Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-08-19 OrdinanceItem Number: 9.b. I, CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT August 19, 2025 Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 22.5 acres of property located east of N. Scott Blvd along N. Dubuque Road from Rural Residential (RR-1) zone, Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) zone, RS-5 with a Planned Development Overlay, Research Development Park (RDP) zone, and Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Mixed Use (MU) zone. (REZ24-0013) Attachments: REZ24-0013 Staff Report-w-attachments PZ 7.16.25 minutes-CPA-REZs REZ24-0013 Ordinance REZ24-0013 CZA STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Item: REZ24-0013 GENERAL INFORMATION: Owner/Applicant: Contact Person: Requested Action: Purpose: Location: Location Map: Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner Date: July 16, 2025 JNB Iowa City, LLC Jim Bergman Iceberg Development Group, LLC 563-505-5611 jim(a�jnbice.com Steve Long Salida Partners 319-621-3462 steve(o)salidapart ners.com Rezoning to Mixed Use (MU) zone for approximately 22.5 acres. To allow for the redevelopment and development of land surrounding the former ACT campus. East of N. Scott Blvd. along N. Dubuque Rd. V K Size: 22.5 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Vacant Land, Vacant Home and Outbuildings; Rural Residential (RR-1) Zone, Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS- 5) Zone, RS-5 with a Planned Development Overlay, Research Development Park (RDP) Zone, Interim Development Single - Family Residential (ID-RS) Zone Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Household Living, Rural Residential (RR-1) zone South: Household Living, Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) Zone with a Planned Development Overlay East: ICCSD Offices, Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone; Household Living, Low Density Multi -Family (RM-12) zone with a Planned Development Overlay West: City of Iowa City Fire Department, P-1; RM-12 and CC-2 with a Planned Development Overlay Comprehensive Plan: Office Research Development Centers, Pending plan amendment (CPA25-0001) District Plan: Northeast District Plan Public Meeting Notification: Property owners and residents within 500' of the property received notification of the Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting. File Date: June 18, 2025 45 Day Limitation Period: August 3, 2025 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Iceberg Development Group, LLC (JNB Iowa City, LLC) recently purchased the former ACT campus and surrounding properties. The owner is working with Shive-Hattery to prepare three applications to allow for the redevelopment of the former ACT campus area located at 101 ACT Drive, as well as the development of the property at 2150 N. Dubuque and the redevelopment of the property at 2041 N. Dubuque Rd. The goal is to allow a variety of commercial uses off of N. Dodge Street and a mix of residential and commercial uses along N. Dubuque Rd. Attachment 3 includes the applicant submittal which illustrates the proposed changes to the zoning map and includes the applicant statement describing the rationale behind the request. The first application to be considered is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA25-0001). The Comprehensive Plan future land use map suggests this area is appropriate for Office Research Development Centers. This area is not included on the Northeast District Plan's future land use 3 map. The proposed amendment would change the future land use designation for the subject property in the Comprehensive Plan to General Commercial along N. Dodge Street, Mixed Use along N. Dubuque Rd, and some Public/Private Open Space for the area constrained by sensitive features. The other concurrently submitted applications include two zoning map amendments (REZ24-0013 and REZ25-0008). This rezoning (REZ24-0013) is a request to rezone approximately 22.5 acres of land along N. Dubuque Rd to the Mixed -Use (MU) Zone. REZ25-0008 is a request to rezone approximately 33.64 acres of land along N. Dodge Street to the Community Commercial (CC-2) Zone. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment must be approved prior to changes to the zoning map. The applicant has used the Good Neighbor Policy and held a Good Neighbor Meeting on Tuesday, June 10, 2025. Several neighbors attended. Attachment 3 incudes the application materials and Attachment 4 provides the good neighbor meeting summary report provided by the applicant ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: The subject property is currently zoned several different zoning classifications: Rural Residential (RR-1) Zone, Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) Zone, RS-5 with a Planned Development Overlay, Research Development Park (RDP), and Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID-RS) Zone. Below is a general description of these zones: Zone Intent Rural Residential (RR-1) Provide a rural residential character for areas that are not projected to have the utilities necessary for urban development in the foreseeable future or for areas that have sensitive environmental features that preclude development at urban densities. Low Density Single -Family Provide housing opportunities for individual households and Residential (RS-5) provide some flexibility for a variety of household types. This zone also allows for some nonresidential uses that contribute to the livability of residential neighborhoods, such as parks, schools, religious institutions, and daycare facilities. RS-5 with a Planned Planned Development Overlays can be needed due to Development Overlay sensitive features or the provision of a variety of house types. Research Development Park Provide areas for the development of office, research, (RDP) production or assembly firms and other complementary uses. Office and research uses should predominate in the zone. Hotels, motels and similar uses should be located along the periphery of the zone or in locations that do not adversely affect the setting and quality of other development for the uses permitted in the zone. Interim Development Single- Provide for areas of managed growth in which agricultural and Family Residential (ID-RS) other nonurban uses of land may continue until such time as the city is able to provide city services and urban development can occur. Upon provision of city services, the city or the property owner may initiate rezoning to zones consistent with the comprehensive plan, as amended. Proposed Zoning: The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property to the Mixed Use (MU) zone. The purpose of the MU zone is to provide a transition from commercial and employment centers to less intensive residential zones. The MU zone permits a mix of uses, which requires special consideration of building and site design. CI Table 1 shows the uses that are allowed in the MU zone. It includes a range of residential uses from detached single family to duplexes to multi -family dwellings. Multi -family dwellings are allowed at a density of 2,725 sq ft of lot area per unit. Based on the size of the subject property it could accommodate up to 778 dwelling units. MU also allows office uses and a variety of retail uses. Some institutional uses, like education facilities and religious/private group assembly uses are also allowed. The MU zone does not allow drive -through facilities. Table 1. Uses Allowed in the MU Zone Use Categories Subgroups MU Residential Group living uses Assisted group living PR Fraternal group living Independent group living Household living uses Attached single-family dwellings PR Detached single-family dwellings P Detached zero lot line dwellings PR Duplexes PR Group households PR Multi -family dwellings P Commercial Eating establishments S Office uses General office P Medical/dental office P Retail uses Alcohol sales oriented retail PR Hospitality oriented retail PR Personal service oriented PR Sales oriented PR Community service uses Community service - shelter S General community service S Daycare uses PR Educational facilities General PR Specialized PR Parks and open space uses PR Religious/private group assembly uses PR Communication transmission facility uses PR *P = Permitted; PR = Provisional (subject to additional use specific standards); S = Special Exception (requires review and approval by the Board of Adjustment) 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 future land use map of the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for Office Research Development Centers. Although the subject property is within the boundary of the Northeast District Plan the subject property is not 9 included on the future land use map. Concurrent with this rezoning, the owner has requested an amendment to the land use policy direction to show this area as appropriate for the Mixed Use land use category. The comprehensive plan currently includes goals and strategies that align with the proposed rezoning. Land Use Goals & Strategies: Encourage compact, efficient development that is contiguous and connected 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 Identify areas and properties that are appropriate for infill development. o Ensure that infill development is compatible and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood. Plan for commercial development in defined commercial nodes, including small-scale neighborhood commercial centers. o Discourage linear strip commercial development that discourages walking and biking and does not contribute to the development of compact, urban neighborhoods. o Provide for appropriate transitions between high and low -density development and between commercial areas and residential zones. Housing Goals & 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. o Concentrate new development in areas contiguous to existing neighborhoods where it is most cost effective to extend infrastructure and services. For the reasons above, staff finds the requested rezoning to be consistent with the comprehensive plan amendment and also compatible with the policies of the comprehensive plan. Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood Character: The subject property is surrounded by a diversity of land uses. Specifically, the subject property is bordered by single-family homes to the north. To the east is the former ACT campus and an administration building for the Iowa City Community School District. To the southeast are three multi -family buildings that make up Oaknoll East. To the west and across the N. Scott Blvd right-of-way is single-family and future attached single-family. The N. Dodge Street fire station is located to the west. Staff is recommending two conditions to ensure compatibility with the existing neighborhood character. First, any commercial use that abut residential zones must include a 30' landscaped buffer strip that are landscaped with a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees that are at least 30' upon maturity. The landscaping plan will need to be reviewed and approved by the City Forester. Second, any commercial development will require full cut off light fixtures. Considering the uses that are allowed within the MU zone and the range of uses that currently surround the subject property, staff finds that with the proposed conditions the proposed rezoning will be compatible with the existing neighborhood character. Transportation and Access and Utilities: The subject property is accessed from N. Dubuque Rd. As part of the rezoning, staff requested a traffic study. Attachment 5 includes the traffic study's executive summary. C01 The study determined that the existing lane configuration and stop control at the Dodge Street and ACT Circle Lane (study intersection #5) intersection will not provide an acceptable LOS through the 2047 buildout design year scenario. Therefore, the proposed lane configuration and signalized control presented in the figure below is recommended. The study determined that the existing lane configuration and stop control at the N. Scott Blvd. and N. Dubuque Rd. intersection will not provide an acceptable level of service (LOS) through the 2047 buildout design year scenario. However, the LOS issue is limited to the Scooter's Coffee access and is anticipated to arise regardless if the development is built or not. Additionally, the unacceptable LOS is only anticipated to occur for approximately 30 to 45 minutes during the AM peak hour. The City Engineer has reviewed the traffic study as is satisfied with the results. No improvements beyond those discussed below are recommended. Since this area has never been platted, staff is recommending conditions to ensure that as the area develops an interconnected block and street network is established through the subdivision process. Staff is also recommending a condition that prior to final plat approval, the owner must submit construction drawings demonstrating that N. Dubuque Rd. between N. Scott Blvd. and ACT Dr. meets City standards for a 28-foot wide street with curb and gutter and sidewalks. Drawings shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Installation of improvements shall be required prior to issuance of a building permit. Regarding other utilities, staff needs more information about the existing sanitary sewer in the area. Therefore, staff is recommending a condition that a flow study be prepared for the full length of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer to its point of connection with the North Branch Dam Trunk Sewer. If any of the existing sections of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer do not have the capacity to support the full buildout of the area being rezoned, upgrades will need to be made and accepted by the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ24-0013, a request to rezone approximately 22.5 acres of land along N. Dubuque Rd. east of N. Scott Blvd. to Mixed Use (MU) zone subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the subject area shall go through the subdivision process and obtain approval of a preliminary and final plat. 2. Prior to final plat approval, submission of construction drawings demonstrating that N. Dubuque Rd. between N. Scott Blvd. and ACT Dr. meets City standards for a 28-foot wide street with curb and gutter and sidewalks. Drawings shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Installation of improvements shall be required prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. Prior to final plat approval, a flow study shall be prepared for the full length of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer to its point of connection with the North Branch Dam Trunk Sewer. If any of the existing sections of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer do not have the capacity to support the full buildout of the area being rezoned, upgrades will need to be made and accepted by the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. Prior to site plan approval, any commercial use that abuts residential zones must include landscaped buffer strips that do not allow any development. These strips shall be located on the commercial property, shall be 30' wide, shall be located in areas that abut residential zones, and shall be landscaped according to the plan that is approved by the VA City Forester. The landscaping plan shall meet the S3 standards and include a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees that will be at least 30' tall upon maturity. 5. Commercial development shall require full cut off light fixtures (i.e. no light shall be emitted above 90 degrees). NEXT STEPS: After a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the following will occur: • City Council will need to set a public hearing for both the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning applications. • City Council will consider approval of the comprehensive plan amendment (CPA23-0001) and must hold three readings including the public hearing for the rezonings (REZ24-0013 and REZ25-0008). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Applicant Submittal 4. Good Neighbor Meeting Summary 5. Traffic Study Executive Summary Approved by: Dance a Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ATTACHMENT 1 Location Map ATTACHMENT 2 Zoning Map ATTACHMENT 3 Applicant Submittal SH IVEHATTERY A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G May 21, 2025 City of Iowa City Neighborhood & Development Services Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission RE: Rezoning Applicant Statement To Whom It May Concern, On behalf of the current Ownership JNB Iowa City, LLC a rezoning request is respectfully submitted as shown in the provided Rezoning Exhibit. The 22.5 acres highlighted for the rezoning are part of the approximately 400-acre ACT campus which was once home to over 900 employees in multiple office buildings. Post Covid the campus has changed dramatically due to remote work policies and last month Intermediary Ed sold the 400 acres to JNB Iowa City, LLC and JNB Campus, LLC. Just one building is currently occupied and the rest of campus is beautiful, but vacant. There are a variety of zoning classifications in the existing 400-acre site. They include Rural Residential (RR-1), Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5), Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID-RS), and Research Development Park (RDP). The Interim Development zones are intended for areas of managed growth in which agricultural and other nonurban uses of land may continue until such time as the city is able to provide city services and urban development can occur. The applicant is proposing a Mixed -Use (MU) zoning designation for the identified 22.5 acres. The MU designation blends well with the surrounding uses, such as the Iowa City Community School District Center for Innovation, the Iowa City Fire Station, Oaknoll East Retirement Community, and the existing single family residential and light commercial along Scott Boulevard. MU zoning will allow flexibility to provide a potential blend of residential units and supportive retail to this area of Iowa City. The identified parcels are adjacent to North Scott Boulevard and North Dubuque Rd, and near North 1 st Avenue, Highway 1, and Interstate 80. The MU zoning designation facilitates a transition from potential future commercial development along Dodge Street/Highway 1 to the lower -scale residential envisioned to the east. The Mixed -Use (MU) zoning also allows for walkable/bikeable destinations for residents including from future development along Dodge Street/Highway 1 through to the residential areas created to the east which support the city's sustainability goals. In addition, rezoning this portion of the former ACT property allows for opportunities for infill areas already in the city limits and served by city utilities. Public infrastructure appears adequate or can be reasonably upgraded in the area based on existing uses, development and utility mapping. SHIVE-HATTERY, INC Charles "Nick" Hatz II, PE Principal, Civil Engineer Project 2240009880 800.798.0313 1 shive-hattery.com REZONING EXHIBIT FROM INTERIM DEVELOPMENT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ' (ID-RS) / RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR1) / LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RS5) / RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT PARK (RDP) TO MIXED USE (MU) IOWA CITY, IOWA 1 y. ------------il c01 ZONING ��-- 2111 ACT OR /r ___—____—___ ACT ID RP zoNIN G / POP RNG �`` /--------- 244 185N DUBUQUE RD PL / 0 OQ�� 1ZONIN 20ABNERD I 11 o vIACTDON R / / waDNDuauouERD I ' RR� NDUBUDUERoY ti DB 1 0217So v OPD C2Z KING ���__J— �— — \ 3057N SCOTT BID N DUBUQUE RD ,_----PZONG v 2DDACT DR O O PARCEL 3 1 Y _R EXISTINGZONING OPD/RS5 Pi ZONING 1 12 POP - 2106 P9 fAN SCOTT BLVD 1 \ \EXI STI N G POP I NG PRO Pi ZONING -- 1/ CD 5651CXORY 1001327Do5 --'--- ___ N ------- D 2640266DNSCOTTBID -- 'PUEIGUTB w —'--_ 1 —'—ILu _------_---- SCQl�B�vO ID-RPeaDaoNG I IDD2mTDDl I I I IDD247eDD3 �C9 LEG No MIXEDUSEMu NING LOCATION MAP C7 Z Z coO X Irw EX1 ATTACHMENT 4 Good Neighbor Meeting Summary i r Summary Report for * - , —4 Good Neighbor Meeting CITY OF IOWA CITY Project Name: ACT West Campus Project Location: 2041 N Dubuque Rd Meeting Date and Time: 6/10 4-6 p.m. Meeting Location: Ferguson Center (200 Act Dr, Iowa City, IA 52243) Names of Applicant Representatives attending: Steve Long, Mark Seabold, Mike Welch Travis Wright Names of City Staff Representatives attending: Anne Russett Number of Neighbors Attending: 20 Sign -In Attached? Yes No x General Comments received regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary) - Residents would like to see a restaurant in the Ferguson Center and more services in general. Neighbors supported the idea of ACT Dr connecting into Dodge St. Neighbors liked the idea of commercial along Dodge St with a pedestrian connection to Oaknoll. The idea of more housing and a mix of uses nearby was well received. Concerns expressed regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary) - Concerns about traffic on N. Scott Blvd. Indicate the left turn out of Oakknoll onto N. Scott is difficult. Want to know if there would be a second connection to the Oakknoll east property so they could avoid N. Scott. Wanted a pedestrian connection from Oakknoll East to the ACT campus. They currently cut through the ICCSD property but, worry that could be taken away in the future. Neighbors prefer to see housing only along Scott Blvd, but fine with senior facility that includes a cafe/coffee shop that is open to the public. Concern about about removal of trees/open space that neighbors often use for walking. Will there be any changes made to the proposal based on this input? If so, describe: No changes intended based on comments from Neighbors. Staff Representative Comments ATTACHMENT 5 Traffic Study Executive Summary Traffic Impact Study: Iceberg Development Group Iowa City, Iowa July 1, 2025 SiIIIIi��� I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS ENGINEERING DOCUMENT 1/11I!/ WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT PERSONAL 0�f-ssl0/�// SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED Q . - • ' • • , -' # PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF I O WA. - {7 - G ;. ERIC 07/01/2025 - J MUNCHEL �0 = SIGNATURE DATE • 19742 PRINTED OR TYPED NAME: ERIC J. MUNCHEL �. .' LICENSE NUMBER: 19742 MY LICENSE RENEWAL DATE IS: 12/31/2024 PAGES, SHEETS, OR DIVISIONS COVERED BY THIS SEAL: ALL NN Prepared for: Iceberg Development Group Prepared by: SH1VEHATTERY A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G 222 V Avenue SE, Suite 300 Cedar Rapids, IA 52401 (319) 364-0227 Fxecutive Summary The Iceberg Development Group initiated this traffic impact study to identify potential traffic impacts on the adjacent roadway network due to their proposed multipurpose land use development, which will be located on the former ACT Campus in Iowa City, IA. The study area west of the black delineated line in the figure below is the focus of the proposed traffic study. This study builds on the previous study submitted for the rezoning of the 48 acres noted at Area 1.1 through 1.4 in the figure below. Five access points are proposed, with two on Scott Boulevard and two on Dodge Street (Highway 1), and one on 1st Avenue. These access points will be full access points with no turning movement restrictions, except for a right-in/right-out access point on Dodge Street (Highway 1) north of ACT Circle. Existing, opening, and design analysis years are assumed to be 2025, 2027, and 2047, respectively. The following study intersections within the study area were identified for analysis. Please note directional roadway names, for example N Dodge Street have been dropped. Study Intersection #1 — Dodge Street & Scott Boulevard Study Intersection #2 — Scott Boulevard & Dubuque Road/Scooter's Access Point (Scott Boulevard & Dubuque Road hereafter) Study Intersection #3 — Scott Boulevard & 1st Avenue/ACT Place (Scott Boulevard & 1st Avenue hereafter) Study Intersection #4 — Scott Boulevard & Hickory Heights Lane Study Intersection #5 — Dodge Street & ACT Circle Study Intersection #6 — Dodge Street & 1-80 EB Off -Ramp Study Intersection #7 — Dodge Street & 1-80 WB Off -Ramp Study Intersection #8 — Dodge Street & Access Point Study Intersection #9 — 1st Avenue & Access Point The above list assigns each study intersection with a numberthat is used as reference. (e.g., study intersection #1 = Dodge Street and Scott Boulevard). The area immediately surrounding the study intersections incorporates retail, services, office, recreational, residential, and undeveloped land uses. Weekday turning movement volumes were collected at the study intersections in mid and late October 2024. The peak hours of the study intersections were determined based on the highest consecutive four 15-minute turning movement counts between the hours of 6:00 and 9:00 AM and 3:00 and 6:00 PM at study intersection #6. Study intersection #6 governs the AM and PM peak hours because it is the study intersection with the highest volume of entering vehicles. The AM peak hour was determined to occur between 7:30 and 8:30. The PM peak hour was determined to occur between 4:15 and 5:15. The raw and refined volume data are provided in Appendix 1. Projected traffic analysis will typically apply an annual growth rate to study intersections' existing turning movement volumes to account for growth in background traffic over future analysis years. In coordination with the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County the following growth rates were identified for the study intersection approaches. 2240009880 1 July 1, 2025 SHIVEHATTC-RY A R C H I T E C T II R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G Page 4 of 53 Figure ES1 Annual Growth Rates These annual growth rates were applied to existing volumes to project future background traffic volume growth, which can be expected through a sustained constant area growth without the potential development. It should be noted over time growth rates generally do not exhibit straight-line growth, but rather tend to level off as the surrounding area continues to develop. Therefore, the use of a straight-line growth rate for the prediction of future events can be thought of as conservative and should be considered as such when reviewing the output of this analysis. The Iowa Crash Analysis Tool (ICAT) website administered by Iowa DOT was used to collect available crash data at the existing (study intersection #8 is not an existing intersection) study intersections for the ten-year period between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2024. Over this period a total of 224 crashes were reported at the existing study intersections. The Iowa DOT Potential for Crash Reduction (PCR) analysis was also reviewed at the existing study intersections. Study intersection #1 (Dodge Street and Scott Boulevard had a medium PCR level. Study intersection #5 did not have a PCR classification. All other study intersections (study intersection #2, #3, #4, #6, and #7) had a negligible PCR classification. Safety improvements are not recommended at the study intersections based on the crash analysis presented above. The development will increase traffic volumes at the study intersections. However, the potential for increased crash frequencies is not anticipated. 2240009880 1 July 1, 2025 SHIVEHATTC-RY A RL}EITEC I U R E + E N G I N E ER I NG Page 5 of 53 Iowa City Transit provides public transportation in the study area. Figure 10 identifies the North Dodge route (Route 7), which passes through the study area. The Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County (MPOCJC) Future Forward 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan identifies "Wide Sidewalk/Pathways" within the study area that extend along Dodge Street, Scott Boulevard, and 1 st Avenue. Sidewalks extend along the study roadways, except Interstate 80. The analysis presented herein indicates the study intersection's LOS indices will operate at acceptable levels during the AM and PM peak hour conditions through the 2047 buildout design year scenario, except for study intersections #2 and #5. Additionally, it should also be noted there is an existing queueing issue on the northbound approach at study intersection #1. Based on the analysis presented herein, the northbound approach queue is an existing issue and is anticipated to get worse under all future scenarios at study intersection #1. However, the proposed lane configuration with an additional northbound right -turn bay (presented with Table 20) is anticipated to mitigate the queueing issue and should be considered. Based on the analysis presented herein, the existing lane configuration and stop control at the Scott Boulevard and Dubuque Road (study intersection #2) intersection will not provide an acceptable LOS through the 2047 buildout design year scenario. However, the LOS issue is anticipated to arise regardless if the development is built or not. Additionally, the unacceptable LOS is only anticipated to occur for approximately 30 to 45 minutes during the AM peak hour. Based on the analysis presented herein, the existing lane configuration and stop control at the Dodge Street and ACT Circle Lane (study intersection #5) intersection will not provide an acceptable LOS through the 2047 buildout design year scenario. Therefore, the proposed lane configuration and signalized control presented in the figure below is recommended. The figure below presents the recommended lane configuration and control at the study intersections, which is anticipated to provide an acceptable LOS through the 2047 buildout design year scenario. The changes/improvements to the study intersections are delineated with red ovals in the figure below. The 95th percentile queues at the study intersections were also analyzed. Based on these queue lengths no issues, such as a queue extending upstream to an adjacent intersection are anticipated, with the exception of the northbound approach at study intersection #1. Operational analysis worksheets are contained in Appendix 4. At Intersection #8, it should be reiterated from the assumptions listed in the report that for the purposes of the analysis presented herein, 0 inbound/outbound trips are assumed to use the proposed RIRO access point (study intersection #8). If this access point is not approved it the surrounding intersections would still operate at an acceptable LOS. If this access point is approved, it is anticipated to attract some trips away from study intersection #5 and thereby reduce the vehicle delay reported herein at study intersection #5. 2240009880 1 July 1, 2025 SHIVEHATTC-RY A R C H I T E C T II R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G Page 6 of 53 Figure ES2 Study Intersections — 2027 Recommended Buildout Lane Configuration & Control A `v ' O� Om cce" Point 2240009880 1 July 1, 2025 SHIVEHATTC-RY A R C H I T E C T II R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G MINUTES FINAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION J U LY 16, 2025 — 6:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: James Davies, Steve Miller, Scott Quellhorst, Billie Townsend, Chad Wade MEMBERS ABSENT: Kaleb Beining, Maggie Elliott STAFF PRESENT: Liz Craig, Anne Russett, Rachel Schaefer OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Long, Cady Gerlach, Ed O'Connor RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends approval of CPA25-0001, a change to the future land use designation of the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan for approximately 57 acres of property located south of I-80 and east of North Dodge Street from Office Research Development Centers to General Commercial, Mixed Use, and Public/Private Open Space. By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ24-0013, a request to rezone approximately 22.5 acres of land along North Dubuque Road east of North Scott Boulevard to Mixed Use (MU) zone subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the subject area shall go through the subdivision process and obtain approval of a preliminary and final plat. 2. Prior to final plat approval, submission of construction drawings demonstrating that North Dubuque Road between North Scott Boulevard and ACT Drive meets City standards for a 28-foot wide street with curb and gutter and sidewalks. Drawings shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Installation of improvements shall be required prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. Prior to final plat approval, a flow study shall be prepared for the full length of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer to its point of connection with the North Branch Dam Trunk Sewer. If any of the existing sections of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer do not have the capacity to support the full buildout of the area being rezoned, upgrades will need to be made and accepted by the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. Prior to site plan approval, any commercial use that abuts residential zones must include landscaped buffer strips that do not allow any development. These strips shall be located on the commercial property, shall be 30' wide, shall be located in areas that abut residential zones, and shall be landscaped according to the plan that is approved by the City Forester. The landscaping plan shall meet the S3 standards and include a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees that will be at least 30' tall upon maturity. 5. Commercial development shall require full cut off light fixtures (i.e. no light shall be emitted above 90 degrees). By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ25-0008, a request to rezone approximately 33.64 acres of land along North Dodge Street and south of 1-80 to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the subject area shall go through the subdivision process and obtain approval of a preliminary and final plat. 2. Prior to final plat approval, a flow study shall be prepared for the full length of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer to its point of connection with the North Branch Dam Trunk Sewer. If any of the existing sections of the North Branch of the Northeast Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 2 of 22 Trunk sewer do not have the capacity to support the full buildout of the area being rezoned, upgrades will need to be made and accepted by the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. If sewage from the area being rezoned will be conveyed to the Highlander Lift Station, a flow study shall be prepared for the Highlander Lift Station. 3. Prior to site plan approval, commercial areas along N. Dodge St that abut either North Dodge Street or land that is zoned residential must include landscaped buffer strips that do not allow any development. These strips shall be located on the commercial property, shall be 30' wide, shall be located along North Dodge Street, which is an important gateway to the City, as well as in areas that abut residential zones, and shall be landscaped according to the plan that is approved by the City Forester. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, installation of 10' wide sidewalk on the eastern/southern portion of the North Dodge Street right-of-way between North Scott Boulevard and ACT Circle subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 5. Prior to final plat approval, submission of construction drawings for a southbound left -turn lane and northbound right -turn lane on North Dodge Street at ACT Circle subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the Iowa DOT. Installation of improvements shall be required prior to issuance of building permits. 6. Prior to final plat approval, submission of construction drawings for the 4th leg of the ACT Circle / North Dodge Street intersection subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the Iowa DOT. Installation of improvements shall be required prior to issuance of building permits. 