is in the long-range plan, then that should be made clear now, so that an appropriate assessment of the impact of the entire plan can be conducted at this time. Construction of a true three lane road with left turn lanes, as supported by the Melrose Association, seems to be the most practical compromise between local and community- wide concerns as well as the most riscally responsible plan for the foreseeable future. Over-building with no obvious goal will only increase cost and local opposition. Thank yo~for your consideration of this view. .~f '--. / -- Gb~'~'¢ R-~H~i~J~e]] & Nancy L Dejmal 223 Lucon Drive lowa City, IA 52246 [I [1 i.1 }1 II II ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS/QUESTIONS I wish to offer the following written comments/questions on the proposed Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction project. Address: _~-~' w"z~Ww'z~+'~ ~ W ~ Date: Please submit your written comments at the meeting or send them to: Jeff Davidson City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (319)356-5252 Comments must be received by May 8, 1995. May 1, 1995 Mr. Howard Preston BRW, Inc. c/o Jeff Davidson Assistant Director Department of Planning and Community Development 410 East Washington Street towa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mr. Preston: We are writing in response to the Environmental Assessment for the Melrose Avenue and Bridge Reconstruction Project that was conducted by your firm. As members of the Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association, we are in agreement wih the postion our Association has adopted. We're sure you will agree that Melrose Avenue is not an isolated environment in and of itself. Therefore what is most concerning to us is how little consideration was given to Melrose Court in your study. We feel the following points have not been adequately addressed: - increased traffic on Melrose Court due to the bottlenecks that will remain at both ends of a widened Melrose Avenue. - safety of pedestrians walking along Melrose Court - safety of bicyclists traveling Melrose Court - pedestrian safety crossing Melrose Avenue at Melrose Court (walking west to the light at Hawkins Drive is not an acceptable solution as was suggested by a council member a few years ago). - many of the homes on our street are historically significant structures We're also concerned that widening of Melrose Avenue (beyond three true lanes) will result in the paving over of a great deal of our neighborhood without any guarantee that the problem, if it exists. will be solved. Sincerely, Mark R. Ramsey Carale L. Ramsey 223 Melrose Court Iowa City, Iowa 52246 (319) 337-9330 IRVING B. WEBER 421 MELROSE COURT IOWA CITY, IOWA 52246 {519} 337.~966 April 18, 1995 I,z. Jeff Davidson, Assist ant Director of planning and Community Development' 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa. 52240 Dear ~. Davidson~- As a 61 year old o~wner and resident of 421 I~elrose court I am most apprehensive over the failure of the~elrose Environmental Assessment (E A) showing no sl~udy or concern on the effect the various possible widenings of kelrose Avenue would have on the properties south of ~.elrose Avenue. W~re will the projected increased traffic on I~elrose Avenue flow? · S We resident of kelrose Court know full well~ from past experienc%~e~ £~1~ w~ll, ~ pas~ that ~elrose Court, being the 0N~Y O~ ~J~ from ~ielrose Avenue between Koser Avenue - George Street, to Riverside Drive, is destined, yes~is bound to, saddled with heavy increments of traffi~ on an already over-traveled former lane. The enclosed copy ofmy letter to the ~elrose Avenue Neighborhood Association outlines the history ~f ~.elrose Court~n '~he last 61 years we have lived here from a 16 foot lane, to 18 feet, to 22 feet with the City taking Some of our front lawn for a sidewalk. This s~dewalk~ onl~ofi the west side of bielrose Court. This is the sidewalk the five child day care centers 5~. Davidson -- more -- 2 located on 5;elrose Avenue use in ~alking to Brooklam(~ Park, and to Roosevelt School. Fortunately only one h~,~ld has ever been killed in a traffic accident, bu~ I have seen some frightening close calls. '~hat haza~!s will the increased traffice present? Originally ~elrose Avenue was planned as~ country road, first called "Snook's GroveS Roadv. For years it carried th~ ignominous name of the "Poor F~ Road", then softened to-County Home Roads and now th~ "Road to Chatham Oaks". We love the growZh of the University and ~h¢ Hospitals, harking back to the teens when University ilf Iowa President Walter A. Jessyp cried "Westward Ho". B% the University should provide outlets to handle traf~ Ic~~ , not just dump it on already oveE~loaded s~eets. In my attached letter i have made one suggestion. . Eventually, I feel a four lane Syper High. way paralelling the 135 year old Interstate Railwoad, running as far west as the new Coralville Shopping kal~ could be a solution. As residents of ~elrose Court urge a ~study be nade of the effect of lhe possible widening of kelrose Avenue on our one south exit -~ ~,elrose Court. Comment by Irving B. WeBer, Resident of 421 Melrose Court, since September ~. 193~ when we p,~,~chaeed our ho~e. 61 year~o B R ~( Diaes~ ENVi~{DN1,.F, NTA?, ASSESSS~.NT ~b~RY. After reading the B R W Digest with their ? Alternatives for ¥ebuilding Melrose Avenue; as residents o£ f,;elrose Co~t we ~e apprehe~ive about the addltio~l ~fice that will be directed to ~ already over b~dened~relatively ~row street. The B R W Envtron~ntal Assessment Digest c~ries no projected traffic fishes ~he Airore, ives will po~ on ~o ~;e~ose Avenue, ~he erst while "SN00K'S GRO~ RO~" of yester ye~. The Digest carries this one ~a~aph about the flow of traffics, Quo~e, "~L OF SERVICE -- key intersections within the ~;,elros~ Avenue study ~ea ~ co~idor ~e c~rently o~rating at ~cceptable levels of so.ice. ~sed on forecast tr~fic volume, th~ sit~ion will only worsen with th increase in ~r~fice on Melrose Ave~e" , s.9 M1~LROSE COU~ Melrose ~our~ is the only south exit from Melrose Avenue between George Street in University Het~=~hts, and Riverside ~ive along~.y the Iowa River. 5~s. Weber and i purchased our home at 421 SaptenDer 1, 1935, 61 years a~9. When we purchased our Court was a small neighborhood enclave. ~elrsse Court, more than a l~n~with Brookland Park at the southern end.. Originally Melrose Co%~rt was only 16 feet wide. It was then re-surfaced and widened to 18 feet. Some ? or 8 years later as traffics became heavier and heavier, the City took part of our front ysard and widened Melrose Court ~ 22 feet and added a sidewalk. There is a sidewalk now on the west side of Melrose Court from ~ookl~nd Pa~k to Melrose Avenue, but oruly on the west side. The children from the five child care centers on 5~elrose Avenue use this sidewalk daily going from Melrose Avenue to B~ookland Park and to Roosevelt School. With more and more tr~fic it becomes more and more hazardous for these children. At~empts have been made to alleviate the ~elF%~e Court traffic congestion from time ~o time -- Stop Signs~ Speed Limits! at one time a dead end street for a short r~r~o~. ~ n,,~o~+ ~.. 5.elfess Court, home Melrose originally li~ RAvox~lde l~ive en the eaa~ ~o the propeFt2 ~.ecated on Luoon ~rive CoLtep e~ the ae'A'~h '~o a)"A.~le nz. ive oa '~he ioul;h. ~ wQ',~.d Obviouo~y tho Univo~l~ m~y have o~ p~ for all ~he oo~i~ ~ ~b ~rol~ ~ ~he ~s~ BAde A oonoAwned ~elFoso Co~ Reniden~, Ii~B~ Webe~ (fe~ 61 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS/QUESTIONS I wish to offer the following written comments/questions on the proposed Melrose ' Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction project. Name: Address: Date: Please submit your written comments at the meeting or send them to: Jeff Davidson City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (319)356-5252 Comments must be received by May 8, 1995. I~.dg~ oyez' ~he ¢~eek Ill d~oe ~ -- A p~ot~e f~m ~he ~op floor off the FieLd ~o~e po~i~ 5outh~ show~ how l'delz'ose Cour~ does no run due and Bou'~h~ bu~; an~le~ 83J. F. ht~.¥ ~o ~;he )] )1 It [ [ [ [ [ ):az~ha and ! have ~ade o~ hom~ at lt2l ~elrose Court for ~l ~ear9, We l~hased our home ~p~amba~ 1, :tl)~, in ~he deptIm o£ the G~at I~l~'e~sleno In 'l;hooe .,3 icone ~ear,a ~ ha, ve wa.'t, ehe~t l~lel.roee COt,l.-,~ fro~ little ao~e than a 16 foot lane, to a widened 18 ~'oo~ street, and £t.na11¥ widened to 2~ fee~, when they took paz-% o£ ou~ front lawn, and ~g added a 81de~alko This 81dewalk on %he west side of the ot~'ee% is the only eldwalk from i~el~ose Avenue ~o of l~al~ose Cout~c, Park ai ~he south erid This is the ,idewalk the ~ Da~ care Center~5 on ~he ohLl. dren ~oin~ to l~ooseveM; ~ohool use, and ~;he hundreds of ~] Durin~ the Ye-~-~s variou~ at~emp%9 have been made to ~ control the traffic on ~elro~e Cou~t~ particularly speed~o Ai o. time/~l~ose Cou~t was m~de ~ dead end ~tree'~. That still is ~1 possibility* ~.~ROSE COj~BT ~09~ T~N A SOl~ ~IT FOR ~t~ Avenue ~t ~;elrose Co~ is fa~ ~re ~ ~ ,ou~h ~ffc ~ ~l~se Zv~ue. It is a we~ es~blished nef~ hood enclave of ~cellent, ~ell ~ined fa~!~ ho~S. $~t ~o ~e ~he f~lies ~o ~ve live d development of its character/ which ~he¥ ~r~ smxious ~o u'ceserfTe, ! the Bill and Betty Holland home aS ~25 Eelrose Cour~ The Hollaruis moved into that new house the d~ they were ma~led ~u~Septem~r 1911~ luid lived %here the rest of thsi~ lives unt&l he was 78~ and ~ to 88, The ~ Holland children, Pattry (~o Tim ~randt), ~nd Ann~Bill helladd served as Iowa City t~or while hey lived there. Patty married Tim B~andt~ who also served as Iowa City ~or -- the onl~ fa he~ in law - son in law ~;a~,or combL,',a~on in Iowa Now Thomas B~'andt~ son of l~t%¥and Tim Brandt~ and the Gzlnd Son of the Hollandg~ a 3rd seneration~ has ~aken over 2he £ine house. Undoubtedly the oldest house ~n the ~elrose Cour~ a~ea is the Nicholas (Nick) Johnson home a'~ 508 Eelrose Co~% after ~;elrose Cotwt turn~ to the east for a blook. A 1on~ distance cal c~tl to ~n l~ncieco to ~e. ~oie ~iller Frioke tells us that she wa~ hem in the house in 1918, arui that her father~ a coniu-actor built the house in 1914. I~ served them as an acreale. and she reoa/ls her ~lrther tellin~ her tlmt she ~aised ducks on the o~eek down in~Broo~land Park. Pathologist, and a "~ick' ~rew up there, ~ud ~ate~ ~eoa~e head of the Fed~ ~re~Ldent ~rLti~e Co~ie~-on, appointed b~ I~don ~,vndon ~ohneon £ro~ 196~-1966,, From 1966 - 197~ he. seared a~ Co~esio~ of ~e ~-. Fe~ e~ Co~tio~ Cohesion, ~ ~1ovin~ up 01o~e~ ~o ~l~se A~nue~ the ~k ~ ~ ~ ~het~ ~ ~te~ lfve ~ ~he ~se 2 sto~ ho~e~ sli~l~ ele~te' tom ~he ~2ree2 ~2 2~ ~e~ose Co~t, ~ is the well co~c~ed ) ho~ buil~ b~he con~o~o~ fo~ ~he~ ho~e. The~ ~ ~e~ ~ up 2here emd ~2tended Roosevelt. A block 2o ~he sou~h of ~elrose Avenue, ~ookland ~ive c~osses ~elrose Oou~o To ~he wes~ t~ ends in a ¢ul De Seol~i a nu~be r of fine ho~es. The Cul De Seo is remembered for for ~e ~ec at 62~ R~ookl~i I~k ~ive ~ec~ll; the~o ~ere !? li~!e z~ gi~ls in ~he neighborhood, alon~wi~h $~e_~.~ dau~h_te~, F~-uses,next doo~at 626, added one dauhte~ to the Rathe~ uniquely the Neal ~tllers lived in 2 different ho~es The firut one was at 603 Braeland Park Driv, ere the2 lived for 13 yearn. The ho~e is now the home of Deane and he~tY McKr~v, who haw lived there fgr 32 The Miller.~2nd house was 2 doors to the west/at 621 Drive/ The ~lers added to ~he ~1 ~opu~m~ion cf the Undoub~edl~ 1~ oldest he]~ose Cou~t £am~ies ~a~ ¥e~ ab who lived at $23 Me]_-~ae Cotat. They oonstruoted the~ ho~ o , The neighborhood ~hou~h~ of Verne as s~methl~& of the De~ of ~he neighborhood because cf his lomg time Iowa City business experiezI The ~t~le~ had 2 children, Fletcher, ~ho bee~ an ~. D°, and Aileene & ~e. 0u~ son~ Willis, and Aileen were about the same a~d grew up next doo~ to each other, ~ a s~n~e oolaciden~e, ou~ Willi~ who was h~ $J~o Air Fo~oe, wa~ ansished to Z~ ~ ~e seemed odd how the~ Stow up next deer to each other on The ~ fa~i~ are She oldest famil~ in the Melr~Be Court oxen, They l~ved he~ oerore~areawam eui~d£v~ded. The &mr~l~he~', F~ed, the Oro~er lived in the s~uoco house at the eao£ end of ~rookland m~X ~r~vero ~don e~ow up din the are~o Then Eddie O,B~ien purchased the one 8~ory F~7 ~ouse. and na~ her homo, Mrs, O,~rion and her hueS, Eddies had lived around oorner on ~w~ile Avenue, and raised ~helr ~ children ~hereo There are a numbdx' of single peol~e, both men and women, who work aS ~m ~J~ivor~%~ and make l~elrog~ Cour~ naroa thei~ homo. Also living on kelrose Court, at ~10, are the Yannick . eurices and their t o small children. l~ the ~elrose Cour~ nelehbol~d° waX~y PJL~, O12mpic ~ld Medallot in ~he 100aoter f~e e~le ewim a~ ~he ~l~apic ~anee in Lend Couz~ and She Ax~abr%mtex"'~ ~ oh:i.ldre~ went to Roooevelt, Ou~ 8on~ on ~oklm~ Pa~E Drive. As outlined above~ the ~eLrose Co~ ~ ~e ~en a with i~ ~ ~n ~ such. The En~o~eu~ ~see~zent ~es no etu~ cf ~he af£eot possible~ c~anges of Melrose Avenue will have on our ~ neighborhood. We i~si~t such a st~ly be made. Irving' B. We~er, $21 Melrose Cour~o ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS/QUESTIONS I wish to offer the following written comments/questions on the proposed Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction project. Name: Address: Please submit your written comments at the meeting or send them to: left Davidson City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (319)356-5252 Comments must be received by May 8, 1995. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS/QUESTIONS I wish to offer the following written comments/questions on the proposed Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction project. Name: Addres .~ Date: ~ J ,~,/??~ Please submit your written comments at the meeting or send ~em to: Jeff Davidson City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (319)356-5252 Comments must be received by May 8, 1995. To: From: Re: May 3, 1995 Jeff Davidson City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Edward E. and Dotdana F. Mason at 5 Mekose Circle Comments on the Environmental Assessment of The Melrose Avenue and Bridge Reconstruction Project It has become increasingly difficult and dangerous, as pedestrians, to cross Melrose in order to go to and from an office in University Hospitals. There is no safe point of crossing. The corner at Melrose and Hawkins Drive is especially dangerous because the traffic lights are designed for control of automobile traffic and a pedestrian cannot tell, from looking at one side of the control lights, which lanes will be open from the opposite direction and when changes in movement of a lane of cars will occur. One of our middle aged physician friends was knocked down on that corner and spent a number of months in a cast for a fracture of his leg. We are in our 70s and, although still fairly active, cannot run as fast or hear as well as we once did. The safest approach seems to be to cross at any point along the Avenue when it appears that there is time to make a run for it, often when at least one lane of traffic has come to a stop. An additional risk comes from the bikes that use the sidewalks and travel at considerable speed. When a bike comes from in front, one can step off the side walk, but from behind they often surprise a pedestrian. There are also many joggers in this area since they take off from and return to the field house where they change and shower. There are a number of jogging routes but they converge along Melrose Avenue. Joggers are also at risk as well as adding to the risk for pedestrians who are trying to go along and to cross Melrose Avenue. Joggers could use the bike lanes, if they were adequate for this added traffic. As residents at 5 Melrose Circle, we would like to see designated lanes for bikes on both sides of the Avenue. We would also appreciate plans for a safe pedestrian crossing of Melrose and of Hawkins Drive at the intersection with Melrose as well as at other points along Melrose. It is my impression that there is considerable crossing of Melrose Avenue at the both ends of the bridge, the Hawkins Drive/Melroe Avenue intersection, and the Melrose Court/South Grand intersections with Melrose Avenue. Some of the medical campus has been converted to a pedestrian mall but pedestrian access to the area has not been addressed. Pedestrian, bike, and bus use to and from the area should be encouraged in the planning of Melrose Avenue. There is a new parking ramp being built between the new hospital addition and the field house. This will add to the problems for pedestrians. Since there is a bottle neck at both ends of Melrose Avenue, it seems that there should not be more than three lanes for traffic and that turning lanes should be included in the plans along with adequate provision for bikes, buses, and pedestrian use. The bridge should be planned for the same number of lanes of automobile, bus, bike and pedestrian traffic as the Avenue. Thank you for the opportunity to add our comments. [~ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS/QUESTIONS I wish to offer the following written comments/questions on the proposed Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction project. ,'.ddress: ~//~ /~'~ ~ Please submit your written comments at the meeting or send them to: Jeff Davidson City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (319)356-5252 Comments must be received by May 8, 1995. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS/QUESTIONS I wish to offer the following written comments/questions on the proposed Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction project. Please submit your written comments at the meeting or send them to: Jeff Davidson City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (319)356-5252 Comments must be received by May 8, 1995. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS/QUESTIONS I wish to offer the following written comments/questions on the proposed Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction project. F, s, ,~-'~F ~,~ ....,{ ~'.~7~( 'Z /V~;..~,(,/-~ & 2~.-,';.. ~..~.~...{,.~ Name: ' Address: /~// Please submit your written comments at the meeting or send them to: Jeff Davidson City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (319)356-5252 Comments must be received by May 8, 1995. April30,1995 II Jeff Davidson Assistant Director Department of Planning and Community Development 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Mr. Davidson: We live at 320 Melrose Ave and our property is affected by the plans calling for widening of Melrose Avenue. On page 100 ofthe March 1995 report entitled Environmental Assess for the Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction Project the following statement appears Of the existing National Register properties, it appears that only one will be adversely effected, namely the Cannon Gay house which is on the north side of Melrose Avenue, just west of Byington Road. Alternate plans illustrate that up to approximately fifteen feet of front portion of the Cannon Gay property may be used for expansion of the street and curb line. This should be reviewed and discussed as more detail is made available. As the current owners of this property we would like to make the following points: 1. If widening of Melrose Ave is done taking up to 15 feet from our property we could lose a 50 year old white pine tree and a smaller and newer hardwood on our property (these are about 19 feet from the current curb and would interfere with sidewalk construction) and three trees and shrubs on the curb We are prepared to lose those on the curb but would ask consideration of the large tree. If the road is widened to three lanes on the north side there will also be the additional loss of seven medium sized hardwoods between Grand Ave. Court and South Grand, and a matched white pine next door to the east. If Melrose must be widened to three lanes in our part of the street (between South Grand Av~ and Byington) we would ash the city to take land from both sides of the street, not only from the north side, and not to cut down the trees on the north sid~ We understand that the rationale for the original plan to take land only from the north side was that the University of Iowa owns the land on this side and is willing to give it for the widening. But since the purchase of the Burnett house directly across from us last year the University now owns all the properties between Lucon Drive and Byington on the south side of Melrose [. [ [ I 2. There is no need to widen Melrose Ave. between South Grand Ave and Byington. Speeding cars in this part of the street would encounter a greater than 90 degree left turn into Byington, and then the stop light at Riverside Drive. Widening the road may rush the traffic faster to the stop light at Riverside Drive, but it does not move traffic through the botileneck. Widening also creates a safety problem. The speeding two lanes create a dangerous situation for the university students who walk to the law school and for children and families at the four day care centers that are located here. If two lanes ofeastbound tra~c are judged desirable (we do not believe that 2 lanes are needed but if the traffic engineers think this is necessary) then Melrose Ave between S. Grand Ave. and Byington could be made one way. This would slightly inconvenience those coming from the Law School and those ofus who live in this area by not allowing a west turn onto Melrose. But all of us could circle around using Grand Ave, especially if the turn from Byington oreo Grand Ave. were made easier. We wish to also remind you and others who will make this decision about the plans for "the diagonal". We attach a copy of the University of Iowa Campus Planning Framexvork March 1991 which clearly shows (see our yellow highlight) a diagonal road between Melrose Ave and the Burlington Street bridge. The plan includes the construction of a walking area between Slater and Reno dorms and the dead ending of Byington Road. The diagonal would eliminate the dangerous curve from Melrose to Byington and make it safer for the many students in the areas of the two dorms and the law school. While we understand that there are no immediate plans to construct the diagonal, it is our experience that what is listed in the University campus planning documents ultimately gets built. The diagonal makes sense in many ways. We do not understand why the city would invest a great deal of money to widen Melrose between S. Grand Av~ and Byington when in a fcnv years, with the construction of the diagonal, that part of the street will become a dead end Sincerely, Joanne and Donald McCloskey 320 Melrose Ave 338-1661 (n'~lro~) 1] The Campus Planning Framework has been endorsed by the Campus Planning Committee. The Campus Planning Framework serves as a guide for the physical development of the campus and is prepared in a framework format. The intent is to produce a plan that provides a positive and easily understood guide for development while allowing flexibility accommodate change as it occurs. The text of the plan is in a loosedeaf notebook. This format will accommodate new sections as they need to be added and allow changes to portions of the plan without changing the entire document. The text recommendations have been combined into this summary map to visually explain the overall relationships and implications. The summary map is a guide and not a fixed plan. If you would like to review or comment on the Campus Planning Framework, copies are available in the campus libraries. T~'o copies are located in the Reserved Book Room, 2rid floor, main Library. One copy is located in the reserved reading area, stack 5A~ of the Hardin Library for Health Sciences. Please send your comments to: Planning & Administrative Services 416 North Hall University or Iowa Iowa City IA 52242 (319) 335-1248 CAMPUS PLANNING FRAMEWORK PLANNING PRINCIPLE$ AND S~y MAP ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS/QUESTIONS [1 [1 I wish to offer the following written comments/questions on the proposed Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconsl:ruction project. [] Address: '713 II'l-ll Aue Co.-n Lv.',/~; Date: t~t~r.~ ~'~? Iqq,S- Please submit your written comments at the meeting or send them to: Jeff Davidson City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (319)356-5252 '1 Comments must be received by May 8, 1995. II ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS/QUESTIONS I wish to offer the following written comments/questions on the proposed Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction project. Date: Please submit your written comments at the meeting or send them to: Jeff Davidson City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (319)356-5252 Comments must be received by May 8, 1995. 'i'~ salety issues oI the ~,,vv study were not properly adu, e,,sed. Safeb, alon~ Melrose Avenue was mentioned but ~e safeW of ~e hundreds of people crossing Melrose at Melrose Cou~ each day was not given the consideration necessary. Even if a ~hree lane road were chosen this problem would have to be addressed before a final vote. I feel an up4o-da~e pedest~an count is needed before finals week starts this sprin~. ~d that is in one week. Any coun~ aher ~ha~ will not produce ~he most accurate figures until school s~ar~s in ~he fall. Many of ~he pedes~ans are year round workers at the hospitals, sports complex, downtown, e~c., bu~ Ihe numbers increase dramatically when the University is in session. School children and day care children ge~ off ~he bus on the north side of Melrose and have to face ~he dangerous situation of crossing 2 lanes. Crossing more will be qui~e hazardous. Please take this inIo consideration when 1ookin~ at the study and making plans for lhe future of Melrose and ~l~e surrounding areas. One commeni I heard when the city was considering the widening of Meh'ose has stuck with me in the past year. A nurse, who has visited many large ciD' hospilal complexes, talked of the unsafe. run-down neighborhoods su~ounding lhe hospitt~ areas. Our Melrose neighborh~}od is just the opposite. House after house has been renovated and kepl np 1o make il a beaulifnl, pleasanl area. Workers in Iowa City obviously find it safe and pleasing to walk to work lhrough lhis area each day. GMng a freeway atmosphere to bidrose Avenue could cause much discoumgentenl 1o home owners and perhaps force them sell to rental pmpe~'ty cumpanies, who at times do not see the advantage of well kepl property. I ted the BRW assessment did not give this problem enough consideration. THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA HOSPITALS AND CLINICS 3~9/356.2681 Office of the Director 200 Hawkins Dr. Iowa C~ty, Iowa 52242-1009 April 18, 1995 Mr. Jeff Davidson City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mr. Davidson: After reviewing the "Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction" Environmental Assessment document prepared by BRW and dated March, 1995, the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics believes the report's findings are acceptable. We also believe the document should be sufficient for the Federal Highway Administration to determine the need for an environmental impact statement and for the Iowa City City Councirs use in deciding on an appropriate alternative. Many thanks for the opportunity to review and comment on the report and its findings. Sincerely, Brandt Echternacht Assistant Director fcr P,onnl,,u BE:his cc: Dick Gibson Ann Rhodes John Staley Doug True THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA April19,1995 Mr. Jeff Davidson City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mr. Davidson: We have reviewed the "Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction" Environmental Assessment made available to the public on February 28, 1995, and wish to provide written comment for consideration as the report is finalized. A report in the Appendices prepared by VISTA Environmental Information, inc., erroneously assigns ownership of the University of Iowa Boyd Law Building to L & M Mighty Shop, 504 E. Burlington Street. This is a harmless error but for the fact that it also reports the presence of a leaking underground storage tank on the property. I believe this to be in error and am working directly with VISTA to get this corrected. Please instruct BRW, Inc. to get this corrected in the final report. Other than for the error reported above and a few other minor errors the correction of which would not appear to alter the findings of the report, we find the report to be acceptable and believe it adequately answers the question concerning the need for an environmental impact statement. In addition, it provides the information necessary for the City Council to make the political decisions necessary to bring this project to a successful conclusion. Thank you for the opportuni[y to provide input to the study and to offer our comments. Director C: Ann Rhodes Brandt Echternacht Doug True I:V~o- pas~eacornent reel Iowa Q~y IA 52242-1223 Planmug and Adnums~tivo Scrv~c~ 416 Noah Hall 319/335.1248 PAX 319/335.1210 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS/QUESTIONS I wish to offer the following written comments/questions on the proposed Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction project. . Please submit your written comments at the meeting or send them to: Jeff Davidson City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (319)356-5252 Comments must be received by May 8, 1995. ._ I~,q}IS Flip-Flops on Historical Clearance; Facts of Four-Lane For Thoroughfare Not Pr~t~d When "Melrose Bridge Co~- Rmvi~d ~- DES MOIN~s, Iowa. The Iowa State Historical · . · .. ~-~lrose four-~ane brid~e ~ ~ .... · . . So.clety first ap~'.-'~ved the .u~ upon receiving "new inform~n," .... =-= ~ --..~ ~, "on In r - ' -' -= ~ ~ ~.~vu uy une iowa Department of Tra~D ~- esclrl(31~g ~owa Cites envlror~ental clearance." . orta .~- FabAePrPro~V~.hl; .oAnwa' ' ' ' ess~m~nt request was made by Randall {ate Historical S~iet,, ~urch--~--: ........ n July 28, ~992 the Iowa sroTe~t OPtimum] . ~__ ~ .... Y ey stated, ... we reco~cmend '- This "approval" formed part of the basis of the Iowa COT and U.S. Federal !.~.'ghway Administration award of a Categorical Exclusion/Environmental Clearance. ~D iowa City for the Melrose four-lane bridge project. However, the proposed ~-)4-2044 four-la~e bridge is actually the critical first ste in the construc- rL)s of a ~ four-lane thoroughfare with various ~o~eePntal impacts. Iowa City HPPlan. The Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan was adosted f ~nally on Dec. 15, 1992 by the Iowa City City Council. The plan was prepared =.~ a cost of about $30,000 during 1991-92 by Historical Preservation Consultant M~rlys Svedsen. The HPPlan contains strat ies '. · :4'!uding preservir~ nei~,hbor~ .... ~ ~ . _.eg for hlstorlcal preservation $~--: se. But ~h~ w~, ~ _.~ ...... <~lng preserving Melrose Neighborhood, --- , ~,~. ,r~,, ~o ~u~ ~u ~u~uai restrictive ordinance. · lr.o_s.e~Av.e~u Nel.ghborhood Association (M.A.N.A.) act:vitv in January and F~ u - y l~ Sr.mu.at~ ~nqu~ries which in turn caused a r~=vl~,; by Iowa State Historical Society of the Melrose Bridge categorlca! exclusion/evlron- · mental clearance on envirormental impact. I-SHS R~versal. On Feb. 26, 1993, Lowell 3. Soike, Ph.D., Historian, Jo la7%ii Bureau serv.~t~_o~n, iowa State Historical Society, wrote, "A second oertaKzng .eads us to issue two additional effect of which suggests that pro~ect re,~=,., ~ ......... = _.~nts, the oridge ... may have an adverse e£fe~e ~ -~'~-~"- ~= ~= ~=,,cu .... czrst ... the - ~,.,,c~uypropertles ... ~re] ... Nation- al Register of Historic Places ... Second... theCity's actions will need to satisfy the requirements of Iowa Code 314.24 avoid historic sites if tea- = ~ : -~erna~es are avail~ie .... .on~l~ a~ ~ ~:.. ..- "~ditional review of ~Zs proj~t is fur~er ~rrent~ ... as a result of ~e r~ent c~letion of ~e Io~ Ci~ Historic Preservation Pl~ o Jr [identifies] ... Neighborhood i~ r ... sinoles __ ~t Side - Melrose .... J~t ~e Bridge. ~ Mar. 25, 1993, Soike said, "~e first ti~ ~at I-~ contacted us about ~e Melrose Bridge we simply looked at the bridge and detemin~ w~er or not ~ bridge was historic. ~e bridge ~s not historic so we signed off on the project. We had no info~ationon, nor sense of, the 1~ of ~ proj~t ~ it would Profess wi~h the additional four-lane strut construction. ~en we were info~ed of ~e full implications of the bridge {proj~t, ~ issu~ o~ F~. 26, 1993 s~t~nt." ~lic Action. Soike ~nclud~, ,~ ~e ~ese applicatio~ on face value and we receive hundreds of them each year. So, it is hard to know when there is s~e~ing like ~e four-lane Melrose strut plan ~s~iat~. ~lic c~nt ~ p~lic action provides an op~rt~i~ for these issu~ to ~ ~o~." [; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTSIQUESTIONS I wish to offer the following written comments/questions on the proposed Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction project. [1 Name: ~/~-~'~-.~ Address: Please submit your written comments at the meeting or send them to: Jeff Davidson City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (319)356-5252 Comments must be received by May 8, 1995. [ i- I' I. I I. I [. I !_ I t 1 l City Council, Iowa City 19 April 1995 [ICEA.179] Public H~aring on the ~ Inc. Environmental /%sse~-~ra~nt l~rt Iowa City Public Library, Iowa City, Iowa Dear IC City Council -- My personal concerns with the BRW Inc. EA Report are: I. False ~tions ~ the Iowa City Pro-Growth Group that: A. FALSE ASSUMPTION. IC falsely asstm~s 60,000 residents want growth -- 'Gro~ or ~-i-~';thus, IC-Governance prepares for 100,000 population (see the Water Plan)o But, there is no desire for growth among 96 percent of city's population -- not among University personnel numbering 35,000, not among medical personnel, nor homeowners, nor seniors, nor minors, nor taxpayers. B. FALSE ASSUMPTION. IC growth increases tax inconle making city services less expensive, providing more AND better city services and improving IC Quality of Life. The assumptions are not substantiated and are inaccurate. Growth EQUALS = commercial interests win profits; and, residents lose QofLife. C_~. FALS____~E ASSUMPTION. Iowa City developers want a WAGON WHEEL pattern massing corrmerce, government, hospitals, university, parking, high density housing at the HUB-old central city; thoroughfare-SPOKES that transect the high density neighborhoods -- sacrificing the neighborhoods; and, new low-density high-cost, elite housing at the RIM. This city plan is based on invalid and unreliable assumptions and data. These "urban planning ' " asstlmpt ions have destroyed American cities and have undermined America's social fabric. Iio The BI~N Inc. EA FAILS: A. FALLS to comply with spirit/letter of U.S. EPA laws, regulations and guidelines frcm 1969 down to 1994 (see laws, regs., manuals by Highway, DOI). B. FAILS to follow "precedent and practice" in the U.S.-IDOT in social... econumic parts of EAs in Johnson County, 1980s (see files). C. FAILS to follow the Iowa City's City Council unanimously adopted 1985 Urban Environmental Policies which protect and preserve "s~11 town living... aesthetics... architecture... buffers... open spaces... sense of community... community values... stability... cultural... vistas... entranceways... familiar surroundings... history... sense of well being... welfare... sense of identity... sense of integrity... neighborhoods... welfare"; and, the 16-peint urban EA rating scale based on the IC 1985 UEP and the 1980s JC FAs. D. FAILS to follow neighborhood and homeowner input at the Focus Group meeting (IC-tape and IC records); further, the BRW Inc. EA used developers' traffic data and developers' interpretation; FAILS to report the Belgum, Webber, Good and NW alternatives; FAILS to indicate that the BRW Inc. 2-lane bridge converts to 3-lane or 4-lane bridges providing IC and Ulowa/HOSPITAL with the moans of pursuing their 4-/5-lane Melrose Avenue-Bridge THOROUGHFARE Development Plan; FAILS to justify the $100,462 project cost; and, FAILS to provide more than 4 cop~es of $10 report for public, 50 N'hood-Env. groups. III o T]~e ~ Inc. ]~A ALL~ UIowa/HOSPITAL: The BRW Inc. ALLOWS The University of Iowa and its University Hospital to impose on ICity and UHeights their 1960s closed door planning and building assumptions, problems, errors, and indifference to their own UIowa "ethics" RE aesthetics, culture, history, humanities, liberal arts, and social welfare; ALLOWS Ulowa to ignore the Iowa City Urban Environmental Policies; and, ALLOW& Ulowa to disregard the lives of hon~wners/renters (including Ulowa staff) and neighborhoods of beth the City of Iowa City and the City of University Heights. In closing I wish to express my personal regard and thanks to the IC-fE and IC-CStaff, the UH-CC and UH-CStaff, and the UIowa-UI-Planning Staff for their courtesy and assistance in compiling information, researching problsms. These people are among the very best professionals. Unfortuneately they are caught in a quagmire of contradictions and conflicts -- which is destroying our neighborhoods. John Nesbitt, 362 Koser Av, University Heights, IA 52246-3038 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS/QUESTIONS I wish to offer the following written comments/questions on the proposed Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconst:ruction project. ! ° Please submit your written comments at the meeting or send them to: Jeff Davidson City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (319)356-5252 Comments must be received by May 8, 1995. March 20, 1995 TO: FROM RE: Jeff Davidson, JCCOG Sam Granato BRW study &Melrose Avenue I was at the library this weekend and noticed that the BRW study was out. I read it hoping to learn something, but I found myself eventually reviewing it after noticing several mistakes and glaring omissions in the traffic analysis, which I've outlined below In the grand scheme ofthings, it may not matter much due to the recent history and politics of this subject. However, these are the sort of things that any company with a claim to expertise in traffic engineering should not have done (and I'll need to remember that the next time I'm shopping around for a consultant!). These things also should have been caught by your technical review committee before the report was allowed to go out for public review. 