Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-08-20 OrdinanceItem Number: 9.a. CITY OC IOWA CITY www.icgov.org August 20, 2019 Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 36.81 acres of property located south of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack Trail, from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) to Low Density Single - Family Residential (RS -5). I_1&IETH:ILTA l4,01111&5 Description PZ Staff Report Additional Memo to CM - Traffic Calming Neighborhood Correspondence to PZ Petition Submitted to PZ Additional Neighborhood Correspondence PZ Meeting Minutes Ordinance Conditional Zoning Agreement To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ19-08 Tamarack Ridge GENERAL INFORMATION: STAFF REPORT Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner Date: July 18, 2019 Applicant: TRD, LLC 221 E Burlington St Iowa City, IA 52240 319-631-1894 aic1974@outlook.com Property Owner: Doug Paul 319-331-4113 Requested Action: Rezoning from Interim Development Single - Family Residential (ID -RS) zone to Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5) zone. Purpose: Development of single-family housing Location: South of Scott Blvd and North of Tamarack Trl Location Map: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: District Plan: Neighborhood Open Space District: Public Meeting Notification: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: K 36.81 Acres Undeveloped, Interim Development Single - Family Residential (ID -RS) North: ID -RS — Interim Development Single - Family Residential South: RS5 — Low Density Single -Family Residential East: ID -RS — Interim Development Single - Family Residential ID -RP — Interim Development Research Park West: ID -RP — Interim Development Research Pa rk ORP — Office Research Park Zone Conservation Design Northeast District, Single -Family NE1 Property owners located within 300' of the project site received notification of the Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting. Rezoning signs were also posted on the site. June 27, 2019 August 12, 2019 The applicant, TDR, LLC has requested a rezoning from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) zone to Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5) zone for 36.81 acres of land south of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack Trail. The applicant has also submitted an application for a preliminary plat for this area. The preliminary plat will be discussed at a future Planning and Zoning Commission meeting; however, the preliminary plat is attached to show the intended subdivision design. The applicant has used the good neighbor policy. A good neighbor meeting was held on Monday, June 10. The summary of the meeting is attached. ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: The property is currently zoned Interim Development — Single Family 3 Residential (ID -RS). The Interim Development zoning designation applies to undeveloped properties without access to City services. The ID -RS zone district allows for nonurban uses of land, specifically crop -related agricultural uses. At this time a rezoning could occur due to the availability of existing City water and sanitary sewer service. Proposed Zoning: The applicant has proposed rezoning 36.81 acres to Low Density Single - Family Residential (RS -5). The RS -5 zone is primarily intended for single-family housing. The zone allows for some flexibility in housing types. For example, duplexes on corner lots. This zone also allows for some nonresidential uses, such as parks, schools, religious institutions, and daycare facilities. In terms of dimensional requirements, the minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet, the maximum height is 35 feet, and the minimum lot width (measured at the 15 -foot front setback line) is 60 feet. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan has designated this area for Conservation Design. The Conservation Design land use designation is applied to areas containing steep slopes, woodlands, or other sensitive features. The Northeast District Plan identifies this area for single-family residential development. The RS -5 zone is consistent with the general intended land uses and vision identified in the comprehensive plan and the Northeast District Plan. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The project site is located south of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack Trail. The area to the north, west, and east remains undeveloped. The area to the south and southwest is single-family residential development that is zoned RS -5. The proposed rezoning will extend the RS -5 zone district further north and continue the single-family development pattern. Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The site contains several sensitive areas, including critical and protected slopes and woodlands. The preliminary plat indicates that the development will disturb 12% of the critical slopes and none of the protected slopes. The City's sensitive areas ordinance allows the disturbance of up to 35% of critical slopes before a level II sensitive areas review is required. In terms of woodlands, the preliminary plat indicates that the development will meet the retention requirement of 50% per the sensitive areas ordinance. Table 1 provides a summary of the woodlands. Table 1. Woodlands Summa The City's sensitive areas inventory also identifies this area as having potential archaeological resources. The applicant has contracted with the Office of the State Archaeologist who is currently conducting an archaeological study. Despite the presence of sensitive features, a Planned Development Overlay (OPD) rezoning is not required because per the preliminary plat the applicant is not exceeding the requirements of the sensitive areas ordinance and is not requesting any modifications FA to zoning or subdivision code requirements. Traffic Implications and Access: Using the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manuai(91 Edition), staff estimates that the total traffic generated by the proposed (60) lots would produce approximately 571 trips per day to/from the development. The anticipated trips generated would either access N. 1St Avenue (via Hickory Trail) or Scott Boulevard (via the proposed connection of Tamarack Trail). For comparison, the existing development that accesses N. 1St Avenue via Hickory Trail has approximately 121 households and produces approximately 1,152 trips per day using one access point. Provided the additional access to Scott Boulevard (via Tamarack Trail), the total trips accessing N. 1St Avenue would likely be reduced even when adding the proposed 60 lots. In 2018, Scott Boulevard had an average daily traffic count of approximately 5,100 near the proposed connection of Tamarack Trail and N. 1" Avenue had an average daily traffic count of approximately 7,500 near the intersection of Hickory Trail (Iowa DOT). Given that the theoretical capacity of a two-lane arterial street is conservatively more than 14,000 trips per day, the additional traffic generated by the development alone will not over- burden Scott Boulevard or N. 1St Avenue as currently constructed. Currently, the intersection of N. 1St Avenue and Scott Boulevard experiences congestion during peak travel times. While the estimated additional trips from the development are relatively low compared with total average daily traffic volumes, the additional trips will have an impact on the intersection during peak hours. However, the City currently has a Capital Improvements Project scheduled for 2020 to address this issue either by constructing a roundabout or by signalizing the intersection. Additionally, staff proposes two conditions to reduce traffic speeds along the extension of Tamarack Trail: 1) At the time of final platting, payment of a tree planting fee at a cost of $500 per tree for the plantings of street trees within the public right-of-way. Trees will generally be located every 30' with modifications allowed due to drive -way distances. The Parks and Recreation Department will be responsible for identifying the appropriate locations for the trees and planting the trees; and 2) General compliance with the preliminary plat in that traffic calming measures, like the traffic circles, are incorporated into the final design of the extension of Tamarack Trail. Neighborhood Parkland of Frees in -Lieu of: Open space dedication or fees in lieu of are addressed at the time of subdivision. Based on the 36.81 acres of RS -5 zoning, the developer would be required to dedicate 0.79 acres of land or pay fees in -lieu. Due to the proximity of Calder Park, which is 0.3 miles from the southern edge of the project site, an in -lieu fee payment would be appropriate. Storm Water Management: Storm water management will be addressed during the subdivision process. The applicant has submitted plans for storm water management with the preliminary plat application, which will be finalized at final platting. Next Steps: Upon recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be scheduled for consideration of the application by the City Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission will also review the preliminary plat at 5 an upcoming meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ19-08, a proposal to rezone approximately 36.81 acres of property located south of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack Trail from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) to Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5), subject to the following conditions: 1) At the time of final platting, payment of a tree planting fee at a cost of $500 per tree for the plantings of street trees within the public right-of-way. Trees will generally be located every 30' with modifications allowed due to drive -way distances. The Parks and Recreation Department will be responsible for identifying the appropriate locations for the trees and planting of the trees. 2) General compliance with the preliminary plat in that traffic calming measures, like the traffic circles, are incorporated into the final design of the extension of Tamarack Trail. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Aerial Photograph 3. Preliminary Plat 4. Good Neighbor Meeting Summary Approved by: p p d a d m i n \stf re p\d o c u m e nt2 Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services PRELIMINARY PLAT & SENSITIVE AREAS SITE PLAN TAMARACK RIDGE IOWA CITY, IOWA LEGAL DESCRIPTION BEING A PART OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2019027 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 62 AT PAGE 399 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW' ) AND SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 4) OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL 20109027, THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID PARCEL S01°24'49"E, 1824.28 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL S87°08'19"W, 644.61 FEET, THENCE S88°03'52"W, 299.26 FEET; THENCE NO3°23'42"W, 1140.29 FEET; THENCE N35°56'44"E, 599.09 FEET; THENCE N18°30'51"E, 240.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SCOTT BOULEVARD; THENCE 61.79 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A 955.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE SOUTH (CHORD BEARING N86°43'55"E, 61.78 FEET); THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE N88°36'04"E, 476.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 36.81 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. o� I �Ep� E87 R m l I POINT OF BEGINNING n I NE CORNER OF AUDITOR'S RS -50 1 n 1 I PARCEL 20109027 -- - S01 24 49 E _ 1,824;28 I I _ - ix x - x_ x 9'x -x x - x _-] �X x x x x x x x x ,III _F I , I I _I 1 40 41 � 42 0 43 0 44 a 45 47 ry 135(l 36 0 37 0 3S 39 o d.33AC / 0.35 AC 0.26 AC 0.26 AC 0.26 AC 0.26 AC 0.26 AC 0.23 AC 0.24 AC 0.26 AC `� I 0.26 AC ` I 0.27 AC `� I 0.30 AC 1� I / o�0.3 aj cp _ �- _ ° 65- yy ZS' 20' 36' 34' 70' .. 70' �0 70 o��zl i 95' SIM CURVE TABLE CURVE # LENGTH RADIUS DELTA CHORD DIR. CHORD LEN. Cl 61.79 955.00 3°42'25" N86° 43' 55"E 61.78 PROJECT VICINITY MAP -CITY OF IOWA CITY OPROJECT 5 15 * THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING A 25' FRONT SETBACK 0.047 2. THIS PROPERTY LIES WITHIN FEMA PANEL 19103CO215E (2/16/2007). THERE ARE NO MAPPED FLOODPLAINS ON THIS PROPERTY. 3 3. THERE ARE PROTECTED SLOPES WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT. A BUFFER EQUAL TO 2 TIMES THE HEIGHT OF THE SLOPE IS PROVIDED. 0.007 LOCATION 0.007 CRITICAL SLOPE CALCULATION AREA (SF) AREA (ACRES) PERCENTAGE NDUBUQUE RD 12% NON -IMPACTED SLOPES 169,310 3.88 70% NON -IMPACTED SLOPES IN PROTECTED SLOPE BUFFER 42,537 0.98 18% CRITICAL SLOPES (PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT) 240,464 5.52 100% 5. THERE ARE WOODED AREAS WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT. CONSERVATION EASEMENTS ARE PROPOSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESERVING PORTIONS OF THE WOODED AREAS. PER IOWA CITY CODE, A MINIMUM OF 50% OF THE EXISTING WOODLANDS MUST BE PRESERVED. 0.011 WOODLAND PRESERVATION CALCULATION AREA (SF) AREA (ACRES) PERCENTAGE o° 27% BUFFER (50' WIDE) 171,460 3.936 21% PRESERVED WOODLAND 415,297 9.534 w w N COMMUNICATIONS PEDESTAL © ID COMMUNICATIONS MANHOLE z a o 0 2 E- F- UTILITY POLE 0 UI w O � UTILITY POLE WITH LIGHT OC5 LIGHT POLE Z Q Q O Y ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER [El 10 FIBER OPTIC HANDHOLE = Q ro FIBER OPTIC MANHOLE FO Fo GAS VALVE ® N SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE SS D SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT ® 0 II - "o) STORM SEWER INTAKE ®® ® ® 0 HYDRANT Ak WATER VALVE o EVERORE N rq T tizC� 9i� leek �� C ® e WATER MANHOLE OW Ow A� RaCston Creek W 0 0 D aR G ACCO 9L��A� y U q �� ROG�'`ES `�s GOG�R��� L z I Jun 27, 2019 - 11:15am S: NOT TO SCALE y Plats 190042 PrelimPlat.dw6 w1�Trc_ 1. ZONING AND ASSOCIATED MINIMUM LOT INFORMATION AREAS FOLLOWS: LOT PROPOSED MINIMUM MINIMUM MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACKS NUMBERS ZONING FRONTAGE WIDTH AREA FRONT SIDE REAR ALL RS -5 45' 60' 8,000 SF 15* 5 15 * THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING A 25' FRONT SETBACK 0.047 2. THIS PROPERTY LIES WITHIN FEMA PANEL 19103CO215E (2/16/2007). THERE ARE NO MAPPED FLOODPLAINS ON THIS PROPERTY. 3 3. THERE ARE PROTECTED SLOPES WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT. A BUFFER EQUAL TO 2 TIMES THE HEIGHT OF THE SLOPE IS PROVIDED. 0.007 4. THE TOTAL PERCENTAGE IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPE IS LESS THAN 35% OF THE TOTAL. 0.007 CRITICAL SLOPE CALCULATION AREA (SF) AREA (ACRES) PERCENTAGE IMPACTED SLOPES 28,617 0.66 12% NON -IMPACTED SLOPES 169,310 3.88 70% NON -IMPACTED SLOPES IN PROTECTED SLOPE BUFFER 42,537 0.98 18% CRITICAL SLOPES (PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT) 240,464 5.52 100% 5. THERE ARE WOODED AREAS WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT. CONSERVATION EASEMENTS ARE PROPOSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESERVING PORTIONS OF THE WOODED AREAS. PER IOWA CITY CODE, A MINIMUM OF 50% OF THE EXISTING WOODLANDS MUST BE PRESERVED. 0.011 WOODLAND PRESERVATION CALCULATION AREA (SF) AREA (ACRES) PERCENTAGE DISTURBED WOODLAND 219,157 5.031 27% BUFFER (50' WIDE) 171,460 3.936 21% PRESERVED WOODLAND 415,297 9.534 52% WOODLAND (PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT) 805,914 18.501 100% 6. THERE ARE NO STREAM CORRIDORS WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT. 7. ALL PROPOSED WATERMAIN TO BE 8". ALL PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER TO BE 8". IMPACTED QUANTITIES: CRITICAL SLOPES LOCATION AREA (AC) 1 0.047 2 0.052 3 0.057 4 0.007 5 0.007 6 0.198 7 0.004 8 0.072 9 0.109 10 0.024 11 0.037 12 0.011 13 0.030 - , - _"- n,- _ - -So -So - TOTAL 0.657 ,sp��0 Q� WOODLANDS LOCATION AREA (AC) 14 0.029 15 0.055 16 0.507 17 3.110 18 0.398 19 0.931 - E - E - FIBER OPTIC TOTAL 5.031 LEGEND: EXISTING PROPOSED UTI LITI ES EXISTING PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS (Lo) -(co) -coco- OVERHEAD LINE (OH) IDH -off oH- ELECTRIC (E) (E) - E - E - FIBER OPTIC E@ Fm -Fo-Fo- GAS G) G) - G - G - SANITARY SEWER a -ss -ss - STORM QST) (ST) -ST -ST - SUBDRAIN - , - _"- n,- _ - -So -So - WATER: DOMESTIC (W) (u) -W-W- COMMUNICATIONS HANDHOLE 12 �' COMMUNICATIONS PEDESTAL © ID COMMUNICATIONS MANHOLE PREPARED BY: GUY WIRE ANCHOR E- F- UTILITY POLE 0 UI w O � UTILITY POLE WITH LIGHT MICHAEL J. WELCH, PE LIGHT POLE Z Q ELECTRIC MANHOLE O O ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER [El 10 FIBER OPTIC HANDHOLE FO ro FIBER OPTIC MANHOLE FO Fo GAS VALVE ® N SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE SS • SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT ® 0 STORM SEWER MANHOLE ST "o) STORM SEWER INTAKE ®® ® ® 0 HYDRANT Ak WATER VALVE CURB STOP ® e WATER MANHOLE OW Ow SITE EXISTING PROPOSED CONTOUR - INDEX 100 100 CONTOUR - INTERMEDIATE 101 - iv FENCE: BARB WIRE -,-x-.- - - - -•-•-•-•-•-•-•- FENCE: CHAIN LINK - FENCE: CONSTRUCTION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - FENCE: WIRE -„-„-„-„-„-„-„- -„-„-„-„-„-„-„- FENCE: WOOD a SILT FENCE STREAM CENTERLINE SHRUBBERY CITY CLERK DATE SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN 12 �' TREE: DECIDUOUS SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN PREPARED BY: TREE: CONIFEROUS SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN SIGN 0 UI w O � SENSITIVE AREAS AREA BUFFER CRITICAL SLOPE (25-40%) IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPE (25-40%) PROTECTED SLOPE (> 40%) LLLL-L WOODLAND PRESERVATION IMPACTED WOODLAND KEY NOTES: 20' DRAINAGE AND STORM SEWER EASEMENT © 15' PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT © CONSERVATION EASEMENT HATCHED AREA REPRESENTS AREA INCLUDED IN WOODLAND RETENTION CALCULATION f_% I I T I f -%-r . OUTLOT SIZE (AC) INTENDED USE A 11.32 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT & CONSERVATION EASEMENT ROW 3.43 RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATED TO CITY * OUTLOT A IS TO BE MAINTAINED AND OWNED BY HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION. OWNER / APPLICANT: TAMARACK DEVELOPMENT, LLC JOE CLARK 221 E. BURLINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52240 APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY: JOHN BEASLEY 321 E. MARKET ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245 0 N N r � Zr -I J � M 0N7 O ` U Oz VU U O X Q w w z t� z w w F - Q v v'1 O(D z L7 = zU LL. O ao 0 U V) w 0 w LU LU O LU_ U LU >Q 0 DC 0 U w = U a Q Q z 2 U Q O a z LU U z = 2U APPROVED BY THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA Q �� v w w QLU a J CITY CLERK DATE 12 �' w � o O z PREPARED BY: AXIOM CONSULTANTS, LLC Q - UI w O � MICHAEL J. WELCH, PE z Z Q a 60 E. COURT STREET w cwi) m N UNIT 3 z w w z p IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 w z Q 7 w = r1 V) PRELIMINARY PLAT TAMARACK RIDGE IOWA CITY, IOWA 4 501° 24' 49" E 1,824.28' I ' ' / _ 71 71'102 x -- - 7 �4 2 40'39' 38'' 74' - �' _ 41 � � 42 - 43 � � 44 � � 45 � 46 � � 47 / ,v - \ 350 36 0 37 0 38 0 39 0 40 0 0.35 AC 0.26 AC 0.26 AC 0.26 AC 0.26 AC 0.26 AC 0.23 AC 0.24 AC 0.26 AC I 0.26 AC I 0.27 AC I 0.30 AC I / rn / 0.36 4 AC - \ - 1 _ \ 1 Io49 rpvv 1 � 0.35 AC 50 M �i �� �/� w N �\ �� L- - - - - - - - - �,- - - - 5; L1 2S' 20 70' 70' 36' 34' _ / 0.39 AC m m m m ( 6 / 51 I 95' 70 �0 70 7 70 1 9 52 �. TAMARACK_TR IL - - - - - � , � - Is 52 15 31" 11,26 4a\ / - - 0.49 AC/ 60\ v 3 54 59 \ / 5 3 5 5 5 6 �'S�� 158 \ L - O-� 02 C\ I 061 AC o O� \ I i_ J - SS SS S, - SS SS - 70' - 7 - 65' 95' 70' 70' . Lu LU Dzw V) .,.�0.29 A Y U Ul)V o� LL, �Cc � z z G Q c� z G w "Q 0 w w N z / 7 9 - II � . 4 AC 33 � 0.32 AC _ 0.32 AC F _ � A0.32 AC _ 0.32 AC- _ 0.32 AC _ 0.29 AC x ';0 .3 3 U III/ \ o� m Ln I \ I r'6 3 1 0.47 AC / / 0.44 AC 0.44 AC 0.45 AC 0.45 AGS 0.54 AC \ .5 A 1 00- 7 6 792 0 2 74 ---- 1 1 2 74' 74 �s I f A =s 76, / 0.29 AC 9 77' N-)/ O 7 0.26 AC - OJ'O � J 1\ \ 70' 70 I / / 7 \// � 0.27 Acyyyl�l _ _ I J \ \\ 20 \ \\ \\ - - I 0133 Ac \ �5;� `- I / ( l 2 -^ \ I . I 3 N- \ \ - 'STORM WATE / - T RM WAT R _ I I \ ,� _ N 1 � - � � I , / I - � NAGEME \ \ \ \ \ x MANAGEME _ s - �' 0 5 AC 1 o.4s AC - 0.43 AC �0.4o N \ \ BASIN I I I I I kSIN \ ry) rI \ , 03VAC' 1 0.33 A �99, _97' 96' 181 94' CI 0.31 A 9, -�- lo At 0. &UTL�T/ ti 1 I_ 1s �I III N I \ � I � � \ \\ a - \11.32 AC0.36 AC\ \ M h/ 6 \s0114 mw '90 AGEM � �/ / / BASIN r \ o.79 Ac l / ) / / F \ 0.64 AC__ _ oo \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \148'\1 2-3 1,140.29 /\. 3:w 3�w Oz Oz_ 0' J D_' -:i 60' TYPICAL 26' ROADWAY SECTION NOT TO SCALE I Jun 27, 2019 - 11:15am S: 0 N N 0 Z J � m -- 0 NOZ U Oz V° U 0 X Q w LU Z z LU w H Q Ln LU (7 z Q U Li0 z O I- CL U V) LU 0 w LU z w U Ol J ■i O LU cV w � 0 . Lu LU Dzw V) .,.�0.29 A Y U Ul)V o� LL, �Cc � z z G Q c� z G w "Q 0 wQ U w N z z r'6 3 1 0.47 AC / / 0.44 AC 0.44 AC 0.45 AC 0.45 AGS 0.54 AC \ .5 A 1 00- 7 6 792 0 2 74 ---- 1 1 2 74' 74 �s I f A =s 76, / 0.29 AC 9 77' N-)/ O 7 0.26 AC - OJ'O � J 1\ \ 70' 70 I / / 7 \// � 0.27 Acyyyl�l _ _ I J \ \\ 20 \ \\ \\ - - I 0133 Ac \ �5;� `- I / ( l 2 -^ \ I . I 3 N- \ \ - 'STORM WATE / - T RM WAT R _ I I \ ,� _ N 1 � - � � I , / I - � NAGEME \ \ \ \ \ x MANAGEME _ s - �' 0 5 AC 1 o.4s AC - 0.43 AC �0.4o N \ \ BASIN I I I I I kSIN \ ry) rI \ , 03VAC' 1 0.33 A �99, _97' 96' 181 94' CI 0.31 A 9, -�- lo At 0. &UTL�T/ ti 1 I_ 1s �I III N I \ � I � � \ \\ a - \11.32 AC0.36 AC\ \ M h/ 6 \s0114 mw '90 AGEM � �/ / / BASIN r \ o.79 Ac l / ) / / F \ 0.64 AC__ _ oo \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \148'\1 2-3 1,140.29 /\. 3:w 3�w Oz Oz_ 0' J D_' -:i 60' TYPICAL 26' ROADWAY SECTION NOT TO SCALE I Jun 27, 2019 - 11:15am S: 0 N N 0 Z J � m -- 0 NOZ U Oz V° U 0 X Q w LU Z z LU w H Q Ln LU (7 z Q U Li0 z O I- CL U V) LU 0 w LU z w U Ol J r -I O LU cV w � 0 0 Lu LU Dzw V) o ww U Y U Ul)V o� z J U J WQ U w w 1 LU O 0 DC O DC Y U Q J a LL, �Cc � z z G Q c� z G w "Q 0 wQ U z U r J U w w O a :� z Q J �o z o 0L (D U a rn a z w 0 m N Q Q z w :2 LL z z O w w w N z z AXIOMCONSULTANTS CIVIL • STRUCTURAL - MECHANICAL • ELECTRICAL • SURVEY • SPECIALTY MEMORANDUM PROJECT: Tamarack Ridge (190042) DATE: July 10, 2019 TO: Anne Russett — City of Iowa City SUBJECT Good Neighbor Meeting Summary A Good Neighbor meeting was held on June 10, 2019 for the Tamarack Ridge Development. Invitations were mailed to each household located on Tamarack Trail, Hickory Trail, Hickory Place, Cypress Trail, Bluffwood Drive, and Evergreen Court. This exceeds the 300 -foot requirement, but the development team felt it was important to make all those potentially impacted aware of the project. The meeting was held at First Presbyterian Church of Iowa City located at 2701 Rochester Avenue in Iowa City. The meeting lasted from 5:30pm until 7:00pm and an open house format was used. In addition to myself, the developers, Joe Clark and Doug Paul, were present. We had two large concept plans laid out for the neighbors to review and Doug, Joe, and I answered questions and provided an overview of the development. The meeting was well attended; however, only one of the meeting attendees signed in on the available sign in sheet. The concerns expressed by the neighbors can be summarized as follows: - What will be proposed zoning be? Will there be multi -family development? - The proposed single-family lots are narrower than those currently on Tamarack Trail. At time of the meeting the narrowest lots were 68 -feet wide. Will this negatively impact the property values for the existing residents? - The proposed side yard setbacks are only 5 -feet (consistent with city RS -5 zoning). Will houses being built closer together have a negative impact on the character of the existing neighborhood? - There will be additional traffic on Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail as the new residents travelled south to 1St Avenue rather than north to N. Scott Boulevard. - Will the extension of Tamarack Trail to N. Scott Boulevard encourage drivers to cut through the neighborhood to avoid the 4 -way stop and N. Scott Boulevard and 1 st Avenue? - Will the existing wooded areas be removed or cleared for the development? - Some neighbors were under the impression that the land within the proposed development was part of a preservation area and could not be developed. Other neighbors expressed support for the project and were please to learn that the development would be RS -5 single- family zoning, would preserve wooded areas within the conservation easements, and would incorporate traffic circles along the extension of Tamarack Trail to provide traffic calming measures and discourage traffic from traveling too fast through the neighborhood. Sincerely, Michael J" Welch, PE Associate Principal r CITY OF IOWA CITY X1. MEMORANDUM Date: August 1, 2019 To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner Re: Tamarack Ridge Rezoning — Traffic Calming On July 18, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of a rezoning from Interim Development — Single Family Residential (ID -RS) to Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5) for approximately 36.81 acres south of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack Trail subject to the following conditions: Owner shall develop a landscaping plan that identifies the location and species of 75 right-of-way trees to be planted by Owner or its successor(s) in interest along Tamarack Trail. Said trees shall be planted prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each lot, or, if said certificate of occupancy is issued during a poor planting season, by May 31 following issuance the certificate of occupancy. Said landscaping plan shall be approved by the City Forestry Division prior to the approval of any final plat subdividing any of the above-described real estate. Said landscaping plan shall include a diverse mix of trees planted generally 30' apart, though the City recognizes that exact locations may vary depending on driveway locations, signage and other utility conflicts. Final location and species of the trees shall be approved on a lot -by -lot basis prior to issuance of a building permit for each lot; and 2. Substantial compliance with the preliminary plat in that the traffic circles are incorporated into the final design of the extension of Tamarack Trail. The applicant has agreed to these conditions, which were proposed by staff due to concerns related to traffic speeds. Considering the existing topography, sensitive areas, and development constraints, street connections to the west and the east of the proposed development are highly unlikely. Without these connections the block length is longer than desired, which results in concerns related to travel speeds. Therefore, staff is recommending the following to help reduce speeds on the proposed extension of Tamarack Trail: 1. A curb -to -curb width of 26 feet, which is the minimum allowed per code. This will be addressed through the platting process. 