Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-08-05 OrdinanceItem Number: 10.a. a CITY OF IOWA CITY "QF T-4 COUNCIL ACTION REPORT August 5, 2025 Ordinance rezoning approximately 7.76 acres of land located on Lot 66, Monument Hills Final Plat from Low Density Single -Family Residential zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Low Density Multi -Family Residential zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-12). (REZ25-0007) Attachments: Final Staff Report with Attachments Late Correspondence Items_REZ25-0007 PZ 6.18.25 minutes 24418 Prelim OPD REZ25-0007 Ordinance STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ25-0007 Lot 66 of Monument Hills GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant/Owner: Contact Person: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Location Map: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Prepared by: Madison Conley Date: June 18, 2025 Monument Hills, LLC 221 E. Burlington St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (319)-631-1894 Michael Welch Shoemaker & Haaland 160 Holiday Rd. Coralville, Iowa 52241 mwelch(a�shoemaker-a) Rezoning of 7.76 acres from Low Density Single -Family Residential zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS- 5) to Low Density Multi -Family Residential zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-12). To allow for the construction of a senior living community consisting of 3 duplexes and a 100-unit multi -family style independent living building. Northwest corner of Rochester Avenue and N. Scott Boulevard. 7.76 Acres Vacant, Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) zone. North: Single -Family and Harvest Preserve, Low Density Single - Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) & Interim Development Single -Family K Comprehensive Plan: Northeast District Plan: Neighborhood Open Space District: Public Meeting Notification: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Residential (ID-RS) South: Single -Family, Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS- 5) East: Vacant, Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID- RS) West: Single -Family, Low Density Single -Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) Conservation Design Town Homes and Small Apartments NE1 Property owners within 500' of the subject property received notification of the Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting. Rezoning signs were posted on the site at the corner of N. Scott Blvd and Rochester Ave. May 27, 2025 July 11, 2025 The applicant, Monument Hills, LLC, has requested a rezoning from Low Density Single -Family Residential zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Low Density Multi -Family Residential zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-12) for approximately 7.76 acres located on Lot 66 of Monument Hills subdivision northwest of Rochester Avenue and N. Scott Boulevard. The rezoning is required due to a change in ownership on the subject property. The proposed rezoning would allow for the construction of a senior living community consisting of 3 duplexes and a 100-unit multi -family style independent living building resulting in a total of 106 units on the subject property. The proposed development is shown in the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan (Attachment 3). The subject property (Lot 66 of the Monument Hills subdivision) was created as part of the Monument Hills final plat and was rezoned and subdivided in 2022 and 2023. In terms of case history, here's a summary: On August 16, 2022 the City Council approved a rezoning (REZ22-0008 & Ord. No 22-4885) for approximately 64.38 acres of the property to OPD/RS-5 and 0.31 acres to OPD/ID-RS to accommodate the existing communications tower. The rezoning included the following conditions: a. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall: 3 i. Dedicate a private access easement to the property hereby zoned OPD/ID-RS; ii. Dedicate a public access easement to allow a public trail from the proposed development to Calder Park in a form of agreement approved by the City Attorney and install a 10' wide trail therein; iii. Dedicate to the City, without compensation, right-of-way along Rochester Ave and N. Scott Blvd. b. The final plat for any of the above -described land shall incorporate traffic calming generally in locations shown on the attached Overall Concept Plan. All of these conditions have been met through the final platting and building permit review processes. In September 2022, the City adopted a resolution that approved the Preliminary Plat of the Monument Hills subdivision. (SUB22-0006 & Res. No 22-240). The City adopted a resolution in April 2023 that approved the Final Plat of Monument Hills subdivision (SUB22-0015 & Res. No 23-103) which shows a conservation easement on the subject property. During final platting staff also approved the Final Sensitive Areas Development Plan. See Attachments 4 and 5. Attachment 6 includes the applicant submittal materials such as the Rezoning Exhibit, the Applicant Statement, Elevations and an updated Traffic Study. The applicant conducted a Good Neighbor meeting on June 5, 2025. A summary of the meeting is included in Attachment 7. ANALYSIS - Current Zoning: The property is currently zoned OPD/RS-5. The OPD is intended to permit flexibility in the use and design of structures and land in situations where conventional development may not be appropriate. With the previous rezoning, the subject property was approved for 12 single-family homes, 3 duplexes, and a two-story, 29-unit multi -family building, and a private clubhouse for the residents resulting in a total of 47 units. The RS-5 allows larger lot sizes and setbacks creating neighborhoods with a limited density. While the proposed development contains duplexes and a multi -family building, the OPD process allows for a mixture of uses in the RS-5 zone. Proposed Zoning: The proposed zone is OPD/RM-12. The OPD is intended to permit flexibility in the use and design of structures and land in situations where conventional development may not be appropriate. The RM-12 zone is intended to provide for the development of high density, single-family housing and low density, multi -family housing. The Preliminary OPD Plan for this rezoning proposes 3 duplexes and a 3-story, 100-unit multi -family style independent living building for a total of 106 units. The RM-12 zone is intended to provide a diverse variety of housing options in neighborhoods throughout the city. Careful attention to site and building design is important to ensure that the various housing types in any one location are compatible with one another. General Planned Development Approval Criteria: Applications for Planned Development Rezonings are reviewed for compliance with the following standards according to Article 14-3A of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance. CI 1. The density and design of the Planned Development will be compatible with and/or complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass and scale, relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout. Density - The OPD/RM-12 zone allows for a density of 15 dwelling units per net acre of land area (total land minus public and private streets right-of-way). The proposed development includes 106 dwelling units on 7.76 net acres. The proposed resulting density is 13.7 dwelling units per acre, which complies with the OPD/RM-12 density standard. Land Uses Proposed - The applicant is proposing the construction of a senior living community consisting of 3 duplexes and a 100-unit multi -family style independent living building. The addition of this senior housing will increase the diversity of housing types and help to satisfy an ongoing need for senior housing in the city. The Final Plat shows that there is an existing conservation easement at the northeast corner of the subject property. No development is allowed to occur in the conservation easement area due to the existing sensitive features. The proposed rezoning aims to continue to preserve and protect sensitive areas by clustering development and concentrating the more intense land uses near the arterial streets and away from the conservation easement. Lot 66 is adjacent to existing single-family lots and an outlot located to the north. The outlot, established through the approved Final Plat, contains a conservation easement that prohibits future development. As a result, no new construction can occur to the north of Lot 66 and the proposed development will not impact that area. Furthermore, the proposed development will be compatible with the adjacent single-family neighborhood, as any construction on Lot 66 must comply with the Multi -Family Site Development Standards, which are intended to support safe, attractive, and pedestrian -friendly neighborhoods. Mass, Scale and General Layout - The development will include duplexes that help balance out the larger multi -family building. The multi -family building will be 3 stories and will be required to comply with the Multi -Family Site Development Standards. These standards aim to promote attractive, pedestrian friendly neighborhoods by regulating parking, requiring screening of unsightly features and ensuring clearly identified pedestrian connections. Additionally, the proposed development locates the duplexes next to the existing single-family homes along Heron Dr. and places the larger scale multi -family building at the corner of the two arterial streets. This allows for a transition from single-family to multi -family. The applicant has requested two waivers from the RM-12 zone dimensional standards. One waiver from the height requirement and the other from the arterial street front setback requirement at the corner of Rochester Ave. and N. Scott Blvd. The first waiver requests an increase in the maximum building height from 35 feet to 40 feet for the multi -family building to address site topography and building aesthetics. The site is unique in the sense that it slopes and requires a building design suitable for changes in elevation. Additionally, the multi -family building aims to have a pitched roof compared to a flat roof to allow for vaulted ceilings. The OPD rezoning process allows applicants to request waivers from certain development standards, including building height. However, the following approval criteria must be met (1 4-3A-4K- 1 b): 1. The maximum building height and building coverage may be modified or waived, provided the design of the development results in sufficient light and air circulation for each building and adequate, accessible open space for all residents of the development. 9 The increased roof height would allow for vaulted ceilings and help aesthetically transition the appearance of the multi -family building into the surrounding style of the neighborhood. The applicant has provided staff with the Preliminary OPD Plan that lists the required open space for this use. The amount of required open space for Lot 66 is 10 square feet per bedroom. The proposed bedroom count for the duplexes and multi -family building is 182 bedrooms. Therefore, the total amount of required open space for the proposed development on Lot 66 is 1,820 square feet. Features of the open space areas for the residents include sports courts, swimming pool, garden, and a dog run. Staff will ensure this standard is met during site plan review. The second waiver request is to reduce the arterial street front setback requirement from 40 feet to 32 feet at the corner of Rochester Ave. and N. Scott Blvd. Both of these streets are arterial streets which require a setback of 40 feet. Through the OPD rezoning process, minimum setbacks may be reduced if the following conditions are met (14-3A-4K-1a) 1. The setbacks proposed will provide adequate light, air, and privacy between dwellings and between dwellings and public rights of way. 2. Sufficient setbacks are incorporated to provide the opportunity for adequate private open space for each dwelling unit. 3. The setbacks proposed will provide sufficient area for utilities and street trees. 4. If front setbacks are reduced, measures should be taken to preserve privacy within residential dwellings and to provide a transition between the public right of way and private property. To ensure privacy within single-family and two-family dwellings for which setbacks are reduced, the first floor must be elevated at least thirty inches (30") above the grade of the adjacent public sidewalk. Other methods to increase privacy are also encouraged, such as use of front porches. 5. Residential buildings that are located in close proximity to each other must be designed to preserve privacy. This can be achieved by placement of windows to prevent direct views into the windows of adjacent residential dwelling units. In addition, balconies and air conditioning units may not be located along a building wall that is within twenty feet (20') of a building wall of an adjacent principal building on the same lot, if the wall of the adjacent building contains window or door openings into dwelling units. Proximity of building walls will be subject to all current building code fire protection requirement. The multi -family building has been designed to accommodate the site's topographic conditions while maintaining compatibility with surrounding development. The Preliminary OPD Plan illustrates that the majority of the building frontage is set back more than 40 feet from the front property line. This setback provides space for street tree plantings, which will enhance neighborhood character and contribute to environmental quality. No reductions are proposed for any other setbacks, and all setback requirements will be verified during site plan review. Additionally, the plan demonstrates that the multi -family building is located more than 20 feet from the nearest duplexes, ensuring adequate separation between buildings. Based on these factors, staff finds the proposed front setback reduction to be appropriate. Open Space - The proposed development will need to comply with private open space standards, outlined in section 14-2A-4E of the City Code. The Preliminary OPD Plan for the senior living community requires 1,820 square feet of open space. These standards will be reviewed for compliance at site plan review. Traffic Circulation - The proposed development would include a private drive for the senior living community, which is proposed off of Heron Dr. to the west on the subject property. No access is proposed off of N. Scott Blvd or Rochester Ave. 2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities. C01 The subject property can be serviced by both sanitary sewer and water. Transportation Planning staff requested that the applicant submit an updated traffic study which examined how the proposed development on Lot 66, the 3 duplexes and 100-unit multi -family style independent living building, would impact traffic. The traffic study indicates that the total average daily trips generated by the proposed development on the subject property in addition to the 66 single-family homes included in the Monument Hills subdivision, is 1,004 new daily trips, which includes 69 new AM peak -hour trips, and 92 new PM peak -hour trips by the anticipated date the site is fully developed and occupied, 2026. The study analyses the following intersections at Rochester Ave: Scott Blvd., Heron Dr., Amhurst St., Teton Cr., and Allison Way. The study concludes that the intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable level -of - service (LOS) C or better in the 2026 baseline and 2026 future with development conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours. Staff has reviewed the traffic study and concurs with the analysis. 3. The development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property values and privacy of neighboring properties any more than would a conventional development. A portion of Lot 66 and the area north of Lot 66 is in a protected conservation easement which would prevent any development within these areas. However, there are existing single-family homes located along Heron Dr. to the west and north. Additionally, there are also existing single-family homes across Rochester Ave. to the south of the subject property. The proposed development locates the duplexes next to the existing single-family homes along Heron Dr. and places the larger scale multi -family building at the corner of the two arterial streets. This allows for a transition from single-family to multi -family. The proposed development will be required to meet the Multi -Family Site Development Standards that include screening requirements which will help integrate the proposed development. For these reasons staff finds that this development will not impact neighboring residences more than a conventional development. 4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying zoning requirements or from City street standards will be in the public interest, in harmony with the purposes of this Title, and with other building regulations of the City. The Preliminary OPD Plan for the subject property incorporates two-family and multi -family uses. The combination of land uses provides a diversity of housing options and helps to satisfy an ongoing need for senior housing. In summary, the proposed project balances the need for environmental protection with the need for an increased housing supply and diversity of housing types. Rezoning Review Criteria: Staff uses the following two criteria in the review of rezonings: 1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan; 2. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map has identified this area as appropriate for Conservation Design. Conservation Design is appropriate in areas containing steep slopes, woodlands, stream corridors, and other sensitive features. Building sites are identified to take advantage of the preserved land and create streets that minimize disturbance of natural areas. Developments with a conservation design should be more compact with less pavement and more open space than conventional development. The VA subject property has clustered development away from the environmentally sensitive areas and contains a conservation easement aimed to preserve and protect woodlands and sensitive slopes. The Northeast District Plan Future Land Use Map for the Bluffwood neighborhood (Figure 2) shows the subject property as appropriate for townhomes and small apartment buildings. The proposed development generally aligns with the land use envisioned by the plan since the proposed development provides duplexes that are a similar scale to single-family homes. The proposed multi -family style independent living building is more intense and is proposed at the intersection of Rochester Ave. and N. Scott Blvd. Figure 2. Northeast District Plan Future Land Use Map JU : # a +� i i �;► 3 17 Both the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan and Northeast District Plan encourage a diversity of housing options. The proposed rezoning would incorporate duplexes and a multi -family building on Lot 66 which would help diversify the surrounding housing stock, which is primarily single- family to the northwest and south of the subject property. Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood Character: The proposed 3 duplexes and 100- unit multi -family style independent living building is generally consistent with the existing neighborhood character. Existing single-family homes are located northwest and south of the subject property. The proposal locates the higher density development in the southeast corner of Lot 66. Concentrating the multi -family development on this area of the property, along the arterial streets, provides a transition of land uses from single family neighborhoods to higher density development. Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The subject property contains steep slopes, critical slopes, woodlands, and wetlands. There is an approved Final Sensitive Areas Development Plan, Attachment 4, that will not change with this proposed rezoning. The conservation easement has been established as part of the Final Plat and the conservation easement that exists on the northeast portion of Lot 66 will remain. NEXT STEPS: Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed rezoning. EV STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ25-0007, a proposal to rezone approximately 7.76 acres of land located on Lot 66 of Monument Hills subdivision northwest of Rochester Avenue and N. Scott Boulevard from OPD/RS-5 zone to OPD/RM-12 zone. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan 4. Approved Final Sensitive Areas Development Plan 5. Approved Final Plat 6. Applicant Submittal Materials 7. Good Neighbor Meeting Summary Approved by: Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ATTACHMENT 1 Location Map ATTACHMENT 2 Zoning Map ATTACHMENT 3 Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan o'waP;."„ enus ��Shoemaker INVISION I_ g o jl ^NELSON Ia`= „aid, ope , n;e ni Haaland c o0 ATTACHMENT 4 Approved Final Sensitive Areas Development Plan ,� � TODNHP,oN N� ED OR +--, g HICKORY � 'y� �i OJT, OCALDER_ CI — — — — — — — — — — — — — T. ROCHESTER CQNFFM N urn 4 a, FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY I AND SENSITIVE AREAS a N�� DEVELOPMENT PLAN -_ MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA �I APPLICATION NOTESO O APPLICAEONT INFORMATION HCI awoIo,Lo, ET Tl EIEjown aTv eE NORTH ueERT,, In Snll aeio nERiEREoN nL _ z naauanoNwRLOT ss. F. auN DEVELOP 1IRLINC1$uc nL ,CITI IaLON AT IEEPO nao 7�894 1 EcIvILENIIN R N — DE— OP.ENT 9zoisn-1 (1)ia"SHEETINDEX (\,/✓/nM\`�/\ iPC RENM`EEET.OPES -� \ �m x °� o OF,LOTEDE WOODLANDS LANDS J \-O7- -T ED u i y GREEN MOUNTAIN DR z � � i t r—t I welch 7-- J __—�� LEGEND J y T ®s�E ORES MONUMENT HILLS, LLC FM MONUMENTHRLS IOVIA CM IOVVA �-- �T /T J T TFSTBRq 1 % q; I r � � PET / T i is wEnallos. vL COVER SHEET FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN mew.. owrzcTnuwn. ,..nn� 1026 11ELCH �P we I c h 01 0 MONUMENT HILLS, LLC MONUMENTHILLS IOVIA cm, IOwA ioin,imvnvEo ,�,o,r ioin,imvna[a ,o:,,� REGULATED SLOPES FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND SENSITNE AREAS PLAN ioin,siaaswvE rexc�namrnvru vsm� ,a, ioin,wiiica,swvE rmanamrnveo am,�„ , ��1026 �11,ELCH� v�,e� o3$:a`u>3 C1.10 c' i� rr NFOUNDATIONSENCE LDJ DAINC off' IMPACTED STEEP SLOPES'. IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPES'. IMPACTED PROTECTED SLOPES'. t �X „ L a S,REI IV "Z FDtlNOA ON VNE'c s i r r _ O rae. cranes nun s ian O aaan cranes O nuns s�� LA— 11EIR111E 0' -- - ,no r Bo UP., I , - r / LEGEND'. WETLANDS EGEND'. REGULATED SLOPES ROCTs e I _ �- _ NDOMN M ( _sTn �r-- -T--.1( ) werwr°nLL «�n�., art�wsme �mn,nTw mo.ERw�C°Eo—I �J WETLAND IMPACFS mo.samsims eur�o- �oOw uss3�a osvummwrewronavn YOI o3s� HA VEST PONSEWF IINC OY oA N ' � 0 °51 .n.aL moans Re ,osa , E A aSElellE _ r FodNOA aN I — ' r /- - .. � � FD �r � I no r - a �C+Tr D ngwa CT, a .. _) welch { r - � a-e—dI A MONUMENT HILLS, TC eMONUMENT HILLS `� •T' /„ ; : i A! IOVIA CITY, IOVJA � e a N s E I FOCT Co DoNNUM k�way-n - % r GENERAL NOTES t tTPlIlRE ( I lLO.ED IPITUIN NEOTECTID N �ncE nND TE-E DUTLOT E & F', SLOPES AND 1AETLAND FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND AREAS PLAN WETLANDS - C. RECENTInL PUeuC UTIL THE O3.ITAEY..EE) OVERLAY •w1026.. SENSITIVE •moo'LCH w m v�+=�- HJ c' oizizozs C2.00 ATTACHMENT 5 Approved Final Plat NREA BREAKiN)WN BY QUARTER: FINAL PLAT 1 111-1 �1171 � MONUMENT HILLS ... iq- -0.2 1,549,13� IOWA CITY, IOWA NST 4T 14"E �:� 66 ><—.—A OUTLOT F V 4142 43 —Ta asps FOW' — 0 .......... 44 —,qz' . E 45/ Fo 46 A E 39 41 36 58 35 37 5(5� TLc L yf 48 49 54 L 65/ GV4 63 62 (IN lv �jf I 50 3 51 2 a>o< �,;�� 52 53 8 27 26 2 5 24 2 2- 23 2 3: 21 I\f'pt pt 20 19 ED is 66 17 T�2T B OU, 16 2 12 15 O AkL 3 14 tg 70� 8 67 OUT A ouTLoTs o -00 7 KEY NOTE: �4 2 1pv? Y' . ......... !—A Y, 1OF3 LEGEND 0 SET3 FINALPry -115 SIT lITX PLATED QRANGEIT-ELEAP MONUMENT HILLS I YELLOW -- EAP REDP—P D IOWA CITY, IOWA EXISTING PROP- LINE S OONDARY(PROPERTV NNE ISTING E-MENT PRG'.11. EASEMENT TING _Ez SUIT 11.1 D, 19 co L>;4 x 66 p. 18 17 a 0 % 12 OUTLOT B 16 "l 5 = :T �� wz -G' GS Ell Lil - �11 ED or s 13 ui 2kw p ARtEL 8 ED —15\ PARCEL"A" 6 KEYNOTES, WW DUTLOTA LE, Z-'"' IS ae (tE o 2OF3 FINAL PLAT KEYNOTE o MONUMENT HILLS MxrZ °x __ 5m IOWA CITY, IOWA ss�m+� mEM T x, xx PA„xxre� m +ate,, r+ 0a OUTLOT O DETAIL N9714�E 154913'--' 6 nu¢mexr �''W1BOXcumea ao-Ea+oaurorxoE,ni, xUv � � \ ' � \ �, � •'� a (y m r ens mwr � aurowrnftrEvttweinxoaouo _ v � y m we +p xnun ErrsEmex* rxom wvsrwErecacrxexr smaivsEmExr y� LEGEND — 'r ;l)UTLOTP 41 8�i 'az* E t 0PIPE OPC 19828 (�I sBr :•+, w e , � 44 , ` sEraTx 45 FOONO PROPERtt CORNER -AS IABE E ORANGE PLASTIC CAP OUTLOTE�'��,tom— , i 7. i � REO PlASTICGP 3a �'t / H�O"�w„ � ROPOSED ROUNDARYfPPOPEftiYt NE z3vsz a '-eES SECTION LINE s ENT 1/o47 6 58 U � 5-, 59 f� \ I� x, OUTIQTC 60 C w\ n 4833 38 55 ^,a 34 PARCEL °g�� 65 N o a.. oo�.wa ci �� z 33� 32 _heRa `\ IOL`p (,_. 62tt I V�50�.'.F' a c� ,4 �� �DRVF 51 31 29 IS 27 26 24 ' 17UT1O7A - yr `'a eD I'Yzs 23 �22ji 66 19 i o ounors d.' Kv s �t x 3 OF 3 ATTACHMENT 6 Applicant Submittal Materials — Rezoning Exhibit, Applicant Statement, Elevations and Traffic Study II L _j ILI Llll REZONING EXHIBIT LOT 66 MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IA LEGAL DESCRIFFION LOT 11 ONI.�NTIILL--�COIN-10-0�-1-1 P--j OF 11 10"NEON CoIN " RE= CITY OF jo_ CITYCOINT III LOT INTINI 111 —11 INI Il 1111CT TO ...ENTE _ REPTENCTIoNE OF R_F, APPLICANT INFORMATION PROPERTY OWNER 'ON IIENT 1OLLE, LLC — E 1IRL—TON EY IOWA CITY FA 1-0 (F") F I .IF .PLLO.T ACO, IELEON CON ICION IEFFELOP.ENT _N, 7 'E, EYE DEEMOLNEEP A50309 0 CEIL ENNINEER —LIAEL I WELCIL RE EPOEMA'ER AN" IRALANI 110 IOLLIEEL ROA, OORALILLE, A 5-1 x r -- 1130:7� oRive ZONING INFORMATION Ilk,NIIIINT IONINI OPI / RELE A"'V — PROPOPPI PON— OR, P. Cveo PlEl I N NJ �ILYLFL 51 Go\`L- 4- "I RN, /,F "N N�N"—,IIE IIN NO 1310 emake,r NLEEL 10 N EILO INUI T 10 1 N I"TE70TE. MONUMENT HILLS EREET0MG E)\HBIT IL ] E�EET N— 1= 0, T �l 0 LATE Haaland . -1 IlEll A May 7, 2025 APPLICANT'S STATEMENT FOR REZONING Lot 66 Monument Hills Parcel Number 1012127002 Please accept the following Applicant Statement submitted on behalf of Nelson Construction and Development, the Applicant. Lot 66 Monument Hills is located on the northwest corner of Rochester Avenue and N. Scott Boulevard in Iowa City. This property is identified as Parcel Number 1012127002 and is 7.76 acres in size. This lot was created as part of the Monument Hills subdivision. This included extending utilities and other public infrastructure to the property. It is bounded on the east by N. Scott Boulevard (462 LF of frontage), on the south by Rochester Avenue (638 LF of frontage), and the west by the newly constructed Heron Drive (326 LF of frontage). The area north of the parcel is a conservation area identified as Outlot C on the Monument Hills plat. During the subdivision process for Monument Hills, the property was rezoned from Interim Development Single - Family (ID-RS) to Low Density Single -Family with an overlay for sensitive areas (OPD/RS-5). Lot 66 was projected to have 12 single-family homes, 3 duplex homes, a 29-unit multi -family building, and a private clubhouse for the residents of these units. The Applicant is now requesting to rezone the property to Low Density Multi -Family with an overlay for sensitive areas (OPD/RM-12) to allow for the construction of a multi -family, independent living building and three duplex units. The courtyard of the multi -family building will have amenities for the residents. The multi -family building is projected to have 100 units, resulting in a total of 106 units on the property. The allowable number of units by code is 15 units per net acre. The net acreage of the subject property is 7.76 acres. Therefore, the allowable number of units on the property is 116 units (7.76 acres x 15 units/acre). North Scott Boulevard and Rochester Avenue are both classified as arterial streets. The proposed multi -family building is positioned to the east on the parcel. The duplex units front on Heron Drive on the west side of the parcel with the garages being accessed from a private drive that runs between the duplex units and the multi- family building. The Future Land Use Plan within the Comprehensive Plan contemplated this area as Conservation Design due to the presence of regulated slopes, woodlands, and wetlands on the property. The Northwest District Plan includes this property in the Bluffwood Neighborhood and indicates small apartment buildings at the corner of N. Scott Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. The Monument Hills subdivision addressed the preservation and protection of the regulated sensitive features, including a conservation easement at the northeast corner of Lot 66 to protect wetlands and regulated slopes. There are no changes proposed to this conservation easement, or other sensitive features addressed during the Monument Hills subdivision process. The site is currently served by city water and sanitary sewer. Any future development will need to comply with applicable city codes, including the sensitive area ordinance and storm water management. Shoemaker Haaland Project No. 24418 Page 1 Thank you for your consideration of this rezoning application. Sincerely, A-�/w� Michael J. Welch, PE Shoemaker Haaland Project No. 24418 Page 2 I NMI IN i j iii liwirw�iii� ii i j ,iii ii ,�'�iii j i iiiw�iiirt,'��i���ii■�ii.il_i� iii ... ... .. ... .. .. ... .. .. ... .. .. ... .. m In w �■ m u ■� m u .I w u ... !I'■ m !■ um in .l ... on Ill u. on .u1 u. . IN u rig. iii . i ■ III o ■ ..� ■ ug — - — II■1 1■1 1■1 - - _ 7111k WIi,u_, ' , Hoi,'i /\NN & A S S O C I A T E S I N C E NG IN I: ICING AR(III I EC IURI LAND SURVEYING 809 EAST 2ND STREET, DIXON, IL 61021.0367 T:815•28.1.3381 DESIGN FIRM: 018.1-000918 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR MONUMENT HILLS, LLC RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ALONG ROCHESTER AVENUE IN IOWA CITY, IOWA ROCHESTER AVENUE INTERSECTION CAPACITY AND DELAY ANALYSIS, CRASH DATA ANALYSIS, & LEFT -TURN LANE WARRANT ANALYSIS May 14, 2025 3�101UIIIIIIIIIIpq ````��O oF�ssPREPARED raNq%,,�,, \� Q �. ••� i� O L • ••�� IHEREBY CERTIFYTHATTHIS ENGNEERINGDOCUMENTWAS 13Y ME UNDER MY DIRECT PERSONAL SUPERVIS7 AND THAT IAMA DULYUCEVSEDPRCFESSIONALENGINEER ION UNDER THE LAWS O/F�THE OFIOWA. r Y D. OE E • • Z • a 6j • ... • `gip 4�1011WlA1,1\o\````��. 1STSTATE �! . V /14/2025 XJRRNS IARRY D. S, P.E DATE UCEVSE N ER. 11833 MY LJCEN RENEAFAL DATE IS, DECEA+BER 31, 2025 PAGES ORSHEETS CObERBJBYTHIS SEAL ALL SHEETS Larry D. Berns, P.E. Iowa Licensed Professional Engineer License No. 11833 Expires: 12/31/2025 WHA # 1296C25 May 14, 2025 7111k WILLETT HoFMANN & A 5 5 0 C I A T E: S [ N C ENGINEERING ARCHITECTURE LAND SURVEYING 809 E06T2ND STREET, DIXON, IL 61021.0367 T: 815.2"3381 DESIGN FIRK 0$84.000913 Report Summary On behalf of Monument Hills, LLC, the Cedar Rapids, Iowa office of Willett Hofmann and Associates, Inc. (WHA), in association with Shoemaker & Haaland of Iowa City, Iowa, prepared an updated Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for the Rochester Avenue corridor adjacent to the proposed Monument Hills residential development in Iowa City, Iowa. This document updates the original TIS report, dated June 30, 2022, which was prepared by Welch Design and Development (WDD). in partnership with Kimley-Horn and Associates. This updated TIS utilizes the "existing" March 2, 2022, traffic count data that was obtained for the original TIS report and which is included in the Attachment pages numbered " B-F to "B-8". This updated TIS also utilizes the Intersection Level of Service reports, generated by the Synchro 11 software, which were provided in the original TIS report for the 2022 Existing Conditions and the 2026 Baseline Conditions for both the AM and PM peak hours of Rochester Avenue traffic. These reports are included in the Attachment pages numbered "D-F to "13-16". This updated TIS also utilizes the sight distance analysis that was performed for the original TIS report. No new sight distance analysis was performed for this updated TIS report. This updated study once again evaluated the impacts of the proposed development on the traffic on Rochester Avenue adjacent to the development. Specifically, the existing intersections of Rochester Avenue with North Scott Boulevard, Heron Circle, Amhurst Street, and Teton Circle; and the proposed intersection of Rochester Avenue with Allison Way were evaluated. The conclusions of this updated Traffic Impact Study are: • The five Rochester Avenue study intersections listed above are expected to function well within the acceptable levels of service for an arterial street, based on average control delay per vehicle. • No significant crash history was identified at any of the existing study intersections. • According to the original TIS report, stopping sight distances and intersection sight distances for the proposed new intersection of Rochester Avenue with Allison Way are adequate. • Warrants are not met for providing an eastbound auxiliary left -turn lane on Rochester Avenue at either the proposed intersection of Allison Way or the intersection of Heron Circle / Heron Drive because of the proposed development traffic. Monument Hills, LLC Residential Development May 14, 2025 Traffic Impact Study Introduction The Monument Hills development will consist of 66 single-family detached residences (65 proposed residences and 1 existing residence), 6 senior single-family dwelling units, and 110 senior multi- family dwelling units. The development is located on the north side of Rochester Avenue, west of North Scott Boulevard. The development is anticipated to be constructed and fully occupied by 2026. The Overall Development Plan for the proposed Monument Hills residential subdivision is shown on Exhibit 1 on the following page. Methodology The trip generation for the Monument Hills development is calculated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 111h Edition (2021). The average trip generation rates for the ITE Land Use Code (LUC) 210 — Single -Family Detached Housing; LUC 251 — Senior Adult Housing, Single -Family; and LUC 252 — Senior Adult Housing, Multi -Family have been used. The following intersections are being analyzed as part of this report: 1. N Scott Blvd at Rochester Ave — All -way Stop -Controlled 2. Heron Cir / Heron Drive (Site Access 1) at Rochester Ave — Two-way Stop Controlled 3. Amhurst St at Rochester Ave — Two-way Stop Controlled 4. Teton Cir at Rochester Ave — Two-way Stop Controlled 5. Site Access 2 (Allison Way) at Rochester Ave — Two-way Stop Controlled The development is expected to be fully built out and occupied by the year 2026. Therefore, the year 2026 was used for future analysis. The analysis has been performed for the existing conditions, 2026 baseline conditions, and 2026 future with development conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. Traffic counts were collected at the existing study intersections by WDD, on Wednesday, March 2, 2022, for both the AM and PM peak hours of Rochester Avenue traffic. The 2026 baseline turning movements were calculated by applying an annually -compounding growth rate of 1% to the existing turning movement volumes. The 1% growth rate is based on conversations by WDD staff with Iowa City staff. The 2026 future with development turning movements have been calculated by adding the development's trips to the 2026 baseline turning movements. The peak -hour level of service (LOS) analysis was completed using the Synchro 11 software. This software applies the operational analysis methodology of the current Highway Capacity Manual (HCAI). Traffic congestion is generally measured in terms of level of service. In accordance with the HCM 6th Edition, road facilities and intersections are rated between LOS A and LOS F, with LOS A being free flow and LOS F being forced flow or over -capacity conditions. The level of service criteria is summarized in Table I on the following page. The level of service at two-way stop -controlled intersections is based on the average delay of the worst approach. The level of service at signalized and all -way stop -controlled intersections is based on the average delay for all approaches. Geometric characteristics and conflicting traffic movements are taken into consideration when determining level of service values. Page 1 SITE o4TA 16 _ § 13 fib 67 �OZ SNCN GZ�G`E P O _ g - F yam} :;uENT E, nnE N A FIAT 14, LUL3 I Shoemaker NELSONCONSTRUCTION LOT 11MONUMENTHILLS OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 24317 &DEVELOPMENT Haaland EXHIBIT 1 0 P—IN PAGE 2 Monument Hills, LLC Residential Development May 14, 2025 Traffic Impact Study Table 1: Level of Service Criteria for Intersections Level of 1 Service Expected Delay Intersection Control Delay (Seconds er Vehicle) Unsignalized Intersections Signalized Intersections A Little/No Delay <10 <10 B Short Delays >10 and <15 >10 and <20 C Average Delays >15 and <25 >20 and <35 D Long Delays >25 and <35 >35 and <55 E Very Long Delays >35 and <50 >55 and <80 F Extreme Delays2 >50 >80 The acceptable level of service for intersections within Iowa City is LOS C/D and the significance of impacts on intersections operating at LOS E or LOS F is taken on a case -by -case basis. 1 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 6rh Edition. LOS A: Free -flow traffic conditions, with minimal delay to stopped vehicles (no vehicle is delayed longer than one cycle at signalized intersection). LOS B: Generally stable traffic flow conditions. LOS C: Occasional back-ups may develop, but delay to vehicles is short term and still tolerable. LOS D: During short periods of the peak hour, delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial but are tolerable during times of less demand (i.e., vehicles delayed one cycle or less at signal). LOS E: Intersections operate at or near capacity, with long queues developing on all approaches and long delays. LOS F: Jammed conditions on all approaches with excessively long delays and vehicles unable to move at times. 2 When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered with queuing which may cause severe congestion affecting other traffic movements in the intersection. Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment Trip generation calculations for the Monument Hills development are based on national statistics contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation, 11' Edition (2021). The average trip generation rates for the ITE Land Use Code (LUC) 210 — Single -Family Detached Housing; LUC 251 — Senior Adult Housing, Single -Family; and LUC 252 — Senior Adult Housing, Multi -Family have been used. There are a total of 66 single-family detached residences (65 proposed residences and I existing residence), 6 senior single-family dwelling units, and 110 senior multi- family dwelling units. Page 3 Monument Hills, LLC Residential Development May 14, 2025 Traffic Impact Study The Monument Hills development is anticipated to generate 1,004 new weekday daily trips, 69 new AM peak -hour trips and 92 new PM peak -hour trips. The trip generation is summarized in Table 2. Table 2: Trip Generation Summary Average Daily Trips AM Peak -Hour Trips PM Peak -Hour Trips Land Uses Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total LUC 210 — Generation 9.43 Trips per Unit 0.70 Trips per Unit 0.94 Trips per Unit Rate Single -Family Detached Splits 50% 50% 100% 25% 75% 100% 63% 37% 100% 66 Units Trips 311 311 622 12 34 46 39 23 62 LUC 251 — Generation Rate 4.31 TripsUnit per ppp 0.24 Trips er Unit 0.30 Trips er Unit Senior Single -Family, Splits 50% 50% 1 100% 33% 67% 100% 61% 39% 100% 6 Units Trips 13 13 26 0 1 1 1 1 2 LUC 252 — Generation Rate 3.24 TripsUnit per ppp 0.20 Trips er Unit 0.25 Trips er Unit Senior Multenior ly, Splits 50% 50% 50% 34% 66% 100% 56% 44% 100% 110 Units Trips 178 178 356 7 15 22 16 12 28 TOTAL 502 502 1004 19 50 69 56 36 92 The trip generation calculations are included in the attachments. Trip distribution and traffic assignments for the development are based on the existing turning movement counts. It is anticipated that 75% of the development traffic will travel to and from the west on Rochester Avenue and 25% will travel to and from the east on Rochester Avenue. Of the 25% of trips traveling to and from the east, 5% of these trips are anticipated to travel to and from the north along Scott Boulevard, 5% are anticipated to travel to and from the south on Scott Boulevard, and 15% are anticipated to continue traveling to and from the east along Rochester Avenue. Based on the proposed layout of the development's street network and residential lots and the fact that motorists will generally seek to minimize their travel distance and travel time, it was assumed that: • Residents of approximately 53% of the development's single-family detached housing (35 of the 66 lots) will use the site's west access drive, Allison Way, to exit and enter the development; • Residents of approximately 47% of the development's single-family detached housing (31 of the 66 lots) will use the site's east access drive, Heron Drive, to exit and enter the development; and • Residents of all 6 senior adult single-family housing units and all 110 senior adult multi- family housing units, located in the east corner of the development, will use the site's east access drive, Heron Drive, to exit and enter the development. The development trips are included in the turning movement sheets for the AM and PM peak hours. Page 4 Monument Hills, LLC Residential Development May 14, 2025 Traffic Impact Study Intersection Capacity and Level of Service Analysis The existing lane configurations at the study intersections, as well as the existing peak -hour factors, were utilized in performing the intersection capacity and level of service (LOS) analysis. The turning movements are included in the attachments. The level of service analysis for the normalized existing, 2026 baseline, and 2026 future with development conditions is summarized in Table 3. Table 3: Intersection Level of Service Summary Intersection Time Period 2022 Existing Conditions 2026 Baseline Conditions 2026 Future With Development Conditions LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay 1. Scott Boulevard at AM B 13.0 sec B 13.6 sec B 13.9 sec PM C 15.6 sec C 16.7 sec C 17.2 sec Rochester Avenue 2. Heron Circle at AM B 10.7 sec B 10.8 sec B 11.6 sec PM B 11.1 sec B 11.2 sec B 12.5 sec Rochester Avenue 3. Amherst Street at AM B 11.0 sec B 11.2 sec B 11.5 sec PM B 11.5 sec B 11.7 sec B 12.2 sec Rochester Avenue 4. Teton Circle at AM B 12.2 sec B 12.4 sec B 13.1 sec PM B 12.3 sec B 12.6 sec B 13.4 sec Rochester Avenue 5. Allison Way (New Access) AM --- --- B 10.7 sec PM --- --- --- --- B 10.4 sec at Rochester Avenue The study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better in the 2022 existing, 2026 baseline and 2026 future with development conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours. Crash Data Analysis Crash data was compiled for the five-year period from 2020 through 2024 using data from the Iowa Department of Transportation's (DOT'S) Iowa Crash Analysis Tool (ICAT) for the four existing study intersections. During this time, there were six crashes (five broadside and one sideswipe) at the intersection of North Scott Boulevard and Rochester Avenue; one crash (with an animal) just west of the intersection of Heron Circle and Rochester Avenue; and one crash (with an animal) at the intersection of Teton Circle and Rochester Avenue. All but one of these eight crashes resulted in property damage only with no reported injuries. One crash, a broadside crash in 2024 at the Rochester Avenue / North Scott Boulevard intersection, was identified as a suspected minor injury crash resulting in one suspected minor/non-incapacitating injury. Page 5 Monument Hills, LLC Residential Development May 14, 2025 Traffic Impact Study There were no other crashes at the study intersections including the location where the development's new access drive,Allison Way, is to be constructed on thenorthside ofRochesterAvenue approximately midway between the Teton Circle and Amhurst Street intersections with Rochester Avenue. Based on the review, there is no significant crash history associated with the geometry of the road network at the study intersections. One crash trend was identified, however. Four of the five broadside crashes occurring at the Rochester Avenue / North Scott Boulevard intersection during the five-year analysis period involved a westbound vehicle on Rochester Avenue and either a northbound or southbound vehicle on North Scott Boulevard. This may be happening because 1) this is the first controlled intersection approach (by either a stop sign or a traffic signal) that westbound motorists on Rochester Avenue encounter upon entering the City limits, and 2) the Stop Ahead symbol warning sign for westbound Rochester Avenue traffic may be obstructed by vegetation during certain times of the year. This is shown in Exhibit 2 below. This exhibit is a screen capture taken from a June 2024 Google Maps Street View of the westbound approach of Rochester Avenue at a point approximately 400 feet east of the centerline of the North Scott Boulevard intersection. A crash diagram, a crash detail report, and a crash summary for the Rochester Avenue / North Scott Boulevard intersection are included in the attachments. Exhibit 2. June 2024 Google Maps Street View Screen Capture of Westbound Approach of Rochester Avenue Approximately 400 Feet East of North Scott Boulevard Centerline Page 6 Monument Hills, LLC Residential Development May 14, 2025 Traffic Impact Study Access Analysis The Overall Development Plan for the Monument Hills development provides two accesses to Rochester Avenue. One of the proposed accesses, Heron Drive, is located opposite an existing public street, Heron Circle. Construction of this access drive will convert an existing T-intersection into a four -legged intersection. Construction of the second access drive, Allison Way, will create a new T- intersection with Rochester Avenue. This T-intersection will be located approximately 507 feet east of Teton Circle and approximately 555 feet west of Amhurst Street. This access spacing exceeds the existing public road access spacing for Amhurst Street and Heron Circle, which is approximately 308 feet. Sight distance analysis for the new site access, Allison Way, was performed as part of the original traffic impact study conducted by WDD in Spring 2022. This analysis was conducted for stopping sight distance along Rochester Avenue, the major road, and intersection sight distance for the new site access, Allison Way, the minor road. The posted speed limit along Rochester Avenue is 35 mph. Per AASHTO guidelines, this would require 250 feet of stopping sight distance for passenger cars on Rochester Avenue, assuming a level roadway. Since the grade for the east approach of Rochester Avenue east of the new site access, Allison Way, is approximately a 2.1% downgrade, the required stopping sight distance for westbound passenger car traffic approaching the new site access, Allison Way, rounded up to the nearest five feet, would be 255 feet. Per AASHTO guidelines, with a posted speed limit of 35 mph along Rochester Avenue, the required intersection sight distance for motorists in passenger cars stopped on the new site access, Allison Way, would be 390 feet, assuming the approach grade of the new site access, Allison Way, does not exceed 3%. According to the original 2022 traffic impact study, there is clear stopping sight distance and intersection sight distance of more than 400 feet to the east and west of the proposed Allison Way access. Left -turn lane warrant analysis was performed for PM peak hour traffic on Rochester Avenue, assuming full build -out of the new development. This was done to determine if a dedicated left - turn lane is warranted for eastbound Rochester Avenue traffic at either of the development's two proposed access drives, Allison Way or Heron Drive. The need for a dedicated left -turn lane at these two intersections has been evaluated using the Missouri DOT'S (MoDOT's) online Engineering Policy Guide, specifically, Figure 940.9.1, Left Turn Lane Guidelines for Two -Lane Roads less than or equal to 40 mph. These two left -turn lane warrant analysis figures are included in the attachments. MoDOT's Figure 940.9.1 is a reproduction of Figure 2-5(a), Guideline for determining the need for a major road left -turn bay at a two-way stop -controlled intersection, found on Page 22 of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 457, Engineering Study Guide for Evaluating Intersection Improvements. NCHRP Report 457 was authored by James A. Bonneson, P.E. and Michael D. Fontaine of the Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas in 2001. The analysis shows that the small number of eastbound left -turning vehicles on Rochester Avenue at both evaluated intersections does not reach the percentage threshold to warrant the addition of a dedicated left -turn lane at either intersection. Page 7 Monument Hills, LLC Residential Development May 14, 2025 Traffic Impact Study Conclusion This updated traffic impact study finds that: • The study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better in the 2022 existing, 2026 baseline and 2026 future with development conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours. • The proposed Allison Way access location exceeds the existing public street separation distance along Rochester Avenue. • Sight distance requirements are met for the proposed Allison Way access location. • There is no significant crash history at the study intersections. • A dedicated eastbound left -turn lane on Rochester Avenue is not warranted at either proposed development access drive — Allison Way or Heron Drive. Based on these findings, from a traffic impact viewpoint, there is no reason not to approve the proposed access locations shown in the Overall Development Plan for the proposed Monument Hills residential development. Attachments Trip Generation A-1 to A-5 Traffic Counts B-1 to B-8 Turning Movements C-1 to C-10 Level of Service Calculations D-1 to D-26 Crash Data E-1 to E-11 Left -Turn Lane Warrant F-1 to F-2 Page 8 ATTACHMENTS Monument Hills WHA #1296C25 Trip Generation for: Weekday (a.k.a.): Average Weekday Daily Trips (AWDT) NET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPE IN BOTH DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTS Gross Trips Transit Reduction TOTAL PASS -BY DIVERTED LINK NEW PASS -BY DIVERTED LINK NEW LAND USES VARIABLE ITE LU code Trip Rate % IN % OUT In+Out (Total) % of Gross Trips Trips In+Out (Total) In+Out (Total) % of Ext. Trips In+Out (Total) % of Ext. Trips In+Out (Total) In+Out (Total) In Out In Out In Out Single -Family Detached 35 units 210 9.43 50 % 50 % 330 0 % 0.00 330 0 % 0 0 % 0 330 0 0 0 0EN Single-Family Detached 31 units 210 9.43 50 % 50 % 292 0 % 0.00 292 0 % 0 0 % 0 292 0 0 0 0 Senior Single -Family 6 units 251 4.31 50 % 50 % 26 0 % 0.00 26 0 % 0 0 % 0 26 0 0 0 0 Senior Multi -Family 110 units 252 3.24 50 % 50 % 356 0 % 0.00 356 0 % 0 0 % 0 356 0 0 0 0 Total 1004 0.00 1004 0 0 1004 0 0 0 0 A - 1 Monument Hills WHA #1296C25 Trip Generation for: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour between 7 and 9 AM (a.k.a.): Weekday AM Peak Hour NET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPE IN BOTH DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTS Gross Trips Transit Reduction TOTAL PASS -BY DIVERTED LINK NEW PASS -BY DIVERTED LINK NEW LAND USES VARIABLE ITE LU code Trip Rate % IN % OUT In+Out (Total) % of Gross Trips Trips In+Out (Total) In+Out (Total) % of Ext. Trips In+Out (Total) % of Ext. Trips In+Out (Total) In+Out (Total) In Out In Out In Out Single -Family Detached 35 units 210 0.70 26% 74% 24 0% 0.00 24 0% 0 0% 0 24 0 0 0 0 6 Detached 31 units 210 070 26% 74% 22 0% 0.00 22 0% 0 0% 0 22 0 0 0 0 6 SeniorSingle-Family 6units 251 0.24 33% 67% 1 0% 0.00 1 0% 0 0% 0 1 0000 0Senior JSingle-Family Multi -Family 110 units 25277_77 0.20 34 % 66 % 22 0 % 0.00 22 0 % 0 0 % 0 22 0 0 0 0 7 Total 69 0.00 69 0 0 69 0 0 0 0 19 A-2 Monument Hills WHA #1296C25 Trip Generation for: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour between 4 and 6 PM (a.k.a.): Weekday PM Peak Hour NET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPE IN BOTH DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTS Gross Trips Transit Reduction TOTAL PASS -BY DIVERTED LINK NEW PASS -BY DIVERTED LINK NEW LAND USES VARIABLE ITE LU code Trip Rate % IN % OUT In+Out (Total) % of Gross Trips Trips In+Out (Total) In+Out (Total) % of Ext. Trips In+Out (Total) % of Ext. Trips In+Out (Total) In+Out (Total) In Out In Out In Out Single -Family Detached 35 units 210 0.94 63% 37% 33 0% 0.00 33 0% 0 0% 0 33 0 0 0 0 21 Detached 31 units 210 0.94 63% 37% 29 0% 0.00 29 0% 0 0% 0 29 0 0 0 0 18Senior Single -Family 6 units 251 0.30 61% 39% 2 0% 0.00 2 0% 0 0% 0 2 0 00 0 1 J12Single-Family Senior Multi -Family 110 units 252 0.25 56 % 44 % 28 0 % 0.00 28 0 % 0 0 % 0 28 0 0 0 0 16Total 92 0.00 92 00 92 0 0 0 0 56 A-3 Monument Hills WHA #1296C25 AM Peak -Hour New ADT New AM Peak Hour Trips In I Out 11 Total 100% 10041 191 5011 69.00 1 % 10.04 0.19 0.50 0.69 2% 20.08 0.38 1.00 1.38 3% 30.12 0.57 1.50 2.07 4% 40.16 0.76 2.00 2.76 5% 50.20 0.95 2.50 3.45 6% 60.241 1.14 3.00 4.14 7% 70.281 1.33 3.50 4.83 8% 80.32 1.52 4.00 5.52 9% 90.36 1.71 4.50 6.21 10% 100.40 1.90 5.00 6.90 11 % 110.44 2.09 5.50 7.59 12% 120.48 2.28 6.00 8.28 13%1 130.52 2.47 6.50 8.97 14% 140.56 2.66 7.00 9.66 15% 150.60 2.85 7.50 10.35 16% 160.64 3.04 8.00 11.04 17% 170.68 3.23 8.50 11.73 18% 180.72 3.42 9.00 12.42 19% 190.76 3.61 9.50 13.11 20% 200.80 3.80 10.00 13.80 21 % 210.84 3.99 10.50 14.49 22% 220.88 4.18 11.00 15.18 23% 230.92 4.37 11.50 15.87 24% 240.96 4.56 12.00 16.56 25% 251.00 4.75 12.50 17.25 26% 261.04 4.94 13.00 17.94 27% 271.08 5.13 13.50 18.63 28% 281.12 5.32 14.00 19.32 29% 291.16 5.51 14.50 20.01 30% 301.20 5.70 15.00 20.70 31% 311.24 5.89 15.50 21.39 32% 321.28 6.08 16.00 22.08 33% 331.32 6.27 16.50 22.77 34% 341.36 6.46 17.00 23.46 35% 351.40 6.65 17.50 24.15 36% 361.44 6.84 18.00 24.84 37% 371.48 7.03 18.50 25.53 38% 381.52 7.22 19.00 26.22 39% 391.56 7.41 19.50 26.91 40% 401.60 7.60 20.00 27.60 41% 411.64 7.79 20.50 28.29 42% 421.68 7.98 21.00 28.98 43% 431.72 8.17 21.50 29.67 44% 441.76 8.36 22.00 30.36 45% 451.80 8.55 22.50 31.05 46% 461.84 8.74 23.00 31.74 47% 471.88 8.93 23.50 32.43 48% 481.921 9.12 24.00 49% 491.96 9.31 24.50 A3450 50% 502.00 9.50 25.00]]] New ADT New AM Peak Hour Trips In I Out ILTotal 100% 1004 151 5011 69 51 % 512.04 9.69 25.50 35.19 52% 522.08 9.88 26.00 35.88 53% 532.12 10.07 26.50 36.57 54% 542.16 10.26 27.00 37.26 55% 552.20 10.45 27.50 37.95 56%1 562.24 10.641 28.00 38.64 57%1 572.28 10.83 28.50 39.33 58% 582.32 11.02 29.00 40.02 59% 592.36 11.21 29.50 40.71 60% 602.40 11.40 30.00 41.40 61% 612.44 11.59 30.50 42.09 62% 622.48 11.781 31.00 42.78 63%1 632.52 11.97 31.50 43.47 64% 642.56 12.16 32.00 44.16 65% 652.60 12.35 32.50 44.85 66% 662.64 12.54 33.00 45.54 67% 672.68 12.73 33.50 46.23 68% 682.72 12.921 34.00 46.92 69% 692.76 13.11 34.50 47.61 70% 702.80 13.30 35.00 48.30 71 % 712.84 13.49 35.50 48.99 72% 722.88 13.68 36.00 49.68 73% 732.92 13.87 36.50 50.37 74%1 742.96 14.06 37.00 51.06 75% 753.00 14.25 37.50 51.75 76% 763.04 14.44 38.00 52.44 77% 773.08 14.63 38.50 53.13 78% 783.12 14.82 39.00 53.82 79% 793.16 15.01 39.50 54.51 80% 803.20 15.20 40.00 55.20 81 % 813.24 15.39 40.50 55.89 82% 823.28 15.58 41.00 56.58 83% 833.32 15.77 41.50 57.27 84% 843.36 15.96 42.00 57.96 85% 853.40 16.15 42.50 58.65 86% 863.44 16.34 43.00 59.34 87% 873.48 16.53 43.50 60.03 88% 883.52 16.72 44.00 60.72 89% 893.56 16.91 44.50 61.41 90% 903.60 17.10 45.00 62.10 91 % 913.64 17.29 45.50 62.79 92% 923.68 17.48 46.00 63.48 93% 933.72 17.67 46.50 64.17 94% 943.76 17.86 47.00 64.86 95%1 953.80 18.05 47.50 65.55 96% 963.84 18.24 48.001 66.24 97% 973.88 18.43 48.50 66.93 98% 983.92 18.62 49.00 67.62 99% 993.96 18.81 49.5 668.31 100% 1004.00 19.00 50.00 69.00 A-4 Monument Hills WHA #1296C25 PM Peak -Hour New ADT New PM Peak Hour Trips In I Out 11 Total 100% 10041 561 3611 92.00 1 % 10.04 0.56 0.36 0.92 2% 20.08 1.12 0.72 1.84 3% 30.12 1.68 1.08 2.76 4% 40.16 2.24 1.44 3.68 5% 50.20 2.80 1.80 4.60 6% 60.241 3.36 2.16 5.52 7% 70.281 3.92 2.52 6.44 8% 80.32 4.48 2.88 7.36 9% 90.36 5.04 3.24 8.28 10% 100.40 5.60 3.60 9.20 11 % 110.44 6.16 3.96 10.12 12% 120.48 6.72 4.32 11.04 13%1 130.52 7.28 4.68 11.96 14% 140.56 7.84 5.04 12.88 15% 150.60 8.40 5.40 13.80 16% 160.64 8.96 5.76 14.72 17% 170.68 9.52 6.12 15.64 18% 180.72 10.08 6.48 16.56 19% 190.76 10.64 6.84 17.48 20% 200.80 11.20 7.20 18.40 21% 210.84 11.76 7.56 19.32 22% 220.88 12.32 7.92 20.24 23% 230.92 12.88 8.28 21.16 24% 240.96 13.44 8.64 22.08 25% 251.00 14.00 9.00 23.00 26% 261.04 14.56 9.36 23.92 27% 271.08 15.12 9.72 24.84 28% 281.12 15.68 10.08 25.76 29% 291.16 16.24 10.44 26.68 30% 301.20 16.80 10.80 27.60 31 % 311.24 17.36 11.16 28.52 32% 321.28 17.92 11.52 29.44 33% 331.32 18.48 11.88 30.36 34% 341.36 19.04 12.24 31.28 35% 351.40 19.60 12.60 32.20 36% 361.44 20.16 12.96 33.12 37% 371.48 20.72 13.32 34.04 38% 381.52 21.28 13.68 34.96 39% 391.56 21.84 14.04 35.88 40% 401.60 22.40 14.40 36.80 41 % 411.64 22.96 14.76 37.72 42% 421.68 23.52 15.12 38.64 43% 431.72 24.08 15.48 39.56 44% 441.76 24.64 15.84 40.48 45% 451.80 25.20 16.20 41.40 46% 461.84 25.76 16.56 42.32 47% 471.88 26.32 16.92 43.24 48% 481.921 26.88 17.28 44.16 49% 491.96 27.44 17.64 45.08 50% 502.00 28.00 18.00]]] 46.00 New ADT New PM Peak Hour Trips In I Out 11 Total 100% 1004 571 3611 92 51 % 512.04 28.56 18.36 46.92 52% 522.08 29.12 18.72 47.84 53% 532.12 29.68 19.08 48.76 54% 542.16 30.24 19.44 49.68 55% 552.20 30.80 19.80 50.60 56%1 562.24 31.361 20.16 51.52 57%1 572.28 31.92 20.52 52.44 58% 582.32 32.48 20.88 53.36 59% 592.36 33.04 21.24 54.28 60% 602.40 33.60 21.60 55.20 61 % 612.44 34.16 21.96 56.12 62% 622.48 34.721 22.32 57.04 63%1 632.52 35.281 22.68 57.96 64% 642.56 35.84 23.04 58.88 65% 652.60 36.40 23.40 59.80 66% 662.64 36.96 23.76 60.72 67% 672.68 37.52 24.12 61.64 68% 682.72 38.08 24.48 62.56 69% 692.76 38.64 24.84 63.48 70% 702.80 39.20 25.20 64.40 71% 712.84 39.76 25.56 65.32 72% 722.88 40.32 25.92 66.24 73% 732.92 40.88 26.28 67.16 74%1 742.96 41.441 26.64 68.08 75% 753.00 42.00 27.00 69.00 76% 763.04 42.56 27.36 69.92 77% 773.08 43.12 27.72 70.84 78% 783.12 43.68 28.08 71.76 79% 793.16 44.24 28.44 72.68 80% 803.20 44.80 28.80 73.60 81% 813.24 45.36 29.16 74.52 82% 823.28 45.92 29.52 75.44 83% 833.32 46.48 29.88 76.36 84% 843.36 47.04 30.24 77.28 85% 853.40 47.601 30.60 78.20 86% 863.44 48.16 30.961 79.12 87% 873.48 48.72 31.32 80.04 88% 883.52 49.28 31.68 80.96 89% 893.56 49.84 32.04 81.88 90% 903.60 50.40 32.40 82.80 91% 913.64 50.96 32.76 83.72 92% 923.68 51.52 33.121 84.64 93% 933.72 52.08 33.48 85.56 94% 943.76 52.64 33.84 86.48 95%1 953.80 53.20 34.20 87.40 96% 963.84 53.76 34.56 88.32 97% 973.88 54.32 34.92 89.24 98% 983.92 54.88 35.28 90.16 99% 993.96 55.44 35.64 91.08 100% 1004.00 56.00 36.0011 92.00 A-5 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING PEAK HOUR: 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM, Wednesday, 3-2-2022 Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Total Approach Name Rochester Ave Rochester Ave N Scott Blvd ScottBlvd Peak Hour Factor (PHF) 0.77 0.72 0.78 0.92 0.89 % of Heavy Vehicles 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Scott Blvd 546 i KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING PEAK HOUR: 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM, Wednesday, 3-2-2022 Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Total Approach Name Rochester Ave Rochester Ave N Scott Blvd ScottBlvd Peak Hour Factor (PHF) 0.85 0.87 0.86 0.86 0.97 % of Heavy Vehicles 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Scott Blvd 625 i KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING PEAK HOUR: 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM, Wednesday, 3-2-2022 Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Total Approach Name Rochester Ave Rochester Ave Heron Cir --- Peak Hour Factor (PHF) 0.78 0.79 0.75 #DIV/0! 