HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-12-2025 Board of Adjustment - CancelledIOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Wednesday, February 12, 2025 — 5:15 PM
City Hall, 410 East Washington Street
Emma Harvat Hall
Agenda: ** Meeting Cancelled Due to Weather **
1. Call to Order
4IIIIIII:ne IK 111
3. Special Exception Item
a. EXC25-0001: An application requesting a special exception to allow a drive -through
facility associated with an eating establishment in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone
at 21 Sturgis Corner Dr. (EXC25-0001)
4. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: January 8, 2025
5. Board of Adjustment Information
6. Adjournment
If you need disability -related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please
contact Parker Walsh, Urban Planning at 319-356-5238 or at pwalsh@iowa-city.org. Early
requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Board of Adjustment Meetings
Formal: March 12 / April 9 / May 14
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
Wednesday, February 12, 2025 — 5:15 PM
City Hall, 410 East Washington Street
Emma Harvat Hall
W=0
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Special Exception Item
a. EXC25-0001: An application requesting a special exception to allow a drive -through
facility associated with an eating establishment in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone
at 21 Sturgis Corner Dr. (EXC25-0001)
4. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: January 8, 2025
5. Board of Adjustment Information
6. Adjournment
If you need disability -related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please
contact Parker Walsh, Urban Planning at 319-356-5238 or at pwalsh@iowa-city.org. Early
requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Board of Adjustment Meetings
Formal: March 12 / April 9 / May 14
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
February 12, 2025
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC25-0001
Staff Report
Prepared by Staff
4�' N4061
To: Board of Adjustment Prepared by: Madison Conley, Associate Planner
Item: EXC25-0001 Date: February 12, 2025
Parcel Number: 1015329001
21 Sturgis Corner Drive
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant/Property Owner: Sturgis Investments, LLC
327 2nd St. Unit 300
Coralville, IA 52241
KI-IF(a0huttleworthlaw.com
Contact Person(s): Jon Marner
1917 S. Gilbert St
Iowa City, IA 52240
j.marner@mmsconsultants.net
Hans Kuhlmann
3405 East Eastman Ave
Denver, Colorado 80210
(720) 308-1541
hans(cb.halifaxdevelopment. net
Requested Action: Approval of a special exception to allow a drive -
through facility associated with an eating
establishment in a Community Commercial (CC-2)
zone.
Purpose:
Redevelopment of an eating establishment and
development of a drive -through.
Location: 21 Sturgis Corner Drive
Location Map:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
Applicable Code Sections:
File Date:
24,482 square feet
Eating Establishment; Community Commercial KCC-
North: General Office; Community Commercial
(CC-2)
East: General Office; Community Commercial
(CC-2)
South: 0ghVV@V 6 E; GOV8rU[D8Dt@| Purposes;
Neighborhood Public (P-1)
West: Vehicle Repair; COOOmUDib/ CD00e[Cia|
14-413-3/\ General ApprovalC[it8[ia
14-4C-2K:Drive-Through Facilities
January 1U.2O25
BACKGROUND:
The 8pp|iC8Dt. Sturgis Investments, LLC' intends to use the subject property 8t21 Sturgis COnl8[
Drive as an eating establishment that will include a drive -through facility. The subject property and
SU[n}UDdiDg properties are CU[FeDUy zoned [}000OUUOitv [:0[DO0e[Ci8| (CC-2) which @||Ovvs drive -
through facilities byspecial exception.
Currently, @ Los Amigos [eSLaU[@Oi operates at the subject property and is classified as an eating
8StGb|iSh08rt per the |0w8 City Zoning Code. The developer p|8DS to demolish the existing
structure and construct a new eating establishment with an associated drive -through.
The site plan(Attachment 3\shows that the proposed development will have access from Sturgis
CO[D8[ O[ At the request of the City Engineer, staff requested 8 traffic study 0UUiDiDg impacts to
the existing street network. The -[[8ffiC |[Op8Ct Study found that the Sturgis COOle[ Drive and G.
Riverside Drive iDt8[S8(tiOD is already functioning poorly. The Traffic |[Up8Ct Study finds that the
proposed d8v8|0pD1eOt will make t[8fhC slightly vvO[G8 at this iDt8[S8{tiDO. Also, the T[@fhC |O0pG{t
Study finds that the westbound to SOUthbOUnd |U[OiOg movement from Sturgis Corner [)[iVe onto S.
Riverside Drive is currently functioning as a level -of -service (F) during PM peak hours. The
proposed development has a moderate impact to the westbound to southbound delay. At this time
the City does not have a proposed project to deal with the failing turning movement; therefore,
staff is not recommending any off -site improvements in conjunction with the proposed project. In
the future, the City could move forward with a stand-alone intersection improvement project or
couple the intersection project with the larger future Highway 1/6/Riverside project that is currently
being planned to address the failing level -of -service. The Traffic Impact Study is included with the
Application Materials (Attachment 4).
The proposed drive -through does not include an order board. The applicant has stated that the new
eating establishing will include a "Chipotlane". The "Chipotlane" is a new drive -through format for
Chipotle and is intended to service as the pick-up lane for online orders placed via the app or
website. The proposed restaurant is estimated to have 2,300 square feet of usable space with an
occupancy load of 49 people.
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare;
to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city; and to encourage the most
appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and enjoyment of
property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may grant the
requested special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the specific
criteria included in Section 14-4C-2K-3, pertaining to Drive -Through Facilities requiring special
exceptions, as well as the general approval criteria in Section 14-413-3A.
For the Board of Adjustment to grant this special exception request, each of the following criterion
below must be met. The burden of proof is on the applicant, and their comments regarding each
criterion may be found on the attached application. Staff comments regarding each criterion are
set below.
Specific Standards 14-4C-2K-3: Drive Through Facilities:
a. Access and Circulation: The transportation system should be capable of safely
supporting the proposed drive -through use in addition to the existing uses in the
area. Evaluation factors include street capacity and level of service, effects on
traffic circulation, access requirements, separation of curb cuts, and pedestrian
safety in addition to the following criteria:
1) Wherever possible and practical, drive -through lanes shall be accessed from
secondary streets, alleys, or shared cross access drives. If the applicant can
demonstrate that access from a secondary street, alley, or shared cross access
drive is not possible, the board may grant access to a primary street, but may
impose conditions such as limiting the width of the curb cut and drive, limiting
the number of lanes, requiring the drive -through bays and stacking lanes to be
enclosed within the building envelope, and similar conditions.
FINDINGS:
A Traffic Impact Study was requested by the City for the proposed redevelopment.
The Traffic Impact Study found that the Sturgis Corner Drive and S. Riverside Drive
intersection is already functioning poorly. The Traffic Impact Study finds that the
proposed development will make traffic slightly worse at this intersection.
• The Traffic Impact Study finds that the westbound to southbound turning movement
from Sturgis Corner Drive onto S. Riverside Drive is currently functioning as a level -of -
service (F) during PIVI peak hours. The proposed development has a moderate impact
to the westbound to southbound delay.
• At this time the City does not have a proposed project to deal with the failing turning
movement; therefore, staff is not recommending any off -site improvements.
• In the future, the City could move forward with a stand-alone intersection
improvement project or couple the intersection project with the larger future Highway
1/6/Riverside project that is currently being planned to address the failing level -of -
service.
• The proposed drive -through associated with the eating establishment would be
accessed from Sturgis Corner Drive which is a secondary street.
2) To provide for safe pedestrian movement, the number and width of curb cuts
serving the use may be limited. A proposal for a new curb cut on any street is
subject to the standards and restrictions in chapter 5, article C, "Access
Management Standards", of this title.
I a ENI 191 ENI
• The site currently has three curb cuts. The site plan shows that one of the curb
cuts will be removed as part of redevelopment of the site.
• Access to the proposed development would be from two curb cuts on Sturgis
Corner Drive.
• The site plan also shows that new sidewalks will be installed as part of the
development along Sturgis Corner Drive.
• Staff also recommends general compliance with the attached site plan be a condition
of approval to help ensure safe pedestrian travel.
• Staff will ensure all relevant standards are met during site plan review.
3) An adequate number of stacking spaces must be provided to ensure traffic
safety is not compromised. A minimum of six (6) stacking spaces is
recommended for drive -through facilities associated with eating establishments
and a minimum of four (4) stacking spaces for banking, pharmacies, and similar
nonfood related drive -through facilities. "Stacking spaces" shall be defined as
being twenty feet (20') in length and the width of a one lane, one-way drive. The
board may reduce the recommended number of stacking spaces if the applicant
can demonstrate that the specific business has unique characteristics such that
the recommended number of parking spaces is excessive (i.e., a drive- through
that is to be used for pick up only and not ordering).
FINDINGS:
• The site plan shows a single drive -through lane that leads to the pick-up window
and includes a bypass lane.
• The site plan shows 6 stacking spaces in the drive -through lane which meets the
recommended minimum requirement for eating establishments.
• The parking aisle around and to the drive -through provides additional space to
help accommodate spillover traffic and minimize traffic safety impacts.
4) Sufficient on site signage and pavement markings shall be provided to indicate
direction of vehicular travel, pedestrian crossings, stop signs, no entrance
areas, and other controls to ensure safe vehicular and pedestrian movement.
FINDINGS:
• The site plan indicates directional arrows in the drive -through and parking areas,
a 'digital pick up ahead' pavement marking to the drive -through entrance and
includes a 'do not enter sign' at each one-way exit in addition to "do not enter"
pavement markings. The signage helps prevent improper lane travel and
promotes the safety of vehicular circulation on the site.
• The site plan shows a pedestrian route where it crosses parking drives to the
west, which helps improve pedestrian safety.
b. Location:
1) In the CB-2 zone and in all subdistricts of the riverfront crossings district located
east of the Iowa River, drive -through lanes and service windows must be located
on a nonstreet-facing facade. In all other locations where drive-throughs are
allowed, this location standard must be met, unless the applicant can
demonstrate that a street -facing location is preferable for the overall safety and
efficiency of the site, does not conflict with adjacent uses or pedestrian access,
and does not compromise the character of the streetscape or neighborhood in
which it is located.
FINDINGS:
• A portion of the drive -through lane is located between Highway 6 and the
building. Staff finds that even though a portion of the drive -through lane is located
on the Highway 6 facing side of the lot the proposed design is preferable for the
overall safety and efficiency of the site.
• The drive -through will not impact the design quality of the streetscape because it
is on the interior portion of the lot, is adequately set back, and is screened to the
S2 standard from Sturgis Corner Drive, Highway 6 E, and the adjacent property
to the west by the building and landscaping.
• The drive -through is on the interior portion of the lot and is screened from Sturgis
Corner Drive and Highway 6 E by landscaping which helps integrate it into the
landscape and streetscape design of the neighborhood.
• The site plan shows that sidewalks will be installed on both sides of Sturgis
Corner Drive.
• Staff recommends a condition that prior to issuance of a building permit, the
developer shall pay the City a fee for the cost of installing a sidewalk along the
Highway 6 East portion of the site. The sidewalk will be installed by the City at a
future date. This condition will help improve the pedestrian environment.
2) Drive -through lanes must beset back at least ten feet (10) from adjacent lot
lines and public rights of way and screened from view according to the design
standards below.
FINDINGS:
• The drive -through lane is setback 46 feet from the adjacent lot line to the west
and screened to the S2 standard.
• Staff will ensure all standards are met during site plan review.
c. Design Standards: The number of drive -through lanes, stacking spaces, and paved
area necessary for the drive -through facility will not be detrimental to adjacent
residential properties or detract from or unduly interrupt pedestrian circulation or
the commercial character of the area in which the use is located. The board of
adjustment may increase or reduce these standards according to the
circumstances affecting the site.
1) To promote compatibility with surrounding development, the number of drive -
through lanes should be limited such that the amount of paving and stacking
space does not diminish the design quality of the streetscape or the safety of
the pedestrian environment.
FINDINGS:
• The site plan proposes one drive -through lane 10 feet wide for pick-up and one
bypass lane 12 feet wide.
• The drive -through will not impact the design quality of the streetscape because it
is on the interior portion of the lot, is adequately set back, and is screened to the
S2 standard from Sturgis Corner Drive, Highway 6 E, and the adjacent property
to the west by the building and landscaping.
• The site plan shows that sidewalks will be installed on both sides of Sturgis
Corner Drive.
• Staff recommends a condition that prior to issuance of a building permit, the
developer shall pay the City a fee for the cost of installing a sidewalk along the
Highway 6 East portion of the site. The sidewalk will be installed by the City at a
future date. This condition will help improve the pedestrian environment.
2) Drive -through lanes, bays, and stacking spaces shall be screened from views
from the street and adjacent properties to the S2 standard. If the drive -through
is located adjacent to a residential use or property zoned residential, it must be
screened from view of these properties to at least the S3 standard. To preserve
the pedestrian oriented character of streets in the CB-2 zone and the riverfront
crossings district, the board may require the drive -through to be incorporated
within the building or be screened with masonry street walls and landscaping.
Street walls shall be a minimum of five feet (5') in height and shall be designed
to complement the principal building on the site.
FINDINGS:
• The eating establishment is proposing only one drive -through lane that will be
screened appropriately to the S2 standard from adjacent properties and street
rights -of -way.
• All surrounding properties are zoned CC-2. The neighboring property to the west
is an auto repair shop and the properties to the north and east are a mix of
offices.
• Directly south of the subject property is Highway 6 E and there are no residential
properties in the surrounding area.
3) Multiple windows servicing a single stacking lane (e.g., order board, payment
window, pick up window) should be considered to reduce the amount of idling
on the site.
FINDINGS:
• There will be no order board associated with the proposed drive -through lane
since orders will have been placed online. Orders are placed in advance for pick-
up.
4) Stacking spaces, driveways, and drive -through windows shall be located to
minimize potential for vehicular and pedestrian conflicts and shall be integrated
into the surrounding landscape and streetscape design of the neighborhood in
which it is located.
FINDINGS:
• The drive -through lane is separated from the parking areas by pavement
markings to avoid vehicular conflicts.
• The drive -through is on the interior portion of the lot and is screened from Sturgis
Corner Drive and Highway 6 E by landscaping which helps integrate it into the
landscape and streetscape design of the neighborhood.
5) Lighting for the drive -through facility must comply with the outdoor lighting
standards set forth in chapter 5, article G of this title and must be designed to
prevent light trespass and glare onto neighboring residential properties.
FINDINGS:
• Staff will ensure lighting meets the City standards to prevent light trespass during
site plan review.
6) (Repealed by Ordinance No. 16-4685 on 11-15-2016)
7) Loudspeakers or intercom systems, if allowed, should be located and directed
to minimize disturbance to adjacent uses. Special consideration should be
given to locations adjacent to residential uses to ensure such systems do not
diminish the residential character of the neighborhood.
FINDINGS:
• Loudspeakers or intercom systems are not proposed with the drive -through due
to the absence of an order board.
General Standards: 14-413-3: Special Exception Review Requirements:
1. The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort or general welfare.
FINDINGS:
A Traffic Impact Study was requested by the City for the proposed redevelopment.
The Traffic Impact Study found that the Sturgis Corner Drive and S. Riverside Drive
intersection is already functioning poorly. The Traffic Impact Study finds that the
proposed development will make traffic slightly worse at this intersection.
• The Traffic Impact Study finds that the westbound to southbound turning movement
from Sturgis CO[De[ Drive ODt0 S. Riverside Drive is currently functioning as 8 level -of -
service (F) during PM peak hours. The proposed development has @ moderate impact
tOthe westbound tOSOuthb0UDddelay.
* Atthis time the City does not have 8proposed project tOde8|vvithth8t8i|iDg turning
[DOve0GDt; therefore, staff iS not [8CO0OO8OdiDg any off -site iDlpFOv8[DeDtS.
~ |Dthe future, the City could move forward with 8St8Dd-@|ODe iOt8[S8CtiOD
improvement project or COUp|e the intersection project with the larger future Highway
1/6/Riverside project that is currently being planned to address the failing level -of -
service.
* [}nGi[evehicular circulation and access are adequate [Oaccommodate anticipated
users and drive -through traffic, and proposed signs and pavement markets will help
efficiently direct traffic.
° Pedestrian circulation on the site will be improved with the inclusion of pedestrian
paths that provide routes within the site, as well 8StOthe new sidewalks along
Sturgis Corner Dr.
2. The specific proposed exceptionwill not be injurious tmthe use and enjoyment of
other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair
property values in the neighborhood.
F11110911MO-33
° The sU[n]UOdiDg properties LDthe west, north, and east are also zoned CC-2. The
proposed eating establishment iG@permitted use inthe {}C-2zone.
* The only abutting property is the property k}the west, which is an existing vehicle
repair use. The proposed development will be required to incorporate screening along
the western property subject tO City standards.
* To the south is Highway E. which separates the subject property t0the City -owned
|8Dd to the south.
• The Use does not interfere with the Use of the sU[nOUOdiDA properties which include
vehicle repair and general office.
3. Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses
permitted in the district in which such property is located.
FINDINGS:
The surrounding properties are developed with general office uses to the north and
east, vehicle repair use tOthe west, and Highway 0Eand 8Oinstitutional use b}the
south. The site is SUit@b|8 for the pnOpOS8d iD0| deV8|OpnleDt due to the existing City
services that are provided tOthe subject property.
The proposed drive -through lane isODthe interior Dfthe lot and will beappropriately
screened from adjacent properties.
The Traffic Impact Study finds that the westbound to southbound turning movement
from Sturgis CO[Dg[ [][iVe DOk} S. Riverside [)[iV8 is currently functioning as @ level -of -
service (F) during PM peak hours. The proposed development has a moderate impact
to the westbound to southbound delay. This is an existing condition that may affect
future redevelopment and iOlp[OVerD8Ot; hOw8VH[. that condition is not created due to
the proposed drive -through facility.
4. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided.
FINDINGS:
° The subject property iS8OiDDUparcel surrounded bvexisting development.
° Sanitary sewer and water mains can service the subject property and have SUffid8D[
capacity tDaccommodate the proposed use.
* A Traffic |DlpGCt Study was requested by the City for the proposed [8deve|VpDleDL
The Traffic |Dlp8Ci Study found that the Sturgis CO[OeF Drive and S. Riverside Drive
intersection is already functioning poorly. The Traffic |D1p8Ct Study finds that the
proposed development will make traffic slightly worse at this intersection.
* The Traffic Impact Study finds that the westbound tOSOUthbOuDdturning movement from
Sturgis Corner Drive onto S. Riverside Drive is currently functioning as a level -of -service
(F)dU[iDg PM peak hours. The pFOpDS8d development has OnOdHn3te impact 1Othe
westbound tOSOuthbOuDddelay.
* At this time the City does not have @ proposed project to deal with the failing turning
movement; therefore, staff iS not [eCO008OdiOg any off -site improvements.
* In the future, the City could move forward with B stand-alone iOte[38CtiOO iDlpnDVeDleDt
project or couple the iDte[Sg[tiOD project with the larger future Highway 1/6/RivH[Gid8
project that is currently being planned to address the failing level -of -service.
5. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets'
FINDINGS:
• AT[Gffic Impact Study was requested by the City for the pFOpOSOd redevelopment.
The Traffic |Olp3Ct Study found that the Sturgis Corner Drive and S. Riverside Drive
intersection is already functioning pOndY. The Traffic |OOp@Ct Study finds that the
proposed development will make traffic slightly worse @t this intersection.
° The Traffic Impact Study finds that the westbound to southbound turning movement from
Sturgis Corner Drive onto S.Riverside Drive iScurrently functioning 8S8|8v8|-of-s8rviC8
(F)dU[iDg PM peak hOU[S. The proposed development has @ moderate impact tUthe
westbound tOSOU1hbDUDddelay.
� Atthis time the City does not have 8 proposed project to dG8| with the failing turning
movement; therefore, staff iS not R}CUnn0eDdiOg any off -site improvements.
* In the future, the City could move forward with 8 St@Od-8|0Oe intersection i[Dpn]V8OleO{
project or CUUp|g the iOt8nS8CtiOO project with the larger future Highway 1/6/Riverside
project that is currently being planned to address the failing level -of -service.
w The site plan shows adequate stacking spaces (6)for @neating establishment.
6' Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being
considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the
applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located.
I a 110 101110��
9
0 Staff will eDSU[8 the pPDDOSed d8VekooOOeOi COOfO0Ds with all applicable zoning
standards and regulations during the subsequent site plan and building permit review.
7.The proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan ofthe C|ty,
as amended.
FINDINGS:
The Comprehensive M@O Future Land Use Map shows this area as Mixed Use. and
the Future Land Use Map of the Southwest District Plan shows this area as Community
CD0m8nCiGi
The Comprehensive Plan generally supports compatible infill development.
The proposed exception would allow the redeveloped eating establishment k)include
@ drive -through facility, both Of which are classified as CO[DDl8rCi8| US8S and are
consistent with the Citv`S [|0Dlp[8hSOSive Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recOrDDleOdS approval Of EXC25-0001' to @U0vv for @ drive -through facility for the pnJp8dv
located @t21 Sturgis CO[De[ Drive subject b3the following conditions:
1. Prior U]issuance Of@building permit, the developer shall pay the City 8fee for the cost Of
installing @ Sid8vvG|k along Highway 0 East to be installed by the City at future date. Fee
to be determined by the City Engineer.
2. General CO[Dp|i@OCe with the Site p|@D dated 02-05-25 [Attachment 3].
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. Application Materials
Approvedb��
Danielle SitzDl8D.A|CP' D8v8|0pDl8Dt Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
IEI
February 12, 2025
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC25-0001
ATTACHMENT 1
• r • P
February 12, 2025
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC25-0001
ATTACHMENT 2
February 12, 2025
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC25-0001
ATTACHMENT 3
24 STU IS C RNER 16R
A=17` 8'15"
T=20.86•
=41:F
001,11-*lOwle WIN
February 12, 2025
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC25-0001
P r r Mel l r r
A'r E R,,,, ..... . . . . )
BOGERT
4050 Rivet, Center Court NE
Cedar Rapids, IA 52402
Office: (319) 377-4629
Fax: (319) 377-8498
h1potle Iowa, Cay °J' rraffic Impact Study
21 Sturgis Corner Dr, llowa City, A 52246
Prepared by:
Anderson -Bogert Engineers and Surveyors, Inc.
