Zoning Raven Oaks MWF - FeldermContk c ta! Rcalty & Fel& 7 ao
1179 Iowa Street, Dubuque, IA 52001
(563) 557-1465 Office; (563) 588-4214 Fax
Web site: www.feldermans.com
City of Dubuque Council Members
c/o City HaU
50 W. 13th Street
Dubuque, IA 5200 t
Re: Raven Oaks Project and Section 8 Rental Assistance Program
I am pleased to provide you with information regarding MWF Property development and
guidelines used for City of Dubuque Housing Section 8 Rental Assistance. For those of
you that voted in favor of the zoning adjustment, we commend you for looking to the
future and needs of Dubuque.
DUBUQUE MUST GROW TO COMPETE. Every effort taken by the City of Dubuque
in the past ten years supports this premise. The Councils vision has been sound, and must
support projects such as this one that allow for improved quality of life.
The Raven Oaks project was awarded approximately $3.1 million in iow-income housing
tax credits, under the federal LIHTC/Section 42 program, In exchange, the owners have
the obligation to rent 47 of the 64 units to households earning no more than 60% of area
median income (adjusted for family size, see chart below), and this income restriction
must remain in effect for a minimum of 15 years.
According to David Steele (MWF Properties, Developer), the projected market rents will
be $625 per month for a two-bedroom, and $675 per month for a three-bedroom unit.
Heat will be provided; but Steel was unsure which, if any, other utilities were provided,
so we assume none.
For the City of Dubuque Section 8 Program, the HUD-allowed rent for a two-bedroom
unit is $525 per month, and $673 per month for a three-bedroom unit. These are gross
rents; and any utilities not provided by the owner must be subtracted (according to a
utility allowance calculation performed by City Housing). This means, for the Raven
Oaks Project, that City Housing will subtract $65 per month l~om the two-bedroom rem
and $91 per month f~om the three-bedroom rent, for utilities not provided. The remaining
net rents will be $460 per month for a two-bedroom unit and $582 per month for a three-
bedroom unit.
for tt~e BLUE REAL ~
Accord'rog to the Section 8 guidelines, tenants pay 30% of their adjusted income toward
the rent; and the City of Dubuque Housing pays the difference up to the maximum
amount allowed by HUD. Maximum household incomes for Section 8 participation are
set by HUD, which indicate that no one making more than 50% of area median income is
eligible for the program. (This contrasts with the tax credit program guidelines, which
allows 60% of the median income).
As the proposed rents are substantially in excess of the HUD-allowed rents, it appears
that no Section 8 families will be able to reside at Raven Oaks, but that is not correct.
HUD allows the family to actually pay up to 40% of their adjusted income toward the
monthly rent. This means a family has the option of paying the difference between the
"net rent" and the market rent, as long as the total tenant payment does not exceed 40%
of the household income.
The 40% feature will only allow a few Section 8 families to be eligible. However,
according to City Housing calculations, they will not be able to qualify any two-bedroom
units for the Raven Oaks Project rent, since the differential is too large.. Three-bedroom
households will qualify for those earning at the top end of the income eligibility scale (at
or near the 50% maximum income standard). In fact, of the 1078 families currently
receiv'mg Section 8 assistance through City Housing, only five families earn enough to
take advantage of the 40% feature allowing them to rent one of the Raven Oaks Project
three-bedroom units.
This results from the low incomes of the qualified Section 8 families. Although incomes
allow up to 50% of area median, the facts indicate that the great majority of the Section 8
families earn significantly less. Fully 72% of those 1078 families make less than $10 000
annually, or at about 20% of area median income~.
Beyond ali the technical explanation, the real message is that "affordabillty" is a relative
terrr~ For the Iowa Finance Authority's housing tax credit program, tenant incomes
allow up to 60% of area median income. For our Section 8 Program, the maximum
income is 50% of area median income and the tenants are limited as to the percentage of
their income, which can be paid toward the rent.
What does "tow income" and "affordable" really do with the particular fund'mg source or
program when different definitions apply, according to the agency providing the funding
assistance? The Raven Oaks apartments will be affordable to a I/m/ted number of City
Housing Section 8 Program participants, based on the definition of low-income
households. However, it is likely that the Raven Oaks Project will he affordable relative
to the current "market" for similar types of traits, particularly for the newer complexes in
the west and south sectors of the City.
I hope this explains the distinction between tax credit program requirements and the City
Housing Section 8 Program regulations. Whether Raven Oaks Project will be successful
ultimately depends on the validity of the developers' market study.
City of Dubuque Housing Data, provided by David Hards.
MWF Properties has constructed a schedule of rents based on their analysis of supply and
demand in the Dubuque market. MWF has concluded that, for the 47 apartments
regulated by the tax credit program, the proposed rents will be affordable (i.e. market-
competitive) to households earning no more than 60% of area median income.
IfI can provide you any additional information, please contact me at your convenience.
Much of this information was provided by City of Dubuque Housing (David Harris). He
continues to be a great assistance to landlords and tenants in Dubuque, and should be
commended for his efforts.
Regards
BoB Felderman
Broker
Prepared by: Laura Caretens, 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 planfor
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 of'the 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:
Use Re.qulations.
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 sh~!l include arly use customarily incidental and
subordinate to the principal use ~ ~erve~.
ORDINANCE NO. -02
Page 2
Lot and Bulk Requlations.
Development of land in the PUD District shall De 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.
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.
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,
Si.qn Requlations.
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
Fw
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.
Recording.
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:
Terrance M. Duggan, Mayor
Jeanne F. Schneider, City Clerk
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 Partnersh ~p
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
$ T E V E N
ULSTAD
ARC H I 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 557-3142
Date: MARCH 1, 2002
Fax Cover Sheet
To:
Attem-ion:
MW? PROPERTIES
7645 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, M1NNE.~OT^ 55423
612-24-3-5010
Project:
Project
DAVID STEELE
ARBOR GLEN, DUBUQUE, IOWA
01030
DAVE,
ATTACHED PLEASE FIND:
MEETING NOTE¢ FROM LAST NIGHT.9 (~l? L lNG.