0.83 % of Heavy Vehicles 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% #DIV/0! W, 32 Im KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING PEAK HOUR: 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM, Wednesday, 3-2-2022 Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Total Approach Name Rochester Ave Rochester Ave Heron Cir --- Peak Hour Factor (PHF) 0.91 0.93 0.60 #DIV/0! 0.92 % of Heavy Vehicles 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% #DIV/0! W, 36 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING PEAK HOUR: 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM, Wednesday, 3-2-2022 Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Total Approach Name Rochester Ave Rochester Ave Amhurst St --- Peak Hour Factor (PHF) 0.79 0.80 0.75 #DIV/0! 0.86 % of Heavy Vehicles 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% #DIV/0! W, 46 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING PEAK HOUR: 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM, Wednesday, 3-2-2022 Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Total Approach Name Rochester Ave Rochester Ave Amhurst St --- Peak Hour Factor (PHF) 0.92 0.90 0.71 #DIV/0! 0.93 % of Heavy Vehicles 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% #DIV/0! W, 65 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING PEAK HOUR: 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM, Wednesday, 3-2-2022 Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Total Approach Name Rochester Ave Rochester Ave Teton Cir --- Peak Hour Factor (PHF) 0.73 0.89 0.71 #DIV/0! 0.91 % of Heavy Vehicles 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% #DIV/0! W, 73 C KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING PEAK HOUR: 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM, Wednesday, 3-2-2022 Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Total Approach Name Rochester Ave Rochester Ave Teton Cir --- Peak Hour Factor (PHF) 0.86 0.87 0.67 #DIV/0! 0.91 % of Heavy Vehicles 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% #DIV/0! W, 67 i 1 N Scott Blvd @ Rochester Ave SynchroID: 1 Existing 170 518 348 Average Weekday 7 1 128 1 35 AM Peak Hour c2 b b N Scott Boulevard Q 66 Year: 3/2/22 207 a 86 173 Data Source: Rochester Avenue 974 �2 21 Rochester Avenue 422 T North 462 Welch Design Development 255 142 b 249 21 b N Scott Boulevard Q 4 I� 114 190 72 170 546 376 Future 133 539 363 Averag Weekdout ay Average Weekday 7 133 36 AM Peak Hour c2 b b N Scott Boulevard Year: 2026 215a180 ff22 Growth Rate = 1.0% '2 T Years of Growth = 4 481 Rochester Avenue 1,014 Rochester Avenue 439 North Total Growth = 1.0406 96 &1 266 148 b 259 22 b N Scott Boulevard Q 119 4 I� 75 1 198 1 177 569 1 392 Total Project Trips 1 1 3 2 Average Weekday 1 1 0 1 0 AM Peak Hour c2 b b N Scott Boulevard Q 0 4 a 2 2 t2 0 T 16 Rochester Avenue 16 Rochester Avenue 10 North 2 12 8 b 8 2 b N Scott Boulevard 1 0 0 2 3 1 FutureProject 1 542 365 Average Weekday 8 13333 36 AM Peak Hour c2 b b N Scott Boulevard 219a182 ff22 '2 T 497 Rochester Avenue 1,030 Rochester Avenue 449 North 98 &1 278 156 b 267 24 b N Scott Boulevard Q 4 I� 120 1 198 1 75 179 572 1 393 C - 1 2 Heron Cir @ Rochester Ave SynchroID: 2 Existing 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 1 0 1 0 AM Peak Hour c2 b b Year: 3/2/22 261 aff 251 t2 T Data Source: 429 Rochester Avenue 443 Rochester Avenue 425 North Welch Design 0 Development 168 161 b 174 7 b Heron Circle 11 0 13 8 32 24 Future without Project 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 1 0 0 AM Peak Hour c2 b b Year: 2026 271 a E 261 Growth Rate = 1.0% c2 T Years of Growth = 4 446 Rochester Avenue 461 Rochester Avenue 443 North Total Growth = 1.0406 0 175 168 b 182 7 b Heron Circle 11 1 0 1 14 8 33 1 25 Total Project Trips 32 45 13 Average Weekday 24 1 0 1 8 AM Peak Hour c2 b b Heron Drive Q 25t2 ffl T 39 Rochester Avenue 50 Rochester Avenue 16 North 10 14 4 b 12 0 b Heron Circle 0 0 0 0 0 0 FutureProject 45 13 Average Weekday 24 0 0 8 AM Peak Hour c2 b b Heron Drive 3 296 a 261 265 t2 1 T 485 Rochester Avenue 511 Rochester Avenue 459 North 10 &1 189 172 b 194 7 b Heron Circle 11 1 0 1 14 8 33 1 25 C-2 3 Amhurst St @ Rochester Ave SynchroID: 3 Existing 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 1 0 1 0 AM Peak Hour c2 b b Year: 3/2/22 275 a E 262 T Data Source: 432 Rochester Avenue 449 Rochester Avenue 420 North Welch Design 0 Development 157 146 b 158 11 b Amhurst Street Q 4 I� 18 0 12 16 46 30 Future without Project 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 1 0 0 AM Peak Hour c2 b b Year: 2026 286 a E 272 Growth Rate = 1.0% c2 T Years of Growth = 4 449 Rochester Avenue 466 Rochester Avenue 436 North Total Growth = 1.0406 0 163 152 b 164 11 b Amhurst Street 19 1 0 1 12 16 47 1 31 Total Project Trips 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 1 0 1 0 AM Peak Hour c2 b b 25 a 25 25 t2 0 T 39 Rochester Avenue 39 Rochester Avenue 39 North 0 14 14 b 14 0 b Amhurst Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 FutureProject 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 AM Peak Hour c2 b b 0 311 a 292 297 '2 5 T 488 Rochester Avenue 505 Rochester Avenue 475 North o � I 177 166 b 178 11 b Amhurst Street 19 1 0 1 12 16 47 1 31 C - 3 4 Teton Cir @ Rochester Ave SynchroID: 4 Existing 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 1 0 1 0 AM Peak Hour c2 b b Year: 3/2/22 313 a E 268 t2 T Data Source: 494 Rochester Avenue 503 Rochester Avenue 439 North Welch Design 0 Development 181 165 b 171 16 b Teton Circle 48 0 6 19 73 54 Future without Project 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 1 0 0 AM Peak Hour c2 b b 0 Year: 2026 326 a 276 279 Growth Rate = 1.0% '2 3 T Years of Growth = 4 515 Rochester Avenue 524 Rochester Avenue 457 North Total Growth = 1.0406 0 189 172 b 178 17 b Teton Circle 50 1 0 1 6 20 76 1 56 Total Project Trips 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 1 0 1 0 AM Peak Hour c2 b b 38 a 38 38 t2 0 T 53 Rochester Avenue 53 Rochester Avenue 53 North 0 15 15 b 15 0 b Teton Circle 0 0 0 0 0 0 FutureProject 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 AM Peak Hour c2 b b 0 364 a 314 317 '2 3 T 568 Rochester Avenue 577 Rochester Avenue 510 North o � I 204 187 b 193 17 b Teton Circle 50 1 0 1 6 20 76 1 56 C-4 5 Site Access @ Rochester Ave SynchroID: 5 Existing Average Weekday AM Peak Hour Year: 3/2/22 Data Source: Welch Design Development 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 t2 b b 275 432 Rochester Avenue 157 157 b 0 b E0 a 275 275 t2 0 432 Rochester Avenue 432 157 Volumes extrapolated form west a z� leg of Amhurst St at Rochester 0 1 0 0 Ave. I 1 0 0 1 0 Future without Project 0 1 0 0 Average Weekday 0 1 0 1 0 AM Peak Hour c2 b b Year: 2026 286 Growth Rate = 1.0% Years of Growth = 4 449 Rochester Avenue Total Growth = 1.0406 0 163 163 b 0 b a 286 286 t2 0 449 Rochester Avenue 449 163 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Total Project Trips 18 24 6 Average Weekday 14 1 0 1 4 AM Peak Hour c2 b b Allison Way Q 1 38 a 24 25 t2 0 53 Rochester Avenue 58 Rochester Avenue 39 5 15 10 b 14 0 b --- � 4 z� 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 FutureProject 18 24 6 Average Weekday 14 1 0 1 4 AM Peak Hour c2 b b Allison Way EO, 324 a 311 t2 502 Rochester Avenue 507 Rochester Avenue 488 5 178 173 b 177 0 b --- Q 4 I� 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 T North I T North I T North I T North I C - 5 1 N Scott Blvd @ Rochester Ave SynchroID: 1 Existing 274 657 383 Average Weekday 17 1 226 1 31 PM Peak Hour c2 b b N Scott Boulevard Qff Year:3/2/22 237263 T Data Source: 476 Rochester Avenue 1,142 Rochester Avenue 526 North Welch Design 113 Development 239 100 b 263 26 b N Scott Boulevard Q 4 I� 63 171 132 259 625 366 Future 235 684 399 Average Weekday Averag Weekdout ay 18 1 235 32 PM Peak Hour c2 b b N Scott Boulevard 103 Year: 2026 247 a 163 273 Growth Rate = 1.0% c2 7 T Years of Growth = 4 496 Rochester Avenue 1,188 Rochester Avenue 546 North Total Growth = 1.0406 118 &1 249 104 b 273 27 b N Scott Boulevard 66 1 178 1 137 269 650 1 381 Total Project Trips 3 1 5 2 Average Weekday 3 1 0 1 0 PM Peak Hour c2 b b N Scott Boulevard Q 0 13 a 7 7 t2 0 T 22 Rochester Avenue 22 Rochester Avenue 12 North 2 9 5 b 5 2 b N Scott Boulevard 3 0 0 2 5 3 FutureProject 2 689 401 Average Weekday 21 23535 32 PM Peak Hour c2 b b N Scott Boulevard 103 260 a 170 280 � 7 T 518 Rochester Avenue 1,210 Rochester Avenue 558 North 120 &1 258 109 b 278 29 b N Scott Boulevard 69 1 178 1 137 271 655 1 384 2 Heron Cir @ Rochester Ave SynchroID: 2 Existing 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 1 0 1 0 PM Peak Hour c2 b b Year: 3/2/22 172 a E 172 T Data Source: 451 Rochester Avenue 463 Rochester Avenue 439 North Welch Design 0 Development 279 262 b 267 17 b Heron Circle 7 0 5 24 36 12 Future without Project 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 1 0 0 PM Peak Hour c2 b b 0 Year: 2026 179 a 172 179 Growth Rate = 1.0% � 7 T Years of Growth = 4 470 Rochester Avenue 482 Rochester Avenue 457 North Total Growth = 1.0406 0 291 273 b 278 18 b Heron Circle 7 1 0 1 5 25 37 1 12 Total Project Trips 24 59 35 Average Weekday 18 1 0 1 6 PM Peak Hour c2 b b Heron Drive Q 23 a 13 ff t2 T 53 Rochester Avenue 67 Rochester Avenue 22 North 27 30 3 b 9 0 b Heron Circle 0 0 0 0 0 0 FutureProject 59 35 Average Weekday 18 0 0 6 PM Peak Hour c2 b b Heron Drive 8 202 a 177 192 � 7 T 523 Rochester Avenue 549 Rochester Avenue 479 North 27 &1 321 276 b 287 18 b Heron Circle 7 1 0 1 5 25 37 1 12 C - 7 3 Amhurst St @ Rochester Ave SynchroID: 3 Existing 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 1 0 1 0 PM Peak Hour c2 b b Year: 3/2/22 169 a E 170 t2 T Data Source: 473 Rochester Avenue 494 Rochester Avenue 450 North Welch Design 0 Development 304 273 b 280 31 b Amhurst Street Q 4 I� 13 0 7 45 65 20 Future without Project 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 1 0 0 PM Peak Hour c2 b b Year: 2026 176 a E 177 Growth Rate = 1.0% c2 T Years of Growth = 4 492 Rochester Avenue 514 Rochester Avenue 468 North Total Growth = 1.0406 0 316 284 b 291 32 b Amhurst Street 14 1 0 1 7 47 68 1 21 Total Project Trips 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 1 0 1 0 PM Peak Hour c2 b b 23 a 23 23 t2 0 T 53 Rochester Avenue 53 Rochester Avenue 53 North 0 30 30 b 30 0 b Amhurst Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 FutureProject 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 PM Peak Hour c2 b b 199 a 200 E15 '2 T 545 Rochester Avenue 567 Rochester Avenue 521 North o � I 346 314 b 321 32 b Amhurst Street 14 1 0 1 7 47 68 1 21 C - 8 4 Teton Cir @ Rochester Ave SynchroID: 4 Existing 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 1 0 1 0 PM Peak Hour c2 b b Year: 3/2/22 181 a E 167 T Data Source: 513 Rochester Avenue 523 Rochester Avenue 466 North Welch Design 0 Development 332 296 b 299 36 b Teton Circle 21 0 3 43 67 24 Future without Project 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 1 0 0 PM Peak Hour c2 b b 0 Year: 2026 188 a 166 173 Growth Rate = 1.0% � 7 T Years of Growth = 4 533 Rochester Avenue 543 Rochester Avenue 484 North Total Growth = 1.0406 0 345 308 b 311 37 b Teton Circle 22 1 0 1 3 44 69 1 25 Total Project Trips 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 1 0 1 0 PM Peak Hour c2 b b 27 a 27 27 t2 0 T 69 Rochester Avenue 69 Rochester Avenue 69 North 0 42 42 b 42 0 b Teton Circle 0 0 0 0 0 0 FutureProject 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 PM Peak Hour c2 b b 215 a200 E � T 602 Rochester Avenue 612 Rochester Avenue 553 North o � I 387 350 b 353 37 b Teton Circle 22 1 0 1 3 44 69 1 25 C - 9 5 Site Access @ Rochester Ave SynchroID: 5 Existing Average Weekday PM Peak Hour Year: 3/2/22 Data Source: Welch Design Development 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 t2 b b 169 473 Rochester Avenue 304 304 b 0 b E0 a 169 169 t2 0 473 Rochester Avenue 473 304 Volumes extrapolated form west a z� leg of Amhurst St at Rochester 0 1 0 0 Ave. I 1 0 0 1 0 Future without Project 0 1 0 0 Average Weekday 0 1 0 1 0 PM Peak Hour c2 b b Year: 2026 176 Growth Rate = 1.0% Years of Growth = 4 492 Rochester Avenue Total Growth = 1.0406 0 316 316 b 0 b a ff76 176 t2 492 Rochester Avenue 492 316 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Total Project Trips 33 21 Average Weekday 9 0 0 3 PM Peak Hour c2 b b Allison Way Q ffO8 27 a 23 70 Rochester Avenue 78 Rochester Avenue 53 16 43 27 b 30 0 b --- � 4 z� 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 FutureProject 33 21 Average Weekday 9 0 0 3 PM Peak Hour c2 b b Allison Way 5 203 a 194 199 c2 0 562 Rochester Avenue 570 Rochester Avenue 545 16 <�' 359 343 b 346 0 b --- Q 4 I� 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 T North I T North I T North I T North I C-10 Monument Hills Iowa 1: N Scott Boulevard & Rochester Avenue Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 13 Intersection LOS B 2022 Existing Conditions AM Peak -Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 92 142 21 21 86 66 114 190 72 35 128 7 Future Vol, veh/h 92 142 21 21 86 66 114 190 72 35 128 7 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 103 160 24 24 97 74 128 213 81 39 144 8 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SIB Opposing Approach WB EB SIB NB Opposing Lanes 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Approach Left SIB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SIB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 2 2 HCM Control Delay 12.4 12.2 14.2 11.9 HCM LOS B B B B Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 73% 0% 87% 0% 57% 0% 95% Vol Right, % 0% 27% 0% 13% 0% 43% 0% 5% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 114 262 92 163 21 152 35 135 LT Vol 114 0 92 0 21 0 35 0 Through Vol 0 190 0 142 0 86 0 128 RT Vol 0 72 0 21 0 66 0 7 Lane Flow Rate 128 294 103 183 24 171 39 152 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.245 0.506 0.207 0.336 0.048 0.312 0.079 0.283 Departure Headway (Hd) 6.895 6.192 7.213 6.612 7.394 6.574 7.269 6.722 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 519 580 495 540 482 543 490 531 Service Time 4.667 3.964 4.993 4.391 5.181 4.36 5.056 4.509 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.247 0.507 0.208 0.339 0.05 0.315 0.08 0.286 HCM Control Delay 11.9 15.2 11.9 12.7 10.6 12.4 10.7 12.2 HCM Lane LOS B C B B B B B B HCM 95th-tile Q 1 2.8 0.8 1.5 0.2 1.3 0.3 1.2 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF 090222040] Intersection Level of Service.syn HCM 6th AWSC D-1 Monument Hills Iowa 2022 Existing Conditions 2: Heron Circle & Rochester Avenue AM Peak -Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 0.6 EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 161 7 1 250 11 13 Future Vol, veh/h 161 7 1 250 11 13 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None None - None Storage Length - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 83 83 83 83 83 83 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 194 8 1 301 13 16 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 202 0 501 198 Stage 1 - - - - 198 - Stage 2 - 303 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1370 530 843 Stage 1 - 835 - Stage 2 - 749 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1370 529 843 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 529 - Stage 1 835 Stage 2 748 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 10.7 HCM LOS B ►LIR.TiFMW ILVAF1M►Ll9'�i011:3WiTi=: 1:1M: 1:3:aY9:3WTi9:11 Capacity (veh/h) 663 1370 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.044 0.001 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.7 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF 090222040] HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service.syn D - 2 Monument Hills Iowa 2022 Existing Conditions 3: Amhurst Street & Rochester Avenue AM Peak -Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 0.8 EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 146 11 5 257 18 12 Future Vol, veh/h 146 11 5 257 18 12 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None None - None Storage Length - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 170 13 6 299 21 14 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 183 0 488 177 Stage 1 - - - - 177 - Stage 2 - 311 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1392 539 866 Stage 1 - 854 - Stage 2 - 743 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1392 536 866 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 536 - Stage 1 854 Stage 2 739 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 11 HCM LOS B ►LIR.TiFMW ILVAF1 MLTAl9'�i011:3WiTi=: 1:1M: 1:3:aY9:3WTi9:11 Capacity (veh/h) 632 1392 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.055 0.004 HCM Control Delay (s) 11 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF 090222040] HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service.syn D - 3 Monument Hills Iowa 2022 Existing Conditions 4: Teton Circle & Rochester Avenue AM Peak -Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 1.4 EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 165 16 3 265 48 6 Future Vol, veh/h 165 16 3 265 48 6 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None None - None Storage Length - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 181 18 3 291 53 7 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 199 0 487 190 Stage 1 - - - - 190 - Stage 2 - 297 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1373 540 852 Stage 1 - 842 - Stage 2 - 754 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1373 538 852 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 538 - Stage 1 842 Stage 2 752 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 12.2 HCM LOS B ►LIR.TiFMW ILVAF1 MLTAl9'�i011:3WiTi=: 1:1M: 1:3:aY9:3WTi9:11 Capacity (veh/h) 561 1373 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.106 0.002 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.2 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 0 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF 090222040] HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service.syn Monument Hills Iowa 1: N Scott Boulevard & Rochester Avenue Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 15.6 Intersection LOS C 2022 Existing Conditions PM Peak -Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 113 100 26 7 157 99 63 171 132 31 226 17 Future Vol, veh/h 113 100 26 7 157 99 63 171 132 31 226 17 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 116 103 27 7 162 102 65 176 136 32 233 18 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SIB Opposing Approach WB EB SIB NB Opposing Lanes 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Approach Left SIB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SIB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 2 2 HCM Control Delay 12.8 16.5 16.8 15.7 HCM LOS B C C C Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 56% 0% 79% 0% 61 % 0% 93% Vol Right, % 0% 44% 0% 21% 0% 39% 0% 7% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 63 303 113 126 7 256 31 243 LT Vol 63 0 113 0 7 0 31 0 Through Vol 0 171 0 100 0 157 0 226 RT Vol 0 132 0 26 0 99 0 17 Lane Flow Rate 65 312 116 130 7 264 32 251 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.134 0.573 0.252 0.258 0.015 0.508 0.067 0.488 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.421 6.599 7.798 7.137 7.721 6.932 7.577 7.015 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 483 547 460 503 463 520 473 514 Service Time 5.167 4.345 5.55 4.889 5.471 4.681 5.326 4.764 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.135 0.57 0.252 0.258 0.015 0.508 0.068 0.488 HCM Control Delay 11.3 17.9 13.2 12.4 10.6 16.7 10.9 16.3 HCM Lane LOS B C B B B C B C HCM 95th-tile Q 0.5 3.6 1 1 0 2.8 0.2 2.6 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF KH #090222040] Intersection Level of Service.syn HCM 6th AWSC D - 5 Monument Hills Iowa 2022 Existing Conditions 2: Heron Circle & Rochester Avenue PM Peak -Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 0.4 EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 262 17 7 165 7 5 Future Vol, veh/h 262 17 7 165 7 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None None - None Storage Length - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 285 18 8 179 8 5 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 303 0 489 294 Stage 1 - - - - 294 - Stage 2 - 195 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1258 538 745 Stage 1 - 756 - Stage 2 - 838 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1258 534 745 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 534 - Stage 1 756 Stage 2 832 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 11.1 HCM LOS B ►LIR.TiFMW ILVAF1 MLTAl9'�i011:3WiTi=I1:1M: 1:3:aVJ1:3WTi9:11 Capacity (veh/h) 605 1258 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.022 0.006 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.1 7.9 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF KH #090222040] HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service.syn D - 6 Monument Hills Iowa 2022 Existing Conditions 3: Amhurst Street & Rochester Avenue PM Peak -Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 0.7 EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 273 31 14 156 13 7 Future Vol, veh/h 273 31 14 156 13 7 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None None - None Storage Length - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 294 33 15 168 14 8 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 327 0 509 311 Stage 1 - - - - 311 - Stage 2 - 198 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1233 524 729 Stage 1 - 743 - Stage 2 - 835 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1233 517 729 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 517 - Stage 1 743 Stage 2 824 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.7 11.5 HCM LOS B ►LIR.TiFMW ILVAF1M►Ll9'�i011:3WiTi=: 1:1M: 1:3:aVJ1:3WTi9:11 Capacity (veh/h) 576 1233 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.037 0.012 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.5 8 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF KH #090222040] HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service.syn D - 7 Monument Hills Iowa 2022 Existing Conditions 4: Teton Circle & Rochester Avenue PM Peak -Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 0.7 EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 296 36 7 160 21 3 Future Vol, veh/h 296 36 7 160 21 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None None - None Storage Length - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 325 40 8 176 23 3 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 365 0 537 345 Stage 1 - - - - 345 - Stage 2 - 192 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1194 505 698 Stage 1 - 717 - Stage 2 - 841 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1194 501 698 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 501 - Stage 1 717 Stage 2 835 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 12.3 HCM LOS B ►LIR.TiFMW ILVAF1 MLTAl9'�i011:3WiTi=I1:1M: 1:3:aY9:3WTi9:11 Capacity (veh/h) 519 1194 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.051 0.006 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.3 8 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF KH #090222040] HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service.syn B Monument Hills Iowa 1: N Scott Boulevard & Rochester Avenue Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 13.6 Intersection LOS B 2026 Baseline Conditions AM Peak -Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 96 148 22 22 89 69 119 198 75 36 133 7 Future Vol, veh/h 96 148 22 22 89 69 119 198 75 36 133 7 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 108 166 25 25 100 78 134 222 84 40 149 8 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SIB Opposing Approach WB EB SIB NB Opposing Lanes 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Approach Left SIB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SIB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 2 2 HCM Control Delay 12.9 12.6 15 12.3 HCM LOS B B B B Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 73% 0% 87% 0% 56% 0% 95% Vol Right, % 0% 27% 0% 13% 0% 44% 0% 5% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 119 273 96 170 22 158 36 140 LT Vol 119 0 96 0 22 0 36 0 Through Vol 0 198 0 148 0 89 0 133 RT Vol 0 75 0 22 0 69 0 7 Lane Flow Rate 134 307 108 191 25 178 40 157 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.26 0.536 0.219 0.357 0.052 0.335 0.083 0.304 Departure Headway (Hd) 6.998 6.294 7.431 6.829 7.625 6.801 7.507 6.95 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 509 567 486 529 472 533 480 519 Service Time 4.794 4.09 5.131 4.529 5.325 4.501 5.207 4.66 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.263 0.541 0.222 0.361 0.053 0.334 0.083 0.303 HCM Control Delay 12.3 16.2 12.2 13.3 10.7 12.9 10.9 12.7 HCM Lane LOS B C B B B B B B HCM 95th-tile Q 1 3.2 0.8 1.6 0.2 1.5 0.3 1.3 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF 090222040] Intersection Level of Service.syn HCM 6th AWSC D - 9 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Baseline Conditions 2: Heron Circle & Rochester Avenue AM Peak -Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 0.6 EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 168 7 1 260 11 14 Future Vol, veh/h 168 7 1 260 11 14 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None None - None Storage Length - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 83 83 83 83 83 83 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 202 8 1 313 13 17 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 210 0 521 206 Stage 1 - - - - 206 - Stage 2 - 315 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1361 516 835 Stage 1 - 829 - Stage 2 - 740 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1361 515 835 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 515 - Stage 1 829 Stage 2 739 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 10.8 HCM LOS B ►LIR.TiFMW ILVAF1 MLTAl9'�i011:3WiTi=: 1:1M: 1:3:aY9:3WTi9:11 Capacity (veh/h) 656 1361 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.046 0.001 HCM Control Delay (s) 10.8 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF 090222040] HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service.syn D-10 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Baseline Conditions 3: Amhurst Street & Rochester Avenue AM Peak -Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 0.8 EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 152 11 5 267 19 12 Future Vol, veh/h 152 11 5 267 19 12 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None None - None Storage Length - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 177 13 6 310 22 14 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 190 0 506 184 Stage 1 - - - - 184 - Stage 2 - 322 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1384 526 858 Stage 1 - 848 - Stage 2 - 735 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1384 523 858 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 523 - Stage 1 848 Stage 2 731 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 11.2 HCM LOS B ►LIR.TiFMW ILVAF1 MLTAl9'�i011:3WiTi=: 1:1M: 1:3:aY9:3WTi9:11 Capacity (veh/h) 616 1384 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.059 0.004 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.2 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF 090222040] HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service.syn D -ll Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Baseline Conditions 4: Teton Circle & Rochester Avenue AM Peak -Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 1.4 EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 172 17 3 276 50 6 Future Vol, veh/h 172 17 3 276 50 6 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None None - None Storage Length - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 189 19 3 303 55 7 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 208 0 508 199 Stage 1 - - - - 199 - Stage 2 - 309 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1363 525 842 Stage 1 - 835 - Stage 2 - 745 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1363 523 842 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 523 - Stage 1 835 Stage 2 743 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 12.4 HCM LOS B ►LIR.TiFMW ILVAF1 MLTAl9'�i101:3WiTi=: 1:1M: 1:3:aY9:3WTi9:11 Capacity (veh/h) 545 1363 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.113 0.002 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.4 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 0 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF 090222040] HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service.syn D-12 Monument Hills Iowa 1: N Scott Boulevard & Rochester Avenue Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 16.7 Intersection LOS C 2026 Baseline Conditions PM Peak -Hour Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 118 104 27 7 163 103 66 178 137 32 235 18 Future Vol, veh/h 118 104 27 7 163 103 66 178 137 32 235 18 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 122 107 28 7 168 106 68 184 141 33 242 19 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SIB Opposing Approach WB EB SIB NB Opposing Lanes 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Approach Left SIB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SIB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 2 2 HCM Control Delay 13.2 17.7 18.1 16.8 HCM LOS B C C C Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 57% 0% 79% 0% 61 % 0% 93% Vol Right, % 0% 43% 0% 21% 0% 39% 0% 7% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 66 315 118 131 7 266 32 253 LT Vol 66 0 118 0 7 0 32 0 Through Vol 0 178 0 104 0 163 0 235 RT Vol 0 137 0 27 0 103 0 18 Lane Flow Rate 68 325 122 135 7 274 33 261 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.143 0.609 0.269 0.274 0.016 0.54 0.071 0.52 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.573 6.75 7.969 7.308 7.883 7.092 7.738 7.174 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 473 533 450 490 453 507 462 501 Service Time 5.329 4.505 5.734 5.072 5.641 4.85 5.498 4.934 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.144 0.61 0.271 0.276 0.015 0.54 0.071 0.521 HCM Control Delay 11.6 19.5 13.7 12.8 10.8 17.9 11.1 17.5 HCM Lane LOS B C B B B C B C HCM 95th-tile Q 0.5 4 1.1 1.1 0 3.2 0.2 3 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF 090222040] Intersection Level of Service.syn HCM 6th AWSC D-13 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Baseline Conditions 2: Heron Circle & Rochester Avenue PM Peak -Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 0.4 EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 273 18 7 172 7 5 Future Vol, veh/h 273 18 7 172 7 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None None - None Storage Length - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 297 20 8 187 8 5 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 317 0 510 307 Stage 1 - - - - 307 - Stage 2 - 203 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1243 523 733 Stage 1 - 746 - Stage 2 - 831 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1243 519 733 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 519 - Stage 1 746 Stage 2 825 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 11.2 HCM LOS B ►LIR.TiFMW ILVAF1 MLTAl9'�i0111.1WE=I1:1M: 1:3:aY9:3WTi9:11 Capacity (veh/h) 591 1243 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.022 0.006 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.2 7.9 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF 090222040] HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service.syn D-14 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Baseline Conditions 3: Amhurst Street & Rochester Avenue PM Peak -Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 0.7 EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 284 32 15 162 14 7 Future Vol, veh/h 284 32 15 162 14 7 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None None - None Storage Length - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 305 34 16 174 15 8 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 339 0 528 322 Stage 1 - - - - 322 - Stage 2 - 206 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1220 511 719 Stage 1 - 735 - Stage 2 - 829 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1220 503 719 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 503 - Stage 1 735 Stage 2 817 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.7 11.7 HCM LOS B ►LIR.TiFMW ILVAF1 MLTAl9'�i011:3WiTi=: 1:1M: 1:3:aY9:3WTi9:11 Capacity (veh/h) 559 1220 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.04 0.013 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.7 8 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF 090222040] HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service.syn D-15 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Baseline Conditions 4: Teton Circle & Rochester Avenue PM Peak -Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh Movement 0.7 EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 308 37 7 166 22 3 Future Vol, veh/h 308 37 7 166 22 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None None - None Storage Length - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 338 41 8 182 24 3 Major/Minor Majorl Major2 Minorl Conflicting Flow All 0 0 379 0 557 359 Stage 1 - - - - 359 - Stage 2 - 198 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1179 491 685 Stage 1 - 707 - Stage 2 - 835 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1179 487 685 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 487 - Stage 1 707 Stage 2 828 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 12.6 HCM LOS B ►LIR.TiFMW ILVAF1 MLTAl9'�i0111.1WE=I1:1M: 1:3:aY9:3WTi9:11 Capacity (veh/h) 504 1179 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.055 0.007 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.6 8.1 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF 090222040] HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service.syn D-16 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Future with Development Conditions 1: N Scott Boulevard & Rochester Avenue AM Peak -Hour Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 13.9 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 98 156 24 22 91 69 120 198 75 36 133 8 Future Vol, veh/h 98 156 24 22 91 69 120 198 75 36 133 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 110 175 27 25 102 78 135 222 84 40 149 9 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SIB Opposing Approach WB EB SIB NB Opposing Lanes 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Approach Left SIB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SIB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 2 2 HCM Control Delay 13.3 12.8 15.5 12.5 HCM LOS B B C B Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left,% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 73% 0% 87% 0% 57% 0% 94% Vol Right, % 0% 27% 0% 13% 0% 43% 0% 6% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 120 273 98 180 22 160 36 141 LT Vol 120 0 98 0 22 0 36 0 Through Vol 0 198 0 156 0 91 0 133 RT Vol 0 75 0 24 0 69 0 8 Lane Flow Rate 135 307 110 202 25 180 40 158 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.268 0.55 0.228 0.385 0.053 0.342 0.085 0.309 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.16 6.456 7.465 6.859 7.67 6.85 7.567 7.015 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 504 561 482 526 467 525 474 513 Service Time 4.874 4.169 5.183 4.578 5.409 4.588 5.306 4.754 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.268 0.547 0.228 0.384 0.054 0.343 0.084 0.308 HCM Control Delay 12.5 16.8 12.4 13.8 10.8 13.1 11 12.9 HCM Lane LOS B C B B B B B B HCM 95th-tile Q 1.1 3.3 0.9 1.8 0.2 1.5 0.3 1.3 Willett, Hofmann and Associates, Inc. [1296C25] HCM 6th AWSC Intersection Level of Service - 2026 Future with Development.syn D-17 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Future with Development Conditions 2: Heron Circle/Heron Drive & Rochester Avenue AM Peak -Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 172 7 1 261 3 11 0 14 8 0 24 Future Vol, veh/h 10 172 7 1 261 3 11 0 14 8 0 24 Conflicting Peds, Whr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized None None None None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 12 207 8 1 314 4 13 0 17 10 0 29 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 318 0 0 215 0 0 568 555 211 562 557 316 Stage - - - - - - 235 235 - 318 318 - Stage 2 - - 333 320 - 244 239 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 4.12 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 2.218 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1242 1355 434 440 829 438 439 724 Stage - - 768 710 - 693 654 - Stage 2 - - 681 652 - 760 708 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1242 1355 413 435 829 425 434 724 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 413 435 - 425 434 - Stage 1 760 702 685 653 Stage 2 653 651 736 700 Approach EB WB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 0 11.6 11.2 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 574 1242 1355 616 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.052 0.01 0.001 0.063 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.6 7.9 0 7.7 0 11.2 HCM Lane LOS B A A A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - 0 - 0.2 Willett, Hofmann and Associates, Inc. [1296C25] HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service - 2026 Future with Development.syn 11111311 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Future with Development Conditions 3: Amhurst Street & Rochester Avenue AM Peak -Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 166 11 5 292 19 12 Future Vol, veh/h 166 11 5 292 19 12 Conflicting Peds, Whr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None None - None Storage Length - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 193 13 6 340 22 14 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 206 0 552 200 Stage 1 - - - - 200 - Stage 2 - 352 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1365 495 841 Stage 1 - 834 - Stage 2 - 712 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1365 493 841 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 493 - Stage 1 834 Stage 2 708 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 11.5 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 587 1365 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.061 0.004 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.5 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - Willett, Hofmann and Associates, Inc. [1296C25] HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service - 2026 Future with Development.syn D-19 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Future with Development Conditions 4: Teton Circle & Rochester Avenue AM Peak -Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 187 17 3 314 50 6 Future Vol, veh/h 187 17 3 314 50 6 Conflicting Peds, Whr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None None - None Storage Length - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 205 19 3 345 55 7 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 224 0 566 215 Stage 1 - - - - 215 - Stage 2 - 351 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1345 486 825 Stage 1 - 821 - Stage 2 - 713 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1345 485 825 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 485 - Stage 1 821 Stage 2 711 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 13.1 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 507 1345 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.121 0.002 HCM Control Delay (s) 13.1 7.7 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 0 - Willett, Hofmann and Associates, Inc. [1296C25] HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service - 2026 Future with Development.syn D-20 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Future with Development Conditions 5: Rochester Avenue & Allison Way AM Peak -Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations +' Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 173 310 1 4 14 Future Vol, veh/h 5 173 310 1 4 14 Conflicting Peds, Whr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None None - None Storage Length - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 5 188 337 1 4 15 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 338 0 0 536 338 Stage 1 - - - 338 - Stage 2 - 198 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1221 505 704 Stage 1 - 722 - Stage 2 - 835 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1221 502 704 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 502 - Stage 1 718 Stage 2 835 Approach EB WB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0 10.7 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 1221 646 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 0.03 HCM Control Delay (s) 8 0 10.7 HCM Lane LOS A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 Willett, Hofmann and Associates, Inc. [1296C25] HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service - 2026 Future with Development.syn D-21 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Future with Development Conditions 1: N Scott Boulevard & Rochester Avenue PM Peak -Hour Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 17.2 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 120 109 29 7 170 103 69 178 137 32 235 21 Future Vol, veh/h 120 109 29 7 170 103 69 178 137 32 235 21 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 124 112 30 7 175 106 71 184 141 33 242 22 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SIB Opposing Approach WB EB SIB NB Opposing Lanes 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Approach Left SIB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SIB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 2 2 HCM Control Delay 13.5 18.5 18.6 17.2 HCM LOS B C C C Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, % 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, % 0% 57% 0% 79% 0% 62% 0% 92% Vol Right, % 0% 43% 0% 21% 0% 38% 0% 8% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 69 315 120 138 7 273 32 256 LT Vol 69 0 120 0 7 0 32 0 Through Vol 0 178 0 109 0 170 0 235 RT Vol 0 137 0 29 0 103 0 21 Lane Flow Rate 71 325 124 142 7 281 33 264 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X) 0.151 0.617 0.276 0.291 0.016 0.56 0.072 0.532 Departure Headway (Hd) 7.663 6.839 8.039 7.374 7.949 7.164 7.831 7.259 Convergence,Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 467 526 445 485 449 501 457 496 Service Time 5.423 4.599 5.809 5.143 5.713 4.928 5.594 5.022 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.152 0.618 0.279 0.293 0.016 0.561 0.072 0.532 HCM Control Delay 11.8 20.1 13.9 13.2 10.8 18.7 11.2 18 HCM Lane LOS B C B B B C B C HCM 95th-tile Q 0.5 4.1 1.1 1.2 0 3.4 0.2 3.1 Willett, Hofmann and Associates, Inc. [1296C25] HCM 6th AWSC Intersection Level of Service - 2026 Future with Development.syn D-22 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Future with Development Conditions 2: Heron Circle/Heron Drive & Rochester Avenue PM Peak -Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 27 276 18 7 177 8 7 0 5 6 0 18 Future Vol, veh/h 27 276 18 7 177 8 7 0 5 6 0 18 Conflicting Peds, Whr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized None None None None Storage Length Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 29 300 20 8 192 9 8 0 5 7 0 20 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 201 0 0 320 0 0 591 585 310 584 591 197 Stage - - - - - - 368 368 - 213 213 - Stage 2 - - 223 217 - 371 378 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 4.12 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - 6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 2.218 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1371 1240 419 423 730 423 420 844 Stage - - 652 621 - 789 726 - Stage 2 - - 780 723 - 649 615 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1371 1240 399 409 730 409 406 844 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - 399 409 - 409 406 - Stage 1 635 605 768 721 Stage 2 757 718 627 599 Approach EB WB NB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 0.6 0.3 12.5 10.6 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 492 1371 1240 667 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.027 0.021 0.006 0.039 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.5 7.7 0 7.9 0 10.6 HCM Lane LOS B A A A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 - 0 - 0.1 Willett, Hofmann and Associates, Inc. [1296C25] HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service - 2026 Future with Development.syn D - 23 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Future with Development Conditions 3: Amhurst Street & Rochester Avenue PM Peak -Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 314 32 15 185 14 7 Future Vol, veh/h 314 32 15 185 14 7 Conflicting Peds, Whr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None None - None Storage Length - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 338 34 16 199 15 8 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 372 0 586 355 Stage 1 - - - - 355 - Stage 2 - 231 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1186 473 689 Stage 1 - 710 - Stage 2 - 807 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1186 466 689 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 466 - Stage 1 710 Stage 2 795 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.6 12.2 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 522 1186 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.043 0.014 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.2 8.1 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0 - Willett, Hofmann and Associates, Inc. [1296C25] HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service - 2026 Future with Development.syn D - 24 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Future with Development Conditions 4: Teton Circle & Rochester Avenue PM Peak -Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations 1� Traffic Vol, veh/h 350 37 7 193 22 3 Future Vol, veh/h 350 37 7 193 22 3 Conflicting Peds, Whr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None None - None Storage Length - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 385 41 8 212 24 3 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 426 0 634 406 Stage 1 - - - - 406 - Stage 2 - 228 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1133 443 645 Stage 1 - 673 - Stage 2 - 810 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1133 439 645 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 439 - Stage 1 673 Stage 2 804 Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 13.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h) 456 1133 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.06 0.007 HCM Control Delay (s) 13.4 8.2 0 HCM Lane LOS B A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - Willett, Hofmann and Associates, Inc. [1296C25] HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service - 2026 Future with Development.syn D-25 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Future with Development Conditions 5: Rochester Avenue & Allison Way PM Peak -Hour Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations +' Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 343 194 5 3 9 Future Vol, veh/h 16 343 194 5 3 9 Conflicting Peds, Whr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized None None - None Storage Length - 0 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 0 0 Grade, % 0 0 0 Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 17 373 211 5 3 10 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 216 0 0 621 214 Stage 1 - - - 214 - Stage 2 - 407 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1354 451 826 Stage 1 - 822 - Stage 2 - 672 - Platoon blocked, % Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1354 444 826 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - 444 - Stage 1 809 Stage 2 672 Approach EB WB SIB HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 10.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h) 1354 680 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.013 0.019 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 0 10.4 HCM Lane LOS A A B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.1 Willett, Hofmann and Associates, Inc. [1296C25] HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service - 2026 Future with Development.syn D - 26 Rochester Ave at N Scott Blvd Collision Diagram (2020-2024) 6 Crashes �3/16/2024 �7/14/2021 7/15/2021 712/7/2023 6/13/20231 1/13/2020 Clear 0 Straight Parked * Fatal Fixed objects: < Stopped Erratic 0 Major General ® Pole Unknown Out of control C Minor ® Signal o Curb ® Tree Animal Backing Right turn 0 Injury DUI < Overtaking Left turn Pedestrian a 3rd vehicle Sideswipe U-turn Bicycle p Nighttime Crash Magic Online 4/21/2025 E-1 Crash Magic Online ',DOT Crash Detail Report 20201156632 01/13/2020 09:49 ROCHESTER AVE AND N SCOTT BLVD County: Johnson City: Iowa City Major Cause: Made improper turn Roadway Type: Feature: Non-junction/no special feature Severity:: Property Damage Only Manner of Crash: Sideswipe (same direction) Fatalities: 0 Surface Conditions: Dry Major Injuries: 0 Light Conditions: Daylight Minor Injuries: 0 Weather Conditions: Clear Possible Injuries: 0 Drug/Alc Involved: None Indicated Severity:: Property Damage Only Property Damage: $10,500 Number of Vehicles: 2 Unit 1 lUnit 2 lUnit Init Trav Dir: West West Veh Action: Turning right Movement essentially straight Configuration: Tractor/semi-trailer Sport utility vehicle Driver Age: 45 25 Driver Gender: M F Driver Cond: Apparently normal Apparently normal Driver Contr 1: Made improper turn No improper action Driver Contr 2: Not reported Not reported Fixed Object: lNone (no fixed object struck) None (no fixed object struck) 20211250984 07/14/2021 13:38 ROCHESTER AVE AND N SCOTT BLVD County: Johnson City: Iowa City Major Cause: Other Roadway Type: Intersection: Four-way intersection Severity:: Property Damage Only Manner of Crash: Broadside (front to side) Fatalities: 0 Surface Conditions: Dry Major Injuries: 0 Light Conditions: Daylight Minor Injuries: 0 Weather Conditions: Clear Possible Injuries: 0 Drug/Alc Involved: None Indicated Severity:: Property Damage Only Property Damage: $7,000 Unit 1 Unit 2 Init Trav Dir: North West Veh Action: Movement essentially straight Movement essentially straight Configuration: Passenger car Sport utility vehicle Driver Age: 70 64 Driver Gender: F F Driver Cond: Apparently normal Apparently normal Driver Contr 1: No improper action Other Driver Contr 2: Not reported Not reported Fixed Object: None (no fixed object struck) None (no fixed object struck) Number of Vehicles: 2 nit April 21, 2025 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Page E-2 ',DOT $ RT 3 I SI v PI f R I PJ 90M-PD�N114 Crash Detail Report 11251015 07/15/2021 11:32 1 N SCOTT BLVD County: Johnson City: Iowa City Major Cause: Unknown Roadway Type: Intersection: Four-way intersection Severity:: Property Damage Only Manner of Crash: Broadside (front to side) Fatalities: 0 Surface Conditions: Dry Major Injuries: 0 Light Conditions: Daylight Minor Injuries: 0 Weather Conditions: Cloudy Possible Injuries: 0 Drug/Alc Involved: None Indicated Severity:: Property Damage Only Property Damage: $9,000 Number of Vehicles: 2 Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit Init Trav Dir: West North Veh Action: Movement essentially straight Movement essentially straight Configuration: Four -tire light truck (pick-up) Passenaer car Driver Age: 53 Driver Gender: M Driver Cond: Apparently normal Driver Contr 1: Unknown Driver Contr 2: Not reported Fixed Object: None (no fixed object struck) iK%I�rI6t.fIyli[Clf?zi➢,c]EVROIC? pparently normal nknown of reported one (no fixed object struck) ROCHESTER AVE County: Johnson City: Iowa City Major Cause: Unknown Roadway Type: Intersection: Four-way intersection Severity:: Property Damage Only Manner of Crash: Broadside (front to side) Fatalities: 0 Surface Conditions: Dry Major Injuries: 0 Light Conditions: Daylight Minor Injuries: 0 Weather Conditions: Clear Possible Injuries: 0 Drug/Alc Involved: None Indicated Severity:: Property Damage Only Property Damage: $7,500 Unit 1 Unit 2 Init Trav Dir: East North Veh Action: Movement essentially straight Movement essentially straight Configuration: Sport utility vehicle Passenqer car Driver Age: 75 Driver Gender: M Driver Cond: Apparently normal Driver Contr 1: Unknown Driver Contr 2: Not reported Fixed Object: None (no fixed object struck) pparently normal nknown of reported one (no fixed object struck) Number of Vehicles: 2 nit April 21, 2025 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Page E-3 ',DOT Crash Detail Report 1396828 12/07/2023 06:50 1 SCOTT BLVD AND ROCHESTER AVE County: Johnson City: Iowa City Major Cause: FTYROW: From stop sign Roadway Type: Intersection: Four-way intersection Severity:: Property Damage Only Manner of Crash: Broadside (front to side) Fatalities: 0 Major Injuries: 0 Minor Injuries: 0 Possible Injuries: 0 Severity:: Property Damage Only Unit 1 Surface Conditions: Dry Light Conditions: Dawn Weather Conditions: Clear Drug/Alc Involved: None Indicated Property Damage: $6,000 Unit 2 Init Trav Dir: West North Veh Action: Starting in road Starting in road Configuration: Sport utility vehicle Passenaer car Driver Age: 50 Driver Gender: F Driver Cond: Apparently normal Driver Contr 1: FTYROW: From stop sign Driver Contr 2: Not reported Fixed Object: lNone (no fixed object struck) 1413567 03/16/2024 21:02 County: Johnson City: Iowa City Major Cause: Unknown Roadway Type: Intersection: Four-way intersection Number of Vehicles: 2 nit pparently normal o improper action of reported one (no fixed object struck) ROCHESTER AVE AND SCOTT BLVD Severity:: Suspected Minor Injury Manner of Crash: Broadside (front to side) Fatalities: 0 Surface Conditions: Dry Major Injuries: 0 Light Conditions: Dark - unknown roadway lighting Minor Injuries: 1 Weather Conditions: Cloudy Possible Injuries: 0 Drug/Alc Involved: None Indicated Severity:: Suspected Minor Injury Property Damage: $7,000 Number of Vehicles: 2 Unit 1 lUnit 2 lUnit Init Trav Dir: South Veh Action: Movement essentially straight Configuration: Passenger car Driver Age: 65 Driver Gender: M Driver Cond: Apparently normal Driver Contr 1: Unknown Driver Contr 2: Not reported Fixed Object: None (no fixed object struck) ovement essentially straight port utility vehicle pparently normal nknown of reported one (no fixed object struck) April 21, 2025 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Page E-4 DOT Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2020-2024 Crash Severity 6 Fatal Crash 0 Suspected Serious Injury Crash 0 Suspected Minor Injury Crash 1 Possible/Unknown Injury Crash 0 Property Damage Only 5 Property/Veh i cles/Occu pants Property Damage Total (dollars): 47,000.00 Average (per crash dollars): 7,833.33 Total Vehicles: 12.00 Average (per crash): 2.00 Total Occupants: 19.00 Average (per crash): 3.17 Injury Status Summary 1 Fatalities 0 Suspected serious/incapacitating 0 Suspected minor/non-incapacitating 1 Possible (complaint of pain/injury) 0 Uninjured 0 Unknown 0 Not Reported 0 ge Severity Fatalities/Fatal Crash: 0.00 Fatalities/C rash: 0.00 Injuries/Crash: 0.17 Major Injuries/Crash: 0.00 Minor Injuries/Crash: 0.17 Possible/Unknown Injuries/Crash: 0.00 9 04/21 /2025 E-5 DOT Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2020-2024 Major Cause 6 Animal 0 Ran traffic signal 0 Ran stop sign 0 Failed to yield to emergency vehicle 0 FTYROW: At uncontrolled intersection 0 FTYROW: Making right turn on red signal 0 FTYROW: From stop sign 1 FTYROW: From yield sign 0 FTYROW: Making left turn 0 FTYROW: From driveway 0 FTYROW: From parked position 0 FTYROW: To pedestrian 0 FTYROW: Other 0 Drove around RR grade crossing gates 0 Disregarded RR Signal 0 Crossed centerline (undivided) 0 Crossed median (divided) 0 Traveling wrong way or on wrong side of road 0 Aggressive driving/road rage 0 Driving too fast for conditions 0 Exceeded authorized speed 0 Improper or erratic lane changing 0 Operating vehicle in an reckless/erratic/care... 0 Followed too close 0 Passing: On wrong side 0 Passing: Where prohibited by signs/markings 0 Passing: With insufficient distance/inadequa... 0 Passing: Through/around barrier 0 Passing: Other passing 0 Made improper turn 1 Driver Distraction: Manual operation of an e... 0 Driver Distraction: Talking on a hand-held d... 0 Driver Distraction: Talking on a hands free ... 0 Driver Distraction: Adjusting devices (radio... 0 Driver Distraction: Other electronic device ... 0 Driver Distraction: Passenger 0 Driver Distraction: Unrestrained animal 0 Driver Distraction: Reaching for object(s)/f... 0 Driver Distraction: Inattentive/lost in thou... 0 Driver Distraction: Other interior distracti... 0 Driver Distraction: Exterior distraction 0 Ran off road - right 0 Ran off road - straight 0 Ran off road - left 0 Lost control 0 Swerving/Evasive Action 0 Over correcting/over steering 0 Failed to keep in proper lane 0 Failure to signal intentions 0 Traveling on prohibited traffic way 0 Vehicle stopped on railroad tracks 0 Other: Vision obstructed 0 Other: Improper operation 0 Other: Disregarded warning sign 0 Other: Disregarded signs/road markings 0 Other: Illegal off -road driving 0 Downhill runaway 0 Separation of units 0 Towing improperly 0 Cargo/equipment loss or shift 0 Equipment failure 0 Oversized load/vehicle 0 Other: Getting off/out of vehicle 0 Failure to dim lights/have lights on 0 Improper backing 0 Improper starting 0 Illegally parked/unattended 0 Driving less than the posted speed limit 0 Operator inexperience 0 Other 1 Unknown 3 Not reported 0 Other: No improper action 0 04/21 /2025 E-6 DOT Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2020-2024 Time of Day/Day of Week 12 AM 2 AM 4 AM 6 AM 8 AM 10 AM Noon 2 PM 4 PM 6 PM 8 PM 10 PM Not to to 4 to 6 to 8 to to to 2 to 4 to 6 to 8 to to reporte Day of Week 2 AM AM AM AM 10 AM Noon PM PM PM PM 10 PM 12 AM d Total Sunday 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monday 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Tuesday 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Wednesday 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Thursday 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Friday 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saturday 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Total 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 6 Manner of Crash Collision 6 Non -collision (single vehicle) 0 Head-on (front to front) 0 Rear -end (front to rear) 0 Angle (oncoming left turn) 0 Broadside (front to side) 5 Sideswipe (same direction) 1 Sideswipe (opposite direction) 0 Rear to rear 0 Rear to side 0 Not reported 0 Other 0 Unknown 0 Surface Conditions 6 Dry 6 Wet 0 Ice/frost 0 Snow 0 Slush 0 Mud/dirt 0 Water (standing or moving) 0 Sand 0 Oil 0 Gravel 0 Not reported 0 Other 0 Unknown 0 Fixed Object Struck 12 Bridge overhead structure 0 Bridge pier or support 0 Bridge/bridge rail parapet 0 Curb/island/raised median 0 Ditch 0 Embankment 0 Ground 0 Culvert/pipe opening 0 Guardrail - face 0 Guardrail - end 0 Concrete traffic barrier (median or right sid... 0 Other traffic barrier 0 Cable barrier 0 Impact attenuator/crash cushion 0 Utility pole/light support 0 Traffic sign support 0 Traffic signal support 0 Other post/pole/support 0 Fire hydrant 0 Mailbox 0 Tree 0 Landscape/shrubbery 0 Snow bank 0 Fence 0 Wall 0 Building 0 Other fixed object 0 None (no fixed object struck) 12 04/21 /2025 E-7 DOT Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2020-2024 Driver Age/Driver Gender Driver Age - 5 year Not Bins Female Male reported Unknown Total <14 0 0 0 0 0 =14 0 0 0 0 0 =15 0 0 0 0 0 =16 0 0 0 0 0 =17 0 0 0 0 0 =18 0 0 0 0 0 =19 0 0 0 0 0 =20 0 0 0 0 0 —21 and —24 0 0 0 0 0 —25and —29 1 1 0 0 2 —30and —34 0 0 0 0 0 — 35 and — 39 1 0 0 0 1 —40and —44 0 0 0 0 0 —45and —49 0 1 0 0 1 —50and —54 1 1 0 0 2 —55and —59 0 0 0 0 0 —60and —64 1 1 0 0 2 —65and —69 0 1 0 0 1 —70and —74 1 0 0 0 1 — 75 and — 79 0 1 0 0 1 —80and —84 1 0 0 0 1 —85and —89 0 0 0 0 0 —90and —94 0 0 0 0 0 —95 0 0 0 0 0 Not reported 0 0 0 0 0 Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 Total 6 6 0 0 12 Drug/Alcohol Related 6 Drug 0 Alcohol (< Statutory) 0 Alcohol (Statutory) 0 Drug and Alcohol (< Statutory) 0 Drug and Alcohol (Statutory) 0 Refused 0 Under Influence of Alcohol/Drugs/Medications 0 None Indicated 6 Alcohol Test Given 12 None 12 Blood 0 Urine 0 Breath 0 Vitreous 0 Refused 0 Not reported 0 Drug Test Given 12 None 12 Blood 0 Urine 0 Breath 0 Vitreous 0 Refused 0 Not reported 0 Drug Test Result 12 Negative 0 Cannabis 0 Central Nervous System depressants 0 Central Nervous System stimulants 0 Hallucinogens 0 Inhalants 0 Narcotic Analgesics 0 Dissociative Anesthetic (PCP) 0 Prescription Drug 0 Not reported 12 Other 0 04/21 /2025 W DOT Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2020-2024 Crash Severity -Annual Suspected Serious Suspected Minor Possible/Unknown Property Damage Crash Year Fatal Crash Injury Crash Injury Crash Injury Crash Only Total 2015 0 0 0 0 0 0 2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 2020 0 0 0 0 1 1 2021 0 0 0 0 2 2 2022 0 0 0 0 0 0 2023 0 0 0 0 2 2 2024 0 0 1 0 0 1 2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 1 0 5 6 SeverityNear 2.5 2 1.5 � Fatal Crash Suspected Serious Injury Crash Suspected Minor Injury Crash 1 . Possible/Unknown Injury Crash Property Damage Only 0.5 9 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 04/21 /2025 E-9 DOT Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2020-2024 Injury Status -Annual Suspected Suspected Possible serious/incapac minor/non- (complaint of Crash Year Fatalities itating incapacitating pain/injury) Uninjured Unknown Not Reported Total 2015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2022 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2023 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2024 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2025 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Injury Status/Year 1.2 W. W . 