HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-03-20 Public hearing NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing
will be held by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa,
th
at 7:00 p.m. on the 20 day of March, 2001, in the
Civic Center Council Chambers, 410 E.
Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa, or if said
meeting is cancelled, at the next meeting of the
City Council thereafter as posted by the City Clerk;
at which hearing the Council will consider:
1. A public hearing on an ordinance
changing the zoning designation by establishing a
Conservation Overlay Zone for properties
generally located south of Burlington Street along
Governor and Lucas Streets.
2. A public hearing on an ordinance
changing the zoning designation from High
Density Multi-family Residential, RM-44, to
Sensitive Areas Overlay, OSA-44, for
approximately 4.01 acres of property to allow
thirty-nine (39) dwellings in three (3) buildings
located on the east side of Harlocke Street.
Copies of the proposed ordinances are on file
for public examination in the office of the City
Clerk, Civic Center, Iowa City, Iowa. Persons
wishing to make their views known for Council
consideration are encouraged to appear at the
above-mentioned time and place.
MARlAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
Prepared by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, 410 E, Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5240
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CHAPTER BY DESIGNATING THE GOVERNOR-
LUCAS-BOWERY STREET CONSERVATION DISTRICT AS A CONSERVATION OVERLAY
(OCD) ZONE, CONTAINING PROPERTIES LOCATED ALONG S. GOVERNOR AND S.
LUCAS STREETS, SOUTH OF BURLINGTON STREET, AND ALONG BOWERY STREET
BETWEEN LUCAS STREET AND THE SUMMIT STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, the Iowa City Municipal Code authorizes the Historic Preservation Commission
to nominate and the City Council to designate conservation districts, where deemed appropriate,
as a means of preserving the neighborhood character of traditional Iowa City neighborhoods, or
for preserving areas that exemplify unique or distinctive development patterns; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission has studied an area consisting of
properties located along S. Governor and S. Lucas Streets, south of Burlington Street, and along
Bowery Street between Lucas Street and the Summit Street Historic District, to determine its
eligibility for designation as a historic or conservation district, and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission has determined that said area meets the
eligibility criteria for designation as a conservation district, and has prepared a conservation
district report, as required by City Code Section 14-6J-4C, which recommends that such
designation be considered; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission feels that designation of the subject area
as a conservation district will help stabilize property values and encourage reinvestment in older
neighborhoods by providing for design review of new construction or alterations of existing
buildings to assure compatibility with the existing character of the district, will encourage the
retention of existing contributing structures within the district, and will protect the environmental
setting of the Summit Street Historic District, located immediately east of the proposed district
boundaries; and
WHEREAS, at its January 11, 2001 public hearing, the Historic Preservation Commission
nominated said district for designation as a conservation district; and
WHEREAS, at its March 1, 2001 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval of the proposed conservation district designation; and
WHEREAS, the State Historical Society of Iowa has reviewed the proposed nomination and
concurs with the recommendations contained within the above referenced conservation district
report; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Plan and Comprehensive Plan both encourage the
preservation of the character of older Iowa City neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the designation of this neighborhood as a conservation district would be
consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's Historic Preservation Plan, which has been
incorporated as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, iOWA:
SECTION I. APPROVAL. The following described property is hereby designated as a
Conservation Overlay (OCD) Zone and subject to the provisions and guidelines contained within
the Governor-Lucas-Bowery Street Conservation District Report, incorporated herein by this
reference:
Commencing at the northwest corner of Strohm's Addition, Block 1, Lot 1, westerly 30 feet
and southerly 30 feet to the point of beginning, which is in the center of the Lucas Street
right-of-way, then southerly 567.8 feet, southeast 561.81 along the northern right-of-way line
of the Iowa Interstate Railroad, northerly 838.08 feet to the southern right-of-way line of
Bowery Street, easterly 42.65 feet, northerly 968.83 feet, westerly 42.69 feet, northerly 220
feet, westerly 75 feet, northerly 98 feet, westerly 120 feet to the center of the Governor Street
right-of-way, then southerly 245.56 feet, westerly 199.98 feet, northerly 80 feet, westerly 160
feet, northerly 20 feet along the eastern right-of-way line of Lucas Street, then easterly 120
feet, northerly 130 feet, westerly 150 feet to the center of the Lucas Street right-of-way, then
northerly 70 feet, westerly 114.69 feet along the southern right-of-way line of Burlington
Street, then southerly 110 feet, westerly 88 feet to the center of the right-of-way of the alley
running north and south between Lucas and Dodge Streets, southerly 1343.57 feet to the
southern right-of-way line of Bower,/Street, westerly 10 feet to the center of the right-of-way
of the alley running south of Bower,/Street between Lucas and Dodge Streets, southerly 220
feet, easterly 70 feet, northerly 60 feet, and easterly 152.5 feet to the point of beginning.
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to
change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the
final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance as provided by law.
SECTION III. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the
Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance
and to record the same at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, all as
provided by law.
SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provi-
sions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section. provision or part of the Ordinance shall be
adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the
Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconsti-
tutional.
SECTION Vt. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage,
approval and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of ,2001.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 9, 2001
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Re: Governor/Lucas/Bowery Street Conservation District
The Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission has proposed the establishment of a
Governor/Lucas/Bowery Street Conservation District. The zoning code provides for an overlay
zone to establish such districts. The subject area is generally located south of Burlington Street
on both sides of Governor and Lucas Streets. The attached Conservation District Nomination
report illustrates the location.
The Historic Preservation Commission, at the request of area property owners, has conducted a
study of the subject area and has completed a Conservation District Nomination Report. As
detailed in the report the Historic Preservation Commission found that the area does meet the
criteria needed for the establishment of a conservation district.
The Planning and Zoning Commission's role in reviewing conservation districts is to determine
whether or not the proposed overlay zone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan does propose the preservation and conservation of older Iowa City
neighborhoods and contemplates the use of tools such as historic district overlay zones and
conservation overlay zones to achieve this objective. The plan also encourages the use of other
toots such as appropriate zoning to conserve older neighborhoods.
Staff finds that the proposed conservation district is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
and furthers the plan's objective of conserving older Iowa City neighborhoods. Staff recommends
the approval of the Governor/Lucas/Bowery Street Conservation District.
Approved by:
anklin, Director, Planning and Community Development
Attachment:
Conservation District Nomination Report
CONSERVATION DISTRICT NOMINATION REPORT
PROPOSED GOVERNOR-LUCAS-BOWERY STREET CONSERVATION DISTRICT
IOWA CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
DRAFT NOVEMBER 29, 2000
The Iowa City Historic Preservation Commission is considering the nomination of its first iowa City
Conservation District. The proposed district is titled the Governor-Lucas-Bowery Street Conservation
District, and consists of properties along Governor and Lucas Streets, south of Burlington Street, as well
as properties along Bowery Street between Lucas Street and the Summit Street Historic District (see
Attachment A). This report is intended to serve as the conservation district repod required by City Code
sections 14-4H, Historic Preservation Regulations, and 14-6J-4, Conservation District Overlay (OCD)
Zone.
Two historic buildings surveys have been completed within this neighborhood, one of which included all of
the properties within the proposed conservation district boundaries. A Reconnaissance Sun/ey of the
Area Bounded by Gilbe~f, Burlington and Governor Streets and the Iowa Interstate Railway Tracks in Iowa
City, Iowa was completed by Molly Myers Naumann, Architectural Historian, and Brian Schultes, Survey
Assistant and Historian, in March, 1990, and included the entire district, as well as additional properties to
the west to Gilbert Street. This project was completed to assist the City's Community Development
Division when investing federal funds within this neighborhood as part of the Housing Rehabilitation
Program. The purpose of this survey was to take a general look at this neighborhood to identify areas that
may have the potential to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The survey
report recommended that Governor, Lucas, and portions of Bowery Street be looked at in more detail to
determine their National Register eligibility. The City did not have the ability to designate conservation
districts at the time this survey was completed.
Bowery Street Lucas Street Governor Street
A second survey project, entitled Sunley and Evaluation of the Longfellow Neighborhood I & II, Iowa City,
Iowa, was also prepared by Naumann and Schultes in November, 1996 and July 1998. This was an
intensive level survey in which all buildings were evaluated, and included properties along Governor
Street, a portion of Bowery Street and the balance of the Longfellow Neighborhood to the east to Seventh
Avenue, but did not include Lucas Street. The survey report recommended that the GovernodBowery
area be designated as a conservation district under the City's newly adopted conservation district
ordinance (adopted in 1995). These recommendations were well received by neighborhood residents who
attended neighborhood meetings at which the survey reports were discussed. In the fall of 1999, with
input from residents of the Governor-Lucas-Bowery Street area and the Longfellow Neighborhood
Association, the Commission placed a priority on the nomination of this conservation district within its
calendar year 2000 work plan.
What is a Conservation District?: Since the City has not yet designated any conservation districts, a
brief explanation of the concept and the differences between historic and conservation districts is in order.
Conservation district designation is a tool available to the City to help preserve the existing character of a
neighborhood or streetscape. Because conservation districts are intended to be applicable to a number of
different types of neighborhoods, there is a great deal of flexibility in how these districts are defined and
regulated. To qualify for consideration as a conservation district, a majority of buildings within a specified
area must be at least 50 years old. In addition, the district must represent the traditional character of Iowa
City neighborhoods through amhitectural characteristics and building patterns, exemplify development
patterns significant in Iowa City history or tradition, or represent unique or unusual character that creates a
distinctiveness. The degree to which a proposed district fits within these criteria must be interpreted by
the Historic Preservation Commission in deciding whether or not tO nominate a district for designation.
Although a conservation district is administered in a similar manner to a historic district, its intent is to
preserve neighborhood character rather than historic resources. In a historic district, the preservation of
the historic character of the district is a priority, but each contributing building is treated as a historic
resource in itself, as well. In reviewing proposed alterations within conservation districts, a less strict set
of guidelines will be used for alterations to existing buildings. For new buildings and additions, however,
guidelines regarding building scale and mass, rooflines, and architectural compatibility will likely be very
similar.
Report Requirements: As required by City Code section 14-6J-4, Conservation District Overlay (OCD)
Zone, a conservation district report must contain the following components:
A. Study of the characteristics of the proposed OCD Zone, including architectural
characteristics, elements of the streetscape, physical conditions of buildings, age of
buildings and property ownership patterns:
Turn-of*the-century houses and tree-lined streets characterize the residential district Bowery Street
between Lucas and Governor, and Lucas and Governor Streets between Burlington and the Iowa
Interstate Railway. Lucas Street is a quiet, narrow, two-way, residential street that exhibits a significant
sense of time and place. Although Governor Street carries more traffic, the wide lots and deep set-backs
convey a sense of Midwestern spaciousness and early twentieth-century charm to this traditional
neighborhood.
Most of this district retained a rural character before 1900. It lay outside of the original Iowa City town plat
and the Strohm and Kaufmann nurseries, located at the south end of Governor Street, contributed to the
rural flavor. There were few structures in this district before 1860. A single stone cottage on Governor
Street was contemporary with the construction of the Old Capitol. The Iowa City Directory from 1868-1869
listed only four residents on Governor Street south of Burlington besides the African Methodist Episcopal
(AME) church, built in 1868. Oral tradition from the AME church maintains that AME members chose a
"rural" location for the church in accordance with tacit understandings of racial segregation within the city
proper. After construction, several African-American families lived near the churchfi At this time,
residents in the area were primarily laborers or skilled craftsmen. Most nineteenth-century houses were
modest, following the popular vernacular Gable and Wing style. The east side of Governor Street and
Bowery Street shared somewhat in the elegance of nearby Summit Street. Between 1861 and 1864, a
pair of ornate Italianate houses were built on wide lots at 510 and 520 South Governor. Another Italianate
house at 922 Bowery Street and the Price-Swisher Gothic Revival House at 917 Bowery Street also gave
an air of elegance to Governor and Bowery Streets after 1875. Development of the neighborhood was
steady, but slow, with less than two dozen individual houses located on Governor Street before 1900.2
Rapid residential construction along Governor and Lucas Streets between 1900 and 1930 gave these
streets their turn-of-the-century character. The expansion of the University of Iowa brought white-collar
i Jan Nash, "African Methodist-Episcopal Church in Iowa City," nomination for to the National Register of
Historic Places, 2000.
2 Molly Nauman. "Survey and Evaluation of Longfellow Neighborhood I & II," 1996 and 1998, p. 19.
2
professionals and businessmen into this new, suburban neighborhood? Along Governor. Lucas, and
Bowery Streets. houses from the early twentieth century. mainly American Four Square and Bungalow
style cottages. mixed harmoniously with houses from the last decade of the nineteenth century. Lot sizes
and setbacks vary. Many of the twentieth-century houses were placed closer together and located near
the front edge of the lots, allowing for large backyards. Only the older houses on the east side of
Governor Street shared the deep setbacks of Summit Street.
The six Bungalow-style houses on Lucas Street just south of Burlington are representative of the small,
middle-class houses chosen by young professionals during the 1910s and 1920s. They, as well as most
of the Four-Square and Craftsman-style houses that characterize this period, are relatively intact, with
most alterations consisting of replacement siding and/or changes to original porches. A pair of houses on
the west side of Lucas Street illustrate another popular early twentieth century design - the Dutch Colonial
Revival style with its gambrel roof. Historic preservation consultants Molly Naurnann and Brian Schultes
noted that there is a sense of time and place about Lucas Street that should be preserved.4
Residential patterns were altered again in the second half of the twentieth-century, threatening the overall
historic character of the neighborhood. In 1961, the majority of the district was rezoned for multi-family
occupancy. In the decades that followed several older houses were demolished and replaced with
modern structures that fit poorly with the older housing styles and the rhythm of the street. Four older
properties have had large, out-of-scale additions attached to the side or rear with little regard for
compatibility with the historic architectural style of the original structure. On streets to the west of this
neighborhood such as Dodge, Johnson, and Van Buren, most of the houses have been replaced by
apartment buildings. In May of 2000. families and long-term renters occupying older houses within the
Governor-Bowery-Lucas Street neighborhood, aware of the pressure to construct dormitory-style
apartment buildings in the neighborhood, successfully petitioned the City Council to down-zone the
neighborhood to RNC-12.
The proposed conservation district includes 140 residential propedies and one church, the Bethel AME
Church, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Of the residential properties, 63.5%
are single family dwellings (44 owner occupied and 45 rental), 15% are duplexes (21), 16.5% are multi-
family dwellings containing 3 or more dwelling units (23), and 5% are rooming houses (7). Slightly less
than one-third of the properties are owner-occupied. The Land Use Map included as Attachment B
illustrates the distribution of these uses within the district boundaries. The recent down-zoning of much of
this district has reduced the threat of additional tear-downs and the construction of large buildings that are
out of scale with the majority of properties in the area, but replacement of existing structures with new
duplex or single-family units and the alteration of existing buildings are still very possible. Designation of
this area as a conservation district will help to ensure that future alterations and new construction do not
significantly alter the existing character of the district.
Designation of the Governor-Lucas-Bowery district as a conservation overlay district (OCD) would further
stabilize the neighborhood. This district would provide a buffer between the high density, late twentieth-
century apartment complexes to the west and the historic Summit Street and Longfellow neighborhoods to
the east. Review of proposed alterations by the Historic Preservation Commission would assure owners
and investors that the historic characteristics of the neighborhood would be protected.
3 See Marlys Svendsen, "Historical Resources of Iowa City," Iowa City Historic Preservation Plan, 1992 for a
discussion of the changes in Iowa City neighborhoods during the period of University of Iowa expansion, 1900 to
1930.
4 Molly Naumann and Brian Schuttes, "A Reconnaissance Survey of the Area Bounded by Gilbert, Burlington and
Governor Streets and the Iowa Interstate Railway Tracks in Iowa City, Iowa," 1990, p. 58.
