Zoning - Apex Hwy 52S & 61/151Prepared by: Laura Carstens, City Planner Address: 50 W. 13th St., City Hall Telephone: 589-4210
ORDINANCE NO. 5-04
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING APPENDIX A (THE ZON lNG ORDINANCE) OF
THE CITY OF DUBUQUE CO DE OF ORDINANCES BY RECLASSIFYING
HEREINAFTER DESCRI BED PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF
HIGHWAY 61/151 AND HIGHWAY 52 INTERSECTION FROM C-3 GENERAL
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO MHI MODIFIED HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT,
WITH CONDITIONS.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DUBUQUE, IOWA:
Section 1. That Appendix A (The Zoning Ordinance) of the City of Dubuque
Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by reclassifying the hereinafter-described
property from C-3 General Commercial District to MHI Modified Heavy Industrial
District, with conditions, as shown in Exhibit 1 and to the centerline of the adjoining
public right-of-way, all in the City of Dubuque, Iowa.
Section 2. The foregoing amendment has heretofore been reviewed by the
Zoning Advisory Commission of the City of Dubuque, Iowa.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon publication, as
provided by law.
Passed, approved and adopted this 19th day of January, 2004.
Terrance M. Duggan, Mayor
Attest:
Jeanne F. Schneider, City Clerk
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
Pursuant to the Iowa Code Section 414.5 (2001), and as an express condition of rezoning
of the property described in Exhibit 1, and to the center line of the adjoining public right-of-
way, all in the City of Dubuque, Iowa, which is the subject of Ordinance No. .~ -04,
a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, the undersigned
property owner, agree to the following conditions, all of which the property owner further
agrees are reasonable and are imposed to satisfy public needs which are caused directly
by the rezoning:
A) Conditions: The following conditions shall apply to the subject property:
1)
The following permitted uses shall be allowed in this MHI Modified Heavy
Industrial District:
(a) Railroads and public or quasi-public utilities, including substations- [7]
(b) General offices - [47]
(c) Medical/dental lab - [8]
(d) Personal services - [14]
(e) Off-street parking lot- [n/a]
(t~ Gas station - [18]
(g) Bakery (wholesale/commercial) - [19]
(h) Indoor restaurant - [20]
(i) Drive-in/carry-out restaurant - [28]
(j) Bar/tavern - [20]
(k) Automated gas station - [18]
(I) Service station - [21]
(m) Drive-up automated bank teller - [8]
(n) Self-service car wash - [8]
(o) Animal hospital/clinic- [23]
(p) Furniture upholstery/repair- [18]
(q) Business services - [29]
(r) Banks, savings and loans, and credit unions - [31]
(s) Vending/game machines sales/service - [19]
(t) Indoor recreation facilities - [37]
(u) Mail order houses - [23]
(v) Lumberyards/building materials sales - [19]
(w) Construction supplies, sales and service - [19]
(y) Printing and publishing - [32]
(z) Moving/storage facilities - [33]
(aa) Full-service carwash - [8]
(bb) Auto service centers - [34]
(cc) Auto sales and services - [38]
(dd) Auto repair/body shop - [35]
(ee) Truck sales, service and repair- [39]
(fl) Farm implement sales, service and repair- [39]
(gg) Auto parts/supply - [7]
(hh) Mobile home sales - [40]
(ii) Motorcycle sales/service - [41]
B)
C)
D)
E)
(iJ) Boat sales/service- [40]
(kk) Recreation vehicle sales/service - [38]
(11) Vehicle rental - [47]
(mm) Upholstery shop - [42]
(nn) Parking structure- [n/a]
(oo) Contractor's shop/yard - [33
(pp) Wholesale sales/distributor - [29]
(qq) Agricultural supply sales - [19]
(rr) Laboratories for research or engineering - [33]
(ss) Manufacture or assembly of musical instruments, toys, watches or
clocks, medical, dental, optical or similar scientific instruments;
orthopedic or medical appliances, signs or billboard - [33].
(tt) Concrete batch mix plant- [33]
[ ] Parking group - See Section 4-2 of this Ordinance.
2)
Install a six (6) foot high chain link fence along the west property line from the
entrance to the point where the topography drops off.
Plant arborvitae screening adjacent to the adjoining mobile home park.
Arborvitae shall be between three (3) and four (4) feet tall at planting and be
spaced four (4) feet apart.
4) That the existing left tum lane on Highway 52 be extended subject to submittal
of the final plan design to the IDOT for review and approval.
Reclassification of the Subiect Property. The City of Dubuque, Iowa may initiate
zoning reclassification proceedings to the C-3 General Commercial District (which
rezoning will include the removal of the performance standards in Section A above)
if the property owner fails to complete any of the conditions or previsions of this
Agreement.
Modifications. Any modifications of this Agreement shall be considered a zoning
reclassification and shall be subject to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance
governing zoning reclassifications. All such modifications must be approved by the
City Council of Dubuque, Iowa.
Recordin,q. A copy of this Agreement shall be recorded with the Dubuque County
Recorder as a permanent record of the conditions accepted as part of this rezoning
approval within thirty (30) days of the adoption of Ordinance No. ~ -04.
Construction. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted as though it were
part of Appendix A of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Dubuque, also known
as the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Dubuque, Iowa.
F) This Agreement shall be binding upon the undersigned and his/her heirs, successor
and assignees.
ACCEPTANCE OF ORDINANCE NO. :5-04
I, Dan Mueller, representing Dubuque Southgate Investments, Ltd., property
owner, having read the terms and conditions of the foregoing Ordinance No. -~- -04
and being familiar with the conditions thereof, hereby accept this same and agree to
the conditions required therein.
Dated in Dubuque, Iowa this
-z~ day of ~7~ 2004.
/s/ Dan Mueller
Dubuque Southgate Investments, Inc.
ACCEPTANCE OF ORDINANCENO. 5-04
I, Dennis J. Thier, representing BARD/Apex Concrete, the Buyer, having read
the terms and conditions of the foregoing Ordinance No. ~ - 04 and being familiar
with the conditions thereof, hereby accept this same and agree to the conditions
required therein.
Dated this 17th day of Jan. 2004.
/s/ Dennis J. Thier, President
BARD/Apex Concrete
PHONE: 563-589-4441
FAX: 563-589-7884
EMAIL: brdofsup@dbqco.org
January 12, 2004
Mayor Terry Duggan
Dubuque City Council
City Hall
50 W. 13th St.
Dubuque, Iowa 52001
~u~u~ue Count[t
COURTHOUSE
DUBUQUE, IOWA 52001-7053
DONNA L. SMITH
JIM WALLER
ERIC MANTERNACH
Dear Mayor Duggan and Members
We are
before you on Monday, January 19,
As you know, our
ask that you table tl~s action until
public hearing has been held.
addressed prior to
Sincerely,
Apex >any which comes
2, 2004. We
completed and that an IDOT
DUBU
mas
enc].
PHONE: 563-589-4441
FAX: 563-589-7884
EMAIL: brdofsup@dbqco.org
~anuar~ 2, 2004
Mayor Terry Duggan
Dubuque City Council
City Hall
50 W. 13th St.
Dubuque, Iowa 52001
COURTHOUSE
DUBUQUE, IOWA 52001-7053
DONNA L. SMITH
JIM WALLER
ERIC MANTERNACH
Dear Mayor Duggan and Members of the
We are
Company which comes before you on ~
regularly scheduled meeting.
We have been a
zoning who strongly feel that t
borders county residential
Their concerns
issues
~pex
an Action Item at your
opposition to the planned re-
' which
Dark
Wc
To: Dubuque County Board of Supervisors
From: Richard Kaufman
Re: Jan 2, 2004 Supervisors Meeting. Action Request.
On behalf of myself and 791 others who signed petitions in opposition to a
proposed City of Dubuque rezoning of property at US 52 So. and US 61/15t
for the Apex Concrete batch plant I request ~ following:
1] Placement on ~ agenda to present an action request.
21 Time for one or more of us to make a presentation to supervisors asking them
to resist the efforts to rezone.
This parcel is bordered almost exclusively by property under Dubuque County
jurisdiction and zoning. We feel that this ~ is a incongrous misfit at this transition
area between Dubuque and Dubuque County.
Richard Kaufman'
6547 Massey Stn Rd
Dubuque lA 52003
556-1623
5901360 [c]
December 27, 2003
To the Dubuque County Board of Supervisors:
I am writing this letter to request a spot on the agenda for your Jan. 2,
2004 meeting. I wish to present to the board information in opposition to the
zoning change presented to the Dubuque City Council on Dec. 15, 2003. This
zoning change, (concerning property owned by South Gate Development,
described as South of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center
No. 2 ) would change the zoning on this property to MHI, to allow Apex
Concrete to build a concrete batch plant at this location. Despite 792
signatures in opposition to this zoning change, it appears the city council
intends to vote in favor of this change and disregard the vast public
opposition.
This area is predominantly residential, and we believe the dust, noise,
traffic, and danger to children, will be detrimental to the many residents who
live in this area. Property values in this area will suffer, as well as further
development which includes city as well as county jurisdiction. I ask that the
Dubuque County Board of Supervisors review this information, with the hope
that you will take a stand in opposition to this drastic zoning change.
Thank You for your time and consideration.
Sincerely
Tim Stierman
9270 Bellevue Hgts. Rd.
Dubuque, !A 52003
December 27, 2003
Dubuque County Board of Supervisors
Dubuque Cotmty Courthouse
720 Central Avenue
Dubuque, Iowa 52001
Re proposed Apex Cement plant at Hwy 52-61-I51 Intersection..
Dear Messrs. Mantemach and Waller and Ms. Smith:
I respectfully request that you indicate to the Dubuque City Council the c0ncem, and
antipathy fekby Dubuque County .residents at the prospect ora huge 6-story-t_al!
cement plant being constructed at the site proposed. .~. : - ~ :.. ~-..
Our family owns five separate parcels of property (two inside Dubuque and three
outside), alt of which would be adversely affected by the proposal in quest/om The
huge structure, which will dominate the skyline and view from miles around, and
from three highvfays entering D~buque, is oPPosed by virmally everyone living in
;Southwest DnlS?~-Iue~nd~s~uthwest 0~I~ubuque ~ the COunty.· .
I do believe there's a bit of elitism involved in a city saying that, although we.
wouldn't subject our citizens and small businesses to the cement batch plant's.
operations, k's perfectly all righcto subject Coumty residents to the very same
conditions. What ifingead of being surrounded by hundreds ofmobile homes and
homes of somewhat modest value the plant were surrounded by, say, just a dozen of
the homes located only a mile northwest in~Marna Ridge? Yet some 800 persons
signed petitions (and many more didn't have the opportunity to do so) objecting to
the batch plant's location, all without apparent effect,
If ours is a representative government--and of course it is k seems to me that th/s
is an issue on which it would be appropriate for our Board o£ Supervisors to express
themselves.
Please ~ve th~s matter your thoughrfcd consideration and listen to the voices of the
people. Thank you.
The Zwack Fxra~y-_
PHONE:
FAX: 563-589-7884
EMAIL: brdofsup@dbqco.org
COURTHOUSE
DUBUQUE, IOWA 52001-7053
DONNA L SMITH
JIM WALLER
ERIC MANTERNACH
January 13, 2003
Richard E. Kautz
District Engineer
Iowa Department of Transportation
430 Sixteenth Avenue, SW
P.O. Box 3150
Cedar Rapids, LA 52406-3150
Dear Mr. Kautz:
We are contacting:
January 19, 2004
Highway 151/61 intersection
We have been
zoning
' Council on
property near the
Their
Page 1 of 1
Jeanne Schneider
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
<GARNEEDUB@wmconnect. com>
<aernl0@mchsi.com>; <jconners63@mchsi.com>; <patdciacline@mchsi.com>;
<jmarkham@comerenergy.com>; <danielenicholson@mchsi.com>;
<jschneid@cityofdubuque.org>
Fdday, January 09, 2004 8:16 AM
slow moving concrete trucks
I work at a factory on Kerper Blvd. So myself an a lot of others meet up with trucks from Flynn ready-mix on our
daily travels to and from work. If you would go to that area of Kerper Blvd. and watch the trucks starting out on the
flat pavement heading towards the highway ramp you will see how slow they move. They don't have much speed
as they turn up the highway ramp so now the traffic that is moving the Speed limit[35] quickly catches them and
has to slow to almost a stop to go up the ramp. As you get to the top of the highway entrance ramp the speed limit
goes up to 55, but now the traffic behind the truck[s] has to speed up quickly to merge with the faster moving
vehicles. This is my experience with Flynn trucks. It is not a favorable one but non the less it is reality for myself
and others who drive the Kerper area either for work or pleasure.
Now think about the traffic on highway 52 if a concrete batch plant is permitted to build in the area. Entering on to
the highway will cause them to enter into a speed zone of 55. SLOW-HEAVY moving trucks pulling onto the
highway as traffic going towards the city quickly catches them. The drive that is considered to be the one to use
will have the tracks going UP hill. If a lane extension is put in then the trucks would be crossing the South Lane,
then the North lane to get into the [FAR] slow lane. That is an improper turn as I believe the state says to take the
nearest lane. If you were traveling towards town and a truck was slowly pulling onto the highway going the same
direction as you, WHAT LANE IS IT GOING TO TAKE is what you will be asking yourself. Another issue that I
have seen in the ten years of living on 52 is the gravel that falls from trucks. What will that do on the highway
when a vehicle tries to slow behind a slow moving truck that the driver got tired of waiting for a break in traffic and
pulled onto the highway in front of them? PLEASE take time to look at the SAFETY ISSUES before making a
decision on the zoning.
Thank you.
Garold Williams
11126 Hwy 52 South
Dubuque, Iowa 52003
1/9/2004
Richard Kaofman
6547 Masey Stn. Rd.
Dubuque, IA 52003
January 14, 2004
Mayor Terry Duggan
Dubuque City Council
City Hall
50 W. 13th St.
Dubuque, IA 52001
Re: Apex Concrete Rezoning Request
Dear Mayor Duggan and Members of the Dubuque City Council:
I respectfully request that this letter be read publicly by the Mayor or a Council member
before the 3rd reading and vote on the Apex Concrete rezoning request.
I believe that I speak in concert with some 800 other citizens who have expressed their
vehement opposition to rezoning of this property near the intersection of US 52 and
US 61/151.
If there is one common theme that courses through all of the petitions letters e- mails,
personal notes and phone calls to coundl members, it is one of traffic safety and a'affic flow
at a.n already chaotic and d.a~. ,r~. intersection. The prevailing concern is the unique size,
w~ght and slow speed of the Ir~ustrial trucks that would be merging across lanes onto a
two lane 6% grade highway this close to an intersection.
As you know the Dubuque County Board of Supervisors have previously asked that you
deny approval of the rezoning.
Now, acting on behaff of Dubuque city and county residents, at the January lZ 2004
.meeting,. the S .upe~!sors have asked for a full public IDOT headng and IDOT ~tudy of the
intersectIon. Thfs will address present problems and newly anticipated needs that would be
exacerbated by the nature of the proposed additional use.
At an interim informational session on Jan 13, 2004 with 2 representatives each from IDOT,
the City, and several persons that live in the Key West area ~ were told that two IDOT
studies ~, .pr~sentty ~.y. There i;~ also a TEAP [Trak Engineering ~istanca
progremj stuay in progress mat includes this intersection.
El~eUg~abuin, acting on behaff of everyone who uses these highways to access the dty of
que, the Supervisors nave asked that you table the Jan 19, 2004 action until these
rings and studies are complete.
it is in this context that I ask that you wait until full information is compiled and thoughtfully
evaluated before your final vote on this very important issue.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard Kaufman
Juanita Hilkin
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Richard. Kautz@DOT.STATE.IA.US
Wednesday, January 14, 2004 1:27 PM
ctymgr@cityofdubuque.org
Jim.Schnoebeten@DOT.STATE.IA.US; mkoch@cityofdubuque.org;
csteinha@cityofdubuque.org; Icarsten@cityofdubuque.org
Apex Rezoning
Mike,
Cindy Steinhauser has requested additional information from our office to address safety
issues related to the proposed Apex rezoning. I also understand city Staff attended a
meeting last Tuesday evening with some of my staff and interested property owmers from the
The above described intersection was upgraded about ten years ago. As part of the 1998
reconstruction of US 52 to the east, the US 52 westbound right turn lane was extended.
Study work has been completed for a traffic engineering study for the US 61/US 151
corridor from this intersection south to the US 61/US 151 interchange. The consultant
performing the study is the Howard R. Green Company and a draft report has been prepared.
Their analysis shows 1) based on past crash history (1995 through 2000), the crash rate at
this intersection ranks well below the state wide average; and 2) the only recommended
improvements are those that reduce motorist delays by adding several exclusive left and
right turn lanes for approaching traffic to the intersection. Adjustments to the traffic
signal timing may also help to reduce motorist delays.
The crash history on US 52 east of the intersection to 01de Massey Road is also below the
state wide average. Of the 17 crashes reported from 1996 through 2000, seven were animal
related. According to the quarry manager, he has not received complaints about the quarry
trucks on this section of roadway.
We are not aware of a significant increase in crashes since 2000 either on US 52 east of
the intersection or at the intersection with US 61/US 151. However, you may want to check
with local and state enforcement agencies for more recent reports that are not currently
in our database. We are aware of one fatality at this intersection since 1996. That
fatality occurred this last October when a passenger on a motorcycle was killed. The
motorcycle collided with a southbound vehicle waiting on a red light at the US 52
intersection with US 61/US 151. Again, there may have been other fatalities that are not
yet in our database.
Some additional comments are 1) the sight distance requirement for the entrance into the
proposed Apex property exceeds the desirable; 2) the entrance permit (allowing the drive
to be paved) was approved on December 3, 2003; 3) in accord with Bruce Chrystal's letter
of Jan. 5, 2004, the district office would not oppose a requirement by the city of the
developer to extend the current right turn lane approaching the US 61/US 151 intersection
to just past the Apex entrance; 4) the district office would review the need for the
installation of appropriate warning signs alerting motorists on US 52 of slow moving
vehicles on the +6% approach grade to the US 61/US 151 intersection; 5) the district
office is studying the need for a reduced speed zone on US 52 approaching the US 61/US 151
intersection; and 6) it's my understanding City Engineering staff is already reviewing the
signal timing at the US 61/US 151 intersection.
I understand there has been a request to have the Iowa DOT, in response to the rezonlng
action, complete a full traffic and safety study of this corridor and conduct a public
hearing. At this time, we are not intending to do further studies or set up a public
hearing in regards to the Apex rezoning issues. We will, of course, review proposed
improvements to the highway and studies completed by others and participate in public
hearings initiated by a local jurisdiction.
Richard Kautz
District 6 Engineer
430 16th Avenue SW
P0 Box 3150
~Cedar Rapids, IA 52406-3150
(319)364-0235
Fax (319) 364-9614
01/14/04 15:10 8563 588 0720 A.Y. McDONALD ~001
January 14, 2004
A. Y, McDONALD INDUS"I"~I~'~, IN,~,
FAX: 589-0890
Honorable Mayor & City Council
c/o Jeanne Schneider
City Clerk
City of Dubuque
Dubuque, IA 52001
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
I am writing in regard to the possible rezoning of property located at the
intersection of I-Iighways 52 and 151/61. With such widespread opposition to
the proposed project, I had not felt it necessary'to convey my strong
opposition. However, considering the City Council's failure to listen to such
opposition, I feel the need to step up and voice my concerns as a property
owner in the direct vicinity oftbe proposed site.
I feel that the rezoning, which would allow Apex Concrete to build, would
negatively impact the value and environmental stability of my property as
well as the neighboring property. Even the City's own comprehensive plan
cautions that in developing land, short-term benefits must be weighed against
significant, possibly irreversible long-term effects. My section of property
closest to the proposed site is mostly trees, a hap for pollutants omitted from
the plant to accumulate over time causing environmental distress and'
decreasing my land value.
To my knowledge as a businessman, there is no such tiling as an attractive,
dust-free concrete facility. I believe the City's plan to enhance its attractive
gateways would be greatly compromised by allowing a 60 ft. steel bullcling
among the already existing r~si~!,.ent[fl .an.d_ co ~m~..~r¢~.areas.
Sincerely, " "'
Jo.hn bi. ~-Donald III
3/W~ch
Page 1 of I
Jeanne Schneider
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
<GARNEEDUB@wmconnect.com>
<aeml0@mchsi.com>; <jconners63@mchsi.com>; <patriciacline@mchsi.com>;
<jmarkham@comerenergy.com>; <danielenichoison@mchsi.com>;
<jschneid@cityofdubuque.org>
Friday, January 09, 2004 8:16 AM
slow moving concrete trucks
I work at a factory on Kerper Blvd. So myself an a lot of others meet up with trucks from Flynn ready-mix on our
daily travels to and from work. If you would go to that area of Kerper Blvd. and watch the trucks starting out on the
fiat pavement heading towards the highway ramp you will see how slow they move. They don't have much speed
as they turn up the highway ramp so now the traffic that is moving the speed limit[35] quickly catches them and
has to stow to almost a stop to go up the ramp. As you get to the top of the highway entrance ramp the speed limit
goes up to 55, but now the traffic behind the truck[s] has to speed up quickly to merge with the faster moving
vehicles. This is my experience with Flynn trucks. It is not a favorable one but non the less it is reality for myself
and others who drive the Kerper area either for work or pleasure.
Now think about the traffic on highway 52 if a concrete batch plant is permitted to build in the area. Entering on to
the highway will cause them to enter into a speed zone of 55. SLOW-HEAVY moving trucks pulling onto the
highway as traffic going towards the city quickly catches them. The drive that is considered to be the one to use
will have the trucks going UP hill. If a lane extension is put in then the trucks would be crossing the South Lane,
then the North lane to get into the [FAR] slow lane. That is an improper turn as I believe the state says to take the
nearest lane. If you were traveling towards town and a truck wes slowly pulling onto the highway going the same
direction as you, WHAT LANE IS IT GOING TO TAKE is what you will be asking yourself. Another issue that I
have seen in the ten years of living on 52 is the gravel that falls from trucks. VVhat will that do on the highway
when a vehicle tries to slow behind a slow moving truck that the driver got tired of waiting for a break in traffic and
pulled onto the highway in front of them? PLEASE take time to look at the SAFETY ISSUES before making a
decision on the zoning.
Thank you.