~YLE K~NO 9~
Signed:
Total Pages Including This Cover Sheet:
Mar O1 02 10: 17a S%even Ul~ad
FEBRUARY 2/~, 2002
MEETING NOTES WITH NEIGHBORS
PUD DEVELOPMENT OF ARBOR GLEN AFAI~¥MEN'I- COMMUNITY
A MEETING WAS HELD AT THE REQUEST OF THE ZONING
COMMISSION BETWEEN ARBOR GLEN LTD'S REPRESENTATIVE,
DAVID STEELE, ANO FHa. NEIGHBORS ADJOINING THE
PROPOSED ARBOR GLEN DEVELOPMENT. THE MEETING WAS
HELD AT TIq~ 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 AND TbtE CHILDREN HAVING TO
CROSS ~tE NEW RAVEN OAKS EXTENSION AS THEY GO TO
SCHOOL ALONG THE PRESENT PATHWAY.
ARBOR GLEN DEVELQPMt:N] WILL GENERATE 414
VEHICLE TRIPS DAILY PER PLANNING STAFF.
PRESENT ESTIMATED TRAFFIC COUNTS;
RAVEN OAKS 556 ULSTAD COUNT
86 APARTMENTS X6.47
MARYWOOD 625~ ULSTAD COUNT
I2~5 HOMES XIO X50%
~PRING VALLEY 18,56, ULSTAD COUNT
232 HOMES XIO X80%
JFK 12,000, DBQ ZONING
IT WAS POINTED OUT ]'HAT THE PATHWAY CROSSING WOULD
BE MADE INTO A STREET TYPE OF CROSSING AND THAT THE
VEHICLE COUNT5 WOULD BE THE LOWEST 01- ANY STREET THAT
THE CHILDREN HAD TO CROSS TO GETTO SCHOOL.
IT WAS ALSO POINTED OIJT THAT ALL PROPOSED ADDITIONAL
TRAFFIC GOES DIRECTLY TO JFK, NOT THROUGH ANY
NEIGHI~ORHOODS
NEIGHBORS EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT
WAS TOTALLY WRONG FOR THE AP, EA AND THAT
SUBSIDIZED TENANTS WANT TO LIVE DOWNTOWN BECAUSE
PAGE 1
BTEVEN U LSTAD ARCHITECTS
Ma~ O10~ lO:l?a S~even Uls~ad ~chi~eo%s 56~-557-~1~2
FEBRUARY 28, 2002
MEETING NOTES WITH NEIGHBORS
PUD DEVELOPMENT OP ARDOR GLEN APARTMENT COMMUNITY
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WAS INADEQUATE, IT WAS
POINTED OUT THAT THERE ARE CHURCHES, SHOPPING,
:~CHOOLS~ ALL AVAILABLE IN AREA. SCHEDULED BUS
TRANSPORTATION COMES RIGHT DOWN JFIK. THEIRE IS ALSO
~PICCIAL SERVICE TRANSPORTATION AVAILADLE THROUGH THE
CITY FOR DOOR TO DOOR BUS SERVICE.
THE NEIGHBORS EXPRESSED CONCERN OVER DEVELOPMENT
OF MULTI FAMILY SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING.
IT WAS POINTED POUT THAT THE PROPERTY IS AND HAS
ALWAYS BEEN ZONED FOR SOME TYPE OF MULTI FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT. AND THAT ALi_ ACC/:SS TO DEVELOPMENT IS
THROUGH MULQ FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, NOT THROUGH ANY
SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.
NEIGHBORS HAD PREVIOUSLY EXPRESSED CONCERNS OVER
LO.5,'5 OF PROPERTY VALUES WITN THE NEW DEVELOPMENT IN
PLACE:
THE HOMES ALONG MARYWOOD ARE THE HOMES THAT THE
TENANTS 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 AND IS SEPARATED FROM TH/: DEVELOPMENT ~sy A
HEAVILY WOODED RAVINE. THE RAVINE IS APPROXIMATELY 60
FEET DEEP, EVEN IN THE WINTER. NEIGHDORs WILL HAVE A
DIFFICULT TIME SEI:ING THE DEVELOPMENT.
THE CLOSEST HOME ALONG MARYWOOD IS ALMOST 200'
AWAY FROM A PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING. TI IE
OEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSING TO LEAVE AS MUCH OF THE
WOODED AREA BETWEEN THE HOUSING AND THE APARTMENTS
AS SHOWN ON THE PROPOSEO SITE PLAN.
PAGE 2
STEVEN ULSTAD ARCHITECTS
M~ O1 02 10: 17~ Steven Uls~md Rrchi~ects 5B3-557-31~2 p.~
FEBRUARY 28, 2002
MEETING NOTES WITH NEIGHBORS
PUD DEVELOPMENT OF' ARBOR GLEN APARTMENT COMMUNI9 ¥
THE NEIGHBORS WERE CONCERNED OVER THE HEAVY
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED WITH ARBOR GLEN APARTMENTS.
THE DENSITY OP PROPOSEO ARBOR GLEN DEVELOPMENT IS 8
UNITS PER ACRE
MARYWOOD IS 5 UNITS PFR ACRE
ARBOR OAKS IS 3,6 UNITS PER ACRE
PRESENT APARTMENTS ALONG RAVEN OAKS ARE DEVELOPED
A1 APPROXIMATELY 19 UNITS PER ACRE
NEIGHBORs EXPRESSED CONCERN 1-1 IAT 'I'HI= PR, EBENT STREET
WIDTH OF 25' CAN NOT HANDLE THE TRAFFIC.
STREET WIDTHs;
MARYWOOD 31' BACK TO BACK
PARKING BOTH SIDES &
PARRED HEAVILY
SPRING VALLEY 31' BACK TO BACK
NO PARKING FROM SCHOOL
TO JFK.
RAVEN OAKS 25' BACK TO BACK
NO PARKING
NEIGHBORS COMPLAINED OF CARS PARKED ALONG RAVEN
OAKS_ WE HAVE NEVER OBSERVED ANY CAR PARKED ON
RAVEN OAKS.
NO VEHICLEB PARKED ON SPRING VALLEY.
VEHICLES PARRED HEAVILY ALONG MARYWOOD, BOTIq SIDES,
ONLY SINGLE LANE OF TRAFFIC PASSABLE.
BECAUSE OF THE RI=STRICTED PARKING. leAVEN OAK~ IS MUCH
MORE CAPABLE OF HANDLING THE PROPOSED TRAFFIC LOAD
THAN THE NEARBY NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS.