1) Nowhere in the report does it state BRW made any analysis of current traffic control or intersection geometry for possible changes (except as noted in item//3). This should always be done before evaluating roadway widening, to document that the Melrose Avenue problem is beyond low-cost system management-type solutions (if such is in fact the case). In particular, the all-way stop at the Koser Avenue intersection should have been evaluated, due to the low traffic volumes on the minor approaches-most of which are fight turns. 2) Concerning the evaluation of intersections yielding right-of-way to Melrose, it would have been more appropriate to look at Grand Ave/Byington and Melrose/Stadium access (west of Hawkins), rather than Melrose/Byington and Melrose/South Grand. Not only are minor street approach volumes higher here (I believe), but they are also part of the main CAMBUS route i.e vehicles that require larger gaps in traffic to enter the main street. 3) Several signal warrant charts are shown (Fig 18-20) without any explanation as to their purpose Figure 19 has a big mistake--South Grand Avenue is shown as a minor approach, but the vast majority of traffic on this approach does not yield to Melrose traffic! 4) BRW claims that the Melrose corridor operates at a certain level of service (LOS) currently and in the future. They do not present any evidence that travel time/delay studies (or simulations) were conducted to justify the claims Ifl understood the report correctly, these LOS claims are instead based on comparing the highest average daily traffic (AADT) forecast on the street to a bar chart on page 112 which purports to show LOS as a function of AADT Again, a firm that claims expertise in engineering should know better than this--LOS is in no way a function of AADT! LOS depend~ on operating speed, l~affic coutrol, and access control! Finally, two of the current daily traffic counts struck me as rather odd Grand Ave west of Riverside--23,000 seems too high (the turn movements show Grand Avenue traffic to be 25% lower, not higher, than the Burlington Street bridge). And, only 2,980 ADT west of Mormon Trek seems way too low! CITY OF IOWA CITY Prepared By: March 1995 ~777 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION STATE OF IOWA Depaiiaient of Transportation CITY OF IOWA CITY Depa~iaient of Planning and Community Development ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT ROUTE AND TERMINI: Melrose Avenue from the city limits of Iowa City and University Heights to Byington Road. Proposed Project: The proposed action includes the Melrose Avenue Bridge over the Iowa Interstate Railroad and the section of Melrose Avenue between Olive Court in University Heights and Byington Road in Iowa City. The length of the proposed project is approximately .8 kilometers (one-half mile). Melrose Avenue is currently a two-lane undivided roadway. East of the bridge, the existing right-of-way is 20.12 meters (66 feet). Seven alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative, are addressed in the Environmental Assessment. Five of the Build Alternatives would include upgrading existing Melrose Avenue. One of the Build Alternatives (Alternative 7) would be located on a new alignment, to the north of existing Melrose Avenue through University of Iowa property. A preferred alignment alternative has not been selected for the proposed action. I' Date of App¥oval for Public Availability For the Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this document. Mr. Hubert A. Willard, Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration P.O. Box 627 Ames, IA 50010 (515) 233-7300 Mr. Roger Anderberg Iowa DOT 800 Lincoln Way Ames, IA 50010 (515) 239-1251 Mr. Jeff Davidson City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5252 TABLE OF CONTENTS Cover Sheet SUMMARY 1.0 REPORT PURPOSE .............................. 1 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ............ 3 2.1 Project Location ............................. 3 2.2 Project Description .......................... 3 2.3 Project History ............................. 5 3.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR TH~ PROJECT ......... 9 3.1 Role in Transportation System .................. 9 3.2 Project Goals ..................... 10 3.3 Present Facilities ............................ 10 3.3.1 3.3~. Existing Physical Conditions ..............10 · Traffic Control/Geomeh-ic Conditions ,10 · Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities .........11 · Existing Speed Limit .............. 11 · Bridge Condition ................. 11 Existing and Future Traffic Conditions ......13 · Existing Volumes ................. 13 · Forecast Traffic Volumes ........... 14 · Existing Accident Characteristics .....17 · Existing Pedestrian Counts ......... 17 · Traffic Operations Analysis .........17 · Roadway Capacity Analysis ........ 21 · Intersection Caparty Analysis .......21 3.4 Justification for Project ....................... 22 Level of Service ....................... 22 Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities ..............22 System Planning ....................... 22 Bridge Deficiencies ..................... 23 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 4.0 ALTERNATIVES 4.1 4.2 Alternative Development Process ............... Alternatives Under Study ..................... 4.3 Constxuction Cost ........................... Altematve 1: No Action ................ Alternative 2: Two Lane Bridge/Two Lane Road With Left Turn L~ne at Hawkins Drive ........................ 26 Altematve 3: Two Lane Bridge/Three Lane Road ........................... 26 Altematve 4: Three Lane Bridge/Three Lane Road ........................... 26 Alternative 5: Four Lane Bffdge/Four Lane Road ........................... 36 Altematve 6: Four Lane Bridge/Five Lane Road .............................. 36 Alternative 7: New Street Nox~h of Melrose Across University of Iowa Property ........37 37 5.0 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .............................. 5.1 Introduction .............................. 44 5.2 Social and Community Impact ................. 44 5.2.1 Community Facilities ................... 44 5.2.2 Neighborhood/Community Character ...... 48 5.2.3 Land Use and Zoning ................... 50 5.2.4 Economic Development ................. 51 5.2.5 Right-of-Way ......................... 51 5.2.6 Parklands ............................ 52 5.2.7 Urban Design/Visual Resources ........... 55 5.2.8 Public Safety .......................... 73 5.2.9 Public Transit ......................... 74 5.3 Physical Environment ........................ 75 5.3.1 Air Quality ........................... 75 5.3.2 Noise .............................. 79 5.3.3 Energy .............................. 86 5.3.4 Surface Water Drainage ................. 86 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 5.3.5. Hazardous Waste/Soil Contamination ...... 88 5.3.6 Wetlands and Floodplains ............... 88 5.3.7 Vegetation ........................... 89 5.3.8 Wildlife and Endangered Species .......... 90 5.3.9 Cultural Resources ..................... 90 5.4 Transportation System ........................ 102 Introduction .......................... 102 Existing Traffic Volumes and Acddent Characteristics ................. 103 Forecast Traffic Volumes ................ 103 Traffic Operations Analysis .............. 105 Traffic Safety Analysis .................. 115 Geometric Design Review ............... 118 Conclusions .......................... 124 5.5 Construction-Related Impacts .................. 125 5.5.1 Social .............................. 125 5.5.2 Economic and Fiscal .................... 126 5.5.3 Land Use and Community Development .... 126 5.5.4 Pedestrian/Bicycle Movement ............ 126 5.5.5 Visual ............................... 126 5.5.6 Transportation ........................ 127 5.5.7 Air Quality ........................... 127 5.5.8 Noise .............................. 127 5.5.9 Wetlands/Vegetation/Wildlife ............ 127 5.5.10 Disposal and Borrow ................... 127 5.5.11 Public Safety .......................... 128 6.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ................ 130 6.1 Coordination With Governmental Agencies ....... 130 6.2 Coordination With Melrose Avenue Focus Group... 130 6.3 Review and Comment Period .................. 131 APPENDICES Iowa Department of Transportation Environmental Clearance Memorandum, July 1992 Letters Regarding Need for EA Structure Inventory and Appraisal Form, 1994, NNW · Melrose Avenue Traffic Data Open Space District Figure Hazardous Waste Data, VISTA Environmental Information Iowa DNR Letter LIST OF FIGURES 1 2 3 4 Project Location ................................ Existing Traffic Control and Geometric Conditions ..... Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes .................. Existing ADT Traffic Volumes ..................... 4 12 15 16 5 6 7A/B Year 2015 ADT Traffic Volumes ................... Typical Sections ............................... Roadway Geometric Design: Alternative 1 ........... 19 27 28 8A/B 9A/B 10A/B Roadway Geometric Design: Alternative 2 ........... 30 Roadway Geometric Design: Alternative 3 ........... 32 Roadway Geometric Design: Alternative 4 ........... 34 11A/B 12A/B 13A/B Roadway Geometric Design: Alternative 5 ........... 38 Roadway Geometric Design: Alternative 6 ........... 40 Roadway Geometric Design: Alternative 7 ........... 42 14 15 Schools/City Parks/Fire Station ................... 45 Land Use ..................................... 46 16-18 Existing Visual Resource Conditions ................ 57-59 19 Typical Sections - Existing Two-Lane ............... 64 20 Typical Sections - Three-Lane Road, Options A/B ......65 21 22' 23 Typical Sections - Four Lane Road, Options A/B ...... 66 Existing Two Lane Condition Photo ................ 67 Three Lane Road - Option A ...................... 68 24 Three Lane Road - Option B ...................... 69 LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) 25 Four Lane Road - Option A ....................... 70 26 27 28 Four Lane Road - Option B ....................... 71 Air Quality Receptor Sites ........................ 78 Noise Monitoring Locations ...................... 83 29 Potential Archaeological Sites - Alternative 7 .........101 30 31 32 33 Forecast Average Daily Traffic Volumes - Alternatives 1 and 2 ......................... Forecast Average Daily Traffic Volumes - Alternatives 3 and 4 ......................... Forecast Average Daily Traffic Volumes - Alternatives 5 and 6 ......................... Forecast Average Daily Traffic Volumes - Alternative 7 ............................ 34 Roadway Segment Capacity ..................... 106 107 108 109 112 35 36 Roadway Segment Accident Rate by Facility Type ..... 116 Intersection Accident Rates by Control Type .......... 117 LIST OF TABLES 1 Pedestrian Counts ............................ 20 2 3 4 Accident Statistics ............................ Preliminary Cost Estimates ..................... Predicted One Hour CO Concentrations ........... 21 37 79 5 6 7 8 Federal Noise Abatement Criteria ................ Existing Noise Levels ......................... Modeled Existing Noise Levels at 50 Feet, By Time of Day ........................... Predicted Noise Levels .......................... 82 84 85 86 9 10 11 Historic Structures .............................. Year 2015 Peak Hour Turning Movement Comets ...... Existing LOS .................................. 98 110 113 12 13 Future (Year 2015) LOS .......................... Intersection Accident Rates ....................... 114 119 14 14a 15 15a Arterial Roadway Design Criteria - Metric Units ....... Arterial Roadway Design Criteria - English Units ...... Comparison of Roadway Design Features to Guidelines - Metric Units ............................... Comparison of Roadway Design Features to Guidelines - English Units .............................. 120 121 122 123 vi CITY OF IOWA CITY SUMMARY INTRODUCTION The Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act process for federally-funded projects and meets requirements of 42 USC 4321 et. seq. The report describes the Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge reconstruction project to be constructed in the City of Iowa City, eastern section of University Heights, and University of Iowa. The Environmental Assessment (EA) identifies potential environmental and sodoeconomic impacts that would result from construction and implementation. Mitigation measures to address potential adverse impacts are also cited. The EA has two purposes: Inform the public and decision makers about potential impacts and mitigation for the project. Determine if the impacts would be significant enough to warrant further environmental analysis. The proposed action includes the reconstruction of the Melrose Avenue bridge over the Iowa Interstate Railroad, and Melrose Avenue from the city limits of Iowa City and University Heights to Byington Road. The proposed action affects property in Iowa City, University Heights and the University of Iowa. Because of concerns regarding adverse irapacts to the established residential area. directly to the south of Melrose Avenue, the south curb line was maintaIned under all of the alternatives except in the area between Stadium Park Road and immediately east of Hawkins Drive. The south curb line was shifted to the south to accommodate the expansion of the bridge and provide for a sidewalk on the north side of Melrose Avenue. The alternatives under study in the Environmental Assessment were developed by the City of Iowa City, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, the Iowa Department of Transportation and the Melrose Avenue Focus Group. The designs prepared for each of the alternatives under study in this document are conceptual in nature. Following the selection of the preferred alternative, more detailed design will be conducted for that particular alternative. ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1: No-Build Alternative Under the No-Build Alternative the Melrose Avenue bridge over the Iowa Interstate Railroad and reconstruction of Melrose Avenue from the city limits of Iowa City and University Heights to Byington Road, would not be implemented. Because of existing deficiencies, the Melrose Avenue bridge would eventually need to be closed. Thru traffic lanes would continue to be 4.72 meters (15.5 feet) with border areas to the north and south of the roadway at 5.34 meters (17.5 feet). The sidewalk on the south side of the roadway would be maintained at 1.22 meters (4 feet). No provisions for bicycle paths would be provided. Alternative 2: Two Lane Bridge and Two lane Road With A Left Turn Lane at Hawkins Drive Under Alternative 2, a new two lane bridge, and design modifications to the existing two lane road would be constructed. Specifically, the new bridge would include a 3.9 meter (12.8 feet) thru lane in each direction, 1.8 meter (5.9 foot) shoulders, and 2.4 meter (8 feet) sidewalks. To the east of the bridge, Melrose Avenue would include an 3.3 meter (10.8 feet) turn lank at Hawkins Drive, with thru lanes of 4.25 meters (13.9 feet). East of Hawkins Drive, the thru lanes would be 3.3 meters (10.8 feet) with 2.6 meter (8.5 feet) shoulders. The sidewalk to the south of Melrose Avenue would be 1.5 meters (4.9 feet) and 2.4 meters (7.9 feet) to the north. Alternative 3: New Two Lane Bridge and Three Lane Road Under Alternative 3, the Melrose Avenue bridge would be designed the same as under Alternative 2. To the east of the bridge, 3.3 meter (10.8 feet) thru lanes, and a median turn lane would be provided. 2.35 meter (7.7 feet) shoulders on both the north and south sides would also be provided. The sidewalks on the south side would be 1.5 meters (4.9 feet). On the north side of Melrose Avenue, the sidewalks would range from 1.5 meters (4.9 feet) to 2.4 meters (7.9 feet) depending on the right-of-way constraints. Alternative 4: Three Lane Bridge and Three Lane Road Under Alternative 4, a new three lane bridge over the Iowa Interstate Railroad would be constructed with the following design features. Thru Lanes: Turn Lane: Shoulders: Sidewalks: 3.6 meters (11.8 feet) 3.6 meters (11.8 feet) 2.9 meters (9.5 feet) 2.4 meters (8 feet) East of the bridge, 3.3 meter (10.8 feet) thru and turn lanes would be provided, along with 2.35 meter (Z7 feet) shoulders. The sidewalks on the south side would be 1.5 meters (4.9 feet). On the north side of Melrose Avenue the sidewalks would range from 1.5 meters (4.9 feet) to 2.4 meters (7.9 feet), depending on right-of-way constraints. Alternative 5: Four Lane Bridge and Four Lane Road Under Alternative 5, a new four-lane bridge over the Iowa Interstate Railroad would be constructed with the following design features. Thru Lanes: 3.8 meters (12.47 feet) and 3.3 meters (10.83 feet ) in each direction Sidewalks: 2.4 meters (8 feet) East of the bridge, 3.3 meter (10.8 feet) and 4.0 meter (13.1 feet) thru lanes would be provided in each direction. In the block bounded by Stadium Park Road and Hawkins Drive, the sidewalk on the south and north sides of Melrose Avenue would be 1.5 meters (4.9 feet). East of Hawkins Drive, the sidewalk width, on the north side of Melrose Avenue could be increased to 2.4 meters (7.9 feet). The sidewalk on the south side of Melrose Avenue would be 1.5 meters (4.9 feet). Alternative 6: Four Lane Bridge and Five Lane Road Under Alternative 6, a new four-lane bridge over the Iowa Interstate Railroad would be constructed, with the following design features: Thru Lane (westbound): 4.1 meters (13.5 feet) Turn Lane: 3.3 meters (10.83 feet) Thru Lanes (eastbound): 3.3 meters (10.83 feet) and 3.8 meters (13.5 feet) Sidewalks: 2.4 meters (8 feet) East of the bridge to Hawkins Drive, eastbound thru lanes at 3.3 meters (10.8 feet) and 4.1 meters (13.5 feet), a 4.1 meter (13.5 feet) westbound thru lane and a 3.3 meter (10.8 feet) turn lane would be provided. On the approach to Hawkins Drive, the northern right lane is signed as right-turn lane only. This design is required to meet the right-of-way constraints and bridge taper requirements. For the remainder of the corridor, 3.3 meter (10.8 feet) and 4.1 meter (13.5 feet) thru lanes in each direction and a 3.3 meter (10.8 feet) turn lane is provided. A 1.5 meter (4.9 feet) sidewalk on the south side of Melrose Avenue would be provided. Due to right-of-way constraints, sidewalks would not be provided on the north side of Melrose Avenue in the five-lane section. A 1.5 meter (4.9 feet) sidewalk would be provided in the block bounded by the bridge and Hawkins Drive. Alternative 7: New Street Located to the North of the Existing Melrose Avenue Alternative 7 is proposed as a two-lane roadway 20.12 meter (66 foot right-of-way) on a new alignment to the north of existing Melrose Avenue. The thru lanes are proposed to be 3.3 meters (10.8 feet), with 2.6 meter (8.5 foot) shoulders. The new roadway would connect with Hawkins Drive, at its northern terminating point. From Melrose Avenue, east of the University Golf Course, the roadway would proceed in a northerly direction crossing the University's undeveloped wooded area, the Iowa Interstate Railroad (above-grade), land currently used as recreational fields and connect with Hawkins Drive, just to the north of the baseball stadium. Under Alternative 7, existing Melrose Avenue would remain open. Therefore, it is assumed that due to the existing serious condition of the bridge, reconstruction would eventually be required. PROJECT FUNDING/NEED FOR ACTION The reconstruction of the Melrose Avenue Bridge is anticipated to be funded through Federal Aid Bridge Replacement Funds. The reconstruction of Melrose Avenue is proposed to be funded from a combination of Surface Transportation Program (STP) f~mds and General Obligation (GO) bonds. The amount of local funding allocated to the project will be dependent on the preferred alternative selected. Justification for the proposed action is based on the following: Existing Bridge Deficiencies - Based on a 1994 inspection of the Melrose Avenue bridge, the structure has been classified as in "Serious Condition". Level of Service - Key intersections within the Melrose Avenue study area corridor are currently operating at unacceptable levels of service. Based on forecast traffic volumes, this situation will only worsen with the increase in traffic on Melrose Avenue. Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities - The current roadway does not adequately accommodate the high level of pedestrians and bicyclists who currently use Melrose Avenue to access the areas facilities. System Planning - Melrose Avenue is classified as an arterial roadway in the JCCOG's Arterial Street System Plan. As such, it should facilitate the major movement of traffic. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Section 5.0 of the Environmental Assessment presents the existing conditions and socioeconomic and environmental impact analysis for each of the seven alternatives under consideration. Table S-1 at the end of this section summarizes the findings of the analysis. A brief description of several of the key impact areas under each of the alternatives is presented below. Alternative 1 - No-Build Alternative Under Alternative 1, No-Build, the existing poor traffic conditions along Melrose Avenue would remain. Additionally, because of the existing deficiendes, the bridge would eventually need to be closed. Pedestrian and bicycle accessibility and safety would not be improved in the corridor. Speed limits on the Melrose Avenue bridge would need to be reduced for heavy vehicles. Accessibility into the University of Iowa Campus and residential areas to the south would be adversely impacted due to traffic congestion at intersections. Emergency vehicle accessibility through the corridor would not be improved as well as travel time for buses on Melrose Avenue. There would be no air quality or noise violations under this alternative. The No-Build alternative would not be consistent with the Johnson County COG's Arterial Street System Plan, which identified Melrose Avenue as an arterial street, and a cornnutted project for bridge and roadway improvements. In addition, the University of Iowa's Campus Planning Framework has incorporated the reconstruction of Melrose Avenue in their planning efforts. Urban design improvements to the corridor would not be implemented under this alternative. Alternative 2 - Two Lane Bridge an Two-Lane Road With A Left Turn Lane at Hawkins Drive Under Alternative 2, traffic operations would be slightly improved over existing conditions. In addition, sidewalks would be constructed on the north side of Melrose Avenue, thereby improvipg pedestrian safety and accessibility. To accommodate the expanded right-of-way to the north of Melrose Avenue, from South Grand Avenue to Grand Avenue Court, existing trees along the northern boulevard would need to be removed and replaced. Poor travel time conditions during peak periods would remain, thereby adversely impacting transit and emergency vehicles. The inclusion of additional landscaping and lighting fixtures throughout the corridor could serve as a visual improvement to the neighborhood character of the area. There would be no air quality or noise violations under this alternative. Similar to the No-Build alternative, Alternative 2 is not consistent with the Arterial Street System Plan, or the University's Campus Planning Framework. The construction cost for Alternative 2 would be $1,780,000. 2,588 square meters (27,833 square feet) of right-of- way within the University of Iowa, would be required. Alternatives 3 and ~1 - Two Lane Bridge and Three-Lane Road/Three Lane Bridge and Three Lane Road The impact summary for Alternatives 3 and 4 have been combined because the difference in the alternatives relates only to the bridge design (two lane versus three lane). Therefore, the variation in the environmental impact analysis is only minor. Under Alternatives 3 and 4, sidewalks would be provided along both sides of Melrose Avenue, as well as shoulders for bus pullouts and bicyclists. Similar to Alternative 2, existing vegetation to the north of Melrose Avenue between South Grand Avenue and Grand Avenue Court would need to be removed and replaced. The block bounded by Stadium Park Road and Hawkins Drive has the greatest right-of-way constraints. Therefore, to accommodate a continual sidewalk in this area (north side of Melrose Avenue), the existing south curb line is shifted to the south in the aforementioned block. The inclusion of additional landscaping and lighting fixtures throughout the corridor could serve as a visual improvement to the neighborhood character of the area. There would be no air quality or noise violations under this alternative. Both of these alternatives would improve traffic operations along the corridor, thereby making them consistent with the Arterial Street System Plan, and the Campus Planning Framework. The construction cost for Alternatives 3 and 4 would be $1,985,000 and $2,155,000 respectively. 2,588 square meters (27,833 square feet) of right-of-way within the University of Iowa would be required. 67 square meters (722 square feet) of right-of-way would be required to accommodate the three-lane bridge design (Alternative 4 only). Alternative 5 - Four Lane Bridge and Four Lane Road Under Alternative 5, traffic operations would improve over the No-Build condition. With the improved travel conditions in the corridor, there is a beneficial impact to accessibility into facilities to the north and south of Melrose Avenue. An additional through-lane would allow a continual flow of traffic at bus stop locations. Emergency vehicle accessibility would be improved. Because of right-of-way constraints, bicyclists would not have a separate travel lane. Similar to Alternatives 3 and 4, the proposed 4.7 meters (15.4 feet) of new right-of-way to the north of Melrose Avenue would provide adequate room for sidewalk facilities, except for the block bounded by Stadium Drive and Hawkins Drive, where the proposed right- of-way is reduced because of the location of the University's tennis courts. To accommodate continual sidewalk radiities on the north side of Melrose Avenue, the south curb line in the aforementioned block is shifted to the south. As presented in the Urban Design section, landscaping on both the north and south sides of Melrose Avenue could improve the character of the corridor, while partially screening the views of the University from the residential neighborhood to the south. There would be no air quality and noise violations under this alternative. The existing vegetation on the block bounded by South Grand Avenue and Grand Avenue Court would need to be removed and replaced to accommodate the boulevard and sidewalk facilities. Construction cost for Alternative 5 is estimated at $2,155,000. Right-of-way impacts associated with the road reconstruction are the same as under Alternatives 3 and 4. 67 square meters (722 square feet) of right-of-way would be required to accommodate the proposed bridge design. Alternative 6 - Four Lane Bridge and Five Lane Road Under Alternative 6, traffic operations would experience the greatest improvement over the No-Build condition. Similar to Alternatives 3-5, with the improvement in travel conditions, comes an improvement in accessibility to University of Iowa facilities to the north of Melrose Avenue, and the residential area to the south. In addition, transit operations and emergency vehicle accessibility through the study corridor would improve. Alternative 6 would be consistent with the Arterial Street System Plan and the Campus Planning Framework document. Similar to Alternatives 3-5, right-of-way constraints in the block bounded by Stadium Drive and Hawkins Drive would require the shift in the south curbline in the block. Existing vegetation in the eastern section of the alignment would need to be removed to accommodate the extended border area. The expansion of the roadway to a five lane facility would be considered an adverse impact to pedestrians crossing Melrose Avenue from the north and/or the south. The time required to cross the roadway would be increased. Because the majority of the right-of-way would be required to accommodate the five-lane road, additional landscaping to buffer the impacts of a roadway would not be as significant as the landscaping proposed under Alternatives 3-5. There would be no air quality or noise violations under this alternative. The construction cost for Alternative 6 is estimated at $2,290,000. Right-of-way impacts would be the same as under Alternatives 4-5. Alternative 7 - Construct a New Road North of Existing Melrose Avenue Because this roadway is proposed to be located on a new alignment, impacts to existing conditions would be more significant than Alternatives 1-6. Under Alternative 7, the existing Melrose Avenue bridge would be reconstructed. Specifically, the alignment would be located in an area with steep slope conditions which is currently undeveloped. A natural wooded area would be adversely impacted, along with associated wildlife. There are three potential archaeological sites also located within the study corridor, which could be adversely impacted under this alternative. Additional analysis would be required to determine their location and significance. At the northern end of the alignment, the roadway would cut through the University of Iowa's recreational fields. A 4(f) evaluation would be required for this alternative, which would need to show that there are no prudent or feasible alternatives to the proposed roadway. A brief discussion regarding the 4(0 process is presented at the end of this section. Alternative 7 would not be consistent with the Arterial Street System Plan, the University's Campus Planning Framework, and the Sports and Recreation Facilities Long Range Plan. Because existing Melrose Avenue would be maintained as a two-lane facility, trafftc operations would not experience a significant improvement under Alternative 7. Therefore, emergency vehicle accessibility and transit operations would not experience a significant improvement over existing conditions. The estimated construction cost for Alternative 7 is $3,345,000. A total of 19,519 square meters (209,880 square feet) of right-of-way would be need to be acquired for this alternative. vii SECTION 4(f) Section 4(0 of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 declares it a national policy that spedal effort be made to protect (i.e., not use) public park and recreation lanes, wildlife refuges and historic sites. Section 4(0 permits the Secretary of Transportation to approve a project requiring the use of such publicly-owned lands of national, state or local jurisdiction or privately owned lands of national historic significance only where it can be shown that:. There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land; and Such project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the Section 4(0 land resulting from such use. If Altema~ve 7 is selected as the preferred alternative, a 4(f) evaluation would be required. TABLE S-1 ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION MATRIX: MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION EVALUATION CRITERIA A. Transportation System Level of Service (Future Conditions) ® Meeting Travel Demand Vehicle Safety Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Bicycle/Pedestrian Circulation ® Emergency Vehicle Accessibility ® Transit Service Impacts Energy Efficiency Consistent with Community Transportation Plan Iowa City University of Iowa ® JCCOG Arterial Street System Plan B. Community Environment ALTERNATIVES: 1: No Action 2: 2-1ane bridge/2-1ane ,'oad 3: 2-lane bridge/3-1ane road 4: 3-lane bridge/3-1ane road 5: 4-1ane bridge/4-1ane road 6: 4-lane bridge/5-1ane road 7: New street north of Melrose Avenue across University of Iowa property 2 Key: O: +: N/A: TIVES 5 6 7 it Impact pact dverse Impact dverse impact licable ALTER 3 4 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + No Significant Beneficial Im Potentially Significant Not ApF EVALUATION CRITERIA Consistent with Land Use/Development Plans Iowa City University Heightst University of Iowa · Economic Development Right-of-Way/Relocation (square meters) Neighborhood/Community Character City of Iowa City City of University Heights University of iowa · Parks and Public Recreational Open Space o Accessibility Construction Related Impacts Iowa City ALTERNATIVES: 1: No Action 2: 2-lane bridge/2-1ane mad 3: 2-1ane bridge/3-1ane road 4: 3-1ane bridge/3-1ane road ALTERNATIVES 1 2 3 4 __ __ + + N/A N/A N/A N/A O 2,588 2,588 2,588 Road Road Road/ 67 Bridge __ __ + + 0 0 0 -- -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + 0 5 6 7 + -- __ N/A N/A N/A + + -- 2,588 2,588 19,519 Road/ Road/ 67 67 Bridge Badge + -- O O O -- O O -- + + 5: 4-lane bridge/4-1ane road 6: 4-lane bridge/5-tane road 7: New street north of Melrose Avenue across University of Iowa property Key: O: No Significant Impact +: Beneficial Impact --: Potentially Adverse Impact - -: Significant Adverse Impact N/A: Not Applicable x Based on discussions with city representatives, the City of University tteights does not have an adopted plan to evaluate the proposed actions consistency to. EVALUATION CRITERIA University Heights University of Iowa C. Physical Environment · ~ Air Quality. " Noise (Federal Standard) o Visual Resources Cultural Resources Historic Structures2 Archaeological Impacts · Wetlands · Vegetation · Wildlife Rare/Threatened/Endangered Species "Hazardous Waste Impacts ® Surface Wa~:er Drainage Floodplain Encroachment " Constnaction Cost (million) ALTERNATIVES: h No Action 2: 2-lane bridge/2-1ane road 3: 2-tane bridge/3-1ane road 4: 3-1ane bridge/3-1ane road ALTERNATIVES 1 2 3 4 O ...... O -- O O O O O O O O -- + + + 0 0/_ 0/._ 0/_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00 $1.78 $1.99 $2.16 5: 4-lane bridge/4-1ane road Key: O: 6: 4-Iane bridge/5-1ane road +: 7: New street north of Melrose Avenue across University of Iowa property - -: 5 6 O O O O 7 O O 0/_ 0/_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O $2.16 $2.29 $3.35 No Significant Impact Beneficial Impact Potentially Adverse Impact Significant Adverse Impact N/A: Not Applicable 2 A Phase I and II investigation is currently being reviewed by the SHPO to determine the potential direct and indirect impacts to historic structures within the project area. CITY OF IOWA CITY 1.0 REPORT PURPOSE The Environmental Assessment (EA) report has been prepared to prqvide background information on the proposed Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge reconstruction project in Iowa City, Iowa. The scope of the EA report includes the following elements: · Description of the project Description of the environmental review process/schedule and opportunities for community involvement and comment · Need for and purpose of the project Discussion of alternative alignments for the Melrose Avenue project · Environmental and socioeconornic impacts · Description of potential mitigation measures to adverse impacts · Documentation regarding communication/coordination with agencies, organizations and individuals in the environmental review process The EA report has been prepared as part of the National Environmental Policy Act 0XlEPA) review process for federally funded projects and meets requirements of both 42 USC 4321 et. seq. and the Iowa Department of Transportation Action Plan. At the federal level, the report is used to provide documentation of environmental analysis to determine the need for either a federal environmental impact statement (EIS) or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). This document will be made available for public review and comment before the decision on significance of impacts are made. Completion m~d approval of this EA report by the appropriate federal and state agencies will enable the City of Iowa City, in cooperation with the Iowa Depai-tment of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration to implement the Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge reconstm~on project, from the city limits of Iowa City and University Heights to Byington Road, Iowa City, Iowa. CITY OF IOWA CITY 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION The proposed project is located in Iowa City, the eastern-most section of University Heights, and the University of Iowa. The project is in Johnson County, Iowa (Figure 1). 2.