The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2016-06-21 Correspondence3f(1) Marian Karr From: Amy Charles <amycharlesl @gmail.com> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 11:57 AM To: Council Subject: Uber and subprime auto loans to the low-income not -officially -employees Hey guys, I think you should probably be keeping an eye on this and seeing if it goes on in IC, now that you've opened the door to Uber. I still see no way in which this thing isn't a way of exploiting the very poor to finther enrich kajillionaires while ensuring that no effective safety regulation gets in the way of their making a bundle. httn:llwww.houstonchronicle.com/business/outside-the-boardroomlarticle(Uber-is-in-the-sub-prime-auto- business-7955561.nhn Amy 3f(2) Marian Karr From: Smothers, Elizabeth <liz-smothers@uiowa.edu> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 2:10 PM To: Council Subject: GOLD BIKE FRIENDLINESS I would like to know why a community is supposed to welcome all bicyclers with open arms when VERY often they don't obey the law and often have little regard for them. They don't follow traffic signals and drive through red lights. They bicycle between cars. They think they're invincible and that no car will ever hit them if they don't move to the bicycle lane. They flip off anyone who, in their entitled opinion, did them wrong. For instance, riding side-by-side in the bicycle lane and flipping me off because I didn't give them extra room so they could continue to ride side-by-side. If I saw the respect for laws and people in cars, I may think about being friendly to them. I NEVER see a cop give them a ticket for any of the things I mentioned above. Until then, I have no respect for bicyclists. I'm not going out of my way at all to be "friendly" to them. Why doesn't our community make the city car friendly instead of bike friendly. I am so sick of allowing the minority their way over the majority and I really don't much care about them. Liz Smothers Solon, IA Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of the original message and attachments thereto. Email sent to or from UI Health Care may be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank you. June 8`s, 2016 To: City Manager, Mayor Throgmorten and Council Members From: Mark McCallum ( 319) 430-1461 Dear City Manager and Council Members: Just wanted to follow up on the discussion regarding parking issues in the residential areas surrounding downtown Iowa City. Enclosed is a proposal for a Parking Improvement District for the College Green Park area. Parking improvement districts can be a tool to help a community manage parking inventory in urban areas like the College Green Park. In addition, generate revenue to support improvements to the park and neighborhood. The enclosed documents are intended only as a starting point for a dialogue regarding parking issues in our area. We are open to feedback and or modifications to the parking models presented in this packet. Regards, ark McCallum 113 Johnson FF' P�� " Para i are t Helen and Kevin Burford 109Johnson 525 College Street 0 a, L r f O� r, Mark MCCaUUM e-mail.•burfordhouse@outlook.00m _ Innkeeper THE BURFORD HOUSE http://burfordhouw.wordpress.wm 113 South Johnson Street Cell Phone (319) 430-1461 Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Front Desk (319) 333-1046 N N 3f(3) Parking Improvement District for College Green Park " A proposal to manage the local parking inventory around the College Green Park, generate revenue, and finance park and neighborhood improvements. " Typical parking conditions in College Green Park area. A. Little turnover in spaces. Neighborhood has become a commuter lot for downtown Iowa City and the University of Iowa campus. B. No odd/even parking on the 600 block of College and Washington Street has created a storage parking lot on both of these blocks. Little or no available parking for citizens who want to use the park. Complaint Only (No) enforcement of rule requiring movement of car every 24 hours. C. In the 100 block of Johnson street where there is odd/even parking. Available parking is very limited due to the following uses. Parking storage from non- resident users. Commuter storage for students and downtown workers during the day. Resulting in no parking availability during the day for neighborhood residents and park users. D. Bar Patron User- Parking on the streets downtown is prohibited after 2 a.m. Creating a demand for parking around the park for bar patrons user that should not be driving their cars home. This usage has the consequence of property damage to owners surrounding the park. Solution: Parking Improvement District N O C� 6 i ..ICD �....a. "_i L A. What is a Parking Improvement District? Parking improvement districts area tool that help a community manage the metered parking inventory. And, generate revenues to support local improvement programs and services. Imo' B. Parking improvement districts are utilized in several cities throughout the country, including San Diego, CA. Pasadena, CA, Portland, OR, Redwood City, Ca and Austin, TX. C. Parking Revenues earned by the City from the meters, within the district, are shared between the municipality and the local community. D. Parking revenues from the College Green District could be used to maintain the park or for long term capitol improvements to the park such a play ground equipment. E. Parking improvement District should improve occupancy at Chauncy Swan Parking Ramp = More revenue for the city. F. Other uses for the money generated, could be to make the park more bicycle friendly. Monies could also be used to pay for marketing materials promoting alternative modes of transportation. G. Optional Residential Parking permit plan: As part of this program, residents of the neighborhood could get parking that would without plugging the meters. They would not be guaranteed parking. There would be a fee for this permit set by the city to cover costs to implement the program. Creation of a Parking Improvement District A. In response to a local initiative, the City establishes a PID within a defined geographical area similar to the way the City currently establishes a TIF or a smid district. Sample Proposals A. Small District: Meter East side of 100 block of South Johnson. Prohibit parking on west side of street allowing creation of bike like. Approximately 20-22 metered parking spaces gained. See cash flow analysis A. B. Large District: Meter East side of Johnson Street, North side of College, South Side of Washington Street. Reserve North Side of Washington Street and South Side of Johnson Street for Residential parking permits only. Approximately 60 Metered spaces. See cash flow analysis B. Conclusion: A. Parking Improvement District can help residential areas near business districts address parking issues. B. Parking Improvement District can generate new revenue for the city and the Park District. C. Parking improvement Districts create an equitable source of revenue for community improvements. N 0 m 9 77 N.3 Ideas worth stealing: Parking benefit districts — Keystone Crossroads MARCH 28, 2016 ideas wort n, F411111 -• -• Page 1 of 10 Sometimes the deal for new parking meters can be sweetened with the promise of local by Mike Linksvayer via Flickr) 91 BY JON GEETING Parking congestion is a constant source of frustration in many growing urban neighborhoods and downtowns, but the best-known cure — charging a price for curb parking — is about as unpopular as the affliction. When commercial corridors begin attracting more customers, or neighborhoods see an influx of new infill housing, residents who once had an easy time parking for free or for cheap on the curb increasingly find those spaces occupied by visitors or new residents. http://crossroads.newsworks.orglindex.phpliocallkeystone-crossroads/92318-ideas-worth-s... 5/16/2016 Ideas worth stealing: Parking benefit districts — Keystone Crossroads Page 2 of 10 But pro -turnover policies that turn free parking into paid parking, or raise existing parking prices, still tend to be unpopular for two main reasons: People don't like to pay for what they're used to getting for free, and the revenue typically doesn't fund any immediately tangible benefits. As Alan Durning, director of the sustainability think tank Sightline Institute put it in a 2013 blog post, "parking revenue going to the general fund might as well be going to Mars 0 p /Ma sishtrne orW-013'10/04/C re ppeaV% It has virtually no political salience for most voters." But it turns out that there is another powerful, countervailing force that, if cultivated correctly, can be harnessed to blunt the strength of territorial parking politics: Greed. Enter the Parking Benefit District As UCLA professor Donald Shoup explained in his cult parking economics tome "The High Cost of Free Parking," some cities and downtown business associations have discovered that it's much easier, politically speaking, to introduce new parking meters or permits when the impacted areas are allowed to keep some of the revenue generated within the neighborhood to pay for extra public improvements and services. The prospect of a dedicated, ongoing local revenue stream for neighborhood projects becomes enticing enough to residents and businesses, and they become a countervailing force in support of parking meters. Those public improvements in turn attract even more visitors, which generates more parking revenue in a virtuous cycle of redevelopment. In different cities, Parking Benefit Districts (PBDs) come in different shapes and sizes, but what they all have in common is that they fund visible local public improvements in the places where the revenue is raised. As Pittsburgh looks toward establishing its first PBD, examples from Portland, Aus46, and Old Pasadena can provide some context on creative ways cities are buildingpublic3upport.! for better parking management. ti Pittsburgh r.� http://crossroads.newsworks.org/index.php/iocallkeystone-crossroads/92318-ideas-worth-s... 5/16/2016 Ideas worth stealing: Parking benefit districts — Keystone Crossroads Page 3 of 10 Mayor Peduto's administration in Pittsburgh is planning to fund public safety improvements on the city's South Side — a nightlife magnet that endures more than its share of wear and tear — with revenue from extended parking meter hours. "People come in from all over the region to the South Side on a weekly basis to patronize our businesses, and that kind of traffic has an impact on the neighborhood," says the mayor's deputy chief of staff John Fournier, who's been developing the framework for a parking benefit district for the neighborhood. Without much wiggle room in the city's general fund, officials began exploring the idea of extending parking meter hours and dedicating the additional revenue to services in the district — think more cops on the street, pedestrian improvements, wayfinding signage — which presumably would be paid mostly by evening revelers from outside the neighborhood. Think of it as a hyper -local commuter tax. Fournier explained that a parking benefit district isn'tjust a revenue -raiser, but smart transportation management as well, since parking demand is still higher than usual on the South Side past 6pm. "Specific details, like the list of projects to be funded and the boundaries of the district, will be shaped by conversations with the community, Fournier said. N Unlike some other types of Parking Benefit Districts that have direct control over tlg use of revenue, the funds for Pittsburgh's South Side will stay in a separate account and won't be granted out to third party organizations and non-profits.CMO g Portland N In Portland Oregon, a stakeholder committee (t,t4s Hw.portiaruaegon.gov/anspartaton/&?483i ?o rmed to overhaul the city's parking permit policy unanimously endorsed a framework that would give neighbors an option to keep more revenue in the neighborhood. If adopted, the new framework would allow neighborhoods to opt in to permit parking, but also set aside some of the proceeds for neighborhood projects, which wouldn't necessarily be restricted to a specific spending priority like public safety and pedestrian improvements as In UNii5burgh. http://crossroads.newsworks.orglindex.phpllocallkeystone-crossroads/92318-ideas-worth-s... 5/16/2016 Ideas worth stealing: Parking benefit districts — Keystone Crossroads Page 4 of 10 The committee also recommended that the city sell only a limited number of parking permits in each neighborhood—as many permits as there are on -street spaces, or less. Whether the permits would be distributed by auction or some other process is still up in the air. The committee recommended tying each permit to a specific vehicle or set of vehicles, to prevent a side market in parking permits from developing. "The recommendation wasn't specific in how much to cap," recalls Sunnyside Neighbors Association president TonyJordan, who served on the stakeholder committee, "We talked about 80-85 percent, because you want to allow for some employee and visitor parking near commercial corridors." These kinds of decisions would be made by an Area Parking Committee chosen by neighborhoods who've opted in to permit parking. Area Parking Committees would also decide on the price of the permits, with the flexibility to add a neighborhood fee onto the base price, to fund neighborhood projects. Each participating neighborhood would choose from menu of projects like sidewalk repair, lighting, and pedestrian and bike safety improvements not currently on the shortlist for public funding, and dedicate the parking revenue to the local favorites. As in Pittsburgh, the revenue would remain in an account managed by the city, rather than transferred to third -party groups like business improvement districts, CDCs, or neighborhood civic associations. "Neighborhood organizations, even if they are official non -profits, aren't usually democratic enough to manage the money," said Jordan, "We get elected by a few dozen people out of a neighborhood of 7,000 or so. The neighborhood associations can bring people together to straw poll projects. Even if it's not completely democratic, that's at least an okay way to decide which small projects get done in a neighborhood." Austin ra Parking Benefit Districts in Austin, Texas are distinct from these other examples irf4wo ways. co.. N http://crossroads.newsworks.org/index.php/locallkeystone-crossroadsl92318-ideas-worth-s... 5/16/2016 Ideas worth stealing: Parking benefit districts — Keystone Crossroads Page 5 of 10 First, about half the revenue goes to the city's general fund. After city expenses are covered, 51 percent of the proceeds are set aside for the district, and 49 percent becomes general revenue for the city. The minimum size for a district is 96 spaces, and there's a thorough process for the neighborhood and the city to vet proposed districts. Second, city law also requires mtq s llausbmexas govr5aesiderauvr�icc.,'Tran�ponatronipbd-0rdi �, e) that the revenue be used to "promote walking, cycling, and public transit and public transit use within the district." It can also be used in conjunction with other city funds for larger projects. Austin began experimenting with Parking Benefit Districts in 2011 in response to West Campus neighbors near the University of Texas who reached out to the city seeking relief from students stashing their cars long-term on residential streets. "They had students parking literally for semesters, and they'd get no turnover because it was all free parking," recalls Steven Grassfield, the city's Parking Enterprise Manager, who helped craft Austin's parking benefit district policy. After a thorough community outreach and City Council vetting process, the West Campus district went into effect in January of 2012, and has raised on average around $140,000 annually for neighborhood improvements. At the time the district was created, West Campus neighbors gave the city five projects they wanted to finance, and the city sets the money aside in a separate fund. Neighbors get a monthly financial statement, and every year they meet with the city to revisit the project list. "As you know, cities are always changing so they re allowed to adjust the projects being funded depending on the needs of their area," Grassfield said. So far, residents have chosen to invest parking revenue in wider 18 -foot sidewalks on Rio Grande, a busy commercial street running through the neighborhood, as well as benches, lighting, and street trees. Old Pasadena u ru. _ N DO http://crossroads.newsworks.org/index.phpllocallkeystone-crossroadsl9231 S -ideas -worth -s... 5/16/2016 Ideas worth stealing: Parking benefit districts — Keystone Crossroads Page 6 of 10 Old Pasadena's Parking Benefit District, called the Parking Meter Zone, is the archetype of the concept, profiled in Donald Shoup's paper "Turning Small Change Into Big Changes." 4T - p rishoup boluca edu'SmailChange.pdf lt's a good example of how much more radical these programs can get, depending on the local appetite for them. Shoup offers some background on what Pasadena's downtown was like prior to the creation of the Parking Meter Zone (PMZ) in 1993. "Old Pasadena became the city's Skid Row, and by the 1970s much of it was slated for redevelopment. Pasadena's Redevelopment Agency demolished three historic blocks on Colorado Boulevard to make way for Plaza Pasadena, an enclosed mall with ample free parking whose construction the city assisted with $41 million in public subsidies. New buildings clad in then -fashionable black glass replaced other historic properties. The resulting "Corporate Pasadena" horrified many citizens, so the city reconsidered its plans for the area. The Plan for Old Pasadena, published in 1978, asserted "if the area can be revitalized, building on its special character, it will be unique to the region." In 1983, Old Pasadena was listed in the National Register of Historic Places. However, despite these planning efforts, commercial revival was slow to come, in part because lack of public investment and the parking shortage were intractable obstacles. For years city planners had been urging elected officials to introduce paid parking in the downtown to create more turnover, but the idea was a political non-starter. In the late 1980's, the City Manager at the time championed a plan to build a large downtown parking garage to address the parking crunch. It was built, but by the early 90's it had become clear that the garage was a money -loser, costing the city around $1 million a year. With curb parking unpriced, motorists had little financial incentive to choose garage parking. Mayor Rick Cole, now the City Manager in Santa Monica, decided the city could no longer avoid installing paid street parking, but when he broached the topic at a meeting Lah downtown merchants, they went "absolutely berserk," he recalls. That is, until he suggested spending the meter revenue in the district. c� ` N N http://crossroads.newsworks.orglindex.phpllocallkeystone-crossroads/92318-ideas-worth-s... 5/16/2016 Ideas worth stealing: Parking benefit districts — Keystone Crossroads Page 7 of 10 "I said, what if we took 100 percent of the revenue from the parking meters, but instead of -using it to plug our million dollar hole in the budget, we devote it to three things: police foot patrols and horse patrols, daily street sweeping, and monthly steam cleaning of the sidewalks," Cole said. If there was any money left over, he offered, Old Pasadena could use it to plant trees, fix sidewalks, install lighting and benches, and more. To top it off, business owners would be put in charge of allocating the money. Cole estimated that between parking fines, more garage parking, and additional business activity, the city would close the $1 million deficit. A deal was struck, and the city installed parking meters in 1993, creating a committee of business owners within the Old Pasadena BID to allocate the revenue. They floated a $5 million bond to finance the "Old Pasadena Streetscape and Alleyways Project," and dedicated the meter revenue to repay the debt. The bond proceeds funded street furniture, trees and tree grates, decorative lighting, and alley restoration. To build support for the meters, the city launched a marketing campaign showcasing the improvements visitors were funding, complete with meter signage reminding motorists "your meter money makes a difference." "On the parking meters we had a little sticker that explained your money would fund local services," Cole said, 'That helped us enormously because everybody who was pissed off about money going to City Hall, we could look them in the face and say'every nickel you put in these parking meters is going toward making the downtown nicer, cleaner, and safer."' In the five years after the Parking Meter Zone was established, property tax revenue tripled, and sales tax revenues quadrupled over the same period, according to Cole. "When I stepped down as Mayor," Cole recalled, "I said my three big achievements were getting the city's General Plan through, getting parking meters in Old Pasadena, and not getting recalled for putting parking meters in Old Pasadena." N O P - N http://crossroads.newsworks.org/index.php/local/keystone-crossroads/92318-ideas-worth--`�?.. 5/16/2016 Ideas worth stealing: Parking benefit districts — Keystone Crossroads Page 8 of 10 "...everybody who was pissed off about money going to City Hall, we could look them in the face and say 'every nickel you put in these parking meters is going toward making the downtown nicer, cleaner, and safer. "' SUPPORT PROVIDED BY KEYSTONE Keystone Crossroads: Rust or Revival? explores CROSSROADS the urgent challenges pressing upon r��P Pennsylvania's cities. Four public media s 9 report in depth on the root causes of our state's u r906i,s le soluti s. Keystone Crossroads offers reports on di v eai�i c�ewspapers, and through public events. PARTNER STATIONS ro u;necrossroadsr • _ _CM WHY Will}i 130013 t;ave�af _ L .- Lft ,O PSV r= ASSOCIATE PARTNER w " N N http://crossroads.newsworks.org/index.php/local/keystone-crossroadsl92318-ideas-worth-s... 5/16/2016 Ideas worth stealing: Parking benefit districts — Keystone Crossroads Page 9 of 10 WQED, w caged orgh SUPPORTED BY A GRANT FROM ttp "www. cpb.erg ) 1 Comment N, -,,v,, €cnrk, kudos Great idea, but would need to bypass PPA! SUPPORT PROVIDED BY N 0 o. C J7� � © WHYY 2016 N to http://crossroads.newsworks.org/index.php/local/keystone-crossroadsl92318-ideas-worth-s... 5/16/2016 Ideas worth stealing: Parking benefit districts — Keystone Crossroads ' , (http://www.whyyorg) Page 10 of 10 http://crossroads.newsworks. orglindex.phpllocallkeystone-crossroads/92318-ideas-worth-s... 5/16/2016 N O iM. p� �gry c N :-.) http://crossroads.newsworks. orglindex.phpllocallkeystone-crossroads/92318-ideas-worth-s... 5/16/2016 Pagel of 4 Investment Analysis Small Parking Improvement City, State Iowa City, Iowa District Purchase Cost $ 20.000.00 Percent Down Payment 0.00% Cash invested $ Financing Amount $ 20,000.00 Rate 4.00% # of years amortized 20 Number of Payments' 240 P&I per month $121.20 P&I per year $ 1,454.35 Depreciation Year 1 Depreciation (27.5years C Land value $ Personal property value $ Building Value $ Land Improvement Value $ Total depreciation $ ,epreciate over 39 o Operating Income Annual rent (see below for rent breakdown) Vacancy loss (0%) Gross Operating Income $ 57.600.00 $0.00 $ 57,600.00 ^3 Annual Rent Breakdown Commercial: 20 parking spaces @ 8.00 per day Unit # Rent Per month Annual Rent 1 $4,800.00 $57,600.00 2 $0.00 3 $0.00 4 $0.00 5 $0.00 Total $4,800.00 $57,600.00 Apartment: $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL Annual Rent $ 57,600.00 Page 2 of 4 Annual Operating Expenses: S 57,600.00 Real Estate Tax Utilities 800.00 Repairs $ - Advertising $ Association Dues $ - Supplies $ Management $ - Misc. - Snow Removal $ Insurance Misc. 15,904.00 Total Operating Expenses $ Gross Operating Income $ 57,600.00 Minus:operating expenses $ _ Equals: Net Operating Income $ 57,600.00 Minus: annual debt service $ 1,454.35 Equals: cash flow before tax $ 56,145.65 Annual debt service S 1,454.35 Minus: interest S 800.00 Equals: principal reduction $ 654.35 Net Operating Income S 57,600.00 Minus: interest $ 800.00 Minus: Total Depreciation $ _ Equals Taxable Income $ 56,800.00 Multiplied by tax bracket 28.00% Equals: Tax paid $ 15,904.00 Return on Investment (Cash flow before tax + Principal Reduction - Tax Paid) / Cash Invested) #DIV/0! Capitalization Rate Net operating income / Purchase Cost 288.00'➢] Cash on Cash Cash flow before tax / Cash invested #DIV/0! :ash on cash required oan Factor TV Town Payment Lender's Return = (LTV * Loan Factor) Buyer's Return = (Down Payment Cash on cash) Cap Rate = (Lenders Return +Buyers Return) Value = (NOI/Cap Rate) $ 100.00% 0.00% 57,600.00 100.00% 0.00% 57,600.00 0.08718 8.720/ 10.00% 0.00° 8.72°i 8.72% $ 660,702.00 Co N Return on Investment (Cash flow before tax + Principal Reduction - Tax Paid) / Cash Invested) #DIV/0! Capitalization Rate Net operating income / Purchase Cost 288.00'➢] Cash on Cash Cash flow before tax / Cash invested #DIV/0! :ash on cash required oan Factor TV Town Payment Lender's Return = (LTV * Loan Factor) Buyer's Return = (Down Payment Cash on cash) Cap Rate = (Lenders Return +Buyers Return) Value = (NOI/Cap Rate) $ 100.00% 0.00% 57,600.00 100.00% 0.00% 57,600.00 0.08718 8.720/ 10.00% 0.00° 8.72°i 8.72% $ 660,702.00 Page 3 of 4 minus: Down Payment $ _ equals: Loan Amount $ 660,702.00 Down Payment $ _ multiplied by: cash on cash required 10.00% equals: Cash flow before tax $ - $ 57,600.00 s: Cash flow before tax $ - Is: Debt Service $ 57,600.00 ed by: Loan Factor 0.08711 Is: Loan Amount $ 660,702.00 N O CD O C %`e W T _ N Investment Analysis City, State Page 1 of 4 Large Parking Improvement Iowa City, Iowa District Purchase Cost $ 60,000.00 Percent Down Payment 0.00% Cash invested $ - Financing Amount $ 60,000.00 Rate 4.00% # of years amortized 20 Number of Payments 240 P&I per month $363.59 P&I per year $ 4,363.06 Depreciation Year 1 Depreciation (27.5years D Land value $ Personal property value $ Building Value $ Land Improvement Value $ Total depreciation $ eprecoe over 39 o rn c co a Operating Income Annual rent (see below for rent breakdown) Vacancy loss (0%) Gross Operating Income $ 172,800.00 $0.00 $ 172,800.00 Annual Rent Breakdown Commercial: 60 parking spaces @ $8.00 per day Unit # Rent Per month Annual Rent 1 $14,400.00 $172,800.00 2 $0.00 3 $0.00 4 $0.00 5 $0.00 Total $14,400.00 $172,800.00 Apartment: $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL Annual Rent $ 172,800.00 Page 2 of 4 Annual Operating Expenses: $ 172,800.00 Real Estate Tax Utilities - Repairs $ - Advertising $ Association Dues $ - Supplies $ Management $ - Misc. - Snow Removal $ Insurance Misc. 47,712.00 Total Operating Expenses $ Gross Operating Income $ 172,800.00 Minus:operating expenses $ - Equals: Net Operating Income $ 172,800.00 Minus: annual debt service $ 4,363.06 Equals: cash flow before tax $ 168,436.94 Annual debt service $ 4,363.06 Minus: interest $ 2,400.00 Equals: principal reduction $ 1,963.06 Net Operating Income $ 172,800.00 Minus: interest $ 2,400.00 Minus: Total Depreciation $ - Equals Taxable Income $ 170,400.00 Multiplied by tax bracket 28.00% Equals: Tax paid $ 47,712.00 Return on Investment (Cash flow before tax + Principal Reduction - Tax Paid) / Cash Invested) #DIV/01 Capitalization Rate Net operating income / Purchase Cost 288.00% Cash on Cash Cash flow before tax / Cash invested #DIV/0! :ash on cash required oan Factor TV )own Payment er's Return = (LTV' Loan Factor) rr's Return = (Down Payment' i on cash) Rate = (Lender's Return +Buyer's m) _ (NOI/Cap Rate) $ 10.00% 100.00% 0.00% 172,800.00 100.00% 0.00% 172,800.00 0.08718 8.72% 10.00% 0.00% 8.7201 8.72% $ 1,982,105.99 Page 3 of 4 lent Value $ 1,982,105.99 Down Payment $ Loan Amount $ 1,982,105.99 Payment $ - lied by: cash on cash required 10.0 Cash flow before tax $ - NOI $ 172,800.00 minus: Cash flow before tax $ - equals: Debt Service $ 172,800.00 divided by: Loan Factor 0.0871f equals: Loan Amount $ 1,982,105.99 N O IT v � r� - � 4 `e -- N CJ Page 4 of 4 )r 27.5 years Marian Karr From: Geoff Fruin Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 11:05 AM To: Council Cc: Rockne Cole; Pauline Taylor; Jim Throgmorton; John Thomas; Kingsley Botchway; Terry Dickens; Susan Mims Subject: RE: "Complete Streets" in Iowa City Council Members: In response to the email below, I wanted to let you know that the City permitted the closure of the sidewalk for the duration of the construction project. The building line was close enough to the sidewalk that we felt it was reasonable to permit the sidewalk closure as construction activity will be occurring in that immediate area. The detours at Gilbert and Van Buren, while inconvenient, do provide a safe and accessible route for walkers. Regarding the suggestion to create a walkway in the parking area, while this is possible that walkway would need to be extended such that it could meet accessibility slopes. Consideration also needs to be given to placing walkers immediately next to traffic. The contractor may also need to access the parking area for material deliveries throughout the project which would necessitate closures. Ultimately, we determined the closure of the sidewalk and use of intersection