Date: 1.9.
I hereby certify that this Engineering docuffrent was prq',)ared by [Tre or
undor rny direct personal supervision and that I am a duly Licensed
Engineer' Under the laws of the State of lowa.
/0n
I JACOB M. '�i
I SPRENGELER ',M
M
27485
1.9.2025
'o)
,Jacob M. Sprengeier Exp. Date.- "12/31/2025
Iowa Registration No. 27485
This Study was completed on behalf of Halifax Developrr-nent, Ll C to identify potential traffic Impacts reSU16ng from
the redevelopryient of 21 Sturgis Corner I Mve in Iowa City, Iowa. Fhe existing site is a Los Arnigos Mexican style
restaurant. While counting the adjacent intersection, it was observed that the existing site was generating
negligible traffic. The developer, plans to der nolish the existing structure and construct a new Chipotle fast-food
restaurant, corni,)Iete with the new "Chipotlarie" drive -through larie. rhe proposed development will not operate
d(,,iMg the ANA peak hour. rherefore, only the PM peak hour was analyzed and counted.
After consulting the City of Iowa City and local MI-10, the Study area was determined to include both ends of
Sturgis Corner Drive, and the signalized intersection located at the intersection of [Aighway 1 and 1,--lighway 6,
Highways 1 and 6 are both classified as major arterials, and Sturgis Corner Drive is a local street. DUe to the; time
restrictions on this report, Counts were acquired by Anderson, Bogert at both ends Of Sturgis Corrier Drive in
Dec,ernber 2024, during finals week at the University of Iowa. Counting so close to a Major university during off
peak firries is not ideal. MPO,JC conducted traffic counts while the university was operating in norrnal session
during October 2024. When corriparing Anderson.-Bogert's courits to the MP0JC counts, half of the rnovernerits
were heavier than the adjacent NAPO counts, and the other half were less. Therefore, the COUnts along Riverside
Drive were ger-rerally balanced to the MF10 counts. The Sturgis Corner Drive counts were faalanced and inflated
based on historic area counts taken by Iowa f..)0T during non -school periods,
According to available Iowa DOT' crash data and statistical modeling, the north arid of Sturgis Corner Drive at
Riverside Drive has experienced issues with crashes involving left turning n"iovernents, particularly the westbound
left rriovernent off of Sturgis Corner Drive. Represented in over 50% of the crashes for thE.1 past 4 years, thEl
intersection has a high potential for crash reduction, It ranks within the worst 1% of all similar intersections
throughout the state. The signalized intersection at Highways 1/6, and the south end Of StLWgiS Corner Drive do
not exhibit abnormal potential for crash redi.,iction,
The existing no -build scenario found several traffic rnoverrients in [lie study area operate with unacceptable LC S
E during [lie PM peak honer. Riverside Drive between Benton Street and Highway 1 is irnpacted by signal queUes
for r'nost of: the peak hour. rhe reSUIt of this congestion causes r-nost side streets/coffirnerbal access points to
operate with LOS E or F dUring the PM peak hour. I his includes the north side Of Sturgis Corner Drive, which
operates with LOS F MhOUI the proposed development.
The signal at Highway 1/6 operates near Its capacity, within the low end of LOS D. The southbound approach
and westbound thrOUgh movernents operate with Unacceptable LOS E before the proposed development is
considered. With preexisting rnoverT,ient restrictions at the south end Of StUrgls Corner Drive, the soutt'ibound
niovernent operates with acceptabie LC S C witl-i and without the proposed developrrient.
The deveoprrrent is expected to generate about 76 trips during the FIM peak. Wheri added to tl'-Ie existing traffic,
all study intersections operate with cornparable LOS to the no -build scenarios.
There are no existing public side\A41ks in the immediate development's in-irnediate vicinity. Current city and Iowa
DOT plans call for the additJon of rrmjor pedestrian facilities along 1--fighway 6 as soon as 2028. The proposed site
should plan for additional futi.,jre sidewalk connections to the perlrneler of the site Should public pedestrian facilities
be added wifliiri the public ROW in the future,
Three sides of the building have been restricted to one-way Cit"CUlafing travel arournd the proposed building, 1-he
site plan showed a few pavement markings at critical locations to deter wrong way driving, No specific sigris were
shown on the site plan. The final site development plain should include information on signing used to help direct
traffic thrOLJgh0Ut the site.
This report found that the adjacent road network will see negligible impact frown the addition of the proposed
deveIoprrient. Several recommendations for the city unrelated to the proposed development were suggested to
improve operations wiffiki tfie study area. Several recornaienclations relating to the site layout, signing, and
rnarking were also made wilhk'i the proposed development site,
This study is being conipfeted on behalf of Halifax Development, I. .L-C (-f he Developer) to study potential impacts
resuffing ir) redevelopment of [he existing I os Arnigos Restaurant property located at 21 Sl:urgis Corner Dr, Iowa
City, IA 52246. The developer intends to demofish [he existing property immediately in favor of a new Chipotle
franchise facifity. "The proposed development will not be open during [he ANA peak hour, therefore only the PNA
peak hour, is analyzed within this report.
STUDY AREA
After consulting with City of Iowa City staff, the appropriate study area was iderilified. Figure 1 below shows the
analysis area, 11-ie three intersections for analysis are as follows:
* Riverside Drive (Highway 6) and Highway 6/1-lighway 1
* Riversido Drive (I-fighway 6) and Sturgis Corner Drive (6 or1h)
Is Highway 6 and SftffgfS Corner Drive (Sorith)
Figure 1 - Study Area
EXISTING LAND USE
The existing site is currently developed
as a commercial restaurant facility "Los
Arnigos". This land use is most closely
described by I FE I and Llse Code 932
High -Turnover (Sit -Down) RestaUrant,
At the Ilme of this study, the restaUrant
appears to be operating at a small
fraction of its potential capacity, if at all.
ZONING
The site is currently zoned CT
Community CommercW according to
tf-re, Ilowva City Zoning Map hosted on the
Johnson County GIS current as of this
report. According to 14,-2C-2 of the Iowa
City Zoning code, eating establishirrents
are permitted. Thus, the existing zoning
appears to be consistent with both the
existing and proposed developments,
F-11 03 Y-IT03:4 ki III 111"IsTil 10TP_Vd 11I 1 :11 tyffel."11
�Figure 2 - Existing Site
The adJacerit network is SLATImanzed
below in Table "I. The Highway 6 route is classified as a principal arterial in the vicinity of the site, whereas
Sturgis Corner Drive is a Iocal road. An estimate of pavernent serviceability index (PSI) has been provided on a
visual basis only. PSI is generally a measurement of paverneM coridition used in the design life of pavement
sections and pavement thickness. Rated on a 5 point scale, 5.0 represents perfect pavement, whereas 0
represents no pavernenVirnpassible. When paverrient is newly Installed, it USUally is asSUrned to have a PSI of
around 42-4,5. Pavements are typically perceived as poor and needing irruTrediate replacement at a PSI of
around 2,25-.2,5 according to Iowa SUDAS. The table below estirnates ct,irrent PSI as a general reference to
quickly COrnpare relative quality of observed pavement conditions.
The intersection of I fighway 1/1-lighway 6 with Riverside drive is a signalized intersection. Both ends of Sturgis
Corner Drive are Unsignalized with stop or yield control on tl"re minor street approacl"oes.
Table I - Adjacent Network
Riverside Drive (Hwy 6)
Pricipal Arterial
1
23,200
30
5 Ian . -with
Urban
HMA
I
Acceptable
I
3
I
TWLTL
Sturgis Corner Drive
Local
2,275
Not Posted
2 Lane
Urban
PCC
Good
3.5
assumed 25)
Highway 6
Pricipal Arterial
1
27,600
35
4 Lane
Urban
HMA
Good
125
Divided
F-11 01U93:41 0 111 a W11 0 1 P11M
The areas immediately adjacent to the site are ftilly developed for commercial uso. The site is located about
from residential areas to the west and east and lies on the south end of lowa City's primary "urban core downtown".
0
Traffic counts at the signalized intersection of Highway 1 and Riverside Drive (Highway 6) were acquired by the
Metropolitaru Planning OrgaNzation of afohnson COUnty (MP0JC) in October 2024. Anderson -Bogert collected
counts at eaclh Unsignalized end of Sturgis Corner Drive in December 2024. Based on the CLIEN"T"s desired
deadline, Anderson -Bogert collected cOUMS in the second half of December during final exam week at the
University of powa. As a result, it is expected that the street network was not serving non-nall traffic VOlUrnes present
during a typicaI weekday while the university is in session.
Existing unadjusted count data is shown on the following page in Figure 4. No counts were adjusted using ID01
daily and seasonal AADT factors. rkis is more conservative than if AAM factors were applied. Counting traffic
r'nidweek between"I uesday and I hursday typically results in a combined AADT factor of less than 1.0 (to acCOUrrt
for the lower traffic volurries typically seen on weekends or holidays, and especially non -school days).
Due to existing (level oprnent tirne constraints, at the direction of the CLIENT, Anderson- Bogert collected rnanUal
counts on both ends of Sturgis Corner Drive in the second half of December during finals we at the University
of powa. As a result, the school which is perhaps the largest overall traffic generator in lowa City, was not
experiencing norrnal operations. Dearing finals week,, classes do riot meet arid there may be less students and
staff cornmUtirIg tl,-mn on a typical day dUring the sernester. Ur)iversities tend to create less -severe peaks
compared Mh primary schools such as K- 12 ir)sfitutions, At K- 12 institu[ions, all SlUdents and staff are typically
done at the same tirrie, whereas the, University of Iowa hosts countless COUrses and camipi,z activities that start
and end throughout the day, ratlier than at one specific time.
Due to the uncertainty with the acCUracy in COUrffs collected during finals week, additional adjustments to
Anderson-Bogert's counts were considered, Between the two ends Of StUrgis Corner Drive and the signalized
highway intersection, there is only one driveway access which is located on Riverside Drive,
Figure 3 - Driveway Between Sturgis Corner Drive and Signatized Intersection
MCI
I DRAWN BY: JMS FIGURE 4
Apg� UNADJUSTED EXISTING/OPENING DAY
APPROVED BY: JCM (q�yp�ERGN mh" 110GERT I
DATE: JANUARY 2025 yfor NO -BUILD PM PEAK ANALYSIS VOLUMES
All [lie developments located on Ifie west side of Riverside Drive are high turnover cornmercial developments.
The ri"rajority of users entering and exiling these properties dr,tring the peak hour arrive and depart within 60
rNrILItes, and a portion of the gener,;ited trips for these types of facilities are frorn pass -by trips. Therefore, cor,vits
on Riverside Drive at Sturgis Cornet, Drive rTtay not balance exactly. For analysis purposes, it was assumed that
these two locations should generally balance.
The mainline traffic was compared at the two ends of Sturgis Corner Drive with the voiurnes collected Wring
"normal" traffic operations by iAP0JC in October, These results are shown below in 'Table 2. At both locations,
one direction of travel was higher during the Anderson -Bogert counts."l-fris is contrary to what might be expected
when a major generator is not fully operational while counting,
`Table 2- Traffic Count Comparison
Anderson -Bogert Count Comparison
Approach @
Anderson -Bogert Approach
MPOJC Approach
Roadway
Sturgis Corner
Total
Total
Difference
Ratio
Drive
Riverside Drive
Northbound
765
880
-115
0'.87,
Riverside Drive
Southbound
1173
1087
86
1.0
Highway 6
Eastbound
1392
1175
217
1A8
Highway 6
Westbound
1297
1368
-71
0.95
Since the signalized intersection counts were collected during an ideal time, [hey will be kept constant while the
Sturgis Corner Drive counts are adjusted. At [lie south end of Sturgis Corner' Driver, the eastbound rnoverllerats
were reduced and westbound increased in order to balance. At the north end, the northbound movemet-fts
increased and the southbOUnd decreased, Since [lie largest discrepancy was 87% between the MPOJC arid
Anderson -Bogert. C,01.lnts, all rirrovements to/frorn Sturgis Corner Drive were increased by a rTlinirnUm of: 15%
durIngthe balancing. The balanced analysis VOlUrnes are shown below in Figure 5,
HDO f has counted this intersection about every 4 years since 2010„ including 2010„ 2014, and 2018. In 2014, the
DOTcourited outside of the University of Iowa acadernic calendar. Therefore, from 2010 — 2018 the intersection
saw about I % annualized growth during this period. Therefore, it's estimated that the background growth rate for
the study location is abOLA 1 %.
Assuming this growth rate, the 2010 DOT counts were brought forward to 2014, estir'nating about 45,300 as the
total daily entering AADT for the signalized intersection of Highway 6 and 1iighway 1. The DOT annualized counts
in 2014 completed in July outside of the university's standard acadernC sernesters was only about 41,500. 1"his
is about 8.5% less than predicted utHizng art average growth rate between 2010 to 2018. Therefore, the
asSUrription to balance movernents to [lie signalized intersection counts of MPOJC and ensure call rriovenients
[o/froai Sturgis Corner Drive are inflated by 15% seerns, adequate for analysis purposes.
The peak hOUr paran'reters were determined from the MPOJC October 2024 COUrrts:
PM Peak
4:15 PM — 5:15 PM
Peak I iOUr F::ac[or (l::IHF): 0.95
FrUcks, 4%
MCI
IDRAWN BY: JMS ANFIGURE 5
APPROVED BY: JCM DERSON ERT 110GADJUSTED EXISTING/OPENING DAY
DATE: JANUARY 2025 NO -BUILD PM PEAK ANALYSIS VOLUMES
T'he Iowa Department of T'ransportation (11DO"I") maintains online crash databases known as the Iowa Crash
Arialysis 'Fool (ICAT) and Potential for Crash Reduction (PCR). T'he PCR is a statistic valUe that compares
sir'Nlarly categorized i rite rsect ions and roadway stretches throughMlt the state. A larger positiv(a� PC R value
represents aru iruterSE'CtiOrl that is perforaiing more poorly than similar ones throughOUt the state. A large potential
for crash re6,xfion represents an opporkinity to reduce the intersection's crashes towards the statistical category
average.
'The safety analysis for the three study intersections is provided in ...I...able 3, Of the three untersecfions, the
signalized intersection at I iighway 1 and Riverside Drive has a negligible PC R vakie despite the large nurriber
crashes. All untersecfions have a negligible PFI value relating to, severe injury or totality crashes. The south end
of Sturgs Corner Drive has a rnediurn PC R vakAe. With all crashes being rear -end headed in the westbound
direction, queues frorn the upstrearn signals are likely a pril'Trary caUse, especially compared with other "right -in
rightWt" locations which are riot located in close proximity to traffic signals,
The Highway 6 corridor has been previOUsly studied by MPOJC with regards to pedestrian safety. The corridor
between Orchard Street and the Iowa River experienced 2 vulnerable road user fatalities between 2013 and 2022.
Within the study area, there was one vulnerable road user crast'i in 2020 located within the Highway 1/Highway 6
signaiized intersection.
Tan to 3 - Crash Arialiysis
110
The north end of Sturgis Corner Drive exhibits a high PCR vak,se for all crashes. The largest rr-ianner of collision
was broad side occurring frorn nearly 60% of crashes involving a left-h.irr-flng vehicle, Fhe primary trWbl esorl're
r'noven"ient appears to be the westbound left rnoverrient off of Sturgis Corner Drive headed southbWnd on
F .3 iverside IDrive, About a third as F'iguire 6 - Offset Ili terseUiion ILegs
rnany crashes occurred on the
southbound left n"lovernent. This
location has not seen any fatalities
or rnajor injuries. thins seerns
consistent with the low speeds
typical at this intersection, -1 his
location is between two close
signals, and within as primary
arterial corridor with a large
access driveway density. During
observation, these factors lead to
regular traffic q.,ueuirq tl-rrough the
intersection and general speeds
well below tl-ue posted limit.
Therefore, despite the primary
manner of collision beflng �l� � /// / �/l � " ` l/1�
broadside, there have not be
any fatalities or, major injuries
within the past 5 years,
crashes experien .......... ced at tl� .. iis loc:atio 11 n. 7 11 717 7777 77.) 77 a 7717177ing iamUf LU UM
PREVIOUS AREA STUDIES
Anderson. -Bogert previously studied the Riverside Drive Corridor frorn Benton Street through [he VA hospital in
2021 along with refirning the existing signals. Earlier in 2024., Anderson -Bogert cornpleted study and signal timings
along Highway 6 from Gilbert Street thMUgh the eastern city lirnits.
MPO,.)C condUcted a jurisdiction -wide pedestrian collision analysis for the years 2013-2022, 1'he sfudy identified
Substantial vulnerable road user use along Highway 1/6 ad,lacenf to the proposed developrnerrt, At least one
pedestrian fatality occurred near the Iowa River Bridge prior to the analysis period of this report beginning in 2020,
Fhe report identified the need for pedestrian facilities along Highway 6 next to the developn'ient.
T'he current standard for defiriing roadway perforrriance is the Highway Capacity Manual, 71, Edifion, This
reference defines Level of Semice (LOS) as a "quantitative sVatificatiori of a performance measure or rrreasu..jres
representing q,mllty of servlce". As delcly per vehicle increases, the perceived quality of performance decreases.
The currant criteria for two-way stop -controlled intersections and signaluzed intersections is provided in -Fable 4.
Current design standards typically provide thresholds that should be achieved in the desigri process, Iowa SUDAS
current lists I OS C/D as the "preferred" LOS for use in design on local, collector, and arterial streets. SUDAS lists
D/E as "acceptable" design i OS if the preferred metrics cannot be reasonably obtained. The capacity analysis
tables for the corridor are provided below. Note that IICM 711, Edition analysis rnethodo6ogy can only be applied to
standard NEMA phasing, Since the signalized intersection is split -phased and non-standard tiffling, the Synchro
methodology was utilized to analyze delay and perfo rma rice. Similarly, HCM IWSC only applies for intersections
with at least 1 stop controlled approach. 'Fhe south end of Sturgis Corner Drive is yield controlled; therefore, the
only available theoretical methodology is HCM 20K
1'albIe 4 .- HCM Ph Edition LOS Criteria
Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition Unsignalized TWSC and
AWSC Level -of -Service Criteria
Control Delay
Lo V/c > Lo
•
Highway Capacity
Control Delay
(s/veh)
Manual 7th Edition Signalized
Level -of -Service Criteria
r*m 1.1 we
Table 5 - Existing Capacilty Analysis
The south end Of StUrgis Corner Drive contairus geometry allowing only 2 movernents, a right -in and right -out.
This movement generally operates freely frorn [dighway 6 onto Sturgis Comer Drive. "I"'he rnovernent oruto
1--lighway 6 is yield controlled. 'T'hel Synchro qUeue analysis aligns with the conditions observed in the field. 'T'he
westbOUnd queue from the signal regularly backs up several hundred feet. With only about 400 feet from the
stop bar to Sturgis Corner Drive, the average queUe OCCUpies 75% of this distance.The largest queues extend
to and past the yield -control lane during extren'ie peaks (20% or less of the peak hour). With less than 10
existing vehicles, using this exit to Flighway to durirug the peak hour, there is typically enough opportunity to enter
Highway 6 at the end of the sugnal queue or immediately following the period where the qUeUe is cleared each
cycle. As such, this intersectioru is operating with ;icceptable LOS in the no -build condition.
The signallzed intersectioru contains ;i shared thrm.jgh/left SOUthbm.ind lane. Accordingly, split phasing is
required in the northbound and SOUthbound directions. 'The most critical rnovernent ,,ippears to be the
southbound movement which operates with L,0S E. 'Mis delay is very sensitive to the green time;; provided, and
coordination pararneters. Just a sllght change of a few seconds on these parameters results in a decrease to
I OS F.The westbound movement also operates with u n acceptable LOS E during the PM peak hour.
Based on timings provided by MPOJC, the signaal appears to be coordinated along the Highway 'I corridor to the
west. Therefore, this intersection represents the confii.,ience of 3 separate signal coordunation corridors.
Coordination with one clurection helps in a given direction but often has an opposite effect on the other two
coordinated approaches. When rnanual optimization frown the provided 100 second cycle;; length was attempted,
improving LOS in one movement typically caused other eqUally critical rnove�ments within the intersection to
operate With Unacceptable LOS. Therefore, the provided timings genera liy appear to be opfirrial for the given
volurnes.
Based on the critical rnovernent being SOUthbound at this signal, the southbound approach stands to benefit the
rnost frown coordination (along Riverside Drive). The geornetry on the other three apf)roaches appears to be
better suited to acconirnodate queueing vehicles vvithout irripacting operations of adjacent access points or
intersections. I he SOUthbound approach contains the only full -access comr-nercial access points whose
performance and safety is primarily based on the constant presence of qUeued vehicles. The queues from this
signal regularly back through both ends of Sturgis Corner Drive, particularly on [he northern end of this local
road.
Overall, the northern Unsignalized end Of Sturgis Corner Drive operates with acceptable LOS on Riverside
Drive, but StUrgiS Corner Drive and the commercial driveway on the west side do not operate with acceptable
LOS."T"his intersection is also regularly inipacted by queues f'rorn both adjacent signals along Riverside Drive.
As a result, the full capacity of the intersection is never achieved dUring the peak hour. Slowed or stopped
vehicles often create operational issues and obscure sight lines for the side street/driveway entering traffic,
Furthermore, the westbound left movement operates with LOS F, With less than 20 vehicles in the peak hour,
westbound queuing is not necessarily the primary concern. However-, when vehicles are stuck at as stop line for
such a long duration of tirne (an average of 75 seconds per capacity analysis), drivers often begin to get
impatient, or worried about vehicles waiting behind threw In the queue. As a result, drivers will accept snialler,
gaps and other rnore clangerOUS situations Ire order to enter Riverside Drive. Despite being less than 1 % of all
enteiIng traffic, the westt)ound left movement has caUsed or been involved with over 50% of all crashes at this
intersection. These iSSUes are likely related to the poor capacity of the westbound approach dace to the high
volurne congested fraff ic on Riverside Drive. Therefore, the weStt)0Und and eastbound approaches to this
intersection do riot operate with acceptable LOS clUiIng the existing PM peak hour.
