Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment 1100 Carmel Drive_InitiateCity of Dubuque
ITEM TITLE:
SUMMARY:
SUGGESTED DISPOSITION:
Copyrighted
March 16, 2020
Public Hearings # 1.
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment 1100
Carmel Drive
Proof of publication on notice of public hearing to consider
approval of a request from I I W, P.C., Cody T. Austin /
BVM-PHS Senior Housing Inc., to amend the PUD
Planned Unit Development District at 1100 Carmel Drive to
accommodate a secondary emergency access for a senior
living community, and the Zoning Advisory Commission
recommending approval.
ORDINANCE Amending Title 16 of the City of Dubuque
Code of Ordinances Unified Development Code by
repealing Ordinance No. 29-18 and adopting an Amended
PUD Planned Unit Development with a PR Planned
Residential designation, and Conceptual Development
Plan to accommodate a secondary emergency access for
the development of a senior living community
Suggested Disposition: Receive and File; Motion B; Motion
A
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Zoning Advisory Commission Cover Letter
Applicant Materials
Staff Materials
Ordinance
Public Input
1023 Shady Oaks / Gordon Correspondence
Proof of Publication
Suggested Motion Wording
Type
Staff Memo
Supporting Documentation
Staff Memo
Ordinance
Supporting Documentation
Supporting Documentation
Supporting Documentation
Supporting Documentation
Planning Services Department
City Hall
50 West 13th Street
Dubuque, IA 52001-4864
(563) 589-4210 phone
(563) 589-4221 fax
(563) 690-6678 TDD
planning@cityofdubuque.org
Dubuque
hiltd
tiztrTAR
'III'•'
Masterpiece on the Mississippi 20Q7
2413.7A201217
March 5, 2020
The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Dubuque
City Hall — 50 W. 13th Street
Dubuque IA 52001
Applicant: IIW, P.C. / BVM-PHS Senior Housing Inc.
Location: 1100 Carmel Drive
Description: To amend the PUD Planned Unit Development District to accommodate a
secondary emergency access for a senior living community.
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
The City of Dubuque Zoning Advisory Commission has reviewed the above -cited
request. The application, staff report and related materials are attached for your review.
Discussion
The applicant, Mike Jansen, IIW, 4158 Pennsylvania Ave., representing the Sisters of
the BVM, spoke in favor of the request. He noted that IIW had been involved in the
original development of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) in 2015 and a PUD
Amendment in 2018. He discussed a timeline that indicated that Phase I of the PUD
could commence but prior to Phase II a secondary emergency access road was
required to be installed. He explained that the current amendment is for a gated
secondary emergency access to the BVM's property. He said that the roadway as
designed is sufficient for fire apparatus and other emergency vehicles.
Staff Member Wally Wernimont reviewed the staff report, noting that the proposed
roadway will be for a secondary emergency access only. He said the access will be
gated and the only vehicles that will traverse the property would be emergency vehicles
or a snowplow to keep the drive access clear during inclement weather. He explained
the requirement for construction of a secondary emergency access prior to
commencement of Phase 2 of the development. He noted that the proposed access lies
fully within the BVM's property. He said that other similar residential facilities generally
have two accesses, either on a secondary driveway or adjacent city streets.
Staff Member Wally Wernimont said that the amended ordinance mirrors the existing
ordinance with the exception that the emergency secondary access is indicated on the
concept plan. He said there will not be through traffic on the proposed access. He said
that the BVMs could build a residential driveway to house at 1847 S. Grandview Avenue
Service People Integrity Responsibility Innovation Teamwork
The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Page 2
in the same location without any further review. He noted that fire access to some of the
abutting residential properties requires that the fire hoses be stretched approximately
1,000' from the Grandview Avenue. He said if the access would be approved the Fire
Department noted that it would reduce the length of hose needed to approximately 600'.
There were eight public comments. Neighbors expressed concerns with privacy, traffic,
property values, and future development of the BVM property. There were concerns
with regards to the potential for the emergency access road to create a loop with an
existing private drive which would encourage pedestrians to walk down the private lane.
In addition, there were concerns with the access road being used for construction and
service access to the BVM's property.
One of the adjacent property owners to the emergency access road spoke in favor of
the request provided they could use it to access a future single-family home.
Mike Jansen addressed the concerns raised by the neighbors. He said that the lane will
be gated and used for emergency access only; therefore, eliminating through traffic. He
said that the BVMs will not allow the access road to be used as a construction or
service road. He said that the grade and driveway design has been reviewed and
approved by the Fire Department and is being reviewed by the Engineering
Department. He said that the roadway will not be converted to a full access road. He
said there is currently access to the balance of the BVM's property from a platted
roadway easement on the northside of the property off the South Grandview Avenue
cul-de-sac. He said that traffic volume is not an issue because the access drive will only
be used in the rare event that the Grandview Avenue access would be blocked.
The Zoning Advisory Commission discussed the existing private driveway access, the
creating of a loop that pedestrian may potentially use, fencing and installation of an
additional gate, and asked if the developers had considered different options.
Staff Member Wernimont said that there had been consideration for an access from
Julien Dubuque Drive by the girls' softball fields. He said that there were topography
and roadway negotiation issues. Mike Jansen noted that engineers had looked
extensively at other options and that a driveway access off Julien Dubuque Drive would
require traversing property that was not owned by the BVM's and would create extreme
grades and switchbacks that would be very difficult for fire apparatus to negotiate. He
said the roadway would not accommodate all the Fire Department's equipment. Cody
Austin noted that of all the options studied the driveway access from Shady Oaks was
the best.
Commissioners further discussed the request.
Recommendation
By a vote of 6 to 0, the Zoning Advisory Commission recommends that the City Council
approve the request.
Service People Integrity Responsibility Innovation Teamwork
The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Page 3
A simple majority vote is needed for the City Council to approve the request.
Respectfully submitted,
Martha Christ, Vice Chairperson
Zoning Advisory Commission
Attachments
cc: Cody Austin, IIW, P.C., 4155 Pennsylvania Ave., Dubuque, IA 52002
Alan Stache, BVM-PHS Senior Housing Inc., 1100 Carmel Dr., Dubuque, IA 52003
Rick Steines, Fire Chief
Mark Burkle, Fire Marshal
Gus Psihoyos, City Engineer
Service People Integrity Responsibility Innovation Teamwork
mount mel
BLUFFS
February 3, 2020
City of Dubuque
Attn: Mr. Wally Wernimont
50 West 13th St.
Dubuque, IA 52001-4864
Re: BVM-PHS Senior Housing Inc.
Application for Planned District Amendment to PUD Ordinance No. 29-18
Dear Mr. Wernimont:
On behalf of the BVM-PHS Senior Housing Inc. (DBA Mount Carmel Bluffs) we are pleased to provide you
with an application for planned district amendment to PUD Ordinance No. 29-18 for a portion of land located
at 1100 Carmel Dr., Dubuque, Iowa. This amendment addressees the second means of emergency access.
The Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and Presbyterian Homes & Services formed this
partnership to develop a senior living community for BVM Sisters and the general public. The Conceptual
Development Plan includes Assisted Living, Memory Care, Independent Living, and Skilled Nursing. The
proposed development may have up to 452 units, the same number approved in the 2018 PUD, anticipated
in multiple phases. Construction is underway with Phase 1 Skilled Nursing, Assisted Living and Memory
Care. Phase 1 and 2 are anticipated to be completed in 2021.
We look forward to presenting our application for planned district amendment to the Zoning Advisory
Commission. This application includes the following information pursuant to the City of Dubuque's Planned
District Procedure:
1. Planning Application Form.
2. Amended Planned District (PUD) Fee of $527.00, payable to the City of Dubuque.
3. Neighborhood Map with Zoning.
4. Updated Figure 1.1: Conceptual Development Plan.
It is our understanding the City intends to amend the existing PUD by combining the unchanged portions of
PUD Ordinance No. 29-18 with the updated information provided in this application.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Sister Teresa Hadro, BVM
Board Chair, BVM-PHS Senior Housing Inc.
President, Sisters of Charity BVM
Cc: Bill Hagstrom, Senior Housing Partners
Michael A. Jansen, IIW, P.C.
Ward Isaacson, Pope Architects
1100 Carmel Drive, Dubuque, IA 52003 563-588-2351 MountCarmelBluffs.org
A shared ministry of the Sisters of Charity, BVM and Presbyterian Homes & Services
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
DVariance
❑Conditional Use Permit
❑Appeal
['Special Exception
❑Limited Setback Waiver
DRezoning/PUD/ID
Dubuque
kretA
ill -burin pry
k.�. nL illfllY2F
II I I ' 1
2007.2012.2013
2017*2019
PLANNING APPLICATION FORM
❑Preliminary Plat
DMajor Final Plat
['Minor Final Plat
❑Simple Site Plan
['Minor Site Plan
❑Major Site Plan
Please type or print legibly in ink
❑Simple Subdivision
DText Amendment
❑Temporary Use Permit
❑Annexation
DHistoric Revolving Loan
DHistoric Housing Grant
City of Dubuque
Planning Services Department
Dubuque, IA 52001-4845
Phone: 563-589-4210
Fax: 563-589-4221
planninoacitvofdubuque.orq
❑Certificate of Appropriateness
DAdvisory Design Review (Public Projects)
❑Certificate of Economic Non -Viability
DHistoric Designation
DDemolition
❑Port of Dubuque /Chaplain Schmitt Island
Design Review
Propertyowner(s): BVM-PHS Senior Housing Inc. Phone: 563-588-2351
Address: 1100 Carmel Dr City:Dubuque State: IA Zip: 52003
Fax #: Cell #: E-mail:
Applicant/Agent: IIW, P.C. Cody T. Austin Phone: 563-556-2464
Address:4155 Pennsylvania Ave City:Dubuque State: IA Zip: 52002
Fax #: Cell #: E-mail: c.austin@iiwengr.com
Site location/address: 1100 Carmel Dr. Neighborhood Association: n/a
Existing zoning: PUD-PR
Proposed zoning: PUD-PR
District: N/A
Landmark: ❑ Yes
ID No
Legal Description (Sidwell parcel ID# or lot number/block number/subdivision): Lot 1 & Lot 2 of Carmel Heights No. 2
Total property (lot) area (square feet or acres): 32.756 Ac
Describe proposal and reason necessary (attach a letter of explanation, if needed):
Identification of a second means of emergency access.
CERTIFICATION: I/we, the undersigned, do hereby certify/acknowledge that:
1. It is the property owner's responsibility to locate property lines and to review the abstract for easements and restrictive
covenants.
2. The information submitted herein is true and correct to the best of my/our knowledge and upon submittal becomes public
record;
3. Fees are not refundable and payment does not guarantee approval; and
4. All additional required written and graphic materials are attached.
Property Owner(s):
Applicant/Agent:
Date: 424% gO��
Date: 2/63/20EC)
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY — APPLICA ON - UBM/CHECKL -
it)(1l
oo I
Fee: Received . • Lw.„—dr,ter`— Date:2 -3 `20/5) Docket:
EXHIBIT A
HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
0 300 600
ORAYANG MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED
SHADY OAKS
PHASE 1
SKILLED NURSING - 60 BEDS
ASSISTED UV1NG - 40 UNITS
MEMORY CARE - 21 UNITS
PHASE 2
INDEPENDENT LIVING - 115 UNITS
PHASE 3
INDEPENDENT UVING - 84 UNITS
EXISTING PUD BOUNDARY
PHASE 4
(3) BROWNSTONES
30 UNITS EACH
PROPOSED PUD UNITS PARKING REQUIRED
(PREVIOUS PUD-452 UNITS)
EXISTING EXISTING
CIRCLE HOUSING- 16 UNITS
MOTHER HOUSE- 25 UNITS 25 x .25 + 12 = 19
PHASE 1
ASSISTED UVING-
MEMORY CARE -
SKILLED NURSING-
40 UNITS
21 UNITS
60 UNITS
PHASE 2
INDEPENDENT UV1NG-115 UNITS
FUTURE PHASES
INDEPENDENT LIVING-84 UNITS
BROWNSTONES - 90 UNITS
451 UNITS
62x.25= 15
60x.25+30- 45
115 x 1.5 = 172
84 x 1.5 = 126
90 x 1.5 = 135
512
575 PROVIDED
PUD SUBMITTAL 2-3-2020
SISTERS OF CHARITY BVM
MOUNT CARMEL PUD SUBMITTAL DUBUQUE.IOWA
FIGURE 1.1 CONCEPTUAL PUD SITE PLAN
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
Dubuque
bitexl
u-AMInooiy
I'l111f
2007.2012.2013
20174,2019
Vicinity Map
Applicant: IIW, P.C. Cody T. Austin
Location: 1100 Carmel Drive
Proposal: To amend the PUD Planned
Unit Development District to
accommodate a secondary
emergency access for a senior
living community.
rdoppAEI
Proposed Secondary
Emergency Access
Current PUD Boundary
Parcels
- � City limits
0 125 250 500
Feet
A
1:5,000
Dubuque
Alit arICa Car
1 1.1
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
February 27, 2020
TO: Zoning Advisory Commission
FROM: Wally Wernimont, Associate PlannerV""
SUBJECT: Amend Planned Unit Development for property located at 1100 Mt. Carmel
Drive to accommodate a secondary emergency access for a senior living
community.
INTRODUCTION
The BVM-PHS Senior Housing Inc, has submitted an application asking to amend the
Planned Residential District located at 1100 Mt. Carmel Drive to accommodate a
secondary emergency access for a senior housing community. Attached is the
proposed ordinance and proposed conceptual development plan.
BACKGROUND
On August 20, 2018, the City Council reviewed and unanimously approved Ordinance
29-18 which rezoned the subject property from R-1 Single -Family Residential to PUD
Planned Unit Development with a PR Planned Residential designation. The amended
planned unit development regulations facilitated development of a 452-unit senior living
community.
During review of the proposed development plans for the senior living community, City
staff noted a concern that the property has only a single vehicular access. This access
is from the terminus of South Grandview Avenue. The Fire Marshall told
representatives of the Sisters of Charity BVM and Presbyterian Homes and Services
that a second means of access will be necessary to ensure that, in the event of an
emergency situation, there is a viable second means of access to the property.
DISCUSSION
The developers have been working with the Fire Department to determine the location
of a secondary emergency access road. On February 7, 2019, BVM-PHS Senior
Housing, Inc, acquired the property at 1847 S. Grandview Avenue. This property is a
platted lot that takes access from S. Grandview Avenue along a shared driveway
easement. The lot also has 50 feet of street frontage along Shady Oaks Drive which is
directly adjacent to the subject property.
The developers are proposing to construct an emergency access drive from Shady
Oaks Drive (a public street) to an existing parking lot as shown on the proposed PUD
conceptual development plan.
The access lane will only be used by emergency vehicles (ambulance, fire trucks, police
vehicles) in the event of emergency where the primary access from the terminus of
South Grandview Avenue is blocked. As shown on the proposed conceptual
development plan, a gate will be installed on the property at 1100 Mt. Carmel to prevent
through traffic from using the secondary emergency access road. The gate will be
designed so the Fire Department can open it in the event of an emergency.
It should be noted that the proposed emergency access lane will be located entirely on
property owned by the BVM-PHS Senior Housing Inc. Currently, the property at 1847 S.
Grandview Avenue is accessed by an approximately 10-foot wide, concrete, private
driveway that is over 750 feet long and has access from South Grandview Avenue.
This existing access is substandard for emergency vehicular access.
If approved, the proposed emergency access lane will need to be designed to meet all
Engineering and Fire Code standards for grade, width and pavement specifications. The
portion of the proposed emergency access lane that is not gated will provide improved
driveway and emergency access to the residence at 1847 S. Grandview Avenue.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Commission review the criteria established in Section 9-5 and
Section 5-24 regarding rezoning reclassification and planned unit developments.
Enclosures
Cc: Gus Psihoyos, City Engineer
Rick Steines, Fire Chief
Mark Burkle, Fire Marshall
1 T.
1716 1730 1736 1740 1760114.17770 •1790
L_ I _: L1780 -�
17.15
,:1041
Legend
1847 S. Grandview Avenue
BVM owned property
i
1840 • . ,' 897., 899 _
I.`
'..:I•,—' . INFORMATION WAS COMPILED USING
V'.:AaUURCES FROM THIRD PARTIES OR MAINTAINED
1'r
IpTY OF OU8U0UF (THE PTV). BY USE OF THIS
I11 TFIORMAMA, THE USER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT, WHILE THE
1 o.i < CRY USES THE MOST EU ARENT ANDACCURATE INFORMATION
I ' L� 'y "_„�`.� AVAIIABLE, THE CITY GOES NOT WARRANT THE ACCURACE OR
,. f ) I immeack.
,.� iill.r CURRENCY OFTHE INFORMATION OR DATA CONTAINED HEREIN.
I BYUSEOF THIS INFOR MATION, THE USER AGREES T HECITY IS
1801 1 y NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MISUSE OR MISINTERPRETATION OF
T.Ty,.�Iy a- 1955 ANY INFORMATION DISPLAYED IN THIS MAP ANDTHATTHE
7F� J"1 I USER WILL NOT HOLD THE CRY LIABLE FOR ANY LOSS, DAMAGE,
OR INCONVENIENCE CAUSED AS A RESULT OF RELIANCE ON THE
1849 ' 1871 19511" INFneA..vrin ,
1843 "
18.17
1150.—
IX� 9ue
n mcrrY or
DUB UE
Masterpiece nn the Mississippi „�,
View of Existing Private Drive from South Grandview Avenue
August 2019 Google Maps Image
91 MOUNT
EL/RD
MINIM
GRANDVIEW
AVE
5 GRANDVIEW
AVE •
GRANDVIEW
AVE
GRANDVIEW
AVE
"107,ez
GRANDVIEW
AVE •
GRANDVIEW
AVE
GRANDVIEW
AVE
1023i5HADY
OAKS DR
GRANDVIEW
AVE
1041SHADY
OAKS DR
GRANDVIEW
AVE_
Yi
•
1056 S
OAKS
1047 SHADY
OAKS DR
map: Auto (Oblique) - Mar 2016 - May 2016 - < image 1 of 12 > 04/17/2016
Imagery from Pictometry
View of 50' Wide Lot from Shady Oaks Drive
Google Maps Image
Wally Wernimont
From: Mark Burkle
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 3:35 PM
To: Wally Wernimont
Subject: Shady Oaks
Attachments: Shady Oaks hydrant access.JPG; S Grandview hydrant access.JPG
BVM emergency access road would provide additional options including:
• Additional fire hydrants on Shady Oaks available to 1845 and 1847.
• Reduced 5" diameter hose lay from 1,160' to 624'
• Reduce congestion on private driveway (large diameter hose and fire apparatus)
• Provide easier access for emergency ambulance if needed (firefighters and residents)
Hydrant #000674 on South Grandview would be the likely choice because it is in the direction of travel from the nearest
fire station.
Mark Burkle
Fire Marshal
11 West 9th Street
Dubuque, Iowa 52001-4839
(563) 589-4161 office
--(563)-5543=6522 cell
(563) 589-4209 fax
mburkle@cityofdubuque.org
1
624.17
11 PM Wed Mar 4
Feet
GPS accuracy 32.8 ft • required 30 ft
soli 1 Se°!- RI
41-4ti fj !!I Done
Prepared by Laura Carstens, City Planner Address: City Hall, 50 W. 13th St. Telephone: 589-4210
Return to Kevin S. Firnstahl, City Clerk Address: City Hall- 50 W. 13th St Telephone: 589-4121
ORDINANCE NO. 12-20
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 16 OF THE CITY OF DUBUQUE CODE OF
ORDINANCES UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE BY REPEALING ORDINANCE 29-18
AND ADOPTING AN AMENDED PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WITH A PR
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION, AND CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
TO ACCOMMODATE A SECONDARY EMERGENCY ACCESS FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DUBUQUE, IOWA:
Section 1. That Title 16 of the City of Dubuque Code of Ordinances, Unified
Development Code, is hereby amended by repealing Ordinance 29-18 and adopting an
amended PUD Planned Unit Development District with a PR Planned Residential
designation, and a revised conceptual development plan to accommodate a secondary
emergency access, a copy of which is on file with the Planning Services Department, for
the property at 1100 Carmel Drive as depicted in the attached Exhibit No. 1.
Section 2. Attached hereto and made a part of this zoning reclassification approval
is the Conceptual Development Plan for the Mount Carmel Planned Unit Development
marked Exhibit A. It is recognized that minor shifts or modifications to the general plan
layout may be necessary and compatible with the need to acquire workable street
patterns, grades, and usable building sites. The general plan layout, including the
relationship of land uses to the general plan framework and the development
requirements shall be used as the implementation guide. The provisions of the City of
Dubuque Unified Development Code shall apply to the development of the property
included in this Planned Unit Development unless specifically regulated by this
Ordinance.
A. Use Regulations
Mount Carmel Campus PUD
Ordinance No. 12-20
Permitted Uses
1. Cemetery, Mausoleum, Columbarium
2. Hospice
3. Housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities
4. Library
5. Licensed adult day services
6. Multiple -family dwelling*
7. Nursing or convalescence home
8. Parking structure
9. Off-street parking
10. Place of religious exercise or assembly
11. Single -Family Dwelling (detached)*
12. Two -Family Dwelling (duplex)*
13. Townhouse*
* Limited to Seniors or Persons with Disabilities
Conditional Uses: Subject to the provisions of Section 16-8.5 of the Unified
Development Code.
1. Group homes
2. Keeping of horses or ponies
3. Licensed childcare center
4. Museum
5. Seminary
Accessory Uses: Subject to provisions of Section 16-3.8 of the Unified
Development Code.
1. Any use customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use it
serves.
2. Detached garage
3. Fence
4. Garage sales
5. Keeping of hens
6. Home -based businesses
7. Non-commercial garden greenhouse or nursery
8. Satellite receiving dish
9. Solar collector
10. Sport, recreation or outdoor cooking equipment
11. Storage building
12. Tennis court, swimming pool, or similar permanent facility
13. Wind turbine (building -mounted)
2
Mount Carmel Campus PUD
Ordinance No. 12-20
B. Bulk Regulations
Minimum lot area
■ Single -Family Residential
• Two -Family (duplex)]
• Townhouse
• Multi -family dwellings
5,000 square feet
5,000 square feet
1,600 square feet/du
2,000 square feet/du
Minimum lot frontage width
Minimum lot frontage townhouse
50 feet
16 feet/du
Maximum building coverage
40%
Maximum building height
• Number of stories
• Height
4
60 feet
Minimum yards
• Front
• Side(2)
• Rear
25 feet(1)
10 feet
20 feet
Open Space Requirements
• Minimum permeable open space (3)
40%
Setback requirements (4)
• Internal roadway setbacks (5)
• Site perimeter setback (6)
25 feet
25 feet
Landscape buffer requirements (6)
• site perimeter landscape buffer
25 feet
(1) Minimum building and/or garage setback from public right-of-way or edge of pavement
(2) Where no lot lines exist, 20 feet of clearance is required between buildings.