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed action includes two primary components: · The reconstruction of the Melrose Avenue Bridge over the Iowa Interstate Railroad. The reconstruction of Melrose Avenue from the city limits of Iowa City and University Heights (eastern boundary) to Byington Road. This Environmental Assessment document assesses the impacts of the No- Build Alternative and the following Build Alternatives: · Construct a new two-lane bridge and two-lane road to include a left-turn lane at Hawkins Drive Construct a new two-lane bridge and three lane road · Construct a new three lane bridge and three lane road Construct a new four lane bridge and four lane road Construct a new four lane bridge and five lane road Construct a new street north of Melrose Avenue across University of Iowa property. The total project length for the alternatives which following existing Melrose Avenue, is approximately 869 meters (2,850 feet). The alignment alternative (Alternative 7) which transverses University of Iowa property is located on a new alignment, the total length of this new roadway is approximately 970 meters (3,180 feet). The impact analysis for this alternative assumes that the existing Melrose Avenue bridge would need to be upgraded. Section 3.0 of this report documents the bridge deficiencies in greater detail. N W + E 0 1/2 I Mile MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RE~)NSTRUCFION STUDY Iowa C~ty~ Iowa CITY OF IOWA CITY Meirose Avenue Pro an Figure I 0 Regional Project Location Project Funding and Schedule Section 4.3 presents the estimated project cost for each of the seven alternatives under consideration. Funding for the Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge improvements would come from a variety of sources. They include the following: $850,000.00 from the Federal Aid Bridge Replacement Fund. Approximately $1,305,000.00 from a combination of Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds and General Obligation (GO) bonds. The amount of local funding allocated to the project will be dependent upon the preferred alternative selected. The preliminary schedule for implementing the Melrose Avenue project is presented below. Many factors will have a bearing on the final construction schedule, including environmental clearance, projec~ banding, and construction season constraints. Activity Release of EA Approximate Date Public Hearing March 1995 Close of Comment Period April 1995 FONSI Determination or Need for EIS May 1995 Phase I/II SHPO Clearance May 1995 May 1995 Bridge/Roadway Construction 1996-1997 2.3 PROJECT HISTORY Planning and decision making activities regarding the Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge reconstruction project have taken place since 1990. There are several other studies that have included the Melrose Avenue project in planning efforts and/or identified deficiencies and recommended improvements to the bridge and roadway, including: · The Arterial Street Plan for the Iowa City Urbanized Area, JCCOG, 1991 · Inspection of the Melrose Avenue Bridge Over the Iowa Interstate Railroad, NNW Inc. for Iowa City, 1993 and 1994 · Campus Planning Framework, Draft, University of Iowa, April 1990 Traffic Study and Planning Analysis, University of Iowa, West .Campus, Barton-Aschmann for University of Iowa, January 1993 This section discusses key decision-making activities regarding the proposed action. Additional information regarding the alternative development process is included in Section 4.1 of this document. The Arterial Street Plan For the Iowa City Urbanized Area , JCCOG, February 1991, included the replacement and widening of the Mekose Avenue bridge over the IAIS railroad, and the reconstruction and widening of Mekose Avenue from Byington Road to Hawkins Drive as "committed" street improvements. Committed street improvements are projects that are programmed in the Fiscal Year 1991 JCCOG Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the Iowa City Urbanized Area. In addition, the aforementioned Plan identified the following two projects within the City of University Heights and University of Iowa, respectively: Intersection of Melrose Avenue and Koser Avenue; install traffic signal. Melrose Avenue intersections at South Groa~d Avenue and Stadium Park Road; reconstruct with improved geometrics. As presented in the JCCOG's Plan, Melrose Avenue from South Grand Avenue through University Heights has a Volume to Caparty (V/C) ratio greater than 1.4. Previous Environmental Analysis [I Because the proposed Melrose Avenue bridge reconstruction project was in part being funding by federal dollars, compliance with the federal environmental regulations was required. Therefore, in July 1992, the Iowa Department of Transportation submitted to the Federal Highway Administration an Environmental Clearance Memorandum (See Appendix) for the following action: Melrose Avenue from Olive Court easterly approximately 1,025 feet to east of Melrose Place 100 feet. Widen approach roadways to 47 feet, B-B pavement (four traffic lanes) and replace the bridge over the Iowa Interstate Railroad with a 50 foot roadway and two-8-foot sidewalks. In August 1992, the Federal Highway Administration concu~ed with the Type HI, Categorical Exclusion (CE) classification for the above described project (See Appendix). Although the proposed reconstruction of Melrose Avenue, to Byington Road, is not anticipated to use federal funds, the decision was reached by the City of Iowa City, FHWA and IDOT to study the impacts associated with both the bridge and roadway reconsl~uction project. Because the scope and study limits of the project were revised, the decision was made by the FHWA to require the preparation of an Environmental Assessment for the Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Recomtruction project. (See Appendix for letters document~rtg need for prepara~on of an EA) To assist the City of Iowa City in developing the scope of the Environmental Assessment for the Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction Project, the Melrose Avenue Focus Group was established. Section 6.2 outlines in greater detail the membership on the Focus Group and their involvement in the project development process. CITY OF IOWA CITY 3.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT 3.1 ROLE IN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Melrose Avenue is identified as part of the Iowa City urbanized area arterial street system. The JCCOG's Arterial Street System Plan report states the following: ... arterial streets are the network of streets which facilitate the major movement of traffic. Arterial streets connect the principal traffic generators within the city and rural routes feeding into the city. The design and function of arterial streets should facilitate the efficient movement of large amounts of traffic. At the west dty limits of Iowa City, Melrose Avenue is a major county secondary road extending to west Johnson County. Near the west city limits of Iowa City, Melrose Avenue has an interchange with US Highway 218, a section of the National Highway System and Avenue of the Saints. At the east end, Melrose Avenue connects to Highways 1 and 6 and Iowa City's Central Business District (CBD). Melrose Avenue provides access to many significant traffic generators, including residential subdivisions, Iowa City West High School, University of Iowa family housing, Iowa 'City Fire Station #3, the City of University Heights, University of Iowa recreation and athletic facihties, the University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics, the University of Iowa Field House, University residence halls and the University of Iowa College of Law. Melrose Avenue is a major traffic link for persons traveling from west Iowa City to the central business district and main university campus area. Other primary roads which currently feed into Melrose Avenue within the study area boundaries include: Hawkins Drive - Hawkins Drive is a north-south roadway near the western end of the study area. Hawkins Drive extends from U.S. Route 6 to Melrose Avenue. Hawkins Drive is a major roadway through the University of Iowa campus, which provides access to such facilities as Kinnick Stadium, and the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics. The Melrose Avenue/Hawkins Drive intersection is currently signalized. South Grand Avenue - South Grand Avenue is a north-south roadway which extends north of Melrose Avenue into the University of Iowa campus. This roadway, along with Grand Avenue, provides a link to Highways 1 and 6, and Burlington Street. Byington Road and South Grand Avenue function as a one-way couplet. 3.2 PROJECT GOALS The goals of the Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge reconstruction project are as follows: To improve the ability of motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists to use Melrose Avenue with a higher degree of safety. This includes both through movements and movements from intersecting streets. To improve the ability of Melrose Avenue to function as a major transportation link. · To provide improved access to major traffic generators. o To upgrade the existing deteriorated Melrose Avenue Bridge. To provide facilities which are in compliance with the American Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations. To minimize impacts to residences directly to the south of Melrose Avenue, maintaining the existing south curb line is of primary concern. 3.3 PRESENT FACILITIES 3.3.1 Existing Physical Conditions Existing Traffic Control and Geometric Conditions Characterization of the existing traffic control and geometric conditions in the study area has been completed through an inventory of intersection traffic control, on-street parking, and intersection and roadway segment geometrics. The existing traffic control and geometric conditions at the key study area intersections are illustrated in Figure 2 and summarized below: The existing traffic control at the five intersections is as follows: · Melrose Avenue/Hawkins Drive and the Riverside Drive/Grand Avenue - Burlington Street intersections are currently signalized. o Melrose Avenue/Golfview Avenue-Koser Avenue is an all-way stop intersection. The Melrose Avenue/South Grand Avenue intersection is controlled by a stop sign on the east approach and a left-turn yield sign on the north. approach. · The Melrose Avenue/B?ngton Road intersection is controlled by a stop sign on the south approach. 10 On-street parking is currently prohibited on Melrose Avenue east of the railroad bridge. On Melrose Avenue west of the bridge, there is approximately 46 meters (150 feet) of parking along the north curb line. Current roadway design features in the study area include the following: Melrose Avenue is currently a two-way, two-lane road between Golfview Avenue and Byington Road. Byington Road is one-way northbound from Melrose Avenue to Grand Avenue. A left-turn lane is provided on the west approach of Melrose Avenue at Hawkins Drive. The Iowa Depa~h~tent of Transportation ClDOT) has developed a series of recommended design criteria to be used as guidelines to construction for construction/reconstruction of roadways in an urban setting. Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities There is currently a 1.22 meter (4-foot) sidewalk on the south side of Melrose Avenue. Bicyde lanes are not provided under existing conditions. Existing Speed Limit The existing posted speed limit for the section of Melrose Avenue under study is 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour). Bridge Condition The Melrose Avenue Bridge over the Iowa Interstate Railroad was constructed in 1934. The bridgeis 73 meters (240 feet) long and consists of five simple spans of steel stringers. Inspections of said bridge were conducted in 1993 and 1994 by NNW Inc. for Iowa City. A copy of the Structure Inventory and Appraisal form is included in the Appendix. As indicated in the report, by law, all bridges in the United States, over 6.1 meters (20 feet) in length, are required to be inspected at least every two years. The Melrose Avenue bridge has a concrete deck that is in poor condition and stringers with welding details that have been known to cause cracks in steel beams. Based on the findings of the 1994 inspection, the bridge components are classified in Serious Condition, (2 or 3 on a scale of 0 to 9). A brief description of the findings in the 1994 inspection are presented below: · ~ MELROSE AVE. s MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECD~LL"~ON STUDY Iowa City, Iowa CITY OF IOWA CITY tU > Legend: Traffic Signal Source: Obscrvalions by BRW Staff May. 1994 Existing Traffic Control and Geometric Conditions Foundation - The foundation of the bridge consists of reinforced concrete piers and abutments supported by friction timber pihng. There is a slight settlement of Pier 3. There are several spans and corroded reinforcing bars. Superstructure - During the inspection, the presence of welding on the tension flange of Span 3 was of primary conecm. Blast plates have been welded to the bottom flange of all the stringers over the tracks. This type of detail is classified as the work type when considering fatigue (E' welds). There is significant corrosion of the bridge bearings. The bearing in Pier 4 is completely corroded away. Deck - The deck is 8.5-inch-thick reirfforced concrete slab. It spans 2.1 meters (7 feet) to 3 meters (10 feet) between stringers and is reinforced with #6 bars spaced at six inches. The sidewalk slab is 101.6 millimeters (4 inches) thick. The bottom side of the deck is covered with salt leachate. It is likely that the concrete is full of salt, which, in the presence of oxygen corrodes the reinforcing steel. The deck is in poor condition. It has been patched many times over the years, and many of the patches are coming out. Several of the holes are over three inches deep and have exposed the reinforcing steel. A deck sounding in May 1993 showed 57 percent of the deck was delaminated. During the inspection, NNW noticed unusual vibration of the bridge at the passage of large vehicles. 3.3.2 Existing and Future Traffic Conditions This section presents a brief summary of existing and future traffic conditions on Melrose Avenue. Section 5.4 of this report includes a thorough traffic analysis for Mekose Avenue under existing design conditions, as well as the six Build Alternatives under study. Existing Traffic Volumes Existing traffic volumes are documented because they are a key component used in the analysis of existing conditions. Existing traffic conditions were documented in three ways: Peak hour turning movements at key intersections were counted by BRW personnel during May 1994. 13 Daily traffic flows along Melrose Avenue were obtained from the Iowa DOT and Iowa City's regional traffic model. Any deriderides were filled by developing estimates of Year 1994 daily traffic flow based on Year 1990 traffic counts from the Iowa Department of Transportation and the peak hour turning movement counts conducted by BRW. BRW, Inc. conducted PM peak hour turn movement counts between 4:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. at the following intersections: 2. 3. 4. 5. Melrose Avenue and Golfview/Koser Avenues Melrose Avenue and Hawkins Drive Melrose Avenue and South Grand Avenue Melrose Avenue and Byington Road Riverside Drive and Grand Avenue/Burlington Street The peak traffic hour (4:30-5:30 p.m.) in the study area was derived through review of turning movements collected by BRW and from 24-hour tube count information obtained from Iowa City staff and the Iowa DOT. The existing PM peak hour volumes are shown in Figure 3. In addition, AM and Midday peak hour counts were collected at the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Hawkins Drive and are included in the Traffic Data Section of the Appendix. Daily traffic counts were provided by Iowa DOT traffic counts and Iowa City from their regional traffic model for existing Year 1994 conditions. Daily traffic volumes at locations not included in the model were estimated by using the 1990 Traffic Flow Map from the Iowa Department of Transportation and 1994 peak hour turning movement data. Existing (Year 1994) Average Daily Traffic volumes for roadways in the study area are displayed in Figure 4. Forecast Traffic Volumes Travel demand forecasts on the study area roadways were developed through use of Iowa City's QRS II forecasting model and data provided by the City for each of the alternatives. The forecast data provided by the City was then modified slightly to more nearly conform with historic traffic growth rates and extrapolated to account for the need for more information than the City's model could provide. Design Year (Year 2015) traffic fore~:asts were developed in order to provide one of the key components needed to analyze the alternative road design's ability to accommodate expected future traffic flows. Forecast year (Year 2015) daily traffic volumes in the study area were provided by the City's QRS II forecasting model. The annual growth rates from existing (1994) to future (forecast year 2015) were calculated for all of the locations in the model. For the existing cO .=~ I uj GRAND AVE 2956 61 HS__~ ~443 80J ~ ~99 767J ' ~ MELROSE AVE. w+s No s~ s MELROSE AVENUE_ STREET AND BRIDGE RF_EONSIRUCTION STtjD Y Iowa City, Iowa CITY OF IOWA CITY ~ 471 g" 330 BURLINGTON ST. Source: BRWTmfiic Counts May, 1994 Figure 3 Existing PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes //~i0,000 8,600 8,60O 12,900 W+E No SCa~¢ S MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE REOONSIRUCTION STUD Y Iowa City, Iowa CITY OF IOWA CITY 13,500 MELROSE AVE. GRAND AVE. 10,300 1 23.000 m 21,000 000 Existing ADT Source: Iowa City, Regional Traffic Model Figure 4 Existing Average Daily Traffic .Volumes BURLINGTON ST. tr U..I > condition, an average annual growth rate was calculated along the corridor. If the model did not provide a forecast ADT at a location on a major street, the average rate was applied to the existing ADT at the missing location to determine the forecast ADT. For locations along minor streets which were missing ADT's in the model, a low annual growth rate of 0.5 percent was applied, since the area is already densely developed. Figure 5 shows Year 2015 traffic forecasts under the "No-Build" design conditions. Because the QRS II Traffic Model is "capacity constrained," as traffic congestion increases on Melrose Avenue, traffic is assumed to be diverted to surrounding roadways. Existing Pedestrian Counts Pedestrian volume counts were conducted at each of the key intersections by BRW staff on April 27, 1994, and April 28, 1994. Pedestrians were counted during the PM peak at all of the intersections. In addition, pedestrians were counted during the AM peak and the Midday peak at the Melrose Avenue/Hawkins Drive intersection. The results of the pedestrian count survey are shown in Table 1. Existing Accident Characteristics Traffic accident information is one of the key measures of how well a street system or system of traffic control devices is operating. As a result, traffic accident information for the five key intersections was obtained from the Iowa City Department of Public Works. The number of accidents by type and the accident rate, a measure that takes into account variability due to traffic volume exposure were tabulated for each key intersection. Results are documented in Table 2. Analysis indicates that the key intersections have accident rates between 0.2 and 0.9 accidents per million entering vehicles. Traffic Operations Analysis A capacity analysis is an established method of objectively measuring the quality of traffic operations through an intersection or along a segment of roadway. The basic output for these analyses are letter grades (A through F), with level of service (LOS) A denoting excellent operations or under capacity conditions, and LOS F signifying congested or over capacity conditions with long traffic delays. In most areas, LOS C is recommended for urban intersection design; LOS D is considered the minimum acceptable quality of traffic flow; and LOS E is considered to be the actual capacity of the intersection. Based on recommendations from previous studies, the City of Iowa City has determined that LOS C is an appropriate level of congestion for this analysis along urban arterials and at major signalized intersections; and that LOS E is acceptable on minor street approaches to unsignalized intersections along arterials in order to minimize delay for the higher traffic volumes on the major streets. Capacity analyses were conducted using Year 2015 traffic forecasts. The analysis of the signalized intersections used the SIGNAL85 software and "Chapter 9: Signalized Intersections" of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The all-way stop controlled intersection analysis used the Transportation Research Board "Circular 373 All- Way Stop." The unsignalized intersections were analyzed using the procedures of "Chapter 10: Unsignalized Intersections" of the Highway Capacity Manual. The analysis can be broken into two parts, roadway segment capacity and intersection capacity. Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis A capacity analysis was conducted for the roadway segment along Melrose Avenue between Golfview Avenue/Koser Avenue and Byington Road. The results of the analysis indicates: Melrose Avenue currently operates at Level of Service (LOS) C/D. The two-lane roadway would provide a mid LOS D operation under future Year 2015 traffic conditions. Intersection Capacity Analysis Intersection capacity analyses were conducted for the five key intersections in the study area: 2. 3. 4. 5. Melrose Avenue and Golfview/Koser Avenues Melrose Avenue and Hawkins Drive Melrose Avenue and South Grand Avenue Melrose Avenue and Byington Road Riverside Drive and Grand Avenue/Burlington Street · Analyses were conducted for the following conditions: · Existing geometrics with existing traffic volumes · Existing geometrics with forecast traffic volumes  10,900 11,2~0 C2~ o (27%) (30%) ~ 14,000 (9%) w+s No Scale s MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECONSTRUCIION S'/UDY Iowa City, Iowa CITY OF IOWA CITY .GRAND AVE. 13,800 10,800 (2%) (5%). MELROSE AVE. II 28 300 (2:;%) 26,000 (24%) BURL~ON ST. t", LU r", Legend: 000 Y~ 2015 ADT (00%) Percent Grow[h from 1994 to 2015 Rgur~ s Forecast Average Daily Traffic Volumes-Alternatives I & 2 TABLE l PEDESTRIAN COUNT SURVEY Mnlrose Avenue Goifvxcw Ave/ Koser Aw: All-Way 4:00- 5:00 PM 9 Stop 5:00-6:00 PM 14 Melrosc Avenue & Traffic Hawkins Drive Signal Mclrose Avenue 3 & Through/ SouthGrand Avenue Stop Mclros~ Avenue [ 4 & Through/ Byington Road Stop 7:00- 8:00 AM 18 8:00-9:00AM 6 .00 AM - 12:00 PM I0 12:00-1:00 PM 18 4:00 - 5.00 PM 20 5:00 -6:00 PM 15 4:00--5.00 PM 11 12 5:00-6:(1) PM 4 10 4.00--5:00 PM O 3 5:00 - 6:00 PM 2 I 31 ~ 2 26 28 9 20 ~ 3 29 32 10 14 2 20 18 0 18 3 9 5 2 7 15 25 0 0 0 18 ~ 0 ~ 3 53 73 4 35 39 ] 45 I 19 20 B 8 12 20 14 2 7 9 __. ~, 20 74 Riverside Drive & Grand Ave/Burlington St Traffic i 4:00-5:00PM .__ 89 82 171 .... I 5 6 __.__lj Signal _.._5:99:6;00 PM__ 89__ ..9J _ _. lSO 2 3 5 1 t ) 18 5 8 13 $ 24 1 __8_ 9 . 9 0 _ 9 0 4 4 _0 17 X7 : 0 4 4 3~ 90 |3 124 137 ~ ~s ._e z 8 $ _.. 94 6 I , t 12_.__ _ _22, .,_1,6_ 38 L .... 16 27 38 6J _ ~[g - No approach from thesg directions. The pedestrian volumes for this intersection include the pedestrianscrossing mid block to the west. Pedestrian bridges arc provided and used by the pcdcstrianscrossing the north approach and west approach. TABLE 2 EXISTING INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CHARACTERISTICS 2 TotaJ 2 0 1990 2 0 0 1991 0 1992 0 end Byington RO,~d 0 3 0 0 2 3 7 0 0 2 0 0 Total 2 0 0 0 Riverside DrWe 1990 17 2 I 5 m'ld 1991 14 3 4 Grand Ave/BtJ~iin~ton St. ~ _. 12 I 2 6 T~ 43 5 5 3 14 1 O 33.903 12.4 016 2 o 1,5.5_.oo 6.o_ .. o.5o __ __1 0 16.500 6.0 1.00 4 0 40.500 181 0.61 0 0 9.8--25 3 6 0.56 .__..0 0. __ .. 9,825 3.6 0 28 1 0 29,475 10 8 0 56 __2 , 0 6,945 2.5 0.79 0 0 6.945 2.5 0.0O 0 0 6,945 2.5 0.00 2 0 20,835 ? .6 0 26 _ .._.Z_7 0 45,300 16 5 1.03 ___5 0 45,300 __ 16.5 085 . 2_~._, O__ 45.3,__~_ 165 0.73 14 0 135,900 49 6 0.87 0 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 __ 8 3 I0 3 4 9 0 0 12 4 29 The Melrose Avenue and Golfview Avenue/Koser Avenue all-way stop intersection currently operates at LOS C. Under Year 2015 forecast year conditions, the intersection level of service drops to LOS E or F. The Melrose Avenue and Hawkins Drive signalized intersection currently operates at LOS D. The evaluation of forecast traffic volumes results in LOS F operation. The Melrose Avenue and South Grand Avenue through/stop intersection is currently operating at a LOS D for the minor street approach. The evaluation of forecast traffic volumes results in LOS E for the minor street approach. The Melrose Avenue and Byington Road through/stop intersection is currently operating at LOS C for the minor street approach. The evaluation of forecast traffic volumes results in LOS D operation. The Riverside Drive and Grand Avenue/Burlington Street signalized intersection currently operates at LOS E. The evaluation of forecast traffic volumes results in LOS F operation. 3.4 JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROJECT The justification for undertaking this project is based on the following considerations: Level of Service Under existing conditions intersection levels of service on Melrose Avenue are currently operating at LOS C or worse and the roadway segment is operating at LOS D. Additional capacity analysis indicates that if the two- lane road design is perpetuated, the quality of traffic flow will deteriorate as traffic volumes increase. If actual traffic volumes approach the expected year 2015 forecast volumes, the LOS along the entire roadway will be D or lower. This is an undesirable situation for an arterial roadway. Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities Existing Melrose Avenue does not serve pedestrians or bicyclists well. The north side of Melrose Avenue does not have a continual sidewalk. System Planning Melrose Avenue is classified as an arterial roadway in the JCCOG's Arterial Street System Plan. As such it should facilitate the major movement of traffic. Under existing conditions, congestion on Melrose Avenue, primarily during peak periods, does not efficiently service large amounts of traffic. This situation will only worsen as traffic volumes grow in the future. This congestion is considered an adverse impact for emergency vehicle response capabilities. Bridge Deficiencies As presented in Section 3.3.1, based on 1993 and 1994 inspection findings, the Melrose Avenue Bridge components are classified in "Serious Condition." Corrosion of the reinforcing bars and bridge bearings has occurred. The beams also have a potential for fatigue. The deck is in poor condition, with 57 percent of the deck being delaminated. I CITY OF IOWA CITY 4.0 ALTERNATIVES 4.1 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS As indicated in the Section 4.2, six Build Alternatives and a No-Build Alternative are analyzed in this Environmental Assessment document. The inclusion of the No-Build Alternative is a requirement under federal environmental regulations. In November 1993, the Melrose Avenue Focus Group reviewed the original draft alternatives to be carried forward for more detailed analysis. During the review of the alternatives the following changes were made: Eliminate the alternative which called for the assessment of repa'mng the existing bridge and street. The bridge and street would not be reconstructed under this alternative. This alternative was deleted because simply repairing the bridge would not bring it up to federal standards. Therefore, the Melrose Avenue bridge project would not be ehgible for federal funds. Alternative 2 - Construct a new two-lane bridge and two-lane road was revised by adding the statement "...to include a left-turn lane at Hawkins Drive." An additional alternative was added which called for the conceptual design and impact assessment of constructing a new two-lane bridge and three lane road. 4.2 ALTERNATIVES UNDER STUDY The alternatives described below and presented in the following figures are conceptual in nature, and have been prepared at a level appropriate for conducting the Environmental Assessment. More detailed design will be completed for the preferred alternative, following the completion of the required environmental documents. Alternative 1: No-Build Alternative Under the No-Build Alternative the Melrose Avenue bridge over the Iowa Interstate Railroad and reconstruction of Melrose Avenue from the city limits of Iowa City and University Heights to Byington Road, would not be implemented. Because of existing deficiencies, the Melrose Avenue bridge would eventually need to be closed. As indicated in Figures 6 and 7a/b, thru traffic lanes would be 4.72 meters (15.5 feet), with border areas to the north and south of the roadway at 5.34 meters (17.5 feet). The sidewalk on the south side of the roadway would be maintained at 1.22 meters (4 feet). No provisions for bicycle paths would be provided. Alternative 2: Two Lane Bridge and Two Lane Road With A Left Turn Lane at Hawkins Drive. Under Alternative 2, a new two lane bridge, and design modifications to the existing two lane road would be constructed (Figures 6 and 8a/b). Specifically, the new bridge would include a 3.9 meter (12.8 feet) thru lane in each direction, 1.8 meter (5.9 feet) shoulders, and 2.4 meter (8 feet) sidewalks to the north and south. To the east of the bridge, Melrose Avenue would include a 3.3 meter (10.8 feet) turn lane at Hawkins Drive, with thru lanes of 4.25 meters (13.9 feet). East of Hawkins Drive, the thru lanes would be 3.3 meters (10.8 feet) with 2.6 meter (8.5 feet) shoulders. The sidewalk to the south of Melrose Avenue would be 1.5 meters (4.9 feet) and 2.4 meters (7.9 feet) to the'north. Alternative 3: New Two Lane Bridge and Three Lane Road Under Alternative 3, the Melrose Avenue bridge would be designed the same as under Alternative 2 (Figures 6 and 9a/b). To the east of the bridge, 3.3 meters (10.8 feet) thru lanes and a median turn lane would be provided. 2.35 meter (7.7 feet) shoulders on both the north and south sides would also be provided. The sidewalks on the south side would be 1.5 meters (4.9 feet). On the north side of Melrose Avenue, the sidewalks would range from 1.5 meters (4.9 feet) to 2.4 meters (7.9 feet) depending on the right-of-way constraints (Figure 9 A). The right-of-way for the three and four lane roadway is similar because adequate space needs to be provided under the three-lane alternative to accommodate potential stalled vehicles (e.g. adequate shoulder space for vehicles to pull over so that traffic is not delayed). Alternative 4: Three Lane Bridge and Three Lane Road Under Alternative 4, a new three lane bridge over the Iowa Interstate Railroad would be constructed with the following design features (Figures 6 and 10a/b): Thru Lanes: Turn Lane: Shoulders: Sidewalks: 3.6 meters (11.8 feet) 3.6 meters (11.8 feet) 2.9 meters (9.5 feet) 2.4 meters (8 feet) East of the bridge, 3.3 meter (10.8 feet) thru and turn lanes would be provided along with 2.35 meter (7.7 feet) shoulders. The sidewalks on the south side would be 1.5 meters (4.9 feet). On the north side of Melrose Avenue, the sidewalks would range from 1.5 meters (4.9 feet) to 2.4 meters (7.9 feet) depending on the right-of-way constraints (Figure 10 A). 26 EYJSIING ~ EX]S'IING NORTH I SOUTH R/W 20J2 m ($$') R/W ,5.~ '1,6.34 m (17.5')' 9.44 m (31') m (17.6'), , 1.68 m (5.5')--l ].-1.22 m 4.72 m (15.5') 4.72 m (15.5')l' BORDER ~ I (1YP.) AREA EXIS~NG 2 LANE SEC~ON NORTH NORTH SOUTH R/W 4.7 m R/W 2012 m (66') ' (15.4') ' '298 m 11.8 m (~7') . 5.34 m 0.3 m ~ 2.4 m 4.98 m (~.5'), ,(m.8'), (108') ,(~S'), ~.68 RI- LANE ' ~[ / (~-) AREA AREA eSEE DETAIL A 80ROER ~[A TYPICAL 2 LANE SECTION (.3) PROPOSED EXIS)IND EX3911NG NOR]]-i NOR]H I SOUTH R/~ 4.7 m R/W 20.12 m (66') R/W I (15'4') "1 ( ) 5'34 m (17'51 14.6m 47.9' ' I (O.6') '~ 2.;36 m ,3.3 ,,m, 6.3 m 3;3 m 2.35 ,m ~-' 1.6 m (4.9') I ,2.4m, 12.1Sm, ?.7'! (10.8) (10.e') (10.a') (7.7) -' · / (1.0') (7 9 ) (7 I') ~ *SEE DETAIL A FOR oP'nONAL BORDER AREA L~--BORDER' AREA TYPICAL 3 LANE SECT]ON NOTE: 1. ALL ALTERNATIVES HOLD THE EXISTING SOUTH CURB LINE EAST OF MELROSE 2. ROADWAY WIDTHS ARE MEASURED BACK-OF-CURB TO BACK-OF-CURB. 3. PROPOSED NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY IS 0.9 rn (3.0') NORTH OF EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE BLOCK OF STADIUM PARK DRIVE TO HAWKINS DRIVE. 27 (,~') 12.8 m (42') 9.~4m (.~O') 1.52 m (53 SECTION A-A EXISTING 2-LANE BRIDGE FIGURE 7A MELROSE AVENUE CiTY OF IOWA CITY ALTERNATIVE #1 EXISTING TWO LANE BRIDGE AND TWO LANE ROAD '"u I 9.14 (30') i : , ° I,._l ~ i ° 19.6 m (64.3') 13,8 m (45.3') · '" SECT]ON A-A NEW 2-LANE BRIDGE FIGURE 8A MELROSE AVENUE CITY OF IOWa CITY ALTERNATIVE #2 NEW TWO LANE BRIDGE AND TWO LANE ROAD PROPOSED NORIH EXIS~NG MORTH m, R~ (3') 30 m (9.8') 0.3 m ~ 2.4 (o.98') 9 ) SIDEWALK ~ BOROER 20 12 rn (61 11.8 m [387') 1.2 m (3.9') 425m 3.3m (~3 9') (t 0.8') SEC~ON B-B 3O .... t FUTURE CAY¥/OOD APTS. Prop· R.O.W. 24.82 m PROP. R.O.W. 20.12 rn (66')L EXIST. R.O.W. / ,.; ,~'~_~.~ R.O w = = 9.14 24.82 m (81.4')L , I'. PROP. R.O.W. / -'1 I' 20.12 rn (66')L 't f Proo R.O.W. EXIST, R.O.W, · · ...... ExLnl. ': 31 .46m 2.4 m (8')-9 S~OEWALK J I (5.9') 196 m (6¢.3') 13.8 m (45.3') 11.4 m 1.2m (3.94') J [-.46,~ (,.5') J l-- 2.4 m (8') 3.9.-, ,.8 ,-,, l, J .S~.OEWAU< Ozs') (5.9') SEC'i90N A-A NEW 2-LANE BRIDGE FIGURE 9A MELROSE AVENUE CITY OF IOWA CITY ALTERNA'I1VE #3 NEW TWO LANE BRIDGE AND THREE LANE ROAD PROPOSED NORIN R~'/ 21.03 m EXISTING NORIN R/W 2012 m (66') 0.91 m (3.0'),--" 1.79 m (5,9) ¥1 0.9 ,.,., 0') -I J 1.5 m (4.9')--~ J 2.35 m 3.3 -~ 3-3 m 3.3 m 2.3 03m['kO').,J..I ('.~,(1o8,), (1~8,).(,oB.) AREA SECTION B-B ....... : FuTURk ~LO'~Z TI~NNIS'CO~q~'T$ ,. 0 2i;o3 m (69') .... ' 20.~? m (6~)L PROP. EX(ST. R.0. W. ~ Prop. R.O.W. ,~ .,E";st. B.O ~W. , , 9.14 ] 24.82 m (8~.4')L PROP. R.O.W. t 20.12 m (66')L EXtST. R.O.W J _J. · t '"~ I ~ 1' 24.82 m (81. ~ < - PROP. R,O.W. ° } :-:1, · < ~ I'prop. R.O.W. EXIST. R.O.W. J ~ ......... ~ ~ , ..... E~,~ . ... ~ ~ ........&;' , ~ ~. .......... ........ - ~ MELROSE 33 22.32 m 16.6 m (54 5') .~ 0.5')-I 2.4 m (8')7 / 2.9 ,'r, S, DSWAU< I .I  i-.~.6,,, 0.5') 3.6 m 3. .'~ 3.6 m 2.9 m / I-'24 m (8') ') (9.5') 01.8') (,'~ (,.8') .. I. / sm[w~K SECTION A-A FIGURE 10A MELROSE AVENUE CITY OF IOWa CITY ALTERNATIVE //4. NEW THREE LANE BRIDGE AND THREE LANE ROAD PROPOSED NORIH EX)SI1NG NOBIH R/W 20.12 m (6~ OD, m (3-0')~1 F-- 1.79 m (5.9') '-~ 0.9 m (3') ~ 33 rn 1.5 . /.I (7.7-) (,0.8') (,0.8'1 II BORDER ~ L AREA SECTION B-B 34 f 2o. r2 m (6~'}L EXIST. R.O.W / PROP..R.O.1N FUTURE 't Prop. R.O.W. 24.82 nq PROP. R EXISI. , [xist. ?., CAY~OOD APTS , 9.14 ! I' 24.82 m (8~.)L PROP. R.O.W. , ,,. 20.12 m (66')L : [~ l, I~rop. R.O.W. EXIST. R.O.W. m .~ j UEU i 35 Alternative 5: Four Lane Bridge and Four Lane Road Under Alternative 5, a new four-lane bridge over the Iowa Interstate Railroad would be constructed with the following design features (Figures 6 and 11a/b): Thru Lanes: Sidewalks: 3.8 meters (12.47 feet) and 3.3 meters (10.83 feet) in each direction 2.4 meters (8 feet) East of the bridge, to immediately west of South Grand Avenue, 4.0 meter (13.1 feet) and 3.3 meter (10.8 feet) thru lanes would be provided in each direction. In the block bounded by Stadium Park Road and Hawkins Drive, sidewalks of 1.5 meters (4.9 feet) would be provided on the north and south sides of Melrose Avenue. East of Hawkins Drive, the sidewalk width, on the north side of Melrose Avenue, could be increased to 2.4 meters (7.9 feet). The sidewalk on the south side of Melrose Avenue would be 1.5 meters (4.9 feet). Alternative 6: Four Lane Bridge and Five Lane Road Under Alternative 6, a new four-lane bridge over the Iowa Interstate Railroad would be constructed, with the following design features (Figures 6 and 12a/b): Thru Lane (westbound): 3.8 meters (12.47 feet) Turn Lane: 3.3 meters (10.83 feet) Thru Lanes (eastbound): 3.3meters (10.83 feet) and 3.Smeters (12.47 feet) Sidewalks: 2.4 meters (8 feet) East of the bridge to Hawkins Drive, two eastbound through lanes at 3.3 meters (10.8 feet) and 4.1 meters (13.5 feet) a westbound through lane and a 3.3 meter (10.8 feet) turn lane would be provided. On the approach to Hawkins Drive, the northern right lane is signed as a right-turn lane only. This design is required to meet the fight-of-way constraints and bridge taper requirements. For the remainder of the corridor, 3.3 meter (10.8 feet) and 4.1 meter (13.5 feet) thru lanes in each direction and a turn lane is provided. A 1.5 meter (4.9 feet) sidewalk on the south side of Melrose Avenue would be provided. Due to right-of-way constraints, sidewalks would not be provided on the north side of Melrose Avenue in the five- lane section. A 1.5 meter (4.9 feet) sidewalk would be provided in the block bounded by the bridge and Hawkins Drive. 22.32 n~ (7~.2') 16.6 m (545') (12.47') -- ~,(10.83'). ~. (10.83')_ , (12.47') SEC~ON A-A FIGURE 11 a MELROSE AVENUE CITY OF' IOWA CITY ALTERNATIVE #5 NEW FOUR LANE BRIDGE AND FOUR LANE ROAD PROPO~D 21.0.3 rn ( R/W 2012 m 0.9] n, (30')--I I 1.79 m (5.9') '-~ 146 r~ (47.9') 38 'l / .lad Z FUTURE Prop. R.O.W. 9.14 m (,30l) PROP .... 2o.~2 m (66l}L EXIST. R.O.W / RAMP i I' 24.82 m (81.4')L 'i i 20.12 m (66')L ~..'Erop, R.O.W. EXIST. R.O.W. · MELROSE ~ o 39 SECT]ON A-A FIGURE 12A MELROSE AVENUE CITY OF IOWA CITY ALTERNATIVE 1~6 NEw FOUR LANE BRIDGE AND FIVE LANE ROAD 1.79 m 0.3 rn (1.0')'--.-- I-~,, 2( 146 rn 4.1 m 3.3 m 3 (~3.5') (lo 8') (1 SECTION 4O : ' Z ~' ~.o3 ,~ (s9')_ - ~ B ~ _z 20'[~ rn (66')L~ - PROP. R.O.:W. :- EXIST. R.O.W j '~* ,, ,~, ~ .... ' ' 200 --"1 PROPOSED NORTH R/W FIGURE 13A MELROSE AVENUE CiTY OF IOWA CITY ALTERNATIVE #7 NEW TWO LANE ROAD NORTH OF MELROSE AV[. 20.12 m (( I1.8 rn (.~.71) 2.6 m 3.'5 rr ; 3.3 n (8.53 0o.8';, I 0o.8' , ~BORDER~'J AREA TYPICAL 2 LANE S 42 / f" 'i x' /h.". PROPOSEO 4.1 m 26m (053 2012 m (66') 11.8 m 33m 33m 2 0o.8') .00-83 TYPICAL 2 LANE SECTI( 43 CITY OF IOWA CITY 5.0 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 5.1 INTRODUCTION Section 5.0 presents the sodal, economic and environmental impacts of the proposed Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction Alternatives. Impacts of the No-Build Alternative serve as a base condition for comparative purposes. Many of the specific impact areas are interrelated. To avoid duplication of material, areas are cross-referenced, where appropriate (e.g., neighborhood character and visual resources/urban design). 