NEIGHBORS EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT DEVELOPER WILL
LEAVE AFl-ER AFAR'IMENTS CONSTRUCTED LEAVING ALL THE
PROBLEM FAMILIES FOR THE NEIGHBORS TO DEAL WITH.
PAGE 3
STEVEN ULSTAD ARCHITECTS
Map O1 OE 10: 17a S%even Ul~tad RpChi%~c%~ 5S3-557-314~ p.5
FEI~RIJAI~'~' 28, 2002
MEETING NOTEs WITH NEIGHBORS
PUD DEVELOPMENT OF ARBOR GLEN APAR FM~.NT COMMUNITY
WEISS MANAGEMENT WILL MANAGE ARBOR GLEN
APARTMENT COMMUNI1-T. A MANAGER FOR THE DEVELOPMENT
WILL BE ON BITE LIVING WITHIN ONE OF THE APARTMENTS.
NEtGHBOR.~ t~FQUESTEO REFERENCE5 FROM OTHER
DEVELOPMENTS THAT WEISS MANAGES. 2 DEVELOPMENTS
WERE NOTED IN ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA. NO LE13-FR OF
REF-ERENCES WILL BE PROVIDED,
~TORM WATER RUN-OFF DETENTION BASIN WAS DISCUSSED.
NO MORE FLOW OF WATER WILL LEAVE THE SITE THAN
PRESENTLY DOES. WATEr, WILL .~IT IN PONDs FOR A FEW
HOURS AFTER A RAIN, NOT DAYS. NEIGHBORs BELIEVE THAT
THE DETENTION BASIN WILL BE UNSAFE AND PRESENTS A
DANGER FOR GHILDKEN DROWNING. DEVELOPER POINTED OUT
THAT THE PRESENT CREEK IS MUCH MORE DANGEROUS THAN
BASIN,
NEIGHBORS EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT FIRE AND
EMEI~GENCY VEHICLES COULD NOT ACCESS THE SITE ANO
THAT THOSE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENTS KNEW NOTHING OF
Tile PROPOSED DEVELOPMENI'. THE DEVELOP'ER RESPONDED
THAT THE CITY HAD DONE AN ENGINEERING REVIEW AND THAT
THE CUL DE SAC AS WELL AS FIRE HYDRANTS WERE ADDED TO
THE DESIGN AFTER THAT REVIEw.
THE NEIGHBoKB APPk. AR TO BE VERY CONCERNED OVER THE
TYPE OF TENANT THAT WILL LIVE WITHIN THE APARTMENT
COMMUNITY. MI./CH DL~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 -4
STEVEN ULSTAD ARCHITECT5
C~TY OF DUBLK)UE
5:A5~ 0 Z 2OO2
This petition is in re~po~c to thc ~oposcd zoning chm~g¢ 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
3mo Aaoor Oav.~s Or.
~&' ~7~
oo..ga Ch. ~ ~m
This petition is in response to the proposed zoning change that is
being requested by the MWF Properties/Feldemmn 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,
3//~-
3115
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 v._oice how
.~tronglv 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 runoffand 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
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 chan~ng the zoning from the
current retirement community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zoned housing
development that is referenced in the beginning paragraph.
Sineere!¥~
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 surrotmding neighborhood to the proposed zoning change and I am
writing to v~oice how strongly I am opposed to this amendmen!. 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 °n average 414 trips per day, or in other words, given that an
average driving day is between 7 AM and 9 PM
will be generated every 2 minutes, or 14 hours, this means an extra car
· 250 to 300 additional people will be thrown between established neighborhoods.
These extra people will create an excessive amount of noise and does not ftt the
· complexion of the surrounding neighborhood
Water runoff and drainage issues that continue to plague the North end retention
basin and West 2 wll be more aggravated.
· Raven Oak, 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 haen't
been well thought through, given student loading, safety relative to the amount of
traffic, and other taxpayer and commanit¥ issues.
* The affect on our neighborhood housing ~alues relative fo this type ofproposad
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 not that I am entirely opposed
to the development of this property, but rather that I_am oi>pose__d to eh~nglna the zoninc, from the
current retirement community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zoned housing
development that is referenced in the beginning paragraph.
Since~el% ,~ .
Febroar~ 16~ 200~
Zoning Advisory Commission:
I am writing this letter in response to the proposed zoning change that is being requested by
the ~ 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
strongly I am opposed to tl~s 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 ~m 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 32aawill 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
the neighborhood.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that I am ver~ 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 ! mn opposed to charting the zonln? fi.om 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/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 yoiee 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 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 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 zonin~ 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
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 curreni 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"dwill be more aggravated.
· Raven Oaks Drive is a sub-standard street limited by its narrow width and the
abil!ty 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 veT 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 ehanqing 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, ~/~ ~
February 16, 2002
Zoning Advisory Comarfission:
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~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 taxpay~er 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 charting 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,
February 16, 2002
Zon/ng 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 ,oice 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 witl 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 32na 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
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~danual nmghborhoodstwill drastacally 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/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 yoice 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 wilI 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~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-f..a[n, ily 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
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 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 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 chanqing the zoning fi.om the
current retirement community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zoned homing
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 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~¥ 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 curreni retirement
community zoned development to the proposed multi~fi~mily 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 runoff and drainage issues that continue to plague the North end retention
basin and West 32nd 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
traffo, 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 fi.om the
current retirement community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zoned housing
development that is referenced in the beginning paragraph.
Sincerely,
This Petition is for all those neighbors opposed (agaihst) to the
MWF Properties/Felderman Business Partnership to-amend~the: .
PUD to allow conslraction 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 traits at the
end of Raven Oaks Drive.
NAME . ADDRESS
t33
3105 Arbor Oaks Drive
Dubuque, IA 52001
,..,TY OF DUBUQUE
v 2
December 28, 2001
gi~y,of Dubuque
Plarmmg Sen~ices 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 Developmem) 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 '/
LORETTAc. MIc. iil~LS
2662Mar,JWoodDr.