(3) Includes easements, setbacks, wooded areas, and landscape buffers, internal roadway
setbacks, and parking area landscape, excludes all hardscape.
(4) Figure 1.2: PUD Setback Requirements
(5) Setback calculated from edge of pavement on private drives.
(6) See Figure 1.3: PUD landscape and Open Space Requirements.
C. Roadways
The private roadways in this PUD shall conform to the City of Dubuque Unified
Development Code and SUDAS as adopted by the City.
3
Mount Carmel Campus PUD
Ordinance No. 12-20
D. Parking
1. Parking Requirements
Parking areas shall accommodate sufficient parking while minimizing
impervious surfaces and the visual impact of large lots. Parking requirements
will follow city standards as outlined in the City of Dubuque Unified
Development Code (Section 14-6 Off -Street Parking Requirements).
2. All surface parking lots shall be designed to:
■ Integrate and link existing parking areas with new parking areas for
improved pedestrian and auto circulation.
Accommodate pedestrian routes through parking areas to building
entrances.
Accommodate snow removal and storage.
Comply with City lighting standards and minimize impact on
surrounding properties.
3. All parking structures shall be designed to:
■ Comply with City requirements for vehicular and pedestrian access,
ADA compatibility, safety, lighting and ventilation.
■ Clearly identify with signage all pedestrian and vehicular entrances to
parking structures.
■ Integrate ample floor -to -ceiling heights to maximize light and visibility
and accommodate a wide variety of vehicle sizes.
■ Incorporate where feasible, flat floors to minimize driver confusion and
maximize Tight, visibility and safety.
■ Integrate into land contour and grading opportunities to minimize above
grade height and mass when appropriate.
All parking areas shall comply with the landscape standards set forth in
Section F: Landscape Standards.
4. Dimensional Requirements
Minimum parking stall dimensions shall be 8.5' x 18' with 24' drive aisles to
accommodate two-way traffic. Accessible parking space requirements shall
adhere to standard outlined in the City of Dubuque Unified Development
Code (Section 14-7 Accessible Parking Space Requirements).
4
Mount Carmel Campus PUD
Ordinance No. 12-20
5. Bicycle Parking
Bicycle parking shall be considered and placed in safe, convenient locations
near building entrances and comply with Section 16-13-3.5.1 of the Unified
Development Code.
E. Loading and Service Areas
The visual impact of loading and service areas on a building, site or adjacent sites
and uses should be minimized. Loading and service areas are not allowed in the
right-of-way or within any setbacks.
1. All loading and service areas shall be designed to:
Provide access to a street or alley in a manner that will create the least
possible interference with through traffic movements. No curb cut shall
exceed 30 feet in width.
2. Accommodate maneuvering space to allow vehicles to access and exit the
space without having to make backing movements on or into a public or
private street.
3. Provide fixed lighting that prevents direct glare of beams onto any other
property or street by the use of luminaire cutoffs. All lighting shall be reduced
to security levels at all times of nonuse.
4. Have masonry or other screening materials that complement materials used
on campus buildings, and that are effective in every season.
5. Comply with the landscape screening requirements set forth in Section F:
Landscape Standards.
6. Outside storage of materials, equipment or trucks shall be kept to a minimum
and located in areas that are screened from views by a permanent, solid and
year-round screening element. Sharing of loading, trash and utility areas
between buildings shall be considered for ease of maintenance, to reduce
land needed for such functions and to improve the visual quality of the
Campus.
F. Landscape Standards
1. General Description and Intent
The natural character of the site should be preserved and enhanced as
campus land use changes. Site landscaping will be designed in a naturalized
pattern to complement the bluffs, ravines, and other natural features of the
site, work with the architectural form of buildings, provide shade, create
outdoor spaces for employees, residents and visitors, and buffer parking lots.
These landscape standards build on elements of the City of Dubuque Unified
5
Mount Carmel Campus PUD
Ordinance No. 12-20
Development Code to provide landscape requirements for plant material,
parkways and site buffer and parking lot treatments that:
■ Preserve or enhance the appearance and character of the property and
its surroundings.
■ Reduce noise and air pollution, light glare, soil erosion and solar heat
gain.
■ Provide buffering between land uses and zoning districts of differing
intensity.
■ Promote the preservation of existing significant vegetation.
■ Improve the appearance of parking areas and properties abutting public
rig hts-of-way.
2. Landscape Requirements
Overall Site Landscape Requirements
Minimum permeable open space will be calculated at 40 percent of the entire
site dedicated under review.
■ Permeable open space calculations may include easement areas,
perimeter setbacks, woodlands, landscape buffers, internal roadway
setbacks (parkways), and parking lot landscape.
Minimum site landscape plant quantities shall be calculated at one plant per
unit per 2,000 square feet of site landscape area.
■ Street trees planted in the parkway or in the public right-of-way shall not
be counted toward fulfillment of the minimum site requirements for
number of trees.
■ Parking lot landscape requirements shall not be counted toward
fulfillment of the minimum site requirement for number of trees.
■ Existing trees to be retained on site may be counted toward fulfillment of
the landscaping requirements.
3. Plant Units
A plant unit is a measurement used to determine the quantity of plant
material required for screening and shading. One plant unit is comprised of
any of the following elements:
■ One canopy tree
6
Mount Carmel Campus PUD
Ordinance No. 12-20
• Two under -story or ornamental trees
• Two evergreen trees
• Seven shrubs (large or small, deciduous or evergreen)
Plant unit calculations establish the total quantity of required plant material
while allowing the landscape architect flexibility in allocating and distributing
plant material. Existing plant material protected during construction may be
used to satisfy the plant material requirements provided the type and size of
the plant material meets the plant material standards and the plant material is
not an invasive or noxious variety.
4. Perimeter Buffer Landscape Requirements
Perimeter buffer landscape will help create a transition from the adjacent
residential uses on the north and west to the campus. Plant material shall
consist of a variety of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs as shown
in Figure 2.1: Typical Perimeter Buffer Planting. A minimum total of three (3)
plant units per 100 linear feet of buffer shall be installed.
• Only required access drives and sidewalks shall break through a
perimeter landscape open space.
• Every perimeter buffer landscape open space shall be designed and
maintained to preserve unobstructed views of the street and sidewalk at
points of access and to not interfere with or be damaged by work within
any public utility easement, unless the City shall determine that no other
location is reasonably feasible.
5. Parkway Landscape Requirements
A consistently planted parkway will add to the overall Campus character by
providing an appealing arrival sequence and uniform experience around, into
and through the Campus. All streets shall include 2 canopy trees per 100 feet
of road frontage. These trees may be located in closer proximity to each
other to create clustering or massing of plant material instead of a consistent
on -center planting approach as long as they are located within the roadway
setback, see Figure 2.2: Typical Parkway Planting.
6. Parking Lot Landscape Requirements
The following are standards for the design of parking lot interior and
perimeter landscape areas which build upon the standards defined in the City
of Dubuque Unified Development Code. Figure 2.3: Typical Parking Lot
Planting reflects a minimum treatment for a typical parking lot.
• Parking bays in excess of 11 spaces in length shall provide landscaped
islands at the ends of each aisle. Parking bays in excess of 20 spaces
7
Mount Carmel Campus PUD
Ordinance No. 12-20
in length shall be divided by intermediate landscaped islands and
provide landscaped islands at the ends of each aisle.
A landscaped island for a single parking bay shall be a minimum of 9
feet wide by 18 feet long and shall contain the equivalent of two (2)
plant units.
A landscaped island for a double-parking bay shall be a minimum of 9
feet wide by 36 feet long and shall contain the equivalent of four (4)
plant units.
• If the required planting ratio is not obtainable in a healthy landscape
environment, then the remaining plant material required by this
calculation may be placed in close proximity of the parking lot. This
additional area should be integrated with the parking lot perimeter
landscape.
• All parking lot landscape areas shall be protected by raised curbs with a
minimum height of 4 inches.
• Except for in swales, the finished grade (crown) or interior planting
areas shall not be less than 3 inches above curb or pavement.
• A landscaped buffer strip shall be provided along the frontage of all
surface parking areas at least 10 feet wide along the public right-of-
way. The buffer strip shall be planted with a minimum of 7 plant units
per 100 linear feet of buffer. Landscaped earth berms and or decorative
walls and fences are permitted provided they are integrated with the
landscape screening described above. The use of biofiltration methods
of landscape and drainage design is encouraged.
• A landscaped buffer strip of at least seven feet wide shall be provided
along the remaining sides of all surface parking lots. The buffer strip
shall be planted with a minimum of 5 plant units per 100 linear feet.
• Prior to planting, all interior areas shall be excavated to a depth of 3
feet and amended with a soil mixture consisting of 1 part screened
topsoil, 1 part existing topsoil, and 2 parts of organic compost or an
approved equivalent, with the exception of other soil mixtures as
necessary to accommodate Low Impact Development features. This
requirement may be waived upon confirmation by the City Planner that
the pre-existing soil is suitable for planting and drainage, and that no
amendments are necessary.
All landscaped areas that are not planted in grass shall be finished with
a 3-inch layer of mulch.
8
Mount Carmel Campus PUD
Ordinance No. 12-20
7. Intersection Visibility
In accordance with the requirements of the City of Dubuque Street Tree and
Landscaping on Public Right -of -Way Policy, nothing shall be erected, placed,
planted, or allowed to grow in such a manner as to impede or obstruct vision
between a height of 3 to 10 feet above the road crown in areas adjacent to
intersecting streets, drives or alleys. This area is defined by:
• Trees shall be planted at least fifty (50) feet from the edge of street
intersections, traffic control lights and stop signs;
• at least ten (10) feet from driveways;
• and fifteen (15) feet for alleys
• Trees shall be planted at least two feet from the back of curb.
8. Plant Materials
Plant material used to satisfy the standards of this section shall comply with
the following standards:
• Unless otherwise expressly provided, all plant materials used to satisfy
the requirements of this section shall meet the following minimum size
requirements:
Plant Type
Canopy tree
Under -story or ornamental tree
Evergreen tree
Deciduous shrub
Evergreen shrub
Minimum Size
2-1/2" caliper
2" caliper or 8' height
8' height
18" height (small), 30" height (large)
24" width
• Species of plant material shall require approval from the City.
• Plants installed to satisfy the requirements of this section shall meet or
exceed the plant quality standards of the most recent edition of
American Standard for Nursery Stock, published by the American
Association of Nurserymen. Plants shall be capable of withstanding the
extremes of individual microclimates.
• All required landscape areas not dedicated to trees, shrubs, or
preservation of existing vegetation shall be landscaped with grass,
ground cover, or other landscape treatment, not including sand, rock, or
pavement.
For each plant type associated with the landscape requirements of this
section, no single plant species shall represent more than 40% of the
total plantings.
9
Mount Carmel Campus PUD
Ordinance No. 12-20
Plant material shall be installed so it relates to the natural environment
and habitat in which it is placed. Native vegetation shall be utilized in all
instances unless site conditions or availability of species warrant the
use of cultivars or similar materials compatible with the area.
The scale and nature of landscape material should be appropriate to
the site and structures. For example, larger scaled buildings should be
complemented by larger scaled plants. Plant material should be
selected for its form, texture, color and concern for its ultimate growth.
9. Tree Survey and Preservation Plan
As part of any development plan submission, a tree survey shall be conducted by
a certified arborist. The survey shall delineate the limits of all vegetated woodland
areas on site. All specimen trees not located in vegetated woodland areas that
measure 8" or greater at Direct Breast Height (DBH) shall be tagged, identified
and recorded. Based on this tree survey, all trees in below average or poor
condition, of a noxious species, or that measure less than 8" DBH can be removed
from the property at the discretion of the owner to assist in providing a healthier
growing environment for the existing tree stands.
The tree inventory shall rate tree condition and form as follows:
■ 5 — POOR CONDITION: A rating of 5 shall be given to a tree that has a
significant deadwood, bad sweep or lean, disease or damage by insect
pests or larvae, lightning damage, split, or other physical damage.
■ 4 — BELOW AVERAGE CONDITION: A rating of 4 shall be given to a
tree that has some deadwood, minor sweep or lean, distorted shape,
trunk of bark damage, multiple stems, or poor physical quality.
■ 3 — FAIR CONDITION: A rating of 3 shall be given to a tree that is
average in condition, form, physical state, appearance and health.
■ 2 — ABOVE AVERAGE: A rating of 2 shall be given to a tree that has
little or no damage, sound, good shape and form, and is good in overall
physical quality.
■ 1 — EXCELLENT CONDITION: A rating of 1 shall be given to a tree
that is excellent in appearance, condition and form, balanced branching
and healthy.
10
Mount Carmel Campus PUD
Ordinance No. 12-20
The following tree species identified are considered noxious:
■ Buckthorn
The following tree species identified are considered undesirable:
• Box Elder
■ Siberian Elm
• White Mulberry
The preservation of existing healthy trees and natural landscape features on a site
is encouraged. The number of new plant materials may be reduced when existing
trees of a desirable species in a healthy growing condition are preserved within the
area of the perimeter landscape or open space. Credit for the preservation of
existing trees 8 inches in caliper (deciduous or 8 feet in height (evergreen) shall be
as follows, but in no instance shall a developer or property owner receive greater
than a maximum of 50% credit towards the number of required trees:
Size of Preserved Tree Tree Credit
1 canopy or under -story tree, 6" to 12" caliper
1 evergreen tree or multi -stem under -story tree, 6'-12' 3 trees
1 canopy or under -story tree, 12" to 30" caliper
1 evergreen tree or multi -stem under -story tree, more than 12' height 4 trees
1 canopy tree or under -story tree, more than 30" caliper 5 trees
10. Vegetative Woodland Preservation
Wooded areas 2 acres in size or larger, or groves of trees with 10 or more
individual trees having a diameter of at least 12 inches and a canopy cover of at
least 50 percent of the area encompassed by the trees shall be delineated on the
submitted plans. Such woodlands shall have 20% retention protected.
All woodland areas retained must have a buffer of 50' from the trunks of trees to
be preserved, to protect the trees. If the City determines that a required woodland
area cannot be retained due to site constraints or infrastructure requirements,
replacement trees must be planted at a rate of one tree for every 200 square feet
of woodland removed from the retention area. When that is not feasible, mitigation
may take place by planting supplemental trees at an off -site woodland approved
by the City.
Exceptions
With the incorporation of Best Management Practices (BMPs), Low Impact
Development practices (LIDs) or other Sustainable Design practices into the
11
Mount Carmel Campus PUD
Ordinance No. 12-20
project, the required landscaping may be reduced or arranged in a manner that will
enhance the design concept at the discretion of the City of Dubuque.
Considerations shall include the following:
■ Swales or bio-filters placed in islands or at the perimeter of parking
areas, designed to improve the filtration and quality of stormwater
runoff.
■ Proposals to modify the type or quantity of landscape materials may be
allowed in exchange for the installation of plant species such as native
trees, shrubs, grass or perennials that will enhance the filtering capacity
of the site and promote the use of diverse native species.
■ Proposed swales or filters using a structural pervious surface may be
used for parking or drive aisles provided such features are designed to
withstand vehicular loads.
G. Architectural Standards
All buildings shall have a balanced, integrated design theme that strives to
incorporate solid architecture that fits within a Campus -wide character.
1. Building Scale and Massing
The size and orientation of buildings is critical to achieving a balanced overall
Campus design. The following items shall be addressed to achieve
appropriate scale and massing.
■ Rather than single, large building masses, buildings shall be clustered
together where feasible to promote efficient street/driveway systems,
shared parking, integrated open spaces and pedestrian linkages
between buildings.
■ Where feasible, buildings and main entries shall be located along the
Campus Loop Road to foster a welcoming pedestrian environment. In
no instance shall a building's rear entrance or service area be oriented
towards the Loop Road or internal access drives.
■ Building orientation and design elements shall encourage overall visual
continuity.
■ To the greatest extent possible buildings shall be oriented to take
advantage of natural Tight view sheds and passive solar opportunities.
2. Architectural Styles and Building Materials & Colors
12
Mount Carmel Campus PUD
Ordinance No. 12-20
Architectural styles should be carefully balanced and coordinated with the
style, materials, color and massing of other buildings seen throughout the
Campus.
• A balance of proportions and scale through vertical and horizontal rhythm
and facade articulation should be set.
• Unarticulated, flat front buildings are prohibited.
• A building's main entrance should be clearly defined within the facade.
• Building projections shall be pedestrian -scaled and proportional to the
building facade.
• Structures should be consistent with residential scale and articulation,
especially on street facing elevations.
3. Building Materials
A range of acceptable building materials shall be considered to enhance
architectural interest and Campus character.
• All new buildings should be constructed with a blend of high -quality
materials such as masonry (brick and stone) and wood. Limited amount
of "glass skin" or decorative stucco may considered if they are
considered accent materials rather than primary materials. In addition, a
limited amount of cement board siding may be used in combination with
other approved materials if it is an accent rather than primary material.
• Since all future Campus buildings will be highly visible from roads, access
drives and open space, architecture should be complete and wrap all four
sides of the building. Primary building materials used on the front or main
building facade shall be continued on the side and rear facades.
• The number of materials on any exterior building face should be limited to
no more than three to avoid clutter and visual overload.
The following building materials shall not be used as exterior building
materials or on any exterior walls:
• Concrete finishes or precast concrete panels (tilt wall) that are not
exposed aggregate, hammered, sandblasted or covered with a cement -
based acrylic coating.
• Metal panels with a depth of less than 1 inch or a thickness less than US
Standard 26 gauge.
13
Mount Carmel Campus PUD
Ordinance No. 12-20
Mirrored glass with a reflectance greater than 40% shall not cover more than
40% of exterior walls.
4. Building Colors
The use of a limited range of neutral or natural colors is encouraged. Building
colors shall be compatible with the Campus character and subtly enhance a
building's visual appeal.
• Natural colors and complementary colors shall be used for primary building
facades and roof forms. Neutral earth tones (beige to brown), shades of
gray, traditional colors (brick red, dark green, navy blue) or light, subdued
hues are acceptable.
Contrastingcolors,
accent which are compatible with the colors listed
above, are acceptable for secondary facades or accent colors or details.
• Primary, bright or excessively brilliant colors are prohibited unless used in
very limited applications for subtle trim accents or specifically for
art/sculptural elements of a building.
• Building facade colors should be kept to two or three colors or hues of
individual colors. The color of visible roof forms should also be considered
when selecting colors.
5. Sustainable Design Principles
Best management practices for efficient and sustainable development shall be
taken into consideration. The following design principles highlight areas to
focus on for future development:
• Recycled materials.
■ Local source material acquisition.
■ Reduced construction waste.
■ Health conscious building materials and systems.
■ Energy efficient materials and systems.
• Building rehabilitation.
• Stormwater Best Management Practices.
Vegetative swales, rain gardens and expanded wetlands
• Water recapture systems
• Ground water recharge
• Low volume irrigation systems
H. Sign Standards
1. Sign Standards
Mount Carmel Campus PUD
Ordinance No. 12-20
a. Purpose
The purpose of these sign standards is to maintain and enhance the
aesthetic environment, maintain pedestrian and traffic safety and
minimize the distractions, hazards and obstructions caused by signs,
and to minimize the possible adverse effects of signs on nearby public
and private property.
b. Sign Area, Height and Number
The size, height, and number of allowed signs shall be regulated by
Article 15-11.13 of the Unified Development Code unless further
regulated by the PUD Ordinance.
c. Prohibited Signs
Pylon, rooftop, neon, internally illuminated awnings, fabric banners,
official flags of nations, states, or political subdivisions thereof, wooden,
and electronic message center signs are prohibited.
d. Sign Lighting
Sign illumination shall comply with the following requirements:
Illumination of a sign within 100 feet of and visible from any property
zoned Residential shall be extinguished between the hours of 11:00
p.m. and 7:00 a.m. every day.
• Traffic signs shall comply with MUTCD regulations.
e. Location and Scale
• Signs shall not obstruct significant architectural details or elements,
including windows and doorways.
• All ground -mounted signs shall be placed within planting areas that
are coordinated in design for the overall site.
f. Text and Materials
Text on all signs shall be simple and easy to read. It is important that all
message wording be selected to maximize information being conveyed
while using the most concise vocabulary. A sign with a brief, succinct
message is more user-friendly, and will have a cleaner look. All
directional lettering shall be a mix of upper- and lower-case lettering
with the first letter of every word capitalized. Avoid spacing letters too
close together as crowding will make the sign more difficult to read.
15
Mount Carmel Campus PUD
Ordinance No. 12-20
Signs shall be constructed of high -quality, durable materials. Brick and
mortar or natural stone bases are to be constructed with materials that
complement the building architecture.
g. Exceptions
Home address or family name plaques are excluded from the above
requirements.
h. Exterior Graphics or Art
Painting of garage doors with multiple colors or designs is prohibited.
All garage doors shall be one color, with a second color allowed for
accents only.
I. Performance Standards
The development and maintenance of uses in this PUD District shall be
established in conformance with the following standards.
1. Platting: Subdivision plats and improvement plans shall be submitted in
accordance with Article 11. Land Subdivision, of the City of Dubuque Unified
Development Code.
2. Site Plans: Final site development plans shall be submitted in accordance
with Article 12 Site Plans and Article 13 Site Design Standards prior to
construction of each building and vehicle -related feature unless otherwise
exempted by Article 12.
3. Storm Water Conveyance: The developer of each lot shall be responsible for
providing surface or subsurface conveyance(s) of storm water from the lot to
existing storm sewers or to flow line of open drainage ways outside the lot in
a means that is satisfactory to the Engineering Department of the City of
Dubuque. Other applicable regulations enforced by the City of Dubuque
relative to storm water management and drainage shall apply to properties in
the PUD District.
4. Noises: Noises generated within the PUD District shall be regulated by
Chapter 33, Article IV, Noises, of the City of Dubuque Code of Ordinances.
5. Phased construction of buildings and parking spaces: The construction of
off-street parking spaces may be phased in proportion to the percentage of
total building floor area constructed at any one time. Ground area set aside
for future parking, loading spaces or driveways or for parking provided in
excess of the minimum required number of parking spaces shall not reduce
the minimum required area for open space.
