Loading...
Zoning Raven Oaks MWF FeldermanCity Hall (563) 5894210 office (563) 5894221 fax (563) 690-6678 TDD April 8, 2002 The Honorable Mayor and City CouncilMembers City of Dubuque City Hall- 50W. 13~ Street Dubuque IA 52001 RE: Rezonings Applicant: MWF Properties/Felderman Business Partnership (tabled) Location: End of Raven Oaks Drive Description: To amend the PUD Planned Unit Development Distdct to allow construction of 64 multi-family housing units. 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, stating the proposed amendment is less intense than previous proposed developments for this parcel, except for the previous 62-unit senior housing proposal. The development will consist of eight 8-unit buildings with access to Raven Oaks Drive. There will also be a community center and play area. Staff reviewed surrounding zoning and land use, and noted that storm water detention will be required and that a cul-de-sac must be constructed at the end of Raven Oaks Drive. There were many public comments regarding the request, with speakers primarily concerned about increased traffic, children's safety in crossing Raven Oaks Drive and negative impact on surrounding property values. The Zoning Advisory Commission discussed the request, reviewing the distance between the proposed development and adjacent single-family homes, proposed screening, anticipated traffic volumes from the proposed development, and requirements for storm water detention. Reconsideration At their March 6m meeting, the Commission's motion to approve the request failed due to a lack of a majority on a 2 to 3 vote. Two Commissioners were absent. The public hearing was closed. Service People lntegril~ Responsibility Innovation Teamwork The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members End of Raven Oaks Ddve April 8, 2002 Page 2 To allow the opportunity for more Commissioners to vote on the request, and obtain a majority for or against, the Chairperson asked to reconsider the March 6th vote. The Chairperson directed staff to re-notify (by mail) the applicant and adjoining property owners that a reconsideration of the March 6th vote had been requested. At their April 3rd meeting, the Commission voted 4 to 2 to reconsider the request. The Chairperson did not reopen the public hearing. Recommendation By a vote of 4 to 2, the Zoning Advisory Commission recommends that the City Council approve the request. A simple majority vote is needed for the City Council to approve the request. Respectfully submitted, Eugene Bird, Jr., Chairperson Zoning Advisory Commission Attachments Variance Conditional Use Permit Appeal Special Exception Limited Setback Waiver Plannin~ 31~-58B-4221 p.2 City of Dubuque Planning Services Depadment Dubuque lA 5200%4864 ~ I _ ~l~ Phone: 319-589-4210 ~///~.. ~/"~ ,b/~/~ h r='-~ -.--'.~,~), dp~ax: 319'589'4149.. PLANNING APPLICATION FORM o Rezoning [] Planned Distdct u Preliminary Plat u Minor Final Plat [2 Text Amendment [] Simple Site Plan u Minor Site Plan a Major Site Plan [] Major Final Plat D Simple Subdivision [] Annexation o Temporary Use Permit o Certificate of Appropriateness [] Certificate of Economic Hardship o Other: PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT LEGIBLY iN INK Address: ./,} 07 -~,~/'~)z¢_ ,-"~-~ Address: ~¢~ f _,,,~ ~ /~ ~,/~ ~2M~/~' zoning: .~D Histodc dis¢~ ~ Landmark: ~isting zoning: ~ P~posee Legal d.cription (Sidwel, Parcel ID number or Tota! property (Iot) area (square feet or acres): ~-~:_.~Sz.?~/Z ¢5~/~''' Number of lots: Describe proposai and reason necessaW (aEach a leEer of explanation, if needed): CERTIFICATION: I~e, ~e undemigned, do hereby ce~ %at 1. The information submitted herein is true and correct to the beet of my/our knowledge and upon submittal becomes public record; 2. Fees are not refundable and payment dO~S not guarantee approval; and 3. All additional required wdtten and graphic materials are attached. FOR OFFICE USE QNLY- APPL CAT ON SUBMITTAL CHECKL ST Fee: '¢~3~',.~-¢r¢/¢:~ Received by: ~'~ Date: /~/~[0] Docke~ u Prope~ ~nership list u Site/sket~ plan u Floor plan o Plat ~ Conceptual development plan ~ Improvement plans o Design review project des~ption o Photo ~ Other: Proposed Area to be Rezoned Applicant: MWF Properties/ Felderman Business Partnership Location: End of Raven Oaks Drive Description: To amend the PUD Planned Unit Development District to allow construction of 64 multi- family housing units. Proposed Area to be Rezoned REZONING STAFF REPORT Zoning Agenda: January 2, 2002 Property Address: Property Owner: Applicant: End of Raven Oaks Drive Felderman Business Partnership MWF Properties (Dave Steele) Proposed Land Use: Multi-Family Housing Proposed Zoning: PR Existing Land Use: Vacant Existing Zoning: PR Adjacent Land Use: North - Dubuque Comm School East- Vacant South - Single-Family Residential West- Multi-Family Residential Adjacent Zoning: North - R-1 East - R-1 South - R-1 West -R-1 Former Zoning: 1934 - Multi-Family; 1975 - R-4; 1985 -PUD Total Area: 7.7 acres Property History: The subject property has undergone numerous zoning changes or amendments to the Planned District Ordinance since 1975. The last rezoning occurred in July 2001 to amend the PUD to allow a total of 62 units in a thmc story senior apartment building. Previous to that, in June 1995, the PUD District was amended to allow a total of 88 units divided among 13 four-plexes and three 12-plexes. The first Planned Residential District was established in 1981 that allowed for 52 apartments and 36 town houses. Prior to 1981, the property was zoned R-4 Multi-Family Residential. Physical Characteristics: The property encompasses approximately eight acres at the east end of the existing Raven Oaks Drive. The property slopes from the south to the north with a grade change over the entire area of approximately 45 feet. North of this property is an existing creek with Eisenhower School north of the creek area. Concurrence with Comprehensive Plan: The 1995 Comprehensive Plan did not designate a use for this area. Impact of Request on: Ufili'~es: There exists a water main in the right-of-way of Raven Oaks Drive. The 6= water main would have to be extended to serve the proposed development. There is an existing 12" sanitary sewer running along the north property line adjacent to the creek. Both water and sewer utilities are adequate to serve the proposed development. REZONING STAFF REPORT Page 2 Traffic Patterns/Counts: John F. Kennedy Road is classified as a minor arterial. Based on 1997 IDOT counts, it cardes approximately 12,000 average vehicle trips north of Kaufmann Avenue and 9,000 average vehicle trips south of the Northwest Ar~dal. Public Services: The property can be adequately served by the existing public services. The proposed cul-de-sac of Raven Oaks Drive will have a standard 37.5 radius. Environment: The proposed development will be required to provide storm water detention and will direct storm water toward the existing creek on the north side of ~ property. Staff does not anticipate any adverse impact to the environment provided adequate erosion control is practiced during all phases of development of the property. Adjacent ProperlJes: Staff does not anticipate significant adverse impacts to adjacent properties. The proposed development of the subject property for multi- family housing will require an extension of Raven Oaks Drive and the construction of a cul-de-sac. The volume of vehicle trips on Raven Oaks Drive will increase; however, no greater than any of the other proposed developments that have been approved for this site. The terrain of the property is such that adequate spacing will be provided between the single-family homes on Marywood Drive and the proposed multi-family structures. The property drops approximately 45 feet from the backyards of the single-family homes on Marywood to the creek area of the property on the north side. The developer has indicated that he will endeavor to maintain to the extent possible the existing trees on the site. Investments: None proposed. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting to amend the Planned Residential district at the end of Raven Oaks Drive. The amendment is to facilitate the construction of 64 multi-family housing uni{s. The project would include the extension of Raven Oaks Drive and construction of a cul-de-sac. The proposed developed will provide 48 two-bedroom apartments and 16 three-bedroom apartments. There will be two off- street parking spaces provided per unit. 64 spaces will be provided in garages and 64 surface spaces arranged in front of each building. Existing water and sewer utilities are sufficient to serve the proposed development. The applicant will have to provide an area for storm water detention. As with the previous request, the detent'ion area will be provided in an area adjacent to the existing creek. Raven Oaks Drive will be extended and be constructed to City standards. Raven Oaks Drive is a public street that dues not meet current city standards for paving width. The existing Raven Oaks Drive is currently 500-foot long and the proposed extension would lengthen the sire. et by approximately 100 faet. The City Engineering Division and Fire Marshall's office has reviewed the proposed extension of Raven Oaks Rt=7ONING STAFF REPORT Pa~3 Drive and feel there is adequate accessibility for typical traffic volumes and emergency vehicle access. Tho proposed 64-units of multi-family housing will generate less traffic than the previously approved developments for this site except for the most recent proposal that called for 62-units of senior housing in a single three-story building. The Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual indicated that approximately 414 average (~aily trips will be generated by the 64 apartments. This is based on average rate of 6.47 trips per unit per day. Planning staff recommends the Zoning Advisory Commission review Section 6-1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance that contains standards for the review of rezoning requests. Prepared by: Laura Carstens, City Planner Address: City Hall, 50 W. 13th Street Telephone: 589-4210 ORDINANCE NO. -02 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING APPENDIX A (THE ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE CITY OF DUBUQUE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY AMENDING THE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE END OF RAVEN OAKS DRIVE AND CURRENTLY ZONED PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WITH A PR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA: Section 1. Appendix A (the Zoning Ordinance) of the City of Dubuque Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by amending the conceptual development plan .for hereinafter described property located at the east end of Raven Oaks Drive and currently zoned PUD Planned Unit Development District with a PR Planned Residential designation, and adopting a new conceptual development plan, a copy of which is attached to and made a part hereof, for Arbor Glen Apartments as stated below, to wit: All of Oak Brook Development and all of Oak Brook Townhouses, and to the centerline of the adjoining public right-of-way, all in the City of Dubuque, Iowa. Section 2. Pursuant to Iowa Code Section 414.5 (1993), and as an express condition ofthe reclassification, the undersigned property owner(s) agree(s) to the following conditions, all of which the property owner(s) further agree(s) are reasonable and imposed to satisfy the public needs that are caused directly by the zoning reclassification: A= Use Regulations. The following regulations shall apply to all uses made of land in the above- described PUD District: 1) Principal permitted uses shall be limited to a 64 apartment units and a community center. 2) Accessory uses sha~!l include arly use customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use.It s.e. rve~. ORDINANCE NO. -02 Page 2 B. Lot and Bulk Regulations. Development of land in the PUD District shall be regulated as follows: 1) The proposed apartment development shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the attached conceptual development plan. 2) Maximum building height shall be 30 feet. C. Performance Standards. The development and maintenance of uses in this PUD District shall be established in conformance with Section 3-5.5 of the Zoning Ordinance and the following standards: 1) Raven Oaks Drive shall be extended and a cul-de-sac constructed in accordance with City standards and specifications. 2) Adequate erosion control shall be provided during all phases of construction. 3) Off-street parking shall be provided as shown on the approved conceptual plan. 4) Sidewalks shall be provided adjoining all public streets. 5) Storm water control facilities will be installed as per City Engineering requirements. 5) Final site development plans shall be submitted in accordance with Section 4-4 of the Zoning Ordinance prior to construction of any buildings. D. Open Space and Recreational Areas Open space and landscaping in the PUD District shall be regulated as follows: Those areas not designated on the conceptual development plan shall be maintained as open space, as defined by Section 8 of the Zoning Ordinance by the property owner and/or association. E. Sign Re.qulations. Signs in the PUD District shall be regulated in accordance with the R-3 sign regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. -02 Page 3 Transfer of Ownership Transfer of ownership or lease of property in this PUD District shall include in the transfer or lease agreement a provision that the purchaser or lessee acknowledges awareness of the conditions authorizing the establishment of the district. Reclassification of Subiect Property. The City of Dubuque, Iowa, may initiate zoning reclassification proceedings to the R-1 Single-Family District in accordance with Section 6 of the Zoning Ordinance if the property owner(s) fail(s) to complete or maintain any of the conditions of this ordinance. Modifications. Any modifications of this Ordinance must be approved by the City Council in accordance with zoning reclassification proceedings of Section 6 of the Zoning Ordinance. Recordinq. A copy of this ordinance shall be recorded at the expense of the property owner(s) with the Dubuque County Recorder as a permanent record of the conditions accepted as part of this reclassification approval within ten (10) days after the adoption of this ordinance. This ordinance shall be binding upon the undersigned and his/her heirs, successors and assigns. Section 3. The foregoing amendment has heretofore been reviewed by the Zoning Commission of the City of Dubuque, Iowa. Section 4. The foregoing amendment shall take effect upon publication, as provided by law. Passed, approved and adopted this __ day of ,2002, ATTEST: Jeanne F. Schneider, City Clerk Terrance M. Duggan, Mai or ACCEPTANCE OF ORDINANCE NO. ~01 We, Jack Felderman, representing Felderman Business Associates, Tom Tully. representing Dubuque Lumber Company, Milton A. Avenadus and Janet O. Avenarius as property owners, and David Steele, representing the applicant (contract purchaser), MWF Properties, having read the terms and conditions of the foregoing Ordinance No. __- 02 and being familiar with the conditions thereof, hereby accept the same and agree to the conditions required therein. Dated this day of ,2002. Felderman Business Associates, an Iowa Partnership Jack Felderman, Authorized Signatory Dubuque Lumber Company, an Iowa Corporation Tom Tully, its, President Milton A. Avenarius, Individually Janet O. Avenarius, Individually MWF Properties David Steele, Its Authorized Representative CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA MEMORANDUM March 1, 2002 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Zoning Advisory Commission Kyle L. Kritz, Associate Planner Meeting notes from neighborhood meeting of February 28th regarding proposed multi-family development at the end of Raven Oaks Drive The applicant, MWF Properties, of Minneapolis Minnesota, conducted a neighborhood meeting on February 28th as requested by the Zoning Advisory Commission. The meeting notes taken by Steven Ulstad of Steven Ulstad Architects are attached for your review. Also enclosed is a petition received from neighboring property owners regarding this same project. Please call me if you have any questions concerning the attached information. KLK/mkr Attachment M~r O1 02 i0: 1B~ S~even Ul~d ~r~hi~s 5B~-557-~1~2 p.I1 S T E V E N ULSTAD ARC H 1 T 'E C T S ARCH I TECTU R E INTERIOR DESIGN LANDSCAPE DESIGN 1110 BLUFF, SUITE 102 DUBUQUE, IOWA 52001 5 6 3 - 582 7334 FAX 557 - 3 I 42 Date: MARCH 1, 2002 Fax Cover Sheet Attemqon: MWF PROPERTIES 764.5 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH M IN N EA POLLS, M t N N E,~OTA 55423 612-243-5010 Project: Project # DAVID SI~EELE AKr:50R GLEN, O[JBUQUE, IOWA 01030 DAVE, ATTACHED PLEASE ~IND: MEETING NOTES FROM LAST NIGHT.~ GRII tING. C~C~ KYLE ~ ¢~ Kg, ITZ, PLANNINO Signed: Total Pages Including This Cover Sheet: M~p O1 OE lO:17a 563-557-31~2 FEBRUARY 28, 2002 MEETING NOTES WiTH NEIGHBORS PUD DEVi-LO?MENT OE ARBOR GLEN AI~ARYMEN'i- COMMUNITY A MEETING WAS HELD AT THE REQUEST OF THE ZONING COMMISSION BE'FWEEN ARBOR GLEN LTD'S REPRESENTATIVE, DAVID STEELE, AND FHI= NEIGHBORS ADJOINING THE PROPOSED ARBOR GLEN DEVELOPMENT. THE MEETING WAS HELD AT TH~ VISITOR's CENTER OF THE DUBUQUE ARBORETUM AND BOTANICAL GARDENS. THE MEETING BEGAN AT 6:30 PM AND ENDED AT APPROXIMATELY 7:30 PM. 14 NEIGHBORS ATTENDED, STEVEN ULSTAD, ARCHITECT, WAS ALSO PRESENT REPRESENTING THE DEVELOPER. NEIGHBORS EXPRESSED CONCERNS OVER AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC GENERATED BY DEVELOPMENT ANO 'i-HE CHILDREN HAVING TO CROSS THE NEW RAVEN OAKS EXTENSION AS THEY GO TO SCHOOL ALONG THE PRESENT PATHWAY. ARBOR GLEN DEVELOPMk, N'I ~VILL GENERATE 414 VEHICLE TRIPS DAILY PER PLANNING STAFF. PRESENT ESTIMATED TRAFFIC COUNTS; RAVEN OAKS 556 ULSTAD COUNT 86 APARTMENTS X6.47 MARYWOOD 62~ ULSTAD COUNT I25 HOMES X]O ×50% ,~PRING VALLI~Y 1~56, ULSTAD COUNT 232 HOMES X10 X80% JFK 12,000, DBQ ZONING IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE PATHWAY CROSSING WOULD BE MADE INTO A STREET TYPE OF CROSSING AND THAT THE VEHICLE COUNT5 WOULD BE THE LOWEST OP ANY STREET THAT THE CHILDREN HAD TO CROSS TO GETTO SCHOOL. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OHT THAT ALL PROPOSED ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC GOES OIRECTLY TO JFI~ NOT THROUGH ANY NEIGHBORHOODS NEIGHBORS EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS TOTALLY WRONG FOR THE AREA AND I~qAT I~NT SUBSIDIZED TENANTS WAN]' TO LIVE DOWNTOWN BECAUSE PAGE ] 5TEVEN ULSTAD ARCHITECTS Mar O10~ 10: 17a $%even Ul~sad Rrohiteo%s 563-557-314E p.3 FEBRUARY 28, 2002 MEETING NOTE5 WITH NEIGHBORS PUD DEVELOPMENT OF ARBOR GLEN APARTMENT COMMUNITY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WAS INADEQUATE, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THERE ARE CHURCHES, SHOPPING, SCHOOLS, ALL AVAILABLE IN AREA. SCHEDULED BUS TRANSPORTATION COMEs RIGHT DOWN JFK, THERE IS ALSO SPFCIAL SERVICE TRANSPORTATION AVAILABLE THROUGH 'i'HE CITT FOR DOOR TO DOOR BUS SERvIcE. THE NEIGHBORS EXPRESSED CONCERN OVER DEVELOPMENT OF MULTI FAMILY SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING. IT WA5 POINTED POUT THAT THE PROPb-KT¥ IS AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN ZONED FOR SOME TYPE OF MULTI FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. AND THAT ALI_ AF, CFSS TO DEVELOPMENT IS THROUGH MULTI FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, NOT THROUGH ANY SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODs. NEIGHBORs HAD PREVIOUSLY EXPRESSED CONCERNS OVER LQ$.S OF PROPERTY VALUES WITH THE NEW DEVELOPMENT IN PLACE; THE HOMES ALONG MARYWOOD ARE THE HOMES THAT THE ]~NANTS WOULD BE LOOKING TO MOVE INTO. FAMILY HOUSING WITH AVE VALUES IN THE LOW $90,000, PRIME FOR FIRST TIME HOME BUYER,5. THE HOME IN ARBOR OAKS CLOSEST TO THE DEVELOPMENT IS 350' AWAY ANO IS SEPARATED FROM THF DEVELOPMENT BY A HEAVILY WOODED RAVINE. THE RAVINE IS APPROXIMATELY 60 FEET DEEP. EVEN IN THE WINTER, NEIGHBORS WILL HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME 5EbtNG-file DEVELOPMENT. THE CLOSEST HOME ALONG MARYWOOD IS ALMOST 200' AWAY FROM A PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDINO. TI IE DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSING TO LEAVE AS MUCH OF THE WOODED AREA BETWEEN THE HOUSING AND THE APARTMENTS AS SHOWN ON THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. PAGE 2 STEVEN ULSTAD ARCHITECTS M~r O1 O~ 10:I?