Dubuqu¢,'IA52001
C~TY 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-i
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 townhouses, that was several years old. My first
question was, "Can this still be built since it was planned years ago," The answer
was yes. I then asked, "What ff a developer wanted to build Something else?" The
an.qwer I received is that the developer would have to submit a new development
plan to the planning services department and then there would be a public tenting. I
decided at that time ffonly two-sided upscale townhonse 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
housing with the use of single story towahouses adjacent to our neighborhood was
passed. For the record I did not send a letter or voice any concern at the public
hearing. My decision 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 townbouses. This being at least compal~l>le with our
adjoining neighborhood, and would not substantially impact our property values.
I ~ have the same belief about this em'rent proposak I am strongly
against the amendment to allow a change from the current planned unit
development to mi R-4 multi-family apartment 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 this 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 ff the zoning commi~ion aliows the ]alld adjacent to my home
to be amended to allow the construction of the proposed 64 multi-family
hou~_ng 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 daily lives. As it stands today our neighborhood is a
peaceful and quiet family centered place to live. i would also 1/kc you to consider
the following when making your decision to rezone:
; ,~ nci~d cl~cntary school is already overcrowded.
· The school is just adjacent to the development and w~th in walking
distance to the storm water retension basin. Which I believe is a hazard to
the safety of the student population.
· 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 many other building sites for a R-4 development that are not
surrounded on three sides by R-1 neighborhoods.
It is my bel/ef that the owner and developer of this project does not want to build
two-sided to~ouses as in the original 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 ma×imi?e h~s investment by placing eight - two or three story
apa~'t~ent complexes housing 64 units in place of the originally proposed two-sided
townhouses (ref. previous planned unit development). I don~ deny the
owner/inverstor the right 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 tl~ matter and hope you understand the
hnportance to our neighborhood.
Lora Goedken
3109 Arbor Oaks Dr.
Dubuque, IA 52001
CITY OF DUBUQUE
FEB 04 20O2
February l, 2002
Zoning Advisory Commission
Planning Services Department
City Hall
50 West 13th Street
Dubuque IA 52001-4864
Dear Commission,
Because of scheduled business travels my wife and I will not be able to auend 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 trait development 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,
Daniel H. Smith
Martha M. Smith
Februa~ 16, 2002
CITY OF DUBUQUE
FEB g 0 2002
Zoning Advisory Commission:
I am writing this letter in response to the proposed zoning change that is being requested by
the MWF Propenies/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
stron~,ly ! am o~oosed to this amendme,ii. 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
· 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~ 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 afleeet 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 eoramunity 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 &this property, but rather that I am o~nosed to chanffing 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,
February 16, 2002
CITY OF DU'~L~QUE
FEB £ 0 2082
Zoning Advisory Commission:
I am writing this letter in response to the proposed zoning change that is being requested by
the MWF Properties/Felderrnan Business Partnership to amend the PUD Planned Unit Development
Di~riet to allow construction ora 64 multi-family housing unit at the ~d o£Raven Oaks Drive, !
live in the surrounding neighborhood to the proposed zoning change and I am writing to _voice hOw
~rongly I am opposed to this amendme, t. 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~ reth'ement
community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zoned housing development.
I have many reasons for being opposed to the orang amendment changes:
Z '
., 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
co,,p~ex~on ux the surrounmng 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 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 multizfamily 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~ng the zonino fi.om the
current retirement community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zone~t housing
development that is referenced in the beginning paragraph.
Sincerely,
UNPgERSITY OF
DUBUQUE
THEOLOGICAL
SEMINARY
February 22, 2002
John P. Jewell
Director of Seminary Technological Services
CI.TV OF DUBUQUE
FEB 2 5 2002_
Zoning Advisory Commin~cal:
My family and I reside ~t 3122 Arbor Oaks Dr. and we are vew much opposed to the request by
~ Pospe~ies/Felderm~ Business Parmership to amid the Phnned United Development
Distric~ to allow the construction of a 64 multi-~ily housing unit at the e~d of Rav~ Oaks
Drive. We oppose this amendment. We are no~ opposed to the development of the propeay, but to
changiag the zoning from the current mtiremont c. omm,lllity development,
We are concerned for the tremendous increase in tm~c in an already stressed traffic situation on
~ close to Eiseahower school crossings. Tho close proxnnity of the Kaufmsn/~K intersection
and additional ~c without regulation would mean additional safety hazard especially for
children.
1L~ve~ Oaks Drive is narrow and substandard, tho add~onul population inse~ted into the
est2blished neighborhoods would clmn~e the established character of the co~ununity, and the
impac~ on an already overcrowded Eisenhower School w/th special student population needs and
at,end,ut increased school busses and traffic would create a situa~d0n in' which the zoning change
would adversely affect the le~fimate concerns of a large gronp of c/fizeas.
Water nmoff and drainage issues which alroady are difficult in the North end retention basin and
West 32'a will be worseaed.
The impact on our neighborhood housing values with the inse~on of a multi-family development
betwee~ quiet established nei~hb0rhoods represents a harsh change wh/ch would change the
complexion of the co~:y.
Our very strong objection is to the change o£the currea~ retirement community zoning to multi-
family zoned development. Squeezing the multi-family into tho proposed area in spite adverse
Lmpact on community, edueationah tm~c and demographic areas would be a community
damaging choice.
Sincerely,
John P. Jewell
University of Dubuque Theological Seminary, 2000 University Avenue. Dubuque. IA 52001-5099 319-58%3t01 Fax 319-589-3110
February 16, 2002
Zoning Advisory Commission:
CITY Of DUBUQUE
FEB ~ ~ 2002
I am writing this letter in response to the proposed zoning change that is being requested by
the MWF PropertiedFelderman 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
s. ttron~tv I am opposed re th_is 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 from the curren~ retirement
community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zoned housing development.
I have many reasons for being opposed.to the zomng 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 intersectioa of Raven Oaks Dr
and JFK
· 250 to 300 additional people will be thrown between established neighborhoods.
~Fhese extra people witI create an excessive amount af noise and does not fir the
comp.l'exion of the surrounding neighborhood.
· Water runoff and drainage issues 'that continue to plague the North end retention
basin and West 32ndwill be more aggravated.
· Raven Oaks Drive is a sub-standard street limited by irs narrow width and the
ability for emergency vehicles to provide service.
· The affect and impact on Eisenhower Elementary School and it s students haan'r
been well thought through, given student loading, safety relative [o the amount of
traffic, and other taxpayer and community issues.