Garold Williams
11126 Hwy 52 South
Dubuque, Iowa 52003
1/9/2004
Iowa Department of Transportation
Dyersville Area Engineering Office
14117 Route 136 N. (P.O. Box 325)
Dyersville, Iowa 52040-0325
January 5, 2004
PHONE: 563-875-2375
FAX: 563-875-2388
REF: 471
Dubuque County
Mr. Daniel Mueller
Dubuque Southgate Investments, LTD.
590 Samuel Street
Dubuque, Iowa 52003
Dear Mr. Mueller:
We have received your letter dated December 30, 2003 requesting clarification of issues
that have risen during the APEX re-zoning hearings. I will address each question in your
letter numerically. The responses are as follows:
The Department has reviewed your preliminary request to extend the
existing mm lane on US 52 and would look favorably on such a request as
long as current design and policy guidelines are met. To date there are no
outstanding issues that would appear to create an unfavorable situation that
would not allow approval for such. However, note that this is contingent
on submittal of a final plan design and further Departmental review.
The Departmem does not have the authority to dictate what kind of vehicle
can use a public entrance. Hence, whether or not the access is allowed as a
Type "A", "B", or "C" the type of vehicular traffic is not limited to any
particular type of vehicle.
For your information, the current Access Policy dated November 2003
shows examples of types of usage for a Type "B" entrance which include
service stations, small businesses, drive in banks, or light industrial plants.
So I would consider the access in question to be correctly identitied and
permitted as a Type "B".
Note that we issue the permits types predominantly based on currem or
proposed usage that best fit the applicants needs.
Page 2
o
The last issue concerns the issue of"why" a slow lane or climbing lane was
not constructed on the project. Simply stated, it was not included as part
of the project because it was not warranted. While everyone had a
differem view on what is and what is not "needed" the Department
reviewed the project and based on need, cost issues, policy guidelines, and
design criteria decided it was not justified. Note that this is especially tree
where traffic should be slowing to approach a possible stop situation at a
signalized intersection.
I hope this answers your questions, but if you need further assistance please feel free to
contact me.
BGC/sjb
(/ ~g (~erations Tech
cc: DSE file
PHONE: 563-589-4441
FAX: 563-589-7884
EMAIL: brdofsup@dbqco.org
January 2, 2004
Mayor Terry Duggan
Dubuque City Council
City Hall
50 W. 13th St.
Dubuque, Iowa 52001
Dear Mayor Duggan
~.~u~u~ue Count~
COURTHOUSE
DUBUQUE, IOWA 52001-7053
DONNA L. SMITH
JIM WALLER
ERIC MANTERNACH
We are contacting
Company which comes before you on
regularly scheduled meeting.
We have been a
zoning who strongly feel thal
borders county residential
Their concerns
issues
as an Action Item at your
in opposition to the planned re-
for this z which
Eric
To: Dubuque County Board of Supervisors
From: Richard Kaufman
Re: Jan 2, 2004 Supervisors Meeting. Action Request.
On behaff of myself and 791 others who signed petitions in opposition to a
proposed City of Dubuque rezonmg of property at US 52 So. and US 61/151
for the Apex Concrete batch plant t request the following:
1] Placement on the agenda to present an action request.
2] Time for one or more of us to make a presentation to supervisors asking them
to resist the efforts to rezone.
This parcel is bordered almost exclusively by property under Dubuque County
jurisdiction and zoning. We feel that this use s a incongrous misfit at this transition
area between Dubuque and Dubuque County.
Richard Kaufman' ~ -- '~ /
6547 Massey Stn Rd
Dubuque IA 52003
556-1623
5901360 Ici
December 27, 2003
To the Dubuque County Board of Supervisors:
I am writing this letter to request a spot on the agenda for your Jan. 2,
2004 meeting. I wish to present to the board information in opposition to the
zoning change presented to the Dubuque City Council on Dec. 15, 2003. This
zoning change, (concerning property owned by South Gate Development,
described as South of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center
No. 2 ) would change the zoning on this property to MHI, to allow Apex
Concrete to build a concrete batch plant at this location. Despite 792
signatures in opposition to this zoning change, it appears the city council
intends to vote in favor of this change and disregard the vast public
opposition.
This area is predominantly residential, and we believe the dust, noise,
traffic, and danger to children, will be detrimental to the many residents who
live in this area. Property values in this area will suffer, as well as further
development which includes city as well as county jurisdiction. I ask that the
Dubuque County Board of Supervisors review this information, with the hope
that you will take a stand in opposition to this drastic zoning change.
Thank You for your time and consideration.
Sincerely
Tim Stierman
9270 Bellevue Hgts. Rd.
Dubuque, IA 52003
December 27, 2003
Dubuque County Board of Supervisor~s
Dubuque County Courthouse
720 Central Avenue
Dubuque, Iowa 52001
Re proposed Apex Cement plant at Hwy 52-61-151 Intersection.
Dear Messrs. Manternach and Waller and Ms. Smith:
I respectfully request that you indicate to the Dubuque City Council the concern and
antipathy felt by Dubuque County residents at the prospect of a huge 6-story-tall
cement plant being constructed at the site proposed. - -.
Our family owns five separate parcels of property (two inside Dubuque and three
outside), all of which would be adversely affected by the proposal in question. The
huge structure, which will dominate the skyline and view from miles around, and
from three highv~ays entering Drtbuque, is opposed by virtually everyone living in
.Southwest Duts~cfue, an'a'southwest of Dubuque in the county.
I do believe there's a bit of elitism involved in a city saying that, although we-
wouldn't subject our citizens and small businesses to the cement batch plant's.
operations, it's perfectly all right to subject county residents to the very same
conditions. What if instead of being surrounded by hundreds of mobile homes and
homes of somewhat modest value the plant were surrounded by, say, just a dozen of
the homes located only a mile northwest in. Mama Ridge? Yet some 800 persons
signed petitions (and many more didn't have the oppommity re do so) objecting to
the batch plant's Iocation, all without apparent effect.
If ours is a representative government--and of course it is it seems re me that this
is an issue on which it would be appropriate for our Board of Supervisors to express
themselves.
Please give this matter your thoughtful consideration and listen re the voices of the
people. Thank you.
De~emb~r 31, 2003
45 Jones Street
Dubuque, IA 52004-0209
(563) 582-1208
Honorable Mayor Terry Dnggan and City Council Members
Citff of Dubuque
13~and Central Avenue
Dubuque, Iowa 520014864
Re: Dubuque Southgate and Apex Concrete Re-zoning Request
Dear Mayor and City Council Members;
The purpose of this totter is to help qualify our position on a new access road and turning
lane being built on the proposed Southgate property that Apex would be occupying.
Apex Concrete strongly supports Mr. Mueller's efforts for a new access road and turning
lane. Upon the Dubuque City Council's zoning approval we will be supporting Dubuque
Southgate Investment Limited's efforts by supplying product for the project.
Construction and paving of the turn lane and access road is part of the purchase
agreement between Apex Concrete and Dubuque Southgate Investment Limited.
Respectfully Yours,
Dennis J. Thief
President, Apex Concrete
Dubuque Southgate Investments Ltd.
590 Samuel Street
Dubuque, Iowa 52003
December 30, 2003
Honorable Mayor Terry Duggan and City Council Members
Ci~ of Dubuque
13~and Central Avenue
Dubuque, Iowa 52001-4864
Re: Dubuque Southgate and Apex Concrete Re-zoning Request
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
Please find attached a letter of request for information from the IDOT regarding certain issues
with respect to our planned improvements to the access to Hwy 52 for Apex Concrete. I am
hopeful that Bruce Chrystal will be able to respond to my request for clarification oflDOT
position prior to the scheduled January 5t~ meeting. However to provide some written response
regarding the traffic concerns at this point I would like to provide the following comments:
The proposed site is a 10 acres parcel upon which more than one business could be
located with the current C-3 district zoning. Such businesses would have access to Hwy
52 at the approved access point planned for Apex. This access allows truck access now,
therefore such businesses would have the ability to have tracks entering or leaving by this
access. We feel Apex would create a lower frequency of access than would many of the
allowable C-3 businesses especially given more than one business could exist here.
There exist on Hwy 52 several current businesses that have more hmck traffic than would
be generated by Apex. Those access points are located at points along the highway where
traffic speed is at speed limits. These vehicles are neither just departing from an
intersection nor approaching a major intersectiom At none of those business access points
are there either acceleration lanes or turn lanes explicitly provided. In addition those
access points are located in no passing zones and near curves in the roadway.
During the upgrading of Hwy 52, widening and construction of slow 3~a lanes, the speed
limit was increased from 50 to 55 mph. On highway 61/151 as it approaches the
intersection with Hwy 52 the speed limit is set at 45 mph. As many feel this intersection
is a concern for safety I would propose that the speed on Hwy 52 also be reduced to 45
mph prior to the Hwy 61/151 intersectiom This is within the control of the IDOT and I
can only suggest such a change. I expect that with the support of the City a 45 mph limit
could be established.
It is not clear why during the upgrading and improvement to Hwy 52 the IDOT did ncq
rd 1
construct the 3 lane for the near ½ mile distance preceding this intersection, but I expcc~
this relates to the IDOT not wishing to allow faster vehicles to approach the intersection
without limitations. Slower vehicles prior to an intersection promote safety rather than
produce a safety concerto I have requested that the IDOT give us some understanding as
to why the 3~a lane was not built when our property was clearly established as a
commercial development and the Type "B" access had already been granted to us.
It's a given that anywhere traffic enters a roadway there is increased potential for accidents,
but we allow access throughout the State to two lane roadways without mandated turn lanes
and pass lanes. Some examples on Hwy 52 are Bellevue Heights Rd., Settlers Lane to River
City Quarry, Dubuque Hardwoods access, Olde Massey Station Rd. to the Mines of Spain,
Lombardi's, Massey Station Rd., plus numerous farm and field driveways. In addition
farmers are allowed to drive upon these 2 lane roadways with farm equipment with limited
lighting and operator visibility and widths over 14 ft. at farm equipped travel speeds. School
buses drop offand pick up our children. Vehicles approaching school buses and farm
equipment are required by State law m slow to allow them to travel the roadway and enter
and leave at approved access points. Many older pieces of farm equipment do not even have
the benefit of turn signals. Should these vehicles be shuck by highway vehicles the laws
provide protection for damages and iniury caused by such accidents.
Hwy 52 is not a limited access, high-speed roadway, but a farm to market roadway that
permits vehicle access at numerous points as approved by the IDOT. This access provides no
greater safety hazard than do the many other access points along Hwy 52. It has good
visibility from both directions. Traffic approaching this point is either just leaving or
approaching a major intersection and should be more alert and moving slower than at other
points along the open roadway.
This is not to say that we all could not get to where we are going faster should other vehicles
not get in our way as we travel to our destination. The highways are designed for vehicle
travel to include tracks. Dubuque Sout~te Investments and Apex Concrete are fully
prepared to extend the northbound turn lane as proposed. However, we are required to have
engineering plans submitted for construction approval to be granted by the IDOT. We have
employed IIW Engineers to do that but they have not completed that task to date. It was not
anticipated that this would be required prior to re-zoning approval.
We greatly respect the concerns of the Council and the people who travel this roadway daily
for all our safety and we wish to do what we can to provide a safe driving experience for all
that pass our property.
R~pectfully yours,
Daniel J. M~eller; V. President
Dubuque Southgate Investments, Ltd.
CC:
Kyte L. Kritz, Associate Planner, Planning Services
Jeanne Schneider, City Clerk
Dennis Thier, APEX Concrete
Dubuque Southgate Investments Ltd.
590 Samuel Street
Dubuque, Iowa 52003
December 30, 2003
Bruce Chrystal
IDOT Engineering Operations
14067 State Rd. 136
Dyersville, IA 52040
RE: Dubuque Southgate Investments Access to Hwy. 52S
Dear Brace:
As you are aware we have been in the process of seeking a re-zoning of a portion of our
property for Apex Concrete to operate a concrete batch plant. We have recently been
issued permit # 21-2003-13 permitting the construction of a paved entry to Hwy 52 from
our property by the IDOT. I would greatly appreciate clarification of some issues that
remain with the Dubuque City Council regarding the IDOT's position regarding our plans
at this access point.
First, to minimize the impact to traffic flow at this point it is Dubuque Southgate
Investments' plan to request approval by the IDOT to extend the current 720 ft. long
northbound mm lane some 150ft. eastward on Hwy 52 to allow traffic entering Hwy 52N
to move into this lane thereby allowing immediate passage by other northbound traffic as
the slower accessing vehicles approach thc intersection of Hwy 61/151 & 52. We have
employed the services oflIW Engineers and Surveyors to design this extension with
consideration oflDOT standards and plan to submit the proposed plans to you within the
month of January 2004, for approval to construct this extensior~ I understand it is
premature to request acknowledgement oflDOT approval of such an extension, but I
would like to have explained for the Council any reasons the IDOT might deny such an
extension given construction would comply with IDOT standards.
Second, it has been stated by the opposition to our re-zoning request that our Type "B"
access doesn't permit track usage. Can you please clarify any restrictions that exist with
regard to the type oftraffc permitted to use this access? In addition, assuming that tracks
are permitted can you also indicate if the IDOT has any specific concerns regarding
trucks entering or leaving Hwy 52 at this point, to or from our property? Does the IDOT
consider there to be a need for any special signage, lighting, warnings or speed
restrictions that should be provided in addition to our proposed turn lane extension?
(Note the projected peak truck traffic resulting from the operation of the Apex Concrete
batch plant to be 15 truck passages per hour. We understand that the Type "B" access
permit is for access roadways having up to 150 vehicles / hour. The concern being that
this access will primarily be used by trucks, concrete tracks, dump trucks, and some semi
aggregate and cement defivery trucks).
Third, can you provide some understanding as to why the IDOT, with the recem
upgrading / improvements to Hwy 52 between Bellevue and Hwy 61/15t intersection,
did not construct a 3rd "slow" lane over the near ½ mile Northbound upgrade to this
intersection when slow lanes were constructed on all other upgrades on Hwy 52?
I respecffuUy understand that tlxis request for feedback comes to you with limited time to
respond, but it would be greatly appreciated if we could receive a written response before
the next scheduled Dubuque City Council meeting on 5 January 2004. I would be glad to
be the courier of your letter should you be able to provide it by this date.
Sincerely yours,,
Daniel J. Iv~ueller, V. President
Dubuque Southgate Investments, Ltd.
CC:
Kyle L. Kritz, Associate Planner, Planning Services
Jeanne Schneider, City Clerk
Dennis Thier, APEX Concrete
I
December 30, 2003
Honorable Mayor Terry Duggan and City Council Members
City of Dubuque
13th and Central Avenue
Dubuque, IA 52001
Dubuque Southgat~ D~velopment Engineering for Northbound Tm Lane
Extension
IIW Project No. 03225-00
Dear Mayor and City Council Member:
At the request of Dan Mueller we are Writing this letter to confirm that we are
providing engineering services for submittal of a formal application to the Iowa
Department of Transportation to construct an extension to the turn lane on U.S.
Highway 52 to serve the proposed Apex Concrete batch plant.
This permit is intended to improve track entry to Highway 52 from the planned
concrete plant site by allowing tracks to immediately enter the turn lane that at
present does not fully extend to the site entrance intersection.
We are presently conducting field survey work to gather the information needed to
prepare the plan. Once completed, the plan will be submitted to Brace Chrystal for
IDOT review and approval through the ZDOT permitting process.
We will also provide copies to the City of Dubuque engineering department for their
review.
We will conclude this application as soon as possible. However, we do not know if
the II)OT will be able to issue a permit by the 19th of January. Quite often they need
enough time to visit the site and make a field inspection once they have the
application in hand.
Sincerely,
IIV~' ~ENG~/~IEEI~ AND SURVEYORS, P.C.
· , P.E.
CC:
Dan Mueller, Dubuque Southgate Development
[Iw Engineers & Surveyors. P.C
Dubuque, tA Hazel Green. WI
INTEGRtD'. EXPERTISE. SOLUTIO[~S.
Civil Er. gincefing
Sh'ucturaI Engmeerm~
5nx ironmenral Engmeerin$
M unici_~al Engmeenn~
Archzrectur~l Engineering
-and Sup:eying
Quahry Control T.esring
lnformauon Technolog)
~'age ~ oi ~
Jeanne Schneider
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"alice cameron" <alice@celebrationbetle. com>
<rbuoll@mchsi.com>; <aemlO@mchsi.com>; <danielenicholson@mchsi.com>;
<jmarkham@comerenergy.com>; <jconnors63@mchsi.com>; <patriciacline@mchsi.com>;
<jschneid@cityofd ubuque.org>; <ctymgr@cityofdu buq ue.org>
Wednesday, December 31 2003 12:24 PM
PROPOSED BATCH PLANT ON HWY 61
Dear Sir & Madam:
I am requesting that you please vote against the proposed Batch Plant that is on your agenda this coming
Monday night
I own and operate the Taco John Restaurant locate at 2258 Flint Hill Drive. I also own the building located next to
Taco John's. 2254 Flint Hill Drive with Keywest Chiropractic and Abeyance Salon as my prime tenants. I feel this
will not enhance our area.
I would like you to reconsider your outlook and deny this request to locate this batch plant in this area. I would not
have invested this amount of money in this area knowing that it would be and industrial area.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Joseph L. Schadler
Owner and President
1/5/2004
Jeanne Schneider
From:
To:
Sent:
SUbject:
"Richard Kaufman" <rkfmn@earthlink. net>
<rbuoll@mchsi.com>; <aeml0@mchsi,com>; <danielenicholson@mchsi.com>;
<jmarkham@comerenergy.com>; <jconnors63@mchsi.com>; <patriciacline@mchsi.com>;
<jschneid@cityofdubuque.org>; <ctymgr@cityofdu buque.org>
Friday, January 02. 2004 1:06 AM
APEX Rezoning- Petition Count
Dubuque Mayor and City Council Members
I know there was some concern expressed at the Dec 15 Council meeting
that petition numbers were skewed by signatures from outside of the DBQ
area. We have carefully edited our copies of all petitions- leaving only
signatures of adult residents of Dubuque city or county.
Revised totals are as follows:
Opposed to rezoning 792
Favor rezoning 82
We believe that if you edited the originals on file you will find the
same result.
Respectfully Submitted
Richard Kaufman
6547 Massey Sm Rd
Dubuque IA 52003
1/5/2004
~age ~ m z
Jeanne Schneider
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"Jack McCullough" <jack@shootforthemoon.com>
"Terry Duggan" <jschneid@cityofdubuque.org>
Friday, January 02, 2004 1:54 PM
Rezoning for new APEX site
Dear Terry,
We understand to continue developing the Ice Harbor area it is vital
to move the APEX concrete plant, but it is equally vital that you are
not creating a worse problem. Moving the plant to the proposed south
side location is contrary to the betterment of our community. We
would like to point to the CITIZEN'S GUIDE TO DUBUQUE'S COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN which explicitly states several reasons why you should oppose
this rezoning. Starting with the opening letter which states: "LAND
USE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS ARE BASED ON A NUMBER OF FACTORS: PUBLIC
INPUT, EXISTING ZONING, EXISTING LAND USES, DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND
THE 1995 FUTURE LAND USE MAP."
We have additional concerns which are also stated in the plan:
1) "PUBLIC SAFETY GOALS MUST ADDRESS ACCEPTABLE AND APPROPRIATE
LEVELS OF RISK AND RESPONSE." We travel the intersection of Hwy.
151/61 and Hwy. 52 several times a day. This intersection is just
plain dangerous! Recently there was a fatality at this intersection
and the "near misses" are plenty. Traffic is often backed-up f~om all
directions and adding to this mix slow moving concrete tracks
entering and exiting onto this already busy intersection is
irresponsible. Unless there is an overpass with on and off ramps
planned for this intersection, you're asking for compounded trouble.
The Comprehensive plan goes on to state:
2) "WHILE NEW DEVELOPMENT IS ENCOURAGED, SHORT TERM BENEFITS MUST BE
WEIGHED AGAINST LONG TERM IMPACTS TO THE COMMUNITY'S QUALITY OF LIFE.
LAND USE AND URBAN DESIGN DECISIONS WILL ALWAYS AFFECT THE FUTURE IN
SIGNIFICANT, AND SOMETIMES IRREVERSIBLE, WAYS. IT IS INCUMBENT THAT A
LAND USE PLAN BALANCE THE NEED FOR GROWTH WITH THE PROTECTION OF
EXISTING COMMUNITY ASSETS." Locating a concrete plant next to the
existing businesses currently in that location (and residential
owners) is UNFAIR! Industrial zoning (especially an unsightly
concrete plant) is not in line with the investment these owners have
already made in their property. The rezoning will devalue their
property and prohibit the expansion of alike commercial development
that was originally slated for that area,
Continulng...the plan states:
3) "ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY GOALS MUST ADDRESS THE BALANCE BETWEEN
RESPONSIBLE STEWARDSHIP AND PROTECTION OF OUR ENVIRONMENT AND THE
IMPACTS OF URBAN LIVING." It doesn't make sense to put a concrete
plant on America's Great River Road! This defeats the purpose of all
of the great things that Dubuque has been working toward by cleaning
1/5/2004
up unsightly oil tanks, abandoned buildings and the like.
Transferring this plant to another visible location doesn't say much
for the aesthetics of our community.
The bottom line is that a more suitable location needs to found for
the plant, a location that is currently zoned for it's use. Kerper
Industrial Park or Tamarack Industrial Park are two possibilities.
SAFETY, FAIRNESS TO EXISTING PROPERTY OWNERS, and RESPONSIBLE
STEWARDSHIP are three reasons why we are urging you to vote
responsibly against the rezoning for the APEX planL
Sincerely,
Jack McCullough and the 23 employees at McCullough Creative Group
Jack McCullough
McCullough Creative Group, Inc.
2099 Southpark Court
Dubuque, Iowa 52003-7985
Phone: 563/556-2392
Fax: 563/556-2393
1/5/2004
l'age I oI i
Jeanne Schneider
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"Susan Gwiasda" <sgwiasda@cityofdubuque.org>
"JEANNE SCHNEIDER" <jschneid@cityofdubuque.org>
Monday, January 05, 2004 11:47 AM
Fw: (no subject)
..... Original Message .....