~ Sseven Ulss~d 8p~hiseo~s 5G3-557-31~ FEBRUARY 28, 2002 MEETING NOTES WITI-I NEIGHBORS PUD DEVELOPMENT OF' ARBOR GLEN APARTMENT COMMUNI] y THE NEIGHBORS WERE CONCERNED OVER THE HEAVY DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED WITH ARBOR GLEN APARTMENTS, THE DENSITY OI= PROPOSED AR~OR GLEN DEVELOPMENT IS 8 UNITS PER ACRE MARYWOOD IS .5 IJNIT.~ PER ACRE ARBOR OAKS IS 3.6 UNITS PER ACRE PRESENT APARTMENTS ALONG RAVEN OAKS ARE DEVELOPED A1 APPROXIMATELY 19 UNITS PER ACRE NEIGHI~OR5 EXPRES,~ED CONCEI~N TI IAT THE P~RESENT STREET WIDTH OF 25' CAN NOT HANDLE THE TRAFFIC. STREET WIDTHS; MARYWOOD 31' BACK TO BACK PARKING BOTH SIDES & PARiKb. D HEAVILY SPRING VALLEY 31' BACK TO BACK NO PARKING FROM ~CHOOL TO JFK. RAVEN OAKS 25' BACK TO BACK NO PARKING NEIGHBORS COMPLAINED OF CARs PARKED ALONG RAVEN OAKS. WE HAVE NEVER OBSERVED ANY CAI~ PA~,KED ON RAVEN OAKS. NO VEI-IICLES PAP-RED ON SPRING VALLEY. VEHICLES PARKED HEAVILY ALONG MARYWOOD, BOTH SIDES, ONLY SINGLE LANE OF TRAFFIC PASSABLE. BECAUSE OF THE RESTRICTED PARKING. I~qVEN OAKS IS MUCH MORE CAPABLE OF HANDLING TI-iE PROPOSED TRAFFIC LOAD THAN THE NEARBY NEIGHBORHOOD .STIeEETS. NEIGHBORS EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT DEVELOPER WILL LEAVE A?rER APARTMENTS CONSTRUCTED LEAVING ALL PROBLEM FAMILIES FOR THE NEIGHBORS TO DEAL WITH. PAGE 3 STEVEN ULSTAD ARCHITECTS $~v~n Ul~d Rp~hi~e~s 5B3-557-31~ FEIDRUAI~"K ZS, 2002 MEETING NOTEs WITH NEIGHBORs PUD DEVELOPMENT OF ARDOR GLEN APAR FMib. NT COMMUNITY WEISS MANAGEMENT WILL MANAGE ARBOR GLEN APARTMENT COMMUNITY. A MANAGER FOR THE DEVELOPMENT WILL B~' ON 51TE LIVING WITHIN ONE OF THE APARTMENTS. NEtGHBOR.~ ~FQUE~TED REFERENCE5 FROM OTHER DEVELOPtvlENTS THAT WEISS MANAGEB. £ DEVELOPMENTS WERE NOTED IN ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA. NO LETITFR REPERENCES WILL BE PROVIDED. ~TORM WATER RUN-OFF DETENTION BADIN WAS DISCUSSED. NO MORE FLOW OF WATER WILL LEAVE THE SITE THAN PRESENTLY DOES. WATER WILL .~IT ~N PONDS FOR A FEW HOURS AFTER A RAIN, NOT DAYS. NEIGHBORS BELIEVE THAT THE DETENTION BASIN WILL BE UNSAFE AND PRESENTS A DANGER FOX CHILDKEN DROWNING, DEVELOPER POINTED OUT THAT THE PRESENT CREEK IS MUCH MORE DANGEROUS THAN BASIN, NEIGHBORs EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT FIRE AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES COULD NOT ACCESS THE SIT~ AND THAT THOSE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENTS KNEW NOTHING OE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THE DIZYELO~'ER RESPONDED THAT THE CI1~' HAD DONE AN ENGINEERING REVIEW AND THAT THE CUL DE SAC AS WELL AS FIRE HYDI~ANTS WERE ADDED TO THE DESIGN AFTER THAT REVIEW. THE NEIGHBOR5 APP~A~. TO BE VERY CONCERNED OVER THE TYPE OF TENANT THAT WILL LIVE WITHIN THt~ APARTMENT COMMUNITY. MIJCH DI-~CU~SION CENTERED AROUND THE NEIGHBORs BELIEF THAT RENT SUBSIDIZED APARTMENTS WILL HOUSE "SINGLE MOTHERs', "MISBEHAVED CHILDREN THAT THE NEIGHBOR'S WILL HAVE TO DISCIPLINE", ~TROUBLED CHILDREN~ AND =DRUG ADDICTs WITH BROKEN DOWN CARS". PAGE -~ STEVEN ULSTAD ARCHITEC'I'5 C O~TY O~ DUB~SKQL ::: 9 i 20o2 This Petition is in response to the proposed zoning change that is being requested by the MWF Properties/Feldennan BusineSs Partnership to amend the PUD Planned Unit Development District to allow construction of 64 multi-family housing units at the end of Raven Oaks Drive. All signee's listed below are OPPOSED to the proposed change in zoning, NAME ~gg' ~7~ ~'~4-'~ - 7??( ~ ~ - ¢ ~'~1 ~3'-'7-92U 4, E This petition is in response to the proposed zoning change that is being requested by the MWF Propeffies/Felderman Business Parmership to amend the PUD Planned Unit Development District to allow construction of 64 multi-family housing units at the end of Raven Oaks Drive. All signee's listed below are OPPOSED to the proposed change in zoning, February 16, 2002 Zoning Advisory Commission: I am writing this letter in response to the proposed zoning change that is being requested by the MWF Properties/Felderman Business Partnership to amend the PUD Planned Unit Development District to allow construction of a 64 multi-family housing unit at the ~nd of Raven Oaks Drive. I live in the surrounding neighborhood'to the proposed zoning change and I am writing to yoice how stronflv I am opposed tn this amendment. It is not that I am entirely opposed to the development of this property, but rather that I am opposed to changing the zoning fi`om the current retirement community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zoned housing development. I have many reasons for being opposed to the zoning amendment changes: · Increase in tra~c by on average 414 trips per day, or in other words, given that an average driving day is between 7 AM and 9 PM or 14 hours, this means an extra car will be generated every 2 minutes at the intersection of Raven Oaks Dr. and JFK. · 250 to 300 additional people will be thrown between established neighborhoods. These extra people will create an excessive amount of noise and does not fit the complexion of the surrounding neighborhood. ,, Water runoff and drainage issues that continue to plague the North end retention basin and West 32~a will be more aggravated. · Raven Oaks Drive is a sub-standard street limited by its narrow width and the ability for emergency vehicles to provide service. · The affect and impact on Eisenhower Elementary School and t s students hash t i' ' been well thought through, given student loading, safety relative to the amount of traffic, and other taxpayer and community ~ssues. · The affect on our neighborhood housing values relative to this type of proposed housing development, locating a multi-family development between quiet established residential neighborhoods,will drastically change the complexion of the neighborhood. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that I am very strongly opposed to the proposed zoning change and the amendment that is before you. Again, it is not that I am entirely opposed to the development of this property, but rather that l_am onposed to chang, lng the zoning from the current retirement community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zoned housing development that is referenced in the beginning paragraph. Sincerely~,~, 3 t ['/ ~rc ~r c>,~ks Dr. February 16, 2002 Zoning Advisory Commission: I am writing this letter in response to the proposed zoning change that is being/e~uested by the MWF Properties/Fetderman Business Partnership to amend the PUD Planned Unit Development District to allow construction of a 64 multi-family housing unit at the end of Raven Oaks Drive. I live in the surrounding neighborhood to the proposed zoning change and I am writing to _voice how strongly I am opposed to this amendmem. It is not that I am entirely opposed to the development of this property, but rather that I am opposed to changing the zoning fi-om the current retirement community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zoned housing development. I have many reasons for being opposed to the zoning amendment changes: /ncrease in traffic bY ou average 414 trips per day, or in other words, given that an average driving day is between 7 AM and 9 PM or 14 hours, this means an extra car will be generated every 2 minutes. ' · 250 to 300 additional people will be thrown between established neighborhoods. These extra people will create an excessive amount of noise and does not fit the eomplexien of the surrounding neighborhood. · y .ater ru~. ~.ffand ~d~inage issue~ that continue to plague the Nmt. h end retention oasm aha west 32~'will be more aggravated. · Raven Oaks Drive is a sub-standard street limited by its narrow width and the ability for emergency vehicles to provide service. · The affect and impact on Eisenhower Elementary School and it's been well thought through, given student loading, students ham't traffic, and other taxpayer and community issues safety relative to the amount of · The affect on our neighborhood housing values relative to this type of proposed housing development, locating a multi-family development between quite established residential neighborhoods will drastically change the complexion of the neighborhood. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that I am very strongly opposed to the proposed zoning change and the amendment that is before you. Again, it is nor that I am entirely opposed to the development of this property, but rather that I am opposed to changing the zoning from the current retirement community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zoned housing development that is referenced in the beginning paragraph. February 16, 2002 Zoning Advisory Commission: I am writing this letter in response to the proposed zoning change that is being requested by the MWF PropertiestFelderman Business Partnership to amend the PUD Planned Unit Development District to allow construction cfa 64 multi-family housing unit at the end of Raven Oaks Drive. I live in the surrounding neighborhood to the proposed zoning change and I am writing to voice how stron~¥ I am opposed to this amendment. It is not that I am entirely opposed to the development of this property, but rather that I am opposed to changing the zoning fi.om the current retirement community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zoned housing development. I have many reasons for being opposed to the zoning amendment changes: Increase in traffic bY on average 414 trips per day, or in Other word,% given that an average driving day is between 7 AM and 9 PM or 14 hours, this means an extra car will be generated every 2 mimltes at the intersection of Raven Oaks Dr. and JFK. 250 to 300 additional people will be thrown between established neighborhoods. These extra people will create an exea~ssive amount of noise and does not fit the complexion of the surrounding neighborhood. Water runoffand drainage issues that continue to plague the North end retention basin and West 32~will be more aggravated. · Raven Oaks Drive is a sub-standa_rd street limited by its narrow width and the ability for emergency vehicles to provide service. · The affect and impact on Eisenhower Elementary School and it's students hasn been well thought through, given student loading, safety relative to the mount o£ traffic, and other taxpayer and community issues. · The affect on our neighborhood housing values relative to this type of proposed housing development, locating a multi-family development between quiet established residential neighbothoods~will drastically change the complexion of the neighborhood. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that I am very strongly opposed to the proposed zoning change and the amendment that is before yov. Again, it is not that I ara entirely opposed to the development of this property, but rather that Iam opposed to charting the zonin~ fi.om the cun'ent retirement community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zun~ housing development that is referenced in the beginning paragraph. February 16, 2002 Zoning Advisory Commission: I am writing this letter in response to the proposed zoning change that is being requested by the MWF Properties/Felderman Business Partnership to amend the PUD Planned Unit Development District to allow construction ora 64 multi-family housing unit at the end of Raven Oaks Drive. I live in the surrounding neighborhood to the proposed zoning change and I am writing to voice how strongly I am opposed to this amendment. It is not that I am entirely opposed to the development of this property, but rather that I am opposed to changing the zoning from the current retirement community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zoned housing development. I have many reasons for being opposed to the zoning amendment changes: · Increase in traffic by on average 414 trips per day, or in other words, given that an average driving day is between 7 AM and 9 PM or 14 hours, this means an extra car will be generated every 2 minutes at the intersection of Raven Oaks Dr. and JFK. · 250 to 300 additional people will be thrown between established neighborhoods. These extra people will create an excessive amount of noise and does not fit the complexion of the surrounding neighborhood. · Water runoff and drainage issues that continue to plague the North end retention basin and West 32~a will be more aggravated. · Raven Oaks Drive is a mb-standard street limited by its narrow width and the ability for emergency vehicles to provide service. · The affect and impact on Eisenhower Elementary School and it's students hasn't been well thought through, given student loading, safety relative to the amount of traffic, and other taxpayer and community issues. · The affect on our neighborhood housing values relative to this type of proposed housing development, locating a multi-family development between quiet established residential neighborhoods ,will drastically change the complexion of the neighborhood. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that I am very strongly opposed to the proposed zoning change and the amendment that is before you. Again, it is not that I am entirely opposed to the development of this property, but rather that I am opposed to changing the zoning from the current retirement community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zoned housing development that is referenced in the beginning paragraph. February 16, 2002 Zoning Advisory Commission: I am writing this letter in response to the proposed zoning change that is being requested by the MWF Properties/Felderman Business Partnership to amend the PUD Planned Unit Development District to allow construction ora 64 multi-family housing unit at the end of Raven Oaks Drive. I live in the surrounding neighborhood to the proposed zoning change and I am writing to yoice how stron~l¥ I am opposed to tNs amendment It is not that I am entirely opposed to the development of this property, but rather that I am opposed to changing the zoning fi.om the current retirement community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zoned housing development. I have many reasons for being opposed to the zoning amendment changes: Increase in traffic by on average 414 trips per day, or in other words, given that an average driving day is between 7 AM and 9 PM or 14 hours, this means an extra car will be generated every 2 minutes at the intersection of Raven Oaks Dr. and JFK. 250 to 300 additional people will be thrown between established neighborhoods. These extra people will create an excessive amount of noise and does not fit the complexion of the surrounding neighborhood. · Water runoff and drainage issues that continue to plague the North end retention basin and West 32~awill be more aggravated. · Raven Oaks Drive is a sub-standard street limited by its narrow width and the ability for emergency vehicles to provide service. · The a_fleet and impact on Eisenhower Elementary School and it's students hasn't been well thought through, given student loading, safety relative to the amount of traffe, and other taxpayer and community issues. · The affect on our neighborhood housing values relative to this type of proposed housing development, locating a multi-family development between qmet established residential neighborhoods ,will drastically change the complexion of the neighborhood. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that I am very strongly opposed to the.proposed zoning change and the amendment that is before you. Again, it is not that I am entirely opposed to the development of this property, but rather that I am o_vposed to chang, lng the zoning fi.om the current retirement community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zoned housing development that is referenced in the beginning paragraph. Sincerely, February 16, 2002 Zoning Advisory Commission: I am writing this letter in response to the proposed zoning change that is being requested by the MWF Properties/Fetderman Business Partnership to amend the PUD Planned Unit Development District to allow construction ora 64 multi-family housing unit at the end of Raven Oaks Drive. I live in the surrounding neighborhood to the proposed zoning change and I am writing to voice how strongly I am opposed to this amendment. It is not that I am entirely opposed to the development of this properV/, but rather that I am opposed to changing the zoning fi.om the current retirement community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zoned housing development. I have many reasons for being opposed to the zoning amendment changes: · Increase in traffic by on average 414 trips per day, or in other words, g~ven that an average driving day is between 7 AM and 9 PM or 14 hours, this means an extra car will be generated every 2 minutes at the intersection of Raven Oaks Dr. and JFK. 250 to 300 additional people will be thrown between established neighborhoods. These extra people will create an excessive amount of noise and does not fit the complexion oftbe surrounding neighborhood. · Water runoff and drainage issues that continue to plague the North end retention basin and West 32~a will be more aggravated. · Raven Oaks Drive is a sub-standard street limited by its narrow width and the ability for emergency vehicles to provide service. · The affect and impact on Eisenhower Elementary School and it's students hasn't been well thought through, given student loading, safety relative to the amount of traffe, and other taxpayer and community issues. · The affect on our neighborhood housing values relative to this type of proposed housing development; locating a multi-family development between quiet established residential neighborhoods will drastically change the complexion of the neighborhood. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that I am very strongly opposed to the proposed zoning change and the amendment that is before you. Again, it is not that I am entirely opposed to the development of this property, but rather that l_am opposed to chanqlng the zoning fi.om the current retirement community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zoned housing development that is referenced in the beginning paragraph. Sincerely, ~ . \_ February 16, 2002 Zoning Advisory Commission: I am writing this letter in response to the proposed zoning change that is being requested by the MWF Properties/Felderman Business Partnership to amend the PUD Planned Unit Development District to allow construction ora 64 multi-family housing unit at the end of Raven Oaks Drive. I live in the surrounding neighborhood to the proposed zoning change and I am writing to voice how stron~,,tv I am opposed to this amendment It is not that I am entirely opposed to the development of this property, but rather that I am opposed to changing the zoning fi.om the current retirement community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zoned housing development. I have many reasons for being opposed to the zoning amendment changes: · Increase in traffic by on average 414 trips per day, or in other words, given that an average driving day is between 7 AM and 9 PM or 14 hours, this means an extra car will be generated every 2 minutes at the intersection of Raven Oaks Dr. and JFK. · 250 to 300 additional people will be thrown between established neighborhoods. These extra people will create an excessive amount of noise and does not fit the complexion of the surrounding neighborhood. · Water runoff and drainage issues that continue to plague the North end retention basin and West 32~awill be more aggravated. · Raven Oaks Drive is a sub-standard street limited by its narrow width and the ability for emergency vehicles to provide service. · The affect and impact on Eisenhower Elementary School and it's students hasn't been well thought through, given student loading, safety relative to the amount of traffic, and other taxpayer and community issues. · The affect on our neighborhoOd housing values relative to this type of proposed housing development, locating a multi-family development between quiet established r ..... es~dentaal ne~ghborhoods, wfll drastically change the complexion of the neighborhood. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that I am very strongly opposed to the prOposed zoning change and the amendment that is before you. Again, it is not that I am entirely opposed to the development of this property, but rather that I am opposed io charting the zoninE from the current retirement community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zoned housing development that is referenced in the beginning paragraph. February 16, 2002 Zoning Advisory Commission: I am writing this letter in response to the proposed zoning change that is being requested by the MWF Properties/Felderman Business Partnership to amend the PUD Planned Unit Development District to allow construction ora 64 multi-family housing unit at the end of Raven Oaks Drive. I live in the surrounding neighborhood to the proposed zoning change and I am writing to voice how ..strongly I am opposed to this amendment It is not that I am entirely opposed to the development of this property, but rather that I am opposed to changing the zoning fi.om the curren~ retirement community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zoned housing development. I have many reasons for being opposed to the zoning amendment changes: · Increase in traffic by on average 414 trips per day, or in other words, given that an average driving day is between 7 AM and 9 PM or 14 hours, this means an extra car will be generated every 2 minutes at the intersection of Raven Oaks Dr. and JFK. 250 to 300 additional people will be thrown between established neighborhoods. These extra people will create an excessive amount of noise and does not fit the complexion of the surrounding neighborhood. · Water runoff and drainage issues that continue to plague the North end retention basin and West 32~awill be more aggravated. · Raven Oaks Drive is a sub-standard street limited by its narrow width and the ability for emergency vehicles to provide service. · The affect and impact on Eisenhower Elementary School and it's students hasn't been well thought through, given student loading, safety relative to the amount of traffic, and other taxpayer and community issues. · The affect on our neighborhood housing values relative to this type of proposed housing development, locating a multi-family development between quiet established residential neighborhoods ,will drastically change the complexion of the neighborhood. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that I am very strongly opposed to the proposed zoning change and the amendment that is before you. Again, it is not that I am entirely opposed to the development of this property, but rather that ! am opposed to chan?inq the zoni,o fi.om the current retirement community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zonld housing development that is referenced in the beginning paragraph. Sincerely~ , / February 16, 2002 Zoning Advisory Commission: I am writing this letter in response to the proposed zoning change that is being requested by the MWF Properties/Felderman Business Partnership to amend the PUD Planned Unit Development District to allow construction of a 64 multi-family housing unit at the end of Raven Oaks Drive. I live in the surrounding neighborhood to the proposed zoning change and I am writing to voice how strongt¥ I am opposed to this amendment. It is not that I am entirely opposed to the development of this property, but rather that I am opposed to changing the zoning fi.om the current retirement community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zoned housing development. I have many reasons for being opposed to the zoning amendment changes:' · Increase in traffic by on average 414 trips per day, or in other words, given that an average driving day is between 7 AM and 9 PM or 14 hours, this means an extra car will be generated every 2 minutes at the intersection of Raven Oaks Dr. and IFK. ,~ 250 to 300 additional people will be thrown between established neighborhoods. These extra people will create an excessive amount of noise and does not fit the complexion of the surrounding neighborhood. · Water runoffand drainage issues that continue to plague the North end retention basin and West 32~a will be more aggravated. · Raven Oal~ Drive is a sub-standard street limited by its narrow width and the ability for emergency vehicles to provide service. · The affect and impact on Eisenhower Elementary School and it's students hasn't : been well thought through, given student loading, safety relative to the amount of traffic, and other taxpayer and community issues. · The affect on our neighborhood housing values relative to this type of proposed housing development, locating a multi-family development between quiet established residential neighborhoods,will drastically change the complexion of the neighborhood. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that I am very strongly opposed to the proposed zoning change and the amendment that is before you. Again, it is not that I am entirely opposed to the development of this property, but rather that lam opposed to changing the zoning from the current retirement community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zoned housing development that is referenced in the beginning paragraph. Sincerely, FE~ ~ ~. 2002 This Petition is for all those neighbors opposed (agai~t) to the MWF Properties/Felderman Business Partnership to-am~A.the_ . . PUD to allow construction of 64 multi-family housing units at the end of Raven Oaks Drive. This Petition is for all those neighbors opposed, (against) to the MWF Properties/Felderman Business Partnership to amend the PUD to allow construction of 64 multi-family housing units at the end of Raven Oaks Drive. NAME ADDRESS 1 3105 Arbor Oaks Drive Dubuque, IA 52001 ,~,,TY OF DUBUQUE December 28, 2001 Q~ty of Dubuque Planning Services Department 50 West 13th Street Dubuque, IA 52001 Subject: Rezoning Proposal We are opposed to the proposal to rezone the property at the end of Raven Oaks Drive from PUD (Planned Unit Development) to R4 Multi-Family Residential District. We believe the R4 designation is inappropriate for this property. It could lead to development which would have a very detrimental effect on the single family neighborhoods in the area including the one in which we live. We strongly believe that this rezoning proposal should be rejected_ Sincerely, Joyce A. Brittain Robert W. Brittain / LOREYrA C. MICHELs 2662 Marywood Dr. Dubuque, LA 52001 C17¢ OF DUBUQUE 01-30-02 FEB 04 2002 Zoning Advisory Commission: My name is Lora Goedken I live at 3109 Arbor Oaks Drive. I am writing this letter to voice how strongly I am again~ the zoning amended for the property at the end of Raven Oaks Drive. I have lived in five homes in the last twelve years, three of the five have been in Dubuque neighborhoods and all were zoned R-1 residential. Of all these homes this home has been the most quiet peaceful place I have lived. It is truly a R-1 neighborhood. When I decided to purchase my home three years ago I realized there was vacant land near my residence. At that time I inquired with the city planning office as to the status of this vacant parcel. I was shown a plat of a planned unit development of two-sided townhonses, that was several years old. My first question was, "Can this still be built since it was planned years ago," The an.qwer was yes. I then asked, "What ff a developer wanted to build Something else?" The an~qwer ! received is that the developer would have to submit a new development plan to the planning services depat basent and then there would be a public hearing. I decided at that time ff only two-sided upscale townhouse could be built that this would at least keep our neighborhood residential with the feel of family homes. Approximately six months ago a planned unit development of senior citizen homing with the use of single story townhouses adjacent to our neighborhood was passer[ For the record I did not send a letter or voice any concern at the public hearing. My deeisiun at that time was based on the fact that the owner of the undeveloped land had the right to develop the land and that they planned to build single story two-sided senior townhouses. This being at least compaffble with our adjoining neighborhood, and would not substantially ira.mot our property values. I D__O2LO_T have the same belief about this current proposal. I am strongly against the amendment to allow a change from the current planned unit development to a~ R-4 multi-family apart~uent complex development. Once the zoning is amended to multi-family R-4 the developer can change his mind at any time and build apartment complexes up to three stories high, anywhere on that property as long as city setbacks are met What this means is that the developer could build as many buildings as they can fit onto thin track of land that is currently surrounded by R-1 neighborhoods on three sides. If the developer is allowed to construct these massive apartment complexes, our neighborhoods will be significantly altered. One of the biggest impacts will be the negative effect on our property values. This neighborhood has been looked at as one of the better, quiet, peaceful, older neighborhoods to live in since it was built back in the 1960's and 70's. For instance my husband and I bought this home three years ago for $168,000.00. We have completely updated our home and had a new appraisal completed by Kane Appraisal and it's appraised value is now $190,000.00. I strongly believe if the zoning commission allows the land adjacent to my home to be amended to allow the construction of the proposed 64 multi-family housing units, the value of my home as well as those of my neighbors, would drop dramatically. The cost to our neighborhood would be great. Not just in our property values but also in our daffy lives. As it stands today our neighborhood is a peaceful and quiet family centered place to live. i would also h~e you to consider the following when making your decision to rezone: · ,~ ncir~~ cl~tary school is already overcrowded~ · The school is just adjacent to the development and with in walking distance to the storm water retension basin. Which I believe is a hazard to the safety of the student populal~on. · The stream that runs through this track of land handles a great deal of water runoff that leads to the 32nd street basin that has been a problem in the past. · There are m~ny other building sites for a R-4 