111*01029
The proposed deveoprner)t is a Chipotle chain restaUran[ with about 2,300 square feet of useable space. 1 he
restaurant will also contain a "Chipotlane" drive -through lane for online -order pickUp. The current site plan is shown
below in Figure 7.
Rgure 7 - Proposed Site Deveoprnent
I :A 14 01:4911144
For analysis purposes, the site will be fully constructed and operational in 2025,
1:2091
The proposed land use is cornmercial food service. THs is permitted according to the current Iowa City Zoning
Code for this property whi(:,,h is currently zoned CC2. Therefore, the proposed deveiopment is consistent with the
existing zoning.
1 5
I NIATIA K01:2 Lh 1:4 Ll k N I V I X93:4 Z 1:4 10-111 [0101
The fTE Land Use which most closely represents the proposed development is 934 Fast-4`ood Restaurant
with Drive 1 hirough. The drive-thrOUgh for this facility is nicknarned "Chipotlane" and is intended for picka,up of
online orders placed via app or website. This is sHghtly different than a traditional drive, thrOUgh which allows
ordering and pickup at the same time. Based on this land Use and the anticipated restaurant size, the trip
gerierations for the proposed site were estirnated irr "I'able 6. The restaurant will riot open until after' the AM Peak.
Therefore, it will only generate traffic dUrillg the PM peak hour, The PM peak hour is expected to generate arourid
76 total trips.
'Table 6 - lTE Trip Generafion
Since this format for, drive -through is fairly riew,
especially for Chipotle, it may follow a slightly different
generation pattern than a typical fast-food restaurant.
Chipotle has funded arid developed ar� existing traffic
study of the, "Chipotlane" completed by Ohio traffic
engineers in 202Z It is attached at the end of this
report. The study found that the general service tinne
for a Chipodane is about 2 minutes and 33 seconds,
compared to [he average natiormfide fas[-food
average of 6 rnirwtes and 13 seconds. The study
observed Chipottanes at 6 high-volurne locations
which inClUded 2 in Los Angeles (CA), 2 ir-i Boston
(MA), and 2 in COk,lrnbus (OH). rlnese Iocafions saw
an average of about 25 vehicles per hour, with a 9W,
pe,rcentile queue of less than 4 cars. A more typical
queue was about 2 vehicl1es. In absence of other
specific data, it is assurned that the 111 Trip
Generation rate is still the most accurate, For purposes
of this analysis, it seems reasonable that the rn,,ajority
of trip generations rising Chipotlarre were still likely to
visit the restaurant for food or utilized a standard drive-
tf-vough lane if present, Therefore, Chipotiane are
generally captured within the IITE Trip generation rates
provided in the table above.
Figure 8 - CNpotlane Findings
0 Cl,ilprjflane by the Nwnkw°s
25 AVERAGE CHIPOTLAINE
136
AVERAGE UAn Y
CMIPOrLANE
MSIOOAF"�
OMMMMMMMMMMM
65%
or CUSTOMERS
SFAVEU N UNDER
2 WOW ES
AVEA 4GV,'rO TAL SCRYK 11 MC
16 tl 3 '¢a whe natk,,"i We fam fad
d6oe OwuOyevaqaWtrvke, Opne)
A�eiroq* of 2 CUSTOMERS
4, Ch�paflan, at a
'A
41 4 0 0 0
ri
Th, q.fte p,,njlh ua 4 w,% o, kss APPROMMATELY 98% ol ohe finw,
d am,.es,4 cam faro, APfROMMAI ELY 95 WNW ES A DAY
In the IT E trip generation appendices for
pass - by trips distributions, 11 studies of
similar restat,irants found that on average
about 55Y,:, of trips generated are pass -by
trips. Pass, by trips are vehicles wNch were
already traveling on the adjacent roadway.
Once the proposed development is built,
they PLA off the road to visit the site and then
pull back onto the road. This is shown at
right in Figure 9.
The study area req.Ared by the city
effectively creates as development with 2
exits to the adpacent streets located at either
end Of Sturgis Corner Drive. Since these two
exits are on different roads, arid certain
movements are prohibited at sorne exits,
traditional "pass -by" trips are not applicable
to this situation. Instead of "passing by",
these vehicles are diverting frown their
original route to visit the site before
potentially exiting to a different roadway
afogether. Diverted trips are riot subtracted
fror'n the adjacent network like pass -by trips.
For analysis purposes, these trips are
considered newly generated prirnary trips.
F"igure 9- Pass -By Trip DefinitIon
Based on estirnated Trip generation discussed above, trip disfilbWiOrl which follows, and the volume of existing
background traffic on the highways, accounting for any potential pass -by or reduction from existing traffic would
reSUIt in as negligible difference in the analysis. Therefore, it is appropriate that all trips are considered newly
generated for this, report.
DEVELOPMENT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
The trip distribution is typically influenced by surrounding cornmerc.ial vs residential POIDUlation densities in the
surrounding area. nie majority of residential areas are east of the site along I fighway 6, but the Urllversrty of Iowa
Bras housing faciRies north of site along Riverside Drive. Most residential areas to the south would access the site
from 1-9lghway 6 via &lbert Street to the east. An exisfi rig Chipotle exists in downtown Iowa City on Clinton Street.
This location is likely more bus/transit friendly, as CAMBUS and city transit routes regularly run in close proximity
to the existing location. The existing Chipotle is also closer to carnrAJs dorms. The closest transit stop to the
proposed development is located near the Benton Street Intersection with Riverside DriVc, a block or two west of
the site on Highway 1.
Generally, the west, north, and east directions fro the development all contain large residential areas and
commercial locations. Therefore, it seerns reasonable that the proposed development will generate sinlilar traffic
between the three directions.There is not as much development or residential properties directly accessible from
the south of [lie site along Riverside Drive. Therefore, this direction is expected to attract the least number of trips,
After distributing the trips, these were assigned to the network and added/rerOLIted as appropriate from the existing
background traffic, The distribution, assignment, and full-bUild analysis VOlUrnes are provided below in the
following figures.
117
+
25%
350%
r
U)
< m
0)
m
' 71
R P SED
P 0
7PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT
MENT
PM N.40
PM
PM OUT: 36
vW
10%
25
HIG HWAY 1
35%
HIGHWAY 6
25%
35%
flare
DRAWN BY: JMS
Aomob'1106PERT
'10
APPROVED BY: JCM
DATE: JANUARY 2025
ANDERSON
w
TRIPFIGUREDISTRIBUTION
I
RE
9
i---1 3
r
U)
< m
0)
m
" 7
"
PROPOSED
7PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT
I
PM
Pm ft 40
PM OUT: 36
8
HIGHWAY'l
'14
HIGHWAY 6
10
13
na
DRAWN BY: JMS
FIGURE 11
APPROVED BY: JCM
DATE: JANUARY 2025
MDERSONF01106PERT
TRIP ASSIGNMENT
19
MCI
I DRAWN BY: JMS FIGURE 12
Apg� FULL -BUILD APPROVED BY: JCM (q�yp�ERSON mh" 110GERT I LD
DATE: JANUARY 2025 Irrop PM PEAK ANALYSIS VOLUMES
20
The nearest public transit stops to the proposed development are located at Riverside Drive and Benton Street
signal to the north, or along 1--fighway I to the east of Riverside Drive. There are net CUrrently any pedestrian
sidewalks which connect the site to the nearby public transportation network. 'The closest existing sidewalks are
on Sturgis Corner Drive near the existing Hampton Inn hotel on the north side of the road. `This sidewalk connects
to the Riverside Drlve sudewalks heading toward Benton Street.
If not required by the city, the site should plan for future accommodation of pedestrian connections to a public
sidewalk along Sturgis Corner Drive. At the current point in fil'fle, there are no, pedestrian facilities located along
Highway 6 west of the Iowa River. Accorclnng to Iowa City Council meeting doa.,irnents dated Septernber 17, 2024,
the Iowa DOT and city plari to replace the existing Highway 6 Iowa River bridge in 2028. Additional details are
provided in the appendix. -1 he project will include substantial dedicated pedestrian improvements,
These improvements havethe
possibility to increase pedestrian
demand for the site, and general
pedestrian presence in the area. At
rninirnUnl, the site development should
grade Out about 7 feet within the ROW
boundary to easily accornmodate ft,ihire
pedes[nan sidewalk paving should the
city infill the area, Ilrn addition, the
proposed site design irnproverneri[s
should cor)sider what fUtUre adjustrTients
may be required to connect the site with
[lie public network, Based on the current
IaYOLJf,, two locations which could
rNnirnize future site Ilrnpact are shown in
RED on Figure 13 .
M 11TY-41 Ll F-11 wj&%�
The site shows proOsions for two
pe,destrian accessible stalls imniediately
in front of the building, I lie access lane
I . k ; 1 14 ; . 14
CAP�JUCAJ Z�l LU U (A�J$A U�J] CIK� Y ul. Yk CILU .
It was assurried that adeqwate
circulation paths from the stalls to the building will be, provided and constructed with AID A complianl: slol',)(as,
F-1gure 13 - Consider PotenfiM Pedestrian Access
2 1
MCMIT-11 I WA'l j C S]
The site appears to provide adequate space
for the circulation of typical patrons. The
north side of the b0iding is configured for
one-direclional travel with a portion of the
width being reserved for ChipotIarle queuing.
Based on the provided ipcki.Jp larie Study in
the appendix, the site appears to provide
adequate quet..ie space.1"he site plane does
not show traffic signs. It is assumed that in
addition to the pavernent ITiarking shown in
the attached site plan, standard IMLYI CD "Do
Not Enter" signs will also be posted on either
side of this one-way circulation lane. A
similar signing strategy should be employed
at the one-way lane on the south end of the
building.
If issues with wrong way driving or
encroacl-iment occur on site, it appears that
tubular delineators, could be accornmoda[ed
along the drive thrOUgh lane to assist with
circulation.
RefUSe, and delivery by vehicles similar to a
WB-50 appear to be accornmodated Wthin
the design.
For a local road, current SUDAS design
guidelines stipulate a rniniMUM separation of
75 feet from adjacent intersections to site
driveways. There is no designated driveway
separation requirement, I he guide
rec,ornmends radil for [he entrance design
but allows for straight flares ln
resider-otial/agri(,,.t.il[.uraI areas. The proposed
driveways are about 24kaet in width with
entrance radii rneefing the SUDAS
requirements.
Figure 14 - Site Circullation
The nortlqerrs driveway appears to be sufficiently spaced from existing driveways. The eastern entrance has been
located to maximize spacing to the Highway 6 right in right -out driveway. It's not directly across from the existing
driveway, Typically, this is preferred, However, StUrgis Corner Drive will rernain completely developed once the
Chipotle is in place. Significant future traffic VOIUrne and speed changes are Unlikely. I herefore, the placernent of
the proposed east driveway to maximize distance to Highway 6 and ol.)tirnize site circulation is appropriate as
shown in the figure
m
CAPACITY ANALYSIS — RIVERSIDE DRIVE AT NORTH END OF STURGIS CORNER DR
Table 7 - Fuill-Build Capacity Anallysis
For easy cornparison, the table above shows the previous "existing no -build" analysis as well as the full-bijild
analysLs. Overall, the proposed development has negligible impact on northbound/southbound operations based
on [he HCM 71", calculations, Fhe ad&ional westbound traffic created will increase de�ays for the eastbound
cornrnercial driveway as these vehicles are required to yield l"30W to vvestbWnd traffic rnore frequently, The
westbound approach whose perforniance is already breaking clown in the existing scenario will see average 951"1
pe,rcenfle queues increase to around 2-3 vehicles during the peak hour, The delay on this moverrient will degrade
by nearly 35 seconds per vehicle since the movernerit already operated with 1,.,0S F and does riot contain
adequate capacity in today's scemarc.
Based on the existing available ROW and cor-rditions, the most likely way to improve performance at the
intersection is to restrict movements. If both eastbound and westbound lefts were elirnin,,ated through 3/4 access
implementation, exiting vehicles need only Ibex concerned with 2 lanes of traffic coming frorn one direction, rather
[tian all 4. The currerilt developirrieril on the west side of Riverslde Drive provlde�s convenient access onto Orchard
Street on the west side of the development, Tfiis recently reconstructed street has a lower volume and also
provides qUick access to signalized intersedions on Highway I or Benton Street without requiring inconvenient
or out -of -the-way detours when the minor street left is prohibited.
Restricting the westbound left movement is more inconvenient for the properties along Sturgis Corner Di1ve.
Traffic leaving the site headed towards the east direction will be reqUired to divert up to Benton Street since the
next closest river crossing to the South is McCollister Boulevard. With protected only phasing and no right -turn
M
overlaps at the Highway I signal, if these vehicles were to exit the SOUth eritrance of Sfi.,Irgis Corner Drive arid
than rnake a L)--ft.trn at the Ffighway I signal, safety concerns wOUld likely be mitigated since this would be
protected rnovement
This westbound left restriction ,,it the north end of Sturgis Cornet, Drive wmfld also elinitnate the safety tSSUes
cturrenfly present at the intersection. With we stlom.ind left traffic being overrepresented in at least 50% of the
cr,,ishes since 2020, elirnirtating the movernent would elimineite expoSUre for this crash pattern to confinUe in the
future.
"rable 8 ... Full-Bufld Capacity Anallysis — No Geornetry Chainges
In the absence of arty other georuetric changes to the study area, the overall intersection will cor-Ainue [o operate
at the low end of LOS D, The southbound approach and westbOUnd tl-iroi,,igh movements suffer the most, still
operating with LOS E. The anficipated queuing change will be negligible, M queues will see about one vehicle
length change at the IT"lost according to the analysis, Therefore, the proposed development will have a negligible
irnpact on the operations of tf're existing signal.
24�
The ri,iosl: likely rneqod [o in-q,,)rove I OS and manage queues alt tf-�is signal would be to expand 11,-�e available traffic
lanes and elin-flnate the required split phasrig.
By prov6ng additional lanes and eliminating spHt phasirig, the overall LOS could be improved to L,OS C based
on today's traffic VOUnne as shown on the left side of 1"able 9. While some movements only see marginal delay
improvements, the lane expansion significantly reduces many of these queues. This cot.jld alleviate sorne
operational iSSUes for neighboring access points and overall improve flow within and between corridors. With
queues being redUced, delays for indk/idUal rnovements become snore a function of the selected cycle length,
rather than a furiction of the vehicular volumes.
If all 29 westbound left vehicles from the north end of Sturgis Corner Drive elected to use the South exit to Highway
6 and then make a westbourid U Furn at the signal, the movement would still operate wlth acceptable LOS as
shown on the right side of raUe 9. 1 he estimated 9511, percentile queue (expected only 511/0 of the time) would
increase by about one vehicle lerigth and would extend to the end of the existing left tUrn bay.
Talblle 9 - Potential SignM Adjustment Analysis
Southbound
Southbound
Left
2
460
453
203
D
Left
1
460
77.1
359
E
C
Thru/Left
1
Through
2
337
32.9
151
A
Through
1
337
59.4
299
E
Right
1
303
7
72
Right
1
303
8.8
73
A
Eastbound
Eastbound
Left
2
274
47.3
137
D
Left
1
274
53.6
301
D
Through
2
610
30.6
254
c
Through
2
610
35.2
292
c
Right
-
15
Right
-
15
Northbound
Northbound
Left
1
38
44.1
57
D
Left
1
38
38.4
52
D
Through
2
175
46.3
95
D
Through
2
175
40.5
86
D
Right
1
118
23
1
A
Right
1
118
8.2
36
A
Westbound
Westbound
Left
1
164
52.6
172
D
Left
1
193
47.6
181
D
Through
2
781
32.2
315
C
Through
2
781
71
408
E
Right
1
437
5.4
71
A
Right
1
437
7.8
85
A
Intersection
303 C
Intersection
451
D
OPENING DAY WARRANT ANALYSIS
Auxiliary Lanes
Based on existing traffic volumes and current turn lane warrant guidance provided in NCHRP Reports '745 and
457, the si�e does rio1 warrant auxiliary turning lanes based on the esfirnated trip generation,
M
Based on this report, recounting the two ends Of Sturgis Corner Drive while the University of lowa is in regular
session would not result in chariges to the Ultimate findirigs discussed in the report. Based on the collected
volumes, half the traffic niovenients were actually heavier cornpared to when MP0JC counted the signalized
intersection in Octot)er. With the balancing procedures conducted in this report, the riorthi end Of StUrgiS Corner
Drive operates Mai unacceptable LOS due to the heavy background traffic already on Riverside Drive. On the
mouth end, the intersection contaiins plerity of capacity; enough to service the observed Sturgis Corner Drive traffic
at least 4 or 5 time s over. The, irnpact of the University is not expected to account for this ar'r10Unt of difference in
[lie counts based on historic data available frorin the Iowa DOT, Therefore, we recommend that Sturgis Corner
Drlve not be r'eCOUnted for analysis PUr'p0SeS within this report.
The following recommendations are rnade for the proposed site development:
No -Build (Non -Site -Specific Existing Issues)
I . GeinerM Access Management Allong Riverside IG rive — The City of Iowa City should begin planning
and construction activities relating to reducing the llilulber of commercial access points on Riverside
Drive between Benton Street and Highway 1. This stretch of roadway is typically impacted Iby signal
queues for nearly the entire length of the road during peak hours. The cornrnerc'oal driveways like Iy all
operate with unaccel',)table I OS based on the one representative intersection studied at Sturgis Corner
Drive.'"These capacity issues have beeru dernoristrated to create safety concerns and cause crashes as
evident in the Iowa DOT ICAT database from the past 4 years. Methods which may be effective at
M,dUcing conflicts arid improving overall operations include alternatives Such as: closure, 3/4 access with
channelizers or medians, and right -in -right -out restrictions with channelizers or rnedians. Particularly for
the proper -ties on the west side of Riverside thrive, Orchard Street provides a conVE.,nient access
alternative to allowing direct access to River -side Drive.
2Close Commercial Access Across frorn the North End of Sturgis Corner Drive -- This intersection
is geometrically offset frown the corTinierdal access across the street. Consideration should be given to
renioving [lie cornryiercial drive across frown the Sturgis Corner approach to elifflinate conflict points within
the intersection. I here are several alternate driveways on either side of this access which could be used
(all with similar unacceptable�, LOS due to the traffic on Riverside Drive). This irnprovernent could be made
prior to consiidering further restriction of westbound movernents at the intersection.
3. Evaluate Minor Approach I eft "Turn Treatments at the North End of Sturgis Corner Drive -The
rnajority of crashes at this location involved westbound left traffic, leading this intersection to a high
Potential for Crash R: edUCtion , It ranks within the worst 1 % of all other comparable intersections across
the state. While rnost crashes were low speed riot resulting in serious inpury or fatality, property darriage
crashes still result in societal costs frorn tnaffic flow disruptions, Two potential causes for the
overrepresentation of include the offset minor approaches (eastbound driveway and westbound Sturgis
Corner 1.)rive), and the poor rininor street level of service and operational issues entering Riverside I -)rive
during severe congestion. Additional intersection improver"nents to improve Overall safety and operations
ShOUld be considered. If the dOSUre of the offset driveway does riot have a noticeable impact on safety
at the intersection, the westbound left rnoverrient could be restricted and eliminated via conversion to a
access intersection, This would make exiting the developn'rent toward Highway 6 and the Iowa Dive'-,,r
Bridge rriore difficult,
4� Consider IPlarmirnirng for Expansion at Highway 1/6 Signalized Intersection "I"he intersectiorr is
opera6rig towards the low erid of acceptable LOS 1) in the existing condition. The proposed developnient
will create a negligible impact. In the immediate future, pedestrian irnprovenierits are schedi.,fled along
Highway 1/6 through this intersection. The additional pedestrian presence likely created by dedicated
facilities will only degrade Intersecfion operational perforrnance further. Providing additional lanes (SUCh
M
as dedicated dual left lanes) for sorne it not all rrnovernenls could elirnina[e the necessity for split phasing.
Split phasing is typically less efficient than standard 8 phase operation, particularly when it is the only
split phased intersection within a coordinated corridor. -rhe SOLIthbound approach (North Leg) appears to
Mara the rnost constricted leg of the intersection with regards to expanding adclafional Iarnesn.
Full -Build (Site Specific) Recommendations
1. AIDA Facifities and h`utiuire Vulnerable Road User Connections -- The site should consider how a
feature accessible route to a public sidewalk network along Sturgis Corner Drive will be accornmodated
once a public sidewalk is constructed,
The site should accommodate fUtUre pedestriarVUke connections to the public network. While no current
connections to the site are available, current efforts by the City and DO F indicate a need for dedicated
vi.,ilrierable road user, (pedestrians and bikes, people not within a car/veNde) facilities adjacent to the
development site along I fighway 6. Without knowing if such facilities will be exclusively on one side of
Highway 6 or both, the design should be prepared to make pedestrian improvernents within the site to
connect with a future pr,ablic sidewalk withln the existing ROW of Sturgis Corner Drive. The area along
the inside of the ROW boundary shor,fld be graded during construction to account for future sidewalk
paving which minimizes impacts to private property.
Ensure Adequate Circulation Sig nage/Defill neators Signage plans were not provided by the CLIENT.
From tlne proposed site plan, it's evident that only one side of the site allows travel in both directions (the
east side). The other three sides of the building circulate in a. counterclockwise fashion. In addition to the
apparent pavement r-narkings shown on the plan, the site plan should aim to provide MUTCD compliant
signing (or, as sirflilar as possible to improve driver faaiiliarrty) to discourage wrong way driving,. Based
on the provided Chipotlane queuing study, this drive-throughi lane will only have around two vehicles
waiting for the drive-throughi on average. In extrerne circuaistances, it suggested the queue would only
exceed 4, vehicles forabOUt 2% (15-minUtes) of a regular day. If encroachment: or wrong way driving in
the drive through lane becornes an isSUe in the future, it appears that the design could accornrnodate
additional traffic control devices SLACh as a tubular delineator curb systern for [lie drive through lane,
2 7
� 0 a !
