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
/