2. In addition to the traffic circle that exists at the end of Tamarack Trail, two additional traffic circles along the proposed extension of Tamarack Trail. This is addressed through the proposed conditions. 3. Street trees planted in the right-of-way, which are identified as a speed reduction mechanism by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). This is also addressed through the proposed conditions. The traffic circles will be the most effective means of reducing speeds. These physical barriers in combination with the reduced pavement width and the street trees will help address staff's concerns related to travel speeds. From: James Broffitt <jbroffitt@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2019 1:44 PM To: Anne Russett Subject: Re: Tamarack Ridge (REZ 19-08) CORRECTION... The widest front measurement is 163'. -On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 1:38 PM James Broffitt <ibroffitt mail.com> wrote: Dear Ms. Russett; Thank you for the invitation to contact you regarding the extension of Tamarack Trail. My wife and I currently reside at 1078 Tamarack Trail. Our home is the last one at the north end of this street on the east side. While I do not object to extending the street and adding houses, I am concerned with the widths of the proposed lots. I don't have a list of the widths of these new lots; however, I understand they are on the order of 65. This figure was communicated orally by Doug Paul, the land owner. There are currently 23 houses on Tamarack Trail. I listed the widths of the fronts of these lots. The narrowest is 80.78', the widest is 124' and the median width is 90'. The widths of the proposed lots are substantially less than the current lots on Tamarack Trail, and I believe this inconsistency will be detrimental to this area. I respectfully request that the expansion not be approved until the property lines are reestablished so that the lot widths are more in line with existing lots on Tamarack Trail. Sincerely, Jim Broffitt Jim Broffitt 'brofitt@gmail.com (319) 530-4710 (cell) Jim Broffitt jbroffitt@gmail.com (319) 530-4710 (cell) 1 Anne Russett From: Regina Block <ragbiock@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 6:08 PM To: Anne Russett Cc: Bob Subject: Planning &Zoning Commission - new development off Tamarack Trail -- Please read before -Thursday's meeting! Dear Ms. Russett: My husband and I own a lot at 1049 Tamarack Trail and got an invitation to the upcoming meeting on Thursday and also visited with the developers recently and saw the plans. We both want to express our wishes to the Planning and zoning Commission to Iowa City to not have Tamarack Trail be a through street. We understand there are other people in our neighborhood who feel the same. It would make a lot of us happy if we could preserve the privacy of our neighborhood and keep the traffic as is rather than have an increase in traffic. Please consider this option which would involve changing the developer's plans at the current end of Tamarack Trail, such that there might be cul-de-sacs on each side. We will not be able to attend the meeting on Thursday, but would like to express our strong desire to keep Tamarack Trail a very quiet street. Thank you. Robert and Regina Block Regina (Gina) Block owners of lot at 1049 Tamarack Trail email: ragblockOgmail.com July 16, 2019 Dear Planning and Zoning Commission Members, Regarding the proposed Tamarack Ridge subdivision, i would like to present a concern and a solution. I am a 24 -year resident of Hickory Trail and am concerned about increased Hickory Trail traffic from the 61 homes in the proposed Tamarack Ridge subdivision. Hickory Trail, a local residential street, saw increased traffic and increased traffic speeds with the 2004-2007 construction of Tamarack Trail. Further lengthening Tamarack Trail and adding an additional 61 houses is not compatible with Hickory Trail's character as a local residential street. The combined Hickory Trail -Tamarack Trail would be a mile -long thoroughfare lined with over 100 homes with no gridwork of intersections to calm traffic. This problem can be avoided and the local neighborhood feel of Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail can be maintained by a simple solution: The Tamarack Ridge subdivision should enter and exit from Scott Blvd., and have no physical connection with the current Tamarack Trail. The current Tamarack Trail ought to be capped at the north end with a house. Building Tamarack Ridge with entrance and exit to Scott Blvd., and with no connection to the existing Tamarack Trail, is a win-win solution for the City of Iowa City, the landowner, the developer, and the residents of Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail. A new Tamarack Ridge subdivision with many new homes would be built, but traffic increases on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail would be prevented The Hickory Trail neighborhood has had only one entrance for over 30 years. There is no need for an additional entrance. Please request a different plan in which the Tamarack Ridge subdivision exists as a separate entity on Scott Blvd. Thank you for your service on the Planning and zoning Commission. Sincerely, Mary Anne Berg 2775 Hickory Trail Iowa City, IA Petition The undersigned residents have been made aware of the proposed new Tamarack Ridge development connecting to the north end of Tamarack Trail. Concerns arise regarding the volume of new homes created and the resulting increased traffic on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail. As proposed, Hickory and Tamarack Trails, which currently serve 95 homes plus a 16 -unlit condo building, would form a mile -long thoroughfare serving 154 homes plus the 16 -unit condo building, with no residential gridwork of .. intersections for traffic control and no alternative routes to diffuse traffic. Traffic to downtown Iowa City and N. 151 Avenue would primarily exit the neighborhood at Hickory Trail and VAvenue, an already burdened intersection. We request that: 1) the city study the current and projected traffic situation on Hickory Trail prior to approving this project z) the city insure that the quality of the Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail neighborhoods are not harmed by increased traffic from the new development. 3) The city pursue options to mitigate the issues presented by the new development, including diverting Tamarack Ridge traffic from Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail through physical separation such as a gate or cul-de-sacs separating the neighborhoods Neighborhood residents in agreement with this petition: Name Address: q�07 I Name: 42a�� Address: Name: Address: 1A1, fd�e n Name -dress: Add q22lv��'e Name ! �,r.a Address: I rtc `' �/• Name Address: 1Q Races w ink V Name:r�� Address: p i4wre rte., Cf� Name: Address: eve-Irtc-eer, t 1C -GQ Name:�c dress: 4 q Petition The undersigned residents have been made aware of the proposed new Tamarack Ridge development connecting to the north end of Tamarack Trail. Concerns arise regarding the volume of new homes created and the resulting increased traffic on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail. As proposed, Hickory and Tamarack Trails, which currently serve 95 homes plus a 16 -unit condo building, would form a mile -long thoroughfare serving 154 homes plus the 16 -unit condo building, with no residential gridwork of intersections for traffic control and no alternative routes to diffuse traffic. Traffic to downtown Iowa City and N. 1st Avenue would primarily exit the neighborhood at Hickory Trail and 11 Avenue, an already burdened intersection. We request that: 1) the city study the current and projected traffic situation on Hickory Trail prior to approving this project 2) the city insure that the quality of the Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail neighborhoods are not harmed by increased traffic from the new development. 3) The city pursue options to mitigate the issues presented by the new development, including diverting Tamarack Ridge traffic from Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail through physical separation such as a gate or cul-de-sacs separating the neighborhoods Neighborhood residents in agreement with this petition: Name: Address: lod �l Name: - Address: a4o����dSS Name: &Ivy Ccon2-5 Name: '1111,4 r4 Name: Nar�Ve: Name's 6 Address: $ib C�Press C�F .p ' G Address: y�PVCS' Address: 2 f V7 A V Address: �'Z 4xlfO�; /�� . Name/y/ {I'y', 1{` 1 Address: Name: dress: 4 Petition The undersigned residents have been made aware of the proposed new Tamarack Ridge development connecting to the north end of Tamarack Trail. Concerns arise regarding the volume of new homes created and the resulting increased traffic on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail. As proposed, Hickory and Tamarack Trails, which currently serve 95 homes plus a 16 -unit condo building, would form a mile -Tong thoroughfare serving 154 homes plus the 16 -unit condo building, with no residential gridwork of . intersections for traffic control and no alternative routes to diffuse traffic. Traffic to downtown Iowa City and N. V Avenue would primarily exit the neighborhood at Hickory Trail and V Avenue, an already burdened intersection. `� ) (D We request that: i) the city study the current and projected traffic situation on Hickory Trail prior to approving this project 2) the city insure that the quality of the Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail neighborhoods are not harmed by increased traffic from the new development. 3) The city pursue options to mitigate the issues presented by the new development, 'including diverting Tamarack Ridge traffic from Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail through physical separation such as a gate,,or cul-de-sacs separating the neighborhoods Neighborhood residents in agreement with this petition: Name: L V4�J 4t-)64--- Address: '(D Name: ✓ d v� ; Name: e:r', cc.1�e Name: Address: o -2_T - Address: Address: 4 063 1 �.MUACk- __FKA+ I Address: /0,O ®Y�.. Jr_;J; / e3,. ,.�_ cess: P ,) 0 Name. Name: r Name: Address: Address: /0M J&WAJd(-,1 Address: �0 3 S _ 7-etARVAZZA V 0. q Petition The undersigned residents have been made aware of the proposed new Tamarack Ridge development connecting to the north end of Tamarack Trail. Concerns arise regarding the volume of new homes created and the resulting increased traffic on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail. As proposed, Hickory and Tamarack Trails, which currently serve 95 homes plus a 16 -unit condo building, would form a mile -long thoroughfare serving 154 homes plus the 16 -unit condo building, with no residential gridwork of intersections for traffic control and no alternative routes to diffuse traffic. Traffic to downtown Iowa City and N. 1"t Avenue would primarily exit the neighborhood at Hickory Trail and 1' Avenue, an already burdened intersection. We request that: 1) the city study the current and projected traffic situation on Hickory Trail prior to approving this project 2) the city insure that the quality of the Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail neighborhoods are not harmed by increased traffic from the new development. 3) The city pursue options to mitigate the issues presented by the new development, including diverting Tamarack Ridge traffic from Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail through physical separation such as a gate or cul-de-sacs separating the neighborhoods Neighborhood residen in agreement with this petition: Name: , Address: 3S_ 7 L -V, Te Name:���s�� Af0/74Z 4j0,47 Name: Name: ; ®'t'A� Ky'17 r Name: 1 L C y0 —CA � Name:¢� y,,,, ; +`�� ��Io Name:$tik $ S AW Name:' Address:%7j 0 Address: �,� �A'iLKOPy et Address: )a �Aoy'`r Oac e_ Address:,2- g 6 -,7/-/' /" /'/" Address: llq b �� aN Tyres Address: Address: Name: _7LV_l rr� 6' Yl OAX 1 101'6 lCk- `` Address: -r%b Petition The undersigned residents have been made aware of the proposed new Tamarack Ridge development connecting to the north end of Tamarack Trail. Concerns arise regarding the volume of new homes created and the resulting increased traffic on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail. As proposed, Hickory and Tamarack Trails, which currently serve 95 homes plus a 16 -unit condo building, would form a mile -long thoroughfare serving 154 homes plus the 16 -unit condo building, with no residential gridwork of intersections for traffic control and no alternative routes to diffuse traffic. Traffic to downtown Iowa City and N. tat Avenue would primarily exit the neighborhood at Hickory Trail and 1A Avenue, an already burdened intersection. We request that: 1) the city study the current and projected traffic situation on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail prior to approving this project 2) the city insure that the quality of the Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail neighborhoods are not harmed by increased traffic from the new development. 3) The city pursue options to mitigate the issues presented by the new development, including diverting Tamarack Ridge traffic from Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail through physical separation such as a gate or cul-de-sacs separating the neighborhoods Neighborhood residents in agreement with this petition: Addres� me: Address: N e: Address: V HxAA, �� .�c 7—Z q5o Name:Address:��� ZNa?e: Address: �w BIILA� `off Name:` Address: 'OV, OL 948 �f' �°' r - •� Name: Address: $S Name: Address: Name: Address:y` 1 � 6�fi?z-_4� � � ` c. 9 _" I biz Petition The undersigned residents have been made aware of the proposed new Tamarack Ridge development connecting to the north end of Tamarack Trail. Concerns arise regarding the volume of new homes created and the resulting increased traffic on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail. As proposed, Hickory and Tamarack Trails, which currently serve 95 homes plus a 16 -unit condo building, would form a mile -long thoroughfare serving 154 homes plus the 16 -unit condo building, with no residential gridwork of intersections for traffic control and no alternative routes to diffuse traffic. Traffic to downtown Iowa City and N. 1A Avenue would primarily exit the neighborhood at Hickory Trail and 1-t Avenue, an already burdened intersection. We request that: 1) the city study the current and projected traffic situation on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail prior to approving this project 2) the city insure that the quality of the Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail neighborhoods are not harmed by increased traffic from the new development. 3) The city pursue options to mitigate the issues presented by the new development, including diverting Tamarack Ridge traffic from Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail through physical separation such as a gate or cul-de-sacs separating the neighborhoods Neighborhood residents in agreement with this petition: Name: Yisfi Tr) r V,) Address: -Z-7s5 L "� �v� Gh�►" Name: LJh1^-' J 224S Address: -- j,.,_G�G � Name: �(�' ,V9Y_41 y Address: �,q A4': fid V � Name �l� J 0�1 Address: 2*3,1 Name: �"'t Address:,S�;:tGJ26 Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Petition The undersigned residents have been made aware of the proposed new Tamarack Ridge development connecting to the north end of Tamarack Trail. Concerns arise regarding the volume of new homes created and the resulting increased traffic on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail. As proposed, Hickory and Tamarack Trails, which currently serve 95 homes plus a 16 -unit condo building, would form a mile -long thoroughfare serving 154 homes plus the 16 -unit condo building, with no residential gridwork of intersections for traffic control and no alternative routes to diffuse traffic. Traffic to downtown Iowa City and N. 1d Avenue would primarily exit the neighborhood at Hickory Trail and 1�, Avenue, an already burdened intersection. We request that: 1) the city study the current and projected traffic situation on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail prior to approving this project 2) the city insure that the quality of the Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail neighborhoods are not harmed by increased traffic from the new development. 3) The city pursue options to mitigate the issues presented by the new development, including diverting Tamarack Ridge traffic from Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail through physical separation such as a gate or cul-de-sacs separating the neighborhoods Neighborhood residents in agreement with this petition: Name: rD 2c tir,L I ,ekt ��,,�-Address• Name: �.�`Address: Name: CEIA_Atjarw Address: Z(.61 IMCOL 1 11M, 9c,01A 52 -.-Ir Name:AV OA lel VM A&ddress: 7-62—, —ro-A l t , Name: Address: �N5 C� P ( Caro. P_'_� fPL' F Name: 6,ejr �� Address: � (CrYcD `� Tft 1'(. ,J Name: ft[)6� VRn I" 5 Address: �'r}C �_dq -FKa Name: �-i 1( kd ( e L"045 Address: 21, 7f 4� r -- Name: ,J Ae, d,')) i n Address: 27� 4 -H Petition The undersigned residents have been made aware of the proposed new Tamarack Ridge development connecting to the north end of Tamarack Trail. Concerns arise regarding the volume of new homes created and the resulting increased traffic on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail. As proposed, Hickory and Tamarack Trails, which currently serve 95 homes plus a 16 -unit condo building, would form a mile -long thoroughfare serving 154 homes plus the 16 -unit condo building, with no residential gridwork of intersections for traffic control and no alternative routes to diffuse traffic. Traffic to downtown Iowa City and N. 1-t Avenue would primarily exit the neighborhood at Hickory Trail and 1-t Avenue, an already burdened intersection. We request that: 1) the city study the current and projected traffic situation on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail prior to approving this project 2) the city insure that the quality of the Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail neighborhoods are not harmed by increased traffic from the new development. 3) The city pursue options to mitigate the issues presented by the new development, including diverting Tamarack Ridge traffic from Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail through physical separation such as a gate or cul-de-sacs separating the neighborhoods Neighborhood residents in agreement with this petition: ) `J Name: , 5,L Address: .2V 0 ,,4C/ d , y. 1iZh Name: 4,1,a,/'VGc.�Address: pD 1 �. �� Il N7 _ I Name: M" Name: 10.4 4�a� Name: _hVA Y4 Name • -OLUD-1- 77 MCI, NaZ�k Name: Name: a Address: c L_© R Address: Address: 1 r , Address: Address: Address: tz Address: ,.9 2 0 S— )H':r-C Et: GAY TgA rl- Petition The undersigned residents have been made aware of the proposed new Tamarack Ridge development connecting to the north end of Tamarack Trail. Concerns arise regarding the volume of new homes created and the resulting increased traffic on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail. As proposed, Hickory and Tamarack Trails, which currently serve 95 homes plus a 16 -unit condo building, would form a mile -long thoroughfare serving 154 homes plus the 16 -unit condo building, with no residential gridwork of intersections for traffic control and no alternative routes to diffuse traffic. Traffic to downtown Iowa City and N. la Avenue would primarily exit the neighborhood at Hickory Trail and 1-1 Avenue, an already burdened intersection. We request that: 1) the city study the current and projected traffic situation on Hickory "frail and Tamarack Trail prior to approving this project 2) the city insure that the quality of the Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail neighborhoods are not harmed by increased traffic from the new development. 3) The city pursue options to mitigate the issues presented by the new development, including diverting tamarack Ridge traffic from Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail through physical separation such as a gate or cul-de-sacs separating the neighborhoods Neighb rhood residents in agreement with this petition: Name: QA� Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Petition The undersigned residents have been made aware of the proposed new Tamarack Ridge development connecting to the north end of Tamarack Trail. Concerns arise regarding the volume of new homes created and the resulting increased traffic on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail. As proposed, Hickory and Tamarack Trails, which currently serve 95 homes plus a 15 -unit condo building, would form a mile -tong thoroughfare serving 154 homes plus the 16 -unit condo building, with no residential gridwork of . . intersections for traffic control and no alternative routes to diffuse traffic. Traffic to downtown Iowa City and N. V Avenue would primarily exit the neighborhood at HickoryTrail and 11 Avenue, an already burdened intersection. We request that: 1) the city study the current and projected traffic situation on Hickory Trail prior to approving this project 2) the city insure that the quality of the Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail neighborhoods are not harmed by increased traffic from the new development. 3) The city pursue options to mitigate the issues presented by the new development, including diverting Tamarack Ridge traffic from Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail through physical separation such as a gate or cul-de-sacs separating the neighborhoods Neighborhoodresidentsin agreement with this petition: Name:1"i{Ov-�1 lV�Ii� rlf�Vdress: �3� (k, Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Petition The undersigned residents have been made aware of the proposed new Tamarack Ridge development connecting to the north end of Tamarack Trail. Concerns arise regarding the volume of new homes created and the resulting increased traffic on Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail. As proposed, Hickory and Tamarack Trails, which currently serve 95 homes plus a 16 -unit condo building, would form a mile -long thoroughfare serving 154 homes plus the 16 -unit condo building, with no residential gridwork of intersections for traffic control and no alternative routes to diffuse traffic. Traffic to downtown Iowa City and N. V Avenue would primarily exit the neighborhood at Hickory Trail and 1st Avenue, an already burdened intersection. iI ` We request that: 1) the city study the current and projected traffic situation on Hickory Trai!prior to approving this project 2) the city insure that the quality of the Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail neighborhoods are not harmed by increased traffic from the new development. 3) The city pursue options to mitigate the issues presented by the new development, including diverting Tamarack Ridge traffic from Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail through physical separation such as a gate or cul-de-sacs separating the neighborhoods Neighborhood residents in agreement with this petition: Name: Address: Name: tp dress: /E> 1 .� Name:MCADlbh Address: Namei Y Address: Q.