�TTQ'c(�)
\ Q,
L07 °
SPECIAL EXCEPTION EXHIBIT
iIS° HER bR
MMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONE . _...
i
- 21 STURGIS CORNER DRIVE
IOWA CITY, IOWA
AI -cp
LOT 0F STURCS CORNER ADDITON PART TWO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
RECORDED PLATT}fEREOF, CONTAINING 0.56 ACRES, AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS
AND RESTRICPCNS c.. RECCRG
MEN7om:
-
EXISTING ZONING: CC-2 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONE
j Z IN'
CB S.9'c4't;'E
�'&t 8't 2"
R 2D GC'
L 25-'
� Z NIN DISTRICT CC 2
R QUESTED DRIVE THROUCH EACUTY
'4
I GP.APHIC SIN HE
ET
/0-6
7bSRZRGIS CORNER DR
CC-2 : COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONE
STANDARD LEGEND AND NOTES
- PROPERTY &for BOUNDARY ONES
- CCNGRESSIONAL SECTION LINES
-- --- RIGHT-1- WAY UNES
- - - - - - - - -
MISTING RIGHT CF WAY IPIE
-
-
CENTER LNES
- XISTING CENTS- L..NES
- LOT IRE'. INTERNAL
- LCT LINES, 1ATTEQ CR EY DEEP
--------
PROPOSED EASEMENT LINES
EXISTING EASEMENT UNES
BENCHMARK
(R)
- NAL.NDED CIMEN&SNS
22-t
-EXIST- -PROP-
- CURk SEGMENT NUMBER
- PO'kER POLE
$ $
--♦: �
- POWER POLE W4ROP
- POWER POLE W/TRANS
_ t
- POWER PDUE A'/L-T
-
#
- GJY PDLE
- IGMT PGLE
_
- SANITARY M.ANkCL
- FIRE HYDRANT
-
-WATER VALVE
61,
- DRAINAGE MANHOLE
CURB INLET
0
- -
- FENCE UNE
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER
—
---- ------------
-
- PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER
- - --
ENIETEC SCR. SIPNSR
PROPOSED STORM SEWER
........ ......... .......
-
_ WATER LINES
- ELEOTRQNUSES
HQNEUNES
GAS U
- GAS NE5
- - - - -
-CONTOUR UNES (V INTERVAI)
- PRCa05EL GRGUND
- EXISTING
- EXISTING TREE LINE
DEODUGUS TREE & SHRUB
- EXISTING EVERGREEN TREES & SHRUBS
THE ACTUAL SIZE AND LOCATION CF ALL PROPOSED FACIUTIES
SHALL BE VERITED WITH
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, WHICH
ARE TO BE PREPARED AND SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT Tv THE
A PROVAL C THIS DOCUMENT.
0.56 AC
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
9)351%282
4WY W. fi1R15GOf15U taUIS. DEI
Do: ReNSIon
21 STURGIS
CORNER DRIVE
IOWA CITY
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
Q9{e' 01/10/2024
De g—d bf Feld Soak -
JDM
Crain by. _ -e.
TAV e 1"= '
Checked by Sbeei No.
JDMt
P.a�ci Na
12124-001
File Name: Hwy 1 and Riverside Dr - PM
Start Date: 1019i2024
Start Time: 4:15:00 PM
RtY1 RSIDE PR
HwYo
RIVERSIDE DR
HWY i
From North
From.Eas'i
From SovE1
Fiom, Nest
I#art TimeRight
11
TWO '1',.Lett I
Pos" I
fright I
Thtu..:I 'wt 1,
'Peo
Right I
Thru Let{
L Peds.
R t,
Tt1ni-' ', Left
I
Peds
Tvt21s
Peak
4,15 PM
65
77 102
0
105
200
41
0
30
41
9 0
6
192
65
0
933
36
4:30 PM
78
82 107
0
128
203
31
0
33
61
8 0
6
143
61
0
941
35
4:45 PM
92
99 104
0
132
184
46
0
26
41
10 0
2
154
78
0
968
34
5:00 PM
68
79 134
0
68
186
44
0
29
30
11 0
1
121
70
0
841
5:15 PM
70
78 116
0
69
176
41
0
38
32
9 0
4
130
57
0
820
5:30 PM
64
56 128
0
74
197
25
0
34
30
8 0
3
150
46
0
815
rr totals
303
337 447
0
433
773
162
0
118
173
38 0
15
610
274
0
3683
.o o..—t
28-9. 31%
41%
%of ttl traffic
8% 9.1.
12%
M—M., %
30%
PHF
By Movement
0,97 1.03
1 o4'..
Approach
1 02
Intersection
0,98
RIVERSIDE DR
Trucks
# Trucks
7 10 _
14'.....
#Alt vehicles
303 337
447..
% Trucks
2 %. 3%
3 %'..
RIVERSIDE DR
Bikes
# Bikes
0 0
0.........
#Alt vehicles
303 337
447..
% Bikes
Ora 06
0,<....
32%
5795
12%
12%
21%
4W.
37%
0.85
0.95
1.31
0.94
HWY6
2
11
11'..
433
773
162'..
0!
1%
7°6......
HWY6
0
0
0.........
433
773
162..
0%
06
Ora........
n%
53%
12',
3-1.
5%
l-a
9%
089
071
1,19,..
0 81.
RIVERSIDE
DR
5
7
0,,,.
118
173
38.
4%
4%
0%
RIVERSIDE
DR
0
0
0.........
118
173
38..
Oa
0°e
0,<........
2*1
ease
3Oe
0.
17%
t e
24'
0.63
1 07.. •..
112
L07
HWY1
3
25..
8,,,.
15
610.
274'.
20%
4%_
3%,,,.
HWY1
0
0..._.
0',,.
15
610
274..
0%
Oe...._.
0%,,,..
15 min Vehicle A roach Totals
lEG i
LEG 2
lEG 3
LEG 4 INTERSECT
244
346
80
263
933
267
362
102
210
941
295
362
77
234
968
281
298
70
192
841
264
286
79
191
820
248
296
72
199
815
Al
, O$wulil1(ff/n ;ate
VARIOUS LOCATIONS
CH I Pu"TLAN E PICK-U P Wl N DOW
*PERATIONS
PREPARED BY GPID GROUP FOR: CLIP LE MEXICAN GRILL
'14, V VEl U144 B E 2 0 2 2
GPD GROUP`
G ous, Py e. Schio-ne,% Burns & DOiavei, hric.
Prepared By:
1
Ohio Reg�stration No. 81.305
Certification No. 105
Prepared
Under The Responsible
Charge f;
VwbLls Locations
Prepared For:
Prepared y:
Novev 'ii r 2022
OF
A.
MO
-+ate—0I[r%&,. - _
Michael A, Hobbs, .EA, PTOE
Ohio Registration No. 6871.3
Certification No. 134
mm
r
709M
520 South Main Street
Akron, OH 44311
This Operations Study is being prepared at the request of Chipotle Mexican
Grill in association with the Chipotlane pick. -up window which has been
implemented across the Country by Chipotle Mexican Grill. The purpose of
this Operations Study is to analyze the operational characteristics of the
Chipotlane pick --LIP window to determine the typical volurnes, queue lengths
and service tirnes associated with this new configuration, This Study will
analyze the operation of six (6) existing Chipotlanes at high -volume locations
with two (2) restaurants in the Los Angeles, Calffornia area, two (2)
restaurants in the Boston, Massachusetts area, and two (2) restaurants in
the ColumbUS, Ohio area.
A I-nobile pick -LIP window has been implemented at select Chipotle locations,
referred to as a Chipotlane. Chose windows were first Introduced in 2019
and allow CUStOmers to pick Up an order, without having to park their vehicle
and walk into the restaUrant. 'This pick, -tip window is only available to those
CLIstorners who have placed a prior order via the Chipotie mobile application
or Chipotle's website. Since orders are not placed on a menu board and
payment is made thrOUgh the mobile application or, website in advance,
Chipode should be able to Process vehicles far rnore efficiently than fast-food
restaurants.
For this study video recording devices were deployed at the six (6) ChipOtle
locations to capture the operational characteristics of the C-hipotlane pick -Up
window. MUltiple cameras were installed at each location to provide views
fron�i both the front and rear of the bUilding to ensure that the pick --Lip window
arid full vehicular qUeUe were able to be seen at all times. These carneras
were deployed and captured videos for all h0Ljrs of operation over four (4)
continUOL)s days. GPD GrOLIP personnel then reviewed over 270 hours of
video footage to document the operational characteristics of each Chipotlane
being analyzed. The overall findings from this analysis are summarized on
the following page.
01), Page - 1
100 (14, November 2022
AVERAGE DAILY
CHIPOTLANE
CUSTOMERS
65%
OF CUSTOMERS
AVERAGE TOTAL SERVICE TIME
(6:13 is the nationwide fast food
drive-thru average service time)
in Chipotione at a time
IN
a nd exceO.s 4 cars for APPROXIMATELY 15 MINUTES A DAY
01), Page ® 2
100 (14, November 2022
II IP� rqse:
This Operations Study is being prepared at the request of Chipotle Mexican
Grill in association with the Chipotlane pick. -up window which has been
implemented across the Country by Chipotle Mexican Grill. The Purpose of
'this Operations Study is to analyze time operational characteristics of the
Chipotlane pick --LIP window to determine the typical volurnes, queue lengths
and service times associated with this new conflgUration, This study will
analyze the operation of six (6) existing Chipotlanes at high -volume locations
with two (2) restaurants in the Los Angeles, California area, two (2)
restaurants in the Boston, Massachusetts area, and two (2) restaurants in
the Columbus, Ohio area.
The first Chipotle Mexican Grill location evaluated for this study is in the City
of Costa Mesa, CA at 468 E 17t" Street. This Chipotle has one (1) access
point located along E. 171;"` Street and is located along a cornrnercial corridor
and is surrounded by large residential developments. It is currently open
seven days a week from 10:30 AM 10:00 M. See Figure 1 for an aerial
photograph of the Costa Mesa Chipotle location.
112111101111 911111111ill'Al"':
The second Chipotle Mexican Grill location is in the City of Lake Forest, CA at
26592 Towne Center Drive, SUite 120, This location has three (3) access
points to an internal drive. This Chipotle location is located in the Towne
Center Plaza the sur-rounding developments are primarily residential with
some commercial developments to the east, This location is currently open
seven days a week from 10:30 AM - 10:00 PM, See Figure 2 for an aerial
photograph of the Foothill Chipotle location.
Thee -third Chipotle Mexican Grill location is in the City of Hanover', MA at 1.773
Washington Street. This location has two (2) access points to an internal
drive (serving the Chipotle and adjacent parcel). This Chipotle is located
within l,,ianover Crossing along a prirnarily cornmercial corridor SUrrOUnded by
residential developments. This location is currently open seven days a week
from 10:45 AM - 10:00 PM. See Figure 3 for an aerial photograph of the
Hanover- Chipotle location.
01), Page - 3
100 (14, November 2022
I ir I I JlJ!1I I I I I I I I I
The fourth Chipotle Mexican Grill location is in the City of Norwich, CT at 30
Salern Turnpike. This location has two (2) access points, one along Salern
Turnpike and another along Surrey Lane. This Chilpotle is located along a
primarily commercial corridor surrounded by residential developments. This
location is currently open seven days a week from 10:45 AM - 10a00 PW See
Figure 4 for an aerpal photograph of the Hanover Chipotle location.
,r;
The fifth Chipotle Mexican Grill location is in the City of Pickerington at 1291
Hffl Road N. (State ROLTte 256) on the northwest quadrant of the Fiffl Road N.
Stonecreek Drive inter -section. This Chipotle location has four (4) access
points, one (1) to each adjacent parcel to the north and south and two (2) to
an internal shopping center drive to the west., It is currently open seven days
a week from 10:45 AM -- "10:00 PM. See Figure 5 for an aerial photograph of
the Pickerington Chipotle location.
1! 1 IF
;; 5 1 i 1! 1 1111,W) ]WINW/ �fll � W311FAIMPM
The sixth Chipotle Mexican Grill location is in the City of Obetz at 5051
Groveport Road on the southwest quadrant of the Alum Creek Drive /
Groveport Road intersection. This location has two (2) access points to an
internal drive (serviling the Chipotle and adjacent parcel) that connects to both
AILIM Creek Drive and Groveport Road. Alurn Creek Drive is a major north. -
South corridor connecting 1-270 to the north of the Chipotle location to a
major warehousing and distribution hub to the south. TNs location is
currently open seven days a week from 10:45 AM - 10:00 PM, See Figure 6
for an aerpal photograph of the Pickerington Chipotle location.
Elm
A mobile pick -Up wpndow has been implemented at select Chillpotle locations,
refer -red to as a Chipotlane. These wpindclws were first introduced in 2019
and allow CUstorners to PiCk up an order without having to park their vehicle
and walk into the restaurant. Unlike traditional fast-food restaurants, the
Chipotlane does not fUnctlion as a typical drive-thru lane as custorner's cannot
place an order at a menu board or the Pick -Up window, This pick -Lip window
is only available to those customers who have placed a prior order via the
Chipotle mobile application or CWpotle's website. Since the Chipotlane is
designed for pick, -Lip only, the vehiCUlar demand, queues and service times
would be expected to be loweir than that of a fast-food restaurant which
derives a high percentage of sales frorn impulsive pass -by traffic,
Additionally, since orders wire not placed at a menu board and payment is
made through the mobile application or website in advance, Chipotle should
be able to process vehicles far more efficiently than fast-food restaurants as
well.
01), Page - 4
100 (14, November 2022
For, this study, Cummins Consulting Services, Tr"�-State Traffic Data, and
Quality Counts, LLC deployed video recording devices at the six (6) Chipotle
locations 'to capture the operational characteristics of the Chipodane pick -Up
window, Multiple carneras were installed at each location to provide views
from both the front and rear of the bUilding to ensure that the pick-up window
and full vehiUflar queue were able to be seen at all times. "These cameras
were deployed and captUred videos for all hours of operadon over' fOUI- (4)
continuous days from Wednesday, July 1311" through Saturday, July 16`11,
2022, for 'the sites located within the Los Angeles and Boston areas, and four
(4) coridnuous days frorn Wednesday, August 3rd thl'-OLIgh SatUrday, August
6ta`, 2022, for the sltes located within the ColumbUs area, 'T'he following
images provide an example of the carnera views that were recorded:
Carnera angie facing SOLithwest (view of the window queue (,.)f the Costa Mc:..tsa Chipotle)
Camera angle facing northeast (view from the front of the Foothill Ranch Chipotle)
01), Page - 5
100 (14, November 2022
Item Number: 6.b.
I =� ,
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Q �To COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
September 17, 2024
Resolution Declaring the City of Iowa City's Application for the Statewide Transportation
Alternatives Set -Aside Program (TA Set -Aside) Funds for the Construction of Pedestrian
Facilities on Highway 6 and 1 between Gilbert Street and Orchard Street.
Prepared By: Sarah WaIz, Associate Transportation Planner
Reviewed By: Kent Ralston, Transportation Planner
Tracy Hightshoe, Director of Neighborhood and
Development Services
Jason Havel, City Engineer
Fiscal Impact: None
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Commission Recommendations: N/A
Attachments: Resolution
Executive Summary:
The Statewide Transportation Alternatives Set -Aside (TA Set -Aside) program supports the
construction and improvement of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. The program
emphasizes the expansion of multi -modal trail networks through the completion of trail
linkages as well as projects that improve access and safety for all transportation modes. TA
Set -Aside program funds may reimburse up to 80 percent of eligible costs or up to the
approved grant maximum, whichever is less.
The Iowa DOT has programmed reconstruction of the Highway 6 bridge over the Iowa River
in 2028, which will include separated facilities for bicycles and pedestrians. By way of
coordination, the City intends to construct bicycle and pedestrian facilities between Gilbert
Street and Orchard Street to ensure access to the new bridge and improve safety for
pedestrians and bicyclists traveling along the highway corridor. The projects will ultimately
complete the entirety of the Highway 1 and Highway 6 Trail system and make the bridge
crossing fully accessible for all users.
Background / Analysis:
Highways 1 and 6 on the south side of Iowa City serve as a main commercial corridor for the
community, carrying an average of 34,000 vehicles per day. While the existing Highway 6
bridge over the Iowa River provides narrow (approximately 3 feet wide) pedestrian passages
separated from the vehicle lanes, pedestrian facilities are not present on either side of the
bridge between Gilbert Street (to the east) and Orchard Street (to the west) and no
pedestrian facilities are provided at the Highway 1/6 and S. Riverside Drive intersection.
Despite the lack of facilities, pedestrians and bicyclists regularly use the highway shoulder
(where provided) or grassy areas along the highway between Gilbert Street and Orchard
Street to access jobs, services, and shopping. A count taken in September found an average
of 122 pedestrians/bicycles cross the bridge per day. During dark conditions, those walking
along the shoulder are even harder to see due to the absence of street lighting. The Iowa City
Pedestrian Collision Analysis (2013-2022) identified this segment of roadway as one of the
highest frequency/severity collision corridors in the community.
Approval of this resolution is necessary for the City of Iowa City to submit a qualifying
application for TA Set -Aside funding.