0.2 0 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 Fatalities Suspected serious/incapacitating Suspected minor/non-incapacitating Possible (complaint of pain/injury) Uninjured Unknown Not Reported 04/21 /2025 E-10 DOT Meeting the following criteria Jurisdiction: Cities (Iowa City) Year: 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 Map Selection: Yes Filter: None nalyst Information Rochester Ave at N Scott Blvd (2020-2024) Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2020-2024 04/21 /2025 E-11 Rochester Avenue at Allison Way (2026 Future with Development Conditions: PM Peak Hour) 801) 700 600 -JL 17C C 5% left-.L,i. 5 3% 20% 15% 13% in V, Add Left-T� rn Lane No Left -tun Lane 3C0 4JC 5DD NO Advancing Volume (Vd, vehih Figure 940.9.1, Left 71irn Lane Guidelines for TWo-Lane Road less than or equal to 40 mph L l The following data are required: 1. Opposing Volume (veh/hr) - VO - The opposing volume is to include only the right -turn and through movements in the opposite direction of the left -turning vehicle. [199] 2. Advancing Volume (veh/hr) - VA - The advancing volume is to include the right -turn, left -turn and through movements in the same direction as the left -turning vehicle. [359] 3. Operating Speed (mph) - The greatest of anticipated operating speed, measured 85th percentile speed or posted speed. [35 mph] 4. Percentage of left turns in VA. [16 / 359 = 4.5%] Left turn lane is not needed for left turn volume less than 10 vph. However, criteria other than volume, such as crash experience, may be used to justify a left turn lane. The appropriate trend line is identified on the basis of the percentage of left -turns in the advancing volume, rounded up to the nearest percentage trend line. If the advancing and opposing volume combination intersects above or to the right of this trend line, a left -turn lane is appropriate. Source: Missouri DOT (MoDOT) Engineering Policy Guide Website [https://epg.modot.org/index] F-1 Rochester Avenue at Heron Drive (2026 Future with Development Conditions: PM Peak Hour) 801) 700 600 -JL 17C C 5% left-.L,i. 5 -3% ZO% 159E 13% in V, Add Left-T� rn Lane No Left -tun Lane ------------- INN 3C0 4JC 5DD NO Advancing Volume (Vd, vehih Figure 940.9.1, Left 71irn Lane Guidelines for TWo-Lane Road less than or equal to 40 mph The following data are required: 1. Opposing Volume (veh/hr) - VO - The opposing volume is to include only the right -turn and through movements in the opposite direction of the left -turning vehicle. [185] 2. Advancing Volume (veh/hr) - VA - The advancing volume is to include the right -turn, left -turn and through movements in the same direction as the left -turning vehicle. [321] 3. Operating Speed (mph) - The greatest of anticipated operating speed, measured 85th percentile speed or posted speed. [35 mph] 4. Percentage of left turns in VA. [27 / 321 = 8.4%] Left turn lane is not needed for left turn volume less than 10 vph. However, criteria other than volume, such as crash experience, may be used to justify a left turn lane. The appropriate trend line is identified on the basis of the percentage of left -turns in the advancing volume, rounded up to the nearest percentage trend line. If the advancing and opposing volume combination intersects above or to the right of this trend line, a left -turn lane is appropriate. Source: Missouri DOT (MoDOT) Engineering Policy Guide Website [https://epg.modot.org/index] F-2 ATTACHMENT 7 Good Neighbor Meeting Summary Summary Report for Good Neighbor Meeting Project Name: Lot 66 Monument Hills Rezoning � r CITY OF IOWA CITY Project Location: Lot 66 Monument Hills Meeting Date and Time: Thursday June 5, 2025 - 6:00pm - 7:30pm Meeting Location: FeatherStone Assisted Living, 2450 Hickory Trail, Iowa City Names of Applicant Representatives attending: Michael Welch, - Shoemaker and Haaland Jacob Wolfgang - Nelson, Evan Shaw, Invision Names of City Staff Representatives attending: Madison Conley & Parker Walsh Number of Neighbors Attending: 5 Sign -In Attached? Yes X No General Comments received regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary) - An overview of the proposed rezoning request was presented to attendees. We explained how this request differed from the previous proposal originally presented with the Monument Hills rezoning. We presented an overview of the general features of the proposal and then opened the meeting to questions. Concerns expressed regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary) - Neighbors immediately across the street (Rochester Ave) expressed concerns about the change to their view looking north from their homes. The impact of the additional traffic at the intersection of Heron Drive and Rochester Avenue was also a primary concern. Residents indicated that traffic on Rochester often travels faster than the posted speed limit and that there are delays for traffic turning onto Rochester Avenue from Heron Circle during peak traffic times. Some residents were concerned that the rents in the building would be market -rate rather than "affordable". The size of the building and number of units was a concern from some neighbors. Will there be any changes made to the proposal based on this input? If so, describe: Not specifically; however, the applicant previously reduced the size of the proposed building from 130+ units down to 103 units during prior reviews with Iowa City staff. The applicant also included a revised traffic study with the rezoning submittal at staff's request. Staff Representative Comments Late Correspondence From: John & Canice Treangen <jctreangen@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2025 10:09 PM To: Madison Conley Subject: REZ25-0007 Lot 66 Monument Hills Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged i Fil$F{ ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** This message is from an external sender. Dear Ms. Conley, Thank you for your letter dated June 10th regarding the proposed rezoning of Lot 66 in the Monument Hills development. We are John & Canice Treangen and we are currently building our home at 969 Allison Way in the Monument Hills development. Our home is scheduled for completion on July 15, 2025, and we anticipate moving in shortly thereafter. Unfortunately, due to our current location in Michigan, we are unable to attend the meeting scheduled for June 18th. We are, however, concerned about this proposed rezoning and will make every effort to attend any future meetings regarding this proposal. As requested in your letter, we are writing to make you aware of our concerns and to seek any further information that can be provided regarding this proposed rezoning. When we purchased our two lots in Monument Hills and began construction of our new "forever home," we did so with the understanding and expectation that the previously approved RS-5/OPD development standards would remain in place. The new, higher - density proposal is therefore a significant concern for us. Our home is in close proximity to Lot 66, and we are worried that increasing the size and capacity of the development would negatively affect our quality of life and property values. Specifically, we are concerned about potential impacts on our views (e.g. a high rise development would be looking straight into our backyard), increased noise, and additional traffic —particularly if the number of residents and guests at Lot 66 increases So substantially Over the current RS-5/OPD zoning. We believe these changes could also reduce property values for our home and neighboring properties, compared to what would be expected under the current RS-5/OPD zoning. My hope would be to keep the zoning as originally planned. However, any further information that could be provided that might help to alleviate my concerns would be appreciated. Thank you very much for your attention and consideration. Sincerely, John & Canice Treangen (989-600-0490) Late Correspondence From: Larry & Barbara Luebbert <Ihluebbert@mchsi.com> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2025 10:39 PM To: Madison Conley Subject: REZ25-0007 Lot 56 Monument Hills Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; June_15_2.jpg; Speed Log Sheet.xlsx ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. This message is from an external sender. During the Good Neighbor Meeting of June 5, 2025 at Featherstone Assisted Living Community on Hickory Trail off 1 st Ave I expressed concerns about the proposed rezoning from RS-5/OPD (Low -Density, Single - Family) to RM-12/OPD (Low -Density, Multi -Family Residential) zoning with 100 units versus the original 47 units of the 2022 plan due to existing traffic issues. Comments were offered by the presenters that a traffic study had been completed on the intersection of Rochester and Scott Blvd and that existing volumes were well within allowances. I asked for a copy of this study, a nice young lady saying they were there from your office ask for my email and indicated I would get a copywithin a couple days. I've not received a copy nor a follow-up email, I did not get her business card so couldn't follow up. I would like a copy and will pay for it as I did for a long-range plan of the area North of Rochester now known as Monument Hills and Harvest Preserve in 1999. That report showed the subject property from Rochester North to Rawson Creek "not suitable" for development due to "unstable and steep" terrain!! I built this house on that basis. The current proposal more than doubles the density of the 2022 proposal and makes no adjustments to the street configuration to handle the additional traffic. Questions about traffic impact were brought up at the prior discussions also. Given there are 66 lots in the current Monument Hills development with; possibly, 1 (one!) appearing to be occasionally occupied the ACTUAL impact on Rochester traffic is unknown. Given the amount of large vehicle traffic into and out of Heron Drive for the 3 houses current under construction and watching their waiting times I saw the future. During these 25 years I've seen the traffic density continually increase to the current level of seeing cars stack up at times on Heron Circle to exit left (West) on Rochester and well as stack up making left turns onto Heron Circle. Our first surprise after moving in was how much traffic came and went on Heron. There are 3S single family houses served on these dead-end streets system with the average age well above 50 yr with many retired. Monument Hills has 66 lots and looking at a combination of terrain and general street shape it likely that as many as 50-55 will use Heron Drive. The number of "waits" could easily double, now add some percentage of the 100 new units! Second concern: Speeding! We now have a SIGNED crosswalk across Rochester from Heron Circle to Heron Drive. I dare you to come out and try to cross Rochester in this crosswalk from 3 -5 PM on a weekday. Attached is small speed study taken on a "quiet" yesterday afternoon. Speeds of 45-50 mph in this 35-mph speed limit are common. A couple days ago I clocked a 60 mph directly in front of the house. Don't take my word, talk with any family along Rochester. I've asked the city twice to put up a speed sensing and recording system. Guess where it was put - just East of Larch Lane. Third concern: Visibility. Attached are two photos taken a max of two seconds apart tonight standing in Heron Drive, facing East like I would if making a left turnout onto Rochester. Look very carefully at photo 1 just to the left of the utility pole you will see a faint yellow spot. Look at the second photo taken a maximum of 2 seconds later (per my Nikon D850 professional digital SLR that records in seconds). That post is 140-150 feet from the left curb of Heron Drive. Per the Iowa DOT Project TR-455, dated Nov. 2002 entitled "Handbook of Simplified Practice for Traffic Studies" the stopping distance for a normal vehicle traveling at 35 mph is 250 feet. A pedestrian not seeing this vehicle or the driver not seeing the pedestrian behind the 15 inch plus diameter of this 35-foot-tall utility pole in the foreground would probably result in severe injuries and possibly death. At the more common speed of 40 mph seen yesterday afternoon stopping distance becomes 305 feet - more than half the additional distance between the next pole to the East! At 45 mph its 360 feet! As you can see in the data, I clocked a car doing 55 mph in the short time I watched. This is more common than East bound because the visibility of the street forward to the 4-way stop at Scott is level and straight, plus there is no place for a radar trap. Coming from the other direction the cars have to accelerate the 564 feet from Scott to the utility pole I was using as the timing start point. Of course, that speed is the mathematical average speed across the 320-foot timing base. Exit speed could be significantly faster than the data shows and in many cases it was. Fourth concern: Traffic volume. Just in the hour and 40 minutes yesterday I recorded an average of 111 vehicles per hour. I'm confident I missed half because many times I was timing a West bound while many times more were traveling the opposite direction at the same time. Secondly, most of time I clocked only the first vehicle in the stream as I couldn't be sure the following one was either slowing or speeding up. Therefore, I'm pretty confident this rate is probably 1/2 of actual - on a quiet Saturday afternoon. We'll see what Tuesday and Wednesday show - if I have time. Understand you are busy so I can just pick up the studywhen it's ready. Advise primarily via text to 319-621- 3277 or reply to this email if not available until Tuesday or Wednesday. Larry Luebbert 3269 Rochester Avenue Iowa City, IA 52245 I# -ate , �� . s .��, �.,. �;;' ,; -� ++ra ., 'w .y. �. � '� ,fig � �. u� � _.__- n � .`�{` 'nr'wr!'�.1��' ' �I ,;� } Y.a --- Rochester Avenue Speed Test Base - 320 feet Time -sec Speed - mph East 3.0 72.7 3.1 70.4 3.2 68.2 3.3 66.1 3.4 64.2 3.5 62.3 3.6 60.6 3.7 59.0 3.8 57.4 3.9 55.9 4.0 54.5 4.1 53.2 4.2 51.9 4.3 50.7 4.4 49.6 4.5 48.5 4.6 47.4 4.7 46.4 4.8 45.5 4.9 44.5 5.0 43.6 5.1 42.8 5.2 42.0 5.3 41.2 5.4 40.4 5.5 39.7 5.6 39.0 5.7 38.3 5.8 37.6 5.9 37.0 6.0 36.4 6.1 35.8 6.2 35.2 6.3 34.6 6.4 34.1 6.5 33.6 6.6 33.1 6.7 32.6 6.8 32.1 6.9 31.6 7.0 31.2 7.1 30.7 7.2 30.3 7.3 29.9 7.4 29.5 7.5 29.1 7.6 28.7 7.7 28.3 7.8 28.0 7.9 27.6 8.0 27.3 Totals Both directions together 111.4/hr Rate in mph=(320/Time)*360 Factor= 218.18 West 3:40 PM 5:20 PM 1 hr 40 Min 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 6 1 2 4 11 2 3 1 12 4 2 6 6 1 4 9 6 3 2 10 4 7 4 5 7 2 2 2 4 4 2 2 4 1 3 2 4 2 1 3 3 92 93 Late Correspondence From: Anne Russett Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 8:56 AM To: Larry & Barbara Luebbert Cc: Madison Conley Subject: RE: REZ25-0007 Lot 56 Monument Hills Hi, Larry - The traffic study is included in the agenda packet that we published last Friday. You can access it here: https://www.icgov.org/government/boards-commissions-and-committees/planning-and-zoning- commission Would you like us to share your correspondence with the Planning & Zoning Commission? Thanks, Anne -----Original Message ----- From: Larry & Barbara Luebbert <lhluebbert@mchsi.com> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2025 11:31 PM To: Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Fwd: REZ25-0007 Lot 56 Monument Hills ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. This message is from an external sender. I just received an auto reply that Madison Conley is out of the office until Tuesday. As indicated in the below email I'm trying to get a copy of a traffic study done at the intersection of Rochester Ave and Scott Blvd as it relates to the above rezoning proposal. I would like to have time to understand prior to the meeting this Wednesday (June 18th). I was able to fix the photo that is referenced in this original email but sent in a second email to him as I was having problems with Mediacom email. It is now attached. The comments relating to the location of a traffic monitor requested in the past are about placing this device at least 1/2-mile WEST of my request. That location is the beginning in the "S" curve portion of Rochester just East of 1 st Avenue and is completely different that the straight run of Rochester starting at Windmill Place all the way East to Scott. Larry ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "Larry & Barbara Luebbert" <lhluebbert@mchsi.com> To: "mconley" <mconley@iowa-city.org> Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2025 10:38:30 PM Subject: REZ25-0007 Lot 56 Monument Hills During the Good Neighbor Meeting of June 5, 2025 at Featherstone Assisted Living Community on Hickory Trail off 1 st Ave I expressed concerns about the proposed rezoning from RS-5/OPD (Low -Density, Single- Family) to RM-12/OPD (Low -Density, Multi -Family Residential) zoning with 100 units versus the original 47 units of the 2022 plan due to existing traffic issues. Comments were offered by the presenters that a traffic study had been completed on the intersection of Rochester and Scott Blvd and that existing volumes were well within allowances. I asked for a copy of this study, a nice young lady saying they were therefrom your office ask for my email and indicated I would get a copywithin a couple days. I've not received a copy nor a follow-up email, I did not get her business card so couldn't follow up. I would like a copy and will pay for it as I did for a long-range plan of the area North of Rochester now known as Monument Hills and Harvest Preserve in 1999. That report showed the subject property from Rochester North to Rawson Creek "not suitable" for development due to "unstable and steep" terrain!! I built this house on that basis. The current proposal more than doubles the density of the 2022 proposal and makes no adjustments to the street configuration to handle the additional traffic. Questions about traffic impact were brought up at the prior discussions also. Given there are 66 lots in the current Monument Hills development with; possibly, 1 (one!) appearing to be occasionally occupied the ACTUAL impact on Rochester traffic is unknown. Given the amount of large vehicle traffic into and out of Heron Drive for the 3 houses current under construction and watching their waiting times I saw the future. During these 25 years I've seen the traffic density continually increase to the current level of seeing cars stack up at times on Heron Circle to exit left (West) on Rochester and well as stack up making left turns onto Heron Circle. Our first surprise after moving in was how much traffic came and went on Heron. There are 39 single family houses served on these dead-end streets system with the average age well above 50 yr with many retired. Monument Hills has 66 lots and looking at a combination of terrain and general street shape it likely that as many as 50-55 will use Heron Drive. The number of "waits" could easily double, now add some percentage of the 100 new units! Second concern: Speeding! We now have a SIGNED crosswalk across Rochester from Heron Circle to Heron Drive. I dare you to come out and try to cross Rochester in this crosswalk from 3 -5 PM on a weekday. Attached is small speed study taken on a "quiet" yesterday afternoon. Speeds of 45-50 mph in this 35-mph speed limit are common. A couple days ago I clocked a 60 mph directly in front of the house. Don't take my word, talk with any family along Rochester. I've asked the city twice to put up a speed sensing and recording system. Guess where it was put - just East of Larch Lane. Third concern: Visibility. Attached are two photos taken a max of two seconds apart tonight standing in Heron Drive, facing East like I would if making a left turnout onto Rochester. Look very carefully at photo 1 just to the left of the utility pole you will see a faint yellow spot. Look at the second photo taken a maximum of 2 seconds later (per my Nikon D850 professional digital SLR that records in seconds). That post is 140-150 feet from the left curb of Heron Drive. Per the Iowa DOT Project TR-455, dated Nov. 2002 entitled "Handbook of Simplified Practice for Traffic Studies" the stopping distance for a normal vehicle traveling at 35 mph is 250 feet. A pedestrian not seeing this vehicle or the driver not seeing the pedestrian behind the 15 inch plus diameter of this 35-foot-tall utility pole in the foreground would probably result in severe injuries and possibly death. At the more common speed of 40 mph seen yesterday afternoon stopping distance becomes 305 feet - more than half the additional distance between the next pole to the East! At 45 mph its 360 feet! As you can see in the data, I clocked a car doing 55 mph in the short time I watched. This is more common than East bound because the visibility of the street forward to the 4-way stop at Scott is level and straight, plus there is no place for a radar trap. Coming from the other direction the cars have to accelerate the 564 feet from Scott to the utility pole I was using as the timing start point. Of course, that speed is the mathematical average speed across the 320-foot timing base. Exit speed could be significantly faster than the data shows and in many cases it was. Fourth concern: Traffic volume. Just in the hour and 40 minutes yesterday I recorded an average of 111 vehicles per hour. I'm confident I missed half because many times I was timing a West bound while many times more were traveling the opposite direction at the same time. Secondly, most of time I clocked only the first vehicle in the stream as I couldn't be sure the following one was either slowing or speeding up. Therefore, I'm pretty confident this rate is probably 1/2 of actual - on a quiet Saturday afternoon. We'll see what Tuesday and Wednesday show - if I have time. Understand you are busy so I can just pick up the studywhen it's ready. Advise primarily via text to 319-621- 3277 or reply to this email if not available until Tuesday or Wednesday. Larry Luebbert 3269 Rochester Avenue Iowa City, IA 52245 Late Correspondence From: Anne Russett Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 1:42 PM To: Madison Conley Subject: FW: REZ25-0007 Lot 56 Monument Hills Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged -----Original Message ----- From: Larry & Barbara Luebbert <lhluebbert@mchsi.com> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 11:24AM To: Anne Russett <ARussett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Re: REZ25-0007 Lot 56 Monument Hills ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** This message is from an external sender. Thanks for advising where to find the traffic study. I exited the June 6th meeting understanding there was a current study, this one is 2022. The traffic volume for the intersections of Heron Circle/Drive fairly compared to the informal calculation I did late afternoon last Thursday, I also clocked a vehicle doing 60 mph West bound that afternoon. However, the "heavy vehicles %" is no longer accurate - it is higher. For example, the Rochester Bus route now goes out past Scott, in 2022 I'm think it turned at Amhurst. Concrete trucks, gravel trucks, large semi's of earth moving equipment, etc are a regular occurrence all day and they are all going through the new crosswalk. Again only 3 houses are currently under construction and given the number of sold tags on the Monument Hills displays I expect this to double in the next year and last for at least 5 years. My laymen's brain is trying to understand the volume of statistics in this report. Especially how they came up with a Highway Capacity Model (HCM) value of 1355 veh/h West Bound in the data on Heron Circle/Heron Drive & Rochester Avenue. That calculates to 23 vehicles/min - a vehicle every 134 feet. Almost a vehicle every two seconds! There would be noway anyone could enter the flow. Did not see any measures of actual speeds as I sent with my email which would make the above even more concerning. Suspect the "HCM Lane LOS" rating relates theoretical to actual in some manner and a rating of B rather than A is meaningful. I've found the forms commonly used for these types of studies and will do some data gathering tomorrow and Wednesday has I have time and will bring to the Wednesday meeting. Will also be studying to get a better understanding of the statistics in this report. Yes, sharingwith the commission is definitely my intent. I'm also hearing a lot of neighborhood concerns about traffic density. That's why I'm trying to get a better understanding and have current data - not just opinions. Larry MINUTES FINAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION J U N E 18, 2025 — 6:00 PM —FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Scott Quellhorst, Billie Townsend, Chad Wade MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Miller STAFF PRESENT: Alex Bright, Madison Conley, Liz Craig, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Welch, Larry Luebbert, Camryn Current, Angie Smith RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ25-0007, a proposal to rezone approximately 7.76 acres of land located on Lot 66 of Monument Hills subdivision northwest of Rochester Avenue and N. Scott Boulevard from OPD/RS-5 zone to OPD/RM-12 zone. CALL TO ORDER: Quellhorst called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. REZONING ITEMS: CASE NO. REZ25-0007: Location: Northwest corner of Rochester Ave and North Scott Boulevard. An application for a rezoning of approximately 7.76 acres of land from Low Density Single Family Residential zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Low Density Multi -Family Residential zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-12). Conley began the staff report with an aerial map and a zoning map of the subject property. To the north is single family with Harvest Preserve, zoned OPD/RS-5 and ID-RS zone, which is Interim Development Single Family Residential Zone. To the south, is single family zoned RS-5, to the east is vacant and zoned ID-RS and to the west is single family zoned OPD/RS-5. The applicant for the proposed rezoning is Monument Hills LLC and this rezoning is needed due to a change in ownership and to allow for a senior living community with three duplexes and a 100 unit multifamily independent living building. In terms of case history, the subject property was rezoned and subdivided in 2022 and 2023. It was a rezoning of 64.38 acres to OPD/RS-5 and 0.31 acres to OPD/ID-RS in August 2022 and this rezoning included conditions that related to trail and access easements, right of way dedication and traffic calming devices, Conley noted all those conditions have been fulfilled. Then in September 2022 a preliminary plat was approved. Following, in April 2023 a final plat was approved that shows a conservation easement, and this approval also included the approval of a final Sensitive Areas Development Plan. With this proposed rezoning, the applicant has submitted a rezoning exhibit, applicant statement, elevations and an updated traffic study that was requested by City staff. A good neighbor Planning and Zoning Commission June 18, 2025 Page 2 of 11 meeting was held on June 5, and staff has received late correspondence that has been printed and provided at this meeting. In terms of zoning Conley reiterated the current zone of the subject property is OPD/RS-5 and the OPD overlay allows for a mix of housing types. The RS-5 zone encourages lower density development with larger lot sizes and greater setbacks which allow flexibility in design within a low density single family zone. Previously, there was an approved development of 12 single family homes, three duplexes, a 29 unit multifamily building and a private clubhouse for a total of 47 units on the lot. The proposed zone would be to the OPD/RM-12 zone which supports diverse housing types with a focus on compatible site and building design. This proposed rezoning includes the construction of three duplexes, a 100 unit three story multifamily building, which is a total of 106 units. Conley shared an image of the preliminary OPD plan noting there are three duplexes located along Heron Drive, and the multifamily building is positioned at the corner of Rochester Avenue and North Scott Boulevard which she noted are two main arterial streets. In the middle of the multifamily building is a pool, bocce ball court and pickleball court and to the east is a garden and dog run. Conley showed the updated preliminary OPD plan that staff received today as well as the landscaping plan. It shows the street trees required in addition to screening requirements for this particular zone. Conley next reviewed the plan development approval criteria and how the proposed development fits in with the policy vision of the City. The planned development approval criteria consists of four elements. One, density and design is compatible with adjacent development. Two, development will not overburden existing streets and utilities. Three, development will not adversely affect views, property values and privacy. And four, land use and building types will be in the public interest. Additionally, with all rezoning cases there's rezoning review criteria which consists of one, consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and two, compatibility with the existing neighborhood. The first approval criteria is density and design compatible with adjacent development and in the OPD/RM-12 zone there's a max density of 15 units per net acre. The proposed development would total for 106 units on that 7.76 net acres of the subject property, which results in a 13.7 units per acre density and complies with the zoning standards. The proposed land use, which is the senior living community, consisting of three duplexes and the 100 unit multifamily building, expands housing diversity and meets growth, additionally, senior housing is in demand. Conley noted there is a conservation easement at the northeast corner and no development is allowed to occur on a conservation easement so the development has been clustered away near the arterial streets away from the sensitive areas that are found to the north also on the site. There is an adjacent outlot to the north, which is permanently undevelopable. New construction must meet multifamily site development standards and this will help ensure compatibility with nearby single family homes. Conley explained with the first criteria mass, scale and general layout need to be analyzed and considered. Staff found that the proposed development allows a skilled transition from the adjacent single family homes, duplexes are placed next to Heron Drive and the larger building is located at the corner of Rochester Avenue and North Scott Boulevard, which again are both arterial streets. The project must comply with multifamily site development standards to help promote attractive, pedestrian friendly design. Conley stated the applicant has requested two waivers through the OPD process. The first Planning and Zoning Commission June 18, 2025 Page 3 of 11 waiver being a height waiver to increase the building from 35 feet to 40 feet in order to accommodate the site slopes and the pitch roof design. The added height would allow vaulted ceilings and still would meet the open space requirements. There's a proposal of 182 bedrooms with this development, and that would require 1820 square feet of open space which will be met through amenities like the pool, courts and garden. The second waiver is a front setback waiver to reduce the arterial setback from 40 feet to 32 feet. This would be at the corner of Rochester Avenue and North Scott Boulevard. She stated most of the building exceeds the 40 foot arterial setback required, and the design meets the criteria for privacy, light, air circulation and the tree plantings. Also, there's a 20 foot separation maintained from the multifamily building to the duplexes. Continuing with the approval criteria, open space and traffic circulation have been analyzed. The development must meet open space requirements per City code section 14-2A-4E and again with the proposal of 182 bedrooms that requires the 1820 square feet of open space, compliance will be confirmed during site plan review. Traffic access is limited to a private drive from Heron Drive on the west side, and there's no access proposed from North Scott Boulevard or Rochester Avenue, which minimizes traffic impacts on the arterial streets. Conley shared an image of the elevations for the duplexes. The second approval criteria includes ensuring development will not overburden existing streets and utilities. For the subject property sanitary sewer and water services are already provided. Additionally, staff has required the updated traffic study to be submitted and this traffic study evaluated the impacts of the proposed development, in addition to the entire Monument Hill Subdivision, and the study found that there will be a projection of about 1004 new daily trips by the year 2026, this would project about 69 new AM peak hour trips and 92 new PM peak hour trips. Additionally, key intersections along Rochester Avenue were analyzed and are expected to operate at an acceptable level-ofservice C or better, under both baseline and future conditions. Staff has reviewed the study and agrees with the findings. The third approval criteria states the development will not adversely affect views, property values and privacy. For the surrounding development Conley stated part of lot 66 and the area to the north are protected by a conservation easement, which prevents development. The existing single family homes are located along Heron Drive to the west and north and across Rochester Avenue to the south. Duplexes are adjacent to the single family homes, while the larger multifamily building is positioned at the corner of the two arterial streets which helps provide a natural transition in building scale. The multifamily site development standards include screening requirements and help support neighborhood compatibility. Overall, staff finds that the design minimizes impacts on nearby residences and is comparable to what could be expected with conventional development. Four, land use and building types will be in the public interest. The preliminary OPD plan includes a mix of duplexes and multifamily units, expanding housing choices and addressing the City's need for senior housing. The proposed development balances increase housing supply with environmental protection by helping to preserve sensitive areas through the conservation easement and clustering development appropriately. Moving onto the rezoning review criteria, first is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the IC 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map is a vision for what the City would like to see in the future. The IC 2030 Plan Future Land Use Map shows this area appropriate for Planning and Zoning Commission June 18, 2025 Page 4 of 11 conservation design. This designation is primarily due to the sensitive features located in this area, like slopes and woodlands, the proposed development aligns with this designation by clustering development away from these areas and preserving them through a conservation easement. Additionally, staff needed to look at the Northeast District Future Land Use Map, and staff found that this envisions the area for townhomes and small apartment buildings and the Plan encourages development similar in scale to single family homes and suggests more intense housing be located near arterial streets which the proposed development shows. When staff looked at compatibility with the existing neighborhood there are existing single family homes located to the northwest and south of the subject property and the proposed development does consist of three duplexes and a 100 unit multifamily independent living building and this building is located at the two arterial streets at the southeast corner of Lot 66, Rochester Avenue and North Scott Boulevard which overall provides for a smooth land use transition from low to high density development. For these reasons, staff finds the proposed development compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Conley reiterated that throughout this presentation she has mentioned the environmentally sensitive areas located on the property, these include steep slopes, critical slopes, woodlands and wetlands. The approved final Sensitive Area Development Plan will not be changing with this proposed rezoning. Additionally, the conservation easement that was established during the final plat will also remain unchanged and undevelopable. Therefore, staff recommends approval of REZ25-0007, a proposal to rezone approximately 7.76 acres of land located on Lot 66 of Monument Hills subdivision northwest of Rochester Avenue and North Scott Boulevard from OPD/RS-5 zone to OPD/RM-12 zone. Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be scheduled for consideration by the City Council. City Council will schedule the date for the public hearing during the next Council formal meeting on July 8. Quellhorst asked about the height requirement and proposed waiver, if that is in part to accommodate the sloping nature of the property what is the impact, if any, that would have on the view of the folks that live across Rochester. Conley stated it would not be much different from conventional development, with this design the developer was interested in having vaulted ceilings so that's why they're asking for the height increase. Russett added staff didn't analyze what impact it would be from across the street if it was 35 feet or 40 feet. She believes it will change their view, especially for those homes that are closest to the building; however there would not be much difference between a 35' height and a 40' height. Russett stated that the applicant can probably speak to the sloping nature of the site and how the increase will help them with the complexities of the site. Quellhorst also asked about the traffic study that was funded by the applicant and wanted confirmation that staff was comfortable that the study is accurate and sufficiently independent. Conley confirmed yes and that staff also worked with the transportation staff and there was no major issues or findings within that study that was a concern for staff. Hensch asked what the width is of the right of way on Rochester Avenue, it appears the elevations on the homes to the south would appear just very slightly different. Conley was unsure of the width. Planning and Zoning Commission June 18, 2025 Page 5 of 11 Elliott asked what the current zoning of OPD/RS-5 would allow and the number of dwelling units. Conley explained that the previous rezoning was approved for 47 units. Elliott asked if the open space would just be available to the people within this development. Conley believes it will be just for the residents. Craig noted it was discussed that the need for additional height up to 40 feet because of gabled roofs yet none of the elevations show any gabled roofs but rather flat roofs. Conley showed an additional image that showed an additional little picture on the side that shows the height with a gabled roof. Craig asked about pedestrian access and remembered from when they rezoned this before there is a trail that's coming from another neighborhood that will go through here, is that still correct. Russett confirmed the trail will be there. Craig asked if when people get through that trail are they going to have to come out past this very big development on the corner. Russett explained there will be two access points from Heron Drive and Allison Way. Wade asked about the stub street that comes off to the northeast, is that a requirement for fire turnaround. Conley confirmed that yes, Troy Roth, the fire marshal, took a look at this development and made sure that they had adequate access for any fire lanes that were required. Russett clarified that it's not a street, but rather a driveway. Craig asked about the setback from the sidewalk to the duplexes. Conley stated there is a 15 foot setback from the street. Quellhorst opened the public hearing. Mike Welch (Shoemaker & Haaland Engineers) is working with Nelson Development, the applicant. First he wanted to highlight this was part of Monument Hills Subdivision, which was done a couple years ago, which was a total was 72 acres, and of those 72 acres about 34 acres was placed into conservation and in three separate outlots. As Conley stated that conservation easement does extend into this lot and will all remain unchanged. Welch stated when they started talking building heights and asking for additional height, there seemed to be a little bit of confusion. The gable roof, and the image that Conley referred to was actually for the townhouse duplexes, those will have a peaked roof. The previous iteration, when they did the original rezoning a couple years ago, showed the multifamily building as two stories with a pitched roof and the peak of that pitched roof was 38 feet above grade, in this proposal it's a three story building with a flat roof, and the third level is at 36 feet above grade, so actually a little bit lower. Welch explained the reason they're asking for 40 feet, even though the building is only 36 feet tall, is in City Code the building height is measured at average grade which would be a distant five feet outside the building, the ground elevation there. With this building there are two features on this building along Rochester, the first floor is elevated a little bit above the street to have a patio with a couple steps down allowing the people that have those ground floor units the ability to walk directly out of the building into that front yard space along Rochester. Because of those patios with a couple steps there, the grade goes lower, and therefore they are taller than 36 feet as it's calculated in City Code. The other piece on the northeast corner of the building where there is the driveway and the turnaround, that also is the entrance to the underground parking for the building so they were dropping about 12 feet there. Because they have to drop to get into the parking structure, the grade goes down and when they do that calculation of average grade, Planning and Zoning Commission June 18, 2025 Page 6 of 11 they're higher than 36 feet there. Again, that's why they asked for 40 feet, so they can meet that Code requirement. Regarding how the height will impact those who live across the street, they'll see a 36 foot tall building because the building is a foot or two above the sidewalk grade on Rochester, it's on the backside of the building that the building is actually taller due to the parking entrance being on the backside (north side) of the building. Hensch asked to clarify for people looking at the building from the south, the southern elevation, they're going to see a 36 foot height of a building. Welch confirmed that was correct, which is just one foot higher than the previously approved zoning of 35 feet and one foot higher than the Code allowed zoning of 35 feet. Hensch asked if Welch knew what the width of Rochester Avenue is. Welch replied that the width of Rochester varies, but it's about 66 feet per right of way with some of it at 63 feet and some of it at 60 feet, just based on how it was platted over the years. He also pointed out at the corner of Scott and Rochester, they dedicated a right of way to the City to allow for a future roundabout, and that's where they are requesting the 32 foot building setback. The request for that reduced setback was because they had that additional right of way for the roundabout, but they'll still be further away from the paving than what would be at a typical intersection. Welch also wanted to discuss the trail that comes out of the park and goes up Allison, that stays an eight foot wide public trail with a five foot sidewalk on the opposite side of the street. Heron Drivie will have five foot sidewalks on both sides of the street and as each lot is developed, the developer or builder on that lot builds their section the sidewalk. Welch stated for their project they will be building a five foot sidewalk along the east side of Heron Drive adjacent to the property, and then along the north side of Rochester, from the intersection of Heron Drive going east to Scott Boulevard. He noted there is already a sidewalk along the west side of Scott Boulevard. Craig asked if where the eight foot sidewalk ends a five foot sidewalk begins. Welch explained no, the eight foot sidewalk is all on Allison Drive, and then Heron Drive is a typical city street with five foot sidewalks on both sides, but for the foreseeable future, until all the houses are built, there'll be gaps in that five foot sidewalk through the subdivision. Townsend asked about affordable housing in this unit. Welch noted they aren't planning any. They also talked about that during the Good Neighbor meeting too, as there'll be all rental units there. They also talked about the open space that is included in the courtyard and those features. Hensch asked if it's all a 55 plus community and are they all independent living units. Welch stated he would refer to it as active independent living and in the parking below the building, there's at least one space per apartment, so every unit has a parking spot if they want it. Wade noted one thing that's somewhat hard to distinguish looking at an image of the building, is it a completely flat wall or have insets and offsets. Welch stated the code requires certain fenestration and articulation on the building and where each patio door is the building steps in and out at those doorways which breaks up the building, also at the south elevation in the middle the building is recesses away from the street and towards the street. He added as part of the site plan approval that would all be reviewed and verified that they meet Code. Planning and Zoning Commission June 18, 2025 Page 7 of 11 Larry Luebbert (3269 Rochester Avenue) stated his house is on the corner of Rochester and Heron and his front porch faces north, so he's looking at Rochester, looking across the street. He has met with the staff a couple times and exchanged a couple emails. Additionally, he brought the Commission some better photographs. Luebbert stated he is a graduate professional engineer in the state of Missouri, he has a master's degree in mechanical engineering and has three US patents on downflows, a little crazy thing. His job for years was to deal with details, lots of details so he got into a lot of detailed discussions on this project. The thing he got into the weeds yesterday about was the loss -of -service calculations in the study, he got an explanation but didn't think it made sense. It wasn't right, the loss -of -service calculations in the study is based on some screwy numbers, the capacity through the four way stop at Scott Boulevard and Rochester is capacity limited because it's a four way stop. It's about 550 cars an hour. The study says the capacity of Rochester, in front of his house, is 1400 cars per hour, and he's struggled for days trying to figure out where that number came from. It comes from history of the manual that's used to do these studies, and it was the number that is for a rural road that has less than two mile segments that were interrupted by anything. And it went from 2000 to 1800 to, in 2010, down to 1700 and that's the base. Everything's reduced from that based upon things that apply. What Luebbert told the staff yesterday was a conversation about the study only discusses traffic. The problem is the manual that's used to do this requires that street to be an interrupted flow street, and the numbers that were being used were for continuous flow, rural street. It's a big difference. There's a whole section of this manual, which is three volumes long, and about 1000 pages, with more statistics in it than he's seen since he was in college, it's really hard to follow, but on page two of the first chapter, it defines Rochester as an interrupted street. That means they have to take into account traffic, bicycling, city busses and walkers, and none of that's in the study of the original one, and none of that's in the study of the second one. When Luebbert asked about it yesterday he was told it's not that big a deal. Luebbert took photographs this morning and saw runners crossing Rochester, and there were two cars stopped waiting for these runners. These are Regina runners, the City High runners run down Rochester, there are families in the evening with kids on little bicycles going right across the street, so his big concern is safety. Luebbert is making a formal request that this study be redone, because it doesn't follow regulations. Camrvn Current (3301 Rochester Avenue) stated her house is one lot in from Heron and they will be facing this development if it goes in. When they purchased their house in January, they were told that this development was just going to be the single family houses and the 45 unit whatever. With that she would still have some view if she goes outside her front door or look out her big front window that she loves so much to get natural light. She was looking forward to still having some view and now with this 36 foot massive building she is just going to be staring at a wall for the next 15 to 20 years until they pay off their mortgage and can finally move to a place for actual view, actual sunlight. Current stated it's just nice to be able to see outside on her days off, she works at the hospital so she doesn't see outside during her 12 hour shifts. As far as fitting in, she doesn't know what they really mean by fitting with a neighborhood but their houses don't look like this and it would be a total eyesore. It would just be such an incredible eyesore and would completely obstruct all of their views. Angie Smith (3310 Lower West Branch Road) lives in the same area, she also serves on the Iowa City Climate Action Commission and as part of that Commission she is also on the steering committee for the new comprehensive plan. Therefore, she is very familiar with some of the challenges that have been happening in the community. Smith has lived in her home for over 20 years and has been very aware of the zoning changes that have happened over the last few Planning and Zoning Commission June 18, 2025 Page 8 of 11 years with this plot of land. First, to see that nature preserve be zoned for housing was really devastating and really sad for her and the neighbors in the community. She also just wants to caution decision makers and the community to not fall prey to nimbyism that as part of this steering committee and all the things that they know are happening in the community, they need affordable housing. They need more affordable housing units, and in order to have more housing, they need more dense living. They know this, and so as a Climate Action Commissioner, in their city they value climate resiliency and know in order for the community to be climate resilient, they need more dense living. That is a way to solve and help the City be more climate resilient. Smith stated a lot of them are familiar with the 15 minute walkable cities. That only happens when they have more dense living. So when she sees this zoning, she would much rather there be dense living than single family, million dollar homes. She doesn't need million dollar neighbors, she would rather see affordable housing in this area. Smith stated they are headed towards a climate crisis and need to be planning for climate resiliency. She knows the community really cares about equity, and that this is part of that equitable housing, equitable transportation. Smith agrees that she's very concerned about the transportation in this area and when she talks to her neighbors the thing they all worry about is the volume of cars. Smith acknowledged they do live in a car centric United States, and there will the volume of cars coming out of this area, and then the speeds is concerning. Her preferred mode of transportation is bike and she bikes year round in the community, it's a very bikeable community, and she would love for more people to be biking in the community. However, it's hard to bike in some areas, she doesn't bike on Rochester, there are semis and too fast traffic, no one is going 35 miles an hour, so she would like to see more traffic calming measures taken. There are ways to calm traffic so that it's not going as fast and she is sure they are familiar with some of those traffic calming measures. When they talk about a wide street, cars go faster on wide streets. It's an arterial street and she understands that but are there ways that they can slow down the traffic or the volume of traffic in that area. Again, Smith thinks the City cares about climate resiliency and equity, and she would love to see more affordable housing units. If they are familiar with the Comprehensive Plan and need for more housing in the community, they're going to need more dense living. So where are they going to put dense living units, the decision makers need to be planning for some dense living opportunities but need to figure out and balance transportation speeds and the consequences of having more dense living. Quellhorst closed the pubic hearing. Hensch moved to recommends approval of REZ25-0007, a proposal to rezone approximately 7.76 acres of land located on Lot 66 of Monument Hills subdivision northwest of Rochester Avenue and N. Scott Boulevard from OPD/RS-5 zone to OPD/RM- 12 zone. Townsend seconded the motion. Hensch noted he is completely sensitive to the issues people brought up and how everybody feels when construction occurs that they didn't count on being but a couple of attenuating circumstances, he thinks at Rochester there is a 66 foot right of way so between the houses to the south and to the front of the building there's a sufficient distance for the height of the building on the southern elevation to be 36 feet, that's only one foot higher than it would have been at the already approved zoning of a maximum height of 35 foot. It is a corner lot and it's an arterial street, so this is exactly where they want that more dense development to occur and exactly what they've been striving for all throughout the City. He reminded everybody a similar concept, Planning and Zoning Commission June 18, 2025 Page 9 of 11 a multifamily rezoning, was previously approved. He does feel bad for anybody who was misled by realtors that it was all going to be single family, but that was never true. One of the City's goals is diversity of housing types and this continues that to help meet those goals. Another goal is to increase the housing supply and density, this is another move towards that and unfortunately there is no requirement for affordable housing in this particular district. Hensch acknowledged he likes the fact that right of way is being donated by the applicant so that there can be a future roundabout constructed at Rochester and Scott, that will help with traffic calming and vehicle movement efficiency. He thinks this application satisfies pretty much everything they've been doing for years through this Commission. He acknowledged change is difficult and it's not pleasant, but they have to look at what's best for the city of Iowa City. Townsend asked how this property was designated before, and what it is the rationale for the designation from 47 units to 108 units. Russett stated as mentioned earlier the original project fell through and there is new ownership now and this is what they're proposing. Craig stated she is an east side person and lives right off of Rochester Street so she knows what it's like trying to get across Rochester Street at certain times of the day and is sensitive to that. She drove by the area several times today and came from Scott and from Rochester, while she agrees they have to have more dense development, her biggest concern is this is obviously more dense than what they approved the first time and the mass and scale relative to what is around it. She has no problem with the mass and scale within the development itself but the housing across on Rochester, and even the commercial development kitty corner, there's nothing that's 40 feet tall in there so she has big concerns with that. Elliott agrees with what Hensch said about the density and has walked on those nice sidewalks there, and it's a good location for a lot more people. Wade stated he also spent a lot of time driving around out there, especially in that neighborhood, which is out of his price range for houses, but very nice construction. This Commission just got done talking about the deficit in housing for the community and he sees this fitting in the community, just like Walden Place over on Mormon Trek, it is similar in functionality and also fitting within the neighborhood for height, so he doesn't have any reservations on this. He understands it's a change in what was originally planned but thinks it's appropriate for the area. Quellhorst stated he also was driving back and forth and awkwardly staring at people's homes and surrounding properties in this area, but agrees with Commissioner Hensch that they very much need additional housing in Iowa City, particularly for seniors, and it seems to him that this is a good place to put that housing, given access to arterial streets and the significant plot of land that's available. He really appreciates everybody that has spoken today and thinks there's been some fantastic input. He completely understands that this might not be aesthetically ideal for everybody, but the architects have done a really nice job with what they're working with. Quellhorst also thinks it is important to note that the property was already approved for fairly substantial development, and this is a relatively modest expansion of existing plans. As previously stated, it's front and center in the Comprehensive Plan that Iowa City has a housing crisis and needs to build houses to bring prices down, and what better place to do that than with an empty lot. Given that, he would be inclined to support this motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. Planning and Zoning Commission June 18, 2025 Page 10 of 11 UPDATE AND DISCUSSION ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE: Hensch noted at least two of the steering committee members went to one of the community input sessions. Russett reported they did have a public workshop on Monday, and they will be at Fair Meadows Park tomorrow for the City's Party in the Park series. She attended one a couple weeks ago and it was a really great event and they got lots of great input. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JUNE 4 2025: Craig moved to approve the meeting minutes from June 4, 2025. Hensch seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett stated on the City Council agenda meeting last night the applicant for 911 North Governor requested a deferral for the rezoning and final plat to the August meeting. Russett also wanted to take an opportunity to introduce the new Assistant City Attorney, Alex Bright, Bright will be focusing on land use and zoning and attending future Commission meetings. Craig stated it's been a pleasure and an honor to serve on the Commission for the last five years, and added the City has a remarkable staff. Every Commissioner that she has ever worked with is as well and they're all striving for the same thing, to make Iowa City a wonderful community. They all do their best and they respect each other, and that's great, they could use a little more of that in this country. Hensch seconded what Commissioner Craig said, and this whole time he's never felt there's a commissioner that didn't have the best interests of Iowa City as a whole at heart in all their decisions. Maybe he didn't agree with them all the time, and they didn't have to agree with him, but everybody's always done what they thought was right for the whole of Iowa City, which makes it difficult for people when they come in, because most people are concerned with their neighborhood, but this Commission looks at the entire community, and he always felt like they've done a pretty good job, and he's always been pretty proud of that. ADJOURNMENT: Hensch moved to adjourn, Craig seconded and the motion passed 6-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2023-2025 12/20 1/17 2/7 2/21 4/3 5/1 6/26 9/4 9/18 11/20 12/4 2/19 3/5 5/7 6/4 6/18 CRAIG, SUSAN O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ELLIOTT, MAGGIE X X O/E X X X O/E X X O/E X X X X X X HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X X MILLER, STEVE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X X X X O/E PADRON, MARIA X X X X O/E O/E -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- QUELLHORST, SCOTT X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X X X X X TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X WADE, CHAD X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY PLAN LOT 66 MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY. IA gEnus Shoemaker ^NELSON [1-d'­ ] Haaland I �=`- 0 1 OWAW ONE CALL INVISION JC 0.V.l I N 0 Il.1 emumxevnaun gEnus Shoemaker dA.l Haoland A, LOOO LANDSCAPE LEGEND O 000 renexxwi O onxnuexrni mee ® ..��EaEa�.e 0 INVISION o-11° j \ L genus /'Shoemaker ^NELSON L �Ipntlscppe p2M1ifech� � Haaland IL1`00 WVISIRN —SCAPE LEGEND 0 GOO o...... o o.......... 0 L—d—pe Plan-Ed.19 -t genus /'Shoemaker ^NELSON L �Ipntlscppe p2M1ifechl� Haaland IL101 DIIAIIl Shoemaker INVISION . . ..... gEnus I [ I-d-, I dA, Haoland koo I NMI IN i j iii liwirw�iii� ii i j ,iii ii ,�'�iii j i iiiw�iiirt,'��i���ii■�ii.il_i� iii ... ... .. ... .. .. ... .. .. ... .. .. ... .. m In w �■ m u ■� m u .I w u ... !I'■ m !■ um in .l ... on Ill u. on .u1 u. . IN u rig. iii . i ■ III o ■ ..� ■ ug — - — II■1 1■1 1■1 - - _ Prepared! by. Madison Conley, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iov a City, IA 52240; 31335G5230 (REZ2r 7) N7tl rrFTi=l0 Ordinance rezoning approximately 7.76 acres of land located on Lot 66, Monument Hills Final Plat from Low Density Single -Family Residential zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Low Density Multi - Family Residential zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM- 12). (REZ25-0007) Whereas, the Owner, Monument Hills, LLC, has requested the rezoning of 7.76 acres of land located on Lot 66, Monument Hills Final Plat from Low Density Single -Family Residential zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Low Density Multi -Family Residential zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-12); and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the subject area is appropriate for Conservation Design and the Northeast District Plan indicates the subject area is appropriate for Town Homes and Small Apartment Buildings; and Whereas, the Conservation Design land use designation is intended primarily for areas where sensitive environmental features or the land topography limit the development potential of the land; and Whereas, the Town Homes and Small Apartment Buildings land use designation is intended for development that is similar in scale to single-family homes and encourages more intense buildings at the intersection of arterial streets; and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan and Northeast District Plan encourage a diversity of housing options; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed rezoning and has recommended approval; and Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I Aooroval. Property described below is hereby reclassified Low Density Multi -Family Residential zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-12), as indicated: Lot 66 Monument Hills as recorded in Book 66 Pages 267-269 of the Johnson County Recorder's office, City of Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa. Said lot contains 7.76 acres and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. Section Il. Zoning Mao. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of the ordinance as approved by law. Section III. Certification And Recording. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance, and record the same in the Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owners expense, upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law. Ordinance No. Page 2 Section IV. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section V. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section VI. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of 2025 Mayor Attest: City Clerk Approved by City Attome? s Office (Liz Craig — 07/30/2025) Ordinance No Page No. 3 First Consideration: August 5, 2025 Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Moe Harmsen, Salih, Teague, Weilein NAYS: None ABSENT: Second Consideration: Vote for passage: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Pass and Adopt: It was moved by and seconded by that the ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Alter Bergus Harmsen Moe Salih Teague Weilein Date published: _ Item Number: 10.b. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT August 5, 2025 Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 5.49 acres of property located between N. Dodge and N. Governor Streets from Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS-8) zone, High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zone, Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) zone, and Multi -Family Residence (R3B) zone to High Density Single - Family Residential Zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12) for approximately 0.17 acres and to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential Zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-20) for approximately 5.32 acres. (REZ24-0001) (Pass and Adopt) [Deferred from June 3 and June 17] Attachments: 5.15.25 Memo from Assistant City Manager 3.27.25 Memo from City Attorney REZ24-0001 Staff Report -Final -UPDATED 03.03.2025-Late Correspondence PZ 2.19.25 final minutes Protest of Rezoning - Chad Cermak (included in 4/1/25 Supplement 1 Late Handouts) Corresponcence from Audrey Bahrick and neighbors plus Protest of Rezoning petitions (included in 4/1/25 Supplement 1 Late Handouts) Council Correspondence from Audrey Bahrick (included in 4/1/25 Supplement 2 Late Handouts) Council correspondence from the following - Audrey Bahrick, James Davies (included in 5/20/25 meeting packet) Correspondence from Jon Marner - Deferral request (included in 6/3 meeting packet) City Council correspondence from Audrey Bahrick, Geoff Laurer, Matt Drabek (included in 6/3 meeting packet) Council Correspondence from Audrey Bahrick, Dina Bishara (included in 6/3/25 Supplement 2 Late Handouts) Council Correspondence from Jon Marner - Deferral request (Included in the 6/16 late handouts) Ordinance & CZA CITY CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: May 20, 2025 To: Mayor and City Council From: Kirk Lehmann, Assistant City Manager Re: N. Governor Street Rezoning Introduction On May 6, 2025, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the rezoning between N. Governor Street and N. Dodge Street. Council discussed several elements of the proposed Planned Development Overlay (OPD) Plan at length, including pedestrian access to Happy Hollow Park, vehicular access on N. Governor Street, and the south retaining wall. This memo is intended to provide an overview of these elements and lay out staff's recommended approach. Background On February 19, 2025, the Planning & Zoning Commission considered REZ24-0001, a proposal to rezone approximately 5.49 acres of land between N. Dodge Street and N. Governor Street to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) and High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zones with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD). The OPD is required due to impacts to critical slopes beyond what can be approved administratively. As such, a Level II Sensitive Areas review was triggered which requires Council approval. The preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan (SADP) was submitted for Council consideration as part of this OPD rezoning (see Attachment 2, Sheet #3 of the REZ24-0001 Staff Report Packet updated February 14, 2025). The Commission recommended approval by a vote of 6-1, subject to the following conditions: 1. No building permit shall be issued for Lot 1 on the Preliminary OPD Plan until the subject property is resubdivided to conform to the zoning boundaries. 2. Prior to approval of the final plat, the existing duplex on Lot 2 of the Preliminary OPD Plan shall be converted to a single-family home to comply with maximum density standards. 3. As part of final plat, public Right -of -Way (ROW) and easements shall be dedicated along N. Governor Street consistent with the Preliminary OPD Plan. 4. As part of final plat, a temporary construction easement shall be granted on the western 10' of the subject property abutting N. Dodge Street. 5. Existing water services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge Street tapped off the N. Governor Street water main shall be abandoned, and new services tapped off the N. Dodge Street water main shall be installed prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot 1. 6. S3 screening shall be added to help screen the south retaining wall. Conditions tied to rezonings are enforced through Conditional Zoning Agreements (CZA) which run with the property. This means that subsequent owners must abide by the conditions. Should Council wish to modify the above conditions or impose additional conditions as part of this rezoning, the rezoning must be sent back to the Planning & Zoning Commission for their recommendations, and Council must properly notify the public and reopen the public hearing. Conditions may be added only where Council identifies a public need caused by the rezoning that the conditions will help address. Preliminary OPD/SADPs expire after 24 months unless a final OPD/SADP has been approved by staff. Changes to an approved preliminary or final OPD/SADP may be made administratively if they are not substantive and do not violate the conditions in the CZA. However, substantive changes to the plan require a new OPD rezoning process to amend the plan. A substantive change is any significant change in the land uses, street locations, or character of the May 20, 2025 Page 2 development from what is on the approved OPD/SADP, or changes that would clearly be considered substantive by Council, given Council discussions on the rezoning application. Analysis Specific elements including vehicular access and retaining walls are typically evaluated during administrative processes including the site plan, design, and building permit reviews rather than during the rezoning process. These elements may be modified during subsequent reviews without constituting a substantive change to the OPD/SADP. Modifications may be due to insight from more advanced architecture and engineering work, or to ensure compliance with City Code and City standards. Pedestrian access to Happy Hollow Park may be accomplished either by a public access easement through the subject property or along the N. Governor Street ROW. Staff from multiple City departments evaluated the feasibility of these options and concluded planning for pedestrian access via a sidewalk within the N. Governor Street ROW, as shown on the proposed OPD, is the best course of action for the following reasons: • It provides greater connectivity across the City's robust network of sidewalks. • It is easily visible and accessible to all users. • Existing street lighting improves the comfort of pedestrians when it is dark. Conversely, there are numerous challenges with a public pedestrian access easement through the subject property. For example: • A public sidewalk through the middle of a private site is unusual and may lead to confusion and apprehension as residents may not perceive it as a public walkway regardless of the existence of a public access easement. Even if they are aware of the easement, residents who do not live on the subject property may not feel comfortable using a walkway through private property. • Slopes through the subject property and the park are likely too steep for an ADA accessible route unless switchbacks or another extended route are incorporated. This would result in the loss of additional trees along the north side of the park. • Access through the subject property does not provide direct, accessible pedestrian connections to the larger sidewalk network which follow ROWs. • Crossing both public and private properties creates snow removal and maintenance challenges. Pedestrian improvements along N. Governor Street may be completed as part of a reconstruction of N. Governor Street, which will be needed in the future, or as an independent project. Either way, the process would be planned for as part of our Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Recommendation Staff does not recommend that the City Council impose any additional conditions regarding pedestrian access to Happy Hollow Park, vehicular access on N. Governor Street, or the south retaining wall. Staff will review elements including vehicular access and retaining walls through subsequent administrative processes. However, staff does recommend that the future public pedestrian access from the subject property to Happy Hollow Park be provided within the N. Governor Street ROW. This does not require additional conditions. Council may direct staff to prioritize a project for the design of a sidewalk along the east side of Happy Hollow Park in the N. Governor Street ROW. Should that occur, the project will be incorporated into the City's budget and CIP, to be reviewed by Council in January 2026 as part of the regular budgeting process. On May 6, Council directed this topic be added to the pending Work Session list to provide an opportunity for future discussion. r CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: March 27, 2025 To: City Council _ From: Eric R. Goers, City Attorne Re: Rezoning along N. Governor On your April 1st Council agenda you will find a rezoning application for property located at 900 N. Dodge Street, 902 N. Dodge Street, 905 N. Governor Street, 906 N. Dodge Street, 908 N. Dodge Street, 909 N. Governor Street, and 911 N. Governor Street. TSB Holdings, LLC is the owner of this property and is the rezoning applicant. The City of Iowa City is a co -applicant. This property has a long and complicated history filled with litigation. An understanding of that litigation history is important in providing context for City staff's decision to be a co -applicant and recommendation that the rezoning be approved. In summary, the current rezoning proposal, joined by the City, is intended to simultaneously comply with legal requirements governing this property necessitating that the City permit multi -family development in this location, and also obtain the benefit of the City's current zoning ordinances, with modern requirements and standards, which will improve the quality of the development for residents and neighbors. Previously, the City has opposed dense multi -family development at this location and has been in extensive litigation with TSB Holdings over what development is legally permissible. This litigation ended in 2018 when the Iowa Supreme Court issued an opinion stating that TSB Holdings has the right to develop three vacant lots —lots 10, 49 and 51—between Governor and Dodge Streets with apartment buildings as allowed by the 1978 R313 zone. This zoning determination for Lots 10, 49, and 51 was the result of prior litigation between the City and the prior property owner, Wayne Kempf. In 1987, following years of litigation between the City and Kempf, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in Kempf v. Iowa City that on lots 10, 49, and part of lots 50 and 51 the "owner or owners of said properties, and their successors and assigns, shall be permitted to develop those properties with multiple dwellings (apartments) in accordance with the provisions applicable to the R313 zone in effect on May 30, 1978.... The City is and shall be enjoined from interfering with development of those properties as herein provided." In essence, these properties were placed in zoning stasis. While other lots became subject to the City's modern zoning regime, these lots remained R313, a zoning designation that is inconsistent with the City's modern zoning standards. In 2018, after five more years of litigation, the Iowa Supreme Court issued its opinion in TSB Holdings. LLC v. Iowa City Board of Adiustment.' This opinion was issued after a dispute between the City and TSB Holdings regarding what rights TSB Holdings retained to develop the property after the passage of thirty years. In resolving this litigation, the Iowa Supreme Court held that TSB continued to have the right to develop Lots 10, 49, and 51 with apartment buildings as allowed by the 1978 zoning designation "R313". The resulting zoning scheme for this tract of land is now a combination of four zoning designations: RS12, RM20, RS8, and the outdated R313. R31B's standards differ from current multi -family zones in important ways. The R313 zone requires more parking and larger parking spaces than modern zoning demands, but the standards regarding location and screening of The Iowa Supreme Court consolidated two lawsuits into this appeal: TSB Holdings v. City of Iowa City and TSB Holdings v. Board of Adjustment for City of Iowa City. March 27, 2025 Page 2 surface parking are not as robust. For example, under R36 zoning, surface parking areas do not need to be screened from adjacent properties or located behind buildings. Regarding height, the R36 zone has a maximum of 3 stories, but allows buildings up to 45' in height compared to 35' in the modern multi -family zones. Lastly, the 1978 code does not have regulations comparable to the City's current multi -family site development standards, which aim to reduce the amount of concrete, control building bulk through articulation standards, and ensure buildings front the street with clearly visible pedestrian entrances. Although the R36 zone is outdated, and the City has adopted zoning standards that it determined better serve the public, the R36 zone continues to apply to Lots 10, 49, and 51 pursuant to the 2018 court decision. Although legally Lots 10, 49, and 51 are permitted to be developed pursuant to R36, the practicality of developing this tract with the combined zoning would be impractical, due to the requirement of compliance with the modern zoning for those portions of the development located on parcels not zoned R36. Staff has attempted to synthesize these zones, but elements such as access to R36 lots and off -site parking requirements were difficult to reconcile. Nonetheless, the Iowa Supreme Court has stated that development is permitted pursuant to R36 on Lots 10, 49, and 51, and the City is required to comply with that ruling. While it remains unknown exactly what type of development a court would permit on these discrete lots given these practical difficulties, the Iowa Supreme Court recognized that "[d]eveloping apartments on lots 10, 49, and 51 necessarily entails concomitant burdens .... It is concerning to the City that these pockets of dense development could legally be built pursuant to the outdated R36 zoning standards. By joining the current zoning application, the City will benefit from both the modern standards of the RM-20 zone, which include design review and compliance with the City's multi -family site development standards which ensure parking does not dominate the streetscape, screening of surface parking lots from adjacent properties, the demarcation of building entrances, and building articulation to avoid monotonous facades. The OPD will ensure that the portions of the property outside of the construction limit line (i.e. the southern portion of the property that abuts Happy Hollow Park) will not be developed. The OPD also ensures that the western portion of the subject property along N. Dodge Street retains the transition from existing single-family homes to the south to the existing apartment buildings. The conditional zoning agreement allows the City to account for the public needs that are created by the rezoning. The staff report also notes that the City's housing goals are advanced by this multi -family development. Finally, this rezoning would serve to finally put to rest the obsolete R36 zoning, avoiding additional litigation so costly to both parties. As always, should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. CC: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Chris O'Brien, Deputy City Manager Kirk Lehman, Asst. City Manager Kellie Grace, City Clerk Tracy Hightshoe, NDS Director Danielle Sitzman, Development Services Coordinator Anne Russett, Senior Planner STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner Item: REZ24-0001 911 N Governor St & Date: February 5, 2025 Surrounding Properties Updated February 14, 2025 for February 19, 2025 Meeting GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant/Owner: TSB Holdings, LLC tracy(o-)barkalowhomes.com Co -Applicant: The City of Iowa City Neighborhood & Development Services Department 319-356-5230 Contact Person: Jon Marner MMS Consultants i.marner(a)mmsconsultants. net Requested Action: Rezoning to High Density Single - Family Zone and Medium Density Multi -Family Zone with a Planned Development Overlay Purpose: Location: Location Map: Size: Existing Land Use; Zoning: Redevelopment of vacant and underutilized properties along N. Governor St. 900 N. Dodge St, 902 N. Dodge St., 905 N. Governor St, 906 N. Dodge St., 908 N. Dodge St., 909 N. Governor St., and 911 N. Governor St. 5.49 acres Single-family, two-family, and multi -family residential and vacant office building; Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS-8), High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12), K Surrounding Land Use; Zoning Comprehensive Plan: District Plan: Neighborhood Open Space District: Public Meeting Notification: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20), and Multi -Family Residence (R3B) North: Single-family and two-family; RS-12 and RS-8 South: Happy Hallow Park and single-family, Neighborhood Public (P1) and RS-8 East: Single-family, RS-8 West: Single-family, RS-8 2-8 DU/Acre and 16-24 DU/Acre Central District Plan C1 Property owners and occupants within 500' of the property received notification of the Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting. Two rezoning signs were posted along N. Governor St. and two were posted along N. Dodge St. January 3, 2025 February 17, 2025 The applicant, TSB Holdings, LLC, is requesting approval for the rezoning of approximately 5.49 acres of land from Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS-8) zone, High Density Single - Family Residential (RS-12) zone, Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) zone, and Multi -Family Residence (R3B) zone to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) zone and High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD). The City is joining the property owner as a co -applicant on this rezoning. The proposed development would allow for the demolition and replacement of buildings along N. Governor St, including the existing, vacant commercial office building. The Preliminary Planned Development Overlay and Sensitive Areas Development Plan, Building Elevations, Rezoning Exhibit, and Applicant's Statement are attached. [Attachments 2, 3, 4, and 5] The western portion of the subject property is part of the Subdivision of the SE 114 Section 3 Township 79 Range 6 Final Plat approved in 1873. The eastern portion of the property is part of the Bacon's Subdivision of Blk 1 Dewey's Addition also approved in 1873. The zoning of the property in question has been the subject of significant past litigation. A portion of the subject property was at issue in a 1987 decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, Kempf v. City of Iowa City, 402 N.W.2d 393 (Iowa 1987). In that case, a developer had purchased a four -acre tract comprised of six lots --Lots 8-10 along Governor Street and Lots 49-51 along Dodge Street. At the time, all of these lots were zoned R3B, a classification permitting office buildings and high - density multi -family residential units. The developer had completed construction of an office building and had begun construction of an apartment building when the City revoked the building permit for the apartment building. The City subsequently rezoned the property to permit commercial office and multi -family residential uses on portions of the tract, while limiting the remainder to single-family and duplex development. The court concluded that the decision to rezone the undeveloped portions of the property to permit only single-family and duplex units was unreasonable due to the economic 3 unfeasibility of such limited development. As a result of this litigation, Lots 10, 49, 51, and part of Lot 50 reverted to the R313 zoning classification in effect in 1978. This classification was to remain in effect until a use had been established on any of the lots, after which time further development or redevelopment of that lot would be subject to current zoning regulations. Since the court ruling no uses have been established on the lots in question. In 2011, the City received a rezoning application (REZ11-00016) for a portion of the subject property along N. Governor Street to rezone the property from CO-1 (Commercial Office) zone to RM-12 (Low Density Multi -Family Residential) zone. At the time rezoning would have allowed approximately 18 multi -family residential units. This rezoning received a significant amount of opposition from neighborhood residents and failed at Council by a vote of 0-6. After the failed rezoning attempt the City Council directed staff to examine the comprehensive plan's land use policy vision for the property and explore designating the property to no longer allow multi- family residential uses. The City initiated a comprehensive plan amendment (CPA12-00004) which proposed an amendment to the Central District Plan to change the future land use designation from Low to Medium Density Multi -Family to Single -Family and Duplex residential for properties located at 905, 909, and 911 N. Governor Street and property between 906 N. Dodge and 910 N. Dodge Street. This comprehensive plan amendment was accompanied by three City initiated rezonings (REZ12-00016, REZ12-00018, and REZ12-00019). Ordinance 13-4518 rezoned land from R313 and CO-1 to RS-12 (High Density Single -Family Residential) zone. After the rezoning the property owner submitted a site plan proposing a multi- family residential building. At the time, Lots 10, 49, and 51 remained undeveloped. The City denied this site plan because multi -family uses are not allowed in the RS-12 zone. The owner appealed the decision to the Board of Adjustment. The Board upheld staff's decision, and the owner appealed this decision to district court seeking to invalidate the rezoning. The case eventually made its way to the Iowa Supreme Court as TSB Holdings. LLC v. Board of Adjustment for City of Iowa City, 913 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2018). The court found that the rezoning ordinance was a lawful exercise of the City's zoning authority. However, the court held that the Kempf decision prohibited the City from enforcing the new zoning ordinance as to Lots 10, 49, and 51. As a result, the property owner was permitted to move forward with construction of multi -family housing on these lots consistent with the former R313 zoning classification. To date, this development has not occurred. In short, these properties have a long and complicated zoning history. At present the properties remain a mix of both single-family and multi -family zoning. Some of the multi -family zoning that applies to the property is the zoning designation from the 1970s (R3B) determined by the courts. The City is acting as a co -applicant for this rezoning for several reasons. First, due to the hodge podge of zoning designations this rezoning helps to ensure a cohesive development pattern as opposed to that which would be allowed under current zoning. Second, the proposed rezoning would require compliance with the City's modern zoning regulations as opposed to zoning regulations adopted in the 1970s. Third, the City Council's Strategic Plan speaks to working on establishing partnerships and collaborations within the community, particularly in the interest of advancing housing goals. Good Neighbor Policy: The applicant held a good neighbor meeting on August 13, 2024. Approximately 20 individuals attended the meeting. A summary of the meeting is attached. [Attachment 6] In addition to the good neighbor meeting, City staff, representatives of MMS Consultants, and three neighbors met to discuss additional concerns on September 25, 2024. ANALYSIS CI Current Zoning: The subject property is zoned Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS- 8) zone, High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zone, Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) zone, and Multi -Family Residence (R3B) zone. The existing R313 zoning is a zoning designation from the 1970s. See Figure 1. Properties zoned RM-20 allow multi -family residential. Properties zoned RS-12 and RS-8 allow single-family and duplex residential. RS-12 also allows townhome style multi -family up to six units attached. The maximum height in these zones is 35'. The R313 zone also allows multi -family residential at a minimum lot area per unit of 750 square feet. This equates to approximately 58 dwelling units per acre. Given the land area zoned R313 the existing zoning would allow a maximum of 84 dwelling units. The maximum height in the R313 zone is 45' and 3 stories. See Table 1. Table 1. R31B Zoning Summa Minimum Lot Area Per Unit Approximate Maximum Density Maximum Height 750 square feet 58 du/ac 45' and 3 stories RS12 —I — Figure 1. Current Zoning Z G� R3B a RS12 a ;■■■■■■■■■ R3B RS8 Proposed Zoning: The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property to High Density Single -Family (RS-12) zone and Medium Density Multi -Family (RM-20) Zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD). The OPD is required due to impacts to sensitive areas. No waivers from development standards are being requested. 9 Figure 2. Proposed Zoning HE SOUTHEAST•xwaax iwa u�141 , • � y N8T3T5TE N89"377 246.1T M8"IS'IO'E ((��� 172A8' ` BLOCK 3 ®[�4 ET& AC®[ _ % ' • N89'23'45"E 136.27 �R •� �• 589^2345^W •` IA' mnv nm g f i J PROPOSED ZO NING PARCEL #1 +e to VI W �ssa1' sae•33^oE^w � �'""•, ,,. 09Td07 b a DEWHAL TOM OF MA WN POINTOFBEGINNING The owner is proposing to demolish and replace the buildings along N. Governor St., which will include the demolition of two single-family homes and the vacant office building to accommodate the development of two multi -family residential buildings each containing 42 units. A total of 84 units are proposed, which is the maximum allowable number of units under the current R313 zoning. The maximum density in the OPD/RM-20 zone is 24 dwelling units per net acre. See Table 2. There is no redevelopment planned along N. Dodge St. at this time; however, redevelopment is possible. Any future redevelopment must demonstrate substantial compliance with the Preliminary OPD Plan as is defined by the zoning ordinance. The maximum allowable height in the proposed zoning designations in 35'. Additionally, development of multi -family residential in the RM-20 zone will require compliance with the City's modern multi -family site development standards (which would not be required of development under the 1970 R313 zoning). The multi -family site development standards address the location of parking, landscaping between surface parking and neighboring properties, the demarcation of building entrances, and building articulation to avoid monotonous facades. Since the property is located within the Central Planning District, the proposed development is also subject to additional standards that regulate architectural design and building materials. Table 2. OPD/RM-20 Zonina Summary Minimum Lot Area Per Unit Maximum Density Maximum Height n/a 1 24 du/net acre 35' Since the proposed zoning does not follow existing parcel boundaries, staff is recommending a condition that no building permit shall be issued for the proposed Lot 1 until the City Council approves a final plat resubdividing the subject property to conform to the proposed zoning boundaries. General Planned Development Approval Criteria: Applications for Planned Development rezonings are reviewed for compliance with the standards according to Article 14-3A of the Iowa City Zoning Code, except for sensitive areas developments that comply with all underlying zoning and subdivision regulations. Since the proposed planned development is required due to sensitive C01 areas and no modifications are being requested, the proposed rezoning is subject to the standard rezoning review criteria: 1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan; 2. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: The proposed rezoning is reviewed using the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan. The Future Land Use Map of the IC2030 plan identifies much of the subject property as appropriate for multi -family residential development at 16-24 dwelling units per acre. The area along N. Governor St is identified as appropriate for residential development of 2-8 dwelling units per acre. The Central District Plan identifies the area as appropriate for Single -Family and Duplex Residential, Open Space, and Low to Medium Density Multi -Family with a development density of 8-24 dwelling units per acre. The Future Land Use Map functions as a conceptual future vision. Both plans envision this area as allowing multi -family development. See Figures 3 and 4. Furthermore, the rezoning is supported by plan goals and strategies that are outlined below. Z: Figure 3. IC2030 Future Land Use Map 3 � s t E Figure 4. Central District Plan Future Land Use Map The IC2030 Plan also include a number of goals and strategies that support the proposed rezoning: Land Use Goals and Strategies: Encourage compact, efficient development that is contiguous and connection to existing neighborhoods to reduce the cost of extending infrastructure and services and to preserve farmland and open space at the edge of the city. o Ensure that infill development is compatible and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood. Housing Goals and Strategies: • Encourage a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods. o Ensure a mix of housing types within each neighborhood, to provide options for households of all types (singles, families, retirees, etc.) and people of all incomes. o Identify and support infill development and redevelopment opportunities in areas where services and infrastructure are already in place. III Environmental Goals and Strategies: • Recognize the essential role our land use policies play in preserving natural resources and reducing energy consumption. o Encourage compact, efficient development that reduces the cost of extending and maintaining infrastructure and services. o Discourage sprawl by promoting small -lot and infill development. Parks and Open Space Goals and Strategies: • Improve overall access to and awareness of parks. Goal 1 of the Central District Plan's Housing and Quality of Life element states "Promote the Central District as an attractive place to live by encouraging reinvestment in residential properties throughout the district and by supporting new housing opportunities" Although the proposed redevelopment is not a reinvestment in existing residential property it is an investment in the neighborhood and will allow the for the removal of the blighted, vacant office building and allow for the development of much needed housing units. The Central District Plan also includes a component related to open space. It envisions the possible expansion of Happy Hollow Park to the west and a bit to the north, including one parcel on the subject property. The area of the subject property identified in the plan as appropriate for open space is zoned R313. Given the court rulings protecting development rights and the current zoning designation, expanding the public park in this manner is unrealistic. The topography also makes expanding the park to the north challenging as any northern expansion would likely be inaccessible to members of the public. Finally, the Central District Plan also states the following: "Another pocket of multi -family development in the northern part of the district along Dodge Street is zoned R313, which is an obsolete zoning designation no longer used in the City Code. This area should be rezoned to a valid designation such as RM-20, which acknowledges the density of the existing multi -family development on the property". In summary, the proposed rezoning to OPD/RM-20 with a small portion rezoned to OPD/RS-12 is consistent with the land use policy direction of the City's adopted plans. The plans envision the development of multi -family residential in this area, make note of the importance of accommodating a diversity of housing types to meet a variety of needs, and highlight the benefits of infill development for environmental and infrastructure reasons. Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood Character: In terms of the surrounding neighborhood, Happy Hollow Park is directly south of the proposed development. Single-family homes are located across the N. Governor Street right-of-way to the east. To the north is a mix of duplex and other residential uses. To the west of the proposed development on the subject property are two existing multi -family residential buildings containing 12 and 29 units respectively. To the south of the existing multi -family buildings is a duplex (to be converted to a single-family home) with single-family homes further to the south. The neighborhood is a mixture of housing types ranging from detached single-family homes to larger scale apartment buildings. The major amenity for residents is Happy Hollow Park. The Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Play was developed to fit into the existing mixture of residential buildings that the neighborhood contains. It proposes two multi -family buildings along N. Governor Street. Each building contains 42 dwelling units for a total of 84 dwelling units. The two block -scale buildings front N. Governor St. in a manner that aims to reduce their visual impact from the public right-of-way. The northern building is positioned in such a way that the shortest end of the building fronts N. Governor St. The width of this end of the building is 70 feet wide compared EV with the length of the building, which is —236 feet. Additionally, the southern building is positioned at an angle, which allows the longest side of the building to be positioned further away from N. Governor St. This site layout also provides for a large open space area south of the building (north of Happy Hollow Park) for the residents of the building. The proposed development must comply with the private open space standards outlined in section 14-2A-4E of the Zoning Code. The proposed multi- family buildings with 84 units containing 132 bedrooms requires 1,320 square feet of private usable open space (10 square feet per bedroom). The proposed development shows adequate private open space featuring an outdoor seating area. Excluding the designated private open space area, much of the remaining area on the proposed Lot 1 will be used to retain stormwater and protect sensitive features. Both buildings are proposed to meet the 35' maximum height limit in the zone. No waivers from the height standard have been requested. Parking is accommodated on surface lots that are located behind the building, as well as internal structured parking. In terms of landscaping, the proposed development would maintain 15 existing mature trees along the southern property line abutting Happy Hollow Park. Additionally, 54 new trees will be planted on the site, including 9 street trees along N. Governor St. The landscaping plan also shows that the surface parking will be screened to neighboring property owners to the south and west. Along N. Dodge St. there are two existing duplexes and two existing multi -family residential buildings. The plans show that the Owner plans to convert the southern duplex at 900 N. Dodge St. on the proposed Lot 2 to a single-family home. This is needed in order to meet the density requirements of the zone. Staff is recommending a condition that prior to Final Plat approval that the duplex is converted. Although there are no plans for redevelopment along N. Dodge St. (with the exception of the duplex conversion at 900 N. Dodge St.), the rezoning would allow redevelopment in the future. Any future redevelopment of the proposed Lot 2 will be required to substantially comply with the Preliminary OPD Plan. The rezoning would not allow any more dwelling units than currently exist. Additionally, the existing development pattern provides a transition from the detached single-family homes to the south to the existing apartment buildings to the north. Future redevelopment would need to ensure that this transition is maintained similar to the existing context. Transportation and Public Utilities: The proposed rezoning is bordered on the west by N. Dodge St. and on the east by N. Governor St. Both are one-way streets with N. Dodge St. running south and N. Governor St. running north. Both streets are also considered arterial streets per the City's streets plan and are highways under the authority of the Iowa Department of Transportation. Regarding capacity, 2023 data from the Iowa DOT shows an ADT (average daily traffic) of 5,600 for N. Governor St. The theoretical capacity is approximately 15,000 to 18,000 per day. Transportation planning staff have reviewed the plans and have found that there is sufficient capacity on N. Governor St. to accommodate the new development. The current public right-of- way varies in width and is less than a typical arterial right-of-way width. As for N. Dodge St. the existing conditions will not be changing with the proposed rezoning. That said, 2023 data from the Iowa DOT shows an ADT of 6,200 along N. Dodge St. Like N. Governor St., N. Dodge St. can accommodate between 15,000 to 18,000 per day. The site is also served by Iowa City Transit's North Dodge Route. Transit stops are located adjacent to the subject property along N. Dodge St. heading south and along N. Governor St. heading north. �0] Staff is recommending two conditions related to the transportation system. First, that public right- of-way along N. Governor St. and easements be dedicated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to allow the installation of a 5' sidewalk. Second, that a temporary construction easement be granted on the western 10' of the subject property abutting N. Dodge St. This temporary construction easement is needed to for the Dodge Street reconstruction project that is planned between Governor and Burlington Streets. The project will be done in partnership with the Iowa DOT and includes new street pavement, sidewalk, utility improvements and other associated work. Both conditions will be addressed at final platting. The site also has access is the City's existing sewer and water system. An 18" sanitary sewer trunk line runs through the property. Public Works staff has reviewed the plans and have no concerns regarding sanitary sewer capacity for this area as it would relate to this project. Staff is recommending a condition that the existing water services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge St. that are tapped off of the water main in N. Governor Street shall be abandoned, and new services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge Street shall be installed that are tapped off of the water main in N. Dodge Street subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The subject property contains regulated slopes and groves of trees. The applicant submitted a Preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan that shows critical slopes being impacted beyond the 35% which can be approved administratively and triggering the OPD rezoning. Specifically, the proposed development would impact 86% of the critical slopes on the property. Although groves of trees are present on the subject property no woodlands exist; and therefore, the proposed development is not subject to the woodland retention requirement. Neighborhood Open Space: According to section 14-5K of the City code, the dedication of public open space or fee in lieu of land dedication is addressed at the time of final platting for residential subdivisions. Based on the proposed rezoning, the Owner will be required to dedicate approximately 0.067 acres to the City or pay a fee in -lieu of land dedication. The Owner has requested to pay a fee in -lieu of a public open space dedication. Staff has accepted their request for a payment in -lieu of land dedication. Storm Water Management: The Preliminary OPD Plan includes an area to accommodate storm water. Public Works staff will review all stormwater management plans as part of the site plan review process. Correspondence: As of the morning of February 14, 2025, staff had received three emails from residents expressing concerns regarding the rezoning. Staff received one email in support of the rezonina. See Attachment 7. NEXT STEPS Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be scheduled for consideration by the City Council. The Owner also has three other pending applications related to this rezoning: 1) A final plat application which will be reviewed by City Council; 2) A site plan application which will be reviewed by City staff, and 3) A design review application which will be reviewed by City staff. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ24-0001, a proposal to rezone approximately 5.49 acres of land between N. Dodge and N. Governor Streets to OPD/RS-12 (approximately 0.17 acres) and OPD/RM-20 (approximately 5.32 acres) subject to the following conditions: i[o] 1. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owners agree that no building permit shall be issued for Lot 1 as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan until the City Council approves a final plat resubdividing the subject property to conform to the zoning boundaries established by the rezoning ordinance to which this Agreement is attached. 2. Prior to the approval of the Final Plat, the Owner shall convert the existing duplex as shown on Lot 2 of the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan to one dwelling unit to ensure compliance with the maximum density standards of the zone. 3. As part of Final Plat approval, the Owner shall dedicate public right-of-way and easements along N. Governor Street consistent with what is shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 4. As part of Final Plat approval, the Owner shall grant a temporary construction easement on the western 10' of the subject property abutting N. Dodge Street. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan, the existing water services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge Street that are tapped off of the water main in N. Governor Street shall be abandoned, and new services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge Street shall be installed that are tapped off of the water main in N. Dodge Street subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location & Zoning Maps 2. Preliminary Planned Development Overlay and Sensitive Areas Development Plan 3. Building Elevations 4. Rezoning Exhibit 5. Applicant's Statement 6. Summary Report for Good Neighbor Meeting 7. Correspondence Approved by: I) . Sl'-v Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ATTACHMENT 1 Location & Zoning Maps N WE S 0 0.010.02 0.04 Miles I i I i I REZ24-0001 911 N Governor Street ■ ■ ■ :F ■ ■ ■ ■ A Prepared By: Rachael Schaefer Date Prepared: January 202E ATTACHMENT 2 Preliminary Planned Development Overlay and Sensitive Areas Development Plan PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OPID S11-1011T SCARLETT POINT IOWA CITY, IOWA .. .... .. .... T TV 9 A =E vM. M5 7ZIL T T ZOUMB�7 o [Z'r QUARTER HE F e OF SITE LAYOUT AND DIMENSION PLAN WON OF LkE AnoTfl(CH U'rHEAS7 e 1101011D 11ILD— Q TER SO-nom r7om-na*- - - - - - - - r 7HREPUE D IIIILDIIN NOR �I-OT 1 SCARLETT POINT JUO'H'ASAYCOUNTY 10— o0 MUMA &V 1111 IINIILTAN-, III, : BLOCK U OF UOWA CULV OUVLOV U Bm�c LLOW L o 9200 OL6 PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OPD SCARLETT POINT IOWA CITY IOWA ST w TIOAVC. OOU7HE437 qF 7HE OOOOOEAOO OOOOOgO XLO V V BLOCK O / A00M000 ` - O ®iOWAM ONE CALL.. .gig M M a..�..�.w..,.,....,maTr.E r S`11 LICINI ON NOTES ® SITE GRADING EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND SWPPP SCARLETT POINT PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OPD SCARLETT POINT,,,wo„ IOWA CITY IOWA ST w TIOAVC. OOU7HE437 qF 7HE OOOOOEAOO OOOOOgO XLO V V ®iOWAM ONE CALL.. g M M11 LICINI ON NOTES BLOCK O / A00M000 T-O SITE SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN SCARLETT POINT ATTACHMENT 3 Building Elevations Ar,. �lii®m A I ,! NT(STREET ELEVATION U :Eie.�ui �..re-�-o GOOSETOWN APARTMENTS 911 N. GOVERNOR STREET (42 U NITS 1-30-20 S 1D12RD ELEVATION � � rvwoeioemrmmrve � r , MEN "I — ■ . MEN I 1 x;� �� --.; �: x �� ■' ■ 1 ■=x �� mm ■� x �� ■� ■ 1 �1x �� mm ■� I x �� ■� ■ 1 ■=x �� - �€ 1 III I- INI _ I NI I I IN �'s NI �'s I I INI I Ixl 0, I I=1NI Ix BIG Ix 91® x :a91� N 'BIG mm mm _ _Il�w_w_w •� 91 wIIN_w._,.._. '910 x_ _ _ 91®� ; _ will. ? q q q q 11 � 1 d� I�q �� � 1_w q �� 1 q �� ■ 1 _ w�q �� 1 q �� ■ 1� _. �� 1; I 11111 MENEM I■_ i A �. uLL�,, uLL. . AWN PARKING AAA PARKING . m n STAIR 01 02 03 04 05 Oti 0/ Otl 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 iti 1/ itl 19 20 21 a PARKING m m a tllKt �r RACKS ISTAle oAERKEAo 000R J Ci a s� H fJA ❑ OHO 2BEDR0 APT. sE¢ox 0 vowcx 1- EDRO ❑ e 771 OHO �2 EAPT APT. 0 v 1- EDRO ❑ 00 EDAPT.RO 0 vpowcu� EDRO ❑ ] �2 EDRO APT. m°xxNo STAIR APT j �� APT ❑❑ �� APT ] ��El . ❑ �� Out �Ll�❑ 0 0�u FT L 0 Ouu �❑ 0�o mclull a m CORRIDOR g _ � BO O '60 0 160 a -ew _ _ �0 — �0 — _ _ _ 3 m 0 ' 0'� T 0' rE ���\r 0..�, ���\Er MECH ^ STAIR ❑ O mi t ❑ O m� m �� ❑ 0 �� ROOK m� ❑ o mm ❑ ❑ ®� ❑ E �� ❑ 2 BED M EAPO M 2- EDRO M 1- EDRO M �' M ,..... 2- EDRO M APT E Ec APT. E E u�l APT. Ec E APT. E g O LSO m OHO m OHO m O�0 m U 0\ID &3RD FLIXX2 PLFN (PRAIMINN2h u�wR. b„o Q QO¢ 3 0 00 , OOc A r 0z¢ O—o cCaO � =ese Q ATTACHMENT 4 Rezoning Exhibit LEGEND AND NOTES N FS FbINI, . ^lo.o`a>1�oN - PnoPo:Eo nPn1111 znNW. olDMM 1-NI mod" "N" uNES as [1s[M[N1 LN,` —L` a auaaos[ N010 -----(L- ExiSIINa ER MENI [WEE PURPOSE No1ED REZONING EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION -REZONING PARCEL #1(OPG,R1v120) IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA BEGINNING at the Southeast Corner of Lot 12 of Bacon's Subdivision, in accerdance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Book 1 at Page 5 of the Records of the Johnson County Re,o,de,, MOffice; Thence S8g°33'GP Valongthe South Line of said Bacon'sSrbdivision,antlthe South Line of Lots 51, antl 50 of the Subdiyisi0n of the South east Ouarte, Secto n 3T79 N R W,in aceordance with the Plat thereof RF,o Jed in Book 1 at Page 1 of the Records of the Johnson County Recordefs Off ice, 758 01 feet, m iR i,te,,e,to, MId the Easterly RghLoEWay Line Records ofthe Johnson County ReC del's Office; Thence N89-3757"E, alongthe North Line ofsaid Lot4d a d istance of9671 feet Thence S00°3651" E, 6671 feet Thence AGN.23'45" V 130 27 feet to a Point on the Easterly Right-oEWay The of North Dodge Street Thence N25-57'16"E, along sd,d Easterly RighFof--Way The 75 03 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Rezoning Parcel #2 contains 0.17 A— and issubjeD to easeme- and resfictons of recerd. 3BB iE V ��� / rater .a,Nxv N era 'D�"A POINT OF BEGINNING� REZONING PARCEL #2 w per l P�1N--Il oo°\ MAQ1S��F IN FEET f��OF u� `UUTG7`��6o Rows 4, o� mow; iaa9E N89'3757E N89"3757'E 24&17' a U� a6 _ N _ 9&71' _ _ N89"18'10"E 172 O8' W h b T �f 1 0� o� PROPOSED ZONING PARO=LQ m / N89"2345 E130.27 S89"23'45"W \ rti,r _If, �o q�i Jul W \ \ cnamcrc aiEN omxtwtar ut � gq N� \ catun mars n / a verurzn elrpw �> aevxpaE rRuzr rArr� m� NNN / I R N00°55'46"W ocEr� 46.06 s' i I PROPOSED ZONING PARCEL #1 (OPD/RM20)',;,"' MOR17MFf RVF O�o��M]MEMY F ,urn 7s� ajm uA7 FIFER SEMIG ��, G� 7 LAM u � \lu OHM a K i xwer z eatreia 75891' _u an"AN, try wNNkI r cF _1 �(o 0 S89"33'04"W c1r w wr4 any MOrNlu/ 12 POINT OF BEGINNING �a F� REZONING PARCEL #1 I ATTACHMENT 5 Applicant's Statement M V pJ Q C a, E C 2 w 9 r v c a c M U a Ln C J a 3 U M M MMS consultants, Inc. Experts in Planning and Development Since 1975 December 31, 2024 City of Iowa City Neighborhood and Development Services 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Re: Scarlett Point Subdivision 1917 5. Gilbert Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 319.351.8282 Mmsconsultants.net Mms@mmsconsultants.net On behalf of the applicant, MMS Consultants requests a rezoning of the properties located at 905, 905 1/2, 909, 911 N. Governor Street, 900, 900 1/2, 902, 906, 908 and 910 N Dodge Street, from the current mixed zoning of RS12, RM20, RS8, and R313, to RM20 and RS12. Respectfully submitted, Jon D. Marner MMS Consultants, Inc. 9200-006Ll.docx ATTACHMENT 6 Summary Report for Good Neighbor Meeting Summary Report for Good Neighbor Meeting � r CITY ❑F IOV A CITY Project Name: Scarlett Point Project Location: 905-911 N Governer & 900-910 N. Dodge Meeting Date and Time: August 13, 2024 7:00-8:00 P.M. Meeting Location: Robert A. Lee Community Recreation Center Social Room Names of Applicant Representatives attending: Jon Marner & Scott Pottorff(MMS Consultants) Kim Sleeae(Select Structural) Names of City Staff Representatives attending: Anne RUSsett Number of Neighbors Attending: 20 Sign -In Attached? Yes X No General Comments received regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary) - See attached summary. Concerns expressed regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary) - See attached summary. Will there be any changes made to the proposal based on this input? If so, describe: Efforts to minimize impacts to existing trees to the extent possible while still meeting city requirements for stormwater detention. Consideration of type and appearance of landscaping adjacent to the park. Staff Representative Comments Concerns related to access location and sanitary sewer capacity have been reviewed on a preliminary level by staff and a detailed review will take place as part of a formal Site plan submittal. Mention of legal rulings that apply to the site with regard to standards to be met and units. W. W. W. M 1917 S. G i I bert .Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 M MMS consultants Inc. 319.351.8282 ! mmsconsultants.net Experts in Planning and Development Since 1975 mms@mmsconsultants.net Good Neighbor Meeting summary notes: Rezoning Amendment and Preliminary Plat for property located at 905, 905 %, 909 and 911 N. Governor Street, and 900, 900 %, 902, 906, 908 and 910 N. Dodge Street (Scarlett Point) 1. Concern regarding impacts to trees and construction work near Happy Hollow park. 2. Traffic concerns along Governor and Dodge, specifically as follows: a. Location of entrance. b. Number of additional cars. c. Current issues with speeding that is not enforced consistently. 3. General concern and dissatisfaction with the total number of new units and buildings. 4. Questions regarding the choice of architectural design elements selected for the buildings. 5. Questions why nothing is being done with the vacant building. 6. Impact to Horace Mann Elementary School. 7. Questions regarding the total number of new residents and the parking required. 8. Questions regarding sanitary sewer capacity. A follow up meeting with three representatives of the neighborhood was held at MMS at their request with the same MMS and City staff present as the Good Neighbor Meeting held at the Robert A. Lee Recreation Center. The neighborhood representatives are included with the accompanying sign -in sheets. 1. Requested to zone to RM-12 or approximately 54 units. 2. Additional mention of sanitary sewer capacity. 3. Pedestrian safety concerns specifically related to no sidewalk along the west side of N. Governor, and people cutting through properties. 4. Question regarding use of park by the new tenants, and whether there could be a sidewalk directly to the park for the proposed site. 5. Mention of a dedication of additional ground to the City for Happy Hollow Park. SIGN IN SHEET Name Address Phone Email r `<''"" + P �0,^— 0(' g� ( /V 1) 0�� e �� I � SIGN IN SHEET Name Address Phone ffzy2L �1R.r � 5 � ��� � S �2 5 q � r o� ►� 3 ��,� 3 3�t - � Email SIGN IN SHEET Name Address Y42 �uiaj-f nVAt7 1 � 1 z t5-P AOv,-, 0Z9 N Phone 7f3-,�if7 Email S Ina%/, Co1� t_;rcek1ie C� — q -7ze / "'r4 SIGN IN SHEET Name Address Phone Email Z T �U �D ('l 0,/Le g/yJvi�Cc�'1 Y)CN( �A,/ k�<2S O 174 + Gc�ve�a�Cif` .39 1-7 qn a1A \ 0 udvey —6 c1 L v uvce . ecei `�'yZ Jon Marner From: Kim Sleege <ksleege@select-structural.com> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2024 10:42 AM To: Jon Marner; Charles Meardon; Tracy Barkalow Cc: Scott Pottorff Subject: RE: Goosetown Apartments (9/25/2024 Sign -In Sheet) Categories: Save Kim Sleege, Select Structural 606 14th Ave SW, Cedar Rapids, IA 52404 Ph, 319,365,1150 Cell 319.560.2113 t ATTACHMENT 7 Correspondence Anne Russett From: Schwalm, Leslie A <leslie-schwalm@uiowa.edu> Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 3.36 PM To: Anne Russett Subject: northside apt. proposal ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Dear commission members, am a longtime northside resident, writing to ask you to deny the current proposal for the lot north if Happy Hollow park. My concerns are two -fold. Most importantly, this proposal does not include affordable housing, which should be a top priority for any proposal. Secondly, it is just too big. The proposal crams too much into the space, threatening the peace and quiet we all deserve. Please reject this proposal. I know all too well what happens when the city carelessly infills with concentrated apartment buildings --the buildings erect on and adjacent to the 800 block of Jefferson has greatly increased noise from people and traffic in our neighborhood. Leslie A. Schwalm 819 Fast Market St. Anne RUSSett From: Troy Shehan <troyshehan@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 4:08 PM To: Anne Russett Subject: About the The Barkalow N. Dodge - N. Governor rezoning proposal "This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. " Hello, In case I'm not able to make the meeting tomorrow 1 wanted to let you know I am NOT in favor of the new buildings. 