16
Mount Carmel Campus PUD
Ordinance No. 12-20
6. Other Codes and Regulations: These regulations do not relieve an owner
from other applicable City, County, State or Federal Codes, regulations, laws
and other controls relative to the planning, construction, operation and
management of property in the PUD District.
J. Transfer of Ownership
Transfer of ownership or lease of property in this PUD District shall include in the
transfer or lease agreement a provision that the purchaser or lessee
acknowledges awareness of the conditions authorizing the establishment of the
district.
K. Modifications
Any modifications of this Ordinance must be approved by the City Council in
accordance with zoning reclassification proceedings of Article 9-5 of the Unified
Development Code.
Section 3. The foregoing amendment has heretofore been reviewed by the Zoning
Advisory Commission of the City of Dubuque, Iowa.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication as provided by law.
Passed, approved and adopted this 16th day of March 2020.
Attest:
KevipitS. Firnstahl, City Clerk
Roy D. ' ol, Mayor
17
OF L0l 1
R� G A E�-
?PA N�1 RCS
.,If�ImIIIIIIlon�11,..
NORTH
GRAPRIC SCALE
0 00 000
I' - ,00
ORAWM0 MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED
p,a�;n0lss. Inform ,
- Ptg0;l AV: MN Olawn BY JMi
7 •ml u,N Fog B'.01na: Issued Fax CA10000cn:
EXHIBIT NO. 1
SISTERS OF CHARITY OF THE
BLESSED VIRGIN MARY
M-10•:1.
91.N
•,dr%
4 14,
sue
Pegncl Ocx0Ftal j
SISTERS OF CHARITY OF THE BVM
MOUNT CARMEL - PUD
DUBUQUE, IOWA
ay]
P.\I!\OO1\[R1M0S\4RNY 2016O.b0IC.}.p0 4DISB)R000 010le!l+Ae 010 eu nsl Aua
PRE OF P o101 1
EXHIBIT NO. 1
SISTERS OF CHARITY OF THE
BLESSED VIRGIN MARY
PUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 5A AND PART OF LOT 7 IN CARMEL HEIGHTS, AND PART OF LOT 2 OF MINERAL LOT 1 IN THE CITY OF DUBUQUE.
IOWA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 2 IN BEACH'S SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA,
SAID POINT BEING ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE;
THENCE SOUTH 56 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 07 SECONDS EAST, 77.63 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE;
THENCE SOUTH 53 DEGREES 26 MINUTES 37 SECONDS EAST, 48.75 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE;
THENCE SOUTH 70 DEGREES 09 MINUTES 56 SECONDS EAST, 62.95 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 23 SECONDS EAST, 54.65 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY. 95.02 FEET, ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST HAVING A RADIUS •
OF 104.53 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 52 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 04 SECONDS AND THE CHORD BEARS SOUTH 56
DEGREES 40 MINUTES 31 SECONDS EAST, 91.78 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE;
THENCE SOUTH 42 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 36 SECONDS EAST, 52.26 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE:
THENCE SOUTH 63 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 47 SECONDS EAST. 56.56 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE;
THENCE SOUTH 73 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 23 SECONDS EAST, 56.35 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE;
THENCE SOUTH 56 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 26 SECONDS EAST, 41.40 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE;
THENCE SOUTH 45 DEGREES 02 MINUTES 45 SECONDS EAST, 24.20 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE;
THENCE SOUTH 34 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 27 SECONDS EAST, 24.35 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, 59.23 FEET, ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS
OF 431.85 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07 DEGREES 51 MINUTES 28 SECONDS AND THE CHORD BEARS SOUTH 31
DEGREES 42 MINUTES 09 SECONDS EAST, 59.18 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF CARMEL DRIVE
AND THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 5A IN CARMEL HEIGHTS;
THENCE NORTH 54 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 07 SECONDS EAST. 40.00 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
CARMEL DRIVE AND THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 5A;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, 159.54 FEET, ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST HAVING A
RADIUS OF 391.85 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 23 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 37 SECONDS AND THE CHORD BEARS
SOUTH 47 DEGREES 17 MINUTES 42 SECONDS EAST, 158.44 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5A;
THENCE SOUTH 59 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 23 SECONDS EAST. 79.51 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 5A;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, 65.97 FEET, ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST HAVING A RADIUS
OF 89.06 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 42 DEGREES 26 MINUTES 30 SECONDS AND THE CHORD BEARS SOUTH 37
DEGREES 44 MINUTES 47 SECONDS EAST, 64.47 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 5A;
THENCE SOUTH 26 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 39 SECONDS EAST, 52.89 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 14 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 54 SECONDS EAST, 92.90 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, 74.84 FEET, ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS
OF 683.42 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 28 SECONDS AND THE CHORD BEARS SOUTH 24
DEGREES 19 MINUTES 47 SECONDS EAST, 74.80 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 46 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 25 SECONDS EAST, 670.84 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 41 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 19 SECONDS WEST, 1102.45 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 67 DEGREES 14 MINUTES 44 SECONDS WEST, 285.69 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 22 DEGREES 45 MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST, 396.51 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 48 DEGREES 34 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST, 320.28 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 01 SECONDS WEST, 522.71 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 47 DEGREES 43 MINUTES 17 SECONDS WEST, 979.01 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 01 DEGREES 29 MINUTES 56 SECONDS WEST, 347.18 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 2 IN
BEACH'S SUBDIVISION;
THENCE NORTH 88 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 04 SECONDS EAST, 297.26 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2 TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 32.756 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS. RESERVATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, AND
RIGHT-OF-WAY RECORD AND NOT OF RECORD.
6
a
8
D,>,+...-41SSIe!Wm.*. (
p,yau Mgr AUd
IS,,C0 Fa8Win
Dt aY Aft
Issued No CaRRucGon.
Rgod 0l3aI9'uen
SISTERS OF CHARITY OF THE BVV
MOUNT CARMEL - PUD
DUBUQUE, IOWA
Rev
bosgip4ai
AIS NIVRMW,515117 aw OSCS\=2]-Nuc b 1C*( UMW". Ifni= 128 w 20 1.41a
Ai
0
Z
EXHIBIT A
HORIZONTAL SCALE N FEET
0 300 800
DRAVNG MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED
SHADY OAKS
PHASE 1
SKILLED NURSING - 60 BEDS
ASSISTED LIVING - 40 UNITS
MEMORY CARE - 21 UNITS
PHASE 2
INDEPENDENT UVING - 115 UNITS
PHASE 3
INDEPENDENT LIVING - 84 UNITS
CIRCLE HOUSING
16 UNITS
SECONDARY ACESS
EXISTING PUD BOUNDARY
\ I
\ I
PHASE 4
(3) BROWNSTONES
30 UNITS EACH
PROPOSED PUD UNITS PARKING REQUIRED
(PREVIOUS PUD-452 UNITS)
DUSTING DUSTING
CIRCLE HOUSING- 16 UNITS
MOTHER HOUSE- 25 UNITS 25 x .25 + 12 = 19
PHASE 1
ASSISTED LIVING -
MEMORY CARE -
SKILLED NURSING-
40 UNITS
21 UNITS
60 UNITS
PHASE 2
INDEPENDENT UVING-115 UNITS
FUTURE PHASES
INDEPENDENT LIVING-84 UNITS
BROWNSTONES - 90 UNITS
451 UNITS
62 x .25 = 15
60x.25+30= 45
115 x 1.5 = 172
84 x 1.5 = 126
90 x 1.5 = 135
512
575 PROVIDED
PUD SUBMITTAL 2-3-2020
SISTERS OF CHARITY BVM
MOUNT CARMEL PUD SUBMITTAL DUBUQUE, IOWA
FIGURE 1.1 CONCEPTUAL PUD SITE PLAN
Zoning Advisory Commission
Wednesday, March 4, 2020
Letters of opposition/concern
STATE OF IOWA {SS:
DUBUQUE COUNTY
CERTIFICATION OF PUBLICATION
I, Suzanne Pike, a Billing Clerk for Woodward
Communications, Inc., an Iowa corporation, publisher
of the Telegraph Herald, a newspaper of general
circulation published in the City of Dubuque, County
of Dubuque and State of Iowa; hereby certify that the
attached notice was published in said newspaper on the
followingdates:
March 06, 2020,
and for which the charge is $22.01
Subscribed to before me, a Notary Public in and for
Dubuque County, Iowa,
this (d day of
/ I
aAock
,20c2O.
Notary Public and for Dubuquety, Iowa.
JANET K. PAPE
Commission Number 199e59
lily Comm.. Exp. DEC 11, 292,2
CIT'v OF DUBUQUE,
IO
OFFICIAWAL, NOTICE
NOTICE is hereby
en that the Dubuque
City ,Councilwill con
ductmpubliceeting hearingsto"com;at
-
mence at 6:00 p.m. on
Monday, M
2020 in -the, Historic
Federal ;Buildingarch, '.sec-
ond-floor,,Councii #
'tubers, -350 W. i
Street, Dubuque, on
the following:
Planned Unit Devel•
opment est(sPtUD)
Requ- from
P.C.,Cody T. Austin /
BVM-PHSSenior Hous-
ing Inc., to amend the
PUD Planned Unit' De-
velopment 'District
at1100 Carmel Drive to
accommodate a sec-
ondary emergency ac-
cess for a senior living
community.
Copies` of supporting
documents for the pub-
lic "hearings are on file
in the City Clerk's Of-
fice,' City Hall, 50 W.
13th St., Dubuque,
Iowa, '; and may , be
viewed during normal
working' hours. -
WrItten comments re-
garding the above pub-
lic hearings may be
submitted to the City
Clerk's Office, 50 W.
13th St., Dubuque, IA
52001, on or before
said time of public
hearing. At said time
and place of public
hearings'; all interested
citizens r and parties
will be given an oppor-
tunity to be heard for
or against said proposal.
Individuals with limit-
ed English proficiency,
vision, ' hearing " or
speech impairments
requiring special assis-
tance should contact
the City Cleric's Office
at (563) 589-4100, TDD
(563) 690-6678, cty-
clerk@cityofclubuque.org
as soon as feasible.
Deaf or hard -of -hearing
individuals can use Re-
lay Iowa by dialing 711
or (800) 735-2942.
Kevin S. Firnstahl,
CMC City Clerk
It 3/6
STATE OF IOWA {SS:
DUBUQUE COUNTY
CERTIFICATION OF PUBLICATION
I, Renee Pregler, a Billing Clerk for Woodward
Communications, Inc., an Iowa corporation, publisher
of the Telegraph Herald, a newspaper of general
circulation published in the City of Dubuque, County
of Dubuque and State of Iowa; hereby certify that the
attached notice was published in said newspaper on the
following dates:
March 20; 2020,
}
and for which the charge is $362.08
Subscribed to before me, a Notary Public in and for
Dubuque County, Iowa,
this c::)5 day of ,Q,L, , 20cQ O.
Notary P .i. i in and for Dubuque County, Iowa.
JANET K. PAPE
Commission Humber 199669
My Comm. Exp, DEC 11, 2022
IWO ' ri - W.•, e,�E' nOs 0 , I,neS R Oa 1 g, ; rd5 • ° I I : • ° ,..:,, , , 7 ; . • Sr:,fi„ ti+w. %s ;^f- T,. r(°.,...? , ,
DEVEL .,w. Ist 20•feetfOf clear .Ft :.a P ou . p & ,y, ; < •.. •t1. s ', in. 3,Y,. :. d,
CEPTUAL e y reasbetweenbuild ex er!e'nce around, plantmaterials: used to instance shag a level facade k � m ern Ii ill n e
.OPMENT : PLAN TO , ante , is-..,required„be-' • ings: shall.. be,, consi; • into, and` through the satisfy.. the;,, require bper' or. prop-; , owner, r' • Building projections awnings, fabric. ban -
ACCOMMODATE ' A tween buildings:, dered for easerof main- Campus:.. `All streets •:''meets, of this section : receive greater than:a shall:.' be pedestr".ian- ners„, official , flags; 'of
SECONDARY EMER- (3) .Includes 'ease- tenance, to reduce land shall include 2 canopy'• shall meet`'the follow maximum of 50%.cred- scaled:and roportional nations;.: states; or po-
, GENCY ACCESS FOR ments, setbacks, wooded needed for such:;func= trees:per 100' feet •.of ing u minimm size re it towards the'number ' tothebuildr' .facade:' litical : ' subdivisions
"'THE DEVELOPMENT 'areas, . and landscape tions and, 'to improve road frontage..'These` - .qulrements:• ' .:of,requi,red trees , ,Structur should'be thereof; 'wooden, and
OF A:SENIOR LLVING buffers, ,internal road the visual quality of the trees may be Iodated in Plant Type Size. of Preserved Tree consistent z ith rest 'electronic-, : message
COMMUNITY.. ; y pcloser -proximity • to Minimum';Size 2 •T1 cCredit-jr under- d nionl'aea and artic center signs are pro -
NOW, THEREFORE, BE parking setbacks,
' " land dards Landscape Stan el ch : other to: create . ,.-Canopy tree, 2.1/ py,,o ally on ' .:hibited • .:
IT ORDAINED BY' THE scape, excludes all•clustering or, massing . caliper story tree, • .6" to .12" streetfaan ' levations' -d:Sign Lighting
: CITY COUNCIL OF 'THE hardscape. 1.General `Description': of., plant Material in- Under -story or orna- caliper -.; 3..„Buildi Materials .Sign illumination shall
rbITYL OF DUBUQUE, (4)=Fi ure.1.2: PUD and Intent stead of a consistent mental, tree, 2" caliper 1` evergreen, tree or • A range o acceptable .:comply with;the follow-,
IOWA: Setback Requirements. The natural character on -center planting ap or8' height: multi'- stem)understory �buildi g m�terials"shall .ing requirements ..,,'
Section 1: That Title (5),Setbackcalculated of the site•, should, be . proach as long: as they,, ;.-. Evergreen' tree, 8' tree,6. 12 3trees ' be consitl red to' en ':.;Illumination ofasign
16 of the;; -City of from edge of pavement .preserved and . en Are, located within the ,;height,::' ' `1' canopy;: or: under Nance: architectural in r Within'100 feet of; and
,Dubuque Code of Ordr f. on, private drives.,`, :hanced as campus land,;,.:, roadway setback; see Deciduous shrub, 18 story::tree 12 to•.30" • terest, ',',and Campus visible :fromi4any;prop-
nances, Unified Devel- •.. (6).-:See;Figure 1 i (small),• ..:30. caliper ;: character i•• ert'y zoned iResideritial
3: use •changes. Site land- Figure 2.2: • Typical Fiesgh't
opment Code, is hereby and :soaping will be de- Parkwa .Plantin . -,her ht (l'arge) 1;.evergreen.;tree orAII new buildings , shall be::extinguished
P PUD "landscape P y 9 9
amended by repealing •- Open`Space Require- 'signed in. a°naturalized 6- Parking Lot Land- Evergreen shrub;.24. multi stem under story ,", should" b:e,co�fistru'cted between th'e hours -of
Ordinance 29-18 and, ments. pattern.to complement scape Requirements ' width, ' tree,; more than 12 . with a •blend of high 11:00 � ,p.m:: and • -7:00
adopting . an amended C. Roadways -the bluffs, ravines, and ' The '.following' are ..Species of plant ma height, 4 trees„ quality matenalssuch a:m everyday '•
PUD Planned_, Unit De- • The. private roadways other •natural features • standards'for the de- ::terial.shall 'require 'pp- 1 canopy tree or un- as masonry (brick. -and Traffresigns !shall
velopment District with in this 'PUD shall, -:`con- .of the site, work with. sign:of parking' lot'inte-" :'proval from the City . der=story •tree, more ',.stone) rand wood- Lim ,,comply . with MUTCD
r•,a PR. Planned Residen- form to the. City,; of the. architectural forme rior rand .::perimeter :Plants installed• to than °:, 30' 'caliper 5 ;; Ited amount of "`glass r„'egulationsi
tial designation, and a .'Dubuque'Unified D;evel- of buildings, •provide' landscape areas.which satisfy.: the -require trees, .,, skin, i.;or decorative ..e; Location and Scale
revised conceptual de- opment Code and SU- shade, create outdoor •,'build' upon the''stan meets of this section 10: Vegetative•Wood '• stucco: may, be'consid • Signs,;shall not.ob-
velopment plan to ac-'..DASas:adopted.,by' the • spaces for employees,;';:dards defined •in. the ahali%meet or exceed land,Preservatjonk erediftheyare:consid- structsignifcantarchi
eommodate a • secon- .,, City.'_:` residents and visitors ' City :of Dubuque Unithe plant quality stan Wooded ar'eas,r2lacres ered ,accent materials, .tectural details: ;or
' dary:. emergency ad-. D. Parking, .and buffer parking Iota... fled' Development tidards of the. most re- 1. in',size or larger or rather than.:•primary . elements including
•cess„acopy ofwhich is , . 1: Parking Require- These landscape sten- :, Code. Figure.2.3: Typi ';- cent,. edition > of . groves of trees, with 10,. , materials. -In addition, windows ,•,;and d'oor-
on.-.file:.,with:the- Plan- meets ' :dards ' build on ele cale:ing. ParkLot,'Plant- American Standard for ' or .,more , '.individual' alimited amount of CO -ways :
nmg Services ,°Depart- Parking :areas shall ments of the City of ing'reflects a minimum ; Nursery Stock, pub- • trees., having a diame- • ment board siding may , Ail ground mounted ,
',ment,' for the, property accommodate • suffi- Dubuque Unified Devel- treatment fora typical ';fished by. the American. ter of atleast•12 inches be used'•in combination signs shall 'be:'.placed
+`:at 1100 Carmel Drive as cient parking while opment Code to pro- parking lot. , • ',Association of Nursery; . and'a canopy coverof;`,.•with .: other approved within,., planting ;areas
-depicted in.:the, at- minimizing impervious • vide landscape require- •'.Parking,'bays in,ex 'men.,'"Plants.,: shall be at least 50',percent of ,; materials if it is an ac- that are'.coordmatedin
I:;tached Exhibit.No-1.. surfaces andthe visual 'ments for plant materi- cess;:-of • 11 spaces in "capable',of withstand- the, area encompassed ',cent ratherthan•prima design for the overall
Section 2- Attached , impact , of large ,,lots. al, parkways, and site' length. shall provide . ing the. extremes„ of in- • 'by. the trees: shall be ry material site ., . - ; ,;::
hereto and made a part parking requirements buffer and. parking lot: ,:landscap'ed„islands 'at ' dividual microclimates. , .delineated ,on. the sub- .., Since:alffuturerCam `-'f: Text and, Materials
of this zoning reclassi will' follow:;: city- Stan- . treatments that: the ends of each aisle. ,Ail required •land- emitted plans. Such . pus buildings;•will be ;Text on :all,signs shall
on approval•is the, ,,dards as'outlined in the Parking. hays,in...excess :, scape, areas not •dedir woodlands :shall have highly „ visible ., from ': ;be:simple. and;easy-to
frcati• Preserve a enhance,
Conceptual Develop Criy of'Dubuque'Unr the appearance and • of 20 spaces .in length cated to trees, shrubs,-20/o,retentionprotected:. roads +; access -'drives read. ,It is 'important
Mount,Carmelfor the
shalt
di..landsca ed fisting vegetation shall to and open spacee tom-:,, ing.belselessage'word-
fied Development Code character of the prop- shall be divided by in . or _preservation: of •ex II; woodland areas re
(Section 14-6-Off-Street :arty and its surround- P fined. must' have .a tectureshould be:com- •ing be.selected to max-
: Unit Development parking Requirements).;' :legs. islands. and.?provide, be, landscaped with buffer of-50' from the •pleteand. wrap,all`four imize information being
marked Exhibit A. it is , 2 ,Alts.urfaceparking . .• Reduce noise.and, air, ;landscaped •islantls at; ';.grass,,ground cover, or trunks of trees to :.be •sides of.: the building. conveyed while using
Yrecognized that::minor"-::. •lots 'shall:`be,designed 1; the%endsvofeach:aisle other. landscape treat preserved to: protect. Primary:building mate-- .the most'c•oncise vo-
shifts or modifications pollution, light glare, P g riala-used on'the'front-
to: soil erosion and solar .. ' A landsca ed island 'nient, not.. • includin the If the City' cabulary A`'sign witha •
. to the general plan lay- • Integrate and link heat gain. ••for a single parking bay sand, rock, or pave- determines,: that a: -re- or main, building. facade brief • succinct ,:,mes•
-
-out may. be' necessary existing. parking: areas shall be a, minimum, of meet quired woodland:,area shall be continued .on sage` ,rs . more '.dser-
i and conipatib,le with •Provide buffering be -
with new, parking areas tween land uses and: ,4 feet,wide: by;18 feet • For each plant -type cannotbe retained„due . theside;and rear facades. friendly,..andl will•have
the• need to, acquire for improved pedestri ,zonin districts of dif-':.'tang and' shall: contain ,;associated with the to`:site constraints,. or Thejnumberof;mate a;,cleaner,,look All di-
:workable street.:.pat-" an and auto' circula ferin gintensit - the,', equivalent of twe" landscape ` • require infrastructure; -, require- pals on; any ',exterior rectionallett�,e,ring'shall
terns„grades, and us-, ,tion - - •. •p omote the' reser- (2) plant units > ' ments of this section, ,ments .- . replacement building•1face should be ,bea mix .of;iipper=.;and '
able building sites The; Accommodate vation of .existing si - • A.Iandscaped isl•and no single plant species _trees" must be.. planted limitedto no morethan ,lower case lettering
',,,genera l plan layout: in- ' edestrian routes a g 9 . for a double-parking shall represent more ,ata rate of anetree for.. three fo .avoid .;clutter .with the first letter, of
p nificant vegetation.
eluding. the, ;relation,, • ..th'rough..parking areas •.Improve the appear- ,-bay, shall. be. a ,mini-. than 40% of, the total every 200 square. feet and visual overload..' every word capitalized.
ship of land uses to the to,building;entrances. once of parking areas • mum of 9 feet w' iderhy plantings. of woodland -:removed . .The following'building Avoid spacing, .letters
•
general plan ••Accommodate snow and' properties -abut-,. 36 shall • Plant material shall from- the I .retention• materials shal,or build-
frame- feeE long and L riot -be . ,too close.aogether,
work and the develop-, removal and storage- - ting, public rights -of. contain` the:: equivalent::: be installed so it re area. When. that is.not used as,exteri crowding, will make the
ment _ requirement., o .Comply, with City 'way. offour (4) plant units. - ' ' rates to the natural en feasible mitigation ing materials or on any ,.sign more difficult;:to
s2. Landscape Re vironment and habitat may,. take! place ,:.b i eaerior walls:',
finishes.or . ,read hall+ be c
, shall be used'as the im lighting standards and If the required-plant•plementation guide minimize impact on ing ratio is not obtain "' in which it is placed. planting supplementaSigns.s on -
The provisions of - the quiremrall
.City of Dubuque Unified surrounding proper- Overall Site Land able . in a .healthy Native vegetation shall trees, at.. • an- offsite-'precast: `concrefe, pan t[ucted,of; high=quail
ties- scape Requirements landscape ' environ be utilized in all in,.woodland approved .by els (tilt: wall)' that are ty,. durable, materials.