From: <PostOfficeMom ~aol.com>
To: <s~wiasda(~ciWofdubuque.org>
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 11:26 AM
Subject: (no subject)
>
> I am opposed to the proposed plant in our aremMy main concern is traffic
> which at times is crazy now. But I am also concerned about the quality of
life
> of the people in the immediate area. Please Please Please do not
rezone.
>
> Pat Wiegel
> 7917 Olde Massey Rd
> Dubuque, Ia 52003
1/5/2004
Page 1 of I
Jeanne Schneider
From;
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"Jennifer Klein" <keywestchim@earthlink. net>
<rbuoll@mchsi.com>; <aeml0@mchsi.com>; <danielenicholson@mchsi,com>;
<jmarkham@comerenergy.com>; <jconnors63@mchsLcom>; <patriciacline@mchsi.com>;
<jschneid@ci~ofdubuque.org>; <c[¥mgr@cityofd ubuq ue.org>
Monday, January 05, 2004 12:56 PM
Apex Rezoning
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I wish to let you know of my strong opposition to the rezonlng of the land in Key West to allow Apex
Concrete to move to that area. My patients as well as myself, travel through the Hwy 151/61 & 52
intersection on a daily basis. The intersection cannot handle anymore traffic in the north and south
direction on Hwy 52 without adding turning lanes into east/west directions. It is very difficult and
dangerous to be attempting to mm on to Hwy 151/61 with only a yield stop light available. The added
traffic and size of the lx~ffic wonld congest the intersection even further. Also, for business' such as
mine, the idea of a concrete plant across the street from several professional btnldings deters form their
aesthetics. Especially, when a few miles down the highway, there are several building sites specifically
designed for these types of business'. I am referring to the industrial park on Hwy 151 as well as the
Tamarack area and location of Miller Logging. Please take my concerns very seriously before you vote
this evening on the rezoning process. Thank you.
-- Dr. Jennifer Klein
Key West Chiropractic Health Center
2254 Flint Hill Dr. #2 Dubuque, IA 52003
--keywestc~o~earthlink.net
--- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Interact.
1/5/2004
l'age I oI I
Jeanne Schneider
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"McCarthy, Joellen" <jmccarthy@bvmcong.org>
<rbuoll @mchsi.com>; "Michalsld, Ann" <aeml0@mchsi.com>; <danielenicholson@mchsi.com>;
<jmarkham@comerenergy.com>; <jconnors63@mchsLcom>; <patdciacline@mchsi.com>;
<jschneid@cityofdubuque.org>; <ctymgr@cityofdubuque.org>
Monday, Janua~' 05, 2004 2:43 PM
Apex Concrete Plant
Dear City Council Members,
As you prepare to vote this evening on rezoning for tbe Apex concrete plant, I urge you to consider the
aesthetics of the site, and not approve this request. Please stay tree to your own comprehensive plan, and
ask Apex to search otrt other locations.
This southern gateway to the city needs to take advantage of the natural beauty of the area and the
residential and small business character of the current development; it is most inappropriate for this kind
of industrial use.
Other cities, such as Des Moines, are spending large sums of money to enhance their Gateway areas -
such as the route from the Des Moines airport to downtow]~ Here, we have breathtaking views coming
into the city on Highway 61/151. Let's maximize this beauty rather than having a concrete plant
dominate the skyline.
The added heavy track traffic is another important consideration, as is the faith that property owners
place in a city's zoning plan when they choose where to build their homes.
This is surely not the only place where Apex can re-locate. A more industrial location will surely be a
win-~Sn situation for everyone.
Sincerely,
Joellen McCarthy, BVM
Sisters of Charity, BVM
1/5/2004
03 DEC I 0 "''~ .
Dubuque, iA
To: Dubuque City Council
Re: Rezoning for Concrete Batch Plant US 52J 151,61
I wish to detail two areas of considerable importance to me and my family that apply to
alt who drive US 52.
The first is the issue of traffic flow and safety. Loaded concrete trucks are going to enter a
2 lane, 55 mph highway on an uphill grade from a driveway located 800 feet from the
intersec~n of two US highways and a frontage road. Truck drivers say that a loaded
concrete truck wilt not reach 5 mph on this grade. The projected rate is 15 trucks per hour.
Vehicles accellerating south on US 52 from the busy intersection will have to
immediately stop for a slow truck turning into the plant entrance.
A left turn onto US 52 from US 61/t51 is dangerous now when the ~m lane fills up and
vehicles are backed up, blocking the straight lane. This was the site of a recent fatal
motorcycle accident. Concrete trucks and semis carrying aggregate will exacerbate
the congestion.
I would encourage each member of the Council to look at the proposed site with
traffic issues in mind.
The second issue that I want to address is aesthetics at a gateway to our city.
This entry to Dubuque is still a rather 'clean slate' in terms of beauty and present use.
The proposed 60 foot tall plant will stick out like a giraffe among horses. Essentially
there are no structures this tall beyond downtown, or college and relig.'~us campus
areas in our city. Further, the placement of this operation seems to be incongruous '
with US 52's status as ~e 'Great River Road' (1976) ar~l recent designation
_as a National Scenic Byway (June 2000).
Please consider these issues along with those of the petitioners who have wide and
varied opposition to this zoning change.
Richard Kaufman
6547 Massey Sm. Rd.
Dubuque, IA 52003
(563) 5561623
'ii
Iowa Department of Transportation
PHONE: 563-875-2375
FAX: 563-875-2388
Dyersville Area Engineering Office
14117 Route 136 N. (P.O. Box 325)
Dyersville, Iowa 52040
December 5, 2003
Re£ No.: 471
Dubuque County
Permit #31-2003-13
Mr. Daniel J. Mueller
Dubuque Southgate LTD.
590 Samuel Street
Dubuque, Iowa 5203-7832
Dear Mr. Mueller:
Attached find your approved copy of Entrance Permit #31-2003-13 to
construct a single Type "B" entrance along US 52 within the City of Dubuque.
Please notify this office when you have completed construction of the
entrance. A field inspection will then be made to check for compliance
with the permit stipulations. If any non-complying aspects are found,
they will need to be brought into compliance.
Please note under stipulation D.1 on the reverse side of the application
the permits expiration dates.
BGC:sjb
ATTACHMENTS
cc: DSE file
Dave Shallaban. HMS-Dubuque/Dyersville - w/attachments
Dave Widick, Traffic and Safety-Ames w/attachments
Jim Schnoebelen, Asst. Dist. Eng.-District 6-C/R w/attachments
Mike Koch. City Engineer/City of Dubuque w/attachments 'r;t ~
Bruce Chrystal, Engineering Operations Tech. P.O. Box 325 Dyersville, IA. 52040-0325 563/875-2375
Authorized Highway Division Reeresentative Address Telephone Number
ENTER PREPARER'S NAME ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER ON BLANK LINES ABOVE, LEAVE REMAINING TOP PORTION BLANK FOR COUNTY RECORDER'S USE
Forr~ 640004 I~'~' Permk No. 31-2003-13
~o ~ Iowa Department Of Transportation
HIGHWAY DIVISION Highway US 52
ENTRANCE PERMIT
(Application for Permit to Construct Entrance from Pfivata Property
to Pdmary Road or Pdmary Road Extension)
County Dubuaue
Project STPN-52-2(68)--2j-31
Expiration/Completion Date Nov. 1 2004
APPLICANT:
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE AND AGREEMENT
Dubuque Southgate LTD
563/589-5595
Address 590 Samuel Street
(Owner er Owners of Record)
(Telephone NO.)
Dubuque, Iowa 52003 November 19 20 03
(TownlCity) (Zip Code) (Date)
A permit is hereby requested to [] construct, [] wider., [] or modify a ( [] Joint or [] Single) (iq Type A, [~ Type B, or [] Type C
entrance being 45' B/B feet in width, item dght of way line to primary road traveled way, including necessary drainage structure
thereunder at (MPC 043.781 ) or station 1041 95 U/South
+ side. The
entrance shall be censtmcted with 40 ff. radius returns or 2:1 tapers as noted in the attached exhibits.
NOTICE: Constr~ction of the entrance shall be completed within one year from date of Departroent approval. (If not constructed
by this date or if an extension is not granted in writing by the Deparlment, this permit is null and void.)
EXHIBIT OF ENTRANCE AS PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED IS ATTACHED TO AND [SA PART OF THIS APPLICATION IForm 640002)
z 01 88N
O Proposed entrance s located on Primary Road No. US 52 in Sec. . T. R. 2E
~:u~~' I-: i~ Dubuque County, within Miles the (direction) from City of Dubuque (city,
_o LU county line or other land line) and more specifically described as follows:
~ {~ Proposed Type "B" entrance at Station 1041+95 o~ the U/south side.
m
z~.
0 = We. the undersigned, are me owner, or owners, of record, or the legal and duly authorized representative of the owner, of the property
~ abutting the Primary Road between Station 1031+81 iMP# 043.589 ) and Station 1047+30
u) ~ iMP# . 043.882 _ _ ) on the __ Lt/Soufi' _ __ side and agree that we shaft save the State and the Iowa
-----~ De~artment~fTransp~rtatf~nharm~ess~fanydamage~ricesesthatmaybesustainedbyanypers~n~r~ers~ns co account ofthe
~ cenditions and requirements ofthisagreementoriftheentranceis not censtructedwithin oneyear from dab;of D;'pa[tment approvalas
(9 E- noted below, shall render this agreement and request null and void. The app cant, by signing this application, acknowledges he or she has
_z, ,,z, resd the requirements ofthe Department as stated on page 2 of this application, understands and agrees with all of the stipulations and will
,..;- ~ abide, by each in thecocetrucUon and maintenance of the access ocation requested
Dubuque,,owa
B='~ ~2 Dubuque Southgate Ltd. c~/~/) .~
u~ m NOTARY PUBLIC
uJ ~ NOTE: Applicant shall be~pon~blq, for obtaining ~Acknowledgement;Notari~atioB,,:~
state of :/)l . . Couafy of / f
~:, On th,s y of ,before me
otary Public in and for said
/'~ to b~
execute the foregoing instrument, ane acknowledge Iha~ // e~
NOTE:
[~eecemmend Approval [] Recommend Denia~
~ ~: and
~e perso~ name/d/and who
cursq me sam~ as a ',¢fluntaD~t and deed
·
~ry Public, in and for said State
~entative when the request is located
~d the county has a zoning authority and for
[] Recommend Approval []'Recommend Denial
2O
Department of Transportation Action:
~;~APPLICATION APPROVED [] APPLICATION DEN ED
On behalf of the Department of Tran{Dodation, Highway Divis on, the above action has been taken on this application this
~ / ~ Engineering Operations Tech
~e~H~hw~i;n ~r~en~e) ~itle)
Bm~ Choral Engineering Operations Tech, ~ype or Pri~ Name)
Notice of the cons~cfion sta~ date is tobe given by ~e applicant 48 houm in advance of actual constructio~ to the following:
Brace Ch~stal, Engineering Operations Tech. P.O. Box 325 Dyersville IA. 52040-0325 563/S75-2375
Name Addles.~
Te/eohone Number
mayT° berecordrecordedthe approvedbY State fOrapplicatio~,applicationsif desired.°n all Primary Highways except the Priority VI System. On the Priority VI System the applicant
31-2003-13
SECOND ADDITION
NORTH
GRAPHIC SCALE
100 200
'" = 100'
MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED
SOUT}IGATE CENTER, HWY 52 S,
~ IIW ENGINEERS i
I ~1,~su~wYot(s, P.e.
31-2003-13
//--APPROX. STA.. 10~7+50
/
/
LOT /(
..,T.__j
/
i
SOUTHGATE'--,DENTER
SECOND ADDITION
B A'~A,I~CE OF
2 "I3F 3
CENTER
NORTH
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 100 200
1" = 100'
DRAWING MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED
App ROX,~"~
~ STA, 1031+81
SOUT~IGATE CENTER, trWY 52 S.
APPROX. ROAD STA. AT PROPERTY CORNERS
.rll~P"~ I1W' ENGINEERS & -- SURVEYORS, P.C.
We, the undersigned, are residence, and workers in close proximity to property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot I of Key Gate Center No. 2.
We are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of this land from C-3 General
Commercial to MI-II Modified Heavy Industrial. We believe that allowing this non conforming
zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as creating
very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested are~ This area is predominantly
residential, and heavy industrial use of this land would not aesthetically fit into our surroundings.
We, the undersigned, ask that yon reject this zoning change, as it would be detrimental to the safety,
enjoyment, and value of our properties.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
t3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Address
We, the undersigned, are residence, and workers in close proximity to property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Crate Center No. 2.
We are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of this land from C-3 General
Commercial to MI-II Modified Heavy Industrial. We believe that allowing this non conforming
zoning change at this location would create ~macceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as creating
very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area- This area is predominantly
residential, and heavy industrial use of this land would not aesthelieally fit into our surroundings.
We, the undersigned, ask that you reject flxis zoning change, as it would be detrimental to the s~fety,
enjoyment, and value of our properties.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3~
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Signature
Address
4~
42
43
44
We. the undersibmed, are resqdence, and workem in close proximity to property owned by
South~m~te Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hv~3r. 52, Lot 1 of ~y Gate Center No. 2.
We are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of this land from C-3 General
Commercial to tvFHI Mod/fled Heavy Industrial We believe that allowing this non conforming
zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as creating
ve~' dar:-~rous t~c pro.:~ems in au already cong~t~d are~ Thi~ ~ is predom, fi~mntly
r~idmfial, mud hcavy indushdal use of Us land wo~aid not aes'~e'ti~y fit halo our surroun~ng~
We, the undersigned, ask that you reject fl~is zoning change, as it would be detd'mental to the safe~,
enjoyment, and value of our prop~rties.
Signature Address
~ 33
/£
£f
We, the undersigned, are residence, and workers in close proximity to property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
We are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of tiffs land from C-3 General
Commercial to MI-II Moaified Heavy Indusltiai. We believe that allowing thig non conforming
zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as creating
very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area_ This area is predominantly
residential, and heavy industrial use of this land would not aesthetically fit into our surroundings.
We, the undersigned, ask that you reject this zoning change, as it would be detrimental to the safety,
enjoyment, and value of our properties.
Signature Address
We, the undersigued, are residence, and workers in dose proximity to property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hx~. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
We are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of this land from C-3 General
Commercial to MHI Modified Heavy Industrial. We believe that allowing this non conforming
zoning change at this location would ,cr~te ,unacceptable levels o~,f .dust, noise, ~ 57_~ ~.r~ating
very dan geroas traffic Problems in an mreacty congesteo area- ~ms area ts Preoonm~attuy
residential, and heavy industrial u~ of this land would not aesthetically fit into our surroundings.
We, the undersigned, ask that you reject this z(ming change, as it would be detrimental to the safety.,
enjoyment, and value of our properties.
Si mn-e
Ad~s
d
.3
We, the undersigned, are residence, and workers in dose proximity to property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
We are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of this land from C-3 General
Commercial to MHI Modified Heavy Industrial We believe that allowing this non conforming
zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as creating
very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area~ This area is predominantly
residential, and heavy industrial use of this land would not aesthetically fit into our surroundings.
We, the undersigned, ask that you reject this zoning change, as it would be detrimental to the safety,
enjoyment, and value of our properties.
/ /'z
IIg
Ad~s
We, the undersigned, are residence, and workers in close proximity to property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
We are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of this land from C-3 General
Commercial to MHI Modified Heavy Induslrial. We believe that allowing this non conforming
zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as creating
ve~, dangerous traffic proUems in an al.rea.dy congested area..Thi.'s ~ea~is.predominantly ,-
residential, and heavy industrial use of this land would not aesthetically nt into our surrounrnngs.
we, the undersigned, ask that you reject this zoning change, as it would be detrimental to the safety,
enjoyment, and value of our properties.
Si gnature Address
~ndersigned, are residence, and workers in close proximity to property owned by
Y Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
We are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of this land from C-3 General
Commercial to MHI Modified Heavy Industrial. We believe that allowing this non conforming
zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as creating
very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested arem This area is predominantly
residential, and heavy industrial use of this land would not aesthetically fit into our surroundings.
We, the undersigned, ask that you reject thin zoning change, as it would be detrimental to the safety,
enjoyment, and value of our properties.
Signature Address
,J/ db $'-J-
V We, the undersigned, are residence, and workers in dose proximity to property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 611151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
We are greatly oppOsed to the proposed drastic rezoning of this land from C-3 General
Commemial to MHI Modified Heavy Industrial. We believe that allowing this non conforming
zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dUSt, noise, as well as creating
very dangerous traffic problems an already congested are~ area predominantly
in
This
residential, and heavy industrial Use of this land would not aesthetically fit into our surroundings.
We, the undersigned, ask that you reject thin zoning change, as it would be detrimental to the safety,
enjoyment, and value of our properties.
t,,, ¥0
Address
lql
~~i We, the undersigned, are residence, and workers in close proximity to property owned by
outhgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
We are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of this land from C-3 General
Comme~ial to MHI Modified Heavy Industrial. We believe that allowing thig non conforming
zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as creating
very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area_ This area is predominantly
residential, and heavy industrial use of this land would not aestbetically fit into our surroundings.
We, the undersigned, ask that you reject this zoning change, as it would be detrimental to the safety,
enjoyment, and value of our propeaies.
Signature Address
gned, are residence, and workers in dose proximity to property owned by
~' Southgate" - ' Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
We are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic re:zoning of this land from C-3 General
Commercial to MI:II Modified Heavy Industrial We believe that allowing thi.~ non conforming
zoning change at this location would crea~ unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as creating
very a~ngerous traffic problems in an already congests/are~ This area is predominantly
residential, and heavy industrial use of this land would not aesthetically fit into our surroundings.
We, the undersigned, ask that you reject this zonin~ cha~ge, a~ it would be de. trimelll:al to the safety,
enjoyment, and value of our prol:~rtiem
Signature Address
t~ / If
[[ [t [[ ! t
V~¢, the undersigned, are residence, and workers in close proximity to property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 611151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
We are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning ~f thi.~ land from C-3 General
Commercial to MI-H Modi~ed Heavy Indus~al. We believe that allowing this non conforming
zoning change at thig location would create ~macceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as creating
very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area_ This area is predominantly
residential, and heavy industrial use of this land would not aesthetically fit into our surroundings.
We, the undersigned, ask that you reje. ct this zoning change, as it would be detrimental to the safety,
enjoyment, and value of our propertie~
Signature
·
- ,
Ad~s
We, the undersigned, are residence, and workers in dose proximity to property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
We are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of this land from C-3 General
Commercial to MHI Modified Heavy Industrial. We believe that allowing this non conforming
zoning change at this toeafion would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as mating
very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area. This area is predominantly
residential, and heavy industrial use of this land would not aesthetically fit into our surroundings.
We, the undersigned, ask that you reject lids zoning change, as it would be detrimental to the safety,
enjoyment, and value of our properties.
Signature
Address
We, the undersigned, are residence, and workers in close proximity to property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
We are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of this land from C-3 General
Commercial to MHI Modified Heavy Industrial. We believe that allowing this non conforming
zoning change at this location would cream unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as creating
very. dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area. This area is predominantly
residential, and heavy industrial use of this land would not aesthetically fit into our surroundings.
We, the undersigned, ask that you reject this zoning change, as it would be detrimental to the safe%,,
enjoyment, and value of our properties.
Signature Address
,721
$-73
,,9-2'
. )f'
V We, the undersigned, are residence, and workers in dose proximity to property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
We are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of this land from C-3 General
Commemial to MHI Modified Heavy Industrial. We believe that allowing this non confomaing
zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as creating
very dangerous traffic probtems in an already congested area- This area is predominantly
residential, and heaw industrial use of this land would not aesthetically fit into our surroundings.
We, .the undersigned~ ask that you reject this zoning change, as it would be detrimental to the safety,
~-~-~njo~rment, and value of our properties.
Signature Address
We, the undersigned, are residence, and workers in dose proximity to property owned by
Southgate Developmunt, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot i of Key Gate Center No. 2.
We are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic mzoning of this land from C-3 General
Commercial to MI-II Modified Heavy Induslfial. We believe that allowing this non conforming
zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as creating
very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area. This area is predominantly
residential, and heavy industrial use of this land would not aesthetically fit into our surroundings.
We, the undersigned, ask that you reject this zoning change, as it would be detrimental to the safety,
enjoyment, and value of our properties.
~S~gnaVare
Address
We, the undersigned, are residence, and workers in close proximity to property owned by
Southgate Develoixnent, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
We are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of this land from C-3 G-eneml
Commercial to MHI Modified Heavy Industrial. We believe that altowing this non conforming
zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as creating
very dangerous traffic problems in an already crmgested area. This area is predominantly
residential, and heavy industrial use of this land would not aesthetically fit into our surroundings.
We, the undersigned, ask that you reject this zoning change, as it would be detrimental to the safety,
enjosanent, and value of our properties.
Signature Address
We, the undersigned, are residence, and workers in close proximity to property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
We are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of this land from C-3 General
Commercial to MHI Modified Heavy Induslrial. We believe that allowing this non conforming
zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as creating
very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area. This area is predominantly
residential, and heavy industrial use of this land would not aesthetically fit into our surroundings.
We, the undersigned, ask that you reject this zoning change, as it would be detrimental to the safety,
enjoyment, and vahie of our properties.
Address
We, the undersigned, are residence, and workers in dose proximity to property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
We are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of this land from C-3 General
Commereial to MHI Modified Heavy Industrial. We believe that allowing this non conforming
zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as creating
very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area. This area is predominantly
residential, and heavy industrial use of this land would not aesthetically fit into our surroundings.
We, the undersigned, ask that you reject this zoning change, as it would be detrimental to the safety,
enjoyment, and value of our properties.
Signature Address
December 6, 2003
Dubuque City, Council
City Hall
50 W. 13ttu Street
Dubuque, IA 52001
Dear Dubuque City Council Members:
Enclosed you will find a copy' of our previously written letter concerning the rezoning of land for
the purpose of building an Apex Concrete plant. You will also find a copy of our recent letter to the
editor voicing our disappointment in the way the Zoning Advisory Commission has handled this
issue.
On Feb. 5 the Z.A.C. voted 6-1 not to approve this zoning change. At the Dec. 3 meeting the
members suspiciously changed their votes 7-0 in favor of this spot zoning. The only things that
have changed between these two votes, is the candy coated spin that the property owners, Apex' s
president, and the Greater Dubuque Development Co~pomtion have applied.
