HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-05-29 Correspondence k
`_,;.® CITY OF IOWA CITY
'Nicrir MEMORANDUM
Date: May 3, 2018
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
From: Bob Miklo, Senior Planner
Re: Comprehensive Plan —Affordable Housing Annexation Policy
The City Council has asked the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider an amendment to
the Comprehensive Plan's Annexation Policy to add a section pertaining to affordable housing.
The proposed policy states:
If the annexation is for residential development that will result in the creation of
ten (10) or more new housing units, the development will support the City's goal
of creating and maintaining the supply of affordable housing. Such support shall
be based on providing affordable units equal to 10% of the total units in the
annexed area with an assurance of long term affordability, preferably for a term
of not less than 20 years. Income targets shall be consistent with the City's
existing program requirements. How the development provides such support will
vary depending on the particular circumstances of the annexation, and may
include, but is not limited to, transfer of lots/units to the City or an affordable
housing provider; fee-in-lieu paid to the City's affordable housing fund; and/or
participation in a state or federal housing program. In determining the most
desirable option consideration shall be given to the interest of both the City and
the Iowa City Community School District in not exacerbating the burdens on
neighborhoods and elementary schools experiencing challenges related to
concentrations of poverty. An agreement committing the Owner/Developer to
the affordable housing obligation, shall be required prior to annexation, and shall
be further memorialized, if necessary, in a conditional zoning agreement.
The current Annexation Policy is contained on page 17 of the Comprehensive Plan (copy
attached — the full Comprehensive Plan can be found at https://www.icaov.orq/compplan). The
attached memorandum from Geoff Fruin, City Manager, provides more details regarding the
proposed policy.
On May 3, the Commission will set a public hearing for May 17 to receive public comment on
the proposed amendment.
Attachments:
1. February 26, 2018 Memorandum
2. Comprehensive Plan excerpts including current Annexation Policy
3. Map of annexations
03-078
City of Iowa City IP3
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 26, 2018
To: City Council
From: Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Re: Affordable Housing Action Plan — Annexation Policy
Background: The Affordable Housing Action Plan includes a recommendation that
consideration be given to an annexation policy that provides for affordable housing
contributions. The City's current annexation policy is found in section 2 of the
Comprehensive Plan. (https://www.icgov.org/compplan). Text and maps of interest are
found at pp.16-18 and Sections 10 and 11 (Future Land Use and Fringe Area Map), and
are attached. In Iowa City the practice has been to consider only voluntary annexations,
i.e. a petition by the owner of the land requesting to be annexed as opposed to an
application by the City to involuntarily annex property into the City. Under the City's policy,
a voluntary annexation is generally viewed positively when 3 conditions exist: 1) the area
under consideration falls within the long-range planning boundary; 2) Development in the
area proposed for annexation will fulfill an identified need, without imposing an undue
financial burden on the City; and, 3) Control of development is in the City's best interests.
The broad parameters of the annexation policy serve the City well for several reasons.
First, the City has no obligation to annex property. Its actions need only be reasonable
and consistent with the annexation policy found in the Comprehensive Plan. Second,
annexations are infrequent. Attached is a map showing the annexations to Iowa City
since 2005. Only 7 have been for residential development of more than 10 units. Finally,
each annexation presents variable issues that are often the subject of negotiation
between the City and the landowner (e.g. infrastructure and public facility needs and
costs, sewer and water fees, tax phase in).
In researching this issue, City staff has found little in the way of annexation policies from
other cities that specifically address affordable housing. For the most part, what is found
is express or implicit requirements that any land which is annexed must comply with a
city's inclusionary housing ordinance. For example, the City of Boulder has an
inclusionary housing ordinance (Chapter 9-13, Boulder City Code) that applies to all
residential development but does not address annexations. Staff contacted Boulder's
Housing Division and was told by the Deputy Director that while they strive for certain
benchmarks they intentionally do not have a written policy on annexations because each
annexation is the subject of a negotiated agreement with the city, and each can bring
different "community benefits."
