The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-09-09 CorrespondenceIOWA CITY AREA SCIENCE CENTER, INC. 504 E. Bloomington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52245 PHONE: 319-337-2007 FAX: 319-337-7082 August 31, 1998 Honorable Ernie Lehman Mayor, City of Iowa City City Hall Iowa City, Iowa 52240 0 Honorable Howard Horan Chairperson, Iowa City Airport Commission City Hall Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mayor Lehman and Chairperson Horan: It has been nearly three years since the Iowa City Area Science Center, Inc. (ICASC) received an invitation from the Iowa City Airport Commission to consider locating a permanent science and technology center facility at the Airport. Since that time, it has been our sense that the proposal has continued to receive strong support from all members of the Airport Commission and the City Council. Further, there appears to be steady progress in creating plans for the installation of road and utilities infrastructure on the northerly 54 acres where, we believe, all parties are in agreement that the science center should be located. As a part of our initial facility, we would like to include an IMAX Theatre as well as an initial exhibit hall. This would be located on land of sufficient size (we have discussed approximately 7 acres with the Airport Commission) such that, over years or generations, the science center could expand without becoming a nuisance to adjoining landowners or interfering with adjacent uses. It would be our plan to dedicate any of that land not immediately necessary for exhibit halls to be used for public park space. More specifically, we propose that all necessary plans and approvals be made such that a science and technology center could be opened on or before January 1, 2000. Our community needs a millennium festivity--why not have one surrounding the opening of a new science and technology center? Date sent: To: From: Subject: Sat, 29 Aug 1998 15:35:18 -0400 council@blue.weeg. uiowa.edu Bruno <brunol@concentric.net> Public Discussion Dear Mr. Mayor and Honorable Council Members, It has come to my attention that the council is considering a change in public discussion period. I understand that the proposed change would involve holding one hour of public discussion. If after the hour was through there were still people who did not have a chance to speak, the public discussion would continue after the council had completed the rest of the agenda. I understand that the goal would be to facilitate a more efficient (in terms of time) meeting. I laud the councils efforts to hold more productive, efficient meetings. It is wise to consider many different methods of holding better mettings. I believe that this method, however, has some great drawbacks. First, this proposal puts taxpayers last. Taxpayers believe that if they take the time and effort to come to talk to their elected representatives, they should be given the right to be heard FIRST. After all, parties with an economic interest in development proposals or city contracts are paid to attend the meetings. City staff who attend the meetings are also paid to attend the meetings as part of their salary. The average citizen, however, is NOT PAID to attend the meetings and yet must ultimately foot the city's bills--BY PAYING TAXES. So this proposal would PUT THE TAXPAYER LAST. Second, the effect of this proposal would be to stop people who have important things to say from speaking if they did not have an opportunity to speak during the first hour. I can't imagine having to experience the wrath of the woman with kids who wanted to bring up an issue to council, but couldn't because she didn't have the opportunity to speak during the first hour and had to leave at 8:00pm to put the kids to bed. Should she be made to wait until the end of the council meeting? Third, this plan is not practical. Many council meetings have very short public discussion periods. For these meetings, there is no need for the proposed change. For the few meetings where public discussion does extend for more than an hour, the issues raised are usually important. And often, people with special expertise, experience, or position do not have an -- 1 -- Mon, 31 Aug 1998 08:24:44 opportunity to speak in the first hour. Should they be made to wait until the end of the council meeting? Would you grant special exceptions in these instances? Would granting exceptions be fair? Would the limitation of the public discussion period create a "mad rush" to the microphone during public discussion? Would the imposition of this limitation cause more problems than it would solve? Finally, council has already limited the public to five minutes. Many taxpayers think that this is enough! Some taxpayers have only half jokingly told me that they wish that they could have a button that would turn off the council and staff members' microphones after 5 minutes! Although I do not endorse that proposal, I understand their