· The affect on our neighborhood housing values relative to this [ype of proposed
housing development, locating a multi-family development between quiet
established residential neighborhoods~will drastically change the complexion of
the neighborhood
In conclusior~, I would like to reiterate that 1 am very strongly opposed to the proposed
zoning change and the amendment that m before you. Again, it is not that I am entirely opposed to
the development of this property, but rather that I_am opposed to chanmng the zonin~ from the
current retirement commumty zoned development to the proposed multi-family zoned housing
development that is referenced in the beginning pdragra'l~h
February 16, 2002
Ct~ OF DUBL~QUE
FEB g 5 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 a/Iow construction ora 64 multi-family housing unfit 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 opvosed 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 runoffand 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 welt thought through, given student loading, safety relative to the amount of
traffic, and other taxpayer and community issues.
· The affect on our neighborhood housing valbes relative ro this type of proposed
housing developmeni, locating a multi-family development between quiet
established residential neighborhoods, will drastically change the complexion of
the neighborhood.
In conclusion, I would l/kc 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 Iam opposed to changing the zoninr, from the
current retirement community zoned development to the proposed multi-family zonld housing
development that is referenced in the beginning, paragraph,
March 2, 2002
Zoning Advisory Commission
City Hall
50 West 13th St.'
Dubuque, IA 52001
Re: Amendment 0~'pUD Development Districl 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 un/ts.
*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
daily basis is a huge sm~ety 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 with 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 apamnent units that are Iow-income units in the
aparmaent buildings at Sunset Park Circle and Kennedy Road. There are an additional
eight 2 bedroom units of low-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 hms 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-offproblem has evolved from many years of property development
without appropriate planning and resolution of increasing mn-off from these hilly
properties.
*Our fourth concem is that the manager of Kermedy 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 ftmds
to build 48-2 bedroom apartments to compete against a non-profit entity such as Kennedy '
Manor in an already saturated market of 2 bedroom low-income apamnent units.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.
Sincerely,
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
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
??
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
/
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
Kluck Partnership
14285 Hwy 20 West ,~ PO Box 1045 · Dubuque, Iowa 52004-1045
Phone 56.3-.556-2284 ~ Fax 563-556-2285
C~TY O~ [}UBUQUE
APR 0 3 200Z
April 02, 2002
Planning Services Department
CityHall
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 tenauts.
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 from 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 exit/entrance available of through traffic.
Sincerely,
David Kluck
Thomas Kluck
Continent Realty & Feldesman Appmisals
1179 Iowa Street, Dubuque, IA 52001
(563) 557-1465 Office; (563) 588-4214 Fax
Web site: www.feldermans.com
April 1, 2002
City of Dubuque Zoning Advisury Commission
Chairmnn Bird, and Commissioners Stiles, Schiltz, Hard/e, Bousch, Christ, and Smith.
C/O Planning and Zoning Department, City Hall ' ..... ,'.~
50 W. 17 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 d/strict to allow the construction of
64 multi-family housing units.
Previously, the parcel has been approved for 76 condo units (irt 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 curr~mt 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 b our position that if people in the community 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 tmanimous support for
this rezoning based on its merit and benefit to our community.
".Look £ot the BLUE RE~4 L TY sign"
DOMINIC GOODMANN
REAL ESTATE, LTD.
2774 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE A
DUBUQUE, IA 52001
BUS. (563) 556-3843
FAX (563) 556 1142
E-MAIL c olclwellbankev~rea l-go ocL corn
March 27, 2002
Chairman Eugene Bird, Ir.
Commissioner Jeff Stiles
Commissioner Dick Schlitz
Commissioner Steve Hardie
Commissioner Ben Ronsch
Commissioner Martha Christ
Commissioner kon Smith
.TY OF
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 ComwSssioners 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 fights of
property ownership, to further its highest and best use, and fttrther the opporamities of ownership for ali.
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 ;vere
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 "Iow 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 MVv-F 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 commurfity.
Fog OVEa 90 YEARS. ~ ~IAKING REAL 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 t/mt this project would compete with the Ecumenical Housing project, and there was
not enough demand for "low cost" housing. This is not a "tow 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 zoning 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 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 from the availability of good quality housing, at ali 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 cormnuniW.
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.
Domirfic Goo/dmann, III, Broker
Coldwell Banker - Dominic Goodmunn Real Estate
cc: Dubuque City Council Dubuque City Manager
Board of Directors, Dubuque Board of Realtors
DOMINIC GOODMANN
REAL ESTATE, LTD.
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
2774 UNIVERSITY AVENUE. SUITE A
DUBUQUE, IA 52001
BUS. (563) 556-3843
FAX (563) 556-1142
E-MAIL coldwellbanker~reabgood, corn
Zoning Advisory Cormnission
c/o Planning & Zoning Department, City Hall
50 West 13m 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 Ckrist. 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 fm'ther its highest and best use, and further the opporPanities of ownership for ail.
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, ][ 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 zopeng related issues.
I note that one person stated to the Cormnission 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 OVER 90 YEARS. ~ MAKING REAL ESTATE REAL EASY.'=
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 Housing project, and there was
not enough demand for "iow 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 zoning 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 wonid 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 from the availability of good quality housing, at ail 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 demmads better products and services. The developer of
this project has voluntarily counnitted its management resources to educate its termnts 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.
Dominic Goo/dmaun, III, Broker
Coldwell Banker Dominic Goodmaun Real Estate
cc: Dubuque City Council Dubuque City Manager
Board of Directors, Dubuque Board of Realtors
City Ha~
(563) 589-4210 office
(563) 5894221 fax
(563) 690-6678 TDD
April 8, 2002
The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
City of Dubuque
City Hall - 50 W. 13th Street
Dubuque IA 52001
RE:
Applicant:
Location:
Rezonings
MWF Properties/Felderman Business Partnership (tabled)
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 prewous
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 6tn 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 Lnte~ity Responsibility Innovation Temmwork
The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
End of Raven Oaks Drive
April 8, 2002
Page 2
To allow the opportunity for moro Commissioners to vote on the request, and obtain a
majority for or against, the Chairperson asked to roconsider the March 6th vote.
The Chairperson dirocted staff to re-notify (by mail) the applicant and adjoining property
owners that a reconsideration of the March 6th vote had been roquested.