In crafting a policy, it is important to keep in mind that affordable housing measures that
impose restrictions on the income of tenants and/or homeowners require income
monitoring and verification. (e.g. Development Agreement with CA Ventures for units at
Linn and Court; rental units provided in accordance with the Riverfront Crossings
Inclusionary Housing ordinance). While the Developer is responsible for verifying income,
oversight by the City is necessary both to educate Developers/Landlords with no
experience in affordable housing, and to assure compliance. With the intensification and
diversification of the City's affordable housing requirements, we have concerns about
staff's ability to effectively provide such oversight with existing staff resources. The
February 26, 2018
Page 2
literature suggests that this is a common concern. In the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy's
Working Paper entitled Achieving Lasting Affordability through Inclusionary Housing
(2014) the authors' findings from their nationwide inventory include the following:
Stewardship Practice
The case study analysis provides unprecedented insight into the ways
local jurisdictions handle stewardship as part of their inclusionary housing
programs. Monitoring inclusionary housing units and engaging residents,
developers, lenders and other partners are essential for ensuring lasting
affordability. Despite evidence of best practices from other housing
programs, such as CLTs [community land trusts], there is wide variation
in local jurisdictions' approaches to stewardship—both the value placed
on stewardship and the specific stewardship activities used. A common
theme across programs was a lack of sufficient resources to sufficiently
monitor and steward properties and homeowners. Local jurisdictions have
also seen their inclusionary housing inventory evolve and become more
diverse—with more rental units, varying affordability terms, and multiple
partners—which makes stewardship more challenging to implement.
While many jurisdictions retain monitoring and stewardship activities in-
house, trends indicate more programs are partnering with external
organizations to provide these services. (p.30)
Recommendation:
The following parameters have guided staffs development of an affordable housing
criteria for annexations:
1. Allow for flexibility in addressing the issues presented by any particular annexation
while at the same time giving land owners/developers notice of the basic
parameters.
2. Make it consistent with our existing programs (e.g. 10% of units for developments
with over 10 units in RFC; 15% TIF requirement; affordable defined as housing
affordable to tenants at or below 60% area median income (AMI) and homeowners
at or below 80% AMI)
3. Emphasize types of affordable housing contributions that will not require City
income monitoring of private developments while allowing the flexibility to consider
other options in appropriate situations.
4. A preference for long term affordability that does not require income monitoring by
City staff.
By providing basic parameters that clearly define affordable housing as a critical
component to annexations we can give the City and the developer the flexibility to
negotiate based on the variables of each annexation request. In some cases, it may be
that fee-in-lieu of is desired, while in others it could be that partnerships with affordable
housing providers or the donation of land for a future LIHTC project is most appropriate.
Getting too specific with the policy may inhibit otherwise creative approaches to future
annexations.
With these parameters in mind, staff recommends adding the following to the criteria that
must be satisfied in order for annexation to occur:
February 26, 2018
Page 3
If the annexation is for residential development that will result in the creation of ten
(10) or more new housing units, the development will support the City's goal of
creating and maintaining the supply of affordable housing. Such support shall be
based on a goal of providing affordable units equal to 10% of the total units in the
annexed area. Income targets shall be consistent with the City's existing program
requirements. How the development provides such support will vary depending on
the particular circumstances of the annexation, and may include, but is not limited
to, transfer of lots/units to the City or an affordable housing provider; fee-in-lieu
paid to the City's affordable housing fund; and/or participation in a state or federal
housing program. An agreement committing the Owner/Developer to the
affordable housing obligation, shall be required prior to annexation, and shall be
further memorialized, if necessary, in a conditional zoning agreement.
After direction from Council, any proposed revision to the annexation policy will be
presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its recommendation and then come
back to Council in the form of a resolution amending the comprehensive plan.