frustration. If meetings are still grossly inefficient, then the council should consider other measures because public discussion time is not the largest part of council meetings. All of us want more efficient, productive council meetings. But not one of us wants to be limited in our own right to say what we believe. Although the proposal regarding public discussion time may be an easy way to shorten the length of meetings, it is not the best way to make all aspects of the meeting most efficient. I urge the council to continue to take a hard look at ways to make meetings more productive, effective, and efficient. Perhaps the council will find alternatives to the current proposal which would be more effective than the current proposal. Sincerely, Bruno L. Pigott brunol@concentric .net Bruno brunol@concentric .net -- 2 -- Mon, 31 Aug 1998 08:24:44 (319) 339-7850 voice (319) 339-1339 fax September 1, 1998 Mayor Emie Lehman Iowa City City Council Iowa City, IA 52240 AutoTech Iowa L.C. 1950 Brown Deer Trail Coralville, IA 52241-1165 Dear Mayor Lehman: We are a newly formed company that is planning to commence a Car-X muffler & brake franchise in the Iowa City market. Around September of 1997 we entered into an agreement to buy the land at 1410 Waterfront Drive from Boyd Investment Company and Blackhawk Partners. This site included a part of the city-vacated parcels from the closed portion of the Waterfront Drive. We selected this site because of its excellent visibility from Highway 6 and access from Gilbert Street & Waterfront Drive. Assuming the land transaction could be completed within a couple of months after we signed the purchase agreement, we went a ahead and placed a yellow pages advertisement, proceeded with the design & engineering and took the necessary preliminary steps required for construction. Unfortunately, the sub- division process and the other necessary paperwork were not completed until August 13, 1998. Just when we were ready to close the land transaction, we learned about a proposal by the city to place a median on Gilbert Street south of Highway 6 for a distance which will extend south from Highway 6 to a point at the southerly Hills Bank exit. This median would, therefore, extend south of Waterfront Drive and would mean that no traffic from the north on Gilbert Street could make a left turn on to Waterfront Drive. A median on Gilbert Street as contemplated in the proposals will completely destroy the viability of this project at this site. Such a median located may also cause considerable hardship to the other two businesses (Country Kitchen & Carlos O'Ke!ly). If the city goes ahead with the median as proposed, project approval from our franchiser and financing will be under great risk. Even if approved by lenders and the franchiser, our company has a grave concem about going forward however. To back out of this deal would also be very expensive to our company, as we have invested considerable amount of money already. As you approach your consideration of these proposals, please keep in mind the impact that a median will have on these three businesses. Thank you very much. .R pectfully Yours, President & CEO From: Date sent: To: Subject: MeagMarie@aol.com Mon, 31 Aug 1998 19:48:48 EDT council@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu Fire Safety Hello. I live in the Main Street apartments owned by AUR. My roommates and I are wondering what the regulations are on fire escapes. After two recent false alarms we became aware of the fact that, though we are on the fourth floor (AUR calls it the third) there is no way for us to get out if there was a fire in the stairwell. We were just wondering how that this could have happened. You would think that there would be considerable requirements in a building that is over three stories tall. I was just wondering if you could give us a run down on the fire code for dwellings, such as that in which we live. Sincerely, Meagan M. Probst 325 East College Street, Apt. 1632 -- 1 -- Tue, 1 Sep 1998 07:59:19 Date sent: From: To: Copies to: Subject: Thu, 03 Sep 1998 13:42:31-0500 Andy Rocca <arocca@blue.weeg.uiowa. edu> MeagMarie@aol.com council@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu Fire Safety September 3, 1998 Ms. Probst: I received a copy of your e-mail to the City Council regarding fire safety at the Main Street apartments located at 325 E. College Street. The referenced building was constructed as per the 1994 Uniform Building and Fire codes. If you were exiting from your apartment and the fire originated in the unit, you would be entering into the corridor which is rated at one hour construction. This corridor is equipped with smoke detectors, an automatic sprinkler system which is tied into the fire alarm system, emergency exit lighting, and exit lights at each end of the corridor. Once you enter the stairwell, you are separated from the corridor by a one hour fire door. The stairwell is equipped with smoke detectors, an automatic