7. Any request for an additional driveway access to the subject property north of the North Dodge Street/ACT Circle intersection shall be limited to a right-in/right-out access only. This access requires review and approval by the City Engineer and the Iowa DOT. By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ25-0009, an application to rezone approximately 37.9 acres of land at 2510 N. Dodge Street from Research Development Park (RDP) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone. By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends that Title 14 zoning be amended, as illustrated in attachment one with two revisions related to the map and the dedication cap language, to update the requirements related to Neighborhood Open Space dedication, to continue implementing the City's goal of providing adequate open space for the City's residents. CALL TO ORDER: Quellhorst called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEMS: CASE NO. CPA25-0001: Location: South of 1-80 and east of N. Dodge Street Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 3 of 22 A public hearing to consider an amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan future land use map from Office Research Development Center to General Commercial, Mixed Use, and Public/Private Open Space for approximately 57 acres of property. Russett began the staff report showing an aerial map the subject property and also a map that shows the zoning of the property which is a mix of Research Park, Single Family, and Rural Residential. She explained this is the former ACT property that was recently purchased by JNB Iowa City, LLC. and there are several items on the agenda that are all interrelated with this property. This item, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, needs to be considered before the subsequent rezoning applications are considered. The amendment is to the Future Land Use Map to change these 57 acres of property from Office Research Development Center to General Commercial, Mixed Use and a bit of open space. After the Amendment is approved then there are two rezoning requests. One is for land that is off North Dubuque Road, 22.5 acres, and that request is a rezoning to the Mixed Use zone to align with the requested Future Land Use Map Amendment to Mixed Use. The other rezoning is for 33 acres of land to the east of North Dodge Street, which is a request to change the zoning from Office Research Park to Community Commercial. Russett noted the applicant did hold a good neighbor meeting on June 10 on all three of these applications. She shared a map that shows the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Quellhorst asked why this is a Comprehensive Plan change and not just a rezoning. Russett explained because the direction in the Comprehensive Plan is that this area should be for Office Research and Office Parks but since they want to do something different they need to amend the Plan so that the rezonings would then align with the Comprehensive Plan. Without the amendment staff can't make a positive recommendation for the rezonings. Russett explained when they look at Comprehensive Plan Amendments there are two approval criteria. The first is that circumstances have changed, or additional information or factors have come to light such that the amendment is in the public interest. The second criteria is that the proposed amendment will be compatible with other policies or provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. In terms of the first criteria, circumstances have changed, the IC 2030 Plan was adopted in 2013 and at that time identified this area as appropriate for Office Research Park. At that time, the former ACT campus was in use and therefore the Comprehensive Plan aligned with the existing land use of Office Research Park. Since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted interest in offices locating within downtown became more popular and a lot of offices were leaving office research parks and relocating downtown. Additionally, there was the pandemic and that caused multiple vacancies in office buildings. ACT formerly employed around 1200 people on their campus and in their buildings (that was about 350,000 square feet). Currently they have 75 employees on site in those 54,000 acres square feet. Russett stated there has been a lot that has changed since the Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted as well such as the City has a real need for housing and this change in the Comprehensive Plan can help support that increase in supply of housing. The second criteria is that the amendment is compatible with other policies within the Comprehensive Plan. Russett reiterated when the Plan was adopted ACT was fully operational. Also, the Plan recognizes that the amount of Office Research Park identified may be unrealistic, Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 4 of 22 and since the adoption of the Plan the likelihood of more office research parks in this area has further declined. Not only has the ACT campus closed, but Pearson's has also closed. In addition, there are a variety of land use goals and strategies that this amendment would align with such as encouraging compact and efficient development, identifying areas that are appropriate for infill planning for commercial development, and then in terms of housing goals it is encouraging a diversity of housing options throughout the community, identifying and supporting infill development and concentrating new development in areas that's contiguous to existing neighborhoods. Therefore, staff does find that this proposal meets those two criteria. Staff recommends approval of CPA25-0001, a change to the future land use designation of the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan for approximately 57 acres of property located south of 1-80 and east of North Dodge Street from Office Research Development Centers to General Commercial, Mixed Use, and Public/Private Open Space. In terms of next steps, staff will be asking City Council to set a public hearing after a recommendation from the Commission. Townsend noted on the letter from Shive Hattery, it mentioned it would also function as a neighborhood center, what does that mean, are they going to have something for children or parks or what. Russett explained at this point, there's no specific development proposed, they're just requesting for a change in the policy direction of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is likely to share more details on their vision. Townsend noted the section that encourage a reasonable level of housing diversity, what does that actually mean. Russett again noted the applicant can address that. Quellhorst opened the public hearing. Steve Long (Salida Partners) is part of the ownership group and stated they are excited about the opportunity to reinvigorate the once full campus. He was before this Commission a few months ago when they rezoned the central part of the campus to Mixed Use and they've already started working with an architect to convert some of those buildings into 55 plus senior housing. Now they're excited to work on the east and south but the Commission will be seeing a lot of him over the next few years as there's 400 acres and right now they've only worked on about 100. Long noted they are waiting to work with the City and the City staff and the community as the City updates its Comprehensive Plan for the next 10 years. He stated their intention here today is to do what is allowed by the City Code and the market they are working with, which is Mixed Use. They've had some interested parties or entities that want to be compatible to what's in the immediate area and their focus is senior housing experiences and mixed use land uses, which is part of the land that was rezoned a few months ago. Since then, they've applied for a low income housing tax credit (LIHTC senior housing) and were approved. There will be 44 units on the corner of Scott Boulevard and 1 st Avenue and for the proposed mixed use they would like to have something similar. Long stated having the mixed use designation allows them to have a mix of uses and something that would be focused on is the immediate neighborhoods and the residents they anticipate having in the hundreds of residents living on the current campus in the next few years. For the commercial portion he stated they've had a lot of interest, he can't give specifics, but it would be community focused uses and because it's on the intersection of the highway and the interstate, focused on those uses. Long also noted they will follow the City's Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 5 of 22 Plan and plan to put a stop light on that corner of ACT Circle and Dodge Street as well. Davies asked about the small amount of public/private open space and how they envision that being tied to the existing infrastructure and natural setting in the area. Long stated they are envisioning trail connections or connecting to existing infrastructure. He added it's part of the buffer and when they sit down with the site plan and work with City staff they will have a better handle. He acknowledged they're going to be following the Sensitive Areas Ordinance as there's a tremendous amount of woodlands and ponds and wildlife corridors that they want to protect and keep. Long also stated he has already had their facilities crew mow the trails to encourage residents to use the trails. Townsend noted concerns about the traffic going around that circle, 1 st Avenue to Scott Boulevard, there is traffic all the time there right now and there's only two exits/entrances to the ACT campus. Long confirmed there are currently only two exits/entrances to the ACT campus and they're both off of that circle however there will be a new entrance off of North Dodge Street in the next year. Cady Gerlach (Vice President of Programs, Greater Iowa City, Inc, and Executive Director of Better Together 2030) is here tonight to voice support for the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and the redevelopment of the former ACT campus and surrounding 57 acres. This proposal reflects the kind of forward thinking land use the region needs, it repurposes an underutilized employment center, it aligns with changing market realities around office space, post pandemic work patterns and community realities and growth. The blend of general, commercial, mixed use and public/private open space directly supports the community's need for more diverse housing options, accessible services and walkable neighborhoods. At Greater Iowa City, Inc, they advocate for efficient, connected development that strengthens the economic foundation and improves quality of life. This proposal checks those boxes by leveraging existing infrastructure and arterial roadways for future growth, creating space for a mix of commercial and residential development that serves both neighbors and regional commuters, preserves environmentally sensitive areas while enhancing pedestrian and bike access and supports compact sustainable development patterns that help reduce barriers to housing and retail access. As outlined in both the IC 2030 Comprehensive Plan and regional economic goals Gerlach stated this site is well positioned to evolve into a neighborhood scale hub that will blend commerce, housing and natural features while contributing meaningfully to the vitality of Iowa City's north side. They respectfully urge the Commission's recommendation of approval and thank them for their continued leadership in advancing a more connected, inclusive and resilient Iowa City. Gerlach also noted that rather than speaking multiple times this evening, her comments should be registered for CPA25-0001, REZ24-0013 and REZ25-0008. Quellhorst closed the public hearing. Townsend moved to recommend approval of CPA25-0001, a change to the future land use designation of the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan for approximately 57 acres of property located south of 1-80 and east of North Dodge Street from Office Research Development Centers to General Commercial, Mixed Use, and Public/Private Open Space. Miller seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 6 of 22 Townsend stated she was glad to that large area put to use. Wade is also glad to see the reuse and Comprehensive Plan update to match it and will look forward to this being added as well in a new Plan that's in progress next year. Davies stated he is fully in support of a more flexible use and thinks it's really encouraging to see. He will be watching very closely just to see how the natural setting is preserved and how connectivity of the bike trails and pedestrian access is maintained as that's an important feature of that area. Quellhorst agrees they're changing times as the demand for office spaces is down so it's important that they're flexible as a community and make productive use of the property that they have. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. REZONING ITEMS: CASE NO. REZ24-0013: Location: East of N. Scott Blvd on N. Dubuque Rd An application for a rezoning of approximately 22.5 acres of land from Rural Residential (RR- 1) zone, Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) zone, RS-5 with a Planned Development Overlay, Research Development Park (RDP) zone, and Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Mixed Use (MU) zone. Russett explained this is one of two rezonings that are connected to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that just passed. This one is for 22.5 acres on North Dubuque Road, land colloquially known as Gatens Farm. The land just to the west is the Iowa City Community School District property, and the land to the north is vacant and heavily wooded, as is the area to the south. Russett shared the current zoning noting there are four or five different zoning designations currently, Rural Residential, Low Density Single Family, Low Density Single Family with a Planned Development Overlay, Research Development Park and Interim Development Single Family. Due to the five different zoning designations there's no consistency in terms of what could be developed in any type of development pattern for this land and the request is to zone it all Mixed Use, which would allow both residential and non-residential uses that would include things like assisted group living, multifamily, office, retail, restaurants and such. Russett stated the two criteria that staff looks at for rezoning is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with the neighborhood. Russett explained with the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment that was just voted on, this rezoning would directly align with that request to amend the Future Land Use Map. The Comprehensive Plan also has a variety of goals and strategies that align with this request, encouraging compact efficient development, planning for commercial development, discouraging linear strip commercial development, and providing for appropriate transitions. Russett noted the buffer areas come into play in encouraging a diversity of housing options which this zone would do. In terms of compatibility with the neighborhood, similar to the hodgepodge of zoning Russett Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 7 of 22 noted there's a variety of different land uses, there is some single family to the north along North Dodge Street, there's the former ACT campus to the east and the School District office and to the southeast is multifamily with Oaknoll East. Staff is recommending a couple of conditions to ensure compatibility. One is that any commercial development that abuts residential zones incorporate a 30 foot landscaped buffer to provide additional separation between those residential uses and the commercial uses. Additionally required would be full cut off light fixtures for any commercial development. In terms of transportation, access and utilities, the City did request a traffic study to correspond with this proposed rezoning. The traffic study found that the North Scott Boulevard and North Dubuque Road intersection will not provide an acceptable level of service through 2047, really limited to accessing Scooters Coffee Shop, and this congestion is anticipated regardless of the proposed rezoning and that congestion is limited to a small period during the day (am peak hours). Russett stated the City Engineer has reviewed the traffic study and concurs with the findings. In regard to sanitary sewer, the City would like more information on the existing sanitary sewer in the area and its capacity and therefore have several conditions that they're recommending. One is approval of a preliminary and final plat, since this area has never been subdivided and the subdivision process will lay out the street network, lots and blocks. Staff also wants to ensure that North Dubuque Road meets City standards for a 28 foot wide street with curb and gutter and sidewalks. And lastly, a flow study in relationship to the sanitary sewer system will need to be completed. Specifically, for the full length of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer to its point of connection with the North Branch Dam Trunk Sewer. The applicant will work with the Public Works Department to study that area. Staff recommends approval of REZ24-0013, a request to rezone approximately 22.5 acres of land along North Dubuque Road east of North Scott Boulevard to Mixed Use (MU) zone subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the subject area shall go through the subdivision process and obtain approval of a preliminary and final plat. 2. Prior to final plat approval, submission of construction drawings demonstrating that North Dubuque Road between North Scott Boulevard and ACT Drive meets City standards for a 28-foot wide street with curb and gutter and sidewalks. Drawings shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Installation of improvements shall be required prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. Prior to final plat approval, a flow study shall be prepared for the full length of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer to its point of connection with the North Branch Dam Trunk Sewer. If any of the existing sections of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer do not have the capacity to support the full buildout of the area being rezoned, upgrades will need to be made and accepted by the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. Prior to site plan approval, any commercial use that abuts residential zones must include landscaped buffer strips that do not allow any development. These strips shall be located on the commercial property, shall be 30' wide, shall be located in areas that abut residential zones, and shall be landscaped according to the plan that is approved by the City Forester. The landscaping plan shall meet the S3 standards and include a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees that will be at least 30' tall upon maturity. 5. Commercial development shall require full cut off light fixtures (i.e. no light shall be emitted above 90 degrees). Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 8 of 22 In terms of next steps, City Council will set a public hearing and consider the rezonings at future meetings. Quellhorst asked why staff doesn't believe that the existing zoning code is sufficient for separation between property types and why the added 30' buffer is necessary. Russett explained because of the existing single family to the north is Rural Residential which are large lot single family and typically they'd see a transition to higher density housing and then commercial development, but these large single family lots will be next to Mixed Use which could be multifamily, retail, or restaurants so this is adding a little bit of extra space to provide more of a transition. Townsend noted concern about the traffic and if they're going to have additional entrances onto North Scott Boulevard and Dubuque Road. Russett replied there will be no access to this property from North Dodge Street because this particular rezoning does not border North Dodge Street. In the next rezoning that is a consideration they will discuss. Townsend stated the circle there at Scott Boulevard and 1 st Avenue has a lot of traffic there and she just wants to make sure that they aren't making it worse for those that have to travel it every day. Wade asked about the traffic study level of service, at North Scott Boulevard and North Dubuque Road is the requirement to improve North Dubuque Road solving the level of service or is it more about that whole intersection with Scott Boulevard and Scooters and everything at that end. Russett stated the level of service issue is related to Scooters and regardless the improvements to North Dubuque Road will not address that, and that's going to be an issue even without this rezoning, so that becomes a City item. What staff is requesting here is that the street be upgraded so it has curb and gutter and sidewalk and meets the standards for a city street. Wade asked if there will be another pedestrian crossing at Hickory Heights or will it all funnel to Dubuque Road. Russett stated in terms of pedestrian crossings there's the controlled intersection at North Dodge Street and Scott Boulevard but there's no sidewalk on the southern portion, which will be discussed in the next rezoning. There's also a median on North Scott Boulevard that provides a pedestrian refuge for anyone crossing from the west side of North Scott to the east side but there isn't any pedestrian crossing down at Hickory Heights. Miller noted regarding the landscape buffer it makes sense to have it next to the single family, he is curious is it a standard to have it between CC-2 and Mixed Use. Russett stated there probably will not be a buffer there as they are both commercial zones. Wade asked if the core campus was rezoned to Mixed Use. Russett confirmed that was correct it was rezoned from Office Research Park to Mixed Use. Quellhorst opened the public hearing. Seeing no public comments, Quellhorst closed the public hearing. Miller moved to recommend approval of REZ24-0013, a request to rezone approximately 22.5 acres of land along North Dubuque Road east of North Scott Boulevard to Mixed Use (MU) zone subject to the following conditions: Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 9 of 22 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the subject area shall go through the subdivision process and obtain approval of a preliminary and final plat. 2. Prior to final plat approval, submission of construction drawings demonstrating that North Dubuque Road between North Scott Boulevard and ACT Drive meets City standards for a 28-foot wide street with curb and gutter and sidewalks. Drawings shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Installation of improvements shall be required prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. Prior to final plat approval, a flow study shall be prepared for the full length of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer to its point of connection with the North Branch Dam Trunk Sewer. If any of the existing sections of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer do not have the capacity to support the full buildout of the area being rezoned, upgrades will need to be made and accepted by the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. Prior to site plan approval, any commercial use that abuts residential zones must include landscaped buffer strips that do not allow any development. These strips shall be located on the commercial property, shall be 30' wide, shall be located in areas that abut residential zones, and shall be landscaped according to the plan that is approved by the City Forester. The landscaping plan shall meet the S3 standards and include a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees that will be at least 30' tall upon maturity. 5. Commercial development shall require full cut off light fixtures (i.e. no light shall be emitted above 90 degrees). Wade seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. CASE NO. REZ25-0008: Location: East of N. Dodge St. and South of 1-80 An application for a rezoning of approximately 33.64 acres of land from Office Research Park (ORP) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone. Russett stated this is the last of the three related items for the former ACT campus. This is a request to rezone about 34 acres to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone. She shared an aerial map of the proposed rezoning noting it includes some of the existing buildings on the former ACT campus and also includes some land that abuts 1-80 to the north. Russett next reviewed the existing intersection for the site, there's currently three legs but ACT Circle that does not extend into the site which she will discuss shortly. The current zoning designation is Office Research Park which is intended to allow large scale offices and research firms. The Community Commercial zone allows a variety of both residential and non-residential uses, it allows upper floor multifamily as a provisional use and allows restaurants, retail, office and even some more intensive commercial uses such as very low scale manufacturing would be allowed, and vehicle repair. Russett stated again there are the two criteria to be reviewed, first is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and again, with the request of changing the Future Land Use Map to General Commercial this rezoning request would directly align with the Comprehensive Plan's Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 10 of 22 Future Land Use Map and encourages compact and efficient development, diversity of housing options, planning for commercial development and providing for some appropriate transitions. In addition in terms of the economic development goals of the Comprehensive Plan this rezoning could help increase and diversify the property tax base, provide an environment that supports quality employment, encourage a healthy mix of both independent and national businesses, improving the environmental and economic health of the community. In terms of transportation, the City is looking at ways to encourage all modes of transportation, especially off of the arterial streets, and having sidewalks and bike connections is recommended. In terms of compatibility with the existing neighborhood Russett noted the property is just a portion of the former ACT campus, the remainder of the campus is to the east. Staff is recommending a couple of conditions to ensure compatibility, one, recommending that 30' landscape buffer between commercial uses along North Dodge Street and any commercial development on this site. The North Dodge Street strip should be landscaped with a mix of plantings that would be approved by the City Forester. Russett stated this is a gateway to the community which is why staff is recommending the landscaping here to ensure that it looks nice and welcomes people to the community. Second is a residential buffer, especially where a portion of the development abuts the existing single family homes. Russett reiterated a traffic study was done to look at this rezoning and it determined that the existing lane configuration and stop control at North Dodge Street and ACT Circle would not provide an acceptable level of service. The traffic study recommends a few things, first is a traffic signal so that it becomes a signalized intersection, second is the installation of a fourth leg off the traffic circle that would provide access to the subject property. The traffic study also recommends a dedicated northbound right turn lane so if one is heading out of town on North Dodge Street there would be a dedicated right turn lane into the subject property and if they are heading south on North Dodge Street there's a dedicated left bound turn lane to turn into the property. Russett confirmed the City Engineer does concur with the findings of this study. Russett also wanted to note the City will be the one installing the traffic signal and the pedestrian components, that's something was already planned. Other conditions will be the City would like the applicant to explore the existing sanitary sewer in the area, that the land be subdivided to help identify streets, lots, and block network, they're also requesting the installation of a 10' wide sidewalk on the eastern portion of North Dodge Street from North Scott Boulevard and the sidewalk will run from North Scott Boulevard to the proposed intersection at ACT Circle, and that 10' wide sidewalk could accommodate bicycles and pedestrians. Then related to that intersection, the applicant will be responsible for installing the southbound left turn lane and the northbound right turn lane at the future intersection at North Dodge Street and ACT Circle and installing that fourth leg to provide access to their property. Russett noted the applicant has also expressed an interest in having another access to the north of ACT Circle off of Dodge Street and that would need to be approved by both the City Engineer and the Iowa DOT so the condition that staff is recommending is that any request for an additional access up on North Dodge Street be limited to right in, right out only. The final condition is that flow study related to the sanitary sewer system. Staff recommends approval of REZ25-0008, a request to rezone approximately 33.64 acres of land along North Dodge Street and south of 1-80 to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the subject area shall go through the Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 11 of 22 subdivision process and obtain approval of a preliminary and final plat. 2. Prior to final plat approval, a flow study shall be prepared for the full length of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer to its point of connection with the North Branch Dam Trunk Sewer. If any of the existing sections of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer do not have the capacity to support the full buildout of the area being rezoned, upgrades will need to be made and accepted by the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. If sewage from the area being rezoned will be conveyed to the Highlander Lift Station, a flow study shall be prepared for the Highlander Lift Station. 3. Prior to site plan approval, commercial areas along N. Dodge St that abut either North Dodge Street or land that is zoned residential must include landscaped buffer strips that do not allow any development. These strips shall be located on the commercial property, shall be 30' wide, shall be located along North Dodge Street, which is an important gateway to the City, as well as in areas that abut residential zones, and shall be landscaped according to the plan that is approved by the City Forester. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, installation of 10' wide sidewalk on the eastern/southern portion of the North Dodge Street right-of-way between North Scott Boulevard and ACT Circle subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 5. Prior to final plat approval, submission of construction drawings for a southbound left -turn lane and northbound right -turn lane on North Dodge Street at ACT Circle subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the Iowa DOT. Installation of improvements shall be required prior to issuance of building permits. 6. Prior to final plat approval, submission of construction drawings for the 4th leg of the ACT Circle / North Dodge Street intersection subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the Iowa DOT. Installation of improvements shall be required prior to issuance of building permits. 7. Any request for an additional driveway access to the subject property north of the North Dodge Street/ACT Circle intersection shall be limited to a right-in/right-out access only. This access requires review and approval by the City Engineer and the Iowa DOT. Russett stated this rezoning would be on the same timeline as the previous rezoning for next steps. Wade asked about the preliminary plat process and if that goes through Planning and Zoning or is just a City approval. Russett confirmed it does go through the Planning and Zoning Commission who would then make a recommendation to Council. Wade asked then if the final road design would be part of that preliminary plat. Russett stated presumably the preliminary plat will identify the proposed street network and then through the final platting process is when the actual design of the streets are finalized. Miller asked about the 30' buffer along Dodge Street and is the 10' sidewalk within that 30' buffer. Russett explained no, the 30' buffer is on the private property and the 10' sidewalk will be in the City's right of way and any development would start behind the 30' foot buffer. Davies asked with CC-2 zoning is it required to have the parking behind the buildings. Russett replied it does not require that and there could be parking between the street and the building. Miller noted further down on Dodge Street, across from Hy Vee, it was the City's preference on a past project to put the building closer to the road and conceal the parking, is that just a preference and is that dealt with on a case by case basis. Russett explained that's something Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 12 of 22 that the City did discuss with the applicant on this particular project, the Commission could make a recommendation to add a condition related to parking but the applicant can probably speak better to their concerns with that. She also noted the street network for this area is unknown, there could be lots that are fronted on three sides so trying to figure out the parking may end with some being behind the building and others not. If the goal is to ensure that there's no parking along North Dodge Street that's something that could be considered, but there probably will be a need for at least some parking located between the street and the building. Davies asked if there has been any discussion about the ACT road that proceeds to the north and then just dead ends, is the plan still to have that just remain as a dead end. Russett replied that is something to be figured out as part of the subdivision process. Miller stated regarding the building frontage question, is it in the subdivision process that there'd be more detail about the building. Russett explained likely not, because it would just be the lots and streets, and the preliminary plat will have no information on the buildings. Davies asked if it would be possible at that time for staff or the Commission to make a recommendation about that Russett stated they have never added conditions to a preliminary plat they've always been done at the rezoning stage. Miller stated with the buffer they're probably okay as it covers that walkability and entry corridor aesthetics. He assumes the type of businesses that would want to go here probably would encourage pedestrian oriented development, attractive, functional streetscapes to make it comfortable to walk and the sidewalks on both sides. Russett noted because of that language in the Comprehensive Plan staff is adding those conditions about the sidewalk along North Dodge Street so there's a way to accommodate other modes of transportation. This is a CC-2 zone and it does allow things like drive throughs, for example, through special exceptions, which are not necessarily pedestrian friendly so through that process the City tries to incorporate connections for pedestrians to the building. Miller noted the other language that stuck out at him in one of the conditions was the City's priorities to discourage strip retail. What language in CC-2 discourages that because he feels like that might be attractive to have a strip retail in this area. Russett explained the zone would allow the uses that are allowed in the zone, it's the subdivision process that is really important identifying street connections and actual blocks and lots. There could potentially be strip development here, there's nothing that would not allow that. Davies asked if the sidewalk on North Dodge Street is the applicant's responsibility or City's. Russett stated it is the applicants. Wade remembers back when ACT Circle used to go up to ACT and then it was abandoned and turned into grass, was that a DOT recommendation and will they have to review this now. Russett confirmed the DOT will have to be part of the approval for the intersection in addition to the City. Quellhorst opened the public hearing. Steve Long (Salida Partners) stated there's also a significant grade change from Dodge Street to this site, it ranges from 8' to 20' and that's even after a regrade for whatever is going to be built Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 13 of 22 there. He also confirmed there was a road that connected there but ACT removed it in 2002, so they'll be following essentially the same path of that road that was taken out. He also stated the building seen there will be taken down, the original ACT building, the Lindquist Building, it was abandoned during COVID and heating and cooling was shut off so the police department has been using it for practice, and it's filled with mold. Long stated they are happy about the 10' sidewalk for connectivity, actually everything that's suggested they're fine with noting it's going to improve their development with the improvements to the traffic, the extra turn lanes, etc. He reiterated they've had a lot of interest for commercial development for this area, without even advertising. As far as the frontage, they also want to make the development pedestrian friendly from the inside of the development as there's going to be hundreds of units on the east side of the development, so the west side or along Dodge Street/Highway One there are something like 28,000 cars a day on Dodge Street and Interstate 80 is close to 40,000 so they were thinking if they keep the commercial closer to the east and make it more accommodating to the residents to the east, but they'll figure that out through the site planning process. Quellhorst closed the public hearing. Davies moved to recommend approval of REZ25-0008, a request to rezone approximately 33.64 acres of land along North Dodge Street and south of 1-80 to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the subject area shall go through the subdivision process and obtain approval of a preliminary and final plat. 2. Prior to final plat approval, a flow study shall be prepared for the full length of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer to its point of connection with the North Branch Dam Trunk Sewer. If any of the existing sections of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer do not have the capacity to support the full buildout of the area being rezoned, upgrades will need to be made and accepted by the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. If sewage from the area being rezoned will be conveyed to the Highlander Lift Station, a flow study shall be prepared for the Highlander Lift Station. 3. Prior to site plan approval, commercial areas along N. Dodge St that abut either North Dodge Street or land that is zoned residential must include landscaped buffer strips that do not allow any development. These strips shall be located on the commercial property, shall be 30' wide, shall be located along North Dodge Street, which is an important gateway to the City, as well as in areas that abut residential zones, and shall be landscaped according to the plan that is approved by the City Forester. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, installation of 10' wide sidewalk on the eastern/southern portion of the North Dodge Street right-of-way between North Scott Boulevard and ACT Circle subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 5. Prior to final plat approval, submission of construction drawings for a southbound left -turn lane and northbound right -turn lane on North Dodge Street at ACT Circle subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the Iowa DOT. Installation of improvements shall be required prior to issuance of building permits. 6. Prior to final plat approval, submission of construction drawings for the 4th leg of the ACT Circle / North Dodge Street intersection subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the Iowa DOT. Installation of improvements shall be required Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 14 of 22 prior to issuance of building permits. 7. Any request for an additional driveway access to the subject property north of the North Dodge Street/ACT Circle intersection shall be limited to a right-in/right-out access only. This access requires review and approval by the City Engineer and the Iowa DOT. Wade seconded the motion. Davies stated he generally supports this item and will be very curious to see how the streets shake out as it seems tricky, but an important part of it. Wade stated he is glad to see it come together. Townsend agreed noting it's long overdue and that land has been sitting there for quite a while, so it'll be interesting to see what goes up there. Miller stated he is in support of it Quellhorst agrees and notes Commissioner Miller asked some good questions about tasteful development and doing what they can to prevent strip malls or any other kind of distasteful commercial development. A lot still has to be done, and it will come down to doing a good job of planning and plats and he has got confidence in the staff to do that appropriately. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. CASE NO. REZ25-0009: Location: 2510 N. Dodge Street An application for a rezoning of approximately 37.9 acres of land from Research Development Park (RDP) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone. Russett stated this is the former Pearson site at North Dodge Street with Interstate 80 to the south and Moss Ridge Road to the north. It's currently zoned Research Development Park, similar to that ACT property, where it envisions office parks or research firms, to the west is land that was rezoned to CI-1 a few years ago, and there is CH-1 Highway Commercial to the east. Russett stated this land was annexed into the City in the 1970s, it was initially developed for Westinghouse Educational Services and was later transferred to Pearson in 2014 and the City approved a rezoning of the property from Office Research Park to Research Development Park. The former Pearson site was recently purchased by GSD North Dodge LLC after it sat vacant for nearly five years and the new owners are looking to repurpose the existing buildings with a variety of land uses, including office, indoor commercial recreational uses, warehousing, retail, restaurants and many of those uses are not allowed in the current Research Development Park zone. The Research Development Park zone is pretty limited to large office and research firms. The Intensive Commercial zone allows a variety of different land uses but is a more intense zoning designation than the Community Commercial that was just discussed. The Intensive Commercial zone allows things like warehousing and freight movement, which the applicant is interested in continuing, it does not allow residential uses and it also allows indoor commercial recreation uses which the applicant can speak to as they've had some interest for some sporting Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; (REZ24-0013) Ordinance No. Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 22.5 acres of property located east of N. Scott Blvd along N. Dubuque Road from Rural Residential (RR-1) zone, Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) zone, RS-5 with a Planned Development Overlay, Research Development Park (RDP) zone, and Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID- RS) zone to Mixed Use (MU) zone. (REZ24-0013) Whereas, JNB Iowa City, LLC has requested the rezoning of property located east of N. Scott Blvd along N. Dubuque Rd from Rural Residential (RR-1) zone, Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) zone, RS-5 with a Planned Development Overlay, Research Development Park (RDP) zone, and Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Mixed Use (MU) zone; and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the subject area is appropriate for uses consistent with Mixed Use and Public/Private Open Space; and Whereas, the property has never been platted and the rezoning allows for increased development potential and creates a public need to subdivide the property to ensure an interconnected street and block network prior to the issuance of any building permit for the construction of new buildings or additions to existing buildings; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need to verify that the existing street and sanitary sewer infrastructure can accommodate the increased development by ensuring that the N. Dubuque Rd. between N. Scott Blvd and ACT Dr. meets City standards for a 28-foot wide street with curb and gutter and sidewalks as determined by the City Engineer, and a flow study is prepared to ensure that the full length of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer to its point of Connection with the North Branch Dam Trunk Sewer has the capacity to support the full buildout of the area being rezoned; and Whereas, due to the increased development potential the rezoning also creates a public need to provide a transition from existing residential uses by ensuring that any commercial use that abuts residential zones must include a 30' wide landscaped buffer strip landscaped according to the plan approved by the City Forester; and that commercial development shall require full cut off light fixtures, allowing no light to be emitted above 90 degrees; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with reasonable conditions regarding the approval of a preliminary and final plat, ensuring that the streets meet City standards and are upgraded as determined by the City Engineer, and the existing sewer system has capacity to support the rezoned area, and commercial uses that abut residential zones include a landscaped buffer strip, and that commercial uses incorporate fully cuts off light fixtures, 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, JNB Iowa City, 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. Ordinance No. Page 2 Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Auditor's Parcel 2005109, Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, according to the plat thereof recorded in Book 52, page 144, Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa. As well as Commencing at the E'/4 corner of Section 2, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th P.M., Johnson County, Iowa; Thence West on the'/4 Section line 609.0 feet to the Point of Beginning; Thence North 669.5 feet to the South side of the Old Solon Road also known as Dubuque Road as shown by the plat recorded in Plat Book 4, page 160 in the Office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa; Thence Westerly on said south side to the West Line of the SE'/4, NE'/4 of said section, which point is 67.5 feet south of a R.O.W. Rail. Thence South on said West line 710.8 feet to a corner post; Thence East 710.3 feet to the Point of Beginning. Said tract is subject to roads and easements of record and contains 11.2 acres more or less together with that part of the South 1/2 of Old Solon Road, also known as Dubuque Road, lying immediately North of the above -described tract. Excepting therefrom: Commencing at a set 5/8" rebar marking the East 1/4 corner of Section 2, T79N, R6W of the 5th P.M. in the City of Iowa City, Iowa; thence S86055'47"W - 604.75 feet (for the purpose of this description, the East line of the SE 1/4 is assumed to bear N01015'42"W) to a found 5/8" rebar; thence S87042'41"W - 707.42 feet to a found 5/8" rebar; thence N01034'03"E - 667.84 feet to a set 5/8" rebar and the Point of Beginning; thence N01034'03"E - 30.97 feet to a set 5/8" rebar on the existing Southerly R.O.W. line of Dubuque Road; thence Southeasterly along the said existing R.O.W. line 71.19 feet along a 606.00 foot radius curve concave Northeasterly which chord bears S85025'54"E - 71.15 feet to a set 5/8" rebar; thence S88047'49"E - 136.38 feet along said existing R.O.W. line to a set 5/8" rebar; thence Southwesterly 204.34 feet along a 817.00 foot radius curve concave Southeasterly which chord bears S84002'18"W - 203.80 feet to a set 5/8" rebar; thence S76052'24"W - 5.56 feet to the Point of Beginning. And A part of the Southwest corner of real estate described in Warranty Deed in Book 427, Page 343, at the office of the Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a set 5/8" rebar making the East '/4 corner of Section 2, T79N, R6W of the 5th P.M. in Iowa City, Iowa; thence S86055'47"W - 604.75 feet (for the purpose of this description, the East line of the SE 1/4 is assumed to bear N01015'42"W) to a found 5/8" rebar; thence S87042'41"W- 707.42feet to a found 5/8" rebar and the Point of Beginning; thence N01034'03"E- 102.32 feet to a set 5/8" rebar; thence Southeasterly106.33 feet along a 933.00 food radius curve concave Northeasterly which chord bears S18024"30"E - 106.27 feet to a 5/8" rebar; thence S87042'41"W -36.39 feet to the Point of Beginning. Owner is also the legal title holder of the property legally described as: Commencing at the East quarter corner of Section 2, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th P.M.; thence S86055'47"W - 604.75 feet (for the purpose of this description, the East line of the SE quarter is assumed to bear N01015'42"W); thence S87042'41"W - 707.42 feet; thence N01 °34'03"E - 102.32 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence Northwesterly 32.89 feet along a 933.50 foot radius curve concave Northeasterly the chord of which bears N14008'09"W - 32.89 feet: thence N13007'36"W - 514.14 feet; thence N76052'24"E - 144.03 feet; thence S01034'03"W- 565.52 feet to the Point of Beginning. Ordinance No. Page 3 Lot 1, Larson Subdivision, Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, according to the plat thereof recorded in Book 61, Page 201, Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa. As well as Beginning at a point which is 1304.1 feet south 0 degrees 27 minutes east and 494 feet west of the northeast corner of Section 2, in Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th P.M., thence south 55 degrees 32 minutes west to the north side of Old Solon Road as shown by the plat recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 160, in the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, thence easterly along the north side of said Old Solon Road to a point that is 1 degree 49 minutes west of the point of beginning, thence north 1 degree 49 minutes east to the point of beginning. Excepting therefrom those portions described as Auditor's Parcel 2003049 and 2004033 according to the Plats of Survey recorded in Book 47, Page 140 and Book 48, Page 25, Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa. Section I Approval. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein, property described below is hereby classified Mixed Use (MU) zone, as indicated: Section 11. Zoning Map. 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 111. 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 Ordinance No. Page 4 City Attorney's Office Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (REZ24-0013) Conditional Zoning Agreement This agreement is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"), JNB Iowa City, LLC. (hereinafter referred to as "Owner"). Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 22.5 acres of property located east of N. Scott Blvd along N. Dubuque Road legally described below; and Whereas, the Owner has requested the rezoning of said property legally described below from Rural Residential (RR-1) zone, Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) zone, RS-5 with a Planned Development Overlay, Research Development Park (RDP) zone, and Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Mixed Use (MU) zone; and Whereas, the property has never been platted and the rezoning allows for increased development potential and creates a public need to subdivide the property to ensure an interconnected street and block system prior to the issuance of any building permit for the construction of new buildings or additions to existing buildings; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need to ensure that N. Dubuque Rd. between N. Scott Blvd and ACT Dr. meets City standards for a 28-foot wide street with curb and gutter and sidewalks as determined by the City Engineer, and a flow study is prepared to ensure that the full length of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer to its point of Connection with the North Branch Dam Trunk Sewer has the capacity to support the full buildout of the area being rezoned; and Whereas, any commercial use that abuts residential zones must include a 30' wide landscaped buffer strip landscaped according to the plan approved by the City Forester; and that commercial development shall require full cut off light fixtures, allowing no light to be emitted above 90 degrees; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions regarding the approval of a preliminary and final plat, ensuring that the streets meet City standards and are upgraded as determined by the City Engineer, and the existing sewer system has capacity to support the rezoned area, and commercial use that abuts residential zones includes a landscaped buffer strip plan as determined by the City Forester, and the commercial requirement fully cuts off light fixtures, and 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: Auditor's Parcel 2005109, Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, according to the plat thereof recorded in Book 52, page 144, Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa. As well as Commencing at the E'/4 corner of Section 2, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th P.M., Johnson County, Iowa; Thence West on the'/4 Section line 609.0 feet to the Point of Beginning; Thence North 669.5 feet to the South side of the Old Solon Road also known as Dubuque Road as shown by the plat recorded in Plat Book 4, page 160 in the Office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa; Thence Westerly on said south side to the West Line of the SE'/4, NE'/4 of said section, which point is 67.5 feet south of a R.O.W. Rail. Thence South on said West line 710.8 feet to a corner post; Thence East 710.3 feet to the Point of Beginning. Said tract is subject to roads and easements of record and contains 11.2 acres more or less together with that part of the South 1/2 of Old Solon Road, also known as Dubuque Road, lying immediately North of the above -described tract. Excepting therefrom: Commencing at a set 5/8" rebar marking the East 1/4 corner of Section 2, T79N, R6W of the 5th P.M. in the City of Iowa City, Iowa; thence S86055'47"W - 604.75 feet (for the purpose of this description, the East line of the SE 1/4 is assumed to bear N01015'42"W) to a found 5/8" rebar; thence S87042'41"W - 707.42 feet to a found 5/8" rebar; thence N01034'03"E - 667.84 feet to a set 5/8" rebar and the Point of Beginning; thence N01 034'03"E - 30.97 feet to a set 5/8" rebar on the existing Southerly R.O.W. line of Dubuque Road; thence Southeasterly along the said existing R.O.W. line 71.19 feet along a 606.00 foot radius curve concave Northeasterly which chord bears S85025'54"E - 71.15 feet to a set 5/8" rebar; thence S88047'49"E - 136.38 feet along said existing R.O.W. line to a set 5/8" rebar; thence Southwesterly 204.34 feet along a 817.00 foot radius curve concave Southeasterly which chord bears S84002'18"W - 203.80 feet to a set 5/8" rebar; thence S76052'24"W - 5.56 feet to the Point of Beginning. And A part of the Southwest corner of real estate described in Warranty Deed in Book 427, Page 343, at the office of the Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a set 5/8" rebar making the East '/4 corner of Section 2, T79N, R6W of the 5th P.M. in Iowa City, Iowa; thence S86055'47"W - 604.75 feet (for the purpose of this description, the East line of the SE 1/4 is assumed to bear N01015'42"W) to a found 5/8" rebar; thence S87042'41"W- 707.42feet to a found 5/8" rebar and the Point of Beginning; thence N01034'03"E- 102.32 feet to a set 5/8" rebar; thence Southeasterly106.33 feet along a 933.00 food radius curve concave Northeasterly which chord bears S18024"30"E - 106.27 feet to a 5/8" rebar; thence S87042'41"W -36.39 feet to the Point of Beginning. Owner is also the legal title holder of the property legally described as: Commencing at the East quarter corner of Section 2, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th P.M.; thence S86055'47"W - 604.75 feet (for the purpose of this description, the East line of 2 the SE quarter is assumed to bear N01015'42"W); thence S87042'41"W - 707.42 feet; thence N01 °34'03"E - 102.32 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence Northwesterly 32.89 feet along a 933.50 foot radius curve concave Northeasterly the chord of which bears N14008'09"W - 32.89 feet: thence N13007'36"W - 514.14 feet; thence N76052'24"E - 144.03 feet; thence S01034'03"W- 565.52 feet to the Point of Beginning. And Lot 1, Larson Subdivision, Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, according to the plat thereof recorded in Book 61, Page 201, Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa. As well as Beginning at a point which is 1304.1 feet south 0 degrees 27 minutes east and 494 feet west of the northeast corner of Section 2, in Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th P.M., thence south 55 degrees 32 minutes west to the north side of Old Solon Road as shown by the plat recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 160, in the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, thence easterly along the north side of said Old Solon Road to a point that is 1 degree 49 minutes west of the point of beginning, thence north 1 degree 49 minutes east to the point of beginning. Excepting therefrom those portions described as Auditor's Parcel 2003049 and 2004033 according to the Plats of Survey recorded in Book 47, Page 140 and Book 48, Page 25, Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa. 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. Prior to issuance of building permits for the construction of new buildings or additions to existing buildings, the subject property shall go through the subdivision process and obtain approval of a preliminary and final plat. b. Prior to final plat approval, owner shall submit construction drawings demonstrating that N. Dubuque Rd. between N. Scott Blvd. and ACT Dr. meet City standards for a 28-foot-wide street with curb and gutter and sidewalks. Drawings shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Owner shall install improvements prior to issuance of a building permit. c. Prior to final plat approval, owner shall prepare a flow study for the full length of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer to its point of connection with the North Branch Dam Trunk Sewer. If any of the existing sections of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer do not have the capacity to support the full buildout of the area hereby rezoned, upgrades will need to be made and accepted by the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. 3 d. A site plan must show landscaped buffer strips in any commercial use that abuts residential zones prior to approval of that site plan. These strips shall be located on the commercial property, shall be 30' wide, shall be located in areas that abut residential zones, and shall be landscaped according to the plan that is approved by the City Forester. The landscaping plan shall meet the S3 standards and include a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees that will be at least 30' tall upon maturity. e. Commercial uses shall include full cut off light fixtures (i.e. no light shall be emitted above 90 degrees). 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 title 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 unless and until released of record by the City 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 day of , 2025. City of Iowa City Bruce Teague, Mayor Attest: Kellie Grace, City Clerk Approved by: City Attorney's Office JNB Iowa City, LLC 0 irl City of Iowa City Acknowledgement: State of I owa ) ss: Johnson County ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2025 by Bruce Teague and Kellie Fruehling 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: JNB Iowa City, LLC Acknowledgement: State of _ County of This record was acknowledged before me on , 2025 by (name) as (title) of JNB Iowa City, LLC Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) My commission expires: 5 Item Number: 9.c. a CITY OF IOWA CITY "QF T-4 COUNCIL ACTION REPORT August 19, 2025 Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 33.6 acres of property located east of N. Dodge St, and south of 1-80 from Office Research Park (ORP) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone. (REZ25-0008) Attachments: REZ25-0008 Staff Report-w-attachments PZ 7.16.25 minutes-CPA-REZs REZ25-0008 Ordinance REZ25-0008 CZA STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner Item: REZ25-0008 Date: July 16, 2025 GENERAL INFORMATION Owner/Applicant: JNB Iowa City, LLC Jim Bergman Iceberg Development Group, LLC 563-505-5611 jim(a�jnbice.com Contact Person: Steve Long Salida Partners 319-621-3462 steve(a)sal i d apart n ers. com Requested Action: Rezoning to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone for approximately 33.64 acres. Purpose: To allow for the redevelopment and development of land surrounding the former ACT campus. Location: East of N. Dodge St and south of 1-80. Location Map: 1 uAk, i -4 AL r' Size: 33.64 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Vacant Land, Former portion of the ACT Campus; Office Research Park (ORP) Zone Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Hotel, Gym, Restaurant; Highway Commercial (CH-1) zone South: Former ACT Campus, Iowa City Community School District Office, Mixed Use (MU) zone and K Comprehensive Plan: District Plan: Public Meeting Notification: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone East: Vacant; ORP zone West: Household Living, Vacant; Rural Residential (RR-1) zone Office Research Development Centers, Pending plan amendment (CPA25-0001) Northeast District Plan Property owners and residents within 500' of the property received notification of the Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting. June 18, 2025 August 3, 2025 Iceberg Development Group, LLC (JNB Iowa City, LLC) recently purchased the former ACT campus and surrounding properties. The owner is working with Shive-Hattery to prepare three applications to allow for the redevelopment of the former ACT campus area located at 101 ACT Drive, as well as the development of the property at 2150 N. Dubuque and the redevelopment of the property at 2041 N. Dubuque Rd. The goal is to allow a variety of commercial uses off of N. Dodge Street and a mix of residential and commercial uses along N. Dubuque Rd. Attachment 3 includes the applicant submittal which illustrates the proposed changes to the zoning map and includes the applicant statement describing the rationale behind the request. The first application to be considered is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA25-0001). The Comprehensive Plan future land use map suggests this area is appropriate for Office Research Development Centers. This area is not included on the Northeast District Plan's future land use map. The proposed amendment would change the future land use designation for the subject property in the Comprehensive Plan to General Commercial along N. Dodge Street, Mixed Use along N. Dubuque Rd, and some Public/Private Open Space for the area constrained by sensitive features. The other concurrently submitted applications include two zoning map amendments (REZ24-0013 and REZ25-0008). This rezoning (REZ25-0008) is a request to rezone approximately 33.64 acres of land along N. Dodge Street to the Community Commercial (CC-2) Zone. REZ24-0013 is a request to rezoning 22.5 acres of land along N. Dubuque Rd to the Mixed -Use (MU) Zone. The applicant has used the Good Neighbor Policy and held a Good Neighbor Meeting on Tuesday, June 10, 2025. Several neighbors attended. Attachment 3 incudes the application materials and Attachment 4 provides the good neighbor meeting summary report provided by the applicant ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: The subject property is currently zoned Office Research Park (ORP) zone. The purpose of this zone is to provide areas for the development of large office and research firms and other complementary uses. The requirements of this zone protect uses in the zone from adverse impact of uses on adjacent land and protect adjacent more restrictive uses. Hotels, 3 motels and similar uses should be located along the periphery of the zone or in such other locations that do not adversely affect the setting and quality of development for the permitted uses of this zone. Proposed Zoning: The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property to the Community Commercial (CC-2) zone. The purpose of CC-2 zone is to provide for major business districts to serve a significant segment of the total community population. In addition to a variety of retail goods and services, these centers may typically feature a number of large traffic generators requiring access from major thoroughfares. While these centers are usually characterized by indoor operations, uses may have limited outdoor activities; provided, that outdoor operations are screened or buffered to remain compatible with surrounding uses (14-2C-1 F). Table 1 shows the uses that are allowed in the CC-2 zone. It includes a mix of residential and commercial uses, including restaurants, retail, and office, as well as more intensive commercial uses such as vehicle repair uses. The CC-2 zone also allows for some lower intensity industrial zone. For example, light manufacturing is allowed; however, it is restricted to 5,000 sq ft and the manufacturing must be small scale with an on -site retail component. Table 1. Uses Allowed in the CC-2 Zone Use Categories Subgroups CC-2 Residential uses Group living uses Assisted group living PR Household living uses Group households PR Multi -family dwellings PR/S Commercial uses Animal related commercial uses General PR Intensive Building trade uses PR Commercial recreational uses Indoor P Outdoor S Drinking establishments PR Eating establishments P Office uses General office P Medical/dental office P Quick vehicle servicing uses PR/S Redemption Centers PR Retail uses Alcohol sales oriented retail P Delayed deposit service uses PR Hospitality oriented retail P Outdoor storage and display oriented PR Personal service oriented P Repair oriented P Sales oriented P Tobacco sales oriented PR Surface passenger service uses P CI Vehicle repair uses S Industrial uses Manufacturing and production uses General manufacturing PR Technical/light manufacturing PR Self-service storage uses S Institutional and civic uses Basic utility uses PR/S Community service uses Community service - shelter S General community service P Daycare uses PR Educational facilities General S Specialized P Parks and open space uses PR Religious/private group assembly uses P Utility -scale ground -mounted solar energy systems S Other uses Communication transmission facility uses PR/S *P = Permitted; PR = Provisional (subject to additional use specific standards); S = Special Exception (requires review and approval by the Board of Adjustment) 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 future land use map of the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for Office Research Development Centers. Although the subject property is within the boundary of the Northeast District Plan the subject property is not included on the future land use map. Concurrent with this rezoning, the owner has requested an amendment to the land use policy direction of the comprehensive plan to show this area as appropriate for the General Commercial land use category. The comprehensive plan currently includes goals and strategies that align with the proposed rezoning. Land Use Goals & Strategies: • Encourage compact, efficient development that is contiguous and connected 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 Identify areas and properties that are appropriate for infill development. o Ensure that infill development is compatible and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood. • Plan for commercial development in defined commercial nodes, including small-scale neighborhood commercial centers. 9 o Discourage linear strip commercial development that discourages walking and biking and does not contribute to the development of compact, urban neighborhoods. o Provide for appropriate transitions between high and low -density development and between commercial areas and residential zones. Economic Development Goals & Strategies: • Increase and diversity the property tax base by encouraging the retention and expansion of existing businesses and attracting businesses that have growth potential and are compatible with Iowa City's economy. • Provide an environment that supports quality employment and living wages and that enhances workforce skills and educational levels. • Encourage a healthy mix of independent, locally -owned businesses and national businesses. • Improve the environmental and economic health of the community through efficient use of resources. o Encourage new business development in existing core or neighborhood commercial areas. o Support projects that provide opportunities for workers to live close to their place of employment... Transportation Goals and Strategies: • Accommodate all modes of transportation on the street system. o Design arterial streets as "complete streets" where all modes of transportation are considered... o Require sidewalks on both sides of city streets. Encourage walking and bicycling. o Encourage pedestrian -oriented development and attractive and functional streetscapes that make it safe, convenient, and comfortable to walk. o Provide crosswalks and pedestrian signals where appropriate. For the reasons above, staff finds the requested rezoning to be consistent with the comprehensive plan amendment and also compatible with the policies of the comprehensive plan. Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood Character: The subject property is a portion of the former ACT campus that is now largely vacant. To the east is the remainder of the former campus. To the south is the Iowa City Community School District offices. Across the N. Dodge St. right-of- way are a variety of commercial uses, including a gym, restaurant, hotel, and gas station. To the west is an existing single-family home that is separated from the subject property by a small woodland. Staff is recommending one condition to ensure compatibility with the existing neighborhood character. Commercial areas along N. Dodge St that abut either N. Dodge Street or land that is zoned residential must include landscaped buffer strips that do not allow any development. These strips shall be 30' wide and shall be landscaped according to the plan that is approved by the City Forester. Transportation and Access and Utilities: The subject property is currently accessed from N. Dubuque Rd. and ACT PI. There is currently no access to the site from N. Dodge St. As part of the rezoning, staff requested a traffic study. Attachment 5 includes the traffic study's executive summary. The study determined that the existing lane configuration and stop control at the N. Dodge St. and ACT Circle intersection will not provide an acceptable level of service (LOS) through the 2047 C01 buildout design year. Therefore, the traffic study recommends the following for the N. Dodge St. / ACT Circle intersection: 1) a signalized intersection, 2) installation of a fourth leg that would provide access to the subject property, and 3) a dedicated northbound right turn lane and south bound left turn lane. The figure below denotes the recommended new improvements with red circles. Figure 1. Recommended Improvements — ACT Circle/N Dodge St Intersection Staff has several recommended conditions related to the transportation system. Regarding the N. Dodge St and ACT Circle intersection, the City will be installing a traffic signal at this intersection. The City portion of the project will include the full traffic signal and associated pedestrian signal accommodations (currently included in the adopted Capital Improvements Program for 2025). Through the proposed conditions, the applicant will be responsible for constructing the 41" leg (i.e. access to the subject property) of the ACT Circle / N. Dodge St intersection. Also related to this intersection, staff is recommending the applicant install a dedicated southbound left -turn lane and northbound right -turn lane subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the Iowa DOT — as recommended by the traffic study. The applicant is also interested in an additional driveway access north of the N. Dodge St/ACT Circle intersection to the subject property. Any access would require review and approval by the Iowa DOT and the City Engineer. Staff is recommending a condition that if the applicant pursues an Iowa DOT permit for an additional access that it be limited to right-in/right-out only. Since this area has never been platted, staff is recommending conditions to ensure that as the area develops an interconnected block and street network is established through the subdivision process. Staff is also recommending a condition to fill in an existing sidewalk gap along the east/south side of N. Dodge St. between N. Scott Blvd and the ACT Circle. Staff is recommending a 10' wide sidewalk to be installed by the applicant as part of the rezoning. Regarding other utilities, staff needs more information about the existing sanitary sewer in the area. Therefore, staff is also recommending a condition that prior to final plat approval, a flow study shall be prepared for the full length of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer to its point of connection with the North Branch Dam Trunk Sewer. If any of the existing sections of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer do not have the capacity to support the full buildout of the area being rezoned, upgrades will need to be made and accepted by the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. If sewage from the area being rezoned will be conveyed to the Highlander Lift Station, a flow study shall be prepared for the Highlander Lift Station. VA STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ25-0008, a request to rezone approximately 33.64 acres of land along N. Dodge St. and south of 1-80 to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the subject area shall go through the subdivision process and obtain approval of a preliminary and final plat. 2. Prior to final plat approval, a flow study shall be prepared for the full length of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer to its point of connection with the North Branch Dam Trunk Sewer. If any of the existing sections of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer do not have the capacity to support the full buildout of the area being rezoned, upgrades will need to be made and accepted by the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. If sewage from the area being rezoned will be conveyed to the Highlander Lift Station, a flow study shall be prepared for the Highlander Lift Station. 3. Prior to site plan approval, commercial areas along N. Dodge St that abut either N. Dodge Street or land that is zoned residential must include landscaped buffer strips that do not allow any development. These strips shall be located on the commercial property, shall be 30' wide, shall be located along N. Dodge Street, which is an important gateway to the City, as well as in areas that abut residential zones, and shall be landscaped according to the plan that is approved by the City Forester. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, installation of 10' wide sidewalk on the eastern/southern portion of the N. Dodge Street right-of-way between N. Scott Blvd and ACT Circle subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 5. Prior to final plat approval, submission of construction drawings for a southbound left - turn lane and northbound right -turn lane on N. Dodge Street at ACT Circle subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the Iowa DOT. Installation of improvements shall be required prior to issuance of building permits. 6. Prior to final plat approval, submission of construction drawings for the 4t" leg of the ACT Circle / N. Dodge St intersection subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the Iowa DOT. Installation of improvements shall be required prior to issuance of building permits. 7. Any request for an additional driveway access to the subject property north of the N. Dodge St/ACT Circle intersection shall be limited to a right-in/right-out access only. This access requires review and approval by the City Engineer and the Iowa DOT. NEXT STEPS: After a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the following will occur: • City Council will need to set a public hearing for both the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning applications. • City Council will consider approval of the comprehensive plan amendment (CPA23-0001) and must hold three readings including the public hearing for the rezonings (REZ24-0013 and REZ25-0008). E:3 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Applicant Submittal 4. Good Neighbor Meeting Summary 5. Traffic Study Executive Summary Approved by: DanieTfe Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ATTACHMENT 1 Location Map ACT Crr cap � a I N Dubuque- t y An application to rezone approximately 33.64 acres of land Acii]r� located south of I-80 and east of N. Dodge Street from Office Research Park [ORP] zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) + + zone. , a � t CITY OF IOWA CITY N Dodge St Nb to 8n.Eb ` — J ��� �� .Jib■ f ip�t •� z � NN Soott BBI_ _ _ ' ATTACHMENT 2 Zoning Map ATTACHMENT 3 Applicant Submittal June 10, 2025 APPLICANT'S STATEMENT FOR REZONING JNB Iowa City — Dodge Street Commercial Please accept the following Applicant Statement submitted on behalf of JNB Iowa City, LLC. JNB Iowa City, LLC (Applicant) has recently purchased the 400-acre former ACT Campus which was once home to more than 900 employees in multiple office buildings. The use of the campus changed dramatically over the past several years and now only one building is utilized. The remaining buildings are vacant with the former Lindquist Buildings slated for razing this summer. The 400-acre campus contains numerous zoning classifications currently. These include Rural Residential (1111-1), Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5), Office Research Park (ORP), Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID-RS), Research Development Park (RDP), and recently added Mixed Use (MU). The Interim Development zones are intended for areas of managed growth in which agricultural and other nonurban uses of land may continue until such time as the city is able to provide city services and urban development can occur. The Applicant is requesting to rezoning 33.64 acres along N. Dodge Street and Interstate 80 to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone. The affected property is currently zoned Office Research Park (ORP). According to the city code, the Community Commercial zone is intended to "provide for major business districts to serve a significant segment of the total community population. In addition to a variety of retail goods and services, these centers may typically feature a number of large traffic generators requiring access from major thoroughfares." The request for the CC-2 zone reflects the property's location along N. Dodge Street, a major arterial street, and the proximity to Interstate 80. N. Dodge Street experiences more than 20,000 vehicles per day and Interstate 80 experiences more than 40,000 vehicles per day. The properties on the opposite side of Dodge Street are currently zoned CH-1. There are two properties to the south along N. Dodge Street that are currently zoned single-family residential. The topography between these properties and the developable portion of the subject property provides a natural buffer. This property is surrounded by developed properties and city services are currently available. Rezoning to Highway Commercial allows for redevelopment of this portion of the former ACT site to bring commercial services this important corridor in Iowa City. Thank you for your consideration of this rezoning application. Sincerely, Michael J. Welch, PE Shoemaker 4,o" Haaland Project No. 24381.40 Page 1 INTERSTATE BD REZONING EXHIBIT DODGE STREET e -� 11.0T _..- -.. T COMMERCIAL N73°2554 E i COMMERCIAL 18316 ACT CIRCLE - 21520 - -- ___ __ �LDINGS LLC i = - - _ _ IOWA CITY, IA CHINA and z�CHIN ce uc -.; �5 23592' Ngol`'�'�TZ, `/¢•. B Io oN Nc L' y ONN ENERcr DESCRIPTION z FNITE& MDAMERCA LEGALRS JN LC D-RS ABU A11E ! ID -Rs > AUDITOR'S PARCELg96022, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 37-PAGE 4, AND PORTION OFAUDITOR'S ii rT PARCEL 996016 RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 36- PAGE 348 AND AUDITOR'S PARCEL 4G6015 RECORD /ZO ING.� � tC� Te6` BODE 123 RECORDED cGOT 213.93 7xd OPHGE 3,FND A3PORTION OFOAUDITOR'S PARCEL 200504IE RECORDED INRECORDED IN PLAT a N49°22'.74" - .° -..-.. -..- FRACTION ooK49- R' IN PLAT 8 / HOTELS, \\ 22 j / "� -g `. �F. yW " 'OF A NITH IN AND OF PLAT. RECORDED IN PLAT I]-PAGE2]ANDA PORTION JAVA OTELS LLC f SURVEY PLAT, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4-PAGE 160 AREA PORTION OF THE NV2 NG, AL 14 SECTION 1 TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH RANGE 6W OF THE FIFTH P M. AND ALL LOCATED \ e K "yi ,r ee. ;� HE BIG HE V4 SECTION 2,TOO NSHIP 79 NORTH RANGE 6 GEST OF THE FIFTHP.KII, AND THE y sly 114 SW 114 SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 80 NORTH RANGE 6 G EST, OF THE FIFTH P.NI, AND THE BE 114 ZOONG / / � / /� 7 / 402.09 R �` SWI V4 SECTION 36 TOWNSHIP 80 NORTH RANGE 6 WREST OF TH E FIFTH PAI AND TH E N 112 NW A ,> S88°31'12"W � ' THE UNNl RZONING A E \?ON / /�/ / +"� ,Z ° R ZONIING LOCATED AITHINWARRAMPYDEE AS DE CRIBE RANGE 6BOOK 6644-P GE171FIFTHAND RECORD DI / SA J.A NVEST y -� JN LC FRACTIONWEST 'NITHIN WARRANTY DEED AS DESCRIBED IN BOOK 6644-PAGE 171 AND RECORDED IN _ IA -Rs JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. yd v t V cRi T/-,I BEGINNING AT C8IRON ROD GITH AN IDOT CAP LOCATED ON THE SOUTHERN RIGHT OF GAY OF y' �� O b. •0 INTERSTATE I80AND THE S'N CORNER OFAUDITOR'S PARCEL 96022: THENCE NI3°25'MVE-103.16 AREA88 KI FEETALONG SAID RIGHT OFIA�AV. TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF GW114 A t 511114SECTION 36-00-06lVHICHISALSO THE NECORNER OFSAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL, THENCE .5 ACT CIRCLE -��Q/ �y�pti 33.64 Ac G' 9 +} NI3'50'43"E.11.07 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH ERN RIGHT OF WAY, TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF _-� HOLDINGS LLC JNR DWA CT LLC ZONING / / 1,465,216 SF�i�. THE ENTENSION LINE OF THE EAST LINE OF THE Nl1114 N1V 114 SECTION 01-79-06, THENCE 501'4634'E C01 (-584.]0 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE: THENCE 588`3112W'-402.09 FEET' THENCE 543"1000"-851.17 ENCE S01 UTHERN LINE OFTHE $ I/ y�5-0 °50'00"E V BaOWA PI°j-....c. .. A. -y ZD NRP -.. -.._.. _ 01E9`08H THENCE MV1100 150.055F23 FEEOTAILONGO SAID SOUTHERN / - - ON NG '..- �..-..-..-..-..-..-..-.. � � iI I 150.00' .T '.` _ p� ,"_ CAAY ONCW 114 N'N 114, SECTION FEET, AL 0 � - I ,THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF N22°03'06"1tf OLO SOLON RD NHICH IS NOII'ACT DR.: THENCE 505`3420"E-140.7]FEETALONG SAID / EASTERLY ESTERFVVAY,THENNTRAL ANGLE01 OF 21'0 F 2", ALONG A CHODFOOT RADIUS OF178.CURVE I A - AVEE\M1'ESTERLV, WITHA CENTRAL ANGLE OF 214342 HAVING LENGTH OF I]8.60 �85°0445 IN 1 ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY THENCE S00 0000--229.52 FEET; THENCE 508°41'21'VV - 13.6 588°10'00"W "'�'- °•" V 12933 FEET; THENCE S81°04'58"V1222.27 FEET', THENCES8148'39"'N-73.31 FEET: THENCE / / � SOS°34 255.23' 1 ! S89°4036"VJ-121.43 FEET TO THESE CORNER OF BROBERG) SURVEY RECORDED IN 8K 4- PG 160. ._.�/ �. 315.20 / _ I 2 1 w =Yrxc AHICH IS ALSO ON THE NORTHERN RIGHT OF\M1'AV OF OLD SOLON RD', THENCE N00°18'1]'l'V-Sfi0.41 G CIE ERO OE i �' '�, FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY LINEOFSAID PROPERTY SURVEY, THENCE N85'D4451A�-315.20 FEET, ZONING / 140.7T THENCEN22'03'06-'N-103.86 FEET TO THE NG'' CORNER OF SAID PROPERTY SURVEY TO AN IRON ROD G-021°43'42 _ JN OM pPC Lc 'NITH CAP C15747, ALSO LOCATED ON THE SOUTHERN RIGHT OF'NAV OF WORTH DODGE STREET AND N J HIGH NAY I, THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERN HIGHWAY 1 RIGHT OF WAY THE FOLLOWING COURSES. T.R-473.80' �DNRs Nc /k 179.6fl' 23502'S6ETOTH0FEET.RN ER OF AUDITORS FEET NE96016, HICHIS FEET. THENCE THE'S9'27"E- RS-5 �JNB IOWA GUY, LLC �/ RIGHTFEET OF INN'CORNER0 THENEN58'ARCELA397.3 WHICH IS ALSO THE SOUTHERLY p ZONING �� CH=178.60' JN caMpus Lc RIGHT OF IMAV OF INTERSTATE 180', THENCE N58°01'S5'E-39]3]FEET ; RS-5 "�� -� r 509°0U 00"E CB=S05°30tl"V\I R Zp NuNG L d JNR CAMPUS, LLC THENCE N73'52'08-E-215.20 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Z ZONING �--- 41'21"V\I \ '1 - - ID -Rs S33.14 ACRES MORE OR LESS AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AN ! _ _ -. n �i N. DUBUQUE RE 73.31' 33 k NORTH SCOTi BOULEVARD sFRICTIONS ofRECORD. THE DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS o RE Z 1 W I S81°04'S8"W `� - m. 12 .43' S81°48'39"W SW04 �� ARVEST 129. 589°483 " � - r� Z - FouNo oN APPLICANT INFORMATION a ,L. ORI ZGN TG F � PROPERTY OB IOWACCITY, LLC f CJ TC " STEVE LONG �A a O, 7152aDORADO PT MONUMENT FARMS, LLC WEST DES MOTORS, IA 50266 r1, ICCSID ZONING Q STEVE@SALIDAPARTNH2SOOM ID RE / Q` ZDNIRP - - i CIVIL MGINEER OCR, P SONINBv, uc - R IOWA I{ G 1 - �_ - '7`� MICSHOHEL 1. WELDID CH, Z§NING Rpp ---- - __ Y MI0 HAEL].WR PE OPD / Rs-5 �..-__- -T-- N R - I60 HOLIDAY ROAD y wA cI L c us. uc -.. _ C1, 3501 LLE, IA 52241 N CAMPUS TAMARACK RIDGE f J R ZONING JNR CAMPUS. LLC ZONING - '.i 319-351-7150 MU ZONING PS-5 J MU ZONING F --r D Rs ZONING INFORMATION -CKNOLLOpST o ONeME,z��� ly 7 1- r Ji FAR MSMELLC -� \ ;W CURRBJT ZONING ORP- OFFICE RESEARCH PARK 2 ORp O/ S STI �` / / / ZONINGZONING Y _ MONUMENT FARMS. LLC IRS I� I \ Y PROPOSED ZONING CC2- COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL G / b s CLIENT PROJECT SHEET TITLE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET NUMBER o zoo 0 400 Shoemaker dNB IOWA CITY, LLC ACT WEST CAMPUS REZONING EXHIBIT 24381.40 10f a° N 1 RevlsezownlGDesIGNAnoN oslo-zs //1 N. DODGE STREET ISSUED DATE. osm-zoa EX-1 I ET o INITIAL APPLICATION DAz&z5 _' _ H a a la n d DR 9V MJW N N0. REVISION DATE APPROVED BY MJW REV ATTACHMENT 4 Good Neighbor Meeting Summary i r Summary Report for * - , —4 Good Neighbor Meeting CITY OF IOWA CITY Project Name: ACT West Campus Project Location: 2041 N Dubuque Rd Meeting Date and Time: 6/10 4-6 p.m. Meeting Location: Ferguson Center (200 Act Dr, Iowa City, IA 52243) Names of Applicant Representatives attending: Steve Long, Mark Seabold, Mike Welch Travis Wright Names of City Staff Representatives attending: Anne Russett Number of Neighbors Attending: 20 Sign -In Attached? Yes No x General Comments received regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary) - Residents would like to see a restaurant in the Ferguson Center and more services in general. Neighbors supported the idea of ACT Dr connecting into Dodge St. Neighbors liked the idea of commercial along Dodge St with a pedestrian connection to Oaknoll. The idea of more housing and a mix of uses nearby was well received. Concerns expressed regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary) - Concerns about traffic on N. Scott Blvd. Indicate the left turn out of Oakknoll onto N. Scott is difficult. Want to know if there would be a second connection to the Oakknoll east property so they could avoid N. Scott. Wanted a pedestrian connection from Oakknoll East to the ACT campus. They currently cut through the ICCSD property but, worry that could be taken away in the future. Neighbors prefer to see housing only along Scott Blvd, but fine with senior facility that includes a cafe/coffee shop that is open to the public. Concern about about removal of trees/open space that neighbors often use for walking. Will there be any changes made to the proposal based on this input? If so, describe: No changes intended based on comments from Neighbors. Staff Representative Comments ATTACHMENT 5 Traffic Study Executive Summary Traffic Impact Study: Iceberg Development Group Iowa City, Iowa July 1, 2025 SiIIIIi��� I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS ENGINEERING DOCUMENT 1/11I!/ WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT PERSONAL 0�f-ssl0/�// SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED Q . - • ' • • , -' # PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF I O WA. - {7 - G ;. ERIC 07/01/2025 - J MUNCHEL �0 = SIGNATURE DATE • 19742 PRINTED OR TYPED NAME: ERIC J. MUNCHEL �. .' LICENSE NUMBER: 19742 MY LICENSE RENEWAL DATE IS: 12/31/2024 PAGES, SHEETS, OR DIVISIONS COVERED BY THIS SEAL: ALL NN Prepared for: Iceberg Development Group Prepared by: SH1VEHATTERY A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G 222 V Avenue SE, Suite 300 Cedar Rapids, IA 52401 (319) 364-0227 Fxecutive Summary The Iceberg Development Group initiated this traffic impact study to identify potential traffic impacts on the adjacent roadway network due to their proposed multipurpose land use development, which will be located on the former ACT Campus in Iowa City, IA. The study area west of the black delineated line in the figure below is the focus of the proposed traffic study. This study builds on the previous study submitted for the rezoning of the 48 acres noted at Area 1.1 through 1.4 in the figure below. Five access points are proposed, with two on Scott Boulevard and two on Dodge Street (Highway 1), and one on 1st Avenue. These access points will be full access points with no turning movement restrictions, except for a right-in/right-out access point on Dodge Street (Highway 1) north of ACT Circle. Existing, opening, and design analysis years are assumed to be 2025, 2027, and 2047, respectively. The following study intersections within the study area were identified for analysis. Please note directional roadway names, for example N Dodge Street have been dropped. Study Intersection #1 — Dodge Street & Scott Boulevard Study Intersection #2 — Scott Boulevard & Dubuque Road/Scooter's Access Point (Scott Boulevard & Dubuque Road hereafter) Study Intersection #3 — Scott Boulevard & 1st Avenue/ACT Place (Scott Boulevard & 1st Avenue hereafter) Study Intersection #4 — Scott Boulevard & Hickory Heights Lane Study Intersection #5 — Dodge Street & ACT Circle Study Intersection #6 — Dodge Street & 1-80 EB Off -Ramp Study Intersection #7 — Dodge Street & 1-80 WB Off -Ramp Study Intersection #8 — Dodge Street & Access Point Study Intersection #9 — 1st Avenue & Access Point The above list assigns each study intersection with a numberthat is used as reference. (e.g., study intersection #1 = Dodge Street and Scott Boulevard). The area immediately surrounding the study intersections incorporates retail, services, office, recreational, residential, and undeveloped land uses. Weekday turning movement volumes were collected at the study intersections in mid and late October 2024. The peak hours of the study intersections were determined based on the highest consecutive four 15-minute turning movement counts between the hours of 6:00 and 9:00 AM and 3:00 and 6:00 PM at study intersection #6. Study intersection #6 governs the AM and PM peak hours because it is the study intersection with the highest volume of entering vehicles. The AM peak hour was determined to occur between 7:30 and 8:30. The PM peak hour was determined to occur between 4:15 and 5:15. The raw and refined volume data are provided in Appendix 1. Projected traffic analysis will typically apply an annual growth rate to study intersections' existing turning movement volumes to account for growth in background traffic over future analysis years. In coordination with the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County the following growth rates were identified for the study intersection approaches. 2240009880 1 July 1, 2025 SHIVEHATTC-RY A R C H I T E C T II R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G Page 4 of 53 Figure ES1 Annual Growth Rates These annual growth rates were applied to existing volumes to project future background traffic volume growth, which can be expected through a sustained constant area growth without the potential development. It should be noted over time growth rates generally do not exhibit straight-line growth, but rather tend to level off as the surrounding area continues to develop. Therefore, the use of a straight-line growth rate for the prediction of future events can be thought of as conservative and should be considered as such when reviewing the output of this analysis. The Iowa Crash Analysis Tool (ICAT) website administered by Iowa DOT was used to collect available crash data at the existing (study intersection #8 is not an existing intersection) study intersections for the ten-year period between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2024. Over this period a total of 224 crashes were reported at the existing study intersections. The Iowa DOT Potential for Crash Reduction (PCR) analysis was also reviewed at the existing study intersections. Study intersection #1 (Dodge Street and Scott Boulevard had a medium PCR level. Study intersection #5 did not have a PCR classification. All other study intersections (study intersection #2, #3, #4, #6, and #7) had a negligible PCR classification. Safety improvements are not recommended at the study intersections based on the crash analysis presented above. The development will increase traffic volumes at the study intersections. However, the potential for increased crash frequencies is not anticipated. 2240009880 1 July 1, 2025 SHIVEHATTC-RY A RL}EITEC I U R E + E N G I N E ER I NG Page 5 of 53 Iowa City Transit provides public transportation in the study area. Figure 10 identifies the North Dodge route (Route 7), which passes through the study area. The Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County (MPOCJC) Future Forward 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan identifies "Wide Sidewalk/Pathways" within the study area that extend along Dodge Street, Scott Boulevard, and 1 st Avenue. Sidewalks extend along the study roadways, except Interstate 80. The analysis presented herein indicates the study intersection's LOS indices will operate at acceptable levels during the AM and PM peak hour conditions through the 2047 buildout design year scenario, except for study intersections #2 and #5. Additionally, it should also be noted there is an existing queueing issue on the northbound approach at study intersection #1. Based on the analysis presented herein, the northbound approach queue is an existing issue and is anticipated to get worse under all future scenarios at study intersection #1. However, the proposed lane configuration with an additional northbound right -turn bay (presented with Table 20) is anticipated to mitigate the queueing issue and should be considered. Based on the analysis presented herein, the existing lane configuration and stop control at the Scott Boulevard and Dubuque Road (study intersection #2) intersection will not provide an acceptable LOS through the 2047 buildout design year scenario. However, the LOS issue is anticipated to arise regardless if the development is built or not. Additionally, the unacceptable LOS is only anticipated to occur for approximately 30 to 45 minutes during the AM peak hour. Based on the analysis presented herein, the existing lane configuration and stop control at the Dodge Street and ACT Circle Lane (study intersection #5) intersection will not provide an acceptable LOS through the 2047 buildout design year scenario. Therefore, the proposed lane configuration and signalized control presented in the figure below is recommended. The figure below presents the recommended lane configuration and control at the study intersections, which is anticipated to provide an acceptable LOS through the 2047 buildout design year scenario. The changes/improvements to the study intersections are delineated with red ovals in the figure below. The 95th percentile queues at the study intersections were also analyzed. Based on these queue lengths no issues, such as a queue extending upstream to an adjacent intersection are anticipated, with the exception of the northbound approach at study intersection #1. Operational analysis worksheets are contained in Appendix 4. At Intersection #8, it should be reiterated from the assumptions listed in the report that for the purposes of the analysis presented herein, 0 inbound/outbound trips are assumed to use the proposed RIRO access point (study intersection #8). If this access point is not approved it the surrounding intersections would still operate at an acceptable LOS. If this access point is approved, it is anticipated to attract some trips away from study intersection #5 and thereby reduce the vehicle delay reported herein at study intersection #5. 2240009880 1 July 1, 2025 SHIVEHATTC-RY A R C H I T E C T II R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G Page 6 of 53 Figure ES2 Study Intersections — 2027 Recommended Buildout Lane Configuration & Control A `v ' O� Om cce" Point 2240009880 1 July 1, 2025 SHIVEHATTC-RY A R C H I T E C T II R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G MINUTES FINAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION J U LY 16, 2025 — 6:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: James Davies, Steve Miller, Scott Quellhorst, Billie Townsend, Chad Wade MEMBERS ABSENT: Kaleb Beining, Maggie Elliott STAFF PRESENT: Liz Craig, Anne Russett, Rachel Schaefer OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Long, Cady Gerlach, Ed O'Connor RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends approval of CPA25-0001, a change to the future land use designation of the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan for approximately 57 acres of property located south of I-80 and east of North Dodge Street from Office Research Development Centers to General Commercial, Mixed Use, and Public/Private Open Space. By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ24-0013, a request to rezone approximately 22.5 acres of land along North Dubuque Road east of North Scott Boulevard to Mixed Use (MU) zone subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the subject area shall go through the subdivision process and obtain approval of a preliminary and final plat. 2. Prior to final plat approval, submission of construction drawings demonstrating that North Dubuque Road between North Scott Boulevard and ACT Drive meets City standards for a 28-foot wide street with curb and gutter and sidewalks. Drawings shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Installation of improvements shall be required prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. Prior to final plat approval, a flow study shall be prepared for the full length of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer to its point of connection with the North Branch Dam Trunk Sewer. If any of the existing sections of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer do not have the capacity to support the full buildout of the area being rezoned, upgrades will need to be made and accepted by the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. Prior to site plan approval, any commercial use that abuts residential zones must include landscaped buffer strips that do not allow any development. These strips shall be located on the commercial property, shall be 30' wide, shall be located in areas that abut residential zones, and shall be landscaped according to the plan that is approved by the City Forester. The landscaping plan shall meet the S3 standards and include a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees that will be at least 30' tall upon maturity. 5. Commercial development shall require full cut off light fixtures (i.e. no light shall be emitted above 90 degrees). By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ25-0008, a request to rezone approximately 33.64 acres of land along North Dodge Street and south of 1-80 to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the subject area shall go through the subdivision process and obtain approval of a preliminary and final plat. 2. Prior to final plat approval, a flow study shall be prepared for the full length of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer to its point of connection with the North Branch Dam Trunk Sewer. If any of the existing sections of the North Branch of the Northeast Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 2 of 22 Trunk sewer do not have the capacity to support the full buildout of the area being rezoned, upgrades will need to be made and accepted by the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. If sewage from the area being rezoned will be conveyed to the Highlander Lift Station, a flow study shall be prepared for the Highlander Lift Station. 3. Prior to site plan approval, commercial areas along N. Dodge St that abut either North Dodge Street or land that is zoned residential must include landscaped buffer strips that do not allow any development. These strips shall be located on the commercial property, shall be 30' wide, shall be located along North Dodge Street, which is an important gateway to the City, as well as in areas that abut residential zones, and shall be landscaped according to the plan that is approved by the City Forester. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, installation of 10' wide sidewalk on the eastern/southern portion of the North Dodge Street right-of-way between North Scott Boulevard and ACT Circle subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 5. Prior to final plat approval, submission of construction drawings for a southbound left -turn lane and northbound right -turn lane on North Dodge Street at ACT Circle subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the Iowa DOT. Installation of improvements shall be required prior to issuance of building permits. 6. Prior to final plat approval, submission of construction drawings for the 4th leg of the ACT Circle / North Dodge Street intersection subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the Iowa DOT. Installation of improvements shall be required prior to issuance of building permits. 7. Any request for an additional driveway access to the subject property north of the North Dodge Street/ACT Circle intersection shall be limited to a right-in/right-out access only. This access requires review and approval by the City Engineer and the Iowa DOT. By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ25-0009, an application to rezone approximately 37.9 acres of land at 2510 N. Dodge Street from Research Development Park (RDP) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone. By a vote of 5-0 the Commission recommends that Title 14 zoning be amended, as illustrated in attachment one with two revisions related to the map and the dedication cap language, to update the requirements related to Neighborhood Open Space dedication, to continue implementing the City's goal of providing adequate open space for the City's residents. CALL TO ORDER: Quellhorst called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEMS: CASE NO. CPA25-0001: Location: South of 1-80 and east of N. Dodge Street Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 3 of 22 A public hearing to consider an amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan future land use map from Office Research Development Center to General Commercial, Mixed Use, and Public/Private Open Space for approximately 57 acres of property. Russett began the staff report showing an aerial map the subject property and also a map that shows the zoning of the property which is a mix of Research Park, Single Family, and Rural Residential. She explained this is the former ACT property that was recently purchased by JNB Iowa City, LLC. and there are several items on the agenda that are all interrelated with this property. This item, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, needs to be considered before the subsequent rezoning applications are considered. The amendment is to the Future Land Use Map to change these 57 acres of property from Office Research Development Center to General Commercial, Mixed Use and a bit of open space. After the Amendment is approved then there are two rezoning requests. One is for land that is off North Dubuque Road, 22.5 acres, and that request is a rezoning to the Mixed Use zone to align with the requested Future Land Use Map Amendment to Mixed Use. The other rezoning is for 33 acres of land to the east of North Dodge Street, which is a request to change the zoning from Office Research Park to Community Commercial. Russett noted the applicant did hold a good neighbor meeting on June 10 on all three of these applications. She shared a map that shows the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Quellhorst asked why this is a Comprehensive Plan change and not just a rezoning. Russett explained because the direction in the Comprehensive Plan is that this area should be for Office Research and Office Parks but since they want to do something different they need to amend the Plan so that the rezonings would then align with the Comprehensive Plan. Without the amendment staff can't make a positive recommendation for the rezonings. Russett explained when they look at Comprehensive Plan Amendments there are two approval criteria. The first is that circumstances have changed, or additional information or factors have come to light such that the amendment is in the public interest. The second criteria is that the proposed amendment will be compatible with other policies or provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. In terms of the first criteria, circumstances have changed, the IC 2030 Plan was adopted in 2013 and at that time identified this area as appropriate for Office Research Park. At that time, the former ACT campus was in use and therefore the Comprehensive Plan aligned with the existing land use of Office Research Park. Since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted interest in offices locating within downtown became more popular and a lot of offices were leaving office research parks and relocating downtown. Additionally, there was the pandemic and that caused multiple vacancies in office buildings. ACT formerly employed around 1200 people on their campus and in their buildings (that was about 350,000 square feet). Currently they have 75 employees on site in those 54,000 acres square feet. Russett stated there has been a lot that has changed since the Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted as well such as the City has a real need for housing and this change in the Comprehensive Plan can help support that increase in supply of housing. The second criteria is that the amendment is compatible with other policies within the Comprehensive Plan. Russett reiterated when the Plan was adopted ACT was fully operational. Also, the Plan recognizes that the amount of Office Research Park identified may be unrealistic, Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 4 of 22 and since the adoption of the Plan the likelihood of more office research parks in this area has further declined. Not only has the ACT campus closed, but Pearson's has also closed. In addition, there are a variety of land use goals and strategies that this amendment would align with such as encouraging compact and efficient development, identifying areas that are appropriate for infill planning for commercial development, and then in terms of housing goals it is encouraging a diversity of housing options throughout the community, identifying and supporting infill development and concentrating new development in areas that's contiguous to existing neighborhoods. Therefore, staff does find that this proposal meets those two criteria. Staff recommends approval of CPA25-0001, a change to the future land use designation of the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan for approximately 57 acres of property located south of 1-80 and east of North Dodge Street from Office Research Development Centers to General Commercial, Mixed Use, and Public/Private Open Space. In terms of next steps, staff will be asking City Council to set a public hearing after a recommendation from the Commission. Townsend noted on the letter from Shive Hattery, it mentioned it would also function as a neighborhood center, what does that mean, are they going to have something for children or parks or what. Russett explained at this point, there's no specific development proposed, they're just requesting for a change in the policy direction of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is likely to share more details on their vision. Townsend noted the section that encourage a reasonable level of housing diversity, what does that actually mean. Russett again noted the applicant can address that. Quellhorst opened the public hearing. Steve Long (Salida Partners) is part of the ownership group and stated they are excited about the opportunity to reinvigorate the once full campus. He was before this Commission a few months ago when they rezoned the central part of the campus to Mixed Use and they've already started working with an architect to convert some of those buildings into 55 plus senior housing. Now they're excited to work on the east and south but the Commission will be seeing a lot of him over the next few years as there's 400 acres and right now they've only worked on about 100. Long noted they are waiting to work with the City and the City staff and the community as the City updates its Comprehensive Plan for the next 10 years. He stated their intention here today is to do what is allowed by the City Code and the market they are working with, which is Mixed Use. They've had some interested parties or entities that want to be compatible to what's in the immediate area and their focus is senior housing experiences and mixed use land uses, which is part of the land that was rezoned a few months ago. Since then, they've applied for a low income housing tax credit (LIHTC senior housing) and were approved. There will be 44 units on the corner of Scott Boulevard and 1 st Avenue and for the proposed mixed use they would like to have something similar. Long stated having the mixed use designation allows them to have a mix of uses and something that would be focused on is the immediate neighborhoods and the residents they anticipate having in the hundreds of residents living on the current campus in the next few years. For the commercial portion he stated they've had a lot of interest, he can't give specifics, but it would be community focused uses and because it's on the intersection of the highway and the interstate, focused on those uses. Long also noted they will follow the City's Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 5 of 22 Plan and plan to put a stop light on that corner of ACT Circle and Dodge Street as well. Davies asked about the small amount of public/private open space and how they envision that being tied to the existing infrastructure and natural setting in the area. Long stated they are envisioning trail connections or connecting to existing infrastructure. He added it's part of the buffer and when they sit down with the site plan and work with City staff they will have a better handle. He acknowledged they're going to be following the Sensitive Areas Ordinance as there's a tremendous amount of woodlands and ponds and wildlife corridors that they want to protect and keep. Long also stated he has already had their facilities crew mow the trails to encourage residents to use the trails. Townsend noted concerns about the traffic going around that circle, 1 st Avenue to Scott Boulevard, there is traffic all the time there right now and there's only two exits/entrances to the ACT campus. Long confirmed there are currently only two exits/entrances to the ACT campus and they're both off of that circle however there will be a new entrance off of North Dodge Street in the next year. Cady Gerlach (Vice President of Programs, Greater Iowa City, Inc, and Executive Director of Better Together 2030) is here tonight to voice support for the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and the redevelopment of the former ACT campus and surrounding 57 acres. This proposal reflects the kind of forward thinking land use the region needs, it repurposes an underutilized employment center, it aligns with changing market realities around office space, post pandemic work patterns and community realities and growth. The blend of general, commercial, mixed use and public/private open space directly supports the community's need for more diverse housing options, accessible services and walkable neighborhoods. At Greater Iowa City, Inc, they advocate for efficient, connected development that strengthens the economic foundation and improves quality of life. This proposal checks those boxes by leveraging existing infrastructure and arterial roadways for future growth, creating space for a mix of commercial and residential development that serves both neighbors and regional commuters, preserves environmentally sensitive areas while enhancing pedestrian and bike access and supports compact sustainable development patterns that help reduce barriers to housing and retail access. As outlined in both the IC 2030 Comprehensive Plan and regional economic goals Gerlach stated this site is well positioned to evolve into a neighborhood scale hub that will blend commerce, housing and natural features while contributing meaningfully to the vitality of Iowa City's north side. They respectfully urge the Commission's recommendation of approval and thank them for their continued leadership in advancing a more connected, inclusive and resilient Iowa City. Gerlach also noted that rather than speaking multiple times this evening, her comments should be registered for CPA25-0001, REZ24-0013 and REZ25-0008. Quellhorst closed the public hearing. Townsend moved to recommend approval of CPA25-0001, a change to the future land use designation of the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan for approximately 57 acres of property located south of 1-80 and east of North Dodge Street from Office Research Development Centers to General Commercial, Mixed Use, and Public/Private Open Space. Miller seconded the motion. Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 6 of 22 Townsend stated she was glad to that large area put to use. Wade is also glad to see the reuse and Comprehensive Plan update to match it and will look forward to this being added as well in a new Plan that's in progress next year. Davies stated he is fully in support of a more flexible use and thinks it's really encouraging to see. He will be watching very closely just to see how the natural setting is preserved and how connectivity of the bike trails and pedestrian access is maintained as that's an important feature of that area. Quellhorst agrees they're changing times as the demand for office spaces is down so it's important that they're flexible as a community and make productive use of the property that they have. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. REZONING ITEMS: CASE NO. REZ24-0013: Location: East of N. Scott Blvd on N. Dubuque Rd An application for a rezoning of approximately 22.5 acres of land from Rural Residential (RR- 1) zone, Low Density Single -Family Residential (RS-5) zone, RS-5 with a Planned Development Overlay, Research Development Park (RDP) zone, and Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Mixed Use (MU) zone. Russett explained this is one of two rezonings that are connected to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that just passed. This one is for 22.5 acres on North Dubuque Road, land colloquially known as Gatens Farm. The land just to the west is the Iowa City Community School District property, and the land to the north is vacant and heavily wooded, as is the area to the south. Russett shared the current zoning noting there are four or five different zoning designations currently, Rural Residential, Low Density Single Family, Low Density Single Family with a Planned Development Overlay, Research Development Park and Interim Development Single Family. Due to the five different zoning designations there's no consistency in terms of what could be developed in any type of development pattern for this land and the request is to zone it all Mixed Use, which would allow both residential and non-residential uses that would include things like assisted group living, multifamily, office, retail, restaurants and such. Russett stated the two criteria that staff looks at for rezoning is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with the neighborhood. Russett explained with the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment that was just voted on, this rezoning would directly align with that request to amend the Future Land Use Map. The Comprehensive Plan also has a variety of goals and strategies that align with this request, encouraging compact efficient development, planning for commercial development, discouraging linear strip commercial development, and providing for appropriate transitions. Russett noted the buffer areas come into play in encouraging a diversity of housing options which this zone would do. In terms of compatibility with the neighborhood, similar to the hodgepodge of zoning Russett Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 7 of 22 noted there's a variety of different land uses, there is some single family to the north along North Dodge Street, there's the former ACT campus to the east and the School District office and to the southeast is multifamily with Oaknoll East. Staff is recommending a couple of conditions to ensure compatibility. One is that any commercial development that abuts residential zones incorporate a 30 foot landscaped buffer to provide additional separation between those residential uses and the commercial uses. Additionally required would be full cut off light fixtures for any commercial development. In terms of transportation, access and utilities, the City did request a traffic study to correspond with this proposed rezoning. The traffic study found that the North Scott Boulevard and North Dubuque Road intersection will not provide an acceptable level of service through 2047, really limited to accessing Scooters Coffee Shop, and this congestion is anticipated regardless of the proposed rezoning and that congestion is limited to a small period during the day (am peak hours). Russett stated the City Engineer has reviewed the traffic study and concurs with the findings. In regard to sanitary sewer, the City would like more information on the existing sanitary sewer in the area and its capacity and therefore have several conditions that they're recommending. One is approval of a preliminary and final plat, since this area has never been subdivided and the subdivision process will lay out the street network, lots and blocks. Staff also wants to ensure that North Dubuque Road meets City standards for a 28 foot wide street with curb and gutter and sidewalks. And lastly, a flow study in relationship to the sanitary sewer system will need to be completed. Specifically, for the full length of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer to its point of connection with the North Branch Dam Trunk Sewer. The applicant will work with the Public Works Department to study that area. Staff recommends approval of REZ24-0013, a request to rezone approximately 22.5 acres of land along North Dubuque Road east of North Scott Boulevard to Mixed Use (MU) zone subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the subject area shall go through the subdivision process and obtain approval of a preliminary and final plat. 2. Prior to final plat approval, submission of construction drawings demonstrating that North Dubuque Road between North Scott Boulevard and ACT Drive meets City standards for a 28-foot wide street with curb and gutter and sidewalks. Drawings shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Installation of improvements shall be required prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. Prior to final plat approval, a flow study shall be prepared for the full length of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer to its point of connection with the North Branch Dam Trunk Sewer. If any of the existing sections of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer do not have the capacity to support the full buildout of the area being rezoned, upgrades will need to be made and accepted by the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. Prior to site plan approval, any commercial use that abuts residential zones must include landscaped buffer strips that do not allow any development. These strips shall be located on the commercial property, shall be 30' wide, shall be located in areas that abut residential zones, and shall be landscaped according to the plan that is approved by the City Forester. The landscaping plan shall meet the S3 standards and include a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees that will be at least 30' tall upon maturity. 5. Commercial development shall require full cut off light fixtures (i.e. no light shall be emitted above 90 degrees). Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 8 of 22 In terms of next steps, City Council will set a public hearing and consider the rezonings at future meetings. Quellhorst asked why staff doesn't believe that the existing zoning code is sufficient for separation between property types and why the added 30' buffer is necessary. Russett explained because of the existing single family to the north is Rural Residential which are large lot single family and typically they'd see a transition to higher density housing and then commercial development, but these large single family lots will be next to Mixed Use which could be multifamily, retail, or restaurants so this is adding a little bit of extra space to provide more of a transition. Townsend noted concern about the traffic and if they're going to have additional entrances onto North Scott Boulevard and Dubuque Road. Russett replied there will be no access to this property from North Dodge Street because this particular rezoning does not border North Dodge Street. In the next rezoning that is a consideration they will discuss. Townsend stated the circle there at Scott Boulevard and 1 st Avenue has a lot of traffic there and she just wants to make sure that they aren't making it worse for those that have to travel it every day. Wade asked about the traffic study level of service, at North Scott Boulevard and North Dubuque Road is the requirement to improve North Dubuque Road solving the level of service or is it more about that whole intersection with Scott Boulevard and Scooters and everything at that end. Russett stated the level of service issue is related to Scooters and regardless the improvements to North Dubuque Road will not address that, and that's going to be an issue even without this rezoning, so that becomes a City item. What staff is requesting here is that the street be upgraded so it has curb and gutter and sidewalk and meets the standards for a city street. Wade asked if there will be another pedestrian crossing at Hickory Heights or will it all funnel to Dubuque Road. Russett stated in terms of pedestrian crossings there's the controlled intersection at North Dodge Street and Scott Boulevard but there's no sidewalk on the southern portion, which will be discussed in the next rezoning. There's also a median on North Scott Boulevard that provides a pedestrian refuge for anyone crossing from the west side of North Scott to the east side but there isn't any pedestrian crossing down at Hickory Heights. Miller noted regarding the landscape buffer it makes sense to have it next to the single family, he is curious is it a standard to have it between CC-2 and Mixed Use. Russett stated there probably will not be a buffer there as they are both commercial zones. Wade asked if the core campus was rezoned to Mixed Use. Russett confirmed that was correct it was rezoned from Office Research Park to Mixed Use. Quellhorst opened the public hearing. Seeing no public comments, Quellhorst closed the public hearing. Miller moved to recommend approval of REZ24-0013, a request to rezone approximately 22.5 acres of land along North Dubuque Road east of North Scott Boulevard to Mixed Use (MU) zone subject to the following conditions: Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 9 of 22 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the subject area shall go through the subdivision process and obtain approval of a preliminary and final plat. 2. Prior to final plat approval, submission of construction drawings demonstrating that North Dubuque Road between North Scott Boulevard and ACT Drive meets City standards for a 28-foot wide street with curb and gutter and sidewalks. Drawings shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Installation of improvements shall be required prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. Prior to final plat approval, a flow study shall be prepared for the full length of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer to its point of connection with the North Branch Dam Trunk Sewer. If any of the existing sections of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer do not have the capacity to support the full buildout of the area being rezoned, upgrades will need to be made and accepted by the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. Prior to site plan approval, any commercial use that abuts residential zones must include landscaped buffer strips that do not allow any development. These strips shall be located on the commercial property, shall be 30' wide, shall be located in areas that abut residential zones, and shall be landscaped according to the plan that is approved by the City Forester. The landscaping plan shall meet the S3 standards and include a mixture of deciduous and evergreen trees that will be at least 30' tall upon maturity. 