16
Growth and Infrastructure
Iowa City's growth policy is an integral part of the Comprehensive Plan in the following ways:
■ It defines a long-range planning boundary for Iowa City;
• It establishes when annexations should occur; and
• It establishes where the investment of public funds for infrastructure and improvements should oc-
_ _ cur(namely roads,water,and sewer).
gig- •:>: M 't
'�
The Growth Boundary defines the city's potential corporate limits—land that, for the purposes of long-
range planning, is projected to serve the city's growth need for 30-40 years.Sanitary sewer and streets are
McCollister Bridge, completed in 2009, is the the most expensive items of public infrastructure that must be provided to all new development within the
first new roadway to be constructed over the City.
Iowa River since the early 1960s.The bridge is Land included in the growth area must have the potential to be connected to the sewer system,which is
part of McCollister Boulevard, an east-west based on watershed boundaries.Guiding new developments to watersheds that can be served by gravity
arterial that will provide relief for Highway 6 flow to the City's sewage treatment plant facility enables the most cost effective provision of this essential
to the north, connecting South Gilbert Street City service. The growth boundary is used when making decisions regarding the extension of infrastruc-
west to Mormon Trek Boulevard. Eventually ture,the approval of subdivisions,the approval of agreements with other governmental jurisdictions re-
the road will be extended east to Scott Boule-
opening up residential development
garding growth,and in response to annexation requests. In addition,the City coordinates with private utili-
yard,
throughout south Iowa City. ties to ensure that areas proposed for development can be fully served.
A Public Works land inventory completed in 2008 indicates that Iowa City had more than 1,496 acres of va-
cant residential land within city limits, mostly in the South and Northeast District. The designated growth
area contains an additional 3,095 acres of vacant residential land.Assuming that future residential develop-
ment occurs at densities similar to recent development patterns,Iowa City could reach build out capacity in
2034. However, if residential development were to maximize current zoning capacity, Iowa City would not
reach build out capacity until 2055.Neither of these assumptions accounts for the potential of infill develop-
ment in areas like Riverfront Crossings and Towncrest. Infill development at higher densities would absorb
some housing demand,thus conserving farmland and maximizing the use of infrastructure.
17
Prioritization of Investment in Infrastructure �z
When the City prioritizes public investment in infrastructure and public amenities, improvements that %11,,t
serve properties within the corporate limits of Iowa City that further the City's policy of compact and con- ��`„v II
tiguousgrowth, includingurban infill development, should begiven priority. This policywillguide deci- __ . . l
g P • i
sion-making for the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The CIP is one of the most effective tools -
the City has to affect the timing and direction of growth, quality of life, the growth of basic industry, and
the cost of housing. Historically the City invested in infrastructure to accommodate moderate growth ra-
ther than building infrastructure prior to development. In the future, City Council will use the CIP to effec-
tively guide the location and timing of growth in the community through an annual review and prioritiza- ,\
tion of the CIP prior to the budget process. \\
While continued development of new neighborhoods and employment areas are anticipated in the City's `\
growth area, a significant policy focus for the City is to accommodate growth to the extent possible by fa-
cilitating higher density urban infill development, such as in the Riverfront Crossings District,and through
stabilization and revitalization efforts in existing neighborhoods and commercial areas, such as Down-
town,Towncrest,and Sycamore Mall. A community cannot grow without major in
vestments in infrastructure, including water
purification and waste water treatment. In
Annexation Policy 2011, Iowa City's water treatment facility pro-
Growth and development outside the corporate boundaries, within the long-range planning area and be vided an average of 5.54 million gallons of water
yond, is influenced by the City through annexation and the Iowa City/Johnson County Fringe Area Agree- Per day to customers.
ment. Annexations occur primarily in response to petitions filed by the owners of property requesting to
be annexed.Voluntary annexation is generally viewed positively when the following conditions exist:
1. The area under consideration falls with the long-range planning boundary;
2. Development in the area proposed for annexation will fulfill an identified need without imposing
an undue financial burden on the City; or
3. Control of development is in the City's best interest.
Annexations will typically be achieved through voluntary means. Involuntary annexations,which are initi-
ated by the City against a property owner's wishes,are considered only in extraordinary circumstances.
As part of any proposed annexation or development,the City must evaluate the capacity of existing infra-
structure,including streets,water,and sewer.