sprinkler system which is tied into the fire alarm system, and emergency exit lighting. As you proceed to exit the building you are led to a public way or, in otherwords, outside of the building. If one of the stairwells should become blocked by the products of fire you would proceed to the opposite end of the building and use that stairwell. In theory, once you exit your apartment you are entering a higher level of safety as you proceed toward the outside of the building. I believe that the key information here is that you become familiar with the locations of the stairwells serving as your egress from the building. If I can be of further assistance do not hesitate to contact me at 356-5256 or arocca@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu. Sincerely, IOWA CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT Andrew J. Rocca Fire Chief UG 3 1 1998 Io~a City 52240 28 A~gust ~ 998 Iowa City Council 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Council Members~ I am writing to ask that you recommend a small change in the yard waste collection policy. For many years, yard waste collectors have allowed residents to put yard waste in hard-sided trash cans or other receptacles, with a city yard waste bag inserted under the top and visible outside the can. This arrangement assured proper payment for services (one bag per can), and represented no significant problem for yard waste collectors, while offering a significant facility for residents. Not only do hard-sided cans resist the splitting so common with the city-approved yard waste bags, but they are far easier to fill with leaves or garden waste. I am now informed that the city no longer accepts this practice, which it allowed for years. Yard waste must now either be contained within a yard waste bag or placed in a receptacle with a yearly sticker. My telephone conversations with responsible officials have produced no justification for the change, only the statement that "this is the practice that the City Council has mandated." In order best to serve the needs of Iowa City residents, I call upon you now to instruct yard waste collectors once again to allow the use of hard-sided receptacles, each one to be accompanied by a city yard waste bag visibly displayed. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Rick Altman August 14, 1998 CITY OF I0 WA CITY TO: RE: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council Civil Service Entrance Examination - CUSTODIAN We, the undersigned members of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Custodian. Michael Lyons IOWA CITY CIVIL CO ISSION M~dy,~ SERVICE Chair ATTEST: M~r, City Clerk 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET , IOWA CITY. IOWA $2240-1826 , (319) 356-5000 · FAX (319} 356-5009 August 24, 1998 CITY OF I0 WA CITY TO: RE: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council Civil Service Entrance Examination - KENNEL ASSISTANT We, the undersigned members of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Kennel Assistant. Leana Stormont IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE Chair ATTEST: ~ Karr, City Clerk 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET · IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240-1826 · (319) 356-5000 · FAX (319) 356-5009 August 24, 1998 CITY OF I0 WA CITY RE: The Honorable Mayor and the City Council Civil Service Entrance Examination - PARKING CASHIER We, the undersigned members of the Civil Service Commission of Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby certify the following named person(s) as eligible for the position of Parking Cashier. Lori Hook IOWA CITY CIVIL SERVICE Mic~~nnedy, Chair ATTEST: M~a'ian Karr, ];~J City Clerk 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET · IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240-1826 · (319) 356-5000 · FAX (319) 356-S009 Bent by: U OF I COLLEGE LAW 3193359098; Og/O4/gB 14:32; JStFd~#104;Page 2/3 September~,1998 City Council City of Iow~ City 410 East W~shington Street lowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 Hillary A. Sale 1016 East College Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 College and Washington Street Traffic Calming Proposal Dear City Council Members: I write to e.tl~ress my support for the proposed traffic-calmiq~ proSram to be discussed at your Tuesday, S~ptember 8, 1998, meethg. I am reside~it of this neip, hborhood and am concerned about both the volume and the speed of the cars on our!street. As the traffic-counting results reveal, the traffic on ColleSe Street is well- above what~the City anticipates for a residential street and the average speed exceeds the speed limit. The traffic volume and speed pose safety risks to our residefits, particularly to children. Indeed, safely concerns are what prompted the members of our neighborhood to request an initial meeting witix Mr. Ripley and to attend a follow-up meeting at which Mr. Ripley proposed the traffic-calmin~ devices