5.2 SOCIAL AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS 5.2.1 Community Facilities Existing Conditions As presented in Figures 14 and 15, the following community fadlities are located within the Melrose Avenue study area: · Ernest Horn School is located approximately 2.42 kilometers (1.5 miles) south of Melrose Avenue in the City of University Heights. Roosevelt High School is located approximately 3.62 kilometers (2.25 miles) south of Mekose Avenue on Greenwood Drive. City of Iowa City Fire Station #3 at Melrose Avenue and Emerald Street. Child Care Facilities are located directly to the north and south of Melrose Avenue: 309 Melrose Avenue - Brook and Woods Child Care Center 322 Melrose Avenue - University Parent Care Collective Day Care 407 Melrose Avenue - Rainbow Child Care Center 701 Melrose Avenue - Melrose Day Care Center 707 Mekose Avenue - United Campus Ministry UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS CITY LIMITS ~ n; GRAND AVE. ~ MELROSE AVE. ~ O Lcgend: ~ School q~ Firc Station #3" ~ City Parks TOWER CT O WOODSIDE DR 0 OAKCREST ST IPARK PL MYRTLE ~ AVE. N w + s 6 1/2 I Miic s MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION STUD Y Iowa City, Iewa BENTON ST. CITY OF IOWA CITY Figurc 14 Schools/City Parks/Fire Station FACILITY l[owa Chy, ]iowa ~ lI) O! If)[t t CI1) N Several cultural centers are located directly to the north and south of Melrose Avenue: 303 Melrose Avenue - Afro-American Cttltural Center 308 Melrose Avenue - Chicano/Native American Cultural Center Two churches are located within the study area: 511 Melrose Avenue: Our Redeemer Lutheran Church 707 Melrose Avenue: United Campus Ministries (Child Care Facility Also) Building The following community facilities are located directly to the north of Melrose Avenue, within the University of Iowa campus: Kinnick Football Stadium located to directly to the west of Hawkins Drive University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics located to the east of Hawkins Drive University of Iowa Field House located to the west of South Grand Avenue Finkbine Golf Course located to the east of Mormon Trek Boulevard and the western dty limits of University Heights (Build Alternative 7 study area) Alternative 1: No-Build Alternative Under the No-Build Alternative access to Kinnick Stadium and the University of Iowa Hospitals would be adversely impacted due to congestion at Melrose Avenue/Hawkins Drive (See Section 5.4). Alternative 2: Two-Lane Bridge/Two Lane Road With Left Turn Lane at Hawkins Drive Under Alternative 2, there would be no direct impacts (e.g. direct taking of land) to surrounding community facilities. Similar to the No-Build Alternative, turning movement restrictions. would continue at the intersection of Melrose Avenue/Hawkins Drive (See Section 5.4). Alternatives 3-6: Under Alternatives 3-6, there would be no direct impacts to surrounding community fadlities. 47 Alternative 7: New Street North of Existing Melrose Avenue Under Alternative 7, the primary area of impact is at the northern end of the alignment, where it is proposed to connect with Hawkins Drive near Elliott. The proposed alignment would directly impact existing University of Iowa recreational fields. In addition, under Alternative 7, LOS at Mekose/Hawkins would be at LOS E under existing volumes, and LOS F by Year 2015. Mitigation Mitigation assodated with impacts to community facilities relates primarily to providing adequate and safe pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the corridor, and improving motorized vehicular accessibility to/from such fadlities. 5.2.2 Neighborhood/Community Character_ Existing Conditions Section 5.2.7 describes in detail the existing neighborhood/community character of the Melrose Avenue study area. Alternative 1: No-Build Under the No-Build Alternative, the following adverse impacts would continue: Deteriorated sidewalk conditions on the south side of Melrose Avenue · Unsafe conditions for bicyclists on Melrose Avenue Delay in traffic operations to accommodate bus stops along Melrose Avenue Poorly maintained border areas to the south of Melrose Avenue Continued traffic congestion during peak periods on Melrose Avenue Potential for diverted traffic off of Melrose Avenue would create adverse impacts on surrounding residential streets/neighborhoods Alternative 2: Two Lane Bridge/Two Lane Road With Left Turn Lane at Hawkins Drive Under Alternative 2, pedestrian accessibility would be improved on the north side of Melrose Avenue. Spedfically, the sidewalk to the north would be approximately 2.4 meters (7.9 feet), which would improve accessibility and capadty. In addition, there would be adequate room for a 2.6 meter (8.5 foot) shoulder on each side of Melrose Avenue. This would improve the bicycle conditions on the roadway. Similar to the No- Build Alternative, in response to increased congestion on Melrose Avenue, traffic may divert off Melrose Avenue to surrounding streets. Alternative 3: Two Lane Bridge/Three Lane Road Under Alternative 3, pedestrian and bicyde accessibility and safety would be improved. As presented in greater detail in the Section 5.2.7, Urban Design/Visual Resources, the border areas to the north and south could be landscaped to buffer the visual impact of the roadway, as well as the views from the residential neighborhood to the north. The type, extent and location of landscaping provided will be dependent upon the 3.05 meter (10 foot) clear zone requirement. Accessibility to the University of Iowa, and the residential neighborhoods to the south would be improved with the provision of a turn lane in the median of the roadway. Under Alternative 3, the existing trees along the north border, from South Grand Avenue to Grand Avenue Court would need to be removed and replaced to accommodate the tl~ee-lane roadway. Alternative 4: Three Lane Bridge/Three Lane Road Impacts to the Neighborhood/Commtmity Character under Alternative 4 are the same as Alternative 3. Alternative 5: Four Lane Bridge/Four Lane Road Under Alternative 5, pedestrian access and safety would be improved with the expansion of the sidewalks to the north of the roadway. However, to accommodate two thru lanes in each direction, a shoulder area, which could be striped for bicycles would not be provided. Similar to Alternatives 3 and 4, the existing trees directly to the north of the roadway, from South Grand Avenue to Grand Avenue Court would need to be removed and replaced. The provision for additional landscaping to the north and south of the roadway would improve the visual character of the corridor. However, the type, extent, and location of the landscaping will be dependent upon the 3.05 meter (10 foot) dear zone requirement. Accessibility to land uses on the north and south would be improved under this alternative. Under this alternative, to accommodate the four-lane bridge design, one on-street parking space on the north side of Melrose Avenue, immediately to the west of the bridge, within the City of University Heights would be removed. 49 Alternative 6: Four Lane Bridge/Five Lane Road The primary neighborhood/community impacts associated with this alternative relate to the significant expansion of the current roadway facility on an area bordered by residential land uses to the south. The widening of the road to five lanes could create difficult at-grade pedestrian crossing situations, as well as limit right-of-way available to the north of Melrose Avenue for sidewalks. Alternative 7: New Street North of Existing Melrose Avenue The neighborhood/community related impacts with Alternative 7 would be assodated with the addition of a new roadway facility in an area which is primarily undeveloped. In addition, as documented in subsequent sections, existing residences within University Heights, in proximity to the new roadway, would experience a change in the character of surrounding land use. At the northern end of the alignment, the addition of a new roadway would adversely impact the existing University of Iowa recreation fields. Mitigation As discussed in the right-of-way section, the City of Iowa City would need to negotiate with the University of Iowa regarding the dedication of right- of-way to accommodate the design of the selected preferred alignment. As discussed in the impact analysis, the existing trees located on the north boulevard from South Grand Avenue to Grand Avenue Court would be removed and replaced. 5.2.3 Land Use and Zoning Existing Conditions Land Use As indicated in the City of Iowa City's Land Use Plan, July, 1989, the land directly to the south of Melrose Avenue is residential, with a density of two to eight dwelling units per acre. The land directly to the north of Melrose Avenue is classified as Public/Semi-Public, and is owned by the University of Iowa. The Transportation Policies included in the City's Comprehensive Plan which relate to this project include: Provide trafficway improvements which will fadl~tate the safe, uncongested, flow of traffic. Minimize the negative impacts of arterial traffic on residential neighborhoods. Assure the provision of adequate sidewalks and walkways to allow the safe movement of pedestrians throughout the city. 50 Provide adequate sidewalk design along arterial streets to enable the use of bicycles as a transportation mode. Zoning The City of Iowa City's Zoning Map classifies the area directly to the south of Melrose Avenue as RS-5, Low Density Single Family. The area directly to the north is classified as P, Public. Each of the alternatives consistency with existing planning documents relates primarily to the roadways ability to efficiently service existing and forecast traffic volumes, enhance transit service, maintain or improve the integrity of the surrounding area, and provide a safe facility for vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists. The impact analysis for each of the aforemen- tioned areas is addressed in sections 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.6, 5.2.7 and 5.4. 5.2.4 Economic Development Existing Conditions Sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.7 provide a description of the land use within the Melrose Avenue study area. Downtown Iowa City and the University of Iowa campus are located to the east of the study area. To the west of the study area lies the City of University Heights, and the western section of Iowa City and Coralville. Melrose Avenue currently provides the most direct link between Iowa City's CBD, the University of Iowa, and Highway 218. Impact Analysis Melrose Avenue serves as a major east/west roadway in Iowa City and University Heights. Economic development/ redevelopment for the region could occur as a result of improved travel time in the corridor. Travel time improvements would be directly related to improved level of service on Melrose Avenue. In terms of site-specific economic impacts, the established residential area directly to the south of Melrose Avenue would not experience additional growth in relation to the proposed action. However, accessibility into the neighborhoods would be improved. The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics located directly to the north of Melrose Avenue is currently expanding its facilities with the development of the Pomerantz Pavillion. Improvements to the roadway will improve accessibility into the University of Iowa and University Clinics. Construction-related impacts are addressed in Section 5.5. 5.2.5 Right-of-Way/Relocation To avoid adverse impacts to the residential area to the south of Melrose Avenue, all right-of-way required to accommodate the reconstruction of the majority Melrose Avenue and the bridge will be to the north. Land to the north of Melrose Avenue is owned by the University of Iowa. Under Alternatives 4, 5 and 6, 37.2 square meters (400 square feet) adjacent to the southeast comer of the bridge and 29.9 square meters (322 square feet) south of Melrose Avenue at Hawkins Drive adjacent to the northwest comer would be required to accommodate the bridge design. Between the bridge and centerline of Hawkins Drive, 0.9 meters (3.0 feet) of additional right-of-way to the north of the existing right-of-way line is proposed. East of the center line of Hawkins Drive, 4.7 meters (15.4 feet) of additional right-of-way to the north of the existing right-of-way line is proposed. This right-of-way would provide land required to accommodate borders and/or sidewalks. The right-of-way impacts are presented below (excluding aforementioned bridge related right-of-way): Alternative Right-of-Way Square Meters(Square Feet) 1 2-6 7 0 2,588 square meters (27,833) 19,519 square meters (209,880) Mitigation All acquisition and relocation would be in accordance with the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970. 5.2°6 Parklands/Open Space Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 declares it a national policy that special effort be made to protect (i.e., not use) public park and recreation lanes, wildlife refuges and historic sites. Section 4(0 permits the Secretary of Transportation to approve a project requiring the use of such publicly-owned lands of national, state or local jurisdiction or privately owned lands of national historic significance only where it can be shown that: There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land; and Such project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the Section 4(f) land resulting from such use. Section 6(f) is intended to protect outdoor recreation land that has been planned, acq~ired or developed using Land and Water Conservation Fund Money (LAWCON). Such land may be acquired for highway use, but must be replaced by other land of at least equal fair market ~alue and reasonably equivalent recreational usefulness. The purpose of this statement is to identify all potential Section 4(f) and 6(0 properties and analyze potential impacts caused to those properties by the construction of any of the proposed Melrose Avenue alternatives. Existing Conditions Figure 14 illustrates the location of existing parks within the Melrose Avenue study area. City of Iowa City The Iowa City Neighborhood Open Space Assessment is included as part of the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan. This assessment divides the City into Developing and Developed districts. The Melrose Avenue study area is included in Developed District 4: Brookland/Roosevelt (See Appendix for figure of open space districts). The two parks described below are included in the study area. Brookland Park Size: Facilities Provided: 1.54 hectares (3.8 acres) Play Equipment, cooking equipment, picnic area, water, picnic shelter Tower Court Park Size: Facilities Provided: .162 hectares (0.4 acres) Play equipment, park bench, picnic tables In addition, Roosevelt school, located off of Benton Street provides five acres of open space. Based on discussions with the City, the parks included in the study area have not received LAWCON funds. The Open Space Assessment commented on exploring the potential for developing a trail along the existing railroad right-of-way to connect with the University of Iowa recreational facilities. Based on discussions with the City of Iowa City, the inclusion of a trail in railroad right-of-way would only occur if the railroad elected to abandon the right-of-way. Abandonment of the right-of-way by the railroad is not anticipated to occur in the near future. University of Iowa As indicated in the corranunity facilities and land use section, there are several University of Iowa recreational facilities to the nort.h of Melrose Avenue. Significant facilities include (Figure 15): 16 Tennis Courts Kinnick Football Stadium Finkbine Golf Course 53 Baseball field Field House Lower Finkbine area (contains four softball/baseball fields and a track facility that is shared by athletic and recreational users) Intramural recreation fields Based on University of Iowa information, the outdoor recreation areas within the study area have not received LAWCON funds. In April 1992, the University of Iowa completed the Sports and Recreation Facilities Long Range Master Plan. Key elements of the plan which relate to the proposed Melrose Avenue project include the following: Finkbine Golf Course and Expansion Reserve: This area will remain "as is" until university space needs dictate the relocation of Finkbine to another location to provide space for university facility growth. Relocation could be to the area west of Hawkeye Drive or off- campus. Existing Open Space: The natural wooded areas southeast of existing FinkbIne and along Clear Creek will remain as open space and natural area for passive recreation use. Lower Finkbine Area: To remain as a recreational area. Pedesitian/Bicycle Circulation System: This long, non-motor vehicle dedicated system will follow the railroad and Mormon Trek Boulevard and connect the new athletic facilities to Kinnick Stadium sports area and campus. The University's Master plan identifies three Phases of development. Under Phases II (10-20 years) and III (approximately 20 years) the Finkbine golf course area may be used for future academic expansion. Alternative 1: No Build Under Alternative 1 there would be no direct impacts to existing park/open space facilities. No mitigation would be required. Alternatives 2-6: There would be no direct- impacts to existhag park/open space under Alternative 2. No mitigation would be required. Alternative 7: New Street North of Existing Melrose Avenue Because the roadway would be a new facility on a new alignment secondary impacts to Finkbine golf course would occur, e.g., visual and noise impacts. The proposed roadway could also adversely impact the proposed pedestrian path referenced in the University's Sports and Recreal/on Plan. The proposed roadway would require the acquisition of land currently used for intramural recreation fields and a natural wooded open space area. Because this land is owned by the University of Iowa, a public entity, 4(0 rules would need to be complied with. Alternatives to the Use of Park/Open Space Land (Alternative 7) Alternatives to losing land from the recreation fields include: Shifting the location of the road to the north or south. However, with a northern shift in the alignment, existing University parking would need to be acquired as well as impacts to the field hockey area. Design of the road to the south would impact to the golf course and the University's open space area. Select one of the other proposed build alternatives, as the preferred alternative for the project. 5.2.7 Urban Design/Visual Resources This section describes the existing urban design/visual conditions in the Melrose Avenue corridor, the issues/forces which need to be considered in corridor improvement projects, and the impacts which the proposed roadway improvement alternatives will have on the ex/sting urban design/visual resources. Existing Conditions Melrose Avenue Corridor Segment The Melrose Avenue corridor, between the city limits of Iowa City and University Heights and Byington Road, has a relatively uniform yet markedly unique urban design/visual character. The visual environment is relatively uniform in that it is similar from end to end. It is unique in that it is dramatically different on the north side of the roadway from that on the south side. The distinct urban design/visual character of Melrose Avenue is due to the fact that it is a seam as well as a link between a malor public institution, the University of Iowa, and a mostly single-family residential district, the Melrose Avenue Neighborhood. The University of Iow. a campus, which is located along the north side of Melrose Avenue, consists of many of the uses typically associated with large public institutions--massive building complexes, sports and recreational facilities, and large parking lots and ramps. More specifically, the corridor environment on the University's side of the roadway, starting at the western end, includes: Small Office/Retail Complex. A small, one-story dental office/ convenience store complex is located just west of the railroad bridge. A row of dense street trees, small-scale globe lights, and its low massing contribute to it blending-in well into the surrounding single-family residential neighborhood. Klotz Tennis Courts. The twenty-four court tennis complex is located between Stadium Park Road and Hawkins Drive with the large horseshoe-shaped Kinnick Stadium forming a backdrop north of it (Figure 16). The tennis courts are located adjacent to the road- way with the approximately 3.05 meter (10-foot) high cha'm link fence which surrounds them placed 6.25 meters (20.5 feet) behind the existing curb. Pomerantz Pavilion of the University of Iowa Hospital. This large expansion of the hospital complex (Figures 16 and 17) will add, when completed, a significant building mass along Melrose Avenue between Hawkins Drive and Melrose Circle. The five-story addition will be the largest building in the corridor and will project to within 9.15 meters (30 feet) of the existing Melrose Avenue right-of-way. The plans for the complex show a sidewalk and landscaped boulevard with street trees along the whole Melrose Avenue frontage of the pavihon. Parking Lots and Ramps. The area between the Pomeranlz Pavilion of the Hospital and the housing along Grand Avenue Court is occupied by surface parking lots and a two-level parking ramp. The surface parking lots west of South Grand Avenue (Figure 18) have a very open appearance, due to the lack of landscaped screens and street trees, and thus provide extended views of the massive Field House and the tall residential towers further to the north. This area is the site of the proposed five-level West Campus Parking Ramp expansion. The edge of the future parking ramp will be approximately in line with the Pomeraniz Pavilion of the medical complex and together they will form a very strong and dominant edge for the campus along Melrose Avenue. The surface parking lots east of Grand Avenue are ringed by mature street trees and have a more enclosed and "softer" appearance. Residential-Scale Uses. The area between the parking lots and Byington road contains single-family, residential-scale buildings with extensive landscaping which gives this area an almost "lush" appear- ance. The south side of the Melrose Avenue corridor is almost exclusively single-family residential except at the eastern end. The area south of Melrose Avenue and east of Lucon Drive contains former single-family residences which are utilized by the University for support services such as day care and cultural centers. The residential area varies greatly in a. Looking East at Stadium Park Road Looking West at Melrose Circle MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RELY)NSTRUCIION STUDY Iowa City, Iowa CITY OF IOWA CITY a. Looking East at Melrose Circle { b. Looking West at South Grand Avenue I [ MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RFC'ONSTRUCTION SIUDY Iowa City, Iowa CITY OF IOWA CITY a. Looking East at South Grand Avenue b. Looking West at Grand Avenue Court MEI. ROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE ~NSTRUCTION STUDY Iowa City, Iowa CITY OF IOWA CITY character ranging from large, mansion-style houses, which are well set back from the roadway, at the eastern end of the corridor (Figure 18) to smaller single-family units (Figure 16 ), some of which are relatively dose to the roadway, at the western end of the corridors The houses at the eastern end also include denser and more elaborate landscaping as well as fences and edge treatments. An additional characteristic 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. Melrose Avenue is currently a two-lane roadway with an extra turn lane at Hawkins Drive. Although the right-of-way on the south side extends 5.3 meters (17.5 feet) behind the existing curb, only a narrow, 1.22 meter (4-foot) wide sidewalk and a 1.68 meter (5.5 foot) border strip are located along the south side of the roadway. Many of the private yards, including landscaping, fencing, and edge treatments, encroach on the street right-of- way and extend to the edge of the sidewalk. A narrow, temporary walkway is located directly behind the curb on the north side of the roadway. No spedal provisions are included in the corridor for bicyclists who share the roadway with automobiles. Because of the narrowness of the roadway and the poor condition of the roadway surface, this mixing of automobiles and bicyclists presents many corfflicts and creates unsafe traffic conditions. A distinct characteristic of the corridor is the irregularity of the landscaping treatments. The eastern half is much more intensely landscaped than the western half. Also, the houses with extensive landscaping treatments make the street appear more embellished and comfortable whereas the houses with little or no landscaping treatments appear to make it bare and inhospitable. A major visual impact in the Melrose Avenue corridor are the tall power poles and overhead power lines which extend along the south side of the roadway for the full length of the corridor. West of Hawkins Drive the power poles are located in the narrow boulevard strip directly adjacent to the curb. East of Hawkins Drive the power poles are located directly south of the sidewalk. The power lines add clutter to the visual environment and they interfere with natural growth of trees by frequently requiring extreme pruning or removal of trees underneath or in proximity to the power lines. The corridor coniah~s only a few uLilitarian street light~ and no pedestrian amenities such as benches, litter receptacles, or bus shelters. Alternative 7 Corridor Segment The Alternative 7 segment is located through undeveloped University of Iowa property west of the main campus. It adjoins a golf course and 60 skirts the University baseball stadium. The visual environment of the Alternative 7 corridor consists largely of highly varied topography and natural vegetation. At its northeastern end the alignment passes between the highly manicured sports complex area and the park-and-ride lot. Urban Design/Visual Resources Methodology Issues Melrose Avenue Corridor Segment Any roadway upgrading improvements in the Melrose Avenue corridor need to address the roadway's role as a seam and as a link between the University and the residential neighborhood. As a seam, the corridor needs to accommodate and complement two land use districts with vastly different scales of development and characteristics. As a link, the corridor needs to incorporate features which provide the necessary circulation fadfiities and linkages. Following are the key issues/forces which need to be considered as part of the roadway improvement project: Accommodate Vehicular Traffic. Melrose Avenue is a key artery for the City and it serves as a primary access point to the University's main campus and downtown Iowa City. The roadway needs to be designed to handle the required traffic volumes or the result would be an undesirable visual impact from congested traffic and aggravated conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists. However, in order to minimize potential impacts on the adjoining residential neighborhood, the roadway improvements should be no greater than absolutely necessary for accommodating the projected traffic volumes. Mitigate Impacts on Residential Neighborhood. Various special measures or treatments may need to be considered in order to mitigate impacts on the existing residential neighborhood. Mitigation measures might range from the acquisition and conversion to other uses of the most severely impacted properties to extra landscaping in order to provide visual screening. Provide Needed Facilities for Pedestrians and Bicyclists. Melrose Avenue serves as an access route to the University from the residential neighborhoods south and west of the main campus. Provisions should be made to accommodate pedestrians on both sides of the roadway and to provide for bicycle circulation along the corridor. Since this is an area heavily used by pedestrians and bicyclists, spedal considerations might be given to making the corridor more pedestrian/bicycle "friendly" by including comfortable walkways, provisions for bicyde users, good lighting, and pedestrian amenities such as benches, litter receptacles, and bus shelters at bus stops. Provide Appropriate Streetscape Enhancements. Since Melrose Avenue is a seam between the University and the residential neighborhood, it needs to complement both in its character and design. The streetscape design should incorporate features which acknowledge the relationship of the roadway as an access to the University while respecting the lower-density scale of the adjoining residential uses. Measures to accomplish this might include the development of the roadway as a heavily treed boulevard, the installation of lower-scale ornamental street lights which could relate to the institutional as well as residential character of the area, and the incorporation of special pavement materials, paRems, and/or. colors in the sidewalks to reflect the unique nature of the corridor. Minimize Negative Visual Impacts. Currently, some of the most pronounced negative visual impacts in the corridor are the overhead power lines. Removal of the power lines by rerouting them or by placing them underground would contribute greatly to enhancing the visual appearance of the corridor and would permit planting of large-size boulevard trees on both sides of the roadway. Leaving the power lines in place will either limit the types of trees which can be planted underneath or near the power lines or will require excessive pruning, which sometimes drastically disfigures the appearance of trees. Alternative 7 Corridor Segment The key issues/forces in the Alternative 7 corridor relate to preservation of the natural environment and the relationship of the proposed roadway to the University's recreational facilities. Major consideration should be given to preserve as much of the natural topography and vegetation as possible and to provide screening for the golf course and the Urfiversity's recreational complex. Impacts on Urban Design/Visual Resources Melrose Avenue Corridor Segment For assessing the impacts of the various roadway in~provement alternatives on the urban design/visual resources in the Melrose Avenue corridor, a baseline of design treatments needs to be established. Based on the Issues/Forces discussed in the previous subsection as well as from discussions with City staff, the following assumptions were made, and are illustrated in the accompanying sections and computer photo images, for all the alternatives: Two design options are presented to reflect the variation in visual character associated with providing a ten-foot clear zone on both the north and south sides of Melrose Avenue. The first option, Option A, reflects landscaping and lighting outside the 3.05 meter (ten-foot) zone. Option B illus~xates the incorporation of landscaping, lighting within the ten-foot zone. Compliance with the dear zone is required because the proposed project is using Federal funds. The south curb, for most of the corridor, is to remain in its current location. The curb needs to be angled slightly to the south, beginning at Melrose Place, in order to align the roadway with the proposed bridge location over the railroad tracks. The power poles and overhead power lines on the south side of the roadway are to remain. The primary landscaping treatment for the new roadway would be landscaped borders with street trees on both sides of the roadway, where possible. Right-of-way constraints in the block bordered by Hawkins Drive and Stadium Park Road prohibit landscaping on the north side of Melrose Avenue (Option A). In order to provide additional screening for the residential uses, landscaped hedges would be installed along the south side of the south sidewalk. Sidewalks would be provided cn both sides of the roadway. Bicyclists would be accorru-nodated on the roadway shoulders in the two-lane alternative, the three-lane altematives and in the outside lanes of the four and five-lane alternatives. · Omamental, lower-level street lights would be installed, where feasible. The proposed roadway sections are illustrated in Figures 19 through 21 and computer photo images of each alternative are presented in Figures 22 through 26. The alignment layouts, and cross-sections presented in Figures 7 through 13 reflect design Option A (compliance with the 3.05 meter (10-foot) clear zone). The most restrictive situation in the Melrose Avenue corridor exists at the University tennis courts just west of Hawkins Drive. The sections are taken in this area to illustrate the worst case condition. As previously described, two design alternatives are presented for the three-lane and four-lane alternatives. Following is an assessment of the impacts of the roadway alternatives on the urban design/visual resources. Where the impacts are the same, no comparisons are drawn. Only items which differentiate the alternatives are discussed. Alternatives 1 and 2 The two-lane roadway alternative (Figures 19 and 22) would have the least impact in terms of actual physical infrastructure, but it would potentially create a much greater visual impact because of congested and backed up traffic. This alternative has the least provisions for bicyclists who would have to share the congested roadway with automobiles and buses. 63 MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECONSqRUCTION STODY Iowa City, Iowa CITY OF IOWA CITY F~gum 19 Sections Urban Design/Visual Resources [ I: [ [- I l: [ I. [ 0.gin (303 3-L~me Roadway Option A .9'},f3.o3~, aT) ,' 33m(108') ,, 3.3m(108') , 3.8m(10.8') , ;_7: v: 0. 3m (1.03 .~ 2.4m 09m (303 .,~ l-Sin ~ .~, 0-9') , · b. 3-Lane-Roadway Option B ~IELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECONSTRUCIION SIUDY Iowa City, Iowa Shoalds Left.rum Laae Z35m C/-T) 3.5m(10.8') / 33m(10.8') , 3.3m(10.8') , (7.73 14,6m (47.9') 20.12m (66~) CITY OF IOWA CITY 65 / (63') t,~(4,93,t,~(l,O') ~, 373m(122') ~ Figu~ 20 Sections Urban Design/Visual Resources b. 4-Lane Roadway Option B MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RD{~O~UCHON STUDY CITY OF IOWA CITY 66 Iowa City, Iowa Figure 21 Sections Urban Design/Visual Resources -I Alternatives 3 and 4: Option A - (Maintain 3.05 meter (10-Foot) Clear Zone) This alternative (Figure 23) would comply with the 3.05 meter (10-foot) clear zone requirement as depicted in the Figure. Landscaping would be provided only along the south side of the roadway, outside the 3.05 meter (10-foot) zone. Because of the limited right-of-way in the block bounded by Hawkins Drive and Stadium Drive, additional landscaping would not be provided on the north side. Alternatives 3 and 4: Option B - (Provide Landscaping within 3.05 meter (10-foot) clear zone) This alternative (Figure 24) depicts the incorporation of landscaping and additional lighting fixtures within the 3.05 meter (10ofoot) clear zone. It has been prepared to illustrate the visual impact the clear-zone requirement has on the corridor. This alternative would provide the full compliment of sidewalks and landscaping treatments and, thus, maximum amenities for the corridor. This alternative also would provide the most optimum balance of all the alternatives between traffic carrying capacity roadways, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, scale of roadway to adjoining uses, and visual amenities in the corridor. Alternative 5: Option A - (Maintain 3.05 meter (10-foot) clear zone) This alternative (Figure 25) is very similar in all visual aspects to the Three-Lane Roadway, Option A, except that in the four-lane configuration bicyclists would have to share the outside lanes with automobiles and buses. Alternative 5: Option B - (Provide Landscaping within 3.05 meter (10-foot) clear zone) This alternative (Figure 26) is very similar in all visual aspects to the Three-Lane Roadway, Option B, with maximum landscaping, within th6 3.05 meter (10-foot) clear zone area, except that in the four-lane configuration, bicyclist would have to share the outside lanes with automobiles and buses. Alternative 6 This alternative would include the widest roadway of all the options and it would have the greatest visual impact in the corridor., The roadway would be a very dominant element in the corridor and it would create the biggest visual "barrier" between the University and the neighborhood south of Melrose Avenue. Alternative 7 Corridor Segment The impacts of Alternative 7 on the urban design/visual resources would be primarily the disturbance of the natural undeveloped areas and visual impacts to the adjoining golf course and University recreational facihties. 5.2.8 Public Service Existing Conditions Fire As indicated in Section 5.2.1, Community Facilities, Iowa City Fire Station Number 3, is located at Melrose Avenue and Emerald Street. Staffing at this facility includes one Lieutenant and two firefighters. The facility is staffed 24 hours a day, and the station's area of responsibility include the majority of west Iowa City, including the University of Iowa campus. The City of University Heights is serviced by the City of Coralville fire department. Police The City of Iowa City has one Central Police Station at the Civic Center located at 410 Washington Street. The city does not have any neighborhood precinct stations. The University of Iowa maintains its own campus security. Alternative 1: No Build The City of Iowa City's police and fire departments have gone on record indicating their concern regarding the traffic congestion problems on Melrose Avenue, and its subsequent adverse impact on public service. Under the No-Build Alternative, the existing adverse public sev,'ice response impacts would continue. To avoid congestion in the area during peak periods, police and fire emergency vehicles can use B.enton Street to the south. This rerouting of vehicle travel patterns adds on response time for emergency vehicles. The existing roadway congestion, and lack of designated turn lane at intersections other than Hawkins Drive is also an adverse impact, in terms of travel time, for emergency vehicles accessing the University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics. Build Alternatives 2 through 6 As indicated under the No-Build Alternative analysis, the pohce and fire department are concerned about the impact the existing traffic congestion has on emergency vehicle response time. Therefore, impacts to public service vehicles would relate directly to the improvement in traffic flow conditions on Melrose Avenue. Based on this evaluating criteria, Alternative 6 would be most favorable. · 2~ 73 Alternative 7 Under Alternative 7, traffic operations, over exisffng conclltions, would not be significantly improved. Therefore, emergency vehicles would continue to experience delays on Melrose Avenue. 5.2.9 Public Transit Existing Conditions Iowa City Transit and the CAMBUS provide transit services fit the Melrose Avenue corridor. The existing bus fleet is being retrofitted to include lift- equipped accommodations. A description of the transit service routes serv'mg the Melrose Avenue area are presented below: Iowa City Transit The following transit service routes serve Melrose Avenue: Hawkeye, Oakcrest, Westwinds, and Plaen View. · Hawkeye This route travels on Grand Avenue to South Grand Avenue, to Melrose Avenue, where it proceeds west to Mormon Trek Boulevard and then Hawkeye Drive. Oakcrest This route also follows Grand Avenue, to South Grand Avenue, to Melrose Avenue, where it proceeds south at Sunset Street, east on Oakcrest Street and then west on Benton Street. Westwinds In the study area, the Lakeside-Westwind route proceeds down Hawkins Drive to Melrose Avenue, where it heads in a westerly direction to Sunset Street. At Sunset Street, the route proceeds south. * Plaen View This route also proceeds south on Hawkins Drive, to Melrose Avenue, where it travels in a i, vesterly direction to Sunset Street. At Sunset, it proceeds south to Highway 6. University of Iowa CAMBUS The University of Iowa provides free fare intracampus bus service, CAMBUS. Tl~ree CAMBUS routes currently service the Melrose Avenue area, Red Route, Blue Route and the Hawkeye Route (after 6:30 p.m.). 