18
i Fringe Area Agreement
wtw � r,
?,,,, -„.. 1' ' State enabling legislation permits a city to regulate the subdivision of land within two miles of the City's
tic corporate boundaries.This area is known as the urban fringe area.Counties that enact ordinances control
;� �', ," - the land uses permitted in this same area through zoning.
; In the interest of managing growth and development in Iowa City's two-mile fringe area in a mutually ac-
& ceptable manner, Johnson County and Iowa City have agreed on the appropriate land uses and standards
for development AsJohnson Countyconsiders rezoningapplications and Iowa Cityreviews subdivisions,
P PP
f^.�._
R their decisions will be governed by the Iowa City/Johnson County Fringe Area Policy Agreement.
*t-,liii , The Agreement focuses exurban development in the area north of Iowa City, encourages development in
Iowa City's growth area only upon annexation, and provides some incentive for the preservation of open
space and environmentally sensitive features. The agreement has been working well to achieve the goals
••
-_ ' •- of both the City and County.Although it will be reviewed periodically for updates, the implementation of
An aerial view of the eastern edge of Iowa city. the Fringe Area Agreement will likely continue without significant changes. [See Fringe Area Map in the
appendix to this document.]
An important goal of Iowa City's Comprehen-
sive Plan is to manage urban growth by en Growth and the Environment
couraging compact and contiguous develop-
ment. Contiguous development is more effi- Iowa City's vision for the future includes environmental protection as a basic tenet. This includes strong
tient since building on land that is adjacent to community support for the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO). Growth and development should be man-
existing development and connecting into aged such that the environmental quality of the community is not sacrificed. Measures should be taken in
existing road and utility networks is cost and
efficient and ensures that all private and public projects to ensure that any impacts on regulated environmental features are mini-
resourceneighbor-
hoods are not isolated. This saves money for mized.
developers,property owners,and taxpayers. The City's Sensitive Areas Inventory identifies the general location of woodlands, wetlands, regulated
slopes,hydric soils,prairie remnants,stream corridors,and archaeological sites (See the appendix).Based
on the information provided in the inventory, an ordinance was adopted in 1995 to provide protections
for the identified environmentally sensitive areas.The ordinance requires consideration of environmental
features during the development process and encourages construction that respects and protects natural
areas.As the City continues to grow and redevelop,natural areas that contribute to the health and charac-
ter of the city will be protected. The City should encourage subdivisions that not only preserve environ-
mental areas but that incorporate them as assets in the overall development as private or public open
space.
Oki-l.„!.1,,24
. . . Annexation History of Iowa City .
2 005.2 01 5 CITY Or IOWA CITY
Prepared By:Sylvia Buchner
Date Prepared:February 2018
I-, Res.No 10-43
'-',----,9-
'' 132 acres
,,--r,W -�. ��-� 1 c
J . water L
1111111111111 ,,. —I
9 �"'�W, ) lima Pak Fsr
MN- i -+-_r�1� i
ORALVILLE r� ` Bill
4..,-, ti Res-No 15-286
�\ +� y •
(Ni 18.66 acres
Res:No 2006-77 \ O O
Res.No 05-199 0.35 acres , *"�«—"_ \ d �` 2018 Res.No 14-196
29.7 acres , 111‘....
o
N. ^t► fin„ PARK_ = 39.6 acres
1.1 to
�•j �1 a • Res.No 07-246
- 16 acres
F� ! C.Lt. ROC'_'TER 01 i .,,�
`\!� . AVE E JEFFERSON ST Z
i ovr,,c f"a. 1
1'
i 1 >, 1 o
i i \ 1 0 0 — Res.No 05-348
':« ce IOWA CITY51.9 acres
i _
RL1 aces 15-7
i1 i .a 1 ,�vt -- a
. i,.."»r % IRKWOOD�' !.- 1- MUSCATINE AVE ii___il_______.