The commissioners stated that buffer changes made by the owners and Apex, had satisfied their
criticism of that point. The fact is that the changes made were in name 0nly. Instead of zoning all 10
acres Modified Heavy Industrial, they changed the 10 acres to C-3, and now are trying to rezone the
center 5 acres to MHI. Apex is still going to use the entire 10 acres for all the same uses, there will
still be just as much noise, dust,traffic hazards, and most impoflantly just as much a danger to our
children, placing this plant right next to a residential neighborhood.
With the help of the GDDC sponsored power point presentation, all of the major problems the
Zoning Advisory Commission bad, with this drastic zoning change, at the Feb. 5 zoning vote,
magically became covered in chocolate and sprinkled with sugar. The Z.A.C. are now convinced
that you actually can screen a 60 ft. tall structure behind 3' to 4' tall plantings. (Read Dec. 3
Z.A.C. minutes) These same arborvitae will take 15 to 20 years to reach mature height of
approximately 20', this is still not tall enough to screen this structure. This screening is also only to
be placed on the side bordering the mobile home park, but that seems to be good enough for the
Z.A.C., too bad it is not good enough for the neighbors.
The Z.A.C. is also O.K. with the grossly under inflated vehicle numbers presented to the
commission, not to mention these vehicles will be crossing the hi *~hway fully loaded, and slowly
crawl toward the intersection.
The Commissioners also seem to believe in a completely dust and noise free concrete plant. This
is laughable as others in the industry (not involved with Apex) can tell you that even the most
modem concre/e plants will emit dust and noise. And even though the amount of dust and nmse
may be O.K. for an industrial area, this same amount would be unacceptable in a residential
neighborhood.
December 6, 2003
Dubuque City Council
City Hall
50 W. 13th. Street
Dubuque, IA 52001
Dear Dubuque City Council Members:
Enclosed you will find a copy of our previously written letter concerning the rezoning of land for
the purpose of building an Apex Concrete plant. You will also f'md a copy of our recent letter to the
editor voicing our disappointment in the way the Zoning Advisory Commission has handled this
issue.
On Feb. 5 the Z.A.C. voted 6-1 not to approve this zoning change. At the Dec. 3 meeting the
members suspiciously changed their votes 7-0 in favor of this spot zoning. The only things that
have changed between these two votes, is the candy coated spin that the property owners, Apex' s
president, and the Greater Dubuque Development Corporation have applied.
The commissioners stated that buffer changes made by the owners and Apex, had satisfied their
criticism of that point. The fact is that the changes made were in name only. Instead of zoning all 10
acres Modified Heavy Industrial, they changed the 10 acres to C-3, and now are trying to rezone the
center 5 acres to MHI. Apex is still going to use the entire 10 acres for all the same uses, there will
still be just as much noise, dust,traffic hazards, and most importantly just as much a danger to our
children, placing this plant right next to a residential neighborhood.
With the help of the GDDC sponsored power point presentation, all of the major problems the
Zoning Advisory Commission had, with this drastic zoning change, at the Feb. 5 zoning vote,
magically became covered in chocolate and sprinkled with sugar. The Z.A.C. are now convinced
that you actually can screen a 60 ft. tall structure behind 3' to 4' tall plantings. (Read Dec. 3
Z.A.C. minutes) These same arborvitae will take 15 to 20 years to reach mature height of
approximately 20', this is still not tall enough to screen this structure. This screening is also only to
be placed on the side bordering the mobile home park, but that seems to be good enough for the
Z.A.C., too bad it is not good enough for the neighbors.
The ~A.C. is also O.K. with the grossly under inflated vehicle numbers presented to the
commission, not to mention these vehicles will be crossing the highway fully loaded, and slowly
crawl toward the intersection.
The Commissioners also seem to believe in a completely dust and noise free concrete plant. This
is laughable as others in the industry (not involved with Apex) can tell you that even the most
modem concrete plants will emit dust and noise. And even though the amount of dust and noise
may be O.IC for an industrial area. this same amount would be unacceptable in a residential
neighborhood.
The most disturbing fact in this whole matter, is the callous way the Z.A.C. have reacted to the
safety of our children. This plant will have pits for its aggregate that will be 30' deep, other storage
area~ in the open, retention ponds, and many pieces of dangerous heavy equipment. Any logical
ttfinking person (especially if they have children) would not want these dangers in their
nel ghborhood. The Z.A.C. sees no problem with these dangers, m fact one commissioner went so
far as to say twice, at the same meeting, that ff a child were to get hurt on this property it would be
"Bad Parenting". We were appalled when we heard that statement come from Mr. Dick Schiltz.
Someone with that casual of an attitude toward children's safety should not be serving on any
commission under any circumstances.
After taking these facts into consideration, one has to wonder if these commissioners were that
easily duped into completely changing their votes, or if they were just interested in asserting the
Greater Dubuque Development Corporations agenda to get Apex out of the river front area. We
hope that this is not part of the city councils agenda as well. In a recent Telegraph Herald we were
urged to vote on the minor league bond issue on its own merits, we urge you to do the same and not
allow your decision on this zomng change to be attached to the river front beautification agend~
Before you vote look into your hearts and ask yourselves one question truthfully. Would you want
this concrete plant to be built next to your back yard.
Thank You for your time and consideration.
Sincerely
Tim & Amy Sfierman
February 11, 2003
Dubuque City Council
City Hall
50 W. 13th. Street
Dubuque, IA 52001
Dear City Council Members:
We are writing this letter to voice our strong opposition to the sale of land, owned by Dubuque
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 & Hwy. 52, lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2. We
are convinced that the sale of this property to Apex Concrete, and the rezonmg from PR Planned
Residential, to MHI Modified Heavy Industrial, would create many problems for the people who
live in this area, as well as people wbo regularly travel through this area~ Our property is located just
north from the proposed Apex sight. Prevailing winds in this particular area generally come from
the south. These winds would carry the large mounts of dust associated with a plant of this nature,
directly toward our neighborhood. Add to this the roaring sound of all the heavily loaded concrete
trucks and dump trucks, slowly crawling the steep inclines of the plants driveway, as well as Hwy.
52. The southern exposure of our home directly overlooks this property and we would be unable to
open our windows on this side of our home. It would be impossible to buffer our home, as well as
the homes of my neighbors, from the noise, dust, diesel smell, and the mammoth looks of a plant
that will not fit into the surrounding views. Our neighborhood is predominantly residential, with a
few commercial properties also located in the neighborhood. To introduce a Modified Heavy
Industrial concrete plant into this area would stagnate any future development of this area, as well as
being detrimental to existing home owngrs property values.
Another problem with a plant of this nature, will be the slow moving truck traffic, added to an
already congested area. Loaded concrete trucks entering Hwy. 52 will create considerable safety
hazards. Fast moving traffic traveling west on Hwy. 52 will be slowed to a crawl by these trucks
entering and exiting the highway. There are already many serious, as well as fatal accidents, at the
intersection of Hwys. 61/151 & 52, and the areas close by. The addition of the heavy slow moving
truck traffic related to this plant would greatly increa~ these numbers.
As you can see, the rezoning of this land and sale to Apex creates far too many environmental,
safety, and aesthetic challenges. We believe all of these challenges can not be remedied, and Apex
has not offered any reasonable proposals to address these concerns, quite to the contrary Apex and
Dubuque Southgate Development have done their best to ignore the concerns of the neighborhoods
located north of this property. A plant such as this should be placed in an asea already zoned for
industrial use, where it will fit in better with its surroundings, such us the industrial park located off
the N.W, Arterial orthe industrial park located off Seippel Rd.
One more thing m consider is the reason the city wants Apex out of the river front area, to
beautify the river front area, for tourism. Many of these tourist will be entering through the Hwy.
61/151 & Hwy. 52 "Gateway". First impressions being the lasting impressions we would think
that the city would want all of its "Gateways" to be as beautiful as its river front. By placing an
unsightly concrete plant at the intersection of 3 main highways into Dubuque, you would be
defeating the beautification process.
Thank You for your time and consideration.
Sincerely
Tim & Amy Stierman
9270 Bellevue Height Rd,
Dubuque, IA 52003
December 07, 2003
Letters to the editor
Telegraph Herald
801 Bluff St.
P.O. Box 688
Dubuque, IA 52004 - 0688
After attending the meeting of the Dubuque Zoning Advisory Commission on December 3, we
must admit that our faith in government, as well as our faith in what governments purpose is, is
greatly diminished. It is governments responsibility to do the will of the people. It is obvious to as
that the Dubuque Zoning Advisory, Commission ignored the will of the people, as well as neglected
their responsibility to protect their rights.
On December 3 this commission voted to approve changing zoning, to Modified Heavy
Industrial, that would allow Apex Concrete to build a concrete batch plant, in an area that is mostly
residential. The area also consist of commercial properties. These are the same types of businesses
you would find next to many residential neighborhoods, as they compliment each other and "fit or
belong" together. An Apex concrete plant does not belong next to a residential neighborhood.
The vast majority of people who live and work in this area, close to the intersections of Hwy. 61
and Hwy. 52, are greatly opposed to this spot zoning, that would force tb4.s neighborhood to put up
with the intrusive looks of this mammoth structure, annoying dust and no~se, dangerous traffic
problems, as well as being forced to compromise the safety of our children.
On Monday December 15 at 6:30p. m. in the library auditorium the Dubuque City Council
members will vote for the final approval or rejection of this drastic spot zoning. We hope that the
City Council members will do the responsible thing and listen to what is clearly the will of the
majority of the people in this area.
Tim andAmy Slierman
9270 Bellevue Hgts. Rd.
December 9, 2003
~ CSty Cenneil
City Hall
50 W. 13m Street
Dubuque, IA 52001
To Whom It May Concern,
This letter is in regards to the-proposolto rezone Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No.2 from a C-3 General
Commercial to ~ Modified Heavy Indm~iaL The proposed urea will be the new-home to Apex Concert
This rezoning would fli~upt a large area of residential neighborhoods and also damage the Uanqnility of a
The ureas afl'eoted would be Table Mound Trailer Park, Bellevue I-IeiLght% Metropolitan Height. and lffmes
Of Spain and EB Lyons, and asrg other homes nestled in the counUyside uround this area~
The pt~,nned mzoning is being brought to the board with the hopes of rezoning this area and plans of
building a cemem plato on the site. Th~area.was bronght up f6r rezouin~ earher this )'eaz and was tamed
down by both the county and'the cipg, -none of the circumstax~s l~ve changed since then so why should
this be allowed to pass7
First of ali we xealize with the Pdw~12ont Project moving ahead it is i .mponant to relocate the cement plant
fsom the area,, bm we also have been lead to believe that the aheady existing indusnial sites west of
Dubuque and sonth of I)abuque were zoned in sach a way to accommodate this cement ~nt
Why rake on area that is hordemd on three sides by private residential neighborhoods and counnercial on
one side and rezone it to MI-II whon tbere ere ureas zoned fur this already?
The urea in question to b~ rezoned is the major gateway from the south into the CRy of Dubuqne. If this
urea is rezoned to accommodate indestrial businesses instead of new friendly residential neighborhoods,
won't visitors have a splendid weIcoming into our fair city? Not to long ago a businessman wanted to
~elneate his salvage yurd less ~ a h~lf mile f~om this site and he was mined down because of the impact
his salvage yurd would have on the view emering the city, whaI makes ~ SO differem?
neighborhoods will have. When those of us l'ndag in the mentioned neighborhoods bought our home we
had a f~w small businesses around us, and of course a wonderful view of the counlryside. A cement plant
is unt exactly the sight we had planned on enjoying on a nice summer evenm.g not to mention should we
So not only will this rezoning damage the ce~ravyside but what does it do to our real estate valnes?
Our neighborhood sit directly narth, aplxoximatety 500 yards f~ma the Proposed area- We ure speaking
fsom experience when we say we will not be able to sit omside in the smnme~ on our decks or have our
windows open wben there is a sonth wind blowing. Meat of the s~mmer we bare a south or sonthwest
wind blowin~ which would b~h~g dust from the ~ whenever malerials a~ Onm?e,d ~mel from the h'uctrs
driving thtongh the pla~ and it dos~. We will also heve to smell the sickening s~nell of exhanst f~om the
uuc, ks either travel/rig up the steep hill to the plant or up the steep hill to the interseaion of 52 Sonth and
151/61 South. The summer they excavated that area, the dust was so bad it was imposs~ole to have
windows open er sit outside.
The noise is anolher factor, which should be laken ia to consideration, why should a resi~dential area be
forced to listen to the indmqtri~ noises whan there am areas zoned for medified hen~ industry? The noise
from the plant itseff will be disruptive enough, not to memfua the sound of the cement tracks climbing
those hill.q, or tho noise of thc loads of materials being dnmped and also the bcepin~ of the trucks as the
back up. It's not exactIy the sound of nature flint most of us in these residential nel~ bought our
houses to hear.
Then we have the concern of traffic safety at the intersection of 52 South and 151/61 South. Anyone who
traffic moving along Highway 151/61 doesn't make it dangerous enough, we have the traffic from
hasinesses ia the area enteaSng frem Gateway Drive and Believae Height omo 52 South. This isjust up
from whore numerous cement mzcks and dump u'ucks wffi be enleting the highway ffthe rezoniag passes.
The intersection at times throughout the day often has traffic backed up past the turn lane on 151/61 this
lcaving turning cars sitting om in the santhbeund lanes waiting nnnl the next light Traffic is also ottan
backed up down Highway 52 South w'a/6nE for the light ca~,~ing danger with cam emoriag and emeaiag and
exiling area businesses. All of tiffs will be more complicated by ~cltting many cement tracks and chtmp
tracks to and already busy inte~seedon, which has had 2 fatalities in the last year alone. Why mice. an
already hazardous and busy imersection and toss more fuel on the fire to create a worse simafian?
So in dosing we wonder why when ~ are so may negative for the area and the people involved would
designated a~as for industrial use.
Please exnmh~ ~lis teZOulllg igslle closely and do what is right for the people of Dubuque County and not
what is right for big business.
9269 BeHevne Helgi~
Dubuque, IA 52003
Ke'vin and Laurie Kellehex
9237 Belle,,.~e Heights
Dubuque, IA 52003
December 8, 2003
Dubuqu~ City Council
City. Hall
50 W. t3~ Street
Dubuque. IA 52001
Dear City Council,
This let~r addresses the proposed zoning change to allow Apex Concrete to build a new concrete batch
~cility in the commercial/residential at~ just south of Dubuque.
The proposed site was originally zoned for planned residential use. Homes, wooded areas and s few
comm~cial/retail bus'messes surround it. As a nearby resident, we are vexy much opposed to the
construction of a concrete batch plant on th/s site for obvious reasons. These reasons include concern over
the following all of which remain real and unchanged despite recent masking att~op~: · Exceszive noise from heavy, louded h~acks laboring up hill
· Distracting "backup" beeps from cement tracks as requi~d by law
· Incx~sed lraffic at an already busy in. me.an
· Lor, s ofaesth~c appeal
· Degradation of property value
· Improper use of property and zoning.
Apex has requested the re-zoning of this propea~ to Modified Heavy Industrial. This is a huge leap
and causes the most concexn for us. Is it not Uae purpose of zoning ordinance to l~xevent d'lssimil~rr
businesses from locating in the same area? Please correct the mistake made by Oae misguided Zoning
Commission and vote a~miust the r~quest for re-zoning.
Sincerely,
Kevia J. Kellaher
Laurie A. Kelleher
Dubuque City Council
Re: Apex Relocation
December 7,2003
Council Members:
As residents of Highway 52 South we would like to ask you to vote against the
relocation of the cement plant to the Key West area.
We are extremely concerned over the dangers this relocation would cause to so
many who drive this road on a daily basis. Those of us who live and drive in this
area already know the very real hazards that currently exislt. The traffic coming
fTom the KwikStop area have no stop sign and are constantly pulling out in front
of highway traffic that has {he fight ofway: The carwash patrons cauea-,wate~-{o ....
the highway pavement which frequently freezes anti creates slippery conditions to
the intersection, It is truly a dangerous area presently and causes one to have
heightened defensive driving skills to avoid car accidents. Adding industrial traffic
to this area and intersection would be a catastrophe waiting to happen, We all
know how hard it is to get things changed when established and so often too
many lives have to be lost to do so. You have the opportunity to vote no and
possibly prevent accidents from occudng We ask that you put df/zens safety
ahead of the river project and this relocation.
The city already relocated the logging company to 52 South and added increased
truck t~'affic there.
We also were effected when the dyer dean up brought'muck, mud, old rusty
barrels and old tires to be dumped onto 52 South property. The sludge was
slopped onto the highway and caused hazardous conditions. When we
questioned it we were given the run around and then told the bah'els were dnsed
out before being dumped there. We know that was not the case. After constant
badgering the contractors were made to come and clean it up. However, we do
not know about the long lasting effects to the ground water and the ground wilt
continue to need testing.
Highway 52 is starting to fe~ like the city's dumping ground. It is a beautiful area
that should be protected and the cement plant would act against that protection.
The hazardsareobvioa$'end ~h~T~oiea' an~cFast is nothing any 'of yo~ wo-a~ A~aflt
for your homes so we ask that you protect us from it too. Move the plant to an
area that is already industrial. Let a more suitable business in that area, such as
a grocery store or small retail business.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Renee and Gar~ Williams
11126 Hwy. 52 South
Dubuqe, Iowa 52003
(563) 583-3277
.ii
J
December ?, 2003
Dubuque City Council
City Hall
$0 W. 13m Street
Dubuque, IA 52001
Dear City Council Members,
We are writing this letter in regards to re-zoning of land owned by Dubuque Soul~hgate
Development. The property is located south of Highway 61 and 151, and is described
As lot 1 of Keygate Center No. 2.
We are greatly opposed to the proposal of rezon/ng of such a dm.ntic measure of C-3
General to MI-II (Modified Heavy Industrial).
December 9, 2O03
Dubuque CiL'y Coundh
Re: Proposed Apex Concrete Plant
From: Marian Williams
I am having a diff'mult time thinking that this area could be changed from C~.neral Commercial to
Modified Heavy Indus,'iai.
The dust and ~ congesl~on would be unreal. To start, the traffic in that area is quite heaW
much of the day, with people coming from the southern part of DubL~que County and from
Jackson County. This area is mostly residential and should be maintained as such, W'~h homes
near the proposed area and the bailer parks next to and across the road, it just doesn't seem like
a favorable place to build a heavy industrial plant.
Doesn't the ally own propert? tha~ could be made available in a lesser popuiat~d area? Why not
use some of that? With the Ught budget, ! think some of the db/existing properS, should be a
viable alternative.
In dosing, le.~'s keep this area as General Commercial and keep the area mastty residential
housing.
Harian Williams
lZ20 Savanna Drive
Dubuqt~e, L~ 52003
December 9, 2003
To: Dubuque City Council:
Subject: Application of Dan Mueller, Re: rezone from residential, to heavy
/ndust~l.
This letter is in regards to the rezoning proposal of the property mentioned
above. My husband and I live at 8992 Metropolitan Hgts. Our neighborhood is
very quiet, most of our neighbors are retired, we raised our children, paid our
mortgages, etc. We have many trees in our area, the E B Lions nature center is
across the road from us, a short three-minute ride takes us into the Mines of
Spain, as per the Olde Massey road entrance.
We and our neighbors choose to live in this area because of the peace and
quiet we experience.
Several years ago, when the property in question was leveled, (or developed),
we could not leave our windows open or sit on our porch, due to the sleady
noise of dump-trucks, bull-dozers, and other heavy equipment, also because of
the dust.
Hwy 52 is below form our house, it is like a valley down there and any noise
is brought up the hill like an echo! The noise from heavy dump-tracks is quite
lou&
As you know highways 151-61 south is also quite busy. The Intersections of
151-61 South and Hwy 52 is a very busy intersection with a steady flow of
traffic, like the intersection of Asbmy Rd. and J.F.K.
School buses also cross the intersection to and from Table Mound School, and
Washington Jr. High School.
Hwy 52 is also called Iowa's Great River Road; it parallels the Mississippi
river on the eastern borders, from Missouri to Minnesota. Many tourists travel
this Hwy, from spring to late fall, in cars,strv's., on bikes and motomycles.
It is my wish that the zoning decision be reverser[
Sincerely,
Hannelore J. Plein
8992 Metropolitan Hts.
Dubuque, Iowa, 52003
Dec~mber 9, 2003
To: Dubuque City Council:
Subject: Application of Dan Mueller. Re: rezone from residential, to heavy
industrial.
When the zoning commission met on Feb. 5, 2003, it was voted not to rezone,
therefore I am asking the council to follow thru with the same.
At the above meeting there was exlxeme opposition through out the neighboring
area's of Bellevue Hgts, and Metropolitan Hgts.
Most of our property, namely our homes, where build in the 50's. Peace and quite
are ourmb~t important objective. 'N0is~, dust-and lung hbufs UTWork by the -
above matter would be veq~ detrimental to our well- being.
There may also be a question of property de-valuation, which we are not now nor
will ever be at our best interest.
LCt us focus on noise:
1. The environmental noise level as measured at the ear, is 92 dBA.
2. Most common ear protective devic~ protect to 21 decibels.
3. Caution: For noise environments dominated by frequencies below 500 Hz, the
C-weighted environmental noise level should be used.
4. No one in the neighboring area's of Bellevue Hgts, and Metropolitan Hgts
should be forced to wear no/se l~el devices.
Sincerely:
Charles V. Plein
8992 Metropolitan Hgts
Dubuque, Iow~ 52003
TO: MEMBERS OF THE DUBUQUE CITY COUNCIL
PROPOSED REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM C-3 GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO
MHI MODIFIED HEAVY INDUS'TRIAL DISTRICT, THE SOUTHEAST OF HIGHWAY 52 AND
HIGHWAYS 61/151 INTERSECTION - DAN MUELLER/APEX CEMENT PLANT.
BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY TO BE REZONED IS IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL/SMALL
BUSINESS AREA AND WOULD BE COMPLETELY OUT OF PLACE AND TOTALLY
INAPPROPRIATE TO THE AREA;
2. PUTFING HEAVY INDUSTRY IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL/SMALL BUSINESS AREA
WILL DEVALUE ALL OUR PROPERTIES AND MAKE IT VERY DIFFICULT TO SELL.