development that are not surrounded on three sides by R-1 neighborhoods. It is my belief that the owner and developer of this project does not want to build two-sided townhouses as in the ori~nal plan and is therefore requesting to have the property rezoned to R-4. As is true of any investment, the owner/investor of this property is hoping to maximize his investment by placing eight - two or three story apa~-~ment complexes housing 64 units in place of the originally proposed two-sided townhouses (ref. previous planned unit development). I don't deny the owner/inverstor the fight to develop the land, but it should be done keeping in mind the effects on the surrounding community and on the people who invested in the area and the previous zoning. I appreciate your consideration in this matter and hope you understand the huportance to our neighborhood. Lora Goedken 3109 Arbor Oaks Dr, Dubuque, IA 52001 CiTY O~ DUBU~L February 1, 2002 Zoning Advisory Commission Planning Services Department City Hall 50 West 13m Street Dubuque IA 52001-4864 Dear Commission, Because of scheduled business travels my wife and I will not be able to attend the zoning advisory commission meeting on Wednesday February 6, 2002. But I am writing to express our strong opposition to the idea of amending the PUD planned unit developmcmt district at the end of Raven Oaks Drive. Too great a concentration would dramatically and negatively change the whole character of this area. We are opposed to such a change. Sincerely, , r~ h ,,~ 4 Daniel H. Smith Martha M. Smith February 16, 2002 CITY OF DUBU(~UE ~ 2002 Zoning Advisory Commission: r .... :~,, ...... ~ ........ I am writing this letter in response to the proposed zoning change that is being requested by the MWF Properties/Felderman Business Partnership to amend the PUD l~lanned Unit Development District to allow construction of a 64 multi-family housing unit at the end of Raven Oaks Drive. I live in the surrounding neighborhood to the proposed zoning change and I am writing to voice how .strongly I am onoosed to this amendment It is not that I am entirely opposed to the development of this property, b i ' ut rather that I am opposed to changing the zoning fi.om the current retirement community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zoned housing development. I have many reasons for being opposed to the zoning amendment changes: · Increase in traffic by on average 414 trips per day, or in other words, given that an average driving day is between 7 AM and 9 PM or 14 hours, this means an extra ear will be generated every 2 minutes at the intersection of Raven Oaks Dr. and JFK. 250 to 300 additional people will be thrown between established neighborhoods. These extra people will create an excessive amount of noise and does not fit the complexion of the surrounding neighborhood. · Water runoff and drainage issues that continue to plague the North end retention basin and West 32~awill be more aggravated. · Raven Oaks Drive is a sub-standard street limited by its narrow width and the ability for emergency vehicles to provide service. · The affect and impact on Eisenhower Elementary School and it's students hasn't been well thought through, given student loading, safety relative to the amount of traffic, and other taxpayer and community issues. · The affect on our neighborhood housing values relative to this type of proposed housing development, locating multl-famdy development between quiet established residential neighborhoods,will drastically change the complexion of the neighborhood. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that I am very strongly opposed to the proposed zoning change and the amendment that is before you. Again, it is not that I am entirely opposed to the development of this properly, but rather that ! am opposed to chan~ng the zoning fi.om the current retirement community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zoned housing development that is referenced in the beginning paragraph. Sincerely, February 16, 2002 CITY 0~' DUBUQU Zoning Advisory Commission: I am writing this letter in response to the proposed zoning change that is being requested by the MWF Properties/Felderman Business Partnership to amend the PUD Planned Unit Development District to allow construction cfa 64 multi-family housing unit at the end of Raven Oaks Drive. ! live in the surrounding neighborhood to the proposed zoning change and I am writing to yoice how stron~,t¥ I am opposed to this amendment It is not that I am entirely opposed to the development of this property, but rather that I am opposed to changing the zoning fi.om the curren~ retirement community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zoned housing development. I have many reasons for being opposed to the zoning amendment changes: · Increase in traffic by on average 414 trips per day, or in other words, given that an average driving day is between 7 AM and 9 PM or 14 hours, this means an extra ear will be generated every 2 minutes at the intersection of Raven Oaks Dr. and JFK. · 250 to 300 additional people will be thrown between established neighborhoods. These extra people will create an excessive amount of noise and does not fit the complexion of the surrounding neighborhood. · Water runoff and drainage issues that continue to plague the North end retention basin and West 32~a wilt be more aggravated. · Raven Oaks Drive is a sub-standard street limited by its narrow width and the ability for emergency vehicles to provide service. · The affect and impact on Eisenhower Eleraentary School and it's students hasn't been well thought through, given student loading, safety relative to the amount of traffic, and other taxpayer and community issues. · The affect on our neighborhood housing values relative to this type of proposed housing development, locating a multi,family development between quiet established residential neighborhoods, will drastically change the complexion of the neighborhood. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that I am very strongly opposed to the proposed zoning change and the amendment that is before you. Again, it is not that I am entirely opposed to the development of this property, but rather that ~ am opposed to changing the zoninc~ fi.om the current retirement community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zonld housing development that is referenced in the beginning paragraph. Sincerely, UNFv~RSITY OF DUBUQUE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY February 22, 2002 John P. Jewell Director of Seminary Technological Servi C~ ,'fY OF DUBUOL,~E FEB 2 5 2002 Zoning Adviso~ Commtssion: My f~mily and I reside at 3122 Arbor Oaks Dr. and we are very much opposed to the request by MWF Porperties/Felderman Business pamaership to amend the Planned United Development District to allow the c~straction of a 64 multi-f~mily housing unit at the end of Raven Oaks Drive. We oppose this amendment. We are not opposed to the development of the property, but to changing the zoning fram the current retirement commonly development. We are concerned for the tremendous increase in traffic in an already stressed traffic situation on JFK close to Eisenhower school crossings. The close proximity of the Kanfman/~FK intersection and additional traffic without regulation would mean additional safety hazard especially for Raven Oaks Drive is narrow and substandard, the additional population inser~l hato the established neighborhoods would change the established character of tho community, and the impact on an already overcrowded Eisenhower School with special student population needs and a~tendant increased school busses and traffic would create a situation in which the zoning change would adversely affect the legitimate concerns of a large group of citizens. Water runoff and drainage issues which already are di~cult in the North end retention basin and West 32~ will be worsened. The impact on our neighbothood housing values with the insertion of a multi-family development between quiet established neighborhoods represems a harsh change which would change the complexion of the community. Our very strong objection is to the cl~nge ortho current retirement community zoning to multi- f~mily zoned development. Squeezing the multi-f~mily into the proposed area in spite Mverse impact on eo~anity, educational, tm~e and demographic areas would be a conmmmty a,maging choico. Sincerely, John P. Jewell University of Dubuque Theological Seminary, 2000 University Avenue, Dubuque. IA 52001-5099 319-589-3101 Fax 319-589-3110 / February 16, 2002 Zoning Advisory Commission: CITY OF DUBUQUE FEB ~ 5 2'002 I mn writing this letter in response to the proposed zoning change that is being requested by the MWF ?roperties/Felderman Business Partnership to amend the PUD Planned Unit Development District ro allow construction of a 64 multi-family housing unit at the end of Raven Oaks Drive. I live in the surrounding neighborhood to the proposed zoning change and I am writing to voice how stron_~Iv I am opposed to this amendment It is not that t am entirely opposed to the development of tl-ds property, but rather that I am opposed to changing the zoning from the curren~ retirement community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zoned housing developmem. I have many reasons for being opposed.to the zoning amendment changes: · Increase in traffic by on average 414 trips per day, or in other words, given that an average driving day is between - AM and 9 PM or 14 hours, this means an extra car Mll be generated every 2 minutes ar the intersectioa of Raven Oaks Dr. ~d JFK. · 2-50 to 300 additional people will be thrown between established neighborhoods~ These extra people will create an excessive amount of noise and does not fit the complexion of the surrounding neighborhood · Water runoff and drainage issues that continue to plague the No/th end i'etention basin and West 32~wii1 be more aggravated. · Raven Oaks Drive is a sub-standard street limited by its narrow width and the ability for emergency vehicles ro provide service. · The affect and impact on, Eisenhower ]Elementary School and it s students hasn't been well thought through, given student loading, safety relative ro the amount of traffic, and other taxpayer and community issues. · The affect on our neighborhood housing values relative to this type of proposed housing development, locating a multi-family devetopmen~ between quie: established residential neighborhoods,will drastically change the complexion of the neighborhood. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that I am very strongly opposed to the proposed zomng change and the amendment that is before you. Again, it is not that I am entirely opposed the ktevelopment oftkis property, but rather that I am opposed to chanmng the zonin_- bom the current retirement communky zoned development to the proposed multi-family 'zoned housing development that is referenced in the beginning Paragraph 31o,. February 16, 2002 C~tY O~ DUBL~ FEB ~ 5 ~I]OZ Zoning Advisory Commission: [ am writing this letter in response to the proposed zoning change that is being requested by the .MWF Properties/Felderman Business Partnership to amend the PUD Planned Unit Development District to allow construction ora 64 multi-family housing unit at the end of Raven Oaks Drive. I live in the surrounding neighborhood to the proposed zoning change and I am writing to voice how strongly I am opnosed to this amendment. It is not that I am entirely opposed to the development of this property, but rather that I am opposed to changing the zoning from the current retirement community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zoned housing development. I have many reasons for being opposed to the zoning amendment changes: · Increase in traffic by on average 414 trips per day, or in other words, given that an average driving day is between 7 AM and 9 PM or 14 hours, this means an extra car will be generated every 2 minutes at the intersection of Raven Oaks Dr. and ~K. · 250 to 300 additional people will be thrown between established neighborhoods. These: extra people will create an excessive amount of noise and does not fit the. complexion of the surrounding neighborhood. · Water runoff and drainage issues that continue to plague the North end retention basin and West 32~a will be more aggravated · Raven Oaks Drive is a sub-standard street limited by its narrow width and the ability for emergency vehicles to provide service. · The affect and impact on Eisenhower Elementary School and it's students hasn't been weI1 thought through, given student loading, safety relative to the amount of traffic, and other taxpayer and community issues. The affect on our neighborhood housing vaittes relative to this type of proposed housing development, locating a multi-family development between quiet established residential neighborhoods, will drastically change the complexion of the neighborhood. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that I am very strongly opposed to the proposed zoning change and the amendment that is before you. Again, it is not that I am entirely opposed to the development of this property, but rather that ! am opposed to changing the zoning from the current retirement community zoned development to the proposed multi-famil~, zoned housing development that is referenced in the beginning paragraph. JE / March 2, 2002 Zoning Advisory Commission City Hall 50 West 13th St. Dubuquq, IA 52001 Re: Amendment °~'pUD Development D~strict at the end of Raven Oaks Drive Dear Commission Members, We, the undersigned neighbors of the above described property, are writing to voice our objections to the proposal of MWF Properties of Minnesota to build eight apartment complexes of low-income subsidized eight 2 and 3 bedroom apartment units on this property. The plan is for six complexes of eight 2 bedroom units and two complexes of 3 bedroom units. *Our first concern is for the change in character to the neighborhood. Although there are adjacent apartment complexes on Raven Oaks the rest of the surrounding properties are single family homes in the Marywood and Arbor Oaks neighborhoods. We do not like to see the population density so drastically increased. The resulting flow of traffic over the walking path used by hundreds of elementary school children on a dally basis is a huge safety concern. There is also an additional concern for increase in the flow of traffic on Raven Oaks because the City previously approved development of that property wfth a substandard narrow street only 25 feet in width. *Our second concern is for the loss of value to our property from the addition of 64 units of low-income subsidized housing. There are already 72 units of low-income apartments located one block away at Owen Court and Kennedy Road (Kennedy Manor, a non-profit entity with 16-3 bedroom units, 36-2 bedroom units, and 20-1 bedroom units). There are also an additional four apartment units that are low-income units in the apartment buildings at Sunset Park Circle and Kennedy Road. There are an additional eight 2 bedroom units of Iow-income housing apartments located about one-half mile away at Kaufman Ave. and Carter Road. *Our third concern is for the additional run-offto the creek that runs through this property. The City' of Dubuque is currently proposing to force many people out of their family homes to improve management of the water in this creek. Why should the'City approve increasing this problem at the same time that they are looking for solutions to the problem? The run-off problem has evolved from many years of property development without appropriate planning and resolution of increasing run-off from these hilly properties. I *Our fourth concern is that the manager of Kennedy Manor has reported that for some time they have routinely had vacancies in some of their 2 bedroom apartments. She does not believe that there is a current need in Dubuque for 2 bedroom low-income apartments. She does believe that demand exists in Dubuque for 3 and 4 bedroom low- income apartment units. We do not believe that it is appropriate to use government funds to build 48-2 bedroom apartments to compete against a non-profit entity such as Kennedy Manor in an already saturated market 0£2 bedroom low-income apartment an/ts. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, PETITION This petition is in response to the proposed zoning change that is being requested by the MWF Properties/Felderman Business Partnership to amend the PUD Planned Unit Development District to allow construction of 64 multi-family housing units at the end of Raven Oaks Drive. All signee's listed below are OPPOSED to the proposed change in zoning. This petition is in response to the proposed zoning change that is being requested by the MWF Properties/Felderman Business Pmhiership to amend the PUD Planned Unit Development District to allow construction of 64 multi-family housing units at the end of Raven Oaks Drive. All signee's listed below are OPPOSED to the proposed change in zoning. NAME ADDRESS I PETITION This petition is in response to the proposed zoning change that is being requested by the MWF Properties/Felderman Business Partnership to amend the PUD Planned Unit Development District to allow construction of 64 multi-family housing units at the end of Raven Oaks Drive. All signee's listed below are OPPOSED to the proposed change in zoning. NAME .5 ' ¢ .~>'- This petition is in response to the proposed zoning change that is being requested by the MWF Properties/Felderman Business Parmership to amend the PUD Planned Unit Development District to allow construction of 64 multi-family housing units at the end of Raven Oaks Drive. All signee's listed below are OPPOSED to the proposed change in zoning. NAME ' Kluck Partnership 14285 Hwy 20 West ~ PO Box 1045 e Dubuque. Iowa 52004-1045 Phone 563-556-2284 e Fax 563-556-2285 ~ Or- ~]UBUQ, APR 0:3 2002 April 02, 2002 Plannin.g Services Dapamnent City Hall 50 West 13th Street Dubuque, Iowa 52001-4864 Attention: Zoning Advisory Commission To Whom it may concern, This letter comes from David and Thomas Kluck owners and operators of Kluck apartments located at 2695 and 2691 Raven Oaks and future building to be located at 2687 Raven Oaks Dr. These two buildings have 12 units each for a total of 24 units of present tenants. We have a concern with only one entrance into this proposed development. We presently have 24 units and have future plans to construct another 12 unit building on Raven Oaks Drive. The exit from our apartments onto Raven Oaks is Approximately sixty feet 15om John F Kennedy. We feel that at the most congested times of day our tenants will not have adequate access to JFK because of heavy traffic. Our major concern would be that of the width of Raven Oaks. When traffic is heavy it would be near impossible for Emergency vehicles to clear this comer with another vehicle there. Not to mention in winter when snow is piled on the streets. Another alternative would be Crissy Drive Or Carter Road] Opening these would alleviate traffic creating another exib'entrance available of through traffic. Sincerely, David Kluck (2' Thomas Kluck E / Continental Realty S; Felderman Appraisals 1179 Iowa Street, Dubuque, IA 52001 (563) 557-1465 Office; (563) 588-4214 Fax Web site: www.feldermans.com April 1, 2002 .. ., QUE City of Dubuque Zoning Advisory Commission Chairman Bird, and Commissioners Stiles, Schiltz, Hardie, Bousch, Christ, and Smith. C/O Planning and Zoning Department, City Hall · ~ ...... · ...... 