discussed in his AuSust 26, 1998, memorandum (the "Ripley Memorandllm") to you. I urge you 1D allow the proposal to proceed. Mr. Ripley determined that the most efficacious means of dealinl~ with our t~-fi% problems was to install these devices. As I understand it, the devices wilk be monitored throup, hout the year and a final dedsi. on will be made after we have the opportunity... to determine whether they work. This process is very reasonable. It will ~ive all of us in the neil~hborhood an opportunity to determine whether this solution to our problem is the appropriate:one and~ hopefully, allow us to resolve our traffic and safety problems at minimal expense. Moreover, it is not permanent_ If it does not work, we can all rewnsider. Finally, I wimt w address the last paragraph of the Ripley Memorandum. In that paraBraph, 1~. Ripley refe~ to the response me on the survey. When I first read that paraSraph, what most surprised ms was not the response rate, but the number of surveys sent out. Upon reflection, I realized tha,[ many of the surveys (77/ 1 l?) went to non-single family residences. For the most part, those residences contain short-term rentors, many of whom live in our neighborhood for a year at the ~ost. It seems reasonable to me to infer lhat many of the people to whom surveys were sent do not have the same stake in the lenS-term nature of ore' neip, hborhood and rnight, Sent by: U OF Z COLLEGE LAW 3193359098; 09/04/98 14:33; Ji~F~ax #104;Page 3/3 therefore, bq~ less likely to return their survey. I want to stre~s that I am not making a comment about whetl)er they should have a voice in the neighborhood; of course they should, Although I cannot tell t~om the RipIcy Memorandum whether the 27 surveys returned were from the 40 single-family residences, I suspect that many were. lndecd, I suspc~ that many of those people are the one~ who regularly attend neighborhood meetings, Viewed in this light, the response rate is actually more impressive. Some of cur neighbors apparenfiy do not favor this proposal, but the majority of Ds do. That strikes me as the most important factor to consider. Thank your for your dine. I hope that you will decide favorably on this proposal and give us the opportunit~ to try to resolve our safety and traffic concerns. Veqt truly ~ours, CONTRACTOR'S TOOL P.O. BOX 3108 · 1430 WATERFRONT DRIVE IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244 FAX (319) 351-3233, PHONE (319) 338-1121 IOWA WATS 800-397-3233 September 2, 1998 City Council,City of Iowa City: I have been in contact with Fire Chief Andy Rocka concerning the power pole and emergency siren located on my mother's lot at the corner of Stevens Drive and Waterfront Drive. He informs me that he will only consider moving these poles (yes, they are in the easement area) to our available ground immediately to the east at our expense, which is totally unreasonable due to their current location in relationship to this lot. I believe their present location to be a very poor spot (they stick out like a sore thumb) and I had requested having them moved for several reasons. The timing would be excellent since the wind storm has knocked down the existing siren and work on it will be taking place anyway. And there is certainly plenty of un-used space for a new location directly east of Waterfront Drive near OUTLOT-A. I've enclosed a plot plan and approximate location of poles on it, along with photos so you may see for yourself our frustration with such a simple issue. I have faith that common sense may prevail and everything we all can do to promote business is GOOD BUSINESS! Thank you for your consideration, TOOLS FOR ALL TRADES 509618 ~"'l(.m~)l} I Mayor Ernie Lehman 902 Wylde Green Rd. Iowa City, IA 52246 September 4, 1998 1123 E. College Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mayor Lehman: We are writing in support of the "traffic calming" proposals for College and Washington Streets. We have lived on East College for 18 years and have two children, ages 6 and 12. Over the years, traffic has increased in the neighborhood. The "traffic calming" survey clearly indicates traffic is going too fast. We are concerned about the safety of the children in the area, especially when they play out in front yards and want to go back and forth across the street to see their friends. Traffic noise is another of our concerns. The only criticism we have heard is that the traffic circles might reduce on-street parking. When the safety of our children is weighed against parking convenience, the safety issue clearly wins. Even if the circles prove unpractical, the proposal is to try them for a year, and if they do not work, try something else. For these reasons, we urge you to approve the proposal. data/letters/traffic.98 Subj: To the I.C. City Council Date: 9/9/98 11:47:02 AM Central Daylight 'rime From: hhart@blue.weeg..uiowa.edu (H. Hart) To: lisa52240@aol.com Dear Council Members: I am writing to you conceming the re-appointment