3. BECAUSE OF THE HEAVY TRUCK TRAFFIC THIS WOULD CREATE AT AN EXTREMELY
BUSY/DANGEROUS INTERSECTION;
BECAUSE THIS IS ONE OF THE MAIN ENTRANCES INTO DUBUQUE FROM THE SOUTH ON
THREE MA3OR HIGHWAYS - 52, 61, AND 151. THE ROTARY CLUB IS IN THE PROCESS OF A
FUND DRIVE TO MAKE THE ENTRANCES TO DUBUQUE BEAUTIFUL - THIS DEFINI'TELY
WOULD BE AN EYESORE TO THIS IMPORTANT ENTRANCE TO DUBUOUE!! IT WOULD NOT
HELP THE CITY OF DUBUQUE'S IMAGE TO HAVE TO THIS CEMENT PLANT SETTING ON THE
TOP OF THE HILL FOR ALL TO SEE!
I REALIZE THE CITY- OF DUBUQUE WILL DO ANYTHING TO CLEAN UP THE HARBOR AREA, BUT
PLEASE DO NOT REZONE THIS PROPERTY AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER RESIDENTS/BUSINESSES IN
THIS AREA. THERE ARE OTHER LOCATIONS MUCH MORE SUITA_RL_F FOR THIS HEAVY INDUSTRY.
WOULD YOU: LIKE TO LOOK OUT YOUR WINDOW AND SEE A BIG CEMENT PLANT NEXT TO YOUR
PROPERTY?. LISTEN TO THE NOISE CREATED BY THE PLANT AND THE HEAVY TRUCK TRAFFIC?
HAVE YOUR AIR POLLUTED? HAVE YOUR PROPERTY DEVALUED? I THINK NOT. THIS SITE IS ON
TOP OF A HILL AND EXTREMELY VISIBLE FROM ALL DIRECTIONS COMING INTO/LEAVING
DUBUQUE - WHAT AN EYESORE FOR OUR CITY. THIS CEMENT DUST IS VERY ABRASIVE TO CARS
AND HOMES, NOT TO MENTION THE HEALTH PROBLEMS, THERE OVER SIX EATING
ESTABLISHMENTS AD3ACENT TO THIS AREA THAT WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS DUST
(RES-1'RAUNTS/GAS STATIONS W/FOOD). THERE ARE PEOPLE LIVING IN THIS AREA WHO HAVE
SERIOUS LUNG CONDI'TIONS/ASTHMA AND THIS DUST WILL CAUSE THEM MUCH HARM.
PLEASE, PLEASE THI'NK VERY, VERY CAREFULLY. DO NOT PUT A HEAVY TNDUSTR~AL
PLANT TN THE HI'DDLE OF A RESt.DEN'I'ZAL/SHALL BUSt'NESS AREA
DO NOT APPROVE THTS REZONI'NG RE(~UEST.
.loyce A. Ford
8930 Metropolitan Heights
Dubuque IA 52003-7005
588-1341
December, 8 2003
Dubuque City Council
City Hall
50 W. 13th. Street
Dubuque, IA 52001
Dear City Council Members:
We are writing this letter in response to rezoning of land owned by Dubuque Southgate
Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 & Hwy. 52, lot I of Key Gate Center No. 2. We are
greatly opposed to the drastic rezoning from C-3 to MHI.
After living in our home for almost 50 years we have watched this area grow and develop
and bdng with it a great amount of traffic. Bringing with that a great amount of traffic fatalities.
We believe introducing even more large slow moving truck traffic, would furl. her dsk all
d dyers, not to mention we the eldedyon this frequently traveled highway.
We also believe that the Apex concrete batch plant would create many problems for the
people who live and work in this area, as well as people who regularly travel through.
We further believe introducing Modified heavy industrial into this area, which is mostly
residential, with a few commercial properties, would be detrimental to home owners
property values.
We urge you to do the right thing and vote against this proposed zoning change, for the
sake of the residence that live in this area.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely
John Cavanaugh
Rita Cavanaugh
Dec. 6,2883
Letter to the Editor
Bad Parenting Or Bad Zoning
At The Dec. 3, 288:3 meeting of the Dubuque Zoning Advisory
Commission, when the board members were debating the placemen!
of the Apex Concrete Plant next to a residential neighborhood, Martha
Christ asked the Question" What if a child were to wander onto this
property and get hurt?.''. The reply from Dick Schlitz was "That would
just be bad parenting". Mr. Schlitz appears to imply that when you
stick a Modified Heavy Industrial zoned Apex Concrete Plant, right
next to a neighborhood with children, that the responsibility of the
safety of the children should fall soley on the parents, and not on the
improperly placed heavy industrial site with dangerous heavy
equipment there.
As a parent with small children, I know, as should Mr. Schlitz, that
good parenting not only includes supervising your children, but also
keeping dangers out of their reach, because as all good parents know
there is no way to watch your children 24 hours a day, and children
will be curious and want to check out the danger (i.e. Apex Concrete),
when their parents are not looking.
There are no residential lots for sale in industrial parks for good
reason, residential and heavy industrial don't mix. Why then did the
Dubuque Zoning Advisory Commission vote 7-8 in favor of allowing a
modified heavy industrial ( Apex Concrete) plant so close to a highly
populated residential area with many children.
Sincerely
Gary Cavanaugh
JAMES L. SCHNEIDER
Fur~ral Director
&LOIS M. HOFFMANN'~
MAUP,/CE J. TIERNEY~'
December 17, 2003
HOME
HOFFMANN MORTUARY
City o f Dubuque
Mayor Terry Duggan
Members of the Council
City Hall
Dubuque, Iowa 52001
Dear Mayor Duggan and Members of the Council:
1640 Main Street
Dubuque, Iowa 52001
Phone (563) 582-7221
Fax (563) 582-7222
I reside at 9477 Route 52 South. I wish to go on record as being opposed to the
rezoning of the parcel of land on Highway 52 South as a proposed site for Apex
Concrete.
. The primary reason for my opposition relates to a safety issue. I agree with many
other neighbors and travelers who use this section of the highway and the nearby
intersection; that it is very dangerous and that the increase in mack traffic that would
result if Apex would locate there, would only result in a more dangerous arena.
Although, zoning objections are usually only the concern of people who live in the
immediate neighborhood, this situation effects people from all parts of our city, county,
and beyond since it is an important entrance and exit to the city mad connecting highways.
I would suggest you get a traffic count so you could better understand the significance
of this route to traffic. We already experience dangerous traffic back-ups on the curves
(blind spots) due to semi amd large truck traffic that feed the new businesses in the old
quarries.
It should also be/rioted ~t~ .~y neW,homes are going up in the neighborhood. I feel
the residential traffie ~11 continue to increase and adding cement macks to the mix, on a
regular basis, is ~ in ;t ,
Dubuque City Council
I wish to express my opposition to the
proposed zoning change and relocation of
the Apex Plant to the Key West area.
I am opposed .becaus~l,
~id._~ent~sitors /~
~ Trom p~a~uc--k~, etc.. ~
*Noise~ plant will generate
*Noise from the increased truck traffic
*Destruction to environment
*Appearance to area X
* Congestion to the highway/intersection
*Uncontrolled access to state highway
*Adds dangerous driving conditions to a
tourist area/Great River Road
*Industry does not belong in a residential
area
Comments
Name
Address
City b ,~ State ~-~ Zip
Sign~Date ~ °~-~
Dubuque City Council
i wish to express my opposition to the
proposed zoning change and relocation of
the Apex Plant to the Key West area.
I am opposed because:
*Unsafe to residents, children, visitors.k~/.
*Dust from plant, trucks, etc.. /
*Noise that the plant will generate
*Noise from the increased truck.traffic /
*Destruction to environment ~
*Appearance to area /
* Congestion to the highway/intersectionS:'"'
*Uncontrolled access to state highway/
*Adds dangerous driving conditions to a
tourist area/Great River Road ~. .
*Industry does not belong in a resldentwal
Com m e nts~;/.~.~.~.~ ~.g~_~
Name
Address
City ~
Signatur~~~ Date
Dubuque City Council
! wish to express my opposition to the
proposed zoning change and relocation of
the Apex Plant to the Key West area.
i am opposed because:
*Unsafe to residents, children, visitors t~
*Dust from plant, trucks, etc..
*Noise that the plant will generate
*Noise from the increased truck traffic
*Destruction to environment
*Appearance to area
* Congestion to the highway/intersection
*Uncontrolled access to state highway
*Adds dangerous driving conditions to a
tourist area/Great River Road ~-'
*Industry does not belong in a residential
area ~X
Comments ~ ~-~,~_ o.~- ~y ~-~.-~~
Name ~u ~ c ~.~.~ ~ ~
Address ~d ~~ ~.
Ci~ ~u~u~ State ~
Signature ~ ~
~/7-d~770~r
Zip _~z_ oo ~
Date ~ ~./z ~/o~
Brian J. Kane
Gary K. Norby
Les V. Reddick*
D. Flint Drake**
Brad J. Heying
Todd L. Stevenson*
MaryBeth Pfeiler Fleming
Kevin T. Deeny
KANE, NORBY & REDDICK, P.C.
ATTORNEYS
2100 ASBURY ROAD, SUITE 2
DUBUQUE, IAi2001-3069
Of Counsel:
Louis P. Pfeiler
All admitted in Iowa
*Also admitted in Illinois
**Also admitted in Wisconsin
Phone: (563) 582-7980
Facsimile: (563) 582-5312
E-mail: bkane~kanenorbylaw.com
Ms. Jeanne F. Schneider
City Clerk
50 West 13th Street
Dubuque, IA 52001
December 18, 2003
Re: Dubuque Southgate Development/Apex Concrete, L.L.C./Rezoning
Dear Jeanne:
As you know, we represent Apex Concrete, L.L.C. with regard to the above matter (a public
hearing for which was held December 15, 2003). In partial response to the inquiries by counsel
person Pat Cline, enclosed please find a letter given to us by Mr. Dennis Thief for her review.
Additionally, we are more than happy to make arrangements to reply to may questions or comments
any counsel persons may have prior to or at the next two council meetings. You may provide such
questions to Mr. Dan Mueller, Mr. Dennis Thier, or the undersigned.
Thank you.
Best regards,
BJK:sp
Enclosure
cc Mr. Barry A. Lindahl
Mr. Dennis J. Thier
KANE, NORBY & REDDICK, P.C.
By B ~~. K~e
F:\WPDOCSkDONNAB~DOCS\Schneider Jeanne F LET re Apex Rezon[ng.wpd
45 Jones Street
Dubuque, IA 52004-0209
(563) 582-1208
TO: Dubuque Zoning Committee
RE: Response to comments 0otter) from Gary Cavanagh
Fly Ash
It is the policy of BARD and APEX Concx~'to to incorporate Pollution Prevention Controls into
all operational aspects of our business. Pollution Prevention Controls allows us to identify areas,
processes, and activities, which may create excessive waste products or pollutants. We can then
reduce or prevent them through engineering, processes, or eliminating a process. In other words,
we operate our plants in a manner where the matcaSals we usc never get to where they can cause
harm. Keep in mind that cement and fly ash are not haTardous materials according to ~ U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency therefore are not '~coxio" items. The attached Material Safety
Data Sheet will aid you if you have any fly ash concerns.
The new BARD Dyersville plant (which the new APEX plant will be modeled m°cer) is regularly
maintained and has a highly engineered central dust collection system that allows us to far exceed
the requirements established by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources Air Quality Bureau
for ready mixcd concrete plants.
We understand that people would not want to breathe cement or fly ash, which is exactly why we
take thc extra measures to keep those materials where they belong - in the concrete we produce.
We do not know of any scientific proof to support the negative notions Mr. Cavanagh has about
cement and fly ash unless we discharged the material in large quantities. It is in our economic
best interest to prevent any loss of a product that we have already paid for, so it pays for us to not
release our materials.
Dust Factor
We maintain our plants to meet thc requirements of thc U.S. Occupational Health and Safety
Administration (OSHA) and the state OSHA (IOSH) for employee safety and health. We at
BARD/APEX Concrete place very highly the well-being of our stuff', making sure that they are
provided with an environmentally safe place to work. Subsequently, this standard assures the
health and quality of life for our neighbors as well. We are sensitive to the fact that there may be
vulnerable populations (the young and the elderly) in our community. As an integral part ofthe
community, we accept our responsibility to prevent dust and alt types of pollution. Our design
incorporating a self enclosed holding facility helps ensure against your dust concerns. Our
compliance history lends credence to our claim of commitment and a willingness to continue to
operate environmentally conscious in our community.
(Note: In reference to Mr. Cavanagh 's reference of a complaint at the current APF~Y plant at
Jones Street ~n Dubuque - according to Mr. Clark Ott, Environmental Specialist Senior of the
Environmental Protection Division of the Department of Natural Resources located in
Manchester lowa, they have no record of any complaints on APEX Concrete.)
Water Pollution
The water used to produce concrete and to wash our trucks is all contained on site. Any water
released off site meets all or hhe requirements of our National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit issued by the Iowa Department of Nataral Resources Water Quality
Bureau. We only discharge when we have assured that the water to be discharged meets the
requirements of the permit. We appreciate the concern and are aware of the responsibilities of
approved discharge water as it might relate to Grainger and Catfish Creek, as it is our duty to also
help protect this natural resource.
CLOSING COMMENTS:'
Many costly effoFts have been incorporated in the Dyersville plant to ensure that the plant is as
self contained as feasibly possible to ensure that we are a good and environmentally friendly
neighbor.
There are many ready mix plants across the country. The health (as well as the safety) aspects of
these businesses have been scmtini×ed by many governmental organizations. Their results have
shown that the ready mix industry cencerns are minimal as they have implemented suggestions
(such as central dust collection systems) and moved on to other industries for tbe'tr investigations
into environmental and health concerns.
Being a ready mix employee is a respected profession and the industry has no health epidemics as
Mr. Cavana~h would lead you to believe would surely happen to employees. Common sense and
proper management of materials and products as in any business or industry keeps from these
types of concerns occurring, especially by companies that are as proactive in responding to health
and safe~ concerns as APEX and BARD Concrete is.
David Gibbs
Safety and Environmental Director
BARD/APEX Concrete
Denni~ Thier
President
BARD/APEX Concrete
?lann~g Ser~ce$ Depm°cment
City Hall
50 West 13th Street
D~buque, Iowa 52001-4864
(563) 589-4210 office
(563) 589-4221 fax
(563) 6906678 TDD
planning~cityofdubuque,or g
December 3, 2003
RE: Rezoning
Applicant;
Location:
Description:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members ~5- '-
City of Dubuque .'¢ r.~ _~
City Hall - 50 W. 13th Street ~; ~, ~ ~'C
Dubuque IA 52001 ~ ~- ~
Dan Muelier (tabled)
Southeast of Highway 52 South and Highways
~1/151
Intersection
To rezone property from C-3 (general Commercial District to
MHI Modified Heavy Industrial District.
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 spoke in favor of the request, reviewing the proposed rezoning and
operation of the proposed Apex Concrete batch mix plant. The applicant reviewed
how dust, noise and access would be handled to mitigate impact to adjacent property
owners. The applicant presented letters and petitions in support of the rezoning.
Staff reviewed the history of the zoning requests for the site and availability of City
utilities. Staff also noted storm water detention would be required as part of any new
development on the site.
There were several public comments from surrounding residents in opposition to the
rezoning request, citing negative impacts on traffic safety, noise and dust. Several
people spoke in opposition, stating that the batch plant will negatively impact this
entryway into the city.
Letters and petitions were presented in opposition to the rezoning. (None of those in
opposition own property within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning.)
The Zoning Advisory Commission discussed the request, reviewing allowed uses in
the MHI District and specific details concerning the operation of the proposed concrete
Service People Integrity Respo~sibility Innovation Teamwork
The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
December 3, 2003
Page 2
batch mix plant. The Commission discussed specific conditions to mitigate potential
adverse impacts associated with the proposed land use.
Recommendation
By a vote of 7 to 0, the Zoning Advisory Commission recommends that the City
Council approve the request subject to the following conditions:
a)
Eliminate MHI Distdct permitted uses number 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48 50, 52 and
53 and add concrete batch mix plant.
b)
Install six (6) foot high chain link fence along west property from entrance to
point where topography drops off.
Plant arborvitae screening adjacent to mobile home park. Arborvitae shall be
between three and four feet tall at planting, and be spaced four feet apart.
A simple majority vote is needed for the City Council to approve the request.
Respectfully submitted,
Eugene Bird, Jr., Chairperson
Zoning Advisory Commission
Attachments
cc: Mike Koch, Public Works Director
2LANNIN~ SERVICES DEPT
?
£
[] Variance
["~CondlUonal Use Permit
[-]Appeal
I~speclal ExcepUon
F~Umibed Setback Waiver
PLANNING AppI TCATION FORM
~Preliminary Plat
Minor Final I~at
~Tex~ Amendment
[Rplez°ning E~SIm~te Site Plan
armed District [~]Mlnor Site Plan
B Ma~3r Site Plan
Major Final Plat
r-]siml~e .Subdivision
Please tvae or Drlnt legibly in i~.~ :*
Properb/owner(s):.
OW of' Dubuque
Planning Semites Department
Dubuque, IA 52001-~6~
Phone: 563-589-4210
Fax; 563-589-422!
[~AnnexatJon
r~Tempomry Us~ Permit
~Cerfifica~e oF £oormrr~c Non-Viabiliiy
uCertlflcate of ApProlxlateness
C]Other:
Fax Number:
Mobile/Cellular Number: ~4-~,~ --~'~'~- ~-_~
Phone: .o'--'~
Site IocaUon/address: ' ~'.'
~i~ ZO~: , ~ -~ P~ zoni~:~ His~Hc ~: ~o ~nd~: .~
~al ~on (sld~ll ~r~l ID~ or
To~l pmm~ (l~) ara (m~
~ p~l and ~n
~ a~ ~ ~able and ~en~ ~ ~t g~ appr~al; and
NJ ad~on~ ~ulr~
~SI~s~ ~an ~1 ~v~t PI~ ~Ph~ ~]mp~ p~
~i~ r~i~ pm~ ~on ~ plan ~Plat ~er:
N
PC
C-3
PR
Re~
ised 8/26/03
Proposed Area to be Rezoned
Applicant: Dan Mueller
Location: Southeast of Highway 52
South and Highways 61/151 I
ntersection
Description: To rezone property
from C-3 General Commercial
District to MHI Modified Heavy
Industrial District.
~-Proposed Area
I to be Rezoned
December 3, 2003
GreaterDubuque
Why does APEX want to Move?
City Development of Harbor Area
City Restriction on Upgrade or
Expa '
nslon
Existing Plant is Old and Outdated
Continued Compliance EPA regulation
Growth and Expansion in Dubuque
Greater~t~q~e
What's has Changed
· C-3 property requesting MHI zoning
oMHI area is reduced 50% (5 acres)
· C-3 buffer zone is defined
-225' to the west, 205' to the north
-Plant can not be moved beyond MHI zone
GreaterDu~qu~
· Restricted use of MHI zone
-Only ONE MHI use (Batch plant operations)
-Other uses restricted to C-3 approved uses
-NO risk of other MHI business starting up if
A-~'~X plant were closed
Additional Changes
Planned Hwy 52 Turn Lane Extension
- 150 ft full width lane extension allowing
immediate access for slow trucks
- West bound traffic will be able to pass
IDOT Confirmed Access
- Hwy 52 access is being moved 70 ft. east
"Seeing is Believing"
' SHOW
Show a Representation of the Plant on Site
Show Barrier and Screening Abutting the
Table Mound Mobile Home Park
Show Dust Collection System Operation
Hear from those who have visited the
Dyersville Plant
Hear from Experts on Environmental Impact
Grea~rDubuqu~
"Concrete Batching Process"
· Batching - combining and mixing
- "MOST Controlled Process"
- Contained Process
· In Ground Storage Bins & Conveyer
, Enclosed Batching Equipment
- Dust Collection when Loading
- Recycled / Reused wash off water
- Recycling of Unused Materials
BARD Plant in Dyersville
Greaterll~bu~l~e
APEX Control Room
A clean and professionally run operation
Grea~.er~ubuq~
Loading Area
(inside the Plant)
GreaterlDub~iq~
Batch Loading is Observed
Greater~.l~.q~
Dust Collector System
(unaffected by the wind)
Contained Process
GreaterDubuffu~¢
Aggregate Conveyor
(Containment covers)
The Underground Bin Area
(Dust Control with Noise Barrier)
GreaterD~b,que
Aggregate Handling
What will this LOOK like?
Grea'[erl~buque
Current View from Jacobs Street
Barrier and Screening Planned
View from Highway Intersection
Greater~
View' with APEX Concrete Plant
and Projected Shopping Center
Greaterl)ub~q~
Gateway View
Greaterl:~bu~e
Planned Turn Lane Extension
IDOT Approved Class "B" Access
Access was granted this property over
15 yrs. ago (i 987)
Class "B" = access allows up to i50 vehicles/hr
Right of Access to Hwy 52 will remain
regardless if this zoning is approved
Advantages of APEX
Current C-3 Zoning has 66 approved uses
- Most w/no restriction on operating hrs,
- APEX normal hrs 7-5 (M-F), 7=12 (S)
· i0 acre site
- APEX would be a single user
Grea'[er~abaqae
Peak estimated APEX vehicle traffic
- 15 vehicles / hr~
- Multiple businesses would create more traffic
intersection Traffic Impact
- Accidents reported per IDOT
- 6 year Average ~
- 0.62 Accidents / Million Vehicles
JFK and Pennsylvania rate is 1.07/million
· per Bill Schlickman of Dubuque Traffic Dept.
Latest traffic count at Bellevue intersection
- 15,700 / day == Hwy 61 / 151
- 7,700 / day = Hwy 52 / 67
- For 8,541,000 vehicles per year
~ · APEX Traffic Impact Less than % %
~> · Normal traffic growth is considered 3% lyf
Greaterl)abaqa~
Vehicle Common Road Dust
· A just concern?
Graate~Dubuqu~
8~541~000 veh / yr at hwy speed
slow moving trucks per hour
Paved lot
Paved access road
Paved highway
Abutting Residential
Property Owner
Clyde Mihalakis (south and east of site)
- No Objection to Rezoning Request for
APEX Concrete plant
Only concern: Storm Water is controlled
· Comply with City Storm Water Management
Regulations
° Retention is Included in APEX Preliminary Plan
Why Approve this Request?