�•
'� �G en m�...I n
//� es.No 13 33
i y�Q' sc9f �� R 15.14 acres 5
e �` .��� o Res.No 13-135
,, .,_.._.._.._,._..«.....«.... ,.� �Y , \�— 0 acres
NA. •k m (� Q ��
L.,
\\\\ Res.No 08-354
Res.No 05-148 O143
r ��. 179 acres
55 acres f� �. t� ��
r r: ,, I
1 .»Res.No 11-103 - ,�... .....«... .....«.! i
12.7 acres i Res.No 10-501
i r•• \ l ; iil 1.85 acres
Res.No 10-291 ; Res.No 13-334 i
2.37 acres ....I I 44.85 acres
i � Jfl r
I..«
`«.'•i Res.No 10-458 w .i
207 acres EI Jonnz.n SA.'S',Iowa cis
05-29-18
4f(1)
Kellie Fruehling
From: Geoff Fruin
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 2:19 PM
To: 'jjehle'; Council
Subject RE:Thank you, thank you!!!
Hello Joan,
Thank you for your email about speeding concerns. We will look into the matter and see how we can best gain
compliance with the posted speed limits.
Best,
Geoff Fruin
City Manager
Original Message
From:jjehle [mailto:jjehle@mymailstation.com]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 7:06 AM
To: Council <Council@iowa-city.org>
Subject:Thank you,thank you!!!
Dear City Council Member:
Thank you,thank you for stabilzing my neighborhood!! I live at 1167
East Jefferson Street. Many homes 11 blocks east of downtown,
have been purchased by investors and rented to students who show no respect for Seniors who have lived in
our homes for 30-4o years!
We thank you for this!!
However, now we need you to care about the speed I see in my neighborhood. Changing Jefferson Street from
Dubuque street to Clapp street from one way to two way traffic,would help! We need to slow people down on
this residential street.
The highway leads them Rochester Avenue where, I believe, most of the traffic should go! Possible solutions:
A round about at the Clapp Street-Jefferson Street intersection?
(there is already a divider there. (Diamond shape,) Another round about at the intersection of Jefferson Street
and Glendale Court?
Speed humps at several locations from Clapp Street to 7th Avenue?
There needs to be better police presence from 7:15 to 9:15 when school is in session at Regina and City High! It
has become somewhat better since they started staggering the start times for public schools BUT it is not just
high school kids who drive fast past my house. It is also those University of Iowa workers who need to be at
work by 8 AM
Please discuss and hopefully,find a solution for,this escalating problem for the permanent residents in the
1100 block of Jefferson Street!!
Joan H.Jehle
1167 East Jefferson Street
Iowa City, IA 52245
1
Kellie Fruehling
From: jjehle <jjeh!e@mymailstation.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 5:36 AM
To: Council
Subject: Thank you, again!
Already police presence has helped! One car has already been caught speeding!
I forgot to send the following disclaimer:
My daughter-in-law, Kelly Jehle, is employed within the police department.
Thank you for your consideration of this problem!
Joan Jehle
1167 E. Jefferson Street
Iowa City, IA 52245
1
05-29-18
4f(2)
Kellie Fruehling
From: Feather Lacy (Personal) <flacy@pobox.com>
Sent: Monday, May 21,2018 8:50 PM
To: Jim Throgmorton;John Thomas; Kingsley Botchway; Council; Pauline Taylor; Rockne
Cole;Susan Mims; 'Terry Dickens'
Subject: Everyone Has A Right to Walk
This afternoon as I was walking east on Washington Street going toward the Coop, I waited patiently for the "Walk"sign
and then started crossing Gilbert.While I was crossing the walk sign changed to "Don't walk" even though it was still a
green light in my direction.A car on Washington Street tried to north turn into me. I yelled at the car and it stopped.The
irate woman driver screamed at me "It says don't walk old lady."Those walk lights need more time for we slow folk to
cross including those with disabilities and the message needs to be changed to something more like "Don't start to
cross" or just yellow like stop lights or little men that run faster as the time gets shorter like they have in Mexico.
Recently have walked extensively in the Iowa City area and am shocked at how dangerous it is.