3
B. Boundaries of the proposed OCD Zone:
See attachment A
C. Guidelines for A~erafions and Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings:
The Commission's existing guidelines for dealing with building alterations were written to apply to both
historic districts and conservation districts. Although the two districts are not one and the same, as
detailed above. the concept of preserving the general character and feel of a neighborhood is the same
for both types of districts. However, the level of detail to which the guidelines are applied to individual
buildings will be greater for properties in historic districts. In a historic district, in addition to preserving the
historic character of a neighborhood, much concern is paid to the individual buildings as historic
resources. While alterations to individual buildings within conservation districts will be subject to review,
the existing guidelines contain a number of exceptions that would apply to all buildings within conservation
districts. The primary guidelines for alterations and rehabilitation within the Governor-Lucas-Bowery
Street Conservation District have already been established, and are contained within the Iowa City Historic
Preservation Handbook which was recently approved by the City Council. The handbook is available from
the Department of Planning and Community Development and at the public library, as well as on the City's
web site at www.iowa-city.org (follow the links to "City Departments" and "Planning and Community
Development," then "Historic Preservation").
For building additions, the "Site and Scale Guidelines" contained within Attachment D would also apply.
The Site and Scale Guidelines for individual districts are to be drafted based on the characteristics of the
neighborhoods proposed for designation. Attachment D is a new set of guidelines that ~ill apply only
within the Governor-Lucas-Bowery Street district.
D. Guidelines for Construction of New Buildings:
Attachment D, referenced above regarding building additions, also contains guidelines for new single-
family and duplex buildings within the proposed conservation district. The guidelines are aimed at
ensuring that new single-family and duplex buildings fit in terms of architecture style, scale and site
development. They would also apply to new outbuildings such as garages. Multi-family buildings
proposed within the conservation district would be evaluated under the Multi-Family Construction
Guidelines contained within the above-referenced Handbook.
E. ModiFIcations to the Dimensional Requirements of the Underlying Zoning District Based on the
Prevailing Character of Existing Development:
The proposed guidelines contained in Attachment D incorporate methods for calculating front yard
requirements based on the prevailing characteristics of surrounding properties within the neighborhood.
In some cases, the required front yard will vary from the 20 feet currently required in residential zones.
F. Modirlcations to the Off-Street Parking Requirements Which Apply to Uses in the Underlying
Zone:
None proposed.
G. Level of Review Requirements:
As in historic districts, the City Code specifies that, within a conservation district, any exterior alteration or
change of appearance to a designated property that requires a regulated permit, and that can be seen
from the public right-of-way or another property, is subject to review and approval by the Commission.
However, unlike the historic district regulations, within a conservation district the City has the ability to
specify "levels of review" for various types of building alterations. The specified levels of review will help in
4
administering the conservation district regulations by reducing the time necessary to process many of the
more minor applications, and by reducing the number of projects that will have to go before the full
Commission for review. The OCD Zone allows the City to specify three different levels of review that
projects will receive within conservation districts. A "minor review" is a review conducted and approval
granted by the Commission's staff person. An "intermediate review" requires review by the staff person
and the Chair or designee. A report of any approvals granted under these categories is to be made to the
full Commission, A "major review" would consist of a review before the full commission at a regular
commission meeting, similar to a typical review of a certificate of appropriateness within a historic district.
Minor Review: The following items are proposed to be regulated under the minor review category within
the Governor-Lucas-Bowery Street Conservation District. Some items listed do not require a building
permit for single-family or duplex buildings, but may require a permit for multi-family buildings. If no
building permit is required, review by the Historic Preservation Commission is not necessary.
Roof replacement with like materials
[] Window replacement for noncontributing structures
Siding application on noncontributing structures
Minor replacement of individual building components, such as a porch post or rail, with new
components of the same materials and design
Intermediate Review: The following items are proposed to be regulated under the intermediate review
category within the Governor-Lucas-Bowery Street Conservation District. Some items listed do not require
a building permit for single-family or duplex buildings, but may require a permit for multi-family buildings. If
no building permit is required, review by the Historic Preservation Commission is not necessary.
n Roof replacement with a different material than currently existing
Window replacement on contributing structures
n Siding application on contributing structures
Alterations to the rear elevation of an existing building
[] Alterations to an existing garage or outbuilding located behind the rear plane of an existing primary
structure
Construction or replacement of balconies or decks that are not visible on a street elevation
n Replacement of building features not covered under a minor review, such as a front porch, with new
features of the same materials and design
ca The construction of new outbuildings provided that they are located behind the rear plane of an
existing primary structure
Major Review: Any change in appearance that is not otherwise listed above under Minor or Intermediate
Review is to be regulated under the major review category within the Governor-Lucas-Bowery Street
Conservation District.
Elevated Level of Review: A minor review may be elevated to the intermediate review process if
determined to be necessary by staff or if requested by an applicant. An intermediate review may be
elevated to the major review process if determined to be necessary by staff or if requested by the
applicant or the Commission's Chair or Designee. An applicant may appeal decisions made by the
Commission under the major review process to the Board of Adjustment, as described in City Code
section 14-4C-7G. Any applicant aggrieved by a decision made under the minor or intermediate review
processes must request and complete a major review before appealing to the Board of Adjustment.
H. Proposed Ordinance for the Governor-Lucas-Bowery Street Conservation District Overlay (OCD)
Zone:
See Attachment E for a draft of the proposed ordinance. Final approval of the ordinance by the City
Attorney's Office will not occur until after the Planning and Zoning Commission review is complete. The
text of the ordinance is subject to change prior to City Council consideration.
Contributing/Noncontributing Buildings: In order to administer the conservation district guidelines,
buildings within the proposed district need to be categorized as contributing or noncontributing structures.
A building is considered to be contributing if it fits within or adds to the qualities that make the
neighborhood worthy of designation as a conservation district. Generally, the structures must be more
than 50 years old and retain a sense of their original appearance and site configuration. The architectural
integrity of individual structures is impodant and can add significantly to the character of the neighborhood,
but in a conservation district it is not crucial that each building exist in its original, unaltered state. Rather,
if the general form, architectural character and roofiine of the house remain relatively intact, but individual
details have been altered, such as replacement siding, replacement windows or front porch alterations or
enclosures, the building will be considered contributing. If major changes have been made then the
building will be considered noncontributing. This may include substantial alterations to the roofline,
unsympathetic alterations to the front plane of the building, an addition that overwhelms the original
structure, or major site alterations that do not fit with the general character of the district.
As a result of the 1996/1998 survey of the Longfellow Neighborhood, an evaluation of the buildings along
Governor Street and a podion of Bowery Street has been completed. The Commission's consultant
provided an evaluation of each building with respect to the proposed conservation district. With a few
exceptions, these evaluations have been accepted by the Commission. Commission members have
conducted a similar evaluation of properties located along Lucas Street and the portion of Bowery not
included in the 1996/1998 survey. These evaluations will be used for determining whether buildings are
considered contributing or noncontributing structures within this conservation district. A list of the
contributing and non-contributing structures can be found within Attachment D as part of the district
guidelines, and are also illustrated on the map included as Attachment C. Of the 141 properties included
in the Governor-Lucas-Bowery Street Conservation District, 108 (76.6%) are considered to be contributing
to the character of the conservation district. When evaluated based on historic district criteria,
approximately 55% of the properties were considered to be contributing structures.
Summary: Upon studying the Governor-Lucas-Bowery Street area, the Historic Preservation
Commission feels that the designation of this neighborhood as a conservation district is warranted. The
area retains its traditional neighborhood character and a sense of time and place, and a majority of the
structures within the district contribute toward this character. Designation of this conservation district will
also help provide a buffer for the Summit Street Historic District and the balance of the Longfellow
Neighborhood from the new apartment construction to the west. Along with the recent decision to
downzone this neighborhood to discourage tear-downs and new apartment construction, conservation
district designation can be an effective tool to help preserve the character and remaining historic
resources of this neighborhood. It is hoped that with such a designation, this district will begin to
experience the same type of investment and improvement that has been occurring within recently
designated historic districts, such as Brown Street and East College StreeL In these areas, there have
been a remarkable number of building rehabilitation efforts, and a number of property owners have
credited the historic district designation as a major part of their decision to invest in their properties.
Because they have some assurance that their neighborhood will retain the qualities that attracted them
there, they were more willing to make a substantial investment in their own propedies, which is in turn an
investment in the neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Historic Preservation Commission is of the opinion that the proposed Governor-Lucas-Bowery Street
Conservation District meets the criteria for designation as defined under City Code Section 14-4C, Historic
Preservation Regulations, and 14-6J-4, Conservation Overlay Zone (OCD), and recommends that the
proposed Governor-Lucas-Bowery Street Conservation District be approved.
6
ATTACHMENTS:
A. District boundary map.
B. Land use map,
C. Contributing/noncontributing properties map.
D. Proposed conservation district design guidelines.
E. Draft Governor-Lucas-Bowery Conservation District designation ordinance
EXHIBIT A:
Governor/Lucas/Bowery Street Conservation District
August 2000
COLLEGE ST
BURLINGTON ST
COURT ST 4~t .~oz
Z ~ s~7 ~ s~4
BO~RY ST ~ ~ _~
GRO~ ~" ~..~ ..
P~
PAGE
1
W~N~ ST
EXHIBIT B:
Governor/Lucas/Bowery Street Conservation District
Land Use Map
August 2000
COLLEGE ST
BURLINGTON ST
COURT ST I
GROVE
PARK
PAGE ST
WALNUT ST
Owner-occupied single-family Rooming house
Rental single-family or duplex ~ Institutional
Multi-family/#units *a~ National Register Listed Property
EXHIBIT C:
Governor/Lucas/Bowery Street Conservation District
Contributing and Non-contributing Structures
August 2000
COLLEGE ST
BURLINGTON ST
COURT ST
BOWERY ST m
GROf/E
RK
PAGE ST
WALNUT ST
Contributing Structure
Non-contributing Swuctut~
Summit Street Historic Di$tria
National Regiger Listed Property
EXHIBIT D: (To be included within the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook upon designation of this conservation
district)
DISTRICT GUIDELINES FOR THE
GOVERNOR-LUCAS-BOWERY STREET CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Dreft: november 29, 2000
Site and Scale Guidelines for Additions and New Primary Buildinqs
Setback, Front: For new buildings, the building setback from the street should be
established based upon the setbacks of existing structures located adjacent to the
proposed building. The setback of the new building should conform with the average of
the setbacks of the primary buildings located on the first two lots in either direction along
its frontage. The setbacks of existing buildings shall be measured at the first floor wall of
the main living area of the building, excluding a covered or enclosed porch. Front
porches are prevalent on existing structures within the district. New buildings may
contain covered front porches that extend into the front yard, provided they are located
no closer to the street than any of the other porches along the same street frontage.
Building additions are encouraged to occur at the rear of a property if possible.
Additions at or near the front of an existing building shall be set back at least 18 inches
from the front plane of the existing building and shall be differentiated by a change in the
roofline or other means. Attached garages are discouraged, but if constructed should be
set back 20 feet or more from the front plane of the building.
Building Facade: The total surface area of the street elevation of a new building should
be no more than 800 square feet for properties along Lucas or Bowery Street, and no
more than 1200 square feet for properties along Governor Street. Existing buildings
should not be expanded in such a manner that the total surface area exceeds the upper
threshold listed above for its respective street. For the purposes of enforcing this
guideline, the total surface area of the street elevation shall be defined as a figure
derived by calculating the surface area of all wall and roof surfaces, including window
and door openings, that are visible in an accurate street elevation drawing of a building.
Access: A sidewalk shall be provided that connects the entrance door or porch to the
public sidewalk.
Parking: Parking is not permitted between the primary building and the street. Parking
should be provided behind the primary structure on a lot wherever possible. If parking
must be located along the side of an existing or new primary building, it shall be set back
from the front plane of the building a minimum of 10 feet and be screened by a
decorative fence, landscaping or a combination of a decorative fence and landscaping,
and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission.
Architectural Guidelines for New Sinclle-Familv and Dul~lex Structures
Building Styles: Five architectural styles predominate in the Governor-Lucas-Bowery
Street Conservation District: Vernacular Gable, Italianate, Queen Anne, Foursquare,
and Bungalow. New single-family or duplex structures in this district should reflect one
of these styles in its size, mass, and architectural details. Although new construction
may adapt and mix some elements of these styles, a single style should dictate the
height and mass, rooflines, fenestration, and overhangs for the new building. Please
refer to the section entitled "Architectural Styles in Iowa City" for a detailed discussion of
each of these styles.
Building Height and Mass: New single-family houses or duplexes in the Governor-
Lucas-Bowery Street Conservation District shall be one, one-and-a-half, or two-stories in
height.
· All significant, one-story buildings in this district am Bungalow style and any one-
story new construction must incorporate details from this style.
· One-and-a-half or two-story structures should incorporate elements of the
*Vemacular, Bungalow, Italianate, Queen Anne, or Foursquare styles.
. Vernacular design features in this district feature narrow gable ends, steep
roof pitches, and perpendicular wings with gable ends.
Rooflines: Roofline should follow one of the historic building styles identified as
appropriate for this district.
· Vernacular style houses in this district have roof pitches of 6/12 to 12/12 with
intersecting ridges and valleys.
· Bungalows in this district have uninterrupted roofs of 5/12 to 8/12 pitches, with gable
ends facing the street.
Dormers for these building styles must be in proportion to the roof's overall size.
Cumulatively, they should interrupt the roof plane no more than one third of the length of
that roof measured at the eave. They should be set back at least three feet from any
roof edge. The face of the dormer must be narrow, rather than wide, and be composed
primarily of window area. Dormers in new construction should have roof pitches similar
to the pitch of the main roof.
Overhangs: New construction should include overhangs appropriate to the historic
style guiding the overall design of the building.
Windows/Fenestration: Window placement on the fac.,,ade a new building should follow
patterns established by contributing structures within the district. Window shape and
placement must be consistent with other elements of the building style of the new
structure. Long wall spaces without windows are inappropriate. Small decorative
windows in the attic level of front gable ends are encouraged. Window trim shall be
between three to four inches in width. Shutters are discouraged.
Doors: Exterior doors on front or side elevations of new single and duplex structures
must include half or full lights and/or raised panel construction in keeping with the
historic building style of the new structure. Patio doors are uncharacteristic of any of the
historic styles of the neighborhood and should appear only on rear elevations.
Porches and Balconies: Single-story, covered front porches are a key element of all of
the historic styles in the Governor-Lucas-Bowery Street Conservation District and new
single-family and duplex structures should include a porch typical for the style of the
house. Front porches must be roofed and supported with posts or pillars of appropriate
dimensions. They may be partially screened or unscreened, but shall not be entirely
enclosed with walls and/or windows. Porch flooring may be vertical-grained fir porch
flooring or dimensional lumber, but must not have gaps over one eighth inch between
floor boards. Poured concrete floors are permitted provided the porch floor will not be
more than 18 inches above grade.
The pitch of the porch roof may be shallower than that of the main roof, but fascia, trim,
and overhang dimensions should reflect those of the main roof. Posts and other accents
may be wood or other durable material that accepts paint. Porches on rear elevations
need not reproduce historic details. Balconies that protrude from the walls of buildings
without vertical suppod were not common features of any of the historic styles found in
this neighborhood, and should not be included on the front or sides of buildings. if
second story porches are included, they must be placed above first story porches or
other interior space.
Siding: Horizontal siding applied as clapboards or cedar shingles are the preferred
cladding materials for new buildings within the district. Wood products for siding include
shakes, shingles, and painted horizontal clapboard siding from three to six inches in
width. Acceptable synthetic siding applied to resemble three to six inch horizontal siding
includes painted fiber cement board; vinyl, and metal siding is allowed, but not
encouraged. Although brick was occasionally used in limited amounts in all of the
historic styles found within the district, it was not a common material within this district
and is not recommended. Synthetic masonry surfaces such as artificial stone and
stucco board are not consistent with the existing contributing. structures within the
district.
Site and Scale Guidelines for New Outbuildincls
Setbacks: Outbuildings, including garages, should be placed to the rear of the primary
building whenever possible. Attached garages are discouraged, but if constructed
should be set back at least 20 feet from the front plane of the building.
Size: Garages and other outbuildings should be clearly subordinate in size to the
primary structure.
Access: Vehicular access should be provided from an alley if available. Driveways
leading from the street to garages or parking at the rear of the property should be one-
lane in width, but can be widened toward the back of the lot to provide access to multi-
stall garages or parking spaces.
Architectural Guidelines for New Outbuildinqs
Building Styles: Outbuildings readily visible from the street should have siding that
resembles that of the primary structure. They must also have similar roof pitches and
proportional overhangs. Garages designed as two-story carriage houses should reflect
the style of the primary structure. Garage doors visible from the street shou]d be simple
in design. Smooth of simple panel-type garage doors may be used. Garage door
openings should be trimmed to match other doors and windows in the building. Single-
stall garage doors are preferred to double-stall garage doors.