� F� Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: Name: Address: From: Danielle Sitzman Sent: Friday, August 09, 2019 3:43 PM To: Anne Russett; Kellie Fruehling Subject: FW: Tamarack Trail continuance Attachments: As residents of Tamarack Trail 52245 we would like to request that you seriously consider several issues concerning the continuation of Tamarack Trail into a proposed subdivision called Tamarack Ridge.docx -----Original Message ----- From: j.kardos@mchsi.com [mailto:j.kardos@mchsi.com] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2019 3:15 PM To: Susan Mims <Susan-Mims@iowa-city.org>; Jim Throgmorton <Jim-Throgmorton@iowa-city.org>; Danielle Sitzman <Da nielle-Sitzma n@iowa-city.org> Subject: Tamarack Trail continuance As residents of Tamarack Trail we attach for your information our statement of concerns about the continuance of Tamarack Trail, which is currently being considered by the Planning and Zoning commission. Thank you for your attention, Jan and John Kardos, 956 Tamarack Trail, 52245 As residents of Tamarack Trail 52245 we would like to request that you seriously consider several issues concerning the continuation of Tamarack Trail into a proposed subdivision called Tamarack Ridge. After attending the July 181h Planning and Zoning Commission meeting we are convinced that more professional and in depth studies need to be made regarding the viability of connecting a new 60+ lot subdivision to the existing HickoryTrail/ Tamarack Trail subdivision. 1. Our primary concern is that the traffic from the proposed subdivision (60 units implies at least 120 vehicles) would increase traffic on the original Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail to a dangerous level. These streets are too narrow and curvy to accept the extra traffic. Besides, all cars travelling from the new subdivision would be entering the old subdivision as the road slopes downhill ending in a dangerous curve at Hickory Trail. The Planning Commission's proposal to plant a canopy of trees in the new subdivision "to slow traffic" has no practical validity. Will the canopy be there within the next 30-50 years? Besides, the current utilities in our subdivision are in the tree line between the street curb and the sidewalk. Where would the new subdivision locate its canopy? It goes without saying that most traffic going out of the new subdivision will be heading south on Tamarack because that is the direction toward downtown Iowa City business, cultural, educational, and religious locations. This traffic will not only be going down Tamarack but likely will also be returning on Tamarack. 2. The City claims that all subdivisions must have 2 exits. Our subdivision has existed for 30 years with one exit. If anyone had ever proposed a need for another exit, a much more used exit would be connected to Rochester Ave. Traffic from our subdivision through the new subdivision would be miniscule. As you can see on the aerial photos even residents on the existing Tamarack Trail have very little reason to go north. The rest of the subdivision would be going out of their way to go to Scott via the extension. 3. Drainage issues are the second serious concern. We would like to see more professional studies on where the rainwater drainage from the new subdivision would travel and collect. Drainage over Hickory Trail sidewalks already exists at several locations... especially visible in winter where icy areas form regularly. To the highly taxed residents of our subdivision it seems that all the disadvantages of a Tamarack Trail continuance are subject to us: the loss of the current level of privacy, the extra traffic and resulting safety concerns for our children, as well as, the extra drainage concerns. Not to mention the distinct possibility that if the continuance is approved we will be subject to a very longtime dealing with construction vehicles passing through the neighborhood for as long as it takes to build 60 new residences. We and the residents of our subdivision have been strong supporters of Iowa City, the University of Iowa, the Iowa School district, Hickory Hill Park, Meals on Wheels and the Harvest Preserve to mention a few ways we interact with the city. We feel we deserve more consideration for our obvious concerns about this issue. Jan and John Kardos, 956 Tamarack Trail Anne Russett From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Sent from my Phone Begin forwarded message: Danielle Sitzman Monday, August 12, 2019 11:03 AM Anne Russett Fwd: Tamarack Trail - Tamarack Ridge Development Concerns Traffic Flow Distances & Time Factors-maps.pdf, ATT00001.htm From: "terryprotextor@email.com" <terryorotextor@gmaiI.com> To: "Jim Throgmorton" <Jim-Thro morton Iowa-ci .or >, "Bruce Teague" <Bruce-Teague@iowa- city.org>, "John Thomas" <John-Thomas@iowa:citv.ore>, "Danielle Sitzman" <Danielle-Sitzman_@iowa- city.org> Subject: Tamarack Trail - Tamarack Ridge Development Concerns We reside at 1007 Tamarack Trail and would like to request that you seriously consider several issues concerning the continuation of Tamarack Trail into the proposed subdivision called Tamarack Ridge. After attending the July 18th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, we are convinced that a more in-depth studies need to be undertaken regarding the viability of connecting a new 60+ lot subdivision to the existing Hickory Trail/ Tamarack Trail subdivision. Our primary concern is that the traffic from the proposed subdivision (60 units implies at least 120 vehicles) would increase traffic on the original Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail to a dangerous level. The streets are too narrow and curvy to accept the extra traffic. Cars travelling from the new subdivision would be entering our subdivision as the road slopes downhill ending in a dangerous curve at the Tamarack/Hickory Trail corner. This additional traffic though our neighborhood would impact the safety of our neighborhood's children and bicycle traffic. Having lived in our subdivision for over 20 years, we understand the traffic flow. Most traffic going out of the new subdivision will be heading south on Tamarack to 1st Avenue then on to HyVee, City High, Regina, UI, UIHC, downtown Iowa City businesses, cultural, educational, and religious locations. This traffic will likely also be returning via Tamarack Trail. If the new development's traffic does go north on the new development's street to Scott Boulevard, it would add an additional 0.50 to 1.25 miles to access the destinations mentioned above. Common sense tells you that people will take the shortest distance to these locations. This is contrary to the City staff s suggestion that it would reduce traffic through our neighborhood. There's no doubt that there will be a bottleneck, even if only 60+ cars exit our subdivision at Hickory Trail and 1st Avenue. There are already issues with morning traffic trying to get onto 1st Avenue and backed up at the stoplight of Rochester and 1st Avenue. There has been no comprehensive traffic study done by either the city staff or the developer on the traffic flow impact from Hickory Trail onto 1st Avenue. The information provided in the City staff's recommendation is not based on a "study", simply estimates based on old traffic counts. The new development only needs the north access to Scott Boulevard for traffic to leave the subdivision. We have attached a document and map, which illustrates the travel distances and traffic flow options. 2. City staff states that all subdivisions must have two exits for fire and safety. Our subdivision has existed for 30 years with only one exit, without any problems. Let's look at the facts. The distance to the fire station on Scott Blvd and Dodge Street from 1.077 Tamarack Trail, (the last house on our Tamarack Trail street), via Hickory Trail, North on 1st Ave to the Scott Boulevard/Dodge Street is 1.5 miles. The distance from that same address north through the new subdivision to Scott Boulevard is 1.35 miles distance. We're talking about a difference of 0.15 miles or 792 feet. That's less than a five second response difference for an emergency vehicle traveling 40 miles an hour to get to that home. Therefore, the two -egress access safety logic is flawed and irrelevant. There are numerous neighborhoods throughout Iowa City with only one egress, i.e. the Peninsula, a gated Lexington Avenue and numerous cul-de-sac streets throughout Iowa City. We have attached a document and map, which illustrates the fire/safety travel distances and travel time for emergency vehicles. City Staff has stated that a cul-de-sac at the south end of the new development's street is not an option. Clearly the City Code does allow for exceptions. The "..should be avoided.." language is not an absolute statemen. As stated in Iowa City Code - Chapter 3, 15-3-2 Streets and Circulation, paragraph 4: "Use of cul-de-sacs and other roadways with a single point of access should be avoided. Cul-de-sacs will be considered where it can be clearly demonstrated that environmental constraints, existing development, access limitations along arterials streets, or other unusual features will prevent the extension of the street to the property line or to interconnect with other streets within or abutting to the subdivision." Our request to not connect Tamarack Trail to the new subdivision meets all of factors outlined in the paragraph's last sentence. I Drainage issues are the third serious concern. We would like to see a more professional studies on where the rainwater drainage from the new subdivision would travel and collect. Drainage over Hickory Trail sidewalks already exists at several locations. We're concerned about the three stormwater basins in the new subdivision. There is a 20 -foot elevation drop from the top to the bottom of the new subdivision. The basins drain into our subdivision and the property to the west through small ravines. We hope the civil engineers are correct about the drainage. We have a petition signed by 74 homeowners against connecting our Tamarack Trail street to the new development. As highly taxed subdivision residents, it seems that all the disadvantages of a Tamarack Trail continuance falls on us; the loss of the current level of privacy, the extra traffic and resulting safety concerns for our children, and the protracted construction vehicles traffic passing through the neighborhood for as long as it takes to build 60 new residences. Our recommendation is that the Tamarack Trail street does not connect to the new development. We recommend that the south end of the new development's street have a cul- de-sac abutting our Tamarack street's exiting north cul-de-sac. The abutted cul-de-sacs would have sidewalks to allow for pedestrian traffic between the subdivisions. This will provide families with access to the park in our subdivision. We and the other residents of our subdivision have been strong supporters of Iowa City, the University of Iowa, the Iowa School district, Hickory Hill Park, and the Harvest Preserve to mention a few ways we interact with the city. We feel we deserve more consideration for our obvious concerns about this issue. We hope the Planning and Zoning Commission, City Council and city staff will be "Citizen friendly" and "neighborhood friendly" in their decision process. Thank you for allowing us to share our positions and concerns on connecting our Tamarack Trail to the new development. Sincerely, Terry & Vicki Protextor 1007 Tamarack Trail 3 n] m �?. 'o m Ind 16 0 L 2 n WOMM A n] L 2 n ' ® s '. i A 40 t I MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION J U LY 17, 2019 — 7:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Carolyn Dyer, Mike Hensch, Max Parsons, Billie Townsend MEMBERS ABSENT: Phoebe Martin, Mark Signs STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Welch, Joe Clark, Terry Protextor, Steven Polyak, Mary Ann Berg, Knute Carter, Michelle Edwards, Claude Laroche, Debra Brandt, Jan Kardos, Stephen Locher, Ruth Bradley (2669 Hickory Trial) RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ19-08, a proposal to rezone approximately 36.81 acres of property located south of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack Trail from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) to Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5), subject to the following conditions: 1. 90 street trees will be installed, either by payment of a tree planting fee at a cost of $500 per tree for the plantings of street trees within the public right-of-way or through installation prior to certificate of occupancy as determined though staff and developer negotiation. Trees will generally be located every 30' with modifications allowed due to drive -way distances. The Parks and Recreation Department will be responsible for identifying the appropriate locations for the trees. 2. Compliance with the preliminary plat in that traffic calming measures, like the traffic circles, are required and incorporated into the final design of the extension of Tamarack Trail. CALL TO ORDER: Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Dyer moved to elect Hensch as Chair. Parsons seconded the motion and the vote passed 5-0. Hensch moved to elect Parsons as Vice Chair. Townsend seconded the motion and the vote passed 5-0. Parsons moved to elect Signs as Secretary. Townsend seconded the motion and the vote passed 5-0. Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 2 of 14 PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CASE NO. REZ19-08: Applicant: TRD, LLC Location: South of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack Trail An application submitted by TRD, LLC for a rezoning of approximately 36.81 acres of property located south of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack Trail from Interim Development Single - Family Residential (ID -RS) to Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5). Russett began the staff report with a map of the proposed rezoning area. The property is currently zoned Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) and most of the area around the proposed rezoning is also zoned ID -RS except the area to the south and southwest where there is an existing single-family neighborhood that is zoned RS -5. In addition to the proposed rezoning, the applicant has also submitted an application for a preliminary plat for this area which will be discussed at a future Planning & Zoning meeting. The applicant also held a good neighbor meeting in June, the meeting was well attended as the applicant sent out invitations beyond the required distance in the good neighbor policy. All the neighbors along Hickory Trail and Tamarack Trail were invited. Russett next showed the preliminary plat and sensitive area map to show the general layout of the proposed lots as well as the sensitive areas. She noted there are two areas staff analyzes for rezonings, the first is compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan has designated this area for Conservation Design due to the areas containing steep slopes, woodlands, or other sensitive features. The Northeast District Plan identifies this area for single- family residential development. The RS -5 zone is consistent with the general intended land uses and vision identified in the comprehensive plan and the Northeast District Plan. The second criteria staff looks at is compatibility with the existing neighborhood. Most of the area around the proposed rezoning is undeveloped, however to the south is an existing single-family residential neighborhood so this project would extend that single-family residential neighborhood further north to Scott Boulevard. Russett noted there are some environmentally sensitive features on the site which include critical and protected slopes. Based on the preliminary sensitive area plan the proposed development would disturb around 12% of the critical slopes and the Code allows for disturbance of critical slopes up to 35%. The project is also showing no protective slopes being impacted. With regards to the woodlands on the site, 18.5 acres, and the Code has a retention requirement of 50% of woodlands to be preserved and remained. The proposed preliminary plat shows that 52% of the woodlands would be preserved with the development. Russett added there is also the potential for archaeological resources and the applicant is working with a consultant on an archaeological study. In terms of traffic implications and access Russett stated the preliminary plat identifies 60 single- family lots as well as the extension of Tamarack Trail to Scott Boulevard. Staff estimates the extension of Tamarack Trail and the additional access point to Scott Boulevard could reduce total trips accessing North 1 sc Avenue to the west. Scott Boulevard and North 1 sc Avenue are both arterials and have the capacity to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 3 of 14 proposed development. During peak hours there is congestion at North 1 st Avenue and Scott Boulevard and the City is proposing improvements at that intersection, which is budgeted in the 2020 Capital Improvements Program to address the congestion issues. The preliminary plat does show Tamarack Trail extending to Scott Boulevard, due to the topography and heavy terrains street extensions to the west and east of this development are not feasible which will result in a longer block length. With those longer block lengths staff has concerns with traffic travel speed and therefore the preliminary plat does incorporate components to help reduce those speeds. One is reduced curb to curb paving of the roadway to 26 feet which is the minimum allowed by the Code and the other is the incorporation of traffic circles to reduce speed. To further address concerns to speeding staff proposes two conditions: 1. At the time of final platting, payment of a tree planting fee at a cost of $500 per tree for the plantings of street trees within the public right-of-way. The Parks and Recreation Department will be responsible for identifying the appropriate locations for the trees and planting of the trees. Parks and Recreation Department will not be responsible for watering or upkeep on the trees. Staff is proposing 90 trees along the public right-of-way. 2. General compliance with the preliminary plat in that traffic calming measures, like the traffic circles, are incorporated into the final design of the extension of Tamarack Trail. Russett noted the benefits of street trees as it relates to traffic calming, the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) identity street trees as a speed reduction mechanism. Street trees can create vertical walls within a roadway creating a physical and psychological barrier for drivers that result in lower speeds compared to non -treed streets. Adding these street trees will also help achieve the vision in the North District Plan to create a pleasant streetscape to slow down traffic and encourage bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Russett acknowledged staff has received several calls and correspondence related to this proposed rezoning, she handed out three emails to the Commission that she received after the publication of the agenda packet. The concerns in the emails are primarily related to the preliminary plat and the extension of Tamarack Trail as well as width of the proposed lots. In terms of next steps, upon recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be scheduled for consideration of the application by the City Council. The Planning and Zoning Commission will also review the preliminary plat at an upcoming meeting. Staff recommends approval of REZ19-08, a proposal to rezone approximately 36.81 acres of property located south of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack Trail from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) to Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5), subject to the following conditions: 1. At the time of final platting, payment of a tree planting fee at a cost of $500 per tree for the plantings of street trees within the public right-of-way. Trees will generally be located every 30' with modifications allowed due to drive -way distances. The Parks and Recreation Department will be responsible for identifying the appropriate locations for the trees and planting of the trees. 2. General compliance with the preliminary plat in that traffic calming measures, like the traffic circles, are incorporated into the final design of the extension of Tamarack Trail. Hensch asked if something is found on the archeological survey what happens to the project. Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 4 of 14 Russett said it depends on the result, it is possible to require a planned development overlay rezoning and need to come back for a new approval. Hensch is concerned about the traffic calming condition and feels it is very vague and wondered if there was a way to make sure whatever recommendation the City has about traffic calming must be adopted. Hektoen stated staff has reviewed the preliminary plat and it reflects the recommendation regarding traffic calming, but they could change the language to drop general compliance and specifically state inclusion of traffic circles. Baker asked about road width on Tamarack Trail, if the proposed curb to curb distance is 26 feet for the new road. Russett said it is 28 feet, so it will narrow just a bit. Baker also commented on the estimated number of trips per day and asked if there were any traffic studies that could anticipate north/south traffic. Russett said that is usually done through an estimate traffic engineers and transportation planners would come up with, it may be 50/50 but would be an estimate. Finally Baker asked about the trees as a traffic slowing device and how trees would slow down traffic. Russett stated if trees are planted in the right-of-way and closer to the roadway they can create a canopy and a visual wall for the driver. There are studies that demonstrate drivers do slow down and drive slower on tree -lined streets as it creates a sense of the driver being enclosed and not so open. Baker asked if there would be on street parking allowed. Russett said parking would be allowed on one side of the street. Dyer questioned whether the outlots are suitable to have trails in them and access from the road. Russett stated that Outlot A shown on the preliminary plat is very steep but she can't answer for certain if it would be appropriate. Dyer noted some developments the Commission has approved has had a walkway between the houses so people could get to the wild areas and wondered if that was possible in this development. Hensch asked what the percent of grade was on the protected slopes. Russett replied 40% or greater. Parsons asked when Tamarack Trail was constructed. Russett is unsure, Dyer believes maybe five years ago. Hensch opened the public hearing. Mike Welch (Axiom Consultants) is representing the applicant. Generally speaking they agree with staff's findings, and when they look at what was available from a practicality standpoint for the preliminary plat compared to the North District Plan they feel they are putting a lot less density in the development than what was shown in the North District Plan. He noted that Tamarack Trail is stubbed to the north, the water main and sanitary sewer are all set to extend so it seems as this development is consistent with the intentions of the previous development and the overall North District Plan. Hensch thanked the applicant for inviting neighbors from the surrounding area, more than just the 300 feet, to the good neighbor meeting. He added the report of the meeting was also very Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 5 of 14 well written and appreciated by the Commission. Hensch noted on the Comprehensive Plan it notes multifamily on the north side but this proposal is only single-family. Welch confirmed that is correct. Welch also noted the concept plan they presented at the good neighbor meeting did show 61 lots but after the feedback from neighbors on lot widths they did reevaluate and changed it to 60 lots. Dyer asked about the access to the undeveloped land and if any of it was suitable for trails. Welch replied that most of the area is very steep but on the east side, there are some woods in the southeast corner in a conservation easement and the lots extend back into that easement. On the west side the lots all back up to Outlot A which will be owned by the subdivision so depending on how the covenants is written there could be access granted to that area. Dyer reiterated that in some developments there is access between a couple lots to get back to the undeveloped area. Hensch asked if the stormwater management basins will be dry most of the time. Welch confirmed those are designed as dry bottom basins. Hensch asked if they do fill will they have controlled drainage off or just stay full and evaporate out. Welch said it is restricted drainage out, they will meet City Code on the release. Welch acknowledged there was concerns it would drain out to the backyards on Tamarack Trail but the way the grades are it will go further west into the ravines and cross Hickory Trail by 1St Avenue. Hensch asked if the City Engineer has signed off on all the stormwater plans. Welch said they have submitted preliminary plans and tomorrow they will submit a response to the preliminary plat and will include