Greater~d~uq~e
"State of the Art" Plant
Good Appearance (mostly hidden)
Sound Barriers and Buffer Zones Provided
Low Traffic Impact
Single Site User
Normal Working Hours
Voluntary Move for Harbor Development
Will Provide City Tax Revenues
Provides Needed Product for Growing Area
2.5 minute video
of bycrsvill¢ Plant
Great~er~j~
Sinc~ly, ~
l~d~
Owne~ Fawn Creek H~ne~ and Sa]cs
BARD Concrete Dyersville Plant Visit
I have visited the BARD Concrete batch plant in Dyemville, IA. During this visit I saw the outside,
and inside of the Plant. The operations were explained to me and I wes permitted to asked any
questions about how this plant compared to the planned facility that APEX Concrete would
construct on the Dubuque Southgate Property East of the Table Mound Mobile Home Park should the
re-zoning be approved. I saw a truck being loaded with concrete and I experienced the noise
from within the Plant and at a distance of 250 fi_ from the plant. I saw the dust collection system
and saw it work.
Below are my comments:
Name Address
Comments
2~4 Nov. 2003
We the undersigned agree that the beautification of the downtown and the harbor area is
important to the city of Dubuque and its future growth. Apex Concrete recognizing that
its facility there is old and om-dated, wishes to voluntarily close it to allow fur harbor
development. Apex Concrete's voluntarily seeking out an appropriate location is
beneficial to all of Duboque. The purposed rezoning request for Dubuque Southgate's lot
1 of Key Gate Center No. 2, is necessary to permit Apex Concrete to relocate and
construct a new state of the art facility. Having been shown what Apex has planned and
understanding that this system will meet EPA requirements, the site will be fully paved,
and sound and visual barriers will be constructed, we the undersigned also agree that the
rezoning ofDubuqne Southgate's lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2 should be changed fxom
C-3 General Commercial to MHI, Modified Heavy Industrial, m accommodate Apex. In
recognition of the remoteness of this property we also believe a blend of commercial,
residential, and modified heavy industrial (Apex Concrete) can exist here in harmony.
Signature Address
2-4 Nov. 2003
We the undersigned agree that the beautification of the downtown end the harbor area is
important to the city of Dubuque end its future growth. Apex Concrete recognizing that
its facil/ty there is old end out-dated, wishes to voluntarily close it to allow for harbor
development. Apex Concrete's voltmtarily seeking out en appropriate location is
beneficial to alt o f Dubuque. The purposed rezoning request for Dubuque So uthgate's lot
1 of Key Gate Center No. 2, is necessary to permit Apex Concrete to relocate and
construct a new state of the art facility. Having been shown what Apex has planned and
understending that this system will meet EPA requirements, the site will be fully paved,
end sound end visual barriers will be constructed, we the undersigned also agree that the
rezoning of Dubuque Southgate's lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2 should be changed f~om
C-3 General Commercial to MHI, Modified Heavy Industrial, to accommodate Apex. In
recognition of the remoteness of this property we also believe a blend of commercial,
residential, and modified heavy industrial'(Apex Concrete) can exist here in harmony.
nature
Address
3-4 Nov. 2003
We the undersigned agree that the beautification of the downtown and the harbor area is
important to the city of Dubuque and its future growth. Apex Concrete recognizing that
its facility there is old and om-dated, wishes to voluntarily close it to allow for harbor
development. Apex Concrete's voluntarily seeking out an appropriate location is
beneficial to all of Dubuqne. The purposed rezoning request for Dubuque Southgate's lot
1 of Key Gate Center No. 2, is necessary to permit Apex Concrete to relocate and
construct a new state of the art facility. Having been shown what Apex has planned and
understanding that this system will meet EPA requirements, the site will be fully paved,
and sound and visual barriers will be constructed, we the undersigned also agree that the
rezoning of Dubuque Southgate's lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2 should be changed fi:om
C-3 General Commercial to IV[HI, Modified Heavy Industrial, to accommodate Apex. In
recognition of the remoteness of this property we also believe a blend of commercial,
residential, and modified heavy industrial (Apex Concrete) can exist here in harmony.
Address
2-4 Nov. 2003
We the undersigned agree that the beautification of the downtown and the harbor area is
important to the city of Dubuque and its future growth, Apex Concrete reco~mizing that
its facility there is old and out-dated, wishes to voluntarily close it to allow for harbor
development. Apex Concrete's voluntarily seeking om an appropriate location is
beneficial to all of Dubuque. The purposed rezoning request for Dubuque Southgate's lot
1 of Key Gate Center No. 2, is necessary to permit Apex Concrete to relocate and
construct a new state of the art facility. Having been shown what Apex has planned and
understanding that this system will meet EPA requirements, the site will be fully paved,
and sound and visual barriers will be constructed, we the undersigned also agree that the
rezoning of Dubuque Southgate's lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2 should be changed J~om
C-3 General Commercial to MI-II, Modified Heavy Industrial, to accommodate Apex. In
recognition of the remoteness ofthLq property we also believe a blend of commercial,
residential, and modified heavy industrial (Apex Concrete) can exist here in harmony.
Si nature Address
We the undersigned agree that the beautification of the downtown and the harbor area is
important to the city of Dubuque and its future growth. Apex Concrete recogni:ring that
its facillty there is old and out-dated, wishes to voluntarily close it to allow for harbor
development. Apex Concrete's voluntarily seeking out an appropriate location is
beneficial to all of Dubuque. The purposed xez~ning request for Dubuque Southgate's lot
1 of Key Gate Center Nm 2, is necessary to permit Apex Concrete to relocate and
construct a new state of the art facility. Having been shown what Apex has planned and
understanding that this system will meet EPA requirements, the site will be fully paved,
and sound and visual barriers will be constructed, we the undersigned also agree that the
rezo~ing ofDubuqne Southgate's lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2 should be changed from
C-3 General Commercial to MHI, Modrtfied Heavy Industrial, to accommodate Apex. In
recognition of the remoteness of this property we also believe a blend of commercial,
residential, and modified heavy industrial (Apex Concrete)can exist here in harmony.
10
11
Address
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
We the undersigned agree that the beautification of the downtown and the harbor area is
important to the city of Dubuque and its future growth. Apex Concrete recognizing that
ks facility there is old and out-dated, wishes to voluntarily close it to allow for harbor
development. Apex Concrete's voluntarily seeking out an appropriate location is
beneficial to all of Dubuque. The purposed rezoning request for Dubuque Southgate's lot
1 of Key Gate Center No. 2, is necessary to permit Apex Concrete to relocate and
construct a new state of the art facility. Having been shown what Apex has planned and
understanding that thi~ system will meet EPA requirements, the site will be fully paved,
and sound and visual barriers will be constructed, we the undersigned also agree that the
rezening of Dubuque Southgate's lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2 should be changed from
C-3 General Commercial to MHI, Modified Heavy Industrial, to accommodate Apex. Im
recognition of the remoteness of this property we also believe a blend of commercial,
residential, and modified heavy industrial (Apex Concrete) can exist here in harmony.
Addre~ ,s
We the undersigned agree tim! the Ix.-auHfication o£tiw do.town ~
its Facilily there Is .~ ~d out*dnl~J, wishcs to voJ~t~ily cJo~ It t~b~
~evclopmenL A~X Cul~mte'~ voiultl~Jly s~kidg out ~ appmp~te l~ation is
~lleficinl {o dl of Dubuque. The purpos~ tezonlng request for Dubuq~ Southg~e's Jot
I ut Key ~ale Center No. 2, is .~es~ lo ~al~t A~x Co~reie lo mio~te
cufls(ruct n ~w state o[ the ~t filcilJty. 1 lavln8 ~n s~ wlmt A~x ~s planmd ~ '
u,dcrst~ndln8 t~t this system will meel EPA mq~remems, t~ site will ~ fully ~. '
and ~und nnd vieml ~riets will I~ cot~truct~. ~ tlw ~d~gi8~d al~ s~ee t~t t~
r~h~8 otDubuque Soulhgnte's 1ol 1 otKey Oate ~tcr No. 2 should ~
C-30e~ml Go~nerclai to Mill. Modi~ I lea~ l~ustrial, to ~co~te A~ In
r~ugnilion ottlm ~moleoess vrthis pro.ay we nlm ~lieve a blend ofco~erc~l.
~eslde.tlal, mid nmdi~ed i~nvy industrial (A~x Conc~ie) c~ exls~ here ~
., Add,tess
We Ihe undersigned agree II]al the beautificalion of the downlown and rite I
imporlnul lo the elly of Dubuque m~d ils future growth. Apex Concrete rec~
ils racilily II]ere t~; old and out-dated, wishes to voluntarily close it to allow ,PlI~i!~II~I.~SERVICES DEPARTMENT
developnienL Apex Concrete'.q volunlurily seckifig out ~ appmp~te bcation
~neficlal lo ali of Dubuque. I he purposed tezonmg requesl for Dubuque 8outh~ale s 17~
I of Key Gate Center No. 2, is nccess~y to pemfit A~x Concrete [o relo~le
construct a new state of the mt fitcilhy. I laving ~en shown wlmt A~x ires planned and
undersl~ding that this system will meet EPA requirements, the slte will
and sound and visual b~ders will Im conslructed, we the ~dersigned
rez. oning of Dubuque Southgatc's lot I of Key Gate Center No. 2 should ~ c~ged ~om
C-3 Oel<ral Co~erclal to Mill. Modified I leaw Industrial, to acco~t¢ A~m In
recoguilion of the <moteness of this prope~y we also ~lieve a blend of comerclal,
~esidential, m~d modified heavy industrial (Apex Concrete) c~ exist here ~ I~ny.
Address
NOV 2'5 2003
We the undersigned agree that the beautification of the downtown and th~ hart]or area is
important to the city of Dubuque and its future growth. Apex Concrete re olin[';-~, t-hnt
~', ~CIlYOF DUBUOUE
its facility there is old and out-dated, wishes to voluntarily close it to alb t ~Pg~r.~gEC,¥tCES
development. Apex Concrete's~oluntarily seeking o,ut an appropriate locl :ion is
beneficial to all of Dubuque. Ti~ purposed rezoning request for Dubuque Southgate's lot
I of Key Gate Center No. 2, is necessary to permit Apex Concrete to relocate and
construct a new state of the art facillty. Having been shown what Apex has planned and
understanding that tiffs system wilt meet EPA requirements, the site will be fully paved,
and sound and visual barriers will be constructed, we the undersigned also agree that the
rezoning of Dubuque Southgate's lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2 should be changed from
C-3 General Commercial to MHI, Modified Heavy Industrial, to accommodate Apex. In
recognition of the remoteness of this property we also believe a blend of commercial,
residential, and modified heavy industrial (Apex Concrete) can exist here in harmony.
Address
hnportant to the city orDk, buque and ils future growth. Apex Concrete fcc -: ~- - ' -
UE
development. A~x Couewle's vohml~ily seeking out ~ appwp~te location is
~nefieinl lo all of Dubuque. The purposed rezonlng ~equest Dr Dubuque 8outbgale~s lot
I of Key Gate Center No. 2. is nccess~y to permit Apex Concrete lo relo~te ~d
construct a new state of the mt facility, llaving ~en sho~ wlmt A~x ~s planned ~
underst~ding that this system wdl meet El A reqmrements, the site will ~ fully paved,
mid sound and visual b~riers will Im conslructed, ~ the undersig~d al~'agree t~l t~
rezoning of D,Jbuque Soutbgate's lot I of Key Gate Ceuter No. 2 should ~ ~ged ~om
C-3 General Co~nemial lo Mill. Modified Heavy Industrial, to acconn~te A~m In
recognition of the remoteness of this prope~y we also ~lieve a blend of co~ercial,
mstdent'al, mM modified heavy induslrlal (Apex Concrete} c~ exist hem M I~ny.
Address
REZONING STAFF REPORT Zoning Agenda: November 5, 2003
Property Address:
Property Owner:
Applicant:
Southeast of Highway 61/151 and Highway 52 intersection.
Daniel J. Mueller
Daniel J. Mueller
Proposed Land Use: Industrial
Proposed Zoning: MHI
Existing Land Use: Vacant
Existing Zoning: C-3
Adjacent Land Use:
North - U.S. Highway 52 Adjacent Zoning: North - C-3
East - Vacant East - PR
South - Vacant South - PR
West - Commercial/mobile home park West- PC
Former Zoning:
1934 - County
1975 - County
1985 - County
Total Area: Approx. 6 acres
Property History: The subject property was annexed to the City in 1988. At that time, the
owner requested Planned Residential zoning, as he was not sure how he planned to
develop the property at that time. In February 2003, the applicant applied for rezoning to
MHI Modified Heavy Industrial and then revised his application to request rezoning to
Planned Industrial District to allow establishment of a concrete batch mix plant. The City
Council referred the applicant's request back to the Zoning Advisory Commission in April
2003 to allow him to apply for rezoning to a commercial designation. The subject property
was rezoned to C-3 General Commercial on April 21, 2003
Physical Characteristics: The subject property is relatively fiat and is located at an
elevation that is higher than U.S. Highway 52 but slightly below the adjacent mobile home
park.
Concurrence with Comprehensive Plan: The area ~s designated for multi-family
development in the Comprehensive Plan.
Impact of Request on:
Utilities: Existing utilities are adequate to serve the site through extension of existing
water and sewer mains.
Traffic Patterns/Counts: The IDOT 2001 traffic count for U.S. Highway 61/151 ~s
15,700 average vehicle trips per day. The count for U.S. Highway 52 is 7,700
average vehicle trips per day.
Rezoning Staff Report -Southeast of Highway 61/151 & Highway 52 Page 2
Public Services: Existing public services are adequate to serve the site.
Environment: Staff does not anticipate any significant impacts to the environment
provided adequate erosion control is provided during all phases of development and
that storm water control is adequately controlled as it flows off the site.
Adjacent Properties: Planning staff anticipates that adjacent properties will be
impacted by increased levels of light and noise associated with development of the
parcel for industrial businesses.
CIP Investments: None proposed.
Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting rezoning of the subject parcel from C-3
General Commercial to MHI Modified Heavy Industrial District. The subject property is
located adjacent to the applicant's existing planned commercial district and is located
within the previously approved C-3 General Commercial zoning district.
The applicant intends to construct a new street from U.S. Highway 52 to serve the
property, which would be built to City standards and dedicated to the City. The applicant
has reviewed the proposed new street, which will have access to Highway 52, with the
City Engineering Division. Final approval of the access requires both Iowa Department of
Transportation and City of Dubuque approval.
The MHI Modified Heavy Industrial District allows for a wide range of permitted uses, and
a copy of those district uses is attached for the Commission's review. The subject
property to be rezoned is set back from the U.S. Highway 52 right-of-way with C-3 zoning
between it and the Iq ighway right-of-way. Planning staff anticipates that the industrial
businesses that may locate to the proposed area will tend to generate a lower level of
traffic when compared to commercial businesses that prefer a more visible location closer
to the adjoining highways.
The subject property proposed for rezoning to MHI is buffered from adjacent land uses by
the existing C-3 zoning. The subject property for rezoning ,s approximately 225 feet from
the mobile home park, 375 feet from the single-family home owned by Mihalakis to the
east, and Highway 52 provides a buffer on the north side of the property.
Staff recommends the Zoning Advisory Commission review Section 6-1.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance that establishes criteria for reviewing rezoning requests.
Prepared by:
Reviewed:
Date: /~./~ ,Z/~ ~
DU549 CH-01 .TXT (1)
3-4.4. Mill Modified Heavy Industrial District:
( A) General Purpose And Description: The MHI Modified Heavy Industrial District is intended
to provide appropriate locations for most heavy industrial uses, while also serving as a buffer
for transitional and redeveloping areas, partieularly along the U.S. 61/151 freeway corridor,
from those most intense induslrial uses which by their nature t~nd to generate levels of
smoke, dust, noise or odors or have visual impacts that render them incompatible with
virtually all other land uses. For this reason, the MI-II Modified Heavy Industrial District will
be mapped only in areas where topographic features or adjacent zoning districts mitigate the
effects of the zone upon nearby uses. This District is also designed to accommodate the
expansion of existing uses and provide for lnfill of vacant parcels but is not generally
intended to be an expandable district other than through the use of a planned unit
development as provided in this Ordinance.
(B) Principal Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in the MHI Districtx
(1) Railroads and public or quasi-public utilities including substations-[47].
(2) General offices-[47].
(3) Medical/dental lab-[8].
(4) Personal services-[14].
(5) Off-street parking lot-[N/A].
(6) Gas station-[1 g].
(7) Bakery (wholesale/commercial)-[19].
(8) Indoor restaurant-[20].
(9) Drive-in/carry-out restaurant-[28].
(10) Bar/tavern-[20].
(11) Automated gas station-[18].
(12) Service station-[21].
(13) Drive-up automated bank teller-[8].
(14) Self-service carwash-[8].
(15) P, nimal hospital/clinlc~[23].
(16) Furniture upholstery/repair-[ 18].
(17) Business services-[29].
(t11) Banks, savings and loans, and credit unions-[31].
(19) Vending/game machine sales/service-[ 19].
(20) Indoor recreation facilities-J37].
DU549 CH-O1.TXT [2)
(21 ) Mail-order houses-J23].
(22) Lumberyards/building materials sales-[l 9].
(23) Construction supplies, sales and service-Il9].
(24) Printing and publishing-J32].
(25) Moving/storage facilities-J33].
(26) Full-service carwash-J8].
(27) Auto service centers-J34].
(28) Auto sales and services-J38].
(29) Auto repair/body shop-J35].
(30) Track sales, service and repair-[39].
(3 I) Farm implement sales, services and repair-[39].
(32) Auto parts/supply-[7].
(33) Mobile home sales-J40].
(34) Motorcycle sales/service-J41 ].
(35) Boat sales/service-[40].
(36) Recreation vehicle sales/service- [38].
(37) Vehicle rental-[47].
(3g) Upholstery shop-[42].
(39) Parking structure-IN/Al.
(40) Contractors shop/yard-J33].
(41) Wholesale sates/distributor-[29].
(42) Freight transfer facilities-[44].
(43) Fuel and ice dealers-J33].
(44) Agricultural supply sales-II9].
(45) Cold storage/locker plants-II5].
(46) Packing and processing of meat, dairy or food products, but not to include
slaughterhouses or stock- yards-[33 ].
(47) Compounding, processing and packaging of chemical products, but not includ'mg highly
flammable or explosive materials-[33].
(411) Manufacture, assembly, repair or storage of electrical and electronic products,
components or equipment -[33].
DU549 CH-01 .TAT (3)
(49) Laboratories for research or engineering-[33 ].
(50) Warehousing and storage facilities -[33].
(51 ) Manufacture or assembly of musical instruments; toys; watches or clocks; medical,
dental, optical or similar scientific instruments; orthopedic or medical appliances; signs or
billboards-[33].
(52) Manufacturing, compounding, assembly or treatment of articles or products ~om the
following substances: clothing or textiles; rubber; precious or semi-precious stones or
metals; wood; plastics; paper;, leather; fiber; glass; hair; wax; sheet metal; concrete; feathers;
fur; and cork-[33].
(53) Manufacture, storage or processing of the following products or materials: glue,
petroleum products or any flammable liquid; asphalt or concrete products; explosive
materials of any type; s~uctural steel and foundry products; fertilizer; pharmaceutical
products, including cosmetics, toiletries and soap; and stone products, including brick,
building stone, and similar masonry materials-J33].
[ ] Parking group-See Section 4.2 of this Ordinance.
(C)Accessory Uses: The following uses shall be permitted as accessory uses as provided in
Section 4 of this Ordinance:
(1) Any use customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use it serves.
02)) Conditional Uses.
(1) Group day care center provided that:
(a) Forty (40) square feet of indoor floor area (excluding halls and bathrooms) is provided
per child in areas occupied by cribs;
Co) Thirty five (35) square feet of indoor floor area (excluding halls and bathrooms) is
provided per child in areas not occupied by cribs times the licensed capacity;
(c) Seventy five (75) square feet of fenced outdoor recreation space is provided per child
using the space at a given time;
(d) Such facility shall provide for the loading and unloading of children so as not to
obsmact public streets or create traffic or safety hazards;
(e) All licenses have been issued or have been applied for awaiting the outcome of the
Board's decision;
(f) No group day care center may be located within the same structure as any gas station,
bar/tavern, automated gas station or any facility selling, servicing, repairing or renting
vehicl.es;
Og) The parking group requirements can be met-[8]; and
(la) The conditional use applicant certifies that the premises on which the group day care
center will be located complies with, and will for so long as the group day care center is
so located, continue to comply with alt local, State and Federal regulations governing
hazardous substances, hazardous conditions, hazardous wastes, and hazardous materials,
including but not limited to Iowa Code chapter 455B (1991); 42 USC section 9601 of the
DU549 CH-O1.TXT (4)
Federal Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act; 40
CFR section 302.r; and section 302 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986.
(i) If the applicant is subject to the requirements of section 302 of the Superfand
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, the Emergency Management Director
shall certify whether or not the applicant has submitted a current inventory of extremely
hazardous substances kept or stored on the premises. If any such extremely hazardous
substances are kept or stored on the premises, the applicant shall also post in a
conspicuous place on the premises a notice indicating a description of the extremely
hazardous substances, and the physical and health hazards presented by such substances.
(2) Grain/barge terminal provided that:
(a) A site plan shall be submitted and approved as provided in Section 4 of this
Ordinance; and
(b) The parking group requirements can be mct-[44].
(E) Temporary Uses: The following uses shall be permitted as temporary uses in the MHI
District:
(1) Batch plants (asphalt or concrete).
(F) Bulk Regulations:
(1) Maximum BuiMing Height: 150 feet.
(G)Parking Requirements: See Section 4-2 of this Ordinance.
(H)Signs: See Section 4-3 of this Ordinance.
(Ord. No. 25-85, § 1, 5-20-1985; Ord. No. 23-90, §§ 6, 7, 3-19-1990; Ord: No. 26-90, § 3,
3-19-1990; Ord. No. 50-90, § 1, 64-1990; Ord. No. 70-90, 8 l(a)-(d), 94-1990.; Ord. No. 44-91,
88 1-3, 5-20-1991; Ord. No. 78-92, § 2, 11-2-1992; Ord. No. 12-93, § 2, 3-15-1993; Ord. No.
42-95, § 1, 7-3-1995; Ord. No. 11-96, 8 1, 34-1996; Ord. No. 12-96, § 1, 3-4-1996; Ord. No.