:.Development Code ...3. Alt parking.struc- . Minimum permeable ment,'then the remain, • stances unless site the.City. , not exposed aggregate, Brick.:.'and mortar' or
shall apply to the'de-'. turres shallbedesigned' ;open •space will be cal' ing plant. ,material .,, conditions or availabiht.Exceotions ..,. hammered sandblast-. natural stone:"'bases are
velopment, of the prop- ., to: • .. ' • culated at 40 percent-. required by' fills, calcu :';ay of species warrant With the ',incorpora ed or< covered with a . „to be.constru:cted with
arty , included`• 'in this Complywith City re of the entire site deli=:<.latson maybe placed in ..the use of cultivars or ton-. of Best' Manage- cementbased, acrylic ,materialsathat, eomple-
Planned UnitDevelop quirements for vehicu- 'sated under review. close proximity of the similar materials coin meet Practices (BMPs), coating. ment,the.,building:. ar-
ment unless specifical- . far and pedestrian Permeable, open,;,; parking lot-. This adds .'patible with the area..' 'Law-, Impactl: Develop: Metal panels.with,a . chitecture.,.:,:
I.y-;,regulated ,,by.: - this access, ADA, compati; .space calculations may ,,; tional area should be -.::• The scale and nature ment practices .'(LIDS) depth', of -less- than; 1 • • .g- Exceptions ; ..
Ordinance. bility;: safety; lighting ;include easement ar=;;••:.integrated with the ,l,of landscape, material .or :other ..Sustainable inch or a thickness less , Home:addresss.orfam-
A ' Use Regulations ." and ventilation'.• eas, perimeter set •:Parking ,lot .perimeter <should be appropriate Design practices into than uS Standard 26. ily,:name. plaques:•rare
Permitted Uses • Clearly•identify with '.backs, . woodlands, landscape ' to the site and strut . the,,, project.. the` •.re- gauge:,' . excluded from • •the
1: Cemetery,. Mau-`•.signage.-all .pedestrian :landscape buffers, in- All:parking lotaand- turns. For example, quired••landscaping:. Mirrored glasswith a aboverrequirements. '
and. 'vehicular,
2. Hos ice, ;: en, ternal� proadway set- scape::"are b manner reflec 0/° shall -no h. Exterro.r Graphics•
soleumpColumbanum trances to backs (parkways), and protectedball'sed ,larger seal complement,. raged in. a, � ° tcov- , or Art
ma .be•reduced or ar reflectance greater
parking , y rdised should be c
3.,Housing,for the el ..: structures: parking totlandscape• curbs with:a: minimum, ,ed„ by :,.larger scaled 'that;;will enhance the er more, than 40% `of ; Painting, of- garage
derly'or persons with` Integrate. ample heightof4inches: ,plants ,Plant material .designconcept'at."the exteriorwalls-,' doors .-with;• multiple
„,;Minimum; -site ,land
dssabilitles. ,+ °'.floor'to-c'eihng, heights y i s. Exceptfor iiiswains,. `should be'Selected for .discretion oflhe Cstylof,- ti4 'Building Colors colors or designs is .
t"rbrary • `, `,') �ir •lit- '-d _ scape P•lant quantities.: to e ,the ,;: inished`''.., grade_'_;its. form, texture; Dubuqua :'.. - r T ";;use of a:liimited prohibited Al;l ,garage •
o$sa� and --fshe �betcalculated aper
•-'
5. Licensed adult day, visibility . . accom- (crown) or interior " and concern for its ulti "Considerations s?iail • rahge'bfneirtral`or eat= 'doors shall be .one col-
one plant per unit per
•services modate a wide variety plantingareas shall not. mate growth. include the#ollowmgr vial. colors is encour- or, with a second color ,
2,000 square feet of
6. Multiple -family.-, of vehicle'sizes:.t' , ,site landscape,area. be.lasthan,3.•inches ' 9. Tree Survey and �;SWalesor'bio:filters, aged Building„.Color`s allowedforaccentson-
dwellin . ..
9 •Incorporate: where • lands trees Planted above'curb or pa ement. Preservation Plan• placed m islands or.,at shall , ,be ,compatible jy,
7i Nursing,•or conva ' feasible fiat` floors to in the arkwa or in A:: landscaped�buffer , As part of any level :the ,perimeter::of park with the, Campus char _ ;I Performance Stan-
5.=-lescence home: minimize•driver confu:the,public right-of-way'',: strip shall be_pr`ovided..'':opment plan submis ing. `areas designed ,to •acter.i"and subtly; en, ,dards
';8.: Parking. structure >„sion .and ::'maximize "p, aloe the frontage of F:`sion, a 'tree . survey improve the'. filtration hance -: a : buildings ::_The.development and
9 Off street parkin shall not be • counted:; g
g light, ;risibility and • ,,toward 'fulfillment of. gar and quality"f:of storm vrsuNlaturalacolors an ,masntenance.of:uees,in
all surface parkin shall be conducted by a
30: Place',of renlbious ty ' '. imum. site. re, at least 10' feet -,certified arborist' The wat oruosas to mod d ,this PUD iDistrict.shall
' g t ueremsents for number, g p survey shall •delineate , .a,. - • i f , .• , • • ors :be established in :con
9 safe eas
yP ify •cam lementar -•
exercise orasser y • Irate rate.into land wide aloe the ubhc ., p p y col
.,,11. Single- Family:..,: contour -and -,grading loftrees.• right-of-way Thee the limits of all vege the.t aoraqu,antity,of shall.beusedforprima- .formance:with-.the:for
Dwelling (detached)*- opportunities to mini- ! .parking; lot land buffer;, strip ,shall be .: 'toted woodland: areas landscape, materials ry building facades and •lowing'standards:.
12. Two -Family ' mize :above '''grade i•requirements,' Planted: with _ a, mini;" on site. All s ecim_en may,,,be allowed,,in;ex- roof .'„forms :,`.Neutral 1. Plating Subdivi=
Dwelling (duplex)* n" .°!hei ht' and,masswhen ,scape mum,:of 7 plant ;units p change for�ithe,installa= earth; tones (beige to, lion plats and-improve-
g shall not .be counted .trees • not: located in
`13;,Townhouse*?` a ro' riate x er 100 '•e ,`;feet of • '�tioli sof,plrant;a acres brown)"shades:of.gray, m 1 shall .be
Alpl: arkin" `al:�a'sms ' o yard fulfillment ofp,ti e , �,; 7t aY " :vegetated, woo• I,nd., Sae'. the fees,_, trail $b l Colo e`(brick
Limited to Seniors or `f'mitt n accor-
9:rs-( ist,Sth.,,Diab li l:,-gRfI l'`-wih ' 1'46tla imleen re= ..:',Ar > ssr • r,.:ar ,tha ,eas re:; r peren>:: red :¢ en M^n vY,=w ee vn Yticle Yl.
tide P,Y qul pient for n e""rvw ati �lrall d:. •r r greate �atvrDrrLci wt gill enhance 'blue) o�i Subdued :Lan ;:Sub •gil-1, :,of
* scape,. standards t x cif�trees.i .4 Breast hl.,?aght ;(D8H� r a
°•`Conditional Uses Sub forth in:'.' ,Section . r fiances`° are,permitted �the,filtering'capaclty`of hues'are:acLep"tattle' the"City . of,;;,Dub,uque
Existing trees tobe shall be -tagged' identi
l Landscape Stan' retained o' sate antl- romote, ntrasting, accent Development
act fo the provisions of dards ! n site moron° ,Provided they,are mte-- fled . and . 'recorded he' . p Co Ugified
Section 16-8.5-,of the :.4. -"Dimensional, Re counted toward •fulfill grated with the land- gased`anthis free Sur .. the,use of diverse na- colors, which are'com : 'Code.
Unified Development ,gwrements meet of the landsca -. scape,. screening; descr- ve all trees in:.below tsvespecles: ;_ patible.with, the.:colors 2 Site;: Plana: :Final
Code::• Minimu'inparking.stall :<• P ibedabove The.use.of e proposed,swales,or..-,Issted..,,ab�ove,'ar'e ac- site development• plans
..1.,Group homes. mg:requirements average 6r.poor'oxiou
`dimensions:'shall . be, :; 3. Plant Units '•biahltration ,''methods tion, • of a „-noxious ,filters using •a•strut ceptabae for secondary shall:.,be: submitted in
8.5' x;18'.,with 24' drive,• A plant unit,is a men of •landscape ;! antl s acres, •or. that men aural; pervious surface facade accordance with Asti
2. Keeping .ofhorses s ai accent col-
or'ponies aisles to accommodate surement used, to• de: drainage design 'Is en sure. ,less than 8" DBH .may be used•for park- •, ors.ordetails cle 12,Site: Plans.and
3:Licensed !childcare 'two=wa °traffi y' c.;Ac terrnsne the uanti of ., • g c'an be -removed from Pnrriary, bright or ,Article -13 ;Site Design
enter , sible•parkingspace re- `ci' A landscaped buffer r e atthe dss videdrsuch f atureaa e,' excessively. r ...brilliant ,Standards Prior to; eon-
c q q ,
4: Museum '.`' uirem.ents shall Plant material re viral„i stir of at least"seven .:'the p op rth designed to: withstand colors.,,:,are prohibited ',struction,of each: build-
5: Seminary•4 r to standard forscreen!ng.andShad. : feePwideshalt bepro assistn.ofahe ;ownen.ta 'veh gu.lar. toads ; unless;used m very„hm ing and vehicle related
„,AccessorWUses: Sub- `` .ou alined n the -City of . mg. One plant unit is vided along: ;;the Pre- ,assist .sn providing a. G.:Archltectural Stan ited' :'ap nless ,:other -
comprised ofany ofthe healthier growing nevi• r pllcations for : feature u'"
jest;. to .provisions of Dubuque Unified Devel-• ' ,following elements: ' maining sides: of all : roa ter for the exist- dards subtle tnm4 accents, or wise exempted by Arti-
Section 16 3:8 of the. opment Code (Section . ;,• Onecanopytree' • surface parking',;_lots._ .ing tree stands. Alt buildings ,shall specifically .for':.art/ cle 12 .
Unified ' Development 14-7 Accessible Parking rl- rwo under -story or The: buffer ,strip. shall• .: ; The tree inventory have a balanced irate' sculptiral elements • Of' 3 Storm'WaterCon `,
f Code- Space. Requirement) , ; . be..planted with a mini „ grated design theme :, a,burldshg .. ue nce.,:,The develo r'''
,l Any use customari
q 3,, .x, ornamental trees r r shall rate:::tree:.condr '' _, . _. in «fad ode: co' p
5:,,:-Bicycle Paazking, .. ; , :Ifiaxof 5 plant,, units n2`and` form. as" :foist tlavesao.,mcorpo - Biuld g,5a,., er-of-eachaotshala: be
ly'in'cidentai'and,su r r: "' ,r two eve• cgree•ntrees, P tro. rr y_ , 'rate solid 'architecture Ors should !be kept to, .:,responsible':,for ,provid-
:.dinate to the rprin� ------ e::parking {sh ai .Seven decids (i or erP•
iorlto slant n ,all ' ows. that fits within aCam-:,. two'or.;three� colors =or ing surface..or subsur,-
be, .cons ere, . an fir -Smarr; deciduous or p g .. 5 - POOR CONDI
use it serves- ` placed in safe ` convey evergreen) interior areas shall be .TION: A rating of .5 pus -wide character',' hues, of sndividual col face conveyances) of
:',-.2Detached garage nient . locations- -near i Plant unit calculations` :excavate'd to a depth"of "shall'be given to a tree 1.- Bullding':Scale, and . ors The' color of visible : storm :water: from the
3. Fence Y .'„ building entrances'and 3 •feet and amended Massing roof forms should also not: to existing, storm
4:.Garage sales : establish the .total that. has d a,significant
comply with Section ;quantity of required With a,,soil mixture:con- deadwood; bad sweep The size and. onenfa be considered when se : sewers', -or, to flow line
5 Keepingof hens , 16-13-3.5.1 of the Uni- ,; plant:material while al-, sisting of{ 1:' ,:, part 'or dean, 'disease or tion,of, buildings is critr',• lectingcolors ' .,of open. drainage:ways
6-.'Home-based`busi- . fied Development Code.' 'lowing the landscape screened topsoll;!,l part:: damage by -insect ical" to' . achieving , ;a,. 5 -Sustainable De- • loutside:,.:the tot in, a
nesses.' ." E. Loading and': Ser- 'architect flexibility, .in existing topsoil,•:and 2 ; P �. or larvae,.,'light • balanced overall..Cam :sign Principles ;, means, that :is satisfaC-
7: `Noa-commercial vice Areas• •allocating and dis Parts of organic. corn,,., `Wing damage, split, or Pus design; The follow- Best management toryto. the Engineering
•garden, greenhouse or The visual impact of .tributing plant materi post „or•,..an : approved ;other •physical damage. ,ing,:: • items• 'shall `be practices ford:efficient • Department•of the City
nursery, .' loadingand service ar- :al. Existing plant; .;equivalent, with,the ex 4,-BELOW AV.ERAGE addressed' to achieve', and devel= of, Dubuque:, Other ap-
tion of - -sustainable
8: Satellite receiving :: eas-on a building,. site material protected dui;;: _cep her soil,, ,CONDITION Arating;of appropriate scale and opment.shalt betaken • ptlicable regulations•en-
dish or adjacent sites and mixtures as •,necessary masssing into -consideration: The ,,forced by-the::City of
.:Solarcollector in .construction may:' treeshall be-; rune to a',than,.g e following design.princi- •.Dubuque ;,relative to '
uses should be' mini- ,be used to Satisfythe,.. to accommodate Low ,tree that has some Rather sin I
10::Sport;;recreation mized: Loading and reinUri-re';''. impact, Developmdie,; deadwood minor large budding masses, ples,highlight;areas to: ,storm water manage-,
or' outdoor ,` ,00long plant. rnateria q,.,
c service areas are not meets ,provided the:. features T1 ,require sweep or lean,. distort builds rigs shall be clus •focus -on for future de ament and,,N 4drarnage
equipment allowed in the right -of -, meet may bey waived ..ed Shape trunk of bark •tared •together 'where , ueloprnent shall apply to proper
.. type and t size of `:the . p ,
11'Storage building ,way. or_:within any set- ;:plant: -material meets-, upon: confirmation by .• . • • ' multiple feasible'to promote':ef.: Recycled materials. ties in the,RID-District
'12: , Tennis court, backs: ` the City Planner that .;.• ficientostreet/driveway Local; source materi- , 4. Noises: .Noises
1. All loading' and s the:. Plant. material: stems „Or poor pliysrcal
swimming pool; orsim er- the' pre-existrngsoll is systems, shared park- al acquisition generated -;,within' the
standards. and the. , quality.
,filar permanent facility': vide .areas stroll be de-:. plant material is not an suitable for ''plantin',g • 3 -FAIR CONDITION ..ing,;: integrated open;;' Reduced construe- PUD., Distnc: shall. be
13: Wind turbine si ned to: - •., .invasive or noxious ya, and drainage, and that : A..rating of 3- shall .be ,spaces and `pedestrian:._ tion Waste regulated. by::Chapter
9
(building -mounted) ' Provide access .to a - no "amendments are ' linkages between Health :conscious 33 Article lU Noises, of
riety' given-to,a.tree. that is
B' :Bulk Regulations street ` or alley: m• a 4. Perimeter Buffer.•.necessar . -. ., ::waverage;::in condition buildings aterials.•and : the City;o „Dubuque
building, m
(1).Minimum building, '- manner that will create ;Landscape Requirements, All;landscaped;areas ''=form,' . physical state Where feasible, systems:, . ••Coif' eof,:Ordrnances::
and,or::garage setback; the least possible inter,- < Perimeterbuffer land-'t :that':are notsplanted: in:r'"a earanceand health: buildings and„ main enr ..,Energy efficient ma 5 Phasedr,:construc-
from faience with. through sca a will hef `: create:a grass shall be,fi,_ 2 ABOVE AVERAGE: be:. located ion of ;b:iarld rigs and
Public. rightof=' p p Wished tries' Shall terialsandsystems t
: . ;transition'from the ad m With a`-3 inch.,la ,,A ;rating of 2 shall.,be..,, .. • , bilita- -p p',aces The
way ,,,or edge of pave traffic movements'. No yer of along the Campus Loop •:Building reha, ailing s,
meet .. curb cut shall .exceed rmulchc Road toNf star a wel- construction) of;; off
Minimum lot area ;jacent residential uses' given to a tree that'has tion.
30feetinwitlth. on the north and west 7 Intersection Visr, little 'or no. tlamag' coming pedestrian en .;. Stormwater...Beet street parking. spaces
'Single -Family Resi- 2: Accommodate ma- to the campus. Plant bility' - sound, good shape and vironmen• t, • ".In no- Management -Prat- maybe. phased inpro-
adentiar, 5,000' square neuvering space to al-, ,material shall consist • . In .accordance, with form, and is, good in instance shall°a build trees portion to the percent ' •
sfeEt low vehicles to access of a variety of decidu- ..the requirements . of 'overall physical quality. Ing's rear entrance or Vegetative, swains, .age .,of ,total building -
• Two -Family and exit the space the Cit of 'Dubu Dubuque , EX T CON,service area,be, orient, ram ,,gardens:and ex- floor- area -. onstructed
(du ,lex),,;5,00,0, square tie and evergreen y q CELLEN,
p without. ,; having :.,to .;trees ancJ': shrubs as : , •Stree Tree andFland;' . DITION . irrg`of.1,'.ed. towards;ttthe Loop; paniied_vietlands::; , at any: one:: ,time.
feet ...make backin move- sca In c on Publrc� A raf,Road or internal access
g ho' in :-Figure .i"i'' p g shall'be given to. a tree Water recapture Ground+, area seat aside
• Townhouse,• ments`on;o'r,into a pub Typical Perimeter.:.•
9 y. , that;;is, excellent in -ap drives ';, . systems ,.: :for future . parking,
g s
1 00 Ise or private Buffer Plantin A. maim hing, Wa Policy Pearance; .condition rentation . loading:, space's : or .
Rr
square wnf iri u street. ! nothing•shall be erect' Buildm or Cround:. water 9
Multrfamily, :3 Providefrxed'tight- mum total ofthree (3).; ed;>.placed, Planted, •or and, form,' balanced and';: design :elements recharge driveways;or for park -
dwellings Z 000 square '.ingthat prevents direct, • plant units er. 100 hn •« 2'allowed,., to grow . in}, ,branching and healthy shall encourage overall, Low volume lingo ',,.ing.::: provided in excess
feet/du glare• of,';beams onto, dar feet of bufrer'shall>' 'such'.,a,'manner, as,to,; The• following `tree -visual continuity tion systems of ,the': minimum re-'
Mr:nrmumlotf?outage -any other, -,property or be installed. impede or obstruct;vi- species, identified are 'To,the,greatest,'ex- H. Sigi:Stan,dards - guired-numberof.park-
width, 50 feet street by the -use of lu .,Only required access Sion between a height considered noxious: tent possible• buildings. 1 :Sign Standards ;• ing, spaces°shall not
Minimum lot frontage, 'minaire.:.: cutoffs.. All . drives and sidewalks `. of 3 to 10 feet above •Buckthorn shall be • oriented .:to a , Purpose „l, reduce 'th,e.9: minimum
townhouse,"16 feet/du ;, lighting; shall be re shall break through a the. road, crown in ar- The, following tree take advantage of riot The,purposejof�these required area'foropen
, Maximum building. ' duced-to; security lev-, ;.perimeter landscape eas adjacent to inter- species .identified are Ural light view, sheds , sign „standards, is, ,to space
l •-coverage,-40 o -. els •.at. °all -''times of .. sectina streets. drives ,-,..,�,ae.eA';..,,ao�i....h,o ' and.. Passive Solar-7-OP- maintain- andienhance .6 Other,fCodes: and
coverage 40°
Maximum bueidmg
height
• Number of stories, 4
• Height i60 feet
'Minimum yards
• Front, 25 feet: (1)
• Side (2); 10:feet
• Rear, 20.feet .
OFFICIAL' 4 Open Space: Require -
PUBLICATION,;. i mints
ORDINANCE NO.12-20 •
• Minimum permeable
AN ORDINANCE
OFTHNG- open, space (3),40% -
' CITY of Setback requirements
OF THE ,. 'CITY " ; OF
DUBUQUE -CODE OF (4)roadway
UNIFIED . • Internal,
DEVELOPMENT,,CODE setbacls1s'r(5),,25,feet , i
BY REPEALING IORDI- Site perimeter set-
NANCE 29-18 AND back (6), 25 feet
ADOPTING AN AMEND- Lanscape buffer re-
ED PUD ' PLANNED • quirements•(6)
UNIT DEVELOPMENT site perimeter land
WITH A'PR PLANNED scape buffer, 25feet
RESIDENTIAL DESIG-
gels tat .:all times, of
nonu`se ,
n
4. Have masonryor
other screening mate -
trials that complement
materials used on cam-
pus buildings, and that
are effective in every
season.
5. Comply, with the
landscape screening
requirements set forth
in Section F: Landscape
Standards.
'6. Outside storage'of
materials, equipment
or trucks, shall be kept
tto a minimum and lo-
cated in areas that are
screened from_ views
by,a permanent, solid
:and year-round screen-
ing element. Sharing of
'open space.;;
• Every,,, penrneter,
buffer landscape open
space shalt, be de
signed and mamtamed
to preserve, unob.-
structed views of the
street and sidewalk at
points of access and' to
not interfere with or be
damaged by work with- .
in any -public ;utility •
easement, unless the
City shall determine
that no other location
is reasonably feasible.