detours was the safest way to accommodate pedestrian traffic during the construction project. Please let me know if you have further questions. You are free to have Ms. Lacy contact me directly. Best, Geoff Fruin Interim City Manager I City of Iowa City P: 319.356.5013 Web I Facebook ITwitter From: Feather Lacy (Personal) [flacy@pobox.com] Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2016 7:50 PM To: Jim Throgmorton; John Thomas; Kingsley Botchway; Pauline Taylor; Rockne Cole; flacy@pobox.com Subject: "Complete Streets" in Iowa City Dear Jim, John, Kingsley, Pauline and Rockne, Re: Complete Streets in Iowa City The Tuesday, June 7'h edition of the Cedar Rapids Gazette, page 8A, under CAPITAL DIGEST mentions that 16 of 58 cities in Iowa with population over 8,000 have "complete street policies that support streets that serve cars, bikes, buses and walkers." Iowa City is not on that list. Please rectify this situation. Almost daily when I pedal west on Iowa Ave, when I pass the previous location of the UAY (United Action for Youth House) at 422 Iowa Ave, I see that that sidewalk has been completely blocked off, on -street parking remains and people are walking in the street with their backs to the traffic (dangerous). The alternative is to cross Iowa Ave twice (also dangerous). Please eliminate the parking, and make a pedestrian walkway on the street. Thanks to your attention, Feather Lacy flacy@,nobox.com Marian Karr From: Geoff Fruin Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 7:55 AM To: 'flacy@pobox.com' Cc: Council Subject: RE: "Complete Streets" in Iowa City Attachments: Final _ Iowa City Complete Streets Policy.pdf Ms. Lacy, Thank you for your email. In 2015, the City Council revised our complete streets policy to reflect best practices across the country. I have attached our policy to this email. The City did permit the closure of the sidewalk on Iowa Avenue for the duration of the construction project. The building line will be much closer to the sidewalk than the previous UAY structures were on that site. Due to the proximity of the construction activity to the sidewalk we felt the safest option was to close the sidewalk. The detours at Gilbert and Van Buren, while inconvenient, do provide a safe and accessible route for walkers. With the Iowa Ave remaining open to traffic, we did not feel it was appropriate to detour pedestrians onto the street directly adjacent to the traffic. We are using this strategy on Washington Street downtown, however when detouring pedestrians onto the street that site will be closed to automobiles. This option is further complicated by the likely need to deliver materials from the parking area on Iowa Avenue. Ultimately, we determined the closure of the sidewalk and use of intersection detours was the safest way to accommodate pedestrian traffic during the construction project. I apologize for the inconvenience that it is causing. We will aim to reopen the sidewalk as soon as possible after safe conditions have been restored. Best, Geoff Fruin Interim City Manager I City of Iowa City -----Original Message ----- From: Feather Lacy (Personal) [mailto:flacy@pobox.comj Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2016 5:05 PM To: Geoff Fruin Subject: "Complete Streets" in Iowa City Dear City Manager Geoff Fruin, Re: Complete Streets in Iowa City The Tuesday, June 7th edition of the Cedar Rapids Gazette, page 8A, under CAPITAL DIGEST mentions that 16 of 58 cities in Iowa with population over 8,000 have "complete street policies that support streets that serve cars, bikes, buses and walkers." Iowa City is not on that list. Please rectify this situation. Almost daily when I pedal west on Iowa Ave, when I pass the previous location of the UAY (United Action for Youth House) at 422 Iowa Ave, I see that that sidewalk has been completely blocked off, on -street parking remains and people are walking in the street with their backs to the traffic (dangerous). The alternative is to cross Iowa Ave twice (also dangerous). Please eliminate the parking, and make a pedestrian walkway on the street. Thanks to your attention, Feather Lacy flacy@pobox.com 319-621-3159 City of Iowa City, Iowa Complete Streets Policy The Vision The City of Iowa City intends and expects to realize long-term cost savings in improved public health, reduced fuel consumption, better environmental stewardship, and reduced demand for motor vehicle infrastructure through the implementation of this Complete Streets Policy. Complete Streets also contribute to walkable neighborhoods, make the community attractive to new business and employment, create a sense of community pride, and improve quality -of - life. Users and Modes This policy defines Complete Streets by this outcome: all current and projected users of the public right-of-way are intended to conveniently reach their destinations via public rights-of- way, regardless of their chosen mode of transportation for that street or road to be considered "complete" The design, operation, and maintenance of the City of Iowa City's street network will create a connected grid of streets accommodating a safe, easily accessible, convenient, comfortable, and visually appealing manner for all users of all ages and abilities, including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, children, senior citizens, persons with disabilities, freight carriers, emergency responders, and adjacent land users. Implementation The City of Iowa City will provide for the needs of all users and abilities in all planning, design, construction, reconstruction, retrofit, operations, and maintenance activities and products within the public right-of-way. Each City Department that performs physical improvements in the right-of-way (streets, sidewalks, landscaping, public utilities, etc.), and private developers that build infrastructure (streets, public utilities, etc.) for dedication to the City will perform such work in compliance with this policy. While some streets and roads may require changes to the right-of-way to better accommodate non -motorized users, many low volume streets and roads will require only minor changes, such as signage or restriping, or no changes at all (see Context Sensitive Design, below). Complete Streets are generally accomplished through adding the following to the public right- of-way: sidewalks, bike lanes, shared use lanes (sharrows), bus stops, public spaces, improved way -finding signage, utility corridors, etc. Projects in the right-of-way will incorporate sidewalks, ADA -compliant curb ramps, ADA -compliant bus stops, bicycle facilities, and any other reasonably applicable facilities. In particular, capital projects will incorporate complete street facilities found in City Council adopted plans, including (but not limited to) the Comprehensive Plan, bicycle and pedestrian plans, ADA Accessibility Transition Plan, and district plans. This Complete Streets Policy and associated project documentation applies to any NEW STREET, RECONSTRUCTED STREET, or STREET MAINTENANCE within the public right -of -Way (see Definitions section for CAPITALIZED items) with the following clarifications: A. NEW STREETS and RECONSTRUCTED STREETS either built by the City Or by a developer for City ownership will implement complete streets — applies in all zoning designations and land uses. B. STREET MAINTENANCE projects — whereas all NEW STREET and RECONSTRUCTED STREETS Will implement multi -modal transportation elements, it is not expected for maintenance and rehabilitation projects to change geometric features and functional elements to upgrade to multi -modal transportation elements, although items that fit within the existing geometrics should be implemented (e.g. re -striping, signage upgrades, sidewalks, etc.). C. PRIVATESTREETS— sidewalks and ADA -compliant curb ramps are required; otherwise PRIVATESTREETS are exempt from this policy. D. Co -Jurisdictional streets — Complete Streets will be considered in conjunction with other jurisdictions' policies or practices. E. Existing and new bus stops within a project corridor will be ADA compliant. Design Criteria and Context Sensitive Design Each street and right-of-way design should be practically undertaken to complement the neighborhood in which it exists, while complying with accepted or adopted design standards and other guidelines based upon resources identifying best practices in urban design and street design, construction, operations and maintenance when implementing improvements intended to fulfill this Complete Streets policy. The City will consider all available design options in the following manuals to ensure access for all modes: • AASHTO Green Book., A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials • AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials • Urban Street Design Guide, by the National Association of City Transportation Officials • Urban Bikeway Design Guide, by the National Association of City Transportation Officials • Iowa Statewide Urban Design Standards, by the Institute for Transportation at Iowa State University • Iowa City, Iowa City Code, Title 15 — Land Subdivision, by the City of Iowa City Connectivity and All Agencies The City of Iowa City will design, operate, and maintain a transportation network that provides a connected network of facilities accommodating all modes of travel. To achieve a connected network, the City will foster partnerships with the State of Iowa, the Federal Highway Administration, the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County, school district, Johnson County, surrounding cities, citizens, businesses, interest groups and neighborhoods to implement the Complete Streets policy throughout Iowa City. Exceptions Exceptions to the Complete Streets policy must be documented in writing by the City Engineer with supporting data that indicates the reason for the decision. The documented decision(s) will be reviewed by the City Manager or designee. Exceptions are limited to the following: • Where there are relatively high safety risks. There are times bicycle and pedestrian facility standards cannot be met due to roadway topographic constraints or it is impractical to make the street safe for shared use. Roads with a combination of traffic volumes exceeding 18,000 vehicles per day, constrained and fixed rights-of-way, or posted speeds of 45+ mph may need special consideration. This type of exception is highly problematic because high traffic volume is often an indication that a road is the most direct connection between multiple origins and destinations, and pedestrians, cyclists and transit users should not be denied access to those destinations. For this exception to be granted, the City will enhance alternate routes (e.g. signage, bike boulevard treatments, shared -use trail spurs, bike lanes, shared -lane markings, etc.). • Where bicyclists and pedestrians are prohibited by law from using the roadway. • Where a main road has multi -modal facilities for all users of the right-of-way, the PUBLIC FRONTAGE ROAD may be exempt from this policy. • Where the project consists primarily of the installation of traffic control, including pre - timed traffic signals, or safety devices and little or no additional right-of-way is to be acquired. However whenever new traffic control detection devices are installed they must be capable of detecting bicycles. All new pedestrian crossing devices must also meet the most current accessibility standards for controls, signals, and placement. • Where a project involves emergency maintenance activities designed to keep assets in serviceable condition or when interim measures are implemented on temporary detour routes. • Where the Director of Public Works and the Director of Neighborhood & Development Services jointly determine the construction is not practically feasible due to significant or adverse environmental impacts to waterways, floodplains, significant street trees, remnants of native vegetation, wetlands, or other critical areas. • Where the cost of establishing bikeways or walkways would be excessively disproportionate to the cost of project. In accordance with federal guidelines, excessively disproportionate is defined as exceeding twenty percent of the cost of the total transportation project (including right of way acquisition costs). This exception must consider probable use through the life of the project, a minimum of 20 years. • Where scarcity of population or other factors indicate an absence of need for current and future conditions. This exception must take the long view and consider probable use through the life of the project, a minimum of 20 years. • Where the Average Daily Traffic count (ADT) is projected to be less than 1,000 vehicles per day over the life of the project. Performance Measures The City will measure the success of Complete Streets policy by using the following measures: • Miles of bike lanes, trails, shared lane arrows striped or built • Linear feet of pedestrian accommodations built • Number of ADA accessibility accommodations built • Number of exemptions from this policy approved • Number of projects in which street trees were planted Definitions A. COMPLETE STREET: a street that accommodates convenient and safe use by everyone, regardless of age, ability, or mode of travel. B. CONTEXT SENSITIVE DESIGN SOLUTION: a design which balances safety, mobility and transportation needs, while preserving scenic, aesthetic, historical, environmental, neighborhood and community values and characteristics. C. STREET: The STREET is considered to be the subgrade, base, pavement, grading, storm sewer, and sub -drains. (i.e., all of the elements required to build, operate, and maintain the street.) D. NEW STREET: a street constructed where one has not previously existed. E. RECONSTRUCTED STREET: an existing street that has rehabilitation done to it, which is estimated at 50% or higher of the cost of NEW STREET (excluding utilities except storm sewer or sub -drains), will also be considered a RECONSTRUCTED STREET for the purposes of this policy. PUBLIC STREET: a roadway owned and maintained by the City of Iowa City, providing frontage for (a) parcel(s) of property as set forth in the City Code of Iowa City, Title 14 Zoning Code. G. PRIVATE STREET: a privately owned and maintained roadway established by final platting or otherwise established as approved by the City of Iowa City, providing frontage for (a) parcel(s) of property as set forth in the City Zoning regulations. H. PUBLIC FRONTAGE ROAD: a roadway located with portions of PUBLIC STREET right-of- way, frontage road reservation easement or adjoining other streets, which have access control. STREET MAINTENANCE: rehabilitation of a street, which generally restores the functionality of the existing street components (either primarily as a street project or in conjunction with underground public utility construction), without significantly altering or adding to those components, and which is estimated at less than 50% of the cost of a NEW STREET with those same components. Utility construction (except storm sewer or sub -drains) is excluded from this cost calculation. J. PARKWAY: The non -driveway area of public right-of-way between the back of curb or edge of roadway and the right-of-way line. Marian Karr From: Darian Nagle-Gamm Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 2:46 PM To: 'christine.boyer@mchsi.com' Cc: Council; Geoff Fruin; Doug Boothroy; Kent Ralston; Ron Knoche; Marian Karr Subject: RE: Horace Mann School traffic Hello Ms. Boyer, - 3num� Your email was forwarded to me for response. There are pros and cons to the one-way traffic on Governor Street and Dodge Street from a pedestrian perspective - the most beneficial aspect is that pedestrians typically only need to focus on traffic in one direction to determine if it is safe to cross. That said, drivers tend to feel more comfortable driving a little higher speed if they are not experiencing head-to-head traffic. The other thing to consider is topography. The hill on Dodge Street north of Church can contribute to speeds (which are tempered somewhat based on the cycle of the traffic signal); and on Governor Street drivers tend to give cars extra gas to get up the hill just south of the Church street. Because of these factors, it would be difficult to permanently alter driver behaviors unless there is significant and persistent traffic enforcement. Our experience is that additional signage/or lights are not likely to have any measurable effect on driver behaviors. Because of the reasons outline above, crossing guards have been stationed on Dodge & Governor at their intersections with Church to assist children on their way to school. Without a doubt, crossing guards are the `best' protection for children walking to school who need to cross busy routes. If there are persistent issues with drivers not stopping when school crossing guards have their STOP sign presented and are in the roadway, then this is also an enforcement issue. I made a note to ask Police to increase patrols on the Dodge Street/Governor Street near the school crossings this fall with a focus on speed and crossing guard STOP sign compliance. Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any additional comments/questions. Thanks, Darian L. Nagle-Gamm, AICP Senior Transportation Engineering Planner I City of Iowa City 410 E Washington St I Iowa City, IA 152240 darian-naale-Qamm@iowa-citv.or¢ 319.356.5254 -----Original Message ----- From: Christine Boyer [mailto:christine.boyer@mchsi.com] Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 8:38 AM To: Council Subject: Horace Mann School traffic Dear Council, On June 1, 2016, the Horace Mann Elementary School Parent Teacher Organization (PTO) met for a final meeting of the school year. One matter we discussed was speeding traffic effecting our school population's safety. As you may know, there are a lot of children that walk and bike to Mann. There are two major streets: North Dodge and North Governor that are main thoroughfares. Cars often speed down these roads, despite the posted speed of 25 mph. The intersection of North Dodge Street and Church Street, at least has a traffic light and a crossing guard, but North Governor and Church Street only has a crossing guard using a stop sign and walking into the intersection to slow and stop traffic for children. There were times when traffic was too fast for the crossing guard to safely enter the intersection. I am requesting that the City consider, at least, putting a flashing light, or other traffic safety measure, at the North Governor and Church Street intersection. There are also children that cross at other points along North Governor. We certainly would not want anyone to be hurt. Please consider investigating this matter. I understand that there may be someone from the University of Iowa Urban Planning department interested in the traffic flow and safeguards also. Our PTO President had a conversation about this problem with Dave Koch, (Johnson County) whose contact information is: dkochCdco.iohnson.ia.us. 1 thank you in advance for your attention to this important safety matter. Sincerely, Christine Boyer Iowa City, Iowa 52245 Marian Karr From: Jen K. <knightswhowrites@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2016 2:38 PM To: Council Subject: Traffic Circle for Ronalds & Gilbert Streets Dear City Council: I am writing today to request a change to an existing project that will soon be under way in my Northside neighborhood. There is a plan to repair/repave Ronalds Street next month, and I would like to request that the City consider incorporating a landscaped traffic circle to this intersection as part of that project. We have lived in this neighborhood for a little over a year (thanks to the UniverCity program!) and noticed right away that we have a serious problem with cars speeding down our section of North Gilbert Street. Many drivers use it as a fast cut -through to avoid traffic and lights on N. Dubuque Street --it's well-known enough as a shortcut, in fact, that we see multiple cab companies using it as a route for their north -south fares, too. Many of the cabs also speed, and we have called the cab companies and the Iowa City Police to try and get them to slow down. Our 8 -year-old daughter and 11 -year-old son love to play outdoors with their neighborhood friends, who range in ages from teen all the way down to toddler. We are fortunate to live in a stable, vibrant neighborhood (increasingly so because of the City's revitalization/stabilization efforts), so our kids often move freely from one house to another. Installing a traffic circle at Ronalds and Gilbert would help keep them safe, along with a diverse range of families who live here and enjoy biking and walking. Traffic circles are known to be very effective at lowering speeds in their immediate vicinity. Not only that, but it would reduce the amount of traffic coming into our neighborhood in the first place because speeders would no longer have a straight -shot cut -through to make that route attractive. Now is a really critical time to make this project a reality --when the street is already scheduled for construction/maintenance. Also, we expect that as construction ramps up for the Gateway Project on N. Dubuque Street, we are in danger of having even more impatient drivers finding their way to our residential street to avoid delays. Installing a traffic circle as part of the existing project scope would be a great way to make a big, positive difference in the safety and stability of our neighborhood without the City having to make big changes or a huge additional investment. Traffic circles are most effective when constructed in a series on a local service street -- so I hope you will consider this as the first in a series of improvements to improve the Northside residential neighborhood. I have spoken with several neighbors who also support the installation of traffic circles in the Northside neighborhood, and I hope you will hear from them too. Many of us (including my husband, Ted, and I) have agreed that we would be eager to help with planting, weeding, and maintaining the traffic circle(s) on our streets. Ted, who is a 1 horticulturist and manages Forever Green Garden Center in Coralville, would also be willing to assist with plant selection and planning. Thank you for so much for considering a small change that would make a big difference to us. Sincerely, Jen Knights 711 N. Gilbert St. Marian Karr From: Jen K. <knightswhowrites@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:40 PM To: Ron Knoche Cc: thomasagran@gmail.com; susan@susanshullaw.com; adisciple0040@gmaii.com; jackiebriggs@earthlink.net; c.c.lang@gmail.com; Council; Jason Havel; Kent Ralston; Darien Nagle-Gamm Subject: Re: Ronalds Street Resurfacing and Traffic Calming Request Thank you for this information, Ron! I am pleased to learn that there is a program and process in place, and a path to follow toward changes we need in our neighborhood. We will discuss among ourselves and get on with the petition process. Sincerely, Jen Knights Jen Knights (319)331-6631 Marketing Director, Mission Creek Festival Vice President, New Pioneer Co-op Board of Directors On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Ron Knoche <Ron-KnocheQ7iowa-citv.org> wrote: Thank you for your email regarding the potential for traffic calming to be included with the scheduled repaving of Ronalds Street. The City of Iowa City has already entered into a contract for the repaving of Ronalds Street and several other streets in the community. Work on the City's resurfacing project has already commenced and Ronalds Street is scheduled for a July completion. Given where we are in the process of this project it is not possible to evaluate, design and construct traffic calming measures as part of the repaving. Further it is likely City staff would construct any future traffic calming project, thus saving expenses that would be associated with a last minute change order. The repaving of Ronalds Street will not preclude the addition of traffic circles or other traffic calming strategies in the future and City staff is happy to work with the neighborhood to evaluate potential solutions. In 1996, the City Council adopted a traffic calming program to help neighborhoods manage rising traffic speeds and volumes. The program has a set process which includes evaluation criteria. To get this process started a formal request is required from the neighborhood association that includes the street proposed for traffic calming or a petition from residents along the street proposed for traffic calming is needed. Once staff receives the request or petition, the data collection process will begin and after the collection is done will meet with the neighborhood to discuss which traffic calming measures are reasonable for evaluation. Staff will then conduct a traffic study which will include an evaluation of potential traffic problems, roadway geometry and the impact the proposed traffic calming measures may have on adjacent streets. The process takes approximately three months to complete from the time the petition is submitted, but in this case it may take a little more because the data collection phase should be delayed until school is back in session. If you have any questions regarding the traffic calming program please contact Kent Ralston, (319)356-5253 or Darian Nagle-Gamm (319)356-5254. I have also attached the traffic calming brochure and a petition form. Sincerely, Ron Knoche Ronald R. Knoche, PE Public Works Director City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa Email: ron-knoche()iowa-city.org Phone: (319) 356-5138 Cell: (319) 430-3625 Fax: (319) 356-5007 By signing this petition you are indicating your support for a traffic calming study on your street. This will allow City Staff to study traffic volumes and speeds along your street. Results of the study will be provided to you and, if the measured comfortable speed of drivers S+gti (85th percentile speed) is found to exceed 5 m.p.h. over the speed limit and if measured volumes meet the program's minimum criteria (local streets exceeding 500 cars per day; collector streets exceeding 1,000 cars per day), staff will organize a neighborhood meeting to discuss Cin or IOWA Cm +�^ .•.,•"w s,..•, potential options that may be effective) implemented along p p' y y' p g your street to control vehicle speeds. Options typically include installation of �^�•��v.�w• ,==•o-.^=^ uuuso-s000 signs, increased police enforcement, or physical changes to the roadway such as speed humps. STREET NAME: Please indicate specific intersections between which tragic calming study is being requested (e.g. Main Street, between 3rd and An Avenue). To sign this petition you must reside along the indicated portion of street for which a traffic calming is being requested. (Renters may sign.) Name Street Address Email Address Typical Traffic Calming Applications in Iowa City: Speed Humps � Teg Drrve Z Morningside Drive Kennedy Parkway Traffic Circles College Street & Summit Street 7 Washington Street & Summit Street Raised Median Islands O College Street near Muscatine Avenue Chokers * Sharron Drive Raised Crosswalks � Newton Road For More Information Contact: Iowa City Planning Department Traffic Engineering Planning: 356-5254 Neighborhood Services: 356-5237 410 E.Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 1 ? r v�-14 at CITY OF IOWA CITY City of Iowa City t� ft'i!J1J� �yIfI)if 1,—j July 2008 What is Traffic Calming? Traffic miming is the practice of managing speeds and/or volumes of traffic on residential streets using one or more approaches: Increased _ police enforcement driver education, or physical changes to the roadway Each of these .. approaches has ns appropriate application and an help reduce speeds andlor unwanted cut. through traffic on neighborhood streets. ENFORCEMENT Increased police enforcement is e8ective at targeting high speeds during specific times. However, the police department does not have sufficient resources to provide continuous enforcement over a sustained Period of time. While motorists may slow down when an officer is present they often return to previous speeds when targeted enforcement moves to other neighborhoods. EDUCATION Education is the process of nuking motorists aware of their speeds in relation to the neighborhoods they are traveling in. The City uses several methods to notify motorists of their responsibility to obey traffic laws. One example is the "Share the Road" sign program used to remind y motorists that hicydists have a right to be on the road and that both parties need to share the road and operate their vehicles responsibly. Another program is the "Check Your Speed" sign prognm used to akvt motorists to watch their speeds in targeted residential areas. PHYSICAL CHANGES To help control excessive speeds or unwanted cut. through traffic, physical modifinoons can be made to a roadway to slow ars down, or to deter unnecessary traffic. These changes an be as simple as adding on - street parking within a corridor, or as complex as constructing speed humps or chicanes in the roadway. Other alternatives are available and each application is custom-designed to meet the individual needs of a particular neighborhood. TYPICALTRAFFIC CALMING METHODS 1� � MQO,I,IMP I saurxcwua raacm, in the cess..._.. kby traffic calming ..