13-96, 8 1, 34-1996)
N
C-3
PR
sed 8/26/03
Proposed Area to be Rezoned
Applicant: Dan Mueller
Location: Southeast of Highway 52
South and Highways 61/151 I
ntersection
Description: To rezone property
from C-3 General Commercial
District to MHI Modified Heavy
Industrial District.
Zoning Advisory Commission
City Hall, Second Floor
50 W. 13th. Street
Dubuque, IA 52001
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMEN']'
Oct. 20, 2003
Dear Board Members:
I am writing this letter to voice my strong opposition to the rezoning of land, owned by Dubuque
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 & Hwy. 52, lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2. I am
convinced that the rezoulng from C-3 General Commercial, to MHI Modified Heavy Industrial,
would create many problems for the people who live, and work in this area, as well as people who
regularly travel through this area. My property, is directly across from the proposed sight, our
neighborhood is predominantly residential, with a few commercial properties also located in the
neighborhood. To introduce Modified Heavy Industrial into this area would stagnate any fumm
development of this area, as well as being detrimental to existing home owners property values.
As you Know Southgate Development had tried to rezone this property back in January with the
intended propose to sell the lot to Apex Concrete. I' m sure that this is still there intention. I am very
much opposed to such a transaction, as you should recall that proposal received a very vocal
opposition from nearly 200 residence in this area. Considering this opposition, I am disappointed
that this zoning change has been aloud to be reconsidered. I am extremely confident that opposition
for ANY type of Modified Heavy Industrial will be just as strong.
This type of non-confornmng zoning change creates far too many environmental, traffic, safety,
and aesthetic challenges. It is the propose of zoning laws to make sure these types of non-
conforming uses do not occur. I would encourage the Zoning Advisory Commission to to the right
thing and once again yore against this proposed zoning change.
Thank You for your time and consideration.
Sincerely
Tim & Amy
Stierman
Planning Serdces
Page 1 of 2
Planning Services Department
'i;hePlan~r~Services E)epaztmenFs mission is to ~[ki~ pafl~emhip.with our citizens to create a moro
livable community and ptan for a better f~ure.
The Planning Services Department reports to the City Manager and concentrates on two major activities--city
planning and development services. Programs include development site planning and review, community
planning, land use regela~an, zoning enforcement~ and corddor planning. Major projects underway aro
dverfront planning and development, visioning and comprehensive plan implementa~on and code
enforcement improvements.
Plann~ma Services
The Planning Services Addvity provides professional city planning services to the Long Range Planning
Advisory Commission for. community visioning, comprehensive planning, special planning studies, urban
revitalization and urban ronewal districts and capital improvement program input
t also anticipates tong-range and short-term needs of the City and rocommende policies, plans or programs
whenever possible to the City Manager, Long Range Planning Advisory Commission and City Council. In
addition, it implements the plans, obtains funding and implements multi-use trail systems in the City of
Dubuque.
Oevalo~ ment Services
The Development Services Activity provides professional development planning services to the City Council
and Zoning Advisory Commission for. rezomngs, planned unit developments, minor and major subdivisions.
zoning and subdivision ordinance amendments and coordinated land use planning.
This activity also provides professional development planning services to the Zoning Board of Adjustmeof for
variances, conditional uses, special exceptions and appeals.
We havezenk~ m. gulations to promote a sound, safe, healthy and desirable community; to encourage good
development and support the conscientious developer, and to protect existing property values and uses while
providing for future generations.
ZoniRq Enforcement
The Development Services Activity provides enforcement of the zoning ordinance in a timely fashion on a
consistent basis
The benefits of historic preservation are both tangible and intangible. Histodc preservation gives a community
a sense of place and continuity with its pest. It also makes economic sense. The moat expensive type of
preservation raroly equals the cost of comparable new construction.
Historic Preservation is intended to provide an opportunity to create, change or affect the exterior architectural
features of a building or site in a way that will not adversely effect the aesthetic historic or architectural
significance and value of the property or neighboring prope~sa.
The Planning Services Department has a customer services survey available. If you'd like you may voice your
opinion electronically, or download and forward the survey to our office.
Census Information
The Planning Services Department is the local repository for U.S. Census information.
Based on U.S. Census 2000 information, the population of the City of Dubuque is 57,686. The population of
Dubuque Courrbj is 89,143. Dubuque County experienced a 3.2% increase in population since 1990.
http://www.cityofdubuque.org/printer_friendly.cfrn?pageid=49 9/2/03
Climatic Atlas of the United States
Dubuque, IA
Month General Wind Speed
Direction (mph)
January Northwest 9
February Northwest 10
March Northwest 12
April Northwest 12
May Southwest 11
June Southwest 10
July South 8
August Southwest 9
September South 9
October South 10
November South 11
December Northwest 10
t'age i or i
BELLEVUE HEIGHTS
/
/
Dubuque County
1995-2000
32 Crashes
fite://C:\WlNDOWS\Temporary%20Intemet%20Files\Content.l;E5VBFWGRJ6N~US52%20s... 8/26/03
We, the undersigned, are residence, and workers in close proximity to property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
We are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of tttis land from C-3 General
Commercial to MHI Modified Heavy Industrial. We believe that allowing this non conforming
zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, no~se, as well as creating
very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area_ This area is predominantly
residential, and heavy industrial use of this land would not aesthetically fit into our surroundings.
We, ~tbe undersigned, ask that you reject this zoning change, as it would be detrimental to the safety,
oenjo~ent, and value of our properties.
Signature Address
We, the undersigned, are residence, and workers in dose proximity to property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
We are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of this land from C-3 General
Commercial to MHI Modified Heavy Industrial. We believe that allowing this non conforming
zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as creanng
very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area. This area is predominantly
residential, and heavy industrial use of this land would not aesthetically fit into our surroundings.
We, the undersigned, ask that you reject this zoning change, as it would be detrimental to the safety,
enjoyment, and value of our properties.
Signature Address
337
377
3qo
We, the undersigned, are residence, and workers in dose proximity to property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
We are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of this land from C-3 General
Co .mmereial to MHI Modified Heavy Industrial. We believe that allowing this non conforming
zomng change at this location would create -naceeptable levels of dust, noise, as well as creating
very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested areal This area is predominantly
residential, and heavy industrial use of this land would not aesthetically fit into our surroundings.
We, the undersigned, ask that you reject this zoning change, as it would be detrimental to the safety,
enjoyment, and value of our properties.
Signature
Addr~,~
We, the undersigned, are residence, and worke~ ia close proxir~ty to prop~ owned by
Southga~ Developmeat, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
We are gl'early opposed ~o the proposed dras~¢ rezoning ~' this land from C-3 General
Commercial to ~ Modred Heavy Industrial We believe ttmt allowing this non conforming
zoning change at this location would crea~ rm~ccep~ble levels of dust, noise, as well az creating
res~ocnum, aha heavy maustriat use o~ this land would not aesthetically fit into our surroundings.
We, the unde~igne~ ask that yo~ l~ject this zonino~ change, as it wollld be detriment! to the ~fety,
enjoyment, and value ~f our prope~ie~
Signature Address
We, the undersigned, are resident, and workers in dose proximity to property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 611151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
We are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoulng of this land from C-3 General
Colin nereial to MHI Modified Heavy lndustriul: We believe that allowing this non conforming
zoning change at this location would create ~macceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as creating
very d~mgerous traffic problems in an already congested area. This area is predominantly
residential, and heavy industrial use of this land would not aesthetically fit into our surroundings.
We, the undersigned, ask that you reject this zoning change, as it would be detrimental to the safety,
enjoyment, and value of our properties.
/7~
Ad~s
t
We, the undersigned, are residence, and workem in close proximity to property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/t51 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
We are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of this land from C-3 General
Commercial to MHI Modified Heavy Induslrial. We betieve that allowing this non conforming
zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as creating
very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area. This area is predominantly
resi~dential, and heavy industrial use of this land would not aesthetically fit into our surroundings.
W~, the undersigned, ask that you reject this zoning change, as it would be detrimental to the safety,
enjoyment, and value of our properties.
/37
/¢/
Signature Address
ICq
/n/9
We, the undersigned, are residence, and workers in dose proximity to prope~y owned bx'
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
We are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of this land from C~3 General
Commercial to MHI Modified Heavy Industrial. We believe that allowing this non conforming
zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as creating
very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area- This area is predominantly
residential, and heavy industrial use of this land would not aesthetically fit into our surroundings.
We, the undersigned, ask that you reject this zoning change, as it would be detrimental to the safety,
enjoyment, and value of our propemes.
q?
Signature Address
Id'
We, the undersigned, are residence, and workers in close proximity to property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
We are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of this land from C-3 General
Commercial to MHI Modified Heavy Industrial. We believe that allowing this non conforming
zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as creating
very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area. This area is predominantly
residential, and heavy industri.al use of this land would not aesthetically fit into our surroundings.
We, the undersigned, ask that you reject this zoning change, as it would be detrimental to the safety,
enjoyment, and value of our properties.
Signature Address
Fz
.,5-9
t, t(
tI-
tt
We, the undersigned, are residence, and workers in dose proximity to property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
We are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of thig land from C-3 General
Commercial to MHI Modified Heavy I0dn~trial. We believe that allowing this no~n conforming
zoning change at this location would cream unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as w~ll as creating
very dangerous traffic problems in an already conge~d area_ Tiffs area is predominantly
re~idenlial, and heavy industrial use of this land would not aesthetically fit into our surroundings.
We, the undersigned, ask that you reject thia zoning change, as it would be detrimental to the safety,
enjoyment, and value of our propertie~
2
3
4
Address
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
'14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
7(//.¢.::, ....
Rezoning request for Apex Concrete
A look at what is proposed ! an invitation to visit
What does it mean to you:
· Defined 225 ft. buffer from property Hne to plant itself
· Visual and sound barrier with arborvitae screening
· Security cyclone fencing
· State of the Art batch plant complying with all EPA regulations
· Normal working hours 7 AM to 5 PM (M-F), Sat 7-noon
· Sole access off Hwy 52 via Sun Rise drive over 300 ft. to North of Park property
· Paved site lot for dust control
· No thru traffic on Stone Hill drive
Come along for a visit to BARD Concrete's State of the Art batch plant in Dyersville. There you
can see for yourseff how this plant will look and how it functions. You will see the outside, the
inside and watch the process. You will see the dust collection system in operation as trucks are
loaded.
Time:
Location:
Transportation:
Return:
9:30 AM; Saturday Oct 25th
DOT parking lot near the Park office
Provided
11:00 AM
We, the undersigned, are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of property, owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot I of Key Gate Center No. 2.
from 03 General Commercial to MHI Modified Heavy Industrial to accommodate the
construction of a concrete batch plant by Apex concrete. We believe that allowing this non
confon,amg zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as
creating very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area. The area surrounding this
property is mostly residential, and commercial. We believe it is the purpose of zoning, as well as the
responsibility of our government to prevent this type of inmmive spot zoning, especially so dose to
residential neighborhoods.
Signature Address
We, the undersigned, are greatly oPtx~ed to the proposed drastic rezoning of property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot i of Key Gate Center No. 2.
from C-3 General Commercial to MHI Modified Heavv Industrial to accommodate the
construction of a concrete batch plant by Apex concrete. We believe that allowing this non
conforming zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as
creating very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area. The area surrounding this
property is mostly residential, and commercial. We l~elieve it is the purpose of zoning, as well as the
responsibility of our government to prevent this type of intrusive spot zoning, especially so close to
residential neighborhoods.
Signature Address
We, the undersigned, are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 611151 and Hwy. 52, Lot i of Key Gate Center No. 2.
from C-3 General Commercial to MHI Medified Heaw Industrial to accommodate the
construction of a concrete batch pl~t by Apex coneret& We beY~eve that allowing this non
conforming zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, nome, as well as
creating ve~ dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area. The area surrounding this
property is mostly residential, and commercial. We beY~eve it is the propose of zoning, as well as the
respousibiliW of our government to prevent this type of intrusive spot zoning, especially so close to
residential neighborhoods.
Signature Address
We, the undersigned, are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61l 151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
from C-3 General Commercial to MHI Modified Heavv Industrial to accommodate the
constmction of a concrete batch plant by Apex concrete. We believe that allowing this non
conforming zoning change at this location would create unacceplable levels of dust, noise, as well as
creating very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area. The area surrounding this
property is mostly residential, and commercial. We believe it is the purpose of zoning, as well us the
responsibility of our government to prevent this type of intrusive spot zoning, especially so dose to
residential neighborhoods.
Signature Address
?/
We, the undersigned, are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
from C-3 General Commercial to MHI Modified Heaw Industrial to accommodate the
constmction of a concrete batch plant by Apex concrete. We believe that allowing this non
conforming zoning change at this location would create anacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as
creafmg very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area. The area surrounding this
property is mostly residential, and commercial. We believe it is the purpose of zoning, as well as the
responsibili~ of our government to prevent this type of intrusive spot zoning, especially so close to
residential neighborhoods.
Signature
Address
We, the undersigned, are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
from C-3 General Commercial to MHI Modified FIeavy Industrial to accommodate the
construction of a concrete batch plant by Apex concrete. We believe that allowing this non
conforming zoning change at this localion would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as
creating very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested are~ The area surrounding this
property, is mostly residential, and commercial. We believe it is the ~ of zoning, as well as the
responsibiliW of our government to prevent this type of intrusive spot zoning, especially so close to
residential neighborhoods.
Signature Address
We, the undersigned, are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic mzoning of property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot I of Key Gate Center No. 2.
from C-3 General Commercial to MHI Modified Heaw Industrial to accommodate the
construction of a concrete batch plant by Apex concrete. We believe that allowing this non
conforming zoning change at this location would create unacceptable leyels of dust, noise, as well as
creating very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area. The area surrounding this
property is mostly residential, and commercial. We believe it is the purpose of zoning, as well as the
responsibility of our government to prevent this type of intrusive spot zoning, especially so close to
residential neighborhoods.
Signature Address
We, the undersigned, are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
from C-3 General Commercial to MHI Modified Heaw Industrial to accommodate the
construction of a concrete batch plant by Apex concrete. We believe that allowing this non
conforming zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as
creating very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area. The area surrounding this
property is mostly residential, and commercial. We believe it is the purpose of zoning, as well as the
responsibility of our government to prevent this type of intrusive spot zoning, especially so close to
residential neighborhoods.
Signature Address
We, the undersigned, are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61l 151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
from C-3 General Commercial to MHI Modified Heaw Industrial to accommodate the
construction of a concrete batch plant by Apex concrete. We believe that allowing this non
conforming zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as
creating very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area. The area surrounding this
property is mostly residential, and commercial. We believe it is the purpose of zoning, as well as the
responsibility of our government to prevent this type of intrusive spot zoning, especially so close to
residential neighborhoods.
Signature Address
Sq
We, the undersigned, are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 59_, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
from C-3 General Commercial to MHI Modified Heavy Industrial to acxxam~odate the
construction of a concrete batch plant by Apex concrete. We believe that allowing this non
conforming zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as
creating very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area. The area surrounding this
property is mostly residential, and commercial. We believe it is the ~ of zoning, as well as the
responsibility of our government to prevent this type of inmmive spot zoning, especially so dose to
residential neighborhoods.
Signature
Address
We, the undersigned, are greatly o~d to the proposed drastic rezoning of property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot I of Key Gate Center No. 2.
from C-3 General Commercial to MHI Modified Heavy, Industrial to accommodate the
construction of a concrete batch plant by Apex concrete. We believe that allowing this non
conforming zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as welt as
creating ver: dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area. The area surrounding this
property is mostly residential, and commercial. We believe it is the purpose of zoning, as well as the
responsibility of our government to prevent this type of intrusive spot zoning, especially so dose to
residential n(~ghborhoods.
Signature Address
We, the undersigned, are greatly oppo~xt to the proposed drastic rezoning of property, owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61115;1 and H~3r. 52, Lot I of Key Gate Center No. 2.
from C-30eneral Commercial to MI-II Modified Heavy. Industrial to accommodate the
construction of a concrete batch plant by Apex concrete. We believe that allowing this non
conforming zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as
creating very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area. The area surrounding this
property is mostly residential, and commercial. We believe it is the purpose of zoning, as well as the
responsibility of our government to prevent this type of inlmsive spot zoning, especially so close to
residential neighborhoods.
Signature Address
We, the undersigned, are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of property, owned by
Sonthgate Development, south of Hwy. 6t/151 and Hwy.. 52, Lot 1 of Key Crate Center No. 2.
from C-3 General Commercial to Mt-II Modified Heaw Industrial to accommodate the
construction of a concrete batch plant by Apex concre~. We believe that allowing this non
conforming zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as
creating very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area. The area surrounding thi.~
property is mostly residential, and commercial. We believe it is the purpose of zoning, as well as the
responsibility of our government to prevent this type of intrusive spot zoning, especially so close to
residential neighborhoods.
Signature Address
We, the undersigned, are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hay. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
from C-3 General Commercial to MHI Modified Heavy Industrial to accommodate the
construction of a concrete batch plant by Apex concrete. We believe that allowing this non
conforming zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as
creating very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area~ The area surrounding this
property is mostly residential, and commercial. We believe it is the purpose of zoning, as well as the
responsibility of our government to prevent this type of inhmsive spot zoning, especially so close to
residential neighborhoods.
Signature Address
We, the undersigned, are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of property owned by
Southgatc Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
from C-3 General Commercial to MHI Modified Heavy Industrial to accommodate the
construction of a concrete batch plant by Apex concrete. We believe that allowing this non
conforming zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as
creating very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area. The area surrounding this
property is mostly residential, and commercial. We believe it is the purpose of zoning, as well as the
responsib'flity of oar government to prevent this type of intrusive spot zoning, especially so close to
residential neighborhoods.
Signature Address
t tl qo
We, the undersigned, are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of property o~xmed by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
from C-3 General Commercial to MHI Modified Heavy Industrial to accommodate the
construction of a concrete batch plant by Apex concrete. We believe that allowing this non
conforming zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as
creating very dangerous Iraffic problems in an already congested area. The area surrounding this
property is mostly residential, and commercial. We believe it is the purpose of zoning, as well as the
responsibilitY of our government to prevent this type of intrusive spot zoning, especially so dose to
residential neighborhoods.
Signature Address
We, the undersigned, are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of property, owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Crate Center No. 2.
from C-3 General Commercial to MHI Modified Heavy. Industrial to accommodate the
construction of a concrete batch plant by Apex concrete. We believe that allowing this non
conforming zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as
creating very dangerous traffic problems in an already cong.es, ted. area. The area s .u?ounding this
property is mostly residential, and commercial. We believe ~t ss the purpose of zomng, as well as the
responsibility of om- government to prevent this type of intrusive spot zoning, especially so close to
residential neighborhoods.
Signature Address
We, the undersigned, are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
from C-3 General Commercial to MHI Modified Heavy. Induslrial to accommodate the
construction of a concrete batch plant by Apex concrete. We believe that allowing this non
conforming zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as
creating ve~' dangerous traffic problems in an already congested are~ The area surrounding this
property is mostly residential, and commercial. We believe it is the ~ of zoning, as well as the
responsibility of our government to prevent this type of intrusive spot zoning, especially so close to
residential.. neighborhoods.
Signature' Address
115C0
~ We, the undersigned, are greatly opposed to the !rasfic rezoning of property owned by
~outhgate DevelopmenL .south o1' Hwy. 61/151 ama r~,e~ · Lot i o£ Key
from C-3 General Commercial to MHI Modified Hea~ ,: ~ to accomrm:4ale
construction of a concrete batch plant ~ Apex concrete. : : ~lievc that allow~
conforming zoning c .hange at this location would create ur[~ ~ptable levels of d~k a~e. ~s ~velt as
creating very dangerous traffic problems in an already con,ted area. The area summnding this
property is mostly residential, and commercial. We believe it is the purpose of zomng~ a.~; well as hh.e
rcstxmsib/lity of our government to prevent this ¢'pe of intrusive spot ~ming. espex:ially so close to
residential neighborhoods.
Signature Address
/
We, the undersigned, are greaUy opposed ~o ~e proposed drastic rezoning of property m~med by
Southgate Development. south of Hwy. 611151 and Hwy. 52. Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
from C-3 General Commewial to Mid/Modified Heavy Industrial to accommodate the
construction of a coxicmte bamh plant by Apex concrete. We believe thal allowing this non
conforming zoning change at tlxis localion wo~ld ~ unacc~pmlole levels of dust. noise, as well as
creating vet.' dangerous traffic probte~as in a!n already congestaxl area. The area surrounding this
property is mostly residential, and commercial. We believeit is the purpose of zoning, as well as the
responsibilit3, of our government to prevent this type of inumsive spot zoning, especially so dose to
residential neighborhoods.
Si gnature Address
~.¥e; the undersigned, are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rczoning of property owned by
aouthgatc Developmen~ ~)uth of FIa$'. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot ! of Key Ga~e Center No. 2.
from C-30eneral Commercial to Iv~lI Modified Heavv Industrial to accommodate the
construction of a com,~retc batch plant ~ Apex concretE. We believe that allowing this non
ctmforming zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, z~s well as
creating ye, .dangero.u~. traffic problems in .an, ,~a~-?d, y,.cong.es, te~.~ area~ The ar~e.a.
property is mostly resldentiM, and commermm, we ~X~lleVe it is trle purpose ol zorang, as
reslxmsibiti~ of our government u~ prevent this type of intrusive spot zoning, especially so close
residential neighborhoods.
Signature Address
We, the undersigned, are greatly opposed to the ~ drastic rezoning of propers, on, ned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 6t/t5t aad Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Kay Gate Center No. 2.
from C-3 C-ener",d Commercial to Mt~ Modiff~ed'H~w Industrial to acco~m(',dm tim
coustruction of a coricrere hatch plant by Apex concrel~. We believe thal ~llowing this non
conf.orming zoning change at tiffs loc~ti~ would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as
creaUng veq,' dangerous trafllc problems in ~n a!ready congested area. The area surrounding this
propeR' is mostly residential, and commamaial. We believeit is the ~ of zoning, as well ~ts thc
responsibility of our government to preveattl'ds type of inmmive spot zoning, especially so c~ ~3se to
residential neighborhoods.