At their April 3ra meeting, the Commission voted 4 to 2 to roconsider 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
c Conditional Use Permit
~ Appeal
[] Special Exception
[] Limited Setback Waiver
Plannin~ 318-588-4~1 p.2
City of Dubuque
Planning Se~ces Depar[ment
.//Dubuque IA 52(]0%4864
PLANNING APPLICATION FORM
~ Rezoning
[] Planned District
n Praliminary Plat
~ Minor Final Plat
n Text Amendment
[] Simple Site Plan
{2 Minor Site Plan
{a Major Site Plan
D Major Final Piat
a Simple Subdivision
u Annexation
o Temporary Use Permit
~ Certificate of Appropriateness
[] Certificate of Economic Hardship
[3 Other:
PLEASE 'Pr'PE OR PRINT LEGIBLY IN INK
Pro perry Owner(s):,~ ~.~' v~ ./.¢~.¢~. ~)&] ~ ..
Address: .// 77 -,~f~ r~'"~
_ ~'~ ~/~ ~ , ~, .,
Address: ~ f .,, ,~ ~ /~ ~.1~ ~i~:
22V~>/$' zoning: ,RgD Historic dis~= ~ Landmark:
~isting zoning: ~ P~posea
Legal d~crJption (Sidw~l Parcel ID number or lot num~r~iock numar/subdivision):
Tom! prope.'17 (lot) urea (square feet or acres): Zz'--~5.-.~/ ¢~- Number of lots:
Descdbe proposal and reason necessary (attach a letter of explanation, if needed):
CER'iqFICATION: I/we, the undersigned, do hereby certify that:
1. The information submitted herein is true and correct to the best 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 - APPLICATION SUBMITTAL CHECKUST
Fee: ~ 5-d.~ ~ ~-O~ Received by: d ~(,~-~/'7-- Date: l;z"l~l~gt1 Docket
u Propert7 ownership list [] Site/sketch plan u Floor plan c~ Plat ~ Conceptual development plan
c3 improvement plans c] Design review project description ~ Photo c] 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 ~~J ~o~o~
] to be Rezoned ~
-~ ~ /~ MARY~VOOD
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:
Existing Land Use:
Adjacent Land Use:
Multi-Family Housing
Vacant
North - Dubuque Corem School
East- Vacant
South - Single-Family Residential
West- Multi-Family Residential
Proposed Zoning: PR
Existing Zoning: PR
Adjacent Zoning: North - R-1
East - R-1
South - R-1
West -R-1
FormerZoning:
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 three-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 Ddve. 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:
Utilities: There exists a water main in the right-of-way of Raven Oaks Drive. The
~' 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 carries approximately 12,000 average vehicle trips
north of Kaufmann Avenue and 9,000 average vehicle trips south of the Northwest
Arterial.
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
the 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 Properties: Staffdoes 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.
CI~P 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 units. 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
sur[ace 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 detention area will be provided in an area adjacent to the ex~sting
creek. Raven Oaks Drive will be extended and be constructed to City standards.
Raven Oaks Drive is a public street that does 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 street by approximately 100 feet. The City Engineering
Division and Fire Marshall's office has reviewed the proposed extension of Raven Oaks
REZONING STAFF REPORT
Pag~ 3
Drive and feel there is adequate accessibility for typical traffic volumes and emergency
vehicle access.
The proposed 64-units of mufti-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
daily ~ps 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.
Date:~
ACCEPTANCE OF ORDINANCE NO. -01
We, Jack Felderman, representing Felderman Business Associates, Tom Tully,
representing Dubuque Lumber Company, Milton A. Avenarius 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.
%
e ¢~)'nan Busine.ss Associates,
Jal ~an, Authorized Signatory
Dui ~lUe Lumber Company, an Iowa
Corporation
Tom Tully, its President
/,Milton A.VAven~'rius, Individually
MWF Properties
David Steele, Its Authorized
Representative
ACCEPTANCE OF ORDINANCE NO. -01
We, Jack Felderman, representing Felderman Business Associates, Tom Tully,
representing Dubuque Lumber Company, Milton A. Avenarius 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
RAVEN OAKS ISSUES
AS THE SELLERS, WE ARE NOT TRYING TO BE CONTENTIOUS ABOUT THIS
ZONING ISSUE, BUT ARE ONLY TRYING TO MAKE A RATIONAL CASE FOR
SUPPORT OF THE REZONING TO 64 LrNITS.
NONE OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE RECENT MEDIA COVERAGE SHOULD
BE CONSIDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. FOR THE PAST 25 YEARS THIS
PROPERTY HAS BEEN ZONED PUD FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUTTING IN
MULTI- FAMILY DWELLINGS.
LAST YEAR THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A PROJECT THAT WAS NEARLY
IDENTICAL (62 UNITS VERSUS 64 UNITS NOW), WITH THE ONLY OTHER
DIFFERENCE BEING THE PROPOSED TENANTS ARE AFFORDABLE FAMILIES
VERSUS AFFORDABLE SENIOR APARTMENTS (55 & OLDER).
NOW FOR SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT HAVE COME UP RECENTLY
STREET WIDTIC[ - THE CITY DOES NOT ALLOW PARKING ALONG THE
SIDES OF THE STREET, AND ITS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE
FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS APPROVED THE ACCESS. THE PARKING
RESTRICTION ACTUALLY GIVES AN EFFECTIVE RIGHT OF WAY THAT
IS WIDER THAN MOST STREETS IN THE CITY.
2. UTII,ITIES AND DRAINAGE- CITY STAFF HAS PREVIOUSLY
PROVIDED YOU WITH COMMENTS IN THIS REGARD.
3. SCHOOLS - ALL OF US IN THE COMMUNITY NEED TO BE
CONCERNED ABOUT OUR SCHOOLS. T'S NOT THE ROLE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL TO DECIDE SCHOOL ZONING ISSUES. PERHAPS STUDENTS
WHO ARE BEING BUSSED TO EISENHOWER WOULD BE BETTER
CANDIDATES FOR A DIFFERENT SCHOOL SITE. MOST OF US KNOW
THAT NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS ARE PREFERRED IN DUBUQUE. IT
IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW HOW MANY CHILDREN WOULD EVEN
ATTEND EISENHOWER FROM THIS PROPOSED PROJECT, SINCE SOME
WOULD BE PRE-SCHOOL, SOME HIGH SCHOOL, SOME MAY BE HOME
SCHOOLED, AND SOME WOULD ATTEND PRIVATE SCHOOLS.