of Dan Coleman to the city's Housing Commission. As a long-time resident of Iowa City and a member of the Emergency Housing Project board, I have followed with great interest the recent developments in plans for affordable housing and delveopment. I%e been in attendance at several council meetings and workshops when the subject was discussed, and participated in the city-sponsored citizens' planning workshops on housing and development for the northside and the peninsula areas. I've been pleased and impressed with the programs for affordable currently under consideration, as well as the city's demonstrated concem for the type of development they'd like to encourage. Therefore, I was surprised to read in last week's ICON (in an article by Aaron Wolfe) that Dan Coleman was not re-appointed to the city's Housing Commission. I understand that there was some question about there being no other applicants for that position; but the article stated that the other commission member up for re-appointment was reinstated, although there was no other applicant for her position, either. In light of the general direction the city council is taking on housing and development issues, it seems that Mr. Coleman bdngs much positive experience to the commission. He has served on an affordable housing committee in Chapel Hill, N.C., and has studied and been involved with community land tracts (which, I believe, was an option under consideration by the city council). At the close of the citizens' planning workshop for the peninsula area, I saw many heads nod in appre~al when Mr. Coleman articulated what he obsen.~:l to be the pdmary concems of the participants: inclusion of affordable housing and consideration for the surrounding parkland. I cedainly hope that, as was stated in the ICON article, Mr. Coleman was not re-appointed on the basis of some perceived political differences. Considering his background, and the fact that he obviously shares ~iews on housing similar to those of the city council, I sincerely hope that you will re-appointment Mr. Coleman to the Housing Commission. Sincerely, Holly Hart 411 North Dubuque St. Iowa City, IA 52245 ....................... Headers ................................ Return-Path: <hhart@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> CITY OF I0 WA CITY September 9, 1998 Joe Bolkcom, Chair Johnson County Board of Supervisors 913 S. Dubuque Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Re: CZ9836. Eyman/Donovan rezoning request for property located along the south side of Interstate 80, west of its interchange with Herbert Hoover Highway. Dear Joe and Members of the Board: An application has been submitted to Johnson County by Jerry Eyman, on behalf of property owner Nellie Donovan, to rezone approximately 15 acres of property located along the south side of Interstate 80, west of its interchange with Herbert Hoover Highway, from A1, Rural, to CP-2, Planned Commercial. The subject property is located within Fringe Area B. At its August 20 meeting, the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the City Council forward a comment to the Johnson County Board of Supervisors recommending denial of the requested rezoning. This recommendation was made due to concerns about the application's inconsistency with the mutually agreed upon Fringe Area Agreement, concerns about commercial sprawl at this interchange and its potential impact on property within Iowa City's adopted growth boundary, and concerns about the appearance of this entryway into the community. Council agrees with the recommendation of denial from the Commission and respectfully requests that the County deny the proposed rezoning. The enclosed City staff memorandum further details the concerns regarding this rezoning request. Ernest W. Lehman Mayor Enclosure ppdadmin/ttrlcz9836.doc 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET · IOWA CITY. IOWA 52240-1826 · (319) 3,56-5000 · FAX (319) 356-5009 Se 9, 1998 CITY OF I0 WA CITY Joe Bolkcom, Johnson 913 S. Dubuque Iowa City, Iowa air >ard of Supervisors et Re: CZ9836. El Interstate 80, west rezoning ,quest for property located along the south side of g Herbert Hoover Highway. Dear Joe and Members of the An application has been submitted owner Nellie Donovan, to rezone ap~ side of Interstate 80, west of its inte~ CP-2, Planned Commercial. The ~hnson County by Jerry Eyman, on behalf of property ,ximately 15 acres of property located along the south ,ge with Herbert Hoover Highway, from A1, Rural, to perty is located within Fringe Area B. At its August 20 meeting, the the City Council forward a recommending denial of the concerns about the a Agreement, concerns about property within Iowa City's ad this entryway into the Commission and respectfull enclosed City staff Sincerely, Ernest W. Lehman Mayor City ~g and Zoning Commission recommended that ~nt to Johnson County Board of Supervisors uested This recommendation was made due to inconsistency the mutually agreed upon