5. Parkway Land:'
scape Requirements,,'
A consistently planted
parkway will add to the
overall Campus char-
acter by providing an
appealing arrival se -
nets; tlnves ;considered'undesirable
or alie�ys- Thes^;area is Box`Elder..
defined by: • SiberiamEim
, •T.rees,,shall,be plant- .)Nhite'Mulberry
ed at: least^ fifty (50)r,r; The preservation. of
feet'. from the edge of existing healthytrees
street intersections, .and natural landscape
traffic control', lights ; features on a site is en
an'd stop signs; couraged. The number
• at least ten (10) feet ' of new plant materials
from driveways; may bereduced when
• and fifteen (15) feet ?existing trees of a de=
for alleys sirable 'species in a
• Tre,es shall be plant- healthy growing condi-
ed at ; least two feet tion are preserved
from theback .of curb. within the area of the
8- .Plant Materials' . perimeter landscape or
Plant' material; used to ;open space. Credit for
satisfy the standards the preservation of ex -
of this 'section shall - isting trees 8 inches in
.comply w'eth the follow ` °caliper (deciduous or 8
ingstandards' feet in 'height (ever-
• Unless otherwise ex- green) shall be as fol-
ortuneties
2 .Arefil ecturall Styles'
and Building' Matenals
& .Colorse
'Architectural styles
'Should be carefully bal-
anted"and' coordinated
with the style, `materi-
als, color.:'and massing
of++other buildings seen
throughout the Campus.'
• A balance of`propor-
tions and scale through
' vertical and horizontal
rhythm and`,ifacade ar-,
ticulation should be
'set.
Unarticulated, flat
front buildings are pro-
hibited.
• A building's main en'-
trance should: be clear -
he aesthete environ
mint;, -maintain; pedes
trian,and traffic, safety
and minimize the dis-
tractions,hazards and
obstructions.=caused by
signs, and -to minimize
the +possible adverse
effects of,'' signs on
"nearby public and pri-
vate property.
b. Sign Area, 'Height
and Number
The,•sizeaheight, and
number:, of allowed
signs shall = be regulat-
ed by Article 15-11.13
of the Unified:Develop-
ment Code unless fur-
ther regulated by the
PUD Ordinance.
c. Prohibited Signs
;Regulations These
;regulations] dd not<re- °:
lieve an i�owner.from
.other applicable City,
County, State or Feder-
al Codes:Lr}egulations,
laws°and'Other ,controls
relative to the plan-
ning, construction, op-
eration .:and mana-
gement of property in
the P,UD'District.
J. Transfer of Owner-
-Transfer of ownership
or lease of property in
this PUD District shall
include -in the transfer
or lease agreement a
provision that the pur-
chaser or lessee ac-
knowledges awareness
Planning Services Department
City Hall
50 West 13th Street
Dubuque, IA 52001-4864
(563) 589-4210 phone
(563) 589-4221 fax
(563) 690-6678 TDD
planning@cityofdubuque.org
Cody Austin
IIW PC
4155 Pennsylvania Ave.
Dubuque, IA 52002
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
RE: City Council Public Hearing — PUD Request
Dear Applicant:
Dubuque
Irrthl
11111.'
2007.2012.2013
2017*2019
March 6, 2020
The City Council will consider your Planned Unit Development (PUD) request for 1100
Mt. Carmel Drive at a public hearing on March 16, 2020. Please attend this meeting, or
send a representative to the meeting in your place to present your request and answer
questions. City Council meetings begin at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, 2nd
Floor, Historic Federal Building (Post Office), 350 W. 6th Street, Dubuque, Iowa.
Please contact the Planning Services Department at (563) 589-4210 if you need more
information or have any questions.
Sincere
Wally erni •. nt
Associate Planner
Enclosures
cc: Kevin Firnstahl, City Clerk
Alan Stache, BVM-PHS Senior Housing Inc., 1100 Carmel Dr., Dubuque, IA 52003
Service People Integrity Responsibility Innovation Teamwork
Jane Glennon
From: Gwen Kosel <gwen@getmovingdbq.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 3:40 PM
To: Kris Gorton Design; Greg GOrton; Planning
Subject: 1845 South Grandview - Emergency lane
Guy Hemenway and the Dubuque Planning Department -
I was contacted by my clients, Kris and James (Greg) Gorton, of 1845 S Grandview. They wondered
if locating a fire lane at the end of their lot and connecting Shady Oaks and their private
lane would have an economic impact on their property value. I believe that it does have
a negative impact on their value.
I am a Realtor currently with EXIT Realty Dubuque and have sold property in our
market, specializing in classic, historical and architectural homes. I have listed and sold about 500
homes in the past 17 years. I sold The Gorton's this property above assessed value on 12/21/18. It
was marketed as a "Private setting" which is not only desirable in the Dubuque market but not
common on South Grandview, that combination alone adds value. I have personally lived on
South Grandview for the past 16 years. Personally and professionally, to be on South Grandview
without the vehicle and pedestrian traffic adds quantifiable value to this and
the adjacent properties as well.
As I understand it, the fire lane will be for emergency use only and gated at the top and
the bottom for only emergency vehicles. This lane would detract from the value of this home and
the surrounding homes making it no longer "private" in nature. As a resident of South Grandview,
I often call it one of Dubuque's longest parks resulting in walkers, runners and dog walkers. It is
my belief that the pedestrian traffic on a closed off lane that could be accessed by foot
for recreational purposes would pose additional pedestrian "traffic". Which is one of the reasons
the value of these home and its neighbors would be higher, the privacy. I do not suppose that
It would provide a natural loop or turn around for those pedestrians seeking and easy access to S
Grandview and Shady Oaks via this "short cut". I know that it would increase traffic on the private
lane if the emergency lane was put in. I can not see this addition to the neighborhood as one that
would provide or improve the enjoyment for the neighboring properties in this well established
and exclusive neighborhood. Providing fencing to keep the pedestrians out of the space would
also be a distraction to the value of these properties and not be conducive to the shape and
constructs of this neighborhoods. I hope that the BVM, INC and Planning can find an alternative
to marring this well established neighborhood. The value loss that I see for this and
the neighboring properties would be about 10% of the homes value, more if fencing would be
used as a barrier.
Thank you -
1
Gwen Kosel
445 S Grandview Ave Dubuque Iowa
Exit Realty Dubuque - 1200 Cedar Cross Road Dubuque Iowa.
Unique in design! One of Dubuques Landmarks, built in 1951 for the "Roshek" family.
Concrete hollow core floors on main level,
beautiful walnut cabinetry & built ins throughout. Library has built in bar, fireplace, leather
wallpaper, and built in organ. Floor to
ceiling windows, Italian marble flooring, glass tiled walls in many baths. Beautiful kitchen
with new quartz counters, 16x8 butlers
pantry with SS counters. 4 fireplaces. Hot tub/sauna room in the LL. Newer 2 car carport
plus 28x23 garaging LL. 2 additional
Click here to report this email as spam.
2
Jane Glennon
From: Kris Gorton Design <krisgortondesign@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 5:56 PM
To: Jane Glennon; Travis Schrobilgen; Wally Wernimont
Cc: Wally Wernimont; Travis Schrobilgen; Jane Glennon
Subject: Re: Public Notification Procedures
Guy, thanks for the info and response.
Kris
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 4:17 PM Guy Hemenway <Ghemenwa@cityofdubuque.org> wrote:
Ms. Gorton
Thank you for your inquiry regarding the City's public notification procedures. State of Iowa law requires that
notification for all rezoning and district amendment requests be published in the public notices section of the
newspaper of record at least 24 hours before the public hearing. However, the City's Unified Development Code
requires that notification be published in the paper of record no farther out than 20 days before the meeting and no
closer than seven days before the meeting. Those terms have been met regarding notification for the request filed by
BVM-PHS Senior Housing Inc. for an amendment to their PR Planned Residential district to accommodate a secondary
emergency access for a senior living community. In addition to the State of Iowa notification requirements, the
Unified Development Code also requires that a "reasonable effort" be made to mail notices directly to property owners
within 200 feet of the property requested to be rezoned no farther out than 20 days before the meeting and no closer
than seven days before the meeting. These terms have also been met.
You note that a number of residents within the 200 foot buffer are currently out of town. Unfortunately, Planning Staff
cannot control for absenteeism as we have no way of determining residents whereabouts at the time of mailing. It is
also important to note that the Zoning Advisory Commission simply makes a recommendation to the City Council that
ultimately approves or denies the request at another public hearing where neighbors will be welcome to speak. If you
have any questions regarding this information please feel free to contact me. Thank you.
Guy Ilemcnwoy
Assistant Planner
563-589-4210
ghemenwac cityofdubuque.orq
City of Dubuque Planning Services
i
Jane Glennon
From: Yahoo Mail <mjgarrity_44@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 1:35 AM
To: Planning
Subject: BVM easement
I just received word of a meeting on March 4 this year. We cannot attend as we are out of town and we're unaware
of planning- zoning meeting..
We currently reside at 1849 S Grandview. That property shares a common drive to 3 homes further down private
drive. That private drive was born out of intense long litigation many years ago. The result of the out of court
agreement has resulted in many years of good neighbor. The agreement is quite clear that the 3 homes each own a
segment of drive(hence 3 lots). Each resident to use private drive and not encumber or add any traffic to existing drive.
We disagree with any and all movement to alter/change that agreement made many years ago. It is obvious the
purpose of agreement is to provide a tranquil neighborhood and not provide access road across private drive to serve
hundreds of apartments
I would like planning and zoning to withhold passing any regulations until all parties can be notified.
Mike Garrity- Diana Garrity
1849 s.Grandview
Dubuque iowa
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
Click here to report this email as spam.
1
Jane Glennon
From: Guy Hemenway
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 10:14 AM
To: Planning; ggorton68@yahoo.com
Cc: Wally Wernimont
Subject: RE: BVM Emergency Access Drive
Ms. Gorton
Thank you for the additional information provided for the Zoning Advisory Commission's consideration. This
information will be made part of the public record and will be included in Commissions agenda packet. If you have any
additional questions please feel free to contact me.
Guy Ilemenwoy
Assistant Planner
563-589-4210
ghemenwa(a�cityofdubuque.orq
City of Dubuque Planning Services
From: Planning
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 9:23 AM
To: Wally Wernimont <Wwernimo@cityofdubuque.org>; Guy Hemenway <Ghemenwa@cityofdubuque.org>
Subject: FW: BVM
Additional comments for the ZAC meeting.
Jane Glennon
Planning Services Secretary
City of Dubuque
50 W. 13'h Street
Dubuque, IA 52001
563.589.4210
From: Greg GOrton [mailto:ggorton68@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 9:17 AM
To: Planning <planning@cityofdubuque.org>
Subject: BVM
Please acknowledge the receipt of this email and confirm its inclusion in the packet that goes out today to the
Zoning Advisory Commission.
Dear BOARD MEMBERS,
1
We are concerned about the road that the BVM, Inc. is requesting for their new development.
We feel it will bring increased traffic to the neighborhood, which has been a quiet area with
only 3 homes having access since 1950.
We purchased it because it was a limited access, private and quiet lot.
We feel this will dramatically change it and it hurts our enjoyment of the property.
We feel will be burdened with walkers, joggers, people just wandering around on a lane that
only 3 homes use.
We feel it will become a walking path and our dog will be constantly agitated due to the
additional people.
We fear the deer will quit sleeping on the road and strolling around due to the additional
traffic.
We feel it will hamper our enjoyment of the lane to have other cars and pedestrians crossing
our private lane.
We planned on our grandchildren learning how to bike on this lane because it is so nice and flat
unlike most of the area. It is concerning that we will have cross traffic on the lane.
My daughters practice sprinting on the lane because there are only 3 houses we fear they will
be hit by a person confused by the "emergency access".
The BVM, Inc. has 4 years of construction ahead of them with this project for this ONE
PHASE. We fear they will use this emergency access for construction and that will hurt our
property value.
This would damage roads, make excessive noise and be very disruptive to our
neighborhood. We have already had to call them for working with loud equipment at 6 am on
Saturday morning.
So I am concerned that they forget they are part of a neighborhood. They intern gave me the
number to the head of construction which I really don't feel like I should be responsible for
policing laws.
We fear the BVM, Inc. will keep developing and then we will have a larger business next to our
residential home again deterring property values.
We for these reasons of increased traffic, increased noise, increased foot traffic, potential
loitering and littering (cigs/and dog poo) we oppose the lane.
2
On the Shady Oaks Street.
The homes on Shady Oaks will face additional traffic which will be hard for the quiet cull de sac.
The steep incline and then tight turn the firetruck will make seems quite tight.
If bikers trespass on that road it could be quite dangerous with a steep hill running into Shady
Oaks.
The neighbors will not be able to use it as it is only for emergency vehicles but will have the eye
sore of a gate and fence and perhaps a no trespassing sign on it.
They may have a possible chain link fence around the whole thing it is yet to be determined.
If they continue to develop and are allowed to make this a public Street it damages the Small
neighborhood feel that they have.
The lots on Shady Oaks are quite expensive and this will disrupt the exclusivity that they have
paid for...
It will create a lot more traffic in that area if people are coming through there. As of today
there are a handful of homes on that Street and Cull de Sac vs. a PUD with unlimited units.
If you allow construction trucks through there it will be horrible for Shady Oaks, dirty and dusty,
and messy for 4 years of ONLY PHASE ONE with no end in sight.
The run off to Shady Oaks Street will be immense especially since they get a lot of water
already.
Water sits on that sidewalk currently days after rain leaves.
How do you plan to divert water?
Who pays if there are water issues on neighboring properties?
Who pays if there are water issues on the Street?
The BVM's have told us they are trying to take away the busy street and parking in the front of
their land but essentially I fear they will divert it to this Street.
This is many homes with a high tax burden. Why would they bear the brunt of this decision?
In essence it takes an exclusive neighborhood and hurts the property value and may lead to
even more loss of value if it becomes a street.
The following are some questions if have as well and would appreciate if you can address each
one definitively.
3
1. Is the lane standard incline for a fire truck?
2. is it standard incline for a "emergency road"
3. I was told by Fire Marshall Dalsing that there would be a gate on Shady Oaks at the
street and a gate on the other side of the private lane. That it can only be used for by
emergency vehicles and the city will enforce all of those rules in perpetuity. I was told
they would be fined if the BVM, Inc. used it for other reasons. Is that true? I was told
this is the STANDARD for Emergency Access Roads? Where is this covered in city
code? Who sets the standards? If this is a judgement by Fire Marshall Dalsing, what
has the history been? Has it been granted before? If so where? If not why would he
deviate from the standard that he has found acceptable in the past?
4. Is there a zoning change to allow this?
5. My neighbor told me he was going to be given a permanent easement on the "emergency
road". However, that is in direct conflict with what Fire Marshall Dalsing said to me. So how is it
possible to use an "emergency only" access road for a driveway access for a private citizen?
What is the history on this? Why would an exception be made? What other projects for
"emergency access" have had exceptions? If there are none why would it be done now? In
light of the fact that there are other options should those not be fully explored before this is
decided?
6. Who guarantees me that this will not be used for construction? Workers access during the
duration of the project? Then changed when they do the next phase into an "emergency
access"? What is the standard on this? Who enforces it?
7. Can this road be "given to the city like other roads" which will make it public? If so what
recourse do neighbors have before this is done? If this passes are we one step closer to this
being an all access road?
8. The lawyer for the BVM said that after 20 years use changes regardless of what original
intent was. Is that correct?
9. If there is damage to the private lane how will it be paid for?
10. If there is lack of access to the private lane how are we going to get to our property?
11. If there is damage due to increased foot traffic to the private lane, who is responsible?
12. If there is additional wear and tear to the private lane who will pays for it? If Wayne's
cement is affected who pays for that?
13. If there is additional wear and tear on the private lane during construction who will be
responsible financially for it?
14. Who will be responsible for legal fees if there are issues with construction? Damage
etc.?
15. What happens if we have construction delays and we can't get to our property?
16. If there are additional walkers and bikers coming off the BVM, Inc., "emergency access
lane" on to the private lane and they are injured who pays for it? If I can't see a biker
coming down the path but I am driving on my private lane and we collide who is
responsible? I am not trespassing but they are?
17. How will BVM, Inc. deter and handle additional littering and smokers loitering at the edge
of the property? They currently have some issues with this on the Grandview side of
their property.
18. What will the gates look like? What is standard? Are there rules regarding this?
19. Who normally approves gates?
4
20. Will there be signs posted to deter wandering? Who determines what the signs look
like? What does the code say?
21. What happens if a fire truck bottoms out on this very steep access? How will a second
round of construction differ from the first round?
22. What if the road fails because it is too steep?
23. Will BVM Inc. carry extra insurance to protect against the damage to the private lane?
24. How many additional people will this emergency lane bring on to the private lane?
25. How many additional units are they planning to construct in BVM, Inc.? If they construct
more units in the meadow. Will this "emergency exit" be sufficient? Or will they need to
make it larger? Will it become a driveway for those units as well?
26. Can someone help me understand is assisted living a business and falls within the code
for zoning?
27. When the city allowed this to pass through PUD why did they not have a plan for
"emergency access"?
28. Did the BVM, Inc.'s original plan make a lane to the softball field?
29. I was told the softball field plan was too expensive. Isn't the importance of
neighborhoods to be balanced with the business of BVM, Inc.?
30. Nursing homes are quite profitable even if they are non-profit so why can't they pay the
extra money for the sake of the neighborhood? And neighbors?
31. Who compensates us for the loss of property value?
32. If they are creating an emergency access road...does it need to have a sidewalk? Do
they have room for a side walk? What is the standard?
33. I was told they can put a barrier, even a chain link fence around the whole "emergency
access" if they do this it will be an eye sore. Who determines this? What are the rules
regarding fences in Dubuque?
34. How fast will firetrucks and emergency vehicles be driving on this "emergency
access". There is a speed limit on the private lane they are crossing. How will that
work?
35. Will there be a stop sign?
36. Who has right of way on the lane vs. "emergency access"?
37. If I am jogging down my lane and a biker hits me or a car hits me who is liable?
38. If I hit a biker that is coming fast down the "emergency access" road, who is
responsible? Are they considered trespassing?
39. If people veer off the "emergency access" onto our private lane are they trespassing?
40. The private lane is very skinny and not really made for extra traffic so what if we have
issues with extra traffic on it?
41. Where will the water go from this lane? Will it be pushed down to Shady Oaks because
there will be considerable water coming down the steep grade?
42. This land and lot was not part of the original rezoning request? So why is this an
amendment rather than a whole new zoning issue for RESIDENTIAL? BVM Inc. plans
to sell this house off how does that effect the private lane? And the previous agreements
to that lane?
If you cannot answer all these questions can you delay approval until we have answers since
approving a development without an "emergency access" is how we got in this predicament in
the first place? Also I am very curious as to why this is part of an existing PUD as it is not part of
the original land in the PUD? So should this not go through the standard zoning procedure for
residential because neighbors knew that the BVM, Inc. passed a PUD but they did not know it
would affect established private lanes, established residential properties and homes? BVM
5
Inc. Purchased a home not rights for a Zoning Change to that land, lot line that affects the
values of other homes.
Thank you kindly,
Kris Gorton
Click here to report this email as spam.
6
..ectzte
*-1
From: Connie W
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 5:28 PM
To: ghemenwa@cityofdubuque.org
Cc: Krisgortondesign@gmail.com
Subject: PUD
I Connie Bries Welp at 1056 shady Oaks Dr, Dubuque, IA 52003. I do not want this road to go into are
subdivisions. It will not only hurt the property value. Its also very quiet in Shady oaks thats the reason i
live here.
Thank you Connie Bries Welp
Kevin Firnstahl
From: Brad Cavanagh
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 8:54 PM
To: Kevin Firnstahl
Cc: Crenna Brumwell; Mike Van Milligen
Subject: Fw: 1023 Shady Oaks Dr.
Attachments: PUDaccess.JPG; PUD access ammendment.jpg
I just received this email. I have not read it and I'm forwarding it to you, Kevin, to include with the information for the
public hearing on Monday. Thank you.
Brad Cavanagh
Ward Four City Council Representative
City of Dubuque, Iowa
563.690.6508
From: DMV Gordon <dawnellegordon@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 8:40:06 PM
To: Brad Cavanagh <Bcavanagh@cityofdubuque.org>
Subject: Fwd: 1023 Shady Oaks Dr.
HI Brad
I'm writing to let you know that we oppose the amendment to the PUD to accommodate a secondary access road
through Shady Oaks Dr.
I reside at 1023 Shady Oaks Dr, Dubuque, IA 52003. This road will enter Shady Oaks Dr directly across the road where my
home is located. My concern is that there are other options to place this emergency access road that will not enter into
a residential neighborhood and risk disrupting It as well as lowering property values. Being this is a large project that
will house many seniors, use of this road will be more frequent than most other PUDs. Older adults and seniors require
more frequent emergency treatment and therefore increases the likelihood of being used on a regular basis especially if
this is later rezoned once again to become a public road.
I am grossly concerned that changing the zoning of this easement to become an access road will significantly increase
the water run off onto my property. This is already an issue for our property because it is downhill from Shady Oaks
Drive and the water run off from 3 vacant and undeveloped plots to the North of our property as well as the to west. I
have attempted to contact City Engineering about this problem via email and phone in October 2019 and did not receive
a response. I have also attempted to contact the property owners of the undeveloped plots (Tshiggfrie) via phone, email
and facebook also without a response. I'm concerned that adding additional pavement to the area will increase the
water run off will cause flooding and sink holes on and around my property. I will attach the email that includes the
details of this specific problem. While I don't expect this problem to be addressed by the City Council during this
proposal, I hope that you consider the impact that this "emergency access" road would have on my property as well as
the neighborhood.
Lastly, the resident's opinions on the matter should be considered as the residents pay significant property
taxes annually while the PUD is a tax exempt entity and providing profits to an out of state developer and does not pay
taxes to the City. This road has the potential to decrease the value of our property and therefore decrease the tax
revenue this residents pay to the city as a result. While it adds value to the community and I don't oppose the existence
of the PUD, it appears that the opinions of the residents that this directly impacts are being ignored while a less
i
disruptive alternative solution could be considered. It does NOT appear that an access road from the BVM property to
enter Julien Dubuque Road at the southend of their property is not being considered. This alternative route would not
impact a residential community. This land is owned by the City of Dubuque and the City could offer to sell or give the
land needed for a secondary emergency access road without disrupting any business or residential areas. Furthermore,
the city could potentially generate some revenue with this alternative. While this would not be a cheaper alternative for
BVM, Inc, being that the project is a multi- million dollar project, it would be worth their investment.
Thank you for listening
Dr. Patrick Gordon and Ms Dawnelle Gordon
1023 Shady Oaks Dr.
Dubuque, IA
Forwarded message
From: DMV Gordon <dawnellegordon@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 2:38 PM
Subject: 1023 Shady Oaks Dr.