4. ECONOMICS - IT'S NOT THE ROLE OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO PLAY
FAVORITES AMONG THE PRIVATE SECTOR. PARTICULARLY NOT
THE ROLE OF THE PRIVATE GOVERNMENT TO SHIELD PROPERTY
OWNERS FROM COMPETITION. WITH THIS PROJECT, THE NET
EFFECT SHOULD CAUSE MARGINAL PROPERTIES TO BE UPGRADED,
WHICH WOULD BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
2
o
PROPERTY VALUES - THERE IS NO PROOF THA/~ANY ADJOINING
SUBDMSION HAS BEEN AFFECTED BY SUCH USES. ONE OF THE
OWNERS LIVES IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO A 100 UNIT LOW
INCOME (NOT AFFORDABLE) SENIOR APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH
NO DISCERNABLE EFFECT ON VALUE OTHER THAN INCREASES. 1N
FACT, THE VALUES IN HIS SUBDIVISION HAVE DOUBLED IN THE
PAST 15 YEARS. IN THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE IS A LARGE
LOW INCOME (NOT AFFORDABLE) FAMILY COMPLEX, AGA1N WITH
NO APPARENT EFFECT ON VALUE.
WE CAN APPRECIATE THAT NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE SEEN THIS PROPERTY
AS GREEN SPACE WOULD WANT IT TO CONTINUE. WE HAVE BEEN
WILLING TO SELL THIS LAND TO ANYONE, EVEN AS GREEN SPACE, BUT IN
THE PAST 25 YEARS UNDER THIS ZONING, NO ONE HAS EVER EVEN MADE
SUCH AN OFFER.
WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT THE DEVELOPER WILL CREATE A QUALITY
PROJECT THAT WILL ENI-IANCE OUR COMMUNITY, AND WE URGE YOU TO
APPROVE IT.
THANK YOU. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS.
3
NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
The Zoning Advisory Commission has rt. ?~ived a request to reconsider their motion on
the following:
APPLICANT: MWF PropertiesfFelderman Business Partnership (request to
reconsider motion)
LOCATION: End of Raven Oaks Drive
PROPOSAL: To amend the PUD Planned Uni~. Development District to allow
construction of 64 multi-family housing units.
The Zoning Advisory Commission will act on this matter at the following time and place:
DATE: Wednesday, Ap,',l 3, 2002
TIME: 6:30 p.m.
PLACE: Auclitorium, Carnegie Stout Library
360 W. 11t~ Street, Dubuque, IA
Additional information is available du~ing re,~utar business hours at: Planning Services,
City Hall, Second Floor, 50 W 13th Street, L)ubuq~ e, IA 52001, telephone (563) 589-
z210. Written comments may be sent to the ,'.onin9 Advisory Corem ss on at this same
address.
10 April 2002
City Zoning Commission
It has recently been brought to our attention that the property located at the end of Raven Oaks
Drive is under consideration to be rezoned so that subsidized housing can be built on this land.
We are against the rezoning of this area, we think that if the commission would take a closer look
al the subsidized housing we already have in the neighborhood, they would be in agreement with
those of us who live in this neighborhood that the zoning should remain as it is today.
We thank you for your consideration of our wishes, we will be out of state on the 15th of April so
are unable to voice our opinion in person.
Henry T. Pliner
2690 Marywood Drive
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
Pr"
5"~3 - f7;7
PETITION
This petition is in response to the proposed zoning change that is
being requested by the MWF Properties/Felderman Business
Pam~ership 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.
!
__ /
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.
?9.:¥
*(),ar tburth concern is that the manager of Kennedy Manor has reported that fbr
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 Iow-income
apartments. She does believe that demand exists in Dubuque for 3 'and 4 bedroom love-
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 of 2 bedroom Iow-income apartment units.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns,
Sincerely,
CITY OF DUBL~UE
This ~tition is in mspo~e m ~e proposed ~ng ch~ge ~at is
~g r~uested by ~e ~ Pro~i~elde~ B~ineSg~:"'-~ ....... ~'~-::
Pmh~e~p m mend the P~ Plied Unit Development Dis~ct to
a~ow cons~cfion of 64 mOti-fmily hous~g ~ks at ~e end of
Raven O~ ~ve. ~ si~ee's l~ted below ~e OPPOSED to ~e
pro~s~ ch~ge in zoning.
- 77 .
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,
s Petition is for all those neighbors opposed (aga'fiast) to the
MWF Properties/Feldei-~an Business Partnership to-amen~ d.the
PUD to allow construction of 64 multi-family housing units at the
end of Raven O~s Drive.
.... for all those neighbors opposed, (against) to the
MWF Properties/Felderman Business Partnership to amend the
PUD to allow consmaction of 64 multi-family housing units at the
end of Raven Oaks Drive.
~NAME ADDRESS
*Our fourth concern is that the manager of Kennedy Manor has reported that for
some time they have routinely had vacancies in some o£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 of 2 bedroom low-income apartment units.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.
Sincerely,
PETITION
This petition ~s 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
..4'-,:2' 6~ 7 ?
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
i? '
I/; :,'~.~ I
/,
St. Mary's Home, inc.
EQUAL HOUSING
OPPORTUNITY
April 15, 2002
2671 Owen Court * Dubuque, IA 52202-1034 · (563) 556-5125 · FAX: (563) 582-7676
Housing Managing Agent for:
Ecumenical Housing, Inc.
Kennedy Manor Apts.
Dubuque
Ecumenical Tower
Dubuque
Catholic Charities
Alabar Plaza
Waterloo
Carter ?l~za
Dubuque
RE: MFW/Felderman Business Partnership
End of Raven Oaks(Arbor Glen)
64 Units
My name is Donna L. Mords(I am the Housing Administrator for St. Mary's Home, Inc.-a non-profit
management firm that manages 172 units of HUD Low-income housing owned by two non-profit owners).
I am been with the management firm for over 20 years. Ecumenical Tower has 89 for elderly &
handicap, Carter Plaza and 8-plex of 2 bedrooms at Carter & Kaufmann, and Kennedy Nanor which has 72
units(16-3bdrs, 36-2bdrs & 20-1bdrs).