GovernodLucas Street Conservation District
List of Contributing/Noncontributing Structures
DraR (August 1~ 2000)
Contributinq Structures:
BowerV Street: 347 633 419
728 401 635 420
730 408 638 421
731 411(NRHP) 641 424
732 412 645 425
801 416 648 430
802 423 649 504
805 426 650 505
806 427 652 509
814 428 654 511
817 431 670 517
820 433 676 518
822 436 521
823 437 522
830 441 Lucas Street: 523
904 443 301 525
910 506 305 528
917 510 310 529
922 517 311 533
520 313 537
Governor Street: 528 319 610
308 529 324 628
310 530 325 634
312 601 329 638
314 614 401 640
328 616 403 646
332 624 411 648
333 625 414
336 627 415
Noncontributinq Structures:
Bowerv Street: 527 Lucas Street: 410
725 615 314 514
815 630 318 516
636 322 534
Governor Street: 653 327 618-20
338 655 330 654
404 656 331 656
415 659 333 658
419 661 402
521 404
Contributing/Noncontributing Structures, cont.
Summary:
District: Governor Street:
141 Total Properties 63 Properties
108 Contributing (76.6%) 49 Contributing (77.8%)
33 Noncontributing (23.4%) 14 Noncontributing (22.2%)
Bowery Street: Lucas Street:
20 Properties 58 Properties
18 Contributing (90%) 41 Contributing (70.7%)
2 Noncontributing (10%) 17 Noncontributing (29.3%)
(The following architectural style descriptions are to be included in the Iowa City Histodc Preservation Handbook upon the
designation of this district.)
ARCHITECTURAL STYLES IN IOWA CITY
Draft: November 29, 2000
Following is a guide to the most typical architectural styles found in Iowa City's
historic districts and conservation districts. Building styles are characterized by the size
and proportions of the building, the style and placement of windows and doors
(fenestration), and the size and style of trim and other ornamentation. New construction
in historic and conservation districts should reflect the size, proportion, fenestration, trim,
and other ornamentation of a building style typical of that district.
Vernacular: Vernacular buildings are modest in size, ranging from one to two stories in
height. They have roof pitches between 8/12 and 12/12 and overhangs that projected
from eight to eighteen inches with modest ornamentation, if any. Windows were double-
hung, often with divided lights. Doors also had window lights and panel construction.
Vernacular style porches have turned or boxed posts at least six inches in
diameter, with or without porch rails, spindles, or decorative trim. Where
porch rails are required by safety codes, rails must ha,/e spindles that butt
into rather than lap the rails.
(sketch to be inserted)
Italianate: Italianate building style emphasizes verticality, often being two or three
stories tall with every story having a ceiling height of at least ten feet. Italianate roofs
are frequently hipped or hip and gable with a pitch between 6/12 and 8/12. Eaves are
ornamented with intricate brackets. Windows are narrow and tall, often with prominent
crowns, and frequently placed as pairs of narrow windows rather than single wide units.
The panels and windows in doors often have rounded crowns. Porches cover all or part
of the front facade and are often heavily ornamented with turned posts and spindles.
· Italianate porches are often ornate with turned or boxed posts, porch rails,
and turned or square spindles in a variety of patterns. Porch rails must have
spindles that butt into, rather than lap, the rails. If the space below the porch
floor and above the grade is greater than 24 inches, the porch must be
skirted with lattice or grilles.
(sketch to be inseded)
Queen Anne: Queen Anne houses were the great "painted ladies" of the end of the
nineteenth century. They were two stories tall with an asymmetrical building foot print
and many projections and intersecting planes in the roofs and walls. Roof pitches are at
least 8/12. Overhangs are emphasized with intricate ornament and trim. Windows are
also ornate. Facades frequently include a large picture window, slightly taller than wide,
surmounted by a fixed pane of ornamental glass. Other windows are double hung,
regular in placement and size. Front doors often had side lights and/or transom
windows. Porches are prominent features, with ornate turned posts and spindles and
other decorative brackets. Porches higher than 24 inches above grade had lattice or
picket skirting.
· Queen Anne porches are often ornate with turned or boxed posts, porch
rails, and turned or square spindles in a variety of patterns. Porch rails must
have spindles that butt into, rather than lap, the rails. If the space below the
porch floor and above the grade is greater than 24 inches, the porch must be
skirted with lattice or grilles.
(sketch to be inserted)
Foursquare: The American Foursquare style is a cubical mass with straight sides and
hipped or hip and gable roofs. Roof pitches vary from 6/12 to 12/12. Overhangs are
often 24 inches or more with boxed-in softits and little ornamentation. Windows are
double-hung and large. Doors have panels and/or windows. Porches extend the full
width of the front of the building and are supported with substantial posts of varying
details.
(sketch to be inserted)
Bungalow: Bunglows are one or one and a half story in height with simple rectangular
dimensions and low-pitched roofs of 5/12 to 8/12. Roofs have gable ends that face the
side or the street. Wide roof overhangs are supported with timber brackets and rafter
tails are often exposed. Windows are double-hung and doors are simple in design with
panels and windows. Porches are partial or full width, and are always supported by
massive posts and heavy overhangs. Half walls sided in the same material as the main
house often served as railings.
(sketch to be inserted)
March 1, 2001
Mr. Robert Miklo
Civic Center
410 E. Washington St
Iowa City, IA 52240
RE: State Review and Comment on Conservation District Nomination Report,
Proposed governor-Lucas-Bowery Street Conservation District.
Dear Bob:
Thank you for submitting the nomination report for designating the Governor-
Lucas-Bowery Street Conservation District for the State's review and
recommendation. I am pleased that Iowa City is maintaining its track record
for innovation in historic preservation with the establishment of the State's first
conservation district and welcome the opportunity to provide review and
comment.
After reviewing the report and attachments, I concur with the Iowa City Historic
Preservation Commission that the Governor-Lucas-Bowery Street District is a
significant property and should be recognized by designation as an Iowa City
Conservation District.
However, there are some inter-related issues that I encourage the Historic
Preservation Commission to consider. The fiirst concerns properties within the
District that are potentially eligible for or are currently listed on the National
Register of Historic Places. The second issue concerns the design review
process and design guidelines for the District. The District was defined using a
context developed around National Register Significance Criterion C. Under
that context, the district did not appear to qualify as a National Register eligible
District. However, under a Cfiteron A context, the District or individual
buildings within it might eligible.
There is one National Register listed property in the District (Bethel AME
Church, 411 South Governor). Several other properties might be eligible, e.g.,
Stone Cottage, 332 South Governor; 510 South Governor, frame italinate, 922
Bowery; Gothic Revival, 917 Bowery; and a Queen Anne, 427 S Governor. The
drawback to Conservation District designation is that it does not support
maintaining the integrity of National Register listed or eligible properties
through the local permitting process. Under Iowa City's current procedures (c.f.
Iowa city Historic Preservation Handbook, adopted June 20, 2000), alterations
could be made to National Register listed or eligible properties that would
decrease their integrity and over time result in de-listing.
I encourage the Commission to formally pursue determinations of eligibility for
individual properties within the proposed district, to notify those property
3
owners of their unique status and to use the design review process as a means
of maintaining the historic integrity of those properties. In addition, for future
planning and management purposes, I encourage the Commission to consider
the ramifications of significance considerations within a narrow context as
opposed to a broader context. Simply stated, properties may not be significant
under an architectural context but may be significant under one that develops a
historical theme. If one only utilizes narrowly defined context's to evaluate
significance, not only will one eschew much local history but a great deal of
historic fabric will be lost in the process.
If you need additional information or have any questions about this review,
please do not hesitate to contact me at 515/281-6826 or
kerry. mcgrathC4~ca. state. ia. us.
Sincerely,
Kerry C. McGrath
Local Governments Coordinator
I03-20-0'1
5c
Prepared by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner. 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5240
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF 4.0'1 ACRES LOCATED EAST
OF HARLOCKE STREET FROM HIGH-DENSITY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RM-44) TO
SENSITIVE AREAS OVERLAY.44 (OSA-44).
WHEREAS, Southgate Development has made application for a Sensitive Areas rezoning and
approval of the Sensitive Areas Development Plan for 4.01 acres located east of Harlocke Street; and
WHEREAS, the property contains steep, critical, and protected slopes; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Sensitive Areas Development Plan which minimizes
disturbance of the critical and protected slopes; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Sensitive Areas Development Plan
and found it to be in compliance with the Sensitive Areas Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Sensitive Areas Development Plan also complies with the development regulations of
the High-Density Multi-Family (RM-44) zone.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I. APPROVAL. The property legally described below is hereby redesignated from its
current zoning of RM-44 to OSA-44 and the associated development plan is approved:
LOT 25, WEEBER'S THIRD ADDITION TO IOWA CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 9, AT PAGE 14, OF THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY
RECORDER'S OFFICE.
SECTION II. ZONING HAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval
and publication of this ordinance as provlded by law.
SEGTION III. CERTIFICATION AND REGORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance,
the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same
at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, all as provided by law.
SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to
be invalid or unconstitutional. such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or
any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of ,2001
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
ppdadm/ord/harlockedoc
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning &Zoning Commission Prepared by: Robert Miklo
rd
Item: REZ01-0001, Weeber 3 Addition Date: February 1, 2001
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Southgate Development
Requested Action: Zone designation change from RM-44 to
OSA-44
Purpose: To allow approval of a Sensitive Areas
Development Plan for three multi-family
buildings containing 39-dwelling units.
Location: East of Harrlocke Street
Size: 4.01 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Undeveloped: RM-44
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Residential, RM~44
East: Residential, RM-44
South: Residential, RM-44
West: Residential, RM-44
Comprehensive Plan: Residential 2-8 dwelling units per acre
File Date: January 11, 2001
45-day Limitation Period: February 22, 2001
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Southgate Development has requested approval of a Sensitive Areas
Development Plan for a 4.01-acre property located on the east side of Harrlocke Street. The
Sensitive Areas Development Plan is required for any development on this property due to the
presence of critical (25-39%) and protected (40%) slopes. The applicant proposes to build two
twelve-unit apartment buildings and one 15-unit apartment building.
The property is currently zoned RM-44, High Density Multi-Family. The property has had this
designation since the adoption of the 1983 zoning ordinance. The previous zoning designation
of R-3A allowed a similar density. The RM-44 zone allows multi-family buildings at 44 units per
acre. The actual density of the proposed development is 9.7 units per acre, well below what the
underlying zoning permits.
There were two attempts to downzone this property and adjacent properties from RM-44 to a
lower residential zoning classification. In 1984 property owners from the neighborhood to the
west initiated a rezoning to RS-5, Low Density Single-Family. This application was not
recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission; however the Commission
did recommend that the City Council rezone the area to RM-20, Medium Density Multi-Family.
In 1985 the City Council deferred action on the proposed rezoning. A second attempt to rezone
the propedies in 1994 resulted in a staff recommendation to rezone this property to RM-12, Low
Density Multi-Family. At the request of the HarrlockeNVeeber neighborhood, the Planning and
Zoning Commission at that time recommended approval of rezoning the property to RS-5. The
Council deferred action on the proposed rezoning in 1995. The Council did however approve a
comprehensive plan amendment changing the comprehensive plan density of this property from
16-24 dwelling units per acre to 2-8 dwelling units per acre. Because the Council never acted on
the rezoning the development rights of the RM-44 designation are still in effect.
The Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) was adopted in December 1995 after the Council last
reviewed the zoning of this area. The intent of the SAO is to allow the City to review
development in environmentally sensitive areas and to assure that environmental features are
considered, and where required, protected in the development process. The SAO is not
intended to regulate density.
ANALYSIS:
Comprehensive Plan: The 1995 resolution approving the Comprehensive Plan designation of
this property as appropriate for 2-8 dwelling units per acre, was based on the fact that vehicular
access to the subject tract and surrounding area is via Harrlocke Street a local residential street.
Because of topographic conditions there does not appear to be a reasonable means of
providing another route of access to this property.
The proposed development is only slightly above the 8 units per acre suggested by the
Comprehensive Plan for this area. Given the fact that the City passed on two attempts to
downzone the property, the proposed development at 9.7 units per acre is reasonable in staff's
view. This is different than a situation where the City would be considering a rezoning to allow
development at a higher density than the Comprehensive Plan allows. The actual underlying
zoning on this property already allows a higher density and the proposed development before
the City is at a density fairly close to the Comprehensive Plan designation. The proposed
density is actually lower than that allowed by the RM-20 designation recommended for this
property by the Commission and staff in 1984 and the RM-12 density recommended by staff in
1994.
Sensitive Areas: If a property owner certifies that no development activity will occur within fifty
feet of a protected slope and no development activity will encroach into a critical slope, and will
not impact those slopes, the City may waive the requirement of a sensitive areas overlay
rezoning and allow the development to follow the administrative review procedures for a
sensitive areas site plan (reviewed and approved by city staff). Although for the most part the
proposed development activity is not within 50 feet of the protected slopes and does not directly
affect the critical slopes, staff feels that the Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning is necessary due
to the grading and development work needed to establish the storm water management area
and due to the proposed grading near the critical slopes.
As shown on the sensitive areas plan the northeast and southwest portions of this property
contain critical and protected slopes. Although these slopes are wooded they contain less than
two acres of contiguous woodlands and therefore do not constitute a woodland according to the
Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
The sensitive areas development plan has been designed to avoid disturbance of the protected
slopes and for the most part minimizes any disturbance to the steep and critical slopes. A buffer
of 50 feet is being provided around all areas designated as protected slopes. Two buildings and
the parking areas are proposed on the flatter areas adjacent to Harrlocke Street. The third
building is proposed in the southeastern podion of the property. To allow a level site for the
third building grading is proposed adjacent to a critical slope area. This is permitted by the
Sensitive Areas Ordinance. This will require the removal of trees in the area of and adjacent to
the proposed 15-unit building. If the woodland provisions did apply to this property, 20% of the
wooded areas would need to be retained. The plan provides for the retention of over 50% of the
wooded area.
A storm water detention facility in the northeast portion of the tract will require some disturbance
to allow the installation of piping. This is permitted by the Sensitive Areas Ordinance provided
the disturbance is kept to the minimum required to install the facility. Storm water calculations
and a grading plan must be submitted to allow an evaluation of this proposal.
The Office of the State Archaeologist has indicated that there may be an archaeological site
near the southern property line. The actual location of the site may be on this or the Ruppert
property to the south. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance provides the State Archaeologist the
opportunity to study the site prior to development activity. We have asked the State to clarify
the location of the site in relationship to the property line and to determine if further study is
necessary in this case.
Traffic: The previous proposals to downzone this property were based on concerns regarding
the amount of traffic that would be directed to Harrlocke and Weebet streets. Theoretically the
RM-44 zoning regulations would allow as many as 176 dwelling units built on this property. This
would result in over 1000 vehicle trips per day based on an estimate of 6 vehicle trips per day
per multi-family dwelling unit. Estimated traffic from development of the 39 units would be 234
vehicle trips day.
Development Plan Design: As discussed the plan includes two buildings on Harrlocke Street
and a third building in the southeastern corner of the property. The driveway, which provides
access to the parking area and the third building, will be designated as a private street so that
the building will have a clear address. Otherwise its location behind the other buildings would
make it difficult to find from Harrlocke Street. Elevations of the three building are attached.
Each will be three stories high and similar in scale to the multi-family buildings located to the
east and north in this neighborhood.
Neighborhood Open Space: According to the neighborhood open space ordinance, dedication
of 33,101 square feet of open space or fees in lieu of land will be required for development of
this property. Given the rugged topography of the open space areas shown on the plan, it is
unlikely that it is suitable for active neighborhood open space required by the ordinance. This
plan has been referred to the Parks and Recreation Commission for their consideration and for
recommendation regarding whether this property contains open space suitable for dedication or
whether the fee should be paid in lieu of open space. The Parks and Recreation Commission's
recommendation should be available at the Planning and Zoning Commission's February 15
meeting.
Storm Water Management: A storm water detention basin is proposed in the northeast corner
of the property. Storm water calculations must be submitted to the Public Works Department for
review and approval.