To: <engineer@cityofdubuque.org>
HI
We have a problem with storm water running down from 3 empty lots uphill from our property. The drain that we have
on our property becomes overwhelmed and can't handle this when there is heavy rain. It gets clogged with leaves and
backs up risking flooding to our home. We've attempted to call the owners of the lot without a response (Tschiggfrie
Excavating). We've attempted to build a burn to stop the flow and planted greenery on it and that has done
nothing. There's nothing left to do so now we're attempting to contact the city.
This has been a problem for years and we've tried to remedy it ourselves. We've gotten estimates regarding landscaping
to redirect the water and after getting rough estimates, we don't feel it is our responsibility to absorb that cost
ourselves to fix this.
I'm including photos to show you what the problem is. My cell phone number is 563-676-7509 & my husband's cell is
563-505-1965 (area codes need to be dialed). Thank you
2
Dawnelle Gordon
Click here to report this email as spam.
-_�• -`i.
Kevin Firnstahl
From: Thomas King III <tjandiu|ieking@gmai|zom>
Sent: Monday, March 16,202O10:36AM
To: Kevin Finnstah|
Subject: PUD amendment opposition
T0the Dubuque city council,
I'm writing this letter in strong opposition to the PUD amendment up for consideration to allow an emergency access
road totie into the current Shady Oaks subdivision.
VVeare inopposition for many reasons including:
1. Disruption to the existing neighborhood
Throughout the planning process ,we, the adjacent neighbors of the sisters of charity/BVM/Mt. Carmel were reassured
that there would be minimal if any disruption to our current neighborhood. Allowing a street to be added into our
existing neighborhood would have immediate as well as future potential ramifications. This change in emergency access
road only benefits the PUD. An alternative route away from the Grandview current exit would provide a safer, secondary
route. Also , a route that would not impact the adjacent neighbors is what was promised with the original meetings.
2. Rain/storm water run off
There has been no study that shows that this future road would not have any Negative impact on the current flow of
water tothe first few lots of the subdivision.
There is currently a huge amount of water run off that occurs in the first few lots of the subdivision and adding a road in
this area would only add tofurther problems.
3. Pedestrians/children in the neighborhood
There are many, many pedestrians that utilize Shady Oaks subdivision for walking and biking. This is along with the
approximately twenty kids that live in the neighborhood. Adding an emergency road now, that could be later changed to
a potentially more permanent road later would have a negative impact on the public's ability to safely use the
subdivision for walking, biking, etc'
Thanks for your time and consideration on this very important matter.
Dr. 6\Mrs. Thomas and Julie King
1O81Shady Oaks Drive
Dubuque, Iowa SJ003
1
Click here to report this email as spam.
2
Kevin Firnstahl
From: Planning
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 12:16 PM
To: Laura Carstens; Guy Hemenway; Kevin Firnstahl
Subject: FW: IIW, P.C. Cody T. Austin / BVM-PHS Senior Housing Inc.
I printed and put the copy with the BVM file for tonight's meeting.
Jane Glennon
Planning Services Secretary
City of Dubuque
50 W. 13th Street
Dubuque, IA 52001
563.589.4210
From: Mark S [mailto:mjsupple@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 12:04 PM
To: Planning <planning@cityofdubuque.org>
Subject: IIW, P.C. Cody T. Austin / BVM-PHS Senior Housing Inc.
3/16/2020
RE: IIW, P.C. Cody T. Austin / BVM-PHS Senior Housing Inc.
I am currently a resident of 1056 Shady Oaks Drive and am against the proposal to amend the proposed PUD to
accommodate a secondary access road for the senior living community.
1) 1056 Shady Oaks was never informed or made aware of the said proposal until a neighbor had brought it to our
attention. My understanding is that a letter of intent was supposedly sent out which we have yet to receive.
2) I've never seen an emergency access road run parallel to a main access road, this defeats the purpose of an
"Emergency Access Road". From a topology point of view, Julien Dubuque Drive would be a more logical choice as the
road leads in the opposite direction of the main road to the Senior Living Community.
Regards
Mark Supple
Click here to report this email as spam.
i
Kevin Firnstahl
From: Thomas King III <tjandjulieking@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 10:36 AM
To: Kevin Firnstahl
Subject: PUD amendment opposition
To the Dubuque city council,
I'm writing this letter in strong opposition to the PUD amendment up for consideration to allow an emergency access
road to tie into the current Shady Oaks subdivision.
We are in opposition for many reasons including:
1. Disruption to the existing neighborhood
Throughout the planning process , we, the adjacent neighbors of the sisters of charity/BVM/Mt. Carmel were reassured
that there would be minimal if any disruption to our current neighborhood. Allowing a street to be added into our
existing neighborhood would have immediate as well as future potential ramifications. This change in emergency access
road only benefits the PUD. An alternative route away from the Grandview current exit would provide a safer, secondary
route. Also , a route that would not impact the adjacent neighbors is what was promised with the original meetings.
2. Rain/storm water run off
There has been no study that shows that this future road would not have any Negative impact on the current flow of
water to the first few lots of the subdivision.
There is currently a huge amount of water run off that occurs in the first few lots of the subdivision and adding a road in
this area would only add to further problems.
3. Pedestrians/children in the neighborhood
There are many, many pedestrians that utilize Shady Oaks subdivision for walking and biking. This is along with the
approximately twenty kids that live in the neighborhood. Adding an emergency road now, that could be later changed to
a potentially more permanent road later would have a negative impact on the public's ability to safely use the
subdivision for walking, biking, etc..
Thanks for your time and consideration on this very important matter.
Dr. & Mrs. Thomas and Julie King
1081 Shady Oaks Drive
Dubuque, Iowa 52003
1
Kevin Firnstahl
From: Planning
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 12:16 PM
To: Laura Carstens; Guy Hemenway; Kevin Firnstahl
Subject: FW: IIW, P.C. Cody T. Austin / BVM-PHS Senior Housing Inc.
printed and put the copy with the BVM file for tonight's meeting.
Jane Glennon
Planning Services Secretary
City of Dubuque
50 W. 13th Street
Dubuque, IA 52001
563.589.4210
From: Mark S [mailto:mjsupple@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 12:04 PM
To: Planning <planning@cityofdubuque.org>
Subject: IIW, P.C. Cody T. Austin / BVM-PHS Senior Housing Inc.
3/16/2020
RE: IIW, P.C. Cody T. Austin / BVM-PHS Senior Housing Inc.
I am currently a resident of 105,6 Shady Oaks Drive and am against the proposal to amend the proposed PUD to
accommodate a secondary access road for the senior living community.
1) 1056 Shady Oaks was never informed or made aware of the said proposal until a neighbor had brought it to our
attention. My understanding is that a letter of intent was supposedly sent out which we have yet to receive.
2) I've never seen an emergency access road run parallel to a main access road, this defeats the purpose of an
"Emergency Access Road". From a topology point of view, Julien Dubuque Drive would be a more logical choice as the
road leads in the opposite direction of the main road to the Senior Living Community.
Regards
Mark Supple
Click here to report this email as spam.
1
Kevin Firnstahl
From: kaylyn bodine <kaylynbodine@hotmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 5:39 PM
To: CtyClerk
Subject: Meeting tonight
Hello I am Kaylyn Hoffmann (Bodine) and I do not approve of the emergency road on Shady Oaks Drive. I grew up in this
beautiful, well established neighborhood and knew safety was never an issue for me. With this ordinance change, you
will be disrupting the flow of my childhood neighborhood where my parents still reside today. Before we know it, you
will change this emergency road into a common route of access for all citizens that will disrupt this neighborhood and
bring in unneeded traffic. Please find a different route that will not put elderly and families with small children at risk.
Your route is not necessary and I know you can find a different way while leaving our peaceful neighborhood alone.
Thank you for listening.
Kaylyn Hoffmann (Bodine)
Click https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/jfgIZYFW36nGX2PQPOmvUuhr9La_g-yvYLodjYl-
4M3MSXCx0vBrE9BEBezXMRvu3YPNxgXxCc-W4Hi4JZPuPA== to report this email as spam.
1
Kevin Firnstahl
From: Kathy Bodine <bodinedbq@icloud.com>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 5:24 PM
To: CtyClerk
Subject: Rezoning
This is Kathy Bodine on Shady Oaks Dr. I am against rezoning parcel on Shady Oaks Dr. for emergency vehicles to enter
and exit property behind us. We live on a beautiful well established street and would like it to stay that way. I feel this is
a stepping stone to turn it into a street. There is a lot of land behind us that they want to rezone . With over 400
residents who could reside there and many many acres not developed yet this could turn into a busy, busy road. Thank
you for listening to me. I am a very concerned neighbor of the sisters.
Kathy Bodine
Click
https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/Cgon6filySrGX2PQPOmvUikZGg4PuPFTJW2x0Seo9u2f9FRViAmwOBFtjEGsakjo3YPNxgX
xCc-W4Hi4JZPuPA== to report this email as spam.
1
Kevin Firnstahl
From: Jolene Horsfield <dalejhorse@icloud.com>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 5:15 PM
To: CtyClerk
Subject: Rezoning
We are against the rezoning of the property in Shady Oaks for street access from the new development at Mt. Carmel.
Dale & Jolene Horsfield 1059 Shady Oaks Drive
Sent
Pad
Click https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/OUvDF-
HC_wHGX2PQPOmvUvmldA89nuwIwnYKt9xtvUGvCcBaLucnNBEBezXMRvu3YPNxgXxCc-W4Hi4JZPuPA== to report this
email as spam.
1
Kevin Firnstahl
From: Kathy Bodine <bodinedbq@icloud.com>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 4:53 PM
To: CtyClerk
Subject: Rezoning property on Shady Oaks Dr.
This is Kathy Bodine and I am against the rezoning for emergency vehicles to enter and exit the Development behind us.
I feel this is a stepping stone for them to eventually turn it into a street. We are in a beautiful established
neighborhood.
Kathy Bodine
Click
https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/RPDh_TWfZ1XGX2PQPOmvUsk03K51hN5dJGoFIdGJKJI0t7GE8tApcgag0pxQp2MF3YPN
xgXxCc-DL_bKPtQR4w== to report this email as spam.
1
HYDRANT FROM MY KITCHEN WINDOW
DOCUMENT Al
PHOTO NOT ENLARGED AS YOU CAN SEE
FROM THE SCALE ON THE S HOOK..IT IS
VERY CLOSE...
HYDRANT FROM MY KITCHEN WINDOW
IN RELATION TO THE ONE FIRE MARSHAL SAYS HE WILL
USE DOES NOT MAKE SENSE.
DOCUMENT 1
Single Family driveway 1 access
point
DOCUMENT B1
Table 5I-4.02: Agricultural Acute angle and Radius
Acute angle
Acute Radius Decrease
(feet)
Obtuse Radius Increase
(feet)
S5° to 90°
0
0
75° to S5~
5 feet
5 feet
65° to 75c
5 feet
10 feet
60° to 65°
10 feet
15 feet
Where the entrance radius specified is greater than the distance between the back of curb and the
front edge of the sidewalk the radius may be reduced to meet the available space but should be no
less than 10 feet, An option to the radius under this condition is the use of flared entrances. When
a flare is used, it should be 3 feet wide and should be constructed from the back of curb to the
sidewalk. If no sidewalk exists. flares should be 10 feet long.
3. For individual properties, the number of entrances should be as follows:
a. Single Family (SF) Residential: Each SF residential property is limited to one access point.
However, where houses are located on corner lots, have extra wide frontage, or on heav
traveled roadway more than one access point may be allowed to eliminate backing out on a
heavily traveled roadway.
b. Multi -family (ME) Residential: Access is determined by information provided by the
Owner Developer in a Trntfic Impact Report and by comments generated during the
iurisclictlon En2weetreve,,v: and acceptance of that report.
c. Commercial: Conunercial property having less than 150 feet ot'frontage and located mid -
block is limed woone access point to the street. An exception to this rule may be where a
building is constructed in the Huddle of a lot and parking is provided for each side of the
building. A second access point may be allowed for commercial property having more than
150 feet of frontage_ For commercial property located on a confer, one access to each street
may be alloyed, provided dimensions are adequate from the intersecting street to the
proposed entrance, (See Section 5I-3 - Access Location, Spacing, Turn Lanes, and Medians).
d. Industrial: Access is determined on a case -by -case basis. The Jurisdiction will consider
good traffic engineering practice and may require information to be provided by the applicant
in a Traffic Impact Report, (See Section 5I-3 - .Access Location, Spacing, Turn Lanes, and
\t�,t; ,,,��
DOCUMENT B2
PRINCIPLE 7
CONFLICT AREAS
DOCUMENT B2
Figure 5I-3.01: Types of Vehicular Conflicts
n Diverging le..1°C;Merging
v Weaving o Crossing
C. Separate Conflict Areas (Principle 7)
Separating conflict areas allows drivers to address one potential set of conflicts at a time_ The higher
the speed, the longer the distance a vehicle will travel during a given perception -reaction time. Also,
drivers need more tune to react to complex conflict areas. Hence minimum separation distances are a
function of both the speed of traffic on a given section of roadway and the complexity of the decision
with which the driver may be presented. The complexity of the problem, in turn, increases with both
the number and type of conflicts and the volume of traffic_
Various methods that can be utilized to separate conflict areas inclgde the following:
• 14inimum access spacing
• Minimum corner clearance
• Minimum property line clearance
• Limit the number of accesses per property
• Designate the access for each property
Document B3
Speed Differentials
Chapter 5 - Roadway Design
E. Driveway Grades
5I-4 - Driveway Design Criteria
1. Slopes vs. Speed Differential: Driveway slope is important due to speed differential_ Turning
vehicles must slow appreciably to enter a driveway_ The steeper the driveway, the more vehicles
must slow in order to prevent "bottoming out", increasing the speed differential with through
traffic and increasing the possibility of rear -end collisions_
Table 5I-4.04: Driveway Slope and Entry Speed
Driveway Slope
Typical Driveway Entry Speed
Greater than 15%
Less than 8 mph
14 to 15%
8 mph
12 to 13%
9 mph
10 to 11(3/0
10mph
8 to 9%
11 mph
6 to 7%
12 mph
4to5%
13mph
2to3%
14mph
0 to 2%
About 15 mph
Sauce: Oregon State University, 1998
A speed differential much above 20 miles per hour begins to present safety concerns. When the
speed differential becomes very large (say, 30 to 35 miles per hour), the likelihood of traffic
crashes involving fast-moving through vehicles colliding with turning vehicles increases very
quickly. Rear -end collisions are very common on roads and streets when large speed differentials
exist and the density of commercial driveways is high. When the speed differential is high, it is
also more likely that when crashes do occur they will be more severe, causing greater property
damage and a greater chance of injury or fatalities. Keeping the speed differential low is very
important for safety reasons, as the table below indicates_
Table 51-4.05: Speed Differential and Crashes
When the Speed Differential Between
Turning and Through Traffic Is:
The Ltlkelihood of Crashes Is:
10 mph
Low
20 mph
3 times greater than at 10 mph
30 mph
23 times greater than at 10 mph
35 mph
90 times greater than at 10 mph
Source: Oregon State University, 1998
DOCUMENT B4
Driveway slopes recommended
roadway- The National Hi wav Institutes course workbook on Access Management
recommends the following maximum driveway slopes for urban/suburban streets:
• Arterial 3 to 4%
• Collector 5 to 6°%0
• Local Less than S% (may use 9° 0 in special areas)
These slopes were chosen to keep the speed differential at or below 20 miles per hour. See
Figures 5I-4-02A and 5I-4-02B.
Chapter 5 - Roadway Design
5 Revised: 2013 Edition
5I-4 - Driveway Design Criteria
Figure 51-4,02A: Typical Section - Commercial/Industrial and Residential Entrance
g,
Roadway Paving
Sidewalk (thickness
same as driveway)
Algebraic Difference Between gl and g2:
a Commercialllndustriai: Not to exceed 9%
b. Resictial: Not to exceed 12%
Algebraic Difference Between g2 and g3:
a. Commercial/Industrial: Not to exceed 6%
b. Residential: Not to exceed 8%
_Maximum Slope of g3 = 2% (ADA compliance)
Crest
10 Vertaci! Corsi;
(if mired)
isting
Entrance
DOCUMENT B5
In researching the INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE which the city uses according to the Fire Chief of Dubuque, the code sites
D106.3 for the distance between two fire apparatus access roads. These two accesses do not appear to meet this qualifi-
cation as on this scale map that the PUD provided they this
D106.3 Remoteness
Where two fire apparatus access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart
equal to not less than one-half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of
the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses.
Here is a map of the PUD. I used the measuring tool and it appears to be 2168.1
mi-.e..-„�. .<a�,»:,.x a . x 4 r,:�. w•,o-. c► :a«w. c,..,_a,.<::,,.,.F.:n... ■ ...., -m._ * +
— o x
the next map I
shows the entrance that the BVM's are currently using and the "new access/ driveway" which appears to be less than 1/2
of the dimension that the length of the PUD which would not satisfy the code that the PUD needs to satisfy.
DOCUMENT B6
SECOND MAP MEASUREMENT
- C 0 Q H,U.x Wont psabecoc.9.1.1o+r,...A w...tfr:'rsertlx.I133‘d29M4Scslam,• G6...t<++,....C. S. + Li 0 '•.r
land Records
DOCUMENT B7
Highlighted indicates homes who are against you allowing the request of CONNECTING COMMERCIAL
PUL* R1 ZONING
DOCUMENT B 8
, ., =,, . ,,,,,-0, whir tonni. , „, • , , = , .,- ••, • : umng OW 19gas • -Mod mi • boc,k, ,•• - •• , ,== .., , i , • = = a aa a Sc. cd rem ard
-aboat the pone/ ;eve., tenant t4 talka railmag now proosna k. al a/ tar Erato thir) earl $a do rated a nal el tarroannlet men ,,,re 7 Vikit
, rooming nada haw rinkiterne Woke nam it* netriblecOO Croaaa oal monlarn i Vol*, olActeagentAerektrekinanaellj
C4Art gr.. , a. tr.,. oar! Om !cc ca rms 'mut, ra Pe ,r.1,4•%, ci "wee ter,40,344 ,ty.1,r,,r4,1$ (nrrynnrµi noalacocameca mantra:al pork* novae, erceon
Ovocrota RAU Wens and arribes Van are ant,* conerectoal re androt•••1•44 pop" Qsa some Orrotioper•pet occur* rn er slog ••••50,00)••••41 Tv c•pri
den sleUxels MI aerf erdereocamint of oafac Wading%
OnT Of Ono nee reeteted IMMO,* Of leen ra to Mow Of* or baler
ecOmpoOr.d. owl toe Orat iierairre liv• ...•••••ta twit oopi soAdv •••
= *W1~ ••••••Wialid #041sontam•••1* •••411••0 iitiVir,‘,01•1
-•.' 6i4teu4ico Non IN itobs OW smi•14.***aptutcaroSItisaidal aor
, geo,veat On 04 000,w,Afita dada
54 d t,094, f•M*4 NW,* 4 a carrells a ntordretie reoral ae=4 a
r
coma...are ecto 4 41%9,44 lo a commetaca evencl Mamma.. 0,4W tnni
mon am Creak/1h NA plbrin1114 484 1,01,•8 :',..0.•••1 efii.1:1,1
Thia ;welts •Storaljnavoz+ forocitem NO laserefell arnareraatbra ogle nen &Kt,
Oho MI 41,',..0 .0400**loos** Ow**. Netelikoh e•••• ••••••••t•
meillenerd nailLto rood harre ha maenad Navy talk ad* tun wit
crormantei red*Pdanorpret Ion beam erdaph ea ordure randove ead
rrn , Weeds he rale* and rasopearee *Penh ha eadadenora end oloareerho
' Frooso, It, troweavivon**14,04.4voinuo tv maiwiaishawat, 0
, ,, A lootothwaitaind ratoick owt toptort two foroolvettit Imaukslet
VA -en sornhre proposes a now n4 of prOcerty li,sr a col akmod ba te
1 1 meant t bang dined no or OM MLA, aCch C. *WO...3 We• "th
raorang WWI apricall it, VC•on a Mance to protract lin or ler proose and
INO nearty property horns re, van a dense Pa cornmeal on eara sa crone
C.NTIMI4IS an be nada in heel eta shad and In parson at re Zmearop
Agleam Cermsaeon and Cap C4urc* paCk 'mono Um •••=•flog
pets** wooden open earnrohroben behead hp groat/int he nertenes
and illor Ch ago" fagoting he aortra and or owned use pi property
WIDOW tioiamittli41074,0Mitinsiew
•,•,•,0,,,14 No., 4444bi..49. woarierhor Vol dat 4•=4416•048••
• t•••••=010, sneer and her derh•orterr rn &went pr 3080.4 0,1,ge t•.*
DOCUMENT B9
1) ALLOWING ENCROACHMENT OF THOSE PRIVATE
PROPERTIES.
DEFINITION OF ENCROACHMENT
as defined by Sudas.
Encroachment: an advancement or intrusion beyond the lines or limits as designated
and established by the City Code.
DOCUMENT B10
PETITION
The people in Shady Oaks Development include:
Gortons 1845 S. Grandview
11 and Julie King 1081 Shady Oaks
Mr. Mrs. Flynn 1047 Shady Oaks
Brad Plummer 1041 Shady Oaks
Kathy Bodine 1062 Shady Oaks
Tracy John Tallent 1078 Shady Oaks
Thiers 2 addresses on Shady Oaks
Rank 209 Hidden Oaks
Dawnelle Gordon 1023 Shady Oaks
°donneII 1064 Shady Oaks
Connie Bries 1056 Shady Oaks
Mike Steele 1067 Shad Oaks
Webber 1084 Shady Oaks
Emily Duer S. Grandview
Mike Garrity S. Grandview
Mr. Chandlee S. Grandview
Breslins
Rank
Matter nach
Horstield
Castaneda
°Donnell
Manternach
DOCUMENT B11
DAWNELLE GORDON
2. 5-24.5CThe proposed development plan shall NOT WITH APPROPRIATE USE OR
ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY ON ABUTTING DISTRICTS.
3. 5-24.5 B THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS DESIGNED TO BE FUNCTIONALLY INTEGRATED
INTO THE EXISTING CITY STREETS AND STORM WATER SYSTEM. WE ARE ALREADY AT MAX
CAPACITY. DAWNELLE directly Apposite the proposed driveway has existing wate r issues.
She has provided images to the City.
THE CITY REQUIRES A PERMIT
f0•t.!_CUM ASOC vEWAYcosst RICTON Mat. la
a. Aepd.ea f I Carravcao' Crr Atttron Yo argotb contuc4. neCO OACI MOW *ter Cr c►.rye inr cu
4IDC niaaaplr. at 7S7ssISS t p '!e1 10,"*" F:.7.'T COS* 114,.