responses to the stormwater plans. Parsons asked since Scott Boulevard is an arterial street had they considered a variety of housing, especially close to Scott Boulevard, such as townhouses or duplexes or any of that mixture. Welch said it was considered briefly, but right now there is a demand for single family lots, especially in this part of town, so the developer chose to go that direction. Joe Clark (359 Green Mountain Drive) is one of the developers of this land, he wanted to talk about the condition regarding the trees. It is a new concept for everyone, but he has no problem with the condition, neither of the conditions, he wants it to be safe and for traffic to go slow. He would like to set it up the trees in the covenants rather than paying a fee upfront, so he wondering if they could work through that. If not, then he understands but was just alerted today they would have to put in 90 trees at $500 apiece and it was unexpected. He isn't sure it will calm people, the trees will take years to grow up to a point where they will actually calm. He is asking today for an opportunity to put it into a covenant and have the homeowners association pay for them at the end of the 10 year period it takes to build out this subdivision or to have each lot owner responsible for putting two trees on each lot as they finish their homes. Hensch said he has seen data on trees as traffic calmers and is a believer, how to go about this is likely a legal question. Parsons asked if $500 is what each tree is anticipated to cost. Russett said the $500 amount was given by the Parks and Recreation Department, based on what they are generally charged for trees from other contractors, but it does not include maintenance and watering of the trees. Hensch stated it is best to put in a variety of good trees and not scrub Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 6 of 14 trees to enhance the neighborhood. He also is an advocate of getting those trees in as soon as they can so they can start growing, and not happen over a 10 year period. Clark said the trees will not be able to be put in early because there will be construction going on. The quickest way to do it would be to put it onto the lot owner, the trees would be put in at different times and the size of the trees may grow differently. As a lot gets a certificate of occupancy it should be the owner's responsibility to put in the trees within six months or a year. It would be a requirement and enforced by the HOA. Clark said he is willing to put down some earnest money to make sure this happens. Dyer asked if the developer could just put the trees in as the houses are finished so there would be some control over what the trees would be. Clark said they can control all that through the covenants, what types of trees, how many, where they are placed, etc. Dyer responded they don't have good experience with developers putting in the trees that were required to be put in. Clark is willing to take the guidance of the Commission on what types of trees they want to see on the sites. Hensch said they usually defer to whatever the City Forester recommends. Baker asked if this particular issue had to be settled tonight or can it be resolved at the platting process. Russett said staff is proposing this as a condition of the rezoning. Townsend asked if this had to be a through street and can't just have a hub at the end. Russett said it wouldn't meet the City's Subdivision Code regulations if it were a cul-de-sac. There are restrictions on the locations of cul-de-sacs, the applicant would need to demonstrate it is impossible to put the street through, there is clearly a stub there so we know it can go through, there is also a maximum length on cul-de-sacs which this would exceed and finally from a planning perspective the City wants interconnected neighborhoods to allow emergency access and also give people the options to access to places from different ways. Hektoen noted as far as the administration of the trees and fees they could craft something, it doesn't have to be decided tonight, it would have to be decided before the rezoning is approved but if that is something the Commission wants to give staff and the applicant discretion to continue discussing further they can craft the recommendation that way. Baker noted the goal is to get the trees in within a timely manner, the applicant is suggesting the owner be responsible within six months or a year and Baker feels that is too late and the occupancy certificate should be contingent on the trees immediately being planted. He states that is just one way to approach it but doesn't feel it has to be resolved tonight. Clark noted he would be totally fine with the trees having to be planted at the time of occupancy. There will be times in the year when it may not be possible which is why he suggested six months or so. Townsend asked if the same result could be accomplished with speed bumps instead of trees. Russett acknowledged speed bumps are a traffic calming measure but they also create issues for snow plows, when staff reviewed this area they felt the best options were the traffic circles Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 7 of 14 and the trees. Terry Protextor (1007 Tamarack Trail) came forward to speak against the proposed application if the new subdivision connects to Tamarack Trail. They are against Tamarack Trail being extended north into a new subdivision. Protextor stated he has lived in the Bluffwood Addition for over 23 years, they lived on Bluffwood Drive for 10 and then built their home on Tamarack Trail 13 years ago. When Tamarack was developed, around 2004, they were told it would not be extended, the harvest preserve was to the east and ACT owned to the north and it was their decision to build their home on Tamarack because it was not a through street, it was a quiet neighborhood. Protextor said he has spoken to a number of the neighbors and everyone is concerned about the traffic issue going through. The proposed development does create problems. They have a petition signed by 74 people (that were actually available for signature in the last two days) out of the 120 homes to show the message that they are concerned. The new development has proposed 60 homes which will result in approximately 120 cars transporting that street on any given date, to the south, maybe to the north. Protextor noted there has been no true traffic study of the Hickory Trail connection to 1St Avenue, nor has there been a traffic study to connect Tamarack Trail north to Scott Boulevard. Therefore we are dealing with algorithms or formulas to determine traffic flow where they really need to do a traffic study or live in the community for which this is happening to. Protextor stated there will be bottlenecks, as stated he has lived there for 23 years and there has always been traffic issues on 1 sl Avenue, particular to get off Hickory Trail to go south on 1 sl Avenue. Protextor stated if the development goes through it has been suggested in the report earlier that traffic may choose to go north and dilute out the traffic coming south through Tamarack Trail, but that is not logical because it is anywhere from a half mile to a mile and a quarter longer to go up Scott Boulevard and around to 1St Avenue or to the east. People will travel the shortest distance to get from point A to point B. This is a common sense issue, not even a traffic study issue, the new subdivision will travel down Tamarack Trail to Hickory Trail out to 1St Avenue. The only ones that will go north to Scott Boulevard will be the ones going out for supper or to go to a few businesses that are that way or east onto Dodge Street to get to the interstate. Protextor stated this additional access, which will be at least 60-80 cars per day going through a quiet neighborhood with a lot of children (kids on bicycles all the time) is seen as a major safety issue. The distance from the fire station on Dodge Street and Scott Boulevard to the last house on Tamarack Trail is 1.5 miles. If you go north on the new street it will be 1.3 miles, 783 feet difference, a five second difference. To say they need additional access doesn't make any sense, that subdivision has been around for over 40 years and no one seemed to be interested until now. Protextor stated their recommendation is basically to keep the existing cul-de-sac at the north end of Tamarack Trail and put a cul-de-sac at the south end of this new street and not cutting it through. They can put sidewalks through for pedestrians and bicycles. He also wanted to note there is concern about the stormwater basins, there are developers in this community and city engineers who have made major mistakes in some of their development of drainage systems. Churchill Meadows has a major issues that is affecting a home to the south of that development. In closing Protextor stated this should be a citizen friendly community, or neighborhood friendly community, not a development only friendly community. Baker asked who told them at the time they built their house that Tamarack would never be Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 8 of 14 extended. Protextor believes it was their builder and other people in the neighborhood. Baker asked if anyone from the City told them that and Protextor said no. Steven Polyak (950 Evergreen Court) said on the west side of the proposed development there is a dense wooded area with a significant slope that goes down into an environmentally sensitive area. The area from Scott Boulevard north all the way down to the creek below Hickory Trail is a significant elevation difference. Al the water goes from the high elevation to the creek through the sensitive areas and he is concerned as an Evergreen Court resident that water drainage will increase into his property. He feels there is no way the water flow will be unchanged, it may be handled in a different way through the development but doesn't feel enough study has been done to see how it will affect the Evergreen Court neighborhood. Polyak said having all that water flow into their area would affect their property values, affect mosquitoes, wildlife, it could significantly the natural areas there not built upon. His biggest concern is when all those lots get built the water has to flow somewhere, and it will flow down, and the first house to be affected will be his. He is in the northwest corner and the lowest lot in the area. Polyak plans to hire a civil engineering firm to come out and do a study to see how the area could be affected by the water flow. And then he may hire counsel to advise him on what to do about it because if something does happen in the future, he wants to have addressed it in advance. He wants to make sure his property is protected, but also wants to note the possible significant environmental impact as the water flows down on the east side between Evergreen Court and Tamarack Trail. He has already seen a bit of change in that area due to all the rains, so as the environment continues to change it may be affected more. Polyak reiterates to make sure the water drainage issues are addressed before moving forward with this proposal. Baker asked if Polyak has spoken with the City Engineer who studied this issue for the staff report. Polyak said he got a letter in the mail about this meeting and that is the only way he knew about the proposed development so he hasn't had a chance to evaluate the situation, he just knows how the water flows and wanted to address the issue at this meeting but why he will be hiring a civil engineer to address any possible issues. Russett stated the stormwater management will be reviewed at the platting stage, when staff reviews the preliminary plat the Public Works department will be looking at the stormwater management basins shown on the plat. Mary Ann Berg (2775 Hickory Trail) stated she has lived in the neighborhood for 24 years and saw a large increase in traffic when Tamarack Trail was built and her experience in the neighborhood when she goes somewhere it is usually south and east so her feeling is many people from the new neighborhood would be going on her street. Hickory Trail is a straight street and speeds get pretty fast in front of her house. She is concerned about the increase of traffic. She said in the report staff states they think traffic on Hickory Trail will be reduced and she doesn't agree with that with most houses being built and most people going in the direction of south and east. Berg added she also lives on a creek which is at the bottom of the area Polyak was just speaking about and she wanted to clarify that Axiom Consultants said these basins would be draining into the ravines that go into further west and ends behind Cyprus Court. Where will the three basins empty. Additionally, can the outlots that will be behind these lots Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 9 of 14 only be used by people in that neighborhood, or can people in the area go in there. She also wanted to know how wide the street wide easements would be where the trees will be, because she has had people plant crabapple trees in their easements and then one cannot walk on the sidewalks and the cars hit them on the streets. She is also curious about a home owners association, she doesn't believe she has one in her neighborhood and wonders if that would just be a private club up in that area. Knute Carter (922 Tamarack Trail) has a process question regarding the recommendations, Hensch asked about the language on the second point and when reading it just says these things need to be incorporated into the final design. So Carter asks what the lengths are between the final design and final product. What are the ramifications for if the final product is not done. Hensch stated tonight the Commission may or may not vote on the rezoning and these are conditions of the rezoning and the details will be worked out in the plat. Parsons added this will not be the last time this application will be before the Commission. Carter asked when does what is on the plat have to be realized. Russett said the condition is recommending the traffic circles that are shown on the preliminary are then shown on the final plat and then on the construction drawings of that roadway that are approved by Public Works and then that is what is required to be built. Michelle Edwards (2745 Hickory Trail) lives on the same side of the street on Hickory Trail as Mary Ann Berg, her house is also by the creek. She wants to speak to the traffic problem she is sure will happen with this development. She stated they already have a problem with speeding on their street, which by the way is tree lined, so she doesn't' have much confidence trees are a preventative measure. In addition, these are family housing, most of the people will be going to Regina, Hoover, City High, HyVee places that will be the shortest way via Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail so she does not believe it will be less traffic. Also the kind of traffic developing on Scott Boulevard is already quite a bit with the new addition by Blackstone and the new Oaknoll development. Claude Laroche (931 Tamarack Trail) and wanted to bring up the topic of speed bumps or humps on Tamarack Trail and possibility Hickory Trail. Russett brought up a point he hadn't considered about the interference with snow plows which is a good point. He has however seen a number of streets in Iowa City that have speed humps already. Laroche stated their neighborhood has a number of small children, he counted 24 in just his little area on Tamarack Trail, and so there is a concern about the safety with the increased number of traffic. He agrees with the other commenters regarding the increase in traffic and people taking the shortest route. Laroche questions what is the threshold for putting in a speed bump since there are some in Iowa City, is it a population density issues or subjective up to the discretion of the staff. Hensch replied he is unsure the process but assumes it is based on demonstrated problems and could be discussed with City staff. Laroche asked then at the present time there are no plans to put in any type of speed bumps or humps. Hensch replied not in this particular condition, the Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 10 of 14 Commission usually follows what the City staff recommends. Laroche feels speed humps or bumps would be far more effective than planting trees. He had read up on traffic calming methods, a lot of them started over in Europe and are being adopted in cities around here now and it may possibility make sense but he is still in favor of speed bumps. Russett acknowledged she can talk with Laroche after the meeting about the speed hump process for their street. Mike Welch (Axiom Consultants) wanted to comment on the wooded area and where the drainage will go. The three basins will discharge into the ravine that starts near Cyprus Court and got towards Tamarack Trail. Even the south basin will discharge out of the north side of the basin. The discharge will avoid completely the people on Evergreen Court. Welch noted as part of their stormwater plans they do look beyond their property and see where the stormwater will go and the downstream area. Another comment about stormwater basins is they do reduce that stormwater flow that is seen, it will hold the water back. He does acknowledge with development there is more runoff but the purpose of the basins is to control the runoff. Baker asked about Outlot A and how will have access. Welch said that is up to the developer, typically they see it as private, if it were to be public access then it would be a park and the City is not interested in taking this on as a park. Since it will be private property owned by the association access would be limited to association members. Russett added it would be owned and maintained by the homeowner's association. Debra Brandt (973 Tamarack Trail) stated she is a researcher by training and when she hears someone has a study the first thing she does is pull out Google Scholar and look. In reference to the tree lining she looked at a literature review from a transportation company and tree lined streets had little effect on speed limits, leading at less than a one mile per hour reduction of speed. Therefore Brandt would like to read the study the City has that states it will benefit. Secondly, she lives on Tamarack Trail and if anyone has been at the corner by ACT at 5pm, when you say streets can handle traffic, what does that mean, does it mean they are deep enough to handle the wait of traffic, or that there some formula they use to measure the amount of time to get through an intersection. Russett stated that both Scott Boulevard and 1St Avenue are arterial streets and based on them being arterials, and the widths and the lanes, there is an average capacity of average vehicle trips per day. Not wait times, number of vehicles. Brandt asked then when there is traffic backed up from the corner of ACT backed up to almost the intersection of Hickory Heights that is permissible. Russett acknowledged there are peak periods where there is congestion but the number of vehicles on those streets is not greater than the number of vehicles the arterial streets can accommodate. Brandt stated then getting through intersections or time waiting is not a factor. She added Rochester and 1St Avenues have the same issue at peak times. Hensch noted that intersection at 1St Avenue and Scott Boulevard is on the 2020 Capital Improvements Projects to mitigate the congestion issues. Brandt feels more thought needs to be given and challenges the traffic planners to think about those intersections and how an additional 60 houses averaging 2.5 cars per house will dump 120 more cars into these intersections and forecast what that will do to these traffic patterns. Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 11 of 14 Brandt added that when planting trees on the side of the roads is not only trees that provide the canopy and psychological barrier to driving fast, the thought is if you can't see very well you will slow down but as it has been pointed out if there are children in the neighborhood, those trees can also hide children and going one mile per hour slower down the street, as the article indicates, that is a bad combination. Brandt is not opposed to progress, she loves this City and knows this area is going to be developed, but she feels they need to think about how to make it neighborhood friendly, builder friendly and combining those. Jan Kardos (956 Tamarack Trail) and wanted to pursue why does the road have to be connected. She also would like to add what others have said, all this traffic is going toward Regina and toward downtown Iowa City, and it will also come back and it definitely is the shortest way for that subdivision to cut through. She is very concerned about traffic. She also questions where the construction equipment will go, will it come down Tamarack Trail as well, and will they have to suffer all that. It seems like it is possible to make a restriction that all construction equipment come from Scott Boulevard. Finally the intersection of 1St Avenue and Scott Boulevard is problematic and people do try to avoid it. She feels this development could go on without the connection to Tamarack Trail. Stephen Locher (839 Bluffwood Drive) has lived in this neighborhood since 1994 and stated the 1St Avenue and Hickory Trail intersection is a tricky intersection to get through, traffic is coming downhill on both sides, Hickory Trail has a stop sign and people on that 25 mph street are going 35 and 40 mph. The problem of speeding on Hickory Trail has been a conversation point for years, there are many children, and there will be even more bottleneck at that intersection if people will be using Tamarack Trail from this new development. He asks for the Commission and staff to think about any way to make that a safer intersection. Ruth Bradley (2669 Hickory Trial) came tonight because of the concerns about traffic but as she has been sitting and listening to the discussion about the water drainage issues. Her house is on the south side of Hickory Trail and back up to the creek. The creek curves toward their house and then away but often as the creek drains it does not make those curves very well and in the five years they have lived in this house this spring has been the worse and the water had come up four feet into their yard at least four times. She is concerned about the added water to that creek and coming back into their backyard. Fortunately their house is up high enough they don't have flood issues but they spent $500 on plants and a consultant to fix the bank of the creek from eroding into their yard. She would like the City Engineers to be aware of this potential problem. Hensch stated that is the advantage of the basins, it will allow all that extra water to stay in the basin and wait for the large volume of water to pass through and a restrictive release will slowing let the water out. Terry Protextor (1007 Tamarack Trail) wanted to follow up on a couple things, first he shared with the Commission the traffic flow options with the distances he was trying to express earlier and reiterated no one is going to go north on Tamarack Trail to Scott Boulevard to get out of this subdivision, they will come through Tamarack Trail. He also wanted to touch on the issues with Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 12 of 14 water runoff, not through the basins and not through the storm drains, but basically because the houses will be placed so close together in this development water will run down the front yards and there is a slope between the top of Scott Boulevard at the first site to the entrance to Tamarack Trail, it is about 1800 feet, there is a 20 foot drop in that elevation and obviously that is a slope and water doesn't care if it is a slow slope. So now he is concerned there will be water going down everyone's front yards. Additionally with regards to basins draining properly, if one looks at the new development Churchill Downs on Rochester, that basin was constructed incorrectly, the City is aware now, the City Engineers that did the work didn't catch it, the developers engineers didn't catch it and the property to the south has already experienced over $30,000 worth of runoff damage so he wants everyone to be cautious when they say the three storm basins will take care of it. Hensch noted that is why professional engineers carry professional liability insurance. Protextor said so did he when he was in health care but he also didn't try to harm any patients in the process, so please don't harm their property in the process. As far as cul-de-sacs he looked at all the rules and guidelines Russett alluded to and the key word is "guidelines". They are only guidelines and the City staff can interpret those as rules but guidelines is a flexible term and as he looked at the reason for creating additional access points there are five different items and if you look at them carefully none of them apply to the houses on Tamarack Trail. Someone needs to review that, he will go back and look at it from a legal standpoint. Also there is precedent for cul-de-sacs, the Peninsula has one access point, and he could start circling in the city map all the different cul-de-sacs around Iowa City that have only one egress point. So if the citizens of this community, development, say they don't want that access to come through and they want cul-de-sacs then someone needs to listen. Hensch closed the public hearing. Parsons moved to recommend approval of REZ19-08, a proposal to rezone approximately 36.81 acres of property located south of Scott Boulevard and north of Tamarack Trail from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) to Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5), subject to the following conditions: 3. 