74 Alternative 1: Under the No-Build Alternative improvements to bus circulation on Melrose Avenue would not occur. During congested periods, traffic would be delayed as buses stop along Melrose Avenue. The potential bus dwelling time at stops could be increased during the operation of lift equipment on buses. Alternatives 2 through Alternatives 2 through 4 have been combined since bus service would not be directly impacted under a two or three lane bridge design. Under these alternatives, traffic operations would improve in dixect relation to the buses ability to pullover in the shoulder area. Alternative 5 Under Alternative 5, traffic operations would improve traffic because there would be two traffic lanes in each direction. At locations where buses are stopped, traffic flow would be maintained in the inner lane. Alternative 6 Transit operations on Melrose Avenue would be most improved under Alternative 6 because of the improvements in traffic flow conditions on the roadway. Alternative 7 Under Alternative 7, traffic flow conditions on existing Melrose Avenue would be essentially the same as under Alternatives 1 and 2. Therefore, bus service operations on Melrose would continue to experience traffic congestion delays, particularly during peak period times. It is assumed Iowa City Transit Service and CAMBUS operations would continue to run on existing Melrose Avenue because of the major activity centers proximity to Melrose Avenue. Additional CAMBUS routes could be added along the new roadway, to the north of existing Melrose. Coordination with the University of Iowa would need to occur regarding transit service on the new roadway. However, because the design of the new roadway m proposed to be two-lane (in relation to the forecast ADT on the facility), traffic would be delayed at bus stop locations. 5.3 PHYSICAL- ENVIRONMENT 5.3.1 Air Ouality The project has the potential to affect air quality by changing motor vehicle operating characteristics which could change motor vehicle related air pollutant emissions. Motor vehicles emit a variety of pollutants including hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, lead, particulates and carbon monoxide. The amount of pollu~on emitted is a function of vehicle operating mode (speed, delay), number of vehicles, temperature, vehicle miles traveled, and the spedtic type and age mix of vehicles on the road. Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides are of concern because of the photochemical reaction these compounds undergo in the atmosphere to form ozone. Emissions of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides during the morning rush hour are triggered by sunlight to react with components of the atmosphere resulting in the formation of ozone. Typically, high ozone concentrations occur tens to hundreds of miles downwind from the source of the emissions. There have been no recorded violations of ozone standards in Iowa. The proposed project will have very little affect on total emissions of hydrocarbons or nitrogen oxides. Lead is used as a fuel additive to increase the octane of gasoline. After 1978, all vehicles sold in the U.S. were required to use unleaded gasoline. While unleaded gasoline contains a small amount of lead, it has not been found to cause lead concentrations in excess of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) even adjacent to the busiest highways. The project alternatives can be expected to cause lead concentrations proportionate to the forecast traffic volumes. Thus, Alternatives 5 and 6, with the highest forecast oaftic volumes will cause the highest concentrations of lead adjacent to Melrose Avenue. However, concen~ations will be well below the NAAQS of 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter. Particulates are emitted by motor vehicles in the form of wear products (brake linings, ~es). In addition, particles (dirt, sand) on the roadway can be reentrained into the atmosphere by the movement of vehicles on the road. The quantity of particulates generated is a function of the vehicle traffic volume. Thus, Alternatives 5 and 6, with the highest forecast traffic volumes will cause the greatest amount of particulates adjacent to the roadway. To quantitatively address the difference in air quality associated with the project alternatives, a detailed analysis of carbon monoxide (CO) in the vicinity of the loadway has been conducted. The analysis uses the following air quality models which are recommended by the U.S. EPA for this type of analysis: MOBILE5a - The U.S. EPA mobile source emissions model is used to estimate the vehicular emission rate of vehicles using the road. CAL3QHC - This model, developed by the Cahfomia Department of Transportation is used to calculate vehicle flow characteristics, assign emissions to specific locations, and disperse the emissions to adjacent receiver sites. The modeling was conducted at the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Hawkins Drive. This intersection cames the highest volumes of traffic in 76 the corridor and experiences the most delay of any study area intersection. For this reason, properties adjacent to the Hawkins Drive intersection would be expected to exp.~rience the highest CO concentrations in the corridor. The air quality analysis estimated CO concentrations at the five receiver locations shown on Figure 27. The CO analysis was conducted using a set of assumptions intended to represent worst case conditions in terms of vehicle emissions and atmospheric dispersion. These assumptions include the following: Meteorological conditions of -7 degrees Celcius (20 degrees Fahrenheit), a 1.0 meter per second wind speed, atmospheric mixing height of 1,000 meters, and atmospheric stability class "D". Wind directions varying from 10 to 360 degrees at 10 degree increments were tested to identify the worst case roadway/receiver/wind angle were assumed. The national average vehicle age mix and vehicle type mix given in the MOBILESa model was assumed for this analysis. It was assumed that 30 percent of vehicles were operating in a cold- start mode and 20 percent of vehicles were operating in a hot start mode. A free-flow operating speed of 40 kmh (25 MPH) was assumed on Melrose Avenue. A higher operating speed would result in a reduction in the CO emission rate. Emissions associated with intersection delay, accelerating and decelerating are calculated by the CAL3QHC model. The analysis used traffic volumes forecast for the year 2010 with emission rates for the year 2005. Average vehicular emission rates are expected to continue to decline from now through the year 2010. Therefore, using year 2005 emission rates with the year 2010 forecast traffic volumes results in a conservatively high estimate of CO concentrations. The procedures describ~:l above were used to estimate CO concentrations resulting from local sources (traffic on Melrose Avenue and Hawkins Drive). The total CO ccncentration is also made up of CO from remote sources which is usually referred to as background CO. For purposes of this analysis, a backgrormd CO concentration of 5.0 PPM one-hour average has been assumed. The EPA has recommended a default value of 5.0 PPM as a background concentration in the absence of actual monitored CO concentrations. The CO modeling anal~,sis considers both geometric and operational characteristics associated with each alternative. The differences between alternatives reflect: 5 fL C tC EL C MELROSE AVENUE ~ .. Li_J D L~J t JS~' ,,L ' c/""== ......./ 174 N s MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RFJ23ONSTRUCIION STUDY iowa City, Iowa CI(} ILt 10~ 4 CITY , F,,~.re 2 7 Air Quality Receptor Locations Changes in forecast traffic volumes. · Changes in the geometric alignment of the roadway. Changes in the signal cycle time or signal phase lengths. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 4. As illustrated in the table, the maximum predicted one-hour average CO concentration is 8.4 PPM which is well below the one-hour NAAQS of 35 PPM. The maximum predicted one-hour average CO concentration is also below the eight-hour NAAQS of 9 PPM therefore, none of the project alternatives will result ha CO concentrations in excess of applicable standards. In general, the predicted CO concentrations are proportionate to the forecast traffic volume associated with each alternative. The difference in CO concentrations between alternatives is less than 1.0 PPM. TABLE 4 PREDICTED ONE-HOUR CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS (PPM) Intersection of Melrose Avenue and Hawkins Drive Alternative Receiver 1 Recewer 2 Receiver 3 Receiver 4 Receiver 5 Existing (Year 1994) 7.,5 7.9 7.8 8.4 7.3 Alt. 1 7.2 7.7 7.2 7.9 6.8 All. 2 7.0 7.5 7.1 7.6 67 All. 3 + 4 7.8 8.0 7.7 S.1 7.6 Air. 5 7.9 8.0 Z8 8.4 7.6 Aft. 6 Z9 8.0 Z7 8.3 7.6 Air. 7 7.3 Z7 Z3 81 6.8 Source: BRW, Inc. 5.3.2 NOTES: 2. 3. 4. 5. Predicted concentrations include a background concentration of 5.0 PPM. Concentrations are for the year 2005 except existing which is 1994. The one-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard for CO is 35 PPM. The eight-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard for CO is 9 PPM. Reported concentrations are the maximum predicted based on analysis of 36 wind directions over 360 degrees. Noise Introduction Noise can be defined simply as unwanted sound. Varibus factors affect how noise is perceived by the human ear. These factors include the acoustical level or loudness of the sound, the frequency of the sound, the length of the exposure period, and the location of the receiver relative to the noise source. Because of the wide range of energy in sounds, sound 79 is measured using a logarithmic unit called the decibel (dB). Noise levels are typically reported in "A" weighted dedbels (dBA). The "A" means that sound pressure levels have been weighted to reflect the fact that the human ear is not as sensitive to low frequency sounds as it is to middle and high frequencies. Sound levels expressed in "A" weighted decibels approach typical human perceptions of sound. The existing noise environment in the vicinity of the project site is dominated by traffic noise sources. Noise from vehicles comes from a variety of sources. For most cars, the primary noise source is the interaction of tires on the pavement. For trucks, the dominant noise source is usually exhaust and engine noise. Noise is also generated by brakes, loose body components, and faulty exhaust systems. Since traffic noise fluctuates over time, it is usually expressed in terms of statistical noise level descriptors. This analysis uses the L10 descriptor. The L10 is the sound level exceeded 10 percent of the time or six minutes out of an hour. Another common descriptor is the Leq. Because the decibel is a logarithmic unit, decibels cannot be added and subtracted by ordinary arithmetic. The sum of two noise sources each emitting 70 dB yields a combined noise level of 73 dB. Thus, an increase of 3 dB represents a doubling of the sound energy. Similarly, a noise source must double in strength to result in a 3 dB increase in noise levels. In terms of traffic noise, the volume of traffic on a roadway must double to cause a 3 dB increase in noise levels. Although the human ear can detect changes as small as 1 dBA, a 3 dBA change in noise level is considered to be the smallest noticeable change over an extended period of time. A change of 10 dBA is perceived by most people to be a doubling or halving of the sound level. The energy in a sound dissipates with distance from a source. For a point source of noise, sound levels will decrease at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance from the source. For a line source of noise such as a highway, sound dissipates at a rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance. A sound level measured at 65 dBA 50 feet from a roadway would be 62 dBA 100 feet from the roadway. Sound levels can also be dissipated by ground and atmospheric absorption and are significantly reduced by barriers which block the line of sight between the source and the receiver. Table 5 shows the Federal Noise Abatement Criteria (23 CFR 772 Table 1, April 1994). As shown in the tab/e, the criteria are in terms of the Leq and the L10 descriptor. The L10 descriptor is used to identify impacts for this analysis. The criteria for activity category E are in terms of interior noise levels and are applied where there are no exterior activities to be affected by the traffic noise. All other criteria are in terms of exterior noise levels. In the Federal Noise Abatement criteria, a noise impact would occur when predicted traffic noise levels: · Approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria. · Substantially exceed the existing noise level. Existing Noise Lev.els Existing noise levels were monitored at three locations in the corridor as shown on Figure 28. The monitoring was conducted using a Metrosenics db-308 Statistical Sound Level Analyzer. Monitoring was conducted during both the mid-morning and PM peak period. The results of ~he monitoring are shown in Table 6. At sites 1 and 3 the noise levels monitored during the morning and afternoon periods were within 1 dBA. At site 2, the morning noise levels exceeded the afternoon noise levels by 4 dBA. The morning noise levels at site 2 were influenced by noise generated by construction on the hospital building on the north side of Melrose Avenue across from site 2. As a check on the noise prediction procedure, existing noise levels were also predicted using procedures given in the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108, December 1978). Existing peak hour traffic counts were used to predict existing noise levels at the three noise monitoring sites. The analysis assumes an operating speed of 40 kmb (25 MPI--I). As shown in Table 6, the modeled noise levels closely approximate the monitored levels. Additional modeling was conducted to estimate the traffic noise levels by hour of the day. This modeling was based on 24-hour traffic counts conducted by the city in September, 1992. TABLE 5 FEDERAL NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA HOURLY A - WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL - DECIBELS (dBA) Activity Category A neq (h) L10 (h) 57 6O (Exterior) (Exterior) B 67 70 (Exterior) (Exterior) C 72 75 (Exterior) (Exterior) E 52 55 (Interior) (Interior) Description of Acl~vity Category Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of these qualities is essential i~ the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries and hospitals. Developed lands, properties or activities not included in Categories A or B. Undeveloped lands. Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals and auditoriums. Either L10 (h) or Leq (h), but not both, may be used on a project. Source: 23 CFR Part 772 and FI-IPM 7-7-3. 82 I,I % UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS CI'FY UM1TS ~ ~.~ ~. I "=- -r MELROSE AVE. ~. , ~3 .. .f ,0,~,~.%~' ~ ~~ .~ ~ ~"',,,~l~l~"~ .. I/2 1 Mile M E L R O S E AVE N U E ~ Legend: Figure 28 Noise NOiSe Monitoring Sites STREET AND BRIDGE RECONbTRUCTION SYUDY ) sites Iowa City, Iowa JEFFERSON ST TABLE 6 · EXISTING L~o NOISE LEVELS (dBA) Monitored Noise Levels Modeled Noise Receiver Morning Afternoon Level Site 1 63 62 60.4 Site 2 65 61 59.8 Site 3 60 59 59.8 Source: BRW, Inc. Monitoring conducted April 27 and 28, 1994, using a Metrosonics db- 308 Statistical Sound Level Analyzer. Modeling is based on PM peak hour traffic volumes and procedures given in FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 7. The analysis indicates that noise levels 15.25 meters (50 feet) from the south side of Melrose Avenue exceed 57 dBA from approximately 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Noise levels peak at approximately 60 dBA during the late afternoon rush hour. Future Noise Levels The proposed project has the potential to affect traffic noise levels along Melrose Avenue. The project alternatives can result in a change in noise levels as a result of the following factors: Increased traffic volume - As documented in the traffic section of this document, some of the project altematives will attract more traffic than other alternatives. Roadway/Traffic location - Some of the alternatives will widen Melrose Avenue to the north and effectively move a portion of the traffic further away from the noise sensitive land uses along the south side of the road. Peak hour noise levels associated with each of the project alternatives have been modeled. The analysis assumes the peak hour traffic volumes documented in the traffic section, operating speed of 40 kmh (25 MPH), and roadway/receiver separation consistent with the preliminary roadway design alternatives. The analysis also assumes one percent heavy trucks (three or more axles) and two percent medium trucks (two axles, six wheels) in the traffic stream. Noise levels have been predicted at a distance of 15.25 meters (50 feet) from the south curb line to approximate the typical setback of homes along the south side of Melrose Avenue. The results of the modehng are shown in Table 8. TABLE 7 o MODELED EXISTING NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET BY TIME OF DAY (dBA) Time L10 Noise Level 12 - 1:00 am 50.3 1 - 2:00 am 47.2 2 - 3:00 am 41.2 3 - 4:00 am 34.9 4 - 5:00 am 34.9 5 - 6:00 am 46.5 6 - 7:00 am 55.8 7 - 8:00 am 58.9 8 - 9:00 am 58.8 9 - 10:00 am 57.8 10 - 11:00 am 57.5 11 - 12:00 noon 58.1 12 - 1:00 pm 58.9 1 - 2:00 pm 58.7 2 - 3:00 pm 58.9 3 - 4:00 pm 59.2 4 - 5:00 pm 59.8 5 - 6:00 pm 60.1 6 - 7:00 pm 59.3 7 - 8:00 pm 58.1 8 - 9:00 pm 57.2 9 - 10:00 pm 56.6 10 - 11:00 pm 55.1 11 - 12:00 midnight 53.1 Source: BRW, Inc. 85 TABLE 8 PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS (dBA) At 15.25 meters (50 feet) from the south curb Alternative Predicted L10 Noise Level West of Hawkins East of Hawkins Existing 60.4 61.1 Alternative 1 61.4 62.1 Alternative 2 61.1 61.7 Alternative 3 + 4 62.0 62.9 Alternative 5 62.2 63.0 Alternative 6 61.9 62.8 Alternative 7 61.5 62.3 Source: BRW, Inc. Modeling is based on PM peak hour traffic volumes and procedures given in Fr-IWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. The predicted noise levels range from 61 to 63 dBA. All of the predicted levels are well below the Federal Noise Abatement Criteria level of 70 dBA that applies in residential areas. The analysis indicates that noise levels will increase by a maximum of 2 dBA as a result of the project. The greatest increase is associated with Alternative 5, while the smallest increase is associated with Alternative 2. As noted earlier, the smallest change most people can notice for a time varying noise source such as traffic is 3 dBA. Therefore, none of the project alternatives is predicted to cause a significant change in noise levels. 5.3.3 Energy Energy savings would occur as part of the Melrose Avenue project, as a result of improved travel speeds and decreased vehicular time delays. Measures to be used to reduce travel time delays include: provision of le~turn lanes (Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 6), more efficient flow of traffic resulting from additional travel lanes (Alternatives 5 and 6), improved pedestrian/bicycle facilities and improved transit operations. 5.3.4 Surface Water Drainage Introduction The estimates presented below employ methodology of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service Technical Release No. 55. The quality of site runoff should not be adversely affected by the proposed project. Storm water for the current alignment discharges into the Iowa River. Alternative 1: No-Build Alternative 1, No-Build, would generate 1,344.5 ms (1.09 acre-feet) during the 10-year, 24-hour event, and 2,096.9 ms (1.70 acre-feet) for a 100-year, 24-hour event. Alternative 2: Two Lane Bridge/Two Lane Road, with Left Turn Lane at Hawkins Drive Alternative 2 would generate an additional 234.4 m3 (6.t9 acre-feet) of storm water runoff over the project area during the 10-year, 24-hour event. The project would generate an additional 481.1 m3 (0.39 acre-feet) of storm water runoff du~mg a 100-year, 24-hour event. Alternatives 3 and 4:Two Lane Bridge/Three Lane Road and Three Lane Bridge/Three Lane Road Altematives 3 and 4 will increase the impervious area by 26 percent over the existing conditions. Both Alternative 3 and 4 increase the storm water runoff for the 10-year event by 283.7 m3 (0.23 acre-feet) and 505.7 m3 (0.41 acre-feet) for the 100-year event. Since the difference between these alternatives is mainly due to the additional lane in the bridge, there is not a significant increase in impervious area. Alternative 5: Four Lane Bridge/Four Lane Road The increase in runoff for Alternative 5 is 283.7 m~ (0.23 acre-feet) during a 10-year, 24-hour event. The new proposed alignment would generate ~ m~ (0.36 acre-feet) for a 100-year, 24-hour event. Alternative 6: Four Lane Bridge/Five Lane Road The increase of impervious roadway surface area for Alternative 6 will generate 333 m3 (0.27 acre-feet) of additional runoff for a 10-year, 24-hour event and 579.7 m~ (0.47 acre-feet) for a 100-year, 24-hour event. Alternative 7: New Street to the North of Existing Melrose Avenue An additional 209.7 my (0.17 acre-feet) of runoff will be created for the 10- year, 24-hour rainfall event and 333 m~ (0.27 acre-feet) for the 100-year, 24- hour event for Alternative 7. 87 5.3.5 Hazardous Waste/Soil Contamination Existing Conditions The contaminated site/hazardous waste survey consisted of the identification of known contaminated sites and the identification of sites that have the potential to be contaminated based on present or past land Data identifying contaminated sites within one mile of the proposed alignment was gathered by VISTA Environmental Information Inc. from the following sources: National Priorities List (,NrPL) CERCLIS List Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Database Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) Database State Priorities List (SPL) SWFL Landfills Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) Underground Storage Tanks (UST) A general description of the databases searched for this project are included in the Appendix. The state and federal database search revealed no known sites located within one-quarter mile of the project area. Under the State record database, two LUST sites and four UST sites were identified (See Appendix). Alternatives 1 through 7 The alternative have been combined because there would not be impacts to existing hazardous waste/contaminated sites under any of the proposed project alternatives. No mitigation to existing contaminated sites is required. 5.3.6 Wetlands/Floodplains Existing Environment U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and the Johnson CoLm,ty Soil Survey were studied to determine the presence of wetlands within the proposed project corridor. The NWI maps do not show any wetlands within the project boundary. Likewise, the soil survey does not list hydric soils, which are indicative of potential wetland areas, for the project area. Based on this data, the potential for wetlands within the study areas very small. The Iowa City Sensitive Areas Inventory was consulted to determine the presence of floodplains within the project corndot. The 100 and 500 year flood boundaries for the Iowa River are located outside of the project area. A drainage way runs through the study area associated with Alternative 7. Alternatives 1 through 7 The proposed project alternatives would not impact wetland or floodplain areas. No mitigation would be necessary. 5.3.7 Vegetation Existing Conditions Aerial photographs and the Iowa City Sensitive Areas Inventory were studied to determine the vegetation types in the Melrose Avenue corridor. The en~e project corridor is along an existing roadway within an urban environment. Vegetation within the corridor is primarily landscaped lawns and open space. No natural prairie has been identified within existing Mekose Avenue project area. The Alternative 7 study area includes a natural upland wooded area of primarily Oak-Hickory trees. In addition, the soils in the area are identified as "highly erodible," with' slopes ranging from 18 to 25 percent. Alternatives 1 There would be no adverse impacts to existing vegetation under Alternative 1. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 Under Alternatives 2 through 6, existing trees on the north side of Melrose, from South Grand Avenue to Grand Avenue Court would need to be removed and replaced. Alternative 7 Under Alternative 7, the open space area, owned by the University of Iowa would be impacted. As indicated in the existing condition section, oak-hickory trees would be cut down to accommodate the proposed roadway. In addition, because of the steep slope conditions in the area, impacts to vegetation in relation to erosion cotdd occur. Mitigation Mitigation for the impact assodated with the trees along Melrose Avenue could include removing and repladng the trees to the north of the proposed right-of-way boundary. With regard to impacts under Alternative 7, care should be given during the design of the roadway to 89 avoid mature ~rees. Strict erosion control measures should be implemented during construction. 5.3.8 Wildlife and Endangered Species Existing Conditions The Iowa Department of Natural Resources was consulted to determine the presence of rare, threatened, or endangered species. The Iowa Natural Areas data base contains no records of rare species or significant natural communities in the area (Appendix). The urban environment of the project area would include a minimum variety of wildlife, primarily song birds and small mammals (i.e., squirrels). There does not appear to be habitat within the corridor for significant wildlife species or populations. Alternatives 1 through 6 The proposed project alternative would have a minimal impact on urban wildlife. No impact would occur to threatened, rare, or endangered species. Alternative 7 Potential impacts to wildlife within the natural wooded area could occur. When the vegetation of an area is changed significantly, the ability of an area to support the existing vegetation also changes. Under Altemative 7, there will be an unavoidable decrease in the size of the wildlife populations and species diversity. Those species of wildlife that have adapted to frequent human interactions may remain. TheSe species include squirrels, raccoons, house sparrows, and song birds. Species such as white-tailed deer could experience a decrease in population. 5.3.9 Cultural Resources In~oduc~on As part of the Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction project, a reconnaissance level Cultural Resource investigation was conducted along existing Melrose Avenue, and the area to the north of existing Mekose Avenue, through the University of Iowa property. The scope of work for this investigation was designed to provide a report that identifies the boundaries of areas that would merit a Phase I survey, including: potential historic dislzicts general characteristics of houses and commerdal structures 90 representative houses and corninertial s~uctures past inhabitants of honses and structures potential archaeological resources that may be impacted by construction Federal Government protection of cultural resources is defined and set forth by the Antiquities Act of 1906; Historic Site Act of 1935; National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended; Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974; Archaeological Resources Act of 1979; American Religious Freedom Act of 1978; Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990; Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970. Treatment of cultural resources on federally funded highway construction is addressing the Depm'taient of Transportation Act of 1966, Section 4(0. Within this context, the cultural resources study and subsequent reports follow guidelines et forth in 36 CFR 800 procedures for the protection of historic properties, (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation) and in the Secretary of the interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation and all policies established under Iowa State laws. Procedures The reconnaissance investigation summarized in this report identified known cultural resources and areas having potential for cultural resources that may be adversely affected by construction on Melrose Avenue and bridge/t006310. A literature and records search was conducted prior to initiaffng the field investigations along the corridor. The field investigations were performed between April 18 and 20, 1994. Original field notes and photographs are currently reposited at BRW Inc. in Minneapolis. The study area for Alterna~ve 7 was also studied through the use of topographic maps, and Iowa City's Sensitive Land Use Inventory. The SHPO files contained three reports on the architectural history of Johnson County and specific areas of Iowa City. Iowa Site inventory Forms have been completed for three houses in the project area and include: The Cannon-Gay House at 320 Melrose Avenue The Pratt-Soper House at 503 Melrose Avenue The Bi]li~gsley-Hills-Widness House at 629 Melrose Avenue The Pratt-Soper and Billir~gsley-Hills-Widness houses are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Pratt~Soper house was built by A.W. Pratt in 1885. This brick Italianate style house on the western outskirts of Iowa City survives as a remnant of a once rural community, as does the Italianate/Greek Revival style Billingsley-Hills- Widness house built in 1870. In 1984, the owner of the Cannon-Gay house attempted to nominate the house to the NRI-IP, although a preliminary review by the SHPO staff determined at that time, that the addition on the east elevation compromised the integrity of the house, and therefore rejected the request for nomination. During the preparation of the draft Phase I and I1 Architectural History Survey the Cartnon-Gay house was determined to be eligible and is listed on the NRI-IP. A Master's Thesis was written on the architectural trends of Iowa City by Edwin Charles Ellis in 1947 and several books have been published regarding the architecture of Iowa and Iowa City. These books include: Nineteenth Century Home Architecture of Iowa City (Keyes 1993), American Classic (Lafore 1975), and Buildings oflowa (Gebhard and Mansheim 1993). A statewide bridge survey report was completed in 1993 for the Iowa Depmhnent of Transportation. This survey revealed that the bridge in the project area which extends across the Chicago Rock Island and Pacific Railroad did not have distinctive a~'chitectural characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction and was therefore, not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. No old photographs of past streetscapes were found at the Iowa Historical Society in Iowa City. Past research, including photo documentation is heavily concentrated in areas east of the Iowa River, especially in the downtown and north side neighborhood areas. Information pertaining specifically to the Melrose Avenue area was either non-existent or difficult to locate. A search for archaeological documentation pertaining to the project area was also conducted at the State Historic Preservation office (Des Moines, Iowa) by BRW, Inc. staff. Previous investigations of archaeological sites near the project area wel~e obtained (Emerson 1984; Oversbeet 1986), and documents relating to sites within five to ten miles of the project area were studied. No archaeological sites' have been recorded within the Melrose Avenue project area itself. This may be partially due to the fact that archaeological surveys may not have been required during much of the original construction along the Avenue. Threececorded archaeological sites lie within one mile of the project area: · 13JH271: A small pre-European contact Native American habitation site, now destroyed by apattntent construction. · 13JH311: The historic Plum Grove property, now owned by the State Historical Society. Pre- and post-European contact artifacts have been recovered from surface surveys and excavation (east of the Iowa River). 