�mno.,.w. neighborhood request The program is not intended to impose unwanted traffic aiming w. Gettin;.the Process Started..i The most important g to remember deneighborho to need toinvolved ��dem in the cess..._.. kby traffic calming am is driven neighborhood request The program is not intended to impose unwanted traffic aiming w. Gettin;.the Process Started..i To initiate a traffic study of the roadway proposed for traffic calming, a formal request Is required from the neighborhood association that includes the street proposed for traffic aiming, OR a petition from residents along the street proposed for traffic aiming Is needed. Neighborhood Traffic Calming Process & Evaluation Criteria In 1996 the Iowa City City Council adopted a traffic calming program to help neighborhoods manage rising traffic speeds and volumes. O The street considered for traffic calming measures must be classified either a local street or collector street O Traffic volumes on a local sweet should exceed 500 vehicles per day and on a collettor street exceed 1,000 vehicles per day, or The measured comfortable speed of drivers (85th percentile speed) should exceed 5 m.p.h. over the posted speed limit 7 Suff will meet with the neighborhood to discuss which traffic calming measures are reasonable for evaluation. Staff will conduct a traffic study including an evaluation of potential traffic problems, roadway geometry, and the impact the proposed traffic calming measures may have on adjacent streets. Z) Staff will solicit comments on the proposed street modification from the Police, Fire, Public Works, and Transit Departments, as well as local ambulance service. Z If the traffic study shows that traffic calming measures can be implemented safely, a mail - back survey of all abutting properties will then be conducted. The proposal for traffic calming must be supported by 60% of those responding to the questionnaire in order to be considered for implementation. Z No minimum number of responses to the mad. back survey is required, but a low response rate will be taken into account by the City Council, The City Council makes final decisions on the implementation of all traffic calming projects. Marian Karr From: Jacqueline Briggs <jackiebriggs@earthlink.net> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 10:18 AM To: Council Subject: Lets Get a Traffic Circle on N. Gilbert Dear City Council, Now is a really critical time to mitigate the traffic problem in the Northside: We have the repaving of Ronalds street and The Gateway construction and new bridge drumming up traffic to speed up this quite neighborhood. I am writing to encourage you to install a traffic circle in my neighborhood. The construction trucks backup "beeping" from Hancher all last year has been replaced with the "beeping" of construction of the Park Street bridge. And soon Dubuque street trucks will start rumbling by our neighborhood. Our sound level has changed. Our traffic level has jumped. Our tree line is diminished along our Western and Southern edges. That is a lot of change for any neighborhood. As a Northsider for the last 20 years, I have seen quite a lot of rapid cut -through traffic in my neighborhood as well as late-night Fraternity and Student inspired racing. I have lived on the comer of Gilbert and Brown for the last ten years and historically the traffic coming up Kimball (from Dubuque) and traffic along Ronalds and Gilbert (heading down to Kimball) has quickly transformed this neighborhood into a shortcut artery through town. This is about to get worse. Help us get a handle on this problem as we enter a new construction phase along Dubuque Street. We know that Gateway Project will streamline a more rapid traffic pattern right into our neighborhood that will effect us Northsiders in the decades ahead. We need to keep this a family friendly neighborhood and traffic mitigation has become part of that protection. With the upcoming Dubuque Street Construction and the repaving (smoothing out) of Ronalds Street, my family has become quite concerned for the safety of my kids and the neighborhood walkers in my neighborhood. My children are 10, 13, and 15. They walk and ride their bikes everywhere! I am writing to encourage you to install a type of traffic circle at the comer of Ronalds and Gilbert Street while you are repaving Ronalds this summer. Northside families need your help! Jacqueline Briggs 328 Brown (comer of Brown and Gilbert) Marian Karr From: Susan Shullaw <susan@susanshullaw.com> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 11:26 AM To: Council Subject: Traffic Circle for Ronalds & Gilbert Streets To the Iowa City City Council: I am writing to add my voice to those of my concerned Northside neighbors in urging you to add a traffic circle at the intersection of Ronalds and North Gilbert Streets, now that the much-needed repaving of Ronalds is about to begin. As a 27 -year resident of North Johnson Street — between Ronalds and Brown — I too have witnessed with dismay the increasing traffic through our neighborhood, which is home to many young families with children. Even before the Gateway project, cars have used north -south streets like Gilbert and Johnson as speedy alternatives to the more heavily traveled and stop -lighted arteries such as Dubuque and Dodge, with little regard for pedestrians. As a frequent walker and biker, I can attest to the excessive speed of cars traveling on Gilbert between Church and Brown, and share the concern of Gilbert Street residents about the hazards such vehicular traffic represents. Placing a traffic circle at Ronalds and Gilbert would be a timely measure that could restore a more appropriately residential pace to our neighborhood traffic, and help ensure the safety of residents and visitors alike. With thanks for your consideration, Susan Shullaw 718 North Johnson Street Iowa City, IA 52245 Marian Karr From: Thomas Agran <thomasagran@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 4:58 PM To: Council Subject: Integrating Traffic Calming as Part of Ronalds St. Repave Dear Council, About 6 years ago my wife and I purchased a UniverCity home on Van Buren Street in the Northside neighborhood. We love how close we are to downtown and how easy it is to walk and bike to commute to work and run our daily errands. We spend many of our evenings going for walks throughout the neighborhood. We have noticed over the years a handful of chronic safety issues. It is common for us to see blatant blowing of stop signs, aggressive acceleration between blocks, fast moving cut through traffic in the alleys without regard for sidewalk traffic, and a general lack of patience or consideration for pedestrians and bicycle traffic. We partly chose to live in this part of town because it seemed like a great place to start a family. There are more and more kids that roam the neighborhood playing in the alleys, walking to and from Horace Mann Elementary, and to and from the park. We just had a baby girl, and I want to feel comfortable letting her run around and play in our neighborhood. It would be nice if the design of our streets prioritized the safety of these kids (all of us pedestrians, really), over the efficiency of moving automobiles. I lived in Bloomington, Indiana, for a few years, where many of the residential streets have had bump -outs, chicanes, traffic circles, and neck downs installed. It made the streets beautiful, quiet, and safe. It was an eye opener for me, and I thought I'd love to see this sort of progressive recalibration of the street-scape implemented in Iowa City. As a pedestrian, I particularly found the neck downs to be effective and attractive, though any of these calming strategies would bring positive change. I understand the traffic circles to be one of the easier and most inexpensive to integrate into existing streets. I urge you to consider swapping the repaving of Ronalds to later in the summer, allowing time to engineer in simple landscaped traffic circles as part of the project at the intersections of Gilbert, Van Buren, and Johnson. This is a brilliant opportunity to make our neighborhood safer and more beautiful at little extra cost. These three circles on Ronalds could serve as the first step towards full implementation of landscaped traffic circles installed in a basket weave pattern throughout our neighborhood, providing an aesthetically pleasing infrastructure cue that you are in a neighborhood zone. These could be a real community building asset. Traffic calming in all of our neighborhoods make them more beautiful, pedestrian, and bike friendly. The safer the neighborhood feels, the more families will move in, the healthier our schools will be, the healthier, livelier, and more diverse our community will be. With appreciation for your consideration, Thomas Agran 512 N. Van Buren Street www thomasapran.com Marian Karr From: Ron Knoche Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 4:55 PM To: Thomas Agran' Cc: knightswhowrites@gmail.com; susan@susanshullaw.com; adisciple0040@gmall.com; jackiebriggs@earthlink.net; c.c.lang@gmail.com; Council; Jason Havel; Kent Ralston; Darien Nagle -Damm Subject: RE: Ronalds Street Resurfacing and Traffic Calming Request Attachments: FINAL Northside Neighborhood Traffic Study.pdf Hi Thomas, I have attached the traffic study you are quoting from. This bullet item under the Neighborhood Action Steps does not suggest bypassing the traffic calming study phase. It is merely stating if the traffic calming study shows the roadway requested meets the criteria, the neighborhood can still advocate for installation of traffic calming. The process that is laid out provides the information necessary for the Council to make a decision with regards to the request. Sincerely, :, Ronald R. Knoche, PE Public Works Director City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa Email: ron-knoche@iowa-citv.ore Phone: (319) 356-5138 Cell: (319) 430-3625 Fax: (319)3S6-5007 From: Thomas Agran [mailto:thomasagran@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 5:34 PN To: Ron Knoche Cc: knightswhowrites@gmail.com; susan@susanshullaw.com; adisciple0040@gmail.com; jackiebriggs@earthlink.net; c.c.lang@gmail.com; Council; Jason Havel; Kent Ralston; Darian Nagle -Damm Subject: Re: Ronalds Street Resurfacing and Traffic Calming Request Hi Ron, Thank you for the information about the construction, I do understand that this request is late to the table. It was recommended in the City's own 2013 Northside Traffic Study under Neighborhood Action Steps (page 16) that we could as a neighborhood "advocate for the use of traffic circles and other infrastructure enhancements on roadways which do not qualify for the City's adopted traffic calming programs." This recommendation makes it sound as though should some enthusiasm and support be present, that we do not need to have a study done to support installing traffic circles. That perhaps just a petition, or enough letters of support, would be enough to see the changes many of us desire? Perhaps you can provide some clarification, Thank you, Thomas Agran On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Ron Knoche <Ron-KnocheQiowa-citv.ore> wrote: Thank you for your email regarding the potential for traffic calming to be included with the scheduled repaving of Ronalds Street. The City of Iowa City has already entered into a contract for the repaving of Ronalds Street and several other streets in the community. Work on the City's resurfacing project has already commenced and Ronalds Street is scheduled for a July completion. Given where we are in the process of this project it is not possible to evaluate, design and construct traffic calming measures as part of the repaving. Further it is likely City staff would construct any future traffic cahning project, thus saving expenses that would be associated with a last minute change order. The repaving of Ronalds Street will not preclude the addition of traffic circles or other traffic calming strategies in the future and City staff is happy to work with the neighborhood to evaluate potential solutions. In 1996, the City Council adopted a traffic calming program to help neighborhoods manage rising traffic speeds and volumes. The program has a set process which includes evaluation criteria. To get this process started a formal request is required from the neighborhood association that includes the street proposed for traffic calming or a petition from residents along the street proposed for traffic calming is needed. Once staff receives the request or petition, the data collection process will begin and after the collection is done will meet with the neighborhood to discuss which traffic calming measures are reasonable for evaluation. Staff will then conduct a traffic study which will include an evaluation of potential traffic problems, roadway geometry and the impact the proposed traffic calming measures may have on adjacent streets. The process takes approximately three months to complete from the time the petition is submitted, but in this case it may take a little more because the data collection phase should be delayed until school is back in session. If you have any questions regarding the traffic calming program please contact Kent Ralston, (319)356-5253 or Darian Nagle-Gamm (319)356-5254. I have also attached the traffic calming brochure and a petition form. Sincerely, Ron Knoche Ronald R. Knoche, PE Public Works Director City of Iowa City 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa Email: ron-knochena.iowa-citv.ora Phone: (319) 356-5138 Cell: (319) 430-3625 Fax: (319) 356-5007 CITY OF IOWA CITY UNESCO CITY Of LITERATURE Website: www.ic og v_org By signing this petition you are indicating your support for a traffic calming study on your street. This will allow City Staff to study a traffic volumes and speeds along your street. Results of the study will be provided to you and, if the measured comfortable speed of drivers m' k S,t (85th percentile speed) is found to exceed 5 m.p.h. over the speed limit and if measured volumes meet the program's minimum criteria (locale— ..., streets exceeding 500 cars per day; collector streets exceeding 1,000 cars per day), staff will organize a neighborhood meeting to discuss cnr 01town clr potential options that may be effectively implemented along your street to control vehicle speeds. Options typically include installation of signs, increased police enforcement, or physical changes to the roadway such as speed humps. 13191]36-3000 13193 336-3Y09 3wb �✓ Irbor.arb STREET NAME: Please indicate specific intersections between which traffic calming study is being requested (e.g. Main Street, between 3rd and 7th Avenue). To sign this petition you must reside along the indicated portion of street for which a traffic calming is being requested. (Renters may sign.) Name Street Address Email Address Typical Traffic Calming Applications in Iowa City: Speed Humps Teg Drive O Morningside Drive Z Kennedy Parkway Traffic Circles O College Street & Summit Street Z) Washington Street & Summit Street Raised Median Islands O College Street near Muscatine Avenue Chokers - Shannon Drive Raised Crosswalks � Newton Road Fe, Mwc Information Cmttacc Iowa City Planning Department Trak Engineering Planning: 356-5254 Neighborhood Services: 356-5237 410 E.Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 I � s ��®aQ 1_I tET CITY of IOWA CITY City of Iowa City .f�J'J�Itv31'I� July 2008 What is Traffic Calming? Traffic aiming is the practice of managing speeds and/or volumes of traffic on residential streets using one or more approaches: Increased police enforcement driver education, or physical changes to the roadway. Each of these approaches has its appropriate application and an help reduce speeds and/or unwanted cut - through traffic on neighborhood streets. ENFORCEMENT Increased police enforcement is effective at targeting high speeds during specific times. However, the police department does not have sufficient resources to provide continuous enforcement over a sustained period of time. While motorists may slow down when an officer is present they often return to previous speeds when targeted enforcement moves to other neighborhoods. EDUCATION Education is the process of making motorists aware of their speeds in relation to the neighborhoods they are traveling in. The City uses several methods to notify motorists of their responsibility to obey traffic laws. One example is the "Share the Road' sign program used to remind pv motorists that bicyclists have a right to be on the road and that m both parties need to share the road and operate their vehicles responsibly Another program is the "Check Your Speed" sign program used to alert motorists w watch their speeds in targeted residential area. PHYSICAL CHANGES To help control excessive speeds or unwanted cut. through traffic, physical modifications can be made to a roadway to slow cars down,or to deter unnecessary traffic. These changes can be as simple as adding on. street parking within a corridor, or as complex as constructing speed humps or chicanes in the roadway. Other alternatives are available and each application is custom-designed to meet the individual needs of a particular neighborhood. TYPICAL TRAFFIC CALMING METHODS r s.uo...r 1! .wrcous on¢. The most important thing to remember residents need to -® be involved in Mta process. The traffic calming - program is driven by neighborhood request The program Is intended to impose unwanted traffic cah devices in neighborhoods. for traffic calming, a formal request is required from the neighborhood association that includes the street proposed for traffic calming. OR petition from residents along the street propos for traffic calming is needed. Neighborhood Traffic Calming Process & Evaluation Criteria In 1996 the Iowa City City Council adopted a traffic calming program w help neighborhoods manage rising traffic speeds and volumes. 7 The street considered for traffic calming measures must be classified either a local street or collector street 9 Traffic volumes on a local street should exceed 500 vehicles per day and on a collector street exceed 1,000 vehicles per day, or Z The measured comfortable speed of drivers (85th percentile speed) should exceed 5 m.p.h. over the posted speed limit O Staff will meet with the neighborhood to discuss which traffic calming measures are reasonable for evaluation. Staff will conduct a traffic study including an evaluation of potential traffic problems, roadway geometry, and the impact the proposed traffic calming measures may have on adjacent streets. Staff will solicit comments on the proposed street modification from the Police, Fire, Public Works, and Transit Departments, as well as local ambulance service. If the ozffic study shows that traffic calming measures can be implemented safely, a mad. back survey of all abutting properties will then be conducted. The proposal for traffic calming must be supported by 60% of those responding to the questionnaire in order to be considered for implementation. Z No minimum number of responses to the mail. back survey is required, but a low response rate will be taken into account by the City Council. The City Council makes final decisions on the implementation of all traffic calming projects. Northside Neighborhood Transportation Study Prepared by: City of Iowa City Transportation Planning Division 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 I L ��®dl CITY OF IOWA CITY Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 MPG: June 2013 Introduction As neighborhoods age, communities periodically assess the existing transportation system and identify opportunities to improve upon existing conditions. The Iowa City Planning and Community Development Department requested this study in response to transportation -related concerns the department had received in recent years. Residents also outlined concerns during a November 291h, 2012 neighborhood meeting. Participants were asked to break up into two groups to discuss transportation related issues and provide input. The following study documents concerns raised by the neighborhood to help decision -makers identify and prioritize improvements for implementation. A full summary of resident input is in Appendix A. The study also includes an inventory of traffic speed, volume, and collision data collected in 2012-2013. Some of the improvements suggested by the neighborhood are not consistent with current City policy and several requests are items that are `new' to the City. Many of these items will require neighborhood advocacy so that policy makers recognize the support for such requests and can prioritize improvements or alter City policy as necessary. An example would be the installation of pedestrian scale lighting in residential neighborhoods. No such infrastructure (or policy) currently exists in Iowa City — therefore neighborhood support will be necessary for policy makers to consider the importance of such a project. S:\JCCOG\Kent - DRAFTs\MISC studies\north side traffic study Existing Conditions Land Use & Zoning The Northside Neighborhood Transportation Study area is generally bordered by Brown Street to the north, Governor Street to the east, Jefferson Street to the south, and Dubuque Street to the west (Figure 1). These borders are intended to provide a general framework for the study area - several issues addressed in this study naturally transcend these boundaries. Figure 1: Transportation study boundary Part of the original town platted in 1839, the Northside is one of Iowa City's oldest residential neighborhoods. The neighborhood encompasses about approximately 50 square blocks between Dubuque and Governor Streets and is adjacent to the University of Iowa campus. The neighborhood includes a wide variety of land -uses (Figure 2) and includes Horace Mann Elementary School, Mercy Hospital, the Northside Marketplace, North Market Square Park, several churches, and has an established housing stock comprised of historic single family homes and newer multi -family dwellings. With respect to transportation planning, the City's Comprehensive Plan specifically notes that 'policies regarding the need for increased capacity on arterial streets will need to be balanced with efforts to preserve adjacent neighborhoods to the central planning district' (including the northside neighborhood). While this study does not identify the need for increased capacity on arterial streets in the neighborhood, any changes made to the arterial street system should be done in a manner to minimize adverse effects to adjacent neighborhood streets. Figure 2: Northside Neighborhood zoning designations 3 LEGEND RSB Medium Dwsity Single Family RS12 High Den ' Single Family • 1 Lox Density Mulb-Family pp Off■ @11� ' N ' hborhood Stabilization Res. RM44 High Den MA -Family C01 Commerdal Office CN1 N ' hborhood Commerdal CB2 1 ■i P-15 M ■■ i/�I 1 Historic District Oveda P1 N hbahood Pubic MU Ip le A1"14 TT 1■! i■®■ �1Nfilin '1■ !i! 11■ YI! Iii i� �1 I�1 !a'ti �1 Irll ®IS :A �W • ��71a11! �1■I®� RM ■l-�ti�l�■� ®: „ CTAP Z■1. „ s�r�Ki . �..„ ■■w■r■-two) �:v^ ...�e� 3 LEGEND RSB Medium Dwsity Single Family RS12 High Den ' Single Family RM12 Lox Density Mulb-Family RNS12 N ' hborhood Stabilization Res. RM44 High Den MA -Family C01 Commerdal Office CN1 N ' hborhood Commerdal CB2 Central Business Service CBB Central Business Support OHD Historic District Oveda P1 N hbahood Pubic MU Mixed Use 3 Street Network Several comments staff received during the neighborhood meeting were related to the street network in and around the neighborhood. While much of the northside neighborhood is comprised of a two-lane grid street system with short blocks and a basket -weave traffic control system implemented in the 1990's (a system by which motorists are required to stop at a stop sign roughly every other block), the neighborhood is largely bordered by arterial streets. Dubuque Street, to the west of the study area, is a four -lane north/south arterial corridor connecting the central business district with Interstate 80. Both Dodge and Governor Streets, to the east of the neighborhood, are part of the State Highway 1 system and operate as north/south one- way corridors (Governor northbound and Dodge southbound). Jefferson and Market Streets, to the south, are one-way east/west arterial corridors (Market westbound and Jefferson eastbound). Church Street is the only east/west arterial street bisecting the study area. Due to the proximity of the neighborhood, the area experiences some `cut -through' traffic. Brown Street is one of the first east/west connectors south of Interstate 80 and therefore provides a convenient connection between the Highway 1 corridor and Dubuque Street. The neighborhoods perception is that east/west streets to the south of Brown Street also experience some cut -through traffic. In 2010 Brown Street was considered for traffic calming at the request of the neighborhood. After collecting data it became apparent that the street did not qualify for traffic calming as neither traffic volumes nor speeds met the necessary criteria. 851h percentile speeds (the speed at which 85% of traffic is at or below) were between 24-29mph and average speed was 21mph. Currently, there is an unfunded project to construct Foster Road between Dubuque Street and Prairie Du Chien Road south of Interstate 80. When this project is completed, it will likely reduce some of the cut -through traffic experienced by east/west streets in the neighborhood. This connection would likely also reduce traffic volumes and speeds in both the Kimball Road and Ridge Road neighborhoods as they would become less attractive east/west connections. Staff Recommendations: • Investigate the conversion of the Dodge / Governor and Market / Jefferson Street one-way pairs to two-way corridors. This issue was important to the neighborhood with the belief that the conversion would slow traffic and provide a `neighborhood' n feel to these corridors. Staff has begun the Dodge/Governor study and will complete the Jefferson/Market study in FY14. Early issues which have been identified in the Dodge/Governor study include the need for additional turn lanes at busy intersections with the conversion from one to two-way streets, and the potential for neighborhood cut -through traffic to increase on northside neighborhood streets (the one-way streets currently minimize cut -through traffic). Neighborhood advocacy for the completion of the Foster Road connection between Dubuque Street and Prairie Du Chien Road. This connection would provide a necessary east/west connection south of Interstate 80 and would likely reduce cut - through traffic in the study area. This project is currently unfunded. Future Foster Road Alignment Traffic Volumes & Speeds As part of any neighborhood transportation study it is important for staff to collect traffic speed and volume data. As such, a sample of 85th percentile speeds and average daily traffic volumes for northside neighborhood were collected and are available in Figure 3. Generally, 851h percentile speeds are acceptable for the vast majority of neighborhood streets from a traffic engineering perspective and are within 5mph of the posted speed limit. Only Church, Dodge, and Lucas Streets exceed 5 mph over the posted speed limit, which is the common threshold for consideration of traffic calming or other engineering counter-measures (Appendix B). The 851h percentile speed is used by traffic engineers as a measure of the "safe and reasonable" speed on a roadway. Typically speed limits are set near the 85th percentile speed so that there is voluntary compliance by the majority of motorists. If speed limits are set below the 85th percentile speed, consistent and frequent police enforcement may be necessary as a high percentage of motorists will likely violate the posted speed limit. Figure 3: Traffic volumes and speeds Daily Traffic Speed 85th % Location Midblock Between Year Volume Limit Speed Bloomington Van Buren & Johnson 2013 1,387 25 28 Brown Street Johnson & Dodge 2010 633 25 26 Brown Street Linn & Gilbert 2010 683 25 25 Church Street Johnson & Dodge 2008 3,885 25 32 Dodge Street Brown & Ronalds 2013 6,127 25 36 Dubuque St. Market & Jefferson 2008 10,268 25 28 Gilbert Street Church & Fairchild 2013 1,265 25 27 Governor St. Market & Jefferson 2012 6,279 25 28 Jefferson St. Linn & Dubuque 2012 6,235 25 29 Linn Street Bloomington & Davenport 2013 599 25 23 Lucas Street Church & Fairchild 2013 317 25 31 Market Street Linn & Gilbert 2012 7,295 25 26 Ronalds Street Linn & Gilbert 2011 333 25 26 Ronalds Street Van Buren & Gilbert 2010 315 25 25 Currently the speed limit for residential streets in Iowa City is 25 miles per hour (this is also the default speed limit for residential street per State Code). The speed limit in the central business district is 20 miles per hour. Changing the speed limit on residential streets, as discussed by the neighborhood at the public meeting, would require H an ordinance change (Section 9-3-6: Speed Restrictions) and would likely have little effect on traffic speeds on residential streets in the neighborhood. In general, observed speeds depend on a variety of factors including, presence of on -street parking, travel lane width, visibility, topography, enforcement, and posted speed limits. If the neighborhood wishes to reduce vehicle speeds, traffic calming measures such as traffic circles, curb extensions, and median planters could help lower 85th percentile vehicle speeds. For streets that qualify, the City's Traffic Calming Program is a source of funding for alternative traffic calming measures. Another option would be for the neighborhood to advocate for a capital fund for neighborhood enhancements. To qualify for traffic calming, traffic volumes on residential streets must exceed 500 vehicles / day and exceed 1,000 vehicles per day on collector streets. Streets exceeding 3,000 vehicles per day do not qualify for the program. Streets may also qualify if the measured 85th percentile speed exceeds 5mph over the posted speed limit. Staff Recommendations: • Request the use of the Iowa City Police Department radar trailer, install check your speed signs, and request additional Police enforcement to reduce 851h percentile speeds on Dodge and Church Streets. Both streets are classified as `arterial' streets and are not candidates for traffic calming techniques identified in the City's adopted traffic calming program. • Implement a 20mph school zone speed limit on Dodge Street and Church Street adjacent to Mann Elementary School. The current speed limit is 25mph. This item was specifically requested at the neighborhood public meeting. 