90 street trees will be installed, either by payment of a tree planting fee at a cost of $500 per tree for the plantings of street trees within the public right-of-way or through installation prior to certificate of occupancy as determined though staff and developer negotiation. Trees will generally be located every 30' with modifications allowed due to drive -way distances. The Parks and Recreation Department will be responsible for identifying the appropriate locations for the trees and planting of the trees. 4. Compliance with the preliminary plat in that traffic calming measures, like the traffic circles, are required and incorporated into the final design of the extension of Tamarack Trail. Dyer seconded the motion. Baker asked if approving this motion is also approving the extension of Tamarack Trial. Hensch replied no, the preliminary plat will come back before the Commission. Baker asked if the property to the west and east could be potentially developed. Hensch said the property to the west is protected slopes. Baker asked if there was a development to the east, Planning and Zoning Commission July 18, 2019 Page 13 of 14 there would need to be access off Scott Boulevard because there is no possibility from this development to any other new development. Russett said based on what is on the preliminary plat at this time there is no extension to the east. She added the land on the east side is in a preserve. Parsons feels RS -5 is appropriate for this area. Hensch agrees and says it is actually less than what is in the Comprehensive Plan. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JUNE 20, 2019 Parsons moved to approve the meeting minutes of June 20, 2019 with typographic errors noted. Baker seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett gave a couple updates, the rezoning at Orchard Court was adopted by the Council at the last meeting. The rezoning on South Gilbert Street near Big Grove was also adopted by Council. Russett reminded them there is a Planning & Zoning/City Council work session on July 24 at 5pm. There will be a packet sent out prior to the meeting. Baker asked about current regulations, he recently stopped into the new gas station at 1St Avenue and Muscatine Avenue and 12 gas pumps are blaring music all the time and wondered if that is permitted use. Russett will look into that. Baker said it was extraordinarily irritating and could be heard across the street. Hensch thanked Russett for giving updates on Council adoptions. He also noted the good neighbor report from Axiom Consultants was well done and extremely helpful. Adiournment: Townsend moved to adjourn. Parsons seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2018-2019 KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member 3/15 (W.S.) 4/2 4/5 (W.S) 4/16 4/19 5/3 5/17 6/7 6/21 7/5 8/16 9/6 9/20 10/18 12/20 1/3 BAKER, LARRY -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X O/E X X DYER, CAROLYN O/E X O/E X X X X X O/E X O O/E O X X X FREERKS, ANN X X X X X O/E X X X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- HENSCH, MIKE O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X THEOBALD, JODIE X X X X X X X X O/E -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- TOWNSEND, BILLIE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X O/E X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member 1/17 (W.S.) 2/4 2/21 3/7 3/21 4/4 4/18 5/16 6/6 6/20 7/18 BAKER, LARRY X X X X X X X O/E X X X DYER, CAROLYN O/E X X X X X X O/E X X X FREERKS, ANN -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- HENSCH, MIKE X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X MARTIN, PHOEBE X O/E X X X O/E X X X X O/E PARSONS, MAX X X X X X X X X X X X SIGNS, MARK X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E THEOBALD, JODIE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X O/E X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member --�tq,o, Kellie Fruehlina From: Bruce Tarwater <hickoryhiker@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2019 10:25 PM Late Handouts Distributed To: Anne Russett; Council; Danielle Sitzman Subject: Proposed subdivision of Tamarack Ridge - extension of Tamarack Trail north onto Scott in Iowa City 9— I q — l q (Date) 08/18/2019 As residents of Hickory Trail, an area most definitely effected by the proposed subdivision, we wish to request the Iowa City officials seriously consider these issues prior to proceeding with the approval. -Concern is with the increased traffic from the new subdivision (60 units implies about 120 vehicles and 570 trips out of the neighborhood. This data is per city staff). There is one exit at present from the neighborhood at west Hickory Trail onto First Ave. The new subdivision adds another exit to the north onto Scott Blvd. -The city is aware of the developers plans to slow traffic in the new subdivision by making the street 2 feet narrower and adding 2 traffic circles. Tamarack Trail and Hickory Trail at present are wider and without stop, yield, or any other traffic slowing signs at present. Consequently, vehicles traveling west to First Ave tend to often drive above 25 MPH, and we only see this problem getting worse with the increased traffic of the proposed subdivision. -We question the city's projection of an equal distribution of vehicles, what they call a "wash", exiting from the 2 outlets to the neighborhood, leaving north to Scott versus west to Hickory Trail, We believe these data projections need more scrutiny. We believe more people would desire to go into the city most directly via First Ave to Rochester versus north onto Scott, thus burdening Hickory Trail with many more vehicles. -When I spoke with a few residents of the condo at the corner of Hickory Trail and First Ave. (SW corner) they were concerned about the situation at present regarding traffic jams for vehicles attempting to exit onto First Ave at morning and evening rush hours. -We are concerned about the increased large and heavy construction vehicles using Hickory Trail versus accessing the subdivision via Scott. If it takes 2-4 years for house construction to be completed, we believe this would create an undue burden for residents and especially the children in our neighborhood. Can we wait until house construction is completed before joining the two streets of the old and new subdivisions (at Tamarack Trail)? -Vehicles at present often speed on First Ave and this makes turning onto First Ave from Hickory Trail even more dangerous. Please give our concerns due consideration. A traffic impact study with increased scrutiny would be requested. Thank you. Bruce Tarwater and Ruth Bradley 2669 Hickory Trail Iowa City, IA 52245 hickoryhiker0j).gmail.com Kellie Fruehling From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Council members, �q,cx-, Martha Norbeck <martha_norbeck@hotmail.com> Late Handouts Distributed Sunday, August 18, 2019 10:28 PM Council Upzoning to permit duplexes (Date) The proposed plat for Scott Boulevard and north of Taramack Trail (Item 9a) is one more example one in a line of single family housing developments. In support of providing housing: • that is affordable, • that enables aging citizens to "age in place" with dignity, • that reduces the carbon footprint per housing unit, Please consider revising the zoning code to permit duplex housing in these zoning residential zones: RR -1, RS -5, RS -8, RS - 12, RNS-12? Currently, duplexes are only permitted in as a special provision, and then only on corner lots. The population is aging and more and more people want to be able to age with dignity in their home. Duplexes facilitate this option. Housing can be less expensive per unit, be smaller (easier to maintain), and enable an immediate neighbor, or eventually live -next-door aide to help with inevitable challenges. Single family housing is isolating, particularly for people who no longer able to drive. Sincerely, Martha Norbeck, 906 S. 7th Ave., IC, IA, 52240 P.S.: The staff memo for item 9a addresses: "Traffic Implications and Access." This section is 100% about car traffic. A large number of people do not/can not drive their own vehicle. Access can be a broad term - applying to connectivity to services and goods - like groceries, the dentist, a hair stylist. If you design for life dependent on single occupancy vehicles, that is what we will have. Climate Action is not an issue. It is a lens by which to evaluate public policy and planning. A DUPLEX, A TRIPLEX AND A FOURPLEX CAN CUT A BLOCK'S CARBON IMPACT 20%. The carbon savings from 'middle housing' are voluntary, self-financing and immense. So why are they illegal? https://www.sightline.org/2019/06/07/a-duplex-a-triplex-and-a-fourplex-can-cut-a-blocks-carbon-impact- 20/?fbclid=lwAR2ErR9eQyHPH40FwEefv8A5rEg Xt7vYVJvPYWIxDHVdgz7pMXPT8dofRE UpZone — Housing for All. https://www.facebook.com/NeighborsForMoreNeighbors/?hc location=ufi The Progressive Case for Up -Zoning Minneapolis https:Hstreets.mn/2017/04/27/the-progressive-case-for-up-zoning-minneapolis/?fbclid=IwAROHBG- wDmzBO36DQzOBwxhenOAfk-WgKmi8zk7YiBNhMkZQgvpX3bDMAcA Late Handouts Distributed . Q. PROTEST OF REZONING TO. 140NORABLE MAYOR. AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA. (Date) CITY OFIOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which: the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: —74-,-, ,-n A Y" F4_C t% 9 1 l e 5-1-1 L zf i- This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section x414.5 of the JJ Code of Iowa. S 6 �4 PO q � r--- %� Y Property Address: 1 l J `^ M Ovid � 1 I < d 1��, i J e1,� ✓ Property O er(s): ) �a Q �) M sed f � � f� r d y (krvil By: 1�1 1►^A �'" INDI'VIDUAIL PROPERTY OWNER(S): "4- 4W4" J STATE, OF IOWA ) JOFINSON COUNTY) ss: I is i tstrc anent was acknowli clge�r before me and O&Z, GcS'� 7 z i (Hate) by (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). ¢ PAMELA J. KACMARYNSKI 8 > � Commission Nu, r 2 775 � ,w. My Comm Exp Notary Public in an f r the SVof Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVESIGNING FOR .PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of n._ (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig. Subd Folder Cc: C?1. - PGD -Council - Me4i&� U0 a r'77' '•`'" 02/2013 ,...J PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 4I4.5 of the Code of Iowa. INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY ) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on fiwuk Ar 1 10 (Date) by V-CAY rfIt. I CA 0,5dAQW and (name(s) of individual property owner(s). 110"IAI y� LAURA JUAREZ o r commission Plumber 803529 ja -- M Com fission Expires tary Public d for the State of Iowa �owv AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, "stee) of (name of property owner) Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Subd Folder Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media File C") n 02/2013 PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 1 IOWA CITY, IOWA `16416— CITY 6416--CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: �4gArAck iCJ14e S'cc� �u;SionO This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: (0(03 I_aolaiffGK Trat ( Property Owner(s): C Ckar� -4- G�c(�q T (je64 INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: _ MrInMewas kn ledged before me on 014r � (Date) by 1-7 and 10 (name(s) of individual prope4 owner(s)). y Mkhelle M Frauenholh C � mbdon Numbor 221865 aw — Notary Public in and for the S to of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa171 Orig: Subd Folder;:m 02/2013 Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media File PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ( 1 IOWA CITY IOWA - CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: C 5'cc b cu I V ;.S.4' o n/ This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: T� ►�'�� r° i, C' ( a L Property Owner(s): 1TV & -� By: By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY ) ss: This instrument yvas acknowledged before me on 4 i 1� i L -i f ma4kt� fCL l� Sly and E f; c -,\ IK�S ckl— individuai property owner(s)). "'K (Date) by (name(s) of ozoZ '1z isn ny4Mav sandq uoissiwwo0 AWz g� f�r 1,21 0/9 ZU99L jagwnN u0issnuw03 o ublic in and for the State of Iowa VHVIO 3 83H1Y314 °' ~ AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa t. w ri n _ Orig: Subd Folder 02/2013 Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media File PROTEST OF REZONING / ~' TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA-- - `' CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 14- This 4 This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: Property Owner(s) STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowlecjged before me on A k- n Q l (Date) by ax" _K b and a (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). 4vsRIAI. S LAURA JUAREZ - z Commission Number 803529 _ My Commissi n Exp7ire�s otary Publi and for a State of Iowa T l 1 �c l.J AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Xo r- MOO Orig: Subd Folder; Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media File 013 C.J Prepared by: Jade Pederson, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-3565230 (REZ19-08) Ordinance No. An ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 36.81 acres of land located South of Scott Blvd and North of Tamarack Trail, from Interim Development — Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) to Low Density Single- Family Residential (RS -5). (REZ19-08) Whereas, the applicant, Tamarack Ridge, LLC, has requested a rezoning of property located South of Scott Blvd and North of Tamarack Trail, from Interim Development — Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) to Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5); and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan has designated this area for conservation design due to the presence of sensitive areas and the Northeast District Plan identifies this area mostly for single-family residential development; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed rezoning and determined that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan provided that it meets conditions to calm traffic, particularly through the use of traffic circles and planting of right-of-way trees; and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2019) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and Whereas, due to the design of Tamarack Trail, the need for traffic calming is necessary and will be met by conditions imposed herein to install traffic circles on the Tamarack Trail extension and plant trees in the public right -of way; and Whereas, the owner and applicant have agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate development in this area of the city. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I Approval. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein, property described below is hereby classified Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS -5): Beginning at the Northeast corner of said auditor's parcel 20109027, thence along the East line of said parcel S01024'49"E, 1824.28 feet to the Southeast corner of said parcel; thence along the South line of said parcel S87°08'19"W, 644.61 feet, thence S88°03'52"W, 299.26 feet; thence NO3°23'42"W, 1140.29 feet; thence N35056'44"E, 599.09 feet; thence N18°30'51 "E, 240.00 feet to the South right of way line of Scott Boulevard; thence 61.79 feet along said South line on a 955.00 foot radius curve concave South (chord bearing N86043'55"E, 61.78 feet); thence along said South line N88°36'04"E, 476.00 feet to the point of beginning. Described area contains 36.81 acres and is subject to easements and other restrictions of record. Section II. Zoning Map. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of the ordinance as approved by law. Ordinance No. Page 2 Section III. Conditional Zoning Agreement. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s) and the City, following passage and approval of this Ordinance. Section IV. Certification and Recording Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance, and record the same in the Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law. Section V. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section VI. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section VII. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of 20_. Mayor Attest: City Clerk IApp oved by City Attorneys Office g s i Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by _ Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Cole Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Throgmorton First Consideration 08/20/2019 Vote forpassage: AYES: Taylor, Teague, Throgmorton, Mims. NAYS: Thomas, Cole, Salih. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published that the Prepared by: Jade Pederson, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 3565230 (REZ19-08) Conditional Zoning Agreement This agreement is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"), and Monument Farms, LLC (hereinafter "Owner"), and Tamarack Ridge, LLC (hereinafter "Applicant"). Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 36.81 acres of property located South of Scott Boulevard and North of Tamarack Trail; and Whereas, the Applicant has requested the rezoning of said property from Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) to Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS- D); and Whereas, the conditions established in this agreement address public needs, including installation of traffic circles on the extension of Tamarack Trail and planting of trees within the public right -of way to address concerns related to travel speeds caused by the block length of Tamarack Trail within the proposed development; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions regarding the incorporation of traffic circles in the final design of the Tamarack Trail extension as well as the development of a landscaping plan that identifies the location and species of 75 trees to be planted in the public right-of-way, the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2019) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and Whereas, the Owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are reasonable to ensure the development of the property Is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the need for traffic calming; and Whereas, the Owner agrees to develop this property in accordance with the terms and conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement. Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Monument Farms, LLC is the legal title holder of the property legally described as: Beginning at the Northeast corner of said auditor's parcel 20109027, thence along the East line of said parcel S01 °2449"E, 1824.28 feet to the Southeast corner of said parcel; thence along the South line of said parcel S87"08'19"W, 644.61 feet, thence S88°03'52"W, 299.26 feet; thence NO3°2342"W, 1140.29 feet; thence N35°56'44"E, 599.09 feet; thence N18030'51"E, 240.00 feet to the South right of way line of Scott Boulevard; thence 61.79 feet along said South line on a 955.00 foot radius curve concave South (chord bearing N86"43'55"E, 61.78 feet); thence along said South line N88°36'04"E, 476.00 feet to the point of beginning. Described area contains 36.81 acres and is subject to easements and other restrictions of record. 2. The Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast district plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2019) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change. 3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner and Applicant agree that development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the zoning chapter, as well as the following conditions: a. Substantial compliance with the preliminary plat (attached) in that the identified traffic circles are incorporated into the final design of the extension of Tamarack Trail. b. Owner shall develop a landscaping plan that identifies the location and species of 75 right-of-way trees to be planted by Owner or its successor(s) in interest along Tamarack Trail. Said trees shall be planted prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each lot, or, if said certificate of occupancy is issued during a poor planting season, by May 31 following issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Said landscaping plan shall be approved by the City Forestry Division prior to the approval of any final plat subdividing any of the above-described real estate. Said landscaping plan shall include a diverse mix of trees planted generally 30' apart, though the City recognizes that exact locations may vary depending on driveway locations, signage and other utility conflicts. Final location and species of the trees shall be approved on a lot -by -lot basis prior to issuance of a building permit for each lot. 4. The Owner and Applicant, and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2019), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change. 5. The Owner and Applicant and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. 6. The parties acknowledge that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with tifle to the land, unless or until released of record by the City of Iowa City. The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties. 7. The Owner and Applicant acknowledge that nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner or Applicant from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 8. The parties agree that this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense. Dated this I -�_ day of i4ug 6t 2012. City of Iowa City Jim Throgmorton, Mayor Attest: Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk Approved by: J ALL2' ,l &LZP City Attorney's Office /f ty i q City Of Iowa City Acknowledgement: State of Iowa ) ) ss: Johnson County ) Tamar 73be, Cl-rK 8//319 By: ! � k R LLc Monument Farms, LLC This instrument was acknowledged before me on W ��- / ,r � I / 20_ by Jim Throgmorton and Kellie Fruehling as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) Tamarack Ridge, LLC Acknowledgement: State of 1ntp�1 County of �`5chnSQf) This record was acknowledged before me on 2019 by Toe. C6rK (Name(s) of individu (s) as —CS r (type of authority, such as officer or trustee)'marack Rid , L Pub'c' and for a State of Iowa �Pa�At sF LAURA JUAREZ o v Commission Number 803529 (Stamp or Seal) i + My C mission Expires a zozc� Title (and Rank) My commission expires: 0312-01 )2D7.1 Monument Farms, LLC Acknowledgement: State of 1011dict County Of V) This record was acknowledged before me onAAq 5 ? 2019 by �yr Dmwcl tr J P� (Name(s) of indivitival(s) as A ,l- /"e-4 Ee (type of authority, such as officer or trustee) of Monument Farms, LLC. OIJIaQI �A,nl o ary Publi in nd for the to of Iowa APa�Acs LAURAJUAREZ o y Commission Number 803529 x _ My ICn EtQ xfdL �OWP (Stamp or Seal) Title (and Rank) My commission expires: 0'5. l uz 4 PRELIMINARY LEGEND: : • &SENSITIVE AREAS SLTAPLAN TAMARACK RIDGE �'rm+ssi'e.`ronmrtrromr'v."wos`m`ao�iw ����wiiw ��.m d��da�"amm::d.o«.eamrem..mawnmwnmm:memnnFa _._ IOWA CITY, IOWA ' - PPMI I J ,mn rsmsu � Plltl'+ /'----------- 393G 1197113311 391 ip X � x _/ i_; L��\\\+5�.. 't <�= if1fl`. , t /. l \ �\ V `I C �'Vb�-• ..,.....__ '11 I '( •SIF I<q � �\ � ,�� �i ♦, n � S� � i ,P�43 .tai i /{ \,`\ ��1C 'C\}\ .� l` ^.ate —a_ 3 ` �' s3r3smvFnxFis v. ,,,, R mxa'1M•( go- �_,}3tda`�` .y ,� ., ,�\ �� ' m � \ ~ C i" '`�__ d:d:.e. �� � I Z,WX, F:. ¢wln ...nn mn wa a nn rum rmx MMM PROJECT VICINITY MAP-CITY OF IOWA CITY md° - � °� ` x0m: _ a dm.®d,..m o mdw.c."mrm.,.mma a o R e. a o .aod a�a. . .n.. imvxclFo auAxrmFs: ,r..�d.a.dro<.. i dwm wwm.a m:mnsmd durro,�m =m=p s WWDLWm Oo "a'ue>°w�'aa.i ""a,ww�.umd.daaaaawm...dd 3 04n om ...maw I5 O owwM nmr ane ' . w .ad F,w^�Yd11 l� a10 0.f9] 0.931 P� MW .N uandvu.W4:1R9N M9PP/EDBYTIf OlY0F I0WAl71i.lONA 3 I awmadon.drodwd:ddawd.wdm,�mvmw`:ro`ro' 9.vn roru ..;,a.,.srovw.dm..mdmmnww o,cn -➢ ✓ ..oar .om.+moar aou onaFx. wn 6 j, asTaJaRW/m LAl9 w1�9 OAl axMLP/ATIW,fI PMKAxf91nRR9: ..