Fringe Area ~mercial sprawl at interchange and its potential impact on growth boundary, concerns about the appearance of ~. Council agrees with tH recommendation of denial from the requests that the County eny the proposed rezoning. The ~m further details the conc ' this rezoning request. Enclosure plxladmin/~tr/cz9836.doc 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET · IOWA CITY. IOWA 52240-1826 · (319) 356-5000 · FAX (319) 356~5009 City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: August 14, 1998 (for August 20 meeting) Planning & Zoning Commission Scott Kugler, Associate Planner C79836. Gateway Second Addition Rezoning Request. Johnson County has received a request from Jerry Eyman, on behalf of property owner Nellie M. Donovan, to rezone approximately 15 acres from A-l, Rural, to CP-2, Planned Commercial, for property located along the south side of Interstate 80 west of its interchange with Herbert Hoover Highway. The property is located within Fringe Area B, and a portion of the site is located within the City's long range growth boundary. This site is adjacent to approximately 29 acres of property that was zoned for commercial uses in 1994 despite a negative recommendation from the City. In 1996, a similar application was filed to rezone the subject property, but was withdrawn by the applicant before it was acted upon by the Board of Supervisors. The A1 zone permits mainly rural uses such as farms and farm residential uses, truck gardens, nurseries, orchards, tree farms, game management areas, and stables, as well as churches, schools, and cemeteries. The CP-2 zone permitted uses include restaurants, filling stations and t~uck terminals, farm implement and machinery sales, warehouses, manufactured housing sales, greenhouses, plumbing, heating, and electrical contractors, lumber yards, carpenter shops, and cemetery monument sales. The Fringe Area B development policy does not provide for commercial development at this interchange or within any other portions of Area B. The policy clearly states that for land outside of the growth boundary agricultural uses are preferred, and that rezonings to RS- 10, Suburban Residential, will be considered. Property within the growth boundary is to be developed upon annexation, or in compliance with the adopted land use plan for Area B. The land use plan does not address property at this interchange. Staff feels that the requested rezoning is clearly inconsistent with the agreed upon policies contained in the Fringe Area Agreement for Area B. Even if additional commercial zoning were called for at this location, staff would have concerns about zoning this property at this time. The approximate 29 acre parcel that was zoned for commercial development to the east of this site has not yet been developed. Grading activities have occurred there, but no structures have been built nor have any businesses moved onto the property. Staff is concerned about over-zoning for commercial development in this area when it has not yet been demonstrated that a market for such development exists. City sewer and water are not available to the site at this time, and it will likely be many years before these services would be available. Staff recommends that additional commercial zoning not be granted in this vicinity. The plan submitted to the County, as well as the basic idea of expanding the existing commercial zoning to the west as proposed, suggests a linear strip type of commercial development that is not sonsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan policies for commercial areas. Rather, the Plan calls for focussing commercial development in defined commercial centers and discourages linear developments that encourage sprawl. Given that this property begins to encroach into the City's adopted growth area, staff is concerned about the impact this will have on adjacent properties to the west, its incompatibility with adjacent land uses, and increased pressures that there may be to develop adjacent areas commercially. Staff feels that the current 29 acres of commercially zoned property, which is roughly the size of the WestPort Plaza development containing Walmart and Cub Foods on Highway 1 West, is more than enough in this area. This property is located within the City's Northeast Planning District. Citizen planning workshops have recently been held to receive public input in the planning for this area. Both City and County residents participated. The possibility of some community commercial development within this district was an item that was considered by workshop participants. Generally, there was little interest in the location of community commercial development within this planning district. There was preference expressed for neighborhood commercial development instead. Those that did feel community commercial development would be appropriate were split as to its preferred location between this interchange and the intersection of Rochester Avenue and