7 Street Lights During the neighborhood public meeting there was interest in pursuing the installation of pedestrian scale lighting for the northside. A study completed for the City in 2008 revealed that adding pedestrian scale lighting in existing neighborhoods could cost upwards of $50,000 per block. The City of Iowa City's overhead street light policy currently requires one streetlight at every intersection; additional lights may be installed at mid -block locations at the neighborhood's request where blocks exceed 600 feet in length. However, the City installs street lights for traffic safety, not for security purposes. Security lighting can be installed on private property at the owner's discretion. As part of any neighborhood traffic study it is important for staff to review overhead street lighting adequacy for traffic safety. Upon review, it appears that the Northside Neighborhood meets or exceeds the Iowa City overhead street light policy. Any desire to install additional lighting needs to be balanced with residents' concerns with light pollution/spillover, and the cost to taxpayers for lights maintained by the City. Staff Recommendations: Investigate the use of pedestrian scale lighting in areas where more light could be beneficial to users - possibly along major neighborhood corridors such as Dubuque, Dodge or Church Streets or where there is a desire to bolster lighting in historic neighborhoods. This project could be incorporated into larger streetscaping projects for these corridors. There is currently no funding budgeted for residential pedestrian lighting. The neighborhood will need to advocate to the City Council for a pedestrian scale lighting program. Staff is available to research costs, both in terms of initial installation, electricity and maintenance. Collision History In order for staff to evaluate roadway safety, reviewing the collision history for a neighborhood is paramount. As such, a 2009-2011 collision history for each intersection within the study area is included in Appendix C. Of the 63 intersections located within the study area, 5 of the intersections rank in the 25 highest collision rate intersections in Iowa City (2008-2010 MPO Collision Analysis). The following table illustrates the top 5 highest collision locations in the Northside Neighborhood. All 5 locations are at intersections of either Market or Jefferson Streets which are part of the arterial street system — not surprising given traffic volumes and number of access points along the corridor. Figure 4: Highest vehicle collision locations within the study area (2010-12) o0 F�c� Ac & Intersection o�r�c\Jc�°aa0c �ea�2ca P°�e`° °aa`'�ae ��Q° 0` Dubuque & Market 4 0 1 1 15 19 20 Gilbert & Jefferson 5 0 3 1 5 5 19 Linn & Market 3 04'. 0 3 8 18 Gilbert & Market 1 0 3 1 1 13 9 Linn &Jefferson 2 0 2 10 2 13 9 Source: Iowa DOT; CMAT Collisions "Broadside" and "sideswipe" collisions are the primary types of collisions through the Market and Jefferson Street corridors (Figure 4). Sideswipe collisions are common on one-way corridors and broadside collisions are typically caused by vehicles failing to yield the right of way at intersections. Staff Recommendations: Evaluate sight distance at key intersections to ensure adequate visibility of opposing traffic in effort to minimize broadside collisions. Bicycle Collisions Between 2008-2012, there were thirteen bicycle collisions reported within the study area (Appendix D). Of the collisions, ten had minor injuries reported, two had possible or unknown injuries, and one major injury was reported. All but four of the collisions occurred within the Market and Jefferson Street corridors - not surprising given the high volumes of bicycles present. In effort to make these corridors more bicycle and pedestrian friendly, in -street yield -to -pedestrian signs were installed at the Market /Linn Street and Jefferson / Linn Street intersections in 2011. The Linn Street corridor is heavily used by bicycles and pedestrians as it connects the northside marketplace district with the central downtown core. The City also installed bike lanes on both Market and Jefferson Streets in 2009 in effort to make these east/west corridors more bicycle friendly. Although there were more bicycle collisions in these corridors than others in the study area, this is likely a result of higher volumes of bicycles using these corridors. Pedestrian Collisions Between 2008-2012, there were eight pedestrian collisions reported within the study area (Appendix E). Of the eight collisions reported, four had possible or unknown injuries, three had minor injuries reported, and one had property damage only. Staff Recommendations: • Both the intersections of Market and Jefferson Streets at Dubuque Street had two collisions involving a bicycle and/or pedestrian and warrant further study. The same is true at the intersections of Market and Jefferson Streets at Gilbert Street. Further evaluation of these four locations for adequate signage, sight distance, signal timings, and overhead lighting is warranted. 10 Trails & Sidewalks Attendees of public input workshop specifically discussed the possibility of constructing a sidewalk along the east side of Dubuque Street between Brown Street and the Dubuque Street / Park Road intersection. This item is part of the design for the City's Gateway Project (a project to elevate Dubuque Street and replace the Park Road Bridge). The northside neighborhood exhibits a grid street pattern accompanied by a robust sidewalk network (Appendix F). All streets within the study area exhibit sidewalks on at least one side of the street, with all but a few locations exhibiting sidewalks on both sides of the street. A majority of locations also exhibit ADA compliant curb ramps and overhead lighting. The neighborhood is also flanked with east/west bike lanes to the south (Market and Jefferson Streets), and Dodge Street provides shared -use arrows to indicate that bicycles are likely to be present. The most notable trail/wide sidewalk near the neighborhood is provided along the west side of Dubuque Street. This facility provides direct access from the neighborhood south to the Central Business District, or north towards City Park and on to the City of North Liberty. Staff Recommendations: • Reconstruct curb ramps for ADA compliance when adjacent intersection(s) are under construction. This item is consistent with federal ADA regulations and will ensure that, over time, the neighborhood will have a complete and accessible sidewalk system for all users. 11 Parking Availability and Use During the public meeting, several attendees expressed interest in pursuing a parking permit system for the northside neighborhood. Specifically, concerns were voiced for north Linn Street (which terminates at Bella Vista Drive). Attendees noted that there has been long standing issues with commuter parking, and motorists entering Bella Vista Drive and experiencing difficulty turning around - as Bella Vista Drive is narrow and not adequate for cut -through traffic. The concept of a permit parking system for the northside neighborhood is not new as the neighborhood has traditionally experienced commuter parking typical for urban neighborhoods near downtown centers. The issue has been discussed in years past, but has not garnered enough neighborhood support to move forward. A memorandum explaining how other college communities implement permit parking systems, and thoughts for how Iowa City could implement a permit parking system is attached (Appendix G). A majority of the northside neighborhood has a parking system where parking is only allowed one side of the street Monday -Saturday between 8:OOAM and 5:OOPM. This arrangement has several benefits including decreased traffic congestion, allowing for city services such as trash collection, snow plowing and street sweeping, and also reduces the amount of commuter parking and long-term storage of vehicles in the neighborhood. To gauge parking usage in the neighborhood, staff collected data for both metered and unmetered on -street parking spaces in October 2012. Observations were performed on a Thursday and Friday, at 9AM, 12PM, 3PM, and 8PM. Results of the observations are shown in Figure 5. Figure 5: On -street parking space use within the study area Northside Parking On -Street Parking Data - Collected 10/18/12 Unmetered Spaces Metered Spaces Time Occupied Available %used Occupied Available %used 9AM 566 752 75% 72 136 53% 12PM 550 752 73% 89 136 65% 3PM 526 752 70% 97 136 71% 8PM 468 1390 34% 106 136 78% 12 Northside Parking On-Street Parking Data - Collected 10/19/12 Unmetered Spaces Metered Spaces Time Occupied Available %used Occupied Available %used 9AM 561 766 73% 84 136 62% 12PM 543 754 72% 94 136 69% 3PM 434 753 58% 106 136 77% SPM 455 1390 33% 103 136 769/6 *The number of spaces available fluctuates from hour/day due to construction activities. "The number of spaces available jumps significantly during the 8PM observation as parking is permitted on both sides of northside neighborhood streets after 5PM. Analyzing the on street parking data collected, staff believes that there is generally adequate availability of unmetered on -street parking with overall average usage near 61%. Similarly, staff feels that there are also an adequate number of metered spaces available for use given that the average use during observations was approximately 69%. This is not to say that certain areas of the neighborhood do not experience higher levels of parking congestion shown by the averages. Specific concerns for those locations should be analyzed separately. Staff Recommendations: • Further investigation of a northside neighborhood permit parking system should the neighborhood support such a program. As this item is not consistent with current City policy, the neighborhood should advocate for the implementation of a northside neighborhood permit parking to the City Council if desired. The attached memorandum (Appendix IT) identifies the pros and cons with implementing a neighborhood parking permit system. 13 Transit Service While transit service was not identified as an issue by residents during the neighborhood meeting, neighborhood studies typically include transit information. Iowa City Transit and University of Iowa Cambus provide transit service to residents in the neighborhood. The map in Appendix I illustrates the current bus routes and stops in the study area. Johnson County SEATS provides para -transit service to neighborhood residents with disabilities. Reservations are made 24 hours in advance for this door-to-door service. Staff Recommendations: • Evaluate existing transit stops in the neighborhood and increase or decrease, as warranted. This project is currently being undertaken as part of a city-wide study of public transit underway by Iowa City Transit. • Evaluate existing transit stops to include shelters, lighting, and/or concrete waiting areas, where needed. 14 Action Steps Following is a compilation of action steps identified either by staff during completion of the study, or by area residents during the neighborhood meeting or through communication with staff. The action steps are categorized accordingly by those needed to be addressed by staff and those that need to be addressed by the neighborhood. Some of the actions suggested by the neighborhood are not consistent with current City policy and will require neighborhood advocacy so that policy makers recognize the support for such requests and can prioritize improvements or alter City policy as necessary. An example of successful neighborhood advocacy is the Highway 1 Trail and Miller/Orchard neighborhood sidewalks being constructed in 2013. While staff identified the need for such improvements, the support and advocacy provided by the neighborhood was ultimately needed to `elevate' the need for the project and to garner City Council support to make the project a reality. It is important to recognize that while staff may agree with the neighborhood on the importance of various actions, strong neighborhood support/advocacy is how a maioritv of those actions will come to fruition. Staff Action Steps (To be completed as time permits) • Complete the Dodge & Governor two-way conversion study. • Begin the Market & Jefferson two-way conversion study. • Implement a 20mph school zone on Church and Dodge Streets — adjacent to Horn School. • Update the Church / Gilbert signal analysis after the University fall semester begins. • Either remove parking or construct bulb -outs on the south side of Jefferson Street at Linn Street to improve visibility at the crosswalks. • Install a One -Way sign on Market Street opposite the City surface parking facility. • Request the use of the Iowa City Police radar trailer and install `Check Your Speed' signs on Church and Dodge Streets. 15 • Analyze safety measures for bikes/pedestrians at the Market & Jefferson/Dubuque intersections as well as the Market & Jefferson/Gilbert intersections. • Reconstruct curb ramps for ADA compliance when adjacent intersections are under construction (Appendix G) • Complete evaluation of transit stops — necessity and locations. • Analyze the conversion of Dubuque Street to a three lane corridor. • Complete an analysis of the use of a Flashing Yellow Arrow to replace the Green Arrow at the Dubuque / Jefferson intersection. • Analyze the need to install a marked crosswalk on Church Street at Johnson Street. Neighborhood Action Steps (to be taken if desired) • Advocate for the completion of Foster Road between Dubuque Street and Prairie Du Chien Road as a means to reduce neighborhood cut -through traffic. • Advocate for the use of traffic circles and other infrastructure enhancements on roadways which do not qualify for the City's adopted traffic calming program. • Request the creation of a residential pedestrian lighting program in order to pursue installation of pedestrian scale street lighting on residential streets. • Support the use of a parking permit system for all or portions of the neighborhood. • Request the rebricking of brick streets in poor condition. • Advocate for the construction of left -turn lanes at the Dubuque/Church intersection. • Request an ordinance change to reduce the speed limit on residential streets from 25mph to 20mph [it should be noted that current traffic speeds do not support a 20mph]. • Advocate for the removal of parking on Church Street in order to implement bike lanes or shared -lane -arrows. [it should be noted that on -street parking will increase on adjacent streets if removed from Church Street]. • Request for additional streetscaping on Dodge Street. 16 Appendix A Public Meeting Concerns & Staff Responses The following are comments/questions that were raised by participants at the neighborhood public meeting held Thursday, November 29th, 2012 at Mann Elementary School. Public comments are included verbatim with staff responses in italics. Participants: Josh Kaine, Chris Welu-Reynolds, Kent Ackerson, Mike Wright, Sarah Clark, Diana Harris, John Brandon, Robert A. Warner, Edward Brinton, Flora Cassiliano, Bill Callahan, Matthia Biger, Bruce Ayati, Nancy Thompson, Laura Stunz, Dave Tingwald, John Thomas Group A (staff responses in italics) 1. Generally repave existing brick streets / add speed humps (brick speed humps, not asphalt) Existing brick streets are repaved as part of the City 5 -year Capital Improvements Projects (CIP) list. The neighborhood should advocate to the City Council in order to have specific repaving projects added to the list. Speed humps can be installed as part of the City's adopted Traffic Calming Program (Appendix B), for streets which qualify for traffic calming based on the adopted criteria. 2. Church / Dubuque intersection; add southbound left turn lane on Dubuque and westbound left turn lane on Church. In the late 2000's, a project to reconstruct the Dubuque Street / Church Street intersection, which included a southbound dedicated left -turn lane and reconstruction of the curb radii, was designed and funded (Figure 6) Ultimately, neighborhood concerns about a potential increase in traffic factored into the City Council's decision not to complete the project. From a traffic engineering perspective, turn lanes would improve traffic flow at the intersection. The neighborhood should advocate for the completion of the project to the City Council if desired. Neighborhood feedback would be one of the factors that the City Council would consider in evaluating whether to add turn lanes at the intersection. 17 Figure 6: Dubuque Street / Church Street intersection concept w/ left -turn lanes 3. If Church / Dubuque turning lanes are constructed then traffic speeds on Church will need to be addressed. Speeds on Church Street would not likely change due to the construction of turn -lanes at the Church/Dubuque intersections. 4. Implement a 20 MPH School Zone adjacent to Horace Mann School on Dodge Street and Church Street with blinker signs/lights similar to other parts of town. Staff will pursue implementing 20 MPH School Zones on Dodge Street and Church Street adjacent to Mann Elementary. Both will require City Council approval and the Iowa Department of Transportation will have to approve of the changes on Dodge Street as this is part of the DOT's jurisdiction as part of the Highway 1 system. 5. Install a traffic signal at the Church / Gilbert intersection. Staff will conduct a signal warrant analysis at this intersection in fall 2013. If a signal is warranted per the guidelines in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the City Council would then need to approve the project. 6. Implement a 20 mph speed limit on residential streets - This is being done in CA and NY. Currently the speed limit for residential streets in Iowa City is 25 miles per hour. The default speed limit for local residential streets in the State Code is also 25mph. Changing the speed limit on residential streets would require an 18 ordinance change (Section 9-3-6: Speed Restrictions). In general, observed speeds depend on a variety of factors including, presence of on -street parking, travel lane width, visibility, topography, enforcement, and posted speed limit. The neighborhood will need to advocate for a reduction in residential speed limits if desired. [It should be noted that current traffic speeds do not justify lowering the posted speed limit. Speed limits are typically set near the 85th percentile speed. This is the speed which most drivers find safe and comfortable — artificially increasing/decreasing posted speeds with disregard fort 85th percentile speeds will typically result in disregard for the posted speed limit and require strict enforcement to gain compliance]. Investigate converting Governor and Dodge Streets to two-way corridors - This could increase property values on these streets. Staff cannot produce evidence that such conversions would increase property values. However, preliminary results of the study show that converting Governor and Dodge Streets to two-way corridors would substantially increase cut -through traffic in the northside neighborhood. 8. Change northside parking back to Mon -Wed -Fri instead of current odd/even designations. The existing odd/even parking designation is used to coincide with the current snow emergency ordinance. A change back to Mon -Wed -Fri parking would also require a city-wide ordinance change for snow emergencies. This is not recommended due to confusion created by such a change. 9. More stop signs in the neighborhood. Especially at Brown / Johnson, Brown / Gilbert, Church / Gilbert, and Linn / Ronalds. A majority of the northside neighborhood is comprised of a two-lane grid street system with a 'basket -weave' traffic control system (a system by which motorists are required to stop at a stop sign roughly every other block — the result being orderly progression of traffic). Additional stop signs at these locations would have to meet requirements outlined by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and be approved by the City Council. The addition of stop signs where not warranted can result in undesired motorist behaviors, including speeding, and disregard for stop signs (which increases pedestrian vulnerability and potential for motorist /pedestrian conflicts). Additional stop signs would also increase vehicle emissions and noise which are undesirable in residential areas. 10. No way for pedestrians to cross Dubuque Street between Market north to Church Street. In the past decade a growing body of research and situational evidence has found that converting four -lane undivided roadways to three lanes — one in 19 each direction and a two-way left turn lane — can improve safety and maintain an acceptable level of service under certain conditions. This practice is known colloquially as a `road diet.' When completed, the two-way left turn lane serves as a quasi -pedestrian refuge island, and pedestrians only cross two lanes of thru traffic versus four. This corridor could be considered for further study as a road diet candidate. 11. Painted crosswalk at Church and Johnson — lots of kids from neighborhood going to Mann cross at this intersection. The City currently provides an adult crossing guard at the intersection of Dodge Street/Church Street, one block east of Johnson Street. Additionally, the Dodge Street intersection is signalized, which provides traffic control and improved visibility of pedestrians. Although it may be slightly less convenient to cross Church Street at Dodge Street, it is a better crosswalk location. This does not preclude pedestrians crossing at Johnson Street, but staff does not recommend installing and maintaining an additional painted crosswalk at this location, at this time. However, staff will observe this location in fall 2013 to see if it meets the criteria for a marked crosswalk. 12. Storm water issues at the Johnson / Bloomington intersection. Storm water intakes are located at each corner of the intersection and are designed to handle storm water from rzormal'rain events. The intakes did not appear to be clogged upon staff inspection. 13. If traffic mitigation is done on Church, then bike traffic needs to be considered. It is not clear fi•om this comment what type of traffic mitigation would/could be done. However, shared lane arrows (aka sharrows) would be suitable for Church Street due to its connectivity with the commercial uses at Dodge Street, the elementary school, and Clinton Street to the west, which is a popular route to downtown. The markings would be installed similar to College and Dodge Streets — one located at the beginning and mid point of each city block in both travel lanes. Bike lanes are another viable option. However, the installation of bike lanes would require the removal of on -street parking from Church Street which could increase traffic speeds. This is something the neighborhood can advocate for if desired. 14. Parking on both sides of streets may help slow traffic down — but we want to avoid street storage of vehicles - perhaps parking permits could be used. Please seethe parking permit system memo provided in Appendix G. A permit parking system has never been used in Iowa City and would need to be discussed with the City Council — the neighborhood would need to show strong support for such a system. Parking on both sides of the street would also possibly affect garbage collection, street sweeping, and emergency response 20 and would need to be vetted with all City departments prior to implementation. 15. Make sure "yield to pedestrian" signs put in the middle of street still allow cars to pass / fit safely - use more of these signs The City has a set of criteria used to identify suitable locations for in -street Yield -to -pedestrians signs. Over use of these signs would likely diminish their effectiveness. As such, staff will continue to carefully monitor the effectiveness of existing signs and locations for additional signage. 16. Utilize flashing yield signs that are used just when pedestrians are trying to cross the street — used in Boulder, Colorado. There are several types of pedestrian activated crossing beacons/signals that can be used to assist pedestrians when crossing the street. Each of these devices requires specific warrants that must be met. Specific requests for such devices should be made to Darian Nagle -Gamin in the Iowa City Planning Department. 17. The stop sign at Johnson / Brown should be a 4 way stop. At the very least move stop sign from Johnson to Brown. Stop sign at Linn and Ronalds should be 4 way stop. At very least move stop sign to Ronalds. Stop sign added at Gilbert / Brown. Please see staff response for #9. In addition, there were no collisions recorded between 2009-2011 at either the Johnson/Brown or Linn/Ronalds intersections. Given the lack of collisions, all -way stops at these locations are not necessary. 18. Love traffic circles on Church Street and other streets on the Northside. Ladd's Addition in Portland, OR is good example of traffic improvements. The City has an adopted traffic calming program (Appendix B) that identifies traffic calming infrastructure improvements (including traffic circles). Specific requests for such improvements should be made to the Planning Department or to the City Council. The traffic calming program is a neighborhood driven process. 19. Please don't put the needs of cars and people who choose to live outside the city in front of those of us who live here. Planning staff attempts to provide a transportation system that is efficient and safe for all users of our community. 20. Concern of speeds in alleys; some people travel much too quickly. 21 Specific requests for increased police enforcement and/or traffic calming techniques could be employed to alleviate these concerns. The City's adopted traffic calming program can be found in Appendix B. 21. Increased police enforcement, especially on Dodge and Church Streets. Data collected shows that 85th percentile speeds on both Dodge and Church Streets exceed the posted speed limit. Staff has requested increased enforcement in these areas. Staff will also pursue installing 'Check your Speed'signs to remind drivers of their responsibility to maintain a safe speed. Group B (staff responses in italics) 22. Improve safety at Horace Mann; reduce to 20 mph speed limit on Church and Dodge Streets. Please see staff response for #4. 23. Too much east/west cut -through traffic in the neighborhood, north/south traffic not as heavy. Currently, there is an unfunded Capital Improvements Program project to construct Foster Road between Dubuque Street and Prairie Du Chien Road south of Interstate 80. When this project is completed, it will likely reduce some of the cut -through traffic experienced by east/west streets in the neighborhood. This connection would likely also reduce traffic volumes and speeds in both the Kimball Road and Ridge Road neighborhoods as they would become less attractive east/west connections. This is an item that the neighborhood should advocate for if desired. 24. Countdown signals at arterials with heavy pedestrian traffic — specifically at the Church and Dubuque Street intersection. It is the City's policy to install countdown pedestrian signals at arterial street intersections. This intersection has countdown signals presently. 25. Request 20 mph residential speed limit, not 25 mph for local streets. Please see staff response for #6. 26. Dubuque / Brown poor sidewalk connectivity. A sidewalk on the east side of Dubuque Street is part of the current design for the City's Gateway Project (a project to elevate a portion of Dubuque Street and replace the Park Road Bridge). 22 27. Poor sidewalk connectivity at the Dubuque/ Park Road intersection — specifically on the east side. This should be remediated as part of the Dubuque Street Elevation Project Please see staff response for #26. 