Thanks for your time and service to our community,
Feather Lacy
Iowa City
1
As p l CITY OF IOWA
COUNCIL ACTION REPOCI -Li
May 29, 2018
Install (2) "No Parking Between Signs" signs on the east side of Shannon
Drive near the intersection with Willow Creek Trail.
Prepared By: Emily Bothell, Sr. Transportation Engineering Planner
Reviewed By: Kent Ralston, Transportation Planner
Tracy Hightshoe, Neighborhood and Development Services Director
Fiscal Impact: No impact
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments: None
Executive Summary:
As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3B of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council
of the following action.
Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A (10); Install (2) "No Parking Between Signs" signs on the east side
of Shannon Drive near the intersection with Willow Creek Trail.
Background/Analysis:
This action is being taken to improve pedestrian visibility at the trail crossing and to avoid
congestion when vehicles park on-street. The street is 22' wide near the trail crossing and does
not allow for vehicles to park opposite each other while providing adequate space for safe
passage.
44 LF-(- (2-1)
Kellie Fruehling
From: Nick Maddix <moonlightrose44@gmail.com> Late Handouts Distributed
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 1:25 PM
To: Council
Subject: Gilbert Street "Road Diet" S /D-9/k
(Date)
Dear Iowa City Council:
I understand for your upcoming work session that you will be considering implementing a road diet or 4 to 3
lane conversion on Gilbert Street between Market Street and McCollister Blvd. I want to say that I am all in
support for this,but can understand the hesitation on the part of some of you as well as with the general public.
However,in my view,the positives outweigh the negative,and what kind of a community you wish Iowa City to
be.
You have already been progressive with 1st Avenue in Iowa City,and much of the concerns with the 4-3 lane
conversion there have undermined the benefits.The road is much more pleasant to bike and drive on, and I
feel from observance that overall speeds are down.
Gilbert Street generally is a bit busier than 1st Avenue,however is quite comparable to Melrose Ave between
Hawkins and Burlington.I personally don't have any problems biking on Gilbert,however,traffic is generally
faster.A year or two ago,Gilbert Street was under construction and reduced to 2 lanes.While there were some
traffic backups,this was mostly reduced thanks to the traffic light extension at Kirkwood Ave.,on the whole,
traffic did not have much in the way of interruptions and travel times were only marginally increased.
However,as Iowa City is serious about having livable communities,slowing traffic down,and realizing that
travel times aren't everything,but land values,and quality of life matters just as much.As with any study,a
conversion on Gilbert Street doesn't necessarily have to be perfect,as data sometimes can be uncertain.A trial
period could at the very least be considered and then seriously studied and if perimeters are way out of bounds,
then the road could always be reverted back,but we won't truly know until the road diet is put into place first.
Additional benefits include dedicated turning lanes at many intersections that need them, mainly Court Street,
Benton Street, Kirkwood Ave,and so forth.Court Street already can cause traffic to back up in one lane when a
car attempts to turn.
If there is hesitation,why not implement the road diet in stages,perhaps McCollister to Hwy 6 first,then Hwy
6 to Bowery,and then finally Bowery to Market. However,it may ultimately be better to just do it all in one go.
The Master Bike Plan has already studied Gilbert Street and recommended the road diet,so already you have
studies from expert recommending it,so now you need to implement this. Naturally people will complain with
the changes,because people are naturally resistant to change,but then they will be able to"see"to advantages,
which will be safer roads,bike accommodations,lower traffic noise,higher land values,and increased quality
of life.
I've lived here in Iowa City for 35 years,and the last 5 years have been very exciting for bicyclists in general
thanks to all of you being serious about such measures.I've also enjoyed driving on the road dieted streets
which are much calmer and more pleasing.
On a side note: I hope you will consider 4-3 lane conversions on Keokuk Street,South Dodge Street,and
McCollister Blvd.
Thank you for your time and I hope you are excited in welcoming RAGBRAI for the first time in 42 years as
Iowa City showcases how serious it is to embrace cyclists and sustainable living.