Me SKIT-TilwaTiA
HCM 7thTWSC
41 S Riverside [lriVe/S Riverside D[& Sturgis Corner Dr 0108/2025
Future Vol, veh/h
8
1
17
18
O
44
24
841
15
21
1045
8
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
RT Channelized
None
None
None
None
Grade Y6
-
O
-
-
O
-
-
U
-
'
O
-
Heavy Vehicles, %
Critical
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
55 46 - 88 47
458 318 - 421 258
E D
0.041 - - 0175 0.248 0.084 0.03
B - - E F B B
PMXPMX4:35pmO8/04/2024PMX Synohm11 Report
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
30Highway 6 & S Riverside Drive 0108/2025
* -'� r -4_- I 4�
Future Volume
Frt
0.008
0.850
0.850
0.850
F|
SetdFlow
Right Turn on Red
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
F|
Link Distance
Peak Hour Factor
U5
0.95
U5
0.95
U5
0.95
U5
0.95
U5
0.95
U5
0.95
Shared Lraffi
Enter Blocked Intersection
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Lane Alignment
Left
Left
Right
Left
Left
Right
Left
Left
Right
Left
Left
Right
Median idh
Crosswalk Width
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Number ofDetectors
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
Template
Left
Thru
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
LeadingDetector
Detector l
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1Exted
DelayDetector 1
Detector 2Channel
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Prot
NA
Perm
Split
NA
Perm
Split
NA
Perm
Permitted Phases
2
4
3
PMXPMX4:35pmO8/04/2024PMX
Synohm11 Report
Jacob Sprengo|er'PE
Page
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
30: Highway 6 & S Riverside Drive 01/08/2025
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s)
12.0
16.0
12.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
Total Split (s)
25,0
27,0
25,0
27.0
27,0
25,0
25.0
25,0
23,0
23.0
23,0
Total Split (%)
25.0%
27.0%
25.0%
27.0%
27.0%
25.0%
25.0%
25.0%
23.0%
23.0%
23.0%
Maximum Green (s)
20,5
211
20.5
21.1
211
193
193
193
16,9
*9
16.9
Yellow Time (s)
3.0
3.6
3.0
3.6
3.6
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.6
3.6
3.6
All -Red Time (s)
15
23
15
23
23
2.5
2.5
2,5
2,5
2.5
2,5
Lost Time Adjust (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Lost Time (s)
4.5
5,91
4.5
5,9
5,9
5,7
5.7
5.7
61
61
6,11
Lead/Lag
Lead
Lag
Lead
Lag
Lag
Lag
Lag
Lag
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead -Lag Opfimize?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Recall Mode
None
Min
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Act Effct Green (s)
18.6
25.7
14.0
21.1
21.1
11.0
11.0
11.0
16.9
16.9
16.9
Actuated g/C Ratio
0,21
0.29
0,16
0,23
0.23
0,12
0,12
0.12
0A9
0.19
0,19
v/c Ratio
0.80
0.67
0.63
1.00
0.64
0.19
0.43
0.39
0.90
0.91
0.58
Control Delay (s/veh)
523
333
463
67.2
7,8
383
40.3
8.2
70,8
57.1
8 8
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Delay (s/veh)
523
333
463
67,2
7,8
3&3
403
8,2
70�8
57.1
H
LOS
D
C
D
E
A
D
D
A
E
E
A
Approach LOS
Queue Length 95th (ft)
#284
#281
156
#402
84
52
85
36
#346
#295
73
Internal Link Dist (ft)
604
435
372
490
Turn Bay Length (ft)
300
190
250
240
240
350
290
Base Capacfty (vph)
396
989
396
816
713
373
746
449
297
615
551
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.73
0,67
0,43
1,00
H4
0.11
0,24
0.28
HO
0.91
0,58
Cycle Length: 100
Actuated Cycle Length: 89.9
Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type. Actuated- Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.00
Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.3% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles,
95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles,
PMX PMX 4:35 pm 06/04/2024 PMX Synchro 11 Report
Jacob Sprengeler, PE Page 2
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
30: Highway 6 & S Riverside Drive 01/08/2025
its and Phases: 30: H
Jt 01
It" 05
6 & S Riverside Drive
02
m"
4 04
PMX PMX 4:35 pm 06/04/2024 PMX Synchro 11 Report
Jacob Sprengeler, PE Page 3
HCIVI UOsigO@lized Intersection Capacity Analysis
70Highway 6 & Sturgis Corner Dr 0108/2025
�_ � � �
~~# _� ~~ 40-
Future Volume
Sign Control
Free
Free
Yield
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Hourly flow
Pedestrians
Lane Width
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median
None
None
storage veh)
signalMedian
Upstream
pX, platoon unblocked
U4
vC conflicting volume
1431
2050
718
vC2 stage 2 conf vol
single
cMcapacity (vnh/h)
461
53
368
Volume Total
619
610
716
718
16
0
Volume Riht
U
U
0
U
16
O
Volume toCapacity
036
038
042
042
001
002
Control
Average Delay
0.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization
476Y6
ICU
Level of8 i A
Analysis Period (min)
15
PMXPMX4:35pmO8/04/2024PMX Synohm11 Report
HCM 7thTWSC
41 S Riverside [lriVe/S Riverside D[& Sturgis Corner Dr 0108/2025
Future Vol, veh/h
8
1
17
28
O
53
24
845
27
35
1045
8
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
RT Channelized
None
None
None
None
Grade.Y6
-
O
-
-
O
-
-
U
-
'
O
-
Critical
Stage 1
Stage 2
Platoon blocked, %
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
Stage 1
Stage 2
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
199 259 - 274 331
50 42 - 82 43
E E
0.041 - - 0189 0.484 0103 0I51
B - - E F B B
PMPPNP5:0SpmO1/07/2025PNP Synohm11 Report
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
30Highway 6 & S Riverside Drive 0108/2025
* -'� r -4_- I 4�
Future Volume
Frt
0.008
0.850
0.850
0.850
F|
SetdFlow
Right Turn on Red
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
F|
Link Distance
Peak Hour Factor
U5
0.95
U5
0.95
U5
0.95
U5
0.95
U5
0.95
U5
0.95
Shared Lraffi
Enter Blocked Intersection
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Lane Alignment
Left
Left
Right
Left
Left
Right
Left
Left
Right
Left
Left
Right
Median idh
Crosswalk Width
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Number ofDetectors
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
Template
Left
Thru
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
LeadingDetector
Detector l
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1Exted
DelayDetector 1
Detector 2Channel
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Prot
NA
Perm
Split
NA
Perm
Split
NA
Perm
Permitted Phases
2
4
3
PMPPMP5:0SpmO1/O7/2025PMP
Synohm11 Report
Jacob Spmngo|er'PE
Page
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
30: Highway 6 & S Riverside Drive 01/08/2025
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s)
12.0
16.0
12.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
Total Split (s)
25,0
27,0
25,0
27.0
27,0
25,0
25.0
25,0
23,0
23.0
23,0
Total Split (%)
25.0%
27.0%
25.0%
27.0%
27.0%
25.0%
25.0%
25.0%
23.0%
23.0%
23.0%
Maximum Green (s)
20,5
211
20.5
21.1
211
193
193
193
16,9
*9
16.9
Yellow Time (s)
3.0
3.6
3.0
3.6
3.6
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.6
3.6
3.6
All -Red Time (s)
15
23
15
23
23
2.5
2.5
2,5
2,5
2.5
2,5
Lost Time Adjust (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Lost Time (s)
4.5
5,91
4.5
5,9
5,9
5,7
5.7
5.7
61
61
6,11
Lead/Lag
Lead
Lag
Lead
Lag
Lag
Lag
Lag
Lag
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead -Lag Opfimize?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Recall Mode
None
Max
None
Max
Max
None
None
None
None
None
None
Act Effct Green (s)
19.0
26.0
14.1
21.1
21.1
11.0
11.0
11.0
16.9
16.9
16.9
Actuated g/C Ratio
0,21
0.29
0,16
0,23
0.23
0,12
0,12
0.12
0A9
0.19
0,19
v/c Ratio
0.82
0.66
0.64
1.01
0.64
0.19
0.43
0.39
0.94
0.92
0.58
Control Delay (s/veh)
516
333
46.5
71.0
7,8
38.4
j 40.5
8.2
77.1
59.4
8,8
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Delay (s/veh)
53.6
333
46Z
71.0
7.8
38A
40�5
82
771
59A
8l8
LOS
D
C
D
E
A
D
D
A
E
E
A
Approach LOS
Queue Length 95th (ft)
#301
#283
156
#408
85
52
86
36
#359
#299
73
Internal Link Dist (ft)
604
435
372
490
Turn Bay Length (ft)
300
190
250
240
240
350
290
Base Capacfty (vph)
394
996
394
811
715
371
742
447
295
611
550
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.76
0,66
0,44
1,01
0,64
0.11
0,25
0,28
H4
0.92
0,58
Cycle Length: 100
Actuated Cycle Length: 90.3
Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type. Actuated- Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.01
Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.3% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles,
95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles,
PMP PMP 5:09 pm 01/07/2025 PMP Synchro 11 Report
Jacob Sprengeler, PE Page 2
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
30: Highway 6 & S Riverside Drive 01/08/2025
its and Phases: 30: H
Jt 01
It" 05
6 & S Riverside Drive
02
m"
4 04
PMP PIMP 5:09 pm 01/07/2025 PIMP Synchro 11 Report
Jacob Sprengeler, PE Page 3
HCIVI UOsigO@lized Intersection Capacity Analysis
70Highway 6 & Sturgis Corner Dr 0108/2025
�_ � � �
~~# _� ~~ 40-
Future Volume
Sign Control
Free
Free
Yield
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Hourly flow
Pedestrians
Lane Width
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median
None
None
storage veh)
signalMedian
Upstream
pX, platoon unblocked
U4
vC conflicting volume
1431
2057
718
vC2 stage 2 conf vol
single
cMcapacity (vnh/h)
461
52
368
Volume Total
626
628
716
718
31
24
Volume Riht
U
U
0
U
31
24
Volume toCapacity
037
037
042
042
UO2
007
Control
Average Delay
0.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization
476Y6
ICU
Level of8 i A
Analysis Period (min)
15
PMPPNP5:0SpmO1/07/2025PNP Synohm11 Report
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
30Highway 6 & S Riverside Drive 0108/2025
* -'� r -4_- I 4�
Future Volume
Frt
0.008
0.850
0.850
0.850
F|
SetdFlow
Right Turn on Red
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
F|
Link Distance
Peak Hour Factor
U5
0.95
U5
0.95
U5
0.95
U5
0.95
U5
0.95
U5
0.95
Shared Lraffi
Enter Blocked Intersection
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Lane Alignment
Left
Left
Right
Left
Left
Right
Left
Left
Right
Left
Left
Right
Median idh
Crosswalk Width
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Number ofDetectors
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
Template
Left
Thru
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
LeadingDetector
Detector l
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1Exted
DelayDetector 1
Detector 2Channel
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Prot
NA
Perm
Split
NA
Perm
Split
NA
Perm
Permitted Phases
2
4
3
PMPUTumsPMPUTums1O:4OumU1/002O25UTumx
Synohm11Report
Jacob Spmngo|er'PE
Page
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
30: Highway 6 & S Riverside Drive 01/08/2025
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s)
12.0
16.0
12.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
Total Split (s)
25,0
27,0
25,0
27.0
27,0
25,0
25.0
25,0
23,0
23.0
23,0
Total Split (%)
25.0%
27.0%
25.0%
27.0%
27.0%
25.0%
25.0%
25.0%
23.0%
23.0%
23.0%
Maximum Green (s)
20,5
211
20.5
21.1
211
193
193
193
16,9
*9
16.9
Yellow Time (s)
3.0
3.6
3.0
3.6
3.6
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.6
3.6
3.6
All -Red Time (s)
15
23
15
23
23
2.5
2.5
2,5
2,5
2.5
2,5
Lost Time Adjust (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Lost Time (s)
4.5
5,91
4.5
5,9
5,9
5,7
5.7
5.7
61
61
6,11
Lead/Lag
Lead
Lag
Lead
Lag
Lag
Lag
Lag
Lag
Lead
Lead
Lead
Lead -Lag Opfimize?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Recall Mode
None
Max
None
Max
Max
None
None
None
None
None
None
Act Effct Green (s)
19.0
24.8
15.4
21.1
21.1
11.0
11.0
11.0
16.9
16.9
16.9
Actuated g/C Ratio
0,21
0.27
0,17
0,23
0.23
0,12
0,12
0.12
0A9
0.19
0,19
v/c Ratio
0.82
0.69
0.69
1.01
0.64
0.19
0.43
0.39
0.94
0.92
0.58
Control Delay (s/veh)
516
352
47,6
71.0
7.8
38.4
40.5
8.2
77,11
59A
&B
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Delay (s/veh)
53.6
35,2
47.6
71,0
7,8
38.4
40,5
81
77A
59A
8,8
LOS
D
D
D
E
A
D
D
A
E
E
A
Approach LOS
Queue Length 95th (ft)
#301
#292
181
#408
85
52
86
36
#359
#299
73
Internal Link Dist (ft)
604
435
372
490
Turn Bay Length (ft)
300
190
250
240
240
350
290
Base Capacfty (vph)
394
949
394
811
715
371
742
447
295
611
550
Starvation Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Spillback Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Storage Cap Reductn
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reduced v/c Ratio
0.76
0,69
0,52
1,01
0,64
0.11
0,25
0,28
H4
0,92
0,58
Cycle Length: 100
Actuated Cycle Length: 90.3
Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type. Actuated- Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.01
Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.3% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles,
95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles,
PMP UTurns PMP UTurns 10:40 am 01/08/2025 UTurns Synchro 11 Report
Jacob Sprengeler, PE Page 2
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
30: Highway 6 & S Riverside Drive 01/08/2025
its and Phases: 30: H
Jt 01
It" 05
6 & S Riverside Drive
02
m"
4 04
PMP UTurns PMP UTurns 10:40 am 01/08/2025 UTurns Synchro 11 Report
Jacob Sprengeler, PE Page 3
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
30Highway 6 & S Riverside Drive 0108/2025
* -'� r -4_- I 4�
Future Volume
Frt
0.008
0.850
0.850
0.850
F|
SetdFlow
Right Turn on Red
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
F|
Link Distance
Peak Hour Factor
U5
0.95
U5
0.95
U5
0.95
U5
0.95
U5
0.95
U5
0.95
Shared Lraffi
Enter Blocked Intersection
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Lane Alignment
Left
Left
Right
Left
Left
Right
Left
Left
Right
Left
Left
Right
Median idh
Crosswalk Width
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Number ofDetectors
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
Template
Left
Thru
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
LeadingDetector
Detector l
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1Exted
DelayDetector 1
Detector 2Channel
Turn Type
Prot
NA
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Prot
NA
Perm
Permitted Phases
2
4
8
PM EXPANDED LANES PMP-Expanded
Lanes
5:41 pm
01/07/2025
PMP-Expanded
Lanes
Synohm11 Report
Jacob Sprengo|er'PE
Page
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
30: Highway 6 & S Riverside Drive 01/08/2025
Switch Phase
Minimum Split (s)
12.0
16.0
12.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
Total Split (s)
19.0
35.0
22,0
38,0
38,0
16.0
16,0
16.0
27,0
27.0
27s0
Total Split (%)
19.0%
35.0%
22.0%
38.0%
38.0%
16.0%
16.0%
16.0%
27.0%
27.0%
27.0%
Maximum Green (s)
14,5
29,1
17,5
32.1
32,1
10.3
10.3
10.3
20.9
20,9
20,9
Yellow Time (s)
3.0
3.6
3.0
3.6
3.6
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.6
3.6
3.6
All -Red Time (s)
15
23
15
23
23
2.5
2.5
2,5
2,5
2.5
2,5
Lost Time Adjust (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Lost Time (s)
4.5
5,91
4.5
5,9
5,9
5,7
5.7
5.7
6,11
&1
6,11
Lead/Lag
Lead
Lag
Lead
Lag
Lag
Lead
Lag
Lag
Lead
Lag
Lag
Lead -Lag Opfimize?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Vehicle Extension (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
Recall Mode
None
Max
None
Max
Max
None
None
None
None
None
None
Act Effct Green (s)
12.8
30.9
14.1
32.2
32.2
10.1
10.2
10.2
18.1
24.9
24.9
Actuated g/C Ratio
0.13
032
0,15
0.34
0,34
0.11
0,11
0,11
019
0,26
0,26
v/c Ratio
0.66
0.59
0.68
0.70
0.56
0.22
0.50
0.35
0.76
0.39
0.50
Control Delay (s/veh)
473
30.6
52.6
322
5.4
44.1
46.3
2,8
45.3
32,9
7,0
Queue Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total Delay (s/veh)
473
30,6
52,6
322
5A
44.1
463 i
2.8
453
32,9
7,0
LOS
D
C
D
C
A
D
D
A
D
C
A
Approach LOS
Queue Length 95th (ft) 137 254 172 315 71 57 95 1 203 151 72
Internal Link Dist (ft) 604 435 372 490
Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 190 250 240 240 350 290
Base Capacfty (vph) 512 1120 318 1169 827 187 375 354 738 913 643
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.58 0Z9 0,54 0.70 0Z6 0.21 0,49 0,35 0,66 039 0,50
Cycle Length: 100
Actuated Cycle Length: 95.6
Natural Cycle: 70
Control Type. Actuated- Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.76
Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.6% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
,plits and Phases: 30: Highway 6 & S Riverside Drive
Jt 01 1 * 02 I 03 1 04
.r 05 � __+ 06 I 1 07 14 08
Z
ro
U
C:
0
T11
I
A
I
'FAA MMS Consultants, Inc.
MiExperts in Planning and Development Since 1975
January 10, 2025
City of Iowa City
Urban Planning
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
1917 S. Gilbert Street
Iowa City Iowa 52?,10
319.35t8282
rnrnsconSUItar'ItS,nOt
MlrllS@[TI(TlsconSLIltarits.iiet
RE: General Approval Criteria for a Special Exception application at 21 Sturgis Corner
Drive (DRIVE -THROUGH)
Code Section 14-4B-3:
1. The proposed site is designed to minimize vehicular conflicts with other existing
access points to Sturgis Corner Drive and allow appropriate spacing for traffic
utilizing Highway 6. Multiple access points to Sturgis Corner Drive on the east
and north sides provide options for customers depending on traffic patterns.
Consideration has been given to the recommendations and information provided
in the Traffic Impact Study included with this application.
2. The site is located amidst a mix of other complimentary uses, all within the
Corridor Commercial zoning district and does not interfere with the use of those
properties.
3. This site is an in -fill property. The current surrounding properties have already
been developed. This proposal would not impede the existing uses.
4. All utilities, access roads, and necessary facilities are existing and able to meet
the proposed site requirements.
5. The proposed site design allows traffic to access Sturgis Corner Drive from two
points, with one on each side of a right angle turn for the public roadway. These
two proposed access points will encourage customers to utilize both the existing
right -out to Highway 6 and the Sturgis Corner Drive access to Riverside Drive.
The proposed site design is a reduction in the existing three access points to
Sturgis Corner Drive from this property.
6. The site design conforms to the applicable zoning standards and regulations.
7. The site use is an allowed use for the existing zone. This zoning and use are
consistent with the current Comprehensive plan.
Respectfully submitted,
le"
Jon D. Marner, Partner
12124-001 M 1-General.docx
Z
ro
U
C:
M
T11
I
A
I
'FAA MMS Consultants, Inc.
MiExperts in Planning and Development Since 1975
January 10, 2025
City of Iowa City
Urban Planning
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
1917 S. Gilbert Street
Iowa City Iowa 52?,10
319.35t8282
mr-nsconSUItar'ItS,nOt
MlrllS@[TI(TlsconSLIltarits.iiet
RE: Specific Approval Criteria for a Special Exception application at 21 Sturgis Corner
Drive (DRIVE -THROUGH)
Code Section 14-4C-2:
K.1 Allowed Facilities: Drive -through facilities are allowed in a CC-2 zone by special
exception.
K.3.a Access and Circulation:
1) The site design and mobile pick-up drive -through lanes have been situated to
access Sturgis Corner Drive, the local public road serving seven Corridor
Commercial properties. Sturgis Corner Drive allows right -in and right -out only
access to Highway 6, and full access with a dedicated right exit and left exit to
Riverside Drive. Consideration has been given to the recommendations and
information provided in the Traffic Impact Study included with this application.
2) The current site has three access points to Sturgis Corner Drive. This proposal
will restrict the access points to two curb cuts. Pedestrian traffic within the site
allows for safe access to the restaurant. There are no existing pedestrian walks
adjacent to the site. The proposed site is designed to accommodate connections
to future public pedestrian infrastructure if necessary.
3) The proposed plan provides six stacking spaces for a mobile order pick-up
business model to be utilized for this site. Additional documentation regarding
the typical operations of the mobile pick-up drive -through has been included
with this application for reference.
4) Pavement markings and signage will be provided as required by staff to ensure
safe vehicular movement on the site.
K.3.b Location:
1) While this site lies within the Riverfront Crossings District, it is west of the Iowa
River, and a rezoning is not currently contemplated. The mobile pick-up drive -
through window is situated such that it does not face any public roadway.
2) The mobile pick-up drive -through exit lane has been setback and screened as
required on the south side of the property.
12 124-00 1 M 1-Specift.docx
Z
ro
U
C:
M
TAI
I
A
I
'FAA MMS Consultants, Inc.
MiExperts in Planning and Development Since 1975
1917 S. Gilbert Street
Iowa City Iowa 52?,10
319.35t8282
rnrnsconSUItar'ItS,nOt
MlrllS@[TI(TlsconSLIltarits.iiet
K.3.c Design Standards:
1) The proposed site design shows the mobile pick-up drive -through and stacking
primarily at the west and north sides of the building with limited visibility or
impact to the streetscape and pedestrian safety for both Sturgis Corner Drive
and Highway 6.
2) The mobile pick-up drive -through has been screened from adjacent properties
to the required S2 standard on the south side. The west side of the drive -
through has parking to provide a buffer next to the existing commercial
building immediately to the west.
3) This proposed use is for a mobile order pick-up lane only, and does not include
a separate menu order board.
4) The site has been designed to minimize pedestrian and vehicular conflicts. The
entrance on the east side of the site has been located to provide ample distance
to and from the existing right -in and right -out lanes for Highway 6. There are
no existing public pedestrian walks in the immediate vicinity.
5) Lighting will be provided to comply with outdoor lighting standards.
7) The mobile pick-up drive -through for this site does not include outdoor
speakers or an intercom system.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon D. Marner, Partner
12 124-00 1 M 1-Specift.docx
am AM
FAA MMS Consultants, Inc.
mExperts in Planning and Development Since 19 11
Z
ro
U
C:
m
TAI
I
A
I
1917 S. Gilbert Street
Iowa City lore a 52?,10
319.351B282
sir rnscomUltar'AS,nOt
MlrllS@[TI(TlsconSLIltarits.iiet
12 124-00 1 M 1-Specift.docx
LOT 5 OF STURGIS CORNER ADDITION PART TWO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECORDED PLAT
THEREOF, CONTAINING 0.56 ACRES, AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF
RECORD.
Parcel Number Mailing Namel
1016407010 GATEWAY ONE GA23 LLC
1016401010 GHUBRIL PROPERTIES LLC
1015329003 DM HOLDINGS LLC
1015329002 SJM REALTY INC
1016401011 GASKILL SIGNS INC
1015329004 BAKAK CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LLC
1016401007 RIVERSIDE R E LLC
1015303001 CITY OF IOWA CITY
1015329001 STURGIS INVESTMENTS LLC
1015328006 STURGIS PLACE SOUTH LLP
1015257009 SJR PROPERTIES LLC
1015328002 STURGIS CORNER ASSOCIATES
1015330001 RAVI LODGING INC
MailingAddressl MailingAddress2
1250 5TH ST #150
2938 MARSHALL RD
3038 SIDCO DR
19 STURGIS CORNER DR
11 ARBURY DR
1463 MCCLEARY LN
1516 LAPORTE RD
410 E WASHIHGTON ST
118 2 N D ST
52 STURGIS CORNER DR
7010 CHAVENELLE RD
52 STURGIS CORNER DR
2706 JAMES ST
MailingAddress3
Mailing Zip Code Property Class
Property Address
CORALVILLE, IA
52241 C
11 HIGHWAY 1 W
PITTSBURGH, PA
15214 C
1029 S RIVERSIDE DR
NASHVILLE, TN
37204 C
9 STURGIS CORNER DR
IOWA CITY, IA
52246 C
19 STURGIS CORNER DR
IOWA CITY, IA
52246 C
IOWA CITY, IA
52245 C
5 STURGIS CORNER DR
WATERLOO, IA
50702 C
1025 S RIVERSIDE DR
IOWA CITY, IA
52240 C
1001 S CLINTON ST
CORALVILLE, IA
52241 C
21 STURGIS CORNER DR
IOWA CITY, IA
52246-5617 C
70 STURGIS CORNER DR
DUBUQUE, IA
52002 C
830 S RIVERSIDE DR
IOWA CITY, IA
52246-5617 C
24 STURGIS CORNER DR
CORALVILLE, IA
52241 C
4 STURGIS CORNER DR
February 12, 2025
Board of Adjustment Meeting
i
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAL MEETING
ENUMA HARVAT HALL
JANUARY 8, 2025-5:15 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Nancy Carlson, Mark Russo, Paula Sv«vo@rd.Ernie
COX
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Grant LieOtz(guest COUOSeU'Sue DU|ek.Parker Walsh
OTHERS PRESENT: Gregg GeendeS. Frank Wagner, Dave MO0r8, Danielle Sitzm@n,
Eric Goers, Matt Adam, Doug Fisher, Jamie Maher
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called toorder 2t5:15PM.
ROLL CALL:
A brief opening statement was read by Baker outlining the role and purpose of the Board and
the procedures that would be followed in the meeting.
APPEAL ITEM APL24-0001:
An application submitted by David Moore requesting to overturn a decision of the Building
OffiCi@| to issue building permit for 8single-family home Ek319 N. Van BUFBD Street: alleging
that rOiDiDlUDl lot size, S8tb@Ch, building bulk and Ol8niDlUDl lot coverage reqUin8Dl8DtS of City
Code are not met and his sewer line runs underneath the proposed structure interfering with his
easement rights.
Baker noted hewould introduce this item but then would [eCUsehimself because this property
and applicant were involved in a prior application before this Board at which time he had a
conflict based on prior conversations and recused himself and to be entirely consistent with that
he is going to have to recuse himself on this issue as well and turn it over to the vice chair.
Svvyg8[dopened the public hearing and stated there will h88Dintroduction hythe secretary 1O
the Board regarding the administrative decision on appeal and the appellants grounds for the
appeal.
VV@|Sh noted that in C@S8S of [eCusa| the BD@Rj UfAdjustment bylaws do @|kovv staff to appoint
an alternate, SDErnie Cox iSgraciously joining the Board tonight. The Board also has 8O
independent legal counselor tonight iOrepresent the Board that being city OfNorth Liberty
attorney Grant Li8Dtzand due tOthis being @Dappeal Ofthe building official decision Walsh iG
only acting as the Board of Adjustment Secretary tonight.
Beginning with a |KUe bit Ofbackground VV8|Sh stated the building Offkci8| issued 8 building
Board of Adjustment
January 8.2O25
Page 2 of 22
Buren Street and then the City did receive QDappeal application iODecember 2024submitted
by Mr. Moore requesting to overturn a decision of the building official to issue a building permit
for @ single family home @L31H North Van Buren Street alleging that minimum lot size, S8L back,
building bulk and maximum lot coverage requirements of the City Code are not met and that a
sewer line runs underneath the proposed structure interfering with Mr. M0Dne'Seasement rights.