28. Some very dark streets; light level low generally in Iowa City. Pedestrian scale lighting and lighting at intersections should be increased. Currently the City provides pedestrian scale lighting in the downtown area, but to date there have been no funds allocated towards the installation of pedestrian scale lighting in residential areas. If the neighborhood wishes to pursue pedestrian scale lighting, the neighborhood will need to advocate to the City Council for funding during the annual budget process. 29. Generally increase the use of stop signs. Please see staff response for #9. 30. Reduce cut -through traffic on Brown and Gilbert (off Kimball). Currently, there is on unfunded Capital Improvement Program project to construct Foster Road between Dubuque Street and Prairie Du Chien Road south of Interstate 80. When this project is completed, it will likely reduce some of the cut -through traffic experienced by east/west streets in the neighborhood. This is an item that the neighborhood should advocate for if desired. 31. Yield to pedestrian signs - issues with the illusion that drivers will stop for pedestrians. Staff installed the signs on Market and Jefferson Streets following a request and after confirming the locations exceeded the pedestrian volume threshold of forty pedestrians during peak hours and gaps in traffic fewer than one every thirty seconds, as well as speed limit, number of lanes, collision history, and presence of destinations for pedestrians. Prior to installation, our peak -hour observations found approximately 5 percent of motorists yielded to pedestrians waiting at the curb; since the signs were installed the rate of yielding has increased six -fold to approximately 32 percent. 32. Restrict parking on the south side of Jefferson Street near the mid -block crosswalk at Linn Street — visibility is bad. Or the use of bump -outs could be employed. Staff has observed this issue and agrees that visibility is imperfect. Staff will pursue either restricting some parking in this area, or possibly employing bulb -outs to increase pedestrian visibility. 23 33. Signage for northbound motorists at the Market/Gilbert intersection is not adequate — motorists use the inside lane to go straight through the intersection. Staff reviewed the intersection and found the lane assignment signs to be adequate per Manual on Uniform Traffic Control guidance. There is a side mount sign as well as a mast arm sign indicating proper lane assignments. 34. East/West stop signs at the Brown/Van Buren intersection are not necessary since no traffic comes from the north. The stops signs at this intersection are part of the neighborhood's basket weave stop control system by which vehicles are required to stop (roughly) every other block. Basket weave systems are used to provide orderly and predictable traffic control for neighborhoods with grid street systems similar to the northside neighborhood. 35. Market and Jefferson Streets are barriers to get from the northside to downtown. Please see staff responses for #15, #32 & #39 as they relate to this issue. 36. Requested additional enforcement generally in the north side This request has made to the Iowa City Police Department. 37. Request for `No Right Turn on Red' prohibition generally in Downtown Iowa City. A blanket prohibition of right -turns on red signals in the downtown area would decrease adherence to these signs. These signs should only be installed where warranted after a traffic study has been administered, or there is a visibility constraint. 38. Concerns that Northside Market Place is not pedestrian friendly. Aside from concerns for pedestrians crossing Market and Jefferson streets, staff has not received general concerns from pedestrians using the Northside Marketplace. Staff has installed in -street 'Yield to Pedestrians' signs at the Linn/Market and Linn/Jefferson intersections to assist with pedestrian crossings at these locations. 39. Return Market & Jefferson to two-way traffic. Staff will be conducting a traffic study related to the conversion of Market and Jefferson Streets back to two-way corridors. Staff's initial feeling is that this conversion may increase undesired east/west cut -through traffic in the neighborhood. This will be investigated as part of the forthcoming study. 24 40. The use of traffic circles should be investigated as an option rather than using stop signs. This idea warrants some consideration and study to evaluate whether existing stop signs are in fact warranted, to obtain a cost estimate to install traffic circles, and to prioritize locations for traffic circles. 41. Use of gas lights for pedestrian scale lighting to blend with neighborhood — the City could subsidize the costs to homeowners for installation. Currently the City provides pedestrian scale lighting in the downtown area, but to date there have been no funds allocated towards the installation of pedestrian scale lighting in residential areas. If the neighborhood wishes to pursue pedestrian scale lighting they would need to advocate to the City Council for funding during the annual budget process. 42. Alley conditions (e.g. potholes) a concern. Specific concerns with respect to alley maintenance should be made available to the City Engineering Department. The City will then prioritize maintenance issues and address them accordingly. General maintenance of alleys (snow removal) is the responsibility of adjacent property owners. 43. 10 mph speed limit in alleys are too high — should be lowered. A change to the 10mph speed limit in alleys would require an ordinance change supported by the City Council. The neighborhood will have to advocate for such a change if desired. 44. Additional streetscaping on Dodge Street as you come into Iowa City is needed — it is not aesthetically pleasing. The neighborhood should show support for such changes and request funding be set-aside as necessary. 45. Curb lines at intersections in the northside should be reconstructed to be consistent — many of the curb lines at intersections currently bulb -out. The curb lines could be realigned as a way of improving visibility of pedestrians and to shorten the crosswalk length. One option is to implement such realignments when the streets are resurfaced, or they could be included as a new Capital Improvements Program project. A new capital improvement project would need to be supported by the City Council. The neighborhood should show support for such a program if desired. 46. Implement blinking -yellow arrows at signalized intersections. Blinking yellow arrows are used to replace green arrows at signalized intersections with dedicated left -turn lanes. The Market Street / Dubuque 25 Street intersection is the only signalized intersection in the study area that has a dedicated left -turn lane. Staff is assessing the usefulness of a blinking yellow arrow at this location and will recommend changes as necessary. 47. Additional ONE-WAY signage on Market Street at the exits from parking lots — signage is not currently present and many motorists travel east on Market Staff reviewed the corridor and found where additional ONE-WAY signage should be installed opposite the exiting lane from the city's Market Street surface parking lot onto Market Street. The City typically does not place signs for private parking lots. M N V Typical Tragic Calming Applications In Iowa City: Speed Humps • Teg Drive 7 Morningside Drive 7 Kennedy Parkway Traffic Circles Z College Street & Summit Street O Washington Street & Summit Street Raised Median Islands O College Street near Musatim Avenue Chokers 9 Shannon Drive Raised Crosswalks 7 Newton Road For Mom Information Contact: Iowa City Planning Department Traffic Engineering Planning: 356.5254 Neighborhood Services: 356-5237 410 E.Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240-1826 `` 1 1 -d n� r , r --%A6� IT CITY OF IOWA CITY City of Iowa City J July 2008 I� L1 Fr• C+ y let I.� l� V It a �.t What is Traffic Calming? Traffic aiming is the praatce of managing speeds antler volumes of traffic on residential streets using one or moreapproaches: Increased police enforcement driver eduction, or plrysial changes to [he roadway Each of these _. approaches has its appropriate application and an help reduce speeds and/or unwanted cut - through tnffc on neighborhood streets. ENFORCEMENT Increased police enforcement is effective at targeting high speeds during specific times. However. the police department does not have sufficient resources to provide continuous enforcement over a sustained period of time. While moronsts may slow down when an officer is present they often return to previous speeds when targeted enforcement moves to other neighborhoods. EDUCATION Education is the process of nuking motorists aware of their speeds in refatom to the neighborhoods they are travNing in. The City uses several methods to notify motorists of their responsdAiry to obey traffic laws. One example is the "Share the Road" sign program used to remind r motorists that bicyclists have 5" right to be on the road and that both parties need to share the road and operate their vehicles responsibly. Another program is the "Check Your Speed" sign program used to alert motansts to watch their speeds in targeted residential areas. PHYSICAL CHANGES To help control excessive speeds or unwanted cut - through traffic. physical modifications an be made to a roadway to slow can down.or to deter unnecessary traffic. These changes an be as simple as adding on - street parking within a corridor or as complex as constructing speed humps or chicanes in ire roadway. Other alternatives are available and each application is custom-designed to meet the individual needs of a particular neighborhood. TYPICALTAAFFIC CALMING METHODS ssr.t•.x.....e rawrrsw�srwnss T The most importa"I thing to remember Is that neighborhood residents need to be involved in the process. The traffic calming `` program Is driven P' by neighborhood request The program is intended to impose unwanted traffic tali devices in neighborhoods. for traffic calming, a formal request Is require from the neighborhood association chat Includes the street proposed for traffic calming, OR a 11��,,,,ppppt____tition from residents along the street proposed ffic calming is needed. A Neighborhood Traffic Calming Process & Evaluation Criteria In 19% the Iowa City City Council adopted a traffic aiming pprogram to help neighborhoods manage rising tnlfic speeds and volumes. O The street considered for traffic aiming measures must be classified either a local street or collector street. Traffic volumes on a local sweet should exceed 500 vehicles per day and on a collector street exceed 1.000 vehicles per day (traffic volume on any street proposed for traffic calming should not exceed 3,000 vehicles per day). or Z The measured comfortable speed of driven (85th percentile speed) should exceed 5 m.p.h. over the posted speed limit. Z Staff will meet with the neighborhood to discuss which traffic calming measures are reasonable for evaluation. Stag will conduct a traffic study includingan evaluation of potentitraffic problems. roadway geometry, and the impact the proposed traffic calming measures may have on adjacent streets. 7 Staff will solicit comments on the proposed Works, modiflmtion from the Police. Fire. Public Works, and Transit Departments. as well as local ambulance service. Z H the traffic study shows that traffic miming measures an be implemented safely, a mail - back survey of all abutting properties will than be conducted. The proposal for traffic miming must be supported by 60% of those responding to the questionnaire in order to be considered for implementation. No minimum number of responses to the mail - back survey is required. but a low response rate will be taken into account by the City Council. The City Council makes final decisions on the implementation of all traffic calming projects. Appendix C Study Area Collisions 2010-2012 Northside Neighborhood Collisions o°mac F�c� rec\Jct aapo °aa5.a° �a� Intersection �e 0e Pr 0� S� 4° Dubuque & Brown 0 0 2 11 13 2 8 Dubuque & Ronalds 0 0 4 0 1 1 6 Dubuque&Church 0 0 5 2 2 2 11 Dubuque & Fairchild 0 1 1 0 1 1 4 Dubuque & Davenport 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 Dubuque & Bloomington 1 0 1 1 3 2 8 Dubuque & Market 4 10 1 1 5 19 20 Dubuque&Jefferson 2 10 0 12 2 0 6 Linn & Brown 0 10 0 1 0 0 1 Linn & Ronalds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Linn & Church 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Linn & Fairchild 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Linn & Davenport 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Linn & Bloomington 0 0 0 0 1 10 1 Linn & Market 3 0 4 10 3 8 18 Linn &Jefferson 2 10 2 0 2 3 9 Gilbert&Brown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gilbert & Ronalds 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 Gilbert & Church 0 0 1 1 3 0 5 Gilbert & Fairchild 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 Gilbert & Davenport 0 0 0 0 3 11 4 Gilbert & Bloomington 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 Gilbert & Market 1 0 3 1 1 3 9 Gilbert&Jefferson 5 0 3 1 5 5 19 Van Buren & Brown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Van Buren & Ronalds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Van Buren & Church 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Van Buren & Fairchild 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 Van Buren & Davenport 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 Van Buren & Bloomington 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Van Buren & Market 1 0 0 0 1 5 7 Van Buren &Jefferson 1 0 0 0 1 1 3 Johnson & Brown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Johnson & Ronalds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Johnson & Church 0 10 1 10 1 0 2 Johnson & Fairchild 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Johnson & Davenport 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Johnson &Bloomington 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 Johnson & Market 0 0 1 0 2 1 4 Johnson &Jefferson 1 0 0 0 0 3 4 Dodge & Brown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dodge & Ronalds 0 10 0 0 0 11 1 Dodge &Church 0 0 1 0 3 2 6 Dodge & Fairchild 0 0 0 10 0 1 1 Dodge & Davenport 1 0 0 1 0 2 4 Dodge & Bloomington 1 0 2 0 1 2 6 Dodge & Market 0 0 0 0 3 1 4 Dodge &Jefferson 0 2 3 1 2 3 11 Lucas & Brown 0 10 0 0 0 10 0 Lucas & Ronalds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lucas & Church 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 Lucas & Fairchild 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lucas & Davenport 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lucas & Bloomington 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Lucas & Market 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Lucas &Jefferson 0 10 0 0 0 13 3 Governor & Brown 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 Governor & Ronalds 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 Governor &Church 0 0 0 0 5 2 7 Governor & Fairchild 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Governor & Davenport 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 Governor & Bloomington 0 0 0 0 01 1 Governor & Market 1 0 1 0 3 7 12 Governor &Jefferson 0 0 3 0 10 1 14 30 WameM Path S_Uo" City GISUCCOG_Mapss120130514_Nathstde_Tmmp_Sh*Wap-md �u W N Docun*M PathS:Vma City GISVCCOG_Maps120130514_Northside_Tmnsp_Studv0dap mxd Appendix F Trails & Bicycle Infrastructure ry Y L 15 ON 3N u � N A 4 E d d m d m 152i31N3J � 4� c H d y '^ p x i •" i E i o 3 Illlim®�� 1S HONWAO') N is WORM N � O Z J N 2 S Y. U � �, � is •, , ,,i ..,— � o g e � w m 1SN3809 NVAN ■ n 1 S 11130110 N z- - z 1S NNIlN ' • YlBi1BAiN..�ReREPIC • ROR _ •• in r L Y ■ r ■ _ 1siolmvDrr - I41 • vrra-- 33 Appendix G ADA Curb Ramp Inventory 34 Appendix H Residential Parking Permit System JO Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County Date: June 13. 2013 To: Kent Ralston: Assistant Transportation Planner From: Chris Bjornstad: Transportation Planning Intern Re: Permit Parking System In effort to evaluate the possibility of implementing a residential permit parking system in Iowa City's North Side neighborhood, this memo looks at examples in other college towns to use as a benchmark. Important requirements to be considered are: determining parking availability for residents and nonresidents. residence application requirements, permit costs, and number of permits issued per household. The following outlines several college towns' neighborhood residential permit programs with an analysis of how a similar residential parking permit system could be used in Iowa City, a summary table is attached. Champaign, IL - In Champaign. IL, the East Park Street Residential Permit Program was established to ease street congestion and make parking more available to residents and visitors. The permit program encompasses three streets south of Washington St. to University Ave along with five blocks east of First St. to Wright St. near campus and downtown. Only permitted vehicles are allowed to park overnight in the area from 3:00 AM to 10:00 AM, Mon -Fri_ Residential permits are issued at no cost to each vehicle with a $5 replacement permit for lost or stolen permits. Requirements for receiving a permit include a completed application, a copy of vehicle registration, and proof of residency within the East Park permitted area. Proof of residency can include: vehicle registration showing an address in the permitted area, property tax bill (for owners): current lease agreement (for renters), or a utility bill. Permits can be renewed every three years for property owners and annually for renters. Visitor permits are issued to permit holders with each residence receiving six visitor permits lasting seven consecutive days. Additional visitor permits or week extensions must be handled through the Parking Programs Office a week in advance. 35 Boulder, CO - The City of Boulder, CO has a neighborhood parking permit system divided into seven zones to help manage parking and balance transportation demands. The primary goals of the program are to encourage less driving and reduce on street parking. Permit zones are specific to each neighborhood and are located adjacent to major employment and activity centers. Permits are issued to residents and businesses in each zone along with a limited number of nonresident commuter permits. Each permit costs $17 per vehicle annually with the maximum of two per residence. The main benefit to residents is that they are allowed to park for an indefinite time period on the street instead of the daily two hour time limit per zone Mon - Fri, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Obtaining a neighborhood permit requires a completed application and proof of residency in the neighborhood zone (lease, utility bill, or vehicle registration). Two visitor permits are provided with each permit which allow for parking up to 24 hours within a one block radius of the residence. Two two-week guest passes per year may also be issued for longer term guests. Ann Arbor. MI - Similar to Boulder. the City of Ann Arbor, MI has implemented a residential neighborhood zone permit parking system to free up parking for residents. Permit holders are allowed to park all day in neighborhood zones beyond the various stated parking times. Requirements include a copy of a current vehicle registration and proof of residency (utility bill, driver's license. lease, or notarized declaration of residency). Permits are issued for $50 annually per resident vehicle with replacement permits costing 515. Only one permit is issued for each driver's license with up to a maximum of five permits per residence. Special considerations are available for fraternities. sororities, and group houses. all of which may receive a maximum of nine permits. Bloomington, IN & State College, PA - Bloomington, IN offers parking permits for $25 annually for the right to park exclusively in permit only neighborhood parking zones from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Only one permit per resident is allowed. Additionally, one visitor permit per address can also be purchased for $25. State College, PA also has residential parking permit zones allowing qualified residents to park all day in areas that otherwise allow only two hour parking between 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Permits cost $10 per car annually for as many vehicles as the resident requests. Both Bloomington and State College have residence requirements similar to the other cities and a current vehicle registration and proof of residency must be provided. Conclusion If Iowa City would like to adopt a neighborhood parking permit system.. our recommendation would be to implement a hybrid version utilizing Iowa City's parking regulations along with other municipal permit parking systems (see Table 2). Iowa City should continue allowing parking on only one side of the street (Mon -Sat: 8:00 AM -5:00 PM) with vehicles rotating daily to facilitate vehicle movement and city maintenance operations. The best option for lova City appears to be making the "permitted area" streets exclusive to residents with permits from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Mon -Sat. Signs can be placed below the current no parking signs notifying "PERMIT PARKING ONLY 8:00 AM -5:00 PM EXCEPT SUNDAY." Requirements for obtaining a permit should include current vehicle registration and proof of residency in the permitted area. Proof of residency could include city tax records for owners and a lease for renters. The lease requirement helps avert potential problems in which people aren't on a lease but living in a residence and attempting to obtain a permit. By charging a relatively low annual permit fee (i.e. $25-$50) costs associated with administering a parking permit system would be minimized. Furthermore, it would discourage residents who don't need a permit from obtaining one. 36 Comparison of Cities City Costs Requirements Permits visitor Permits Permitted Area Per Benefits Household Champaign, $0 Current vehicle Unlimited Six permits lasting Only parking in IL registration and seven days per zone 3:00 AM to proof of residency residence 10:00 PM; Mon -Fri (utility bill, tax statement, lease, vehicle registration) Boulder, 00 $17tvehide Current vehicle Two per Two per permit with Unlimited parking in registration and residence guest staying less two hour zones; 9 proof of residency than 24 hours and AM to 5 PM; Mon - (lease, utility bill, parked within one Fri or vehicle block radius of registration) residence, Two week visitor passes available upon request Ann Arbor, N $501vehide Current vehicle One pemrR None Unlimited parking in registration and per drivers zones varying in proof of residency license; time (utility bill, driver's max of 5 license, lease, or per notarized residence declaration d residency ) Bloomington, $25/vehicle Current vehicle Unlimited One visitor permit Exclusive parking in IN registration and per addross may zone 8:00 AM to 5 proof of residency be purdrased for PM; Mor -Fri (lease, utility bill, $20 tax statement) State College, $10 total Current vehicle Unlimited None Unlimited parking in PA includes all registration and 2 hour zone; 6:00 vehicles proof and AM to 6 PM; Mon - residency (listing Fri on the Borough's tax rolls or a copy of a signed lease) 37 Appendix I Transit Routes/Stops O 1S 11 W '< w 1S ON3a ti o F Q 7 CTrt)lrt. 1S 1S h 0 H13S 3 ZIS M31N3O O 33 13 tt w 15 r UNION 1S SVOnl N in 1S 30000 N � � W Q Z U O U ~'U tt U NOSNHOf N i W NYA N Q� 15 N48 INA N �n z O z m 1f1Df1B N KIM 1 e N Q 7 CTrt)lrt. .� w P -15 NOl NITON 33 13 P w r N p wy n � a IS Nuslaw+ N P P U U I 13 KIM 1 e N Q 7 CTrt)lrt. .� w -15 NOl NITON 33 13 w IS lO1 NtlON N p wy n � a IS Nuslaw+ N Marian Karr From: adisciple0040@gmaii.com Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 1:49 PM To: Council Subject: Improved safety at Ronalds and Gilbert Streets Dear Councilors, My wife and I live four homes from the intersection of Gilbert and Ronalds Streets and we would support the Council's favorable consideration of a traffic circle at that intersection to slow down speeding traffic and make the neighborhood safer for its increasing number of pedestrians and bicyclists. Thank you. John and Nancy McKinstry Sent from my Whone Marian Karr From: c.c.lang@gmail.com on behalf of Cornelia C Lang <cornelia-lang@uiowa.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 7:32 AM To: Council Subject: Traffic Circle for Ronalds & Gilbert Streets Dear Council Members: I am writing to urge you to consider a change to a project that will soon be underway in our Northside neighborhood: to repair/repave Ronalds street this summer. Many of us have discussed the inclusion of a new traffic circle (there are several existing circles in town currently and they help to slow and moderate traffic at important junctures). I have lived on Brown Street (near Gilbert/Brown intersection) for 10 years now and in the Northside 4 years longer (on Church Street). I am well aware of drivers using some of these relatively quiet streets as cut -through routes when traffic on Dubuque Street gets heavy. In particular, Gilbert street becomes a bit of a freeway as people use it to cut down to Dubuque to catch I-80. These patterns will only increase in the coming year or so as the bridge improvement project causes traffic to be slowed along Dubuque. Traffic circles are effective means to slow, moderate and direct traffic at busy intersections where a stoplight is not quite warranted but traffic flow needs to be regulated. Traffic circles are most effective when constructed in a series on a local service street --so I hope you will consider this as the first in a series of improvements to improve the Northside residential neighborhood. I have three children (ages 6, 11, and 15) and we have chosen to live where we do (easy access to downtown and surroundings) so that they can walk and bike around (rather than have to drive or be driven). The older two are routinely biking to do errands, go downtown and to visit friends and knowing that there are traffic slowing improvements in the neighborhood makes me feel even better about their navigating the streets on their bikes, especially with our younger son to be out biking around in the next few years. We have discussed this possible improvement as a neighborhood and many of us feel that this would be a very effective way to moderate traffic in our neighborhood. Many of us are also willing to help plant a traffic circle with plants and flowers. Thank you for your consideration, Cornelia Lang 409 Brown Street Iowa City, IA 52245 3f(7) Marian Karr - From: Charming Jones <jones.charming@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 6:31 AM To: ocpdjimp@orangecityiowa.com Cc: "vicepresident@whitehouse.gov"; statedeptgov; Jim Throgmorton; "cityadmin@orangecityiowa.com"; "debdunlopdehaan@gmail.com"; Council; "rbdeboer@orangecitycomm.net"; "chad@oolman.com"; "sroesner@orangecitycomm.net"; "tkvandebrake@orangecitycomm.net"; "earl@nwciowa.edu"; "mayor@norwalk.iowa.gov"; "StephanieR@norwalk.iowa.gov"; "Erika)@norwalk.iowa.gov" " <president@whitehouse.gov> Subject: Re: Audio Recording of Mr Netten and Sylvia To All Concerned, This is a audio recording of Sylvia gossiping at the table to Mr. Netten each time I got up to serve coffee to the residents. Though it is not always clear what she is saying when I leave the table, the volume decrease in her voice as I am serving the residents and the sudden shift to an increase in volume and subject change are indicators that she is discussing something she does not want me to hear. All of this is taking lace just have devotion which happened not 5 minutes before. You can hear her telling Mr. Netten I did not wash my hands at time point 10:35 which was not the truth. I am pointing this out because Mr. Netten told me she never spoke with him about it and the reason he called me in to the meeting on the April 25th was to discuss my hurting her feelings because she heard me gossiping about her. That could not have been the case as she is clearly gossiping in this recording. It was some manipulative tactic used by Mr. Netten to discount my claims on the 22rd of April about my co- workers gossiping about me behind my back and in front of my face as well as to guilt me into quitting. My apologies for getting this to you so late. The recordings are very long and I have to spend a great deal of time listening to them all to find the most important parts. Respectfully, Sharmeen D. Jones 06-21-16 Marian Karr From: Missie Forbes <missie@dvipiowa.org> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 10:01 AM To: Council Cc: Kristie Doser Subject: The Domestic Violence Intervention Program Lunch and Learn Good morning, Council Members. On behalf of the DVIP Board of Directors, I would like to invite you to attend a "Lunch and Learn" at the 1105 Board Room on Wednesday, July 13, from 12-1 (1105 S Gilbert Ct). We will be giving a brief presentation on our services in this area and the local support we receive from our our government agencies. Our hope is to have a more direct and open dialogue and further the relationship between DVIP and the Iowa City City Council. Please let us know if you will be able to attend this meeting. If you could RSVP by Wednesday, July 6, we will be able to make complete arrangements. Thanks you for your consideration --we look forward to seeing you in July! Missie Forbes Development Director Domestic Violence Intervention Program 1105 Gilbert Court, Iowa City, IA 52240 Office: 319-356-9863 Ext. 3 Cell: 319-936-2883 www.dviniowa.or¢ Marian Karr From: R.j. Johnson <rjcookie6l @icloud.com> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 8:50 AM To: Council Subject: $20,000 for 12 bikes to park downtown in bike singlet,that's $1600 per bike, wow! Can't we use the parking ramps that we already have for this and use the $ to provide Sunday bus service,something more than 12 bikers would beniefit from. Randy Johnson Sent from my Wad 06-2f� 3f(10) Marian Karr From: Mark Patton <mark@iowavalleyhabitat.org> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 11:19 AM To: Council; Jill Dodds; John Lundell; Laurie Goodrich; Mitch Gross; Tom Gill; Hayworth, Kelly; Ellen Habel; Amy Nielsen; Annie Pollock; Chris Hoffman; Doug Boldt Cc: Tracey Achenbach; Scott mcdonough; Al Havens, Mike Ryan; Peggy Upton; Steven Berner Subject: Consultation of Religious Communities Housing Statement Attachments: housing statement.docx; McArthur FoundatoinHousing Affordability Crisis is On the Rise.docx Dear Council Members and Staff in Johnson County, Please find attached a Housing Statement by the CRC which was adopted by unanimous consent on June 15, 2016. It lays out the case for working hard to understand the need for local affordable housing. In addition, I have included a recently released national study by the MacArthur Foundation which essentially says we are not alone with our affordable housing dilemma. Over the course of the next month I will endeavor to attend a city council session where public comments are invited. Until then, please feel free to reach out to me or other CRC members. Thank you, Mark Patton , CRC President 2016 Executive Director Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity 2401 Scott Blvd., Iowa City, IA 52240 office: (319) 337-8949 www.iowavallevhabitat.ort "The ache for home lives in all of us". Maya Angelou Housing is not a Constitutional right in America. It is not guaranteed by anyone. But everyone needs a safe, decent and affordable place in stay; a place to rest and to be secure. Who needs housing? Children do not thrive if they do not have safe, clean and stable housing. Service workers cannot afford to live in the same community where they clean rooms, prepare food, repair homes, assist teachers and act as lieal[h care professionals. The local housing market is not working. 