92 · 13JH452: A small pre-European contact Native American habitation site in a residential garden. o 13JH589: A post-European contact historic refuse dump (east of the Iowa River). An additional 53 archaeological sites have been located within five miles of the project area. There are also hundreds of sites located within and around the Coralville Reservoir, 8.05 kilometers (5 miles) north of Iowa City. The majority of these sites were discovered as a result of controlled archaeological surveys executed for the Coralville Lake Resources Master Plan (Emerson 1984; Overstreet 1986). In most cases, it has not been possible to assign cultural affiliation to these sites, due to a lack of diagnostic artifacts. However, there are a number of sites of Late Archaic, Woodland and "Proto-historic" affiliation on a variety of local landforms. Because the Coralville Reservoir's uplands, steep bluffs and wide floodplains are geomorphologically similar to the river valley adjacent to the Melrose Avenue project area, it is assumed that upland Native American sites in the reservoir area would have broadly analogous components in the similar terrain of the project area. Historic Context The Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan (Appendices) (Svendsen Tyler Inc. 1992) outlines several historic contexts that encompass a variety of architectural styles and property types extant in Iowa City. The Preservation Plan presents five historic contexts as follows: Territorial and Early Statehood Context (1839-1857) Railroad Era (1856-1900) Town and Gown Era (1899-1940) The University of Iowa Context (1855-1940) Town and Country .Neighborhoods Context (1840-1940) It also suggests five other historic contexts which are not included in the Appendices of the Preservation Plan. The additional contexts include: Architects and Builders (1840-1940) Native Stone Buildings and Structures (1840-1940) Ecclesiastical Architecture (1850-1920) · Sorority and Fratemity Houses (c. 1880-1940) Iowa City's Literary Tradition (c. 1900-1970) It would appear that all of the homes in the project corridor are associated with a previously developed historic context; The Town and Country Neighborhoods Context (1840-1940). This context is broken down into: Commercial and Industrial Neighborhoods, Nineteenth Century Growth and Prosperity Neighborhoods, Twentieth Century Expansion Neighborhoods, Ethnic Neighborhoods and Country Neighborhoods. The I following is a summary of this historic context as it relates to the project area. Iowa City's town plan and the local landscape generated distinct neighborhoods and districts. The presence of two waterways created a diverse topography which marked the boundaries of the town. "Historic events or trends exploited these natural and human-made features in subsequent years. The result of Iowa City was a community with distinct neighborhood identities based on topography, planning features, ethnic traditions, residential building styles and forms, University growth, transportation connections, and conumercial and industrial land use patterns" (Svendsen Tyler Inc. 1992: Q-14). The boundaries for many traditional Iowa City neighborhoods have become ambiguous over time. In some cases the landmarks or land use patterns which prompted their formation have disappeared. In others, the landmarks survive as originally used or with new uses (Svendsen Tyler Inc. 1992). Within this context, the houses on Melrose Avenue fall within the subcategory of County Neighborhoods. "Iowa City's settlement pattern during the nineteenth century was characterized by compact development within the city limits and farmsteads and country estates located at the perimeter or within a mile or two of the downtown. As the town spread outward these large parcels were absorbed and many of the substantial residences were retained as city dwellings. Several of these properties had 'associations with prominent individuals and with farming, manufacturing or extracting enterprises" (Svendsen Tyler Inc. 1992: Q-25). West of the Iowa River, above the bluffs, several fine residences were constructed during the nineteenth century. "Melrose Avenue was a country road in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries which alternately went by such names as Snooks Grove Road, the Poor Farm Road, and later as the IWV Road, an acronym for Iowa City and the points west, Williamsburg and Victor" (Svendsen Tyler Inc. 1992: Q-25). The home of A.W. Pratt (503 Melrose Avenue), built in 1885, the Billingsley family home (629 Melrose Avenue) built in 1870 and the Cannon family residence (320 Melrose Avenue) constructed in 1880 survive as remnants of this rural heritage. Development of a West Campus by the University in the 1920s and subsequent years saw buildings of tl~is type razed to dear space for the medical and athletic complexes and dormitory construction. The area south of Melrose Avenue was soon developed for housing as other University expansions took place (Svendsen Tyler Inc. 1992). The houses not specifically listed in this context built prior to 1950 are also associated with this context as they developed within the specified time frame between the earliest settlement of Iowa City through the Great Depression. Associated Property Types and Significance The Associated Property Types according to the Preservation Plan are similar in name to the historic contexts. The property type associated with the Town and Country Neighborhoods Context (1840-1940) is Iowa City Neighborhoods: Town and Country Properties (1840-1940). The significance of any architecturally or historically notable structures that is assodated with this property type and historic context is outlined in the Preservation Plan and summarized below. The significance of the once-rural Melrose Avenue houses can be derived from a series of factors which affected the development including topography, relationship to the Capitol and later the University, modes of transportation and routes, changing land use patterns, ethnic make-up and changing architectural styles and building practices (Svendsen Tyler Inc. 1992: Q-32). "On the edge of the original town and in areas beyond the city's turn of the centmr/ city limits, houses were built for farmers, manufacturers, and those who desired the country life. Growth of Iowa City in the twentieth century has enveloped these properties, and in some cases, they have lost every vestige of their former rural existence. In other cases, open spaces have been preserved in their immediate environs" (Svendsen Tyler Inc. 1992: Q-33). For many years Melrose Avenue has provided an important ~ansportation connection between Iowa City and western Johnson County. Several substantial residences survive from the period when Mekose Avenue was known as Snooks Grove Road, and when the area was primarily rural before World War I. Results The results of the investigation, including historical information and criteria obtained for determining eligibility for historical designation, is as follows: 1. National Register Criteria National Register Bulletin 15, Guidelines for Applying the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, states that a property must have characteristics that make it a good representative of properties assodated with an historic context. It also lists the following criteria: 95 · Properties significant for their association with an event (Criterion A) Properties associated with the life of an important person (Criterion B) · Properties associated with an important architectural style, engineering technique, or method of construction (Criterion C) · Properties significant for their potential to yield information important in history or prehistory (Criterion D) Structures eligible for the National Register must also meet integrity requirements and at least one of the aforementioned criteria to be considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. To retain integrity, a property must maintain its integrity in the following: Location · Design Setting · Materials · Workmanship · Feeling Association 2. Objectives of the Iowa City Preservation Plan The Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan has identified the Melrose Avenue area in their strategic plan as needing attention and suggests five strategies or objectives for preservation planning in this area. These include: Objective 1: Objective 2: Designate individual buildings with historical or architectural significance as landmarks and encourage owners to submit nominations to the National Register of Historic Places. Objective 3: Retain open settings of older residences located along Melrose including lot size, set back and landscaping. Improve visual relationship between historic residences and parking areas by working with the University of Iowa to obtain better screening of lots. Objective 4: Consult with the University of Iowa regarding the southern boundary of the campus in the area of Melrose Avenue and the future use of historic structures in this area. 96 Objective 5: Spotlight the neighborhood's history for University and Hospital visitors by developing a walking tour beginning at the University Hospital complex and including Melrose Avenue's historic residences, post-World War I residential enclaves, Melrose Park, etc. 3. Properties in the Project Corridor Thirty-five structures abut the Melrose Avenue corridor, along with several parking lots and a tennis court complex. Thirty of the structures appear to pre-date 1950. The first four residences along Melrose Avenue were constructed in the 1870s. Three of those houses are listed on the National Register. Another nine houses were constructed between 1900 and 1920. These original structures along Mekose Avenue represent the rural farming life of the occupants. Along Melrose Avenue in the 1920s, soon after the relocation of the new hospital complex, enclaves of bungalows and cottages were built between the railroad and Mekose Avenue. The majority of the structures in the corridor were built during this time and into the late 1930s. Later, in 1949, a Lustron house was erected, followed by a four contemporary houses constructed in the 1960s and 1970s, and a new clinic built in 1994. Development along Melrose Avenue was generally inconsistent and sporadic, and, surfidally it appears that the structures are only unified by location. The initial analysis of overall design trends in the project area suggest that many of the houses were built for people of middle- class economic standing. Because many Of the houses first built on what is now Melrose Avenue, were quite grand in scale, the later era of cottage development suggests a decline in the income of people building houses along the avenue. Of the 35 structures, 20 are a variation of the "Cottage," many with Colonial or Arts and Craft detailing. The remaining houses consist of: Italianate Ell plans, Neo-Colonial Revival, Contemporary styles, Colonial Revival variations, I-House/Side Gable, International Lustron and Craftsman/Prairie styles. Although construction dates are not known at this time, it would appear that the dates of construction range from the 1870s to the 1970s, with the majority of the houses built in the 1920s and 1930s. Table 9 lists the architectural style and either construction dates or circa dates for each property in the project area. The five structures in the project corridor built after 1950 do not merit further evaluation based on the dates of construction and the lack of historic or architectural significance. TABLE 9 MELROSE AVENUE STREET & BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT Survey Address Property Iqame Date Architectural Syle Comments ID # Built S-1 303 Mekose Ave. Afro-American ¢. 1910 Hipped Cottage Addition to rear Cultural Center S-2 309 Melrose Ave. Brookland Woods ¢. 1905 Gabled Ell Cottage Entry remodeled Child Care Center w/Stick Style details S-3 315 Melrose Ave. Residenee 1924 Open Gable Cottage w/ Arts & Crafts details S4 407 Mekose Ave. Rainbow Child ¢. 1900 American Foursquare/ Care Center Hipped enttage S-5 421 Melrose Ave. Residenee c. 1933 Dutch Colomni Revival/ Extensively Gambrel Cottage remodeled S4 503 Melrose Ave. Pratt-Soper House 1885 Itahanate Ell plan NRHP S-7 511 Melrose Ave. Our Redeemer e. 1925 Gabled Cottage Arks & Crafts detafis Lutheran Church S-8 521 Mekose Ave. Residenee c. 1920 Gambrel Cottage Arts & Crafts details S-9 601 Mekose Ave. Residence c. 1920 Gambrel Cottage .an'rs & Crafts details. Remodeled S- I 0 605 Mekose Ave. Residenee 1915 Gabled Cottage Remodeled S-I I 607 Melrose Ave. Residence 1927 Hipped Colonial Cottage S- 12 609 Melrose Ave. Residence e. 1930 Gabled Cottage Remodeled S-I 3 I Melrose Circle Residenee 1975 Neo-Colonial Remval Extensively Remodeled S-14 629 Melrose Ave. Billnigsley-Hills- 1870 Italianate/Ell Plan NRHP Wideess House S- 15 701 Melrose Ave. Melrose Day Care e. 1965 Contemporary Ranch Center S- 16 707 Melrose Ave. Urn ted Campus c 1922 Hipped Gable Cottage Mirestry S-17 711Mekose Ave. Residence c. 1930 Open Gable Cottage Remodeled S- 18 727 Melrose Ave. Remidence 1905 I lipped Cottage Originally a store7 S-19 741 Melrose Ave Apartments ¢. 1925 ' Open Crablew/Colonial detail_s 98 TABLE 9. MELROSE AVENUE STREET & BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT S-20 2 Melrose Court Residence 8-21 801-03 Melrose Duplex Ave. S-22 805 Melrose Ave. Residence S-23 807 Melrose Ave. Residence S-24 811 Melrose Ave. Residence S-25 817 Melrose Ave. Residence e. 1975 Centempora~ Bi-level e. 1925 Hipped Cottage v~on 1949 Lush'on House ¢. 1938 Pedimeated Co~ge/Bungalow 1940 Colonial Cottage e. 1875 l-House/Side Gable S-26 821 Melrose Ave. Residence 1945 Colonial Cottage S-27 909 Melrose Ave. Residence 1928 English Gabled Cottage S-28 1005 Melrose Ave. Residence 1933 Colonial Ell Cottage S-29 1007 Melrose Ave. Residence 1967 Contemporaxy S-30 1009 Melrose Ave. Residence 1945 International N-I 1006 Melrose Ave. Melrose Market e. 1948 Original: International N-2 Clinic 1994 Contemporary N-3 322 Melrose Ave. UPCC Day Care c. 1938 Georgian Revival Cottage N-4 320 Melrose Ave. Cannon-Gay House 1884 Italianate Ell Plan N-5 308 Melrose Ave. Chicano, Native 1919 CraftsmanPrairie American Cultural (Gabled Hip) · Center commercial7 Good condition Remodeled Log or braced frame s~ucture7 West of RR bridge West of RR bridge West of RR bridge West ofRR bndge West of RR bridge Just completed Arts & Crafts details/Remodeled 99 4. Historic District Potential There appears to have been several eras of development in the West side - Melrose Avenue area, as stated above, and it is unlikely that the neighborhood is eligible for listing as an historic district. It is our opinion that collectively, the properties do not comprise a "Historic District" as there is no unifying characteristic, or significant commonality to elevate this neighborhood to a National Register caliber. It is unlikely that any pre- or post European contact archaeological remains have survived the construction and demolition of the original residential structures and subsequent road, utility and parking facility construction. The entire Melrose Avenue project area appears to have been heavily disturbed by previous and current construction (Shive- Hattery 1993). No Phase I shovel testing is recommended for the current proposed construction corridor. The Alternative #7 study area has three areas having moderate potential for the existence of archaeological deposits (Figure 29). The areas have potential based on the fact that they are elevated above the surrounding landscape and are within 61 meters (200 feet) of a stream. Alternative 1: No Build Under the No-Build alternative there would be no impacts to existing structures, and/or potential archaeological sites. Alternatives 2 through 6 A review of the proposed reconstruction plan reveals that there may be possible adverse effects to properties. As determined in the review and draft Architectural History Survey Report only three of the properties within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) were on the National Register and no additional properties were eligible. Therefore the adverse impact will only apply to these three structures. Of the existing National Register properties, it appears that only one will be adversely effected, namely the Cannon Gay house which is on the north side of Melrose Avenue, just west of Byington Road. Alternate plans illustrate that up to approximately fifteen feet of front portion of the Cannon Gay property may be used for expansion of the street and curb line. This should be reviewed and discussed as more detail is made available. The remaining two properties to the south of Melrose Avenue appear to have no permanent adverse effects from the proposed reconstruction. Regardless, the plans should be reviewed as more detail becomes available to ensure that the impacts remain non-adverse. MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RF_.<X~SIRUCTION S'FUDY Iowa Ci~y~ Iowa  ~: Potcnlml Archaeological Site~. CITY OF IOWA CITY Potential Archaeological Sites Other impacts including noise, vibration, pollution and related should be reviewed as they apply to all three properties as a part of the overall engineering design and construction. Alternative 7 As stated in the exisiing conditions section, because sections of land which this alternative is proposed to be located on has not been disturbed, and is located in areas that have the potential for containing archaeological remnants, additional investigations would be required if this alternative is identified as the Preferred Alternative for Melrose Avenue. Mitigation A Phase I and II Architectural Survey is currently being conducted, and will be completed prior to the final environmental review decision for Melrose Avenue. The Scope of Work for the Phase I and II Architectural History Survey along the Melrose Avenue Corridor is designed to identify and evaluate all architectural resources that may be potentially affected by the proposed project. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is defined to include all properties within the right-of-way cotrstruction zones, and the first tier of adjacent properties. The Report will provide a detailed inventory of all known and potential historic properties within the Area of Potential Effect. Those historic properties evaluated as eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) will be identified. There will be ongoing consultation with the Bureau of Historic Preservation (BHP), and the Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). The aforementioned document is currently being reviewed by the Iowa SHPO. 5.4 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM Introduction The purpose of this study is to conduct a traffic operations analysis, safety analysis and geometric design review of seven alternative roadway improvements being considered for the segment of Melrose Avenue between Golfview Avenue and Byington Road. The seven alternatives consist of the following: (1) No Action (no-build alternative). (2) Consh-uct a new two-lane bridge and two-lane road, to include a left tum lane at Hawkins Drive. (3) Construct a new two-lane bridge and three-lane road. (4) Construct a new three-lane bridge and three-lane road. (5) Consta'uct a new four-lane bridge and four-lane road. (6) Construct a new four-lane bridge and five-lane road. 102 (7) Construct a new street north ol Melrose Avenue across University of Iowa property, and build a new two-lane bridge. The objective of the traffic operations analysis is to establisl~ the current quality of traffic flow along Melrose Avenue and then to determine how each of the alternative roadway improvements accommodate the forecasts of future traffic volumes. Existing and expected future Levels of Service will be documented based on the procedures in the Highway Capacity Manual. The objective of the safety analysis is to provide decision makers with information about how the selection of any one of the alternative roadway improvements would likely affect the frequency of accidents. The expected acddent rate associated with each of the alternative roadway improvements will be noted based on the results of previous accident studies completed by BRW. Finally, the objective of the design review is to compare the proposed geometric design features of the various alternatives to documented design criteria established by the Iowa Depai-h~ent of Transportation. All variances from the guidelines will be noted. Existing Traffic Volumes and Accident Characteristics Section 3.3.2 of this report presents the existing traffic volumes and accident characteristic data. Forecast Traffic Volumes Travel demand forecasts on the study area roadways were developed through use of JCCOG's QRS II forecasting model and data provided by the City for each of the alternatives. The forecast data provided by JCCOG was then modified slightly to more nearly conform with historic traffic growth rates and extrapolated to account for the need for more information than the City's model could provide. Design Year (Year 2015) traffic forecasts were developed in order to provide one of the key components needed to analyze the alternative road design's abihty to accommodate expected future traffic flows. Because the QRS II Model is "caparty constrained", as traffic congestion increases on Melrose Avenue, traffic is assumed to be diverted to surrounding roadways: 'lhe roadway alternatives being analyzed consisted of a No-Build Alternative, and Build Alternatives reflecting a two, three, four, or five lane upgraded Melrose Avenue plus a new bridge crossing the railroad. One alternative considered a new roadway connecting Melrose Avenue to Hawkins Drive across University property. 103 When developing forecast traffic volumes, some of these alternatives were paired together where there was considered to be no significant difference in forecast volumes. The alternatives were combined as follows: · Alternatives (1/2) · Alternatives (3/4) · Alternatives (5/6) · Alternative (7) Alternatives 1 and 2 (two-lane mad) Alternatives 3 and 4 (three-lane road) Alternatives 5 and 6 (four thru-lanes) Alternative 7 (new street north of Mekose Avenue, Melrose Avenue as two-lane) Methodology Forecast year (Year 2015) daily traffic volumes in the study area were provided by the City's QRS g forecasting model for each of the alternative pairs. The annual growth rates from the present (1994) to the design year (forecast year 2015) were calculated for all of the locations in the model. For each alternative pair an average annual growth rate was calculated along the corridor. If the model did not provide a forecast ADT at a location on a major street, the average rate was applied to the existing ADT at the missing location to determine the forecast ADT. For locations along minor streets which were missing ADT's in the model, a low annual growth rate of 0.5 percent was applied. This 0.5 percent growth rate is considered to be appropriate for low growth conditions that are typical of areas that are already densely developed. The Forecast Year 2015 Peak Hour turning movement volumes were developed by determining the Forecast Year 2015 approach volumes, and applying turning percentages calculated from existing data. The Year 2015 approach volumes were estimated by one of three methods: If the forecast ADT was provided by the QRS II model, forecast approach volumes were based on the existing directional splits and the forecast ADT. If the forecast ADT was not provided by the model for major street locations, the forecast approach volume was based on the existing directional split and on the average annual growth rates for the corridor. Forecast approach volumes for minor street locations not included in the model were estimated by assuming a 0.5 percent annual growth rate. Trul~aig movements ~vere developed by applyh~g the existing peak hour turn percentages to the forecast approach volumes. Forecast Traffic Volumes Based on the methodology described above, Forecast Year 2015 ADT's were developed for each of the alternative pairs. The Forecast Average 104 Daily Traffic volumes and the percent growth from existing have been provided in Figures 30 through 33. The forecast Year 2015 PM peak hour turning movement volumes for each alternative are shown in Table 10. Comparison of the existing m~d forecast h'affic volumes indicates: The growth of daily traffic in the study area ranges from two percent to 69 percent from 1994 to 2015. The three lane alternatives (3 and 4) would provide LOS A operations now and future traffic operations near the LOS C/D boundary. The average increase in daily traffic volumes along Melrose Avenue ranges from 17 percent in the two-lane alternatives to 56 percent in the three, four, and five lane alternatives. The forecast ADT volumes in Figures 30 through 33 and the forecast peak hour turning movements in Table 10, will be used in the traffic operations analysis to evaluate the quality of flow through the five key intersections and the Melrose Avenue roadway segment between Golfview Avenue and Byington Road. It should be noted that the forecast volumes at any particular location in the study area varies by roadway alternative. For example, the segment of Melrose Avenue between Hawkins Drive and South Grand Avenue ranges from 13,800 vehicles per day for the two-lane alternatives (Figure 30) to over 17,000 vehicles per day for the three, four, and five lane alternatives (Figures 31 and 32). As described previously, this variation is due to the modeling procedure that includes a capacity restraint feature and is considered to be an accurate representation of actual traffic behavior. Traffic Operations Analysis Capacity analyses were conducted using the traffic forecasts documented previously in Figures 30 through 33 and in Table 10. The analysis of the signalized intersections used the SIGNAL85 software and "Chapter 9: Signalized Intersections' of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The all-way stop controlled intersection analysis used the Transportation Research Board "Circular 373 All-Way Stop". The unsignalized intersections were analyzed using the procedures of "Chapter 10: Unsignalized Intersections" of the Hi_.~way Capacity Manual. 105  10,900 11,200 ~,2: o (27%) (30%)_ ~ 28. (2." . GRAND AVE. I N MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECONSIRUCTION STUDY Iowa City, iowa CITY OF IOWA CITY 14,000 13,800 10,800 (9%) (2%) (5%) MELROSE AVE. II Legend: 000 Year 2015 ADT (00%) Percent Growth from 1994 to 2015 26~000 (24%) BU~ON ST, n-- LU I> Figure 30 Forecast Average Daily Traffic Volumes-Alternatives I & 2  14,100 13,900 (,6 ~ (63%) (61%) ~ GRAND AVE, r-, 18,000 (40%) 17,100 12,400 (27%) (20%) MELROSE AVE. 1 35. (5-~ . 700 ~ \ 29 000 (3~%) BURL~ON ST. > N W+E 'NO ScaJc MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRH)GE RECONSTRUCTION STUDY Iowa City, Iowa CITY OF IOWA CITY Legend: 000 Yem' 2015 ADT (00%) Percent Grewth from 1994 to 2015 Forecast Average Daily Traffic Volumes-Alternatives 3 & 4 14,400 (67%) N w+E No Scale MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RF_L'DNSrRUCTION STUDY Iowa City, Iowa 14,600 18,600 (69%) (69%) CITY OF IOWA CITY .GRAND AVE. 17,900 12,600 (63%) (68%) MELROSE AVE. 37 500 (6~%) Legend: 000 Year 2015 ADT (00%) Percent Growth from 1994 to 2015 Figure 32 Forecast Average Daily Traffic Volumes-Alternatives 5 & 6 30200 (44%) BURLINGTON ST. LU UJ > 10,800 (25%) (7%) (S%) MELROSE AVE. N No se~,~ MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECON~IEHON STUDY Iowa City, Iowa Legend: 000 ADT (00%) Percent Growth from 1994 to 2015 ) Figure 33 Forecast Average Daily Traffic Volumes-Alternative 7 CITY OF IOWA CITY O ,.._..., 'i s2s Los~ 6t _. !.o~.. ,, { ~6 342 _?,!4.0 __ ...!~0 s 6 749 330~ ./~.I0~,._, llO S 6. ,j" ol ,- oj.."vl 0 0 0 0 0 · he analysis can be broken into two parts, roadway segment capacity and intersection capacity. Roadway Segment Capacity Analysis A capadty analysis was conducted for the roadway segment along Melrose Avenue between Golfview/Koser Avenues and Byington Road. The existing and proposed geometric and daily traffic volume conditions for each of the alternatives is illustrated in Figure 34. The difference in the forecast lxaffic volumes assodated with the design alternatives reflects the capacity restraint feature described above. The results of the analysis indicates: Mekose Avenue currently operates at Level of Service (LOS) C/D. The two-lane alternatives (1, 2, and 7) would provide a mid LOS D operation under future traffic conditions. The four-lane alternative (5) would provide LOS A operations now and a mid LOS C operation under future lxaffic conditions. The five-lane alternative (6) would provide LOS A operations now and a mid LOS B operation under future traffic conditions. Intersection Capacity Analysis intersection capadty analyses were conducted for the five key intersections in the study area: (1) Melrose Avenue and Golfview/Koser Avenues (2) Melrose Avenue and Hawkins Drive (3) Mekose Avenue and South Grand Avenue (4) Melrose Avenue and Byington Road (5) Riverside Drive and Grand Avenue/Burlington Street Analyses were conducted for the following conditions: Exis~/ng and proposed geometrics with existing traffic volumes Proposed alternative geometrics with forecast traffic volumes The resulting intersection levels of service with existing traffic volumes are documented in Table 11, and the results with the forecast traffic volumes are documented in Table 12. The results are discussed below. The Melrose Avenue and Golfview Avenue/Koser Avenue all-way stop intersection currently operates at LOS C. The intersection geometry proposed for this intersection does not change from existing conditions under all of the alternative designs. Consequently, there is no change in the level of service when the intersection was analyzed with the existing volumes. However, with Year 2015 forecast year conditions, the intersection level of service drops to LOS E or F. 3O.OOO ~ 2&000 ~! 26,000 ,~ i Air 7 22,000 I 14,400 VPD ~ Airs. I &2 20.o0oi 14,000 VPD ]. i LOS B 10.000 d~ ' Existing ; 13,500 VPD 6.000 %~ LOS A 4,000 ~ 2.~0 ~ 0~- LOS F LOS E LOS F LOS E LOS D A~ts. 3 & 4 _L_O_S p_ j _8,_00_0_ _vvp_ _- ~.b~ ~: LOS C LOS B LOS B LOS A LOS A LOS F LOS E LOS D LOS C Alt. 5 Alt. 6 LOS A 2-Lnne 3-Lane 4-Lane Undivided $-Lnne Type of Roadway Note: Alternative Daily Traffic Volumes are Forecast Year 2015. MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE REGONSTRUCIION STUDY Iowa City, Iowa CITY OF IOWA CITY 112 Figure 34 Roadway Segment Capacity (Melrose Avenue) TABLE 11 IN ITc!/t, SECTION I.,EVEIJ~ O!: SERVICE EXISTING VOLUMES Melrose Avenue ~Way Stop ~istin~._ . ~. _ C ..... 747 I & ~ ~...~c~natlvcs l/2 ~ C 747 ~lf~ew Ave tKogr Ave _~W~2 Stop ._ ~.tcrnativcs 3/4 C . _ 7~7 _ ~ ~ ~tetnatlves 5/6 C 747 Melrosc Avenue . ~ Si~ ~i~tlng D 1~05 ...... N/A 2 & . Tra~c SiShal .~tcrnativcs 1/2 D 1,205 N/A Haw~ns Dave Traffic Signal ~tctnatj~cs ~/4 D 1,20~ ....... ~/A , Tr~ SiS~I_~ ~ternativcs ~ B ....... 871 N/A ..... ............ .......... ~rn~pve 7 D 1,2~ ........ N/A Mclrosc Avenue I ~rough/~op ~istin~ ........ D/~ _ N/A 114 3 & I ~rough/Stop ~ternativcs I/2 D/A N/A 114 ~ulb ~and Avenue ~j.ou~h/~Lop.._. ~tjrnalivcs 3/4 E/A .......... N/A 78 ~rough/Stop Ahctnatives 5/6 E/A N/A 66 Mclrose Avenue DroES~/St~_ ~isting C~A ._ N/A 289 4 · ~rou~htStop Alternatives 1/2 C/A ~.~ .._ 289 Byingto~ Road }~J~{~t9p ~tcrnativcs 3/4 __ B/B ___ N/A ~rou$~/~ ..~ll~[p~livcs ~/6 B/B ...... N/A 36~ .............. ~rg~/~tg~.. ~ernative 7 C/A ...... N/A ~ 289 ~versid~ Drive Tra~cSignal ~isting ~ E 1,3~ N/A 5 & Traffic Signal ~ter~v~s I/2 ~ E .... 1,3~ N/A ~and Ave/Burlington St Traffic ~nal ~terna~ves 3/4 [ E 1,3~ N/A Traffic Signal E 1,3~ N / A MAIORSI'REEF N/A · _ .N/.A. .... N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 48O 480 406 480 458 458 387 387 · 458 _. ~/_A. ..... ....... _~!A. .... N/A , .___N!.A_ ..... N/A Note:Them am no 8eometrlc revisions on streets otl~r than Mclrosc Arc. the major street is the north approach on S. Grnncl Ave. and the west approach on Melwse Ave. ;;=_--- ...Al_~.rn_nti~ _ (Minor Street Apf, ro~ch I.O5') / (h~ajor Street L~ft Turn LOS) 3 Metrose ........ l~.i.d.~___. 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 4 4 2 2 5ounz: i~W. Inc. usiixg programs Signal85. TR~ f2i~ullr 373 AlI-Wzy e~op znalysis. and EIC~ Unsign21ized Inlc traction =nalysis. INt'fil(SECs1ON LEVELS OF SF/~VICE FORECAST VOI ,UMES I & All-Way Stop Golfview Ave/Koser Ave All--WayStop All-Way Stop Melro~ Avenue . Traffic Signal 2 & _.Traffic Signal Hawkins Drive . l'raffic Signal _Traffic Signal Traffic Signal_ (1) Melrose Avenue Through/Stop 3 & Through/Stop South Grand Avenue ..Tn.m. uth/Stop _Through/Stop Melrose Avenue Throug.h./.Skop 4 & Through/Stop Bysngton Road .J~..rough/Stop Pdvcrside Drive S & Grand Ave/Bu~ingtonSt J SCENAR/O · Ahematives 1/2 Altcmatives.3/4 Alternatives 5/6 Alteralive 7 _.Alternatives 1/2 Alternatives 3/4 Alternatives 5 Alternatives 6 Alternative 7 Alternatives 1/2 .Altcmativcs Alternatives .5/6 Alternative 7 Alt.ematives 1/2 AlJematives 3/4 . .Alternatives 5/6 Through/Stop_ Alternative 7 TrafficSign.aJ Alternatives 1/2 E 951 _F. 1,191 __ F 1,..221 __ E 921 F 1,490 F 1,910 D 1.445 D 1,445_ F 1.570 E/B N/A ~/D N/~__ F/D N/A F/B N/A D/B N/A __D/D N/A D/D N/A D/B N/A ..Traffic Signal Alternative. s3/4 ,Traffic Signal . Alternatives 516 Traffic Signal Alternative 7 P,E~ERV~__CApACITy MINOR STiU!I~i- MAJOR N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A .N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 20 369 -77 190 -64 171 --11 184 131 176 N/A F 1,865 N/A F 1,915 N/A F 1,~5 N(A 343 180 172 N/A N/A N/A (l) '['eemiuorstr~'tislheeastapproachonMelroseAvewhicbissiopcontrollea: the major sircol is the north approach on S. Grand Ave. and the west approach on Mclro~e Ave. ~c minor atrcet is the ~uth approach oe Byington Rd which is stop ~n~olled; (3) (Minor Street Approach LOS) / (MaWr Street Left Turn LOS) (4) Sum of crillcal volumes is a pr~edure for signalized mte~iona ~aewedeap~dyisananalyllsforunaignalizedinter~tiona 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B:id__~t~?- .... 2 2 2 4 4 8oaten: BRV/, Inc. usiu8 programs Signal85. TRB Circular 373 AIFWay atop analysis, and lies Uusigualizcd tntcrsection analysis. The Melrose Avenue and Hawkins Drive signalized intersection currently operates at LOS D. The evaluation of the proposed geometric conditions with the existing volumes results in LOS D operation for all of the alternatives except the four-lane undivided and five-lane alternatives. Both of these alternatives provide an intersection LOS B. The evaluation of forecast traffic volumes results in LOS D or F operation under all of the alternative geometries. The Melrose Avenue and South Grand Avenue through/stop intersection is currently operating at a LOS D for the minor street approach. The evaluation of the proposed geometric conditions with the existing volumes results in LOS D or E operation for all of the alternatives. The evaluation of forecast traffic volumes results in LOS E or F operation under all of the alternative geometrics. The Melrose Avenue and By'mgton Road through/stop intersection is currently operating at LOS C for the minor street approach. The evaluation of the proposed geome~c conditions with the existing volumes results in LOS C for the two-lane alternatives (1, 2, and 7), while the three- lane, four-lane, and five-lane alternatives (3, 4, 5, and 6) result in LOS B. The evaluation of forecast traffic volumes results in LOS D operation under all of the alternative geometrics. The Riverside Drive and Grand Avenue/Burlington Street signalized intersection currently operates at LOS E. The intersection geometry proposed for this intersection does not change from existing conditions under all of the alternative designs. Therefore, the evaluation of the proposed geometric conditions with the existing volumes results in LOS E operation for all of the altematives. The evaluation of forecast traffic volumes results in LOS F operation under all of the alternative geometrics. Traffic Safety Analysis The determination as to the level of safety provided by an intersection or roadway segment is based on a comparison to the average acddent experience at locations with similar roadway geometrics and intersection traffic control. BRW has compiled typical average accident rates for various roadway and intersection designs, based on data from the Minnesota Depa,~h~tent of Transportation. The results of the study of over 16,100 kilometers (10,000 miles) of rural and urban roadways and 6,164 intersections includes the different alternatives under consideration for Melrose Avenue. The calculated average accident rate by roadway segment type and by intersection traffic control are illustrated in Figures 35 and 36, respectively. 115 ACCffDENT RATE (Accidents Per Million Vehicle Miles) 9 8 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 (~. (s~ 0 ' ~les; 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Source: Mn/DOT(1989-1992) Accident Data. Only State Trunk Highway MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGI~ RFXX)NSTRUCnON gFUDY Iowa City, 2Iowa ('17)' OF IOW.t CITY Figure 35 Roadway Segment Accident Rates by Facility Type ACCIDENT RATE (Accidents Per Million Entering Vehicles) 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 ~ er lqter. seetic 1.6 1.4 1.2 MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RFL"ONSTRIXT~ON STUDY Iowa C~ty, Iowa k ('t1')' ()F I()W.I ( 11 Source: Mn/DOT ( 1981-1991 ) Accident I)am. Only State Highway intersections Intersection Accident Rates by Control Type It should be noted that an effort was made to obtain average accident rate information from both the Iowa DOT and the Iowa City Depa~-ti~ient of Public Works in order to adjust the data for local conditions. However, no comparable data was available. Analysis of the data gathered indicates that as volumes rise and roadways are widened, the presence of left turn lanes is the most important predictor of acddent experience. The four-lane undivided urban arterial (no left turn lane) has the highest accident rate of any urban roadway. The addition of a left turn lane (the three-lane or five-lane alternatives) has proven to reduce accidents by as much as 60 percent. It should be noted that, in recent years, urban roadways have been converted to three lane design with increasing frequency because of their excellent safety record. The average accident rate for these types of roadways (3.5 Accidents per million vehicle miles of travel) is actually slightly lower than for the four-lane divided roadway, which [xaditionally had been the safest urban arterial design. The accident data gathered for Melrose Avenue was compared to the intersection average accident rates. In addition, the critical accident rate for each intersection was calculated. This statistic takes into account the random nature of accidents and identifies only intersections with a statistically significantly higher accident rate than the average for similar segments or intersections. Basically, this procedure identifies hazardous locations. The results of the analysis are documented in Table 13 and indicate that the five key intersections in the study area have accident rates that are near or below the average accident rate for intersections with similar traffic control. Therefore, the key intersections and the Melrose Avenue roadway segment do not appear to have a significant accident problem. Geometric Design Review The Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) has developed a series of recommended design criteria to be used as guidelines for construction/ reconstruction of roadways in an urban setting (Table 14). The design features associated with the alternatives proposed for the Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Reconstruction Study were documented and compared to the recommended guidelines. The comparison is presented in Table 15 and described in the following paragraphs. The design features of the various alternatives meet the IDOT Alternative U~ban Design Guides, with the following exceptions: The five-lane (Alternative 6) alternative provides for 1.38 meters (4.5 feet) of available right-of-way on the north side of Melrose Avenue between Hawkins Drive and Byington Road. This does not meet the Urban Design or Alternative Urban Design Guidelines. 118 TABLE 13 INTERSECTaON ACCIDENT RATES LOCATION EXISTING NO. OF TRAFFIC ACCKDENTS ACCIDENT CONTROL (199O- 199.2] RATE IV, elrose Avenue and All-Way Goifview Ave/Koser Ave Stop AVERAGE ACCIDENT RATB (by Traffi~ Cpnl~ol Titpc) 2 3 Meirose Avenue and Traffic Hawkins Drive Signal Melrose Avenue and Through/ South Grand Avenue Stop 2 0.16 0.5 11 0.61 1.2 4 Melrose Avenue and Through/ Byington Road Stop 6 0.56 0.5 5 Riverside Drive and Traffic Grand Ave/Burlington St Signal 2 0,26 SOURCE: Accident ttistory provided by Iowa DOT and ADT data recorded in Scpt.