Walsh then turned the case over to the Board and resumed his role as secretary.
Swyg8rdrequested the appellant Orthe 8pp8||8nt'Srepresentative please come forward and
state the grounds Ofthe appeal.
Grew Geerdes stated heiS@lawyer iDIowa City and represents Mr. Moore. Gee[deSbeg@O
byhanding out documents h8had prepared for the Board. ||enoted the issues here can be
SUrODled Up into three or four different pnDb|8[DS, the first pnOb|eDl is the S8VVe[ |iD8 iSsU8.
second will beabout the setback issues and there's also @ parking issue.
Svvyg8[dinterjected that the sewer issue iSnot under the jurisdiction Dfthe Board.
C38erdesrespectfully disagrees and can explain briefly. Heshared @Oexcerpt from the City
Code, Title 14Ofthe zoning code, not iDthe building code, itstates what itiGthey are to
consider, what they can do and what they cannot do and it also states that if they have two
different code provisions that are iOconflict they are tDchoose the one that i9most restrictive iO
response tOthe specific question. GH8[d8Sstated that iDthe zoning code itstates itiSnot
intended i0interfere 0[abrogate any easements, covenants O[other agreements between the
parties and it is the appellant's view that the evidence is going to clearly show that this sewer
line has been there for over @ hundred years and underneath that code section he just cited the
Board is powerless tOtake action which interferes with those rights. ThenBf0[8' it is their
CODteOtiOO that the building official has violated that section by depriving K4[. K4OO[e of the
benefits of his sewer easement and by interfering with those rights therefore it is the building
0fUCi@|'S error in g[8DUDg the permit which interferes with the COOSt[U[tiOD which is one of the
grounds that they are appealing. The building official lacks the authority underneath the zoning
code to do what was done and that is one of the ne8sDOS why they are appealing, it's just 8
matter Ofapplying the code.
Geerdes shared a letter from the City with a photograph which shows the problem and noted
that Mr. Moore has lived @t425Davenport Street for more than 40years. G8HPdespointed out
where Mr. MOO[8'ssewer line goes through his property and then that itcrosses 319Van Buren
Street. Up until about 2017 or so there was a very small cottage on the far easterly portion of
318Van Buren Street and the sewer line went [Uthe west Ofthe structure and the small cottage
did not pose any threat tOthe existence O[the use Ofthat sewer line. The new structure that the
building official erroneously approved however has the foundation on ground that sits directly on
top Ofthe sewer line. Geerdes stated it is their contention that underneath the code section that
he cited itcertainly interferes with the existence Dfthat sewer line, itmay O[may not have been
broken iOconstruction, itmay O[may not have already been damaged, itmay well bedamaged
in the future and they may not be able to fix it because this line has been covered up by this
new house. It may well be a violation of the building code also but the zoning code which is the
code that this Board has full jurisdiction to implement and address this and it was simply an
error for the building official tOignore Mr. K4OO[e'Srights and tOinterfere with the use Ofthat
sewer line.
Board of Adjustment
January 8.2O25
Page 3 of 22
The second issue that Geerdes would like to bring to the Board's attention, with some
background information that is important, this is the third time that this property has been before
the Board UfAdjustment. GeendeSdistributed h3the Board those decisions, they were setback
violations that the building official approved erroneously, and this Board granted the appeal
overturn Ofthose decisions. G88rdeSwas involved iOthe last case which involved 8front
setback violation and this one now again involves the front setback violation and other
ViD|@UOOS. With regards [Othe front setback violation that they are concerned with, h8
highlighted that portion ODthe building p|8D. h8quotes section 14-213-4 (4), stating he agrees
that because of setback averaging 9'8" front setback meets the requirement the issue then
becomes what can be put into that setback that is legal as there are only limited types of things
that can intrude into 8setback. 14-2B-4shows where ramps can intrude into @ setback but only
byG'.that's the code, when they look @t the construction plans and the highlighted portion hG
shared, itiSnoted that their proposed ramp intrudes byA'8" Gee[deSacknowledged 8foot and
a half may not seem like much but in this case this is a house that is only 10' from the lot line,
it's 8fairly large house Rtabout 2100square feet proposed, and it's right Upt0the sidewalk.
G8e[deSrecalled the last time hewas here they were talking about @ proposed front step that
intruded too far into the front setback in violation of the code, and they have replaced that illegal
step with a ramp and unfortunately the ramp also intrudes into the setback.
The next violation Geerdes discussed was the side setback obligations and requirements for
[8OlpS. |Dthis case the ramp goes all the way tOthe lot line, and itintrudes the entire width Of
the side setback. GeendeSqUOted again 14-28-4vvhiCh states it must beset back 3' and
therefore the ramp violates the side setback F8QVi[8[D8Dts in addition k}front setback
[8qUiPeOl8DLS.
Regarding the side setback problem on the north side of the house Geerdes pointed out on the
site p|8D the window wells intrude into the north SOib3Ck by 3'. He stated property windows are
not p0[OOiU8d to intrude into side setbacks, again the list of things which can protrude into side
G8tb8ChG are listed in code 8g{tiOD 14-213-4 (4), he also wanted to note that bay windows are
specifically prohibited from being in the side S8|b8Ck VViDdOVY VVe||, he is UOSUrR if the VViDdOVV
shown on the site plan falls underneath the definition of a bay window or not but it is essentially
the same scenario and certainly is not allowed iDthe side setback.
The last issue is combination of parking and setback, Geerdes noted when looking at the site
plan again there is a parking stall towards the west end and on the south side of the property.
Underneath the code off street parking is subject to setback requirements which means that the
off street parking spot has to COrDp|y with the OOininOUnO 5' Side s8ib8Ch but the site plan ShOvVg
that there is no setback there.
GeePd8Sreiterated that the issue nfthe sewer line iS8very big deal, what are they goingtOdOif
the sewer line is disconnected, lost or broken, obviously it could be a tremendous expense to
get iLfixed. He stated he is concerned about some inconsistencies that the building official has
exhibited in this matter and has asked K4[ Frank Wagner who's @ |OC@| contractor to Sh@F8 what
his experience with this issue has been.
Geerdesalso wanted topoint out something that may ormay not affect this appeal so much as
it affects how they conduct the Board going forward and that's with the timing of this whole
matter. They filed their appeal on December 1 Oth and the City's stop work order wasn't issued
UDU| 10 days later and then after the stop work order was issued substantial VVO[k CODdDU8d OO
Board of Adjustment
January 8.2O25
Page 4 of 22
the property including the installation of the entire first floor complete with 'joist and tongue and
grove plywood sub -flooring and framing iDthe basement. The stop work order is there for 8
reason, to prevent illegal construction from going forward and to minimize the loss to the public
and tOthe builder. He certainly does not want there to be an argument that they've completed
the foundation and done all Ofthese things SOlet's just let it go, that's why it's @ mistake tOwait
so long in issuing stop work orders because if that had been promptly issued on the date of the
appeal things would be@whole lot different and would look Uwhole lot different than they dD
now.
Swyg@rd noted Geerdesshared 8lot of new material that they haven't had opportunity to look
at. Geerdes acknowledged that and stated maybe what makes sense is to defer their decision
until they've had 8chance k}come UptOspeed ODthings.
Russo stated there's lots tOconsider, they got their agenda package Friday and this iS8serious
and complicated, multifaceted issue. HBhasn't had 8chance k]digest much Ofthat let alone
this new material shared this evening, and now find out that itwas accelerated for some reason
3OheiSpersonally inclined tOask for more time.
Ge8ndGGhas DOobjection t0that because there i88Dissue about what the timing should have
been for this appeal and looking at the scheduling deadline if that deadline had been complied
with they would be doing this at next OlOOth'S meeting so this process was accelerated for
reasons hedoesn't know and protests.
Swygard stated that process is not under the control of the Board except to agree whether they
can meet or not again.
GeePd8S respectfullydisagrees VVithUlBtbeCaUSeUliSiStheCUv'sSCh8dU|iUgO[de[BDdd's
deadline, the appellant followed the schedule and filed their appeal OO [)eCe[ObB[ 10. 2024. by
the Board OfAdjustment deadline set out there that was k}b8heard OOthe February 12th
meeting, it was 8CC0|8[8ted and that's part of the re8SOD why they've not had 8 Ch8OCe to review
things and it's also part of the reason why he has been rushed in trying to get this dOne, it's hard
for everybody.
Carlson questioned why this came up now because the Board had been informed that there
would bgOOmeeting iOJanuary and then got @ notice from staff asking ifthey would be
available for this meeting. L8iDtz noted this issue was [@iSgd in @dv@OC8 of the Board's meeting
with respect to the timing and the calendar day and his interpretation of this body's rules for its
calendaring was that today is the proper date for this hearing based on the timing of the
application, the deadlines and the Board rules for when the calendar iSset. That iShis
interpretation of those rules which he informed Mr. G8e[d8S and Mr. K8DOr8 of which is that
today is the proper hearing and advises the Board with the same. Leintz also advised the Board
to take the full record into account and take time to issue the decision that they think is
appropriate. Hereiterated hBadvises them tOmake sure that they are considering all the
evidence and today is the correct day but they certainly have the right to continue these
proceedings later on if they want to, but they should plan on having a full meeting tonight. If
they run out of time they can schedule further deliberations at a future date.
Russo asked for explanation because McGeendes stated that the deadline for submittal was
Board of Adjustment
January 8.2O25
Page 5 of 22
December 1Oth so what proceduralrule dOthey have that allows that. Leintzexpl8iOed the City
ordinance says the Board adopts the rules as far a8when hearings are and the Board's rules
state they hear regular meetings on these days and if an application is submitted by certain day
of the month then the hearing is on the next scheduled day and his reading of that and his
advice k]the Board i8that today iSthe correct day. H8reiterated that i8the advice hegave b]
both parties 8Swell.
Russo noted a couple concerns, one was in the packet to prepare for this meeting there wasn't
any diSCUSSiDU of the DDtGOti@| viO|3tiODS 8nOUOd the [@[Op or the Side parking stall. L8iOtz
advised then it was not a matter that was properly raised in the appeal and the Board should not
probably consider it. If they receive new information they should air on the side of considering
evidence, he will not advise them to exclude evidence just because it might not be timely with
respect to the schedule and would encourage the Board to spend as much time as they can to
consider the elements iDfront Ofthem.
G8endeS respectfullyF8Sp0Dd8dthathHC8D'tDl8kHitGDy[DOnBCke@[UlSkSHtb8Ckh@S8|vvGyS
been an issue in this case, obviously the City knows about it because they're the ones who
prepared that slide and itmost clearly states setback. GeePdeSnoted they are starting tOget
into the 8@Dl8 p[0b|e0O that they've had in the |@St two appeals which is that the {|ity, in his
humble view, is somewhat obsessed with having too big of a house built on this very small lot.
L8iDtzSt8L8d tOMr. GeeFdeGthat's not the question before the Board tonight, the question i8
whether the building OffiCi8| e[FOF8d in issuing 8 building permit which is an administrative 8{t.
Gee[d9SCODUDued that the setback iSspecifically mentioned iDthe last two times they've had
similar violations C@US8d by the Qtv'G much too fast p|@DDiDg to move forward to get too big of
house built DDthis very small lot.
Frank Wagne stated he is a local residential contractor in Iowa City and was asked to speak on
@Oexperience hehad about 1Oyears ago DO8property, @ duplex @t1O9-11USummit Street.
The duplex sits on a hill on the south side of the lot and the clients wished to build a two car
garage i0the north Ofthe structure. When they applied for the building permit and supplied the
site plan they discovered that the sewer line went right through where the garage was going to
be placed. Wagner admitted he can't say with certainty whether the building plumbing inspector
at the time, Bernie [JSvv8|d, said it was not to COd8 to do s0 but he advised StFDDg|y against
placing the garage over the top Ofthe 10Oyear old sewer line and advised that itbemoved S0
that didn't go underneath the garage but circumvented the garage and then went under the
driveway which iSpermissible and then tie into the sewer line. Wagner noted the difference
here also would be when they then did that his clients paid for that work to be done and the
issue here tonight is not so much that it's the sewer line going under a structure, which might
not be to code and is definitely unadvisable, but that it should be moved and who pays for it.
Wagner believes itshould not be the homeowner because it's not his property and itiSthe
homeowner's responsibility tOmaintain sewer lines 8Slong @sit's ODthe homeowner's property
but the moment itgoes through there itbecomes the issue and the expense Ofthat person.
Russo believes the homeowner owns the sewer and the water line all the way out tOthe main
S0how does that not remain his responsibility. Wagner replied iiwould be8question whether
there's 8Oeasement going across another property. Russo stated with O[without 8Oeasement
Board of Adjustment
January 8.2O25
Page 6 of 22
Dave Moore (425D@V8Door wanted LOsay with this timing issue the rules clearly state J
they wanted tohehere today they would have had tomake their appeal before December 6th
and they ended up getting around to making the appeal on December 1 Oth which puts them into
the February meeting. HeiSnot hearing why they're here today rather than February when
there's posted OO|iD8 rU|8S that are C|e8[|y in the other direction and would love to hear from K8[
LeiDtz0[whoever has the answer why they're here today and why the rules were not adhered
Danielle Sitzman (Neighborhood and Development Services Coordinator) stated the information
that they provided as part of this application is what's been worked up and included in the
memos iOthe agenda packet and the supplemental memo iOagenda packet. /\ lot Ofwhat
they're hearing tonight iSnew information tOthe Board 8Swell @8k)her, S0she'll d0her best b]
answer questions, but her presentation tonight is primarily addressing what was presented in
the application.
SitzDl@Obegan tOreview the grounds Ofthe appeal that's provided bvthe appellant Mr. Moore
and his attorney Mr. Ge8Fdes. The first ground for appeal that she will address iSthe minimum
lot size setback, building bulk, and [D8Xi[OUOO lot coverage requirements which COOt8iO8d in 14-
2y-4table 2Athat she shared with the Board. The lot size for this zone, FlNS-12zone, states
lot size per UOiL is DliniOOU[D Of5.ODO square feet, and the site p|@O that was submitted with the
building permit application d[@VVD Up by the engineering firm provides a lot size Of2'842 square
feet. In 14-2Ar7 Special Provisions itstates since this property iS@ single family use and in the
RNS-12zone itis eligible to make use of single family density bonus options in the zoning code
and that would constrict the vehicular access tOgarages and off street parking spaces [OhB
from 8||8yS' then that @||0wS 8 nBdU{tiOO from 5.000 GqU8nB feet to 3'000 SqU8nB feet for lot size.
318North Van Buren iS@non-conforming lot SOthe provisions Ofsection 14-4E-7CRegulation
of Nonconforming Lots does apply tOthis lot and that states that in any zone in which single
family uses are permitted, 8 single family use with accessory structures may be established UO
any lot Of [8C0[d notwithstanding f8i|V[8 to 0G8t the rDiDi0UOl lot area [eqUi[80eDtS of the zone.
The subject property is zoned to 8||OVV single family USeS therefore in Spite of the failure to meet
the 0iDi0U0 lot area requirements Of 14-2A-4 table 2Athe establishment Of8 single-family use
ODthe lot iSpermitted. Moving OD1Dlot width, the site plan shows @ lot frontage Of35'74"and
because this iS@rectangular lot the rear opposite the frontage iGroughly the same. Again, per
the footnote 8 and the Single -Family [)eOSitv BOOUS Provisions for RN8-12 single family density
bonus options allow the minimum lot width to be reduced to 30' so because it's measuring 35'
it's well over that. The subject property iSzoned tOallow single family uses and iSagain going
to restrict vehicular access to the pPDpOS8d dVVe||iDQ from the alley and therefore the applicable
lot and width standards for the subject property Of3O'iSmet. Moving ODtOfrontage, 8S
[D8DUOD8d the site plan shows @frontage dimension OfJ5'74"'again the RNS-12zone and the
single-family density bonus options apply and that means the minimum lot width can be reduced
tD2O'SOthe subject property iSzoned appropriately. TOmake use Ofthis density bonus
vehicular access is going to be restricted to the B||8y and therefore the 8pp|iC8b|8 lot frontage
standard for the subject property is 20' and the standard of 25' is met even without the density
bODUS.
Sitzman next discussed setbacks, the front setback for the principal building is what's itemized
iDthe table and the lot does qualify for setback averaging and because Ofthat the calculated
average iS9'8~ The site plan again showing 8setback Of1O'SOitiSmeeting the required
setbacks, iDfact exceeding them. yWOViOg on to side S8tbGCkS' again the table shows the
Board of Adjustment
January 8.2O25
Page 7 of 22
required side setback of 5' and the site plan shows the dimensions for the north and south side
setbacks Of514"and 512",therefore the minimum side setbacks for the proposed building are
met. For rear setbacks again there's @ dimension Of@Lleast 2O'55"shown DOthe site plan and
they've also scale measured that drawing @tapproximately 25Q" The subject property is
|OCGt8d within the C8Dt[@| Planning District and has 8 lot depth Of8O'thus requiring @ 20` [8@[
setback and the site plan shows the rear setback again 8t25S".therefore the rear setback for
the proposed dwelling ismet.
Regarding building bulk, the maximum dimension requirement for this ordinance was recently
amended and 27'iSthe new required maximum height. The site plan notes the building height
Of24'1O"8Smeasured from the average grade for this particular type Ofroof type, therefore the
maximum height for the proposed dwelling iSmet.
Finally [DOViOg DOtOthe Dl8XiOlUnO lot coverage, the Site p|8O calculates that using di[DeOSiODS
provided bythe engineering firm, itdoes meet the 40%maximum GSit's 839.3%coverage and
therefore maximum lot coverage for the proposed building iSmet.
Non -conforming rights were also included in the @pp|iC8UOO. GO staff did address them as well.
ASmentioned earlier iDthis presentation Sitz08Oexplained they are talking about the non-
conforming section of the code pertaining to non -conforming lots and it specifically does state
that in any zone in which single family uses are permitted a single-family use and accessory
St[uC1UFHS may be established OD any lot ofrecord notwithstanding t8i|V[e to meet the nOiOiDluOO
lot area requirements Ofthe zone iDwhich the lot iSlocated. The subject property i8zoned to
@||OVV single family USBs therefore in Spite of the f8i|U[D to meet the DliDi[DUDl lot area the
establishment Of@single-family use ODthe lot i6permitted and not tied t0the previous structure.
Finally, the appellant has raised the issue Of@conflict with 8private sewer line and referenced
14-1 B-1 b and to the best of staffs knowledge there's been no legal proceeding to establish the
establishment of easement rights M[ K4OV[e C\8iDlS. R8gG[d|eSS it's not the [O|e of the Board Of
Adjustment to settle civil disputes between parties such as whether Mr. Moore possesses a
legal easement over the Maher property. |nany event the decision tOissue 8building permit tO
the K4@he[SdOeS nothing to offend |OVVG City code 14-1B-1bSOthe issuance Of@ building permit
over @ private sanitary service line easement iSnot @ violation Ofthe zoning code and thus the
Board OfAdjustment does not have the jurisdiction over the easement issue. Appeals over the
building code issues do go to a separate body, they go to the Board of Appeals and Mr. Moore
has filed eseparate appeal tothat Board.
TO address the other issues raised, Sitzm@n St818d in regard tDthe window well projection staff
would interpret those window wells aSfire escapes since they are being provided @s eg[gSS
escape windows for basement habitation as required by fire egress requirements and the code
does allow projections 0fthOSe kinds Dfstructures into the side setback. Staff would not have
an iSSU8 in iOi8[p[8tiOg that those window wells meet the COd8 requirements for allowable side
projections. In regard to the handicap [a[Dp. that's again 8 new iSSU8 staff iS hearing for the first
time tonight but there are processes to allow those kinds of structures to project0[tOeOCnJ8Ch
into setbacks, specifically handicap ramps, and there's an administrative process where those
can begranted SD@handicap ramp iSnot typically 8large conflict and the City wants tO
encourage ADA access and has adopted specific universal design and accessibility standards
under 2building code [Oensure that houses are built SOthat they can beaccessible tOall.
Board of Adjustment
January 8.2O25
Page 8 of 22
To address the question about when the stop work order was issued and why work was allowed
to CODtiDUe after certain pointODQe this proceeding started SitzDl8O stated there is wording in
the code that says it's meant to stop work immediately UO|eSS it's unsafe to stop work
immediately so the determination was made that simply ceasing construction at the exact
moment iDtime that the application was received would not b8safe for the public 8Sthere were
open holes iDthe ground that would have been dangerous and filling them iOtQ8certain point
made more sense and was better for the safety Ofthe community. GiLzDl@Odid confirm that Mr.
Moore did give staff his appeal ODDecember 1Om'construction 8Othis project CDU|dh@v8
started immediately after issuance Ofthe building permit ODNovember 22Odand between
November 22Odand December 10Lhthere was OOconcern about @Oappeal.
Russo noted one of the issues iOfront of the Board is whether or not they have jurisdiction over
this issue of the easement and Sdzm@Ohas stated they dOO�|Sthat 8legal opinion 0isthat
staff's conclusion.
Eric Goers (City Attorney for the city of Iowa City) stated staff consulted with the City Attorney's
office to determine whether or not this was an issue that's appropriate for this Board as opposed
to the Board of Appeals, which will be hearing this a week from tonight, and the conclusion was
that no that's a building code issue not a zoning code issue and there is a forum for that appeal,
they've taken advantage Ofthat and that's next week. |OSOfar @Sthe easement iSconcerned iO
any event there's been usually prescriptive easements which need either something iDwriting tU
establish 2Deasement O[@judge's order, one cannot just claim itotherwise people could be
C|8irDiOg R@s8Dl8DtS all over the D|8C8. GO8[S stated it is his ODiDiOO that's Q [8d herring in BO t8[
as this Board is concerned, it's maybe an issue for the Board of Appeals but not for this Board
until they receive evidence from the applicant that they have clearly established 8prescriptive
easement across the property of319Van Buren it's 8nOn-iSSu8.