61% of Johnson County renters currently pay too much for housing (predominantly diose earning less than 50% of area median income). No one should pay more than 30% of their income for housing, or else they have to shortchange their family on the purchase of food, medicine, utilities, cloning, or transportation. Vacancy rates for rental housing are at record lows with no relief in sight. The private market, including non-profit organizations, cannot and will not provide affordable housing without subsidies and assistance from charities or governmental agencies. Therefore, the Consultation of Religious Communities (CRC) implores the City and County governments of Jolmson County to create and implement housing policies to achieve the following: —No net loss of affordable housing. Whenever an affordable housing unit is lost, there is no guarantee in place currently to replace it, making the housing problem worse. No building with affordable housing sliall be torn down without a 1:1 affordable replacement unit being built somewhere in the community. —No public subsidies sliall Row to any housing development in the form of water, sewer, sidewalks, density bonus, parking bonus, exception or variance without a set aside of 15% of new units created and maintained as affordable. —All annexation of land which is destined to be zoned residential shall include a pre -determined 15% set aside for new, affordable units. --State representatives are asked to seek repeal of the current mobile home park owner rules (Iowa Code Section 562B, adopted in 1978) which enables mobile home owners to be evicted witliout substantial cause, and evicted for lack of rental payment in three days' time; and to return to die previous standard, the Iowa Landlord Tenant law, which applies to all other renters. Adequate and affordable housing is not a pipedream; it is a necessity for a community to be inclusive, fair, equitable and moral. We can do better, and we must do better so that our children grow up knowing this is a good place for them to raise their children someday. The problem has been documented, now is the time to act. The Consultation of Religious Communities Spring, 2016 Pessimism About Prolonged Housing Affordability Crisis is On the Rise, 2016 How Housing Matters Survey Finds Published June 16, 2016 Americans are losing faith that the housing crisis that began nearly a decade ago is over. A significant majority (81 %) continues to believe that housing affordability is a problem in America today, according to a new survey of housing attitudes released today by MacArthur. While stable, affordable housing is viewed as a fundamental component of economic security for American families, nearly seven in ten adults (68%) believe that it is more challenging to secure such housing today than it was for previous generations. Still, more than three in five adults (63%) believe a great deal or fair amount can be done to address problems of housing affordability, and the same proportion (63%) believes this issue has not yet received enough attention from presidential candidates. Americans overwhelmingly believe HOUSING AFFORDABILITY Is a problem and that It deserves more attention IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION :D * * * * 4 * 4 my housing anoreabsity :not getting enough attention IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ..%lacAnhur l: xrntl:mun "'"^""""'•"`•""" WAX Il()I'S1\t. \L\ITERS ��—••M--- -• "Too many Americans today believe the dream of a decent, stable home, and the prospects for social mobility, are receding," said MacArthur President Julia Stasch. "Having a decent, stable, affordable home is about more than shelter: It is at the core of strong, vibrant, and healthy families and communities. This survey demonstrates that the public wants action to address the nation's real and pervasive housing affordability challenges." The 2016 How Housing Matters Survey is the fourth annual national survey of housing attitudes commissioned by the MacArthur Foundation, this year with additional support from the Kresge Foundation and the Melville Charitable Trust. Hart Research Associates interviewed 1,200 adults, via landlines and cell phones, between April 28 and May 10. An additional oversample of 603 respondents in the City of Chicago and its suburbs was undertaken, and its findings were also released today. National survey findings include: 81% say housing affordability n rs a p,Wem wah 60% 57% saying '• say housing a serious affordability problemproblem is a pobtem where they live. with 39% serious problern :D * * * * 4 * 4 my housing anoreabsity :not getting enough attention IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ..%lacAnhur l: xrntl:mun "'"^""""'•"`•""" WAX Il()I'S1\t. \L\ITERS ��—••M--- -• "Too many Americans today believe the dream of a decent, stable home, and the prospects for social mobility, are receding," said MacArthur President Julia Stasch. "Having a decent, stable, affordable home is about more than shelter: It is at the core of strong, vibrant, and healthy families and communities. This survey demonstrates that the public wants action to address the nation's real and pervasive housing affordability challenges." The 2016 How Housing Matters Survey is the fourth annual national survey of housing attitudes commissioned by the MacArthur Foundation, this year with additional support from the Kresge Foundation and the Melville Charitable Trust. Hart Research Associates interviewed 1,200 adults, via landlines and cell phones, between April 28 and May 10. An additional oversample of 603 respondents in the City of Chicago and its suburbs was undertaken, and its findings were also released today. National survey findings include: In a reversal of previously growing optimism that "the housing crisis is pretty much over," only 29% of adults now believe this is the case, down six percentage points from last year. Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed believe we are still in the middle of the housing crisis (44%) or the worst is yet to come (19%). The proportion of Americans who believe the crisis is over had been steadily increasing, from 20% in 2013 to 25% in 2014 to 35% in 2015, before trending down this year. While this decline in optimism about the end of the housing crisis prevails across most segments of the public, it is especially pronounced among renters (42 -point difference from 2015), those 65 and older (42), those with a four-year college or more education (-10), African Americans (-10), Hispanics (43), city dwellers (43), and those living in the Northeast (- 10). A significant majority (81 %) continues to believe that housing affordability is a problem in America today, with six in ten characterizing it as a serious problem. A majority of adults (57%) say that housing affordability is a problem in the area in which they live, with two in five (39%) calling it a serious problem. Stable, affordable housing is viewed as a fundamental component of economic security for families, yet Americans find that it is increasingly unattainable. When asked what things are very important in achieving a secure, middle-class lifestyle, stable, affordable housing (85%) falls just behind a good job (90%) and in line with saving for retirement (85%) and having health insurance (83%). Yet seven in ten adults (68%) believe it is more challenging to secure such housing today than it was for previous generations — a belief held across all educational, income, regional, and demographic cohorts. Americans are optimistic that the problem of affordable housing is solvable and are solidly behind a variety of policy proposals to address these challenges. They do not believe, however, that the problem is receiving the attention it needs or deserves. Nearly two-thirds of adults (63%) believe actions can be taken to solve problems of housing affordability, and a significant majority (76%) believes it very (60%) or fairly important (16%) for their elected leaders in Washington to do so. The view that affordable housing should be a priority among policymakers is strong across the political spectrum — from most Democrats (88% say it is very/fairly important for leaders to act) to three-fourths of Independents (75%) to a solid majority of Republicans (62%). Homeowners (71%) and renters (86%) also agree. Yet 63% of adults say this issue has not received enough attention from the 2016 presidential candidates, including half of Republicans (49%), two-thirds of Independents (66%), and three-quarters of Democrats (74%). As key indicators of how difficult it is to acquire and maintain stable, affordable housing today, one-third of adults (34%) report that they know someone who has or have themselves been evicted, foreclosed upon, or lost their housing in the past five years. Three in ten adults (31%) spend more than 30% of their monthly household income on their rent or mortgage payment. Again this year, over half of the public (53%) report that they have made sacrifices over the past three years to be able to cover their rent or mortgage. These sacrifices have included taking on an additional job/more hours at work (24%), ceasing to save for retirement (19%), Accumulating credit card debt (170/6), or cutting back on healthy food (13%) or healthcare (11%). While half of college graduates report having had to make such sacrifices, proportions of those who have had to do so are higher for people with high school diplomas or less education (57%), some college (60%), those with incomes under $40,000 (66%) or even $40,000 to $75,000 (58%). African Americans (63%) and Hispanics (72%) are struggling, as are renters (71 %), city dwellers (60%), and those paying more than 30% of their income to cover housing costs (76%). The survey finds that 16% of adults feel only somewhat stable and secure or unstable and insecure in their current housing situation — this represents more than 37 million Americans. Groups experiencing this housing vulnerability at especially high rates include 33% of renters, 42% of distressed renters (those who spend more than 30% of their income on rent), 30% of adults with income less than $40,000, 23% of adults with a high school degree or less education, 34% of African Americans, 24% of Hispanics, and 23% of city dwellers. A wide swath of respondents support a variety of proposed policies that local, state, or the federal government could take to address housing affordability, a reality that underscores the importance the public places on political leaders fixing this lingering, serious problem. Strong majorities favor revising the tax code to help those earning between $40k and $70k to buy homes (total support 81 %); expanding housing support for low-income families with children (80%); letting developers build more units if they include some targeted to families earning less than $50,000 (79%); requiring communities to ensure 20% of housing is affordable to families earning less than $50,000 (74%); ensuring programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit provide income assistance to cover housing costs (74%); expanding rental housing assistance (73%); or giving renters a federal tax break similar to the mortgage interest deduction (70%). The pendulum continues to swing back toward the belief that owning a home is an excellent long-term investment, with 60% of adults believing so, up 10% since 2014. As recently as 2013, a majority of the public (57%) said that buying a home was becoming less appealing. "This year's How Housing Matters survey reveals a surprising reversal of the trend in which Americans have been feeling more optimistic about the housing recovery, and concerns about housing affordability have remained remarkably durable. It is understandable why so many Americans are still skeptical about the housing recovery. Stable, affordable housing equates to feelings of security and having achieved a middle-class lifestyle, yet as Americans continue to make sacrifices to keep their homes. Americans want their elected officials to focus more on the challenge of affordable housing, and they think the issue has not so far received the attention it deserves from the candidates," said Geoffrey Garin, President of Hart Research Associates. r '� -4 CITY OF IOWA CITY 3f � �=oga MEMORANDUM Date: April 1, 2015 To: City Clerk From: Kent Ralston; Acting Senior Transportation Engineering Planner Re: Item for June 21, 2016 City Council meeting; Installation of (2) STOP signs on Kirkwood Avenue at Summit Street. As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3B of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council of the following action: Action: Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A (5); Install (1) STOP sign on Kirkwood Avenue for eastbound motorists at the Summit Street intersection and install (1) STOP sign on Kirkwood Avenue for westbound motorists at the Summit Street intersection. Comment: This action is being taken to establish an all -way stop at this intersection. The all -way stop is necessary to create gaps in traffic to allow bicycles and pedestrians to safely cross Kirkwood Avenue and to provide a safer environment for motorists making southbound turning movements. �h.®� CITY OF IOWA CITY 3f �''�� MEMORANDUM I Date: To: From: Re: June 1, 2016 Geoff Fruin, Interim City Manager Jason Havel, City Engineer Competitive Quotation Results 2016 Drain Tile Competitive quotations for the 2016 Drain Tile Project were opened on May 18, 2016 and the following quotes were received: Petra Excavating G & R Miller Construction Calacci Construction Lynch's Excavating Zinser Grading & Excavating Hatch Grading & Contracting Yordi Excavating Wayland, IA $ 49,985.00 Washington, IA $ 57,610.25 Iowa City, IA $ 59,980.00 West Branch, IA $ 60,031.50 Walford, IA $ 60,979.92 Dysart, IA $ 66,000.00 Cedar Rapids, IA $ 79,185.00 Engineer's Estimate $ 54,455.00 Public Works and Engineering recommended and the City Manager awarded the contract to Petra Excavating of�Iowa City, Iowa. The project will be funded with stormwater revenues. CDBG Curb Ramp Project 2016 Competitive quotations for the CDBG Curb Ramp Project 2016 were opened on May 27, 2016 and the following quotes were received: Calacci Construction Iowa City, IA $ 87,444.00 L.L. Pelling Company North Liberty, IA $ 100,320.80 Feldman Concrete Dysart, IA $ 108,942.00 Engineer's Estimate $ 100,000.00 Public Works and Engineering recommended and the City Manager awarded the contract to Calacci Construction of Iowa City, Iowa. The project will be funded with CDBG funds. .sem Q3 Late Handouts Distribute Marian Karr From: Charlie Eastham <eastham@outlook.com> (o`m�o u4, Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 4:34 PM �� )) To: Marian Karr; Jim Throgmorton; Kingsley Botchway; Rockne C�apFaoline Taylor; John Thomas; Terry Dickens; Susan Mims Subject: Relocation Assistance Grant for Dislocated Rose Oaks Tenants Iowa City Council, Please consider providing relocation assistance for dislocated Rose Oaks tenants as described below. Charlie Eastham, Board Member Center for Worker Justice Proposed Relocation Assistance Grant for Dislocated Rose Oaks Tenants Proposal: The City of Iowa City allocates $50,000 into a Rose Oaks Tenants Relocation Assistance Grant Fund administered by the City. Each person who was the primary leaseholder of an apartment at Rose Oaks at any time between March 1, 2016 - August 1, 2016 is eligible to receive a flat amount of relocation assistance funding, calculated by dividing $50,000 by the number of eligible leaseholders, based on records from Rose Oaks management. In order to apply to receive the relocation assistance funding, eligible leaseholders fill out a 1 -page form with: name, current address, Rose Oaks address during the period of eligibility, signature, and date. Applicants submit the form to city staff and show a photo ID to verify their identity, or mail the completed form with a notarized copy of a photo ID. The name and Rose Oaks address on the application would be checked against records provided by Rose Oaks management. In the event of a dispute about the accuracy of the list of eligible leaseholders, applicants may prove their eligibility by producing a signed lease and a utility bill dated within the eligibility period described above, which contains the applicant's name and the Rose Oaks apartment address in question. Rationale: The impact of this redevelopment has been comparable to a natural disaster for the more than 100 low- income residents of Rose Oaks. The apartment complex stood out as one of Iowa City's few large-scale, low- income housing options. Its location near worksites, public transportation, and schools, combined with relatively low rents, made it a particularly important option. Since March 2016, when residents were notified that leases would not be renewed and the site would undergo large-scale demolition and renovation, tenants have faced high unexpected costs: application fees, moving expenses, replacement of infested furniture, higher rents, storage fees, and transportation costs. Many have reported high levels of stress as they try to find homes before facing eviction, get time off work for apartment searches and moving, apply for assistance, and disrupt their kids' support networks. Some left Rose Oaks in response to the March notice, but are sleeping on family floors and remain homeless. Current assistance for Rose Oaks residents is limited and only available to a subset of tenants. The Rose Oaks $500 "buyout" incentive is only available to tenants whose lease expire after June 1 and who leave before the lease ended and who are not behind on their rent. That criteria excludes all displaced tenants with March, April, and May leases, as well as those who can't find housing before their lease expires, and those whose financial struggles put them behind on rent. Shelter House funding for application fees, deposits, utility and rent payments seems to be awarded in varying amounts for those tenants who meet eligibility requirements, after completing an application. Based on several credible reports from tenants, additional barriers include: limited office hours vs residents' work schedules, language barriers with program literature, skepticism that they will be eligible if they work, stigma associated with applying for a homeless assistance program, immigration status, and confusion about the application process. All Rose Oaks tenants who were part of this mass dislocation faced unexpected financial burdens, and should be eligible for a simple and straightforward assistance grant. While the per -leaseholder payment may be as little as $500, it can help defray the costs of a crisis the tenants did not cause. Charlie Eastham, Board Member Center for Worker Justice Late Handouts Distributed Karr From: Mary <sofaloafer60@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 5:47 PM (Date) To: Council Subject: Proposed sidewalks on Douglass Street and Douglass Court I am a resident on Douglass Court and want to make it known that I am opposed to the addition of sidewalks on my street. I grew up on Douglass Street and when I decided to buy my own home, I came back to this neighborhood. The fact that it is a cul de sac, has many mature trees and is a quiet area with little traffic are reasons that I returned here and a reason that adding sidewalks is unnecessary. The money that would be spent on the sidewalks could be better spent elsewhere. The front yards in this area are small now, adding a sidewalk would decrease the size by at least 10 to 12 feet and cause the removal of over 30 mature trees. Please consider the requests of the residents of this area to not put in any sidewalks. Sincerely, Mary Turecek 412 Douglass Ct Iowa City, la 52246 Sent from my Wad Late Handouts Distributed Marian Karr From: Bart Dvorak <bartdvok@gmaii.com> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 10:07 AM To: Council (Date) Subject: Douglass Street Sidewalk Hello, My name is Bart Dvorak and I am a resident at 314 Douglass Street. I am writing, regarding my concerns with the future development of sidewalk construction. This concerns me on multiple levels. The sidewalks are going to be a disservice to everyone in the neighbor hood and city money could be effectively used elsewhere. The project will effectively violate many aspects of the City's Complete Street Policy. The first and fore most is in the "Vision" The project will effectively reduce the overall environmental stewardship of the neighborhood, make the neighborhood less attractive, and will reduce the quality of life in general. Since roughly half of the residences are rentals and have multiple vehicles, you are effectively pushing a minimum of 1 to 2 additional vehicles to the road. This will have adverse effects on snow removal for the city. The implementation of the sidewalks will also cost the city more then the appropriated 20% of the total project of repairing the water main. You are putting a bike path that literally goes nowhere but to the residence of Douglass Street and Court. You are also directly violating the definitions clause Part B in the Context Sensitive Design Solution. Where you are not only balancing the safety, mobility and transportation needs, while persevering scenic, aesthetic, historical, environmental, neighborhood and community values and characteristics. By removing 31 trees in the neighborhood you are doing the exact opposite. The project also falls directly under the exceptions excerpt as well, since it will have direct and adverse environmental impact to the steet trees, one of which is the home of the protected Bam Owl. httv://www.bamowltrust.ora.uk/bam-owls- law/leeal-protection-wild-barn-owls/ This would be a direct violation of the Legal protection of wild Barn Owls. Since Barn Owl nest sites can be used for a duration of years, This would be considered illegal under the 1981 Protection Act. Bart Dvorak Sales/Marketing 800.223.2886 bartdvokna SnaiLwm Ace Auto Recyclers Late Handouts Distributed Marian Karr From: Paula Swygard <pswygard@gmail.com> �II h Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 8:24 AM Date To: Council Cc: Jim Throgmorton; Kingsley Botchway; Susan Mims; Terry Dickens; John Thomas; Rockne Cole; Pauline Taylor Subject: Douglass St/Douglass Ct sidewalks Dear Mayor and Members of the Iowa City City Council, While the focus of the attached article is to advocate for narrow streets, I am writing to ask that you take a minute to read it as it relates to the proposed sidewalks on Douglass St/Douglass Ct. The current plans, which would require the removal of a large number of trees and will affect our ability to park off street in our driveways, are not context sensitive in this older neighborhood and, to use terms in the article, they are "overengineered" and "overdesigned" for the area. In fact, I believe the sidewalks are unnecessary as we meet criteria for an exception under the Iowa City Complete Streets Policy. httns://www.cnu.org/publicsguare/narrow-streets-do-more-less Thank you for your time, Paula Swygard 3 _� (i 4) Late Handouts Distcibu Marian Karr From: Mal Stroik <kiortsm@gmail.com> IZ O b Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 2:33 PM To: Council Date Subject: sidewalks in Douglass Court/Street neighborhood I'm writing in regards to the proposed sidewalks for the Douglass Court/Street neighborhood. We've met with the city engineers several times and our minds have not been put at ease. Nothing about this project will have any benefit to our neighborhood and will actually have many negative side effects. The following are the biggest issues in my mind: -Safety/Security of home owners. Our lots are wider than they are deep in front of our houses. The proposed sidewalks would be less than 20 feet from my front window. Since our houses have nice, big picture windows and are all 1 story, it will seem like people walking by are in our living rooms. I believe this will become a huge security issue for our homes. People will easily be able to see in and see what we have in our homes. This could result in break-ins. -We were told that 31 trees will have to be removed. Our neighborhood is over 50 years old, therefore our trees are over 50 years old. The removal of 31 trees over 50 years old would be insane. This would result in a lot less shade from the sun and energy bills to skyrocket. Not to mention that we would lose 31 beautiful trees and turn our neighborhood into a concrete jungle. -Another huge factor is that with the addition of a sidewalk, we would no longer be able to park 2 cars in our driveways. Many houses have more than 2 cars, which means that more cars would be parked on the street and we can only park on 1 side of the street. We would probably run out of room in our neighborhood. In the winter, this would mean our streets would never get plowed because of all of the cars parked on the street. -Our neighborhood is a dead end. Unless you live in our neighborhood or are visiting a friend, you don't need to drive through. Part of the reason many of us bought our houses was because it was located in a dead end, it's very quiet with very little traffic. With so little traffic, there is no need for sidewalks. -Let's be real, Iowa City isn't made out of money and these sidewalks would be costly. If your goal is to make the city more "walkable", there are much bigger issues that need to be dealt with sooner rather than later. -We didn't ask for sidewalks. There's never been an issue where we needed sidewalks. No pedestrian has ever been hit in our neighborhood. This is a case of don't fix something that isn't broken. Our neighborhood was created a long time ago and sidewalks would just not work with our lot sizes/shapes, that's just the reality. Why would the city want to impose something on a neighborhood when nobody in the neighborhood wants it? It just doesn't make sense. I hope that you take all of these concerns to heart and vote against the creation of sidewalks in the Douglass Court/Street neighborhood. Thank you, Mallory Stroik 316 Douglass Court Marian Karr From: letsknf@netscape.net Late Handouts Distributed Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 8:16 PM To: Council Subject: Proposed Sidewalks on both sides of Douglass St / Douglass Ct. :?11 j(o (Date) Monday, June 20, 2016 To the City Council of Iowa City As as a resident and homeowner on Douglass street for 24 years, I want to urge the Iowa City Council to cancel or greatly scale back plans to impose a grossly excessive network of sidewalks into our neighborhood—plans that go against the wishes of virtually every single one of our neighbors we have spoken to. Background: Our Neighborhood's Unique Character Since it was established 62 years ago on Douglass St. & Ct. as a low traffic cul-de-sac of about 45 low cost Ranch - Style Homes, The Wise Addition has grown into quiet, attractive and comfortable oasis of Green, shaded with a variety of mature trees, despite the small scale of our tiny front