Sewer and Water Fees: The property is subject to a $395 per acre water tap-on fee. There are
no sanitary sewer tap-on fees in the subject area.
Summary: Although the Comprehensive Plan designates this development as appropriate for
2-8 residential dwelling units per acre, the current zoning allows up to 44 units per acre.
Previous attempts to downzone this property were not approved by the City Council. The
density of approximately 9.7 units per acre seems to be reasonable given these circumstances.
The sensitive areas development plan has been designed in such a manner as to minimize
disturbance of critical and protected slopes. When submitted the Sensitive Areas Development
Plan contained technical deficiencies and discrepancies. These must be corrected prior to the
Commissions vote on the application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Sensitive Areas Overlay rezoning from RM-44, High Density Multi-
Family Residential, to OSA-44, Overlay Sensitive Areas High Density Multi-Family, be deferred
pending resolution of the deficiencies and discrepancies noted below. Upon resolution of
deficiencies and discrepancies staff recommends approval of the overlay zone and the
Sensitive Areas Development Plan for 39 dwelling units.
DEFICIENCIES AND DISCREPANCIES:
1. Storm water calculations must be submitted.
2. The eastern end of the parking area must be designed to provide a turn around for
emergency vehicles (a revised plan showing a turn around area has been submitted but has
not yet been reviewed by the Fire Marshall).
3. A complete grading and erosion control plan must be submitted.
4. The driveway should be labeled with a private street name.
5. The protected slopes and buffer areas should be contained in a conservation easement.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location map
2. Sensitive Areas Development Plan
3. Elevation drawings
/
lin, Director
Department of Planning and Community Development
ppdadmin\stfrep\rez01~O01
CITY OF IOH:A CITY
SITE LOCATION: Lot 25, Weeber's Third AdditionREZ01-00001
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 9, 2001
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Robert Miklo
Re: REZ-1-0001, Webher 3rd Addition
The applicant has submitted a revised Sensitive Areas Development Plan. Harrlocke
Place, which will provide access to the parking areas, has been moved to the south.
This location will provide better access for emergency vehicles and meets the
requirements of the Fire Code. The revised design also results in less paving
coverage.
The Office of the State Archeologist has indicated that there is evidence of a prehistoric
archeological site on this property. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance provides the State
Archeologist the opportunity to study the site if it is determined the site is of
archeological importance. We have not received an indication that the site is of such
significance that it requires further study. We have asked the State Archeologist to
provide an answer to this question before February 15.
The revised plan does not include a conservation easement over the protected slope
and buffer area. Staff recommends that as a condition of approval of the Sensitive
Areas Overlay zone, such an easement be established to assure that future property
owners are aware of the protected slopes and the requirement that the area not be
cleared or graded.
The Parks and Recreation Commission will review this plan at its February 14 meeting.
Their recommendation regarding parkland dedication or fees in lieu of dedication,
should be available at the February 15 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
The Commission asked for comments regarding traffic issues from the City's
Transportation Planner. A memorandum from Jeff Davidson is attached.
The deficiencies and discrepancies listed in the February 1 staff report have been
resolved.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Sensitive Areas Overlay Zone and Sensitive Areas
Development Plan for 39 dwelling units on 4.01 acres located east of Hardocke Street
be approved subject to a grading and erosion control plan being approved prior to
Council consideration and the establishment of a conservation easement over the
protected slope and buffer areas. If the Parks and Recreation Commission
recommends the dedication of parkland and the Planning and Zoning Commission
agrees, the plan will need to be revised to reflect this.
Approved by~a~i-~,~, Directo~ of%lanning and
Community Development
Attachements:
1. Revised Sensitive Areas Plan
2. Memorandum from Jeff Davidson
City of Iowa City
MEMORANDUM
TO: Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Jeff Davidson, Transpodation Planner ~
DATE: February 9, 2001
RE: REZ01-0001, Weeber 3rd Addition; Request for additional information
It is my understanding that during your February 1 consideration of Weeber 3rd Addition
there was a request for additional information pedaining to our secondary access
guidelines as well as traffic on Benton Street.
Secondary Access Guidelines
Our secondary access guidelines were developed in 1992, in an attempt to provide
some objective criteria for evaluating when more than one means of access is needed
for a development project. These guidelines were deliberately not adopted as standards
or requirements; they are guidelines to assist us in our evaluation. There are two basic
elements to the guidelines. First is traffic volume. There are traffic volumes set for local
streets (500 vehicles per day) and collector streets (2500 vehicles per day). These
volumes are used for determining when a road can be considered overburdened with
traffic. If a traffic projection from a proposed development project indicates that the
projected traffic volume will exceed these limits, then an additional means of access
should be investigated.
Harlocke Street is functionally considered a local street. There is no recent traffic count
available for Harlocke Street. Our traffic counting program is shut down for the winter
and will resume in April. It is possible to estimate existing Harlocke Street traffic volume
by looking at the mix of dwelling unit types which exist on Harlocke Street (32 multi-
family, 9 single family, 2 duplex), and using trip generation rates associated with each
type of dwelling unit. The estimated existing traffic volume at the point where secondary
access is available (intersection with Weeber Street) is 269 vehicles per day. The
estimated traffic volume generated by the proposed 39 multi-family dwelling units is 234.
This totals 503 estimated vehicle trips per day, which is right at the local street traffic
threshold. Although this is 3 vehicle trips greater than the 500 vehicles per day
threshold, please remember that this is an estimate and not a precisely calculated
number.
The second element for evaluating the need for secondary access is whether or not
there exist physical features that increase the probability that a single means of access
would be blocked, or special populations which increase the probability that emergency
vehicle access would be required. Examples of physical features include steep slopes,
drainageways running underneath the road, large trees adjacent to the roadway, a
railroad crossing, or a grade separated highway. Special populations include nursing
homes, elderly care centers, or group homes for persons with physical or mental
disabilities. Hadocke Street itself does not contain any of these features. Neighborhood
residents have expressed concerns about the difficulty of the slope on Weeber Street
during inclement weather. This portion of the street is not subject to review under the
secondary access guidelines because there is a second means of access from the
south.
February 9, 2001
Page 2
The secondary access guidelines also allow a single means of access to be permitted as
a temporary situation that will later have more than one means of access.
Benton Street Traffic
Two 1998 traffic counts are available on Benton Street, 11,000 vehicles per day east of
Greenwood Drive, and 7,900 vehicles per day west of Sunset Street. At full build-out, the
proposed Weeber 3rd Addition could increase Benton Street traffic volume two to three
percent. The portion of Benton Street east of Oaknoll Drive experiences congestion
during peak traffic periods, primarily due to the two-lane road combined with the
proliferation of left-turning movements. An improvement project was considered a few
years ago to add additional traffic carrying capacity to Benton Street, but it was rejected
by the City Council due to neighborhood opposition.
Let me know if you have any questions.
jccogtp/mem/jd weeber3rd doc
A Clc sff Lock at the Harlocke Rezoning Issue
(REZ01-0001)
This Packet contains several documents that provide background information about
the proposed rezoning of a parcel of land identified as Lot 25, Weeber's Third
Addition. The proposed rezoning is from High Density Multi-family Residential,
RM-44, to Sensitive Areas Overlay, OSA-44, on 4.01 acres to allow 39 two-
bedroom dwellings in 3 buildings on the east side of Harlocke Street.
The Packet includes the following exhibits:
Exhibit 1. Previous Efforts to Develop the Harlocke Tract (REZ01-0001)
Exhibit 2. Issues and Facts Pertaining to Harlocke Rezoning (REZ01-00-
001)
Exhibit 3. Letter from Johnson County Soil & Watsr Conservation
District Regarding Water Drainage, Erosion and Sediment
Control on the Hadocke Tract (REZ01-0001)
Exhibit 4. Example of Previous Efforts to Reach Compromise Position
On the Harlocke Tract (REZ01-0001)
The materials in this packet were prepared by members of the Weeber-Harlocke
Neighborhood Association.
Iowa City Council
March 15, 2001
Exhibit 1-Previous Efforts to Development the Harlocke Tract (REZ01-0001)
Reasons for providing this brief chronology of events are.' (1) to acquaint council members with the long
and difficult struggle that has taken place in our efforts to obtain a proper rezoning of this proper.ty; (2j to
provide a complete and accurate summary of events that lead up to the current situation.
07/26/62 Lots 23-25 in Weeber's Third Addition (which includes the Harlocke Tract) are zoned R1-A
(single family residential) in compliance with City Ordinance No. 2238.
1983 City Comprehensive Plan shows Harlocke Tract to be zoned RM-44 (high density multi-family)
even though City's Land Usage Map shows number of designated dwelling units to be 2-8.
1984 Neighborhood initiates rezoning request from ILM-44 to RS-5 on Jensen [Harlocke tract] and
Ruppert properties. Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to City Council that Jensen
[Harlocke tract] and Ruppert properties be rezoned from RM-44 to a combination of RS-8, RM-
12, and RM-20 in an effort to conform existing properties to City's comprehensive plan.
10/07/93 Neighborhood makes four recommendations to Planning & Zoning Commission regarding
proposal to rezone approximately 17.08 acres of undeveloped land on the east side of Harlocke
Street [Harlock Tract] and south of Harlocke to Highway I [Ruppert property] from RM-44 to
RS-5. The four recommendations are: (1) that Harlocke Street be made into a cul-de-sac: (2) that
the lowest density possible (RS-5) be assigned to the property under review; (3) that as much
land as possible in the area under review be assigned as open or green space: and (4) that the
Commission consider property located on the east side of Harlocke Street as part of a larger
picture and declare the north side of Highway 1 from Miller to Sunset for residential
development.
07/18/94 Neighborhood initiates a proposal to use existing ravine that transverses the Harlocke and
Rupert properties as a natural barrier between RS-5 and a higher residential or commercial zone
to be determined by city planners and property owners (see Exhibit 4). Mace Braverman,
president of Southgate Development Corporation, played a major role in the development of this
proposal.
11/21/94 At City Council informal Karen Franklin announces an agreement between the Ruppert family,
the developer (Mace Braverman), and the neighborhood had been reached. Under the
agreement Harlocke Street would terminate in a cul-de-sac on the Ruppert property. No
agreement was reached regarding the Jensen [Harlocke tract] property but it was presumed by
all negotiators the Jensen tract and the west side of Harlocke would be rezoned to match the
zoning the Ruppert family agreed upon.
12/01/94 Neighborhood conducts ballot vote to determine support for proposal to use ravine as barrier
between RS-5 and higher residential or commercial zone. Neighborhood confirms support by
88-0 vote.
12/15/94 Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of neighborhood proposal to rezone
Jensen property [Harlocke tract] to RS-5 and change comprehensive plan designation from 16-
24 dwellings per acre to 2-8 dwellings per acre.
01/31/95 City Council defers action on proposed rezoning of east side of Harlocke Street and Rupert
property south to Highway 1 to RS-5. But Council approves amendment to comprehensive plan
to change density of this property from 16-24 dwelling units per acre to 2-8 dwelling units per
acre.
12/05/95 Council adopts Sensitive Areas Ordinance that includes specifications for establishment of a
Sensitive Areas Overlay (OSA) Zone. Harlocke tract is covered by this ordinance because of
steep slopes and other topographic conditions.
Exhibit 1--Harlocke Rezoning (REZ01-0001) March 14. 2001
Weeber-Harlocke Neighborhood Association Page 1 of 2
12/04/97 Council approves 1997 Comprehensive Plan and the South District Plan. In the 1997 plan Iowa
City is divided into ten planning districts. The Harlocke tract is included in the Southwest
District. A brief overview of the Southwest District (5 pages) is provided but a comprehensive
plan for the district has yet to be written. With regards to the Harlocke tract and surrounding
area it is noted in the Comprehensive Plan that "The topography of this area and the limited
street access which is currentIy available to portions of this area will need to be considered. In
the past the Planning & Zoning Commission has recommended that portions of the area be
rezoned to lower density residential." (p. 108)
03/15/01 Planning and Zoning Commission approves by 3-2 vote proposal to rezone 4.1 acre Harlocke
tract from RM-44 to OAS-44 to allow development of 39 unit two-bedroom apartment complex
on east side of Harlocke Street. This proposal would allow development above the 2-8 dwelling
units specified in the City Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the only street access would be
Harlocke Street.
Exhibit 1--Harlocke Rezoning (REZ01-0001) March 14, 2001
Weeber-Harlocke Neighborhood Association Page 2of2
Exhibit 2-Issues and Facts Pertaining to Harlocke Rezoning (REZ01-0001)
Issue l: Traffic Congestion
· A major increase in traffic on Hatlocke Street presently estimated to be 269 vehicles per day to
503 vehicles per day would result if Harlocke is designated as the sole access street for the
proposed multi-family residential development. This increase would spill over to Weebet Street.
· Traffic through Harlocke-Weeber would be expected to exist on to Benton Street, since Harlocke-
Weeber-Benton would be a more direct route than Harlocke-Weeber-Edingale-Wylde Green-
Kinton Green-Sunset.
· There is no secondary street access to this property. Benton Drive is a private road and the
Benton Manor Owners Association has already informed the developer that Benton Drive cannot
serve as a secondary access.
· Previous research by the Planning and Zoning staff has shown the use of Harlocke for primary or
secondary access could result in an even larger number of trips through the area because of the
location of a number of potential trip generators to the noah.
· The existing street design makes further traffic increases intolerable. Harlocke and Weeber are
not standard streets. Both are 24 feet wide (curb-to-curb) which is three feet short of the required
width to qualify as a standard street. The Weeber Street extension to Edingale Drive, however,
does conform to standard specifications.
· The most previous applicant for development of this property (Harlocke Ridge a.k.a. Hallmark
Homes) was in agreement with the neighborhood that another means of street access other than
Harlocke-Weeber- Benton was necessary.
· The Planning and Zoning Commission has stated in previous action that extension of Harlocke
Street to Highway 1 would not be feasible.
· It is not reasonable to assume any proposal to control or restrict the use of Harlocke Street to a
fixed number of vehicles would be enforceable.
· Considerable increase in traffic on Weeber-Benton has already resulted from the addition of the
Apple Ridge subdivision and the joining of Weeber Street and Edingale Drive.
· An essential factor in determining the most appropriate development for the area is the design of
an acceptable vehicular circulation system. After months of extensive (and sometimes intensive)
discussion and deliberation in i984-85 and again in 1993-94 the Planning and Zoning staff, the
Commission, the neighbors, and the potential developers were unable to design such a system
without using Harlocke Street as the primary carrier.
The impact such a development will have on area parking is a major concern. The narrow streets
in our neighborhood are already saturated with vehicles of existing single family and apartment
house residents. Due to the proximity of the neighborhood to University athletic events and
Interstate 380 and Highway 1, the streets are often filled with additional parking on game days.
Issue 2: Pedestrian Safety
· When this same zoning issue was discussed in 1984-85 and 1993-94 the safety of neighborhood
children was the major issue. It remains a primary concern. As in many neighborhoods, children
sometimes play in the street. Since existing street usage is currently restricted, the characteristics
of a normal neighborhood have been maintained.
· There are concerns not only about the increase in traffic but also the increase in the speed of
traffic. There has been a marked change in vehicle speed up and down Weeber Street since
completion of the Weeber-Edingale interchange. Driving south on Weeber Street, one must go
down a steep hill and up another steep hill; driving north the reverse is true. Drivers feel the need
to speed up in order to make these steep grades, especially during the winter season. In many
cases, the speed limit is exceeded. The result is excessive danger for pedestrians and children, and
the potential for collisions between vehicles at the intersection of Harlocke and Weebet is very
real.
· There are valid concerns about the ability of emergency vehicles and other service units such as
sanitation tracks and snow removal vehicles to serve the needs of the area under development
because of the narrow streets and parking needs of existing residents.
Exhibit 2--Harlocke Rezoning (REZ01-0001) March 14, 2001
Weeber-Harlocke Neighborhood Association Page lof3
Issue 3: Transition Zoning
· The neighborhood believes an error was made in the original assignment of RM-44 to the parcel
of land under consideration for rezoning. We particularly take exception to the fact the southern
portion zoned R-1A (equivalent to the present RS-5) prior to 1983, should have been rezoned
RM-44 or any other multi-family density. under the city's comprehensive plan. We are concemed
about RM-44 being adjacent to RS-5. We believe one of the objectives of the comprehensive plan
was to provide zone buffering, so that specific areas could be appropriately developed.