50 W. I? Street Dubuque, IA 52001 RE: 7.7 Acres, Zoned PUD, along Raven Oaks Drive, Dubuque, IA We are writing as the owners and listing brokerage for the 7.7-acres along Raven Oaks that is requesting an amendment to the current PUD district to allow the construction of 64 multi-family housing units. Previously, the parcel has been approved for 76 condo units (in 10 buildings), 88 units (13 four-plexes, and 3 12-plexes), and it was recently amended for 62 units. These projects went by the wayside for reasons having nothing to do with Dubuque and its economic climate. Today, MWF Properties is seeking an amendment to construct 64 multi-family dwellings. The project is not "low-income" but affordable housing, which Dubuque must have to support the City's push to draw more businesses to the area. This property has been zoned PUD since the Mid-1970's. The current and proposed zoning will cause no additional money for infi'astructure to the city since water and sewer connections are already to the site. Concerns about using Raven Oaks Drive have been resolved (through no on-street parking) and both the City Engineering Division and Fire Marshall say that adequate access is provided. It is our position that it'people in the commurfity would prefer it remains in a park-like setting; we would be willing to sell it for that use. However, there is no economic reason not to support this amendment, and it is our position that the quality housing, job benefits, and superior management firm will only benefit Dubuque's economic situation. This request is consistent with zoning for this property for nearly 30 years. We ask that your reconsider the applicant's amendment, and give unanimous support for this rezoning based on its merit and benefit to our community. "Look £o~ the BLUE REA L TY Mgn" I DOMINIC G00DlvlANN REAL ESTATE, LTD. 2774 UNIVERSITY .AVENUE, SUITE A DUBUQUE, IA 52001 BUS. (563) 556-3843 FAX (563) 556 ii42 E-MAIL coldwdlbankeN~real-good.com March 27, 2002 Chairman Eugene Bird, Jr. Commissioner Jeff Stiles Commissioner Dick Schiltz Commissioner Steve Hardie Commissioner Ben Rousch Cormmissioner Martha Christ Comz~dssioner Ron S~Jth Zoning Advisory Commission c/o Planning & Zoning Department, City Hall 50 West 13th St. Dubuque, Iowa 52001 Re: Application of MWF Properties / Felderman Business Partnership application to amend the PUD District located on Raven Oaks Drive. Dear Chairman Bird and Commissioners: I am writing to support the referenced application to amend the PUD, and as it was originally moved and seconded by Commissioners Stiles and Christ. I must report that I have an interest in this application, as I am the Agent Representative of MWF Properties, so my opinion does have a distinct advocacy bias. I am also the President of the Dubuque Board of Realtors, and as such I am sworn to uphold the rights of property ownership, to further its highest and best use, and further the opportanities of ownership for all. With that said I do feel that the development being presented meets the criteria for zoning, has merit and deserves to be approved by the Zoning Advisory Board. In reading the minutes of your meeting of March 6, 2002, I note that most Commissioners felt that the issues directly relating to Zoning were met, and that the objections presented to the Commission were opinions relating to the economic feasibility of the development, rather than zoning related issues. I note that one person stated to the Commission that he owns 5 "low income" traits which are only 50% occupied. Another neighbor states that there is already "too much low income housing" in the neighborhood, and a local Realtor stated that vacancy rates are "akeady too high" and suggested "grant money" is not being made available to "private sector" developers. Please note that MWF Properties is a private sector Developer, and that there is no "grant money" involved in this development. There are tax'credits available to developers who meet strict criteria, not the least important being the ongoing ownership / management responsibilities that make them valued members of the cornmunity. FOR OVER 90 YEARS. } MAKING REAL ESTATE REAL EASY.'" ' Owned And ( A local landlord / o~vner of many residential apartment units, as well as member of the Ecumen/cal Housing Board, stated that this project would compete with the Ecumenical Housing project, and there was not enough demand for "low cost" housing. This is not a "iow cost" development, and therefore it will not compete with low-income housing. I did also note that this same landlord / complainant had an anusual plat request approved which required a variance fi:om development norms as the lot had no street frontage. The approval will allow him to construct additional units at his property. His was the matter immediately preceding this action item. The economics of the development seemed to dominate the discussion before the cormuissioners, and do not appear to me to be matters that would effect the zon/ng merit of the property. Noting that more than one cormmissioner recognized that this was the case and that the property provided adequate green space, and buffering from the adjacent single family residential properties, and that the development's street would have the least traffic of any of the streets in the immediate area, and that traffic concerns were unwarranted, those commissioners voted to approve the development. The City of Dubuque and its residents benefit fi:om the availability of good quality housing, at all levels of income or social status. There is nothing better than competition in the marketplace, in fact everyone benefits when the bar is raised, and competition demands better products and services. The developer of tl:fis project has voluntarily cormmitted its management resources to educate its tenants on the benefits of credit responsibility, and the positive nature of home ownership as their next endeavor in our community. As a Realtor, I cannot say enough about the benefits when all residents are able to move up and into our community, rather than down and out of Dubuque! I ask the commission to reconsider this issue, and to approve it based on its genuine merit as a good quality addition to the housing stock of our cornmtmity. Thank you for your consideration. Dominic Go&ann, tli, Broker Coldwell Banker - Dominic Goodmann Real Estate cc: Dubuque City Council Dubuque City Manager Board of Directors, Dt£ouque Board of Realtors DOMINIC GOODMANN REAL ESTAIE, LTD. 2774 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE A DUBUQUE, IA 520el BUS. (563) 556-3843 FAX (563) 556-1142 E-MAlL coldwelIbankev~r cai-good.cora March 27, 2002 Chairman Eugene Bird, Jr. Commissioner Jeff Stiles Commissioner Dick Schiltz Commissioner Steve Hardie Commissioner Ben Rousch Commissioner Martha Christ Commissioner Ron Smith Zon/ng Advisory Com2nission c/o Plapming & Zoizing Department, City Hall 50 West 13th St. Dubuque, Iowa 52001 Re: Application of MWF Properties / Felderman Business Parmership application to amend the PUD Dislrlct located on Raven Oaks Drive. Dear Chairman Bird and Coim2issioners: I am writing to support the referenced application to amend the PUD, and as it was originally moved and seconded by Commissioners Stiles and Christ. I must report that I have an interest in this application, as I am the Agent Representative of MWF Properties, so my opinion does have a distinct advocacy bias. I am also the President of the Dubuque Board of Realtors, and as such I am sworn to uphold the rights of property ownership, to farther its highest and best use, and further the opportunities of ownersl:fip for all. With that said I do feel that the development being presented meets the criteria for zoning, has merit and deserves to be approved by the Zoning Advisory Board. In reading the minutes of your meeting of March 6, 2002, I note that most Commissioners felt that the issues directly relating to Zoning were met, and that the objections presented to the Commission were opinions relating to the economic feasibility of the development, rather than zoning related issues. I note that one person stated to the Commission that he owns 5 "low income" units which are only 50% occupied. Another neighbor states that there is already "too much low income housing" in the neighborhood, and a local Realtor stated that vacancy rates are "already too high" and suggested "grant money" is not being made available to "private sector" developers. Please note that MWF Properties is a private sector Developer, and that there is no "grant money" involved in this development. There are tax credits available to developers who meet strict criteria, not the least important being the ongoing ownership / management responsibilities that make them valued members of the community. FoR OVEE 90 YEARS. { MAKING I~EAL ESTATE REAL EASY.TM Each Office Is independently Owned And Operated. A local landlord / owner of many residential apartment units, as well as member of the Ecumenical Housing Board, stated that this project would compete with the Ecumenical H6nsing project, and there was not enough demand for "low cost" housing. This is not a "low cost" development, and therefore it will not compete with low-income housing. I did also note that this same landlord / complainant had an unusual plat request approved which required a variance from development norms as the lot had no street frontage. The approval will allow him to construct additional units at his property. His was the matter immediately preceding this action item. The economics of the development seemed to dominate the discussion before the commissioners, and do .not appear to me to be matters that would effect the zon/ng merit of the property. Noting that more than one commissioner recognized that this was the case and that the property provided adequate green space, and buffering from the adjacent single family residential properties~ and that the development's street would have the least traffic of any of the streets/n the immediate area, and that traffic concerns were unwarranted, those commissioners voted to approve the development. The City of Dubuque and its residents benefit from the ava/lability of good quality housing, at all levels of income or social status. There is nothing better than competition in the marketplace, in fact everyone benefits when the bar is raised, and competition demands better products and services. The developer of this project has voluntarily committed its management resources to educate its tenants on the benefits of credit responsibility, and the positive nature of home ownership as their next endeavor in our community. As a Realtor, I cannot say enough about the benefits when all residents are able to move up and into our community, rather than down and out of Dubuque! I ask the commission to reconsider this issue, and to approve it based on its genuine merit as a good quality addition to the housing stock of our community. Thank you for your consideration. Sinc~y, .,..~ ,~, / Dominic Gooilmann, III, Broker Coldwell Banker - Dominic Goo&maan Real Estate cc: Dubuque City Council Dubuque City Manager Board of Directors, Dubuque Board of Realtors /