Carlson noted the lawyer brought Upunder 14-1Bhe said when regulations are equally specific
or when it is unclear which [8gU|akiOD to apply, USG the more [8StriCbv8 provision. She is
unclear which [8gU|@tiOOS apply. L8iOLz8xp|8iDed the E]O8[d`S jurisdiction is they are created by
the zoning code and live iOthe zoning code SOtheir jurisdiction iSgenerally limited tOviolations
of the zoning code. This Board iSnot intended t0abrogate the rights 0[interfere with any
easements, covenants 0[other agreements between the parties. However, iOissuing 3building
permit itcannot interfere with anyone e|Se'Sright SOgiving permission 1Obuild @ house, if
building that house substantially interferes with someone e|Se'Seasement rights the issuance Of
8building permit does not delete O[infringe UOtheir easement rights. But again, this iSnot the
body tDenforce easement rights. This Board iSlimited [0respect with the setbacks and other
provisions iDthe zoning code.
Russo asked for clarification about the density bonus. SitzmaOexplained RNG-12is a single-
family zoning district SO GU of the primary di[DeDSk>D8| St8Dd@ndS and regulations that apply to it
are coming from one specific chapter Ofthe code, and in that specific chapter there are the base
requirements and then there's @Dadditional bonus 0[exception tOthings ifother criteria are
met. For example, if they have vehicular 8OCeSS limited to the alley then they don't have to
follow just the base standards they can make use of the additional flexibility of the bonus. The
table she showed has the minimum requirements however there iSadditional flexibility iDthe
code specific to very specific situations and if they meet those prerequisites of being in the right
zoning district, having the right kind of structure, and/or the right kind of access then they can
make use Ofthose reduced dimensions.
Board of Adjustment
January 8.2O25
Page 9 of 22
Cox asked about the parking stall and ifthe code regulates required parking iDthat area.
SitzDl8O stated itmay simply be @ OOD-[eOUi[ed pGddOg St8U in which case it wouldn't have as
many restrictions on it, they have sufficient parking somewhere else and that's just a paved
area. She does not have the specific code references readily available regarding required
parking for this specific structure however when they reviewed this permit it meant the required
parking and itdoes meet the required parking itneeds tOb88sparking depends OOthe
occupancy. The garage iS@two-car garage SUthere's definitely parking iOthe garage and
maybe this pad iSthe third space, but parking has not been 8concern iDthe review Ofthis and it
was 8 new issue brought Up tonight.
Goers reiterated that neither tonight DOrkeadiOgUphDLOOi hth@Sthe[ebeeD8Dy@Ueg@tk]OS
that this property does not have enough parking.
Russo stated the DliDiOOU0O lot COVe[8Qe meets the standard by 0.7%. if that is t[8OS|8hed into
square feet how certain are they it still meets the standard, was this property surveyed. SitzrD@O
stated these estimates are based on the drawings that were provided with the building permit by
an architect and an engineer so that's their liability to ensure they're doing that right and they
rely on surveyors to draw those up and staff trusts that those third parties who are licensed in
the state 0fIowa are providing 8CCU[@t8 iDfO[Dl@1i0D.
Russo noted iOone Ofthese clauses she used the word approximately. Gitznl@Ostated ifthis
boils down tDsquare inches using the word approximately iSbecause they were measuring @
scale drawing rather than sending itback tOthe engineer and they did @Dapproximation
because they were already sure itwas beyond the requirement.
Carlson questioned the side setback requirement and that SitzOl@Dsaid the window wells ODthe
north side, although they impede upon the side setback, are acceptable because they are for
fire egress. SitzDl8D stated She VVOU|d interpret that b] be part of dimensional requirements for
this zoning district and 14-2A-4b has allowed projections as part Ofbuilding f88tU[eS permitted
within nBqUiPBd setback areas and 14-4/\-4Ct8|kS about fire eSC8pCS and states fire eSC8p8g can
extend into any setback provided they do not extend more than 3' into any side setback. She
feels like this iS@fire escape apparatus for Gsubterranean unit and the described window well
is most |ik8|V 8 fire escape projection under the building features permitted within those required
setback areas.
Carlson asked about the extra parking space. She stated there has k}be@certain amount Of
space for that parking stall, right now they're using part of the setback and if they cannot use
part of the setback then they have to move it farther north and they could still have it. 8iLzrn@n
will review it again to see but if there was some reason that they weren't in compliance with the
code they may very well have room [Omove it, she will also have iOlook 8topen space
requirements because they have to keep some of their rear yard open as open space.
Matt Adam (attorney, Simmons Perrine Moyer Bergman) represents the homeowners Rob and
Jamie Maher and iSpresent tOspeak iOopposition Dfthis appeal. First, regarding the timing
issue that seemed to pop up, this permit was issued November 22nd and Mr. Moore appealed
this OODecember 1Om 'th@[iS8ChtiC8|d8tebeC8UGethed88d|iD8b}U|88O8pp88|iS2Od@y3
which means itwould have expired DODecember 12 m (]ODecember 1OmMr. Moore submitted
his appeal and got Gmemo from staff stating that the appeal iSinadequate @Shehas tOlist the
grounds for the appeal and they weren't going iDconsider the appeal until hedid so. In the
Board of Adjustment
January 8.2O25
Page 10 of 22
Board's agenda packet they will find @Demail that was sent bvattorney Ge8[d88OODecember
13thpresumably supplementing his appeal and setting forth the grounds. That iscritical
because any grounds for appeal after that date cannot beheard bythis Board itwould have
been untimely and @Oinvalid appeal. Adam stated itistheir position that the December 13th
email are the grounds for which they are basing the appeal, there was 8lot Oftalk about side
setbacks, window wells, ramps, a parking spot yet none of that appears in the packet in that
email. In fact City staff was quite confused about these new grounds for appeal because they
did not address any Ofthat iOtheir staff report that they laid out for the Board, but they've done 8
great job going on the fly and addressing those issues and what is clear is that even ifthose
issues were in the appeal the building permit issued would still be valid. Window wells don't
count, the parking space specifically iSnot required because there's two parking spots iOtheir
garage, and the ramp would have been granted 8Swell. Therefore, itiShis position those
issues should not be in consideration on this Board because those issues were not raised in a
timely manner but even if they were raised the application is still good and the building permit is
still good when focusing on the zoning code which is what this body is here to determine. Staff
vv8Ot to great lengths in their packet to provide 8 StnDDg outline 0fexactly why this building
OfhCi8| did their job correctly. Adam would reiterate everything that Ms. @itzOl8O said and to
even forget the prDCedU[8| stuff about timing, which is i[OpOd8Ot. but substantively this permit is
SU|| good and O0eHtS all the zoning [8qUi[8[D8OtS. Adam stated his clients worked diligently with
City staff tOmake this project CO0Op|yVViththe zoning code, they spent hours planning, designing
and working with staff to get this building permit so they would ask that this Board honor the
permit and find that itiGiOfact iDcompliance with the zoning code.
Adam also wanted to address the s0VVe[ isSU8. K4[ LieDtz is correct that the Board does not
have jurisdiction over that particular issue, Mr. GeBRjeSand Mr. Moore are working under the
assumed belief that an easement exists but it doesn't, Adam stated he personally reviewed the
abstract of title to this lot and there's OD easement in there for @ S8VV8[. There is not an
easement so they are wrongly assuming and trying to conflict the issue by claiming they have a
sewer easement, this iSnot Gpublic line, this iS8private line and iOtheory they could cap it but
don't p|8D to do that. His clients tried working with K4[. Moore tOfigure this out once it became
known to them, they've been very accommodating and tried to work out and maybe relocate it.
However, the real legal opinion is that itdoesn't matter, they can build structures over sewer
lines and there's nothing stopping that, this iS@hypothetical issue when they say what ifthere's
8problem and they have iOfix their sewer, well that's 8private matter between two property
owners and has nothing tOdOwith this Board. Incidentally they've already put the foundation iO
the house because that was done before the stop work order was put in and it did not impact
the sewer, he can still flush his toilet, run his drains and everything so there's no problem there.
Adam is asking this Board to put aside that red herring and not consider it but even SOthey can
rest assured knowing this iS@DUD-iSSUe.
Adam circled back to the timing argument, Mr. Geerdes provided a lot of information tonight and
some Dfthe Board iSconcerned that you didn't have @Oopportunity b}review, and itiSAdam's
opinion that was Mr. G8end8spoint and wanted @ reason [Odefer these proceedings. Had Mr.
Geerdes wanted the Board to have all this information he could have presented it before the
appeal deadline, but hedidD'[.hechose not tOSOh8waived his rights. All Ofthese things he
could have provided iDthe time deadline tOappeal and hRdidn't dDitSOhecould now come
and bombard you with this new information and ask for a delay, it's simply an attempt to further
delay Adam's client's project 8ndCOStthem0OremDn9yvvh9nthHy'veCO0p|i9dvvi[h2||thG
rules and that's not something this Board should support and he asks this Board not to support
Board of Adjustment
January 8.2O25
Page 11 of 22
that kind Dfbehavior. They had time tOprovide this information, the Board was provided @
packet OOFriday, the same 8Sbefore any other meeting, and time k}digest itand ithad 8lot 0f
good information about all the reasons why the Board should deny this appeal and they are
asking that the Board dOso.
Cox asked when did the clients purchase this lot. Adam replied November 15.2O24.
Carlson asked about the wheelchair ramp, talked about all the things that Mr. Ge8[d8S
has brought up except for that so she would like to know his thoughts on that on the wheelchair
ramp inthe front Ofthe house. Adam replied hewould have tOdefer k)staff and Ms. SitzDl8O
OO that. He will however use this as an opportunity to reiterate his earlier point that issue is
untimely and should not b8considered, ifMr. G8endGSwould have raised itiO8timely manner
when he appealed City staff would have that answer in their packet just like they have all the
other answers, so he would argue that should be a non -issue for this Board. Adam stated the
purpose Offiling @Dappeal iSt0put everybody 0Dnotice Ofwhat they are claiming, tOput City
staff on notice and to put opposing clients on notice so they can prepare for these hearings,
neither were properly notified that they were challenging a ramp or a window well or an extra
parking spot outside the building, they had no idea of any of those things so it's a bit unfair to
have to defend positions that they just found out about an hour ago. This is not fair to him or his
clients to have to address those issues, they are untimely and the appellant didn't raise them
but Adam would certainly allow and want Ms. Sitzman to answer that question because as he
understands itwould have been allowed had they known about itbecause it's @OA[>Aramp.
Cox asked if the application for the permit include any modification request to permit such as a
minor modification which iS8separate application. SitzDl@Dreplied no, they had not received @
minor modification application for this property, this permit was granted without any changes.
LeiOtz noted this is an appeal and they are restricted tOwhat they can pFeSeO[' generally
speaking this iSnot a court of law this is a quasi-judicial entity and so the rules for evidence and
such are somewhat relaxed nevertheless the arguments about traditional fairness apply and the
Board is certainly 8||Ovv8d to disregard things that were submitted untimely. He is going to stop
short of encouraging them to do so and would listen to the arguments from the parties. With
respect tOwhether they should Orshould not consider arguments that were submitted before the
Board and not included iDthe packet, the answer iSgenerally they are limited tOthe arguments
raised iOthe appeal application, but the Board does have some discretion. Hgnoted it's easier
ifthe parties were LOall agree for example and say they all need more time tOaddress these
matters, then he might suggest the Board consider doing that but when one party has asked for
more time but the City has not yet indicated whether they are interested in that and the property
DVVOerS are objecting, that's within the Board's discretion. All things being equal he would weigh
the evidence that they have available tOthem and ifthey feel they can make @Oappropriate
decision based 0nthe evidence they have.
Russo noted because under the City's synopsis alleging that minimum lot size, setbacks,
building bulk and maximum lot coverage requirements are met, isn't the appellants questions OD
window wells, ramps and parking included in that. LHintz: stated the CODC8p[ of notice
pleading is to give the other party an idea of what the person is going to be complaining about
specifically and then that needs to be flushed out with more detail before the night of the show,
giving the other party sufficient information to be able to respond is an essential element of due
process and having fair proceedings.
Board of Adjustment
January 8.2O25
Page 12 of 22
LeintziSnot aware of case law that says they can't consider evidence that's
presented right now, but the principle is that generally they are 8UOVVed to disregard untimely
evidence. They do not have to, but when they make their findings tonight, whatever findings
they go with, they need to be able to state effectively and clearly all the reasons for the decision.
Russo said then Ubecomes @ fact then about appeal dates. L8intzdisagreed and iSnot
advising the filing date has anything to do with this, the question is does this building permit
violate the zoning code and the zoning code specifically with respect t0lot size, setbacks,
building bulk, maximum lot coverage and leave off the part about the sewer line, those are the
questions that are properly before the Board. |fthe Board wants iOalso consider, and the City
doesn't object, additional details that are being offered in support of those tonight, but other
arguments about whether someone had @ bad experience DOanother project O[vvh8the[
previous owners had difficulty with this property or the motivations of the City staff, unless
absent evidence that is not really relevant to what's here tonight. Was the City right or wrong in
issuing the permit and the Board will need to identify the specific code provision that they got
wrong ifthat iSthe answer.
Adam stated he VVOUN also like to state the burden Ofproof iS on the 8ppe||8[d to show that the
City 0ffiCi@| got it wrong, it's not on his client to prove that they got it right, @0lOUgh he believes
they did get itright.
Doug Fisher stated he is a lifelong resident of Iowa City and has been in the water and sewer
business siOC81983and iShere h]talk about the sewer, not about the setbacks O[any Ofthe
other items. Fisher believes 8lot Ofquestions could have been solved ifthis sewer was
C80O8[@edand located long before any it got this far, before they build over it. Regarding the
integrity of the S8vv8[' they kO0vv it's clay, it's probably two foot sections, C|@y itself is 8 brilliant
product for sewer but the dOVYOf8|| is there's 8 joint every two foot that lets in nDDLS that Shift. let
out water and things get muddy and start going VV8ChO. Fisher stated he met with yW[. Moore the
day he dropped off his little excavator Upthere tOstart doing some exploratory digs tOtry t0find
the existing sewer to the house that they tore down, to see if it was a viable sewer tDhook this
new house up to, had nothing to do with Mr. Moore's sewer, but he and Fisher got into quite a
little discussion when Mr. Moore learned where the house was going and they talked about the
house running over his sewer line. Fisher suggested ifthey were unsure Ofwhere the sewer
line went they could look 8Litwith 3camera, it's 8$3OO-$4OOprice tag option tOlook @titand if
it's any question at all before they start building they should dig across that lot to replace it with
PVC and put it in right with gravel bedding and pack the ditch back up and they can build a
skyscraper over the top of it because that sewer is going to last another hundred years if put in
right. What that also would have done is that sewer line would have been running straight,
assuming it runs straight and everybody believes that it runs straight but again they don't know
because nobody spent $3OOO[$4OOtOlook 8tit, and lay iiout ODthe ground. |fitdoes get
replaced and it in fact runs under that building and needs moved and they start getting into a
bunch Ofelbows and bends tOdivert out and the City code only allows three bends for @ total Vf
1350b8fOne they have tOput iDd8aDOutSthat come clear t0the surface and then they get iDthe
way, they get broke and it's just not 8good deal. Again, the ideal time would have been tOdDit
before construction started and to put it in straight and it would have been bulletproof for long
past our lives. Fisher also wanted to say he was there after the foundation was dug when the
basement was put in and the garage footings were dug out and he's been in business long
enough to know that if 100 years ago if that sewer was put in there they're going to see
evidence of mixed up dirt between the clay and the dark soils when the ditch is back in when it's
Board of Adjustment
January 8.2O25
Page 13 of 22
wide open like that and h8could almost say rightdl8neiSVVh8[eUl81SeVVe[|iO8isb8C@UseOf
the SOi|S, he looked at it and 88VV DO evidence that there's d ditch [UDDiDg 8C[OSS in that spot
through the garage area which is where everybody is just assuming it runs through, again
nobody's located itfor $30UO[$4OOand all this stuff about the sewer may be8moot point ifii
doesn't run under that garage. Fisher noted itwas mentioned earlier about who iSresponsible
for the sewer and M[ RUGGO hit on it that the hO[DeOvvD8r is responsible Up to and including the
connection to the City services, which in this case is the main in the center of the alley, and at
OOtime does anybody else take responsibility for paying for anything. Even ifthey had 8O
easement for that property the homeowner is still responsible for the maintenance and the
repair of anything that has to do with his sewer, no matter where it [UDS, eV8O if as SDOD as it
leaves his property and itgoes UOtOsomebody e|8e'sproperty. Fisher has been iDbusiness
for a long time and the homeowners always had to pay the cost no matter where it is. F[8Dh
Wagner was talking about 8 job OO 8UOlOOit and Washington, Fisher actually did that job for
Wagner 10. 12Dr 14ye8rS ago and he's right, he did move the sewer because the addition he
was putting on that house did go over the existing sewer that was to that house. What he's
forgetting is the new addition was lowered down so the footings would have been into the sewer
because there was 8 driveway elevation issUe, in fact if one were to drive by that house today
part Ofthe driveway iSstill way too steep and itshould have been lower. But they replaced the
sewer and went outside Vfthe footprint because itwas easy tOdOand itallowed the house to
stay running while they ran the new sewer and didn't have to take them offline. They put iOthe
new sewer and new water service @tthe same time sOwhether hehad tDdOitbecause Ofthe
addition o[iDthis case ithad tObe done because the elevation was down into the sewer, there
was DOother way tOdOit. Fisher just wanted tOclarify what Mr. Wagner was talking about. But
@g8iD. Fisher just wants tO bring back iOthe forefront that nobody's located the SeVVe[. nobody's
looked with @ C@[De[8 to see hVVV bad it is, Mr. Moore did t8|| Fisher he has had problems with
the sewer, he said once or twice a year he has to have it cleaned out with a rooter thing
because Ofroots, more evidence that itshould b8replaced, 8|least underneath that part Ofthe
property.
Jamie Maher (31QNorth Van Buren) stated her and her husband Rob are the new owners Of
319 North Van Buren Street, they bought this lot because honestly they had this dream of being
in dOvvOtOvvO |0vv@ City and |OOhed for long time for different properties and different |0{S and
when they saw this lot they looked at it and it was a unique lot but kept going back to it and
loved the |OCG[iDO of this lot. She kept dragging her p@[eDLS' her husband, everybody She kO8VV
back to this lot to show them how great it is and that it's right downtown Iowa City. Maher stated
they worked diligently for a long time and they knew the history of this lot and knew that it had
multiple appeals filed against it because it appeared to them that nobody wanted a house on
this lot. But the City said it was @ buildable lot, it was SO|d 88 @ buildable lot, 8O She and her
husband worked diligently and even before they purchased the lot they went to the City and
actually met with Danielle Sitz0@O8tone point and went through the code. Maher believes she
knows more about the Iowa City code than she ever wanted tDknow, she has nightmares about
the City code when she sleeps 8tnight because every time they went through 8code she was
just told D0p8'that doesn't meet zoning requirements, and then they'd try itagain and D0p8that
doesn't meet zoning requirements, finally after 8 couple of months of working OD this Ven/
diligently, spending hours, spending days, spending weekends, her kids, her husband, anybody
that knows them can confirm they put the time iDtOmake sure that they meet every single
zoning and building code tOthis lot. They put their hearts and souls into this and did not want tO
do anything to hurt the Moore family and even approached them to discuss any concerns, went
and introduced themselves to be neighborly, she even gave them a hug when she walked out of
Board of Adjustment
January 8.2O25
Page 14 of 22
their house and made 8comment that when all done with this she could bring them
cookies and they could be neighbors. She didn't think they'd hestanding here arguing about
this, they got their building permit and went and got the foundation in the ground. Maher noted
again that they worked on this a long time before they purchased the lot so they had spent
literally 8couple 0fmonths working through the code and putting Ghouse plan together 8Oeven
though they bought the lot ODNovember 15 mthey had been working OOthe plan well before that
iOmake sure that itmet zoning requirements 8Owhen they approved i[OONovember 22Odthey
were ready t8g8and had the contractors ready kJgObecause they were OD8timeline for
getting 8foundation iDthe ground before winter. Mr. Moore told them that h8would have 1O
stop their project 8DdSheqUeStiDOedVVhy@SLheyh@ddOOeOVe[yLhiO0'h8d0e[BVerySing|e
rule they needed to meet, worked hard and if there was something wrong they were willing to try
and help fix it, they didn't want to do anything wrong and the City didn't view them as having
anything wrong SDthey just continued tDmove forward. Maher iShere tOask the Board today,
they have heard the City, and from their attorney and she thinks the opposing side effDdS
tonight are a last ditch effort and they threw things out at everyone but she is telling the Board
that they did everything they had to meet code and all they want to do is build a house in Iowa
City. She is 8shiDQ tonight for the Board to [U|e in f8VO[ of that building permit as it will do
nothing but help the city of |OVV8 City, it will do nothing but help that neighborhood, SO[Oe1hiDg
needs t0bebuilt there 8Sit's @ vacant lot that was housing trucks and garbage, they're planning
to put Up 8 be3UbfU| home and they did it the right way. The City was 8CCU[8te in issuing 8
building permit and they just want tD continue building.
Swyg8rd asked ifCity staff was ready with any new information regarding the window wells and
the ramp.
SitzrD8Dshared what she found regarding the location Ofthe easement and pointedout since
their eXhibit'Sbeen used 8couple times, the letter that went out showing the sewer line iS8D
approximated guess and she wanted to point out they haven't used a camera to scope that line
So they don't know the exact alignment but they d0know that there are two points and they
have to connect somewhere so somewhere along the alley is a point where they know the
manholes are and that there are connections to City service and they know it's coming from the
hOUSH. All they know iGthere are two points, they don't know ifthe line iS@straight line O[ifthe
line zigzags, that's unknown information and she didn't want tOmisinterpret that drawing and
that letter that was sent out. The Board has heard @ couple times it's not established where the
sewer easement actually runs and she just want to make sure everyone is understanding that
map. Regarding the question about parking, parking standards are set by zoning districts and
by use so for this particular use, which is a single family detached home in RNS-1 2, for a
dwelling unit with three or more bedrooms (and this is proposed to be a three -bedroom home)
two parking spaces are required plus one addition additional parking space for each adult
occupant beyond three occupants. Therefore, itreally depends DOthe number Ofoccupants in
this dwelling, but the minimum requirement is two and they have two parking spaces intheir
garage. That section Dfthe code iSregarding minimum parking requirements, iionly requires @
minimum amount of parking, if someone were to provide excess parking those standards don't
necessarily apply, they're just ensuring that there's 8minimum amount Ofproperly sized
parking. Therefore, for a three -bedroom home they are required to provide two parking spaces
plus one additional parking space for each adult occupant beyond three. The exhibit provided
tonight mentioned a 5' setback requirement and that's for principal structures, the 5' side yard
setback is for the house it's not for the parking stall, so whether it's in or not in that side yard
setback doesn't really matter and itmay not even b8@required parking stall and can belooked
Board of Adjustment
January 8.2O25
Page 15 of 22
Et8Sonly 8paved area. They are allowed tDput 8car ODitonly if it meets 8certain dimension
Df9' by 18'VVhiCh is the required size for 8 parking stall. Sitz08D noted from the aerial view of
this alley, that alley is just paved right at the entire alley so that makes sense therefore staff
does not have @Oissue with parking.