· The entire West Benton Street area from Miller Street to Sunset Drive and south to Highway 1
needs to be reexamined in terms of long range planning and development. A comprehensive plan
for this area which is part of the Southwest District needs to be developed. We believe planning
in the Benton Hill area should precede zoning and not the opposite.
Issue 4: Nonconformity of Existing Housing
· At present housing on the west side of Harlocke Street is a mixed bag. There is a single-family
residence, which according to the property deed was built in an R-IA zone (equivalent to the
present RS-5). This house is surrounded by three eight-plexes. and one duplex. The difficult
question is "How does one address such nonconformity with a single zone?" Previous
recommendations included a proposal to make the west side of Harlocke RNC-20, which would
allow existing multi-family structures to be replaced if 100 % destroyed. It seems more
appropriate to zone the area under development RS-5 or RS-8 because of limited street access.
Issue 5: Topographic Conditions
· General terrain for the entire area suggests it is ill suited for large-scale multi-family development.
The slope is exceedingly steep and ranges from 700-760 feet above sea level. It is similar terrain
to that in the Apple Ridge subdivision (Weebar Street extension) which was developed as single-
family residential (RS-5).
Issue 6: Reduction in Property Value
· We fear additional multi-family housing in the east side of our neighborhood will result in the loss
of properly value. The addition of the Apple Ridge development (RS-5) at the previous end of
Weeber Street has enhanced the economic worth of our neighborhood. We believe similar
development of the Harlocke area would likewise economically strengthen our neighborhood.
Issue 7: Availability of City Services
· In recent years considerable attention has been focused on the city's infrastructure and its ability to
meet the demand for basic services. With the number of high density building projects in progress
in other parts of Iowa City and the high density of development already created on Benton Street
hill, we are concerned about the affect which another multi-family development will have on our
neighborhood's basic services.
· Concerns have been expressed about the additional water runoff and sewage control problems this
development could bring due to the steep slopes and rugged topography of the property.
Issue 8: Open Space and Green Space
· The area under consideration contains a large wooded area with rolling hills, steep ravines and an
abundance ofwildlife. We are concerned about the environmental impact additional multi-family
dwellings will have upon this area.
· We are especially concerned about the impact multi-family dwellings would have on open spaces
and green space. Neighbors have taken steps on their own to preserve green space in the
neighborhood. The Weeber First Addition, located west of the property under consideration, is an
old Christmas tree farm. We feel acceptance of a multi-family development at a time when the
City Council is moving toward action to protect open and green space in future developments
could result in the lost of such space in our neighborhood.
· We need a neighborhood park. We are concemed that the only space available now for our
children to play in the neighborhood are the streets. At the informal meeting of the P & Z
Commission on July 30, 1984, serious discussions were held concerning the possibility of
converting the area east of Harlocke Street into a small park. As recent as 1999-00 the Iowa City
Parks and Recreation Commission has expressed interest in acquiring this property for the purpose
of creating a neighborhood park.
Exhibit 2 Harlocke Rezoning (REZ01-0001) March 14, 2001
Weeber-Harlocke Neighborhood Association Page 2of3
Issue 9: Other Environmental Concerns
· The prospect of additional vehicle traffic causes concern about increased air and noise pollution.
With multiple-family development, we can foresee many additional problems that can affect our
neighborhood environment. Previous experience with high-density housing in the area north of
West Benton Street supports this concern.
Issue 10: The Quality of Life
· We believe it is important the City Council recognizes that the parcel under consideration is not
adjacent to our neighborhood but is part of our neighborhood We have neighbors on the west
side of Harlocke Street who have been part of our neighborhood since its establishment.
Whatever development is done on Harlocke Street will have a direct and lasting effect on our
neighborhood.
· The current quality of life in our neighborhood is good. We have an established neighborhood
with longevity among its residents. We have a good mixture of young and old, owners and non-
owners, prosperous and not so prosperous. We have cultural, social and political diversity. We
have many peopIe who work in and serve the community. What we have is something that we are
not willing tu give up or see fade away.. It is our dream and our reality.
Exhibit 2--Harlocke Rezoning (REZ01-0001) March 14, 2001
Weeber-Harlocke Neighborhood Association Page 3of3
Johnson County Soil & Water Conservation District
238 Stevens Drive Telephone (319) 337-2322
iowa City, IA 52240-4353 Fax (319) 351-2997
email jcswcd@yahoo.com
TO: Ernie Cox Exhibit 3 - Solicited Letter from Johnson County
FROM: Amy Bouska Soil &Water Conservation District. Note report
DATE: February 19, 2001 raises a number of serious questions about short
RE: Lot 25 of Weeber's Third Addition and long term effects of proposed development on
water control and soil erosion.
Dear Ernie:
Per your request, we have reviewed the proposed plans for Lot 25 of Weeber's Third Addition.
Listed below are the following questions and comments:
1. What kind of erosion and sediment control practices will be installed to prevent erosion from
occurring? The retaining walls appear to address the steep slopes, but how will surface water
runoff be addressed? Perhaps there is a different plan that shows practices in addition to the
retaining walls (including but not limited to seeding, erosion control matting, silt fence, etc)?
There are very steep slopes present on this property which will be subjected to great erosion
potential. Consequently, this site would greatly benefit from an erosion and sediment
control plan.
2. How stable are the current drainage ways? A field visit would help to determine if gully
erosion is occurring. If erosion is currently occurring, then the increased amount of
impervious surface created by the proposed development will only intensify gully potential.
3. How will the surface runoff be addressed in the area with the 15-unit apartment building and
parking spaces in the southeast corner of the lot?
4. What kind of drainage system will be used with the retaining walls in terms of pipes? How
will water be conveyed through the retaining walls downstream?
5. As a result of the steep slopes that will be impacted by this proposed project, do you know if
alternatives types of buildings and/or underground parking has been considered? Is there
potential to construct one larger building with multiple buildings as opposed to three smaller
units to avoid impacting the steep slopes? Furthermore, is underground parking an option?
If underground parking were a possibility, then less steep slopes would be impacted. This
may also reduce the need for some of the retaining walls. If an underground parking system
is not feasible, then consider exploring alternative parking lot designs that provide an
opportunity for water to permeate. There is a web site at www.invisiblestructures.com that
provides examples of alternative parking lot practices.
MISSION: To promote the wise use of soil and water resources.
All USDA programs and services are offered on a non-discriminatory basis, without regard to race, color,
national origin, sex, age, religion, marital status or handicap.
Johnson County Soil & Water Conservation District
238 Stevens Drive Telephone (319) 337-2322
Iowa City, IA 52240-4353 Fax (319) 351-2997
eraall jcswcd@yahoo.com
6. How will the concrete wall release structure work? Will water be impounded? Are there
storm sewer pipes involved? How will downstream drainage be impacted?
7. Has native vegetation been considered as an option to be planted? Native vegetation has an
extensive root system and has been shown to be able to infiltrate water at a faster rate than
traditional cool season grasses that are normally planted.
Please feel free to give me a call if you have any questions or would like additional information.
MISSION: To promote the wise use of soil and water resources.
All USDA programs and services are offered on a non-discriminatory basis, without regard to race, color
national origin, sex, age, religion, marital status or handicap.
WEEBER-HARLOCKE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
1101 Weeher Circle
Iowa City, Iowa 52246
Exhibit 4 - Example of previous efforts of
Weeber-Harlocke Neighborhood Association
to reach a compromise position on the
Harlocke tract.
July 18, 1994
Members of the City Council
City of Iowa City
Civic Center
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Re: Harlocke Area Rezoning (REZ93-0007)
Dear Council Members:
This letter is in response to a request from Jim Throgmorton for more detailed information
concerning the compromise suggestion I proposed at the July 5 public hearing. You may
recall in an effort to demonstrate that a workable solution for all parties could be reached, I
made the following suggestion:
Using the existing comprehensive map (see Figure 1) as a guide, down zone to RS-5 the area
on each side of Harlocke Street, the equivalent of one RS-5 lot size all the way down the
Jensen and Ruppert tracts to Highway 1. The comprehensive map already shows this area to
be 2-8 designated units per acre. There is a tree-lined ravine that could serve as the eastern
bounda~ for this line (see Figure 2). Harlocke could be extended south to serve the Ruppert
tract and terminate in a cul-de-sac. This RS-5 area would have access to Harlocke Street.
The remainder of the Jensen and Ruppert tracts could be zoned higher than RS-5 but access
would be restricted to Benton Drive (a private street) and/or Highway 1, depending on what
could be arranged with the owners (see Figure 3).
I would offer for your consideration the following reasons why this proposal would provide a
feasible and workable solution to the problem:
What is good about this proposal for the neighborhood...
The amount of increased traffic would be controlled at a level that can be
absorbed by the neighborhood.
The ravine would serve as a natural boundary or buffer between single
family residential and other residential and]or commercial development.
The natural beauty and green space of the area would be preserved. (It is
presumed the majority of the ravine and surrounding woods would be
retained.)
Property values for homeowners would remain at a high level.
Exhibit ~I-Iarlocke Rezoning (REZ01-0001) March 14, 2001
Weeber-Harlocke Neighborhood Association Page i of 4
What is good about this proposal for the owners...
This proposal would make the Jensen and Ruppert tracts more attractive
to potential investors.
The owners would most hkely gain a higher return on their investment.
What is good about this proposal for the developers...
The developers would most likely gain a higher return on their investment.
The proposal provides an acceptable solution to resolve the issues of traffic
and topography.
Environmental requirements for development of the property (soil erosion
and water control) could be held to a minimum due to the preservation of the
ravine.
What is good about this proposal for the City Council...
This proposal represents a solution that is not inconsistent with recom-
mendations proposed by the Planning and Zoning Commission (RS-5 for
Jensen tract: RS-8 for Ruppert tract) and City Planning and Zoning staff (RS-
5 for both tracts). The Commission and staff have spent endless hours
wrestling with the issue of how to keep zoning low due to traffic constraints
and topography problems but yet allow adequate development to take place.
Adoption of this proposal would demonstrate the Council's awareness of the
need to give special consideration to those areas identified on the Iowa City
Sensitive Areas Inventory Map, Phase 1. (The southern portion of the
Ruppert tract has been designated as one of the sensitive areas on this map
because of its steep topography and potential for high erosion.)
Adoption of this proposal would send a message to Iowa City homeowners
that this Council is indeed committed to resolving issues between
neighborhoods and developers. (It will signal that the Council does hear and
respond to neighborhood concerns.)
What is good about this proposal for Iowa City...
The city would not be faced with expenses associated with the widening
of existing streets (Harlocke and Weebet) to accommodate the additional
traffic which would be generated by any development greater than RS-5.
Additional traffic that would be off loaded on to Benton Street from Harlocke
and Weebet would be kept to a minimum. (It is presumed primary access
to the eastern portions of the Jensen and Ruppert tracts would be provided
from Highway 1.)
· A decision in support of this proposal would demonstrate that Iowa City is
truly interested in maintaining its natural beauty, preserving the health
Exhibit 4--Harlocke Rezoning (REZ01-0001) March 14, 2001
Weeber-Harlocke Neighborhood Association Page 2 of 4
and welfare of its neighborhoods, while allowing proper growth and
development to take place.
It could help the city avoid future lawsuits and litigation regarding such
issues as decreased property value, personal injury, soil erosion and water
control problems.
The Council would be giving credibility and reinforcement to statements of
public policy concerning neighborhoods in the city's comprehensive plan.
(This includes statements like "It is the policy of the City 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 large.'[p.38] and "Street patterns within a residential neighbor-
hood are designed to discourage through-traffic which is disruptive to a
neighborhood. Instead, while good access to main traffic arteries is essential,
the neighborhood street network is designed to encourage low volume, local
traffic. This design consideration preserves the residential atmosphere of the
neighborhood and provides a safer environment for the pedestrian oriented
activities characteristic of a residential area." Iowa City Co~nprehenslve Plan
1989 Update, p. 45.
Acceptance of this proposal would demonstrate the City is doing more
than just giving lip service to environmental issues.
What is good about this proposal for all parties...
It is a compromise that should be acceptable to all parties and can be made
to work.
It represents a fair and equitable solution to the traffic and topography
problems that have plagued this area for more than a decade.
Much of the natural beauty of the area would be preserved.
Acceptance of this proposal would demonstrate to the community as a whole
that a viable solution to zoning and development problems can be worked
out through communication and compromise.
Hopefully, the compromise proposal suggested in this letter will be useful to the Council in
its deliberations. It seems especially important that the rationale provided for this proposal
not go unnoticed, for it addresses many of the concerns that have been expressed by
neighbors, owners, developers, and staff. We realize you have a difficult job to perform but
we are placing our confidence in your ability to look at this issue as not just another rezoning
request but a way to preserve our neighborhood.
As a neighborhood we remain committed to our four original recommendations:
That Harlocke Street be ~nade into a cul-de-sac.
That the lowest density possible (preferably RS-5) be
assigned to the property under review.
That as much land as possible in the area under review
be assigned as open or green space.
That the Commission consider this property as part of a
larger picture and declare the north side of Highway 1
from Miller to Sunset as residential.
Exhibit 4--Harlocke Rezoning CREZ01-0001) March 14, 2001
Weeber-Harlocke Neighborhood Association Page 3 of 4
Nevertheless as this letter demonstrates to you, we are wfiling to work toward a fair and
equitable solution ]~or all parties involved.
Sincerely,
WiHiamE. Knabe
Neighborhood Spokesperson
Exhibit 4---Ha~ocke Rezoning (REZ01-0001) March 14, 2001
Weeber-Harlocke Neighborhood Association Page 4 of 4
William and Judith Knabe
1101 Weeber Circle
Iowa City, Iowa 52246-5169 :"
March 15, 2001
Members of the City Council
City of Iowa City
Civic Center
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Re: Hadocke Rezoning (REZ01-0001)
Dear Council Members:
This letter is a request that in your deliberations regarding the above referenced rezoning matter, you
consider rejecting the proposed development of a 39-unit mural-density residential development on the
east side of Hadocke Street.
We make this request because as property owners in the Hadocke-Weeber neighborhood, we are
deeply concerned about the traffic problems a development at such density with only Hadooke Street
as its sole access represents. This limited street access and the topographic features of this property
make the proposed development ve~ unreasonable. We believe that the development plan violates
the spirit and intent of the City's Sensitive Areas Ordinance and therefore should be rejected.
We are adamantly opposed to any development in this area that might lead D a major increase in
traffic along Hadocke and Weeber streets. We are also concerned that such development could
eventually result in the destructive of the topography of the area and have a damaging and lasting
effect on adjacent properties. We are convinced the terrain and natural beauty of the area could be
destroyed unless development occurs at a lower density. A lower rezoning would allow some of this
property to be retained in its natural state and the green space along two steep ravines could be
preserved.
We realize you have a difficult job to perform but we are placing our confidence in your ability to look at
this issue as a way to help us preserve our neighborhood. Therefore, we urge you not to approve
REZ01~001 in its present form.
IOWA (;fly, IA 52246-5!C~
MAR 15 2001
/~ ,~ , ,- ~ , SIft MANAGER'S OffICE
/
Klink Letter re. Harlocke dev. Page 1 of 2
Marian Karr
From: Judith Klink [judithklink@home.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 11:36 PM
To: Council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Klink Letter re. Harlocke dev.
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to express my concern about the proposed development by Southgate
Developers on Harlocke Street.
First of all, I am very pleased that the Parks and Recreation Commission voted for land
donation instead of fees in this project, and that the plan was redesigned to accommodate
some open space. Many of us in the neighborhood are delighted that the 7 acre parkland
deficit for our area is being addressed, first through the purchase by the city of the property
on Benton Street; now with this one acre addition the deficit has been reduced, I believe, to
around 4 acres. Many of us hope that these two park areas can be linked by a trail which
will provide an alternative off-Benton Street route from our neighborhood to the parks and
school. The whole city-wide trail system is a marvelous civic enhancement, and I
frequently use the Willow Creek trail as well as the trail along Riverside Drive down to the
soft ball fields for walking and on my bike. Others in the neighborhood commute to the
University by a roundabout route through City Park. As a former member of the Parks and
Recreation Commission I am well aware of the complexity of planning, establishing and
maintaining the trail system; but I also am aware of how much it is appreciated and used by
so many.