Scott Boulevard. The draft northeast District Plan being prepared by staff as a result of these workshops will likely not advocate community commercial development in this area, but will rather favor a number of new neighborhood commercial centers to serve the needs of the future population there as these neighborhoods develop. The Herbert Hoover Highway/Rochester Avenue entryway is currently an attractive entry into the community. The current grading activities and the proposed development on the existing 29 acres of commercially zoned property will detract from the appearance of the entryway. A site plan has been submitted to the County for this property, which includes a potential convenience store, mini-warehouses, a few larger development parcels, and a series of what appear to be "flex space" type buildings. No landscaping is shown on the plans. A more detailed site plan for the proposed convenience store shows parking very near the property line along Herbert Hoover Highway, three trees, and a "grassy area". It appears that not much attention will be paid to the aesthetics of this entryway. To amend or relax the enforcement of the Fringe Area Agreement to allow for the development of an exceptional project that has a great deal of public benefit despite its non-compliance with the agreement should be considered if the situation justifies it. To do so in this situation is not recommended. Staff did not recommend the initial decision to zone property at this interchange for commercial uses, and cannot support the proposed expansion of this zoning. A number of potentially negative impacts have been identified, and the applicant has submitted no information to justify additional commercial zoning in this location. Staff can see no public benefit in the rezoning of the additional 15 acres as requested. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council forward a letter to the Johnson County Board recommending that CZ9836, a request to rezone approximately 15 acres located along the south side of Interstate 80, west of its interchange with Herbert Hoover Highway, from Rural (A-l) to Planned Commercial (CP-2), be denied. ATTACHMENTS: Location map. Rezoning request submitted on behalf of the applicant. CP2 Zoning Concept Plan. Approved by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development II o o <( 0 0 // f ' //' .I 535 Southgate Avenue Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Phone (319) 354-1984 Fax (319) 354-8850 July 9, 1998 Thomas Anthony, RL Ralph Stoffer, PE, RL Rick Dvorak Zoning Administrator Johnson County Administration Building 913 S. Dubuque St. Iowa City, IA 52244 Re: Gateway Second Addition - 15.0 Acre Rezoning Request Dear Rick: Gateway Development is requesting rezoning of a 15.0 acre parcel from A-1 to CP2 which lies west of the county approved Gateway First Addition site. The site's uses will vary but will comply with the CP2 Zoning. A 24-foot wide Portland Concrete Cement drive from the present Gateway First Addition site will provide access to the 15.0 acre parcel. The detention basin, located in the northwest corner of the present Gateway First Addition site, will have storage capacity necessary to meet the stormwater storage needs of the additional 15.0 acres. Utilities serving the site will be extended from the existing Gateway First Addition and will include water, telephone, sewer and electric. Water will be provided by a DNR approved water supply system and sanitary sewer treatment will be provided by a DNR approved sanitary sewer treatment facility. Gas will be obtained from individual tanks until natural gas is available. The time schedule for the construction of the site will be market driven. If you have any further questions or comments, please contact me. Sincerely, Richard Kordick Civil Engineer cc: Jerry Eyman FILED U L 0 9 1998 POLICE CITIZENS REVIEW BOARD A Board of the City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City IA 52240-1826 (319)356-5413 September 3, 1998 Mayor Ernest W. Lehman 410 East Washington Iowa City IA 52240 Dear Mayor and Council Members: At our meeting of September 1, 1998, the Police Citizens Review Board unanimously voted to request an extension of the 30-day reporting deadline according to Section 1 of Ordinance No. 973792 for PCRB Complaints #98-11, #98-14 and #98-16. Because we are awaiting additional information requested from the police department, we are requesting a 45-day extension on each of these complaints: · PCRB #98-11 - Report is presently due 9/19/98 45-day extension - Report would be due November 3, 1998 · PCRB #98-14 - Report is presently due 9/20/98 45-day extension - Report would be due November 4, 1998 · PCRB #98-16 - Report is presently due 9/20/98 45-day extension - Report would be due November 4, 1998 The Board has scheduled meetings for every Tuesday evening for the remainder of the year, so your prompt consideration would be most appreciated. Paul Ho~fey, Cha~ Police Citizens Review Board