[VAPEaIY: yY � a iPP W.c[I aa..ma VA® TW.IWOIDF/F109NFNi.IIC AIa1BFA51FV AbaNmNNLUx1i11C Z y, � O.i / R1FGM[ 3]1EMMEi9 Y W11OlR � w U l l�amrodYam.M 119Y 3llL WILX6fOM5T ITVANY.YSEIS 0E6VNISIREET f RrtY IQNAUIY.dS]lb IIMl3 sC 6 N n51MYIblW �aldeq.l.am.ndMdW YM1. m{V4QIY.IaWAS]]b Item Number: 11. CITY OF IOWA CITY �� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT August 20, 2019 Ordinance amending Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 8, entitled "Community Police Review Board," to create a City Council liaison. (Second Consideration) Prepared By: Susan Dulek, Ass't City Attorney Reviewed By: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Eleanor Dilkes, City Attorney Fiscal Impact: None Recommendations: Staff: No Recommendation Commission: At the May 14, 2019 CPRB meeting, the proposed amendment was approved on a vote of 4-1. Attachments: Minutes of May 14, 2019 CPRB meeting Memorandum from CPRB dated May 14, 2019 Ordinance Executive Summary: The Community Police Review Board (CPRB) has recommended that a City Council member be appointed as a liaison to the CPRB. Background /Analysis: The CPRB has recommended that a City Council member be appointed as a liaison to the CPRB to help facilitate communication between CPRB members and Council members about the overall makeup and function of the CPRB. The recommendation was approved in a vote of 4- 1 (King in the negative). At the June 18 Council meeting, there was a consensus to put the proposed ordinance on an agenda. The proposed ordinance is the exact language contained in the May 14, 2019 memo from the CPRB to Council. The memo also recommends that the CPRB bylaws be amended. If this ordinance passes, the amended bylaws will be on the Council agenda for approval. As requested by the City Council, I asked Pat Ford, the CPRB's attorney, whether he had ever advised Board members that they could speak directly with individual city council members and he said he has. No other city board has a liason. ATTACHMENTS: Description 8/12 Memo to Council CPRB Memo CPRB minutes 5/14/19 Ordinance r ��_,:,®r, CITY OF IOWA CIT Y MEMORANDUM Date: August 12, 2019 To: Mayor and City Council From: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Re: Community Police Review Board Complaint Report History At the August 6t", 2019 City Council meeting there was discussion regarding the frequency of disagreements between the findings on a complaint investigation between the Police Chief and the Community Police Review Board (CPRB). This memo aims to provide a synopsis of the handling of complaints filed with the CPRB over the last 10 years (2008 -present). Since 2008, the CPRB has received and processed 63 complaints. It is important to note that a single complaint may have more than one allegation. On 59 of the 63 complaints, or approximately 94% of the time, the CPRB found agreement with the Police Chief. The following is a summary of the Community Police Review Board (CPRB) complaints from the last 10 years where the conclusion of the Board and Police Chief differed: Complaint #14-02 Allegation #1: Excessive Use of Force. Police Chief's Report Findings: NOT SUSTAINED CPRB's Report Findings: SUSTAINED Complaint #14-11 Allegation #2: Officer's determination that the Complainant was at fault in the accident was incorrect and the traffic citation for following too closely should not have been issued. Police Chief's Report Findings: NOT SUSTAINED CPRB's Report Findings: SUSTAINED Complaint #16-02 Allegation #1: Questionable interview and Interrogation tactics. Police Chief's Report Findings: NOT SUSTAINED CPRB's Report Findings: SUSTAINED Allegation #2: Unlawful Seizure of the Complainant's cell phone. Police Chief's Report Findings: NOT SUSTAINED CPRB's Report Findings: SUSTAINED Complaint #17-01 Allegation #2: Discourtesy. Police Chief's Report Findings: NOT SUSTAINED CPRB's Report Findings: SUSTAINED As of December 18, 2018, staff has been directed to place the approved Board minutes with the attached public report on the regular agenda as a separate item when the Board's conclusion differs from the Police Chief's for separate City Council discussion. MEMORANDUM DATE. May 14, 2019 TO: City of Iowa City Council FROM: Community Police Review Board Members Re: proposed amendment to Ordinance 8-8, and bylaw for the Community Police Review Board The members of the CPRB request that the City Council consider adopting the following proposed revisions to the CPRB ordinance and bylaws. 1. The following shall be added to the Ordinance as new SECTION 8-8-12: At the beginning of each fiscal year, the City Council shall appoint one council member to serve as a liaison to the board. The general purpose of the liaison position shall be to help facilitate communication between the members of CPRB and members of the City Council about the overall makeup and function of the CPRB. The liaison will be a specific person to contact to provide a safe and comfortable vehicle for members of CPRB to express any concerns about the composition, cohesiveness and effectiveness of the CPRB. This will allow the Council to receive information needed to be aware of concerns gelated to the function of the CPRB, and make decisions/changes when necessary. This will also be especially beneficial in cases in which a CPRB member(s) do not feel comfortable airing concerns related to the inner workings of the CPRB openly during CPRB meetings. 2. Section 3 of Article III of the Community Police Review Board Bylaws for shall be amended to read as follows (with additions shown in bold and underline): Orientation for New Members. Prior to the first regular meeting following their appointment, new members shall be provided with copies of the ordinance creating the Board, the written policies of the Iowa City Police Department, the Board by-laws, open records law, open meetings I awn the name. of the council member appointed by the City Council to 1 serve as the liaison to the Board and other documentation that would be useful to Board members in carrying out their duties. They shall also be given an orientation briefing by the appropriate City staff and the Board as deemed appropriate. 2 CALL TO ORDER: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: STAFF ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Final/Approved COMMUNITY POLICE REVIEW BOARD MINUTES — May 14, 2019 Chair King called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Monique Galpin, Latisha McDaniel, David Selmer, Orville Townsend None Staff Chris Olney, Legal Counsel Patrick Ford None Iowa City Police Captain Bill Campbell RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL (1) Accept proposed amendment to Ordinance 8-8, and CPRB by-law. CONSENT CALENDAR Motion by Selmer, seconded by Townsend, to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended. • Minutes of the meeting on 04/09/19 • Minutes of the Community Forum meeting on 04/29/19 • ICPD General Orders 90-02 (Report Review) • ICPD General Orders 99-08 (Body Worn Cameras and In -Car Recorders) Motion carried, 5/0. NEW BUSINESS None. OLD BUSINESS Community Forum Discussion — King asked for a volunteer to a write a draft summary letter of the Community forum meeting. King volunteered and will submit the draft summary to staff by June 3rd to then be included in the next meeting packet. City Council Liaison Proposal Discussion — Selmer summarized the 2nd draft which added item 3 explaining the general role of the Liaison and why the Liaison should be created. Ford questioned if item 3 was intended to be part of the Ordinance change or just a statement. The Board agreed to include item 3 in the same paragraph as item 1, making it part of the Ordinance change. King stated he would be voting no to the proposal as he felt it was not needed since anyone can already speak to a Council member. King also questioned the last paragraph and did not understand the role of the Liaison if they are not speaking to the entire Board. Motion by Selmer, seconded by Galpin to forward to Council the proposed amendment to Ordinance 8- 8, and CPRB by-law regarding a City Council Liaison. (as amended) Motion carried 4/1, King voting no. CPRB May 14, 2019 PUBLIC DISCUSSION None. BOARD INFORMATION None. STAFF INFORMATION None. DRAFT TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change) • June 11, 2019, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • July 9, 2019, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • August 13, 2019, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm • September 10, 2019, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm ADJOURNMENT Motion for adjournment by Galpin, seconded by Selmer. Motion carried, 5/0. Meeting adjourned at 5:47 P.M. Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030 ORDINANCE NO. Ordinance amending Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 8, entitled "Community Police Review Board," to create a City Council liaison. Whereas, the Community Police Review Board (CPRB) has recommended that a City Council member be appointed as a liaison to the CPRB to help facilitate communication between CPRB members and Council members about the overall makeup and function of the CPRB; and Whereas, it is in the best interest of the City to adopt this ordinance. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa; Section I. Amendments. 1. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulation," Chapter 8, entitled "Police Regulations," is amended by adding the following underlined text as new Section 12, entitled "Liaison": Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of , 2019. Mayor Attest: Approved: �' � City Clerk City Attorney's Office Ordinance No. Page It was moved by and seconded by _ Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Cole Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Throgmorton First Consideration 08/06/2019 Vote for passage: AYES: Salih, Teague, Thomas, Cole. NAYS: Mims, Taylor, Throgmorton. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration 08/20/2019 Vote for passage: AYES: Thomas, Cole, Salih, Taylor, Teague. NAYS: Mims, Throgmorton. ABSENT: None. Date published that the Item Number: 12. CITY OF IOWA CITY �� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT August 20, 2019 Ordinance amending Title 9, Entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapter 3, Entitled "Rules of the Road," Section 6, Entitled "Speed Restrictions"' Subsection C, Entitled "School Speed Zones" to create a 20 mph school speed zone for Lucas Elementary School and to remove a school speed zone for the recently closed Herbert Hoover Elementary. (Second Consideration) Prepared By: Sarah Walz, Acting Sr. Transportation Engineering Planner Reviewed By: Kent Ralston, Transportation Planner Tracy Hightshoe, Director, Neighborhood and Development Services Fiscal Impact: None. Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: Ordinance Executive Summary: The proposed ordinance amendment is meant to facilitate the implementation of a 20 mph school speed zone speed limit on Willow Street near Lucas Elementary and to remove the school speed zone at the now closed Herbert Hoover Elementary at Court Street and First Avenue. Background /Analysis: This ordinance amendment establishes a school speed zone limit of 20 miles per hour on Willow Street between Eastwood Drive and Muscatine Avenue. This will also ensure there is consistency in speed limits among elementary schools. A speed study conducted in April 2019 showed significant speeding along this street. A direct pedestrian entrance to the school grounds is provided from Willow Street and serves students in the neighborhood east of the school and south of Brookside Drive. The ordinance also removes school speed zones on First Avenue, from A Street to Mayfield Road, and on Court Street, from Third Avenue to Upland Avenue, adjacent to the recently closed Herbert Hoover Elementary School. ATTACHMENTS: Description Ordinance Prepared by: Sarah Walz, Acting Traffic Eng. Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5253 ORDINANCE NO. 19-4801 CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, ENTITLED "MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC,-- CHAPTER RAFFIC,"CHAPTER 3, ENTITLED 'RULES OF THE ROAD," SECTION 6, ENTITLED "SPEED RESTRICTIONS", SUBSECTION C, ENTITLED "SCHOOL SPEED ZONES" TO CREATE A 20 MPH SCHOOL SPEED ZONE FOR LUCAS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND TO REMOVE A SCHOOL SPEED ZONE FOR THE RECENTLY CLOSED HERBERT HOOVER ELEMENTARY WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to define maximum allowable speeds for vehicles on public streets and highways; WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to limit vehicle speeds near schools to 20 MPH to create a safer environment for school children; WHEREAS, City Code Section 9-3-6(C) currently defines 20 MPH school speed zones for streets near elementary schools; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA: SECTION I. AMENDMENTS 1. Title 9, entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapter 3, entitled 'Rules of the Road," Section 6, entitled "Speed Restrictions," Sub -Section C, entitled "School Speed Zones" is hereby amended by adding the following language: Name of Street Where Limit Applies Willow Street From Muscatine Avenue to Eastwood Drive 2. Title 9, entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapter 3, entitled 'Rules of the Road," Section 6, entitled "Speed Restrictions," Sub -Section C, entitled "School Speed Zones" is hereby amended by removing the following language: Name of Street Where Limit Applies Court Street From Third Avenue to Upland Avenue First Avenue From A Street to Mayfield Road SECTION Il. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective upon publication. Passed and approved this 20th day of August 2019, Page 1 of 2 Q9'. Ordinance No. 19-4801 Page 2 / MAYOR ATTEST: by City Page 2 of 2 Ordinance No. 19-4801 Page 3 It was moved by Mims and seconded by Salih Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS First Consideration _ Vote for passage: Cole, Mims. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: ABSENT: Cole Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Throgmorton 08/06/2019 that the AYES: Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton, NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Date published 08/29/2019 Moved by Mims, seconded by Taylor, that the rule requiring ordinances to be considered and voted on,for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, the second consideration and vote be waived and the ordinance be voted for final passage at this time. AYES: Throgmorton, Cole, Mims, Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Item Number: 13. CITY OF IOWA CITY �� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT August 20, 2019 Ordinance amending Title 9, Entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapters 1, 3, 4, 8 and 10 to enhance bicyclist safety, to prohibit dooring, to expand the definition of electric assist bicycles, and to provide for the operation of electric scooters and electric skateboards. (Second Consideration) Prepared By: Susan Dulek, Ass't. City Attorney Reviewed By: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Darian Nagle -Lamm, Transportation Director Kent Ralston, MPO Director Jason Havel, City Engineer Bill Campbell, Police Captain Sarah Walz, Ass't. Transp. Planner Fiscal Impact: None Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: ordinance Executive Summary: This ordinance enhances bicycle safety and expands the definition of electric assist bicycles. It also defines electric scooters and electric skateboards and regulates them by treating them the same as bicycles. Background /Analysis: City staff from transportation, transportation planning, legal, police, and public works have met on multiple occasions to discuss various issues related to bicycle safety and electric assist bicycles, electric scooters, and electric skateboards. The discussions included requests from the Iowa Bike Coalition (I BC). The proposed ordinance is a result of the staff discussions. 1. The ordinance prohibits "dooring," which is opening up the door of a parked car onto a bicyclist. The Iowa Bicycle Coalition (I BC) has been advocating for this and it is included in the ordinance. The ordinance provides that a person shall not open a door until it is reasonably safe to do so and can be done without interfering with pedestrians and cyclists. 2. The I BC also requested tightening up the requirements for when a car passes a bicycle. The I BC advocated for a distance requirement (such as a minimum of 5 feet), but the Police Dept. and the City Attorney's Office believe it is more difficult to prosecute an exact distance requirement than it is a reasonably safe distance requirement. The ordinance does provide that vehicles must overtake bikers and e -device operators (i.e., electric assist bikes and electric scooters and skateboards) in the same manner as other vehicles. Additionally, reckless driving is amended to apply to persons driving a vehicle with disregard for bikers and e -device operators. 3. The I BC also requested that bikes need not be equipped with rear reflectors as long as the bike or rider has a red light when riding after dusk. The ordinance makes this amendment to the Code. 4. The I BC also requested that the City amend the Code to allow for bikers to signal a right turn with the right hand. The City is preempted from doing so as state law requires signaling with the left hand only, a hold -over from the time when it was common for a vehicle driver to signal with a hand rather than a turn -signal. 5. The definition of electric assist bicycles is amended. Although the City has not yet contracted with a company to provide them, privately owned electric bicycles are becoming more prevalent. Based on federal manufacturing requirements, they fall within three categories. The definition is amended to include all three categories. 6. Electric skateboards and electric scooters are not specifically regulated in the City Code. Both fall within the definition of motor vehicle and therefore cannot go on sidewalks. Staff recommends that they be treated the same as conventional bikes and electric assist bikes. Therefore, they cannot be on sidewalks in the CBD but can be on sidewalks elsewhere. Also, they must have front and rear lights if operated after dusk either on the device or the operator, and they must obey traffic lights and stop signs. 7. The City Code does not have a definition of "traffic," and the definition in the ordinance is the same as found in Section 321.1(84) of the Iowa Code. ATTACHMENTS: Description Ordinance 15 Kellie Fruehling From: Kent Ralston Late Handouts Distributed Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 12:20 PM To: 'bob oppliger'; Council Cc: Geoff Fruin; Sarah Walz 8_1q_/9 Subject: RE: New biking ordinance ffbi0) Mr. Oppliger — Thank you for your correspondence. The make-up of the Iowa City — Bike Advisory Committee (BAC) was established during the creation of the Bicycle Master Plan in 2016 and representation remains largely the same (with a few replacements where former representatives either no longer reside in Iowa City or graduated from the University). Representation of the BAC was/is intended to reach beyond your typical membership to make sure we are sensitive to the needs of women, minorities, youth, Ul staff and students, and low-income communities. These are folks who are active in the bicycling world, have some expertise in facility designs, and/or may be active bicycle commuters. Please know that Think Bicycles of Johnson County is actually represented on the BAC and the Iowa Bicycle Coalition declined an invitation. In addition, the BAC discussed potential ordinance changes at their June 201h meeting and provided their input — the City then took that input under advisement while crafting the proposed ordinance changes in consultation with the City Attorney's Office and the Iowa City Police Department. In addition, staff has an agenda item on the BAC's September/October meeting to update the group on the outcome of the ordinance changes currently before the City Council. Please also keep in mind that the proposed ordinance changes are likely not the last as local transportation evolves and the State contemplates new bike -related statutes. The City has spent a considerable amount of time working on the proposed ordinance changes and (if adopted) I'm certain that the bicycling community will benefit. Current Iowa City - Bicycle Advisory Committee Representatives: • Jennifer Selby - Think Bicycles of Johnson County • Brian Loring - Blue Zones (Neighborhood Centers of Johnson Co.) • Audrey Wiedemeier- Iowa City Bike Library • Ben Anderson - Iowa City Bicycling Club • Wayne Fett - Goosetown Racing/New Pioneer Racing Team • Emily Robnett - UI Bicycle Advisory Committee • Kris Ackerson — Former City of Iowa City - Community Development Planner • Austin Wu - UI Student Government • Anthony Branch - Neighborhood Centers of Johnson County & Youth off-road riders • Jay Geisen - UI Campus Planning • Susie Poulton - ICCSD Please don't hesitate to contact me directly should you have any questions. Best Regards, Kent Ralston, AICP Executive Director I Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County Transportation Planner I City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, IA 52240 319.356.5253 From: bob oppliger [mailto:boboppliger@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 5:07 PM To: Council <Council@iowa-city.org> Cc: Geoff Fruin <Geoff-Fruin@iowa-city.org>; Kent Ralston <Kent-Ralston@iowa-city.org>; Sarah Walz <Sarah- Walz@iowa-city.org> Subject: New biking ordinance Dear City Council, Member of Bicyclists of Iowa City, Think Bicycles of Johnson County, and the Iowa Bike Coalition only today, August 15, became aware of the changes recommended for biking ordinances in Iowa City. (We have no members on the Bike Advisory Committee.) At first glance we have concerns and feel, as written, the ordinances could be stronger. If the City Council feels climate action and reducing the city's carbon footprint are central policy concerns, then offering safe bicycling and safe, effective bike ordinances will be important. Before the council acts, we would like the opportunity to provide input. With the obstacles that summer travel creates, it's doubtful that we will be able to gather a quorum before your August 20 meeting, but hope to sometime soon. Please offer us sufficient time to convene, review carefully the proposed changes and offer comment. Bob Oppliger Education & Advocacy Coordinator Bicyclists of Iowa City & Member, Board of Directors League of American Bicyclists 2 i3 - Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-3565030 ORDINANCE NO. 19-4802 Ordinance amending Title 9, Entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapters 1, 3, 4, 8 and 10 to enhance bicyclist safety, to prohibit dooring, to expand the definition of electric assist bicycles, and to provide for the operation of electric scooters and electric skateboards. Whereas, the Iowa Bike Coalition has requested that the City enhance bicyclist safety by, for example, prohibiting "dooring," which is when a cyclist is struck by a car door by an occupant who has not reasonably checked for approaching cyclists and other traffic; Whereas, a rear red light should be an alternative to the required rear reflector when operating a bike after dusk; Whereas, the federal government regulates the manufacturing of electric bicycles, and the requirements are based on whether the device provides assistance only by pedaling or whether it can be used exclusively with a motor up to 20 mph; Whereas, the current definition of electric assist bicycles is limited to those where the motor provides assistance only when the person is pedaling; Whereas, although the City has not entered into an agreement with a provider of electric scooters, privately owned scooters are becoming more prevalent within the City and currently they fall within the definition of motor vehicle in the City Code; Whereas, electric skateboards also come within the definition of motor vehicle in the City Code; Whereas, the Code should treat the operation of electric scooters and electric skateboards the same as the operation of bicycles (both conventional and electric assist); and Whereas, it is in the best interest of the City to adopt this ordinance. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. Amendments. 1. Title 9, entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapter 1, entitled "Definitions, Administration, and Enforcement of Traffic Provisions," Section 1, entitled "Definitions," is amended by adding the following underlined text: Electric Assist Bicycle: A bicycle equipped with a motors that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour; or b) that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle and that is not capable of Providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour. An electric assist bicycle is not a bicycle, motorized bicycle or motor bicycle as defined herein. Ordinance No. 19-4802 Page 2 2. Title 9, entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapter 1, entitled "Definitions, Administration, and Enforcement of Traffic Provisions," Section 8 entitled "Clinging to Moving Vehicles," is amended by adding the following underlined text: No person traveling upon or operating any bicycle, motorcycle, electric assist bicycle, electric scooter, electric skateboard or nonmotorized vehicle shall cling to or attach to any other vehicle while the vehicle is moving upon any roadway or bikeway. 