Ore err mew' +Am 1 pee,e 1MM
AIVIK d7lV fCr P'enne M ac.ve_aH 1 Ler under M lea I N qe •t71 Cr; o'W► 1"' 4(..CiFA^ Y{as1 `4t NW* endar4e ess to re zs*e7 et re pe0W.
iNeve M "On** ed *Kee 111e1. set NP,IP Jr0 aoem el re pert' Corn re two 1R1 .VC1h ere, welomance so re cry M•Ifu Y.r 1..Ne4 Srvv,1 teM44 e&r ntetnay Id ..
O1ti.s+n m o1 •t+eM r •MTV 1< ..A4 be Im * ace/ Code j 11-.7Pi
C wglreetIN CeMillelet sealr Wawa irsosiIswA Tlawsions Ts'samonse '1`r ~We C11 re Mery geteeet that alee et a frN04on to re vowel et re
rewo 1 Op TO WOO* * fer %KA brnN sa AO elavel i PNCeNarl l MR t1 re acumen pit is maw al /Pe erzeose G the Maw; property Y mussel,
etu+pn n re r eemeete'1 as nay keen rer be t."3 .0~604 nrce wf b e+e prrrerrlaw O h PA1c Math verse ce.m 42%7 CoOt j a4.=.yr
DOCUMENT B12
FIRE HYDRANT LOCATION
SAFETY TO 1845 AND 1847 S. GRANVEIW
I noted on the map below the difference and it is 150 FT. closer to go to the hydrant than the "new access/driveway".
io it clearly is not as sufficient as using what we currently have in place.
v.rt, .n. +�.5 n. a x i� v.o- I! S.rv-. "..i.�.e.�n.., w Y .�,. • }
— O X
Hydrant location for 1845 S. Grandview according to Hazard HUB
Enter your property by Address, Neighborhood, City, or Zip
1845 S Grandview Ave, Dubuque, Iowa, 52003, USA
Distance to Nearest Fire Hydrant = < 250 Feet from Reported Hydrant
DOCUMENT B13
SIGHT DISTANCE
D. Sight Distance
I. Sight distance is based upon AASIITO stopping sight distance criteria. however, the height of
an object is increased from 2.0 feet to 3.5 fret to acknowledge an approaching vehicle as the
"object" of concern. Therefore, sight distance at an access location is measured from the driver's
height of eye (3.5 feet) to the height of approaching vehicle (3.5 feet).
An access location should be established where desirable sight distance is available, as shown
below.
Table 5L-4.03: Desirable Sight Distances
Design Speed
(mph)
Intersection S'ght Distance (feet)
Left Turn front Sire
Right Turn from Stop and
Crossing Maneuver
55
610
530
50
555
440
45
500
430
40
445
3S5
35
390
335
30
335
290
25
280
240
Note: the sight distances shown above are for a stopped passenger car to turn unto or cross a two
lane roadway with no median and grades of 3°a or less. For conditions other than those stated,
refer to the 2004 AASHTO "Green Book" for additional information.
Source: Based on Exhibit 9-55 and Exhibit 9-58 of the 2004 AASIITO "Green Boot ."
3. On a four lane divided primary highway where access is proposed at a location not to be served
by a median crossover, sight distance is required only in the direction of the flow of traffic.
DOCUMENT B14
INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE
SECTION D104
COMMERCIAL AXD L1-DtSTRLAL DEVELOPMENTS
1104.1 Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in height. Buildings or facilities exceeding30 feet (9144 mm) or three stones in height shall have not fewer than two means of
se apparatus access for each structure.
)104.2 Buildings exceeding 62,000 square feet in area. Buildings or facilities having a gross building Urea of more than 62,000 square feet (5760 rn) shall be provided pith two
eparate and approved fire apparatus access roads.
:xception: Projects having a gross building area of up to 124,000 square feet (11 520 m:) that have a single approved fire apparatus access road where all buildings are equipped
uoughout with approved automatic sprinkler ststenu.
1104.3 Remoteness. Where two fire apparatus access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the maximum overall
iagonal dimension of the lot or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses.
SECTION D102
REQUIRED ACCESS
1102.1 Access and loading. Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus
ccess road with an asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing up to 75,000 pounds (34 050 kg).
/lark Burkle
ire Marshal
1 West 9th Street
tubuque, Iowa 52001-4839
563) 589-4161 office
563) 543-6522 cell
563) 589-4209 fax
iburkle@cityofdubuque.org cityofdubuque.org
We oppose the approval for PUD amendment 29-20due to the traffic patterns it will create. The roadway down to Shady Oaks
will create a loop behind the area. It will bring more traffic along the backyards on S. Grandview where kids currently
play. There is also kids running up and down the private lane in the back and this new traffic will cross this area. As cars go up
thisdrive they will be met with a gate and then will end up using a private road to get back on the public street. This creates
confusion for residents, drivers, and children playing up there.
The developments goal to create a steep road down to Shady Oaks which already has standing water on it for days after a rain-
fall will overwhelm the already stressed sewer system in the area. There is a ton of water coming down from S. Grandview
already and this steeper incline will bring more right to one point. We are concerned that the neighborhood will be responsible
for dealing with all the negative effects from this and the burden if things continue to deteriorate.
it will also create a really steep road down to Shady Oaks. Where these two hills collide and the blind spots created with the
retaining walls we feel the road will be dangerous to the comnity, children who play in the area walkers and other resi-
dents. We are very concerned that people can be injured and harmed. Especially if this becomes a bike path that people
use. The speed generated coming down the hills is extremely dangerous and we do not want to see anyone hurt or worse.
This road was made for the small number of homes it services and the new road will add additional traffic and a lot of water
run off which is already a huge issue for some of the homes on this end of the street. We are concerned that the neighborhood
will bear the brunt of these issue financially and we are concerned that the project is so desired by the city that people may
look past all of these issues and we are not against progress but would want the developers to go to the original plan of going
to the softball fields or elsewhere.
Water run off, Traffic Patterns just two
reasons to Support Petition to Oppose
PUD 29-20
z
946401 61tMr Ll tI4G - 64 Wd1S
"`-- CIRCLE 1431,sr10
16 LNIT5
0EC310ARY ACM
Kris Gorton started this petition to City Council of Dubuque
PHR3r
SmuUD NJRSNG - to BEDS
A5315111) UN4C - 46 L60T9
1.19163RY CARE - 21 UNITS
MAZE 2
HISOI ADERt1 U61610 - 119 LRAM
PHA% 4
(3) R2C.11045T31'ES
300 LIMITS EACH
PHASE 3 PRQPOSSED PUQUNITS PARKING REQUIRED
(mtrims5 PL4?-452 VATS)
--71-7 [1,
MOM MEItE6'i
CIRCLE H6US 4C- 16 LIWS
MOTHER MOUSE- 23 L64TS 25 11 .25 4. 12 + 19
1M1ASt 1
A7 5TED UW4G- 40 UNITS 62 • .25 A. 15
MEM04Y CARE- 21 NF15
SE[LED 1J.l* 4T,- 60 10415 60 :.25 ♦ 30 + 45
Ehi5S-2
640E6VIDEMT LMi G-115 16415
W RlAsrt
98017010OIT U11143-84 UNITS
nesite mats - 90 MITI
431 UPC'S
113 s 1.3 .172
84 • 1.5 +126
60. 1.5 135
512
575 PR14SD
SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD
YELLOW IS NEW ROAD-575 UNITS (ADD 250 EMPOYEES + FUTURE )
BLACK IS LAND DEVELOPMENT OWNS AND ALL THOSE BUILDINGS
RED LINE IS MY PRIVATE ROAD-3 FAMILY HOMES BLUE MY HOUSE
THE UNMARKED ROAD IS NEIGHBORHOOD APPROX 30 FAMILY HOMES
Petition signatures
Comments
Name Location Date Comment
Michelle Mentz Dubuque, IA 2020.03.07 "I live near this neighborhood too and want it to stay a quiet
residential street."
Erika O'Donnell Dubuque, IA 2020-03-07 "I do not want our neighborhood to be disrupted with an
"emergency drive", connecting our quiet, residential neighborhood
to a large planned unit development. This could go from a rarefy
used "emergency exit" to an open access road, bringing much
more traffic to a neighborhood frequented by walkers, bikers,
runners and neighborhood playing children. The developers have
other options for their "emergency drive" but this is the easiest and
cheapest, therefore this is what they're pushing for, despite the
detriment to our neighborhood."
Dawnelle Gordon Dubuque, IA 2020-03-07 "Please don't build this road across from my home. It Is directly East
from my home and by paving It, it will bring water when it rains,
straight towards my home. I already am downhill from the north
and west side of my horn (to the north is paved as well)."
Anna Schuster
dubuque, lA 2020-03-07 "I love this neighborhood. If you plant a unit this big at the end
of this quiet street and connect streets allowing traffic to flow all
over from an agenda of greed and without thinking about how
your decisions affect others -BOOM, no more (or less) wildlife, more
noise, more traffic, more headache at Christmas when Reflections
in the Park is held at Murphy Park. When this construction was
started at Mt. Carmel, I was ok with it since it was "going to be
contained" to the area around the convent Was anyone asked or
surveyed regarding whether or not we would want this? No or this
petition has no warrant. This would be a mess to our neighborhood
and more in this case would equal less. I want less to be more for
myself, my family, my neighbors and my friends. Please stop this
from happening!!!"
KC Schmitt Dubuque, IA 2020.03.08 "KC Schmitt"
Heather Olson Dubuque, IA
2020-03-10 'Because quiet residential neighborhoods have a right to protect
thelr property values."
Name
Kris Gorton
Shelly Theisen
Amy Fautsch
Julianna Welsh
Annemarie Day
Kristin Clark
Heather Kruse
Trish McDonald
Joan Bodnar -Noon
Location
Dubuque, IA
Dubuque, IA
Dubuque, IA
US
Dubuque, IA
Dubuque, IA
Dubuque, IA
US
Dubuque, IA
Date
2020-03-08
2020-03-08
2020-03-08
2020-03-09
2020-03-10
2020-03-11
2020-03-11
2020-03-12
2020-03-15
Petition signatures
Kris Gorton Dubuque, IA
CATHERINE GIESE Dubuque, IA
James Giese Palm Desert, CA
Kelly Gorton MINNEAPOLIS I MN, MN
JoAnn Giese Dubuque, IA
Angel Lara Federal Way, US
La'Kyrah Stacks Monroe, US
chris norris Waco, US
Anna Thier Dubuque, IA
Bridget Foley Dubuque, IA
austin ward Albany, OR
Mary Castaneda Dubuque, IA
Danielle Urbain Dubuque, IA
Michelle Mentz Dubuque, IA
Connie Wilgenbusch Epworth, IA
Dubuque, IA
Randv Mentz Dubuaue. IA
Mike O'Donnell
2020-03-06
2020-03-06
2020-03-06
2020-03-06
2020-03-06
2020-03-06
2020-03-06
2020-03-06
2020-03-06
2020-03-06
2020-03-06
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
Sara Calderon Davenport, IA 2020-03-07
Erika O'Donnell Dubuque, IA 2020-03-07
Jamie Lizabeth US 2020-03-07
Name Location Date
Emily Freiburger Dubuque, IA 2020-03-07
Laura Heath Dubuque, IA 2020-03-07
Molly Anderson Dubuque, IA 2020-03-07
Susan Tonn Dubuque, IA 2020-03-07
Kim Kerkenbush Dubuque, IA 2020-03-07
Lidia Bertolini Dubuque, IA 2020-03-07
Jake Schmidt Dubuque, IA 2020-03-07
Dusty Bodine Dubuque, IA 2020-03-07
Kelly Venson Ashburn, VA 2020-03-07
Sara Carpenter
Rebecca Edmonds
Kathy Bodine
Dawnelle Gordon
Natalie Edmondson
Tricia Kerth
Robyn Wellington
Manuel Cayro
Lisa Kramer
Dubuque, IA
Dubuque, IA
Dubuque, IA
Dubuque, IA
Dubuque, IA
Dubuque, IA
Dubuque, IA
Dyersville, IA
Dubuque, IA
Jolene Horsfreld Dubuque, IA
Anna Schuster dubuque, IA
Julie Motsch Dubuque, IA
Curt Gillilan Potosi, WI
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
Rebecca Plummer
Dubuque, IA
Dan Kieffer Dubuque, IA
Raven Mueller Dubuque, IA
Kaylyn Hoffmann Iowa City, IA
Linda Zick Dubuque, IA
Sue Klopfenstein Dubuque, IA
Kaylena Robertson Dubuque, IA
Jennifer Gutierrez Dubuque, IA
Brenda Neuendorf Dubuque, IA
Jessie Bernard Binghamton, US
Bonnie Hancock Epworth, IA
Amy Fautsch Dubuque, IA
Megan McKahin Dubuque, IA
Jason Carpenter Dubuque, IA
Randy Thor Cuba city, WI
Carrie Gleason Littleton, CO
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
2020-03-07
Amy Hulsizer Dubuque, IA 2020-03-07
Julianne Spahn Sherrill, IA 2020-03-07
Chad Chandlee Dubuque, IA 2020-03-07
Laura Chandlee San Francisco, CA 2020-03-07
Jenny Johnson Dubuque, IA 2020-03-07
Ashley Ungs Holy Cross, IA 2020-03-07
Name Location Date
Brian Schuster Dubuque, IA 2020-03-07
Tony Wilgenbusch Omaha, NE 2020-03-07
Libby Donovan Dubuque, IA 2020-03-07
Ben Lundell Dubuque, IA 2020-03-07
Kelly Wink Cascade, IA 2020-03-08
Jennifer Manternach Dubuque, IA 2020-03-08
Delores Kass Dubuque. IA 2020-03-08
Bobby Koneru Omaha, NE
Dana Heim Dubuque, IA
STEVEN BOYLE Dubuque, IA
KC Schmitt Dubuque, IA
Dubuque, IA
Christina Rader Dubuque, IA
RICHARD CURIEL Des Moines, IA
Sherri Goldstein Davenport, IA
Rick Dryer Dubuque, IA
Henry Goldstein Dubuque, IA
Steven Trenkamp Eagle grove, IA
Dubuque, IA
chris miller Dubuque, IA
Brian Markus Dubuque, IA
Sara Hutchinson Dubuque, IA
Fiona Breslin
Tommy King
2020-03-08
2020-03-08
2020-03-08
2020-03-08
2020-03-08
2020-03-08
2020-03-08
2020-03-08
2020-03-08
2020-03-09
2020-03-09
2020-03-09
2020-03-09
2020-03-09
2020-03-09
Bvm website 3-16
Document 25
1i bvmsisters.orgibvm-sisters-in-conversation-with-senior-li}ling-COtil "! {cveioper/
HOME ABOUT US GET INVOLVED SUPPORT OUR MISSION WHAT'S NEW SOCIAL JUS
senior resi.entia an. ea t care services.'
The living community will offer a range of housing options, allowing the BVM Sisters to remain within their home
campus while providing senior living options to others in the Dubuque area as their health and living needs change.
"We are excited and honored to work with the Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary to ensure that their vision
for senior housing and care options becomes a reality," said Dan Lindh, CEO and President of Presbyterian Homes &
Services.
Phase I of the project includes 60 new long term care center suites, 42 assisted living apartments and 20 memory
care apartments. BVMs will continue to live in existing housing until construction is complete. Phase II of the project
will include the addition of 112 senior living apartments.
The four-story BVM Motherhouse, erected in 1892, will become a "town center" for the campus. Dining venues, a
wellness center with swimming pool, and other amenities are projected. The Roberta Kuhn Center, which provides
education and leisure opportunities for nearly 600 seniors from the greater Dubuque area, will continue.
The Motherhouse at Mount Carmel currently houses 150 BVM sisters providing independent living, assisted living,
memory care, and non -hospital 24-hr nursing care, with more than 250 employees.
'We're excited about the possibilities the collaboration with Presbyterian Homes opens up," Sister Teri commented.
"As we searched for an organization to share in this venture, we looked for a group whose philosophy and values
were similar to ours. We are convinced our organizations are a good fit." Sister Teri continued, "It's all about serving
others in a community setting, creating opportunities for sharing values, providing quality care and meeting needs of
people in Dubuque."
— 7\7\
• > \
\
'\ •
"-•`,
------------
7,"
5:is= of Chasity 131a4
Mount Carmel PUD Submittal Dubc.que, lova
Figs= 1-1.: Conceptual £VD S&s Plan
.c 9.4.1t1
0
40 -exana Vet tlC.1. are
e tre. parr-rr.„
e 120 ow romwmterg. fro% arogwpnar
4,6se, 6C usalloscro h.ng esmievemrs.
goimbiligfirlan
O t7,:i0K. pirierqj aw•-..11. C=0.04
errs:norms,.
t= 4:=314==x
.:•=14 aurt,le ttrief% rt
0 F....Ma: Near. soK.Mr? trtsorpmr
••== kedkr 10=0,7 avemer =MM.= =;.6.1=1.
.7,1=
LAKOTA.
fla LAMPS WSW se
In this zoning request BVM is seeking to amend their last
plan because it did NOT have an emergency exit and in an
effort to meet fire code.
I would like it noted that in speaking to Guy Hemenway
and Mark Burkle I was informed that neither planning nor
the fire department requested the abandonment of using
the plan that had the BVM AND LAKOTA USED IN 2015
exiting at the Julien Dubuque Drive. See the map below.
401/0
Imowis Salmi
• Mae.-M .=s•1mews
•• organ ,111...pmenn look
.ass M
auu.r.r.
• MOOa ra.Is.s..4worm
• wlf.iFMF'
..:vcn 1 F. A., 3'04
Mount Carmel PUD Subanittsl ae*w..how
Kra* Lt Cosorpoza3 PP
THIS IS A MAP OF THE PLAN FROM 2015 LAKOTA CITY
COUNCIL MEETING
I was told that the reason we are using the not using the
Julien Dubuque Drive is due to Cost. I would imagine that
there would be a large cost. However, It is a cost that is
1
invaluable to their project and they should be required to
meet the needs of their PUD in a way that does not take
away enjoyment of the current neighborhood to use their
properties. (see city code attached B8 )
I would like it to reflect that the map that the people who
did not oppose the initial project were shown a map that
had the fire access down to the JU LI EN DU BUQU E ROAD.
The 2015 Map shows fire access down to Julien Dubuque
Road. The access is achieved by passing through property
owned by the BVMs and private property that is currently
zoned Planned Industrial. The fire access proposed in
2015 did not impact any existing residential properties.
The proposed plan amendment differs from the original
proposal and substantially impacts existing residential
properties by passing through existing residential
properties and connecting to an existing roadway serving
an exclusively residential neighborhood. Public input from
impacted residents was sought in 2015, and the site plan
and possible impact was evaluated by City staff and
neighbors, including a traffic study. The impact of the
proposed changes have not been evaluated through the
same process with appropriate evaluations from City
Engineering, impact on neighboring properties, and a
determination if the 2013 traffic study is still applicable.
I would like the process to continue and this to go back to
the Zoning Commission so that we can have the correct
1
and proper information when we go through the process.
A change of exiting is very important material change and
it has many ramifications. I respectfully request we go
through this process with correct and proper information.
Another point I would like to make is only people in 200' of
the driveway were notified of this current change. There
are still people within the radius of people next to this that
were not informed that the map they were presented with
in 2015 is incorrect so they were never informed of this
material change because they do not live right by the
driveway. This seems to be very upsetting to most people
I speak with. I am here telling you the community feels
like they have not been informed of material changes and I
respectful request they be informed if they are within 200
feet of the development as this is a major change..
Can you tell me another time when an entrance or exit
was changed in a PUD and people were not informed
within 200 ft. of the PUD?
Has CITY engineering seen the proposal with exiting to
JULIEN DUBUQUE ROAD?
HAVE THEY HAD A CHANCE TO EVALUATE EACH ROAD AS
TO IMPACT ON NEIGHBORS?
1
IS THE TRAFFIC STUDY CONDUCTED IN 2013 STILL VALID?
am curious as to how a traffic study done in 2012-2013
(page 3 of 13) the number of employees estimated at 214.
The current employees on the website of the BVM today is
250. (see document )
As a matter of housekeeping I would like to correct the notes
from the ZAC.
1. IIW engineer misstated that engineering had approved
this plan at that time. That was not the case.
2. Wally W. said that 1847 would be safer with this
driveway. That is incorrect information. There is a fire
hydrant right next to the home at 1845 S. Grandview.
The firetrucks would prefer to park on the street and
drag the hose across the lawns which is 145 closer than
the proposed driveway. (see document B12 )
I also went on line to Hazard Hub and some other places
where you can put in your address and find the nearest
hydrant. Both 1845 and 1847 S. Grandview came up as
less than 250 ft. away which is very good! We contend
that this information is irrelevant to the discussion and
are confused by why it is sited as safer. Can someone
1
explain to me why it would be better to use a hydrant
further away?
am concerned that this misinformation had a direct effect on
the outcome of that meeting. Due to the incorrect information
that was presented as fact. I would like this to be directed back
to the ZAC and them to be able to determine this with correct
facts. It is not a fair and equitable process if we have council
members deciding with misinformation.
Can you please respond to this?
I am concerned that the people in charge of this have not
walked the neighborhood and are not aware of what is around
us. When recommending a major change like this I would hope
people would actually visit the sites they are proposing changes
to. Who on the team recommending this change or providing
information about it has actually been there? There is a fire
hydrant outside my window. I am not sure why the dept would
use one further away?
Can someone speak to this?
If you have not been there then you definitely do not realize
how steep the incline is from the lane to shady oaks. There is
also a massive undulation in the middle of the lot and you can
see in all of the pictures the city is showing how much water
runs down already...in the one where the sidewalk is you can
see the ruts caused by of runoff as well as the branches pushed
down hill and the grass all turned. All spring and summer that
1
bit of sidewalk is covered by mud. It is literally as waterfall
when it rains hard. When you add a 20 wide driveway it is
going to be a complete hazard and wash out Gordon's home.
The large retaining walls will also and push water left and right
and could really effect , Mr. Chandlee's home. I would bet he
gets a wet basement after this is installed.
The engineer from IIW said the fire marshal had
approved the design of the driveway. At that point the
engineers from the City had not seen a plan for the
driveway at all?
Is it protocol for a fire marshal to approve a WITHOUT
consulting City Engineers?
When was the last time the Fire Marshal approved a
steep grade without Engineering?