The rents at Kennedy Manor and Carter include the heat, water & trash collection, tenants pay the electric
bill. We provide stove, refrigerator & air conditioner. Coin operated Laundries & off street parking.
Carter's 2 bdrs rent for $300/mo. Kennedy's 1 bdrs rent for $252-322, 2 bdrs for $298-381 & 3 bdrs for
$315-402. The tenant pays 30% of their adjusted income(but no more than the market rent or the
minimum rent whichever is greater. We provide management on site 5 days a week, 24 hour
maintenance for emergencies. Our habit is to make repairs within the same day.
Kennedy Hanor is on 5 acres of land and we provide play equipment. We also have a community room
for tenant use with a TV and VCR. We also have a room with computers for tenant usage but very few
use it because 75% of the tenants have their own.
Carter Plaza is owned by Catholic Charities and may well bee the first HUD housing to be built in Dubuque.
It was built in 1968 to meet the needs of Iow-income Dubuquers who needed safe, clean, decent and
affordable housing. Kennedy Manor is on the west end of town by Eisenhower School and is owned by
Ecumenical Housing, Inc. This project was built in 1970 to further meet the needs of Iow-come
Dubuquers needing, clean, safe, decent and affordable housing. These projects have been doing a very
excellent job of providing that safe, affordable, decent housing for over 30 years.
Over these 30 years because of affiliation with Catholic Charities, management has offered
counseling(free) to tenants, parenting classes, budgeting classes, and many other types of seminars which
the tenants have not taken advantage of. We have tded several times to start a Resident Council and
that has failed. Our experience has shown us that tenants will not take the time to take advantage of
these types of offerings but we continue to try.
St. Mary's Home, Inc. does not discrimlute on the basis of handicapped status in the admission
or access to, or treatement or employment in, its federally assisted programs and aeltv[tles.
Pa~g~ 2 (Arbor Glen)
Over the last 2 1/2 years we have not had a waiting list for our apartments and our vacancy rate had been
about 12% until about December 2001. Our current vacancy is about 9%. ! also know that Sheridan
Village has about a 15% vacancy and Hillcrest apartment is full but only has about 4 people on a waiting
list. If the HUD family housing currently in Dubuque has vacancy problems how can we need more
housing? The whole city is having a vacancy problem why make the problem worse for long-term
providers?
Part of the reason for the vacancy problem is the additional housing built by Clarke, Loras, Wartburg,
Emmaus Bible College and the University of Dubuque. This housing took away a large pool of possible
tenants from students and seminary families.
People have access to vouchers from the City of Dubuque and are able to rent from almost any landlord in
area of town they chose. The waiting list for his help is about 6-8 months at this time.
It does not seem feasible to bring more apartments into an already saturated market where you would end
up hurting residents of Dubuque who have been in the rental business for many years.
:It seems our tax dollars could be better spent on housing for young physically-challenged persons and
families that have a child or parent that is physically-challenged. That is a need that is not being met in
the Dubuque area.
This new multi-housing project will be across the street from Kennedy Manor. Attached find the
demographics of Kennedy Manor as of today. They show only 8 couples renting and the rest are single
head of households(primarily women). The average age of the head of house is 37.61 years of age. The
average annual income is $11,798.33.
Kennedy Manor with its 72 units has about 130 vehicles associated with those units. Many families have 2
cars because of work and teens in school with jobs. The new complex would have about the same
number of cars. The project has 52 units just for families with children and those units have 84 children
at this time. The new project would be similar.
Please consider the vast changes this would make to the area in the way of traMc, the number of children
added to an already crowded Eisenhower, the added danger to kids and drivers from additional children
riding bikes, scooters, skates, etc. in any already busy traffic area, the change to the landscape and the
additional calls to the police.
Thank you for your time.
Donna L. Morrfs
Housing Administrator
St. Mary's Home, Inc.
Tenant Demographics
1005 KENNEDY MANOR
Gross Potential:
Total Units : 72
Total Certified Households : 70
Total of all Item 44 : 20,289
04/03/2002
4:51 pm
Page 1
Resident Breakdown :
Couples : 8
Single Men : 9
Single Women : 53
Original Residents : 0
Age Breakdown: Average
Head-of-Household : 37.61
All Residents : 22.48
Women : 112
Men : 60
Total : 172
Median
30.00
20.00
Breakdown by Age Group
90+ : 0 0.00%
80-89 : 4 2.33%
70-79 : 2 1.16%
60-69 : 5 2.91%
50-59 : 3 1.74%
40-49 : 12 6.98%
30-39 : 23 13.37%
20-29 : 40 23.26%
< 20 : 83 48.26%
Racial Data per Civil Rights Compliance Review:
White : 151 87.79%
Black : 15 8.72%
Asian : 0 0.00%
American Indian : 0 0.00%
Hispanic~ : 3 1.74%
Pacific Islander : 0 0.00%
Alaskan Native : 0 0.00%
Other : 3 1.74%
R~sidents with Special Needs:
Wheelchairs : 1
Walkers : 1
Canes : 2
Oxygen : 1
Income/Medical Expenses:
Average Annual Income
Median Annual Income
Average Total Medical Expenses
Median Total Medical Expenses
Average Allowance for Medical Expenses
(Item 31)
(Item 31)
(Item 40a)
(Item 40a)
(Item 40b)
: 11,798.33
: 10,728.00
310.67
0.00
246.23
Eisenhower Elementary School
Dubuque Senior High
Dubuque Hempsted HS.
Dubuque Walhert H.S.
Dubuque Washington Junior High
St. Amhony Cetholie Elementary
Day Care Center
Day Care Center
Day Care Center
Walgreens Pharmacy
Medical Associates
Dubuque Area Life Time Center
" '
IJRY :'
VILLE .
JOHN F,
KENNEDY
Clor~:c
Dubuque ouHh
MILL
DUBUQUE
SCALE OF ~,*!!ES
0 1/4 ~/2 'i 2
For local bus information,
call 319-589-4196
CASC ';
TO
Mc'dicol
Dubuqur~
AIRPORT
T ') TO BELLEV
_LI /
DUBUOUE TWP.
W.I/~ S.W.~ SEc. 15 T.89N. R.2E.
ZO oCO