3. Title 9, entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapter 3, entitled "Rules of the Road," Section 5, entitled "Overtaking and Passing Vehicles," Subsection A, is amended by adding the following underlined text: A. Overtaking: The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle, bicycle, electric assist bicycle, electric scooter, or electric skateboard proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left thereof at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle, bicycle, electric assist bicycle electric scooter, or electric skateboard 4. Title 9, entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapter 3, entitled "Rules of the Road," Section 11, entitled "Prohibited Acts and Conditions," Subsection H, is amended by adding the following underlined text: H. Reckless Driving: Any person who drives any vehicle in such manner as to indicate a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons, including but not limited to or property is guilty of 5. Title 9, entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapter 4, entitled "Parking Regulations," Section 4, entitled "General Parking Restrictions," is amended by adding the following underlined text as Subsection J: passengers. 6. Title 9, entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapter 8, entitled "Bicycles," Section 3, entitled "Lights and Reflectors," is amended by adding the following underlined text and deleting the strikethrough text: A. Reflectors Required: All bicycles shall be equipped with reflective surfaces visible at three hundred feet (300') from the rear when viewed in front of lawful lower beams of headlamps on a motor vehicle. Reflective materials may be mounted on each side of each pedal. If the bicycle is not equipped with reflective surfaces as reauired hnrefn nn norcnn Ordinance No. 19-4802 Page 3 B. Headlights At Night: All bicycles used duriRg the heurs from sunset to sunrise shall display or their drivers shall wear a lamp on the front part of the bicycle, and the lamp shall emit a white light visible from a distance of at least €we -three hundred feet (6300) from the front of the bicycle. 7. Title 9, entitled "Motor Vehicles and Traffic," Chapter 10, entitled "Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Devices," shall be amended by renaming Chapter 10 as "Electric Devices," by renaming Section 1 as "Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Devices," by renumbering Section 1 as Subsection 1A, by renumbering Section 2 as Subsection 1 B, and by adding the following underlined text as new Section 2, entitled "Electric Scooters and Skateboards": A. A person who operates an electric scooter or electric skateboard shall exercise U1 C. Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed andapproved !Pis 20th day of August , 2019. M or Attest: City Ck Approved by City Attorney's Office Ordinance No. 19-4802 Page 4 It was moved by Mims and seconded by Thomas Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: x x x x x x x ABSENT: Cole Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Throgmorton First Consideration 08/06/2019 Voteforpassage: AYES: Mims, Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton, Cole. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published 08/29/2019 that the Moved by Mims, seconded by Taylor, that the rule requiring ordinances to be considered and voted on for passage at two Council mettings prior to the meeting at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, the second consideration and vote be waived and the ordinance be voted for final passage at this time. AYES: Cole, Mims, Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Item Number: 14. CITY OF IOWA CITY �� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT August 20, 2019 Ordinance amending Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 4, entitled "Animal Services," to establish trap/neuter/return requirements for community cats. (Second Consideration) Prepared By: Susan Dulek, Ass't. City Attorney Reviewed By: Chris Whitmore, Animal Services Coordinator Denise Brotherton, Police Captain Simon Andrew, Assistant to the City Manager Fiscal Impact: None Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: N/A Attachments: 6/13/19 memo ordinance Executive Summary: Feral cats have been a long time -issue for the City. The most effective way to control feral cats, commonly known as community cats, is through trap/neuter/return (TNR). This ordinance establishes TNR requirements for community cats. Background /Analysis: Feral cats have been a long time -issue for the City. Feral cats, commonly known as community cats, are brought to the Center by concerned residents in a humane trap and are held for 5 days. If deemed feral and unsuitable for adoption, the cat is humanely euthanized. In 2018, the Center euthanized 96 otherwise healthy cats and kittens that were feral. Of that 96, nearly half were from within Iowa City. The most effective method to control community cat populations is through trap/neuter/return (TNR), whereby the cat is humanely trapped, sterilized, and returned to where it was trapped to roam freely. The proposed ordinance is based on the ordinance passed by Des Moines last winter and by North Liberty last month. Unless the cat is causing a nuisance, a community cat is allowed to roam freely if 5 conditions are met: 1. No person owns the cat; 2. The cat has been assessed by a veterinarian and deemed healthy; 3. The cat has been spayed or neutered; 4. The cat has been vaccinated against rabies and other viruses; and 5. The cat has been ear -tipped. Through partnerships with Iowa Humane Alliance and Johnson County Humane Society, the cost is minimal to the Iowa City resident. The individual trapper would directly transport the cats for sterilization surgery funded by the Johnson County Humane Society, and the trapper would then return the cat to the area it was captured unless the property owner objects. ATTACHMENTS: Description memo Ordinance Correspondence: Alyssa Heinzman - TNR support Correspondence: Doreen Loring - Trap -Neuter -Return Ordinance Correspondence: Kristin Wildensee - Thank you for TNR Ordinance Correspondence: Laurie Crawford - TNR Correspondence: Karin Southard - proposed Trap -Neuter -Release (TNR) program for Iowa City CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: June 13, 2019 To: Mayor and City Council From: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Re: Trap Neuter Return Community Cats/ Pet Shops and Puppies At the May 7t" City Council meeting, it was requested that staff provide background and recommendations on (1) a trap/neuter/return program for community cats, and (2) regulation on where local pet shops can source the dogs that they have for sale to the public. TRAP NEUTER RETURN COMMUNITY CATS Feral cats have been a long time -issue for the City. Feral cats, commonly known as community cats, are brought to the Animal Care and Adoption Center by concerned residents in a humane trap and are held for 5 days. If deemed feral and unsuitable for adoption, the cat is humanely euthanized. In 2018, the Center euthanized 96 otherwise healthy cats and kittens that were feral. Of that 96, the City of Iowa City accounted for about 45 percent of those cats, Johnson County residents another 40 percent, Coralville 14 percent, and University of Iowa and University Heights less than 1 percent. The number of community cats euthanized over the 5 years has decreased. The decrease can probably be attributed to the trap/neuter/return (TNR) movement being implemented by individuals. The average cost of housing a cat for 5 days is $500.00, or $100 per day. About 2 years ago the Center started a "barn cat program". Friends of the Animal Center Foundation will pay for sterilization, ear tip, and rabies vaccine then the Center relocates the cat to a "barn home". Unfortunately, the Center was only able to find 34 barn homes for community cats, which is far less than needed to meet the volume of cats. The antiquated practice of trapping and euthanizing is not effective due to the phenomenon called the vacuum effect. Plentiful resources remain luring other cats to that area allowing them to reproduce which will actually cause a brief spike in the population. Returning sterilized cats back to their original location stabilizes the colony, prevents other cats from joining the colony, and reduces nuisance behaviors associated with intact cats. The most effective method to control community cat populations is trap, neuter, and release (TNR). There are at least 240 local governments nation-wide that have enacted ordinances or polices supporting TNR. Cities in Washington County including Washington, Brighton, and Wellman passed TNR ordinances over 4 years ago and have experienced significant decreases in shelter euthanasia of community cats and complaints relating to them. Locally, Des Moines and Clinton have recently passed a TNR ordinance and the cities of North Liberty and Cedar Rapids are both researching it. Through partnerships with Iowa Humane Alliance and Johnson County Humane Society, the cost is minimal to the Iowa City resident. Community cats would be exempt from the 5 -day hold period eliminating the cost to residents. The individual trapper would directly transport the cats for sterilization surgery and then back to their colony. Iowa Humane Alliance allows any community cat to be dropped off without an appointment and funding is available through Johnson County Humane Society via the Florence Unash Fund. TNR benefits the community by providing a humane and effective alternative to trap and euthanize. Staff will experience less stress from decreased euthanasia rates and will have more June 13, 2019 Page 2 opportunity to dedicate their time to adoptable animals and customer service. The City will save money due to the waived holding period and cost associated with euthanasia. Some residents have asked for a more humane, affordable, and effective approach: TNR provides the solution. PET SHOPS AND PUPPIES In our experience persons who purchase animals though third party sellers may not have reliable and accurate information regarding the origin of the animal. The best practice would be for buyers to be able to visually inspect the animal's parents, determine behavioral concerns, and review records of any genetic testing to ensure an animal's health and temperament. We can only speculate about the unsanitary conditions and neglectful environments that animal may endure when they are primarily used as breeding stock and their offspring are sold to third party sellers. Iowa City Animal Services inspects all pet shops within Iowa City annually and any warnings or citations issued have been remedied and brought up to current code within the recommended time frame. Until the state of Iowa passes stricter laws governing the standards for which companion animals are kept in confinement for breeding purposes, pet shop owners and buyers may not be aware of the potential lifelong health problems or other issues that could incur expensive veterinary bills. Of course, we would prefer that people wanting a new pet would choose to adopt rather than purchase. We will continue to advocate and promote adoption alternatives to the community. We also advocate for stronger state laws governing breeding environments. However, regulating and/or monitoring breeding environments that take place outside our jurisdiction would be very difficult. A complete ban on third party sales would not solve the issue as businesses could locate in nearby communities. Pushing sales outside of the community may also adversely affect those populations without the means and ability to personally visit breeder locations. Staff recommends that we continue to promote adoption over purchase and that we continue to annually inspect and follow-up on any resulting issues that are identified in our local pet shops. 41q Kellie Fruehling From: chrisjschoon@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2019 5:33 PM Late Handouts Distributed To: Council Subject: Fwd: Guest Opinion - TNR Makes Sense for Iowa City Attachments: Guest Opinion - TNR makes sense for Iowa City.docx (Date) Dear IC Council Members, I sent the attached "guest opinion" re: why TNR is the right thing to do to the Press -Citizen. I wanted to copy you on it. Thanks. Best, Chris Schoon ZENN SCARLETT Available Now in Bookstores and Online UNDER NAMELESS STARS: A ZENN SCARLETT NOVEL Available Now in Bookstores and Online From Angry Robot Books Distributed in U.S./Canada by Random House chrisjschoon@Rmail.com www.christianschoon.com @cischoon Zenn Scarlett on Facebook ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: chrisjschoon@gmail.com <chrisischoon@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 8:36 AM Subject: Guest Opinion - TNR Makes Sense for Iowa City To: <opinion@press-citizen.com> 1 Hi. I'm a local author and freelance writer living on a farm near Shueyville in north Johnson County. I've had extensive experience with feline population explosions on a Malthusian scale - ie, I have barn cats. During 20 years of dealing with this issue, I've learned first-hand that Trap -Neuter -(Vaccinate) -Return is the only reasonable, economically viable solution to free -roaming cat population control. There is some misunderstanding about the facts supporting TNR. I can cite research in support of the process, but that increases my word count. So, I'm submitting this "guest opinion -length" piece in the hope it can bring some science -based clarity into the current discussion. Thanks. Best, Chris Schoon ZENN SCARLETT Available Now in Bookstores and Online UNDER NAMELESS STARS: A ZENN SCARLETT NOVEL Available Now in Bookstores and Online From Angry Robot Books Distributed in U.S./Canada by Random House chrisischoon@gmail.com www.christianschoon.com @cischoon Zenn Scarlett on Facebook Guest Opinion (629 words, not including writer's name/address) From: Chris Schoon 3009 Hoosier Creek Rd. Cedar Rapids, IA 52404-8910 (in rural Johnson County) 319-848-2152 chrisjschoon@gmail.com Iowa City's Councilors are right to support a Trap -Neuter -Return program to address the issue of free -roaming cats in the city. Why? For starters, public health! Trapped cats are vaccinated for rabies. The American Public Health Association's Veterinary Public Health Special Primary Interest Group supports "well- designed Trap/Neuter/Vaccinate/Return programs as the preferred method of management wherever feasible." The American Veterinary Medical Association says that "Public, private, and non-profit humane organizations and individuals must make every effort to promote adoption of acceptable unowned cats and implement sterilization programs." TNR also saves tax -payer money by reducing shelter intake and euthanasia and calls to animal control. And we know TNR works because: science! The studies cited here, from the National Institutes of Health and others, clearly make the case that well -implemented TNR programs can be highly effective. An Examination of an Iconic Trap -Neuter -Return Program: The Newburyport, Massachusetts Case Study (the US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, 2017) "... an iconic TNR program—began in 1992—that resulted in the elimination of hundreds of cats from the Newburyport, Massachusetts, waterfront... An estimated 300 cats resided in the area at the commencement of the TNR program; none remained 17 years later.... These findings illuminate the potential effectiveness of TNR as a management practice..." Implementation of a Feral Cat Management Program on a University Campus (Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 2002) "In the first year, 123 cats were trapped, compared to 35 in the second .... The program illustrated how a well-managed TNR program can stabilize a population of cats." The Effects of Implementing a Feral Cat Spay/Neuter Program in a Florida County Animal Control Service (Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 5, 285-289) "...the number of calls to animal control about cats and the number of cats killed by animal control decreased in the six years after these programs were initiated, even while the human population grew significantly." Evaluation of the Effect of a Long -Term Trap Neuter Return and Adoption Program on a Free- Roaming Cat Population. (Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 222 no. 1) "This study tracks a TNR program on a Florida college campus over the course of 11 years... At the end of the study, the population had decreased by 66%..." Decrease in Population and Increase in Welfare of Community Cats in a Twenty -Three Year Trap -Neuter -Return Program in Key Largo, FL (Frontiers of Veterinary Science, 2/19) "The free -roaming population decreased from 455 cats recorded in 1999 to 206 recorded in 2013 (55% decrease). In conclusion, a trap -neuter -return program operating for over two decades achieved a decrease in population and an increase in population welfare." A Case Study in Citizen Science: The Effectiveness of a Trap -Neuter -Return Program in a Chicago Neighborhood (Animals 8: 1/18) "Colony populations declined by a mean of 54% from entry and 82% from peak levels. Results from concurrent TNR programs in the Chicago area are compatible with these findings." Integrated Return -To -Field and Targeted Trap -Neuter -Vaccinate -Return Programs Result in Reductions of Feline Intake and Euthanasia at Six Municipal Animal Shelters (Frontiers of Veterinary Science, 3/19) ",,, TNVR and return -to -field and high -impact targeting have exhibited the capacity to contribute to significant reductions in shelter intake and euthanasia. A median reduction of 32% in feline intake, as well as a median decline of 83% in feline euthanasia occurred across the six community cat programs." What do voters think? A 2017 national survey (Best Friends Animal Society/Luntz Global) found that 72% of respondents chose TNR programs, compared to 18% who chose impoundment/lethal injection and 11% who chose "do nothing." Similar levels of support have been observed at the state and local levels. TNR is the rational, evidence -based, economically beneficial community solution to the issue of free -roaming cats and the reduction of euthanasia as a primary method of feline population control. I rest my case. 1A Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030 Ordinance No. 19— 4803 Ordinance amending Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 4, entitled "Animal Services," to establish trap/neuter/return requirements for community cats. Whereas, feral cats, commonly known as "community cats," have been a long time -issue for the City; Whereas, in 2018, the City euthanized 96 otherwise healthy cats and kittens that were feral, and the City accounted for nearly half of those cats; Whereas, the most effective method to control community cat populations is through trap/neuter/return (TNR); Whereas, TNR benefits the community by providing a humane and effective alternative to trap and euthanize; and Whereas, it is in the best interest of the City to adopt this ordinance. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. Amendments. 1. Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations," Chapter 4, entitled "Animal Services," is amended by renumbering Sections 13, 14, and 15 as 14, 15, and 16 respectively and adding the following new Section 13, entitled "Community Cats": A. A cat meeting the following requirements shall be allowed to roam freely and shall be known as a 'community cat' if all the following conditions are met: 1) No person owns the cat; 2) The cat has been assessed by a veterinarian and deemed healthy; 3) The cat has been spayed or neutered; 4) The cat has been vaccinated against rabies, feline rhinotracheitis, calcivirus, and panleukopenia; and 5) After determining that the requirements of paragraphs 1-4 have been met, the cat has been ear -tipped by the veterinarian making the health assessment. B. A community cat that creates a nuisance may be captured and impounded. For purposes of this section, "nuisance" means those acts described in Section 5 herein or as anything with interferes with the enjoyment of life or property as determined by the Chief of Police or designee. C. A community cat shall be returned to the area where it was captured unless the property owner requests that the cat not be returned. After its return, reasonable attempts shall be made to revaccinate a community cat, in accordance with directions of a veterinarian. D. The City shall have no liability for the disposition of any community cat. Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this 20th day of August , 2019. Ordinance No. 19-4803 Page 2 M or Attest: City Clerk Approved by City Attorney's Office Ordinance No. 19-4803 Page 3 It was moved by Mims and seconded by Thomas Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: —x x x x x x x ABSENT: Cole Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Throgmorton First Consideration 08/06/2019 Voteforpassage: AYES: Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton, Cole, Mims, Salih, Taylor. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Datepublished 08/29/2019 that the Moved by Mims, seconded by Taylor, that the rule requiring ordinances to be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, the second consideration and vote be waived and the ordinance be voted for final passage at this time. AYES: Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Throgmorton, Cole, Mims. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Kellie Fruehling From: Heinzman, Alyssa N <alyssa-heinzman@uiowa.edu> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2019 8:46 PM To: Council Subject: TNR support Hello, My name is Alyssa Heinzman, I'm a resident of Iowa City. I wanted to email to express my support for the newly passed Trap -Neuter -Return ordinance in Iowa City. As a volunteer and foster for neonatal kittens at the Iowa City Animal Care and Adoption Center, I have done extensive research on TNR and the ability of TNR to reduce the stray cat population. TNR is absolutely crucial to prevent the suffering of kittens and to help prevent the expansion of the stray cat overpopulation problem, which is rampant in Iowa City/Coralville. I totally support the new ordinance. Thank you! Alyssa 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. Kellie Fruehling From: Brian or Doreen Loring <LORING6491@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2019 2:47 PM To: Council Subject: Trap -Neuter -Return Ordinance Hello, I'm writing to you today as I've just found out that Iowa City (where I live) is considering an ordinance for the trapping, spaying/neutering and return of feral cats. I fully support this method of dealing with the overpopulation of these cats. In the past, I was the administrator of such a program at the Los Angeles SPCA. In the Litter Abatement Program (LAP), people in our contracted cities could trap feral cats and have them spayed/neutered at a designated veterinarian at no cost to them, as long as they returned them to their "neighborhoods" and were responsible for feeding the cats. This program was hugely successful in reducing the population of feral cats in these cities in the Los Angeles area. I also volunteered in Sacramento, CA, for a small but effective group of volunteers who also practiced trapping, spaying/neutering and returning cats to their home grounds. Again, it was a huge help in reducing the overpopulation of feral cats in the city. I hope this ordinance is passed and that Iowa City can move forward in dealing with the feral cat overpopulation here. I would commit my time, in fact, to such a program, as I know many others would. Thank you, Doreen Loring 1128 Rochester Avenue Iowa City, IA 52245 (319) 325-0473 Kellie Fruehling From: Kristin Wildensee < kkwildensee@yahoo.com > Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2019 3:53 PM To: Council Subject: Thank you for TNR Ordinance Thank you, City Council members, for the passing the first reading of a Trap Neuter Return ordinance for Iowa City. TNR is an extremely useful and effective resource to help manage stray cat populations in any community. I have experience using TNR when I lived in Portland, Oregon and personally witnessed the stabilization of a feral cat population in my neighborhood. The TNR process greatly reduced the number of births and helped the adult sterilized cats live in much more peaceful coexistence. TNR helps empower and leverage community members and nonprofits to take effective action, reducing the pressure on City agencies and resources. I urge you to continue to finalize a TNR Ordinance for Iowa City, and thank you for your support at the first reading. Sincerely, Kristin Wildensee 1710 Ridge Road Iowa City Kellie Fruehling From: laurie crawford <lauriecrawforc1517@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2019 4:30 PM To: Council Subject: TNR Dear Mayor Throgmorton and Council Members, Thank you for your votes this week supporting the Trap, Neuter, Release ordinance. TNR improves co -existence with community cats in our shared environment. It stops nuisance behaviors like spraying, yowling and fighting. TNR stops the breeding cycle, thereby reducing the number of free roaming cats. TNR will save costs to the City of trapping, housing and euthanizing feral cats and will save cat lives when community cats can continue to live in their colony vs competing with other shelter cats for homes. Again, thank you and please vote "yes" on the next two readings of the TNR ordinance. Very truly yours, Laurie Crawford Iowa City Kellie Fruehling From: Karin Southard <karin.southard@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2019 7:24 AM To: Council; Kellie Fruehling Subject: proposed Trap -Neuter -Release (TNR) program for Iowa City Dear Councilors, I noticed that you all expressed support for and plan to approve a Trap -Neuter -Release (TNR) program for feral cats in Iowa City. I ask you to consider a few critical points prior to proceeding further: 1. Please review an opposing point of view from a well-recognized ecologist from the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center. https://www.smithson ian mag.com/science-nature/moral-cost-of-cats-180960505/ Note especially: a. the documented ecological devastation that free roaming cats cause to birds and other mammals b. the opinions and reported findings that TNR programs do not work (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2005;227:1775-1781) c. that free -roaming cats are a public health threat and a vector for zoonotic diseases 2. Please acknowledge existing documentation that zoonotic diseases that affect people, pets and wildlife are associated with free -roaming cats. Rabies transmission via feral cats is a particular concern. This has been demonstrated by the significant proportion of treatment for rabies post -exposure prophylaxis due to exposure involving free -roaming cats. https://www.ncbi.nim.nih.gov/pubmed/23859607 https://www.ncbi.nim.nih.eov/pubmed/22830565 3. The literature documents with GIS studies that a significant number of cats from a large feral population will roam into areas including elementary and preschool grounds, public parks, and community gardens. Do you really want your children and grandchildren playing where these animals have deposited their feces? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29423934 4. If you do decide to proceed with approval, at the very least, please provide citizens of Iowa City a defined and effective mechanism for dealing with nuisance cats/colonies. Thank you, Karin Southard The Moral Cost of Cats I Science I Smithsonian Smithsonian.com The Moral Cost of Cats A bird -loving scientist calls for an end to outdoor cats "once and for all" Do outdoor cats need to die? (Saverio Maria Gallotti / Alamy) By Rachel E. Gross smithsonian.com September 20, 2016 Pete Marra is haunted by cats. He sees them everywhere: slinking down alleys, crouched under porches, glaring at him out of wild, starved eyes. Page 1 of 7 People assume that Marra, head of the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center and author of the recent book Cat Wars, hates cats. This is not the case. "I love cats," he says, calling them "fascinating, magnificent animals," that seem to have a "freakish love for me." He's even considered a pet cat, despite being mildly allergic. "This is the thing people don't realize," Marra told me recently at a cafe near his office in Washington, D.C. "I'm both a wild animal advocate and a domestic animal advocate. If my mother thought I wasn't supporting cats, she'd be flipping in her grave." It's an understandable mistake. After all, Marra has made himself the public face of what sounds a lot like an anti -cat crusade. For years, the wildlife ecologist has been investigating the lethal implications of cats and urging that pet owners keep them indoors. Now, he argues in Cat Wars: The Devastating Consequences ofa Cuddly Killer, co-authored with freelance writer Chris Santella, the time has come for more drastic action: a concerted, nationwide effort to rid the landscape of cats. (The book is based on Marra's personal and scientific research, and the views and conclusion are expressly his own and do not represent those of the Smithsonian Institution.) That effort will require an ugly reality: the targeted killing of felines. "No one likes the idea of killing cats," Marra concludes in his book. "But sometimes, it is necessary." Marra might like cats. But he also sees a bigger picture. In his day job, he and his team at the migratory bird center track the global movements of birds and tease apart threats to their existence. He knows that birds don't just twit around pointlessly. They pollinate plants, spread seeds, control insects and protect environments from the effects of climate change; they are the glue that binds healthy ecosystems together. "Birds are critical," he says. And outdoor cats, he and other ecologists have determined, are the leading human -influenced cause of dead birds. In 1962, biologist Rachel Carson wrote that "in nature nothing exists alone." Marra couldn't agree more. Like Carson, he thinks of life on Earth as a complex tapestry in which each species represents a single thread. Outdoor cats threaten that tapestry. Their crimes include contributing to 33 extinctions around the world and counting, to say nothing of their potential to spread deadly diseases like rabies and Toxoplasmosis They hold in tooth and claw the power to destroy that delicate web—like, well, a cat unraveling a ball of string. https://www.smithsoniamnag.com/science-nature/moral-cost-of-cats-180960505/ 8/12/2019 The Moral Cost of Cats Science I Smithsonian Page 2 of 7 Pete Marra says cats pose an ecological and public health threat. (Tim Romano) Americans own about 86 million cats, or one cat for every three households. That makes cats more popular, petwise, than dogs, and we haven't even gotten to Internet memes yet. But not all pet cats are created equal. The majority of them about two-thirds to three-fourths, surveys say—are your sweet, harmless, cuddly housecats, which seldom set foot outside. Marra takes no issue with these lap cats. Their instincts may be lethal, but they rarely get the chance to harm more than a house mouse. The other one-quarter to one-third, though, aren't so harmless. These are outdoor pet cats, and they are murderers. Equipped with laser -quick paws and razor -tipped claws, these natural born killers are the stuff of every bird and small mammal's nightmare. Often we love them for just this quality; the hard-working barn cat has nipped many a country mouse infestation in the bud. But sometimes their deadly instincts spell trouble for animals and ecosystems we value—and often, Marra argues, desperately need. Marra tells the story of Tibbles the cat, who traveled with her owner to an untouched island south of New Zealand in 1894. There, she single-pawedly caused the extinction of the Stephens Island wren, a small, flightless bird found only in that part of the world. Most cats aren't as deadly as Tibbles, but your average outdoor pet cat still kills around two animals per week, according to the Wildlife Society and the American Bird Conservancy. The solution for these cats is simple, says Marra: Bring them indoors The Humane Society of the United States agrees So far, so good. Now comes the real problem: unowned cats, which include strays and ferals. Born in the wild or abandoned, feral cats spend almost no time with humans; they're basically wild animals. Stray cats, by contrast, often have a working relationship with humans. They might live in managed communities, where a human caretaker regular feeds and watches over them—"subsidizing" them, in Marra's words—meaning their numbers can soar to rates they wouldn't be able to otherwise. Whether stray or feral, these cats kill on average three times as many animals as owned cats, according to Marra. No one knows exactly how many stray and feral cats stalk the U.S. They are, by nature, elusive and transient. In a 2012 study, Marra used an estimate of 30 to 80 million; the Humane Society estimates a more conservative 30 to 40 million. Adithya Sambamurthy from the Center for Investigative Reporting's The Reveal recently reported that unowned cats may rival the number of pet cats, placing them at about 80 million. That means, for every lap cat hunkering over his dish of Fancy Feast, there is another one prowling around for his dinner—like an evil twin, or a particle of antimatter. For these cats, there is no easy solution. This is where Marra's unorthodox plan comes into play. As he writes: In high-priority areas there must be zero tolerance for free -ranging cats. If the animals are trapped, they must be removed from the area and not returned. If homes cannot be found for the animals and no sanctuaries or shelters are available, there is no choice but to euthanize them. If the animals cannot be trapped, other means must be taken to remove them from the landscape—be it the use of select poisons or the retention of professional hunters. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/moral-cost-of-cats-180960505/ 8/12/2019 The Moral Cost of Cats I Science j Smithsonian Stray cats rest under a park bench. (Boschetto Photography / iStock) Page 3 of 7 Feral cat advocates and ecologists agree on very little. But one thing they both will say is this: There are too many cats outside. Feral cat advocates say these dense numbers threaten the welfare of cats themselves, which lead miserable lives colored by fights and starvation. Ecologists, meanwhile, worry about those cats' victimsas well whether the cats might be spreading disease to humans and other animals. Management of these overabundant felines is where the two disagree. For many animal welfare advocates, the solution is TNR, or Trap-Neuter-Rcturn. TNR is just what it sounds like: a policy that involves trapping stray and feral cats, sterilizing them and returning them to the urban wilds in the hopes that populations will decrease. In the past decade, TNR has gone mainstream in many cities, helped along by generous funding from pet food companies including Petco and PetSmart. The premise is simple: Cats live out their lives, but don't reproduce. Becky Robinson, president of the advocacy group Alley Cat Allies and a major proponent of TNR, calls the method "effective, humane control." "This is a benefit directly to the cats," she told me over the phone. (Two communications staffers from Robinson's organization were listening in our conversation, to give you an idea of the delicateness ofthe topic.) Some researchers have documented surprising successes with TNR. Dr. Julie Levy of the University of Florida in Gainesville and colleagues conducted one of the first long-term studies on the effectiveness of TNR, publishing their results in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association in 2003. They sought to quantify whether TNR could succeed in a specific population: stray cats colonies on the campus of the University of Central Florida. The researchers expressed doubts at the outset, reporting that "virtually no information exists to support the contention that neutering is an effective long-term method for controlling free -roaming cat populations." Yet today, more than ten years after their study concluded, just five cats remain on campus—and these are so old and sickly they have to be given geriatric care. Even Levy was taken aback by the results. "We keep seeing better success in the field than the models ever predict," she says. However, much of the decrease can be attributed to the fact that volunteers often end up adopting cats—a phenomenon Levy considers an unofficial part of many TNR programs. Despite these kinds of successes, many ecologists say flatly that TNR doesn't work. The problem is that, for TNR to succeed in large populations, at least 75 percent of cats in a colony must be sterilized. That rarely happens. The trouble is that negligent pet owners continue to abandon pet cats, which then join existing colonies; additionally, non -neutered stray cats can wander in. Like efforts at vaccinating schools against chickenpox, just a few stragglers can undermine an entire TNR program. Any short-term reduction in colony size is therefore quickly reversed, a group of researchers including Levy and ecologist Patrick Foley reported after studying nearly 15,000 stray and feral cats. For Marra, TNR is a feel -good solution that is no solution at all—a Band-Aid that has done little to stem the flow of cats. By refusing to look at the reality, he says, we are letting our "misplaced compassion" for cats get the better of our reason. That is why he and some other ecologists call for a more draconian approach: widespread removal of feral and stray cats, including euthanasia. The concept isn't as radical as it sounds. Australia aims to kill two million cats by 2020 using "robots, lasers, [and] poison." New Zealand, as I've reported previously, has long perpetrated mass warfare on possums, stoats and weasels in a bid to save its beloved birds. In America, too, we cull mammals—including gray wolves, which can prey on livestock and pets, and bison, our national mammal, which can spread bacterial infections to cattle. We even kill cats: American shelters put down more than 1.4 million cats a year, according to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. That doesn't mean we're comfortable with it. "That's the aspect that is most alarming about the animal welfare groups, is the fact that often the only reasonable solution of getting rid of invasive species is lethal control," says Stanley Temple, a wildlife ecologist who argued for the necessity of eradicating invasive species in a 1990 essay The Nasty Necessity. "And that is the single thing that they are so vehemently opposed to. Their hang-up, if you will, on death." Given the unpopularity of eradication programs in the U.S., it would seem inadvisable for any researcher to make one part of his platform of action. But this, Marra says, is our only option. Now his challenge is to get others on his side. To do so he will need more than science—he will need to get people to empathize with birds, and to value species and ecosystems over individuals. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/moral-cost-of-cats-180960505/ 8/12/2019 t r - i 1W Stray cats rest under a park bench. (Boschetto Photography / iStock) Page 3 of 7 Feral cat advocates and ecologists agree on very little. But one thing they both will say is this: There are too many cats outside. Feral cat advocates say these dense numbers threaten the welfare of cats themselves, which lead miserable lives colored by fights and starvation. Ecologists, meanwhile, worry about those cats' victimsas well whether the cats might be spreading disease to humans and other animals. Management of these overabundant felines is where the two disagree. For many animal welfare advocates, the solution is TNR, or Trap-Neuter-Rcturn. TNR is just what it sounds like: a policy that involves trapping stray and feral cats, sterilizing them and returning them to the urban wilds in the hopes that populations will decrease. In the past decade, TNR has gone mainstream in many cities, helped along by generous funding from pet food companies including Petco and PetSmart. The premise is simple: Cats live out their lives, but don't reproduce. Becky Robinson, president of the advocacy group Alley Cat Allies and a major proponent of TNR, calls the method "effective, humane control." "This is a benefit directly to the cats," she told me over the phone. (Two communications staffers from Robinson's organization were listening in our conversation, to give you an idea of the delicateness ofthe topic.) Some researchers have documented surprising successes with TNR. Dr. Julie Levy of the University of Florida in Gainesville and colleagues conducted one of the first long-term studies on the effectiveness of TNR, publishing their results in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association in 2003. They sought to quantify whether TNR could succeed in a specific population: stray cats colonies on the campus of the University of Central Florida. The researchers expressed doubts at the outset, reporting that "virtually no information exists to support the contention that neutering is an effective long-term method for controlling free -roaming cat populations." Yet today, more than ten years after their study concluded, just five cats remain on campus—and these are so old and sickly they have to be given geriatric care. Even Levy was taken aback by the results. "We keep seeing better success in the field than the models ever predict," she says. However, much of the decrease can be attributed to the fact that volunteers often end up adopting cats—a phenomenon Levy considers an unofficial part of many TNR programs. Despite these kinds of successes, many ecologists say flatly that TNR doesn't work. The problem is that, for TNR to succeed in large populations, at least 75 percent of cats in a colony must be sterilized. That rarely happens. The trouble is that negligent pet owners continue to abandon pet cats, which then join existing colonies; additionally, non -neutered stray cats can wander in. Like efforts at vaccinating schools against chickenpox, just a few stragglers can undermine an entire TNR program. Any short-term reduction in colony size is therefore quickly reversed, a group of researchers including Levy and ecologist Patrick Foley reported after studying nearly 15,000 stray and feral cats. For Marra, TNR is a feel -good solution that is no solution at all—a Band-Aid that has done little to stem the flow of cats. By refusing to look at the reality, he says, we are letting our "misplaced compassion" for cats get the better of our reason. That is why he and some other ecologists call for a more draconian approach: widespread removal of feral and stray cats, including euthanasia. The concept isn't as radical as it sounds. Australia aims to kill two million cats by 2020 using "robots, lasers, [and] poison." New Zealand, as I've reported previously, has long perpetrated mass warfare on possums, stoats and weasels in a bid to save its beloved birds. In America, too, we cull mammals—including gray wolves, which can prey on livestock and pets, and bison, our national mammal, which can spread bacterial infections to cattle. We even kill cats: American shelters put down more than 1.4 million cats a year, according to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. That doesn't mean we're comfortable with it. "That's the aspect that is most alarming about the animal welfare groups, is the fact that often the only reasonable solution of getting rid of invasive species is lethal control," says Stanley Temple, a wildlife ecologist who argued for the necessity of eradicating invasive species in a 1990 essay The Nasty Necessity. "And that is the single thing that they are so vehemently opposed to. Their hang-up, if you will, on death." Given the unpopularity of eradication programs in the U.S., it would seem inadvisable for any researcher to make one part of his platform of action. But this, Marra says, is our only option. Now his challenge is to get others on his side. To do so he will need more than science—he will need to get people to empathize with birds, and to value species and ecosystems over individuals. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/moral-cost-of-cats-180960505/ 8/12/2019 PCL XL error Error: I[LegaLOperator5equence Operator: Oxcb Position: 1524 Rabies prevention and management of cats in the context of trap -neuter -vaccinate -release ... Pagel of 2 PubMed v Format: Abstract Full text links WILEY � P 16 Full text Zoonoses Public Health. 2014 Jun;61(4):290-6. doi: 10.1111/zph.12070. _- _ Rabies prevention and management of cats in the context of trap -neuter -vaccinate -release programmes. Roebling AD', Johnson D, Blanton JD, Levin M, Slate D, Fenwick G, Rupprecht CE. Author information Abstract Domestic cats are an important part of many Americans' lives, but effective control of the 60-100 million feral cats living throughout the country remains problematic. Although trap - neuter -vaccinate -return (TNVR) programmes are growing in popularity as alternatives to euthanizing feral cats, their ability to adequately address disease threats and population growth within managed cat colonies is dubious. Rabies transmission via feral cats is a particular concern as demonstrated by the significant proportion of rabies post -exposure prophylaxis associated with exposures involving cats. Moreover, TNVR has not been shown to reliably reduce feral cat colony populations because of low implementation rates, inconsistent maintenance and immigration of unsterilized cats into colonies. For these reasons, TNVR programmes are not effective methods for reducing public health concerns or for controlling feral cat populations. Instead, responsible pet ownership, universal rabies vaccination of pets and removal of strays remain integral components to control rabies and other diseases. © 2013 Blackwell Verlag GmbH. KEYWORDS: Cat; TNR; release; trap; vaccination PMID: 23859607 PMCID: PMC5120395 DOI: 10.1111/zph.12070 [Indexed for MEDLINE] Free PMC Article Images from this publication. See all images (1) Free text n https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23859607 8/12/2019 Zoonotic diseases associated with free -roaming cats. - PubMed - NCBI Page 1 of 2 PubMed u Format: Abstract Full text links WI LEY Zoonoses Public Health. 2013 May;60(3):189-95. doi: 10.1111/j.1863 -2378.2012.01522.x. Epi Zoonotic diseases associated with free -roaming cats. Gerhold RW1, Jessup DA. Author information Abstract Free -roaming cat populations have been identified as a significant public health threat and are a source for several zoonotic diseases including rabies, toxoplasmosis, cutaneous larval migrans because of various nematode parasites, plague, tularemia and murine typhus. Several of these diseases are reported to cause mortality in humans and can cause other important health issues including abortion, blindness, pruritic skin rashes and other various symptoms. A recent case of rabies in a young girl from California that likely was transmitted by a free -roaming cat underscores that free -roaming cats can be a source of zoonotic diseases. Increased attention has been placed on trap -neuter -release (TNR) programmes as a viable tool to manage cat populations. However, some studies have shown that TNR leads to increased immigration of unneutered cats into neutered populations as well as increased kitten survival in neutered groups. These compensatory mechanisms in neutered groups leading to increased kitten survival and immigration would confound rabies vaccination campaigns and produce naive populations of cats that can serve as source of zoonotic disease agents owing to lack of immunity. This manuscript is a review of the various diseases of free -roaming cats and the public health implications associated with the cat populations. © 2012 Blackwell Verlag GmbH. PMID:22830565 DOI:10.1111/0.1863-2378.2012.01522.x [Indexed for MEDLINE] Publication type, McSH terms https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22830565 8/12/2019 Zoonotic disease transmission associated with feral cats in a metropolitan area: A geospat... Pagel of 2 PubMed v Format: Abstract Full text links LEY Zoonoses Public Health. 2018 Jun;65(4):412-419. doi: 10.1111/zph.12449. Epub 2018 Feb 8. 1NI Zoonotic disease transmission associated with feral cats in a metropolitan area: A geospatial analysis. Taetzsch SJ1, Bertke AS', Gruszynski KR2. Author information 1 Department of Population Health Sciences, Virginia -Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA. 2 Virginia Department of Health, Office of Epidemiology, Richmond, VA, USA. Abstract Feral cats raise public health concerns due to their large population numbers and ability to harbour pathogens that cause disease in people, pets, and wildlife. Information regarding the potential for feral cats to intersect with areas frequented by humans is lacking. This study examined the potential for feral cats and human territories to overlap in the Richmond metropolitan area of Central Virginia. Feral cats (n = 275) were trapped for monthly trap - neuter -release (TNR) clinics from July to November 2016. A geographic information system (GIS) was used to map feral cat trapping locations, elementary and preschools, public parks, and community gardens, and to evaluate the potential for cat interaction with these areas, presuming a maximum habitat radius of 0.44 miles. We found that 8.0% of feral cats in the Richmond metropolitan area had potential to range onto public elementary or preschool property, and 81.5% of feral cats trapped in Richmond City had potential to roam into one or more places of interest, including elementary and preschool grounds, public parks, and community gardens. This provides public health, veterinary, and human health professionals with important information that can be used to focus resources in an effort to reduce zoonosis associated with feral cat populations. © 2018 Blackwell Verlag GmbH. KEYWORDS: GIS mapping; feral cat; one health; parasite; rabies; zoonosis PMID:29423934 DOI:10.1111/zph.12449 [Indexed for MEDLINE] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29423934 8/12/2019