1
-Nick Maddix
2812 Sterling Drive
2
Lff-(if-)
Kellie Fruehling
From: Del Holland <delholland@aol.com> Late Handouts Distributed
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 10:55 PM
To: Jim Throgmorton; Council
Subject: Road diet on Gilbert Street
(Date)
Jim and other City Councilors,
For many years I have supported the idea of road diets in Iowa City, and specifically on Gilbert Street. As you know, road
diets are a safety benefit for all road corridor users, pedestrians, cyclists and drivers. This particular one will allow more
cyclists to feel safe using Gilbert Street which is a unique, in Iowa City, north to south thoroughfare that has, because of
it's current configuration not been conducive to cyclists(traffic traveling too fast,darting in and out of lanes for best
position with the the only accommodation well worn sharrows) .
I would encourage you to move quickly to get the work done to make a significant Bicycle Friendly infrastructure
improvement.
Del Holland
1701 East Court St
Iowa City, IA,
52245
319-594-2957
1
1+-"C (It)
Kellie Fruehling
From: Susan Shullaw <smshullaw@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 8:50 AM Late Handouts Distributed
To: Council
Subject: Gilbert Street bike lanes
(Date)
To Members of the Council:
It is my understanding that at your upcoming Work Session, you will consider a proposal for a "road diet" and
bike lanes along Gilbert Street, from Market Street to Highway 6. I am writing to strongly urge that you vote to
proceed with one of the three options presented by Alta Planning + Design.
While my personal preference would be for option #2 (road diet with raised and separated cycle track) or
option #3 (road diet with shared use path), even option #1 (the less expensive road diet with conventional
bike lanes) would be an enormous improvement over the horrible conditions that exist along that stretch of
Gilbert Street today. As an avid cyclist who bikes frequently from the north to the south side of Iowa City,
Gilbert Street is my most convenient arterial — however, it's also one of the most dangerous thoroughfares in
the city. In fact, in many years of cycling, it's the only street on which I've ever been hit by a car while on my
bike.
Heavy and fast-moving traffic, narrow lanes, frequent busy intersections, multiple business access points, and
broken pavement make Gilbert Street a hazardous obstacle course for bikers and drivers alike. Creating a road
diet with bike lanes would greatly improve public safety and contribute in a significant way to Iowa City's bike-
friendly reputation.
Thank you for your consideration,
Susan Shullaw
718 North Johnson Street
Iowa City 52245
1
21--1(2+)
Kellie Fruehling
From: Tom Carsner <carsner@mchsi.com>
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 3:53 PM Late Handouts Distributed
To: Council
Subject: Vote Yes on 4-3 Lane Conversion of Gilbert Street
(Date)
To The Council:
I urge you to support the Road Diet or 4-3 Lane Conversion proposal for Gilbert Street.
It will benefit motor vehicles, pedestrians,and bicyclists alike.
Tom Carsner
1627 College Court Place
carsner@mchsi.com
319-338-9335
Iowa City,Iowa 52245
1
Li E-(
Kellie Fruehling
From: Adrian Holmes <adrianho@bolton-menk.com> Late Handouts Distributed
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 10:27 AM
To: Council
Subject: Gilbert Street Bike Lanes �j cCj d
(Date)
Dear City Council and Mayor,
I am writing to you in support of the addition of bike lanes and the 4 lane to 3 lane conversion of Gilbert Street. I have
lived and worked in the Iowa City area since 1996, am a licensed professional civil engineer, a cyclist, and a motorist. I
both drive and bike Gilbert Street regularly and believe the user experience of both motorists and cyclists would benefit
by converting this to a three lane section with bike lanes. I have read the report prepared by your consultant and concur
with their recommendations.
Thank you for making the investment to analyze this important transportation corridor. I have enjoyed watching my
community become more bike friendly and am continually encouraged by the forward progress Iowa City is making.
Sincerely,
Adrian Holmes, P.E., CFM
Senior Project Engineer
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
450 Rocky Shore Dr.
Iowa City, IA 52246
P: (319)594.5775
email: adrianho@bolton-menk.com
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
1