yards, and because of the low level of street traffic, has functioned perfectly well without any sidewalks at all. To go from our current satisfied state to one of total concretization—sidewalks on both sides of each street, cutting 10 feet (about a third) into every single front yard—would be a shocking assault on what makes our neighborhood one of the most pleasing areas of low income housing in the entire city. To destroy 31 neighborhood trees while accomplishing this unwanted project adds the real injury to the insult. One Size does NOT fit all! We understand that this crisis has arisen not from the necessary reconstruction of our water mains (a project to which no one I know objects) but from a heavy-handed and strangely selective application of the new Complete Streets policy (ignoring, for example, appropriate exemptions for low pedestrian and vehicular use). The'done deal' attitude projected by the contracted company and the City Staff at both meetings I've attended (Dec 2015, and informally here on April 28, 2016) has been shocking and discouraging. Connectivity and Walkability are not one -size -fits all concepts. (We applauded new sidewalks added to lust the parking sides of both Hudson and Miller Street in 2013, which were beautiful scaled and accommodated to the existing neighborhood). To go forward on Douglass St & Ct. with so little sensitivity to the special needs and character of our neighborhood would be a needlessly expensive and damaging approach. Note that the water mains are NOT on both sides of the streets, so digging up and destroying land and trees on the opposite sides would be especially egregious. The worst case scenario would be our neighborhood transformed into a technically more walkable area but less green and otherwise less aesthetically desirable as a place to walk around. We are already well -Connected inside our neighborhood! The Wise addition has great Connectivity with the City at large, Thanks to the recently completed Highway 1 bike trail. Both of our streets have immediate access to this walking and biking trail that many other neighborhoods should be so fortunate to have. As an extremely low traffic cul-de-sac, our internal Walkability and connectivity has never been a problem. To throw so much money into fixing something that isn't broken seems like a big mistake. The idea that wheelchair-bound and elderly people might benefit from adding sidewalks to our neighborhood is well- intentioned, but is beside the real points that will confront us if this is pushed through. While addressing hypothetical needs of persons not present, the City's interpretation of the plan would ironically impose great burdens on the actual residents living here, many of us aging and most with low -incomes. Our driveway parking will be legally slashed in half by these sidewalks, and that will further complicate the already difficult task of snow -plowing our streets in the winter. Aging and low income people will be burdened with additional snow removal and repair of sidewalks they don't want or need, and threatened with steep fines for noncompliance. Our TRUE Connectivity Problems are external Money would be much better spent addressing our neighborhood's TRUE Connectivity and Walkability problems: #1) The dangerous, crossing -less intersection of Riverside Dr., And Highway 6 & 1, and immediately to the east, # 2) the disgraceful and crumbling Highway 6 bridge over the Iowa River. This bridge needs 21 s` century SAFE accommodation of pedestrians and bicycles NOW, because we take our lives in our hands every time we cross it to go to the bank or the post office or grocery shopping. I dare two council people to walk across this bridge in either of the terrifyingly inadequate pedestrian 'troughs' from opposite sides at the same side at 5pm or so for the traffic, and then try to pass by each other in the middle when you meet --and then think about some of us doing that every day. Then maybe you'll ask yourselves if it's really a bunch of concrete in our front yards that we need. Also, with our walk shoveling fines on your mind, look at # 3) the decrepit, probably rat -infested Mumms Tap on Benton St. right near the bridge, empty, overgrown and an eyesore for how many years? Why is it that when City official discuss property ownership for us individuals, it seems to be only about our responsibility and our compliance, yet property ownership for developers and Commercial owners seems to be limited to their getting and doing pretty much anything they want? And talk about blocking our Connectivity and Walkability! That business was the reason why we don't have the proper and direct route that we should have already long had for the Iowa River Trail. The present way out of the way detour arrangement results in Connectivity that gets broken every time the water in the river rises. Sorry about the length and detail, but we Douglass people are passionate about not losing our trees (my gorgeous, shady and Autumn -colorful Maple tree among them) and huge swaths of our tiny yards for no good reason, especially when money is short and there are so many better uses near by for the funds and the usefulness. Sincerely, Lindsay Alan Park 401 Douglass St. Iowa City, IA 52246 (319)248-3199 Marian Karr From: MARK FALK <markfalkl3@msn.com> Late Handouts Distributed Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 12:16 AM To: Council Subject: Douglass Ct/St deforestation (o Ill 1b Councillors - (Date) We are writing to request reconsideration of the planned addition of sidewalks in the Douglass Court/Douglass Street neighborhood. We apparently need some water/sewer work, with which we have no issue. However, the planners include adding sidewalks as part of the project; these proposed sidewalks are not needed and are most definitely not wanted by area homeowners. We have several objections to this part of the plan, but the most important objection is that the proposed plan will require the removal of 31 mature and majestic trees from our small neighborhood. The men from the city who came to talk to us said that they would replace our felled trees with new trees, but the loss of the present trees will be devastating to the character and quality of life in our neighborhood. We have other objections as well. Sidewalks will prevent the parking of two vehicles in our driveways, which will force people to park in the street, which will make the streets harder to maintain, particularly in fall and winter. We are both retired, and have bad backs - it will be difficult for us to dig out street -parked plowed -in cars. Addtionally we will be will be required to clear a sidewalk that we didn't want in the first place. All of this is a solution to a non-existent problem. Our street has exceedingly low traffic volume; so low in fact that children can play in the street without danger. Neighbors stroll in these shaded streets; sidewalks are simply not needed. Apparently this is being driven by a city-wide development plan; surely some variance for special circumstances could be found. There certainly are other areas of the city without sidewalks which have much higher traffic volumes than our cul-de-sac. This neighborhood was established back in the 1950s; we haven't had or needed sidewalks in over 60 years and don't need them now. There are plenty of more pressing needs for the $75,000 that the sidewalks will require. Please reconsider turning our pleasant tree -lined neighborhood into a "development". Sincerely, Mark Falk & Jane Olson 435 Douglass Court 3 �_ (t 4 Late Handouts Distributed Marian Karr From: Bowman, Stacey <Stacey. Bowman@huschblackwell.com > Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 12:42 PM To: Council; Ron Knoche; Doug Boothroy; Scott Sovers Subject: Sidewalk Plan: Douglass Court and Douglass Street (Date) Dear City Council: I write regarding the sidewalk plan impacting the streets of Douglass Court and Douglass Street. I own the property at 304 Douglass Court, currently as an investment property, but I lived in the house from 2003-2008. I believe our neighborhood should be exempted from the plan, under the 7th through 9th Exceptions in the City's Complete Streets Policy, because the proposed plan is, in my view, excessively disproportionate to the need and/or probable use of the proposed sidewalks, and unsupported by evidence our neighborhood has enough pedestrian traffic and ADT to warrant the extreme measure of double sidewalks. Our Complete Streets policy is based on (and contains the same) exceptions from federal guidelines, in which are three important and common exceptions — and two of these 3 I believe apply to our neighborhood: 1) accommodation is not necessary on corridors where non -motorized use is prohibited, such as interstate freeways; 2) cost of accommodation is excessively disoronortionate to the need or probable use; 3) a documented absence of current or future need. My view is based on the following observations which I do not believe have been either investigated or controverted with evidence or documentation from the City: 1. The City's 7th Exception means that municipalities should balance the probable use/need of sidewalks with the cost. We were told the sidewalks alone will cost 75K versus an entire project cost of 500K. Does the 500K include the "life of the project'— at a minimum 20 years, as indicated in the policy? Assuming the 500K project cost is the initial project cost only, the City is already spending 15% of project costs on the sidewalks — not far from the 20% mark. I have concerns that taking into account the life of the project, the City is undertaking a project that violates the "excessively disproportionate" federal standard because it will end up exceeding the 20% threshold. 2. Has the City actually studied and documented the probable use of the proposed sidewalks? You have heard from multiple residents telling the City we have low traffic in this neighborhood — both vehicular AND pedestrian. Does the City have any statistical evidence to the contrary? In other words, what truly is the basis for implementing this policy here, or is the City just implementing the policy for the sake of the policy? 3. Has a traffic study been performed? The 9's exception applies when the ADT is less than 1,000 per day. By my rough calculation, with 50 homes in the neighborhood, there would have to be 2 drivers from every residence making 5 round trips in and out of the neighborhood each and every day in order to meet the 1,000 ADT. Based on empirical observation and testimony from my neighbors, I would expect if the City undertook a statistical study it would reveal our traffic does not exceed 1,000 ADT. That is a clear-cut basis for an exception to the Complete Streets policy. 4. No one disputes the underlying goals of the complete streets policy may be beneficial, but the City has not adequately addressed our concerns indicating that its implementation is NOT warranted in this unique neighborhood. The loss of so many old trees (31 trees for only 50 homes) will adversely affect the character of our neighborhood, probably increase our cooling costs in summer, residents will no longer be able to park two cars end-to-end in their driveways, making the streets cluttered with residents' cars. Moreover, taxpayers' money could be better spent elsewhere. 5. In the alternative, the design plan should be altered to be more context sensitive, such as reducing the sidewalk width, placing sidewalks on only one side of the street, putting them closer to the curb, and/or curving parts of the sidewalk to protect more trees. I live at 5200 W. 87th Street, Prairie Village, Kansas — which you should feel free to Google to reveal — I live on a fairly busy "through" street, especially compared to the cul-de- sac design of the Douglass neighborhood. Even on my busy street, we have sidewalks on only one side of the street and to my knowledge no one has ever complained that we need them on both sides of the street. I measured and they are 4 feet from the street curb — and our front yards are much larger than those in the Douglass neighborhood. The front and side (south- and east -facing) of my Douglas property in particular is very shallow. Placing a 4 foot sidewalk 6 feet from the curb will allow anyone to walk within a few feet of my master bedroom and front living room windows, violating the privacy and quiet enjoyment of my renters and no doubt causing them to feel exposed and unsafe. Thank you for considering my views and please contact me with any questions. Stacey Meyer Bowman Owner, 304 Douglass Court Stacey Bowman Attorney HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 4801 Main Street, Suite 1000 Kansas City, MO 64112-2551 Direct: 816.983.8397 Fax: 816.983.8080 Stacey.Bowman@huschblackwell.com huschblackwell.com View Bio I View VCard Named a top healthcare law firm by American Health Lawyers Association and Modern Healthcare in 2015. :34(147 � Marian Karr Late Handouts Distributed From: Marian Karr Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 1:58 PM To: 'stephen-mcgowan@uiowa.edu' Cc: John Yapp Subject: Lusk Ave Attachments: memo on 101 lusk.pdf Tracking: Recipient 'stephen- cgowan@uiowa.edu' John Yapp I.61 L> (Date) Read Read: 6/20/2016 1:59 PM Mr. McGowan, The City Council has received your email regarding the proposed house at 101 Lusk Avenue and I am attaching a staff memo for your information. Please contact Development Services Coordinator John Yapp with further questions. Marian .Atau an.9[ Maxx, A" City Clerk I City of Iowa City P. 319-356-5041 F.319-356-5497 Population 67,862 Proud Home of the Iowa Hawkeyes! From: McGowan, Stephen [mailto:stephen-mcgowan@uiowa.edu] Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 7:34 AM To: Council Subject: Development of property on Lusk Ave. June 14, 2016 Honorable members of the Iowa City Council and Planning Board I am shocked to say the least to learn of the plan to develop property on Lusk Ave. as a site for a guest and party facility to accommodate sporting fans. I realize that we have been fortunate to be partially protected from the annoyance that accompanies university football games. However I am aghast that this proposal is so contrary to the composition of the neighborhood and seems to disregard the current zoning ordinances. I have enjoyed the peaceful access to a walking path where one regularly views birds and deer. The drainage from Lusk Ave can be considerable during a heavy rain. Filling the depression between the current end of the street and the path beneath the power line could have significant environmental implications, as new drainage culverts will be required. A 7400 sq. ft. structure is gargantuan compared to the surrounding homes and would seem to violate the family oriented composition of the neighborhood. Please carefully consider the implications of this proposal and the genuine concerns of the families in this neighborhood. Stephen McGowan 724 Bayard St Iowa City, IA 354-0311 Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all copies of the original message and attachments thereto. Email sent to or from UI Health Care may be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank you. r `.® CITY OF IOWA CITY � l MEMORANDUM Date: June 17, 2016 To: Geoff Fruin, Interim City Manager From: John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator7/ 77— Re: 101 Lusk Ave —proposed house Introduction: Staff has been receiving questions regarding a proposed house at 101 Lusk Ave, due to the house being designed to reflect Kinnick Stadium. 101 Lusk Ave is a vacant residential lot (an unoccupied house was recently demolished) in an RS -5 (Single Family) residential zone. The lot is an existing single-family lot — no subdivision or rezoning is proposed. The property is not in a historic or conservation district, and staff has no authority to constrain the design of the structure other than existing building and zoning codes. Discussion: When staff received building plans for the house, we questioned the use of the house due to its design. The owner sent an email stating they intend to use the structure as a second home in order to spend time with their son and grandchildren in Iowa City, and potentially as a permanent home in the future. Staff also prepared an affidavit of use (attached), which the owner willingly signed. The affidavit states that the use of the property is a single family dwelling, and the use must be maintained as such; the sale of alcohol and/or charging a fee for admission to the property is prohibited; renting the property for commercial tailgating or other group gatherings is prohibited; and the maximum occupancy of the house is a single household (or three unrelated people) that occupy the dwelling as a single housekeeping unit. The parameters in the affidavit mimic existing City Code — staff solicited the affidavit and recorded it with the property in anticipation of subsequent owners so they are fully aware of the rules and regulations associated with a dwelling in a single family zone. Staff has also received questions regarding the extension of Lusk Ave. With the initial set of plans for the house, a driveway was shown on the south side of the property which would have required the extension of Lusk Ave. The designer has let us know they are revising their plans to place the driveway on the north side of the house, consistent with the existing driveway to the old house, to connect to Lusk Ave. No extension of Lusk Ave is being contemplated. Enforcement: Many of the questions and concerns we have received are related to enforcement of parking regulations, lights, and noise. We would treat this property consistent with other residential properties in the City. On -street parking is permitted unless it is signed as 'No Parking.' if residents wish to petition to have a street designated as 'No Parking,' our practice has been to survey the neighborhood and if a majority of affected households wish to limit parking on their street we would place the action item on the City Council consent calendar for approval — staff may initiate establishment of 'No Parking' if there is a significant and documented safety concern. Regarding lighting, City Code limits the height of private lights in a residential zone to 15 -feet in height; bulbs greater than 2,000 lumens must be fully shielded; and any floodlights used to illuminate private outdoor recreational facilities (such as swimming pools, tennis courts, etc.) must be turned off by 10:00 PM (City Code Section 14-5G-3). Lighting concerns are enforced on a complaint basis. Regarding noise and disturbance, the June 17, 2016 Page 2 City has adopted a disorderly house ordinance that restricts "loud, raucous, disagreeable noises to the disturbance of the neighborhood" (City Code Section 8-5-5); this ordinance also allows Police to restore order on the subject property, including the authority to order the dispersal of persons on the property. 'Disorderly house' is a criminal offense with a penalty between $65.00 to $625.00 as determined by the Magistrate and is also a civil offense subject to a $750 municipal infraction for the first offense, and up to $1,000 for the second and subsequent offenses. Status of Building Permit: The building plans have been reviewed and approved. Pending resolution of the driveway location and submittal of a plan that shows the driveway connecting to the existing segment of Lusk Ave, the building permit will be issued. It should be reiterated that issuance of a building permit for a single family house on an existing single family property does not require any rezoning or subdivision action. Staff has no authority to control the design of a single family house in an area that is not a historic or conservation district, other than for code compliance. Conclusion: With the affidavit of use in hand and recorded with the property, staff is treating the proposed house as a single family structure, and Building Inspections staff will conduct inspections to ensure the structure meets building code. Any concerns or complaints about the use of the property will be treated consistent with how we treat complaints related to other residential properties in the City — including investigation of nuisance and criminal complaints, and citations if warranted. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Elevations of proposed 101 Lusk Ave house 3. 101 Lusk Ave affidavit of use Cc: Doug Boothroy, Director, NDS Sara Hektoen, Assistant City Attorney Bob Miklo, Senior Planner Sarah Walz, Associate Planner N City of Iowa City w E ' s 101 Lusk Avenue a a.005 0.01 0.02 M [.., Prepared By: Marti Wolf Date Prepared: June 1.016 Ark t= i Yj ■ � ,""iiiii ■ .i s.i ■ ■ 'y _.�■■■■■■■■■■.l■■■■■■■■ pI�M41Woa ! I(E;I Ae uee sv New home ror 133§i9i Rd lg�lf§ill 6F I _ v� -ra t(!R )318) 331-0631 Reed and Sandy Carlson BTIy1, 3 E � , 1 x: 1011 11 I pI�M41Woa ! I(E;I Ae uee sv New home ror 133§i9i Rd lg�lf§ill 6F I _ v� -ra t(!R )318) 331-0631 Reed and Sandy Carlson BTIy1, 3 E � , 1 01 Type: GEN at 10.98:80 AM 1 o 1 OK5505 pa389 gal Reed Watt! Idem to Jam Rema, Coda FafuoCMmcSpeM" Clyaf M Q%410 Waeldeglm Stmt, Iowa ft IM 522403193Sa.5120 AFFIDAVIT OF USE The undersigned is owner ofthe followk&dosmibed pmpmty located in Iowa City, Johnson Conray, Iowa, to -Wit: ManvilleAddition Lot 1, Block 14 The stueot address of the property is I01 Lock Avenue In consideaation ofthe QtYs forbearance in the calbrcement of ib Code of O dioz c 1. The u dasipodherebyacknowledges0mcmreutammgoftheptopftyasR" 2. The undersigned agrees that in accordance with the provisions of the lOft City Zonhtg Ordiauce in effect on WB data, the use of this property is a single family dwelling and that the single family use mast be mointalnad as Burch, Commercial uses which Include the sale of alcohol of admisdon to the property are not permitted. Tailgating on the property must conform to degnitionof Ming found In the Iowa City Zoning Code -14.9A —1 rAILGATTNG: A home football game *,informal social gathering that Is noncommercial and may Include eating and drinking beverages (alcoholie or nonatsohollc) as part of the activities. Temporary parking on unimproved surfaces located on private property Is allowed daft tailgate events. No alcohol is solo at a ta[Igwtce nor Is any admission fee charged, goods sold or given away, nor services provided for a fee" Boding the property for commercial ttllgattng or other terga group girt whW to prohibited 3. The undersigned og= dud the maudmuml occupancy for the sioglc family dweift hn this zone is a household (fames) plus one (1) unrelated person or a maffiuum of three (3) outdated people. A household occupies a single family dwelling as a single housekeeping u nIL 4. The undersigned agrees that the property, if not owner ocrnpI0d, can only be let or rooted after obta®g a valid rental permit from the City oflowa City and can Only be rented on a month to month or longer bats. S. Tho undersigned ogeoea that, if the property is owuer-oecapted and owner owns a Bed & Breakfast rental permit, that no more than 3 bedrooms can be provided to guests who slay for peAods not to exceed 14 days. 6. This affidavit most be recorded with the Johnson Cowly Reoo der, and a copy of the recorded document mals m with to City oflowa City Department ofHousiog and Inspection Services. This declarstion sball be binding upon and shall lame to the benefit of the heirs,14911. rop>esenmtivr s, successors and assigns ofthe undersigned, and sball be binding on and shell run with to title to thopropeny. STATE OF IOWA JOiIMNCOUNrY On thdh. 12 day of 17a 2016 befom tae; the undersigned, allotmy Public in and for said County, In Said Stste, CIM8lb'sPpamd re d iv t. � So lie rb r 1 a a r to me known to be the ideatkal person lamed in and who exear4d the wAWn and fine8ainginsWmern,and acknowledged that they rte s astir' wh i mddwd. ,,,+�, JAMRS LILLIBRIJG= ,Y gl� comadsebn Number 165485 0 ]ic in and for ilk a Myo2 Expires M C0�,910n 27 ../; y Marian Karr From: Bill Ackerman <ba iowacity@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 3:53 PM To: Council Subject: MANVILLE HEIGHTS HOUSE (?) ISSUE Late Handouts Distributed Z' -:� /— /L (Date) I am planning on attending the council meeting this evening and expressing my views on the proposed Kinnick style house at 101 Lusk Avenue which in my (and others opinions) is designed to be nothing more than a party house in the future and not a quiet residential home at the end of a dead end street that is occupied by an older couple sitting around watching Gunsmoke. Traffic issues are already congested in this area. Parking is already tight, and will get worse. With the possible addition of a duplex and likely two more homes on Lusk Avenue in the future, it is going to be just crowded and worse than congested. The city must take a look at any more development in this area and must also take a view of this Kinnick Stadium House as a neighborhood nuisance as well eyesore and future tourist trap. Bill Ackerman County Rezoning Item CZ16-00001 Discussion of an application submitted by Pleasant Valley LP for a rezoning from County Residential (R) to County Commercial (C) for approximately 5.51 acres of property located in Johnson County at 4394 Sand Road SE in Fringe Area B. 0.11 Miles City of Iowa City CZ16-00001 Pleasant Valley Prepared By: Marti Wolf Date Prepared: May 2016 J 14 a I, �I .f ■ a ■ FLL REZONING EXHIBIT A PORTION OF THE SOUR 1I OF THE SW I OF THE SW 3 OF SECTION 2ILT7WN RVN-FM P.M JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA RAT PREPMLD9Y'. LWINFA/MRIGWL MAt9 CON911LTAM EI PHABANT VALLEY I➢ tatT&.GM6rnE-t7 tsm AC�Lm[�81L�� NYHACffY, 72i0 IOWA CRY, IA6N3f0 i 11 97 1F I 1E I 16 17 1Y 11 111 f 1t m 77 I I- Nf 84 [FIAT LOOK ® AT PAGE 5 S a ffi 74 _ _LLOYD AVENUE S_F— - - - — - - - Ip MONMAP-NOTTONfJ1LE I— _1 — I 7 SOUTH ONE-HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER Off THS SOFT OIM IM OF VAILY U SEMOH 26-70WMSHEP TS NORTH - RANGE I WEST OF THE STMT P.M. I 110 I I �I I AFww vLUEr v jI I � Kxv Liz I vt&wnvuty ,v I II PUNT I I _ +mxmf a avxe urrtaE 6�' DEAPIPTDry - PVN. llFCEL " N'C' 101-1 11 rj bl ID s; I ILIwU ,m¢ usmi ,xJo i awn .x�w.: .+u. x.s I U"^CSYENf4T M M OVLENGNE2AS UNOPLMNEM IANOSLNVEYIRS LWJEGWENR111EM SMIII.IKKALSPECPJIM unaUl®rta. ,wucm w.w®n r�aea, ... w4xYxN REZONING EXHIBIT A PORTION OF THE SOUTH.'OFTHE SWJOFTHESW' OFSECTION 25•779NASW LTi P.M JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. °°`- OS1P-2G18 EVY ,mtQ Ax �L� 4157 -COS m .. dv; u m'Ma REZQNINf PANLEL RTO'C ,a m� ',nry axrw xvx uae[u DEAPIPTDry - PVN. llFCEL " N'C' 101-1 11 rj bl ID s; I ILIwU ,m¢ usmi ,xJo i awn .x�w.: .+u. x.s I U"^CSYENf4T M M OVLENGNE2AS UNOPLMNEM IANOSLNVEYIRS LWJEGWENR111EM SMIII.IKKALSPECPJIM unaUl®rta. ,wucm w.w®n r�aea, ... w4xYxN REZONING EXHIBIT A PORTION OF THE SOUTH.'OFTHE SWJOFTHESW' OFSECTION 25•779NASW LTi P.M JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. °°`- OS1P-2G18 EVY ,mtQ Ax �L� 4157 -COS t,, ', ��'� 3 � fi \ � , i•" � ; � Xl ��r / \.. h ��:�A d�`�ty� � �� 'ir! 1 ��yY \ � f ,t 5 � ". �V' _ _ � � .. n..... i--. �. _�'l' �,n,1.