Signature Address
We. the undersigned, ate greatly opposed to the p~d drastic rezoning of property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
from C-3 General Commercial to MHI Modified Heavy Industrial to accommtxtate thc
construction of a concrete batch plant by Apex concrete. We believe that allowing this non
ctmfom~ing zoning change at this location would create unacceptable revels of dust, noise, as well as
creating ve~' dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area. The area surrounding this
property is mostly residential, and commercial. We believe it is the purpose cfi zoning, as well os the
responsibility of our gm'eminent to prevent this type of intrusive spot zoning, especially so ctom to
residential neighborhoods.
Signature Address
Z~'" We, the undersigned, are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of properS.' owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hr%,. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot ! of Key Gate Center No. 2.
from C-3 General Commercial to MHI Modffmd Heavy Indus~al to accomm(xlate the
txmstruction of a concrete batch plant by Apex concrete. We believe t 'hat allowing this non
conforming zoning change at this location would create unacCeptable levels of dust, noise, as well as
creating very dan~erouS traffic problems in an already congested area. The area surrounding this
property is mostly r~sidential, and commercial. We believe it is the purpose of zoning, as welt as thc
responsiNtity of our govemmem to prevent this ~,pe of intrusive spot zoning, espc~ally so c~se to
residenti~ neighborNxyds.
Signature Address
We, the undersigned, are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic mzoning of property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
from C-3 General Commercial to MHI Modified Heaw Industrial to accommodate the
construction of a concrete batch plant by Apex concrete. We believe that allowing this non
conforming zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as
creating very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area. The area surrounding this
property is mostly residential, and commercial. We believe it is the purpose of zoning, as well as the
responsibili~-' of our government to prevent this type of intrusive spot zoning, especially so close to
residential neighborhoods.
Signature Address
We, the undersigned, are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
from C-3 General Commercial to ~ Modified Heavy Industrial to accommodate the
construction of a concrete batch plant by Apex concrete. We believe that allowing this non
conforming zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as
creating ve~ dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area, The area surrounding this
property is mostly residential, and commercial. We believe it is the purpo~ of zoning, as well as the
responsibility of our government to prevent this type of intrusive spot zoning, especially so dose to
residential neighborhoods.
Signature
~. /
Address
We, the undersigned, are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic rezoning of property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
from C-3 General Commercial to Mill Modified Heavy Industrial to accommodate the
construction of a concrete batch plant by Apex concrete. We believe that allowing this non
conforming zoning change at this location would create unaecopmble levels of dust, noise, as well as
creating very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area. The area surrounding this
property is mostly residenfiul, and commercial. We believe it is the purpose of zoning, as well as the
responsibility of our government to prevent this type of intrusive spot zoning, especially so close to
residential neighborhoods.
Signature Address
We, the undersigned, are greatly opposed to the proposed drastic mzoning of property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy. 61/151 and Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Gate Center No. 2.
from C-3 General Commercial to MHI Modified Heaw Industrial to accommodate the
construction of a concrete batch plant by Apex concrete. We believe that allowing this non
conforming zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as
creating very dangerous traffic problems in an already congested area. The area surrounding th/s
property is mostly residential, and commercial. We believe it is the purpose of zoning, as well as the
responsibility of our government to prevent this type of intrusive spot zoning, especially so close to
residential neighborhoods.
Signature Address
~ to c~ Coundl- Dubuque, IA
Re: C~ to MH! Zonir'~j for Apex Concrete Batch, Plant
We, the undersigned, as residents of l~e city of Dubuque believe that the proposed
zoning change for Dubuque Southgate, Lot I of Keygate Center, No.2 on US 52 South
would not be in the best interest of the dtizens of Dubuque. We feel that an inviting
gateway to our city woutd tose aesthetic a..pp~, and l~at industrial use at ~fis ,~e is
misplaced and would have a narrowing errec~ on any planned ~ growth. We fear that
ihi~y flow and safety would be compromised by heavy truc~ traffic a~- a c~m4~]ex
ntersection of frontage roads and two major LIS highways. We therefore respectfully ask
that you deny this zoning change.
/2
Petrdon {o C~ Coundk Dubuque,
Re: C-3 to MHt Zoning for Apex Concrete Batch, Pla,~
We, the undersigned, as residents of the city of Dubuque believe that the proposed
zoni.n~, change for Dubuque Southgate, Lot I of Keygate Center, No.2 on US 52 South
w~.u~a no.t be m the best interest of the citizens of Dubuque. We ! .e~_ that an inviting
gateway ~o our city would lose aeslt~tic appeal and ~-at industdai use at ~fis site is
.m..hic. gnway.iSplaced and would have a narrowing effect, on any ptanned ~ ~. We fear that
.flow and safety would be compri, mised by, heavy truck t~rafr~ a! a cc~mp]ex~
~,mt~'. sec~, of ~ roads and two major US highways, We therefore respec~{y ask
Petition to City Council- Dubuque, IA
Re: C-3 to MHI Zoning for Apex Concrete Batch Plant
We, the undersigned, as residents of t~he city of Dubuque believe that the proposed
zoning change for Dubuque Southgate, Lot I of Keycjate Center, No.2 on US 52 South
would not be in the best interest of the citizens o~ Dubuque. We feel that an inviting
gateway to our city would lose aesthetic aAoeal and that industrial use at l~s site is
misplaced and woutd have a narro~'~j effect on any ptanned ~e ~. We fear that
highway flow and safety would be compromised t~y heavy truck traffic a~ a c~p]ex
intersection of fror~age roads and two major US highways. We therefore respectfut~ ask
We, the undersigned, are greatly ~m the [ztopo~l drastic rezon~ng of property owned by
Southgate Development, south of Hwy, 611151 a~ Hwy. 52, Lot 1 of Key Crate Center No. 2.
from C-3 General Commercial to ~ Modi~ Heavy Industrial to accommodate the
construction of a coricrete batch plant by Apex corv. xete. We believe that alto~ving this non
conforming zoning change at this location would create unacceptable levels of dust, noise, as well as
creating very 'dangero~ u~fl-ic problems in 'da already congested area. The area surrounding this
property is mostly residential, and cxmtmercial. We believe it is the purpose of zoning, as well as the
responsibility of our government to prevent this type of i n~asive spot zoning, especially so clom to
residential neighbtxhoods.
Signature Address
December 12, 2003
Mr. Terry Duggan Ms. Joyce Connors
Mr. John Markham Ms. Ann Michalski
Mr. Dan Nicholson
Mr. Roy Buol
Ms. Patricia Cline
Re Cement plant zoning at Hwy 52-61-151 intersection
Dear City Council members:
My apologies for writing to you so late in the process, but we didn't realize that the re-zoning
issue relat'mg to the proposed cement plant was still alive. Most of us thought that the question
had earlier been disposed of negatively for the applicant and didn't realize it had come back in
another form.
Members of our family are very interested in the disposition of the zoning question at issue, as
various members of the Zwack tribe own real estate (1) in Key West (on Rockdale Road), (2) on
the south end of Kelly Lane, (3) 250 acres within sight of the proposed cement plant in question,
and (4) in the Southern Hills subdivision. All family members oppose zoning that would allow
construction and operation of the cement plant in question.
I yield to no one in my desire to encourage free enterprise and private business. However, the
pursuit of business goals should always be subject to what is appropriate for the common good.
Zoning that would permit construction ora several-stow-high cement plant at the site in question
would de£mitely detract from the common good of the community.
So far as the visual effects of the proposed cement plant monstrosity at the gateway to Dubuque
(from 3 highways, no less); so far as safety of large cement trucks entering and exiting the area in
question; and so far as incompatibility with the neighbors--for all of these reasons and others we
wholeheartedly oppose any zoning which would allow the cement plant in question.
No matter what proponents might argue, the fact of the matter is that a cement plant would
present the entrance to Dubuque from the south or southwest as an armpit instead of an
outreached hand of friendship, goodwill, cleanliness, culture and common sense. Obviously from
its position of prominence the proposed tall cement factory would visually dominate the view and
skyline of Key West and Southwest Dubuque for miles in all directions.
Although I am sure someone or ones must favor the re-zoning in question, we have not heard a
single positive comment about it from anyone in the area. Please don't make a mistake we will
regret in the near and distant future. For the good of the community please vote aga'mst allowing
zoning requested in this case.
Thank you for your thoughtful attention to this important matter.
Mort, Dec t $, 2003 2:40
From: Bruce. Chrystal@ DOT.STATE.IA. US
To: < rkfmn@earthlink, net>
Cc: <Richard. Kautz@DOT. STATE. ZA. US> , <3im. Schnoebelen@DOT. STATE.IA.US>,
< Arbh ur. Gou rley@ DOT. STATE. IA. US >
Date; Monday, December 15, 2003 10:23 AM
Subject; Concrete Batch Plant- US 52 @ US 61/15! Dubuque,
Dear Richard:
I've been asked to respond to your questions concerning this issue. The
answers to your question are highlighted in red just below the question in
your original
if you have questions please feel free to ~onta~ me at 563-875-2375 or by
email.
Engineering Operations Te~hni~ien
Dyersville, Iowa 52040
---- Forwarded by Bruce Chrysta!/DOT/State!A on 12/t5/2003 09:51 AM ----
12/11/2003 04:09
~M
Bruce Chrystal <Bruce.ChrEstal~DOT.$TATE.IA.US>
Subject: Concrete Bahoh Plant- US 52 @ US 61/151
To: ~ichard Eautz, Distric~ 6 Engineer, Iowa Dept of Transportation
Mr Kautz
would like to knowthe status and application date of any requests by
Apex ConcreteorDanMuetler for either of these~hange~ontheRf~
of US 52, South of the intersection w/ US 61/151:
1] Is there an application or l~mit, approved or pending, Eor
reconstruction or paving of an entrance to the proposed plant
on the ~W side of US 52 ?
Permi~ # 21-2003-i3 just issued on 12-02-03 allo~s the exlselng Type
a=c~ss to beslightl¥ releeatedfrc~it'spresent location at station
1042+56 to station 1041+95 which wilt move it 61 feet east. It also allows
Page t of 2
it to be paved in accordance with the plans submitted. It does not allow
for paving any right tufa lane~. This modifies permit ~6-2519 which allcwed
a Type "B~ access at stations 1041+25 and 1047+51 on 8-1-88.
N~te fha% the original permit {~6-2369) wkich allowed a Type "B" entrance
at station 1041+25 was i~aed to John D. ~%ola on 6-1-84 and was ~ used.
It did not allow for paving the entrance.
Is there an application, approved or pending, for oons%ruotien
of an extension to the existing northbound right turn lane on
US 52 across fr~ the entrance of th~ proposed plant ? Is there
plan by tDOT %o build an extension to this lane in the near
or foreseeable fu%ure ?
Mon, De(; 15, 2003 2:40 PM
I need this information as soon as possible for presentation to a
meetLng ~cheduled for Monday PM, De~ 15, 2003. E-mail re~pon~e is
requested.
Respeotfulty ~b~itted
Richard Kaufman
6547 Mas~ey Sin Rd
Dubuque IA
[563] 556-1623
rkfmn@earkblink, nat
Page 2 of 2
Re: C-3 to MHI Zoning for Apex Concrete Batch Plant
We, the undersigned, as residents of Dubuque County feel that we will be negatively
e.ffected by a propos~l~ zoning change for Dub~lue Sout. hg_a,~, _L~t, 1 of ~t~CerCter,
No.2 on US 52 South. Rezoning of this tract would create an island of Modified eavy
If approved, we believe that an tarring gateway to ~ cit~j of Dubuque would lose
aest~tic ~ and prope~es both adjacent and beyond would be devalued. Further,
we ,'ear th~ ,,icjhway flow and safety would be compromised at an already complex a.qd
dangerous intersection. Therefore we respectfully ask that you deny this zoning change.
t/
Pea on to Counca- Dubuque,
Re: C-3 to MH! Zoning for Apex Concrete Batch Plant
We, the undersigned, as residents of Dubuque County feet that we will be negatively
affected by a proposed zoni~ change for Dubuque ~_,_ _t.~,~j~_ ,~, Lo, t, 1 o~ Keygate Cerrl:er,
No.2 on US 52 South. Rezoning of this tract would . .c~at.e. an island of ~..~d ~
Industrial use ~ a ~.of Planned R ~. ~:. I and Commercial properties.
If approved, we believe ~h~t .an in'.~ting .~tew~. to the city of ~ would lose
aesthetio a~l and pro~ both adjacent and beyo~, would be devalued. ~urther.
we fear that hi~vay flow and safety would be compromised at an already complex ~
Peti~on to Ci[y Counc~ Dubuque, tA
Re: 0-3 to MHI Zoning for Apex Concrete Batch Plant
affected by a proposed zom.~ change for Dubuque South_~._,, _L~). 1 of Keyga~ Center,
No~2 on US 52 South. Rezoning of this tract would create an island of Modified Heavy
Industrial use within a neighbod3ood of Planned Residential and Comm~l properties.
tf approved, we ber~eve that an inviting .~atc~. y to the city of Dubuque would lose
aesthetic appeal and proper'des both.?jacent and beyop, d would be devalued. Further,
we fear that ,highway ftow and safety would be compromised at an already complex and
dangerous intersection. Therefore we respectfully ask that you deny this zoning chang~
We, the u~dem/gned, are ~dence~ and ~x)rkms ~n cto~ ~oximi~ ~ ~ owa~ by
~h~m ~e[~en[ ~uth c~ H~'. 61 [ ~51 ~ H~ 52~ ~ 1 ~' Key G~ ~nter No, 2~
Were g~Oy ~ m ~ ~ ~c re--ag of this lm~d f~ C?
C~mer~ to ~ M~F~ H~vy t~t~, We ~lieve t~ aJlc~'ing tF~s non ~onf~ing
~ c~ at this t~on would ~m m~taMe levels ofdu~, n~m, ~ welt ~
ve~' d~g~ tmfT~c ~ in ~'~r~ ~ng~J ~ This ~'~ is ~i~ay
r~dmfi~ ~ ~vy ~st~ mm of ~is la~ w~ld not ~s~e~ty fit into our su~mnffmgs~
W~ ~e u~, ~k ~t ym mj~t tbs tuning chan~, ~ it wo~d ~ &tfimenml to the
its'facility the~ is Old ami out-dated, wishes to voluntarily clos~ it~o allow f~r harbor
bo~ial to all of Dutmque~ The ~ reining requ~t f~r Dula~lue Soutlagates lot
1 of Key Gate Center No. 2, is ~a~n,y to l~,,,,;t Apex Concrete ~o ~elocate and
cons~uct a ~ ~ of~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~wn wl~ At~ has P~I a~l
mzoning ofDuimq~ Soult~'s lot 1 ofK~ Gat~ C~ No. 2 should I~ changed from
~n ofth~ ,c-olotcne~ ofth~q property v~ also ~ a bleald of co,~,,~'cial,
rczoning o~ ~,s lot 1 ofK~ C~t~ C~ 1~o. 2 -~d !~ ci~ng~l fi°m
c.3 C, cncral ~ ~o IHH[, Modifi~l ~ ~ to accommoda~ ~ ~"
rcco~,~ oft]~ ~ess of~ pmpefl~ we abo ixd'~ a bknd of~
mzoning ofDulmque ~'s ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ lm dmnged from
n~gnition oftl~ reinotenms oftl6n property w~ also belic~ a blm~ of~
its ~act-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-~ the~ is old and out-c~ w~acs to voiumamY close ~t t° ,stow ]~)F
of Key Gat~ Ce~ No. 2, is n~e~a~tto ~ AP~ Com:~ m ~ and
xezm~ing of~ ~,~ lot I ofY~.y ~ Cen~r No. 2 ~mkl 1~ ciian~d from
c-3 ~ ~ ~ MHL M~am~t R~vy ~ to ac~mmda~ AP~- Ia
Why Does Apex Want to Move
· City Development of Harbor Area
· City Restriction on Upgrade or Expansion
· Existing Plant is Old and Outdated
· Continued Compliance EPA Regulation
· Growth and Expansion in Dubuque
These Should Not Be Allowed To Be Used As Reasons To
Impose Apex On A Residential Neighborhood
What Does This Mean
The Greater Dubuque Development Corp., The Zoning
Advisory Commission, Dubuque Southgate, and Apex Have Been
Allowed to Use
The Agenda to Encourage Unwanted Businesses to be
Removed From the Harbor Area
· To Create Dangerous Spot Zoning
· To Place a MH! Concrete Plant in a Residential
neighborhood
· To Go Against The Will of the Vast Majority of People
Who Live and Work in this Area, Forcing Them to Accept This
Intrusive Spot Zoning.
What Has Changed Since First Failed
Zoning Attempt Change
· Nothing of Substance, Apex Claims to Have Created a
Buffer Zone
- Amount of land used by Apex is the same
- Uses for this land remain the same
· All 10 Acres are Still Going to be Utilized by Apex
for the Purpose of Using Raw Materials to Produce Ready Mix
Concrete.
Show Me
· How 3' to 4' Tall Arborvitae Plantings Can Screen a
Massively intrusive 60' Tall structure
· How After Waiting 20 Years For These Arborvitae to
Reach Mature Heights of 15' to 20' Tall They Can Screen This
Same 60ft Structure.
· How Fencing Placed on Only One Side Can Be a Strong
Enough Barrier to Protect Our Children.
IDOT Approved Class "B" Access
· Access Granted Over 15 Years Ago. - As a danned Residential.
· Class "B" Access Allows Up To 150 vehicles/hr. - As a planned residential.
· Class "B" Access has never been granted to this
property as MHI
- Class "B" Access is for up to light commercial
Intersection Traffic Impact
· Accident Rate Comparison Presented By Owners and
Apex not Applicable
- Slow Moving Heavy Trucks on a 55 mph Highway
not comparable to minor fender benders at JFK and Pennsylvania.
· Accidents At Intersection of HWY. 151,61 & Hwy. 52
Much More Severe
- No Fatalities Have occurred at JFK and Pennsylvania
as Far Back as Records Go Starting In January 1999
- In a Little Over 1 Year 2 Fatalities have occurred at
the intersection of
HWY. 151,61 & Hwy. 52
· Traffic FATALITIES Will Most Likely INCREASE, Due
To Trucks Entering And Exiting The Plant, and Trucks Backing Up
The HWY. 151.,61 Left Turning Lane, If This Plant Is Allowed To
Be Built This Close To This Major Highway Intersection
Disadvantages Of Locating Apex On This
Property
· Traffic Created By Heavily Loaded Concrete Trucks, Dump Trucks,
and Semi's with 30 tons of payload, Stopping and Taking Off This Close to This
Intersection Would Create Dangerous Driving Conditions.
· Sometimes Concrete Plants Operate from 6 am. - 8 pm. including
Saturdays,
· Constant Dust and Noise Would Be An Unacceptable Nuisance to
Neighborhood.
· Property Values Will Decline Greatly As a Result of Spot Zoning.
· Further Commercial and Residential Development of This Area Will be
Stagnated.
· Most Importantly, The SAFETY Of The Significant
Number Of CHILDREN In This Area Will Be Compromised.
~inutes- Zoning Advisory Commission
:-: January 8, 2003
Page 5
Charles Ptein, 9040 Metropolitan Heights, said that he has concerns with the potential
traffic and dust generated by the facility.
DennisThei~stated that he would be willing to work with the neighbors to address their
concerns. He said that the trucks are tilt and lift or auger emptied and do not bang
tailgates- He said that the lo-boy trucks unload with a belt. He said that the entire yard will
be paved and generate little dust. He stated that the shop and maintenance building along
with the vegetative screening and fence will serve to separate and buffer the Table Mound
Traiier Park from the facility. He sf~d that he has searched for availabJe industrial
property in the area and that the Dubuque Techr~caf Park does not altow batch plants, and
Tamarack lndust_ria! Park has'no available proper'~/.
Commissioner Hardie asked how tall the building will be. Mr. Their said approximately 50-
60 feet high. He said that the office building would be 30 feet high.
Staff Member Kfitz stated that the MHI district is the second most intense industrial district.
He said that the site can be served with utilities. He outlined the uses permitted in the MHI
district. He discussed the traffic counts for the intersection of Highways 52 and 151/61~
He discussed the potential for a conditional rezoning. He stated that screening at the
grade level of the site would not be effective because the mobile home park is elevated
welt above the site. He said it may be possible to place screening at the back of the
mobile home park, which would be more effective.
Commissioner Smith asked if the proposed access will be a public street. Staff Member
Kritz stated it will be a private street. He also stat~.:~d that storm water detention will be
required through the site plan process.
Commissioners discussed that the City's public notification requirements had been met.
Commission Members discussed planned unit development requirements, and said they
feel that the neighbors concerns could be addressed at ~he site pJan leveJ, which would
require a conceptual development plan and a planned unit development designation.
Commissioners discussed tabling the proposal to allow Apex Concrete to meet with
neighbors about their concerns and to prepare a conceptual development plan.
Motion by Bird, seconded by Hardie, to table the applicant's request with a
recommendation that the applicant meet with the neighbors and return with a planned unit
development and conceptual development plan. Motion was approved by the following
vote: Aye - Smith, Hurdle, Stiles and Bird; Nay - None.
PUBLIC HEARING~,REZONING: Application of James Hecl~mannfTim & Malin Boge, 296
North Grandview, to rezone property from R-1 Single-Family Residential Zoning Distdct to
OR Office Residential District.
Jim Heckmann, 1660 Embassy West Drive, reviewed his request with the Commission. He
distributed a booklet containing photos of the subject property and surrounding parcels.
December i 1, 2003
Dubuque City Council
City Hall
50 W. 13th. Street
Dubuque, IA 52001
Dear Dubuque Cily Council Members:
On December 11, 2003 1 had personally visited with Mr. Jon Luckstead, Owner of Tamarack
Pm-k. He stated to me that he had never been contacted by Mr. Their, or Apex Concrete, concerning
the placement of Apex at Tamarack. At this time Mr. Luckstead intbrmed me that he does indeed
have at least 10 acres available, and that he would be happy to talk to Mr. Their about the possibility
of locating Apex Concrete on his land. I have timed the distance from the proposed Apex site on
Hwy. 52 S. to Tan~arack park and I can travel this distance in approx. 4 min. I am very confident
that the Apex trucks should be able to travel this sane route in little more time. Tiffs should not
create any real hardships for Apex, as they will also be saving back some of this time not having to
climb the steep incline at Hwy. 52. fully loaded from a dead stop. There are also no residential
neighbors in this immediate area. I believe that the positive aspects of Apex moving into an area
such as Tamarack wilt £ar out way any small negative aspects tvfr. Their might h?' to come up with.
Thank You for your consideration.
~nce, ely
Tim Stierman