CURRENT PROPOSAL
DOESN'T MEET SUDAS:
Driveway requires more than 1 point of access to
1847 S. Grandview. (See Sudas 3a ) Document B1
1
Driveway CREATES UNDESIRABLE SPEED
DIFFERENTIAL (DRIVEWAY GRADE CHAPTER 5
ROADWAY DESIGN TABLE 51-4.04 51-4.05)
DOCUMENT B3
DRIVEWAY CREATES 9 NEW CONFLICT POINTS (51-
3.01) DOCUMENT B2
DRIVEWAY ENCOURAGES ENCROACHMENT ON TO
PRIVATE PROPERTY (DOCUMENT B9)
DRIVEWAY CREATES MASS AMOUNTS OF RUN OFF
ONTO AN ALREADY OVERWHELMED SEWER SYSTEM.
DIRECTLY AFFECTING HOUSE ACROSS FROM IT. SEE
Document B11
DRIVEWAY DOES NOT MEET CURRENT
RECOMMENDATION OF THE National Highwy
Institute which recommends 5 and 8% . Document
B4
DRIVEWAY HAS LARGE RETAINING WALLS WHICH
WILL CREATE SITE LINE ISSUES AND ACCIDENTS. See
Sudas Driveway Chapter 5.
THIS DRIVEWAY MUST MEET CONCEPTUAL
DEVELOPMENT WHICH DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH
PROVISIONS OR REQUIREMENTS OF CODE. I WOULD
SAY IT DOES IN THE FOLLOWING WAY.
DRIVE WAY DOES NOT IMPROVE CIRCULATION FOR VEHICLES
AND PEDESTRIANS (5-24.3)
Violates Sudas Code:
1.Principle 7 driveway creates new 9 new conflict points.
see doc B2)
2. Sudas allows only 1 access point unless a driver must
back out of a driveway. This is not the case but creates a
backing out situation that is undesirable according to code.
Sudas Chapter 5 3A
1. Driveway is too steep based on Sudas requirements.
Recommended MAX IS 8 DEGREES. Sudas Chapter 5
Roadway design see Doc.
2. Sight lines created will make viewing difficult when
cross traffic happens. This driveway will be 20' wide are
we expecting cross traffic?
DRIVEWAY INTERFERES WITH APPROPRIATE USE AND
ENJOYMENT OF ABUTTING DISTRICTS. (CODE 5-24.5C )
1
1. SEE MAP OF NEIGHBORS AGAINST IT ( DOCUMENT B7)
2. SEE PETITION OVER 100 SIGNATURES - DOCUMENT B 10
3. SEE STATEMENTS OF NEIGHBORS BEFORE ZAC
ZONING SHOULD DO THE FOLLOWING HELP SEPARATE USES TO
REDUCE CONFLICT NOT CREATE IT LIKE THIS DOES (CITY
WEBSITE) DOCUMENT B8
DRIVEWAY IS NOT FUNCTIONALLY INTEGRATED INTO THE
EXISTING STORM WATER SYSTEM (5-24.5B) SEE NEIGHBORS
PICTURES OF FLOODING SHE CURRENTLY DEALS WITH
DOCUMENT B11
DRIVEWAY CREATES ENCROACHMENT- WHEN DRIVERS DRIVE
UP THEY WILL BE MET WITH A GATE AND 1) BACK OUT ALL THE
WAY TO PUBLIC STREET OR 2) DRIVE OVER 2 PRIVATE LOTS TO
GET OUT. THIS IS STRICTLY PROHIBITIED BASED ON A LAWSUIT
LOT 2 INSTRUMENT NUMBER 11936-1955
AS OWNERS OF LOTS 4 AND 5 ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO DETER
OTHER TRAFFIC FROM USING THE PRIVATE LANE. THIS
ADDITIONAL OPENING TO A STREET CREATES AN OPEN
INVITATION AND IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH PREVIOUS
LAWSUIT.
THERE IS ALSO A PREPETUAL EASMENT FOR 6 FT. ON EITHER
SIDE OF THE PRIVATE ROAD FROM SOUTH GRANDVIEW
EXTENDING TO LOTS 4 AND 5 THAT SHALL NOT BE BUILT ON.
THIS DRIVEWAY WOULD BE ON TOP OF THAT EASEMENT.
Creates OTHER conflicts as well. Abstracts state that no one
located inside the SHADY OAKS SUBDIVISION is allowed to
provide access to an outside individual without written
permission from the developer.
THE DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO MEET CODE D104
PER THE FIRE MARSHALL OF DUBUQUE.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF
REMOTENESS D104.5 (DOC B 5 AND B 6) I HAVE PROVIDEDED
MAPS AS WELL WITH MEASUREMENTS TO SHOW THIS. AS OUR
GOAL IS TO KEEP THE TENANTS SAFE ON THE PUD — ONCE THE
BVM REMOVES THEIR FRONT ROADS THE ONLY WAY TO REACH
THE FAR SIDE OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT WILL BE THROUGH THE
PARKIING LOT CONNECTIONS WHICH IS MUCH CLOSER AND
DOUBLES DOWN ON THE REMOTENESS ISSUE. YOU WILL
LITERALLY NOT BE ABLE TO REACH THE POINT PART OF THEIR
PROPERTY.
DOES EVERY BUILDING HAVE SPRINKLER SYSTEM ON THE BVM
PROPERTY?
IF NOT HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE \A/HEM TI-IEV ARE RENOVATING
THE MAJORITY OF THEIR PROPERTY THEY SHOULD BE
REQUIRED TO BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE?
1
IF SO THEN WHY ARE WE NOT USING THE EXCEPTION
PROVIDED BY THE CODE?
DRIVEWAY TO A COMMERCIAL PROPERY REQUIRES A TRAFFIC
STUDY (SUDAS 3B)
WOULD THIS DEVELOPMENT QUALIFY FOR THE EXCEPTION
STATED IN D104?
QUESTIONS
CAN YOU SHOW ME EXACTLY WHERE THERE IS A PROVISION IN
THE CURRENT CODE ALLOWING property zoned for planned,
residenuai or planned unit aeveiopment to create a private
driveway through property zoned as R1 with the intent for the
private driveway to service the PUD?
If there is not a provision for this should this be in front of the
ZBA?
WHEN I SPOKE WITH THE STATE FIRE inspector HE SAID ThIS
2ND EMERGENCY ACCESS IS NOT NEEDED YET AND WOULD NOT
BE NEEDED FOR A LONG TIME. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY
1
IT IS SUCH A PUSH RIGHT NOW RATHER THAN WAIT UNTIL IT IS
necessary? That would give us time to work with the BVM's to
make adjustments and possibly work on other solutions.
They had suggested that we use our private drive and we would
like to discuss that option again and try to come to an
agreement. Which requires nothing more than time.
WHY IS THE CITY SO INTERESTED IN SHEPARDING THIS
THROUGH WHEN THIS IS NOT INCREASING THE TAX BASE?
HOW MANY EMPLOYEES ARE CURRENTLY AT BVM PROPERTY?
HOW MANY EMPLOYEES DO YOU PROJECT?
THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS BASED ON 126 the current website
places at the number of employees at 250.
1) Is the car study from 2012 still valid since they have since
changed the road access and it is 8 years old? There are
significantly more homes in Shady Oaks alone since this
study was done.
2) How do you plan on accessing the undeveloped land?
Can you provide an example of another local
DEVELOPMENT
THAT CONNECTS A PARKING LOT IN A PUD THROUGH A
1
RESIDENTIAL NEIGBHORHOOD AND DOWN A PRIVATE
DRIVEWAY FOR STREET ACCESS?
Secondary Access
Mark auricle <Mburkle@cityofdubuque.org>
Mon 3/9/2020 4:26 PM
krisgor ton d esig n �c�gmail. com
Guy Hememvay
SECTION D104
COMMERCIAL :AND INDLSTRIALDEVELOPMENTS
DI04.1 Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in height. Buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) or three stories in height shall have not fever than two means of
fire apparatus access for each structure.
D104.2 Buildings exceeding 62,000 square feet in area. Buildings or facilities having a gross building area of more than 62,000 square feet (5760 m) shall be provided pith two
separate and approved fire apparatus access roads.
Exception: Projects having a gross building area of up to 124,000 square feet (11 520 m.) that have a single approved fire apparatus access road where all buildings are equipped
throughout with approved automatic sprinkler �sanrs.
D104.3 Remoteness. Where two fire apparatus access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the maximum overall
diagonal dimension of the lot or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses.
SECTION D102
REQUIRED ACCESS
D102.1 Access and loading. Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus
access road Stith an asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing up to 75,000 pounds (34 050 kg).
Mark 8urkie
Fire Marshal
11 West 9th Street
Dubuque, Iowa 52001-4839
(563) 589-4161 office
(563) 543-6522 cell
(563) 589-4209 fax
rnburkle@cityofdubuque.org
1
1
In this zoning request BVM is seeking to amend their last
plan because it did NOT have an emergency exit and in an
effort to meet fire code.
I would like it noted that in speaking to Guy Hemenway
and Mark Burkle I was informed that neither planning nor
the fire department requested the abandonment of using
the plan that had the BVM AND LAKOTA USED IN 2015
exiting at the Julien Dubuque Drive. See the map below.
.101.0
1.0161
—
_:AO.. w _ wax. m.
Gr.w i*aN
reu
Mount Carmel PUD Submittal rke.�._�•••
Pis,,,e LL C..o.paa.1 R"D
4.0
•,fir
...,L7
THIS IS A MAP OF THE PLAN FROM 2015 LAKOTA CITY
COUNCIL MEETING
I was told that the reason we are using the not using the
Julien Dubuque Drive is due to Cost. I would imagine that
there would be a large cost. However, It is a cost that is
1
invaluable to their project and they should be required to
meet the needs of their PUD in a way that does not take
away enjoyment of the current neighborhood to use their
properties. (see city code attached B8 )
I would like it to reflect that the map that the people who
did not oppose the initial project were shown a map that
had the fire access down to the JULIEN DUBUQUE ROAD.
The 2015 Map shows fire access down to Julien Dubuque
Road. The access is achieved by passing through property
owned by the BVMs and private property that is currently
zoned Planned Industrial. The fire access proposed in
2015 did not impact any existing residential properties.
The proposed plan amendment differs from the original
proposal and substantially impacts existing residential
properties by passing through existing residential
properties and connecting to an existing roadway serving
an exclusively residential neighborhood. Public input from
impacted residents was sought in 2015, and the site plan
and possible impact was evaluated by City staff and
neighbors, including a traffic study. The impact of the
proposed changes have not been evaluated through the
same process with appropriate evaluations from City
Engineering, impact on neighboring properties, and a
determination if the 2013 traffic study is still applicable.
would like the process to continue and this to go back to
the Zoning Commission so that we can have the correct
1
and proper information when we go through the process.
A change of exiting is very important material change and
it has many ramifications. I respectfully request we go
through this process with correct and proper information.
Another point I would like to make is only people in 200' of
the driveway were notified of this current change. There
are still people within the radius of people next to this that
were not informed that the map they were presented with
in 2015 is incorrect so they were never informed of this
material change because they do not live right by the
driveway. This seems to be very upsetting to most people
I speak with. I am here telling you the community feels
like they have not been informed of material changes and I
respectful request they be informed if they are within 200
feet of the development as this is a major change..
Can you tell me another time when an entrance or exit
was changed in a PUD and people were not informed
within 200 ft. of the PUD?
Has CITY engineering seen the proposal with exiting to
JULIEN DUBUQUE ROAD?
HAVE THEY HAD A CHANCE TO EVALUATE EACH ROAD AS
TO IMPACT ON NEIGHBORS?
1
IS THE TRAFFIC STUDY CONDUCTED IN 2013 STILL VALID?
I am curious as to how a traffic study done in 2012-2013
(page 3 of 13) the number of employees estimated at 214.
The current employees on the website of the BVM today is
250. (see document )
As a matter of housekeeping I would like to correct the notes
from the ZAC.
1. IIW engineer misstated that engineering had approved
this plan at that time. That was not the case.
2. Wally W. said that 1847 would be safer with this
driveway. That is incorrect information. There is a fire
hydrant right next to the home at 1845 S. Grandview.
The firetrucks would prefer to park on the street and
drag the hose across the lawns which is 145 closer than
the proposed driveway. (see document B12 )
I also went on line to Hazard Hub and some other places
where you can put in your address and find the nearest
hydrant. Both 1845 and 1847 S. Grandview came up as
less than 250 ft. away which is very good! We contend
that this information is irrelevant to the discussion and
are confused by why it is sited as safer. Can someone
1
explain to me why it would be better to use a hydrant
further away?
am concerned that this misinformation had a direct effect on
the outcome of that meeting. Due to the incorrect information
that was presented as fact. I would like this to be directed back
to the ZAC and them to be able to determine this with correct
facts. It is not a fair and equitable process if we have council
members deciding with misinformation.
Can you please respond to this?
I am concerned that the people in charge of this have not
walked the neighborhood and are not aware of what is around
us. When recommending a major change like this I would hope
people would actually visit the sites they are proposing changes
to. Who on the team recommending this change or providing
information about it has actually been there? There is a fire
hydrant outside my window. I am not sure why the dept would
use one further away?
Can someone speak to this?
If you have not been there then you definitely do not realize
how steep the incline is from the lane to shady oaks. There is
also a massive undulation in the middle of the lot and you can
see in all of the pictures the city is showing how much water
runs down already...in the one where the sidewalk is you can
see the ruts caused by of runoff as well as the branches pushed
down hill and the grass all turned. All spring and summer that
1
bit of sidewalk is covered by mud. It is literally as waterfall
when it rains hard. When you add a 20 wide driveway it is
going to be a complete hazard and wash out Gordon's home.
The large retaining walls will also and push water left and right
and could really effect , Mr. Chandlee's home. I would bet he
gets a wet basement after this is installed.
The engineer from IIW said the fire marshal had
approved the design of the driveway. At that point the
engineers from the City had not seen a plan for the
driveway at all?
Is it protocol for a fire marshal to approve a WITHOUT
consulting City Engineers?
When was the last time the Fire Marshal approved a
steep grade without Engineering?
CURRENT PROPOSAL
DOESN'T MEET SUDAS:
Driveway requires more than 1 point of access to
1847 S. Grandview. (See Sudas 3a ) Document B1
1
Driveway CREATES UNDESIRABLE SPEED
DIFFERENTIAL (DRIVEWAY GRADE CHAPTER 5
ROADWAY DESIGN TABLE 51-4.04 51-4.05)
DOCUMENT B3
DRIVEWAY CREATES 9 NEW CONFLICT POINTS (51-
3.01) DOCUMENT B2
DRIVEWAY ENCOURAGES ENCROACHMENT ON TO
PRIVATE PROPERTY (DOCUMENT B9)
DRIVEWAY CREATES MASS AMOUNTS OF RUN OFF
ONTO AN ALREADY OVERWHELMED SEWER SYSTEM.
DIRECTLY AFFECTING HOUSE ACROSS FROM IT. SEE
Document B11
DRIVEWAY DOES NOT MEET CURRENT
RECOMMENDATION OF THE National Highwy
Institute which recommends 5 and 8% . Document
B4
DRIVEWAY HAS LARGE RETAINING WALLS WHICH
WILL CREATE SITE LINE ISSUES AND ACCIDENTS. See
Sudas Driveway Chapter 5.
THIS DRIVEWAY MUST MEET CONCEPTUAL
DEVELOPMENT WHICH DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH
PROVISIONS OR REQUIREMENTS OF CODE. I WOULD
SAY IT DOES IN THE FOLLOWING WAY.
DRIVE WAY DOES NOT IMPROVE CIRCULATION FOR VEHICLES
AND PEDESTRIANS (5-24.3)
Violates Sudas Code:
1.Principle 7 driveway creates new 9 new conflict points.
see doc B2)
2. Sudas allows only 1 access point unless a driver must
back out of a driveway. This is not the case but creates a
backing out situation that is undesirable according to code.
Sudas Chapter 5 3A
1. Driveway is too steep based on Sudas requirements.
Recommended MAX IS 8 DEGREES. Sudas Chapter 5
Roadway design see Doc.
2. Sight lines created will make viewing difficult when
cross traffic happens. This driveway will be 20' wide are
we expecting cross traffic?
DRIVEWAY INTERFERES WITH APPROPRIATE USE AND
ENJOYMENT OF ABUTTING DISTRICTS. (CODE 5-24.5C )
1
1. SEE MAP OF NEIGHBORS AGAINST IT ( DOCUMENT B7)
2. SEE PETITION OVER 100 SIGNATURES - DOCUMENT B 10
3. SEE STATEMENTS OF NEIGHBORS BEFORE ZAC
ZONING SHOULD DO THE FOLLOWING HELP SEPARATE USES TO
REDUCE CONFLICT NOT CREATE IT LIKE THIS DOES (CITY
WEBSITE) DOCUMENT B8
DRIVEWAY IS NOT FUNCTIONALLY INTEGRATED INTO THE
EXISTING STORM WATER SYSTEM (5-24.5B) SEE NEIGHBORS
PICTURES OF FLOODING SHE CURRENTLY DEALS WITH
DOCUMENT B11
DRIVEWAY CREATES ENCROACHMENT - WHEN DRIVERS DRIVE
UP THEY WILL BE MET WITH A GATE AND 1) BACK OUT ALL THE
WAY TO PUBLIC STREET OR 2) DRIVE OVER 2 PRIVATE LOTS TO
GET OUT. THIS IS STRICTLY PROHIBITIED BASED ON A LAWSUIT
LOT 2 INSTRUMENT NUMBER 11936-1955
AS OWNERS OF LOTS 4 AND 5 ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO DETER
OTHER TRAFFIC FROM USING THE PRIVATE LANE. THIS
ADDITIONAL OPENING TO A STREET CREATES AN OPEN
INVITATION AND IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH PREVIOUS
LAWSUIT.
THERE IS ALSO A PREPETUAL EASMENT FOR 6 FT. ON EITHER
SIDE OF THE PRIVATE ROAD FROM SOUTH GRANDVIEW
EXTENDING TO LOTS 4 AND 5 THAT SHALL NOT BE BUILT ON.
THIS DRIVEWAY WOULD BE ON TOP OF THAT EASEMENT.
Creates OTHER conflicts as well. Abstracts state that no one
located inside the SHADY OAKS SUBDIVISION is allowed to
provide access to an outside individual without written
permission from the developer.
THE DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO MEET CODE D104
PER THE FIRE MARSHALL OF DUBUQUE.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF
REMOTENESS D104.5 (DOC B 5 AND B 6) I HAVE PROVIDEDED
MAPS AS WELL WITH MEASUREMENTS TO SHOW THIS. AS OUR
GOAL IS TO KEEP THE TENANTS SAFE ON THE PUD — ONCE THE
BVM REMOVES THEIR FRONT ROADS THE ONLY WAY TO REACH
THE FAR SIDE OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT WILL BE THROUGH THE
PARKIING LOT CONNECTIONS WHICH IS MUCH CLOSER AND
DOUBLES DOWN ON THE REMOTENESS ISSUE. YOU WILL
LITERALLY NOT BE ABLE TO REACH THE POINT PART OF THEIR
PROPERTY.
DOES EVERY BUILDING HAVE SPRINKLER SYSTEM ON THE BVM
PROPERTY?
IF NOT HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE WHEN THEY ARE RENOVATING
THE MAJORITY OF THEIR PROPERTY THEY SHOULD BE
REQUIRED TO BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE?
1
IF SO THEN WHY ARE WE NOT USING THE EXCEPTION
PROVIDED BY THE CODE?
DRIVEWAY TO A COMMERCIAL PROPERY REQUIRES A TRAFFIC
STUDY (SUDAS 3B)
WOULD THIS DEVELOPMENT QUALIFY FOR THE EXCEPTION
STATED IN D104?
QUESTIONS
CAN YOU SHOW ME EXACTLY WHERE THERE IS A PROVISION IN
THE CURRENT CODE ALLOWING a property zoned for planned
residential or planned unit development to create a private
driveway through property zoned as R1 with the intent for the
private driveway to service the PUD?
If there is not a provision for this should this be in front of the
ZBA?
WHEN I SPOKE WITH THE STATE FIRE inspector HE SAID ThIS
2ND EMERGENCY ACCESS IS NOT NEEDED YET AND WOULD NOT
BE NEEDED FOR A LONG TIME. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY
1
IT IS SUCH A PUSH RIGHT NOW RATHER THAN WAIT UNTIL IT IS
necessary? That would give us time to work with the BVM's to
make adjustments and possibly work on other solutions.
They had suggested that we use our private drive and we would
like to discuss that option again and try to come to an
agreement. Which requires nothing more than time.
WHY IS THE CITY SO INTERESTED IN SHEPARDING THIS
THROUGH WHEN THIS IS NOT INCREASING THE TAX BASE?
HOW MANY EMPLOYEES ARE CURRENTLY AT BVM PROPERTY?
HOW MANY EMPLOYEES DO YOU PROJECT?
THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS BASED ON 126 the current website
places at the number of employees at 250.
1) Is the car study from 2012 still valid since they have since
changed the road access and it is 8 years old? There are
significantly more homes in Shady Oaks alone since this
study was done.
2) How do you plan on accessing the undeveloped land?
Can you provide an example of another local
DEVELOPMENT
THAT CONNECTS A PARKING LOT IN A PUD THROUGH A
1
RESIDENTIAL NEIGBHORHOOD AND DOWN A PRIVATE
DRIVEWAY FOR STREET ACCESS?
Secondary Access
Mark Burkle <Mburkle@cityofdubuque.org>
Mon 3/920204:26 PM
la isgor tondesign Zagmail. cot
Guy Hemeneay
SECTION D104
CO\L\MERCLAL AND LNDUSIRIAL DEVELOPMENTS
D104.1 Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in height. Buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) or three stories in height shall have not fewer than two means of
fire apparatus access for each structure_
D104 2 Buildings exceeding 62.000 square feet in area. Buildings or facilities having a Boss building area of more than 62,000 square feet (5760 m:) shall be provided with two
separate and approved fire apparatus access roads.
Exception: Projects having a gross buildnrg area of up to 124,000 square feet (11 520 m.) that have a single approred fire apparatus access road where all buildings are equipped
throughout with approved automatic sprinkler ystems.
D104.3 Remoteness. Where two fire apparatus access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the maximum overall
diagonal dimension of the lot or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses.
SECTION D102
REQUIRED ACCESS
D102.1 Access and loading. Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus
access road with an asphalt; concrete or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing up to 75,000 pounds (34 050 kg).
Mark 8urkie
Fire Marshal
11 West 9th Street
Dubuque, Iowa 52001-4839
(563) 589-4161 office
(563) 543-6522 cell
(563) 589-4209 fax
mburkle@cityofdubuque,org
1