� Summary • Staff had recommended the requested rezoning from residential to commercial be approved only if it is found to be consistent with the County land use plan, and conditions are placed on the rezoning to assure that potential commercial uses do not have negative effects on the residential and agricultural uses. • As an alternative, staff suggested the County consider Agri - Business (C -AG) zoning —the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended rezoning the property to C -AG by a vote of 7-0 • Since P&Z's review, the City received a letter from the County Planning Director regarding the limitations of the C -AG Zone — the County Planning Director is recommending Commercial Zoning with a Conditional Zoning Agreement Summary The draft letter prepared by staff: • Summarizes the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation • Refers to the County Planning Director's letter regarding the limitations of the C -AG Zone • Recommends to Johnson County that the commercial zoning be approved only if it is found to be consistent with the County land use plan and conditions are placed on the rezoning to assure that potential commercial uses do not have negative effects of adjacent residential and agricultural uses Note: The rezoning decision rests with County BOS CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: June 16, 2016 To: Geoff Fruin, Interim City Manager From: Bob MikloC Senior Planner Re: CZ16-00001 Pleasant Valley Rezoning 4394 Sand Road SE Pleasant Valley has applied to the County for a rezoning to from Residential to Commercial to allow it to relocate its retail store to the property located west of the Pleasant Valley golf course. This property is located outside of the City's growth area within Fringe Area B, as identified in the Fringe Area Agreement entered into between the City and the County. Pursuant to that Agreement, the City has the right to make a recommendation to the County regarding this application. At its June 2 meeting, by a vote of 7-0, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the County consider rezoning this property to Agri -Business (C -AG) zone rather than Commercial (C) requested by the applicant, Pleasant Valley LP. In the memo to P&Z, attached hereto, Staff indicated that the Johnson County Land Use Plan designated this area as appropriate for residential or agricultural uses. Indeed, the Fringe Area Agreement states that "this area shall be restricted to those uses consistent with a Rural/Agricultural area as indicated in the Johnson County Land Use Plan, and as designated for Rural/Agricultural area in Chapter 8:1.6 Class A District of the Johnson County Unified Development Ordinances, as amended." Staff therefore recommended to P&Z that the requested Commercial rezoning be approved only if it is found to be consistent with the County Land Use Plan and conditions are placed on the rezoning to assure that potential commercial uses do not have negative effects on adjacent residential and agricultural uses. Staff stated to P&Z that the proposed Commercial zone would appear to be inconsistent with that information and proposed as an alternative to Commercial (C) zoning that the County consider rezoning the property to Agri -Business (C -AG) zone with a conditional use permit to allow the retail sales associated with greenhouses and nursery. This is the recommendation adopted by P&Z and made to Council. Since the Planning and Zoning Commission's review, the City has received the attached letter from Josh Busard, Director of Johnson County Planning, Development and Sustainability, regarding the limitations of the Agri -Business (C -AG) zone; the letter includes reference to a Conditional Zoning Agreement to ensure a lower -intensity neighborhood commercial type development. The letter also outlines County Staffs rationale for recommending approval of Commercial (C) rather than Agri -Business (C -AG) for this property. Based on this additional information, Staff finds it reasonable for the Council to recommend approval of the rezoning only upon the County's determination that such a use is consistent with the Fringe Area Agreement use limitations and the County Land Use Plan, and conditions are placed on the rezoning to assure that potential commercial uses do not have negative effects on the adjacent residential and agricultural uses. The enclosed letter to the County P&Z Commission reflects this recommendation. Recommendations to Johnson County on a rezoning are required due to the Fringe Area Agreement between Iowa City and the County. The final decision on the rezoning request lies with the Johnson County Board of Supervisors, although the Fringe Area Agreement states that if the city and the county are in conflict over a proposed rezoning, a review committee shall be 5c June 16, 2016 Page 2 established to negotiate a resolution prior to the final decision by the County. Should the Council decide to accept P&Z's recommendation, it may be necessary to form such a review committee, as it appears that it will conflict with the County staff recommendation. Attachments: 1. Draft letter 2. May 20 Staff memorandum 3. Applicant's letter from Glen Meisner 4. Letter from Josh Busard 5. June 2 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes June 16, 2016 Johnson County Planning and Zoning Commission 913 S. Dubuque Street Iowa City, IA 52240 RE: Rezoning 4394 Sand Road SE Item CZ16-00001 Dear Members of the Commission: "m CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (319)356-5009 FAX www.Icgov.org The Iowa City City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission have reviewed the request submitted by Pleasant Valley LP to Johnson County to rezone 5.51 acres of property at 4394 Sand Road SE in Fringe Area B from County Residential (R) to County Commercial (C). The Fringe Area Agreement provides for City review of County zoning cases for property within two miles of Iowa City. The subject property is located in Fringe Area B, but is outside of Iowa City's growth area. For property located in the fringe area B outside of the City's growth area, the Fringe Area Agreement states that any rezoning will be considered on the basis of conformity with the Johnson County Land Use Plan which identifies this area as being for uses consistent with a rural/agricultural area. Although this property is not within the current growth area of the city, it is on the edge of the growth area. As Iowa City's South District develops this area may have an impact on neighborhoods that are planned for possible annexation into the city. City Staff recommended that the requested rezoning from Residential to Commercial be approved only if it is found to be consistent with the County Land Use Plan and conditions are placed on the rezoning to assure that potential commercial uses do not have negative effects on the adjacent residential and agricultural uses. As an alternative to Commercial zoning staff recommended that the County considers rezoning the property to Agri -Business (C -AG) zone with a conditional use permit to allow the retail sales associated with greenhouses and nursery. Because of concerns about the intensity of some to the uses allowed in the Commercial (C) zone, the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the County consider rezoning the property to Agri -Business (C -AG) instead of Commercial (C). Since our Planning and Zoning Commission's review, the City has received correspondence from Josh Busard, Director of Planning, Development and Sustainability, regarding the limitations of the Agri -Business (C -AG) zone; the letter includes reference to a Conditional Zoning Agreement to ensure lower -intensity neighborhood commercial type development. Based on this additional information the Council recommends that the requested rezoning from Residential to Commercial be approved only if it is found to be consistent with the County Land Use Plan and conditions are placed on the rezoning to assure that potential commercial uses do not have negative effects on the adjacent residential and agricultural uses. Thank you for your consideration of our comments on this application. Sincerely, James Throgmorton Mayor City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: May 20, 2016 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Marti Wolf, Planning Intern RE: Item CZ16-00001 Pleasant Valley Rezoning 4394 Sand Road SE BACKGROUND INFORMATION The applicant, Pleasant Valley LP, is requesting a rezoning from County Residential (R) to County Commercial (C) for approximately 5.51 acres of property located in Johnson County at 4394 Sand Road SE in Fringe Area B. Because the property is within Iowa City's two- mile Fringe Area, the Fringe Area Agreement specifies that the City will make a recommendation to the County Planning and Zoning Commission before the County Commission considers the application. City approval will be required if the property is subdivided. If this rezoning is approved Pleasant Valley intends to relocate their existing business from the site at 1301 South Gilbert Street. The new facility is proposed to contain a two-story main building, two 2,000 square foot hoop houses, and three 1,500 square foot green houses. The new facility would have access from the existing driveway to the Pleasant Valley Golf Course at 4390 Sand Road SE. The public well for the golf course would provide water to the property and the existing septic system would be enlarged to service the new facility. Although this property is not within the current growth area of the city, it is on the edge of the growth area. As Iowa City's South District develops this area may have an impact on neighborhoods that are planned for possible annexation into the city. ANALYSIS Existing Land Use and Zoning The subject property is zoned County Residential (R) for residential uses, but is currently vacant. Properties to the north are zoned County Residential (R) and are developed as a thirty -six -lot residential subdivision. Pleasant Valley Golf Course and its club house are also zoned County Residential with a Conditional Use Permit. Property to the south is zoned County Agricultural (A) and is used for row crops. The property to the west of Sand Road are zoned Agricultural Residential (AR) and is also used for row crops. Proposed Zoning In addition to the proposed green houses and retail florist, the County Commercial (C) regulations allow a wide variety of commercial uses including: repair shops, outdoor storage of boats and recreational vehicle, taverns, nightclubs, mini storage warehousing and other uses May 27, 2016 Page 2 that may not be compatible with nearby residential properties. Although the proposed use may be compatible with the existing neighborhood, consideration should be given to what may happen in the future if the greenhouse and nursery business vacates the property. If the rezoning is approved by the County, it would be appropriate that conditions be placed on the property through a Conditional Zoning Agreement to help assure that future commercial uses do not have negative effects on the residential and agricultural uses in the area. As an alternative to the Commercial (C) zone, the County Agri -Business (C -AG) Zone may be an appropriate zone in this location. The (C -AG) zone allows nurseries and greenhouses as permitted uses, with retail use requiring a conditional use permit. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan The Fringe Area Agreement, an element of the Comprehensive Plan, is intended to provide guidance regarding the development of land located within two miles of Iowa City's corporate limits. The agreement's stated purpose is to provide for orderly and efficient development patterns appropriate to a non -urbanized area, protect and preserve the fringe area's natural resources and environmentally sensitive features, direct development to areas with physical characteristics which can accommodate development, and effectively and economically provide services for future growth and development. For property located in the fringe area B outside of the City's growth area, the Fringe Area Agreement states that any rezoning will be considered on the basis of conformity with the Johnson County Land Use Plan. The Johnson County Land Use Plan designates this area as appropriate for residential or agricultural use. The proposed Commercial zone would appear to be inconsistent with this designation. The County Agri -Business Zone would be more consistent with the plan and the existing uses in the surrounding area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the requested rezoning from Residential to Commercial be approved only if it is found to be consistent with the County Land Use Plan and conditions are placed on the rezoning to assure that potential commercial uses do not have negative effects on the residential and agricultural uses. As an alternative to Commercial zoning staff would recommend that the County consider rezoning the property to Agri -Business (C -AG) Zone with a conditional use permit to allow the retail sales associated with greenhouses and nursery. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map 2. Aerial photograph 3. Applicant's letter Approved by: 7 John Yapp, Development Services Coordinator, Department of Neighborhood and Development Services REZONING EXHIBIT A PORTON OF THE SOUTH } OF THE SW } OF THE SW } OF SECTION 2&T79N-R6W-STH P.M JOHNSON COUNTY. IOWA PLAT PREPARED BY: OWNEW"PLICANT: MMS CONSULTANTS INC. PLEASANT VALLEY LP 1917 S. GILBERT STREET 1301 S. GILBERT STREET IOWA CITY. IA 52240 IOWA CITY. N 51240 1 16 I 17 I 16 I 15 I 14 I 13 I 12 I 99 —4 —{--- i— I I PdEASAaY MEAD® s SUB®odoM®N PLA7 IBOOC3 QT PG^QOE s 25 26 I ffi n24 99 -----1---1---J------- I Ldmgm aVERE mE 35 - - 34 33 32 1-31 29 I I I SCLTH CKE-HALF guff THE Smr,T;EVEK I MA7ER CF PNE $mUVh9MT aIDARTEP IEC" CH 26-70 HSHIP 79 KOKYH - PMSE C G9E�7 OF 7HE 57F: P.M. � ® I CAD � I Rl/MS' YXILY V I � I I 1 _ I Nrr RNvw.� rAmr I I = I i I etrAwrzr vAln v § I I I I xaYw+ l I ' IdNor W,f, ,GIQ i.RCS tCxW T-T]NfYFSM rY w]O°Pt ei A,, m LEGEND - REz FMfEt'R• ro •C oCSA.. >HE �ranax rc swrH axEpX mvN°i rXE swrxcsr wN+rzR a nR: serve w.VRFA a ssxlF n xMn1, RAXQ' a XEsr, a rIE fli]X GPWNK .'All AN, M CEm3BF0 AS fg10K lam! Comm�aN .1 N. sOIN.r1 CIT. .1 S.a lm 39, I—AN,]p HVM. R n.v XmY'bY. y RmtUNAbuN«.InINW wnc.1 epq Sntmnce al 3ss.0 M°, Iltne. o— rut XOIiB'M'W, 35.w MI. 1. Vn .1 6 9EONNING:I xt IYuip XMt/O.'N, umc tM IB 1-1 A T.A6 Iw NAI..5l0 ui]StA RAYL .is Xis+:lri'xtlmp t po. 5x1311 p'E 11M1.« �.W«� M VAIGYV M. SS]nl'°3'E. S36�u a 35.W Iwl NAnw mvx. 5] ]S u..t ]p o ump a SwNw,41 REZONING PARCEL'R' TO -C• NAI 4 bX reYn o.w ammo SwNo1.rIA Mm I61A3 ,m1 tivC l39. Sb'Jr 14.tu 50110'bY. W I] N.l INe Sb .. 1 .1 Mt b MI al Bsi.+q. SW Rw+V esu e.tw. 551 MS mp N ueM a drib AArN, ANA . , and rrYNlu. aI ne.. LEGEND AND NOTES _aNlamba a.m'°"s� serve -wmw [Hslr'w o-sutrt wtw � n.v � o— rut XSi I umc _ AA,pN llb .is uxsXpr veer v I t = s.. r o:MAA mvx. REZONING PARCEL'R' TO -C• zw.o.. s vl Ac LEGEND AND NOTES _aNlamba a.m'°"s� -wmw [Hslr'w ° rmIT 1 y — _ ________ II w,1x —7m« X. ao _Y_________. _ AA,pN llb t = I�EEGWNING 3A .w¢ uem5 .,n¢ 4rm5 ro.lp i I NxNNA).�tb Rr : INrO O WAN9GLFNfFFr I�IW M M GVL 6VGIVEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS IANDSCAPEARWECTS ENVIRONMENTALSPECIWSTS IBII S.OLRERTSr. pWACl1Y.NW1I, 53b0 Ilt8J 951d3Sz mmwmawunu ml REZONING EXHIBIT A PORTON OF THE SOUTH }OF THE SW}OF THE SW} OF SECTION 26-T79N-R6W5TH P.M JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. 05-12-2016 NA ue.q av a x. .vW M pW]ttlrY 4137-009 >, , V) c ti 9 t� 9 '60 W 6 I� MMS Consultants, Inc. Experts in Planning and Development5lnce 1975 May 12, 2016 Mr. Josh Busard Johnson County Planning Development & Sustainability Dept. 913 S Dubuque St, Suite 204 Iowa City, IA 52240 1917 S. Gilbert Street Iowa City. Iowa 52240 319351.8282 mmsconsultantsnet mms@mmsconsultants.net RE: Letter of Intent for the Rezoning Application for Pleasant Valley, Johnson County, Iowa Dear Josh: Pleasant Valley intends to relocate a portion of their existing business to this site from 1301 S. Gilbert Street in Iowa City, Iowa. The new facility will contain the main two story building, two hoop ]louses being 2000 S.F. and 3000 S.F. and three 1500 S.F. green houses. The new facility will access the existing driveway to the existing Pleasant Valley Golf Course at 4390 Sand Road SE. The existing driveway will be located within a private roadway easement which will connect to Sand Road SE. The public well for the golf coarse will provide water and the existing septic system will be enlarged to service the new facility. This rezoning application will be submitted to the City of Iowa City for their review. Upon a successful rezoning application, a subdivision and a site plan will be submitted to Johnson County and Iowa City for approval Please contact tele if you have any questions or comments. Respectfully submitted, L.3. iry\-� Glen D. Meisner, P.E. & P.L.S. T:\4137\4137-009-\4137009L1.docx Johnson County PDS 913 S. Dubuque Street Iowa City, IA 52240 June 30, 2016 PLANNING, JOSH BUSARD DEVELOPMENT AND AICP,DIRECTOR D-AP FM DI SUSTAINABILITY Iowa City Neighborhood and Development Services c/o Bob Miklo 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Bob, Thank you for visiting last week regarding County Rezoning application #26512 for Pleasant Valley LP. I wish to provide some input about your P&Z Commission's recommendation for the application. Pleasant Valley LP owns both the Pleasant Valley Golf Course located on Sand Road in rural Johnson County and the Pleasant Valley Flower Shop located at the intersection of Hwy #6 and Gilbert Street in Iowa City. According to the applicant (Aleda Kroeze — of Pleasant Valley LP), an agreement has been reached that requires the flower shop to relocate due to a re- development project. Aleda wishes to relocate the flower shop to a five -acre tract of land connected to the golf course in unincorporated Johnson County The City P&Z Commission voted to recommend that instead of rezoning the property from R - Residential to C -Commercial, the County consider rezoning the property to the C -Ag —Agri - Business district with a conditional use permit to allow retail sales associated with greenhouses and nurseries. First, the Johnson County Unified Development Ordinance does not allow conditionally permitted retail businesses in the Agri -Business zoning district. More importantly, I would not recommend rezoning to the Agri -Business district as the purpose of the district is to locate intense agriculturally related business, such as fertilizer chemical storage, livestock stations, and well -drilling businesses, near farmers and away from incompatible residential uses. As you know, the property that Pleasant Valley LP wishes to rezone is currently zoned R - Residential with housing developments, both existing and planned relatively nearby. The property is currently an operating golf course. City staff also expressed concern that the proposed rezoning does not comply with the 2008 Johnson County Land Use Plan and that for the City Council to support the proposed rezoning, the Land Use Plan should be amended. A plan amendment is not necessary. Although the Johnson County Land Use Plan Map does not recognize the property to be in an identified commercial or economic development area, the 2008 Land Use Plan does support this proposed 913 SouTH DUBUQUE STREET, SUITE 204, IOWA CITY, IA 52240-4273 PHONE: (319) 356-6083 FAx:(319)356-6084 www.johnson-county.com rezoning. The 2008 Land Use Plan specifically discusses that commercial and industrial development should be encouraged where 1) disturbance to productive agricultural land and sensitive areas is minimal; 2) infrastructure is available to handle environmental, wastewater, and transportation needs; and 3) there is opportunity to work with other local governments to promote economic development opportunities within Johnson County. The area proposed for rezoning and commercial development is currently in turf grass, nearly adjacent to the Iowa City corporate limits and will likely be annexed in the long-term future. The property also is accessed via a relatively newly upgraded paved road managed by the County and is available to provide a home to an existing, thriving business that is being moved from Iowa City to accommodate other development. Thus, the request complies with the County Land Use Plan. In my nearly decade of experience with Johnson County, the Land Use Plan and Map have been amended only once, not counting the Village plans. Additionally, in the coming months, the County will undertake a major update of the 2008 Land Use Plan, and I would prefer to hold off on any plan or map amendments so as to allow for maximum public participation and full consideration of all County Land Use Plan policies, goals, and strategies. I do understand the Commission's concern about locating a commercial business in an existing or planned residential district. To help alleviate that concern, I will be recommending a conditional zoning agreement that will place conditions on the property to ensure a lower -intensity, neighborhood -commercial type development that will not be detrimental to existing and future development. The recommended conditions will help to avoid uses similar to big box retail, taverns/nightclubs, convenience stores, and mini -storage, all of which would not be well-suited to adjacent residential uses. The recommended conditional zoning agreement would have conditions related to limiting Impervious area, business hours, site lighting, and the size and number of any structures. Conditions might also be recommended to ensure that all travel surfaces are paved and no permanent fuel storage tanks are allowed. Please advise your City Council of all the positive benefits related to allowing a thriving business, which is being relocated to accommodate for other development, to relocate to the proposed site. If you have any questions, please contact me via email atjbusard@co.johnson.ia.us or by phone at 356-6083. This letter represents my recommendation, for the proposed rezoning application, to the County P&Z Commission per the upcoming public hearing process. Thank you, Josh Busard Director CC: Doug Boothroy, Geoff Fruin, and Aleda Kroeze 913 SOUTH DUBUQUE STREET, Score 204, Iowa CITY, 1A 522404273 PHONE: (319)356-6083 FAx:(319)356-6084 www.johnson-county.com Planning and Zoning Commission June 2, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 5 of 7 COUNTY REZONING ITEM (CZ16-0001 Discussion of an application submitted by Pleasant Valley LP for a rezoning from County Residential (R) to County Commercial (C) for approximately 5.51 -acres of property located in Johnson County at 4394 Sand Road SE in Fringe Area B. Miklo noted that this property is in Johnson County but is within the two mile fringe of Iowa City and the State Code gives the City the ability control subdivisions within that two miles. The City has an agreement with the County with regards to zoning in the fringe area where the City makes a recommendation to the County and the County will not act on the rezoning until they have heard from the City. The Fringe Area Agreement states clearly that the City and the County should be in agreement on rezonings in the fringe area. Although this property is not in the growth area it is very close to the boundary of the growth area on the north and east. While it is not anticipated that this will be annexed into the City anytime soon, it is very close to what may end up being in the City someday and may have some bearing on future neighborhoods in this area. Miklo stated that the proposal is to rezone the property from County Residential (R) to County Commercial (C) to allow a greenhouse, nursery, florist business to relocate to this area. After reviewing the County Code and proposal Staff does not have a concern with the particular use that is being proposed, however the zoning they are asking for does allow for a wide variety uses and some can be fairly intense. There is a concern because property owners and businesses can change over time. Additionally the Fringe Area Agreement states that all rezonings must conform to the Johnson County Land Use Plan, which currently shows this area as residential or agricultural. Staff recommends that the requested rezoning from Residential to Commercial be approved only if it is found to be consistent with the County Land Use Plan and conditions are placed on the rezoning to assure that potential commercial uses do not have negative effects on the residential and agricultural uses. As an alternative to Commercial zoning staff would recommend that the County consider rezoning the property to Agri -Business (C -AG) Zone with a conditional use permit to allow the retail sales associated with greenhouses and nursery. Freerks asked if Staff has discussed the this application with the County Staff. Miklo replied that yes they have spoken to County Staff who said they would look into placing conditions on the Commercial zoning. Hektoen pointed out that the position the City has right now is that this application to rezone the area to Commercial does not comply with the County Land Use Plan Freerks opened the public discussion. Duane Musser (MMS Consultants) spoke representing the applicants. He noted the applicant has been working with the County for several years to relocate the garden center, retail center, to this site and it was designed with that in mind. The golf course next to this area opened in 1989 which has a retail business and restaurant established. Due to the creation of the Riverfront Crossings District and revitalization of that area the existing business on Gilbert Street must move. They have met with the County zoning officials many times and they have directed them to the straight Planning and Zoning Commission June 2, 2016— Formal Meeting Page 6 of 7 Commercial zoning designation because of the retail use. A greenhouse is allowable in the current zoning of the land, but having the retail component is why the commercial zoning is needed. Musser said the concern about a County Agri -Business commercial zoning designation is there permitted uses for that is farm grounds, farm excavation, fertilizer plants, grain elevators, livestock marketing, and well -drawing businesses and therefore Musser does not feel those businesses would be a good fit with this area with the residential components of the area whereas a retail garden center is a good fit. Dyer asked about parking for the retail business and Musser said they are working on the site plan. The tree line to the south will be maintained. Parsons asked why a two story building is being proposed and not just a one story. Musser said they are working through the site plans but their current location has storage and office space upstairs and they like that set-up and thought to build similarly. The current design is barn shaped so it will blend into the agricultural feel of the area. Hensch asked if the Commission were to recommend the County Agri -Business zone would that affect the site plans being developed. Musser said he would have to go back and look at the requirements to see if he would need to adjust setbacks or building or parking needs based on that zone. He noted that the County suggested Commercial Zone because of the retail sales and the County Agri -Business Zone is too agricultural intensive. Freerks noted that the concern is not the retail aspect of this particular application, it is the potential future uses of a property that is zoned Commercial. Freerks closed the public discussion Theobald moved to recommend that the County consider rezoning approximately 5.51 -acres of property at 4394 Sand Road SE from County Residential (R) to County Agri -Business (C- AG) Zone with a conditional use permit to allow the retail sales associated with greenhouses and nursery. Parsons seconded the motion. Hensch is concerned that if the County will be reviewing and updating their Land Use Plan he would hope that wouldn't delay this project as he feels is should be allowed to move forward. He is just confused on what is the appropriate zone to move forward. Parsons noted he would feel better about this application if the City Staff and the County Staff were on the same page. Freerks is concerned about the potential future uses of the area if zoned straight Commercial. Some of the uses allowed in that zone would not be appropriate here. Signs agreed, this seems to be more of a residential flavor of an area, so to add commercial space to that area seems extreme. A garden area is a great use, but the other possibilities are concerning. A vote was taken and the motion carried 7-0. June 16, 2016 Johnson County Planning and Zoning Commission 913 S. Dubuque Street Iowa City, IA 52240 RE: Rezoning 4394 Sand Road SE Item CZ16-00001 Dear Members of the Commission: r i -40 +• CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org The Iowa City City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission have reviewed the request submitted by Pleasant Valley LP to Johnson County to rezone 5.51 acres of property at 4394 Sand Road SE in Fringe Area B from County Residential (R) to County Commercial (C). The Fringe Area Agreement provides for City review of County zoning cases for property within two miles of Iowa City. The subject property is located in Fringe Area B, but is outside of Iowa City's growth area. For property located in the fringe area B outside of the City's growth area, the Fringe Area Agreement states that any rezoning will be considered on the basis of conformity with the Johnson County Land Use Plan which identifies this area as being for uses consistent with a rural/agricultural area. Although this property is not within the current growth area of the city, it is on the edge of the growth area. As Iowa City's South District develops this area may have an impact on neighborhoods that are planned for possible annexation into the city. City Staff recommended that the requested rezoning from Residential to Commercial be approved only if it is found to be consistent with the County Land Use Plan and conditions are placed on the rezoning to assure that potential commercial uses do not have negative effects on the adjacent residential and agricultural uses. As an alternative to Commercial zoning staff recommended that the County considers rezoning the property to Agri -Business (C -AG) zone with a conditional use permit to allow the retail sales associated with greenhouses and nursery. Because of concerns about the intensity of some to the uses allowed in the Commercial (C) zone, the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the County consider rezoning the property to Agri -Business (C -AG) instead of Commercial (C). Since our Planning and Zoning Commission's review, the City has received correspondence from Josh Busard, Director of Planning, Development and Sustainability, regarding the limitations of the Agri -Business (C -AG) zone; the letter includes reference to a Conditional Zoning Agreement to ensure lower -intensity neighborhood commercial type development. Based on this additional information the Council recommends that the requested rezoning from Residential to Commercial be approved only if it is found to be consistent with the County Land Use Plan and conditions are placed on the rezoning to assure that potential commercial uses do not have negative effects on the adjacent residential and agricultural uses. Thank you for your consideration of our comments on this application. Sincerely, Jes Throgmorton Mayor