Sitzman noted again the review tonight is of City standards and the words for the stay of
proceedings having to do with safety are straight out of the S8CtOD pertaining to the Board
Gregg Geerdes stated hemade @ lot Ofdifferent notes during others testimony but Mr. Adam
talked about the appeal deadline 8Sbeing 2Odays, Ge8KJ8Sstated that's incorrect and h8
would refer the Board to their own procedural rules which they have adapted and are on the
VVebSite. The procedural rules say that the appeal must b8filed within 3Odays, the building
permit was issued November 2Oand the appeal was filed OODecember 1Om 'SOVVeUVVithiOth8
3Ddays and itwas immediately supplemented when City staff wanted more information. The
email from City staff was sent OnDecember 13thSOthey still had 8week tUgObefore their
deadline expired. Second, regarding the late submittal, again it's interesting that they received
more information from the City this morning and the City somehow is offended when they give
them iDfO[DlGb0D today, but again the Board's OvvO p[0C8dUr@| rules contemplate the way this
was handled. Specifically, section 6 discusses briefs, which what Geerdes gave to the Board is
8 brief which is 8 |eQ@| written diSCUS8iDO Of points, the Board may request written briefs for legal
argument, applicants may submit written briefs if they so choose, which they did, and there's no
deadline for filing that brief. |Dfact, hearings are where evidence iBpresented and when they
give the specifics. Again, setback has always been @Dissue iDthis case and it's unfortunate
that the opponents want tUhang this matter UpOD8procedural issue even though the appellant
has met all deadlines by@tleast Gweek. GeerdeSalso noted they are opponents, maybe
friendly opponents but opponents, and their interpretation of the code is not binding on them
and his interpretation of the code is not binding OO them or OO the Board, it's Up to the Board to
decide and get tOb8judges. |tisUpt0the Board tOread the code and decide what the code
means and that's what they're asking them tOdo. Again the front setback issue iSnight and
day, it's interesting that they say well if they had followed the process and gotten the minor
review they probably would have approved it, that process is exactly what happened the first
time this matter was subject tO8Board OfAppeal several years ago they went through that
process and the Board of Adjustments said no to the minor adjustment because in that case the
pnDb|eDl was self-inflicted that they're building too big of property on that lot. G8e[dgS stated
that's what's going ODagain here too.
Cox stated this permit had no adjustments so it's not the same as the previous case M[
G88nd8SiSreferencing, they are subject tDthe code but hei8citing @case that had @n
application for 8Oadjustment and this one does not include that.
Geerdles acknowledged that was correct and what happened is the City in that previous case
several years ago had 8Dinternal review process and they approved the setback reduction and
the Board OfAdjustment said no. There iS8process for them b}gOthrough but that's not 8
surefire thing and there are |inli1@tiODs and there are rights and there's 8 hearing procedure that
hasn't been done. With regards to Mr. RUSSO'SqUeStiOD about jU[iSdiCU0O, the zoning C0d8 is
not 8smorgasbord where they can pick and choose what they want, the zoning code iSthe
zoning code and things are there for a purpose and again the authors of this zoning code put
pFOviSiODS in there 8Sfar 8S |inlitGUDDS OO the rights of other parties. For this particular case
Board of Adjustment
January 8, 2025
Page 16 of 22
underneath the code language it states that private agreements are not meant to be interfered
with by this zoning and they've got this sewer line that runs across the property that doesn't
need an easement underneath the code, they just need an agreement and can argue about
whether or not there is a legal prescriptive easement or not. Is there an agreement, well
certainly there's been an agreement as that line has been there for 30 years at least because
Mr. Moore has lived there 30 or 40 years and the house is probably 100 years old, so that sewer
line obviously was put in with the agreement of everybody involved. Geerdes noted when they
compare the site plan with the size of the building it has to cross that sewer line because the
building is just too big, extends too far to the west, and it crosses the line. Yes, they would like
to do something about it and have a different opinion about the good faith efforts that have been
made to try to rectify this situation. Mr. Moore is going to tell about the cops being called on him
and him getting served with a no trespass order when he was trying to have a discussion about
this and of course nobody wants to stand the financial consequences of any of these things.
Regarding the window wells, the City says that the window wells that protrude on the north side
are fire escapes, when Geerdes was reading the code he saw that and thought no that's not a
fire escape as defined, so Geerdes went down to the public library and copied the definition of
fire escape and what Webster's Third New International Dictionary says is that a fire escape is a
device for facilitating escape from a burning building as a stairway, usually of steel attached to
the outside of a building, or a wheel extension ladder. Geerdes doesn't know about the wheels
extension ladder being a fire escape but apparently it is to them, but this isn't what fire escapes
are. Looking at the Midwest One Bank building you see a fire escape and you can see them all
over town, they are just as what is said here a steel stairway attached to the outside of a
building. That doesn't comply or comport with a window well. The City said it was okay to
frame out the basement and to put the floor joist in and lay down the subfloor because that's
necessary for public safety but when he drives around town he sees some steel fence posts get
driven in around the site and the orange snow fence material gets put up and that's where the
building stops until the appeal is resolved. The City talks about the parking issue, again that's
something that one has to read the code for and it says off street parking spaces are subject to
the location and setback requirements specified in the base zone. They know that the side
setback is 5' and they know that this parking spot doesn't meet that 5' setback requirement.
They're trying to say that they don't need it, if they don't need it obviously they're limited on how
many adults can occupy that structure and Geerdes submits that if they didn't need it they
wouldn't have shown it on the plan but if it's shown on the plan everyone should expect what's
shown on the plan complies with zoning code and as shown on the plan it does not meet
setback requirements. The same of course can be said of the front setback obligations, they've
simply not been complied with as the ramp does not meet zoning codes. The City doesn't deny
that they just say if they were pushed on it they'd approve it but they can't just approve, they've
got obligations and requirements, it's not a unilateral decision that they can make. Again, if it's
shown on the plan it needs to meet zoning code and without applying for a minor modification it
certainly does not. Again, there is the process in the procedural rules and the appellant has
followed them and met the obligations, they've given the Board clearcut documentation of proof.
This is stuff that comes from their plans and as Geerdes noted in his brief, there is a letter
showing the current owners knew about the sewer problem since at least October 8th so it's
unfortunate that they didn't make the effort to try to work out this situation rather than give the
ultimatums and no compromises.
Dave Moore (425 Davenport Street) wanted to point out that there's been an implication that
they're trying to rush things here with some paperwork that was passed out but they got an
email yesterday from Parker Walsh that it was okay to pass out paperwork at the meeting.
Board of Adjustment
January 8.2O25
Page 17 of 22
Regarding rushing this whole affair part Dfbisthat rules are rules and that these scheduling
rules state this meeting should have been iDFebruary. The number Ofdays between December
2Dihand today iSlike 18days and ifyou take out all the weekends and Christmas and
Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve and New Year's Day they end up with about 10 to 14 days
to prepare. That iSwhy they feel rushed. For them tOwait until December 1Oth[Ofile the
appeal, well that was the day excavation started and henoticed they actually are doing this S0
they got together and filed knowing that date puts them into February and would have some
time. As far as a stop work order goes he has photos that are dated that the orange sign that
m
says the stop vv0rkorder begins December 18 . OD Oe08Dlb8r 1GKhthey did not just put some
sheathing on top of the foundation, on December 19th they framed in the rooms in the
basement which has nothing to do with public safety, that was one day after the stop work order
was issued. Moore has aphoto Ofrooms that were framed and Dnthat shows the day before
the 18th rooms were not framed, SOthat was just plain violated. K8OO[8 noted when he and Mr.
Fisher had their amiable CODVe[S8UOO Moore stated this whole thing is CO0iDQ fast and he iO|d
M[. Fisher about the 8vHDtS in his life that were [88||y crazy for the next four or five days. The
date when Moore and Mr. Fisher talked was the 2Om and excavation started around the fourth Or
fifth. Moore wanted to note is that pretty much everything he's heard from a common sense
point of view, every COOt[8CiO[ he's L8|k8d to, every F88|tD[ he's talked to, their first [88CtiOO is
"yOUgDt[VbekiddiOg0e,th@tG8vv8rh8Gb8GOtherehJr81OOye@rG@OdyOUgOtSO08thiOg
called a prescriptive easement", they can't believe a permit was extended over that sewer line,
that's just COmO[DOO sense thing. RO8||y' Moore wanted to respond to what K8[S. Maher said
that they tried to vvO[k with them. yN[S. Maher and her father-in-law Mike C[@ntz:vv8[e in yWOO[8'S
home OOthe day OfDecember 5thand itwas very clear their stance was there were two
options, one was that they build over it, which they've already done with that foundation, or they
0Ov8 the S8vv8[ |iD8 at M[ yN0O[e`8 8xp8DS8. His iDte[pPBt8UOD of that CODv8[SGUOD is 8 vvhO|8
different d88| than what Mrs. Maher is iDlp|yiDg, his wife asked the qV8SUOD directly twice about
who would pay for itand were told the K4DOr8'Swould have tOpay for it. Again, they were firmly
told that they only had two options, the Maher's build over the line or the Moore's pay to move
the line.
Eric Goers reiterated it is the City's position that the Board should be making their decision
tonight based Onmatters raised Onappeal within the 3O-d8yappeal deadline. Tonight Ofcourse
iSwell past that deadline and Goers assumes that when Mr. Moore chose tOfile his appeal hS
knew why he wanted to file his appeal otherwise that appeal would have been in bad faith and if
hBknew back then why h8wanted tOraise his appeal there's DOreason why hecouldn't have
specifically delineated all the things that h8provided tOthe Board tonight, but hGdidn't and
Goers thinks there's probably @ reason why he didn't. |Oany event like Mr. Adam said the
Board should only be basing the decision on matters that were timely raised on appeal. Ms.
Sitzman has made clear why nothing about the issuance of this building permit offended the
zoning code, even addressing some of the matters that she was hearing about for the very first
time tonight. The sewer line is at best from the appellant perspective a building code issue for
the Board 0fAppeals tOconsider and the reality iSit's 8private civil matter between the K8@h8[G
and the Moore's, it's the Maher property rights versus Mr. Moore's claims of property rights and
that's not for this Board tOdecide that's 8private civil matter. Goers noted that Mr. Adam
indicated hehad searched the abstract looking for evidence UfaOeasement and found none,
that went uncontradicted, and finally appellants have not met their burden of proof. G08[S
reiterated it is the appellants burden of proof to indicate that the building permit was improperly
issued and for that reason the City asked that the Board of Adjustment affirm the building official
decision.
Board of Adjustment
January 8.2O25
Page 18 of 22
Swygard closed the public hearing.
LeiDtz stated the Board rU|8S section 11 St@L8 [DDUOOS have LO be made in the @ffiKO81iV8. SO the
motion should b8stated @S8motion tOreverse the building official's decision, then second it
and with following discussion the Board would need to have a roll call vote and would need
three yes votes [Dpass. They will also need @ findings Offact and herecommends the Board
make @ motion tOestablish what the findings are that they agree on.
Leintz also noted if the Board wanted they could defer and to continue these proceedings but he
would urge them not LQdOSOunless they find 8compelling need. People are spending money
0Dattorneys t0bRhere tonight and have set aside their schedules for this @SitiS8big deal for
the part for the parties.
LeintznOted section 1OOfthe Board's ru|eS, under Board deliberation, itsays after all the
parties have been heard the public hearing will hedeclared closed SOthat the Board may
deliberate the case amongst themselves.
Cox stated he has been on this Board off and on for several years and the charge of this Board
is to deal with zoning questions about individual properties, so the easement thing is a non -
issue and the appealing party has already put it before the Board OfAppeals. This Board's
issue is the individual lot and whether O[not the permit that was approved meets the lot
[8qUi[eOOeDtS. He noted this is @ DOO-COOfD[nliDg lot and an old lot in an 0|d neighborhood, the
City code has non -conforming adjustments for this very case where there is someone that
vv8DtS to build @ new [DOde[O build building OD 8 funky lot in 8 funky part of town. He [ef8[[8d to
page two ofthe packet and code 14-2Ar4where there's the table that they've referenced before
and comparing the numbers there to the numbers on the permit there's not one number in their
permit request that exceeds that table with the OOO-CDDfD[DliDg adjustments that are 8V8i|Gb|e
for this lot.
Leintznoted for the ease Ofdiscussion members Ofthe Board can choose b3adopt the
statement of another member or adopt with modification or expound on it.
Carlson stated 8Sfar 8Sthe lot size, the setbacks and everything the general measurements OD
everything are as stated in the zoning code, her COOceOl is with the two window wells as it
states balconies and bay windows may not extend into the acquired side setback so that is a
sticky point.
COX pointedUUtUlGL@havViDdOwO[@b@|COOyiSVe[ydiffe[8Dtth@O@O8g[gsSViOdUwDLtOf8
subterranean floor. HHnoted looking around town itigseen that this has become apreth/
common way for people b]maximize the square footage Onsome Dfthese lots, b}have livable
space subterranean with the egress windows that are in this design but noted they don't have
the same impact on the setback that a balcony or a bay window would have.
Russo stated one could argue that @ window well isnot @Oarchitectural feature but rather
feature of landscaping and one could grade a lot in such a way that wouldn't violate any of the
setback requirements and still allow for egress. Nehas 8little confusion about whether itiG
architectural Drpart Dfthe landscaping and grade.
Board of Adjustment
January 8.2O25
Page 19 of 22
Swyg@rd stated she would say that she doesn't consider the window wells the same as bay
VViDdDVVS and are definitely @ different feature. She would also agree that the sewer line is not
anything that this Board needs LOconsider, iti8not iOtheir purview.
Carlson agreed, they are here tDdeal with the zoning code. Additionally, the dates that things
were supposed tObeintroduced and all that may be getting into the weeds and they could
spend @ lot Oftime OOthat but she thinks the major pn3b|eO0theyO8edLOde@|VViLhisLhe zoning
code. Svvyg8rd8gn8eS.
Russo stated this is a tough one as it's unfortunate that it arrived at this state and unfortunate
that for one reason or another this occurred, they are all intelligent people and he hoped they
could prevent something like this but apparently not. Russo thinks that the City'Sdone its due
diligence and this Board should not get involved in issues or questions of whether or not there's
an easement, but he does think there are questions about the building size and the
arrangements but thinks that the City has crossed their t'Sand dotted their |'S,and they've
conformed to the tables and the size requirements diligently so he doesn't see a strong basis to
OVertU[D the City'S building permit 8tthis stage. GVVyg8[d agrees.
Cox moved tolet the decision of the building official stand for this permit based on the
factual knowledge that this Board has reviewed that all ofthe permit specifications met
the code that applied to them.
Carlson seconded the motion.
Carlson noted probably everyone would like to see a cute little cottage on that little lot but that is
not the reality and they need tOdeal with the reality Ofwhat can b8put ODthere and can it
contribute b]the feel Ofthe neighborhood.
Cox stated he has been iDIowa City for 25 years and part ofwhy hgis on this Board is because
he is invested in this City and the ongoing evolution of the code is trying to do what everyone
wants while encouraging people to keep investing in this town and having housing that makes
sense for them. This isGcase exactly why they have some Ofthe pieces Dfthese ordinances
and the non -conforming components so they can have families invest in a modern home on a
lot where that really wasn't the original idea. He stated this permit is following the BOUne intent
and the guidelines in the City's ordinance and encouraging investment infill in the City. He
noted they do want to encourage ongoing investment within the existing City so those reasons
outside Dfthe code that it's encouraging that this permit met them.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0 (Baker recused).
Svvvo@rdstated the motion declared approved, 8nyp8rSOnvvhOwiSh8StO8ppG8|1hiSdBdsiOn
to 8 court of record may do SU within 30 days after this d8CiSiOD is filed with the City Clerk's
Leintz8nd C0X/eft the meeting, Baker returned and was reestablished GGChair.
Board of Adjustment
January 8.2O25
Page 2Oof 22
DISCUSSION ON GENERAL CRITERION - SUBSTANTIALLY DIMINISH OR IMPAIR
PROPERTY VALUES:
Dulek noted this was a request of the Chair to expand on the criterion regarding what
substantially diminishes Or impairs pFOp8dv values. OU|ek St8bBd what's important for the Board
iSshe concluded that 8S@tthe Supreme Court said when itlooked aLthis itsaid that expert
testimony is not necessary so if they're looking at whether it impacts or diminishes the value the
Board does not have to hear from a real estate broker or an appraiser to make a decision. Also
anecdotal personal experience is important and also common sense inferences from what the
Board hears is iOlpOd@O1, all of that ShOU|d be taken into COOSide[8iiOO. [)U|8k also wanted to
point out it's just not the diOOiDiShnl8Ot or the iDlp8irDl8Ot Ofproperty values but the SUbSt8Oti2|
diminishment or the impairment of property values so that's very important and again it's the
burden Ofthe person making the application for the special exception.
Carlson asked ifitmust substantially diminish 0[impair all the properties O[one property. DU|eh
stated it is it the values in the neighborhood and explained neighborhood usually means more
than one and the code says with disturbances such 8Sbarking dogs O[loud music ithas tObe@
disturbance Dfthe neighborhood and one person isn't @ neighborhood SOitmust substantially
diminish O[impair tOmore than one property.
Baker stated hejust want tOunderstand this process and the burden Ofestablishing whether the
project creates 8 substantial burden starts with the applicant who determines that. DU|8k
reiterated it is will not substantially diminish or impair property V@|U8S and that is what the
applicant has tOapprove. Baker asked does the staff have the chance t0agree 0rdisagree with
the applicant. Dulek replied that yes, staff can overrule the applicant, and the report Board
would get from staff would state the reason why staff believes the application would
substantially diminish or impair property values and then the applicant would come to the
podium and explain why they disagree with staff. Baker asked ifthe applicant has tOprovide
proof O[can they just Ul8h8 the 8SS8diOD. DU|ekSi8ied there has to be SODl8thiDg th8[8' it can
be anecdotal noting other people who have said anecdotally that this same situation happened
iDtheir neighborhood and itdidn't affect them O[the applicant can have @ study from other cities
vVhSFe this similar thing happened and there was OOimpact OOvalues, etc.
Baker stated he questioned this because several months ago there was that time when there
were over a hundred signatures on a petition but what the code states is that it's their obligation
tDdisprove the applicant. [)U|8kconfirmed that they have tOconvince the Board Ofthat yes.
Baker asked is there a difference between the value of the anecdotal evidence assertion made
bythe applicant versus the anecdotal evidence Orassertion made bythe objectors. OU|8k
replied that it is up to the Board to weigh that and again there's the burden. Baker recalls one Of
the objections cited the withdrawal Of@sale Ofproperty that wouldn't establish Gneighborhood
problem it would only 8SL8b|iSh that for that one property. OU|ek reiterated b8C@USe the C[iie[i8
is it will not GUhSt@Dti@||y diminish Or impair property values in the neighborhood so the Board
could look Gtthat and say well that's one house SOcan they reasonably infer that would impact
other properties and need tOapply common sense with anecdotal evidence.
Baker asked ifthe anecdotal evidence has tDb8presented formally @[8meeting 0rcan
someone's letter suffice because there is no way to question the letter writer. [)U|ekstated they
Board of Adjustment
January 8.2O25
Page 21 of 22
VVDU|d probably give the letter |8sS weight beC@US8 they're not able 0O ask questions but it's SUU
evidence.
Baker was hoping this whole process was G little less 8Uhi8[tiV8 and had @ little bit more C|88[
standards that they could gDbvbut they g0back tOanecdotal evidence being acceptable and [O
b8evaluated subjectively weighed bycommon sense. [)U|ekstated that's why they have @five
pHrSOD Board LO have five [8GSDn@b|8 persons who try very hard to listen and to come to @
reasonable decision based ODtheir |if8'Gexperiences and information given tOthem.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Baker stated he would be glad to serve again as Chair unless someone else would like the
opportunity.
Swyg8nd moved to have Baker serve GS Ch8ir, FlusGO seconded, @ vote was taken and the
motion passed 4-O.
SVVyQ3nd OOOVRd to have RUSSO serve as Vice Chair, Baker seconded, @ vote was taken and the
motion passed 4-0.
CONSIDER NOVEMBER 13,2024 MINUTES:
SVVVg8nj[ODVed tOapprove the minutes DfNovember 13,2024. Russo seconded. Avote was
taken and the motion carried 5-U.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
Dulek announced that a new Board member was appointed by City Council last night and they
will vvH|CO08 Julie T8||08n to the Board. T8||0@n vvO[k8d for the City for 28 years and will bring
|OLS of experience to the Board.
ADJOURNMENT:
Swygard moved to adjourn this meeting, Russo seconded, a vote was taken and all approved.
Board of Adjustment
January 8, 2025
Page 22 of 22
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2023-2025
NAME
TERM
EXP.
4/19
5/10
6/14
7/12
11/8
12/13
3/13
4/10
8/22
10/1011/13
1/8
BAKER, LARRY
12/31/2027
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PARKER, BRYCE
12/31/2024
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
O/E
SWYGARD, PAULA
12/31/2028
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
CARLSON,NANCY
12/31/2025
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
RUSSO, MARK
12/31/2026
X
O/E
O/E
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TALLMAN, JULIE
12/31/2029
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
-- --
Key: X = Present
0 = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
-- -- = Not a Member