This aspect aside, the plan before you is not appropriate for this neighborhood. We already
have an area which has suffered from improper zoning in the past (Mrs. Niederecker~s
single family dwelling squeezed between 8-plexes, unannounced); furthermore there is no
buffer zone between the RM-44 parcel and RS-5, as is called for in the comprehensive
plan. The 8 plexes on Harlocke which surround Mrs. Niederecker also abut directly on the
single family residential homes behind it on Harlocke and Weeber Circle. The present field
and ravine will of course be developed, but the present plan does not address this zoning
issue either.
I have numerous other objections to the plan, too: the water runoff system which
transforms the ravine into a holding facility with a dam, the loss of trees, the loss of wildlife
habitat, the traffic and parking concerns. Our area is suffering from the recent intensive
development further to the west. Signs of this include the transforming of single family
homes on Benton into student housing with concrete front yards for parking instead of
lawns, and the increasing peril of simply crossing Benton Street. More traffic will not help.
Many of these concerns will be covered in the neighborhood~s formal presentations next
Tuesday.
I hope that you will seriously consider the need for long range planning of the whole Benton
Hill area, including the 22 acre Ruppert tract. We should not have just crisis management
and another set of apartments. I especially hope that a trail will be included in future
planning for the Benton Hill area; this would be an invaluable asset for the area.
Yours truly,
Judith P. Klink
NCIC
The Neighborhood Council of Iowa City
Representing Iowa City Neighborhood Associations
March 14, 2001
Re: Harlocke Street Rezoning (REZ01-0001)
Dear Iowa City Council Members:
It is our understanding that a rezoning proposal for a 39-unit apartment complex to be located on
the east side of Harlocke Street in the Weeber-Harlocke neighborhood has been reviewed by the
Planning and Zoning Commission and forwarded to you with a recommendation for approval.
The members of the Neighborhood Council of Iowa City attending the March 8,2001 meeting
would like to encourage the City Council to not evaluate this proposal solely on the merits of the
project at that particular site, but with a broader view that considers the interests of the
neighborhood and community as a whole.
Of particular concern to the Neighborhood Council is the fact that the longflange plan for the
Southwest District, which includes the Harlocke property, has not yet been completed. The RM-
44 designation has been a point of concern for the neighborhood for many years. Neighbors have
consistently argued that the density for the property is far in excess of what should be adjacent to
an RS-5 zone. The impact of access limitations and traffic on lower density neighborhoods like
Weeber-Harlocke, needs to be considered. Harlocke Street, a 24-foot wide residential street,
provides the only access to the proposed development. Other issues such as water quality, soil
erosion and flood control need to be addressed before development occurs.
Previously neighbors in the area were successful in deferring the Benton Street Improvement
Project pending completion of the Southwest District plan. For many years neighbors in the
Miller Orchard and Ha~ocke-Weeber areas have been frustrated by a lack of planning with
regards to the undeveloped property south of Benton Street. Presently, the City is involved in
discussions about the development of several large tracts of land in this district located north of
the airport. There is also a proposal currently before the Planning and Zoning Commission to
fezone a large tract of land between Wal-Man and Menards to allow development of a car
dealership. The entire area appears to be having development discussions and proposals without
the benefit of any comprehensive planning.
Therefore, the Neighborhood Council of Iowa City respectfully requests that the City Council
direct staff to complete the district planning process for the Southwest District prior to any further
consideration of development proposals for the area. This includes the Hatlocke Street rezoning
request that is before you now.
Sincerely,
The Neighborhood Council of Iowa City
410 EastWashington Street
}owa City, lA 52240-1826
ATTN: Marcia Klingaman
Neighborhood Services Coordinator
(319}356-5237
NiedereckerLetterReHarlockeDev Page 1 of I
Madan Karr
From: Judith Klink [judithklink@home.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 1,~, 2001 3:39 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: NiedereckerLetterReHarlockeDev
Honorable Mayor Earnest Lehman and Members of the Iowa City Council
As a thirty-two year home owner in the Weeber-Harlocke neighborhood have seen
many changes. Some have been good and a few bad. When my husband and I bought
our lot at 923 Harlocke Street to build our home, our deed clearly states:
R I A - SINGLE FAMILY ZONE
We built our home in 1969 and three years later eight plexes were built on both sides of
our home plus two more eightplexes and a duplex were built on the 900 block of Harlocke
Street.
You can imagine how shocked and upset we were when this was allowed to happen.
During all of these years we learned to live with the traffic and noise problems, including
parking on both sides of the street when parking is allowed on one side of our 24 foot wide
street (the streets in our neighborhood are all three feet narrower than standard).
We are now told by city satff that the proposed 39 units which are planned to be built on
the east side of Harlocke Street will generate at least 503 trips per day. You can only
imagine the traffic and safety problems we will be facing on a daily basis.
When it comes time for you to vote, please think of each of us and the integrity of our
neighborhood. The quality of our lives will be deeply affected with this crucial decision.
Please support us.
Respectfully yours,
Olympia Niederecker
923 Harlocke Street
Iowa City, IA 52246
Home phone: 338-5596
3/14/01
To: City Council
From: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner
Re: REZ01-0001
State law requires the favorable vote of three-fourths (3/4) of the council if owners of twenty
percent or more of the property located with 200 feet of an area being rezoned submit a protest
petition. A total of 39 protest petitions have been submitted to date. Eighteen of the petitions
were from owners of properly located beyond 200 feet of the area covered by the zoning
overlay and therefore do not count toward the percentage necessary to require an extra
majority of the council.
Owners of property within 200 feet of the overlay zone submitted twenty-one petitions. These
valid petitions represent 18% of the land within 200 feet of the proposed overlay zone. If
additional petitions are submitted prior to the close of the public hearing, staff will recalculate
the percentage.
410 EAST WASHINGTON SIREET * IOWA ('I'[Y, IOWA 52240-1826 * (319( 356-5000 * FAX (319} 356-5009
Additional copies of this petition containing a total of
'~/ signatures were also submitted.
PROTEST OF REZONING
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
We, the undersigned, being the owners of twenty percent or more of the area of the property
included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of twenty percent or more of the
property which is located within two hundred feet of the extedor boundaries of the property for
which the zoning change Is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property:
Lot 25, Weeber's Third Addition. Proposed rezoning from High Density Multi-family
Residential, RM-44, to Sensitive Areas Overlay, OSA-44, on 4.01 acres to allow 39
dwellings in 3 buildings located on the east side of Harrocke Street.
This petition is signed and acknowledged by each of us with the intention that such rezoning
shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the
members of the council, aJl in accordance with §414,5 of the Code of iowa.
Owner(s) of Property Address
STATE OF IOWA~ )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this Z/z/day of ~ ,20 0 ~ before me, the undersl ned, a Notary Public In and
for said County and State. personally appeared DGA~el ~; ~r- and
to me known to be the Identical persons named in and who
executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they execoted the same
as their voluntary act and deed.
Notan/Public In and for the State of Iowa
Owner(s) of Property Address
STATE OF iOWA )
) ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
On this day of ...... 20 , before me. the undersioned. a NOtaN P.hIit~ in =~,~
City Council Members March 15, 2001
c/o Marian Carr, City Clerk
Civic Center
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear City Council Members,
I reside at 905 Harlocke St., Apartment tt8. Like my neighbors, I am very
disturbed about the current plans to develop the sensitive area across the street from
my apartment complex. I've attended recent Planning and Zoning Committee
meetings addressing this issue and have learned a great deal. I am convinced that
building 39 two-bedroom apartments in this area (and accompanying parking lot) is
irresponsible ecologically and will result in the deterioration of the quality of life in
the Harlocke/Weeber neighborhoods (and the Benton Hill area as a whole)
primarily because of increased traffic congestion. Since Harlocke St. has only one
outlet, my neighbors and I already experience this phenomenon as problematic and
are concerned about the safety of pedestrians, especially that of children.
With this letter, I am requesting that you call a halt to the development plans
recently proposed by a member of the Southgate Development Group. Instead,
development in this area should proceed with the same careful management that is
occurring in other parts of Iowa City. The Planning and Zoning committee should
work to lessen the density and environmental impact of the Southgate proposal
and/or future proposals should emphasize PLANNING rather than crisis
management for the remaining undeveloped area of Benton Hill. (For example, the
current development scheme would turn the deep ravine on the north side of the
property into a storm water management area by removing trees and building a
dam.) A suggestion that would benefit our entire west side community: How about
building an off street trail as a safe access from west side neighborhoods to the
planned Harlocke park area, the planned Benton St. Park, and to Roosevelt School?
Finally, I would like to see a better balance between public interests/the
common good and property rights. While attending Planning and Zoning
Committee meetings it was difficult to avoid feeling like residents in the Benton
Hill area are being treated like second-class citizens. Most residents in this area
cannot afford to be home owners; yet I believe that plans to develop this part of Iowa
City should respect our desires to prevent deterioration of the quality of our lives.
Sincerely,
Paula J. Ford, P
Visiting Assistant Professor at the University of Iowa
Page 1 of 1
Marian Karr
From: Chaven02@home [chaven02@home.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 1:45 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Development on Harlocke
Dear Council members,
I reside at 1124 Harlocke and while technically out of the 200ft zone, am and will be directly affected by the
proposed apartment complex development on Harlocke.
My house sits on the corner of Harlocke and Weeber and as ~ am at the only egress to Weeber or Benton, the
increased traffic will directly affect my quality of living.
The biggest issue with this proposed development is the lack of planning within the Southwest district.
Currently we have a single family dwelling across from this proposed development that had two eight-plexes
built on either side. This was a gross mistake and highlights the need for planning in this area.
This are needs to have a master plan developed that takes into consideration all the entities affected by any
future development and those parties need to be consulted. I believe that if the planning were to take place
before any future development, all involved parties would be able to come to agreement on how best to
proceed with the development within the Southwest District. Please send this proposed apartment
development back to Planning and Zoning with instructions to plan out the Southwest District with
communication to and with all interested parties to come to an agreement that allows for thoughtful considered
quality of life for all current and future residents.
Thank you,
Georgeann
3/16/01
Marjan Karr
From: Cheryl Walsh [cheryl-walsh@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 12:06 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Rezoning on Harlocke St
City Council Members:
I am quite disturbed to learn that the Iowa City Planning & Zoning
Commission has approved a plan to rezone a part of Harlocke Street to allow
for the development of an apartment complex that will only be accessible
from Harlocke Street. I have lived two winters on Harlocke and am appalled
that the city is considering allowing further development on such a narrow
street.
The only reason I don't consider the street hazardous at present is that
there is very little traffic on it. If traffic and the demand for on-street
parking increase, the resulting situation will be quite dangerous,
particularly in the winter when the roads are snowy and icy. At times there
is barely room to squeeze past the parked cars, and when it's icy it's
often difficult to avoid hitting one when turning out of my driveway.
Making the street more difficult to navigate with more parked cars and at
the same time expecting more people to use the street would not just be
poor planning--it would be irresponsible.
As a pedestrian and regular bus rider (my usual modes of transportation), I
can tell you it is very difficult to cross Benton Street near Weeber around
8 AM and 5 PM. On a few occasions I have had to wait close to five minutes
for the traffic to clear enough for me to run across. Increased traffic
from Weeber will only exacerbate this situation, inconveniencing not only
adult pedestrians like myself, but endangering the children who must cross
the street to get to Roosevelt Elementary and may not have developed the
patience or judgment yet to cross safely.
I'm also concerned with the environmental impact of the proposed project.
Removing trees and covering the steep terrain with pavement for parking
cannot be environmentally sound. Water runoff problems alone should prevent
this project from being approved.
I urge you not to approve the proposed development on Harlocke Street.
Cheryl Walsh
929 Harlocke St Apt 4
Iowa City IA 52246
Program Assistant
College of Liberal Arts
The University of Iowa
Page 1 of 1
Marian Karr
From: Jayne Lillig [jayne-lillig@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 1:39 PM
To: Council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Reject Benton Street Hill Development
City Council Members:
We are writing to encourage you to reject the proposed plan to allow a 3 apartment complex to be built
on the 4 acres of Benton Hill. Please vote against the P & Z's proposal to allow such a high-density
development to materialize. This hillside already has too many apartments and should be left as green
space. If allowed, it would only create more traffic on already overly-busy Benton Street, and entering
Benton from Weeber Street at certain times of the day takes extra patience as is!
Please vote to prevent this development from proceeding.
Thank you for your consideration,
Mick & Jayne Lillig
1034 Weeber St.
Iowa City, IA 52246
MLilliggaol.com
3/16/01
Marian Karr
From: Mary Vetmillion [vermill@mmc.mtmercy.edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 2:03 PM
To: Council@iowa-city.org
Subject: proposed apt complex
Dear Council members:
Please vote against the proposed 3-apartment comple× (with its only exit on
Harlocke). Benton street already has way TOO HUCH TRAFFIC, especially
considering that there is a school crossing. The proposed complex would also
increase water runoff and parking problems.
Thank you,
Hary Vermillion
1017 Wylde Green Road
Iowa City, IA 52246
351-3661
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to you today to protest the proposed apartment complex on Harlocke Street.
There are several concerns that I have with the proposed project. They are traffic
congestion, housing density, environmental concerns, and finally quality of life.
My husband and I have lived at 1117 Harlocke Street for just over a year now. We were
quite disturbed to learn of the proposal for the apartment complex. One of the major
reasons that we selected our home was that was located on a quiet cul-de-sac. To hear
that the traffic level on our street would double with the proposed apartments is troubling.
We are planning to start a family within the next year and pedestrian safety is of great
concern. One main reason that this project does not make sense is that there would only
be one way in and out to the apartments. Furthermore, Harlocke is not a wide street. In
fact, it is three feet short of the required width to qualify as a standard street. Currently,
when a vehicle is parked on the street, the street becomes a one-lane road with cars taking
turns to pass by the parked car. Due to the street width, I am concerned about the ability
of emergency vehicles navigating the street.
My second concern with the proposed apartment complex is the density of the current
area. If you take Benton Street west from Riverside, once you get past Roosevelt school,
there are numerous apartment complexes on both sides of the road. It is unsightly to pack
so many multi-family dwelling all together in one spot. There should be a mix of
housing types in an area. I'm afraid that the single-family dwelling is actually becoming
the minority in Benton Hill area. These multi-family dwellings on and around Benton
Street are causing Benton to become a highly congested road. It is often very difficult to
turn off of Weeber onto Benton (especially due to the blind hill to the west).
Thirdly, this area is an environmentally sensitive area. I have concerns about how a
multi-family dwelling with a large parking lot will affect this area. The topography of the
area doesn't fit with multi-family dwelling. The best use for this land would be for a
park. Our neighborhood already has a deficit in parkland.
Lastly, I am concerned about how this apartment complex will affect the quality of life in
our neighborhood. I have been pleased with the neighborhood dynamics since have
moved here. However, this apartment complex will change everything. There will be
more people living in the apartments than there are residents now on Harlocke Street.
In all there seems to be a lack of planning in this area. I think that it is very dangerous to
develop this land when there still not a plan for the surrounding undeveloped land. The
lack of planning is already evident on Harlocke where a single family home is surrounded
by eight-plexes. It just does not seem prudent for a city to approve a project that would
increase the traffic level on our street to be at the very upper edge of acceptable traffic for
a residential area (estimated 503 car trips a day). At the same time there will still be
undeveloped land existing on the end of the street. I would urge you to send this back to
the planning department and insist that they plan for the entire southwest area before
approving any projects (especially of this magnitude). This way that area will flow
together and make sense instead of the piece meal work that is currently taking place.
Thank you for your time. I hope that you will all take this letter into consideration when
making a decision about the apartment complex.