-Dcc., 1993 by Iowa City, 43 0.87 0.5 1.2 0.95 1.85 0.97 1.03 1.61 02/01/95 C:XMELCOMP.WKI TABLE 14 ARTERIAL ROADWAY DESIGN GUIDELINES METRIC UNITS DI~.SIGN CRITERIA (I) Traffic Lanes (number) Design Speed (km/h) Stopping Sight Distance (m) M~nimum Radius (m) (6) Maximum Gradient (pement) Travel Lane Width (m) (1) Parking Lane Width (m) Curb and Gutter Width (m) Shoulder Width (m) Median W~dths (m) Raised Curb With Left Turn (tO) Border Area W~dth (m) Vertical Clearance (m) Horizontal Clearance (m) Bridge Width, New (m) Bndqe Width, Ex~stinq (m) URBAN DHSIGN GU1DHLINHS FOR FRINGE OR RF~ID]~NTIAL 4 2 (2) 80 60 120-140 80-90 (4) 280 150 7 8 3.6 3.6 3.3 3.3 (8) 0.8 1.1 4.8 --- 3.6 3.6 5.0 5.0 (H) 3.0 3.0 (l~ IALTI~RNATIVE URBAN DF. SIGN GUIDELINES FOR FRINGE OR RF, SIDEN3'IAL 4 2 (3) 60 50 80- 90 60 - 70 (~ 150 100 8 9 3.3 3.3 2.4 2.4 (9) 0.5 0.5 1.2 4.2 2.4 2.4 4.3 4.3 (12) 0.9 0.9 (14) (16) NOTES: (1) Actual number of lanes based on h~ghway capacity- -more than four lanes refer to AASHTO "Policy~ (Greenbook) (2) Design speed should be posted speed plus 10 km/h, if practicable. (3) Design speed should be equal to or greater than posted speed. (4) Urban areas based on e = 0.04 and rural on e = 0.08. (5) Urban areas based on e = 0.04 and rural on e = 0.08. W~th design speeds of 50 km/h or less, conditmns may warrant elimination of superelevation. (6) Maximum Gradient may be steepened by 2 percent for short d~stances (< 150 m) and on one-way down grades. (1) Gutter width may be included as part of the parking lane w~dth. (8) Curbs should be mountable when the posted speed is 70 km/h or more, if pracbcable (0) Curbs should be mountable when the posted speed is 80 km/h or more. (10) Border area is the area between the roadway and the nght-of-way line. Usually ~ncludes sidewalk at least 1.2 m in width. (]1) RDG = Roadside Design Guide. Horizontal clearance measured from the back of curb; from travel lane on rural section. (t2) Horizontal clearance measured from the back of curb; from travel lane on rural section. Fixed objects (ut~hty poles, traffic signal supports, etc.) which are to be newly restailed or physically relocated because of the project, should be placed at the right-of-way line or at a clearance of 3 m. (13) Bndge w~dth should be, at least, equal to approach width (curb to curb width or lane w~dths plus shoulder width). One sidewalk should be extended across structure. Guardrail should be restailed when posted speed ~s over 60 km/h. Design Loading should be MS- 18. (]4) Bndge w~dth should be, at least, equal to approach w~dth. Long structuras (> 60 m) equal to travel way plus 1.2 m on both s~des. One sidewalk should be extended across structure. Guardrail should be installed when posted speed ~s over 60 km/h. Design Loading should be MS- 18. (D') Bridge width should be, at least, equal to traveled way w~dth plus 0.6 m on both s~des and design loading should be, at least, MS - 13.5; except local may be M- 13.5. Guardrail and bridge rails which are structuraliy deficient and funcbonally obsolete should be rewewed for possible upgradrog. (t6) Bridge w~dth should be, at least, equal to width of travel way and design loading should be, at least, MS-13.5; except local may be M- 13.5. Guardrail and bridge rails which are structurally deficient and functionally obsolete should be reviewed for possible upgrading. Source: Iowa Dcpartmcat of Transportation 07J03/95 CAROADDES2.WK1 120 TABLE 14A ARTERIAL ROADWAY DESIGN GUIDELINES ENGLISH UNITS DESIGN CRITERIA (t) Traffic Lanes(number) Design Speed (mph) Stopping Sight Distance (ft) Maximum Curvature (degrees) (6) Maximum Gradient (peruant) Travel Lane Width (if) (7) Parking Lane Width (if) Curb and Gutter Width (ft) Shoulder Width (ft) Median W~dths (ft) Raised Curb With Left Turn (lO) Border Area W~dth Vertical Clearance (if) Horizontal Clearance (ft) Bridge Width. New (ft) Bridge Width. Existing (if) URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR FRINGE OR RHSIDI~NTIAL 4 2 (2) 50 40 400-475 275-325 (4) 6 10 7 8 12 12 11 11 ($) 2.5 3.5 6 18 12 12 16.5 16.5 (it) 10 10 (13) 56 32 (15) 52 30 ALTERNATIVE URBAN DF. S1GN GUIDHLINF~S FOR FRINGE OR RHSIDI~NTIAL 4 2 (3) 40 30 275-325 200 (5) 10 19 8 9 11 11 8 8 (9) 1.5 1.5__ 8 8 14 14 (12) 3 3 (t4) 46 24 ¢16~ 44 22 NOTES: (1) Actual number of lanes based on h~ghway capacity- -more than four lanes refer to AASHTO "Policyn (Greenbook) (2) Design speed should be posted speed plus 5 mph. if pracbcable. (3) Design speed should be equal to or greater than posted speed. (4) Urban areas based on e = 0.04 and rural on e = 0.08. (5) Urban areas based on e = 0.04 and rural on e = 0.08. With design speeds of 30 mph or less, conditmns may warrant elimination of superelevation. (6) Maximum Gradient may be steepened by 2 peruant for short distances (<500') and on one-way down grades. (?) Gutter w~dth may be included as part of the parking lane width. (8) Curbs should be mountable when the posted speed is 45 mph or more. if practicable. (9) Curbs should be mountable when the posted speed is 50 mph or more. (10) Border area is the area between the roadway and the right-of-way line. Usually includes s~dewalk at least 4' in width. (ll) RDG = Roadside Design Guide. Horizontal clearance measured from the back of curb; from travel lane on rural section. (12) Horizontal clearance measured from the back of curb; from travel lane on rural section. Fixed objects (utility poles. traffic signal supports. etc.) which are to be newly installed or physically relocated because of the project, should be placed at the right-of-way line or at a clearance of ten feet. (13) Bridge w~dth should be, at least, equal to traveled way plus 4' both sides. Width does not allow for parking or sidewalks One s~dewalk should be extended across structure. Guardred should be installed when posted speed is over 35 mph. Design Loading should be HS-20. ¢143 Bridge width should be. at least. equal to curb to curb w~dth. Width does not allow for parking Or sidewalks. One sidewalk should be extended across structure. Guardrail should be installed when posted speed is over 35 mph, Design Loading should be HS-20. (15) Bridge width should be. st least, equal to curb to curb width and design leading should be, at least, HS-15; except local may be H-15. Guardrail end bridge rails which are structurally deficient and functionally obsolete should be reviewed for possible upgrading. (~6) Bridge width should be. at least, equal to width of travel way and design loading should be. at least. HS-15; except local may be H -15. Guardrail and bddge rails which are structurally deficient and functionally obsolete should be reviewed for possible upgrading. Sourcc: Iowa Department of Transportation 121 02/03/95 C:'~ROAJ)DHS.WK 1 ~ ~ , .=,,~ ~ ~ ,.. TABLE 15 COMPARISON OF ROADWAY DESIGN FEATURES TO GUIDELINES MEIHIC UNITS Traffic Lanes (number) 4 2 4 2 2 Design Speed {krn/h) 80 60 60 50 60 60 3 60 StoppinJ.,Sig.__ht Di. Jstance(_m) __ t._~20-140 __. 80__-.g0__. __ 80-___.~0__. 60-70 __ _eacctaGuidelm, ~c,~C,.,i~,e ~c.tsc-.ideUz., _ Mjnimum Radius (m) NA 0.8 1.1 0,5 0.5 0.5 05 0.5 280 150 150 Curb and Gutter Width Shoulder Width (.__m_) Median Widths (rn) 0 2.6 Raised Curb I 8 ~ - - r 2 - - - With LaitTurn 4 8 - - - 4.2 - - - (2) 6order Area Width {m) 3.6 2.35 NA __.24___ __.53__4/5.34 5.34/3.9 48812.7 488 4.3 NA NA NA 1.0 13.8 NA NA NA Horizontai Clearmqce (re_j_) 3.0 3 0 0 g Bridge Width, New (rn) Bridge Width, Existing (m) (I) Description of A~ternatives: 1, No Action 2: Two - Lane Ro~d, Two-Lane Bridge 3: Three - Lane Road, Two - Lane Bridge 4: Three-Lano Ro~d, Three-Lane Bridge 5' Four -Lane Road, FOUr -L~ne Bridge 6: FNe-Lane Ro~d, Four -Line Bridge 7' Build North Alignment (2) Border Are~: EBst of Hawkin & Drive / West of Hawkins Drife 0.9 1.0 1.0 NA 13.8 9.14 NA TABLE 15A COMPARISON OF ROADWAY DESIGN FEATURES TO GUIDELINES ENGUSH UNITS Traffic Lanes (number) Design Speed (mph) 50 40 Stcpptng Bight DistAnce (ft) Maximum CuNature (degree,~) Maximum Gradient (percent) 400-475 275-325 275-325 200 MceUGuid~IL~ 40 3 40 BY/LIC,'FJ~lIVE(I) 3 4 5 2 40 40 40 40 NA NA NA NA Curb and Guttor Width (It) 2 5 3 5 1.5 1.5 1.5 15 Median Widths 0t) NA (2) Border Area Widl]~ (it) __ 12 12 8 8 17.5/17.5 _ VerticaJ Clearance (it} __ 16 5 16 5 14 14 NA .. Hortzont~J Clearance (~:) Bridge Width, New (~t) 56 32 Bridge WIdth. ExisHng (it) 52 30 (1) Description of Atternatives' 1: No Action 2: Two- Lane Road. Two -L~ne 8ridge 3' Three- L~ne Road. Two- L~ne Bridge 4' Three-lrane RoAd. Thre,)-Lane Bridge 5: Four-Lane RoAd. Four- Lane Bridge 6. Five-Lane Road, Four -Lane Bridge 7: Build North Alignment (2) Border AroA: East of Hawktqs Drive / West of Hawkins Drr/e 3 3 3 46 24 NA 44 22 30 8.5 7.7 NA NA 17.5 / 12.8 16.0 / 8 g NA NA t 3 3 __. 45.3 45.3 HA NA In addition, the proposed design features associated with the various proposed alternatives meet the more stringent IDOT Urban Design Guides with the following exceptions: The three-lane (Alternatives 3 and 4) and four-lane (Alternative 5) alternatives provide for 2.7 meter (8.9 feet) of border area on the north side of Melrose Avenue between Stadium Park Drive and Hawkins Drive. This does not meet the Urban Design Criteria of 3. 6 meter (11.8 feet). Alternatives 2 through 7 provide 3.3 meter (10.8 foot) wide travel lanes. This does not meet the Urban Design Criteria of 3.6 meter (11.8 feet). Alternative 1, 2 and 7 provide 0.5 meters (1.6 feet) of curb and gutter width. This does not meet the Urban Design Guide requirement of 1.1 meter (3.6 feet) for two-lane roadways. Alternatives 5 and 6 provide 0.5 meter (1.6 feet) of curb and gutter width. This does not meet the Urban Design Guide requirement of 0.8 meter (2.6 feet) for four-lane roadways. Alternative 7 consists of a two-lane alignment extending from Melrose Avenue to Hawkins Drive across University of Iowa property. The design features associated with this alternative are consistent with the Alternative Urban Design guides and the Urban Design guides. Conclusions The existing Average Daily Traffic Volume on Melrose Avenue is approximately 13,500 vehicles per day (vpd). Forecast year (Year 2015) daily traffic volumes were developed through use of Iowa City's QRS II model and data provided by the City for each of the alternatives. The forecast Average Daily Traffic volume on Melrose Avenue east of Hawkins Drive ranges from 13,800 vpd to 18,600 vpd for the various alternatives. Roadway segment capacity analysis indicates that Melrose Avenue currently provides LOS C/D operation. Roadway segment capacity analysis indicates that, with design year traffic forecasts, a two-lane roadway would provide a mid LOS D, a three-lane roadway a LOS D, a four lane roadway a LOS C, and a five-lane roadway a LOS B operation. Therefore, simply based on roadway segment operation, it can be concluded that the two and three lane alternatives do not meet the City's design criteria, the three and four lane would meet the design criteria, and the five-lane alternative would exceed the design criteria. 124 The results of the intersection capacity analysis indicate moderate to " heavy levels of congestion at all of the key intersections with forecast year ~affic conditions regardless of the roadway alternative. Analysis of compiled accident data indicates that as volumes rise and roadways are widened, the presence of le, ft-tum lanes is the most important predictor of accident experience. The four-lane undivided urban arterial (no left turn lane) has the highest acddent rate of any urban roadway. The addition of a left-turn lane (the three-lane or five-lane alternatives) have proven to reduce accidents by as much as 60 percent. Analysis indicates that the key intersections do not .appear to have a significant accident problem. The geometric design review indicates that the alternatives meet the IDOT Alternative Urban Design Guides, with the following exceptions: 1) The five-lane alternative (6) provides for 1.38 meter (4.5 feet) of border area on the north side of Melrose Avenue between Hawkins Drive and Byington Road. In comparing the design features of the seven alternatives with the more stringent urban design guides established by the [DOT, every alternative reports at least one item which does not meet the guidelines. These deficiendes primarily consist of curb and gutter width, travel lanes 3.3 meter (10.8 feet )instead of recommended 3.6 meter (11.8 feet), and horizontal clearance 0.9 meter (3 feet) instead of recommended 3 meter (9.8 feet), in addition to the deficiencies mentioned above. 5.5 CONSTRUCTION-RELATED IMPACTS Poten~al short-term impacts that would stem directly from construction activities and affect construction areas include: changes in air quality, water quality, and noise levels, visual impacts and traffic disruptions and detours. None of these impacts would be significant; all should be manageable. 5.5.1 .Social During the construction phase, access to some community facilities and houses will be temporarily affected. In order to minimize disruptions, a specific traffic plan for use during construction will be developed. The Klotz Tennis Courts, University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics, Kinnick Stadium, University of Iowa Field House, child care facilities to the north and south of Melrose Avenue, and single/multi -family residences to the north and south of Melrose Avenue will be temporarily impacted by 125 construction activities. Anticipated impacts include dust, noise, access interruptions and acquisition. Potential measures to mitigate these problems may include erosion control fences, and temporary detour traffic plans. Mitigation of noise impacts may not be feasible during the construction period. However, the contract could limit certain construction activities to certain hours of the day. 5.5.2 Economic/Fiscal Impact Within the City of University Heights, the convenience store/dental office, located directly to the west of the railroad bridge would be the primary private business impacted during the construction stage of the project. As noted previously, a traffic plan for the construction stage will be prepared. Mitigation of access problems may be addressed in the traffic plan, and may include: installing temporary signs directing motorists to businesses that have had their access changed during the construction period; providing temporary access to the extent possible to properties that lose their permanent driveways during construction. The Melrose Avenue Bridge and Street reconstruction project is anticipated to generate construction-related employment opportunities. The number of jobs created will correlate with the range of $1,780,000 to $3,345,000 in construction costs. Because the proposed bridge and street project is in part being funded with federal Bridge Replacement funds and STP funds, they are considered "new money" into the local economy. 5.5.3 Land Use and Community Development No adverse impact on land use or community development are anticipated to occur during the construction period. 5.5.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Movement There will be some unavoidable disruption of pedestrian and bicycle movements during the construction phase. A traffic plan may be developed to address impacts and accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists during construction. 5.5.5 Visual Construction activities will entail the presence of heavy machinery and equipment. Th~ latter will be most visible in residential areas along the 126 Melrose Avenue corridor. By limiting the construction period, the visual impact caused by construction vehicles and equipment will be 'minimized. 5.5.6 Transportation Increases in traffic on some residential and University streets will occur during the construction period. It is anticipated that Benton Street to the south will experience an increase in traffic. As indicated previously, a traffic plan will be prepared during subsequent stages of the project. Traffic on the bridge could be maintained under the four-lane bridge alternative. Under each of the Build Alternatives, Melrose Avenue will be closed during the duration of the paving. 5.5.7 Air Ouality Construction dust and exhaust from construction equipment may have a temporary impact on air quality. As well, carbon monoxide and other vehicle.related pollutant may increase in areas under construction due to reductions in traffic capacity, lane closures, and other construction related delays. Most construction equipment will be diesel powered, so carbon monoxide emissions from equipment should be minimal. 5.5.8 Noise Noise will be generated by equipment and machinery used during construction. It is anticipated that noise impacts would be of short duration and would vary depending on the types of equipment used, the location of the equipment, and the operating mode. Variables that will have an effect on noise levels include the following: Distance between construction equipment and receiver Types of equipment in use Percent of time the equipment attains peak noise level Noise control features incorporated in the equipment and Time of day construction activities can occur 5.5.9 Wetlands/Vegetation and Wildlife Wetlands would not be nnpacted during the construction of any of the alternatives. Under Alternative 7, construction would occur in areas previously undisturbed. Construction would be scheduled and designed so that trees are not cut down indiscriminately. 5.5.10 Disposal and Borrow Stable material that conforms with Iowa City's standards and definitions may be disposed of by burying in roadway embankments, and 127 combustible material disposed of in a landfill. Off-site disposal would be at publicly controlled dump sites, or at sites arranged for and secured by the contractor which would not create a public nuisance or result in unsightly conditions. Disposal would be done in accordance with 1DOT specifications and according to a disposal plan satisfactory to the project engineer. 5.5.11 Public Safety Construction activities may impact existing emergency vehicle access routes. Alternative emergency vehicle routes may be identified and discussed in the traffic plan, including access to the University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics as well as police and fire routes. Open excavations will be fenced off to protect the public from entering. 128 I 129 CITY OF IOWA CITY F' [-. [. 1_ !' 1. I' i ! 6.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION 6.1 COORDINATION WITH GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES During the preparation of the Melrose Avenue Street and Bridge Environmental Assessment (EA), the following agencies were contacted to obtain baseline information, and/or to discuss the potential impacts of the proposed action: Federal Highway Administration · Iowa Historical Society Iowa Department of Transportation Iowa Department of Natural Resources · Soil Conservation Service City of Iowa City City of University Heights · University of Iowa · University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association Ongoing coordination will take place with these and other reviewing agencies during subsequent stages of the project. Copies of · correspondence received during the preparation of the EA are included in the Appendix. 6.2COORDINATION WITH MELROSE AVENUE FOCUS GROUP Representation on the Melrose Avenue and Bridge Environmental Assessment Focus Group is as follows: Federal Highway Administration Iowa Department of Transportation City of Iowa City City of University Heights Melrose Avenue Nei§hborhood Association Benton Street Residents Melrose Avenue Residents Near West High School University of Iowa University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics Involvement of the Focus Group initiated back in November 1993 during the preparation of the Request For Proposal (RFP) for the Environmental 130 Assessment. During the drafting of the RFP the Focus Group provided input into the alternatives to be addressed in the Environmental Assessment, function of Melrose Avenue, as well as the specific impact areas to be assessed. During the preparation of the Environmental Assessment, each of the Focus Group members were contacted by BRW Inc. to arrange a one on one interview regarding the project. Meetings with the following Focus Group representatives occurred on May 4 and 5, 1994: University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics University of Iowa City of Iowa City City of University Heights Melrose Avenue Neighborhood Association Minutes of the aforementioned meetings were prepared and distributed to each of the Focus Group members. Interviews with the Focus Group representatives provided the City of Iowa City's consultant, BRW Inc., with the following information: Background information on the project Existing documentation (e.g., plans, statistics, design of facilities Areas of primary concern Existing Condition information (e.g. areas of heavy pedestrian traffic) Copies of the Environmental Assessment document will be distributed to each member of the Melrose Avenue Focus Group. 6.3 REVIEW AND COMMENT PERIOD A public hearing will be held during the comment period for this project. A Court Reporter will record legal testimony at the hearing, and forms will be made available so that written testimony can also be taken. Comments on the hearing and responses will be presented in this Chapter of the Final Environmental Assessment. The hearing date, time and venue will be advertised as an official Public Notice of the City of Iowa City, in the City's official newspaper, the Iowa City Press-Citizen. The Notice will appear at least fffirty days prior to the hearing date. 131 Copies of the Environmental Assessment will be available for public review throughout the comment period. The copies will be on reserve at the following locations: City of Iowa City Civic Center 410 East Washington Avenue Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 Iowa City Public Library 123 South Linn Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Questions about the contents of the document and the par~cipation/ communication process should be directed to: Mr. Jeff Davidson Assistant Director of Planning and Community Development City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 (319) 356-5252 ill 133 CITY OF IOWA CITY CITY OF IOWA CITY IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE MEMORANDUM JULY 1992 Iowa Depa ment of Tran ation 800 Ltncoln V~ ~s, [o~a 50010 515-239 1348 Septembe~ 2, 1992 Re: 8~-4066(1)--8N-52 City of [o~a C~ty Johnson County Dennis S. Gannon, P. ~. Assistant C~ty Engineer 410 L ~ashtngton SireeL [o~a City, XA 52~40 Dear Hr. Gannon: Subject: ~elrose Avenue from Olive Court Easterly Approximately 10~5 ft. to East of Melrose Plece. On August 31, lggZ the Federal Highway Administration concurred with the Project Classification/Environmental Clearance memo submitted by this Office for the above referenced project. The project has been classified as a Type [I! Action (Categorical [xclusion). This type of project does not require the Xowa Action Plan location/design public hearing. A copy of the Project Classification/Environmental Clearance memo is attached. Feel free to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, William A. Itelson, P. E. Urban Systems Projects Engineer Office of Local Systems WAN:bka Attach,nents cc: District Six OCfice N.N.W. Inc. TO Offic~ ARO~SOfi Of flea ! D, PAG£ 4 Iowa Department of Trans:permeation HIGHWAY DIVISION Dire JuLy Z&, I~J)Z City of love City Project Ctiaelficatic~/Er~lronm~tst Clecrlr~e He~lt~Lac~.100 f~, *, ut~ e~r~a~h Cg~.z~ ~o ~? ~, g-I ~v~t Zf~r ~r~fft~ Tznes). UILL the J~'~s~ proJKt Ca) Affect any SecTloft &Cf) e~o~ter ~t to SH~ (G) Affect e~y fLo<x~leim or uet Lands? ......................... ~ Yes r-T Cd) Provide smo~r~ctl~of 4 gr~re {~ ~ {~ltl~{ ..... ~ T~ ~.t~t ~ternJ? ........................................ ~ Ye~ (f) lnvotve; ~lrge~t of~tlt$~, dirtiest of a d[lr~tim to t~l~ traffic ~Rlr~? ........................ ~ Tee the propgs~ projeCt cc~totKt uith The State I~p[~tatlm P&en to attain ~ ~lntain o ~t~t ~(~t air ~tlty % ~, Ytth recpe~t tarries, the j~oposKIproJect te (b)~ ]I Project (c)~ot re~it~ to I~ree~ traffic &. The prc~e~ project r~q~ieea (a)..._._~o rtght-of-~ay Ktivltfel X., Ac~lgl~l~of "ltrf~ rlght-of-~y Ac~leltf~ of ~tfr$ Iffor~ ..................................................... ~ V.~ ~ He (b) A C~l~ I~i~{~-~l~tlq heorl~, or~rt~l~ Iffor~ ..................................................... ~ Tea ~ NO e ~lril Hlg ¥a~tritJon For ~he OlvJsto~ AcbJnletrltor ALHf~AJ(:bke Attachment City of levi City J~oze to FJ~'~k~s Attl~l we three (3) cople~ of thtm ,m~smrard.~ Ptee~e f~t~p~ tb~ (2) Ironed c~plea to ~hl O~flee 8£~-~-84 10 ~S I~A~E S FROM~ ID: Sta. teStozicaJ So et7 The H~stoncal Diws~on o~ the Department of Cultural Affairs ~ ' ~ul¥ 20, 2~92 Iowa Depar,:nent o~ Transportation 800 Lt. ncoXn · ~c$, IA $0010 In reply refer R&C~: 920452018 RE: Ff~A - BR~-4066(1)-SN-$2 o JOB~SON C0UI~I~ - I0~A CITY, IO~A BRIDG~ REP~C~ OV~ ~E IO~A I~T~E ~I~0~ ~D HE~OSE FOR APPROXI~T~Y 1000 FEET Dear l~ndy: Based on ~ha infoma~ion you provided, we £ind ~hac there are no historic prope~t~a~ which ~igh~ be affected by the proposed undertaking. liberators, we recommend proJacg approval. However, if the proposed proJecc votk o~covers an item or items ~hich night ba of a~chaological, historical or archicac~ural interest, or if lmpor~an~ da~a come to ltgh~ in the proJec~ area, you should make reasonable e~forcs ~o avoid o~ minimize harm ~o ~he proper~y until ~ha signl£icanca of the discovery can be de~evained. Should you have any queerlens or l~ ~he office can be of £urrher assistance ~o you, please contact ~he Review & Co~pliance Sincerely, A~cheo~ogis~, Review and Compliance Program Hlscoric Frasexva~lon Bureau 402 Iowa Avenue C} Capital Complex n Montauk Iowa City, Iowa 52240 De~ Moines/iowa 50319 . Box 372 (319) 33513916 (515) 281-5111 Clefre,mi. I.wn ~21~S LETTERS REGARDING NEED FOR EA: STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF IOWA, FEBRUARY, 1993 FHWA, MARCH, 1993 (2 MEMOS) IOWA DOT, MARCH, 1993 II State Historical Sode of Iowa The Historical Division of the Department of Cultural Affairs February 26, 1993 In reply refer to RC# 920452018 Randall B. Faber Historic Preservation Specialist Office of Project Planning Planning and Research Division Iowa Department of Transportation 800 Lincoln Way Ames, Iowa 50010 RE: FHWA (DOT) - BRM-4066(1)-SN-52 - JOHNSON COUNTY - IOWA CITY, IOWA - BRIDGE REPLACEMENT OVER THE IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD AND WIDEN MELROSE FOR APPROXIMATELY 1000 FEET - REVISION OF J~JLY 28, 1992 LETTER IN LIGHT OF NEW INFORMATION. Dear Randy: This letter is to add to our comments of July 28, 1992 about the proposed project. The comments made at that time were based solely on the direct impact of the bridge project and the removal of a less than 50 year old bridge. A second look at this undertaking leads us to issue two additional comments, the effect of which suggests that project review be re-opened. First, while the bridge that would be replaced is itself non- historic, the kind of bridge proposed to replace it--one which increases the number of lanes from two to four--may have an adverse effect on nearby properties'listed on or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The effect of funding the project to install a wider bridge will be to put into effect the widening of Melrose Avenue from two to four lanes and the magnitude of this change with the accompanying changes in traffic volume may diminish the historic character of at least two properties listed in the National Registsr, namely, the A. W. Pratt house at 503 Melrose Avenue and the Billingsley-Hills House at 629 Melrose Avenue. In our opinion, but for this undertaking to replace the existing bridge with a wider bridge, the four-lane widening of Melrose Avenue would not happen and its accompanying potential adverse effects on the National Register properties would not occur. Therefore we cannnot recommend that the project proceed without ~aking into account whether ~he undertaking may diminish the properties' setting and sense of time and place by introducing visual and audible elements that are out of character with the nearby National Register residences (36 CFR, Part 800.9(b) (3)). ~ 4[)2 Iowa *\venue Iowa Cih', Iowa 522411 (3lg) 335-3916 Cap,h,I Complex Des ,~ o ~e~,. owa 51)31'-I (515) 2Sl-5111 ~ Montauk B~x 372 Clernmnt. h~wa 32135 (31'4) 423-7173 Page 2 Second, the City's actions will need to satisfy the requirements of Iowa Code 314.24. This stipulates that cities ~shall to the extent practicable preserve and protect the natural and historic heritage of the state in the design, construction, reconstruction, relocation, repair, or maintainance of roads, streets, or highways." Cities are directed to avoid historic sites "if reasonable alternatives are available" for the location of streets and, to do this, cities "shall make a diligent effort to identify and examine the comparative cost of utilizing alternative locations" for streets. Additional review of this project is further warranted, in our view, as a result of the recent completion of the Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan. This singles out for attention Neighborhood 11: West Side - Melrose Avenue and identifies several objectives which include retaining historic landscape settings and improving visual relationships between historic residences and modern developments such as parking areas. Should you have any questions regarding our findings and recommendations, please feel free to contact me at (515) 3306. 281- Sincerely, Lowell J. Soike, Ph.D. Historian, Bureau of Historic Preservation cc: ~Roger Anderberg, Local Systems Dan Mathis, Federal Highway Administration Dennis Gannon, Iowa City Engineers Office Steve Ballard, City Attorney, City of University Heights MaryAnn Naber, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Jim Jacobsen, Historic Preservation Bureau, State Historical Society o£ Iowa I .' Sublecl F~om I. US Dep~nmem Oi' Tronsponol~on Federol Highway Admlnlstmtlon C. I. MacGilllvray Memorandum BRM-4066(1), Melrose Avenue Bridge Replacement, Iowa City Division Administrator, FHWA Ames, Iowa Director Highway Division, Iowa DOT A~tention: Mr. George Sisson Ames, Iowa oate March 9, 1993 Reoly Io A,,~ o, HB-IA We understand some questions have been raised concerning the design of the above project and the eligibility of Federal-aid funding. Requkements for the design of Federal-aid highway projects are found in Title 23 - United States Code, Highways, Section 109, Standards. It states: "(a) The Secretary shall not approve plans and specifications for proposed highway projects under this chapter if they fail to provide for a facility (I) that will adequately meet the existing and probable future traffic needs and conditions in a manner conducive to safety, durability, and economy of maintenance; (2) that will be designed and constructed in accordance with standards best suited to accomplish the foregoing objectives and to conform to the particular needs of each locality." As with all Federal-aid projects, the subject bridge replacement project shall conform with ./ the above Federal law and be consistent with the MPO's transpotation improve-nent plan. Ronald R. Salmons Assistant Division Administrator CC: C. I. MacGillivray L. E. Richardson Form 000020 2-75 X- 2690 To ~'fice Attention From Office Subject IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration H. A. Willard, Division Administrator Daniel M. Mathis, District Engineer Date Ref. Xo. Roger L o Anderberg Local Systems March 9, 1993 BRM-4066(1)--8N-52 Iowa City Mdlrose Avenue over II RR Status of Project Environmental Clearance Attached is a copy of a February 26, 1993 letter from Lowell J. Soike of the State Historic Preservation Officer's staff. Dr. Soike is, in effect, revoking the historical clearance for the referenced project which was given July 28, 1992. The Office of Local Systems concurs in this action. It is arguable that the construction of a four-lane bridge over the Iowa Interstate railroad would be the precursor of widening Melrose Avenue. It could also be argued that during the fifty year design life of a two-lane bridge, it would be a "bottle neck" on a four-lane street that would require the waste of significant investment if widening were to be undertaken. Because of recent concerns for historically significant properties, environmental effects, and neighborhood impacts expressed by members of the public and elected officials, the Department believes further studies of project alternates are warranted. The Office of Local Systems recommends the environmental clearance granted for this project on August 31, 1992 be revoked. A further recommendation, should Iowa City choose to continue the development of a Federal Highway Bridge Replacement .and Rehabilitation project, is that a minimum of four project alternates be studied. We believe it prudent to investigate the feasibility, assess the environmental effects, determine the impacts on historically significant properties, and evaluate consistency with long range transportation needs of the following alternates: (1) "do nothing" or "no build"; (2) rehabilitate (repair) the existing bridge; {3} remove and construct a two-lane bridge (replace in-kind); (4} remove and construct a four-lane bridge. The local officials may wish to add alternates such as a three lane faci'ity and/or a "bypass" location. May we have the concurrence and approval of Federal Highway Administration in these recommendations? bcc: G. F. Sisson L. E. Richardson M. R. Burr H~ S. Budd Ro E. Kautz R. B. Faber George F. Sisson Deputy D]y_e~ctor-Development Actin.~~~eer by Roger L/Anderberg, P.E. Urban Systems Engineer Office of Local Systems RLA:Jeb Attachment cc: Charles Schmadeke, Public Works Director, Iowa City Lowell J. Soike, Historian, Bureau of Historic Preservation Subjecl [: TO USDeparm~en! ol Transport.on Federal Highway Administration Roger Anderberg Memorandum BRlVi-4066(1), Melrose Avenue Bridge Iowa City Division Administrator, FIffWA Ames, Iowa Director Highway Division, Iowa DOT Attenfiorl: Mr. George Sisson Ames, Iowa Date. March 31, 1993 Reoly to Arm of. ~ILA This is in response to your March 9, 1993, memorandum concerning the environmental clearance for the subject project. We concur that the environmental clearance granted for this project on August 31, 1992, be rescinded. We also concur with your recommendation, should Iowa City choose to continue development of a Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Project, that as a minimum, the four project altomates noted in your memorandum be studied. We agree that it is prudent to assess the environmental effects of various alternates for this project. CC: Roger Anderberg Harry Budd Daniel M. Mathis Operations Engineer STRUCTURE INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL FORM 1994, NNW S£P-2G-~4 10,24 PROM, ID~ P~GE 2 IOWA STRUCTURE INVENTORY AND APPRAISAL SHEET IOENTIFICATION ~UNI C I PAL .... INSPECTIONS toc.[Ol ~ELROSE AVE mL~Om~ 0,00 STRUCTURE TYPE AND MATERIAL CONDITION AP~OACA 11tf iIAfi V f v AGE AND S~'RVICE lot TIAA n(CD~lT ~ ii lit kvi OAIIT 11irll~ 10600 G~OMETRIC OATA ~l ~ox;tlt IPan ~k ~l is xo~. mot. c.C ~O.O R oleg WSOT. o-o k3.~ J~ ,A]OG~ u~o~. NONE Ot IIAVCT~Ri ~tAAIO ~0 il tOtAt ROAIZ C~l&. AT ~0.0 tt NAVIOATIO~ DATA Jl BAri{All08 COntaot N lit fl[~ PROTIGhON IO UA~OAtJOa ~Ollt C~IAR et cwv __, _ ~ APPRAISAL AIIllI II,lJ . o(cA .o - ' ~ $ 210 ~0 LAST RECORO~O INSPECTION MELROSE AVENUE TRAFFIC DATA TABLE A-I MELROSE AVENUE KEY INTERSECTIONS, IOWA CITY, IA EXISTING PEAK HOUR I/OLUMES AND GEOMETRICS [ Traffic No. Intersection Control Melrose Ave. All-Way I & Stop Golfview / Koser Melr0se Ave. Traffic 2 ' & Signal Hawkins Dr. Melrose Ave. Through/ & Stop S. Grand Ave. (I) Melrose Ave. Through/ & Stop Byington Ct. (2) Riveraide Dr. Traffic & Signal Grand/Burlington Panmete. , ~ N. orth Appma.~:h ....... RT I TH !. LT " pM P.e,~k_Hg_u_r . M.i.ct.dpyj;e_!akZ .H__ou_r ' Geometrics 0 I 0 ........... PM Peak Hour 390 L~i~'!i~?~ 418 N~idd;y i3;;1~ H'~,ui" i6~2 .~;~5~. ~ 278 AM Peak Hour 115 ,~,:L.~.2~! 239 I '0 Geometrics I !. PM Peak Hour (,35 ~ . ...... ! ........ Midday Peak Hour: ~; .... ....... ..~ AM .Pe~k Hour , '2 ,~T, '; 3 '; '~:a' ' 7./-'/. ;'~~~~i$~ 295 6 0 0 1 I ~ ~ , ~ ....... , ,:, ~ 160 '' 104 292 615 153 17 613 270 95 4 0 I 0 1 i' . 226 443 301 228 ; : :'.'i'~: ~:. Information at these times was not collected. ~f~7~!~ ' No approach from these directions. (1) The minor street is the east approach on Melrose Ave. which is stop controlled, the major street is the north approach on S. Grand and the west approach on Melrose Ave. (2) The minor street is the s~uth approach on gyingtcm Ct, which i~ stop controlled; tile major street is the we~t approach on Melrose Ave. Source: Turn movement counts taken by BRW, Inc. on 4/27/94 and 4/28/94; geometries provided by BRW, Inc. 09/02/94 C:\MELIEXVL.WKt TABLE A-2 ..... MELROSE AVENUE PROJECTED GROWTH RATES ALTERNATIVES 1 AND 2 PAGE 1 OF 3 Location of Count Melrose W. of Mormon Trek Melrose E. of Mormon Trek Melrose W. of Sunset Melrose E. of Sunset Melrose W. of Stadium Melrose W. of Hawkins Melrose E. of Hawkins Existing Year Future Year ADT ADT 0994) (2015) 2,980 4,850 6,500 8,478 8,600 11,217 10,000 12,693 8,600 10,916 11,000 13,962 11,000 13,516 Average Growth Rate Along Melrose Ave. Mormon Trek N. of Melrose 9,380 11,265 Mormon Trek S. of Melrose 10,200 12,435 Sunset S. of Melrose 3,400 3,964 Hawkins N. of Melrose 11,000 13,841 S. Grand N. of Melrose 8,400 10,321 Grand W. of Riverside 23,000 28,260 Riverside N. of Grand 23,600 27,105 Burlington E. of Riverside 21,000 26,001 Riverside S. of Grand 23,000 26,364 Hawkins W. of Elliott 10,000 13,746 Elliott N. of Hawkins 6,000 7,433 Hawkins E. of Elliott 10,000 13,328 Growth Growth R~te Multiplier 2.3% 1.6 1.3% 1.3 1.3% 1.3 1.1% 1.3 1.1% 1.3 1.1% 1.3 1.0% 1.2 1.3% 1.3 0.9% 1.2 0.9% 1.2 0.7% 1.2 1.1% *'* 1.3 1.0% 1.2 1.0% 1.2 0.7% 1.1 1.0% 1.2 0.7% 1.1 1.5% 1.4 1.4% 1.3 _ Ave_r~_g.e_._G_ro_wt_h__R. ate of Remaining Assignments1.0% 1.2 Average Growth Rate of Study Area 1.1% 1.3 * * The greater of the two growth rates on Melrose Avenue tmmedtately to the east and west of Ha~vkias Drtve was used as the growth rate for ttawkins Drive north of Melrose ,4velnte. I Existing Year ] Annual* Location of Count ] ADT Growth J__ __(1994) Rate Golfview N. of Melrose 509 Koser S. of Melrose 3,507 Melrose E. of S. Grand 7,505 Melrose W. of Byington 7,505 Byington N. of Melrose 6.723 .... .M_e_ !r_o_s_e E. of B~[n.qt_o_9 ....585 Future Year ] 21Year ADT [ Growth .__(2015).___[ Mul_ tlplie~ . O. 5% 565 1.1 0.5% 3,894 1.1 1.2% 9,641 1.2 1.2% 9,641 1.2 1.2% 8,637 1.2 0.5% 650 1.1 * There are two different values for the assigned growth rate: xx x%. These rates are assumed to be low since they are minor streets with no room for development. xx.x% - These rates are assumed to be the average for the other locatioos along Melrose Ave. excluding the highest and lowest growth rates. SOURCE: Iowa City Existing and Forecasted ADTs and BRW, Inc. 09127/94 C:\GROW1.WKI TABLE A-2 MELROSE AVENUE FORECASTED INTERSECTION VOLUMES ALTERNATIVES 1 AND 2 PAGE 2 OF 3 NO. LOCATION BY APPROACII .......... 9".'.+!s !"'~';;.ST sou~ss 1 Melrose Ave. and 509 8.600 3,507 GolfviewlKoser 3 i Me rose Ave and I 5 Riverside Dr. and Grand/Burlington 11.000 ~ 1 300 8 400 7.505 6.723 23.600 21.000 10.000 11 0% i 11.000 105% .COO 9 3% 585 7.505 11 9% 23.000 I 23.000 102% EXISTING CONDITIONS F. is'r '[ s~'t/rn [ ..,.. 152% 11.0% J 93% ~ I' 9'F,- I 13 2% c; 6% 11 6% . i ~ 12 5~;. 12.8% 10 8% 9' 5% 7.9% ~07 1~ / 282 308 / 625 1% 27% I 73% 33% I 67% 50 I 25 792 / 16 67% / 33% 98% / 2% 783 I 1.393 ~ I.~0 / BY./~rP_R0._ACll 29 27 900 / 52% 48% 69% I 8C8 344 669 ..' 70% 30% 453;, I 674 ! 103 52 I 87% i 13% Tlc, S I 55% I 45% 51% / INTER. e J ADT I NO. LOCATION BY A PPROACII '~'&~l'F[" ~T' l ~s~si' [ Melrose Ave and Gol~new/Koser 2 Melrose Ave and Hawkins Or. 3 Melrose Ave. and South Grand Ave 4 Melrose Ave. and Bymgton Ct. 5 Riverside Dr and Grand/Buffington 600 10.900 3,900 t 12,700 13.800 13.500 b: ,': 14.000 L, .0. 00..60013.500 I;'.~. :':::~ ' :? ~ 600 9,600 6,e oo :i:: ' 27,100 [ 26,000 26.400 28,300 FUTURE CONDITIONS/,YEAR 2015) IANNUAI'TRAFFICGROt'VTI{RATE I P~,AKIIOURDIRECTIONALSPLITS(VOLUME/pERCENT) BY APPROACH BY APPROACII. JlNBOUND/OUTBOUND} 0,5% I I% ~ 2% 0 7% 0 5% 0 5% 0.7% 11% 30 / 52% / 30 1.140 I 48% 69% I 70%- i 830 / 130 57%; 13% 12% 0 I 1.020 0% / 10~/0 10% 1.530 I 1,230 55% / 45% 52O 31% 430 820 ! 