1. The change to Happy Hollow park would basically make it a playground, and not a park. 2. The housing density would create a huge problem with traffic on Governor (where I live). From Brown Street and Governor, it is basically a blind, quickly sloping curve. Traffic would have NO TIME to prepare for cars exiting/enterirg the parking area for the new buildings. This is the biggest problem with safety I see. It is a very busy street and traffic is constant. Any stoppage of cars would risk collisions from behind. A stoplight would have no real use in this situation, and would only backup cars or Governor (especially during work commute time) And, there are children who walk by and cross the street to go to school each day. I'm told that the current apartment building just north of the proposed area was actually a compromise made for these very reasons, And there are more cars in town than there were 20 years ago. So I have to beiieve that consideration is even more important now, Even if only 1 building went in, that would be 40+ peopie there, Many of which will have a car, So I am against the proposai. Thank you for reading this and giving it consideration. —Troy Anne Ruissett From: Tim Fleagle <tfleagle@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2025 9:51 PM To: Anne Russett Subject: N. Governor rezoning ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Hi Anne, hope you are doing well. I wanted to reach out as 1 won't be able to attend the planning and zoning meeting tomorrow night. I am in support of the proposed zoning changes to allow high density housing on the N. Governor lot. The N. Governor site is an excellent location for infill devolopment especially duo to its proximity to transit, and other amenities including parks, groceries and downtown. Thankyou, Tim Anne Russett From: Beth Erickson <bethpro15@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 8, 2025 9:09 AM To: Anne Russett Subject: Rezoning 900 N Dodge etc. ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Hello Anne, live at 813 Dewey Street and am directly impacted by this development. I am strongly opposed to the rezoning and change to the neighborhood. The proposed development is obscenely large and in complete contrast to the surrounding neighborhood. Why does it have to be so large? It's obvious to me that the developer/owner is trying to make the maximum profit for himself. Please consider that Iowa City has a lot of this type of housing already and this particular build is not necessary or welcome. I ask that you please consider all of the tax paying residents up and down these neighborhood streets who send their kids to Horace Mann School and who play in the local parks. The City has grown quickly in the last 10 years and I propose that a sensible slow down and appropriately sized plan for the property be considered. I also oppose the demolition of the existing homes, and the trees near the North end of Happy Hollow Park. I think that green space is necessary as a transition to the property. Thank you very much, Beth Erickson 319-743-5877 Anne Russett L,A-`fiC (WRESN006�kF From: Voyce, Stephen C <stephen-voyce@uiowa.edu> Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2025 3:21 PM To: Anne Russett Subject: Objection to Planned Development Overlay (OPD) and RM-20 RISC ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Members of the Planning and Zoning Corrnnission, I write to express my objection to the Planned Development Overlay (OPD) and RM-20 for the Eollowing reasons. With regard to the Planning and Zoning Commission proposal: This zone (RM-20) is particularly well suited to locations adjacent to commercial areas and in areas with good access to all city services and facilities. How does this proposed rezoning comply with this statement? The property is not adjacent to a commercial area. The lack of a sidewalk on Governor means it does not have good access for pedestrians (lacks access to city services and facilities). This location is not suited for the proposed density shown on this plan based on the words written in the Zoning Code. The RM-20 zone also says: Careful attention to site and building design is important to ensure that the various housing types in any one location are compatible with one another. The site and building design shows little compatibility with the existing single- family, duplexes, and apartment buildings in the neighborhood. In order to fit in the number of units proposed these buildings will be 236 feet long - compare that to a standard city block of 300 feet. These buildings will be almost a block long. Although the City must abide by the court ruling that imposed R3B zoning on parts of this property, it should not go beyond that to approve a plan that is incompatible with the single-family, duplexes, and apartment bmildings in this neighborhood. Yes, some multi family buildings may be appropriate here, but not these two huge buildings. The zoning code states: OPD Zoning will not be contrary to the intent and purpose of this title, inconsistent with the comprehensive plan, as amended, or harmful to the surrounding neighborhood The OPD section also says: Encourage the preservation and best use of existing landscape features through development that is sensitive to the natural features of the surrounding area. And: Promote an attractive and safe living environment compatible with surrounding residential developments. How does this OPD plan comply with these provision of the zoning code? In short it does not. The staff report acknowledges that 86% of the critical slopes will be impacted and most of the trees will be removed — that just shows that the proposed huge buildings do not take into account the natural features. They are too big for the property they are trying to fit on. These are the standards that the Planning and Zoning Commission is supposed to use to evaluate an OPD zoning: .A, General Standards• 1. The density and design of the planned development will be compatible with and/or complementary to adjacent development in terms ofland use, building mass and scale, Again, the proposed 236-foot-long buildings are out of scale even with the existing apartment buildings and in no way complement the adjacent development. 2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities There are no sidewalks on the west side of Governor Street to provide pedestrian access to this property. Although Barkalow will put in sidewalks on his property they will lead nowhere. That is against the Comprehensive Plan policy of putting density where there is pedestrian access. The staff report contains very little about the environmentally sensitive areas other than to say the 86% of the Critical slopes will be graded away and the grove of trees adjacent to Happy Hollow park appears to be removed. I reviewed with Sensitive Areas section of the zoning code. It states the intent is to: Preserve the scenic character of -hillside areas, particularly wooded hillsides. And: Encroachment of construction areas into steep and critical slopes must be xninimizcd. If disturbance ofmom than tbirtyrive percent (35%) of critical slopes is proposed a level II sensitive areas xeviewis required. Level 11 requires Planning and Zoning review. If 86% of the critical slopes are to be wiped away (well above the 35% that requires Planning and Zoning approval), and the grove of trees adjacent to Happy Hollow Park is to be removed, how does this comply with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code to develop our city in a way that respects environmentally sensitive areas? It does not, because too much development is being proposed on this property. Again, apartment buildings may be appropriate on part of this land and the court decision does allow development, but not to the extent proposed here. You are also asked to determine if the proposed rezoning complies with the Comprehensive Plan. The staff report says it does. But the Central District plan clearly shows 900 and 910 N. Dodge Street as single --family and duplex. There is no reason to include them in this rezoning other than to double -dip and give more density to Barkalow — even more density that he could achieve under the court -imposed R313 zone. The Comprehensive Plan does show Low- to Medium -Density Multifamily on Governor Street, but that should not lead to the highest density allowed by the IW-20 zone. In addition to density, you must consider the other policies of the Comprehensive Plan, including neighborhood compatibility and preservation of environmental sensitive areas like the critical slopes on this property. So, yes, multi -family zoning may be appropriate on Governor Street, but in weighing all of the Comprehensive Plan policies it should not be the plan before you. Regards, Stephen Voyce Associate Professor Engksh Department I Digital Studio University of Iowa Www.stl-phpilL ce.or_g Anne Russett From: Susan Shuilaw <smshullaw@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2025 10:32 AM To: Anne Russett Subject: RE: Feb. 19 P&Z N, Dodge-N. Governor rezoning request ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** To the Planning & Zoning Commission: I am writing in regard to the rezoning request for multiple parcels in the 900 blocks of N. Dodge and N. Governor Streets. I live about two blocks southeast of this property. While I am strongly in favor of adding more housing to the Northside, and welcome the redevelopment of these under-utilized parcels, I have two major objections to the developer's current proposal: As I understand it, this two -building, 84-unit apartment complex will include no affordable housing. I find this particularly perplexing in that the City has joined with the developer as a co - applicant for the zoning change. How does a complex of this size align with our Strategic Plan goals when no affordable units are included? This property's location is ideal foryoung families, situated on a bus line, and close to Horace Mann Elementary, Hy-Vee, and other amenities. For these same reasons, the complex will be attractive to college students, senior citizens, and other groups with significant percentages of low- to moderate income individuals. These populations will likely be locked out of these apartments if the units are market -rate rentals only. The damage done to the northern boundary of Happy Hollow Park as part of this development would, as another neighbor so aptly described it, change this verdant, tree -lined green space "from a park to a playground." I appreciate the developer's pledge to retain 15 mature trees and plant 50+ others, but based on the site plans, the tree -lined barrier between this property and the park would be largely destroyed ---and with it, the woodsy, secluded feeling of the park itself. This would be a tremendous loss to the Northside and would negatively impact the quality of life of nearby neighbors, existing and new. I urge the Commission to require that the developer work with the City to amend the plans for this project so that some portion of affordable housing is included, and that the entire tree lime along the northern and northeast borders of Happy Hollow Park be retained. Thankyou. Susan Shuilaw 718 N. Johnson Anne Russett From: Jackie B. <jackiehockett@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2025 3:01 PM To: Anne Russett Subject: N. Dodge-N. Governor rezoning ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Dear P&Z: Hello! While I LOVE that something will be built on this land- that old low building has been a sad empty site for as long as I can recall- I am really concerned about rezoning the two properties with houses that border the park. I think it is really important to keep a buffer between the park and the development. The tree line is an important physical boundary but also creates a park feeling that is safe and embraces the nature and longevity of this park. This park is one of the only city ones left where you can stargaze at night- and I worry about the light pollution from this massive build and no trees to block the light. (Have you ever been sledding down the hill, collapse in laughter, and then lay in the snow and marvel at the stars? have with my kids many times here. it makes me love Iowa City every time.) am trying to understand the plans from the packet, and I am not good at reading elevation and imaging what it would feel like from the park POV. I wonder if you could request this? As a parent, I don't love the idea of a building creeping above children -that barrier must stay. This park is now a multi -use park by everyone in the community, I see loads of college kids, families, kids, play groups here- and this design will turn it into the park of this apartment building. Please keep the separation of the properties and the wood line, it is a proposal to be built among houses and it should therefore work as a building nestled among the houses and the park. I know the city has shown a commitment to low income housing, and this addition to the neighborhood should support that vision as well. 3 bedroom apartments for families are really needed, and this would be a great location for family apartments! As 1 understand it, the majority of this lot is zoned for townhouses- maybe it should stay that way. We really don't need more student apartments- but we do need more homes. I think a better plan can be shown using the land and within the zoning requirements. Please do NOT rezone the RS8 and RS12 Thank you for your time, Jackie Biger 519 N. Johnson St. Anne Russett From: Gina Hausknecht <ginahausknecht@gmall.com> Sent: Monday, February 17, 2025 4:42 PM To: Anne Russett Subject: Proposed N, Dodge / N. Governor apartment development ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments, ** Dear Planning & Zoning Commission, write as a Northside resident to express my concerns about the proposed rezoning for apartment buildings between N. Dodge and N. Governor Streets just north of Happy Hollow Park. The positive aspects of this project include the removal of the old Social Services building currently on the site and the addition of more housing on the Northside, which is much needed. It is very important, however, that new development include affordable housing options and doesn't diminish shared neighborhood social space. My specific concerns with the proposed development are: • The lack of designated affordable housing. No developer should be given the go-ahead to create new housing without a commitment to affordability. I urge the commission to make such a commitment a precondition of any new housing project approval. • The removal of trees along the northern edge of Happy Hollow Park. Trees contribute to the environment's health and sustainability in numerous ways. Every development project should take pains not to remove existing trees and, where possible, to plant additional ones. • The buildings will be too close to Happy Hollow Park, abutting the basketball court. • The scale of the proposed buildings is out of proportion with anything else in the neighborhood. I am in favor of repurposing or replacing vacant buildings to create new housing options that will enhance the Northside with affordable units appropriate to the neighborhood's scale that either augment or at least do not erode the existing social infrastructure. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Gina Hausknecht 420 Fairchild St. 319-389-4287 February ig, 2025 Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am writing as an owner and zg year resident of 83o N Dodge Street, a single family home. My home is the southern neighbor of goo N Dodge Street and I share a driveway with that duplex, I oppose the request for rezoning in its current state and request removal from the proposal of the duplex at goo N Dodge Street. I am wholly supportive of multi -family infill development of an appropriate size that considers the context of the existing neighborhood, critical steep slopes, and the relationship to the public park.. My understanding is that the Planning & Zoning Commission reviews the rezoning application through a lens of I) Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan z) Compatibility with the neighborhood The Barkalow/City rezoning proposal is problematic in regard to both principles. REZONING 900 N DODGE STREET IS INCONSISTENT WITH THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS; i) Historically, City Council and Planning and Zoning recognized that the current (RP) high density multi -family zoning on portions of the proposed rezoning was a"spot zone" and called that a mistake, They twice tried to bring the zoning in line with the neighborhood. This was prevented by a conservative Iowa .Supreme Court. Now, staff is proposing to grant Mr Barkalow expanded zoning beyond what the court allowed. Re: rezoning the goo N Dodge Street duplex, staff' offer a rationale of desiring consistency" with RM-zo portions of the property rather than seeking consistency with the nature of the surrounding neighborhood and with the spirit and letter of the comprehensive plan, What was once understood as spot zoning has now become the model for density. z) The staff promotion of a value of consistency" of zoning within the required Planned Development Overlay (OPD) is contradicted by leaving one of the N Dodge Street Rs-Iz duplexes as is, but rezoning the other to RIVItzo. Not specified in the Staff Report is the fact that the OPD allows unused residential density within it to be transferred to the proposed new buildings, The goo N Dodge Street house sits on a lot of 17,400 sq ft but only 5000 sq ft arc required for a single family house. By rezoning goo N Dodge Street from Its-Iz to RM-zo and changing it from a duplex to a single unit, Mr Barkalow is able to transfer unused density, gaining six (of 84) units in his proposed two buildings. This is obliquely acknowledged on page Io of the Staff Report, where it is stated that the owner "shall convert the existing duplex to one dwelling... to ensure compliance with the maximum density standards of the zone:' I Of 2 3) The two N Dodge Street properties I have been referring to are clearly shown in the Comprehensive Plan -Central District Plan as Rs-Iz single family/duplex. The Comprehensive Plan stipulates that these properties are to serve as transition zoning. This southern transition zone is removed by up -zoning goo N Dodge Street, I invested a significant portion of my financial resources in my home at 83o N Dodge, adjacent to goo N Dodge Street, with the understanding that the comprehensive plan is a reliable document. It seems the City is prepared to override the stated intention of the Comprehensive Plan and Central District Plan in order to facilitate achieving an inappropriate density for the neighborhood, The Supreme Court did not obligate the City to include goo N Dodge Street in its decision, and doing so is in clear violation of the Comprehensive Plan and Central District Plan. q) The Comprehensive Plan spells out that developments should `support the enhancement of adjacent areas that. can .serve as assets or offer amenities;' The Zoning Code intent section re: the Rm-2o zone specifies: "Careful attention to the site and building design is important to ensure the various housing types in any one location are compatible with one another.' Achieving maximum density requires inappropriately rezoning designated transitional housing at goo N Dodge Street, bulldozing 86% of the critical steep slopes adjacent to Happy Hollow Park, and removing most of the trees on the border. These plans underscore that this developments footprint is far too big for the neighborhood and for the space available. The planned development degrades rather than enhances the Park, overwhelms the neighborhood with its out -of -proportion size, rezones what is specifically reserved as transitional zoning on N Dodge Street, and thus is not consistent with the stated letter and intent of the Comprehensive Plan, It seems the City may be concerned that if they dorit go along with the current proposal, that the development could be worse due to what is allowed by the Supreme Court decision. However, given the odd shape of the court -imposed R313zoning, steep slopes on Lot 51, and the diagonal sewer easement, it is unlikely Mr Barkalow could in practice achieve the theoretical density permitted by the 11313zone. Everyone wants gii N Governor Street to be redeveloped. Doing so in a way that complements the neighborhood and the Park, and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code would be an asset to the community. But the plan before you is inconsistent with the principles of our guiding documents. I hope you send staff and the developer back to the drawing board to devise a plan that works better for the environmentally sensitive critical slopes and for the neighborhood, Thank you for considering my feedback. Sincerely, ga wi P(-- 4 � Audrey Bahrick z of z Anne Russett From: Gidal, Eric <eric-gidal@uiowa.edu> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 7:44 AM To: Anne Russett Cc: Jackie Briggs Subject: Comments on Proposed Development A�o, ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Dear Planning and Zoning Board, We are residents of the Northside Neighborhood and we write with concerns about proposed development north of Happy Hollow Park. We are in support of this area's development for apartment houses, but wish to raise concerns about its impact on the park. Currently, a rich grove of trees separates the park from the property under consideration. We ask that those trees be retained as part of any development to provide adequate division between the park and the proposed construction. We also ask that adequate plans for water run-off be requested. If the entire property becomes paved or built, we are concerned about detrimental effects on the park. Happy Hollow Park is a gem of the northside and is used by many different individuals and groups, both from the neighborhood and from around the city. Its benefits and appearance should be retained. Any reasonable developerwould find a wayto do so. Yours sincerely, Jacqueline Briggs Eric Gidal 328 Brown Street Anne Russett From: Krueger, Adam C < kruegr@uiowa.edu > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 8:24 AM To: Anne Russett Subject: Barkalow rezoning project ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** For consideration by the Iowa City Planning Committee, am writing to express my concern and disapproval of the rezoning and development project for the Barkalow apartments on North Dodge and North Governor Streets. I am a homeowner in this neighborhood and my property at 831 N Dodge St is adjacent to the proposed rezoning areas. There are several reasons why I oppose the proposed project and several concerns that I have if they are approved as proposed. What will the impact of the proposed buildings be on local utilities and infrastructure? Will the burden for alterations or repairs fall to taxpayers or to the new development? What studies have been done to determine the effect of the proposed development on existing infrastructure (e.g., impact on sewers)? Have these studies been made public and why if not? The physical size of proposed buildings supposes an unacceptable alteration of the neighborhood as is. These new buildings would be significantly larger than the larger apartment complex building at 902 North Dodge street: Note the proposed 3-story buildings have a footprint of 16,520 sq ft compared to the existing adjacent 2-story rental building at 902 North Dodge with a footprint of 7,832 sq ft. One building alone is 110 percent larger than the biggest building on adjacent property. This large upsize in the building upends the land use goals and strategies as outlined by the Comprehensive Plan to "encourage compact, efficient development" or "ensure that infill development is compatible and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood." A smaller -scale building could better fit our area without the need to rezone all adjacent properties to accommodate the largest building that will sit in the Northside Neighborhood. A building of the proposed size might fit better near a commercial center. Loss of tree line separating the park from the housing complex. This would be a major loss to the community as it would forever alter the aesthetics of this small community park. This tree line is perhaps just as important to the park as the softball field, playground and other amenities. The tree line defines this park and protects the users from surrounding noise and visual pollution allowing them to fully immerse themselves in simple leisure activities. Having a protected place in our community to do this is so important in today's fast -paced environment. These trees aren't surrounding the park by accident; they area defining feature of this park and removing them would bean irreversible mistake. Traffic issues already exist on Governor and Dodge streets. How much more parking is planned for the new proposal? And what measures will be taken to ensure traffic safety with such a major addition to traffic flow? The entrance/exit to the current development creates safety issues because the visibility for vehicles at that location is limited by the curve and dip in the road. The area is also unsafe for pedestrians given the absence of (a) a crosswalk on either road and (b) sidewalk on the Governor side. Winter proposes additional hazards to this area. Have any studies to traffic flow and traffic habits been undertaken? Have they been made public? If not, why not? impact on pro party values. The new development will have a negative impact on property values in the area. What does the City Planning Committee plan to do to address this issue? Poor upkeep of adjacent property. The property at 902 North Dodge, which Is also owned by Mr. Barkalow, is in terrible condition. Little to no money, time, or effort are spent to maintain the aesthetics of this property. This has a negative impact on the surrounding home values. This also reflects on how this current proposal will be maintained after it will be built. The Northside Community members know that despite the talk of making this proposed project "architecturally" compatible with the neighborhood, in a few years it will look just as rundown and poorly maintained as the 902 North Dodge rentals, but on a far larger scale. Again, this reflects poorly on our neighborhood and impacts our property values. • Height of the proposed buildings reaches above the maximum height outlined in the building stipulations. The Plans indicate a maximum height of 37'. The maximum allowable height in the proposed zoning designations for RM-20 indicates 35'. To summarize, this is not the right proposal for this neighborhood. A smaller complex could more easily integrate into the community without causing such a burden on utilities, streets, and affecting tree lines and in Happy Hollow park. The negative impact of this complex on our propertyvalues could be minimized. I would ask the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission to take into consideration how these changes would permanently affect our Northside Community when considering the size and scale of Mr. Barkalow's proposal and his track record with the adjacent properties. Excluding the rezoning of properties at 900, 9001/2, 910 North Dodge, 909, 905 North Governor street would help limit the size and scale of this project, aswould protectingthe tree line that surrounds Happy Hollow Park. A designated turning lane that helps alleviate traffic flow issues could also help reduce impact on the neighborhood and limit scale of these buildings. The neighborhood wants this area to be developed, but the scope of the proposed project is an exaggeration that opposes the directions laid out in the city's Comprehensive Plan and will not be a net benefit to the Northside Community. Thank you foryour earnest consideration, Adam Krueger Anne Russett From: Hamilton, David s <david-hamilton@uiowa.edu> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2025 8:31 AM To: Anne Russett Subject: Letter to Zoning Commission ARISK ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Dear Commission Members It is my understanding that the development being considered for Just north of Happy Hollow Parkwill be a massive imposition on our neighborhood. It has much to recommend it. The land is underused, and good housing ever needed, apparently, in our community. Stilt, it is a massive project that will have an enormous impact on Goosetown and the North Side. If undertaken, it will be like dragging that great spaceship, Hancher Auditorium, across the river, uphill and docking it just north of the park. Maybe two Hancher Auditoriums, for all I know. An Imposition of such magnitude must take care not to intrude rudely on its neighbors. Private homes in the immediate area will be hugely affected. And if it is so that more than half the timber on the north edge of the park will be cut down, that is a lamentable change. Within the last fewyears we have worried about preserving, not destroying, our urban forest canopy and have taken steps to increase it throughout the North Side. There are fine old trees in that border, trees with their own history and grandeur. The hackberry by the shelter house and playground is a specimen of its kind. Every once In a while, when walking through the park, I find bluebirds at home in those trees. These are assets to be protected, even highlighted in forward thinking, urban design, They must not be squandered for the sake of the last dollar to be squeezed out of the site. Presumably the park itself will bean attraction for residents in these apartments. But nowhere in the plans does there seem to be any concern shown for integrating the two and making it an easy and pleasant walk for, let us imagine, new parents to stroll with their children down into the park. It seems to me that for the sake of the park and for that, too, of its immediate neighbors, everything should be set back some and steps taken for a more graduated transition from one to the other. We are accustomed to speaking of our footprint in such matters and of making an effort to keep it modest. As this plan stands, that print will be huge, careless, and all but indifferent to what it brushes up against and even tromps upon. But you can correct that, and I trust you will. David Hamilton 814 N. Linn St. Iowa City Dear Planning & Zoning Commissioners, February 16, 2025 As a former resident and business owner (Brown Street Inn) of the Northside Neighborhood I am writing to express some concerns 1 have about the impacts proposed rezoning and development north of Happy Hollow Park: 900, 900 112 and 908, 910 North Dodge Street has on the neighborhood. Although we no longer live in the neighborhood, I have strong feelings for how developments of this magnitude will impact the neighborhood and its amenities such as Happy Hallow Park. 1. I am a former member of the Planning & Zoning Commission and do not recall the city ever being a co -applicant on a rezoning/development request. I find this very problematic. Iowa City governance has rules in place for non -biased evaluation. How can the City prove it administered an unbiased evaluation in presenting P&Z Commissioners this rezoning petition when the city is a co - applicant? 2. Since this is private property, it seems more appropriate that City staff would present their non -biased evaluation of a request in their Staff Report. As a co - applicant the impression is given that the city fully supports the entirety of this request & project, 3. As shown on the proposed site development plans, the placement of buildings destroys the current wooded barrier north of Happy Hollow Park. Where two differing zones interface, there should be a meaningful buffer greater than the 14 feet shown. 4. This buffer should be of sufficient size to provide a effective visual barrier between the park and this development. The quality of some trees shown to be saved on the south side of the property (elm, cherry and hackberry) is marginal at best. A new planting buffer should be required that includes both evergreen and deciduous trees of higher quality than what currently exists. 5. 1 do not see how this proposed development can be construed as being compatible with the existing neighborhood character as required by the standard rezoning review criteria. The shear number of proposed units seems to exceed what would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 6. There does not appear to be any pedestrian connection between this development and Dodge Street. This should be required so building occupants would have adequate access to sidewalks and the inbound bus stop on Dodge Street, 7. The traffic generated by 84 residential units on the site seems problematic since the only access is located on a northbound one-way street. Traffic coming from the north, wishing to access this development, would have to use Brown Street between Dodge and Governor. This 2 block section of Brown Street is brick pavement and in fairly rough condition. For these reasons I feel a zoning that allows this level of high -density development is inappropriate for this site. I urge you to reconsider this request and the planned overlay development. Sincerely Robert Brooks 920 Foster Road, formerly 430 Brown Street February 19, 2025 Dear Commissioners of the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission, I am writing as a resident of the Northside Neighborhood.The Goosetown Apartments development and rezoning petition is a complicated matter with a long history that includes a ruling from the State Supreme Court of Iowa in favor of Mr. Barkalow against the City. As a Commission charged with the responsibility to serve the public, I would like to point out that you may find yourself in an unusual position reviewing an application which began as a rezoning petition from Mr. Barkalow (TSB) and is now a joint rezoning petition from TSB and the City Staff. Iowa City governance has rules in place for non -biased evaluation. How does the Commission escape the weight of the City's thumb on this petition when the City Staff is a co -applicant of a controversial rezoning? Aside from the procedural concerns, there are problems with the rezoning petition and development proposal: Page I of the Staff Report states:"The proposed development would allow for the demolition and replacement of buildings along N. Governor St., including the existing, vacant commercial office building." So, why does this plan include the rezoning of property on Dodge St. (specifically 900,900 1 /2 N. Dodge St.) where no infill development is proposed? Apparently density from the Dodge St. properties can be transferred to a Governor St. address to increase the maximum size of the building and the number of dwelling units allowed. The two proposed buildings for the Goosetown Apartments have issues too. They are much too large for the neighborhood. — Two three-story buildings — Dimensions 236 X 70 feet (each building is almost the length of one city block in the Northside — no other buildings exist on this scale in the neighborhood) — 133 parking spaces with parking and other paving equivalent to the footprint of the two dwelling structures; only 2-3 parking places for visitors — Construction of the development as presented will remove 86% of critical slopes contiguous to Happy Hollow Park. — Lack of sidewalks along N. Governor St. A significant retaining wall as a structural necessity will be built at the bottom of the hill at the property line of Happy Hollw Park.The area is a sensitive wooded overlay.The retaining wall will be 5 to 14 feet in height.The buildings are too large for the sensitive sloped property, there are too many dwelling units, and the scale of development does not fit into the neighborhood. The City will state that rezoning to a higher density is in the best interest of the citizens of Iowa City in order to increase available housing units in the city.That can still be accomplished in a sensible way by amending the proposal to omit 900,900 1 /2 N Dodge St. from the rezoning. Page 6 of the Staff Report shows Figure 4: Central District Neighborhood Plan for Future Land Use Map exhibits 900, 900 1 /2 N Dodge St. as a RS-12 property. It's transitional and appropriate next to a single-family home. Any pretense to abandon this logic goes against the Central District Plan. I am supportive of redeveloping the land having N Governor St. addresses and the R313 zoned lots, and see no need for the lots having N Dodge St. addresses to be rezoned.That is adding density above what the court decision imposed. I urge you to reject the rezoning application presented. A rezoning petition which removes the properties 900,900 1 /2 N. Dodge St. could likely result in a density more appropriate for the sensitive property. Sincerely, Sharon DeGraw Northside Neighborhood, Iowa City Two maps are included on the third page of this document. Figure 4 (below) is on page 6 of the Staff Report in the February 19th P&Z Commission Packet Figure 4. Central District Plan Future Land Use Map 900,900 1 /2 North Dodge Street is outlined in black.The pale yellow color is for "Single-Family/Duplex Residential" \ y ■ 1111111111111111a PROPOSED AREA TO BE REZONED RM-20 outlined in blue F"Parcel Nw1003482( (Lot 49) Z, RM-20 (already) Zoned RS-12 830 L- 828 814 JIJ 9131!2 911 Zone RS-12 Zone !S8 Zone RS-8 Happy Hollow Park L r 726 730 802 Brown Street 920 f931 918� 927 921 916 1913 Z i 90o 819 C 'M 817 813 4 110 7 18 805 I. 8 t12 The Iowa Supreme Court order in 2018 gives Mr. Barkalow the right to develop the areas in the 3RB zone (shown in pink). The City does not owe Mr Barkalow the right to over develop land shown within the blue outline. Anne Russett From: Michael Neustrom <michael.neustrom@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2025 12:42 PM To: Anne Russett Subject: Goosetown apartments AA RI1 K ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Hello Anne - My name is Michael Neustrom and I am a lifelong resident of Iowa City. I grew up dreaming of living in Goosetown one day and that dream came true when I bought my first home on North Dodge Street in 2019! 1 always loved the culture and the peacefulness of the North side of Iowa City. Unfortunately, the past few years have gotten worse and worse with crime and violence on the North side. Newer residents are up all night drinking and smoking weed outside, while their young children run through the streets and their teenage children walk around the neighborhood harassing people out for a walk or walking their dog... not to mention several break ins at a more increasing rate (mainly in people's garages). I know this because just this past summer my dog and I were on a walk and three teenagers followed us and threatened to "kick my ass and kill my dog." This was all unprovoked; I guess this is what teens do now on boring summer days. I picked up my dog and walked back toward my house while the teens chased us down the street and up my driveway. I chose not to report this because of my own peaceful nature (and distrust for police de-escalation strategies). All this being said, I am incredibly disappointed that the city once again, is proposing to build more apartments in a beloved part of town that once was bright with culture. The city has succeeded in the past few years of completely destroying the parts of Iowa City that I and many others once loved. If you and your commission have any respect left for this city, I would encourage you all to take into consideration the people who actually live in the Goosetown area, where most of, if not all of whom are passionately opposed to the Goosetown apartment proposed construction. These apartments would not only destroy the essence of the North side, but also are very likely to increase crime in the area. I appreciate you reading my thoughts and I hope they are taken seriously. Thanks! -Michael Neustrom Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 5 of 27 300 feet. Hensch closed the public hearing Townsend moved to recommend approval of REZ24-0016, a proposed rezoning to rezone 7.2 acres of the property located east of Camp Cardinal Blvd and north of Melrose Ave (Parcel Number 1007351003) from ID-RS zone to MU zone subject to the following condition: • Prior to issuance of a building permit the Owner shall reconstruct the median to allow access and also construct a dedicated left -turn lane on Camp Cardinal Blvd subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Elliott seconded the motion. Townsend noted concern with the commercial section and not having any idea what kind of businesses would be going there. Elliott states she thinks it's a good use of the land, it's infill property and she likes the diversity of housing options that are available. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0 (Miller recused). Commissioner Miller rejoined the meeting. CASE NO. REZ24-0001: Location: 900, 902, 906, and 908 N. Dodge St. and 905, 909, and 911 N. Governor St. An application for a rezoning of approximately 5.49 acres of land from Medium Density Single - Family Residential (RS-8) zone, High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zone, Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) zone, and Multi -Family Residence (R3B) zone to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) zone and High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD). Russett began the staff report showing an aerial map of the property noting Happy Hollow Park located to the south of the subject property. She next reviewed the zoning map, which shows the current zoning of the subject property and surrounding properties. The subject property currently includes several different zoning designations, it has some Medium Density Single - Family Residential (RS- 8) zone on the southeast corner, High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12), and then there are Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) zone, and Multi - Family Residence (R313) zone. The existing R313 zoning is a zoning designation from the 1970s. To the south is some Public Zoning for the park and most of the rest of the zones around the subject property are zoned single family. In terms of background, Russett noted in 1987 there was an Iowa Supreme Court decision related to this property. At the time there were properties zoned R313 (again a multifamily zone from the 1970s) and a developer obtained building permits to construct an office building and an apartment building. The City revoked the building permit and rezoned some of the parcels to only allow single family and duplex residential so the owner sued the City and the Court determined that the City's actions were unreasonable. As a result of the Iowa Supreme Court Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 6 of 27 decision, several lots remained zoned R3B. Then in 2011 there was a rezoning request to rezone property along North Governor Street to RM-12 Low Density Multi -Family Residential, and that rezoning would have allowed approximately 18 units on the eastern portion of the subject property. The City Council denied the rezoning and directed staff to explore designating the properties to no longer allow multifamily development. In 2012, based on Council direction, the City initiated a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Central District Plan to change the Future Land Use Map from Low Density Multi -Family to Single -Family and Duplex residential on several properties. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment was accompanied by several City initiated down zonings, meaning a rezoning of property from a multifamily zone to a duplex or single family zone, and these actions by the City also resulted in a lawsuit in 2018 (TSB Holdings. LLC v. Board of Adjustment for City of Iowa City) and in that case the Courts determined that the Kempf decision from 1987 prohibited the City from enforcing the new zoning ordinance and the property owner was permitted to move forward with multifamily development consistent with the R313 zoning. Therefore, that is why today the zoning on the subject property is a mix of R313 from the 1970s and some current multifamily RM-20, and some single family. This property has a long and complicated zoning history. Russett also wanted to mention that the City is acting as a co -applicant to this rezoning for several reasons. First, the City would like to see a cohesive development on the subject property, as opposed to that which would be allowed under the current zoning. The City would also like to see compliance with modern zoning regulations, which include the sensitive areas ordinance and the multifamily site development standards which regulate things like screening, parking, design, and building materials. Lastly, the City Council Strategic Plan includes a goal related to establishing partnerships and collaborations, particularly in the interest in advancing the City's housing goals. As staff has discussed many times with the Commission, an important aspect of meeting the housing goals is increasing the overall supply of housing in the community Russett did note the applicant held a good neighbor meeting on August 13, 2024. Russett showed slides of photographs of the subject property. She noted the vacant office building and the existing apartments. The eastern portion of the subject property is mainly surface parking, there are some trees along the southern border of the property and an existing duplex on the subject property. Russett reiterated the current zonings are Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS- 8) zone and High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zones which allow single-family and duplex residential. The RS-12 also allows townhome style multi -family up to six units attached. Properties zoned RM-20 allow multi -family residential and the maximum height in these zones is 35'. The R313 zone also allows multi -family residential at a minimum lot area per unit of 750 square feet which equates to approximately 58 dwelling units per acre. Given the land area zoned R313 the existing zoning would allow a maximum of 84 dwelling units. The maximum height in the R313 zone is 45' and 3 stories. The proposed zoning is for the majority of the property to be Medium Density Multi -Family (RM- 20) zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD). The OPD is required due to impacts to sensitive areas. The northwest piece would be High Density Single -Family (RS-12) zone with a Planned Development Overlay. The maximum density in the OPD/RM-20 zone is 24 dwelling units per acre with the maximum height of 35'. The applicant is not requesting any waivers with this OPD application and if this rezoning is approved any future development and redevelopment of the property must substantially comply with what is shown on the OPD plan. Staff is Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 7 of 27 recommending a condition that as part of this project the final plat of the property must go through a replat so that the lots follow the proposed rezoning boundaries. Russett next shared the preliminary plan and development overlay plan. The project proposes redevelopment of the land along North Governor Street and would include the demolition of the two single family homes that currently exist at the southern portion of the site, as well as the demolition of the vacant office building to the north. There are two multifamily residential buildings being proposed, each contain 42 units for a total of 84 units, and the plans show storm water being located on site. The open space is proposed on the southeast corner and the parking is internal to the buildings, as well as there is some surface parking located behind the buildings. The plans also include a sidewalk along North Governor Street. Russett reviewed the landscaping plan, the applicant is proposing to keep 15 existing mature trees on the southern portion of the boundary and proposing to add several more, around 54, on the remainder of the property. Several will be street trees proposed along North Governor Street. Russett reiterated since the proposed rezoning complies with all development standards, there are no waivers requested, and the OPD is required due to the sensitive areas impact. The criteria to consider with this rezoning are consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with the existing neighborhood character. In terms of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan the IC 2030 Plan as well as the Central District Plan both apply to this land. The Future Land Use Map of the IC 2030 Plan shows the majority of the site, the properties along North Dodge and into the site, are all designated as appropriate for multifamily development up to 24 dwelling units per acre. The Central District Plan also shows that a majority of the site is appropriate for multifamily. However, unlike the IC2030 Plan the Central District Plan does show some single family to the north, as well as open space in the middle of the property. The Future Land Use Map functions as a conceptual future vision and both Plans envision this area as allowing multifamily development, up to 24 dwelling units per acre, which is the maximum density allowed in the proposed OPD/RM-20 zoning district. Russett noted in addition to the Future Land Use Map there are several goals and policies that support the proposed development. In terms of land use goals, there's goals encouraging compact, efficient development that is contiguous and connected with existing neighborhoods, while ensuring that infill development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. There are housing goals that encourage a diversity of housing types that ensure a mix of housing types within each neighborhood to provide options for households of all types, at all incomes, and supporting infill development and redevelopment in areas where there's existing services and infrastructure. In terms of environmental goals, the Plan encourages compact and efficient development that reduces the cost of extending and maintaining infrastructure, discourages sprawl and again promotes infill development. Lastly, in terms of parks and open space goals Russett stated there's a goal to improve overall access to the parks throughout the City. Looking at the Central District Plan the housing and quality of life element includes a goal to promote the Central District as an attractive place to live by encouraging reinvestment in residential properties throughout the District and by supporting new housing opportunities. Russett acknowledged that although this proposal isn't necessarily reinvesting in residential properties, it will result in the removal of the vacant office building and provide much needed housing units. There's also a statement within the Central District Plan specific to the subject property and to the history with the R313 zoning, which notes that this area is zoned R313 and it Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 8 of 27 should be rezoned to a valid designation, such as RM-20 In terms of the compatibility with the neighborhood character Russett first talked about the existing context of what surrounds the subject property. Again, there is Happy Hollow Park to the south, across Governor Street to the east there's single family residential, to the north there's a mix of duplex and single family and to the west, on the subject property is an existing multifamily building as well as two duplex units, and then further south, there's single family. In terms of compatibility Russett reviewed the site design, open space, landscaping, as well as substantial compliance with the OPD, which states no more units than currently exist on the western portion of the property could be built. The OPD would also ensure a transition from the detached single family from the south to the multifamily to the north. One condition that staff is recommending is prior to the final platting of the subject property the duplex building needs to be converted to a single family unit to ensure compliance with the density standards. Russett acknowledged the preliminary plan and the development overlay plan was designed to fit into the neighborhood, which includes a mix of housing types. Again, there's two multifamily buildings being proposed that front North Governor Street, the front of that northern building that fronts North Governor Street is about 70' and it's positioned in a way to lessen the impact of the larger scale building from the Governor Street right of way. Russett stated the same is true for the southern building, which is positioned at an angle which allows the longest side of the building to be positioned further away from North Governor. Again, there's open space provided in the southeast corner and both buildings would be a maximum of 35'. There is landscaping being proposed that maintains some of the mature trees to the south and more landscaping proposed throughout the site. Russett noted also there are no plans at this time for redevelopment along the North Dodge Street side of the property, however any future development that's proposed on lot two will be required to substantially comply with this preliminary OPD plan and that no more dwelling units then currently exist could be developed on the site. This OPD plan also shows a transition from the existing single family south to the multifamily must be maintained in some way if that area is ever to be redeveloped. Russett showed the elevations for the proposed buildings, they have incorporated entrances to individual dwelling units from the exterior to create more of a town home style feel and this also helps to break up the long fagade with the pedestrian walkways that provide connections into individual units. The subject property is bordered on the west by North Dodge Street and on the east by North Governor Street, both of these streets are one way streets and they're both arterials. The existing capacity for both streets is between 15,000 and 18,000 vehicle trips per day and are currently operating well below that between 5,600 and 6,200 average trips per day. The site also has access to Iowa City Transit on both the North Dodge Street and the North Governor Street sides. As mentioned this is an infill project, so there's access to existing sewer lines and existing water lines. Staff is recommending several conditions related to transportation and public utilities. The first is the dedication of public right of way and easements along North Governor Street to increase the right of way and allow for the construction of a sidewalk. The second condition is that a dedication of a temporary construction easement along North Dodge Street which will help with the planned reconstruction of Dodge Street, which is planned for 2027-2028, and lastly, the Water Superintendent recommended the abandonment of existing water lines for the North Dodge Street Apartments. These lines currently come off North Governor and he would like those lines to be abandoned and instead have water lines connect to the North Dodge water Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 9 of 27 main. Russett stated this property does have sensitive areas, in particular critical slopes. Staff can approve up to a 35% impact of critical slopes and the proposal is 86% of the critical slopes to be impacted, and that's why it's coming to the Commission for review. Staff recommends approval of REZ24-0001, a proposal to rezone approximately 5.49 acres of land between N. Dodge and N. Governor Streets to OPD/RS-12 (approximately 0.17 acres) and OPD/RM-20 (approximately 5.32 acres) subject to the following conditions: 1. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owners agree that no building permit shall be issued for Lot 1 as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan until the City Council approves a final plat resubdividing the subject property to conform to the zoning boundaries established by the rezoning ordinance to which this Agreement is attached. 2. Prior to the approval of the Final Plat, the Owner shall convert the existing duplex as shown on Lot 2 of the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan to one dwelling unit to ensure compliance with the maximum density standards of the zone. 3. As part of Final Plat approval, the Owner shall dedicate public right-of-way and easements along N. Governor Street consistent with what is shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 4. As part of Final Plat approval, the Owner shall grant a temporary construction easement on the western 10' of the subject property abutting N. Dodge Street. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan, the existing water services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge Street that are tapped off of the water main in N. Governor Street shall be abandoned, and new services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge Street shall be installed that are tapped off of the water main in N. Dodge Street subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be scheduled for consideration by the City Council. The Owner also has three other pending applications related to this rezoning: 1) A final plat application which will be reviewed by City Council; 2) A site plan application which will be reviewed by City staff, and 3) A design review application which will be reviewed by City staff. Hensch asked if storm water was managed on site or is it just all runoff, there doesn't appear to be any storm water detention and most of the site is paved. Russett replied there is some open space to the south but there isn't any storm water detention. Hensch noted there's currently no sidewalk on the Governor side, is that because the existing commercial facility appears to have not been used for at least 20 years. Russett is unsure. Hensch is unsure exactly how long it's been but the last tenant in that building was Johnson County, it's public health and social services were there and was a pretty intensive use in that facility at that time. Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 10 of 27 Hensch noted there are no waivers requested by the applicant for this rezoning which Russett confirmed was correct. Hensch asked about the maximum height of the current and the proposed multifamily buildings and how many units are in the current building. Russett replied the new building will be 35' which is also the same height of the current multifamily building, and there are currently 29 and 12 units in the existing buildings. Elliott asked about the landscaping proposed and is there any teeth to the landscaping plan. Russett explained similar to approving the OPD plan, the landscaping plan is part of that so they'll need to substantially comply with the landscaping as well. Quellhorst asked if staff feel that the proposed rezoning would offer some environmental protections because the legacy R3B zone wouldn't be subject to things like the sensitive areas ordinance. Russett replied possibly but the main concerns with the existing R3B zoning is the hodgepodge nature of it. Also the three properties that are zoned R3B are not contiguous and don't abut each other so it'd be three separate developments on three separate parcels and not subject to the sensitive areas ordinance and since this site has some sensitive areas, mainly slopes, if they stayed with the R3B zoning the could remove all trees. Quellhorst noted basically today, the way the site is zoned, one could construct relatively high density housing projects that would be interspersed and wouldn't be connected. Russett confirmed that. Quellhorst asked about the fact that 86% of critical slopes would be impacted and how that impact is evaluated and does that happen as part of the application process. Russett explained it happens as part of this rezoning. Staff is allowed to administratively approve up to 35% of impacts but anything beyond that requires an OPD rezoning and has to be reviewed by the Commission, but in terms of specific criteria, there aren't any specific criteria that need to be met to allow them to impact more than 35%. Quellhorst asked if staff has any concerns with the impact to critical slopes. Russett stated a lot of the impacts are due to the accommodation of the stormwater management system on the site and the development in general, but this is an infill site and staff thinks the benefits of more density and more housing offset the impacts to the critical slopes. Craig asked about the retaining wall that is shown on the images at the southwest corner of the slanted building, likely because of the slopes, but how tall is that retaining wall and what does it look like from the park. Russett stated there will be some existing trees along the wall and behind the retaining wall that will be seen when looking to the north from the park. She is not sure of the height of the retaining wall, the applicant can answer that question. Craig noted the significant elevation change down to Happy Hollow Park and just wanted to say for the record that if this project were to move forward, she certainly hopes that the City would take responsibility to add sidewalks to both sides of Happy Hollow Park for people who are trying to traverse that side without crossing Governor to get to downtown or anywhere close to downtown. Miller noted staff mentioned that it needs to be an OPD because of more than 35% of critical slopes are impacted, if that wasn't the case what would happen and if less than 35% of the critical slopes were impacted could City staff just rezone the whole thing to RM-20. Russett explained it wouldn't require the OPD, the overall project would still require a rezoning, but it Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 11 of 27 wouldn't require an OPD, it would still have to go through P&Z and Council. Miller asked about the multifamily development standards because a lot of the correspondence they received from the public was about how many trees they were taking out and his initial challenge with the current design is just the way that building along Governor was diagonal and if it was more parallel to the street they could potentially save a lot of those trees and put the open space behind the buildings like it was identified in the Central District Plan. He appreciates the walk up units, but they don't face the street. Russett acknowledged it could have been realigned so it all fronts North Governor, but it probably would have been a shorter building and with that there's some economies of scale of designing one building and it would get rid of the open space feature. Overall, it probably would have resulted in fewer units and a smaller building. Miller asked about the maximum setback. Russett noted there are easements that run through this property and the building can't be set further towards the street and they will need the applicant to request a minor modification to that, which is an administrative review. Wade asked if there is a significant difference to the City being the co -applicant on this versus just being staff supported. Russett acknowledged it's not something that they've done for map amendment before, they have done it for text amendments where the City has been the applicant, so there are rezoning applications where the City is the applicant. This is different and it's because of the history of the property and the complexity of the property and the lawsuits that exist so looking at it in the context of what can be built now with the current zoning and trying to get to a compromise with the property owner to have a better project than what could currently be built on the existing zoning designations. However, with the City being a co -applicant that changed nothing in the rezoning process or staff review. Townsend noted there are two Habitat homes right there on North Governor and also several rental homes on North Dodge so are any of these new homes going to be affordable. Russett replied no, they're going to be market rate. Townsend stated 84 units going in that area and none of them are affordable. Russett reiterated that one of the City Council's strategic plan goals is collaborating and creating partnerships for ways to reach the City's housing goals, and one of the ways to achieve some of the housing goals is just increasing overall supply, not necessarily having income restricted units, but getting more units online that could be used by someone who needs housing. Townsend acknowledged they need more housing units in the City at all income levels but in that area there are a lot of affordable places and if these units will be at market value that would be way above what would normally would be there. Hensch asked if the only areas that are required to have a 10% affordability requirement is in Riverfront Crossings or annexed land and Russett confirmed that's correct. Hensch asked about the R3B zoning and if that's a legacy zone not used anymore are there any other parts of Iowa City that still have R3B or is it only because of the litigation that it's still affixed to these parcels in this area. Russett confirmed it's only because of the litigation. Quellhorst asked about the tree screening between this development and Happy Hollow Park. Russett explained the existing trees that are along a portion of the proposed lot one would remain and then there's some trees that are being planted on the eastern side. Quellhorst noted it looks like a fair number of trees would be taken out under this proposal. Russett confirmed that but wanted to note even though there are critical slopes, there's no woodlands on the Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 12 of 27 property that are regulated by the sensitive areas ordinance so they're not limited in terms of the number of trees that could be removed. Hensch asked about the trees being removed and if they are oaks, maples or what. Russett stated she was unsure. Elliott noted regarding compatibility with the neighborhood and there's a lot of single family homes, and while she understands the infill and the need for more housing, why so much more housing. Russett explained the current R3B zoning would allow up to 84 dwelling units and the proposal is for 84 dwelling units. She stated these are certainly larger than the single family homes across the street but this property has been envisioned to allow multifamily development and it's currently zoned to allow multifamily development. Russett also stated with the multifamily site development standards there's requirements in terms of articulation and building materials that help minimize the size of the building. Again, they're proposing the exterior entrances which help break up the building and make it into modules and those are the points that were in the staff report that point to compatibility with the neighborhood. Also, when looking at it from the street, at least for the northern building, the shorter frontage fronts the street and it's also pushed back a little further, same with the southern building and the diagonal orientation which helps to minimize the size. Hensch noted the current parcels are zoned RS-8, RS-12, RM-20 and R3B so if there was no rezoning and each parcel was developed at its fullest zoning capacity, would that not be more dwelling units per acre than what this proposed project is. Russett stated the R3B allows more density and is actually more than RM-20 at 58 dwelling units per acre. The OPD RM-20 is 24 dwelling units per acre so combining all properties it may be possible. Townsend asked if there is a possibility to have stop lights installed. Russett replied no, the transportation staff and engineering staff reviewed this and there was no discussion of traffic signals or any off -site improvements. Townsend noted she travels that area during rush periods and it's not easy to get in and out of those areas. Miller noted the other thing that they heard a lot from the public about was the lack of affordable housing and with the OPD rezoning process is that even something that could be suggested. Russett explained the only times they require income restricted units is in Riverfront Crossings and through an annexation. Alternatively, it would have to be through a condition of this rezoning and to apply that condition the Commission would need to demonstrate that this rezoning creates some sort of public need that could justify that condition. Miller asked if it has ever been done outside of Riverfront Crossings or an annexation plan. Russett stated it was done with Forest View because there were existing residents in manufactured housing units that were going to be displaced with the rezoning. Townsend asked with the City being a co -applicant does that affect the units, Russett replied it doesn't. Townsend asked then why is the City is acting as a co -applicant. Russett explained to demonstrate the concern with how the property is currently zoned, so they are joining the applicant to put forth this rezoning due to concerns about what could be developed under the existing zoning and the hodgepodge nature of that. The City is hoping to get a better development project with this rezoning than what would be allowed under current zoning. Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 13 of 27 Townsend asked if as the co -applicant the City could request some of those units be affordable. Russett replied no, again it would have to be a condition of the rezoning and the Commission would need to demonstrate why the rezoning is creating a public need and justify why that would be needed for this rezoning. Hensch opened the public hearing. Jon Marner (MMS Consultants) is representing the developer for this application and will try to address some of the questions that that arose from Commission members. The first one is the orientation the building on the southeast corner. Part of the reason for that orientation is to pull that facade back away from Governor Street and to lessen the impact for the neighborhood from Governor Street. The other benefit to that is the highest point of the site is that southeast corner, so this also addresses some of the questions about the sensitive slopes. Most of the slopes that are being impacted are in that corner, they're actually man-made altered slopes and were put there quite a while back as part of the construction of those homes and when Happy Hollow Park and some of the other history of the site was developed. Those aren't original natural slopes, those are man-made slopes. Back to the orientation the building, by rotating it away it allowed them to sink the building down just a little bit lower from that southeast corner so as someone comes down Governor Street the building is going to appear closer to two stories, as opposed to the full three stories. Marner also addressed the tree preservation. Again, one of the intents to rotate that building was to allow them to preserve as many trees as possible. There are quite a few mature existing trees there on the park property that would not be touched. He acknowledged during the good neighbor meetings there was concern expressed about some of those trees being preserved so the building orientation was to help facilitate preserving as many of those trees as possible. He thinks there's a couple large cottonwoods in that area. Last but not least, some of the other trees that were spoken about in that open space area, as Russett pointed out on the Central District Plan one of the goals was to have a little bit of open space in that area and they also accommodate that. Obviously, they have to provide storm water detention, but that is the area where they were able to preserve some of those larger specimen trees. Regarding inventorying those trees, they went out and did an investigation and they were nicer specimen trees, not scrub trees, the ones that are identified are the better specimen trees in that area. Hensch asked about the easements going from the northeast to the southwest, how many easements are there and what type. Marner stated there's two easements there, one is for an existing public sanitary sewer that runs through the site and it runs straight through the site, as opposed to bending partway through. City staff has investigated that and he knows there's some other concerns about the capacity of that sewer and they've discussed with City staff throughout this process whether that sewer was adequate and the determination was made that it is adequate at this time so the easement is to ensure protection of that and provide access for City officials and for maintenance and repairs. The other easement is for storm sewer and it's actually conveying the storm sewer from the low point in Governor Street that's right on the northeast corner of the site, through the property into the storm sewer that then runs southwest down through Happy Hollow Park. Hensch asked what the widths of those easements are. Marner stated the sanitary sewer easement is 30' wide and the storm sewer is 40' and 30' as it varies in width through the site. Hensch asked about some of the slopes being created by previous grading, where were those Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 14 of 27 slopes created. Marner pointed on the map to those slopes around the backside of the two units that are constructed on that corner. It was pushed out to establish the flat grade for those units and that's where the slopes were created. Lastly, Hensch asked about the angle of that building, was the angle just a mass and scale issue of trying to decrease the appearance of mass and scale as people are going from South Governor to North Governor. Marner acknowledged that was part of it, it served two purposes, rotating that building served to pull it away so as one is approaching the site they're not seeing one continuous block length from Governor Street, it's rotated and provides a little different visual. It allowed the trees to remain which will also help soften that visual. Regarding the question about what it's going to look like from Happy Hollow Park Manner stated those specimen trees on the park property will still be there and will help buffer some of that visibility. Marner also reiterated rotating the building allows them to set it down in the site a little bit so that it's closer to two and a half stories visible. Hensch asked about the retaining wall, what would it look like, what will the height be, and what will it be constructed of. Manner replied it's an engineered wall varying from 5' to 13' in height. Hensch asked if someone is down in the park, say on the ball field, what is the change in elevation up to the base of the retaining wall. Marner is not sure because that's not on part of the rezoning but just by observation his rough estimate is 5' to the property line and then a few feet of rise to the retaining wall. Hensch asked if there is any screening in front of the retaining wall, because that would certainly help. Marner said not currently but certainly that's something that could be discussed. Marner noted one other idea regarding the retaining wall is as it follows along the south edge then bends and goes northwest to follow the building, they could lessen the height of the wall by rotating it back down closer to the property line and that would allow them to slope from the building down and meet closer to the grade in doing so, although that would also remove more trees. Craig thinks it's better to have the retaining wall and keep the trees, it feels like they're protecting the park more as opposed to just blending it all right into the park. Marner noted that's one of the goals expressed during the good neighbor meeting. He also noted there was a second, not a full good neighbor meeting, but they met with some other concerned, interested neighbors at their office with Russett maybe a month and a half after the first neighbor meeting and those were concerns that were consistently expressed. Therefore, they worked with the design and grading to try to save as many trees to accommodate those requests as best as possible. Craig wanted to make a positive comment, while she thinks these are huge buildings the options for bicycle parking are fantastic as this is a prime location for people who want to bike and to have covered bicycle parking. She would just also encourage some E vehicle options in those parking garages. Stephen Voyice (829 N. Dodge Street) lives directly across from 900 and 902 Dodge Street and wanted to speak on behalf of some of his affected neighbors. He read the planned development overlay and the RM-20 elements of the zoning ordinance that the Commission are to consider when reviewing the proposal and the following words stood out. "This zone, RM-20, is particularly well suited to locations adjacent to commercial areas and in areas with good access to all City services and facilities". Voyce fails to see how the proposed rezoning complies with that statement. The property is not adjacent to a commercial area, the lack of a sidewalk on Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 15 of 27 Governor means it does not have good access for pedestrians, and as someone who only rides a bike and does not ride a car those are extremely dangerous streets in that area without sidewalks. Voyce stated this location is not suited for the proposed density shown on this plan based on the words written in the zoning code. Moreover, the RM-20 zone also says "careful attention to site and building design is important to ensure the various housing types in any one location are compatible with one another." Voyce stated the site and building design shows little compatibility with the existing single family duplexes and apartment buildings in the neighborhood, in order to fit in the number of units proposed these buildings will be an astounding 236' long. Compare that to a standard city block of 300' these buildings will be almost an entire block in length, and the image shows it. Although the City must abide by the court ruling that imposed the R3B zoning on parts of this property it should not go beyond that to approve a plan that is incompatible with the single-family duplexes and existing apartment buildings in this neighborhood. Yes, some multifamily buildings are appropriate here, but not these two enormous buildings. The zoning codes also states "the OPD zoning will not be contrary to the intent and purpose of this title, inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan as amended or harmful to the surrounding neighborhoods" more it says it "should encourage the preservation and best use of existing landscape features through development that is sensitive to the natural features of the surrounding area". Voyce questions how does this OPD plan comply with these provisions in the zoning code, it simply does not. The staff report acknowledges that 86% of the critical slopes will be impacted and most of the trees will be removed. That just shows that the proposed very large scale buildings do not take into account these natural features, they are simply too large for the property. Voyce notes these are the standards that the Planning and Zoning Commission is supposed to use to evaluate an OPD zoning. The general standards reads "the density and design of the planned development will be compatible with and/or complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building, mass and scale". Again, the proposed 236' long buildings are way out of scale, even with the existing apartment buildings, and in no way complement the adjacent development. Number two, "the development will not overburden existing streets and utilities". There are no sidewalks on the west side of Governor Street to provide pedestrian access to this property. Although the developer will put in sidewalks on his property, they will lead essentially to nowhere. The staff report contains very little about the environmentally sensitive areas, other than to say the 86% of critical slopes will be graded away and the grove of trees adjacent to Happy Hollow Park appears to be removed. Voyce reviewed the sensitive areas section of the zoning code and it states the intent is to "preserve the scenic character of hillside areas, particularly the wooded hillsides" and it says "encroachment of construction areas into steep and critical slopes must be minimized. If disturbance of more than 35% of critical slopes is proposed, a level two sensitive area review is required". Voyce stated level two requires Planning and Zoning review and if 86% of critical slopes are to be wiped away and the grove of trees adjacent to Happy Hollow Park is to be removed, how does this comply with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning code to develop the city in a way that respects environmentally sensitive areas. It does not because too much development is being proposed on this property. Sharon DeGraw (Northside) submitted a letter but noticed only a portion of it made it to the Commission in the agenda packet. She is writing as a resident of the Northside neighborhood and the Goosetown apartment development and rezoning petition is a complicated matter with a long history that includes a ruling from the State Supreme Court of Iowa in favor of Mr. Barkalow against the City. As a Commission charged with responsibility to serve the public she would like to point out that they may find themselves in an unusual position reviewing an application which began as a rezoning petition from Mr. Barkalow (TSB Holdings) and is now a joint rezoning Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 16 of 27 petition from TSB and City staff. Iowa City governance has rules in place for non -biased evaluation so how does the Commission escape the weight of the City's thumb on this petition when the City staff is a co -applicant of a controversial rezoning. DeGraw personally has a feeling that if the Commission voted this down City staff will just march it over to City Council anyway. Aside from the procedural concerns DeGraw noted there are problems with the rezoning petition and the development proposal. Page one of the staff report states the proposed development would allow the demolition and replacement of the buildings along North Governor Street, including the existing vacant commercial office building. So why does the plan include the rezoning of properties on Dodge Street, specifically 900and 900'/2 North Dodge Street, where no infill development is proposed. Apparently, density from the Dodge Street properties can be transferred to a Governor Street address to increase the maximum size of the building and the number of dwelling units allowed. The two proposed buildings for the Goosetown apartments have issues too, they are much too large for the neighborhood. These are two three story buildings, dimensions 236' times 70' making each building almost the length of one city block, and there are no other buildings on that scale in the neighborhood. There are 133 parking spaces and other paving's which is equivalent to the footprint of the two dwelling structures. There are only two or three guest parking spaces, that's not enough. Construction of the development, as presented, will remove 86% of the critical slopes contiguous to Happy Hollow Park and DeGraw thinks that if someone is standing at the basketball court they could see 40' of the building that will be 14' from the park edge boundary. A significant retaining wall, as a structural necessity, will be built at the bottom of the hill in a sensitive wooded overlay at the north end of Happy Hollow Park, the retaining wall will be 5' to 14'. Clearly, the development has too many units, the buildings are too large for the sensitive sloped property, and the scale of the development does not fit into the neighborhood. The City will state that rezoning to a higher density is in the best interest of the citizens of Iowa City in order to increase available housing units in the city, DeGraw states that can still be accomplished in a sensible way by amending the proposal to omit the address 900 and 900'/2 North Dodge Street from the rezoning. Page six of the staff report shows figure four, the Central District Neighborhood Plan Future Land Use Map, and it exhibits 900 and 900'/2 North Dodge Street as RS-12 property. It's transitional and appropriate next to single family homes and any pretense to abandon this logic goes against the Central District Plan. DeGraw is supportive of redeveloping the land, having North Governor Street addresses on the R3B zoned lots, and sees no need for the lots having North Dodge Street addresses to be rezoned. That is adding density above what the court decision imposed. She urges the Commission to reject the rezoning application, having a rezoning petition which removes the property 900 and 900'/2 North Dodge Street would likely result in a density more appropriate for the sensitive property. DeGraw shared a handout to show is the lot that has a rectangle and an arrow around as a designated lot that should not become RM-20, it's supposed to be transitional RS-12 and it sits next to 830 North Dodge Street, which is a single family residential home. The other thing in her handout is to show where there is the R3B zoning is they have the choice to leave that as is and to not vote it in favor of this, and just hold on to those R313s, she doesn't believe all of it could be developed as planned. Jennifer Baum (814 Dewey Street) is in agreement with DeGraw that the buildings are just too big for the lot and the parcels that are in the little corner have no business being included in that property. Baum does agree that the area needs to be rezoned but the little properties there are simply giving away for two bigger buildings and if those buildings had a third cut off, it might be able to work. Baum stated having that many people in that space is going to increase the traffic on the northside, even on the streets that are not Governor and North Dodge, because people have to get from one side to the other side as they're both one ways, so to do that one has to cut Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 17 of 27 through extremely residential areas like Deweyville, where she lives as the ad hoc mayor. She noted people going to HyVee from Governor Street assume that it's a shortcut and go through there about 40 miles an hour, they already have trouble with that, they already stand on the street corner and yell at people because they have lots of small children and are hoping to have more and hoping to have a development on North Summit that includes families. So, they're looking to put more families in their neighborhood and when they start increasing the number of humans that only have one recourse in egress and ingress, they have to figure out how to get to that one spot. Baum stated there's been no discussion about putting an alley or a way of getting through from the North Dodge property to the Governor property and that is problematic. If they gave these folks a way to go between those two properties, where there is actually room because they made a smaller number of units, they could have a little more space to put in a way so that people could get across those two lots and from one side of the one way to the other one way. Baum stated that would relieve all that traffic that's trying to make a shortcut somehow really fast through the neighborhood. She stated all they have in their neighborhood is humans that are either alive or dead and the dead folks have visitors. The people that live on her streets go really slowly and don't want people going by that fast. They finally, after 10 years of fighting, got semis off our street and this is just going to set them back. Baum stated there's a way to make it a little bit easier and still have infill, still have apartments, still have housing, even though it's not going to be affordable for a majority of humans that live in the Midwest, and not destroy the neighborliness of the neighborhoods. Bethany Berger (Northside) states she lives probably about an eight minute walk from where the proposal is and wanted to speak in support of the proposal. One thing that hasn't been necessarily mentioned is that this development is also a short walk from the HyVee, it's a short walk from the Ace Hardware, this is an ideal place to put housing where people actually can walk to various services, so they won't need to drive all the time. She noted looking at the site now, it's really an eyesore, it's an abandoned office building and big parking lot, so the new buildings will make the landscaping there will be much more attractive than some of the buildings that are currently there. Berger stated one of the things that she loves about Iowa City is its walkability which is a truly unique thing. She lived in Connecticut for a long time and it's a unique thing that Iowa City has so in order to preserve that walkability they need dense housing where people can walk to services. Berger also really liked reading about the plants that are going to be planted there and really appreciated that. Marie Wilkes (917 N. Governor Street) stated she moved to Iowa City in the early to mid-1980s and bought her home at 917 North Governor in 1987. She is very committed to Iowa City and been a taxpayer of property taxes for almost 40 years. She has raised two children here and loves the northside. She'd love to get rid of that empty lot but she also knows something about how that road is, having had at least three cars in her front yard, her house is just a little bit beyond where it goes straight, then there's a curve and a dip, and when the road is icy people end up in her yard, she is concerned when they have had possibly 100 cars in and out. Over the last 40 years there's been traffic that has increased over time and thank God it was so complicated for everyone to decide to develop First Avenue, but it did lessen the traffic a little bit on Governor, but it's still building. Because they're doing a good job in progressing and trying to make those hard decisions she asks the Commission to make this decision, not for money today, but for the citizens that live and are committed to Iowa City as a unique eco structure. Iowa City is very walkable. She took a class at the University that talked about how unique Iowa City is in that they had an area that busses, people were dropped off, they could walk through downtown, they can walk their children to school. With this development they will have how many extra Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 18 of 27 people coming in, and how close are they to Horace Mann and to Preucil, how will that limit children that have been able to be raised in an area that makes them able to be independent and learn those decisions earlier. Wilkes stated its hard decisions and she appreciates the people that they vote in to municipal offices to conduct the business that most are too busy to do, but the Commission finds the time to do it so she would ask them simply to think logically about why are they considering more density. Nothing has changed from 2011 when it was turned down. If someone can explain the difference to her she'd gladly listen but she doesn't see how they're able to support comfortably and welcome that many people into this neighborhood. Wilkes stated they are good neighbors and like to walk and say hi to each other and walk down to City Park to enjoy the fireworks and back safely on Fourth of July and walk down to Hamburg Inn on a Saturday or Sunday for breakfast, they're the people in this neighborhood, so please think about them. Audrey Bahrick (830 N. Dodge Street) is a 25 year owner and resident of 830 North Dodge Street, her home is visible at the very bottom southwest corner and shares a driveway with the 900 North Dodge Street duplex. She opposes the request for rezoning in its current state and requests removal from the proposal of the duplex at 900 North Dodge Street. She is wholly supportive of a multifamily infill development of an appropriate size that considers the context of the existing neighborhood, the critical steep slopes and the relationship to the public park. Her understanding is that Planning and Zoning reviews the application through a lens of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and with compatibility with the neighborhood. The Barkalow/City rezoning proposal is problematic in regards to both principles. Rezoning the 900 North Dodge Street duplex is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan because historically City Council and Planning and Zoning recognized that the R313 high density multifamily zoning on portions of the proposed rezoning was a spot zone and was considered a mistake. They called it a mistake. They twice tried to bring the zoning in line with the neighborhood and was prevented by the Iowa Supreme Court. Now staff is proposing to grant Mr. Barkalow expanded zoning beyond what the court allowed. Regarding rezoning 900 North Dodge Street, staff offer a rationale of desiring consistency with the RM-20 portions of the property rather than seeking consistency with the nature of the surrounding neighborhood and with the spirit and letter of the Comprehensive Plan. What was once understood as a spot zone has now become the model for density. Second, the staff promotion of a value of consistency of zoning within the required OPD is contradicted by leaving one of the North Dodge Street duplexes as is, the northwest one, but rezoning the other to RM-20. Bahrick stated it's not specified in the staff report that the fact that the OPD allows unused residential density within it to be transferred to the proposed new buildings. So what's occurring is that the 900 North Dodge Street house sits on a lot of 17,400 square feet, but only 5000 square feet are required for a single family home. By rezoning the 900 North Dodge Street duplex from RS-12 to RM-20 and changing it from a duplex to a single unit, Mr. Barkalow was able to transfer unused density, gaining six of his 84 units in the proposed two buildings. This is obliquely acknowledged on page 10 of the staff report where it is stated that the owner shall convert the existing duplex to one dwelling to ensure compliance with the maximum density standards of the zone. It took her a long time to understand why are they including her neighbor there when there's no plan to redevelop it, they're capturing density. The two North Dodge Street properties she has been referring to are clearly shown in the Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan as RS-12 single family/duplex. The Comprehensive Plan stipulates that these properties are to serve as transition zoning. Bahrick stated she has invested a significant portion of her financial resources in her home at 830 North Dodge Street adjacent to the 900 North Dodge Street duplex with the understanding that the Comprehensive Plan is a reliable document. It seems to her now the City is prepared to override the Comprehensive Plan and the Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 19 of 27 Central District Plan in order to facilitate achieving an inappropriate density for the neighborhood. The Supreme Court did not obligate the City to include 900 North Dodge Street in its decision and doing so is in clear violation of the Comprehensive Plan and the Central District Plan. Achieving maximum density requires inappropriately rezoning designated transitional housing at 900 North Dodge Street, bulldozing 86% of critical steep slopes adjacent to Happy Hollow Park and removing most of the trees on the border development. Bahrick stated it does seem that the City may be concerned if they don't go along with the current proposal that the development could be worse due to what's allowed by the Supreme Court decision however, given the odd shape of the court imposed R313 zonings, the three disparate plots, and the steep slope on lot 51 which may make it difficult even to build on, and the diagonal sewer easement, it is unlikely that Mr. Barkalow could, in practice, achieve the theoretical density permitted by the R 3B zone. Bahrick asks the Commission to send the plans back to the staff and the developer back to the drawing board to devise a plan that works better environmentally and is more environmentally sensitive. Matthew Solinger (1001 N. Summit Street) has lived in the neighborhood for about 10 years and has been working as a delivery driver in it for a little longer than a year. He mostly wants to bring up issues with the design and traffic, because that's a lot of people that are all going to be leading right out into Governor, which they all know is a one way, and that driveway is right at the top of the hill. People like to drive fast, they're going to be coming up it and without some kind of stop light or something, there's going to be problems. While people have mentioned biking and walking, which are great, but if people try to bike out onto Governor, eventually they're going to die. It's bad. It could be fixed again with a light or something, maybe a sidewalk going the other way so one could walk to the Ace Hardware or the HyVee without having to get on the road. Seems like something that could be brought into this plan. Also, Solinger stated when somebody says market range he hears rich jerks. If they said they're going to put people that need a cheap place to live in here, he'd feel better about it personally. Matthieu Bigger (519 N. Johnson Street) noted everybody has made so many great points and he'll try not reiterate too many things but first has to concur on both market prices and the fact that the units would be one and two bedrooms only. Staff, P&Z folks, and planning people need to figure out if that would indeed help with providing options for people, for households of all types and of all incomes, if that would really increase of the stock that is needed in the city. He is hoping that they have access to that information. The City has sometimes fought for three and four bedroom housing because they are trying to limit the density of student housing, but if they want families to move into those units, or into that current empty lot, he imagines they would want more than one and two bedroom housing. Regarding traffic, between the danger of Governor Street, he wishes people would test going up that hill in the winter, the lack of access to busses on Dodge Street and to bike down the city, it just doesn't make any sense. Bigger acknowledged he is not a planner but between that and the great points before about the what seemed to be unnecessary rezoning of some of the RS-12 lots, they could cut off the current RM-20 down the middle and then avoid the houses on the southeast and have two and a half acres ready for an RM-20. They would take over all the R3B, some of the current RM-20 and could still put in maybe 40-50 units. That would alleviate some of the concerns with traffic, which will be extreme. Bigger notes he loves going through Deweyville. He usually walks or bikes through it. He definitely never comes down there from the north in his car, but people do, just like the northside has had concerns with people crossing and taking Ronalds and choosing a cobbled street to go from Dubuque east, he doesn't know why, it seems crazy, but people do it. He loves those streets, but again he does it on his bike because it's fun. Regarding the slopes, Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 20 of 27 even if some of those were man-made per code encroachment must be minimized for critical slopes. That would not be done. Regarding storm water, do they know if there's current issues with stormwater and would doing all this actually make things worse with potential issues with flooding. If this is to proceed they need to think about permeable pavers. Also light pollution was mentioned and this will be more light pollution then with just houses. With big lots there's a lot of lights and LED lights have been proven to be convenient and cheap and not consume much electricity but they're awful for wildlife. Also cutting about an acre of trees won't be good for wildlife, but whatever is left of the wildlife will not be happy with all that artificial light day and night. Bigger would also love staff to check the code for the distance that is needed between a playground and a building, he saw somewhere that one can install a playground only if it's 20 feet from a property line. Working backwards from that there's currently a basketball court that would be too close to what would come. Finally, market price is an ugly and contentious buzzword. Is this really what is needed, maybe it hasn't come yet but there's going to be an enrollment cliff at the universities in the Midwest so if this is targeting students, who knows what is going to happen to those units, sadly demographics in Iowa is not going the right direction. Orville Townsend (713 Whiting Avenue) noted he is a victim of his wife's take your husband to work initiative so as he has been sitting here this evening and observing, it dawned on him that this Commission is not only citizens who have volunteered to give their time to help make the city a better place, but they also have some influence and some impact. The area he'd like to address is affordable housing and affordable housing is just what it says affordable. Townsend stated affordable is the big word, it's no problem when one can afford it, but unfortunately in this community there's so many people who can't afford it. This Commission is in a position to be able to make a difference, they have a lot of cases that come before them and a lot of opportunities to initiate efforts that can help to make the City's affordable housing better. Townsend noted while he has a house and it's very comfortable he remembers a time when he was a student and it was a nightmare. He hadn't gotten a job yet after he graduated from college and was struggling just trying to make it so affordable housing is something that is important, because when someone is struggling, they have a lot of things coming at them that they have no control over. Townsend encourages the Commission to do anything they can to assist the City in improving this affordable housing initiative. Andrew Evans (941 Dewey Street) lives within 500' of the proposed site and works as an architect in Iowa City. He wanted highlight a few points, first is how much is the developer held to the specifics of the plans and elevations that are contained within this proposal, assuming that the zoning change would pass. Any means of holding the developer to the plans would be beneficial, especially items like the unit setbacks are very beneficial in taking this from a 236' long building and segmenting it to match more of the single family scale that folks have been discussing. Evans does have concern that when value engineering comes into play, that instead of having those delineated units it once again starts to appear like a 236' mass that people have expressed concern with. Evans also noted the wall to the south of the site right now doesn't have a material called out and he is concerned that is a large concrete graffiti -ready wall there. He acknowledged the representative for the developer pointed out that the three story building will actually be more like two and a half in many parts of the site, but if the side yard elevation that's attached as part of this evening's document is accurate for that elevation, he is not sure how the walk up units would work for a building that is sunken half a story into the ground. If anything it'd likely rise up from there and having elevated porches. Regarding elevations, looking briefly at topographical maps, it looks like Happy Hallow Park sits somewhere between 710' and 720' of elevation and the building is proposed at 735', the edge of the site is between 735' and Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 21 of 27 745' so that's a massive grade increase. Evans also acknowledged the trees to the south of the site, demoing some of those trees is pulling back the curtain and so this is elevated on a platform and serves as a billboard for all that traffic coming up North Governor. By pulling back that curtain, instead of exposing a 70' facade they're now exposing a 236' facade. The idea of pulling back for more green space and setback works well for sites that are accessed from 360 degrees, but here 98-99% of the eyeballs on this site are coming from the south up that road. So if it was just 70' wide and more parallel with the road, it would appear actually much more in scale with the rest of the houses. Evans noted that on Mormon Trek Road between Benton and Rohret Roads are townhomes very similar to the designs currently proposed here and those run parallel. He uses that comparison because there's sidewalks in front of bunches of town home units and so those are unparallel and he doesn't think anyone is offended by those even though there's not a massive, angled setback. Evans stated another resident of the area, Jennifer Baum, brought up alley connection and access between the two units and he thinks if they're proposed as a package deal, then that should be used as an advantage. When arterial roads, like Dodge and Governor are seen as one ways that's viewed on the whole city scale, it makes a ton of sense, but unfortunately when on one side you can only use what's in front of you and can't use both that are advantageous. Therefore, creating the alley access would be very beneficial. Evans also noted many of the roads people are cutting through, many of the neighborhood roads, don't have sidewalks or are brick and so those are much more popular for bikers and walkers than other neighborhoods. If the City is encouraging bikers, with this new development and someone has to bike downtown, what route are they taking. If the developer is encouraged to connect the two via some sort of path, even if it's not a full connection of the parking lots, that'd be very beneficial to the safety, because no person in the right mind is going to hop on their bike, ride uphill north a quarter mile just to loop back down into town. As a co -applicant he thinks that puts the City in more responsibility to step up and make beneficial moves for the park, the compatibility with the existing neighborhood, as well as connection with the alley. His final point would be with the environmentally sensitive areas, it's just a bit concerning to him that there were only like five lines of text on that about crossing the 35% threshold to 86% and some points were made about artificial slopes, but none of those slopes are near the road, so to him that point is moot and perhaps there are some more creative ways to configure the site to bring that 86% number much lower. He thinks it'd be beneficial and would counter that the 236' of the building would leave most of the slopes and highlight the 70' facade instead to maintain the economy of scale that was referenced earlier. Jennifer Baum wanted to add speaking of wildlife there's a herd of about 40 deer that every night goes from the ravine on the other side of Dodge Street, go through Happy Hallow Park, come up across Governor, go up the hill into Deweyville and then on into the cemetery and Hickory Hill. So, thinking about safety and driving again the more people on that street the more likely deer are going to get hit. Sharon DeGraw noticed in reading the staff report there was a fee in lieu paid and she believes that that means rent, a fee in lieu is the cost of doing business that's going to be passed on to future renters, making the property more expensive to rent. Also, when a small group of neighbors did talk to the MMS engineers and asked for a walkway that would connect the apartment complex buildings to the park as that would be a nice way for people to get to the park safely, that was turned down. She thinks that's an incredibly important thing that should be added as somehow in the course of this discussion it was misinterpreted that they were wanting to keep people away from the park and that's not true at all, they want people to use the park, they're just trying to figure out safe ways they can access the park. Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 22 of 27 Matthieu Bigger wanted to read verbiage from code. In the RM-12, RM-20 and RNS-20 zones, if any portion of a two family use, multifamily use, group living use, or nonresidential use is located within 15'of a property that contains an existing single family use, then the portion of the building located within 15' of said property may not exceed two and a half stories in height. Bigger is pretty sure that in all of this there's something that's 15' away from said property and somebody should check. Also, a point of sustainability, which the City cares about, if 905/909 North Governor ought to be razed, the City as a co -applicant, maybe can exercise some light pressure to please include deconstruction of said houses instead of straight razing and demolition and sending to the landfill. The house may not have immense historical value but it would be nice to see if there's elements that could be salvaged for somebody else to use. Jon Marner (MMS) briefly added a couple of comments based on some of the additional concerns expressed by the community and the neighbors. Regarding the proposed grade and the question raised earlier about elevations, the elevation of park at the southeast corner, directly east from the proposed amenity gathering area, is approximately 745' and the proposed building elevation for the finished first floor is 736' so it sits 9' below that elevation at the retaining wall. That's part of how they would accommodate that gathering seating area amenity is to have a retaining wall out closer to the right of way to allow that seating area and it steps up slowly from the building and allows that town home entrance for that building. The other question raised was the existing elevation just north of the basketball court which is about 718' and it does slope up to the retaining wall and the existing grade at the bottom of the proposed retaining wall is about 722' so about 4' of elevation change just from the property line to the bottom of the retaining wall. Marner noted it was expressed about the desire to have a pedestrian connection to the park and that was discussed with staff whether that was desired by Parks and Rec and the understanding at the time was that the Parks Department did not desire for there to be a pedestrian connection directly from the units down to the park. There may be an opportunity in the future, via sidewalk or any potential capital improvements or City improvements to Governor Street, to utilize that access to come down to the park for this development. Craig asked how about a pedestrian exit over to Dodge Street, a bicycle or pedestrian trail. Marner stated they did look at that and it was another consideration but just along the property line, east of the existing parking lot, there's a dumpster pad with a retaining wall and the grades on the west part of the site are significantly higher than the east part of the site. Also, that's some of the areas they're trying to protect and it would be challenging at best to get a an accessible path from east to west through the site because of the elevation change. Audrey Bahrick stated regarding having a trail from the development to the park, to read from page 50 of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan it states there is a requirement to "identify and plan for the development of trail connections as part of all new developments." Bahrick stated the proposed development turns its back on the park offering no designated pedestrian access for residents of these buildings and that is in clear violation of the Comprehensive Plan. To assume that residents would simply walk through the formerly wooded threshold to the park is not possible because of a retaining wall from 4' to 13' high is planned that will separate the development from the park. She'd like everyone to imagine a parent with a child going to the park, or a parent with a stroller, or someone with mobility limits, trying to get to that park from this development, that's just not happening. They need to go out the exit onto Governor Street, and then there's a sidewalk to nowhere, cross mid -block on a state highway, walk down to Brown Street, walk across Brown Street a whole city block to get to the entrance of the park, because Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 23 of 27 it's just not accessible from the site. Developments should relate to the amenities, that's also part of the Comprehensive Plan, that there should be a relationship there, and this development literally is turning its back on the park. Hensch closed the public hearing. Quellhorst recommends approval of REZ24-0001, a proposal to rezone approximately 5.49 acres of land between N. Dodge and N. Governor Streets to OPD/RS-12 (approximately 0.17 acres) and OPD/RM-20 (approximately 5.32 acres) subject to the following conditions: 1. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owners agree that no building permit shall be issued for Lot 1 as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan until the City Council approves a final plat resubdividing the subject property to conform to the zoning boundaries established by the rezoning ordinance to which this Agreement is attached. 2. Prior to the approval of the Final Plat, the Owner shall convert the existing duplex as shown on Lot 2 of the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan to one dwelling unit to ensure compliance with the maximum density standards of the zone. 3. As part of Final Plat approval, the Owner shall dedicate public right-of-way and easements along N. Governor Street consistent with what is shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 4. As part of Final Plat approval, the Owner shall grant a temporary construction easement on the western 10' of the subject property abutting N. Dodge Street. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan, the existing water services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge Street that are tapped off of the water main in N. Governor Street shall be abandoned, and new services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge Street shall be installed that are tapped off of the water main in N. Dodge Street subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Craig seconded the motion. Quellhorst began Commission discussion wanting to thank everybody for a great discussion tonight, he made the motion he made because he thinks they need more housing. People pay too much for housing and a lot of people can't afford to live here so if they want to change that they need to build more housing units. This is an opportunity to do that, which would bring housing prices down for all. The land seems very well situated to multifamily development, it's largely unused, close to two arterial streets, public transportation and a grocery store. Additionally, if they don't do this it seems likely to that there would be a similar development, but it would be worse because it would be less well organized and not subject to modern zoning standards. So for those reasons he supports the motion. Craig echoed what Quellhorst said would just add that one of the points people made tonight Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 24 of 27 was families, and that maybe they wouldn't be feel comfortable in a one or two bedroom apartment. She can't remember what the national statistics are, but in Iowa City 40% of the housing units are for one person so they have to build housing for everybody. She acknowledged if she had her druthers it'd be a little bit smaller, but it's bringing housing that is desperately needed. She doesn't believe it is incompatible with the neighborhood, it's going to fit in and the people are going to be able to bike, walk and the livability of the neighborhood is increased. When more people are added more activities happen and she will support the project. Hensch first wanted to commend everybody and thank them for showing up tonight noting it's hard to show up in public and speak but he listened carefully to every word said and read every word submitted in writing. He personally will support this application, and his reasons are affordable housing. They have to do something and the only way to do that is either lower the price or increase the supply and this is definitely going to increase the supply. Unfortunately, since no one is displaced they can't add a condition that there be affordable housing but so everybody knows, right now there is a steering committee meeting to update the current Comprehensive Plan, because every 10 years they're required by law to update that, and he's a member of that steering committee and will advocate strongly that affordability be included in all zoning areas, not just Riverfront Crossings and annexations. Just to address a couple issues people had about traffic concerns, Hensch completely understands that. He's been in Iowa City since 1985 and that was an intensive commercial use there, where that office building is, with probably hundreds of people coming going every day with DHS there, so the traffic flow has already been seen. Also the idea of an alley access, he respects that being brought up but doesn't think that's a good idea because all alley accesses turn into cut-throughs and it leads to increased speeds, and any residents around there will rue the day that an alley or a cut -through was put through that property, because people want to go the shortest way they can when they're getting somewhere, or at least what they think it's the shortest way, and then the people that live there pay for that. Lastly, because he is the chair, he can't make a motion or second it, but would ask that they add another condition if the motion maker and seconder would approve, to add S3 screening (the highest level of screening) at the base of that retaining wall for the purpose of making it look green and when people are in the park and look up they just don't see a bare wall, they'll see foliage, they'll see plants, they'll see vines and beautification. Also, Iowa City has a horrible problem with graffiti and if they can do anything to keep people from spray painting that wall, they need to do that. Hensch stated he will be voting yes and hopes that they can make a consideration for adding another condition to the five that currently exist. Elliott likes the idea of a consideration for S3 screening and would vote yes with that and if they could add a consideration for some kind of walkway path to the park. Hensch noted the Recreation Commission may not have agreed to that nor was it in the Comprehensive Plan but since the City is a co -applicant it seems they can put as a consideration that idea because it is very odd there is no sidewalk to get to the park on Governor Street, they could at least ask that it gets pushed forward to the Recreation Commission to try to get in a capital plan. Quellhorst stated there would be a sidewalk to the park, because there's going to be a sidewalk that runs down Governor as part of the property development. Hensch replied that only goes to the property line. Craig stated the City has to take responsibility for bringing that sidewalk down to Brown Street. Quellhorst stated that is outside the scope of this particular proposal and they cannot saddle the cost to the developer, because it is not their project. Hensch agreed but Planning and Zoning Commission February 19, 2025 Page 25 of 27 stated they could at least advocate or communicate to recreation department to consider putting it in their capital plan at some point, to extend that sidewalk so people can safely get down to the park. The City is a co -applicant so they can suggest it be presented to the Recreation Committee, even just by a memo to consider on their capital plan. Russett stated they can certainly pass along the interest of the Commission to have a sidewalk, that's probably something the public works department would look at since it's in the public right of way, but she is uncertain now how they would add it as a condition and not have it be placed on the owner. Hensch asked if they can get staff assurance that they will forward that to public works and Russett confirmed absolutely staff will pass that along. Regarding adding a condition of S3 screening at the retaining wall Quellhorst thinks screening is generally a good idea but is not familiar with the cost or logistics associated with that and would staff any have any position on that. Hensch noted the applicant actually agreed to it already, they said they wouldn't have no objection to that. Russett confirmed staff thinks it's a reasonable request as well. Quellhorst moved to amend the motion to add a sixth condition that S3 screening be added to the retaining wall. Craig seconded the amendment. Townsend noted she probably be the only no vote on this one because as she is looking at these units and the neighborhood, the buildings are huge and, in her opinion, it needs to be reconfigured as it just doesn't fit in with the look of the neighborhood. Miller agrees and is all for density and infill, but the scale of the buildings and how they relate to the street don't feel appropriate, and he doesn't think it's because of the density they could fit that many units on this site in a more appropriate way with stepping a little bit more. The explanation about making the buildings identical is economical but it doesn't feel like the right long term solution. But he agrees overall and may have designed qualms with it but they're in an affordable housing crisis and getting the units is the most important thing at this point. A vote was taken and the motion with the added conditions passed 6-1 (Townsend dissenting). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: DECEMBER 4. 2024: Elliott moved to approve the meeting minutes from December 4, 2024. Townsend seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Townsend nominated Quellhorst for chair, Miller seconded, a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. Craig nominated Elliott for vice -chair, Miller seconded, a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PROTEST OF REZONINff Handouts Distributed TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 1 IOWA CITY, IOWA_ , (Date) CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: D q /, A/ 60w This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: o �✓� D-e li� .��. Property Owne ): %L C p_�QC CL°�clC r By: w By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): 7 _= STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before ine on T CKa'd- J�7�, } O V-L �f►y'- au-- and individual property ovnier(s)). '3l '� k o-rc.k. 2t�.45 MCOmmission Com MY Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as _ (Date) by (name(s) of (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig. Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA-NDS Late Handouts Distributed � Kellie Grace From: Bahrick, Audrey S <abahrick@uiowa.ecl3- I, 2-5 Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 3:54 PM (Date) To: *City Council Subject: Letter and graphic to accompany protest of resigning petitions for 911 N Governor St area Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; letter to accompany petitions.docx; image.png ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. March 31, 2025 Dear City Councilors, Enclosed are (52 total) protest petitions from property owners residing within 200 ft of the N Governor St area designated for rezoning. Also enclosed is a graphic illustrating the area (in yellow) where property owners signed petitions. Most eligible homeowners signed petitions. The neighborhood is in favor of development consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Central District Plan. We protest: 1) The size of the development is inconsistent with and disproportionate to the existing neighborhood. 2) The lack of relationship with Happy Hollow Park and its amenities, including: the Leveling of 86% of slopes and removal of most trees on the border of the Park; the lack of pedestrian access to the Park such as a designated trail or sidewalk; the high retaining wall that creates a visual and physical obstacle to walking into the Park from the development (imagine a parent with a stroller seeking to access the Park). 3) The lack of infrastructure to support such a large development and resultant safety issues. The area is hostile to pedestrians. There is sidewalk on only a small portion of the west side of Governor St in front of 911. Pedestrians walking to Hy Vee, for example, will be forced to jaywalk (no crosswalk is planned) across two lanes of fast traffic on a state highway at a point of low visibility of oncoming traffic. 4) The vehicle entrance/exit to the development is at an area of poor visibility on N Governor St, at the bottom of a nearly blind curve and dip. While the area can apparently handle the increased traffic density, newly posed risks to driver and pedestrian safety do not seem to have been considered. No traffic calming measures are planned. Imagine an emergency vehicle needing to get into or out of the development on a football Saturday. We have separately endorsed protest petitions against the rezoning of the 900 N Dodge St duplex from its current RS-12 designation to RM-20. The basis for this is: 1) Rezoning it is in violation of the Comprehensive Plan which designates 900 N Dodge St as single-family, not multi -family with intention that it serve as transitional zoning between the RS-8 and RM-20 on each side. 2) The reason for including and upzoning 900 N Dodge in the proposed rezoning is to transfer density to reach the total 84 units. 3) This 900 N Dodge St duplex has nothing to do with what was granted to Mr Barkalow in the Supreme Court case. Including it is an overreach which sets a precedent for future inappropriate rezonings and undermines principles of fair and transparent urban planning. Sincerely, Audrey Bahrick and Neighbors Yellow highlight shows properties of signed protest petitions Rezoning outlined in blue 0 Iv 412 ;NNr 4066 402 1 032 -- 10 w-11 `1028 ir '1009919 1022 1007 Y92112 FOO r 1�, 924 1018 9 941 945 1 % ,918 916 �A 912� 907 �910 905 903 S go €i31 /'� p- T 815 112 � 632 802 1 r— 914 112 9251 � r-- 939 931 1�924 935 915 927 91L 3 fi2 W r 931 92; 920 o 91$�`927 r 921 915 911 � �� 916 � � 914 13 837 *11; 9 ro 7 �� 814 1: 84 - 812 810 Happy L 4 808 40110 r 805 Ozark Brown Street 1t PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL . IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: qao , 9 02- qo b <70 9 ti , oog/ e 4-� q'v q1, 911 This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: °2S JV , Da(.�oe cr�', ld uja 61 N, 1* s Z 7- Property Owner(s): /1l /z/ A Gi w4�5 L-e- C_ By: �- By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on and individual property owner(s)). (Date) by (name(s) of -a Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IE f k\YW P_Z— J TY) "i" ry This instrument was acknowledged before me on MA✓A t 1 ZS (Date) by ��� l SV (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of LS LL C. (name of property owner) . KATE A. GOLDEN Not" Public-Mlnnes}e W CMon E JW 3+. zoz7 ��- J�� Notary Public in and for the State of low& M440GOr,�1- Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING ro TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA — CITY OFIOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located -within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1/2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Prope Owner(s): IV4 INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) ry JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by ear �ns l e and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). MOLLY M. 0«7Z-A PY, I Commkzion Numbee ; %?y5 my j "Mdd"" Notary Pu in and for the to o Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`'VNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Coumcil packet 05/2022 Cc: CA—NDS PROTEST OF REZONING r TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1 /2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: 1-- Property O INDIV1DW PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: el � " CD This instrument was acknowledged before me on +ADD �� ,o a (Date) by 5'C pG, CAjr-r u- (name(s) of indi dual property owner(s)). r .*fir r WENDY::7 } Commission M ommNotary Pu��in and for th tate of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`'VNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) _ Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/1022 Cc: CA—NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1/2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: _ 930 IV. 0CdQe a By: INDIVIDUAL. PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: w This instnuent was acknowledged before me on — cat o a 57 (Date) by and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). WENDY S. MAYER ° = Commission Number 729428 My commission Expires Notary Pub c in and for the Rate of Iowa o 1 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`'VNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig. Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA—NDS PROTEST OF REZONING r TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA � CITY OF IOWA C17 Y We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located -within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1 /2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): W STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before nne on _ Ao-aA^ Kr'., ftn4 and individual property owner(s)). z �JASON PAULIOS � Commission Number 841476 My Commission Expires ow* August 8, 2025 Nota Public in and for the State of Iowa 31-71�z, AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as _ (Date) by (name(s) of (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/1022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA'--- - - CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1 /2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: / el / V IIal Property Owner(s): I A INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: T 's instrument was acknowledged before me on i"v) (Date) by cs�L� -�3 re C-0 P 6 r=" V, rn and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). Notary Pub1Q in and for the StOte of Iowa. W 'u WENDY S. M:729N42]8 commission Numbission AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`VNER(S): i STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) _ Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet OM022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING u TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ! IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF OFIOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1 /2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the. Code of Iowa. Property Address: Property er(s): V I 1 D KA (7 L[ By: By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): �� j G "� 1 N C-Z j (p {0 STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on d a (Date) by V l c�c(� ��„„ _ and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). �-7 R%A& KYLE WINTER oP Commission Number 836731 Notaryblic in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): w STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/1022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING t 11 , TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL _ IO.WA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1 /2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: qo� IQ )0 Qt a�9 S Property Owner(s):_ b_yj y\e rt\ b Y o By. By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on 6 e-A n e tt gy-oW� and individual property owner(s)). Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`'VNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as s,Py';A[ KIRAN MARIE PATEL o Commission Number 845731 .6 MyCom i sionEx it s (Date) by (name(s) of (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING A: TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1 /2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except -by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: Property Owner(s): By: By ZL c—r - c,a INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: TM is instrument was acknowledged before me on �_W-Ch _ (Date) by h . B If • and _ (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). e�R c Commission n Number 82ALES 442 Commission Number 820442 •. My Commission Expires Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Octobers, 2025 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Orig: Council packet Cc: CA—NDS (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 05/2022 PROTEST OF REZONING �F TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1/2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: �' C)� Proper ly, Owner(s): By:c,3 y:CD . �.w INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): .. STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on C�1 2�; (Date) by and _ C (name(s) of individual property owlier(s)). 91�arar ESTEFANIAAGUILAR-ROSALES ' Commission Number 820442 �' z� My Commission Expires Notary Pu ] is in and for the State of Iowa 'vv�n October 1, 2025 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`'VNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Orig: Council packet Cc: CA—NDS (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner). Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 05/2022 PROTEST OF REZONING i TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA-- CITY OF I o wA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1 /2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: (P2g IJ , (o vs-eyno'' dui— Property Owner(s): DR I /61�94_19 I E By: 11. INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) �„ JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on MAO awl '202-S (Date) by Am►'F Zien .I��d,it lli���+�Rrisi and 7nsR7( NoAam J Abwd TbrAA,ii (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). KIRAN MARIE PATEL x s Commission Number 845731 `` My �omx Ires Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa . ■o�tia d AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Orig: Council packet Cc: CA—NDS (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of .Iowa 05/2022 PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL z _ IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1 /2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: loyu _1w St l4 we, [� 5� R.+s - Property Owner(s): A►� r --- By: CA By. ; INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): s STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: �{ This instrument was acknowledged before ine on 1 `�`Y��j o�$ a2 as (Date) by apnu� Marie, Carol u5 U aq and l(all,% Ajhlwez C-1-0h,5 KLIA (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). e� KIRAN MARIE PATEL i Commission Number 845731 my om +ssion Exp r s otary Pd6ic in and fort e State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Orig: Council packet Cc: CA—NDS (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of properly owner) _ Notary Public in and for the State of .Iowa 05/2022 PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the. owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1/2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: qc2t:� _ �J , Prol C INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This r trument was acknowledged before me on _ aLw fA a e- k- and individual property owner(s)), (qav' 11, 2,o�6 ',A KIRAN MARIE PATES o A t" Commission Number 945731 My `m ssion xpire '- - n &f ublic and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as G �^3 — W -; (7) _ J (Date) by (name(s) of (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/1022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING N , 3 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA �L — CITY OFIOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1/2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except -by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: J 0_ Property Onwn�er(s): (Y�Q t'i 2 � , l \ 1' _ By: 'Ili LUjJL�. w By: :SR INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): ' "" :: STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instnunent was acknowledged before ine on 317 /,2-V)-15 (Date) by f'nc.r S Lj ; l IC_e S and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). COpY T. NEDDERMEYER T won Numbw847131 my Go E*kw of u lic in and or the Stat of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY ONVNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) _ Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA—NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1/2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: q/ �o N tt C me c no r St Tn,�_�` Q. ►- Property Owner(s): ]-�aCY"��C�_lC�- �'[` l S By:r�.C; I. " �r► EI _ i INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: T its instnunent was cknowle ged before ine on Y'C .5 (Date) by t'Yt S and (name(s) of individual property ovvtler(s)). ' CONNIE MCCURDY Commission Number 855110 *, * My Commission Expires Notary Public in and for the State Iowa = ►OWh April 04, 2027 c.a . . AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`'VNER(S): STATE OF IOWA )� JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Orig: Council packet Cc: CA—NDS (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) - Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 05/2022 PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWWA CITY, IOWA F CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located -within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1/2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except -by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the. Code of Iowa. Property Address: L 7 igw& C t . Property Owner(s): LAT LA)5 K i s By: By: �; a INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This t truIment was acknowledged before me on C4 ��' �U aS (Date) by Fir + -k and (name(s) of individual proerty owner(s)). Notary Public in and for the State of AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ') JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as �P�.tiAt Sfi TREVOR POLLOCK oy Commission Number 833466 My commission rNpires fow� L/.1f aG,2 (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) _ Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/1022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA + CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1 /2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except -by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: �'j ��tnJ�y �� Tpt�m 0,1 Property Owner(s):_ h� l Er 1''(Isp BY By: r-D w INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): C=--.� STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: Z_ Thi 'ns t ent as acknowledged before me on j-- 1" 1 � (Date) by ,a grid (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). ELLEN MAYS Notary Public in and for the State of Iowan Commission Number 827205 ow. y Commission Expires AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Orig: Council packet Cc: CA—NDS (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 05/2022 PROTEST OF REZONING r x TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL �- IOWA CITY, IOWA ` - f CITY OOFF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1/2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the. Code of Iowa. Property Address: g l l� > S% f Q i�1G� Property Owner(s): iqj>trl By: �;- By:w- INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This iinstrument was acknowledged before me on _ —CF h'LAk0i �A F She. and individual property owner(s)). A)�J� 7/ a vas �� s ANGELA PILKINGTON A p Commission No. 743670 My Commission Expires A 10/26/2027(ijotary P lic in and for th ate of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: _ (Date) by (name(s) of This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) _ Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA—NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1/2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: b1c. 11— k IS PropertA Own): - _ INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: r- This instrument was acknowledged before ine on / f� uAz--A / D " o2D �"'S (Date) by C1�c�P�/ �►.� jy and -Toe/ ,,(name(s) of individual prope y owner(s)). q.A za, SHOLA WOOTONN : : CommftW Number 796078 Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY ONVNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF 10WA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1 /2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except -by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: Property Owner(s): =� By: By: r; w INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) �-- JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was ackr wledged before me on `� G C.� Ida �� (Date) by j�� �l [x\� R=and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). WENDY S. MAYER o s commission Number 729428 MY Comm i°" g`res Notary Pub) is in acid for the itate of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Orig: Council packet Cc: CA — NDS (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 05/2022 PROTEST OF REZONING .i. TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1/2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: 0�1I (/ Property Owner(s): By: By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): X- STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on _ �<0,4imA' Wl1 V5 and individual property owlier(s)). 3/4/ 2G _ (Date) by (name(s) of — 5x42 ' IS WWOt4wv� Mo sejidx3 uaissiwwoO AnL¢ZS6L iaqumN uvissiuiu103 o Notary Public in and for the Stat(Pof Iowa N30NON HVHVS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) _ Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA—NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA ''��`"� CITY OF 16WA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located -within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1 /2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except -by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414,5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: l 3 S t?eyt i, Prope Owner(s): ifV A ji-di By. By: ~v INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S):, STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowled ed before me on 7 1 6L5 (Date) by and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). J" WENDY S. MAYfR o Commission NumberlY3i26 MY Commission res u --I- - 7 Notary Publ# in and for the Stge of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Orig: Council packet Cc: CA — NDS (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 05/2022 PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1 /2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: G l3 �'��5 _ G zlla_q � Property Owner(s): � /, INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S)? STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on and individual property owner(s)). Notary Publi AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR P STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: f' This instrument was acknowledged before me do (name(s) of person(s)) as (name of property own f r f Notary Public in and for the State o Iowa State of Iowa 'ERTY OWNER(S): cj L_, C - w Lo i . (Date) by (name(s) of CT' (Date) by e of authority, such as officer, trustee) of Orig: Council packet 05/2022 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) On 03/28/2025 before me, YANCE LACSINA, a Notary Public, personally appeared EDWARD JOSEPH LEAHY, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. LIP Sil JIM ll*- ,.�� YANCE LACSINA Notary Public - California a ``' Riverside County > =� Commission �` 246589��7 �o �y Comm. Expires Nov 3, Notary Public Seal PROTEST OF REZONING �. FO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is )roposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1/2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: Property Owner(s):��� By: zz't'� L—Zg=2&� r)A-Zc—� _. INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY O R(S): .. STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me individual property owner(s)). Notary AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Z(Date) by �d (name(s) of X c in and for the S�afc of Iowa r TY OWNER(S): C� _ (Date) by of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owker) . Notary Public in and for the Sta'N of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 n_. n e i.mo 'R-A A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) On 03/28/2025 before me, YANCE LACSINA, a Notary Public, personally appeared EDWARD JOSEPH LEAHY, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. r No Public Mature 0M, YANCE LAC518A Notary Public - CaliforniaRiverside CounryCor^ d%jon t 2465809 Comm. Expires Nov 3, FL27 Notary Public Seal r�s c.n PROTEST OF REZOO T f0: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL - IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF Init;a CITY N e, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property 01-ch is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is x'oposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1 /2, 902, SM, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) Chis protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the avorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the ode of Iowa. 'roperty Address: 610 S - 1f d ��'o v e&'O"e 5,- , 'roperty Owner(s):' A A/ � � ReV nc LC s T .•.., 3y: f NDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): ;TATE OF IOWA ) :. OHNSON COUNTY) ss: r 'his instrument was acknowledged before me on _ and ndividual property owner(s)). Notary Public FP and fo State of Iowa kUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR "ERTY OWNER(S): ;TATE OF IOWA ) r OHNSON COUNTY) ss: f 'his instrument was acknowledged before me Q _ name(s) of person(s)) as (name of property own i (Date) by (name(s) of (Date) by _ e of authority, such as officer, trustee) of Notary Public in and for the StateXpf Iowa )rig: Council packet 05!2022 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) On 03/28/2025 before me, YANCE LACSINA, a Notary Public, personally appeared JOAN KATHRYN LEAHY, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument aixd acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public Simla Notary Public Seal YANCE LACSINA = Notary Public - California Riverside County > Commission 9 2465U9 My Comm, Expires Nov 3, 2027 w Cn PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 905, 909, 911 North Governor Street, 900, 900 1 /2, 902, 906, 908, 910 North Dodge Street, (Lot numbers 49, 51, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: - q U %AL Property Owners c, r By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER( - STATE OF IOWA ), JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by and / (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). f J F T Notary Public tn u. d for the State of Iowa ` l AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FQA PRO RTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) /� f JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: �, " , This instrument was acknowledged before 'e on , (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (typ' of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner r � f J Notary Public in and for the State of)pwa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) On 03/28/2025 before me, YANCE LACSINA, a Notary Public, personally appeared JOAN KATHRYN LEARY, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. 4 g) lNotublic Signature YANCE lACSINA NotaryPubli[ California z Riverside County F Comrnimion # 2465809 • �''� My Comm. Expires Nov 3, 2027 Notary Public Seal r-n Cl) M PkD � d��- pe�t hvY(,r re Cz�) PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: q p © l\/ . D od g-e d�- This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: Property Owner(s): 92 S Al 0,,,e 17'7r-1 HAwlcs , By: �( By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss 57;0'Y s22--t5­ LL G This instrument was acknowledged before me on individual property owner(s)). and Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF l M)VUlq! AgOtSON- COUNTY) ss: H_atA'� This instrument was acknowled ed (name(s) of person(s)) as 1>?� (Date) by (name(s) of r_..s C- Cl) . 7 1- before me on N < �Z� (Date) by IW l ialaL- ly" I ti (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of L[� (name of property owner) . KATE A. GOLD EN j'�,, . Notary Public-Mrnnesota My Commissbn Expires Jan 31, ppp� Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Ci By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: c-D _ This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by and - (name(s) of individual prope ty owner(s)). `s moll- Mlles" a _"`• = Notary P is in and for tate of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY ONVNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of pergon(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/1022 Cc: CA—NDS PROTEST OF REZONING / TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 1 IOWA CITY, IOWA--- CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: Property By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA 1 cj-) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before one on M a t_Q (Date) by S k )\AV e \)O and (name(s) of indivi ual property owner(s)), VAENDY S. MAYER yr Commission Numhar 729428 My Comm ssion Expires Not Pub ' in and for the *Le of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA—NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA Crrr We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: 3 O I`l - Dod-ee d---, Property Owner(s): �. d v'� rRa h rcc:e INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on c, y% k, 2Z 5 (Date) by A k \, 8 r-2 " 5 c i 4cr v\ Zct k, c-<< and (name(s) of individual prop ty owner(s)). _ h' ■ WENDY S: MAYER Commission Number 129428 ' Notary Publi and for the Sta of Iowa My Cornmissian Expires -- z AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`'VNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) ofperson(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA—NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change .is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: Prop By: In INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on _ )kdAkM V,,rN @ and individual property owner(s)). 31112-4z�; Notary Public in and for the State 3 r' _ (Date) by (name(s) of JASON PAULIOS z r Commission Number 841475 My Commission Explres August 8, 2025 owa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA—NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA '"f''u CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: / 0/ /�) Z? Property Own INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: W CD - X_ } This instrument was acknowledged before me on U-;rc � u) Z p� (Date) by k2 Q_,F �A and _ (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). �'°�s WENDY S. MAYER a°�r Commisa�an Number 72D42B i M CvmmissiQn Fx fires Notary Publi . in and for the Stlic of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`VNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of pergon(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA—NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL r*-A.0 IOWA CITY, IOWA '—�- kj CITY OF 10 WA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 9b0 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. /�' f ` Property Address: 0 3 ► Y DoAA6 -5k- (64 J. Property wner(s): V i �/ I O P_ Vcc & lBy: By: "INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): C, l o i n STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on _ v i(Aor and individual property owner(s)). '41/'?a)_'�_ A_ c 3A(s, KYLE WINTER a a Commission Number 836731 G� * MY Commission Expires A�z ,oWp L'(zc7 Notary Pub ' c in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as _ (Date) by (name(s) of (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/1022 Cc: CA—NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL M1l IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: Q 1 V b o C�1 Property Owner(s): t3 c n y, V"N By: �it�►�-.—. *� �.•� Im INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on _ 6 e_A,je 4,t B rt Wj\ and individual property owner(s)). M6(VCk �)_ , '2 0 0- 5 Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`'VNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Rr4s c�, KIRAH MAR1E PATEL Commission Number 845731 M C MISSI �E}Cplres �aw� �yy _ (Date) by (name(s) of (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA--- CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: Q l 3 � -3� C7 <4-� `Q- Pro C INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: c-;: _=7 This instrument was ackno ledged before me on e (Date) by � vy t-kk��Sery o and !SC " erA L) (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). �1 ESfEEAf�IA AG�iLAR-ROSALES � 4� Commission f�umber 820442 * My Commission Expires Notary Mublic and for the State of Iowa iax� Cclaher 1, 2D25 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA—NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 9b0 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: _ `-C \ O Prope Owner vt-e- -a By: c_ By: - INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): —i STATE OF IOWA JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: r '• This instrument was acknowledged before me on lAGLa_Z (Date) by i 0. B e (_�)_ and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). ki ESTEFANIA AGUILAR-ROSALES Commission Number Expires T�' My Commission Expires Notary Pu lic in and for the State of Iowa yeti October 1, 2025 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Orig: Coumcil packet Cc: CA—NDS (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 05/2022 PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA- CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change.is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: 2q 8 lV , 61-0 Vey K0-- Property Owner(s): AmIP- A10f, !fnCIF? 1 F ?.SFACD By: -- r-:_, -� INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): -- =- STATE OF IOWA— JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on mard �Z$ �v�5 i (Date) by r-j,r ZreA21a 6j,'A 01e- �arril and 3&6 �k ah�r�cd AAme- . Zbrgh,',V (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). kVS++A>_S KIRAN MAR1E PATEL o � Commission Number 945731 ? ' °" My am E sion 1»xplres 'P �� Notary Public 'n and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA—NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: Lit ouarw,- Sit . [ova ('':N 1 6-2�2 4-5� Property Ow BY By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on M a(ck a -7 , ;2 a 2 5 (Date) by 40,hoc, MLr�e- Caro Nu Y_ka4 and IA k)AI�R CE;"oiu� ►kk4,U (name(s)of individual property owner(s)). �ha+ KiRAN MARIE PATEL Commission Number 845731 M Commission Expires ,carp Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) _ Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA—NDS PROTEST OF REZONING k TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA'�'�-- --- '' CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address:b Property Oivy�t.r(s): INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on _ I au M aL,_ and individual property owner(s)). 1 ,t rG% e2-0 2- ��R+�[y KIRAN MARIE PATEL o F Cor-imission Number 845731 x ' " • " C mmission Exp! es - - xv 6 Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as _ (Date) by (name(s) of (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA—NDS PROTEST OF REZONING , TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA "`EAU-- t CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: 9 1 —1 N ° Gq%jef-nc r S_� Property Owner(s): MCI cw S W By. By: —s-, w INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: -� This instrument was acknowledged before ire on 3 % .;2v ;X,5 (Date) by d�; e S 110 lke S and ame(s) of individual property owner(s)). dr CODY T. NEDDERMMR Commission Number 847131 MyCommlogn Expires Notary tc in and for the State • owa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`'VNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) _ Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA—NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA �' `''• - f CITY OFJO WA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: f (.P N GoUe_r no r', t -1c C Proper 4 megsk `D�1d& FCAWEr 1'`S V.C� �� �C'1 er I ne w �1 � F'(� I By: �S -- By y •v Y `� INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This ins went as ackn wle ged before me on GZ �►! 5 D a�J� (Date) by {jam. & tm and rt e. � (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). rr�,�-S Wiwi CONNIE MCCURDY Commission Number 855110 My Commission Expires April 04, 2027 LIXIA JA -1-0— �A G Notary Public in and for the Stat a Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`VNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Orig: Council packet Cc: CA - NDS (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 05/1022 PROTEST OF REZONING" TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA " CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: Prol By. By. INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: r; This instrument was acknowledged before ire on A-t_C4 sa (Date) by IAA vn 4- " and (name(s) of individual roperty owner(s)). P��a[ OCK TREVOR POLL y Commission Number 833465 * My Commission Expires Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig. Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA—NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IO.WA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: n.,aay S-1E,p �° i �.► .�� 1 ` Property Owner(s):�}'� By: RPj 1-M INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This in trument w s acknowledged before me on (Date) by and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). ELLEN MAYS Commission Number 827705 Notary Public in an for the State of Iowa My commission Expires AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`'VNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/1022 Cc: CA—NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change .is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: g I -7 beoN Sfi e oa lA 5 a ay 5 Property Owner(s): c—Dimi ,)rt t�l-z(— By: cr INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowled ed before me on and individual property owner(s)). ANGELA PILKINGTON z Commission No. 743670 * , My Commission Expires lot^ 10/26/2027 ptl�,-Ck 0-7 , aoa--s 6F_A .�..Ii' J .�9—IWRI W AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`'VNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as _ (Date) by (name(s) of (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA—NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: _ k-A -Z .- t U S—' ; 1 Property Owner(s): T , By: ' J w - -- .-. INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on /rD� C�o2 (Date) by Oand _7�c>e (name(s) of individu 1 property owner(s)). SHEILA WOOTONN AWa A / C'(/ D� 7487Z0-� x Commission Number 796M my 9Wm ° '�,es Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`'VNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA—NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ,'-- IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: Property Owner(s): By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on cx 6 �t t o . �o�� (Date) by I� and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). k WENDY S. MAYER 9i. I Commission Number 729428 My�—) � sia_L_ }:' s Notary Public and for the State o vwa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY O`'VNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA — NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL r� IOWA CITY, IOWA -_ CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: 1 u_�— Froperty. Owner(s): t r` By: t� By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): — � r-- STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on 3 /4 2C�F 1-"d4iwA L�11;a5 and individual property owner(s)). Notary Public in and for the S e of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY ONVNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as _ (Date) by (name(s) of _pN� sf SARAH HORGEN z ' Commission Number 795247 . r My Commission Expires March 23, 2025 (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA—NDS PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA — CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. K Address: S). INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: CJ`1 Cl) rr; This instr unent was acknowledged before me on "2� V_' L�c_ LA _ �i .3 _ (Date) by c La) f— FTLI, C and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). fi! ~L Notary PublV in and for the SWe of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Council packet 05/2022 Cc: CA—NDS PROTEST OF REZONING = TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 112 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: C/ Q 9 �,._ � [r7� V f. r-Aln 1,V 57% Property Owner(s): By: " , INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged h individual property owner(s)). me on and N AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (naine(s) of person(s)) as _ Z Ong: O.oun fl_ /" A �a cc s p- c Public in and for the S (name of C-3 .� CO of Iowa (q by amef me(�) of P PROPE OWNER(S):t5 a) _ (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of veer). Notary Public in and for the of Iowa u 05/2022 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, , or y of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) SS. On 03/28/2025 before me, YANCE LACSINA, a Notary Public, personally appeared JOAN KATHRYN LEAHY, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that helshelthey executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by hislherltheir signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. �1 f ` YANCE LACSINA Notary Public - California Riverside County Commission # 2465809 my Comm. Expires Nov 3, 2027 Notary Public Seal PROTEST OF REZONING To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL �- IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1/2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: qy Y " 7 / O l V , ©y h n/ 5- . Property Owner(s): I0 INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY O ER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before r individual property owner(s)). on and Notary kublic in AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: f This instrument was acknowledged befo"e on (name(s) of person(s)) as I ,6le- ;/'�a1Z s% the State of Iowa PERTY OWNER(S):� �J (name of property (Date) by (name(s) of _ (Date) by of authority, such as officer, trustee) of Notary Public in and for the State of 'Ala Ong: Council packet 0512022 • _ - "A M1 0 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) On 03/28/2025 before me, YANCE LACSINA, a Notary Public, personally appeared JOAN KATHRYN LEAHY, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. yAyCE LACSINA Notary Public • California Riverside County > C9mmission # 24651104 J My C,,r-m. Expifes Hov 3, 202T Notary Public Seal PROTEST OF REZONING u PO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY Me, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property vhich is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is >roposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 900, 900 1/2 North Dodge Street Phis protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the 'avorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the ode of Iowa. 'roperty Address: �13-- NDIVIDUAL PROPF Y OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) [OHNSON COUNTY) ss: Phis instrument was acknowledged bore me on ndividual property owner(s)). A.UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SI STATE OF IOWA ) FOHNSON COUNTY) ss: Phis instrument was acknowled ;name(s) of person(s)) as aj N before me on S r� C ZF40IRWOPERTY OWNER(S): �� (name of property owner', _ (Date) by of authority, such as officer, trustee) of Notary Public in and for the State of Drig: Council packet 05/2022 -. � e '.rrmo A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) On 03/28/2025 before me, YANCE LACSINA, allotary Public, personally appeared EDWARD JOSEPH LEAHY, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notanpublic S i ature YANCE LACSINA r `• Notary Public I California V-4- Riverside County Commission X 2465809 (My Comm. Expires Nov 3, 2027 Notary Public Seal a PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property. 900, 900 1 /2 North Dodge Street This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three -fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa - Property Address: V2— 2/,? Property Owner(s):� By �— By. _ c INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY WNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) -w JOHNSON COUNTY) ss:f This instrument was acknowledged be rare me on _ and individual property owner(s)). 1 N AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNIN STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged b are me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Public id'and for the State of Iowa PROPERTY OWNER(S): �Sz' (name of property (Date) by _ _ (name(s) of _ (Date) by of authority, such as officer, trustee) of Notary Public in and for the State oNowa Orig: Council packet 05/207.2 l fl A TTT%C• A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) )SS' COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) On 03/28/2025 before me, YANCE LACSINA, a Notary Public, personally appeared EDWARD JOSEPH LEARY, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Loc'--olm YANCE LACSINA Notary Public - California Riverside County Commission # 2465809 y Comm. Expires Nov 3, 2627 Notary Public Seal -s�- q, / Kellie Grace From: Bahrick, Audrey S <abahrick@uiowa.edu> Late Handouts Distributed Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 11:03 PM To: *City Council _ Subject: Letter re: Rezoning of 911 Governor St Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; City Council Ree+r�g fe�t�r- (Date) ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. 31 March 2025 Dear City Councilors, I am writing as an owner and 25 year resident of 830 N Dodge Street, a single family home. I share a driveway with my neighbor to the north, the 900 N Dodge St duplex which is included in the area to be rezoned. I oppose the request for rezoning in its current state and request removal from the proposal of the duplex at 900 N Dodge Street. I am wholly supportive of multi -family infill development of an appropriate size that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and that considers the context of the neighborhood, existing infrastructure, critical steep slopes, and the relationship to the public park. The current proposal is problematic on all fronts. 1) The area to be rezoned is in excess of what is required by the Supreme Court decision. Historically, City Council and P & Z recognized that the current (R313) high density multi -family zoning on portions of the proposed rezoning was a "spot zone" and called that a mistake. They twice tried to bring the zoning in line with the neighborhood. This was prevented by the Iowa Supreme Court. Now, staff is proposing to grant Mr. Barkalow expanded zoning well beyond what the court decision stipulates. The court decision permitted up to 84 units to be built on three non -adjacent R313 plats. Yet what is permitted is not the same as what is feasible. Regardless of the court order, development potential of the R313 area is physically limited due to: e The odd shape: the three disparate lots are non-contiguous. • Slopes on lot 51 (a large portion of the R313 area). Grading this area would be expensive and Likely make it challenging to build on. There is no building in the current Barkalow rezoning plan on lot 51. Lot 10 (the piece of R313 zoning that fronts onto N Governor St) is only 60 feet wide. It provides street access to the remainder of the R3B land. A driveway to access it and the other R313 land would leave approximately 40 feet developable. Subtract the required R313 zoning setbacks and Mr Barkalow has hardly any development potential on Lot 10 even under R3B. • A sewer line crosses this property, further restricting the area that can be developed. Now, Mr Barkalow is seeking to build 84 units across 5.49 acres of contiguous lots. It seems the City is concerned that if they don't go along with the current proposal, the development could be worse due to what is allowed by the old R313 zoning and the Supreme Court decision. However, given the odd shape of the court -imposed R313 zoning, steep slopes on lot 51, and the diagonal sewer easement, it is unlikely Mr Barkalow could in practice achieve the theoretical density permitted by the R313 zone. 2) Rezoning 900 N Dodge St is in violation of the Comprehensive Plan. In seeking to upzone the 900 N Dodge Street duplex, staff have offered a rationale of desiring "consistency" with the RM-20 portions of the development (rather than seeking consistency with the nature of the surrounding neighborhood and with the spirit and letter of the comprehensive plan). What was once understood as spot zoning has now become the model for density. The value of "consistency" of zoning within the required Planned Development Overlay (OPD) is contradicted by leaving the 908-910 N Dodge RS-12 duplex at the NW corner of the OPD as is, but seeking to rezone the one on the SW corner to RM-20. Rezoning 900 N Dodge is in violation of the Comprehensive Plan which designates it as single family and not multi -family, with intention for it to serve as transitional zoning between the RS-8 and RM-20 properties on either side. The transition is removed by upzoning it*. This property has nothing to do with the Supreme Court case and upzoning it is for the sole purpose of capturing and transferring unused density to apply to the 84 units. I invested a significant portion of my financial resources in my home at 830 N Dodge, with the understanding that the comprehensive plan is a reliable document. Including it in the rezoning is an overreach which sets a precedent for future inappropriate rezonings and undermines principles of fair and transparent urban planning. * Eric Goer's letter contained in today's agenda packet states: "The OPD also ensures that the western portion of the subject property along N. Dodge Street retains the transition from existing single-family homes to the south to the existing apartment buildings. " Unless I am misreading, this statement appears to be in error as the southern transition, clearly considered desirable, is removed by upzoning 900 N Dodge St. 3) The size of the buildings are excessive in relation to the neighborhood and to the land available. The buildings are each nearly a city block long. There is nothing else approaching this size in the neighborhood. To fit these giant buildings into the space allowed, 86% of the critical slopes will be bulldozed and most of the trees on the border with the Park will be removed. A more modest size development with some setback and also with a clear relationship to the Park would be desirable. 4) The development bears no relationship to Happy Hollow Park. The development has an overall destructive impact the Park. Rather than capitalizing on the amenities of the Park as the Comprehensive Plan recommends for new developments, it turns its back on the Park, positioning a retaining wall ranging from 4 to 15 feet high between the Park and the Development. There is no designated pedestrian access. A path or walkway between the development and the Park was requested at a follow up to the good neighbor meeting but this was declined as being too expensive due to the need for ADA compliance. 5) There is a lack of infrastructure to support the development. The Comprehensive Plan stipulates attention to pedestrian access and safety for any new development. This is a pedestrian unfriendly area. Other than directly in front of 911 N Governor, there is no sidewalk on the west side of N Governor. Pedestrians seeking to walk to nearby HyVee for example, will be forced to jaywalk across two lanes of a busy state highway at a point of poor visibility of fast approaching traffic. No crosswalk or traffic calming measures are planned. The Staff Report indicates traffic density was considered and that N Governor can handle about double the current number of vehicles. Yet there is no mention given to new safety issues presented for drivers entering and exiting onto N Governor St. at the bottom of a nearly blind curve and dip in the road. Additional safety issues arise, for example, with potentially problematic access to the entrance/exit of the development for emergency vehicles, say on a football Saturday when N Governor is typically, for a time, nearly at a standstill with two lanes of one way bumper to bumper traffic. Everyone wants 911 N Governor Street to be redeveloped. Doing so in a way that complements the neighborhood and the Park and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code would be an asset to the community. But the plan before you is inconsistent with the principles of our guiding documents. I hope you send staff and the developer back to the drawing board to devise a plan that works better for the neighborhood. Thank you for considering my feedback. Sincerely, Audrey Bahrick Kellie Grace From: Bahrick, Audrey S <abahrick@uiowa.edu> Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 3:27 PM To: *City Council Subject: Letter re: 911 N Governor St rezoning Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; Critical Slopes letter to City Council.pdf ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. This message is from an external sender. May 6, 2025 Staff has stated that they support this rezoning because it allows application of the modern zoning ordinance, including the parts of the ordnance that apply to environmentally sensitive features (in this case steep and critical slopes, and the grove of trees). Yet when you compare this proposal to the language of the zoning code, this plan clearly does not protect and minimize disturbance of the environmentally sensitive feature of the R313 zoned property and the additional land at 905 and 909 Governor (which is not subject to the court ruling). Section (14-51-1) of the zoning law states that the intent is to: - Permit and define the reasonable use of properties that contain environmentally sensitive features and natural resources while recognizing the importance of environmental resources and protecting such resources from destruction. - Provide for ecologically sound transitions between protected environmentally sensitive areas and urban development. - Foster urban design that preserves open space and minimizes disturbance of environmentally sensitive features and natural resources. Section 14-51-9 regarding wood areas says the intent is to reduce damage to wooded areas, particularly on steep slopes and encourage site plan design which incorporate groves as amenities within a development. To help ensure this intent, the ordinance requires that you, the City Council, must approve the disturbance of more than 35% of the critical slopes (14-51-8). The supreme court has relieved the developer of environmental review only on the R313 portion of this property. The ordnance still applies to 905 and 909 Governor. Staff says the goal is to apply the modern ordnance to the entire property. Yet the plan before you clearly does not comply with the purpose of the ordnance to preserve the scenic character of hillside areas, particularly wooded hillsides. (Section 14-51-8: REGULATED SLOPES). It does not minimize disturbance of the these slopes, rather it nearly wipes them out by disturbing 86% of the critical slopes and removing nearly the entire grove of trees. The plan before you is designed to maximize residential density at the expense of the environment and the surrounding neighborhoods. Section 14-3A-4 of the zoning code, the criteria which is to be used by the City to evaluate proposals such as this, makes it clear that when environmentally sensitive areas are present it may not be possible to achieve the maximum density. The zoning code states: "The City will approve a residential density based on the underlying density allowed in the base zone and what is compatible with the natural topography of the site and with surrounding development. The residential density for a planned development may not exceed the value specified in table 3A-1..... Actual residential density allowed, however, may be less than the maximum expressed in the table due to the topographical constraints of the property, the scale of the project relative to adjacent development, and the dimensional, site development, and other requirements of this title. Again staffs rationale for supporting this proposal is to bring the R313 property into compliance with the modern zoning code. Yet this plan wipes out the environmentally sensitive areas not only on the R313 property, but the additional property at 905 and 909 Governor. Neighbors are not opposed to apartment being build on this property, but to comply with the Comprehensive Plan and the intent of the zoning code this current plan should be rejected. Staff and the developer should go back to the drawing board and come back with a plan the preserves more to the wooded slope that provides the backdrop for Happy Hollow Park. Sincerely, Audrey Bahrick Sharon DeGraw Stephen Voyce Matthieu Biger Adam Kreuger Kellie Grace From: Davies, James <jdavies@russellco.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2025 11:05 AM To: *City Council Subject: N Governor Rezoning Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; N Gov Rezoning.pdf i RISC[ ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. This message is from an external sender. Dear Council Members, I have followed the rezoning process on N Governor St as it has progressed through P&Z and into Council discussions. It has been frustrating and left me wondering where in the process does the City consider the tenets of our Comprehensive and District Plans. Per the City "The Comprehensive Plan is a roadmap for directing growth and change over time. It describes a broad vision for the kind of community Iowa City should be and the steps necessary to achieve this vision, including policies for the growth and development of specific areas of the City. The Comprehensive Plan also serves as a guide for decisions on planning and development issues as they arise and evolves as amendments are made." I found it particularly troubling that there was little to no mention of the Comprehensive Plan or the District Plan in the joint discussion with P&Z and Council on 5/6. The primary argument made by P&Z was that it was a good location for more dense housing which I agree strongly with. It appears at no point in this long process has there been any effort to advocate for inclusion of the other primary tenets of the Comprehensive and District Plan. I don't understand why we have these documents if seemingly, so little effort is made to ensure development follows their core growth principles: • Interconnected Streets • Streets as more than Pavement ■ Pedestrian/ Bikeway Connections • Parks, Trails and Open Space In my perspective the City Planning Staff has done a poor job of setting this process up for only two bad outcomes — failure and further litigation -OR- rubber stamping a PUD for a poorly designed project that makes no effort to integrate or enhance the neighborhood and its existing amenities. I don't envy your position, but I encourage you to carefully review the specific access challenges that this project presents and ask yourself if is this PUD is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan or the Central District Plan? I think its reasonable to expect that City Staff should be doing a better job of advocating that projects of this size align with the goals and values that the community set in the Comprehensive Plans. There appears to be broad support for this area to have higher density RM-20 zoning but the PUD specifics will create dangerous pedestrian conditions that will encourage residents to drive rather than walk/bike. The complete lack of pedestrian connection to the park and other nearby amenities devalue the development and neighborhood when we should be taking this rare opportunity to encourage park usage and pedestrian access for all. Thanks very much for your time and service to our community, it is greatly appreciated. James Davies I Preconstruction Manager T: (563) 459-4600 M: (563) 594-9022 E: jdavies@russellco.com www.russellco.com Kellie Grace From: Geoff Fruin Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2025 10:37 AM To: Jon Marner; Danielle Sitzman Cc: Tracy Barkalow; Kellie Grace Subject: RE: Scarlett Point Jon — We will note the request for deferral in the meeting packet. Thanks, Geoff From: Jon Marner <J.marner@mmsconsultants.net> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2025 8:59 AM To: Geoff Fruin <GFruin@iowa-city.org>; Danielle Sitzman <dsitzman@iowa-city.org> Cc: Tracy Barkalow <tracy@barkalowhomes.com> Subject: Scarlett Point AS ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** This message is from an external sender. On behalf of the applicant, we are requesting that Council defer the third reading for the zoning at Scarlett Point to the June 17 Council meeting. This will allow the items required as part of the CZA prior to Final plat approval to be completed such that the Final plat can be placed on the same agenda for approval as the final reading of the zoning. Specifically, there is a requirement for a current duplex to be converted to a single family residence prior to Final plat approval. The building permit required to make this conversion has been applied for, and the necessary improvements to complete this conversion are anticipated to be completed prior to the June 17 meeting. While not required, we believe it is important for Council to see the commitment to this zoning and the Final plat by the developer in taking these additional steps. Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you, Jon Jon Marner Partner/Project Manager Ofc: (319) 351-8282 Cell: (319) 936-6295 i.marneri,�) m r,nscon su I to i}ts.net mmsconsultants.net Kelfie Grace From: abahrick <asbahrick@gmail.rom> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 5:10 PM To: *City Council Subject: 911 N Governor St resozoning Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; Final version letter to City Council May 20.docx ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Mintecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. This message is from an external sender. May 20, 2025 I want to acknowledge that City Council has been working hard on a difficult rezoning application, yet there are problematic aspects of the process so far. Council is moving toward approval without having acknowledged, let alone discussed several major issues brought by the neighborhood, detailed in both correspondence and public presentations Lest you believe that the neighborhood consists of myself and 'only a few neighbors" as stated by Planning and Zoning, it should be noted that the neighborhood has overwhelmingly signed protest petitions and entrusted us with representing them. They are attending to their jobs and lives. But if angry villagers wielding pitchforks are what is needed (a metaphor, not a threat), we can make that happen. City Council has stated that the applicant should reasonably expect the road to approval to be smooth and nearly automatic when P and Z have approved. They state it would be inappropriate not to approve if an applicant has checked all the boxes. But P and Z misrepresented and minimized our concerns in the consultation with Council, and in stating the approval process should be nearly automatic, Council has overlooked that there may be protest petitions coming in in the meantime, leaving no room for the protest petitions to matter. The petitions should heavily influence your decision -making process. Do you see what has happened? If P and Z has not listened accurately to community, but Council should approve smoothly if P and Z does, who is responsible for answering to the community? The process is circular. Issues not Acknowledged or Discussed by Council The City received 26 petitions specifically protesting the loss of transitional zoning by the inclusion of 900 N Dodge. Whether these separate petitions have legal standing or not, the neighborhood has chosen to underscore their high level of concern by speaking out in this way and deserves to be heard. Citizens should be able to trust in the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning code such that when they buy a single family home insulated by adjacent single family zoning, a large apartment complex cannot be built immediately next door at the whim of a developer. There has so far been no acknowledgement of the loss of transitional zoning due to the inclusion of 900 N Dodge St in the OPD. In fact, the opposite is true: in my correspondence with the City Attorney and Senior Planner, both have denied the reality of the loss of transitional zoning. What are we not understanding about upzoning to RM-20 and the building rights now and in the future that come with that designation. Given the City as co -applicant, transparency in your process should be a high priority. It should be exemplary. Yet the Staff Report obfuscates the purpose of including 900 N Dodge, which is solely to create unused density which can be transferred to reach 84 units on the 911 property a block away. The Report only hints that this is so, in stating that as a condition of upzoning to RM-20 it will be converted to a single unit "to comply with density requirements". Rezoning 900 N Dodge St sets a bad precedent, undermines public trust, and should be removed from the OPD. With the City as co -applicant, Planning and Zoning would have been under pressure to approve and did so. Planning and Zoning appears to have approved the rezoning without having digested major concerns raised by community. In the May 6 City Council consultation, P and Z inaccurately reported a chief concern of the neighborhood as being "traffic' and then dismissed this with "development brings increased traffic". The actual neighborhood concern here is safety for both drivers and pedestrians and the lack of infrastructure to support safety. Bringing such a large development to this land island situated between north and south one-way streets with aggressive traffic, no crosswalks, and no safe pedestrian route out is to entrench and exacerbate already unsafe conditions for a hundred plus new residents. A concern of the neighborhood, clearly articulated in correspondence and oral presentations, is lack of pedestrian safety and lack of infrastructure to support the increased density. Access to public transportation or to Hy Vee from the development requires jaywalking across two lanes of aggressive highway 1 traffic at a point of low visibility for drivers. Access to Mann school requires the same or cutting through the woods without a designated path. It is inappropriate to press forward with development without addressing these inadequacies that likely rise to the level of illegalities. I believe ADA requires new development to provide access to public transportation and zoning code specifies development occur where there is infrastructure to support it. The zoning code itself says that RM-20 zoning is suitable for areas with adequate infrastructure, but there is no sidewalk on Governor Street to this property. Where else in the City are there 84 apartments with no pedestrian access? Issues related to the treatment of the critical slopes and the ways in which this appears to conflict with zoning code have been detailed in correspondence and spoken about on May 6th. This needs to be responded to as well. I am aware that Councilor Moe, an architect, has in the past called for hiring an urban planner to consult re: difficult zoning matters. The many challenges presented in developing this land island, and with the potential to exacerbate rather than ameliorate problems with the current plan, this would seem to be just such a situation that calls for input of a professional urban planner. Some City Councilors have said they are motivated to vote for this plan because of a threat of another expensive lawsuit over this property. Yes, lawsuits may be expensive, but diligent, competent good government — doing the right thing —is beyond price. Placing 84 apartments in a location with no public sidewalk access is not good governance. I urge City Council not to move forward with approval. You could improve the process with accurately and systematically reflecting hearing community concerns and with collaboration with an urban planner to address the complexities of safety, infrastructure, and density. Sincerely, Audrey Bahrick Kellie Grace From: gmlauer@gmailcom Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 5:46 PM To: *City Council Subject: North Governor reasoning - oppose 84 units too many for that neighborhood!!! RISK ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** This message is from an external sender. Dear council members, I am a lifelong resident of Iowa city and live on the east side. I have driven north Governor mywhote life and the density that it appears you are considering of 84 units is in my opinion too many units for that area. I do support a rezoning that would allow for Redevelopment of the location. However, I would support a lower footprint if at all possible. Not only is the traffic of some concern, but the change in context for that northside neighborhood from Brown Street through Ronald Street area would be significant with such an increased population of people I support the local neighbors who oppose This level of development. I appreciate your commitment to an increase of affordable housing and housing in general in Iowa city however, even 84 units is insufficient to address the issue in any meaningful way, as I'm sure you will know. So please keep the character of the neighborhood and allow for perhaps larger developments or a newer developments on the out of town as they typically are and try to extend public transportation to them thank you so much. Geoff Lauer gmlauer@gmailcom 1223 Maple St Iowa city, to Kellie Grace From: Matt Drahek —att.dratrek@gmaitco— Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2025 12:21 PM To: 'City Council Subject: Zoning and Its Discontents ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** This message is from an external sender. Dear Iowa City City Council, I want to write to you as a North Side resident regarding the upcoming final zoning vote on N. Dodge/N. Governor St. Specifically, I want to write to you as someone who's unsure how you should vote, especially since you're probably hearing from many who are quite certain. What seems most important here is that zoning debates aren't really about zoning for its own sake. If they were, I assure you I wouldn't be writing or watching the council meeting. Rather, they're about what we, as a city, end up seeing on the land. Will the zoning change get us the things we want? On the land we're talking about at Dodge/Governor, I want to see nice housing that low and/or medium income people can afford. Ideally, that housing would build density (i.e., not single-family) without looking ridiculous in the neighborhood (i.e., not towering over everything around it). And, again ideally, we'd see 3 or 4 bedroom housing for families at a variety of income levels, including market -rate housing; and we'd see r or 2 bedroom housing specifically targeted at low-income people, with minimal market -rate housing. We have plenty of data showing that these are the things we need. Will we get that with this rezoning? I have no idea. That's what I'd like all of you to ask when considering your vote. I've looked at the plans for the so-called'Goosetown Apartments; and it's pretty clear to me that those apartments wouldn't give us what we need. However, I suspect no one is going to actually build them, so the whole discussion feels like a distraction, and even worse, one that's easy to get wrapped up in. I have neighbors who focus on nothing else, and even I once found myself in a community meeting yelling about sidewalks. Sidewalks! I'll leave you with the thought that the Dodge/Governor area is very attractive for a variety of reasons. It's on a bus line, albeit one that doesn't run frequently enough (another problem you could settle). It's walkable to many key parts of town. It's clearly underdeveloped and an opportunity for development that connects the North Side to the area around Hy-Vee. If you were going to set criteria for the city to purchase land for development purposes, it would be very attractive. Quite likely even more so than the land the city purchased on North Summit. Were the city council to purchase this land and run a development process on it, we'd be far likelier to end up with a good result. Best, Matt Drabek Iowa City, IA --t�7 10-C Late Handouts Distributed Yulissa Caro p110 From: abahrick <asbahrick@gmail.com> (Date) Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 10:11 AM To: *City Council Subject: 911 N Governor St rezoning Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; 911 Rezoning complicated.docx ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. This message is from an external sender. 3 June 2025 Dear City Councilors, You have often stated that this rezoning process is highly complicated. But after reading the Iowa Supreme Court case, reading the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance, and consulting with an attorney there are aspects of this case that are not complicated. 1. What is not complicated is the Iowa Supreme Court granted R3B zoning rights to only part of Barkalow's property. The City is expanding that to a much larger area. 2. What is not complicated is that 900 N Dodge Street is clearly identified as single/family duplex in the Comprehensive. Plan. Staffs inclusion of this property in the rezoning is being done only to enrich Barkalow. 3. Staff is telling you that the wooded slopes that will be wiped out with this plan are not a natural land formation, so you do not need to be concerned about them. What is not complicated is the actual language of the zoning code section 14-51-8: Regulated Slopes: A. Purpose: The purpose of regulating development on and near steep slopes is to: 1. Promote safety in the design and construction of developments. 2. Minimize flooding, landslides and mudslides. 3. Minimize soil instability, erosion and downstream siltation; and 4. Preserve the scenic character of hillside areas, particularly wooded hillsides. What is not complicated is that this is a scenic slope that helps define Happy Hollow Park. It is also historic having been created when clay was mined for the brick yard that was once located here. What is not complicated is that despite the clear language of the zoning ordinance, you are being asked to approve the destruction of 86% of the critical wooded slopes. The zoning ordinance states Council approval is required to disturb anything above 35% of the area containing critical slopes — it does not distinguish between man-made and natural critical slopes. 4. What is not complicated is that the two proposed buildings will be the largest buildings in the entire neighborhood with exception of the former Mercy Hospital. What is not complicated is that Section 14-2B-6: Multi -Family Site Development Standards: 1.3. Additional Standards in Central Planning District of the zoning ordinance says, "Architectural Style: The purpose of requiring an architectural style is to ensure that the mass, roof form, window style and configuration, and the basic architectural details of a building are generally compatible with the historic character of the central planning district. New buildings should appear similar to a large house or a small historic apartment building." What is not complicated is that by no stretch of the imagination does this plan meet this standard contained in the zoning ordinance. 5. What is not complicated is that any new development is required by law to connect with any adjacent existing public transportation. Lack of safe pedestrian access to the bus stop on the east side of Governor St at Brown St is non-ADA compliant and is therefore illegal. What is complicated is that the City is co applicant leading to a huge conflict of interest. For the sake of good government, I urge the City Council to reject this plan and formulate a plan that adheres to the court order, the Comprehensive Plan, the ADA, and the zoning ordinance. Sincerely, Audrey Bahrick 830 N Dodge St Yulissa Caro From: Dina Bishara <iowadina@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 1:45 PM Late Handouts Distributed To: *City Council Subject: Re -zoning at 911 N. Governor (Date) RISK ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** This message is from an external sender. Hello, am hoping the Council members can offer an explanation for near unanimous support of the rezoning of 911 N. Governor- Councilwoman Salih's current "no" position not withstanding. The neighbors have made their feelings clear about this monster development by one of Iowa City's least ethical and most problematic "developers." The only plausible argument one hears is that "more units" = "lower rent." However, there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that this simplistic, capitalist model actually functions in this way in real life. According to The Gazette: The the most recent report by Iowa City's Cook Appraisal, shows Iowa City had an apartment vacancy rate of between 6 percent and 7 percent. The 12.85 percent vacancy rate in what Cook calls the Pentacrest Mile is twice as high as the vacancy rate of all Iowa City zones. (https://www.thegazette.com/hiqher-education/iowa-city-sees-a-student-housing-boom-even- a s-en rol I me nt-cliff-loom s/) So we now have this ridiculous vacancy rate, but what has happened to the cost of rent? Has it plummeted? Additionally, from what I have read, there is not even a plan to install sidewalks on the east side of Governor! So what gives- what is so amazing about Tracy Barkalow's plans that the Council would overrule the will of the neighbors and vote to re -zone? Thank you for your thoughts, Dina Bishara Iowa City Wig. c Kellie Grace =96' d' From: Jon Marner <J.marner@mmsconsultants.net> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 11:38 AM Late Handouts Distributed To: Eric Goers; Geoff Fruin; Danielle Sitzman Cc: Tracy Barkalow; Kellie Grace; Douglas Ruppert Subject: RE: Scarlett Point �— 1 2`J (Date) 1 RISK ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** This message is from an external sender. Yes, this is correct. Thanks for verifying Eric. Jon Marner Partner / Project Manager Ofc: (319) 351-8282 Cell: (319) 936-6295 i.ma rner@ mmsconsu Itants. net mmsconsultants.net Celebrating 50 years in business! 'Phis email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and moy contain confidential and privileged information. Anv unauthorized revie�,v, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. It you are not the intended recipient, pease contact the sender by reply email and destrov all copies of the original message. From: Eric Goers <egoers@iowa-city.org> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2025 11:35 AM To: Jon Marner <J.marner@mmsconsultants.net>; Geoff Fruin <GFruin@iowa-city.org>; Danielle Sitzman <dsitzman@iowa-city.org> Cc: Tracy Barkalow <tracy@barkalowhomes.com>; Kellie Grace <KG race@ iowa-city.org>; Douglas Ruppert <ruppert@lefflaw.com> Subject: RE: Scarlett Point Jon, Just to confirm what I'm sure you already know, with the request to defer the V reading of the rezoning item we will also need to defer the related Final Plat item. If you had a different understanding please contact me right away. Thanks! Eric R. Goers (he/him/his)* City Attorney 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 319-356-5030 egoers@_i_Qw-07:Qity_-otg j t f CITY OF IOWA CITY UNESCO CITY OF LI1 ERATURE *1 include my pronouns in my email signature so people know how they should refer to me and so those who receive my email know I am interested in how I should refer to them. l FARE FREE !owa City Transit is now FARE FREE! I O W A CITY Learn more at IC0011.OROIEABJEFREE Notice: Since e-mail messages sent between you and the City Attorney's Office and its employees are transmitted over the internet, the City Attorney's Office cannot assure that such messages are secure. You should be careful in transmitting information to the City Attorney's Office that you consider confidential. If you are uncomfortable with such risks, you may decide not to use e-mail to communicate with the City Attorney's Office. Without written notification that you do not wish to communicate with the City Attorney's Office via e-mail communication, the City Attorney's Office will assume you assent to such communication. This message is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2515, is intended only for the use of the person to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and subject to the attorney -client privilege. It should not be forwarded to anyone else without consultation with the originating attorney. If you received this message and are not the addressee, you have received this message in error. Please notify the person sending the message and destroy your copy. Thank you. From: Jon Marner <J.marner@mmsconsultants.net> Sent: Monday, June 16, 202S 11:11 AM To: Geoff Fruin <GFruin@iowa-city.org>; Danielle Sitzman <dsitzman@iowa-city.or > Cc: Tracy Barkalow <tracy@barkalow home s.com>; Kellie Grace <KGrace@iowa-city.org>; Eric Goers <egoers@iowa- city.org>; Douglas Ruppert <ruppert@lefflaw.cam> Subject: RE: Scarlett Point A RISK ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** This message is from an external sender. On behalf of the applicant, we are requesting that Council defer the third reading for the zoning at Scarlett Point to the August 5 Council meeting. It is our understanding that the August 5 meeting is the next available meeting that full Council attendance is anticipated. While we have completed the items necessary for the Final plat approval to be placed on the same agenda for approval as the final reading of the zoning. We are in the final stages of review for the details on the Site plan and Building design that the applicant would like to have ready to approve immediately after the Zoning and Final plat are approved. While not required, we believe it is important for Council to see the commitment to this Zoning, Final plat, and overall design of the Site plan and buildings by the developer in taking these additional steps. Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you, Jon Deferred to August 19, 2025 Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; (REZ24-0001) Ordinance No. Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 5.49 acres of property located between N. Dodge and N. Governor Streets from Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS-8) zone, High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zone, Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) zone, and Multi -Family Residence (R3B) zone to High Density Single -Family Residential Zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12) for approximately 0.17 acres and to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential Zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-20) for approximately 5.32 acres. (REZ24-0001) Whereas, TSB Holdings, LLC has requested the rezoning of property located at 900 N. Dodge St, 902 N. Dodge St., 905 N. Governor St, 906 N. Dodge St., 908 N. Dodge St., 909 N. Governor St., and 911 N. Governor St. from Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS-8) zone, High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zone, Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM- 20) zone, and Multi -Family Residence (R3B) zone to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) zone and High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD); and Whereas, due to prior court rulings, portions of the subject property remain zoned an obsolete multi -family zoning designation from the 1970s (R313), while other portions of the subject property are zoned with various modem zoning designations; and Whereas, the City is acting as a co -applicant on this rezoning due to 1) concerns regarding the existing 1970s zoning and the haphazard development that the current zoning configuration would allow, 2) interest in applying a modern zoning designation to any redevelopment, and 3) City Council Strategic Plan goals related to establishing partnerships and collaborations within the community, particularly in the interest of advancing housing goals, which would include increasing the housing supply; and Whereas, the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies that the subject property is appropriate for multi -family development at a density of 16-24 dwelling units per acre along N. Dodge Street and residential development at a density of 2-8 dwelling units per acre along N. Governor Street; and Whereas, the Central District Plan identifies the area as appropriate for a mix of Single -Family and Duplex Residential, Open Space, and Low to Medium Density Multi -Family with a development density of 8-24 dwelling units per acre; and Whereas, there are a number of goals and strategies that align with the proposed rezoning including encouraging compact, efficient development; ensuring a mix of housing types; supporting infll development, and improving access to parks; and Whereas, the Central District Plan specifically references the subject property and states that "Another pocket of multi -family development in the northern part of the district along Dodge Street is zoned R3B, which is an obsolete zoning designation no longer used in the City Code. This area should be rezoned to a valid designation such as RM-20, which acknowledges the density of the existing multi -family development on the property"; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a need to resubdivide the property prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure the subject property conforms to the zoning boundaries and a need to convert an Ordinance No. Page 2 existing duplex to one dwelling unit prior to the approval of the final plat to ensure conformance with density requirements; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need for additional right-of-way and easements along N. Governor Street to accommodate a sidewalk; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need for a temporary construction easement along N. Dodge Street to facilitate the planned reconstruction of the street that the City is pursuing in partnership with the Iowa Department of Transportation; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need to address the existing water service lines for the apartment buildings along N. Dodge Street, which are currently tapped off of the water main in N. Governor Street, which must be abandoned and new service lines established that are tapped off of the water main in N. Dodge Street; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need to enhance the southern view of the subject property, due to its proximity to Happy Hollow Park, by screening the proposed retaining wall to the S3 standard; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions regarding a re -final plat, the conversion of the duplex, dedication of right-of-way and easements, the establishment of water services lines that are tapped off of the water main in N. Dodge Street, and screening of the southern retaining wall the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2025) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and Whereas, the owner, TSB Holdings, LLC has agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate development in this area of the City. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I Approval. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein, property described below is hereby classified High Density Single -Family Zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12): BEGINNING at the Northwest Comer of Lot 49 of the Subdivision of the Southeast Quarter Section 3-T79N-R6W, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Book 1 at Page 1 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence N89°37'57"E, along the North Line of said Lot 49, a distance of 96.71 feet; Thence S00"36'51"E, 66.71 feet; Thence S89°23'45"W, 130.27 feet, to a Point on the Easterly Right -of -Way Line of North Dodge Street; Thence N25°57'16"E, along said Easterly Right -of -Way Line, 75.03 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Rezoning Parcel #2 contains 0.17 Acre, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. And, subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein, the property described below is hereby classified Medium Density Multi -Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-20): BEGINNING at the Southeast Comer of Lot 12 of Bacon's Subdivision, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Book 1 at Page 5 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S89°33'04"W, along the South Line of said Bacon's Subdivision, and the South Ordinance No. Page 3 Line of Lots 51, and 50 of the Subdivision of the Southeast Quarter Section 3-T79N-R6W, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Book 1 at Page 1 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office, 758.91 feet, to its intersection with the Easterly Right -of -Way Line of North Dodge Street; Thence N00"55'46"W, along said Easterly Right -of -Way Line, 46.06 feet; Thence N25°57'16"E, along said Easterly Right -of -Way Line, 273.89 feet; Thence N89"23'45"E, 130.27 feet; Thence N00°36'51"W, 66.71 feet, to a Point on the North Line of Lot 49 of said Subdivision of the Southeast Quarter Section 3-T79N-R6W; Thence N89"37'57"E, along said North Line, 246.17 feet, to the Northeast Corner thereof, and a Point on the West Line of Lot 7 of said Bacon's Subdivision; Thence S00°13'35"E, along said West Line, 4.49 feel, to the Southwest Corner thereof, and the Northwest Corner of Lot 8 of said Subdivision of the Southeast Quarter Section 3-T79N-R6W; Thence N89'18'10"E, along the North Line of Said Lot 8, a distance of 172.08 feet, to the Northeast Comer thereof, and a Point on the Westerly Right -of -Way Line of North Govemor Street; Thence S28°36'44"E, along said Westerly Right -of -Way Line, 186.77 feet; Thence S00°45'45"E, along said Westerly Right -of -Way Line, 189.70 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Rezoning Parcel #1 contains 5.32 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. Section II. Zoning Mao. The building official is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of the ordinance as approved by law. Section III. Conditional Zoning Agreement. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s) and the City, following passage and approval of this Ordinance. Section IV. Certification and Recording Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and any agreements or other documentation authorized and required by the Conditional Zoning Agreement, and record the same in the Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law. Section V. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section VI. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section VII. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication in accordance with Iowa Code Chapter 380. Passed and approved this _ day of 2025. Mayor Attest: City clerk Approved by n City Attornefs Office (Liz Craig — 03/2712025) Ordinance No. _ Page No. 4 It was moved by , and seconded by , that the ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Alter Bergus Harmsen Moe Salih Teague Weilein First Consideration: M.T6, erns Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Harmsen, Moe, Teague, Weilein NAYS: Salih ABSENT: None Second Consideration: May 20, 2025 Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Harmsen, Moe, Teague, Weilein NAYS: salih ABSENT: None Date published: Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (REZ24-0001) Conditional Zoning Agreement This agreement is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"), and TSB Holdings, LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Owner"). Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 5.49 acres of property located between N. Dodge Street and N. Governor Street, legally described below; and Whereas, the Owner has requested the rezoning of said property legally described below from Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS-8) zone, High Density Single -Family Residential (RS-12) zone, Medium Density Multi -Family Residential (RM-20) zone, and Multi - Family Residence (R3B) zone to High Density Single -Family Residential Zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-12) for approximately 0.17 acres and to Medium Density Multi - Family Residential Zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-20) for approximately 5.32 acres; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a need to resubdivide the property prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure the subject property conforms to the zoning boundaries and a need to convert an existing duplex to one dwelling unit prior to the approval of the final plat to ensure conformance with density requirements; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need for additional right-of-way and easements along N. Governor Street to accommodate a sidewalk; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need for a temporary construction easement along N. Dodge Street to facilitate the planned reconstruction of the street that the City is pursuing in partnership with the Iowa Department of Transportation; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need to address the existing water service lines for the apartment buildings along N. Dodge Street, which are currently tapped off of the water main in N. Governor Street, which must be abandoned and new service lines established that are tapped off of the water main in N. Dodge Street; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need to enhance the southern view of the subject property, due to its proximity to Happy Hollow Park, by screening the proposed retaining wall to the S3 standard; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions regarding a re -final plat, the conversion of the duplex, dedication of right-of-way and easements, the establishment of water services lines that are tapped off of the water main in N. Dodge Street, and screening of the southern retaining wall the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2025) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and Whereas, the Owner agrees to develop this property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Owner is the legal title holder of the property legally described as: BEGINNING at the Northwest Corner of Lot 49 of the Subdivision of the Southeast Quarter Section 3-T79N-R6W, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Book 1 at Page 1 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence N89"37'57"E, along the North Line of said Lot 49, a distance of 96.71 feet; Thence S00°36'51"E, 66.71 feet; Thence S89"23'45"W, 130.27 feet, to a Point on the Easterly Right -of -Way Line of North Dodge Street; Thence N25°57'16"E, along said Easterly Right -of -Way Line, 75.03 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Rezoning Parcel #2 contains 0.17 Acre, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. And BEGINNING at the Southeast Corner of Lot 12 of Bacon's Subdivision, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Book 1 at Page 5 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S89"33'04"W, along the South Line of said Bacon's Subdivision, and the South Line of Lots 51, and 50 of the Subdivision of the Southeast Quarter Section 3-T79N-R6W, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Book 1 at Page 1 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office, 758.91 feet, to its intersection with the Easterly Right -of -Way Line of North Dodge Street; Thence N00"55'46"W, along said Easterly Right -of -Way Line, 46.06 feet; Thence N25"57'16"E, along said Easterly Right -of -Way Line, 273.89 feet; Thence N89"23'45"E, 130.27 feet; Thence N00"36'51"W, 66.71 feet, to a Point on the North Line of Lot 49 of said Subdivision of the Southeast Quarter Section 3-T79N-R6W; Thence N89"37'57"E, along said North Line, 246.17 feet, to the Northeast Corner thereof, and a Point on the West Line of Lot 7 of said Bacon's Subdivision; Thence S00"13'35"E, along said West Line, 4.49 feet, to the Southwest Comer thereof, and the Northwest Corner of Lot 8 of said Subdivision of the Southeast Quarter Section 3-T79N-R6W; Thence N89°1810"E, along the North Line of Said Lot 8, a distance of 172.08 feet, to the Northeast Corner thereof, and a Point on the Westerly Right -of -Way Line of North Governor Street; Thence S28"36'44"E, along said Westerly Right -of -Way Line, 186.77 feet; Thence S00"45'45"E, along said Westerly Right -of -Way Line, 189.70 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Rezoning Parcel #1 contains 5.32 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. 2. Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the Comprehensive Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2025) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change. 3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner agrees that development of the subject property will conform to all requirements of the Zoning Code, as well as the following conditions: a. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owners agree that no building permit shall be issued for Lot 1 as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan until the City Council approves a final plat resubdividing the subject property to conform to the zoning boundaries established by the rezoning ordinance to which this Agreement is attached. b. Prior to the approval of the Final Plat, the Owner shall convert the existing duplex as shown on Lot 2 of the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan to one dwelling unit to ensure compliance with the maximum density standards of the zone. c. As part of Final Plat approval, the Owner shall dedicate public right-of-way and easements along N. Governor Street consistent with what is shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. d. As part of Final Plat approval, the Owner shall grant a temporary construction easement on the western 10' of the subject property abutting N. Dodge Street. e. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 as shown on the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan, the existing water services for 902, 904, and 906 N. Dodge Street that are tapped off of the water main in N. Governor Street shall be abandoned, and new services for 902, 9D4, and 906 N. Dodge Street shall be installed that are tapped off of the water main in N. Dodge Street subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. f. As part of site plan approval, the length of the retaining wall proposed at the south end of the subject property shall be screened to the S3 standard. 4. The conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2025), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change. 5. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land and with this to the land, shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors. representatives, and assigns of the parties, and shall remain in full force and effect until a building permit is issued for the above -described property, upon which occurrence these conditions shall be deemed satisfied and this agreement of no further force and effect. Nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 6. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the Owner's expense. Dated this 11 day of jylf} if 2025. City of Iowa City TSB Bruce Teague, Mayor Attest: Grace, City Clerk Approved by: q 4�� n, C/ City A Wmey's Office City of Iowa City Acknowledgement: State of Iowa ) ) ss: Johnson County ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on 2025 by Bruce Teague and Kellie Grace as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) My commission expires: TSB Holdings, LLC Acknowledgement: State of jui County of This record was acknowledged before me on W rr A , 2025 by —Timms- 1lt:ixM^h..% (name) as M6na (title) of TSB Holdings, LLC. a �} ERIKA ANDER'ON Votary Public in and for the State of Iowa A Commission Number)92095 ror' MV C :miasi=n Expires (Stamp or Seal) My commission expires: — Lo' —i lot ^h City Council Supplemental Meeting Packet CITY OF IOWA CITY August 5, 2025 Information submitted between distribution of the meeting packet on Thursday and 3:00 pm on Tuesday. Late Handout(s) to.b. Rezoning - N. Governor St: See Council Correspondence from Audrey Bahrick August 5, 2025 City of Iowa City Kellie Grace From: Bahrick, Audrey 5 <abahrick@uiowa.edu> Late Handouts Distributed Sent: Monday, August 4, 2025 11A2 PM To: *City Council Subject: Letter to City Councilors for Aug 5 meeting 8 -5 . 25 Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; Factual inaccuracyptlf (Date) ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening any links or attachments. ** Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. This message is from an external sender. Factual Inaccuracy in March 27th Memo re: Retention of Transitional Zoning 4 August2025 Dear City Council Members, I am writing to bring to your attention a critical factual inaccuracy contained in Eric Goer's memo dated March 27th, 2025. The memo states: "The OPD also ensures that the western portion of the subject property along N. Dodge Street retains the transition from existing single-family homes to the south to the existing apartment buildings." This assertion is objectively incorrect. The fact remains that the single family RS-12 property at 900 N Dodge St is upzoned to multi family RM-20 in the current proposal. The proposed rezoning would eliminate the transition that now exists between a single-family residence and multi -family apartment buildings. The memo's statement thereby misleads and provides council members with inaccurate information on a matter of substantial public importance. While it is claimed there is no immediate plan to demolish 900 N Dodge, the rezoning leaves this open as a future possibility. Significantly, 27 adjacent homeowners have signed protest petitions specifically opposing the inclusion of 900 N Dodge St in the OPD. This is no minor issue —opposition from a significant majority of neighbors underscores the gravity of this factual discrepancy and its real impact on the community. Elimination of this transitional zoning would be contrary to overwhelming public opposition and sets a troubling precedent. This inaccuracy has been brought to your attention in both letters and public comments. It is troubling that the information has received no response from Councilors, nor retraction by the City Attorney. Given the significance of this issue, I urge the council to refrain from proceeding with any vote on the proposed rezoning until this factual inaccuracy is formally addressed and corrected. Accurate information is essential for responsible decision -making, and the public trust demands nothing less. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I respectfully request that this issue be resolved before a final vote is taken Sincerely, Audrey Bahrick W lo, 6 Dear Iowa City City Council Members, Thank you to the council members for the job you do as representatives of the people of Iowa City and as leaders of City government. The final vote for the rezoning of 911 North Governor Street will mean a lot to the owners of properties who signed protest petitions against the rezoning. The outcome of the court order of Tracy Barkalow's 2018 ruling does not say the that Iowa City council must vote in favor of rezoning 5.49 acres to RM-20, only that he be allowed to develop the R3B parcels. No owner occupied resident in the neighborhood has advocated for the rezoning. Remember, 27 neighboring households within 200 feet signed the protest petition— nearly everyone eligible. That should be loud and clear and shouldn't require owners to hold meetings with you or show up in person at City Council. Listening to those most affected is not only good governance —it's essential for growth that is sustainable and just. Only by engaging with residents earnestly can the council ensure that progress does not come at the cost of displacement and disconnection. Multi -family housing that is less than RM-20 is appropriate for the area to be rezoned. As a neighboring resident who has followed this issue, I ask that you vote down the rezoning tonight. If you must, please postpone the vote one more time so that any council member willing to listen can talk with residents in a more comfortable setting to understand that Iowa Citians can be pro - development yet have informed opinions against development that doesn't work. Sincerely, FILED Sharon DeGraw AUG 05 206 Northside Neighborhood, Iowa City city Clerk Iowa City, Iowa 8/5/2025 Item Number: 11.e. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT August 5, 2025 Ordinance amending Title 1, entitled "Administration," to establish the Civil Service Commission. (Second Consideration) Prepared By: Susan Dulek, First Ass't. City Attorney Reviewed By: Chris O'Brien, Deputy City Manager Eric Goers, City Attorney Kellie Grace, City Clerk Karen Jennings, Human Resources Administrator Fiscal Impact: none Staff Recommendation: Approval Commission Recommendations: none Attachments: Ordinance Executive Summary: Recently passed SF 311 requires the City establish by ordinance a Civil Service Commission of not less than 5 and not more than 7 persons. State law currently requires Council to appoint 3 members to serve without the necessity of establishing the commission by ordinance, and the City's current Civil Service Commission was never established by ordinance or resolution. Staff recommends a commission of 5 members. Background / Analysis: SF 311, signed by the Governor on May 19, 2025, amends, in part, Section 400.1 of the Iowa Code to require cities with a population of more than 50,000 to establish by ordinance a Civil Service Commission of not less than 5 and not more than 7 persons. SF 311 goes into effect on August 16, 2025. Currently Section 400.1 provides Council is to appoint 3 members to serve on the Civil Service Commission in cities having a population of 8,000 with no requirement the commission be established by ordinance. Under State law, the terms are required to be 4 years and expire the first Monday in April. The 3 current commissioners have the following terms ending: April 2026 April 2028 April 2029 In order to stagger the terms, staff recommends appointing one new member to serve a term ending April 2027 and one new member to serve a term ending April 2029. At the end of the terms of the 2 new members, their successors will serve 4 year terms. Susan Dulek, First Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5030 Ordinance No. 25-4958 Ordinance amending Title 1, entitled "Administration," to establish the Civil Service Commission. Whereas, SF 311, signed by the Governor on May 19, 2025, amends, in part, Section 400.1 of the Iowa Code to require cities with a population of more than 50,000 to establish by ordinance a Civil Service Commission of not less than five (5) and not more than seven (7) persons; and Whereas, SF 311 goes into effect on August 16, 2025; and Whereas, currently Section 400.1 provides Council is to appoint three (3) members to serve on the Civil Service Commission in cities having a population of 8,000 with no requirement the commission be established by ordinance; and Whereas, the City's present Civil Service Commission was not established by ordinance; and Whereas, the three (3) current members of the Civil Service Commission appointed previously by City Council should continue to serve on the newly established Civil Service Commission; and Whereas, the Civil Service Commission should consist of five (5) members. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. Amendments. 1. Title 1, entitled, 'Administration," is amended by adding the following new Chapter 10, entitled "Civil Service Commission": 1. The Civil Service Commission is established. 2. The Civil Service Commission shall consist of five (5) members. 3. The members of the Civil Service Commission serving upon enactment of this ordinance shall continue to serve their existing terms. 4. In order to stagger the four (4) year terms when increasing the commission from three (3) members to five (5) members, one person shall be appointed to serve a term ending April 4, 2027, and one person shall be appointed to serve a term ending April 1, 2029, whose successors shall be appointed for a term of four years. Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III. Severabilitv. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. P ed and approved this 5th day of August 2025. Ma Attest: t City Clerk Approved by City AttomeI ice — 07/03/2025 Ordinance No. 25-4958 Page No. 2 First Consideration: Trty nB. 2m9 Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Moe, Salih, Teague, Weilein NAYS: None ABSENT: Harmsen Second Consideration: It was moved by Weilein and seconded by Salih that the rule requiring ordinances to be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, the second consideration and vote be waived, and the ordinance be voted upon for final passage at this time. AYES: Alter, Harmsen, Moe, Salih, Teague, Weilein, Bergus NAYS: loon ABSENT: None Pass and Adopt: It was moved by Moe and seconded by Alter , that the ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: x Alter x Bergus x Harmsen x Moe x Salih _ x Teague _gWeilein Date published: August 14, 2025 Item Number: 11.f. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT August 5, 2025 Ordinance amending Title 12, Chapter 5, Franchise Fees to repeal the one percent (1 %) franchise fee and enact a two percent (2%) franchise fee on the gross revenue derived from the distribution, delivery, and retail sale of electricity and natural gas by franchisees including MidAmerican Energy Company, or other natural gas providers utilizing the distribution system of MidAmerican, to customers within the current or future corporate limits of the City of Iowa City, and to describe the purpose for the revenue collected. (Pass & Adopt) Prepared By: Kirk Lehmann, Assistant City Manager Reviewed By: Susan Dulek, First City Attorney Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: Increased revenue from electric and gas franchise fees Staff Recommendation: Approval Commission Recommendations: N/A Attachments: Ordinance Executive Summary: Iowa City's gas and electric franchises with MidAmerican Energy Company reserve to the City the right to impose a franchise fee on MidAmerican's gross revenue from the sale of electricity and natural gas. Iowa City currently has a 1 % franchise fee enacted in 2010 for inspecting, supervising and otherwise regulating the MidAmerican Energy Company's gas and electric franchises, public safety including the equipping of fire, police and emergency services, and public infrastructure to support commercial and industrial economic development (Ordinance No. 10-4374, codified at Sections 12-5-1 and 12-5-2 of the City Code). To update the franchise fee rate ordinance, the City must hold a public hearing and publish a Revenue Purpose Statement specifying the purposes for which the revenue collected from the franchise fee will be expended. This item consists of a public hearing to consider increasing the franchise fee from 1 % to 2% and to modify the Revenue Purpose Statement to align with the uses allowable in State Code. The Revenue Purpose Statement was published in the Press Citizen on June 10, 2025. Background / Analysis: Iowa City's current gas and electric franchises with MidAmerican Energy Company reserve to the City the right to impose a franchise fee on MidAmerican's gross revenue from the sale of electricity and natural gas. Code of Iowa Section 384.3A allows for the collection of franchise fees in an amount not to exceed 5% of a franchisee's gross revenues. State Code generally restricts revenues to the following purposes: • Property tax relief. • The repair, remediation, restoration, cleanup, replacement, and improvement of existing public improvements and other publicly owned property, buildings, and facilities. • Projects designed to prevent or mitigate future disasters. • Energy conservation measures for low-income homeowners, low-income energy assistance programs, and weatherization programs. • Public safety, including the equipping of fire, police, emergency services, sanitation, street, and civil defense departments. • The establishment, construction, reconstruction, repair, equipping, remodeling, and extension of public works, public utilities, and public transportation systems. • The construction, reconstruction, or repair of streets, highways, bridges, sidewalks, pedestrian underpasses and overpasses, street lighting fixtures, and public grounds, and the acquisition of real estate needed for such purposes. • Property tax abatements, building permit fee abatements, and abatement of other fees for property damaged by a disaster. • Economic development activities and projects. • Any other lawful purpose. To adopt or update a franchise fee rate ordinance, the City must hold a public hearing and prepare and publish a Revenue Purpose Statement specifying the purposes for which the revenue collected from the franchise fee will be expended. Iowa City enacted a 2% franchise fee to be effective April 1, 2010 (Ordinance No. 09-4374) to allow for inspecting, supervising and otherwise regulating the MidAmerican Energy Company's gas and electric franchises, public safety including the equipping of fire, police and emergency services, and public infrastructure to support commercial and industrial economic development. It was reduced it to 1% effective June 1, 2010 (Ordinance No. 10-4382, codified at Sections 12-5-1 and 12-5-2 of the City Code) while maintaining the same purposes. City Council's Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2023-2028 proposes considering alternative revenue sources including franchise fees to help achieve strategic plan goals. One of Council's mobility strategies is "to enhance mobility by expanding the access and convenience of environmentally friendly and regionally connected public transit." Since August 1, 2023, Council implemented a fare -free transit pilot, supported by American Rescue Plan Act dollars. In FY 2025, Council increased several parking -related fees and citations to help support continuation of fare -free transit. Increasing the 1 % gas and electric franchise fee increase to 2% further supports continuation of this service. In order to use franchise fees for transportation -related expenses, the Revenue Purpose Statement must be updated. Staff recommends expanding the scope of the City's Revenue Purpose Statement to align with the allowable uses in State Code to maximize flexibility in addressing Council's strategic priorities. The current Revenue Purpose Statement is Section 12-5-4 of the City Code, and the expanded Revenue Purpose Statement is stated in the ordinance. The City's franchise agreement with MidAmerican Energy requires 90 days notice of any franchise fee put into effect by the City. With this public hearing on June 17, 2025, an updated franchise fee could become effective November 15, 2025. Prepared by Kirk Lehmann, Assistant City Manager, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA (319)356-5014 Ordinance No. 25-4959 Ordinance amending Title 12, Chapter 5, Franchise Fees to repeal the one percent (1%) franchise fee and enact a two percent (2%) franchise fee on the gross revenue derived from the distribution, delivery, and retail sale of electricity and natural gas by franchisees including MidAmerican Energy Company, or other natural gas providers utilizing the distribution system of MidAmerican, to customers within the current or future corporate limits of the City of Iowa City, and to describe the purpose for the revenue collected. Whereas, Iowa City has current gas and electric franchises with MidAmerican Energy Company that reserve to the City the right to impose a franchise fee on the franchisee's gross revenue from the sale of electricity and natural gas; and Whereas, Iowa Code section 364.2(4)(f)(2) requires the City, prior to adopting a franchise fee rate ordinance, to prepare and publish a Revenue Purpose Statement specifying the purpose or purposes for which the revenue collected from the franchise fee will be expended; and Whereas, by Ordinance No. 09-4374 the City Council adopted a 2% franchise fee to be effective April 1, 2010; and Whereas, by Ordinance No. 10-4382 (codified at Sections 12-5-1 and 12-5-2 of the City Code) the City Council repealed the 2% franchise fee and imposed a 1 % franchise fee to be effective June 1, 2010; and Whereas, the City's current Revenue Purpose Statement for the franchise fees in Section 12-5-4 of the City Code is to utilize funds for inspecting, supervising, and otherwise regulating the MidAmerican Energy Company's gas and electric franchises, for public safety including the equipping of fire, police and emergency services, and for public infrastructure to support commercial and industrial economic development; and Whereas, the City Council's Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2023-2028 updated December 2024 proposes considering alternative revenue sources including franchise fees to help achieve strategic plan goals; and Whereas, the Strategic Plan includes a strategy to enhance mobility by expanding the access and convenience of environmentally friendly and regionally connected public transit; and Whereas, increasing the franchise fee from 1 % to 2% would allow the City to support mobility initiatives including but not limited to its fare -free Transit program; and Ordinance No. 25-4959 Page 2 Whereas, expanding the scope of the City's Revenue Purpose Statement to align with State Code allows the City to continue meeting City Council's strategic priorities while providing enhanced flexibility to do so; and Whereas, the City's franchise agreement with MidAmerican Energy requires 90 days' notice of any franchise fee put into effect by the City; and Whereas, the Revenue Purpose Statement and notice of public hearing on this ordinance was published on June 10, 2025; and Whereas, it is in the best interest of the City of Iowa City to repeal said 1 % franchise fee and adopt, in lieu thereof, a 2% franchise fee effective November 15, 2025. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. Amendments. Title 12, Chapter 5, entitled "Franchise Fees" is hereby amended by repealing Sections 12-5-1 entitled "Electric Franchise Fee", 12-5-2 entitled "Gas Franchise Fee", and 12-5-4 "Revenue Purpose Statement", and substituting the following sections in -lieu -thereof. 12-5-1 Electric Franchise Fee: Pursuant to section 12-1-16 of the City's franchise agreement with MidAmerican Energy Company (hereinafter "company"), there is hereby imposed upon the company a franchise fee in an amount equal to two percent (2%) of the gross revenue of the company, minus uncollectible accounts, derived from the distribution, delivery and retail sale of electricity by the company to customers within the current or future corporate limits of the City, commencing with gross revenue received on or after November 15, 2025. 12-5-2 Gas Franchise Fee: Pursuant to section 12-2-13 of the City's franchise agreement with company, there is hereby imposed upon the company a franchise fee in an amount equal to two percent (2%) of the gross revenue of the company, minus uncollectible accounts, derived from the distribution, delivery and retail sale of natural gas by the company or other natural gas providers utilizing the distribution system of the company, to customers within the current or future corporate limits of the City, commencing with gross revenue received on or after November 15, 2025. 12-5-4 Revenue Purchase Statement: The revenue collected from said franchise fees will be expended for any of the following purposes: A. Inspecting, supervising and otherwise regulating the MidAmerican Energy Company's gas and electric franchises. B. Property tax relief. C. The repair, remediation, restoration, cleanup, replacement, and improvement of existing public improvements and other publicly owned property, buildings, and facilities. D. Projects designed to prevent or mitigate future disasters. E. Energy conservation measures for low-income homeowners, low-income energy assistance programs, and weatherization programs. F. Public safety, including the equipping of fire, police, emergency services, sanitation, street, and civil defense departments. Ordinance No. 25-4959 Page 3 G. The establishment, construction, reconstruction, repair, equipping, remodeling, and extension of public works, public utilities, and public transportation systems. H. The construction, reconstruction, or repair of streets, highways, bridges, sidewalks, pedestrian underpasses and overpasses, street lighting fixtures, and public grounds, and the acquisition of real estate needed for such purposes. I. Property tax abatements, building permit fee abatements, and abatement of other fees for property damaged by a disaster. J. Economic development activities and projects. K. Any other lawful purpose. Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III. Severabilitv. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon publication. Passed and approved this 5th day of August 2025. M Approved by: Attest:�,C City Clerk City Attorney's ice (Sue Dulek — 06/11/2026) Ordinance No. 25-4959 Page No. 4 First Consideration: June 17, 2025 Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Harmsen, Moe, Salih, Teague, Weilein NAYS: None ABSENT: None Second Consideration: July 08, 2025 Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Moe, Salih, Teague, Weilein NAYS: None ABSENT: Pass and Adopt: It was moved by MOe , and seconded by Harmsen that the ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x Alter x Bergus x Harmsen x Moe x Salih x Teague _x Weilein Date published: August 14, 2025