Sincerely,
Cherice Wyckoff
Madan Karr
From: Stephen E. Tulley [stephen-tulley@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 8:05 PM
To: council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Re: Proposed development on Harlocke Street (3/20/01 meeting)
March 15, 2001
City Council Members
City of Iowa City
c/o Marian Carr, City Clerk
Civic Center
410 E. Washington St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
Dear City Council Members:
At the next scheduled City Council Meeting on March 20 you will be
discussing the recent decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission to
allow a 4.1 acre development on Harlocke Street with 39 dwellings in three
buildings (item REZ01-0001 zoned RM-44). I have been a renter on Harlocke
Street since 1996, and as a local resident I urge you to oppose the
development as it is currently proposed. The rezoning vote by Planning and
Zoning passed by only one vote, with two conumission members noting serious
problems with the proposed development as follows:
* The only ingress and egress to the proposed development would be on
Harlocke Street, a 24 foot wide dead-end street (standard-sized streets are
27 feet wide). Access to and from Benton Street, the major traffic
thoroughfare, requires negotiating two sharp corners and a steep hill. P&Z
staff estimate that local traffic on these narrow streets would almost
double as a result of the development, causing parking problems, further
congestion for local residents and, more importantly, an increased risk to
school children walking or traveling to one of the two elementary schools
along Benton Street. Additionally, large trucks have difficulty negotiating
this street, causing local residents to ponder how access to city services
will be affected.
* Drainage is a major concern in the area due to the presence of deep
ravines and steep hillsides. The proposed development would aggravate this
problem by providing parking spaces for upwards of 90 autos, causing
increased water runoff. Two P&Z commission members noted that they had
serious reservations about the water retention system for the development
as proposed. It is surprising in light of these water runoff problems that
the other three board members should have passed the proposed Sensitive
Areas Overlay since the most recent development on this hillside with
similar terrain, the Apple Ridge development, was zoned as RS-5.
* P&Z Commission Chair Ann Bovbjerg noted that this area has historically
experienced uneven development since many single-family residences are
located next to large multi-story complexes. On a personal note, I find it
unconscionable that a high density development be proposed in an area with
the aforementioned infrastructural concerns, let alone in the Southwest
Comprehensive Plan District of Iowa City, for which a long-term solution to
the complex mixture of single-family and high-density residences,
commercial, and industrial zoning has yet to be addressed by P&Z.
Due to these concerns, I would respectfully advise you to overturn the P&Z
decision of February 15, 2001 and remit the matter to the staff and
coneission for further consideration of downzoning this area within the
context of a comprehensive plan for the Southwest District.
Sincerely Yours,
1
Stephen Tulley
917 Harlocke St. #5
Iowa City, IA 52246
(319)351-5287
To: City Councilors of Iowa City
From: Cynthia Pickett
Date: March 14, 2001
Re: Distress about proposed apartments on Harlocke
I am very upset about the number of vehicles that will be coming through
our neighborhood. We have narrow streets which already cause difficulty;
added traffic will intensify the problem.
Basically, I feel that there needs to be an overall plan for this whole area
including the 21 acres beyond Haflocke and the land near the airport; it is a
mistake to build on Harlocke before the total plan is made.
Harlocke Development request Page 1 of 2
Marjan Karr
From: Judith Klink [judithklink@home.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 3:28 PM
To: Council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Harlocke Development request
To City Council Members:
I am writing to urge you to send the proposal for development
on Harlocke Street back to Planning and Zoning for further
consideration.
I have two concerns. The first has to do with the notion of
planning itself. We have lived on Harlocke Street for about twenty
years, and have always been struck by the inconsistent zoning
patterns. While it is not possible to change decisions made years ago,
it is possible to plan how this area as a whole should be developed in
the future. Such planning would also mean that the neighborhood
would not descend on council meetings every time a new
development scheme comes along.
My second concern centers around water runoff and
infrastructure. While I personally find the proposed two 12-plex
apartments quite attractive (think the third 16-plex should be
eliminated), and am grateful that we might actually get a small park
and trail in our neighborhood, I remain unconvinced that the water
runoff problem has been correctly analyzed. We live next to an
apartment complex that formerly had gravel driveways. Several
years ago the owner upgraded the apartments by converting the
driveways and parking lot to asphalt. Much to our surprise the water
runoff became severe enough that our neighbors to the south no
longer can have gardens because their yards are mushy weeks after a
heavy rain. While I am a physicist and not a water engineer, I have
done some rough estimates that lead me to believe that the runoff
problem will be much worse with all the proposed parking areas.
3/19/01
Harlocke Development request Page 2 of 2
Contrary to what city staff has said, the idea of having the water
from a heavy rain held in one of the ravines will not improve the
problem, but could produce serious flooding.
I am in favor of development in our area, but in a way consistent
with good planning and careful analysis of infrastructure problems.
The present plan satisfies neither of these conditions and so I urge
you to return the present proposal to Planning and Zoning so that
these conditions might be met.
Sincerely,
William H. Klink
1101 Harlocke Street
Iowa City, IA 52246
3/19/01
Bill and Nancy Graf r--l'
1123 Harlocke St. "1 ' ~ '
Iowa City, Iowa 52246
March 19, 2001 ', ., ,~
Iowa City City Council "'
Civic Center
Iowa City Iowa 53340
Dear Mayor Ernie Lehman, Councilor Irvin Phab, Councilor Steven Kanner, Councilor Mike O'DonneH,
Councilor Connie Champion, Councilor Ross Wilburn, and Councilor Dee Vanderhoff:
We are wdting you to express our strong oppes~on to the proposed rezoning of Loft 25, Weeber's Third
Addition to allow 39 dwellings in 3 buildings located on the east side of Hadocke St.
We are not opposed to development in our neighborhood, however we are opposed to development
that would be harmful to our home, family and neighborhood. We caught a few minutes of Mayor Ernie
Lehman's radio show at 8:00 am on KXIC. At the beginning of the show, the Mayor made a statement
how all neighborhoods appear to be against development in their neighborhood. The Mayor implied
that this appeared to be the case regarding the protesting of this rezoning. We were unable to call in at
the time and with all due respect Mr. Mayor in this case you are incorrect. The HarlockeANeeber
Neighborhood does not oppose the development of this land if it done is a planned and appropriated
way and does not harm the neighborhood. We strongly believe that this development will be harmful to
our home, family and neighborhood.
The HarlockeNVeeber neighborhood has provided you with material explaining ten very serious
concerns and facts pertaining to the rezoning. I know that you will review them and take them into
consideration in making your decision. We would like to point out in this letter the issue that concerns
us the most is the significant increase of traffic on a street that is not design for the traffic.
We first purchased our home at 1123 Harlocke St. in July of 1974. We have experienced and have
welcomed significant development in our neighborhood. We live on the southeast comer of Weeber
and Harlocke Streets. Weeber Street between Benton and Harlocke is a very steep decline. Cars
coming down from Benton Street on Weeber Street and turning left on to Harlocke Street when the
streets are icy could very well end up in our front lawn. In fact we have lost our mailbox in front of our
house several times, and once we lost a small tree to cars that were unable to make the turn during icy
conditions.
We are being told that it is estimated that the development will add over 250 vehicle trips per day on
Hadocke Street. We are further being told that this will bring the total number of daily trips on Harlocke
St to an estimated 502. This is 2 more that the maximum the street was designed to have. Please
remember this is just an estimate. By approving this development you would be approving to increase
the traffic level on Harlocke Street to perhaps hundreds of more vehicle trips than the street can handle.
Remember that Harlocke was built only 24 feet wide (curb to curb), which is three feet short of the
required width to qualify as a standard street.
We strongly feel that this proposed development of 39 dwelling unit with the only vehicle access being
Harlocke St. will create a significant and severe traffic and safety problems. We have over fifty children
in our neighborhoods, including in the near future our 2 grand children. The developer does not have
any kind of response for this concern. Please help us protect the safety of our home, family and
neighborhood.
At least twice in the past this question has come up before the City Council before and both times your
processors have realized that there is a basic access problem to this property and asked that it be
resolved. Unfortunately it has not. The property in question is boarder on two sides by large multiple
· Page 2 Mamh 19, 2001
housing developments that have there own private reads and have refuse access to the developer of
this property. Another side is a piece of land that is a steep decline to Highway 1. There does not
appear to be an easy answer to the access problem, however we do not believe dumping the traffic on
a substandard street should be the result.
We support that the land should be rezoned to RS-5 and developed accordingly. We feel that Harlocke
Street would be able to handle the traffic resulting from an RS-5 development. The only other
altemative we could see would be to provide access to the property other than Harlocke St. We feel
that the entire West Benton Area from Miller Street to Sunset Drive and south to Highway 1 need to be
reexamined in terms of long range planning and development.
Thanks you for your time and consideration. If you have any questions please feel free to call or e-mail
us: Bill and Nancy Graf, Home phone 339-5975, Bill's work phone 353-7377, or e-mail
bnqrafc~.home.com
Sincerely,
Bill and Nancy Graf
Marjan Karr
From: Daniel Eccher [eccher@home.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 3:12 PM
To: Council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Opposition to Hatlocke Street Proposal
I am writing to protest the proposed Sensitive Areas Overlay
rezoning of the 4.1 acre lot on Harlocke Street. The zoning change
would allow the building of three large apartment buildings and
the paving of a large amount of the open space
on the site. Such a high-density development on this site would
be inappropriate and potentially dangerous for a variety of reasons,
mainly because of the large increase
in automobile traffic in the area. Harlocke Street is a dead
end street of sub-standard width that feeds onto Weeber Street.
Weeher Street, in turn, feeds onto West Benton Street. West Benton
Street has two elementary schools on it and is already choked
with traffic.
Riding my bike or walking to work requires that I cross Benton
Street. My wife also crosses Benton Street walking and riding
her bike to work. We have considerable difficulty crossing safely
even with the current level of traffic.
Other reasons to oppose the proposed rezoning are outlined below:
* destruction of the nature of a deep ravine (by constructing
a concrete wall through it),
~ reducing the on-street parking for the apartment houses already
on Harlocke Street,
* straining city services,
~ diminishing neighborhood open area and green space, and
* adversely affecting wildlife and bird habitat.
Please vote against this proposed zoning change and send the
proposal back to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Thank you for your attention,
Sincerely,
Daniel J. Eccher
904 Benton Drive
Iowa City, IA 52246
Against new apartments on Harlocke St Page 1 of 1
t,5'c_~
Madan Karr
From: Jerome Brown [twistedpears@home.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 5:33 PM
To: Council@iowa-city.org
Subject: Against new apartments on Harlocke St
Dear City Council Members,
We urge you to vote against the proposed building of 3 apartment complex in the Harlocke-
Weeber neighborhood.
As residents of Miller Ave, We are concerned with a number of issues associated with the proposed
apartment complex:
1. Increased traffic on Benton Street.
2. The safety of the school children who cross Benton Daily near our corner with no cross light.
3. The ecological damage and disruption this constuction will intale.
As avid walkers and bicyclists we also urge you to continue to make Iowa City safe and accessible for
non-motorists by designating bike lanes on busy thoroughfares and by the building of more off street
trails.
Jerome and Judy Brown
710 Miller Ave
Iowa City IA 52246
3/19/0 1
Timothy and Robynn Shrader
1104 Weeber Circle
Iowa City, IA 52246
(319) 466-9006
March 14, 2001
Iowa City Council ! :7
Iowa City, IA
Dear Iowa City Mayor and Council,
On Tuesday evening you will address the issue of a zoning change allowing development
of a 39-unit housing complex that is proposed by Southgate development on Harlgck6
Street, with access only via this small street.
You will have received a packet of information from our neighborhood association that
fully documents not only our concerns, but the long and repetitive history of attempted
development of this particular piece of property.
I urge you to take a very close look at the concerns raised, and gauge the high level of
anxiety that this proposed development has generated in our neighborhood. We already
deal with many of the problems created by a lack of planning in the Benton Hill area, and
assert that the southwest side of town is long overdue for a well thought out and
comprehensive development plan. Particularly, our neighborhood can ill afford many
more errors or oversights.
This issue has come up so many times over the years, and because it has never been
completely or appropriately dealt with, here we are again. I am hopeful for strong
leadership from the council, to deal with the question of a complete and comprehensive
development plan for the southwest side of town prior to allowing another ill-advised
multi-unit structure dropped into a neighborhood that can barely support the similar units
already built.
I encourage you to drive down Harlocke Street, particularly around 5PM, and see for
yourselves why we as a neighborhood are so upset. It defies credulity to think that this
small street can support the needs of 39 additional families.
I look forward to your attention to this, and thank you for your time and service to our
community.
Very truly,
Robynn Shrader
Presentation by Stephen Tulleyj to the Iowa City City Council on Behalf of the
Weeber-Harlocke Neighborhood Association. March 20, 2001.
[Slidel] Good evening. My name is Stephen Tulley. I have been a renter at 917 Harlocke Street
since 1996. I have been chosen by the Weeber~Harlocke Neighborhood Association to make a
few comments tonight about the proposed development on Harlocke Street and the concerns we
share.
[Slide 2] Many of you have been introduced to our neighborhood through plarming maps, such as
this one, which indicates the area of the proposed development. [Slide 3]. Here is a better view
of the property showing Benton Manor to the east. Now when Southgate Development proposed
to build 39 housing units on this site, they no doubt thought they had found a pot of gold [Slide
4], but like most fabled treasure hunts, this one has some serious flaws.
fSlide 5] Harlocke Street is 24 feet wide, three feet narrower than standard~sized streets in this
city. This is a great cause of concern for local residents since the proposed development is
expected to almost double the amount of traffic on Harlocke and Weeber. Furthemmre, the only
access to the development would be located on Harlocke Street, adding to the present flow of
traffic which must negotiate two turns ['Slide 6] to access Benton Street, the main traffic artery in
this area, We believe there are several problems with increasing traffic on these two streets:
[Slide 7] The first is parking. Even with zoned parking allotments for multi-family and single-
family dwellings many residents only find available parking on the street, constricting the
available space for vehicles to pass. This problem is pronounced on game days but, I should note,
this photo was not taken on a football Saturday!
[Slide 8] The second is the steep access to Benton from Weeher. Here is a slide showing one
driver who can't make it all the way up to Benton and is backing down the street for another try.
Many of us have witnessed drivers going down and backing up the small hill on the southern
portion of Weeber to make "running start" - so to speak - up the hill and turn onto Benton when
the roads are slippery.
[Slide 9] All traffic into and out of the proposed development would have to use this sharp
corner at the intersection of Weebet and Harlocke. The house you see is owned by our neighbor
Bill Graf. Bill has raised a family in this house and on several occasions has had to deal with cars
missing this turn, meaning that both car and driver end up on his lawn. Bill informs me that just
this last Sunday fresh tire tracks were found on his property from a similar incident.
[Slide lOJ The third is the our concern for large service vehicles on these streets. Here is a video
of one of our trash trucks coming down Harlocke Street. Contrary to what you might be thinking,
Address: 917 Harlocke St. #5, Iowa City, IA 52246
1
this is not being played in reverse, nor is the driver directionally challenged. Rather, many large
trucks find that the only way to access driveways is to do so backwards. This video shows the
driver successfully entering the driveway, but on other occasions trucks have been unable to do
so when cars are parked to the side in driveways or behind buildings. All of these drivers are very
careful about this manoeuver and make great efforts to ensure that there are no cars coming up
Harlocke when they do so. But this points out our concerns about trash trucks, utility trucks, fire
engines, and other city vehicles negotiating this street.
[Slide 11] These issues are ultimately related to pedestrian safety, since we have many families
residing in the neighborhood, some using nearby elementary s~hools on Benton. But we are also
~vorried about the problem of proper water drainage. These children are enjoying "Lake
Weeber," which appears after heavy rains and is formed from the poor drainage conditions on
this pan of the hill. Although residents worry about water damage to their houses and property,
the children seem to enjoy it, [Slide 12] and get to practice their boating skills.
[Slide 13] This problem is inherent in our area due to the presence of steep hills and deep,
wooded ravines. This shot of Forest Ridge demonstrates how steep these hills can be, and shows
evidence of erosion in the bottom-right hand portion of the photo.
[Slide 14] Runoff and potential water damage are particularly serious for buildings located
downhill from large areas of concrete, such as the many parking lots in the area. [Slide 15] This
slide shows the Benton Manor building located immediately downhill from the proposed
development. Notice the steep hillside and accumulated snow and water backing up next to the
first floor of this building. Residents of this complex and others told us they had serious
reservations about placing three buildings and a large concrete parking area uphill from them.
[Slide 16,] And so do homeowners, These houses are located in a water drainage area. Notice the
downed trees. They rotted and eventually fell over due to excessively wet soil. [Slide 17] But it's
not just natural damage we are talking about. Residents have long noted that local ravines tend to
accumulate trash and toxins. For instance, here is a close-up shot of some water in the area,
glistening brightly with oil.