960 46% I 54% 100 I 820 11% / 89% 1.550 / 1.480 51% I 49% 120 / 310 390 I 790 27% / 73% 33% / 67% 610 I 1.060 37% / 63% 840 / 850 50% I 50% 50 / 30 1.010 I 20 67% / 33% 98% I 2% 900 1.600 1.300 / 940 36% 64% 580/0 I 42% SOIJRCES: Iowa Department or Tra~sportaiion, Iowa City ~d BRW, Inc. TAELE A-2 MELROSE AVENUE FORECASTEO INTERSECTION VOLUMEE PAGE 3 OF 3 E, Approach =~ozve= 96% Peak Hour % for x TABLE A-3 ...... MELROSE AVENUE PROJECTED GROWTH RATES ALTERNATIVES 3 AND 4 PAGE 1 OF 3 Location of Count I Melrose W. of Mormon Trek Melrose E. of Mormon Trek Melrose W. of Sunset Melrose E. of Sunset Melrose W. of Stadium Melrose W. of Hawkins Melrose E. of Hawkins Exbtlng Year Fu~re Year ADT ADT (1994) (2015) 2,980 7,952 6,500 10,474 8,600 13,858 10,000 16,341 8,600 14,054 11,000 17,976 11,000 17,090 Average Growth Rate Along Melrose Ave. Mormon Trek N. of Melrose 9,380 Mormon Trek S. of Melrose 10,200 Sunset S. of Melrose 3,400 Hawkins N. of Melrose 11,000 S. Grand N. of Melrose 8,400 Grand W. of Riverside 23,000 Riverside N. of Grand 23,600 Burlington E. of Riverside 21,000 Riverside S. of Grand 23,000 Hawkins W. of Elliott 10,000 Elliott N. of Hawkins 6,000 Hawkins E. of Elliott 10,000 Average Growth Rate of Remainin.q 11,616 12,452 5,540 18,101 13,051 35,734 29,083 29,027 25,442 11,868 7,566 : 11,628 Assignments Annual 21 Year Growth I Growth Rate ~[__Multlplter 4.8% 2.7 2.3% 1.6 2.3% 1.6 2.4% 1.6 2.4% 1.6 2.4% 1.6 2.1% 1.6 2.7% 1.8 1.0% 1.2 1.0% 1.2 2.4% 1.6 2.4% ** 1.6 2.1% 1.6 2.1% 1.6 1.0% 1.2 1.6% 1.4 0.5% 1.1 O.8% 1 2 1.1% 1.3 0.7% 1.2 1,4% 1.3 Average Growth Rate of Study Area 1.9% 1.5 * * The greater of the nvo growth rales on Melrose Avenue immediately to the east and west of Hawkins Drive was used a~ the growth rate for Hawkins Drive nortit of Melrose ,4venue Location of Count Golfview N. of Melrose Koser S. of Melrose Melrose E. of S. Grand Melrose W. of Byington Byington N. of Melrose Melrose E. of Byinp~on Existing Year I Annual* ADT IGrowth ~:..~994)____l~..~Rate 509 3,507 7,505 7,505 6,723 585 Future Year I 21 Year ADT I Growth _. ~(2015) .... l~M_ _u!t_iplie r 0.5% 565 1.1 0.5% 3,894 1.1 2.4% 12,350 1.6 2.4% 12,350 1.6 2.4% 11,063 1.6 O.b% 650 1.1 There are two different values for the assigned growth rate: .r.x.x% . These rates are assumed to be low since they are minor streets with no room for development. xx.x% - These rates are assumed to be the average for the other locations along Melrose Ave. excluding the highest and lowest growth rates. SOURCES: Iowa City Existing and Forecasted ADTs and BRW, Inc. 09/27194 C:\GROW3.WR1 TABLE A-3 MELROSE AVENUE FORECASTEl:) INTERSECTION VOLUMES ALTERNATIVES 3 AND 4 PAGE 2 OF 3 "YAPS"OAt" 1 MeiroseAve. and 50g 8..600 3.507 10.000 110% 5.2% ! 11.0% t 93% 2 H"~r^ Ave a~c ' 1'.0~)C 'I.003 .... se H~w.kms Dr 7,505 So~:!h G'an~ Ave Me rose Ave anc S, 723 Riverside Dr. and 23,600 Grand/BurlingtOn 1: .3C3 ~; I.(:0.." 9 3% 55'5 7,5~5 ~1.9% 108% 23,000 23.000 105% 132% ' ' . i 119% ..i 96%; · 125% 11.6% 21,000 102% 12 8% 9.5% EXISTING CONDITIONS BY APPROACll (INBO UND/OUTBOUND) 29 27 I 900 407 104 I 282 308 I 625 52% 48% I 69% 31% 27% / 73% 33% I 67% 808 344 669 781 481 I 833 79% 30% 46% ,54% 37% I 63% 574 R7% 0% 7.9% 1,330 55% 103 82 I 640 681 / 694 13% 11% I 89% 50% / :.50% 801 i ' ' ~CO~,"-' ! , ,: 1.074 1.250 I 1.193 45% 51% / 49% 50 / 25 792 I 67% / 33% 98% I 16 2% 783 I 1,393 1,060 I 763 36% I 64% ,58% I 42% NO, LOCATION I Melrose Ave and I 600 Golf,~ewl,v, oser ..Iowains I>- J i South G'and Av~ 4 Meltose Ave ~.nc 11,100 Bymgton CL 5 Riverside Dr. and 29, 100 Grand/Burlington ADT t BY APPROACH ,EAST SOUTII 14,100 3,900 !7.'30 12.300 . ' I 29.000 25.400 18GOO 24% ,NALSPLITS(VOLUMEIPERCENT) tl :II._(INBOUND I OtFI*BOUND) 670 I20 I 310 500 I 1,020 31% 27% / 73% 33% I 67% ~ 5(Y'/c, I 50% ~i!~'%~!~ 50 I 30 1,300 I 30 ~!~ :~?.!~ 98% 67% I 33% I 2% ,650 860 / 1.540 { 1.650 I 1,180 ~9% ;36% I 64% i 58% I 42% FUTURE CONDITIONS (YEAR 2015) 1.330 I 570 ~ .040 I 67%; 13~ 11% I 0 5% 2 4% 0 5% 2 I% 17.190 2 lc,~ 2 I% 2 4~, : ~.AST 'S0~'~ ].WES'~ 2 4% 0 5% 2. 2.;% [ 2 35,700 PEAK IIOUR DIRECTIO BY APFROACII "' LT.:." 3~ 30 / 1,480 I 52% / 48% I 69% I 0 I 1,320 ' 1.640 / 1.320 1.730 I 55% / 45% 51% I TABLE A-4 MELROSE AVENUE PROJECTED GROWTH RATES ALTERNATIVES 5 AND 6 PAGE 1 OF 3 IExisting Year Location of Count ADT _(1994) ~elrose W, of Mormon Trek 2,980 Melrose E. of Mormon Trek 6,500 Melrose .W. of Sunset 8,600 Melrose E. of Sunset 10,000 Melrose W. of Stadium 8,600 Melrose W. of Hawkins 11,000 Melrose E. of Hawkins 11,000 Futu~ Year ADT (201S) 7,995 10,872 14,385 16,498 14,576 18,643 17,911 Annual Growth Rate 4.8% 2.5% 2.5% 2.4% 2.5% 2.5% 2.3% .Average Growth Rate Along Melrose Ave, · Mormon Trek N. of Melrose 9,380 11,714 Mormon Trek S. of Melrose 10,200 12,192 Sunset S. of Melrose 3,400 5,737 Hawkins N, of Melrose 11,000 18,475 S. Grand N. of Melrose 8,400 13,677 Grand W. of Riverside 23,000 37,450 Riverside N. of Grand 23,600 28,825 Burlington E. of Riverside 21,000 30,205 Riverside S. of Grand 23,000 25,143 Hawkins W. of Elliott 10,000 11,656 Elliott N. of Hawkins 6,000 7,860 Hawkins E. of Elliott 10,000 11,726 Average Growth Rate of Remaining Assignments 2.8% 1.1% 0.9% 2.5% 2.5% 2.3% 2.3% 1.0% 1.7% 0.4% 0.7% 1.3% 0.8% 1.5% Average Growth Rate of Study Area 1.9% 21 Year Growth Multiplier 2.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.8 12 12 1.7 1.7 16 1.6 12 1.4 1.1 12 13 12 1.5 * * TIRe greater of the two growth rates on Melrose Avenue immediately to the east and west of Hawkins Drive was used as tIRe growth rate for Hawkins Drive nortit of Melrose ,~venue. Location of Count Golfview N. of Melrose Koser S. of Melrose Melrose E. of S. Grand Melrose W. of Byington Byington N. of Melrose Melrose E. of Byinqton IExisting Year ADT ..... (1994!~_~ 509 3,507 7,505 7,505 6,723 585 Annual * [ Future Year 21 Year Rate ___( ._ --_ __ r 0.5% 565 1.1 0.5% 3.894 1.1 2.5% 12.605 1.6 2.5% 12,605 1.6 2.5% 11.292 I 6 0.5% 650 1.1 II Ij * There are two different values for the assigned growth rate: xx.x% - These rates are assumed to be low since they are minor streets with no room for development. xx.x% - These rates are assumed to be the average for the other locations along Melrose Ave. excluding the highest and lowest growth rates. SOURCE: iowa City Existing and Forecasted ADTs and BRW, Inc. 09r27/94 C:\G ROW5.W K I TABLE A-4 MELROSE AVENUE FORECASTED INTERSECTION VOLUMES ALTERNATIVES 5 AND 6 PAGE 2 OF 3 tNrE~ ] NO. LOCATION M~roseAve and Gol~iew/Koser 3 Me;:ose Av~; and Scut;t G:~':.'J Ave NORT. I 509 ~ 8.600 3.507 I ;I..13C 7,505 'WF~,"T NORTIt 10,000 110% 11.05C ;C 5% · 1 009 9 3~, 4 Melmse ,'~ve ~.nd ~,723 Bylngton Ct 5 Riverside Dr and 23.600 GrandlBudmgton 21.000 595 7.505 11.6% 23.000 ] 23,000 10.2% INTER. I ] AOT t NO. LOCATIOr~ . §y ~rp,~g~.f:!!. '~,~T~i'Y' ~sT , sou?, I ~ I Melro~Ave and 600 14.600 I 3.900 16.500 Gol~i~/Koser 2 Melrose Ave a-d 18.590 I 3 MelroseA~,e anC I 13.7C3 South Grar'd Ave 4 Melrose Ave erd 11,300 Bymg:on Ct 5 Riverside Dr. and 28.800 Grand/Burlington 12.6D0 !7.99C : 6C0 12.600 30.200 [ 25.100 37.500 PEAK IIOUR PERCENT BY APPROACII EAST S~UTil 152% 11.0% 9 6% E 11 6% 95% EXISTING CONDITIONS 29 52% 9 3% : 838 72% 12 5% 674 / I 87% I 10.8~'~ O ! 0% I 7.9% 1.330 / 55% I PEAK IIOIIR DIR ~ty APPROACII NA I, SPLITS (VOLUME I PERCENT) :II(INBOUND/OUTBOUND) . '~. :' ~'~,~' .__ .l ':. ~,~ "' 407 104 I 282 308 I 826 31% 27% I 73% 33% I 67% ~0 ;~ . 50% / 50% ~:~ 50 I 25 792 I .193 783 / 1.393 1.0~ / 763 ~ 36% / ~% 58% / 42% 27 g00 I 48% 69% I 344 569 1 3C% 46% I 82 I 11% 8,11 100% 1.074 1.250 45% 51% FUTURE CONDITIONS (YEAR 2015) NALSPLITS(VOLUME/P[RCENT) It · .'_ '[ ..... ~, '.' I ' .w~ 690 120 / 310 510 / 1.030 J1% 27% / 73% 33% I 67% 720 850 I 1.520 1.730 I 1,240 ~9% 36% / ~% 58% I 42% 05% [ 2 4% BY APPRO,~C. Jl. EAST ~OlrTll WEST 2 6% 0 5% 2 4% 2 5% ; 2 3% ! 2 5% 10% 17% J 3 5% 2. 0 4% 2.4% PEAK IIOUR DIRE~ BY APPROACII N~)'RTII ~A~T .. 30 / 30 1.530 52% 48% 69% 1.389 55C 1.C90 ~.100: 170 140 I 87% / 13% 11% I 0 I 1,350 0% I 100% .' 1,620 / 1,310 1,800 / 55% / 45% 51% / TABLE A*4 MELROSE AV~ItUE FORECASItD iNTERSECTION VOLUMES ALTER~IAllVE$ S AND S PAGE 3 O P 3 ~ - Iowa C~/exj$lu~j AVerage Daliy Traffic CuJnt TABLE A-5 MELROSE AVENUE PROJECTED GROWTH RATES ALTERNATIVES 7 @ 35 MPH PAGE '1 OF 3 Location of Count Melrose W, of Mormon Trek Melrose E. of Mormon Trek Melrose W. of N. Alignment Melrose E. of N. Alignment Melrose E. of Sunset Melmse W. of Stadium Melrose W. of Hawkins Melrese E. of Hawkins Existing Year Future Year ADT ADT (1994} (2015) 2,980 6,177 6,500 10,882 8,600 10,750 8,600 10,143 10,000 12,210 8,600 10,501 11,000 13,431. 11,000 14,445 Average Growth Rate Along Melrose Ave. Mormon Trek N. of Melrose 9,380 11,838 Mormon Trek S. of Melrose 10,200 11,570 Sunset S. of Melrose 3,400 5,688 Hawkins N, of Melrose 11,000 14,427 S. Grand N. of Melrose 8,400 11,031 Grand W. of Riverside 23,000 30,203 Riverside N. of Grand 23,600 27,981 Burlington E. of Riverside 21,000 25,975 Riverside S. of Grand 23,000 25,207 Hawkins W. of N. Alignment 10,000 12, 170 Hawkins W. of Elliott 10,000 10,453 EIliott N. of Hawkins 6,000 8,233 Hawkins E. of Elliott 10,000 11,210 N. Alignment N. of Meirose N/A 4,560 _N_. Alignment S. of Hawkins N/A 4,350 Annual Growth Rate 3.5% 2.5% 1.1% 0.8% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.3% 1.5% 1.1% 0.6% 2.5% 1.3% ** 1.3% 1.3% 0.8% 1.0% 04% 0.9% 0.2% 1.5% 0.5% N/A N/A _ A.v__eya~_e Growth Rate o{ Remaining Assignments 1.0% 21 Year Growth Multil~_r~ 2.1 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1,4 1.3 1.1 1.7 1.3 1,3 1.3 1,2 1,2 1.1 1,2 1,0 1,4 1.1 N/A N/A 1,3 Average Growth Rate of Study Area 1,2% 1.3 ** The greater of the two growtit rates on Melrose Avenue immedtatel. v to the east and west of Hmvkius Drive was used as the growth rate for Ha~vkins Drive north of Melrose Avenue. Location of Count Llixistiog Year ADT __ (1994) __ Annual * J Future Year I 21 Year Growth ADT Growth Rate__ .... X2_0~ISD____ ~_ Multiplier 0.5% 565 1.1 0.5% 3,894 1.1 1.3% 9,843 1.3 1.3% 9,843 1.3 1.3% 8.818 1.3 0.5% 650 1.1 Golfview ~'.6f~elmse 509 Koser S. of Melrose 3,507 Melrase E. of S. Grand 7,505 Melrose W. of Byington 7,505 Byington N. of Melrose 6,723 Melrose E. of Byin.qton 585 * Them are two different values for the assigned growffi rate: x,~,x% - These rates are assumed to be Io~v smce they are mhwr streets with no room for development xx.x% - These rates are assumed to be the average for the olher localions along Melrese Ave. excluding the highest and lowest growth rates. SOURCE: lo.a City Existing and Forecasied ADTs and BRW, Inc. 09/27/94 C:XGROXVT. Vt,'K I TABLE A-5 MELROSE AVENUE FORECASTED INTERSECTION VOLUMES ALTERNATIVES 7 ~ 35 MPH PAGE 2 OF 3 INTER. NO. LOCATZON Melrose Ave and GolMewlKoser 2 ;~elrose Ave Hawk.-s Cr 3 .','el'ose Ave aRC. SCu'.h Grand Ave 4 Me!rose Ave and ~3y. nG.'.o'~ Ct 5 Riverside Dr. and Grand/Burlington I j Metrose Ave. and 4 Melrose Ave and Bymgton Ct. I 11 I 11.03C 11.C00 7.505 11.00C 585 7,505 23.600 ] 21.000 23.000 NO~TII II.0% 13 5% 9 3% PEAK IIOUR PERCENT '* EA~ 'i s~dT. w~sr' 152% ! 110% 9.3% ; ' ' i 1; 9% i :. '25% ! 3 2 % 9 5% : 1.9% 23.000 102% ~ 11.6% EXISTING CONDITIONS lL SPLITS (VOLUME I PERCENT) 07 104 / 282 308 I 625 % 27% I 73% 33% I 67% Bl ~ !~ ~ 481 I 833 ~ ~! 50% I 50%  50 / 25 792 I 16 ~'! 67% I 33% 98% / 2% ;t3 783 I 1.393 1.060 / 763 % 36% I 64% 58% I 42% 12.8%f 10.8% 9 5% 7 9% PEAK IIOUR DIREC"flONAL: RY APPROACII 29 27 900 I 52% 48% 69% I 8C~ 344 669 I 7C% 30% ~6% ! 674 193 82 1 87% !3% !1~ I 0 5CI ..'="i''''::~ 1,330 / 1.074 1.250 / 1.193 55%~ 45% 51%/ 49% FUTURE CONDITIOiS (YEAR 2015) ADT t ANNUALTRAFFICGROWTIIRATE PEAKIIOURDIRECTIONALSPLITS(VOLUME/PERCENT} N 1 [ 'WES~ 'N(~TII .... .B..V Ap ....... .... . - . ......... , ............ ,0.500 ,.0% 05% 4 67% :4.~'() '4.405 13~.~ I 3% C 9% 1.C50 I .150 88C 1.020 590 1.O10 7~% I 33% 46% 54% 37% 63% [ lt.C)O ! 8,800 9.8C0 26.000 600 25.200 5 Riverside Dr. and 28.030 GrandtBud,ngton 13.4C0 I I 87% 30.200 0 8% ~ I 0%; 0 4% 13% 0 0% 13% 1.580 55% 13% 1,050 100% 1.270 45% 110 11% 1.550 51% 89% 50 67% 860 49% 315% 30 33% 1,530 ~% 890 I 910 1'.:- 50% I 50% ;' 1,030 I 20 98/, I 2*/, "' I' '.[. 1.390 I 1.000 f · 58% I 42% ~,' l:.' TABLE A-6 -- ~ MELROSE AVENUE, IOWA CITY, IA PEAK HOUR TURN MOVEMENT COUNTS PAGE '1 OF 7 INTERSECTION: DAY: THU MELROSE/GOLFVIEWIKOSER DATE: 4/28/94 TIME: 4-6 PM WEATH: 15 MINUTE COUNTS RAIN 15 MINUTES BEGINNING NORTH EAST SOUTH APPROACH APPROACH APPROACH THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT 2:00 P.M. 2:15 P.M. 2:30 P.M. 2:45 P.M. 3:00 P.M. 3:15P,M 3:30 P.M. 3:45 P.M. 4:00 P,M. 4:15 P,M. 4:30 PM. 4:45 P,M 5:00 P,M. 515PM. 5:30 P,M. 5.45 P.M. 6:00 P.M. 6:15 P.M. 6'30 P.M. 645PM. 2 I 2 108 7 41 2 3 3 2 119 8 29 0 1 5 2 127 4 60 2 1 0 4 145 4 37 0 2 I 9 167 4 82 2 1 I 2 174 5 91 0 9 2 5 108 9 34 1 4 2 2 96 6 28 2 ONE HOUR WEST APPROACH THRU RIGHT LEFT COUNTS 22 1 71 2 2 17 3 45 2 1 15 I 75 2 0 28 1 88 3 1 25 I 53 1 1 27 2 79 1 4 20 I 59 2 1 18 0 68 0 I TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 261 232 294 312 348 387 251 227 0 0 0 0 HOUR BEGINNING 2'00 P.M. 2:15 P.M 2:30 P.M. 2:45 P.M. 3:00 P.M. 3:15 P.M. 3:30 P.M. 3'45 P M 4:00 P.M. 4:15 P.M. 4:30 P.M. 4:45 P.M. 5:00 P.M. 5:15 P.M. 5:30 P.M. 5:45 P-M. 6 00 P.M. NORTH EAST APPROACH APPROACH THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 I 2 108 7 5 4 4 227 15 6 9 6 354 19 7 9 10 499 23 7 9 17 558 20 5 7 17 613 17 13 4 20 594 22 16 6 18 545 24 14 5 9 378 20 13 4 7 204 15 4 2 2 96 6 0 0 0 0 0 LEFT SOUTH WEST APPROACH APPROACH THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 2 22 I 71 2 70 2 39 4 116 4 130 4 54 5 191 5 167 4 82 6 279 9 208 4 85 6 261 8 270 4 95 5 295 7 244 3 100 5 279 7 235 5 90 4 259 4 153 3 65 3 206 3 62 3 38 1 127 2 28 2 18 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEFT TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 261 3 493 3 787 4 1099 3 1186 6l 1341 7i 1298 7} 1213 6I 865 21 478 11 227 01 0 15 MINUTES BEGINNING 5:00 A.M 5:15 A.M. 5:30 A.M. [' 5:45 A.M. 6:00 A.M. 6:15 A.M 6:30 A.M 6.45 A.M. · 7:00 A.M. 7:15A.M. 7:30 A.M 7:45 A.M. 8:00 A.M. 8:15 A.M. 8:30 A.M, 8:45 9:00 A,M 9:15 A.M, I 9:30 A.M. · 9:45 A.M. HOUR BEGINNING 5,00A.M. 5:15 A.M. 5:30 A.M. 5:45 A.M. 6:00 A.M. 6:15 A.M 6:30 A.M. 6:45 A.M. 7:00 A.M. 7:15 A,M. 7:30 A.M. 7:45 A.M. 8:00 A.M, 8:15 A,M, 8:30 A.M. 8:45 A.M. 9:00 A.M. TABLE· A-6 -' - MELROSE AVENUE, IOWA CITY, IA PEAK HOUR TURN MOVEMENT COUNTS PAGE 2 OF 7 INTERSECTION: HAWKINS/MELROSE DAY: THU DATE: 4/28~94 TIME: 7-9AM WEATH: RAIN NORTH APPROACH THRU RIGHT LEFT 15 MINUTE COUNTS EAST APPROACH THRU RIGHT LEFT SOUTH WEST APPROACH APPROACH THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT 0 10 29 34 36 0 0 0 0 39 0 44 0 26 51 39 55 0 0 0 0 65 0 71 0 44 55 56 85 0 0 0 0 67 0 92 0 30 69 65 109 0 0 0 0 115 0 102 0 24 71 58 101 0 0 0 0 77 0 80 0 17 44 61 72 0 0 0 0 94 0 74 0 17 35 36 71 0 0 2 0 91 0 72 0 19 44 46 76 0 0 0 0 87 0 57 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 192 307 399 490 411 362 324 329 0 0 0 0 ONE HO UR COUNTS NORTH -FAST SOUTH WEST APPROACH APPROACH APPROACH APPROACH THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 29 34 36 0 0 0 0 39 0 44 0 36 80 73 91 0 0 0 0 104 0 115 0 80 135 129 176 0 0 0 0 171 0 207 0 110 204 194 285 0 0 0 0 286 0 309 0 124 246 218 350 0 0 0 0 324 0 345 0 115 239 240 367 O 0 0 0 353 0 348 0 88 219 220 353 0 0 2 0 377 0 328 0 77 194 201 320 0 0 2 0 349 0 283 0 53 123 143 219 0 0 2 0 272 0 203 0 36 79 82 147 0 0 2 0 178 0 129 0 19 44 46 76 0 0 0 0 87 0 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 192 499 898 1388 1607 1662 1587 1426 1015 653 329 0 · -TABLE A-6 MELROSE AVENUE, IOWA CITY, IA PEAK HOUR TURN MOVEMENT COUNTS PAGE 3 OF 7 INTERSECTION: DAY: THU HAWKINS/rvlELROSE DATE: 4/28194 15 TIME: 11AM-1:30PM MINUTE COUNTS WEATH: RAIN 15 MINUTES BEGINNING 10:00 A.M. 10:15A.M. 10:30 A.M. 10:45 A.M. 11:00A.M. 11:15A.M 11:30A.M. 11:45A.M. 12:00 NOON 12:15 P M. 12:30 P.M. 12:45 P,M. 1:00 P.M. 1:15P.M, 1:30 P.M, 1 '45 P M. 2:00 P M. 2:15 P.M. 2:30 P M. 2:45 P.M. HOUR BEGINNING 10:00 A.M. 10:15A.M IO:30A.M 10:45 A.M. 11:00AM. 11:15A.M 11'30AM 11:45 A.M. 12:00 NOON 12:15PM. 12:30 P.M. 12:45 P.M 1:00 P.M. 1:15P.M. 1:30 P.M. 1:45 P.M. 2:00 P.M NORTH APPROACH THRU RIGHT LEFT 0 29 58 62 0 33 67 71 0 31 70 79 0 41 78 108 0 37 97 78 0 32 69 59 0 27 75 63 0 26 80 59 0 26 71 56 0 23 52 50 EAST SOUTH WEST APPROACH APPROACH APPROACH THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT 39 0 0 0 0 44 0 27 46 0 0 0 0 49 0 351 53 0 0 0 0 57 0 331 70 0 0 0 0 62 0 371 61 0 0 0 0 51 0 281 46 0 0 0 0 66 0 281 76 0 0 0 0 65 0 381 71 0 0 0 0 82 0 461 70 0 0 0 0 126 0 481 84 0 0 0 0 71 0 281 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 259 301 323 396 352 300 344 364 397 308 0 0 0 0 0 0 NORTH APPROACH THRU RIGHT 0 0 0 29 0 62 0 93 0 134 0 142 0 141 0 137 0 122 0 111 0 102 0 75 0 49 0 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 ONE HOUR COUNTS EAST APPROACH LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT SOUTH APPROACH THRU RIGHT LEFT WEST APPROACH THRU RIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 62 39 0 0 0 0 44 0 125 133 85 0 0 0 0 93 0 195 212 138 0 0 0 0 150 0 273 320 2O8 0 0 0 0 212 0 312 336 230 0 0 0 0 219 0 314 324 230 0 0 0 0 236 0 319 308 253 0 0 0 0 244 0 321 259 254 0 0 0 0 264 0 295 237 263 0 0 0 0 339 0 278 228 301 0 0 0 0 344 0 203 165 225 0 0 0 0 279 0 123 106 154 0 0 0 0 197 0 52 50 84 0 0 0 0 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I LEFT I TOTAL 01 0 27 259 62 560 95 883 132 1279 133 1372 126 1371 131 1392 140 1360 160 1405 160 1413 122 1069 76 705 28 308 0 0 0 0 0 0 TABLE A-6 MELROSE AVENUE, IOWA CITY, IA - PEAK HOUR TURN MOVEMENT COUNTS PAGE 4 OF 7 INTERSECTION: 15 MINUTES BEGINNING 2:00 P.M. 2:15 P.M. 2:30 P.M. 2:45 P.M. 3:00 P.M. 3:15 P.M. 3:30 P.M. 3:45 P.M. 4:00 P.M. 4:15 P.M. 4:30 P.M. 4:45 P.M. 5.00 P.M. 5:15 P.M. 5:30 P.M. 5:45 P.M. 6:00 P.M. 6:15 P.M. 6:30 P.M. 6:45 P.M. HOUR BEGINNING 2:00 P.M. 2:15 P.M. 2.30 P.M 2:45 P.M. 3.00 P.M. 3:15 P.M. 3:30 P.M. 3:45 P,M, 4:00 P.M. 4:15 P.M. 4:30 P.M 4:45 P.M 5:00 P,M, 5:15 P.M. 5:30 P.M, 5:45 P,M 6.00 P.M. MELROSE/HAWKINS DAY: WED DATE: 4/27/94 TIME: 4-6PM WEATH: FAIR 15 MINUTE COUNTS NORTH EAST APPROACH APPROACH THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT SOUTH APPROACH LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT WEST APPROACH THRU RIGHT 0 39 76 81 44 0 0 0 0 59 0 0 42 89 79 42 0 0 0 0 66 0 0 64 84 94 65 0 0 0 0 104 0 0 89 104 124 62 0 0 0 0 76 0 0 114 113 107 48 0 0 0 0 81 0 0 123 117 118 51 0 0 0 0 102 0 0 42 94 95 53 0 0 0 0 97 0 0 39 71 92 38 0 0 0 0 115 0 LEFT ITOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 326 34 352 29 440 33 488 39 502 17 528 24 405 20 375 0 0 0 0 ONE HO UR COUNTS NORTH EAST SOUTH APPROACH APPROACH APPROACH THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 76 81 44 0 .0 0 0 81 165 160 86 0 0 0 0 145 249 254 151 0 0 0 0 234 353 378 213 0 0 0 0 309 390 404 217 0 0 0 0 390 418 443 226 0 0 0 0 368 428 444 214 0 0 0 0 318 395 412 190 0 0 0 0 204 282 305 142 0 0 0 0 81 165 187 91 0 0 0 0 39 71 92 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 WEST APPROACH LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 27 0 125 0 61 0 229 0 90 0 305 0 123 0 327 0 135 0 363 0 118 0 356 0 113 0 395 0 100 0 314 0 61 0 212 0 44 0 115 0 20 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 326 678 1118 1606 1782 1958 1923 1810 1308 780 375 0 TABLE A-6 MELROSE AVENUE, IOWA CITY, IA PEAK HOUR TURN MOVEMENT COUNTS PAGE 5 OF 7 INTERSECTION: MELROSFJGRAND DAY: WED DATE: 4/27/94 TIME: 4-6 PM WEATH: FAIR 15 MINUTE COUNTS 15 MINUTES BEGINNING 2:00 P.M. 2:15 P.M. 2:30 P.M. 2:45 P.M, 3:00 P.M. 3:15P.M, 3:30 P.M, 3:45 P.M. 4:00 P,M. 4:15 P-M. 4:30 P,M. 4:45 P.M. 5:00 P.M 5:15 P.M. 5:30 P.M. 5:45 P.M, 6:00 P,M, 6:15 P.M. 6:30 P,M. 6:45 P.M. NORTH APPROACH THRU RIGHT LEFT EAST APPROACH THRU RIGHT LEFT SOUTH WEST APPROACH APPROACH THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT 0 96 5 11 I 0 0 0 0 86 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 173 7 13 2 0 0 0 0 164 12 17 5 0 0 0 0 157 9 14 7 0 0 0 0 141 11 15 9 0 0 0 0 122 10 8 8 0 0 0 0 119 6 12 5 0 0 0 0 123 0 21 0 121 0 30 0 154 0 15 0 149 0 21 0 151 0 19 0 147 0 25 0 136 0 21 0 129 0 19 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 257 248 364 368 357 348 305 290 0 0 0 0 HOUR BEGINNING 2:00 P.M. 2.15P.M. 230 P.M 2:45 P.M 3:00 P.M, 3:15 P M. 3:30 P.M. 3:45 P,M. 4:00 P.M. 4:15 P,M. 4:30 P,M. 4:45 P.M. 5:00 P.M. 5:15 P.M. 5:30 P.M. 5:45 P.M. 6.00 P.M. ONE HOUR COUNTS NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST APPROACH APPROACH APPROACH APPROACH THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 5 11 1 0 0 0 0 123 0 21 0 182 8 19 1 0 0 0 0 244 0 51 0 355 15 32 3 0 0 0 0 398 0 66 0 519 27 49 8 0 0 0 0 547 0 87 0 580 31 52 14 0 0 0 0 575 0 85 0 635 39 59 23 0 0 0 0 601 0 80 0 584 42 54 29 0 0 0 0 583 0 86 0 539 36 49 29 0 0 0 0 563 0 84 0 382 27 35 22 0 0 0 0 412 0 65 0 241 16 20 13 0 0 0 0 265 0 40 0 119 6 12 5 0 0 0 0 129 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 257 505 869 1237 1337 1437 1378 1300 943 595 290 0 TABLE A-6 IVlELROSE AVENUE, IOWA CITY, IA PEAK HOUR TURN MOVEMENT COUNTS PAGE 6 OF 7 INTERSECTION: MELROSE/BYINGTON DAY: WED DATE: 4/27194 TIME: 4-6PM WEATH: FAIR 15 MINUTES BEGINNING 2:00 P.M. 2:15P.M. 2:30 P.M. 2:45 P.M. 3:00 P.M. 3:15 P.M. 3:30 P.M. 3:45 P.M. 4:00 P.M. 4:15P.M. 4:30 P.M. 4:45 P.M. 5:00 P.M. 5:15 P.M. 5:30 P.M. 5:45 P.M. 6:00 P.M. 6:15 P.M. 6:30 P.M. 645P.M. 15 MINUTE COUNTS NORTH EAST APPROACH APPROACH THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 4 4 2 0 0 0 0 2 11 0 0 0 0 5 15 0 0 0 0 I 4 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 SOUTH WEST APPROACH APPROACH THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 10 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 154 160 0 168 174 0 202 212 0 178 192 0 198 221 0 189 217 0 158 171 0 157 171 0 0 0 0 HOUR BEGINNING 2.00 P.M. 2:15P,M. 2:30 P.M. 2:45P.M. 3.00 P.M. 3:15 P.M. 3:30 P.M. 3'45 P M. 4:00 P.M. 4:15 P.M. 4:30 P.M. 4:45 P.M 5:00 P.M 5:15 P.M. 5:30 P.M. 5:45 P.M. 6:00 P.M. NORTH APPROACH THRU RIGHT ONE HOUR COUNTS EAST APPROACH LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT SOUTH APPROACH THRU RIGHT LEFT WEST APPROACH THRU RIGHT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 12 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 4 8 14 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 4 9 22 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 4 12 34 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 4 12 32 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 9 33 0 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 0 7 22 0 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 I 3 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEFT TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 154 160 322 334 524 546 702 738 746 799 767 842 723 801 702 780 504 559 315 342 157 171 0 0 TABLE A-6 MELROSE AVENUE; IOWA CITY, IA PEAK HOUR TURN MOVEMENT COUNTS PAGE 7 OF 7 INTERSECTION: RIVERSIDE/GRAND/BURLINGTON DAY: WED DATE: 4/27194 TIME: 4-6PM WEATH: FAIR 15 MINUTE COUNTS 15 MINUTES BEGINNING 2:00 P.M. 2:15 P.M. 2:30 P.M. 2:45 P.M. 3:00 P.M. 3:15 P.M. 3:30 P,M. 3:45 P.M, 4:00 P.M. 4:15 P.M. 4:30 P,M. 4:45 P.M. 5 00 P.M. 5:15 P.M. 5.30 P.M. 5:45 P.M. 6.00 P.M. 6'15 P.M. 6:30 P.M. 6:45 P.M. NORTH EAST APPROACH APPROACH THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT SOUTH APPROACH THRU RIGHT LEFT 163 29 63 93 117 152 32 92 114 97 188 53 95 112 131 171 35 94 123 89 226 53 91 127 124 186 47 91 109 105 164 38 79 91 85 149 36 68 103 81 58 113 36 26 67 111 52 27 75 112 34 33 71 131 53 23 88 111 58 24 96 118 62 24 59 100 58 14 51 105 56 23 ONE HOUR COUNTS WEST APPROACH THRU RIGHT LEFT 133 55 311 128 63 331 183 91 411 126 52 311 164 84 451 142 65 361 163 45 381 134 38 29l I I TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 917 968 1148 999 1195 1081 934 873 0 0 0 0 HOUR BEGINNING 2:00 P.M. 2:15 P.M. 2:30 P M. 2:45 P.M. 300P. M. 3-15P.M. 3:30 P.M, 3.45 P,M. 4:00 P.M, 4-15 P,M, 4:30 P.M, 4:45 P.M. 5:00 P.M. 5:15 P,M, 5:30 P,M. 5:45 P,M, 6'00 P,M. NORTH APPROACH THRU RIGHT EAST SOUTH WEST I APPROACH APPROACH APPROACH I LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT I TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 163 29 63 93 117 58 113 36 26 133 55 315 61 155 207 214 125 224 88 53 261 118 503 114 250 319 345 200 336 122 86 444 209 674 149 344 442 434 271 467 175 109 570 261 737 173 372 476 441 301 465 197 107 601 290 771 188 371 471 449 330 472 207 104 615 292 747 173 355 450 403 314 460 231 85 595 246 725 174 329 430 395 294 434 234 85 603 232 499 121 238 363 271 206 323 176 61 439 148 313 74 147 194 166 110 205 114 37 297 83 149 36 68 103 81 51 105 56 23 134 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ol 0 0 ol 0 0 01 o ol 0 01 o 31 917 64 i 1885 105 3033 136 4032 150 4310 153 4423 150 4209 148 4083 103 2886 67 I 1807 29 I 873 01 o ...... I ....... '...' ...'..' ..'.', '.'..."'~',"..'.:~.".."::..~..' ..' ~.' 300 · · · aiiVes|3'&: ~oo (Eos ~o4) ~ ~ ;"' ' 700 800 900 1000 1 I00 1200 1300 1400 t500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 Major Street-Totall Of Both Approaches-VPH Note: t 50 VPH Applies as the Lowest Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with Two or More Lanes and 100 VPH Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approaching with One Lane. MELROSE A%iENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION SI UD Y Iowa City, Iowa CITY OF IOWA CITY Figure 18 Peak Hour Volume Warrant Intersection of Melrose Avenue and Golfview/Koser Avenues Alternatives 3 & 4 · $ Alternatives 5 & 6 (1190, 1050) (1250, 1100) ::"I ~:-~,; ~' ,~ (940,830) 800 700 ., ......... , , ... ,, .- ,., -. ..,,. · · .:, ,0. E~ti~g ':'.'.i '. !:: :~. ~.:::'."f ':'..'..< =::l:'./':')";.' :~...:=.":'.!'. ):.:. :'. ¢'. :.":.".::.!: :.' :.'-:.'~.:"i-:' "' 763 674 ' ~,'.:. ( , )',;.'-'....:;:: :"'.'-.,': 7.":'.: ,.. =.7. " :' i :. ':: ~' ..;; : =.. .;'.' C.~...: "": 600 -.'.: ,'..~ ,'. ; }, .?-, .'5 . '....:j '..".,' .....'.:.:-'.., .'>.'....L '.-.)':.',-.)':..:'.: .),:j.....~"'.~: .....-.; ~ .....,....... . ~.':.'.,%~.~:.'.:,~.'..~ V.:...':: .'..' :-7( 'j.'.." ':. :,:7:'.:"...-:.A)j.':' .'..: 2' or MO~' Liles '.':":'j. (:~.'.(5;"l.Y(::",'~ ~ )'(;.',, :.'. soo ':,'::: .::: .",.:.; ..'.;, '.'.'.,: ~ [.&....[,,,;:.? ![.~:':'. :..~ . ' '..i ...!'-:' .2;%;. ' · .:.' ,.' '.; ' ..'. 4oo . "". ', '.'.':. ?'..i" ('i 'j".: ": X ;. :',..:: 5' ""'~".':'.',!':."':::.i' :.'i'..?.~...' '.~.?~!:(': ~,i','::.5.':.  "' """ '.:"".:" t.. .. . .~v.,,..,' ~. ..". .'..'.~'.,: ~",~. '. ",: . "~ . ..' · ' ." 2{>o, ' .' .'. ".' · .. 100 WA_'IRA~T NOT YET 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 210b Major Street-Total Of Both Approaches-VPH Note: 150 VPH Applies as the Lowest Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with 'IXvo or More Lanes and 100 VPH Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approaching with One Lane. MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RFL'X3NSTRUCTION $IUDY Iowa City, Iowa CITY OF IOWA CITY Figure 19 Peak ltour Volume Wan'ant Intersection of Melrose Avenue and South Grand Avenue 900 ~ L 800 - "' 700 600 ". '.' ' .". ' ,.".- and I Lane · ." '/: ": '= .~ "' '~: .: I :' '. '= ~ I .' "'::"': ."' ": '-"' :' ':', ': ;'" 500 ' . ~ ' ' 3°° [ te . ..':'.'.:', :...13,.' , ':.:.' .i.... f , ,.=.! :..-. Alternatives 1 & 2 ' '. . (~010, 50) I00 ~ ] Existing I · Alternatives 5 & 6 (792, .S0) 0339, 50). 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 t 300 1400 1500 1600 1700 ] 800 1900 2000 Major S~reet-Total Of Both Approaches-VPH Note: 150 VPH Applies as the Lowest Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approach with Two or More Lanes and 100 VPH Applies as the Lower Threshold Volume for a Minor Street Approaching with One Lane. 2100 MELROSE AVENUE STREET AND BRIDGE RECONSTRUCT/ON STUDY Iowa City, I~wa CITY OF IOWA CITY Figure 20 Peak Hour Volume Warrant Intersection of Melrose Avenue and Byington Road OPEN SPACE DISTRICT FIGURE iOWA CiTY . ' -, , ,,,,~-~..../ 'Ne~ighborhood Open Space Pla~ ~ ~ Resolution No. 93-189, ~ 7.20.93 NESGHBORHOOD OPEN SPACE DiSTRiCTS 183 HAZARDOUS WASTE DATE, VISTA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION DESCRIPTION OF DATABASES SEARCHED Below are general descriptions and search parameters of the federal and state databases that VISTA searches for the National Radius Report. FEDERAL DATABASES Please check the "Summary of Environmental Risks Found" matrix on the cover of this profile to determine the specific dates of the federal databases searched for this profile. U.S. EPA: NPL The National Priorities List (NPL) is the EPA's database of uncontrolled or abandoned b~7~rdous waste sites identified for priority remedial action under the Superfund Program. A site, to be included on the NPL, must either meet or surpass a predetermined hazard ranking systems score, or be chosen as a state's tol>-priority site, or meet all three of the following criteria: l) The US Department of Health and Hunann Services issues a health advisory recommending that people be removed from the site to avoid exposure. 2) The EPA datermlnes that the site represents a significant threat. 3) The EPA determines that remedial action is more cost-effective than removal action. U.S. EPA: CERCLIS The CERCLIS List is a compilation by the EPA of the sites which the EPA has investigated or is currently investigating for a release or threatened relesse of bn~n~ious substances pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund Act). U.S. EPA: RCRA CRCRIS/HWDMS) The EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Program identifies and tracks bnTardous waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal. The RCRA Facilities database is a compilation by the EPA of reporting facilities that generate, transport, treat, store or dispose of bnTnntoes waste. U.S. EPA: ERNS The Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) is a national database used to coRest information on reported accidental releases of oil and bs~Tns~cloes sllbstallces. The database contains information from spill reports made to federal authorities including the EPA, the US Coast Guard, the National Response Center and the Department of Transportation. STATE DATABASES Please check the "Databases ,Searched' to determine if the following type of databases are available from VISTA for the state in which the subject property of this report is located. Please note that if the Summary does not list one of the following datebases, it is not currently available. You may also determine the specific names and dates of the databases searched for this profile in the SUmmary. STATE: SPL The State Priority List is a generic name for databases mnintalned by m.ny states that contain sites considered to be actually or potentially eent~nainated and presenting a possible threat to hunann health and the environmeet. These sites are generally listed by the state to warn the public or as a par~ of an investigation and cleanup program nannaged by the state. ~c'rATE: LUST This is a database maintained by state or local agencies of known or suspecte~l leaking underground storage tanks. STATE: UST This is a datebase rnnintained by state or local agencies of registered underground storage tanks. STATE: SWLF · This is a databsse maintained by state or local agencies of Solid Waste Landfills, Lucineraters, and transfer stations. VISTA NATIONAL RADIUS PROFILE VISTA Report #~ 6/047538-001 Date of Report: 6/24/94 Ref/Loan #: *: Client: JEANNE WITZIG, BRW INC - MINNEAPOLIS THRESHER SQUARE, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415 Subject Property: MELROSE=AVE:-: IOWA CITY, IA/ 52242 SUNMARY OF FEDERAL RECORDS FOUND Database 0 to 1/4, to I/2 to & Date Agency and Type of Records 1/~, mI 1/2 ml 1 mt TOTAL )IPL US EPA 01/94 Superfund Sites CERCLIS US ErA 04/94 Potential Superfund Sites RCRA-LgGen US ErA 07193 RCRA Large Quantity Generators RCRAoSmGen US EPA 0719~ RCRA Small and Very Small Quantity Generators 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 41 RCRA-TSD 07/9~ US ErA RCPJ~ Treatmnt~Storage,and/or Disposal Sites 0 0 1 RCRA-TranSp US EPA 07/95 RCRA Transportera ERNS 09/9~ US EPA FEDERAL RECORDS Sub-total: 0 0 4 4 0 0 10 10 0 0 63 63 Hote: 1) A d~sh (--) Indicates the list Is not Searched at that distance, 2) Sites often have a record in more than one database. (c) VISTA Environmental Znfo~matton~ Inc.~ For more information celt= (619) 450-6100 VISTA NATIONAL RADIUS PROFILE VISTA Report #: 6/047538-001 Date of Report: 6/24/94 Ref/Loan #: * Client: JEANNE WITZIG, BRW INC - MINNEAPOLIS THRESHER SQUARE, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415 Subject Property: MELROSE AVE IOWA CITY, IA 52242 SUHffi~kRY OF STATE RECORDS FOUND Oatabase 0 to &Date Agency and Type of Records 1//* mt 1/6 to 1/2 to 1/2 mi 1 mi TOTAL SPL 01/93 LUST 11/93 S~LF 11/93 UST's 11/93 Deportment of Natural Resources Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites Database Deportment of Natural Resources Leaking Underground Storage Tank List Oepartment of Natural Resources Permitted Solid Waste Management FaciUttes Deportment of Natural Resources Underground Storage Tank Database 0 0 0 0 0 2 /*6 /*8 0 0 0 0 0 /* 112 116 STATE RECORDS Sub-totah TOTAL: 0 6 158 164 0 6 221 227 . Note: 1) A dash (--) indicates the list is not searched at that distance. 2) Sites often hovc a rccord in ;',~r; than c~-~ database, (c) VISTA EnvironmentaL Information, inc., 199/, For more information cart: (619) 450-6100 Copyright © 1993 ~///////////~'////////////////////////////////// / ///////////////////(///////////////////////////////////f///~~//////////////////Z Vista Environmental Infonmtion, Inc., San DIego, Calitornia[ VISTA NATIONAL RADIUS PROFILE 0 1 [ I I ;'::'- IJ./..--(, 1 "l 6/047538-001 (,) z////////////////////////////I/////////////////////I///////////////////////////~///////////////~/j,////////////j.////////////////////////////., VISTA Repor~ #: 6/047538-001 I NAP EPA 10 / REF # AGEHCY ID VISTA NATIONAL RADIUS PROFILE 6/26194 Page: 18 LUST I SITE NAME AHD AODRESS WITHIN 1/4 TO 1/2 MILE 6O 8608187 ~M & GO ~22 IO~A CITY Distance: .50 mi. 513 SOUTH RIVERSIDE 52266 Direction: SE Vista 10: 2088737 O~ner Name owner Address Ofscovery Oste Substance Media Affected Leak Cause BEVERLY NAROR CONV C 605 GREEN~CO OR IOt~ACITY 04/26/90 GASOLINE (UNSPEClFIED) SOIL UNAVAILABLE , IA 52260 62 BOYD LAW BUILDING IO~A CITY GRAND AVE & RIVERSIDE OR 52262 8602317 OHner Name : L & M MIGHTY SHOP Owner Address : 504 E 8URLINGT~ ST IO~4A CITY DIscovery Oate : 11/27/90 Substance : DIESEL Media Affected : UNKNO~I Leak Cause : UNAVAILAgLE , IA 52260 Distance: ,36 mt. Direction| NE Vista lO: 2088~6 HITHIH 1/2 TO 2 HILES: 6 AHOCO f~8754 IO~A CITY Distance: 1,58 1905 KEOIOJK ST 52240 Direction: SE Vista IO: 2077085 8606~59 Owner Name : PAT NCGRATH OLDS-GNC O~ner Address : 1911KEOKUK ST IOWA CITY , IA 52240 Discovery Date ~ 02/05/90 Substance : DIESEL Media Affected : UNKHO~ Leek Cause : UNAVAILABLE (c) VISTA Envtromental Information# Inc., 1994 Formre information cath (619) 450-6100 VISTA NATIONAL RADIUS PROFILE 612~19~ VISTA Report #: 6/0A7538-001 Page: 33 fi NAP RE/= # UST~S I EPA iD / AGENCY I0 SITE NAHE AND ADDRESS WITHIN 1/~ TO 1/2 HILE 40 8608187 ]GIN & GO ~/,12 iO~A CITY Distance: .50 513SOUTH RIVERSIDE 52266 Direction: SE Vista ]D: 2088737 NuTbar of Underground Tanks: 2 COntents:GASOLiNE (UNSPECIFIEO), 8602317 BOYD LAg BUILDING GRAND AVE & RIVERSIDE DR Nmber of Underground Tanks: 1 Contents:OiESEL, IOt4A CITY Distance: .36 mi. 52262 Direction: HE Vista iD: 2088736 ~6 BEVERLY NANOR CONV CNTR [O~A C]TY Distance: .29 605 GREBHgOCO OR 52266 Direction: SE Vista iO: 2076677 8601707 Nmber of Underground Tanks: 1 Contents:OiESEL, 68 UN%V OF ](NA HOSPITALS & CLINICS iO~A CiTY NE~OH ROAD 522~6 8602109 NuTbar of Underground Tanks: 5 Contents:DiESEL, Distance: .37 mi. Direction: N Vista ID: 2081856 $JITHXN 1/2 TO 2 RILES 8609666 ADS i0t4A CITY Distance: 1.70 mi. 1301 SHERIDAN AVE 52260 D|rectlon: SE Vista ID: 20895~5 Nunbar of Underground Tanks: 2 COntents:DiESEL,GASOLINE (UNSPECIFiED)~ (c) VISTA Enviromenta}, Informat|on~ inc., 1~ For more information cart: (6193 650-6100 VISTA Report #: 6/047538-001 VISTA NATIONAL RADIUS PROFILE 6/2~/9~ Page: HAP REF # USTIS I EPA IO / AGENCY IO BITE NAHE AND ADDREBB 1/2 TO 2 HILES GRINGER FEED AND GRAIN INC IO~A CITY Distance: 1.67 mi. OLD Ht~Y 218 SOUTH 522/*6 Direction: SE Vista IO: 2082065 86003~0 Nmber of Underground Tanks: 1 Contents:DiESEL, 39 HARTWIG NOTORS INC IO~A CITY DiStance: .55 mi. 629 S RIVERSIDE DR 522/*6 Direction: SE Vista IO: 189169 8608930 Number of Underground Tanks: 8 COntentS:PETROLEU'A, COASTAL HART, INC IO~A CITY Distance: .5~ mi. 606 S RIVERSIDE DR 522/*6 DirectiOn: SE Vista ID: 2088738 8603757 Nutbar of Underground Tanks: COntents:GASOLINE (UNSPECIFIED), 8605672 CITY OF I~A CITY EQUIPRENT DIVIBION 200 PARX RD RudDer of Underground Tanks: COntents:GASOLINE (UNSPECIFIED), IO~A CITY Distance: 1.07 mi. 522/*0 Direction: WE Vista IO: 2082858 BARKERS INC lOt4A CITY Distance: .76 mi. 629 HIWAY I WEST 522/*6 Direction: SE Vista I0: 2065571 8609074 Nunbar of Underground Tanks: 1 Contents:GASOLINE (UNSPECIFIED), S & N PARTNERS IO~A CITY Distance: .71 ml. 525 HWY 1 WEST 522/*6 Direction: SE Vista [D: 2065927 8811159 Nunbar of Underground Tanks: 3 Contents:GASOLINE (UNSPECIFIEO), '~(' , c) VISTA Environmentet Information, Inc.~ 199/, For more Information cait: (619) ~50-6100 IOWA DNR LETTER TERRY E. BRANSTAD. GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES LARRY J. WILSON, DIRECTOR 25August 1994 Beth Kunkel BRW Inc. Thresher Square 700 Third Street South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 Dear Ms. Kunkel: Thank you for inviting our comments on the presence of protected species and rare natural communities in the vicinity of the Melrose Avenue project in Iowa City. Our Division of Parks, Recreation, and Preserves data manager has searched maps and computer records of the project area and consulted with other Division staff members. At this time, the Natural Areas data base contains no records of rare species or significant natural communities in the area. Please note that the lack of records does not necessarily mean that no rare species or significant natural con~munities are present. Our data are not the result of thorough field surveys and should not be considered a substitute for on-site inspection. This letter does not constitute a permit. Before this project may proceed, you may need to obtain permits from various bureaus ofthis and other state and federal departments. If you have any questions about this letter or if you require further information, please contact John Fleckenstein at (515) 281-8967. Larry Wilson Director WALLACE STATE OFFICE BUILDING / DES MOINES. IOWA 50319 / 515-281-5145 / TDD 515-242-5967