[Slide 18,] Now the developer has told us they will build a water-retention area on the property to
address these concerns, but we wonder if it will look at all similar to this system?
['Slide 19,] We are also concerned about the history of zoning in this area, which has caused
uneven development on Benton Street and in the larger SouthWest Development District. This
has meant that many single-family homes find themselves located next to [Slide 20,] high-
density, multi-story buildings ['Slide 21,]. For instance, this was the first building constructed at
the end of Harlocke Street, a single-family residence. Now it is sandwiched between two 8-plex
rental properties.
We do not believe that this makes for good planning in the long run, for it places strains on the
existing infrastructure, while simultaneously removing green areas from the neighborhood ['Slide
22], an area which needs more parks for residents and children to enjoy.
fSlide 23] We hope that your decision about this development and long-term planning in the area
will include the voices and concerns of the people who Iive in the neighborhood, and who are
here tonight. Thank you for your time.
3
Marian Karr
From: Kristina Vaclavikova [kristina-vaclavikova@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2001 10:50 AM
To: Council@iowa-city.org
Subject: REZ01-0001 - Weeber/Harlocke Rezoning
Dear Sir or Hadam,
Hy name is Kristina Vaclavikova and I rent an apartment unit on 917
Hatlocke Street. I have been very concerned about the recent developments
regarding the REZ 01 0001 High Density Multi-family Residential Area.
At its February 12 meeting, by a vote of 3-2, the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended approval of the proposed rezoning. As I fully
support the Harlock-Weeber Neighborhood Association represented by William
Knabe I would like to stress and support all the concerns that the
Association pointed out regarding these proposed rezoning issues.
I do not believe that the proposed area is suitable for High Density Multi
Family Housing construction. I am very troubled and alarmed by the
consequences that such construction may have on the entire neighborhood.
First of all it is an issue of safety of the entire neighborhood. The
traffic will tremendously increase due to the construction and may
critically impact the safety of children that attend Roosevelt Elementary
School. The traffic on Benton Street is already almost unbearable during
the main peak and rush hours and would increase even more not only during
the construction but also due to the newly come residents.
Second of all I am concerned about the consequences that such construction
will have on the entire environment. The lot on Harlocke Street has been a
natural preservation of wildlife habitats that will be inevitably destroyed
by the construction. The area around Harlocke-Weeber neighborhood is
already highly populated and collides with the large apartment housing
areas on Benton Street and Benton Haner. The lot on Harlocke Street has
been a fresh, natural and relaxing location that the entire neighborhood
cherished and tries to preserve.
Thank you for your considerations.
Sincerely,
Kristina Vaclavikova
917 Harlocke Street Apt. 2
Iowa City, Iowa, 52246
Kristina Vaclavikova
Project Coordinator
International Education Projects -
Civic Education for Moldova &Georgia
University of Iowa
College of Education
788 Van Allen Hall
Iowa City, IA, 52242
Phone#: (319)335-6118
Fax#: (319)335-6291
1
Page 1 of 2
Marian Karr
From: Bl_DeVore`1 @aol.com
Sent: Monday, March 'i9, 2001 8:03 PM
To: emie_lehman@iowa-city.org
Cc: irivin_pfab@iowa-city.org; connie_shampion@iowa-city.org; ross_wilburn@iowa-city.org;
mike_odonnell@iowa-city.org; dee_vanderhoef@iowa-city.org; stephen_atkins@iowa-city.org;
council@iowa-city.org; BLDeVorel@aol.com
Subject: Proposed development on Harlocke Ave
I am writing in response to the proposed development on the 4 acre property
on Hadocke Ave. As a resident and property owner in this neighborhood, I
wish to voice my concern on this issue, as I will be unable to attend the
City Council meeting Tuesday evening to voice my opposition.
As I am sure you will hear, the residents, both property owners and renters,
have grave concerns about this property development. Our main concern is
traffic. With this development, increased traffic flow will be a great
problem to this already congested neighborhood. Presently, there are times
when it is NEARLY impossible to turn onto Benton Street and with the addition
of multiple housing units, the increased congestion caused by additional
vehicles will only increase this problem.
In addition to the increased traffic problem, with the children in this
neighborhood this causes an even greater potential hazard to the safety of
the neighborhood children.
Another reason of concern I have is the effects of the proposed parking for
the residents of this development. By covering the steep terrain with
pavement, the issue of water drainage arises.
As a resident in the Benton Manor Condo Assn., I have grave concerns on how
the plan will account for water drainage. Currently, water run-off on this
property drains downward toward the 906-910 building and results in e small
pooling of water. What will the effects of grading and filling this slope in,
causing an even greater slope at the edge of the development, hence causing
even a greater drainage problem for the owners of Benton Manor? The
developers state the water drainage will also drain into the ravine on the
North end of the property and will be contained by a dam and then siphon into
the drainage system of the Benton Manor Condo Assn. To construct this dam,
the developers will have to destroy some of the natural vegetation and trees
in the ravine, diminishing the area for wild life and bird habitat.
My final concern is the fact the residents of this neighborhood area have
none to little open/green spaces in relation to other neighborhoods in the
city. While the Planning and Zoning committee has narrowly approved (3-2)
that was revised after February 15 to include a small park/open space area, I
feel the City and the Parks and Recreation Commission needs to look into
ensuring our neighborhood has the commensurate public space other
neighborhoods currently have.
One of the suggestions the Planning and Zoning Committee made at one of the
initial meetings was to accept a "cash payment" in exchange for the lost open
space. As a citizen, property owner and voter, this is ONE option I find
unacceptable and reprehensible. Honestly, to accept this option states one
thing to the residents of not only this neighborhood, but to all the
residents of Iowa City -- the council members care, not about the green space
and its environmental impact, nor about the city's residents, but only the
almighty dollar - a sad future for this town which will be remembered at
election time by the entire west side community.
3/20/01
Page 2 of 2
Please feel free to contact me at any time to discuss my concerns.
Sincerely,
Brett DeVore
906 Benton Drive, Unit 34
Iowa City, Iowa 52246
341-3494
3/2 0/0 1
Marjan Karr
From: Matt Whittaker [matthew-whittaker@uiowa.edu]
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2001 11:52 AM
To: Council@iowa-city.org
Subject: rezoning in weeber-harlocke neighborhood
Greetings,
I am writing to express my thoughts on the proposed rezoning and development
in the Weeber-Harlocke Streets neighborhood. My wife and I are homeowners on
Weebet Street and am concerned about the effects of this development;
I would like my voice to be added to the bulk of the neighbors fighting
against this development.
There are several reasons why I think this development is a mistake:
1) Having actual small plots of undeveloped land is not a bad thing,
particularly when they presently are designated as a "sensitive area."
The "basin" of Weeber St. near Weeber Ct. already floods any time we
get a torrential downpour {and will no doubt do so again with the
half a foot of snow we just received and temps in the 40s next week).
I hate to think what removing this natural area will do to run off
for the folks downhill in Benton Manor.
Putting aside the flooding hazards, part of the city's charm is having
actual undeveloped plots of land to complement and break up the ever
increasing array of buildings. I used to live in Madison, Wisconsin.
Many people who have been to both cities favorably compare the two.
Where Madison had begun to decline before I left was in its insatiable
desire to develop every plot of land not already designated for a park
within the city limits. City "beautification" projects are now underway
to reverse that trend.
My point is - why develop, then buckle under pressure and "beautify," when
leaving it the way it is takes no time and costs zero tax payer dollars?
2) Hatlocke is undersized and will have its alotted traffic load maxed
out by this project. Harlocke is four feet narrower than it is
supposed to be (24' instead of 28') and presently only enjoys one exit
route - onto Weeber then Benton. This project will potentially double
the amount of traffic this road currently handles, which leads to #3.
3) Traffic on Harlocke must go somewhere. Many arguments by my neighbors
cite the increased traffic load on Harlocke as a factor inspiring them
to oppose this development. However, it should also be considered where
this traffic is going to go - most likely it will go on to Benton Street.
Poor beleaguered Benton already has a heavy traffic load; getting out
off of Weeber onto Benton can take a long time, particularly during
peak periods. Waiting an extra 60 seconds to get out onto Benton isn't
really the issue though - the issue is primarily one of safety.
Two safety issues come to mind immediately - first, what happens when
drivers are forced to wait at an intersection longer than they anticipate?
They get antsy - they get impatient - and they take greater risks when
merging with traffic. Second - there are two schools along Benton.
Each morning as I travel to the university, I watch brave crossing guards
nimbly leap out into traffic to let the kids across. This is traffic
more concerned with getting to their destination in a timely fashion than
with going the posted 20 mph; is there any reason to believe the added
200 cars / day will act any differently?
Thank you for taking the time to read this and I look forward to
1
hearing that the right choice will be made.
Regards,
Matt & Sue Whittaker
Page I of 1
Marian Karr
From: kuAnae kefler [lulefler@keystoneit.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2001 6:05 AM
To: Council@iowa-city,org
Subject: Traffic
To the members of the Iowa City Council
A proposed apartment complex near Hadocke Street is a bad idea.
Do we really need to increase the traffic on Benton Street ? It appears that there
is no other viable exit from the proposed complex.
I feel we already have a dismal lack of green space in this neighborhood. Or do you consider another parking lot
green space?
Please consider these objections when discussing this development,
Sincerely,
LuAnne Lefler
1010 Hudson
Iowa City
3/19/01
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (-S' <:'--____., I
TO ALL TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA, AND TO OTHER INTERESTED
PERSONS:
Public notice is hereby given that the City of
Iowa City, Iowa, will conduct a public hearing on
the City's FY2002 Iowa DOT Consolidated Transit
Funding grant application. The application will be
for approximately $332,621 (3.032093%) in Iowa
DOT state transit assistance formula funds to be
used for operating and/or purchasing capital items
for Iowa City Transit during FY2002. Said
application will also include a listing of projects to
be applied for in FY2002 from the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) Section 5307 and/or Section
5309 programs. The FTA Section 5307 program
provides formula federal funds to be used for the
operating and capital needs of Iowa City Transit.
Section 5309 is a discretionary capital funding
program. Section 5307 and/or Section 5309
projects to be applied for in FY2002 include (total
cost and federal amount):
1. Operating assistance (FTA) - approx.
$359,540
2. Construct Near Southside Transportation
Center (Phase II & III) - Total Cost -
$10,049,974 - FTA- $8,039,979
3. Transit vehicle preventative maintenance -
Total - $134,397 - FTA - $107,518
4. Purchase 6 light-duty 176" replacement
paratransit vehicles (6135, 6139, 6223, 6225,
6226, & 6138) Total - $348,000 - FTA -
$288,840
5. Purchase 6 40' heavy-duty replacement
buses (633-638) - Total - $1,692,000 - FTA -
$1,404,360
6. Re-seal floors jn maintenance and storage
area of transit facility - Total - $60,000 - FTA
- $48,000
7. Purchase hot water parts washer - Total -
$7,500 - FTA - $6,000
TOTAL FUNDS = $12,290,371
FTA FUNDS - $10,254,237
Additional projects may be added before the
public hearing is held.
The public hearing will be held at 7:00 p.m. on
March 20, 2001, in the Council Chambers of the
Iowa City Civic Center, 410 E. Washington Street,
iowa City.
A preliminary application will be on file February
26, 2001 at the JCCOG Transportation Planning
Division Office, Iowa City Civic Center, 410 E.
Washington Street, Iowa City, and may be
inspected by interested persons. Any questions
or comments regarding the application, the
projects, or the public hearing, should be directed
to Kevin Doyle, JCCOG Assistant Transportation
Planner (319-356-5253) or e-mail kevin-
doyle@iowa-city.org
The projects are in conformance with the
JCCOG Urbanized Area Transit Plan for the iowa
City Urbanized Area.
Any interested persons may appear at the public
hearing for the purpose of making objections or
comments. Written comments will be accepted
by JCCOG at the above address through the date
and time of the hearing specified above. This
notice is given by the City Council of the City of
Iowa City, Iowa.
MARlAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
CITY OF IOWA CITY, iOWA
jccogtp\fy95sta\lCTnph,doc
JCCOG
FF'IeFf'IC)
Date: March 9, 2001
To: Iowa City City Council
From: Kevin L. Doyle, Assistant Transportation Planner ~
Re: Iowa City Transit - Capital Projects Programmed for FY2002
The following projects have been programmed by Iowa City Transit for Federal Transit
Administration [FTA] Section 5307 and/or 5309 funds in FY2002. The projects will be
included in the FY2002 Iowa DOT Consolidated Transit Funding Application JCCOG is
completing and in the FY2002-2004 JCCOG Transportation Improvement Program
[TIP].
FY2002 Federal Transit Administration - Program of Projects
Project Description Federal Share
Construct Near Southside Transportation Center- Phase II & II1.® $8,039,979
Purchase 6 40' heavy-duty replacement buses [633-638] 1,404,360
Purchase 6 light-duty 176" replacement vehicles. These are vehicles 288,840
scheduled to be replaced that were transferred from SEATS.
Transit vehicle preventative maintenance [Eligible for up to 20% of 107, 518
total vehicle maintenance costs].
Re-seal floors in maintenance and storage areas of transit facility 48,000
Replace photocopy machine 12,000
Purchase hot water parts washer for transit facility 6,000
Total FY2002 FTA Capital Requests $9,906,697
®Phase II & III construction work will go beyond FY2002 and wilt likely not be completed until F'Y2003.
NOTE: Inclusion of projects in this application and the FY2002-2004 Transportation
Improvement Program does not guarantee funding in FY2002. Iowa DOT submits an
annual statewide application for capita/funds with the Federal Transit Administration
and actual availability of funding will not be known until fall, 2001.
Give me a call at 356.5253 or e-mail kevin-dovle@iowa-citv.om if you should have any
questions about this information.
\1 transit%ict~02caplistitem .doc
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANS,
SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATED COST
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MORMON
TREK BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS
MELROSE AVENUE TO THE IOWA
INTERSTATE RAILROAD BRIDGE PROJECT,
STP-U-3715(618)-70-52, IN THE CITY OF
IOWA CITY, IOWA
TO ALL TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA, AND TO OTHER INTERESTED
PERSONS:
Public notice is hereby given that the City
Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will conduct
a public hearing on plans, specifications and
estimated cost for the construction of the Mormon
Trek Improvements-Melrose Avenue to the Iowa
Interstate Railroad Bridge Project,
STP-U-3715(618)--70-52, in said City at 7:00
p.m. on the 20th day of March, 2001, said
meeting to be held in the Council Chambers in
the Civic Center in said City, or if said meeting is
cancelled, at the next meeting of the City Council
thereafter as posted by the City Clerk.
Said plans, specifications and estimated cost
are now on file in the office of the City Clerk in the
Civic Center in Iowa City, Iowa, and may be
inspected by any interested persons.
Any interested persons may appear at said
meeting of the City Council for the purpose of
making objections to and comments concerning
said plans, specifications or the cost of making
said improvement.
This notice is given by order of the City Council
of the City of Iowa City, Iowa and as provided by
law.
MARlAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PLANS,
SPECIFICATIONS, FORM OF CONTRACT AND
ESTIMATED COST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF THE SOUTH SYCAMORE REGIONAL
GREENSPACE AND STORMWATER
PROJECT, IN THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
TO ALL TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA, AND TO OTHER INTERESTED
PERSONS:
Public notice is hereby given that the City
Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, will conduct
a public hearing on plans, specifications, form of
contract and estimated cost for the construction
of the South Sycamore Regional Greenspace
and Stormwater Project, in said City at 7:00 p.m.
on the 20th day of March, 2001, said meeting to
be held in the Council Chambers in the Civic
Center in said City, or if said meeting is cancelled,
at the next meeting of the City Council thereafter
as posted by the City Clerk.
Said plans, specifications, form of contract and
estimated cost are now on file in the office of the
City Clerk in the Civic Center in Iowa City, Iowa,
and may be inspected by any interested persons.
Any interested persons may appear at said
meeting of the City Council for the purpose of
making objections to and comments concerning
said plans, specifications or the cost of making
said improvement.
This notice is given by order of the City Council
of the City of Iowa City, Iowa and as provided by
MARlAN K. KARR, CITY CLERK