5. Commercial development shall require full cut off light fixtures (i.e. no light shall be emitted above 90 degrees). Wade seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. CASE NO. REZ25-0008: Location: East of N. Dodge St. and South of 1-80 An application for a rezoning of approximately 33.64 acres of land from Office Research Park (ORP) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone. Russett stated this is the last of the three related items for the former ACT campus. This is a request to rezone about 34 acres to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone. She shared an aerial map of the proposed rezoning noting it includes some of the existing buildings on the former ACT campus and also includes some land that abuts 1-80 to the north. Russett next reviewed the existing intersection for the site, there's currently three legs but ACT Circle that does not extend into the site which she will discuss shortly. The current zoning designation is Office Research Park which is intended to allow large scale offices and research firms. The Community Commercial zone allows a variety of both residential and non-residential uses, it allows upper floor multifamily as a provisional use and allows restaurants, retail, office and even some more intensive commercial uses such as very low scale manufacturing would be allowed, and vehicle repair. Russett stated again there are the two criteria to be reviewed, first is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and again, with the request of changing the Future Land Use Map to General Commercial this rezoning request would directly align with the Comprehensive Plan's Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 10 of 22 Future Land Use Map and encourages compact and efficient development, diversity of housing options, planning for commercial development and providing for some appropriate transitions. In addition in terms of the economic development goals of the Comprehensive Plan this rezoning could help increase and diversify the property tax base, provide an environment that supports quality employment, encourage a healthy mix of both independent and national businesses, improving the environmental and economic health of the community. In terms of transportation, the City is looking at ways to encourage all modes of transportation, especially off of the arterial streets, and having sidewalks and bike connections is recommended. In terms of compatibility with the existing neighborhood Russett noted the property is just a portion of the former ACT campus, the remainder of the campus is to the east. Staff is recommending a couple of conditions to ensure compatibility, one, recommending that 30' landscape buffer between commercial uses along North Dodge Street and any commercial development on this site. The North Dodge Street strip should be landscaped with a mix of plantings that would be approved by the City Forester. Russett stated this is a gateway to the community which is why staff is recommending the landscaping here to ensure that it looks nice and welcomes people to the community. Second is a residential buffer, especially where a portion of the development abuts the existing single family homes. Russett reiterated a traffic study was done to look at this rezoning and it determined that the existing lane configuration and stop control at North Dodge Street and ACT Circle would not provide an acceptable level of service. The traffic study recommends a few things, first is a traffic signal so that it becomes a signalized intersection, second is the installation of a fourth leg off the traffic circle that would provide access to the subject property. The traffic study also recommends a dedicated northbound right turn lane so if one is heading out of town on North Dodge Street there would be a dedicated right turn lane into the subject property and if they are heading south on North Dodge Street there's a dedicated left bound turn lane to turn into the property. Russett confirmed the City Engineer does concur with the findings of this study. Russett also wanted to note the City will be the one installing the traffic signal and the pedestrian components, that's something was already planned. Other conditions will be the City would like the applicant to explore the existing sanitary sewer in the area, that the land be subdivided to help identify streets, lots, and block network, they're also requesting the installation of a 10' wide sidewalk on the eastern portion of North Dodge Street from North Scott Boulevard and the sidewalk will run from North Scott Boulevard to the proposed intersection at ACT Circle, and that 10' wide sidewalk could accommodate bicycles and pedestrians. Then related to that intersection, the applicant will be responsible for installing the southbound left turn lane and the northbound right turn lane at the future intersection at North Dodge Street and ACT Circle and installing that fourth leg to provide access to their property. Russett noted the applicant has also expressed an interest in having another access to the north of ACT Circle off of Dodge Street and that would need to be approved by both the City Engineer and the Iowa DOT so the condition that staff is recommending is that any request for an additional access up on North Dodge Street be limited to right in, right out only. The final condition is that flow study related to the sanitary sewer system. Staff recommends approval of REZ25-0008, a request to rezone approximately 33.64 acres of land along North Dodge Street and south of 1-80 to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the subject area shall go through the Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 11 of 22 subdivision process and obtain approval of a preliminary and final plat. 2. Prior to final plat approval, a flow study shall be prepared for the full length of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer to its point of connection with the North Branch Dam Trunk Sewer. If any of the existing sections of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer do not have the capacity to support the full buildout of the area being rezoned, upgrades will need to be made and accepted by the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. If sewage from the area being rezoned will be conveyed to the Highlander Lift Station, a flow study shall be prepared for the Highlander Lift Station. 3. Prior to site plan approval, commercial areas along N. Dodge St that abut either North Dodge Street or land that is zoned residential must include landscaped buffer strips that do not allow any development. These strips shall be located on the commercial property, shall be 30' wide, shall be located along North Dodge Street, which is an important gateway to the City, as well as in areas that abut residential zones, and shall be landscaped according to the plan that is approved by the City Forester. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, installation of 10' wide sidewalk on the eastern/southern portion of the North Dodge Street right-of-way between North Scott Boulevard and ACT Circle subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 5. Prior to final plat approval, submission of construction drawings for a southbound left -turn lane and northbound right -turn lane on North Dodge Street at ACT Circle subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the Iowa DOT. Installation of improvements shall be required prior to issuance of building permits. 6. Prior to final plat approval, submission of construction drawings for the 4th leg of the ACT Circle / North Dodge Street intersection subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the Iowa DOT. Installation of improvements shall be required prior to issuance of building permits. 7. Any request for an additional driveway access to the subject property north of the North Dodge Street/ACT Circle intersection shall be limited to a right-in/right-out access only. This access requires review and approval by the City Engineer and the Iowa DOT. Russett stated this rezoning would be on the same timeline as the previous rezoning for next steps. Wade asked about the preliminary plat process and if that goes through Planning and Zoning or is just a City approval. Russett confirmed it does go through the Planning and Zoning Commission who would then make a recommendation to Council. Wade asked then if the final road design would be part of that preliminary plat. Russett stated presumably the preliminary plat will identify the proposed street network and then through the final platting process is when the actual design of the streets are finalized. Miller asked about the 30' buffer along Dodge Street and is the 10' sidewalk within that 30' buffer. Russett explained no, the 30' buffer is on the private property and the 10' sidewalk will be in the City's right of way and any development would start behind the 30' foot buffer. Davies asked with CC-2 zoning is it required to have the parking behind the buildings. Russett replied it does not require that and there could be parking between the street and the building. Miller noted further down on Dodge Street, across from Hy Vee, it was the City's preference on a past project to put the building closer to the road and conceal the parking, is that just a preference and is that dealt with on a case by case basis. Russett explained that's something Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 12 of 22 that the City did discuss with the applicant on this particular project, the Commission could make a recommendation to add a condition related to parking but the applicant can probably speak better to their concerns with that. She also noted the street network for this area is unknown, there could be lots that are fronted on three sides so trying to figure out the parking may end with some being behind the building and others not. If the goal is to ensure that there's no parking along North Dodge Street that's something that could be considered, but there probably will be a need for at least some parking located between the street and the building. Davies asked if there has been any discussion about the ACT road that proceeds to the north and then just dead ends, is the plan still to have that just remain as a dead end. Russett replied that is something to be figured out as part of the subdivision process. Miller stated regarding the building frontage question, is it in the subdivision process that there'd be more detail about the building. Russett explained likely not, because it would just be the lots and streets, and the preliminary plat will have no information on the buildings. Davies asked if it would be possible at that time for staff or the Commission to make a recommendation about that Russett stated they have never added conditions to a preliminary plat they've always been done at the rezoning stage. Miller stated with the buffer they're probably okay as it covers that walkability and entry corridor aesthetics. He assumes the type of businesses that would want to go here probably would encourage pedestrian oriented development, attractive, functional streetscapes to make it comfortable to walk and the sidewalks on both sides. Russett noted because of that language in the Comprehensive Plan staff is adding those conditions about the sidewalk along North Dodge Street so there's a way to accommodate other modes of transportation. This is a CC-2 zone and it does allow things like drive throughs, for example, through special exceptions, which are not necessarily pedestrian friendly so through that process the City tries to incorporate connections for pedestrians to the building. Miller noted the other language that stuck out at him in one of the conditions was the City's priorities to discourage strip retail. What language in CC-2 discourages that because he feels like that might be attractive to have a strip retail in this area. Russett explained the zone would allow the uses that are allowed in the zone, it's the subdivision process that is really important identifying street connections and actual blocks and lots. There could potentially be strip development here, there's nothing that would not allow that. Davies asked if the sidewalk on North Dodge Street is the applicant's responsibility or City's. Russett stated it is the applicants. Wade remembers back when ACT Circle used to go up to ACT and then it was abandoned and turned into grass, was that a DOT recommendation and will they have to review this now. Russett confirmed the DOT will have to be part of the approval for the intersection in addition to the City. Quellhorst opened the public hearing. Steve Long (Salida Partners) stated there's also a significant grade change from Dodge Street to this site, it ranges from 8' to 20' and that's even after a regrade for whatever is going to be built Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 13 of 22 there. He also confirmed there was a road that connected there but ACT removed it in 2002, so they'll be following essentially the same path of that road that was taken out. He also stated the building seen there will be taken down, the original ACT building, the Lindquist Building, it was abandoned during COVID and heating and cooling was shut off so the police department has been using it for practice, and it's filled with mold. Long stated they are happy about the 10' sidewalk for connectivity, actually everything that's suggested they're fine with noting it's going to improve their development with the improvements to the traffic, the extra turn lanes, etc. He reiterated they've had a lot of interest for commercial development for this area, without even advertising. As far as the frontage, they also want to make the development pedestrian friendly from the inside of the development as there's going to be hundreds of units on the east side of the development, so the west side or along Dodge Street/Highway One there are something like 28,000 cars a day on Dodge Street and Interstate 80 is close to 40,000 so they were thinking if they keep the commercial closer to the east and make it more accommodating to the residents to the east, but they'll figure that out through the site planning process. Quellhorst closed the public hearing. Davies moved to recommend approval of REZ25-0008, a request to rezone approximately 33.64 acres of land along North Dodge Street and south of 1-80 to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the subject area shall go through the subdivision process and obtain approval of a preliminary and final plat. 2. Prior to final plat approval, a flow study shall be prepared for the full length of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer to its point of connection with the North Branch Dam Trunk Sewer. If any of the existing sections of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer do not have the capacity to support the full buildout of the area being rezoned, upgrades will need to be made and accepted by the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. If sewage from the area being rezoned will be conveyed to the Highlander Lift Station, a flow study shall be prepared for the Highlander Lift Station. 3. Prior to site plan approval, commercial areas along N. Dodge St that abut either North Dodge Street or land that is zoned residential must include landscaped buffer strips that do not allow any development. These strips shall be located on the commercial property, shall be 30' wide, shall be located along North Dodge Street, which is an important gateway to the City, as well as in areas that abut residential zones, and shall be landscaped according to the plan that is approved by the City Forester. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, installation of 10' wide sidewalk on the eastern/southern portion of the North Dodge Street right-of-way between North Scott Boulevard and ACT Circle subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 5. Prior to final plat approval, submission of construction drawings for a southbound left -turn lane and northbound right -turn lane on North Dodge Street at ACT Circle subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the Iowa DOT. Installation of improvements shall be required prior to issuance of building permits. 6. Prior to final plat approval, submission of construction drawings for the 4th leg of the ACT Circle / North Dodge Street intersection subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the Iowa DOT. Installation of improvements shall be required Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 14 of 22 prior to issuance of building permits. 7. Any request for an additional driveway access to the subject property north of the North Dodge Street/ACT Circle intersection shall be limited to a right-in/right-out access only. This access requires review and approval by the City Engineer and the Iowa DOT. Wade seconded the motion. Davies stated he generally supports this item and will be very curious to see how the streets shake out as it seems tricky, but an important part of it. Wade stated he is glad to see it come together. Townsend agreed noting it's long overdue and that land has been sitting there for quite a while, so it'll be interesting to see what goes up there. Miller stated he is in support of it Quellhorst agrees and notes Commissioner Miller asked some good questions about tasteful development and doing what they can to prevent strip malls or any other kind of distasteful commercial development. A lot still has to be done, and it will come down to doing a good job of planning and plats and he has got confidence in the staff to do that appropriately. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. CASE NO. REZ25-0009: Location: 2510 N. Dodge Street An application for a rezoning of approximately 37.9 acres of land from Research Development Park (RDP) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone. Russett stated this is the former Pearson site at North Dodge Street with Interstate 80 to the south and Moss Ridge Road to the north. It's currently zoned Research Development Park, similar to that ACT property, where it envisions office parks or research firms, to the west is land that was rezoned to CI-1 a few years ago, and there is CH-1 Highway Commercial to the east. Russett stated this land was annexed into the City in the 1970s, it was initially developed for Westinghouse Educational Services and was later transferred to Pearson in 2014 and the City approved a rezoning of the property from Office Research Park to Research Development Park. The former Pearson site was recently purchased by GSD North Dodge LLC after it sat vacant for nearly five years and the new owners are looking to repurpose the existing buildings with a variety of land uses, including office, indoor commercial recreational uses, warehousing, retail, restaurants and many of those uses are not allowed in the current Research Development Park zone. The Research Development Park zone is pretty limited to large office and research firms. The Intensive Commercial zone allows a variety of different land uses but is a more intense zoning designation than the Community Commercial that was just discussed. The Intensive Commercial zone allows things like warehousing and freight movement, which the applicant is interested in continuing, it does not allow residential uses and it also allows indoor commercial recreation uses which the applicant can speak to as they've had some interest for some sporting Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; (REZ25-0008) Ordinance No. Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 33.6 acres of property located east of N. Dodge St, and south of 1-80 from Office Research Park (ORP) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone. (REZ25-0008) Whereas, JNB Iowa City, LLC has requested the rezoning of property located north of N. Scott Blvd. and east of N. Dodge St. from Office Research Park (ORP) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone; and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the subject area is appropriate for uses consistent with General Commercial, Mixed Use, and Public/Private Open Space; and Whereas, the property has never been platted and the rezoning allows for increased development potential and creates a public need to subdivide the property to ensure an interconnected street and block network prior to the issuance of any building permit for the construction of new buildings or additions to existing buildings; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need to verify that the existing sanitary sewer infrastructure can accommodate the full buildout of the area being rezoned, a flow study is required prior to final plat approval of the full length of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer to its point of connection with the North Branch of the North Branch Dam Trunk sewer with potential upgrades made and accepted by the City prior to the issuance of any building permits; and Whereas, due to the increased development potential the rezoning creates a public need to provide a transition from existing residential uses by ensuring that commercial areas that either abut either N. Dodge Street or land that is zoned residential must include a 30' wide landscaped buffer strips that are landscaped according to the plan approved by the City Forester, and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need for the installation of a 10' wide sidewalk on the eastern/southern portion of the N. Dodge Street right-of-way between N. Scott Blvd and ACT Circle subject to review and approval by the City Engineer; and Whereas, the rezoning allows for increased development potential and creates a public need for intersection improvements at ACT Circle and N. Dodge Street. Specifically, a southbound left - turn lane and northbound right -turn lane on N. Dodge Street at ACT Circle subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the Iowa DOT. Installation of improvements shall be required prior to issuance of building permits; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need to ensure access to N. Dodge Street is appropriately limited and any request for an additional driveway access to the subject property north of the N. Dodge St/ACT Circle intersection shall be limited to a right-in/right-out access only; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions regarding the approval of a preliminary and final plat, ensuring that the existing sewer system has capacity to support the rezoned area, landscaped buffer strips, a 10' wide sidewalk along N. Dodge Street, and installation of turn lane improvements at the ACT Circle/N. Dodge Street intersection, as well as limiting access to the subject property from N. Dodge Street the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and Ordinance No. Page 2 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, JNB Iowa City, 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 Community Commercial (CC-2) zone, as indicated: Auditor's Parcel #96022, recorded in Plat Book 37 — Page 4, and a portion of Auditor's Parcel #96016, recorded in Plat Book 36 — Page 348, and Auditor's Parcel #96015, recorded in Plat Book 36 — Page 347, and a portion of Auditor's Parcel #96021, recorded in Plat Book 37 — Page 3, and a portion of Auditor's Parcel 2005047, recorded in Plat Book 49 — Page 123, and a portion of survey plat, recorded in Plat Book 17 — Page 27 and a portion of a survey plat, recorded in Plat Book 4 — Page 160, and a portion of the W1/2 NW 1/4, Section 1, Township 79 North, Range 6W of the Fifth P.M, and all located within the E1/2 NE 1/4, Section 2, Township 79 North Range 6 West, of the Fifth P.M, and the SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Section 36, Township 80 North Range 6 West, of the Fifth P.M, and the SE 1/4 SW 1/4 Section 36 Township 80 North Range 6 West, of the Fifth P.M, and the W1/2 NW 1/4, Section 1, Township 79 North Range 6 West, of the Fifth P.M, and all located within Warranty Deed as described in Book 6644 — Page 171 and Recorded in Johnson County Recorder's Office, described as follows: Beginning at a 5/8" iron rod with an IDOT cap located on the southern right of way of Interstate 180 and the SW corner of Auditor's Parcel 96022; Thence N730 25' 54"E — 183.16 feet along said right of way, to the point of intersection of the east line of SW1/4 SW1/4 Section 36-80-06, which is also the NE corner of said Auditor's Parcel, Thence N73050'43"E — 11.07 feet along said southern right of way, to the point of intersection of the extension line of the east line of the NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 01-79-06; Thence S01046'34"E - 584.70 feet along said east line; Thence S88031'12"W - 402.09 feet; Thence S43010'00" — 851.17 feet; Thence S01 50'00"E - 150.00 feet to the southern line of the NW 1/4 NW 1/4, Section 01-79-06; Thence S88010'00"W - 255.23 feet along said southern line, the easterly right of way of Old Solon Rd., which is now ACT DR.; Thence S05034'20"E - 140.77 feet along said easterly right of way; Thence S05030'01 "W - 179.68 feet along a 473.80 foot radius curve concave westerly, with a central angle of 21 °43'42", having a Chord length of 178.60 feet, along said easterly right of way; Thence S00°00'00" — 229.52 feet; Thence S88041'21 "W— 129.33feet; Thence S81 °04'58"W — 222.27 feet; Thence S81 °48'39"W — 73.31 feet; Thence S89048'36"W—121.43 feet to the SE Corner of property survey recorded in Bk 4 — Pg 160, which is also on the northern right of way of Old Solon Rd; Thence N00018'17"W — 568.41 feet along the easterly line of said property survey; Thence N85004'45"W — 315.20 feet; Thence N22003'06"W—103.86 feet to the NW corner of said property survey to an iron rod with cap #15747, also located on the southern right of way of North Dodge Street and Highway 1; Thence along said southern Highway 1 right of way the following courses: N55002'56"E — 1007.60 feet; N49052'15"E — 228.74 feet; N60018'1 VE — 213.93 feet; Thence N58059'27"E — 235.92 feet to the NW corner of Auditor's Parcel 96016, which is also the southerly right of way of Interstate 180; Thence N58001'55"E — 397.37 feet; Thence N73052'08"E — 215.20 feet to the Point of Beginning. The described area contains 33.64 acres and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. Ordinance No. Page 3 Section II. Zoning Map. 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 City Attorney's Office Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (REZ25-0008) Conditional Zoning Agreement This agreement is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"), and JNB Iowa City, LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Owner"). Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 33.6 acres of property located east of N. Dodge Street and south of 1-80, legally described below; and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the subject area is appropriate for uses consistent with General Commercial, Mixed Use, and Public/Private Open Space; and Whereas, the property has never been platted and the rezoning allows for increased development potential and creates a public need to subdivide the property to ensure an interconnected street and block network prior to the issuance of any building permit for the construction of new buildings or additions to existing buildings; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need to verify that the existing sanitary infrastructure can accommodate the full buildout of the area being rezoned, a flow study is required prior to final plat approval of the full length of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer to its point of connection with the North Branch of the North Branch Dam Trunk sewer with potential upgrades made and accepted by the City prior to the issuance of any building permits; and Whereas, due to the increased development potential the rezoning creates a public need to provide a transition from existing residential uses by ensuring that commercial areas that either abut either N. Dodge Street or land that is zoned residential must include a 30' wide landscaped buffer strips that are landscaped according to the plan approved by the City Forester, and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need for the installation of a 10' wide sidewalk on the eastern/southern portion of the N. Dodge Street right-of-way between N. Scott Blvd and ACT Circle subject to review and approval by the City Engineer; and Whereas, the rezoning allows for increased development potential and creates a public need for intersection improvements at ACT Circle and N. Dodge Street. Specifically, a southbound left -turn lane and northbound right -turn lane on N. Dodge Street at ACT Circle subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the Iowa DOT. Installation of improvements shall be required prior to issuance of building permits; and Whereas, the rezoning creates a public need to ensure access to N. Dodge Street is appropriately limited and any request for an additional driveway access to the subject property north of the N. Dodge St/ACT Circle intersection shall be limited to a right-in/right-out access only; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions regarding the approval of a preliminary and final plat, ensuring that the existing sewer system has capacity to support the rezoned area, landscaped buffer strips, a 10' wide sidewalk along N. Dodge Street, and installation of turn lane improvements at the ACT Circle/N. Dodge Street intersection, as well as limiting access to the subject property from N. Dodge Street the rezoning 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: Auditor's Parcel #96022, recorded in Plat Book 37 — Page 4, and a portion of Auditor's Parcel #96016, recorded in Plat Book 36 — Page 348, and Auditor's Parcel #96015, recorded in Plat Book 36 — Page 347, and a portion of Auditor's Parcel #96021, recorded in Plat Book 37 — Page 3, and a portion of Auditor's Parcel 2005047, recorded in Plat Book 49 — Page 123, and a portion of survey plat, recorded in Plat Book 17 — Page 27 and a portion of a survey plat, recorded in Plat Book 4 — Page 160, and a portion of the W1/2 NW 1/4, Section 1, Township 79 North, Range 6W of the Fifth P.M, and all located within the E1/2 NE 1/4, Section 2, Township 79 North Range 6 West, of the Fifth P.M, and the SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Section 36, Township 80 North Range 6 West, of the Fifth P.M, and the SE 1/4 SW 1/4 Section 36 Township 80 North Range 6 West, of the Fifth P.M, and the W1/2 NW 1/4, Section 1, Township 79 North Range 6 West, of the Fifth P.M, and all located within Warranty Deed as described in Book 6644 — Page 171 and Recorded in Johnson County Recorder's Office, described as follows: Beginning at a 5/8" iron rod with an IDOT cap located on the southern right of way of Interstate 180 and the SW corner of Auditor's Parcel 96022; Thence N730 25' 54"E — 183.16 feet along said right of way, to the point of intersection of the east line of SW1/4 SW1/4 Section 36-80-06, which is also the NE corner of said Auditor's Parcel, Thence N73050'43"E — 11.07 feet along said southern right of way, to the point of intersection of the extension line of the east line of the NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 01-79-06; Thence S01046'34"E - 584.70 feet along said east line; Thence S88031'12"W - 402.09 feet; Thence S43010'00" — 851.17 feet; Thence S01 50'00"E - 150.00 feet to the southern line of the NW 1/4 NW 1/4, Section 01-79-06; Thence S88010'00"W - 255.23 feet along said southern line, the easterly right of way of Old Solon Rd., which is now ACT DR.; Thence S05034'20"E - 140.77 feet along said easterly right of way; Thence S05030'01"W - 179.68 feet along a 473.80 foot radius curve concave westerly, with a central angle of 21043'42", having a Chord length of 178.60 feet, along said easterly right of way; Thence S00°00'00" — 229.52 feet; Thence S88041'21"W — 129.33 feet; Thence S81 °04'58"W — 222.27 feet; Thence S81 °48'39"W — 73.31 feet; Thence S89048'36"W — 121.43 feet to the SE Corner of property survey recorded in Bk 4 — Pg 160, which is also on the northern right of way of Old Solon Rd; Thence N00018'17"W — 568.41 feet along the easterly line of said property survey; Thence N85004'45"W — 315.20 feet; Thence N22003'06"W — 103.86 feet to the NW corner of said property survey to an iron rod with cap #15747, also located on the southern right of way of North Dodge Street and Highway 1; Thence along said southern Highway 1 right of way the following courses: N55002'56"E — 1007.60 feet; N49052'15"E — 228.74 feet; N60018'11"E — 213.93 feet; Thence N58059'27"E — 235.92 feet to the NW corner of Auditor's Parcel 96016, which is also the southerly right of way of Interstate 180; Thence N58001'55"E — 397.37 feet; Thence N73052'08"E — 215.20 feet to the Point of Beginning The described area contains 33.64 acres and is subject to easements and restrictions of record. 2 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. Prior to issuance of building permits for the construction of new buildings or additions to existing buildings, the subject property shall go through the subdivision process and obtain approval of a preliminary and final plat. b. Prior to final plat approval, Owner shall prepare a flow study for the full length of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer to its point of connection with the North Branch Dam Trunk Sewer. If any of the existing sections of the North Branch of the Northeast Trunk sewer do not have the capacity to support the full buildout of the area being rezoned, upgrades will need to be made and accepted by the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. If sewage from the area being rezoned will be conveyed to the Highlander Lift Station, Owner shall prepare a flow study for the Highlander Lift Station. c. Prior to site plan approval, commercial areas along N. Dodge St that abut either N. Dodge Street or land that is zoned residential must include landscaped buffer strips that do not allow any development. These strips shall be located on the commercial property, shall be 30' wide, shall be located along N. Dodge Street, which is an important gateway to the City, as well as in areas that abut residential zones, and shall be landscaped according to the plan that is approved by the City Forester. d. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall install a 10' wide sidewalk on the eastern/southern portion of the N. Dodge Street right-of-way between N. Scott Blvd and ACT Circle, subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. e. Prior to final plat approval, Owner shall submit construction drawings for a southbound left turn lane and northbound right -turn lane on N. Dodge Street at ACT Circle subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the Iowa DOT. Improvements shall be installed by the Owner prior to issuance of building permits. f. Prior to final plat approval, Owner shall submit construction drawings for the 4tn leg of the ACT Circle / N. Dodge St intersection subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and the Iowa DOT. Improvements shall be installed by the Owner prior to issuance of building permits. g. Any request for an additional driveway access to the subject property north of the N. Dodge St/ACT Circle intersection shall be limited to a right-in/right-out access only. This access requires review and approval by the City Engineer and the Iowa DOT. 3 4. The conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2025), and said conditions satisfy the 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 title 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 unless and until released of record by the City 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 day of , 2025. City of Iowa City Bruce Teague, Mayor Attest: Kellie Grace, City Clerk Approved by: City Attorney's Office City of Iowa City Acknowledgement: State of I owa ) ss: Johnson County ) JNB Iowa City, LLC 0 This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 2025 by Bruce Teague and Kellie Fruehling as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City. 51 Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) My commission expires: JNB Iowa City, LLC Acknowledgement: State of _ County of This record was acknowledged before me on , 2025 by (name) as (title) of JNB Iowa City, LLC Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) My commission expires: 5 Item Number: 9.d. I, CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT August 19, 2025 Ordinance rezoning approximately 37.9 acres of land located at 2510 N. Dodge St. from Research Development Park (RDP) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone. (REZ25-0009) Attachments: REZ25-0009 Staff Report-w-attachments PZ 7.16.25 minutes-2510 N Dodge St REZ25-0009 Ordinance STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Olivia Ziegler, Planning Intern Item: REZ25-0009 2510 N. Dodge Street Date: July 16, 2025 GENERAL INFORMATION: Owner/Applicant: GSD North Dodge, LLC Steve Geifman 563-323-2626 steveCa)_geifmangroup.com 2172 56t" Ave West Bettendorf, IA 52722 Contact Person: Nick Hatz 319-364-0227 nhatz(o)shive-hattery.com 222 Third Ave SW Cedar Rapids, IA 52401 Requested Action: Rezone approximately 37.9 acres of land from Research Development Park (RDP) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone. Purpose: Allow for reuse of existing building to uses that are not allowed in the current zoning designation. New owners may also be planning additions and new buildings. Location: Location Map: Size: Existing Land Use and Zoning Surrounding Land Use and Zoning 2510 N. Dodge Street y 'Nc 37.9 acres Former Pearson's site, Research Development Park (RDP) North: Interim Development Research Park (ID -RP) South: Office Research Park (ORP) East: Highway Commercial (CH1), K Comprehensive Plan: District Plan: Public Meeting Notification: File Date: 45 Day Limitation Period: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Commercial Office (CO1) West: Intensive Commercial (CI-1) Office Research Park Development Centers Property owners and occupants within 500' of the property received notification of the Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting. Rezoning signs were posted along N. Dubuque Street on July 7tn 2025. June 26, 2025 August 11, 2025 The owner, GSD North Dodge, LLC, has requested a rezoning from Research Development Park (RDP) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone for approximately 37.9 acres of land located at 2510 N. Dodge Street. The property was annexed into the City in approximately 1970 and zoned Office Research Park (ORP) zone at that time. It was initially developed for Westinghouse Education Services and was later transferred to the former owner, NCS Pearson, Inc. On March 25, 2014, the City Council approved a rezoning (REZ14-0001, Ord. No. 14-4577) for approximately 49.5 acres of property from ORP to RDP. This rezoning was adopted to keep the building conforming to the zoning code after Moss Ridge Road was constructed. The RDP and ORP zones are similar in uses permitted but differ in dimensional requirements. The ORP zone requires front setbacks of 150 feet, side and rear setbacks of 100 feet, and a minimum lot area of 7 acres. The RDP zone requires a minimum lot area of 1-acre, front setback of 20 feet, and does not require side or rear setbacks. In adopting the ordinance, the structure was allowed to remain conforming as it adhered to the zoning code and is more than 20 feet from the property line. Table 1 below outlines the differences in dimensional requirements between the zones. Table 1: Dimensional Requirements For Industrial and Research Zones Minimum Lot Requirements Minimum Setbacks Maximum Height (ft.) Maximum Lot Coverage (percent) Zone Total Area (s.f.) Width (ft.) Minimum Frontage (ft.) Front (ft.) Side (ft.) Rear (ft.) RDP 1 acre none none 20' 0' 0' 45 50 ORP 7 acres I none none 150 100 1 100 none none The subject property is the former Pearson site that has been vacant for nearly five years. The Geifman Group recently purchased the property and are looking to repurpose the existing building with a variety of land uses. Some of the uses that seek to occupy the space (e.g. indoor commercial recreation) are not allowed within the current zoning designation but would be allowed with the proposed zoning. Attachment 3 includes the applicant submittal which illustrates the proposed changes to the zoning map and includes the applicant statement describing the rationale behind the request. 3 The applicant has indicated that they have chosen not to use the "Good Neighbor Policy". ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: The subject property is currently zoned Research Development Park (RDP). Properties zoned RDP provide areas for the development of office, research, production, or assembly firms and other complementary uses. Office and research use should predominate the zone. The requirements of this zone protect uses in this zone from adverse impacts of uses on adjacent land. Hotels, motels, and similar uses should be located along the periphery of the zone in locations that do not adversely affect the setting and quality of other development for the uses permitted in the zone. Proposed Zoning: The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone. The purpose of the CI-1 zone is to provide areas for those sales and service functions and businesses whose operations are typically characterized by outdoor display and storage of merchandise, by repair and sales of large equipment or motor vehicles, by outdoor commercial amusement and recreational activities or by activities or operations conducted in buildings or structures not completely enclosed. The types of retail trade in this zone are limited in order to provide opportunities for more land intensive commercial operations and also to prevent conflicts between retail and industrial truck traffic. Special attention must be directed toward buffering the negative aspects of allowed uses from adjacent residential zones. Table 2 below outlines the uses allowed in the CI-1 zone. There are a variety of uses that are allowed in the CI-1 zone, including retail, office, manufacturing, and warehousing. The zone does not allow residential uses. Table 2: Uses allowed in the CI-1 Zone Uses Categories Intensive Commercial Residential —Assisted Group Living - Residential — Group Household - Residential — Multi -Family - Adult Business PR Animal Related Commercial — General PR Animal Related Commercial— Intensive PR Building Trade Uses P Commercial Parking Uses - Commercial Recreation — Indoor P Commercial Recreation — Outdoor P Drinking Establishments PR Eating Establishments P Office - General P Office — Medical/Dental P Quick Vehicle Servicing PR/S Redemption Center P Retail — Alcohol Sales P Retail — Delayed Deposit - Retail — Hospitality P Outdoor Storage and Display P Retail — Personal Service P CI Retail — Repair P Retail — Sales P Retail — Tobacco Sales PR Surface Passenger Service P Vehicle Repair PR Industrial Service - General Manufacturing PR Heavy Manufacturing S Technical/Light Manufacturing PR Salvage Operations - Self Service Storage P Warehouse & Freight Movement P Waste Related - Wholesale Sales P Basic Utility PR/S Community Service — Shelter S General Community Service P Daycare PR Detention Facilities S General Education Specialized Education S Parks and Open Space Hospitals - Religious/Private Group Assembly P Utility Scale Ground Mounted Solar S Communication Transmission Facility PR/S *P = Permitted; PR = Provisional (subject to additional use specific standards); S = Special Exception (requires review and approval by the Board of Adjustment) 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 proposed development is reviewed using the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Future Land Use Map of the IC2030 Plan identifies the subject property as appropriate for Office Research Development Center. There is currently no District Plan for this area. The IC2030 Plan also states the following: "For firms that require close access to Interstate 80, lots will soon be available in the recently platted Moss Ridge Campus, an approximately 172- acre office park located at the Highway 1 (North Dodge St) interchange with Interstate 80. The growing employment center that surrounds this interstate interchange is already home to a number of the City's major employers, including numerous medical and professional firms located in Northgate Corporate Park as well as ACT and NCS Pearson — education -based research and service firms that employ thoughts of people" (pg. 13). The need for office spaces has significantly diminished since the IC2030 Plan was adopted in 2013 and the subject property was rezoned in from Office Research Park zone (ORP) to Research Development Park zone (RDP) in 2014. The subject property was home to the former 9 Pearson Inc site, which closed its office in 2022. This closure and general lack of demand for office space emphasizes the importance of rezoning the existing buildings to CI-1 in allowing the empty campus to once again make a valuable contribution to Iowa City's economy in allowing multiple uses for several types of tenants while benefitting the surrounding properties. Additionally, the Northeast District Plan acknowledges that a surplus of office use designation may occur, and provides flexibility of land uses within the area: "Office uses could serve as a buffer between the interstate and residential areas... Given the past rate of development of such uses, this amount of land devoted to office park uses may be unrealistic. Alternative uses, such as residential or the buffer area uses mentioned above, should be considered in this area." (p.18) The other buffer uses mentioned in the plan include recreational uses, storage, and warehousing uses. These are all uses that the new owners are interested in. Furthermore, there are numerous goals and strategies specified in the IC2030 Plan that align with the proposed rezoning: Land Use Goals and Strategies: • Plan for commercial development in defined commercial nodes, including small-scale neighborhood commercial centers. o Provide appropriate transitions between high and low -density development and between commercial areas and residential zones. • Focus industrial development on land suitable for industrial use with good access to rail and highways but buffered from residential neighborhoods. o Provide adequate butter areas between residential areas and intensive industrial activity to mitigate any negative externalities, such as noise, odors, dust, and vibrations. Economic Development Goals & Strategies: • Increase and diversify the property tax base by encouraging the retention and expansion of existing businesses and attracting businesses that have growth potential and are compatible with Iowa City's economy. o Target industrial and business sectors that align with Iowa City's economic strengths, including biotechnology, healthcare, advanced manufacturing, information technology, education services, and renewable energy. o Provide an attractive economic environment with a streamlined, business -friendly culture by making regulatory and permitting processes, clear, predictable, and coordinated. Improve the environmental and economic health of the community through efficient use of resources. o Support the development of the Iowa City Industrial Park as a hub for renewable energy companies and other industrial operations and promote appropriate development in the City's other designated urban renewal areas including: City - Highway Project I, Northgate Corporate Park, Sycamore & First Avenue, Lower Muscatine Road & Highway 6, Industrial Park Road, Highway 6, Moss Green, Towncrest, and Riverfront Crossings. Staff finds that since the proposed rezoning is consistent with the land use policy direction of the comprehensive plan. Although the future land use map envisions the site to be developed as an office research park, the plan also recognizes the need to be flexible. It notes that this vision may be unrealistic, and flexibility should be considered in order to allow uses such as recreational uses, warehousing, storage, and others. Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood Character: The subject property is bordered by Interim -Development Research Park zone (ID -RP) to the north, Intensive Commercial zone (CI- 1) to the west, Highway Commercial zone (CH-1) to the east, and is separated by 1-80 from the C01 Interim -Development Research Park designation to the south. The proposed rezoning would not have major impact on the existing neighborhood character due to the surrounding land allowing commercial uses, as well as office, research, and production firms, all complimenting the uses of the CI-1 designation. The proposed rezoning would facilitate a seamless transition between North Dodge Street/Highway 1 and the parcels to the west that are also zoned CI-1. Transportation and Utilities: In terms of access, the subject property can be accessed from N. Dodge St at Highlander Place, which is a signalized intersection. Additionally, the subject property is accessible from the north via Moss Ridge Rd. Moss Ridge Rd and N. Dodge St are also signalized. The subject property also has access to existing City water and sewer. NEXT STEPS: Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be scheduled for consideration by City Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ25-0009, an application to rezone approximately 37.9 acres of land at 2510 N. Dodge Street from Research Development Park (RDP) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Applicant's Submittal Approved by: Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ATTACHMENT 1 Location Map ATTACHMENT 2 Zoning Map ATTACHMENT 3 Applicant's Submittal SHIVEHATTERY ARC H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G June 19, 2025 City of Iowa City Neighborhood & Development Services Iowa City Planning & Zoning Commission RE: Rezoning Applicant Statement To Whom It May Concern, On behalf of the current Ownership GSD North Dodge, LLC a rezoning request is respectfully submitted as shown in the provided Rezoning Exhibit. The 37.9 acres highlighted for the rezoning make up the former Pearson campus which was once home to multiple office buildings and warehouse space which is currently vacant. The existing zoning is Research Development Park (RDP) as this zoning matched the uses Pearson had for the site. The applicant is proposing an Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zoning designation for the parcel. The CI-1 designation will match the intended mix of uses including potential office, data center, warehousing, indoor recreation, hospitality, restaurant or retail options. The CI-1 uses provide critical flexibility to attract multiple complimentary users to bring prosperity and life back to the campus. The uses allowed inside the CI-1 zoning designation will blend seamlessly with the surrounding uses, such as the Highway Commercial and Commercial Office buildings to the east and across North Dodge Street, as well as to the west where the parcel was recently rezoned to CI-1. The CI-1 zoning designation also facilitates a good transition between North Dodge Street/Highway 1 and the parcels North and Northwest of the property that are designated with Interim Development Research Park. Given the parcels' prominent location, adjacent to North Dodge Street, Moss Ridge Road, and near Interstate 80, the CI-1 zoning designation allows a beautiful blend of office and commercial up front while maintaining the functionality of the warehouse in the back of the parcel. Passing this zoning allows for a much -needed rejuvenation of a once thriving area of Iowa City by allowing multiple uses for several types of tenants while benefiting surrounding properties. Public infrastructure appears adequate or can be reasonably upgraded in the area based on existing uses, development and utility mapping. SHIVE-HATTERY, INC. Charles "Nick" Hatz II, PE Principal, Civil Engineer Project 2250011230 800.798.0313 1 shive-hattery.com o�as4o�ooi CI-1 ZONING 02354T5001 REZONING EXHIBIT FROM RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT / PARK (RDP) ZONE TO INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL (CI-1) ZONE / IOWA CITY, IOWA CHI ZONING i r / 1 i 6 2510N DODGE ST / I � CHI I ( ZONING sr ! MOSS RIDGE RD / r cm zowrvc / 2510 NORTHGATE DR Al V / \ vti4F / / COI ZONING \ 2515 NORTH —OR \� ZCHI ZONING ! C 2545 2.A N DODGE ST r ti�t / Q \tn / CHI 20NING F 2601N DO ST / 1 CHI ZONING / I / I I 250T HIGHLANDER PL 1I1 I I 11 I 1 j I 2513 R PL z CHI ZONING CHI ZONING HIGHLANDS 525 HIGHLANDER P- I I I FA WORTH P PRO OSED REZONING L( INTENSIVEOSCOMMERCIAL (DI-1) LOCATION MAP OWNERIDEVELOPEWAPPLICANI GSD NORTH DODGE. LLC STE E@GEIFMANGROUP.COM 2510 NORT Da ODG5 STREET GHIVIE HARTi CHARLES "NICK" HATZ II, PE NHATZZZ2 SIR O ASHIVE-HATTERY.COM SE CEDAR RAPIDS EA-1 3W 3t9354-0221 SHIVEHATTERYC. EIN PLS W W AMRE@SHINE-HATTERY.COM 222 3RD AVENUE SE SUITE - CEDAR 19a5.oaP os. IA 5zao1 TOTAL SUE INFORMATION AREA- STS ACRES OESCR THE WEST ONE-HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 35. TOWNSHIP 80 NORTH, RANGE 5 WEST OF THE NCI NGATTHENWC0RNER0FTHENE11 OFTHES lII SECTI0N35,M . RTH, RANG ES WEST OFTHE5TH P.M.; THENCE 50.OB'WALONGTHEWESTLINEOFSAID NEi Sl1IC OF SECTION 35, 2S1 FEET', THENCE EAST 412.0 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF IOWA HIGHWAY NO. t (FORMERLY DESIGNATED AS IOWA HIGHWAY—) THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SAID HIGHWAYS. ALONG A 2555 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE EASTERLY WITH A CENTRALANGLE OF 15" FEET ALONG THE NIORTHLINE OF SA ID HE1 I4 OFT EOSWIN0F GEC I0N 35nT0 THEP0INT OF BE'GONNING6a EXCEPTING THAT PART THEREOF CONDEMNED BBYTHEOCONSTATE EMNHIGHWAY COMMISSIONNG ORDEDEN FUSa, PAGE 55TY USE AND BENEF T OF EINTTHE 0FFICE0F THE COUNRECORDER OF J0HNS0N COUNTY, IOW, AND FURTHER EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE PARCELS CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF IOWA CITY. IOWA, PURSUANT TO DEEDS RECORDED INRO0K IUT5, PAGE NOB AND SOON 5255, PAGE 30 OF THE J0HNSON COUNTY, IOWA RECORDER'S OFFICE. i E y � O D o o Z NANNO LL LL I— z0U �O� W Z Z D_ O $U S F- m x w WA Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 14 of 22 prior to issuance of building permits. 7. Any request for an additional driveway access to the subject property north of the North Dodge Street/ACT Circle intersection shall be limited to a right-in/right-out access only. This access requires review and approval by the City Engineer and the Iowa DOT. Wade seconded the motion. Davies stated he generally supports this item and will be very curious to see how the streets shake out as it seems tricky, but an important part of it. Wade stated he is glad to see it come together. Townsend agreed noting it's long overdue and that land has been sitting there for quite a while, so it'll be interesting to see what goes up there. Miller stated he is in support of it Quellhorst agrees and notes Commissioner Miller asked some good questions about tasteful development and doing what they can to prevent strip malls or any other kind of distasteful commercial development. A lot still has to be done, and it will come down to doing a good job of planning and plats and he has got confidence in the staff to do that appropriately. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. CASE NO. REZ25-0009: Location: 2510 N. Dodge Street An application for a rezoning of approximately 37.9 acres of land from Research Development Park (RDP) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone. Russett stated this is the former Pearson site at North Dodge Street with Interstate 80 to the south and Moss Ridge Road to the north. It's currently zoned Research Development Park, similar to that ACT property, where it envisions office parks or research firms, to the west is land that was rezoned to CI-1 a few years ago, and there is CH-1 Highway Commercial to the east. Russett stated this land was annexed into the City in the 1970s, it was initially developed for Westinghouse Educational Services and was later transferred to Pearson in 2014 and the City approved a rezoning of the property from Office Research Park to Research Development Park. The former Pearson site was recently purchased by GSD North Dodge LLC after it sat vacant for nearly five years and the new owners are looking to repurpose the existing buildings with a variety of land uses, including office, indoor commercial recreational uses, warehousing, retail, restaurants and many of those uses are not allowed in the current Research Development Park zone. The Research Development Park zone is pretty limited to large office and research firms. The Intensive Commercial zone allows a variety of different land uses but is a more intense zoning designation than the Community Commercial that was just discussed. The Intensive Commercial zone allows things like warehousing and freight movement, which the applicant is interested in continuing, it does not allow residential uses and it also allows indoor commercial recreation uses which the applicant can speak to as they've had some interest for some sporting Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 15 of 22 facilities. The CI-1 zone does provide more flexibility for a variety of commercial uses Again, the approval criteria is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with the existing neighborhood character. Russett stated the Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as appropriate for Office Research Development Center ad the Plan has lots of text in it related to how this is a major employment center. Obviously, all of that was written prior to those businesses vacating these sites and the need for office space has significantly diminished since this Plan was adopted. The former Pearson site has been vacant for five years, there's a lack of demand for office space so a rezoning really is needed to reuse this area. The Northeast District Plan recognizes that there needs to be some flexibility in the uses that are envisioned for this area, even though the Future Land Use Map shows that it's appropriate for Office Research Development. The Plan recognizes that it might be identifying more land than could be accommodated for Office Research, it notes that it may be unrealistic and that there are alternative uses that could be appropriate in these locations, two of which the applicant is particularly interested in continuing, the recreational uses for the sporting facility and the warehousing uses. In terms of compatibility with existing neighborhoods the surrounding land allows similar uses, all of the land to the west is also zoned CI-1. There's I-80 to the south, North Dodge Street to the east, and also Highway Commercial to the east. Staff recommends approval of REZ25-0009, an application to rezone approximately 37.9 acres of land at 2510 N. Dodge Street from Research Development Park (RDP) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone. In terms of our timeline, after a recommendation from the Commission this will be moved forward to the City Council. Quellhorst opened the public hearing. Ed O'Connor (Geifman Group) stated they are extremely excited about this property, they've owned the property for just a few months, and it's honestly been thrilling and exciting. The buzz, the energy to revitalize this property has been immense. They have three current tenants lined up, an office user on the front portion, a data center user with a large office use and then sports facility, why they're here today for the rezoning, League One Volleyball Iowa United has high aspirations for this corner to not only use it immediately, but long term expansions on the property that will require additions and renovations. O'Conner stated their commitment is to revitalize this corner and really just bring it back and this rezoning is required for the usages that they have lined up. He noted this corner has quite obviously been in need of some attention for some time and they have some major exterior facade enhancements as the tongue and groove wood siding is not exactly appealing anymore. They've already cleared out a lot of dead trees that were there for far too long and they haven't even owned the property for two months. Miller asked with the three uses he described it feels like it might be a little hard to mesh together, like a more public oriented sports thing with data center and offices. O'Conner agreed the data center with a large indoor sports facility is odd, the unique part about the data center is they actually want their customers and clients to come in and view the data center. It will be a high security center with a vast office area north of 40,000 square feet, plus the data center, which is 20,000 square feet. O'Conner stated their major concern with the property was that center building that was rehabbed by Pearson but in actually less than two months they've Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 16 of 22 already found a usage for all three facilities and that's why there is significant energy behind this. They believe the mixed uses actually is a testament to what the campus can be and should be in the future. They've hired the best with Shive to delineate and make sure that they are meeting all requirements with those usages. He noted as a matter of fact, the unique part is they really are three independent buildings and are separated in every sense but they have links of walkways to connect them. But they are all separate and delineated, even from a fire standpoint and a life safety standpoint. Miller asked so the plan is basically a small office on the left, data center with office in the middle and the volleyball thing on the right. O'Conner replied actually what they reference as the plaza, which was renovated by Pearson from 2016 to 2019, and then obviously COVID hit their plan is to modify the exterior to make it look like the interior (the inside has some brand new office space) and they have a user for that plaza right portion, about 145,000 square feet. He noted the exterior facade enhancements are going to be extensive. Then to the southwest there's a 200' link that they have aspirations to remove, so it is more of a separation, and then they can bring more trails and more outside, inside. He stated right now it actually looks like there's more building, because that 200' link but it is two and because the future is not one big campus, it's multiple uses they will remove that. The property closer to I-80 is the center building that will be a large office use adjacent to the data center, which is the piece that's built into the hill like a concrete bunker. Then to the north is where the volleyball user is planning to go, which had been a warehouse, it's 55,000 square feet with 22' ceiling height. They're going to use that temporarily this late fall and then they will add an addition to the north to get the full breadth of the 32' ceiling height required for volleyball. Davies asked if the parking sufficient for all the uses and do they have any changes envisioned there. O'Conner confirmed there will have to be some modifications because the volleyball user to the north would likely encompass some of that parking lot. Currently, he believes they have plenty of parking for the proposed usages. Quellhorst closed the public hearing Miller moved to recommend approval of REZ25-0009, an application to rezone approximately 37.9 acres of land at 2510 N. Dodge Street from Research Development Park (RDP) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone. Townsend seconded the motion. Davies stated he is very supportive and loves the creative adaptive reuse. He thought that property was going to be sitting vacant for a very long time as he didn't see another large office user taking it over. His only concerns are just it has very large parking lots and he would love to see less parking or maybe it broken up in a little bit different way but overall is generally supportive of the whole concept. Townsend agreed it's nice to see that whole area being used and repurposed as opposed to tearing down an amazing building. Miller agrees about just the exciting mix of uses and adaptive reuse, it's exciting to see this area of town start to be reused. Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 17 of 22 A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT ITEMS: CASE NO. REZ25-0012: Consideration of an amendment to 14-51K Neighborhood Open Space Requirements Schaefer explained the proposed ordinance is an amendment to the City's Neighborhood Open Space requirements that were initially adopted in 1994. The Neighborhood Open Space dedication requirement is for developers to set aside land for parks or pay a fee in lieu of land dedication to be used by the City's Parks and Recreation Department to acquire and develop park facilities for the community. This requirement ensures that those responsible for creating the need for new parks cover the cost rather than existing residents in the community. Schaefer reviewed the current formula used to decide how much required open space dedication is needed for development. The current formula used to calculate that requirement is acres of undeveloped property multiplied by the maximum dwelling units allowed per undeveloped acre of the property being developed and that is multiplied by 65% which is a rough estimate of the average development density of Iowa City. That then is further multiplied by persons per dwelling unit based on the most recent census and then multiplied by 3/1000 which is the community standard of the goal of requiring three acres of neighborhood park space per 1000 people. Schaefer stated the reason the City is needing to update the code is because there's been several zoning code updates since 1994 when this was originally approved. The main issue with the existing formula is it is based on the requirement to utilize maximum density, which causes several problems. One of those problems is in residential zones. Since 1994 the City has allowed more housing types (duplexes, attached single family housing types) and all of those things contribute to an increased maximum density than what was originally envisioned in 1994. The formula is also not calculable for projects in Riverfront Crossing and the Central Business District because there is no maximum density for those districts. Also, the form based zones again allow an even wider range of housing types and that creates a very high maximum density for those properties if they were to be rezoned to form based code districts. Schaefer noted even though the City allows that maximum density, they don't foresee any developer building to maximum for those sites so the requirements end up being a little overbearing for those properties. The current requirements also create a burden for small infill projects such as having one lot that a single homeowner is simply trying to divide into two, the fees tend to be a barrier to get that done. The goal of the update is to remove density as the main part of the calculation and adopt a formula that works for all zoning districts and works within the City's goals and budget that is reasonable and approachable for developers and subdividers. Schaefer stated for proposed amendments there's four main sections, applicability and the procedures of the code, the formula itself, the addition of a dedication cap, or maximum amount of land to be dedicated, and then the neighborhood Open Space District Boundary Map. The first change is related to the applicability of the code, the current ordinance applies the Neighborhood Open Space requirements to residential subdivisions, commercial subdivisions containing residential uses, and planned developments. The proposed amendment simplifies the process by simply stating that the requirement is required at preliminary plat stage which recognizes that the major developments, including most planned developments, already go Prepared by: Olivia Ziegler, Planning Intern 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5230 (REZ25-0009) Ordinance No. An ordinance rezoning approximately 37.9 acres of land located at 2510 N. Dodge Street from Research Development Park (RDP) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone. Whereas, the Owner, GSD North Dodge, LLC, has requested the rezoning of 37.9 acres of land located at 2510 N. Dodge Street from Research Development Park (RDP) zone to Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone; and Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the subject area is appropriate for Office Research Park Development Centers, and the North District Plan acknowledges the surplus of office use designation within the area, and suggests alternative uses should be considered in this area; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed rezoning and has recommended approval. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I Approval. Property described below is hereby reclassified Intensive Commercial (CI- 1) zone, as indicated; The West one-half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 80 North, Range 6 West of the 51" P.M. and Commencing at the NW Corner of the NE1/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 36, Twp. 80 North, Range 6 West of the 51" P.M.; Thence S 0°08' W along the West line of said NE1/4 SW1/4 of Section 36, 281 feet; thence East 412.0 feet to the center line of Iowa Highway No. 1 (formerly designated as Iowa Highway # 261); thence Northeasterly along the center line of said Highway, along a 2865 foot radius curve, concave Easterly with a central angle of 150 to its intersection with the North line of said NE1/4 SW1/4 of Section 36; thence N 89018' W 566.0 feet along the North line of said NE1/4 of the SW1/4 of Section 36, to the point of beginning. Excepting that part thereof condemned by the Iowa State Highway Commission for the use and benefit of the State of Iowa as shown by the condemnation proceeding recorded in Book 254, Page 155, in the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, and further excepting therefrom those parcels conveyed to the City of Iowa City, Iowa, pursuant to Deeds recorded in Book 1075, Page 408 and Book 5265, Page 30 of the Johnson County, Iowa Recorder's Office. Section II. Zoning Map. 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 Owner's expense, upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law. Section IV. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Ordinance No. Page 2 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 Attorney's Office Item Number: 9.e. a CITY OF IOWA CITY "QF T-4 COUNCIL ACTION REPORT August 19, 2025 Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning Code and Title 15, Land Subdivision, to update the Neighborhood Open Space Requirements (REZ25-0012) Attachments: REZ25-0012 Packet PZ 7.16.25 minutes -NOS REZ25-0012 Ordinance CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: July 16, 2025 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Rachael Schaefer, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Zoning Code Amendment (REZ25-0012) related to 14-5K Neighborhood Open Space Requirements Introduction The Iowa City Zoning Code (Title 14) and Subdivision Code (Title 15) are subject to alteration and clarification as situations and circumstances change throughout the city. The proposed ordinance (Attachment 1) is an amendment to the City's Neighborhood Open Space Requirements, which were initially adopted in 1994. Since its adoption, the City has adopted other zoning tools that have complicated the implementation of the neighborhood open space requirements. The purpose of these amendments is to adopt an ordinance that works with a variety of zoning tools while maintaining the main purpose of the regulation, which is to ensure all residents have adequate access to parks and open space areas. Background The neighborhood open space dedication is a requirement that developers set aside land for parks or pay a fee in lieu of land dedication to be used by the City to acquire and develop park facilities. This requirement ensures that those responsible for creating the need for new parks cover the costs, rather than existing residents. The current formula used to calculate the required neighborhood open space dedication is as follows: A x 0.65DU x PDU x 3/1000, where A = Acres of undeveloped property; DU = Maximum dwelling units per undeveloped acre (43,560 divided by the minimum lot area requirement for the highest density residential use allowed in the subject base zone); 0.65 = This percentage figure reflects the average development density occurring in Iowa City; PDU = Persons per dwelling unit based on the most recent census; and 3/1,000 = The community standard of acres for active neighborhood open space required per 1,000 persons, as determined by the formulas set out in the neighborhood open space plan, as amended. Several zoning code updates have occurred since the adoption of the current ordinance in 1994. The main issue is that the current formula is based on maximum density, which causes several problems: 1. Residential zones now allow duplex and attached single-family housing types, increasing the maximum density. 2. The Form -Based Zones applicable in the South and Southwest Districts allow a wide range of housing types in each zone and therefore have a very high maximum density compared to what will likely be constructed. 3. The formula is not calculable for projects in the Riverfront Crossing and Central Business Districts since there is no maximum density. 4. The current formula's open space requirements create a burden for small infill projects. In addition to updating the formula, this update also addresses the following: 1. Aligning the purpose statements in 14-5K-1 and 15-3-5 with current City practices. 2. Clarifying the references to the "neighborhood open space plan, as amended" in 14-5K and 15-3-5. 3. Aligning the applicability provisions in 14-5K-2 and 15-3-5B. 4. Refining the procedure for dedication in 14-5K-3 language to align with current practices. The goal of this update is to remove density from the calculation, adopt a formula that works for all zoning districts, and adopt a formula that balances the City's current budget and goals with a more reasonable approach for developers and subdividers. The proposed code amendment (Attachment 1) includes changes to Article K, Neighborhood Open Space Requirements, of Chapter 5, Site Development Standards, of the Zoning Code (Title 14). Staff also proposes amending Title 15 (Land Subdivisions) to ensure alignment with the updates in Title 14. While the Planning and Zoning Commission does not review changes to the City Code outside of Title 14, proposed amendments to Title 15 are also included in the attachment. Proposed Amendments 1. Applicability and Procedures The current ordinance applies neighborhood open space requirements to residential subdivisions, commercial subdivisions containing residential uses, and planned developments. The proposed amendment simplifies the process by applying the requirement only at the preliminary plat stage. This change recognizes that major developments, including most planned developments, already go through preliminary platting where infrastructure and unit layout are determined, making it the appropriate point to assess open space needs. It also exempts smaller projects that only require a final plat, as these are typically follow-ups to an earlier subdivision that already accounted for open space. This update improves clarity, avoids duplication, and ensures the requirement aligns with the scale and timing of development. 2. Formula The following formula was selected based on its alignment with the update's goals, conformance with best practices informed by the research conducted, and ease of use. # of units x PDU x 3/1000, where # of units = Number of new units is determined as noted in the table below; PDU = Persons per dwelling unit based on the most recent census (Persons per household, 2019-2023: 2.23). 3/1000 = Acres of active neighborhood open space required per 1,000 persons. Determining Unit Number Zone Unit Number Determined by Single -Family Residential Allowable units based on the following dimensional requirements: Lot size, Lot frontage, and Lot width Multi -Family Residential and For every platted lot: Maximum dwelling units per undeveloped Commercial Zones (with acre (43,560 divided by the minimum lot area requirement for residential uses) the highest density residential use allowed in the subject base zone) x 0.65 Riverfront Crossings and Unit number to be provided by developer at submittal of Eastside Mixed Use Districts preliminary plat application Form -Based Zones Total unit number on Neighborhood Plan Planned Development Total unit number on Preliminary OPD Plan Overlays (OPDs) The updated formula includes key adjustments to improve clarity, consistency, and alignment with how development occurs in Iowa City. The variables were revised as follows: Removed • A (acres of undeveloped land): The current formula uses total site acreage, which did not accurately reflect how much housing would be built. Removing acreage simplifies the calculation and avoids disproportionate requirements for low -density, oddly shaped sites, and sites with sensitive features. • DU (dwelling units per acre): This variable was based on the maximum allowable density, which often exceeded what was actually built. Removing dwelling units per acre eliminates inflated results. Retained • 0.65 (estimated development density): Retained in how unit counts are estimated for some zones. While no longer part of the formula itself, the 0.65 multiplier is still used to estimate realistic unit counts in zones where actual units are unknown at the time of preliminary plat. This preserves consistency with past development patterns while improving applicability. • PDU (persons per dwelling unit): PDU remains in the formula to ensure that open space requirements are based on the estimated population served, maintaining alignment with the community standard of open space per 1,000 people. • 311000 (acres per 1,000 persons): This value remains unchanged and continues to represent the City's adopted standard for neighborhood open space need based on population. Added • Number of Units: Replaces A x DU x 0.65 in the new formula. Unit count now drives the calculation and is determined based on zone -specific methods that reflect how development is reviewed. This approach ties open space requirements directly to development intensity. The formula was simplified by removing acreage and maximum densities and instead focusing on actual or reasonably estimated unit counts. This supports the City's goal of providing adequate park space. 3. Dedication Cap The updated ordinance includes a new provision that caps required land dedication for neighborhood open space at 10% of the total developable site area. The cap works with the updated formula. After calculating the required open space using the proposed new formula (# of units x PDU x 3/1000), Staff compares the result to 10% of the total developable site area. If the formula yields a number that exceeds 10%, the requirement is limited to that maximum. This maximum applies whether the developer is dedicating land or paying a fee in lieu of land. This cap is needed to ensure the requirement remains proportional and reasonable, particularly for high -density or mixed -use developments where the formula could otherwise generate an open space requirement that consumes an excessive portion of the site. Without a cap, projects in areas like Riverfront Crossings or Form -Based Zones, where unit counts are high but land is limited, could face unrealistic dedication expectations that hinder development feasibility. The 10% limit provides a safeguard against disproportionate outcomes, offering predictability to developers while still securing meaningful open space contributions for the community. 4. Neighborhood Open Space District Boundary Map As part of this ordinance update, Staff is proposing to relocate the neighborhood open space boundary map from the parks master plan to the zoning ordinance. The map was originally adopted in 1993 in the Neighborhood Open Space Plan, which was adopted as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The most recent update of the map is included in the 2017 Parks Master Plan (see Attachment 2). Including the map directly in the zoning ordinance improves accessibility and provides clearer guidance to staff, developers, and the public by placing the map in the same location as the standards that describe its use. In addition to adding the map to the zoning ordinance, Staff is also proposing to revise the neighborhood open space boundaries by consolidating several subareas into districts (See Attachment 3). When discussing the implementation of this ordinance with Park and Recreation staff, it was noted that the current boundaries are too segmented, which can make land acquisition and the use of fee -in -lieu funds restrictive. Expanding and consolidating these boundaries will provide greater flexibility to develop park spaces where they are most efficient, rather than being limited to areas that may not align with where land is available or where park development is feasible. This is especially important as all payments in lieu of dedication funds must be used by the City within five years of them being received. The update to the district boundaries also includes expanding them to include the growth boundary areas outside of city limits. Adding the growth areas to the boundaries ensures that as annexation and development occur, neighborhood open space can be developed in the area using these dedicated funds. Analysis Iowa City's ordinance was compared to 18 other jurisdictions that require neighborhood open space dedication (see Attachment 4). Four of the researched jurisdictions were in Iowa, while the others were located in Minnesota, Texas, Wisconsin, California, and Arkansas. Six difference development scenarios were used to analyze how each formula would impact that development's dedication requirements. The scenarios included a single-family only, a mixed unit type, an infill development in a single-family zone, a mixed unit type development in the Form Based District, and two multi -family developments in the Riverfront Crossing District. The following formula was selected based on its alignment with the update's goals, conformance with best practices informed by the research conducted, and ease of use. The updated formula replaces the current acreage -based calculation with a simpler, unit -based approach: # of units x PDU x 3/1000 with a 10% cap, instead of A x 0.65DU x PDU x 3/1000. This change removes the reliance on density, making the calculation clearer, more consistent across zoning districts, and better aligned with actual population impacts. The current formula relies on a fixed density assumption that no longer reflects the range of housing types allowed across zoning districts, making it less adaptable and difficult to implement. In contrast, the proposed formula is simpler, more transparent, and scalable across all development types and zones. Tying open space requirements directly to the number of units and expected population better aligns with actual demand for parks. At the same time, the cap ensures that requirements remain reasonable for both infill and large-scale projects. This change improves clarity, fairness, and consistency in implementation without compromising the City's open space goals. Because the City's zoning districts vary significantly in how and when unit counts are established, the new neighborhood open space formula requires flexible methods for estimating unit numbers at the time of preliminary plat. In single-family residential zones, lot size provides a reliable proxy for unit count since lots are typically platted individually for units. In multi -family residential and commercial zones, unit counts are not known until later in the development process, so a standardized calculation based on maximum allowable density, adjusted by maintaining the 0.65 factor, offers a consistent and fair estimate for these specific lots. In Riverfront Crossings and Eastside Mixed Use Districts, where flexibility and mixed -use configurations are common, applicants will provide an estimated unit count at the preliminary plat, with final numbers verified at the final plat. Unit numbers from the adopted Neighborhood Plan will be used for form -based zones. This tailored approach ensures accurate open space requirements across all zoning districts, aligning with each district's specific development review process. Anticipated Impact The example scenarios below illustrate how the updated formula may impact neighborhood open space requirements across a range of development types and zones. While these are a mix of real and conceptual projects that require dedicated open space, they reflect common development patterns and help demonstrate how the new formula functions in different zoning contexts. Two key issues justify the shift to the new formula. First, under the current formula, open space fees for high -density projects, particularly in areas like Riverfront Crossings or the Form -Based Zones, can exceed $1 million. This is difficult to justify from a planning and policy standpoint and does not encourage the dense development that the City wishes to see in these zones. These amounts can create a significant barrier to the kind of infill, compact, walkable developments that align with City goals. The new formula, combined with the 10% cap, ensures that open space requirements remain meaningful yet not excessive, thereby preserving project feasibility in areas where land is limited and housing demand is high. Second, while the open space dedication for more traditional residential subdivisions may decrease under the new formula, the change reflects a correction of an assumption in the current code. The existing formula uses a maximum density, not the density proposed or built. The updated formula ties open space requirements directly to unit count and the most recent household size data. This creates a more accurate standard across all zoning districts, ensuring that each development contributes neighborhood open space based on the estimated number of people who will reside there, without being overburdened. Together, these changes align requirements with actual development patterns while maintaining the City's goal of acquiring high -quality open space as new housing is built. The examples below highlight the updated formula's improved predictability, fairness, and scalability across zoning districts without compromising the City's open space objectives. Single -Family Residential Single -Family Residential - Multi -Family Residential — Tamarack Ridge Lexington Ave Cardinal Heights Pt 1 Formula for Land to Acres to be Acres to be Acres to be be Dedicated Fee in Lieu Dedicated Fee in Lieu Dedicated Fee in Lieu Dedicated Current 0.79 $25,915.95 0.010 $6,278.91 0.64 $46,439.79 Updated 0.40 $13,167.93 0.007' $4,014.00' 0.28 $20,505.04 Difference - 0.39 - $12,748.02 - 0.003 - $2,264.91 -0.36 - $25,934.75 Riverfront Crossings Form -Based Planned Development 700 S Dubuque (Conceptual) South Village Concept Overlay -Western Homes (Conceptual) (Conceptual) Formula for Land to Acres to Acres to Acres to be be be Fee in Lieu be Fee in Lieu Dedicated Fee in Lieu Dedicated Dedicated Dedicated Current 1.09 $1,462,818.23 11.28 $1,848,310.26 1.09 $141,100.13 Updated 0.192 $255,661.002 2.35 $385,713.10 0.73 $94,797.30 Difference - 0.90 - $1,207,157.23 - 8.93 - $1,462,597.16 - 0.36 -$46,302.83 Notes: 1) With the newly proposed ordinance, the neighborhood open space dedication requirements would likely not be triggered for infill sites as they typically only require a final plat and not a preliminary plat. 2) The calculated dedication was greater than 10% of the total developable land (dedication cap), so a 10% land dedication is required for this development. Next Steps Pending a Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation, the City Council must hold a public hearing to consider the proposed text amendments. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that Title 14 Zoning be amended, as illustrated in Attachment 1, to update requirements related to neighborhood open space dedication to continue implementing the City's goal of providing adequate open space to residents. Attachments 1. Draft Zoning and Land Subdivision Code Text Amendments 2. 2017 Neighborhood Open Space Boundary Map 3. Neighborhood Open Space Boundary Map Proposed Update 4. Summary Review of Other Jurisdictions Approved by: Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ATTACHMENT 1 Draft Zoning and Land Subdivision Code Text Amendments DRAFT ZONING CODE TEXT A. Amend 14-5K-1, Purpose, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: The neighborhood open space requirements ensure that adequate usable neighborhood open space, parks and recreation facilities are provided in a manner that is consistent with the Re,ehherheel•! eeeR cease parks master plan, as amended, by using a calculable method to equitably apportion the costs of acquiring and developing land for those purposes. The provisions of this article require development, which creates increased needs for neighborhood open space ("open space impact"), to pay a proportionate share of the city's capital improvements to fulfill said open space impact. Usable neighborhood open space includes pedestrian/bicycle trails, preferably located within natural greenway systems, private open space that is publicly accessible, and neighborhood parks that serve nearby residents. Der+ieps of larger eemm, Rity parks may he adapted fer narks er large playing fields for ergaRized sports This article is also intended to encourage, wherever reasonably feasible, the dedication of sensitive areas in conjunction with usable open space. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) B. Amend 14-5K-2, Applicability, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: As a condition of approval for preliminary plats containing residential uses residential de„eleeme the applicant shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu of land, or a combination thereof, for park, greenway, recreational and open space purposes, as determined by the city and in accordance with the provisions of this article. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) C. Amend 14-5K-3, Dedication of Land, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: A. Amount Of Land To Be Dedicated: The amount of land dedication shall be determined by the following formula. This formula is deemed a reasonable calculation of the additional need for neighborhood open space created by the subject subdivision er elaRRed rde„eleemeRt n .,�D I I x PD I x 3/1000 .,ham base zene); T+ lewaJ , # of units x PDU x 3/1000, where # of units = Number of new units is determined as noted in the Table 5K-1: PDU = Persons per dwelling unit based on the most recent census; and 3/1,000 = The nemm„eity stand,rdl of Acres fer of active neighborhood open space required per 1,000 persons, as determined by the fermi I -as ce+ e, i+ it +he Reighherheed eeeR cease Plan, r�r ec emeRd Table 5K-1: Determining Unit Number Zone Unit Number Determined by Single -Family Residential Allowable units based on the followinq dimensional requirements: Lot size, Lot frontage, and Lot width Multi -Family Residential and For every platted lot: Maximum dwelling units per undeveloped Commercial Zones (with residential uses) acre (43,560 divided by the minimum lot area requirement for the highest density residential use allowed in the subject base zone) x 0.65 River Front Crossings and Unit number to be provided by developer at submittal of Eastside Mixed Use Districts preliminary plat application Form -Based Total unit number on Neighborhood Plan Planned Development Overlays (OPDs) Total unit number on Preliminary OPD Plan B. Dedication Cap: The maximum amount of land to be dedicated is 10% of the total acres of land being developed. C. Nature Of Land To Be Dedicated: Except as otherwise required by the city, all dedications of land shall meet the following criteria: Usability: At least ninety percent (90%) of the land required to be dedicated shall be located outside of floodways, lakes or other water bodies, areas with slopes greater than fifteen percent (15%), wetlands subject to federal or state regulatory jurisdiction and other areas the city reasonably deems unsuitable for neighborhood open space due to topography, flooding or other appropriate considerations. Dry bottom storm water detention facilities and dry creek areas may be credited toward reaching a portion of the required land dedication when the city determines that such areas are suitable for use as neighborhood open space. Pedestrian/bicycle trails and private open space that is publicly accessible may be credited toward reaching the required land dedication when the city determines that such areas are suitable for use as neiahborhood oxen space. The city encourages the dedication of lakes, ponds, creeks, other water bodies, wetlands falling under the jurisdiction of state or federal agencies and other sensitive areas including woodland areas, both as ten percent (10%) of and in addition to the dedicated land required by this article, if sufficient abutting land is dedicated as a usable, public recreation area or park. 2. Unity: The dedicated land shall form a single parcel of land, except where the city determines that two (2) or more parcels or greenways/trails would best serve the public interest, given the type and distribution of neighborhood open space needed to adequately serve the proposed development. If the city determines that two (2) or more parcels would best serve the public interest, the city may require that such parcels be connected by a dedicated strip of land at least twenty feet (20') wide in order to provide access and continuity between said parcels. 3. Location: The dedicated land shall be located so as to reasonably serve the recreation and open space needs of the residents of the subdivision GF plaRRed deVelOpMeR4 4. Shape: If a sufficient amount of land is dedicated to accommodate recreational facilities and activities, such as fields, courts or playground equipment, the shape of the dedicated land shall be suitable for such facilities and activities. Linear open space should be of sufficient width to accommodate trails and adjacent greenways. 5. Access: a. Greenways/Trails: Public access to greenways/trails shall be provided by a public access easement at least twenty feet (20') in width. In addition, greenways/trails shall be connected to existing or proposed greenways/trails on adjacent property. b. Parks: Public access to the dedicated land to be used for parks shall be provided either by adjoining public street frontage or by a dedicated public access easement at least fifty feet (50') in width, which connects the dedicated land to a public street or right of way. The grades adjacent to existing and proposed streets shall permit reasonable access to the dedicated land. The parcel shall be safely accessible to pedestrian traffic. 6. Responsibility For Site Preparation: a. The city may require the subdivider or developer to grade and seed those portions of the dedicated land to be improved prior to dedication of the property and prior to the city's acceptance of the dedication. b. Where the dedicated land is located adjacent to a street, the subdivider or developer shall remain responsible for the installation of utilities, sidewalks and other improvements required along that street segment. c. Prior to dedication, the subdivider or developer shall be responsible for restoring satisfactory ground cover and controlling erosion on land to be dedicated that has been disrupted as a result of development activities by the subdivider or developer. D. 4;-. Procedure For Dedication Of Land: The dedication of land shall be reviewed as part of the preliminary subdivision plat or Preliminary PlaRRe I i-eVeInPmont Plan Whv+heVeF is applil+ The subdivider or developer shall designate the area or areas of land to be dedicated pursuant to this article on the preliminary subdivision plat GF PlaRRed rdeVeIGPR;eRt plan. Where wetlands have been delineated on the property, the preliminary subdivision plat or Planned rdeVeIGPR;eRt r,43n shall also identify the boundaries of such wetlands. 2. Upon receipt of the preliminary subdivision plat, the rommi initY deVeIor,mont (PGD director of neighborhood & development services (NDS) shall submit a copy to the director of parks and recreation rdiror++or of the depaFtMeRt of narks ;ni-1 ror+roa+inn for review by the i4arks and fecreation commission. The -parks and fecreation commission shall submit recommendations concerning the land to be dedicated to the planning and zoning commission within twenty-one (21) business days of the receipt of a complete application for preliminary subdivision plat er preliminary plaRRed rdeVeIGPH;eRt 3. Once the final subdivision plat OF final plaRRed devel pmep+ is approved, and any public improvements required to be installed by the subdivider or developer within the land to be dedicated have been installed, approved, and accepted by the city, and the subdivider or developer has completed site preparation pursuant to subsection B6 of this section, the subdivider or developer shall provide a properly executed warranty deed conveying the dedicated land to the city within two (2) years of final plat approval (^r final plaRRed rdeVeIGr,mon4 a eva4-�or by the time the city issues fifty percent (50%) of the certificates of occupancy for the subdivision, at the discretion of the city, or as otherwise specified in the subdivider's or developer agreement. 4. The city shall formally accept the dedication of land for open space, parkland or greenways/trails by resolution. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) D. Amend 14-5K-4, Payment of Fees in Lieu, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: A. General: The payment of fees in lieu of dedication of land may occur at the request of the subdivider or developer with approval by the city, or may be required by the city. The payment of fees in lieu of land dedication shall be reviewed and approved as part of the preliminary subdivision plat nr r'rolimiRaFy PIGIRRe d r eVelOpMeR4 B. Request By Subdivider Or Developer: 1. If a payment in lieu of open space is requested, the subdivider or developer must include such request in a letter submitted with the application for a preliminary subdivision ^r preliminary plaRRed r eVelOpMeR+ whichever is applicable. 2. The director of neighborhood & development services (NDS) will forward a copy of the preliminary subdivision plat nr preliminary plaRRed deVeIGPRIen+ along with a copy of the letter requesting payment of fees in lieu of land dedication to the director ^f the i-epaF+. eRt of parks and recreation for review by the parks and recreation commission. The commission shall submit any and all recommendations concerning the payment of fees in lieu of dedication to the planning and zoning commission within twenty one (21) business days of the date a complete application for preliminary subdivision plat ^r plaRRed deVeI^r,.,,eRt is submitted. 3. The planning and zoning commission will consider the request for payment of fees in lieu of land dedication during the subdivision ^r plaRRed deVeIGPH;eRt review process and forward its recommendations to the city council. C. Determination Of Fees In Lieu Of Dedication Criteria: The city may, at its discretion, require the payment of fees in lieu of the subdivider dedicating land, if the city finds that all or part of the land required for dedication is not suitable for public recreation and open space purposes, or upon a finding that the recreational needs of the proposed subdivision can be met by other park, greenway, or recreational facilities planned or constructed by the city within reasonable proximity to the subdivision. The city shall consider the following factors in making its determination: 1. Recreational and open space elements of the city comprehensive plan, as amended, and the relation of the subdivision to the proposed open space and recreational areas; 2. Topographic and geologic conditions of the land available for dedication; 3. Size, shape, location of and access to the land available for dedication; 4. The character and recreational needs of the neighborhood where the subdivision is located; 5. The costs of developing open space and recreational areas in the subdivision; 6. The actual or potential development of open space and recreational areas on land adjacent to the subdivision which will serve the needs of the subdivision; 7. Recommendations of staff, the parks and recreation commission and the planning and zoning commission; and 8. Any other relevant information. D. Time Of Payment: Fees in lieu of dedication must be paid in full by the subdivider/developer prior to the issuance of the first building permit for a lot in the subdivision ^r plaRRed deyelopme„+ E. Amount Of Payment: The fee shall be equal to the fair market value of the land that ftabotherwise would have been required for dedication. The fair market value of the undeveloped land shall be determined by a qualified real estate appraiser or by other means whe+s-acceptable to both the city and the subdivider or developer. The city and subdivider/developer will equally share the appraisal costs. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15- 2005) E. Amend 14-5K-5, Requiring Both Dedication of Land and Payment of Fee, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: The city may, at its discretion, require a subdivider devel^rmon+ to dedicate a portion of the land required under the formula set forth in this article, and also to pay a fee in lieu of dedication for the remaining portion of the land by said formula. The fee for the remaining portion shall be determined by a qualified real estate appraiser or by other means whe isacceptableto both the city and subdivider or developer. The city and subdivider/developer will equally share the appraisal costs. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) F. Amend 14-5K-6, Use of Funds, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: A. The neighborhood open space district boundary map (see figure 5K-1 of this section), divides the city into neighborhood open space districts. All payments in lieu of dedication shall be deposited in a special neighborhood open space account designated by the name of the contributing development. All payments will be used to acquire or develop open spaces, parks, recreation facilities and greenways/trails that are located within the neighborhood open space district containing the subject subdivision er planned deVe'GPR;eR, and will benefit the residents of the subdivision planned deVelGPRgeRt for which payment has been made. FIGURE 5K-1 Neighborhood Open Space District Boundary Map Legend 0 Iowa City Boundary b�eira�b s Z Iowa City Growth Area '13th Snte��te 8p 340th St NE Clear Creek Greenbelt 2 U )th Sr or ; ville wwerH, {3• a,,, 4 -1��®� 61anchRd Lo' rW. Rd SEBranch 1f1f � =t Melrose' a re;. > Ave 4 m r yhts' y 1 ap v y het P! EE N 4201h St bE,„ tP9��y1 — ��d4? ����f ♦ I ee East j/• [zaak 6�� ! Osage St SE 8 St SW ; Walmn Rd L���• N N waa Breckenrio, e tes Suurcis: Esn, oni um,6 n in,FAO,NOAA, US6S, ©`�pen5treethAap coEsta n to bu U) and the 6lS User Miles commuory 0 0.250.5 1.5 2 n B. The city must use the payment in lieu of dedication within five (5) years from the date received. This period will be automatically extended an additional five (5) years if the subdivider/developer has not constructed at least fifty percent (50%) of the units within the subdivision ^F plaRRed deVel PMeRt for which payment in lieu of dedication has been made. C. If the city has not spent the funds by the last day of the five (5) year period or, if extended, by the last day of an additional five (5) years, the city shall, within ninety (90) days thereafter, mail to the property owner, at the address on file with the Johnson County treasurer's office, a proportional refund based on the percentage of the platted lots they own of the total platted lots in the subdivision ^r plaRRed deVeIGPMeR+. The subdivider's agreement/development agreement for each subdivision�plaRRed deyelepn;er# for which the subdivider/developer has made payments in lieu of dedication shall inform all property owners and successors in interest to properties in the subdivision 'hared deVeIGPMeRt of the right to a refund as provided for herein. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) I DRAFT LAND SUBDIVISION CODE TEXT G. Amend 15-3-5, Neighborhood Open Space Requirements, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: A. Intent And Purpose: The neighborhood open space requirements are intended to ensure provision of adequate usable neighborhood open space, parks and recreation facilities in a manner that is consistent with the ReighbGFhGGGI GpeR GpaG(, parks master plan, as amended, by using a fair and reasonably calculable method to equitably apportion the costs of acquiring and/or developing land for those purposes. Active, usable neighborhood open space includes pedestrian/bicycle trails preferably located within natural greenway systems, private open space that is publicly accessible, and also ORGIUde neighborhood parks that serve nearby residents. ergaRiZed cnnr+c B. Dedication Of Land Or Payment Of Fees In Lieu Of Land Required: The dedication of land shall be reviewed as part of the preliminary subdivision plat. As a condition of approval for preliminary plats containing residential uses resid-a—ptial s h-d-i„isinnc -;;P rnmmorni�l ci ihrJi1iicinnc nnn+ainiRg rocirJori+i�i , ��o�, the applicant shall dedicate land or pay a fee in lieu of land, or a combination thereof, for park, greenway, recreational and open space purposes, as determined by the city and in accordance with the provisions of title 14, chapter 5, article K, "Neighborhood Open Space Requirements", of this code. (Ord. 08-4313, 8-26-2008) ATTACHMENT 2 2017 Neighborhood Open Space Boundary Map Neighborhood Open Space 151, s District Naar) (2017) NW'1 SDI SW6 SW5 SW2 F 3 OF NW2 SW3 S4 N2 � N1 �. NE7 Or C1 NE3 -C2 NE2 C7 Cm 4 SE1 --�_ E2 E3 S2 l 3 ATTACHMENT 3 Neighborhood Open Space Boundary Map Proposed Update Legend ` j Brown Deei 0 Iowa City Boundary Golf Club r + Iowa City Growth Area tY � nresr y �� 7 3-th SV ate 80 �i Clear Creek Greenbelt LIi or�,!vi I le(000� Melrose Ave N N a z Sw Ak Miles 0 0.25 0.5 11.5 2 Q 1%, T r M ., Hig4 / Izaak Walton Rd , • 0 Xka East t� . o. m f 340th St NE �jhter�d L SE J:Af * I 420th St SE, ' % 9 Osage St SE ,y6 v Breckenriarye Estates FAO, NOAA, USGS, ©00penStreetMap ca"iitributors, and the GIS User X � Community c�c ATTACHMENT 4 Summary Review of Other Jurisdictions State 2022 Population Ordinance Link DedicatedCity Formula for Land to be Category Iowa City IA 75,233 14-5K Acres of undeveloped property X (0.65 x max DU) x Persons/DU x 3/1000 1 Santa Cruz County CA 136,086 Chapter 15.01 # of units x Persons/DU x 5/1000 2 Pleasant Hill IA 11,186 Chapter 172 # of units x Persons/DU x 5/1000 2 Dallas Center IA 1,955 170.13 # of units x Persons/DU x 10/1000 2 Waukee IA 29,167 Chapter 179 # of units x Persons/DU x 6.5/1000 2 Fort Worth TX 956,709 G-16592 # of units x Persons/DU x 3.25/1000 2 Single -Family: # of units x Persons/DU x 9.4/1000 [Persons/DU based on Density] Austin TX 974,447 Article 14 2 Multi -Family: [# of units x 5/1000] + [# of hotel/motel rooms x 4/1000] Fayetteville AR 99,285 166.04-B-4-1 Single-Family:.023 acres x # of units 3 Multi-Family:.02 acres x # of units Single -Family Detached: 1110 sq.ft. x # of units Norwalk IA 14,177 176.06 Single -Family Attached: 740 sq.ft. x # of units 3 Multi -Family: 592 sq.ft. x # of units Mobile Home: 1,044 sq.ft. x # of units Minneapolis MN 425,096 Chapter 22, Article V Downtown: (.0066 acres x # units) + (100 sq.ft. x # of employees) 3 Other Areas: (.01 acres x # units) + (100 sq.ft. x # of employees) Residential: 150 sq.ft. x #units Commercial: 28 sq.ft. x new floor area/1000 Saint Paul MN 303,176 63.7 3 Industrial: 11 sq.ft. x new floor area/1000 Wholesale, warehouse, & storage: 6 sq.ft. x new floor area/1000 Single -Family: 1 acre per 48 DU College Station TX 124,319 Sec. 8.8 Multi -Family: 1 acre per 83 DU 3 [see code for calculation details] Madison WI 272,903 16.23.6.f # of units x Square Feet 3 [sq.ft. is prescribed in the code for each unit type] Brooklyn Park MN 83,324 151.061 .1 x acreage of buildable land 4 [10%of land is required] West Saint Paul MN 21,794 Title XV: Chapter 152 .08 x acreage of buildable land 4 [8%of land is required] Residential: [DU/acre = %of buildable area] Blaine MN 71,739 Article V: 75-130 0-1= 5%, 2-3 = 109/, 4-5 = 12 %, 6-7 = 149/, 8-12 = 16%, 13-16 = 189/, For each unit over 16/acre, add 0.5%. 4 Commercial &Industrial:3% .1 x acreage of buildable land Stearns County MN 158,292 625 4 [10%of land is required] Altoona WI 9,139 18_08 Acres of Undeveloped Propertyx.05 4 [5%of land is required] Residential: (95%of the current fair market value of the city -owned parkland and park improvements/the current number of city residents) x (# units x persons/DU) Bloomington MN 79,107 22.1 5 Commercial: (10% of the current fair market value of the city -owned parkland and park improvements/the current number ofjobs) x (sq.ft. new floor area x employees/1000 sq.ft.) City Iowa City Acres of Undeveloped Property/Buildable Land X Average Development Density Occurring in City X Data Points Maximum Dwelling Units per Undeveloped Acre X Used in Land Dedication Formula Persons Per Dwelling Unit (# listed in each code) X Park Service Level (acres of 000 X Number of Units/Lots Set Area Required Santa Cruz County X X X Pleasant Hill X X X Dallas Center X X X Waukee X X X Fort Worth X X X Austin X X X Fayetteville X X Norwalk X X Minneapolis X X Saint Paul X X College Station X X Madison X X Brooklyn Park X X West Saint Paul X X Blaine X X Stearns County X X Altoona X X Bloomington X X Other Elements of the Code City Iowa City Applicability Park Dedication Max Additional Fees Residential Subdivisions None None Exemptions None Credits Previous park dedication or fees Santa Cruz County Residential Subdivisions None None None 25%of acreage in the 100-year floodplain that is dedicate Pleasant Hill Subdivision of Land, Plat of Subdivision, PUD, Site Plan %of total acres being developed (varries None Minor subdivisions (no definition ) trail easement area, 1 acre of stream buffer= .1 acre of for Residential Development based on unit type: 5-15%) open space, value of park improvements installed Dallas Center Subdivisions, Site Plan, PUD, Conditional Use Plan, Area None None None None Development Plan. Waukee Residential Subdivisions None None None Value of park improvements installed, private parkland Park Development Fee: $115,000.00/acre of Value of park improvements installed, private open space Fort Worth Residential Subdivisions None None [credit up to 50%, 50-75%Director Approval, > 75% dedicated land Council Approval] Subdivisions, site plans, building permits adding Single-Fam: 15% of total acres being certified S.M.A. R.T. Housing Policy units, 50%of acreage in the 100-year floodplain that is Austin None dedicated, privately owned and maintained parkland for residential or hotel units developed, Multi-fam: 10% income restricted units public use Fayetteville Residential Subdivisions, development that creates 1 or None None None None ore residential unit. Norwalk Residential Subdivisions None None None Value of park improvements installed Any development that results in a net increase in Admin Fee: 5% of dedication fee ($1,000 tax parcel splits, minor subdivisions, lot line Enter into an agreement for the private development Minneapolis employees and/or residential dwelling units 10%of total acres being developed cap) adjustments, conversions of apartments to and/or maintenance of land for public use condominiums. All affordable housing units Commercial <5,000 sq.ft. added, Industrial <Enter Saint Paul Any development that results in a net increase in Residential: 4.5% of acres being developed. None 12,500 sq.ft. added, warehouse < 2,5000 sq.ft. into an agreement for the private development employees and/or residential dwelling units Other: 0.5% of acres being developed and/or maintenance of land for public use added College Station Development of land for residential use None Park Development Fee: $4,150 per single- Affordable Housing Private park and ammenities (25%), value of park fam unit, $1,486 per multi-fam unit improvments installed Madison Residential Sites, Land Divisions, PUD, Residential None None None Privately -Owned open space credited Building Complexes Brooklyn Park plat, replat or subdivision of land allowing development None None None None for residential, commercial, industrial West Saint Paul all platting that involves development or None None land that park dedication has been received Partial credit for private parkland redevelopment that is being re -platted with the same # of lots Whenever any land in the city is subdivided by any The water surface area of required holding Blaine None None ponds shall not be included in the gross area Previous park dedication or fees process for the talc. Stearns County Residential Subdivisions with 3 or more new units 10%of the Estimated Market Value None Residential Subdivisions that create less than 3 None units Altoona Subdivisions and Developments $300 per lot None None Value of park improvements installed Bloomington Any development that results in a net increase in None None None Previous park dedication or fees employees and/or residential dwelling units Other Elements of the Code City Iowa City When # of Units is Unknown Fee In Lieu Based On Appraised Fair Market Value Santa Cruz County maximum number of such units permitted by the existing zoning Assessor's or Appraised Fair Market Value Pleasant Hill Appraised Fair Market Value Dallas Center Appraised Fair Market Value Waukee maximum number of such units permitted by the existing zoning No fee in lieu option Fort Worth Appraised Fair Market Value density is assumed to be the highest permitted in the zoning district (DU/person) x [(park purchase price to the City for acquiring an Austin or applicant may reduce the assumed density by agreeing that any acre of parkland)/(city pop/net park acrage)] increases in density may require additional dedication of parkland $1,089 per additional single-fam DU Fayetteville $952 per additional multi-fam DU Norwalk No fee in lieu option Minneapolis Appraised Fair Market Value $1,200 per additional DU (4.5% of assessor's estimated market Saint Paul value cap) College Station (average fair market value of an acre of land/dwelling units per acre of parks) x (1 + adjustment ratio MFU/SFU) Madison Alternative payment times: At platting, installments, at building Listed fee per unit (20.08) permit issuance Brooklyn Park Assessor Fair Market Values West Saint Paul Assessor Fair Market Values Blaine Fair Market Value determined by City Manage and City Council Stearns County Assessor Fair Market Values (10% cap) Altoona Land dedication shall be based upon the maximum number of units Land Acquisition Cost ($300 per lot fee cap) permitted by the City Zoning Code Dedicate or preserve land,easements, or cash = to the lesser of 10% Bloomington of undeveloped land value or calc. of maximum development Assessor Fair Market Values potential Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 17 of 22 A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT ITEMS: CASE NO. REZ25-0012: Consideration of an amendment to 14-51K Neighborhood Open Space Requirements Schaefer explained the proposed ordinance is an amendment to the City's Neighborhood Open Space requirements that were initially adopted in 1994. The Neighborhood Open Space dedication requirement is for developers to set aside land for parks or pay a fee in lieu of land dedication to be used by the City's Parks and Recreation Department to acquire and develop park facilities for the community. This requirement ensures that those responsible for creating the need for new parks cover the cost rather than existing residents in the community. Schaefer reviewed the current formula used to decide how much required open space dedication is needed for development. The current formula used to calculate that requirement is acres of undeveloped property multiplied by the maximum dwelling units allowed per undeveloped acre of the property being developed and that is multiplied by 65% which is a rough estimate of the average development density of Iowa City. That then is further multiplied by persons per dwelling unit based on the most recent census and then multiplied by 3/1000 which is the community standard of the goal of requiring three acres of neighborhood park space per 1000 people. Schaefer stated the reason the City is needing to update the code is because there's been several zoning code updates since 1994 when this was originally approved. The main issue with the existing formula is it is based on the requirement to utilize maximum density, which causes several problems. One of those problems is in residential zones. Since 1994 the City has allowed more housing types (duplexes, attached single family housing types) and all of those things contribute to an increased maximum density than what was originally envisioned in 1994. The formula is also not calculable for projects in Riverfront Crossing and the Central Business District because there is no maximum density for those districts. Also, the form based zones again allow an even wider range of housing types and that creates a very high maximum density for those properties if they were to be rezoned to form based code districts. Schaefer noted even though the City allows that maximum density, they don't foresee any developer building to maximum for those sites so the requirements end up being a little overbearing for those properties. The current requirements also create a burden for small infill projects such as having one lot that a single homeowner is simply trying to divide into two, the fees tend to be a barrier to get that done. The goal of the update is to remove density as the main part of the calculation and adopt a formula that works for all zoning districts and works within the City's goals and budget that is reasonable and approachable for developers and subdividers. Schaefer stated for proposed amendments there's four main sections, applicability and the procedures of the code, the formula itself, the addition of a dedication cap, or maximum amount of land to be dedicated, and then the neighborhood Open Space District Boundary Map. The first change is related to the applicability of the code, the current ordinance applies the Neighborhood Open Space requirements to residential subdivisions, commercial subdivisions containing residential uses, and planned developments. The proposed amendment simplifies the process by simply stating that the requirement is required at preliminary plat stage which recognizes that the major developments, including most planned developments, already go Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 18 of 22 through preliminary platting where infrastructure and unit layout are determined, making it an appropriate point to assess open space needs. It also exempts smaller projects like the division of one lot, that only require a final plat, as those are typically follow ups to earlier subdivisions that have already accounted for open space. This update improves clarity, avoids duplication and ensures the requirements align with the scale and the timing of the proposed development. Regarding a change in the formula, Iowa City's ordinance was compared to 18 other jurisdictions that require Neighborhood Open Space dedication, and the new formula was selected based on its alignment with the updates, goals, and conformance with best practices informed by the research that they conducted on those other jurisdictions, and then also ease of use between the developer and staff. The updated formula is number of units times person per dwelling units, based on the most recent census, times 3/1000 again, that's three acres per 1000 residents. Schaefer noted the new formula is basically taking out the density requirement and relating the density to the land and going strictly for the number of units being proposed as the means in which they're calculating. She explained because the City zoning districts vary significantly in how and when unit counts are established, they incorporated into this new formula a flexible method for estimating unit numbers at the time of preliminary plat. For example, in single family residential zones the lot size provides a reliable proxy for unit count, since lots are typically platted individually for those units being proposed in single family. In multifamily residential zones and commercial zones it gets a little bit more complicated as unit counts are not known until later in the development process, typically. So instead of each platted lot, staff would determine the maximum dwelling units that could be allowed and it would be adjusted by that estimated 65% build out, which offers a consistent estimate for those specific lots that can fluctuate unit count wise after preliminary plat. This allows staff to not have to go back and recalculate those units if they do change after preliminary plat and then in the Riverfront Crossings and east side mixed use districts, where flexibility and mixed use configurations are common, the applicant will provide an estimated unit count at preliminary plat, with final numbers being verified at final plat. For the form based zones staff will get unit numbers from the neighborhood plan, which is much more specific for the form based code districts. The neighborhood plan shows the building types the developers are proposing and that'll have an accurate unit count. Similarly, for OPDs (Planned Development Overlays) they will get a total unit count from their OPD plan. In addition to changing that calculation, staff is also proposing the addition of a dedication cap and that will cap the requirement for Neighborhood Open Space at 10% of the total site area. After calculating the required open space staff will compare those results to the 10% of the total site area, and if it's greater than that they will default to that maximum dedication. This cap is needed to ensure the requirement remains reasonable, particularly in high density or mixed use developments where the formula could otherwise generate an open space requirement that consumes an excessive portion of the site. Without a cap projects in areas like Riverfront Crossings or the form based zones where unit counts are high but land is limited, could face unrealistic dedication expectations that hinder development feasibility on those sites. Wade asked if the intention of the cap is to ensure that developers do not dedicate more than 10%. Schaefer confirmed it is to ensure that they're not required to dedicate more than 10% and the intent is because when they do the calculations in some of the very dense zones with small lots and high unit counts the calculation works out where it could be something greater than what's actually on the site. For those super dense sites, staff needs some way to control and be able to actually develop those sites without all of the land used up with open space dedications. Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 19 of 22 Schaefer stated the last part of the change is the Neighborhood Open Space District Boundary Map and explained these maps are utilized when instead of getting land as part of the requirement the City instead gets a fee in lieu of land. She explained the money from those fees taken in must be utilized within the same district boundaries and that's what they utilize the maps for. Currently, the map is housed in the Parks Master Plan, a totally separate document than where these requirements live, so the first thing staff is proposing is to bring this map into the zoning code so it's with the requirements. Staff is also proposing to revise the boundaries by consolidating several subareas into larger districts. When discussing the implementation of this ordinance with Parks and Rec staff it was noted that the current boundaries are too segmented, which can make land acquisition and use of fee in lieu funds restrictive and difficult. By expanding and consolidating these boundaries they are providing Parks and Recreation a little bit more flexibility as to where they can use these funds. Schaefer noted this is especially needed because there is a time limit on when those funds are used, Parks and Rec has five years to use those funds or return them. Again, this allows them more flexibility to move to a different area. Schaefer stated the fee in lieu can go to acquire property or it can also be used to improve existing park systems. She shared the new map districts and noted they also expanded the district boundaries to incorporate growth boundaries for when they acquire and annex land. She then shared some examples of how the change in the formula would impact the dedication requirements. Wade noted it would make sense to use major arterial roads as boundary lines, so perhaps a few of the boundaries could be adjusted. Russett agreed that would be a good practice and it should be revised. Davies asked who determines whether to use fee and lieu or an actual dedication. Schaefer explained the code describes what they're looking for when it comes to open space and the City has the option to take what's offered or the fee in lieu. Quellhorst asked if that fee in lieu is a material part of the Parks budget. Schaefer stated no, because it fluctuates so much and there is no predicting timing of when developers come forward it's something they do appreciate and utilize fully, but not something that they build into their main budget line. Schaefer next shared some examples of the Riverfront Crossing districts and the form based code zones and some conceptual projects to give an idea of what it would look like using the current ordinance and then the updated one. Using the current ordinance open space fees in high density projects, particularly in areas like the Riverfront Crossing districts they would see numbers exceeding $1 million and ultimately that is hard to justify from a planning and policy standpoint and doesn't encourage that dense development that the City wishes to see in those zones. It creates a significant barrier to those type of compact, walkable developments that align with a lot of the City's other goals. So with the combination of the update and only requiring dedication for the actual units being proposed, and that 10% cap also ensures that the open space requirements remain reasonable, it makes sure that projects are feasible. Ultimately, these changes align actual development patterns while maintaining the City's goal of acquiring high quality open space as new housing is developed. Overall, the updated formula approves predictability, fairness and scalability across all the zoning districts without compromising the Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 20 of 22 City's open space objectives. Staff recommends that Title 14 zoning be amended, as illustrated in attachment one, to update the requirements related to Neighborhood Open Space dedication, to continue implementing the City's goal of providing adequate open space for the City's residents. Schaefer stated if there's a positive recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, they're looking at September 16 to get all the way through the process. Quellhorst commented on the wording of the proposed text of the dedication cap, it says the maximum amount of land to be dedicated is 10% of the total acres of land being developed and it might be worth considering saying something like the maximum amount of land required to be dedicated onto this section will not exceed just to clarify that if somebody wants to dedicate more than that they could and it wouldn't be prohibitive. Townsend asked about the five year limit and how much money does the City have and how much have they lost by not utilizing that. Russett stated they use it all, they find a way. Davies asked how land is identified and then converted to space. Russett stated typically if they get a subdivision application they will talk with Parks if there is an interest in acquiring any of the land for park space. It really is a conversation with Parks staff to see if it makes sense to locate a park in the area, if there's enough land to have a park, but in many cases they will take the fee in lieu of land dedication. It is up to the City, the developer can propose to give land for a park but if the City is not interested in that land for a park, as oftentimes it's heavily wooded and sloped and is just not usable, the City will request the fees. Davies asked if there is any concern that this would encourage less dense development. Schaefer stated that is the main reason they added that 10% cap to help not deter development any more than what the current ordinance is doing and if anything, hopefully it promotes development. Davies asked if staff has heard specifically from developers that this is a particular pain point as he would just hate to see less space or less money dedicated to parks. Russett stated the main reason they're doing this is the current code is unworkable. They have a formula that's based on maximum density, they have zones that don't have maximum density, they have zones that encourage so much housing and a diversity of housing the fees that would be required are unreasonable, so they want to encourage development and the proposed formula is definitely better in terms of encouraging infill development and encouraging high density development. Wade moved to recommend that Title 14 zoning be amended, as illustrated in attachment one and as they've been amended by the Commission and staff this evening regarding updating the map and dedication cap language, to update the requirements related to Neighborhood Open Space dedication, to continue implementing the City's goal of providing adequate open space for the City's residents. Townsend seconded the motion. Davies stated he is all for simplifying and removing the requirement for smaller split infill Planning and Zoning Commission July 16, 2025 Page 21 of 22 developments. He generally has concern about dedicating less land and less money to park improvements but can see why it is prohibitive to development, and it needs to be simplified so generally supportive. Miller agreed that old formula was confusing. Quellhorst agrees it streamlines things nicely and he appreciates the proposal and the comparison to similarly situated communities. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JULY 2 2025: Miler moved to approve the meeting minutes from July 2, 2025. Townsend seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Craig noted this year the Iowa Legislature passed House File 706 which modified Iowa's Open Meetings Law and increased the penalty for Open Meeting violations, and so as part of that change the City is recommending that Commissions not go into closed session unless they've received a written memo from the City Attorney's Office or one of the attorneys had made a recommendation on the record that going into closed session is acceptable. The reason for that is the defense to that violation is they've received and relied upon the reasonable advice of an attorney in going into closed session. Craig stated another change to the Open Meetings Law was that board and commission members in Iowa that were appointed after July 1 are now required to undergo a one to two hour training that's been approved by the Iowa Public Information Board. As part of that, the City Attorney's Office and City Council would like all board and commission members to undergo that training for consistency's sake and given the new increased penalties for Open Meeting violations. There is a training that's being offered by the Iowa Public Information Board on August 26 and staff can supply more information about that. It will be an online training, and they'll provide some kind of certification that the City will keep a record of. Russett noted there will be no meeting on August 20, but instead on August 27. Schaefer noted tomorrow's is her last day as she is moving to Syracuse, New York, it was great working with all. ADJOURNMENT: Townsend moved to adjourn, Davies seconded and the motion passed 5-0. Ordinance No. Page 1 Prepared by: Rachael Schaefer, Associate Planner, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 (REZ25-0012) Ordinance No. Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning Code and Title 15, Land Subdivision, to update the Neighborhood Open Space Requirements (REZ25-0012) Whereas, neighborhood open space is considered a vital part of Iowa City's community and often serves as a focal point of neighborhood activity; and Whereas, attractive open space enhances and serves the immediate and future needs of area residents in the same way as other capital improvements such as streets, water mains, and sanitary and storm sewers serve residents of a neighborhood; and Whereas, it is the intent of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to ensure that adequate usable neighborhood open space, parks and recreation facilities are provided in a manner consistent with the Parks Master Plan adopted on September 19, 2017 (Resolution No. 17-309), and that the method of assuring such open space is calculated in a predictable and reasonable way as development occurs in the City; and Whereas, the City of Iowa City, Iowa has determined that new subdivisions impact existing neighborhood open space, as well as a need for additional neighborhood open space; and Whereas, the provision of neighborhood open space through dedication and/or the payment of fees to be used for land acquisition in lieu of dedication is a reasonable and objective method for addressing and alleviating such impact, and also promoting and protecting the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of Iowa City; and Whereas, the current neighborhood open space requirements, adopted in 1994 (Ordinance No. 94-3648), are based on maximum residential density, and significant zoning code updates since that time have rendered this formula unworkable in some cases; and Whereas, the adoption of the Form -Based Code and Standards allows a wide range of housing types, resulting in theoretical maximum densities that do not reflect likely development patterns, and thereby distort the open space calculation; and Whereas, some zoning districts, such as those in the Riverfront Crossings District and the Central Business District, do not have maximum density standards, making the existing open space formula infeasible to implement; and Whereas, the City seeks to adopt a new open space formula that is predictable and functional across all zoning districts, regardless of density assumptions; and Whereas, the inclusion of a 10% cap on the neighborhood open space requirement ensures that the amount of land or fee in -lieu contribution remains proportional to the scale of the development, preventing disproportionately high burdens on projects with smaller sites or higher densities; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the zoning code amendments set forth below at the July 16, 2025 meeting and recommended approval. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. Amendments. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended as follows: Ordinance No. Page 2 A. Amend 14-5K-1, Purpose, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: The neighborhood open space requirements ensure that adequate usable neighborhood open space, parks and recreation facilities are provided in a manner that is consistent with the ReighbGFhGGd GpeR spaG9 parks master plan, as amended, by using a calculable method to equitably apportion the costs of acquiring and developing land for those purposes. The provisions of this article require development, which creates increased needs for neighborhood open space ("open space impact"), to pay a proportionate share of the city's capital improvements to fulfill said open space impact. Usable neighborhood open space includes pedestrian/bicycle trails, preferably located within natural greenway systems, private open space that is publicly accessible, and neighborhood parks that serve nearby residents. Dnr+innc of larger nnmmi Rity narks may be adapted fnr narks ^r',rno playi g fields f"r eFgaRiZed speFtc This article is also intended to encourage, wherever reasonably feasible, the dedication of sensitive areas in conjunction with usable open space. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) B. Amend 14-5K-2, Applicability, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: As a condition of approval for preliminary plats containing residential uses residential deYel^nmo^+& the applicant shall dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu of land, or a combination thereof, for park, greenway, recreational and open space purposes, as determined by the city and in accordance with the provisions of this article. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) C. Amend 14-5K-3, Dedication of Land, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: A. Amount Of Land To Be Dedicated: The amount of land dedication shall be determined by the following formula. This formula is deemed a reasonable calculation of the additional need for neighborhood open space created by the subject subdivision nr planner! deVe'nnmon+ .n - rQ6-Of E;na&bel9ped r'GP"" bjeGt base ZGRe)• T lewa GIty # of units x PDU x 3/1000, where # of units = Number of new units is determined as noted in the Table 5K-1: PDU = Persons per dwelling unit based on the most recent census; and 3/1,000 = Tho nnmmi ini+., standard of ;; Acres fef of active neighborhood open space required per 1,000 persons, as rlo+orMORed by the So+ „, ,+ OR the Table 5K-1: Determining Unit Number Ordinance No. Page 3 Zone Unit Number Determined by Single -Family Residential Allowable units based on the followinq dimensional requirements: Lot size, Lot frontage, and Lot width Multi -Family Residential and For every platted lot: Maximum dwelling units per undeveloped Commercial Zones (with residential uses) acre (43,560 divided by the minimum lot area requirement for the highest density residential use allowed in the subject base zone) x 0.65 River Front Crossings and Eastside Mixed Use Districts Unit number to be provided by developer at submittal of preliminary plat application Form -Based Total unit number on Neighborhood Plan Planned Development Overlays (OPDs) Total unit number on Preliminary OPD Plan B. Dedication Cap: The maximum land dedication requirement is 10% of the total acres of land being developed. 9- C. Nature Of Land To Be Dedicated: Except as otherwise required by the city, all dedications of land shall meet the following criteria: Usability: At least ninety percent (90%) of the land required to be dedicated shall be located outside of floodways, lakes or other water bodies, areas with slopes greater than fifteen percent (15%), wetlands subject to federal or state regulatory jurisdiction and other areas the city reasonably deems unsuitable for neighborhood open space due to topography, flooding or other appropriate considerations. Dry bottom storm water detention facilities and dry creek areas may be credited toward reaching a portion of the required land dedication when the city determines that such areas are suitable for use as neighborhood open space. Pedestrian/bicycle trails and private open space that is publicly accessible may be credited toward reaching the required land dedication when the city determines that such areas are suitable for use as neiahborhood oxen space. The city encourages the dedication of lakes, ponds, creeks, other water bodies, wetlands falling under the jurisdiction of state or federal agencies and other sensitive areas including woodland areas, both as ten percent (10%) of and in addition to the dedicated land required by this article, if sufficient abutting land is dedicated as a usable, public recreation area or park. 2. Unity: The dedicated land shall form a single parcel of land, except where the city determines that two (2) or more parcels or greenways/trails would best serve the public interest, given the type and distribution of neighborhood open space needed to adequately serve the proposed development. If the city determines that two (2) or more parcels would best serve the public interest, the city may require that such parcels be connected by a dedicated strip of land at Ordinance No. Page 4 least twenty feet (20') wide in order to provide access and continuity between said parcels. 3. Location: The dedicated land shall be located so as to reasonably serve the recreation and open space needs of the residents of the subdivision GF plaRRed d eVelopr eRt 4. Shape: If a sufficient amount of land is dedicated to accommodate recreational facilities and activities, such as fields, courts or playground equipment, the shape of the dedicated land shall be suitable for such facilities and activities. Linear open space should be of sufficient width to accommodate trails and adjacent greenways. 5. Access: a. Greenways/Trails: Public access to greenways/trails shall be provided by a public access easement at least twenty feet (20') in width. In addition, greenways/trails shall be connected to existing or proposed greenways/trails on adjacent property. b. Parks: Public access to the dedicated land to be used for parks shall be provided either by adjoining public street frontage or by a dedicated public access easement at least fifty feet (50') in width, which connects the dedicated land to a public street or right of way. The grades adjacent to existing and proposed streets shall permit reasonable access to the dedicated land. The parcel shall be safely accessible to pedestrian traffic. 6. Responsibility For Site Preparation: a. The city may require the subdivider or developer to grade and seed those portions of the dedicated land to be improved prior to dedication of the property and prior to the city's acceptance of the dedication. b. Where the dedicated land is located adjacent to a street, the subdivider or developer shall remain responsible for the installation of utilities, sidewalks and other improvements required along that street segment. c. Prior to dedication, the subdivider or developer shall be responsible for restoring satisfactory ground cover and controlling erosion on land to be dedicated that has been disrupted as a result of development activities by the subdivider or developer. D. G-. Procedure For Dedication Of Land: The dedication of land shall be reviewed as part of the preliminary subdivision plat r'r ProlimiRaFy PlaRRerd rdeVe'Gpr eRt Pla eihinheVeF 06 applin The subdivider or developer shall designate the area or areas of land to be dedicated pursuant to this article on the preliminary subdivision plat wed deVe'GpMeRt plan Where wetlands have been delineated on the property, the preliminary subdivision plat or plaRRe d rdeVeIGPR;eRt plan shall also identify the boundaries of such wetlands. 2. Upon receipt of the preliminary subdivision plat, the GGMMi,rity deVe'„r, eRt (PQD director of neighborhood & development services (NDS) shall submit a copy to the director of parks and recreation rdiror4or of the depaFtMeRt of parks; ;-;Ad- ror+roa+inn for review by the -parks and fecreation commission. The parks and recreation commission shall submit Ordinance No. Page 5 recommendations concerning the land to be dedicated to the planning and zoning commission within twenty-one (21) business days of the receipt of a complete application for preliminary subdivision plat ^r preliminary plaRRe d 3. Once the final subdivision plat ^r final plaRRerd devel^r,, ept is approved, and any public improvements required to be installed by the subdivider or developer within the land to be dedicated have been installed, approved, and accepted by the city, and the subdivider or developer has completed site preparation pursuant to subsection B6 of this section, the subdivider or developer shall provide a properly executed warranty deed conveying the dedicated land to the city within two (2) years of final plat approval (^r final plaRRerd rdeVeIG ,Mor,+ appFeva--for by the time the city issues fifty percent (50%) of the certificates of occupancy for the subdivision, at the discretion of the city, or as otherwise specified in the subdivider's or developer agreement. 4. The city shall formally accept the dedication of land for open space, parkland or greenways/trails by resolution. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) D. Amend 14-5K-4, Payment of Fees in Lieu, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: A. General: The payment of fees in lieu of dedication of land may occur at the request of the subdivider or developer with approval by the city, or may be required by the city. The payment of fees in lieu of land dedication shall be reviewed and approved as part of the preliminary subdivision plat ^r ffeliMir»r" r,laRRerd rdeVeIG ,r eRt B. Request By Subdivider Or Developer: 1. If a payment in lieu of open space is requested, the subdivider or developer must include such request in a letter submitted with the application for a preliminary subdivision OF preliminary plaRRe d r eVelOpMeR+ whichever is applicable. 2. The director of neighborhood & development services (NDS) will forward a copy of the preliminary subdivision plat ^r ffeliMir»r" plaRRerd deVelOpMeR+ along with a copy of the letter requesting payment of fees in lieu of land dedication to the director of the i-epaFtme of parks and recreation for review by the parks and recreation commission. The commission shall submit any and all recommendations concerning the payment of fees in lieu of dedication to the planning and zoning commission within twenty one (21) business days of the date a complete application for preliminary subdivision plat ^r r,laRRed deVeI^r,H;eR+ is submitted. 3. The planning and zoning commission will consider the request for payment of fees in lieu of land dedication during the subdivision nr plaRRe d rdeVelOpMeR+ review process and forward its recommendations to the city council. C. Determination Of Fees In Lieu Of Dedication Criteria: The city may, at its discretion, require the payment of fees in lieu of the subdivider dedicating land, if the city finds that all or part of the land required for dedication is not suitable for public recreation and open space purposes, or upon a finding that the recreational needs of the proposed subdivision can be met by other park, greenway, or recreational facilities planned or constructed by the city within reasonable proximity to the subdivision. The city shall consider the following factors in making its determination: Ordinance No. Page 6 1. Recreational and open space elements of the city comprehensive plan, as amended, and the relation of the subdivision to the proposed open space and recreational areas; 2. Topographic and geologic conditions of the land available for dedication; 3. Size, shape, location of and access to the land available for dedication; 4. The character and recreational needs of the neighborhood where the subdivision is located; 5. The costs of developing open space and recreational areas in the subdivision; 6. The actual or potential development of open space and recreational areas on land adjacent to the subdivision which will serve the needs of the subdivision; 7. Recommendations of staff, the parks and recreation commission and the planning and zoning commission; and 8. Any other relevant information. D. Time Of Payment: Fees in lieu of dedication must be paid in full by the subdivider/developer prior to the issuance of the first building permit for a lot in the subdivision er planned deVelGPRgor+ E. Amount Of Payment: The fee shall be equal to the fair market value of the land that otherwise would have been required for dedication. The fair market value of the undeveloped land shall be determined by a qualified real estate appraiser or by other means whe+s-acceptable to both the city and the subdivider or developer. The city and subdivider/developer will equally share the appraisal costs. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15- 2005) E. Amend 14-5K-5, Requiring Both Dedication of Land and Payment of Fee, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: The city may, at its discretion, require a subdivider deVe'GpMen+ to dedicate a portion of the land required under the formula set forth in this article, and also to pay a fee in lieu of dedication for the remaining portion of the land by said formula. The fee for the remaining portion shall be determined by a qualified real estate appraiser or by other means whe isacceptableto both the city and subdivider or developer. The city and subdivider/developer will equally share the appraisal costs. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) F. Amend 14-5K-6, Use of Funds, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: A. The neighborhood open space district boundary map (see figure 5K-1 of this section), divides the city into neighborhood open space districts. All payments in lieu of dedication shall be deposited in a special neighborhood open space account designated by the name of the contributing development. All payments will be used to acquire or develop open spaces, parks, recreation facilities and greenways/trails that are located within the neighborhood open space district containing the subject subdivision er planned deVe'GPR;eR, and will benefit the residents of the subdivision plaRRed deVe'^n,,,eRt for which payment has been made. FIGURE 5K-1 Neighborhood Open Space District Boundary Map Ordinance No. Page 7 Legend sW Iowa City Boundary a`0 t Iowa City Growth Area 4" n r4''siape 9U '�, 1 i N �[ h r L tfPBO Lower y,r --- Sran[ry�F lawe Rase �Id Il aMN l� Melros � j pve e - eighLS m � w yP 1 1 1 as � �� r✓mr. �oai � r � E e ---s 920[n 515E I gY. ha r 1 fa 4��ak 1 ZrLl Breckenridge V Estates sources: Lsrr om �o�� m, Fpo, rvoaa, uses, � opensneexmap mmn5utors, and the pis user Mlles A 0 025 0.5 1 t5 2 C-nq B. The city must use the payment in lieu of dedication within five (5) years from the date received. This period will be automatically extended an additional five (5) years if the subdivider/developer has not constructed at least fifty percent (50%) of the units within the subdivision ^F plaRRed deVeIGPMeRt for which payment in lieu of dedication has been made. C. If the city has not spent the funds by the last day of the five (5) year period or, if extended, by the last day of an additional five (5) years, the city shall, within ninety (90) days thereafter, mail to the property owner, at the address on file with the Johnson County treasurer's office, a proportional refund based on the percentage of the platted lots they own of the total platted lots in the subdivision ^r planned deVeI rl, eRt. The subdivider's agreement/development agreement for each subdivision, plaRRed deyelepn;en+ for which the subdivider/developer has made payments in lieu of dedication shall inform all property owners and successors in interest to properties in the subdivision plaRRed deVe'^r„MeRt of the right to a refund as provided for herein. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) G. Amend 15-3-5, Neighborhood Open Space Requirements, by deleting the strikethrough text and adding the underlined text: A. Intent And Purpose: The neighborhood open space requirements are intended to ensure provision of adequate usable neighborhood open space, parks and recreation facilities in a manner that is consistent with the parks master plan, as amended, by using a fair and reasonably calculable method to equitably apportion the costs of acquiring and/or developing land for those purposes. Ordinance No. Page 8 Active, usable neighborhood open space includes pedestrian/bicycle trails preferably located within natural greenway systems, private open space that is publicly accessible, and alse in^' -,dos- neighborhood parks that serve nearby residents. ergaRiZed cnnr4c B. Dedication Of Land Or Payment Of Fees In Lieu Of Land Required: The dedication of land shall be reviewed as part of the preliminary subdivision plat. As a condition of approval for preliminary plats containing residential uses resin-on+i-al s h- di,acinr r, ;;p rnmmorni�l ci ihrli„icinric GORtaining residential us the applicant shall dedicate land or pay a fee in lieu of land, or a combination thereof, for park, greenway, recreational and open space purposes, as determined by the city and in accordance with the provisions of title 14, chapter 5, article K, "Neighborhood Open Space Requirements", of this code. (Ord. 08-4313, 8-26-2008) Ordinance No. Page 9 Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III. 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 IV. 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 Approved by Attest: City Clerk City Attorney's Office Item Number: 9.f. I, CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT August 19, 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) (Second Consideration) Attachments: Final Staff Report with Attachments Late Correspondence Items_REZ25-0007 PZ 6.18.25 minutes 24418 Prelim OPD Ordinance Correspondence from Michael Welch 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 NOTE: On June 5, As of the publicatic a revised plan set,,, L wo" 0I \\kk kk Lor, 77 j I INVISION I lO."A "IIA1.1— —1 UVIN. GEERP SITE DATA N—E—T I 1EI—T—E-11 "I I —1— 1-1 L. 1--, I —LE EaM I IL —El WEl- 1-1— 11-1 L. 1--, —T. IL —El WEl— � oPo �T — I— 'EZ'I'.� IEI= —T. -- 1-1— IIE_E'1'1'" E EgETITIaILITI 11 IIILIIIIII cos 1 �2 1EQ-1 1— 11— �I 11 IEI IEII— 1EII—I �,121 11 ILI—LE 1-1 IEI NET �2 IEI IIIE T-E 1a IIIEI I' E IIE 11-1 1 ZE 11-1 1 11'12 T—L —1— III —El - IIIEI IEQI.IEI (ELIEI 11— —T - IIIEI LIE2�111 III I ITI 1111 IITEI�I.'— 1: IEIEITEI IMT L, T, LIT IIITIE '11T .,E T v/ �I IIIT 1-1, IIIT IE IETI— 21 IEET MULTI 1— L'T_ 11 1 '1_11T IL TIIEI 2,7�� IEIIIIM IETIIII _T Z'I ' 21 IEET 11 I.T IETIII 1EQU-1 �L— IIIEITEI I � I.TT 11L.—T ­EITI 12 IETI— I TIE I —El 11 � I.TT I IIIIEITEI `Q-71EQ�TI�TT�'MIEIIE 11 TIE M"MUM 'UL 1111 IEII 'T "M " T' " III TIE 'U__ T, _ _'_ U__ MEUQLT-EI'T--IL--T— 11 TIE IETIII —U— II.TEI IU—I 1-1 IEII I.TE T (11 IE IL. 2 1 U I I. '�'IIIEITI'IT'�T I— UE IIITT 11U- .1 TI U, E T, 30 X V� genus Shoemaker I landscape architectsI do. -i Haaland OUT'OF \0 Iffan ate i ow :ing V 'w '', \ I \ OT" �00"ATI'" 0" % % 6 6 024 SF ^NELSON Pf-2, 00 ATTACHMENT 4 Approved Final Sensitive Areas Development Plan _ F ti -- aJ\y� N0-TV CALDER PARK CITY OF IOWA CITY\ ROCHESTER \ HILLS - CONDOMINIUM \ \ r \ \ \ F \ t HAD EST RESERVE FOUNDSUON, INC N � C�E� . HARVEST PRESERVE `OUNDAION, INC 4� 41 4/ e OU 41 zl 10 II l FINAL PLANNED ,I DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND SENSITIVE AREAS I I DEVELOPMENT PLAN MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA oT \\\\ 0 APPLICATION NOTES APPLICANT INFORMATION �I NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS PROPERTY OWNER WI IF BE MET VIA D ICATION OF OUTLOT E TO MONUMENT FARMS, LLC (:[ THE CITY OF IOWA CITY. 3810 PERTERSON PL C„ = NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 THE FINAL AORDT T AND F MA FOR LOT 66 WILL BE PROVIDED AT TIME OF 66. SITE PLAN DEV MONUMENT APPLICATION FOR LOT 66. MONUMENT HILLS, LLC 221E BURLCIT)C I 522 ST IOWA CITY, IA 52240 (319)631-1894 CIVIL ENGINEER WELCH DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT MICHAEL 3. WELCH, PE \ L PO BOX 679 J NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 SHEETINDEX SHELFSHOT NAME /\ O \ - C1COVET SHEET 13 \ \ \ /� C10 REGULATED SLOPES 10�.'( C1.20 WOODLANDS C1.30 WETLANDS C2.00 OUTLOTE&F-SLOPES AND WETLANDS �U �i' 1rn -C \ --..__ `� \ CL10 OUTLOTE&F-WOODLANDS RUEN Pw1l I150SU� r x � APO.. \ _ weFa �� � oF1N�h�� .v� �� � welch / OUTvOTA ,,. �,-r F - — A __ -o� v � , vv � � � ��� design development 7_ LEGEND �-- - vENT. / / r / I �� REIT" O A- E MONUMENT HILLS, LLC S7EEPSOPEaa�zs�v TERN., v 1 / i-ICELELo (E5-boS) ® MONUMENT HILLS � y / PROTECTE1.01F VOOS) MR IOWA CI IOWA PROTECTED SOPE BUFFER / RER D�P„ON EATS _ a .v o�zz i I i T �' 1FIU I ii - I a -F-- � � v v v � / T FSj `-C T I wooDLANDs� -- i ��eRq TREERNE i II iI i i I I i ii. r ---� Nc'�� � � li E,Nar,E. _1i1_ILL-_� OI / /. COVERS EFI i i � pF--- -1--� � / v - i / yR�-! / I �NS7RORroN AREA vrMrTS ---- �oNCFINAL �VER SHEET.4 --- � I- r � � � �- � iT `,( i __ __ GREEN MOUNTAIN DR z I I_— -i;' T, / -ELOPMENT T-7 ����--- -----� /' /,/ / / `� /.i/. �.. ��..�/ // �r T� i; wETANDS OVERL4YAND SENSINED TIVE AREAS PLAN �— -- J l T .� J I� �„ ,i '>�/. _ tT -T� �✓ i wETEANDs IL E'"°"'ate r "Ill N6 WELCH � BUFFER-\oo TEvr,rO�.. r„uEDDaTE.. C1.00 �'C 03-21-2023 HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC i I TT IMPACTED WOODLANDS j \\ u ENT aEUTeD ImP ( ) D T�DN GELD way N. 1E, TE ONIINEEI PM @ eD - j s=s3 welch Aso �E �P dasign.developmeM MONUMENT HILLS, LLC MONUMENT HILLS cl e IOWA CITY, IOWA ` y T �� y, �G��� I—CTEo11 BAP 'o'lEVNE DDFFEaaaEa ­3. EEC DTDanaEVNEw ,oaEE;:n NOaaEa E,>saaEe 5HEET NAPE ' WOODLANDS PEaTENTaETa NED IFINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT o OVERLAY AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN PER Dwa�Tv1DDE,00D'ND WT'11T aNaT�� oERNo m NUNP� Pre IOWI I TNEs. I RE I IO E 1 Ta N TME euECEa 026 WELCH r _ n 1 DONOTmuNTTownacs aETENTONvnwEs. �'^�C 03-21i2023 N.+1.20 HARVEST PRESERVE FOUNDATION, INC HARVEST: FOUND�ATTON. INC I ROCHESTER HTLLS CONDOMINIUM ROCH ESTER I HUES CONDOMINIUM T � 1 UREGULATED SLOPES WETLANDS NC IMPACTED STEEP SLOPES: IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPES: IMPACTED PROTECTED SLOPES: LOCATION AREA OC oranON AREA OC oranON AREA (ED n GATT n -RI n I'll LEGEND: WETLANDS LEGEND: REGULATED SLOPES .ELTLAND IIINDARI WIT STEEP SLOPE (1E%-25%) .FlAND AREA MM STEEP SLOPE I.FACTED .FlAND E1ts:(111) CRITICAL SLOPE(25% 40%) wEnAND FILL CRITICAL SLOPE I.PACTED PROTECTED SLOPE (140%) PROTECED SLOPE -I .PACTED WETLAND IMPACTS PROTECTED SLOPE-eDCFER oranON AREA OC CONSTRICTION AREA umOTE —"— v.L SCLa DE—OPPROT IOINDARI V 1EDw 60 welch design. development IT MONUMENT HILLS, LLC MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA GENERAL NOTES: ALL IMPACTS TO REGULATED SENSITIVE FEATURES SHOWN ON OUTDOT E AND OUTLOT F ARE FOR USES AND ACTIVITIES ALLOWED WITHIN PROTECTEDE UTLOT E & F: SLOPES AND WETLAND BUFFERS PER IOWA CITY CODE 14-5I-M FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT I.PARKLAND, PRIVATE OPEN SPACE, AND TRAILS OVERLAY AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN 2. STREAM CROSSINGS El NITN a�1026 a�WELCH Ea. E1-1 3. ESSENTIAL PUBLIC UTILITIES(SANITARYSEWER) C2.00 C 03-21d023 ATTACHMENT 5 Approved Final Plat AREA BREAKDOWN ( BY QUARTER: 'ga"rPER usoly cou o so accoaoERS No °ATILAAT Wi/40FMENE14SE Es3563ACRES 1140FTHE NE i/4 SECFE 796 S98ACRE5 sy��'-�.� � ,ry QUA 9 O6 NECORNERpF THE NW I/4 OF THE ARE 1/4 114 OF THE NE VA SECT 2 96 2352 ACRES 4uq ECTron. rvE1/4 NW CORNER OF THE NE 1(4 MONUMENT HILLS FOUNDS/8"REBAR YPC BROKEN -- sE 1(40T THE NE 1/4SECTION]2 796 O2aACRES 6 1Sa" CITY OWACfFY _ NW CORNER AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2b22024 TOTAL >21�ACRES _ - FOUND CONCRETE IOWA CITY IOWA N87'42'14'E 1,549.131 NW CORNER AUDITORS PARCEL 2022066 ,P SUB On MONUMENT HILLS ,E MONUMENT T AU SPSEL2Z4 _ -FOUND 114"PIPE OPC#19928 \ Co -TT 7 NA .... ... __ PA2aD L 3 y- —` OU-rLO-�-F 5 r 42 43 ,gyp, .1+E NE CORNER AUDIT/8"PERM SEC 22066 PRO E S C sSP L9W 2105a' AC ,j1e 41 ��(i,`� FOUND 6j8"REBARYPC #9175 (6N: REOOESRAC MUu AD mEig s fsF 0^N 44 �' �'at4'&�ET A%IOM CONSULTANTSI, LLC.60E CaurtSt Unt3 OED t1TiOT E 'A 40 A \ �' 45 �� �� ss g�REDS 1A,Pl 111z PNa31D.5R9.622D 4• os ei w z8 . �?, (j A, a 46 ti IT = 6 ne a�' 39 P 6'� 57 47 o 36 / �' Go 58 OU 35 37 56r 59 T�OTC , s as� 4$ N 38 / 5 60 425 9 - a I SE CORNER AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2022066 7 \ _ 34 1 „A ,� i \ � FOUND 3/4PIPE ONE#19828 5,/ i -PARCEL' B'�� 54 65 61 49 egoNp�� S �Ao 64 63 P p0 33 32 \ — D3 31 3O \ N o s4 14 Wg og \ ~� P AT PREPARED BY OWNERS _ 52 9,Ta D su `~� _ �% \ BOBTH DBRSON PL FARMS, LLC i 29 \ _ �� \\\r' N T3 NO BF IA 5231J �4M1 is I'NO AS12A0 28 (y' \ E \ SU601VIDER'$A7TORNEV. HARVESTPRESERVE I '\ 27 — F �"�\ ` 53 1 N9 LA UCKEFLA L�LP FOUNDATION, INC 26 `'�,� gG6 10 ASLCY1. APTAIRIT 34p2 ROCHESTfR AVE pC` I 25 24 23 \ 1� N°,AEm,lASu� DWAG Y A522 3 _ 0 c I _ 22 21 .,� A „„ae �,e`.dC*y,�3q �� m Y SURDIVIDEIG IS" i k7 1 ®WA ��Kpp' MONUMENTHIHS• NO 20 p E SORLINGTON STPLET � z � loz .,..._`"'.. V T �`�' _ cTYwsu4o N n 19 w ^o - �\ rc a r \` I¢ w a a 1 18 o N TIUTAP.�/ 23 U PROVALS 1 Ii� o c 66 PARCEL A \m \ u6 3ASF 6 30 M N DATE a� a 17 / ow — oa3 2 12 OUTLOT B 16 y Mo oNK o w z OFF _ as AG MM�M/UN 11 � y L 3\ j. 0.:.� �,.� .` 6 i" Q -- t,R i�P <i 20 rE 1p 44sa 14 6"0 6 OM I �4 \% ---- 13 DD-�` D"p3°2 •x .'g� V, N'�D n Tea ReY— _ DATE � rA'ah 56 \ � P �al�,. s J a D w UD w 0 0 z a = a cS_D k� �z a� • NOTES 5 67 z = �u-rl�.y-�.A NW. 1(4 DFT El �\ " iT i ,AF, THIRD PART'BENEF CJ ES NY NOTED USE RESTR CT ON OR COVENANT. - -� V sw�I4oTTHENE I4 L `� >_ ��' x �RV6NaU '� � np�2 �oTEs _ i. O S OC SATE ANY VESTED PR VATS. � � N � 6 OUTL TS - RwvENA p 5 ANY STATE US NT OR CREATE ANY �g a� m onaTas ^ � 6U k O `0 A 6 HATCH KEY: saElsq rENDEo usE oO S=Y`\� i \ A 811,113 MAINTAN PIRVAEONEASEMENTAIIERAC. Sit 9 CONSTIPATION EASEMENT B 332.M MAINTAINS Y CONSE ASEMENTASSFOWN. ROT -' \ 00' N' ♦ �U AQAR� `•. P ,/ C 281,498 MAWTAINEDa HOA. CONARVATIONEASEMENTASSHOWN. EXISTING WINSFERVATION ' ll D 'SO MALo0X0. 5 ER n 7 `` • EASEMENT E 67,130 11 TEDTOTHECITY FOROENDSL45K 3 TO BE. 65r' � /J' �ypN'�ng '18,T31 PO CONVEYED TO HARVEST 1,11111VE GCO SERVATIDN EASEMENT AS SHOWN z 'SbO• Y�S1� / a 50 •j® PARCEL 2S,5fi2 NGNTWAY DEDICATED AT CITY FOR HERON SDRNE ONE, PLACE, EMENTE. , i C RE ' 63 � Y NOTES: 2D Access EASEMENT 3 �3,QV•g`,�® i AND AUGLLSONWAY o Cc,�t�, 9 KE O z W'"g�sSi "�,/ S6(�°�3 �}� ,�gnlJ 15 UTILITY EASEMENT 51I SANTARP SEWER SEMENT OUTLETS A,B CANA DARETO BE MAINTAINEDANDAYNED BYHOME COMERSASSOCATON RMA u4 m 5T5"5620"W Sid'9 .nA'+' BK69Il PG 29H30) AREAS WOHINTEE CCO O i LL 2 s r 1 39 , OO zo EewaGE E15EMEM •s 8.1. 4 i NSERVATION EASEMENT 6? �9• © STORM SEWER AND DRA NAGS EASEMENT O iA •........ Q w l'J W SL y? O 25 �... E��L / 1'� p',+ Qn Ex Si NG CONSERVAT ON EASEMENT (BN 3237, PG 2101 nnxom,T. a+nn Ti..v (o y,S'µcRz c,TCR� «,® O n sTDRM SEWER EASEMENr ,.'�5°Yw y ������ n .. � Z L. V ---- n MALBOx CLUSTER REFER TO OUTLDT D DETAL 9 � -y�;— Q o 1 �13"p EN �t%y. ' APPRD O SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT cHY''C 666D1. VED BY THE CITY OFIOIAIA CITY, IOWA QE 1 ' GEE aRADLCY / n 3 �� • EXISTNG OR UT LTY EASEMENT FROM R: R. NEATEN O / IDAT to O N 3 Z�Sg� •y� I�� SS SAN TAPYSEWER EASEMENT CELIiOWEeSiE PtANBlD16d0134 ]9828 r 5xT a g _ Cl �8. C _ 0YE Q20 SANTARYSEWE EASEMENT (]N P5 TRALEASEMENT gyp' %OWP* xa. REASE 1 OF 3 APTD6,2D3 i �,: T 2O2D,28W4lO5 e=�4T,Y wN� Plal= EP wR 4��'- --- -_ LINE TABLE LINETABLECURVE LE i GAL DESCRIPTION � LEGEND i nx xc O SET 3/4" 0 PIPE OPC 19828 s _ •s'w BENG ALL 1111 DTO SPAR L2 1111111, AND 111111111111 PARCEL mw � L"'-�9"'Q SD0034 N e0o 191, ALl 166 OFFO45 ARC H110G02a N e00K 65 PAGE 294 AND I A X SETCUT X }S PLAT 1� N i D ORS AACEL A220>6 BODK66PAGE1260FTHEJO NON OU ttRCOROERSOFfIGE,ALLN FINALO 2 O NS 19 O HRArvGE6wEsr of rnE srNP M.,attoF owA aTY,JOHNSON 6 FOUNDPROPERTY CORNER -AS LABELED COUNTY IO IOGE E (I DEC ORANGE PLASTICCAP MONUMENT HILLS nRrvDE OF AUDITOaS PARCEtx00034A5 REcoRDED neooRn AGE vPC YELLOW PLASTIC CAP 9 O'. DEFICE,THENCEN03'1021 VJ, 1199.23 FEET TO THE NORTH L> 53u w LINE OF SECilO >TO N6 RANGEEMESTOF THE STH P M., THENCE ALONG SA NE APC RED PLASTIC CAP IOWA CITY, IOWA 3344 OBOE sOUTH UNE OF 1D AUDTOR6 PARCEL 212201 THENCE ALONG G ta vsati 'E O HE Es G F EOF ASCOTTBouL YARD EXISTING PROPERTY LINE Is ro.ao 'w THENCE ALONG SADwESTE Es 9z9xs 9 cE zo-zz B6E40.M FEET; rHENCF ( PROPOSED BOUNDARY/PROPERTY LINE L,u s08 R_1 T,I 59312 ,33. 569•D3 Y2346 EET THENCE 9°3'v9"W, 86350 FEFF, H I: THENCE s"zL s9 w, a68 bo FEE-r EETALON -.9D noTRADUsc 1a E �. ( -- EXISTING EASEMENT uL rass rw CONfAVENORr ( ono BEAR G °5448w 126% FEETITOTHEPD of eEGINU NG PROPOSED EASEMENT .3 ESCNBED AREACONTA NS 121>ACRES DISSUBIECT AS ENiS ANOOTHER RESTIt CNONS OF - 3•w"c ECORD - J SECTION LINE,--) LM. rae ua'rvmw Sao soon xmzr w'a anzRsr oa fi a�� 8"'� a\ 19 PA CEL V 11 0 c I �zg �.� �� { ..{ LR oB E E N6a' \�q� A 66 W 12QOp' ' S tl H aauv T \ it oyg iooae 50� \\\11 d. �6 12 OUTOTB '�: D 16 \"�� \ 2 �D 'All om' 15 G \ NTG�A9"£4 V\ \ 11 VAG ns. s�AD A \ \a 3 \ I 544.83��„1.Eu Q( \ 14 \ i' NG > a w. 9 4 o ms. r 13 > \ q ry. ti PARCH L ss, a 1 "B" \ Q\ W 12 o O i a HONyaI �® 9• j, _ oN 67 i N it F E EN(4 _ ' _ 9' T \ /S69 SWS/40FTME NE L/A � � \\ ^ \ L PA e y° RCEL"A" 4 N^ a m o •. \ 68 6� °v L 69 U KEYNOTES zo AccEss EnsEMErvT ID IS-1111GAII.E.1 Q SO SANNARYSEWEREASEMENT (RR 5N11 EG 2RR SSG) x 20 DRAINAGE EASEMENT \ µme - (7 CONSERVATION EASEMENT .• o-�c \ T 1 9` T➢" £-ii O STORM SEWER AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT �. u2.w r pOnD OUTLOTA \ yENU - EXISTING CONse TON EASEMENTIER 3237, BG 21 ROS'C5' �Rp^��� © 2STORM SEWER EASEMENT © MAILBOX CLUSTEA. REFER TO OUTLOT D DETAL ' 10'SAN TAAY SEWER EASEMENTgs O ElISFNG IO UTILITY EASEMENT FROM ( © SS SANTMY IAWIC EASEMENT CELL TOWER SITE PLAN BOATOR134 R 20'SANITARV SEWER EASEMENT QN SEE TRAIL EASEMENT sue` A - �a. ss TABLE �"+6" P m 7-8 y,`�, ��,N O� P' ' 11 0 W p, . Lw ------- 5 o D 2S o SEW D D S __ TO ATTA � of a z Z d f u (3 °2 Ill IT a W z 6 g ° Z q O N 3 c3 sv.m 1E -- rxl maEa� 2 aF 3 FINAL PLAT MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA O:U�TLOT D DETAIL N87' 14"E 549.13 7 7, /< OUTLOT E NSVW. 3621' 34 a m , IS KEYNOTES: pp AY —ESS —ENT —RARYSSWERE—ENT PG 2-2) QQ CONSERVATION EASEMENT Q STORM SEWERAND DRAINAGE EASEMENT QQ UN I.. COELILE. ll.. E—.l.T ISS 1231, 25'STDRM SEWER EASEMENT -1100XI—E. REPERTOOUTLOTO C-11 (D ILL ­Ry S— EASEMENT — U.GIV--ff-- 1EE Ls- �Xq— s-ot E.— CELL — SITE -N IX0I090- K-NITA—EWEREASEMENT 43 LEGEND 0 SET 3/4" 0 PIPE 0 41 X X Y SET CUT 11 0 FOUND PROPERTY CORNER -AS LABELED 45 11C ORANGE PLASTIC CAP 40 YPC YELLOW PLASTIC CAP x ,< Roc RED PLASTIC CAP 46 EXISTING PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED BOUNDARY/PRO PERTY LINE EXISTING EASEMENT PROPOSED EASEMENT SECTION LINE 57 47 A3 6� 30 58 30- OUTLIPTC: 5 60 —7 38 \ x 55 5' .00, 61 I 49 < > / 65 P �A R�CEIL B or Q� —AC 4 Nar3a'arr'E " �? g6g,� -1 63 50 D Y,,,� �,, � , > 32 1 40 51 `y/ > 31 30 X, 1"M 28 cl, 5 as X 25 Ali OUTt\ TA -I > x 66 P 4� x x19 / A a x OL ITLOTB Y > ' I 0 z z GO g CL 3 OF' ATTACHMENT 6 Applicant Submittal Materials — Rezoning Exhibit, Applicant Statement, Elevations and Traffic Study FOUND �IGNINA SONN ERVE GNP IOWOA ICITY, LLC HARVEST RESERVE HARVEST PRESERVE P DTR=INC.'ONNO_ + REZONING ID -Rs e — GNP IO ON NIGV, LLC -- _7 WA EXHIBIT - MONUMENT - ILLS T R= GGLOT F �LOT 66 ON NG oPD / Rs-5 / A / HNFOUDArONINC,C, IC444I y MONUMENT ONUME IN HILLS ZONING OR D RSsi. MONO TLOCITY IA T H LLS \ ONGN IOWA ° \ \ j OPD / RI-1 \ \ \y/ / — — — \ LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 66 MONUMENT HILLS AS RECORD® IN BOOK 66 PAGE MONUMENT INGFARMS, C MONUMENTNFARMs LLC 267-269 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDEIOFFICE, NKC '%i D RS D RS CITY OF IOWA CITY,]OHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. SAID LOT CONTAINS 7.76 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEAE NTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. APPLICANT INFORMATION cop / PROPERTY 221NE BURLINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52240 (319)631-1894 I G \ I APPLICANT / DEVLLOPER Z _.�..�- LACOB WOLFGANG ' -��R ��� i �..'� DNELSON ONDD ViA50 E 200UCTION s DEVELOPMENT (515)720-6170 09 OLD TOONE VILLAGE ZOCG CIVIL ENGINEER ICHAEL Q \ CC2 SHOEMAKER ER ANDH,PE A �G OLD TOWNE VILLAGE \ \ \ 160OHOLAIDIAY ROAD �D CO ZONING \ CORALVILLE, IA 52241 / � FEE-�ESCE�P�, T \ p \ slvssl�lso � �RHEGHTSo2HEsrER \ V� ZONING x —� T H T H�-� RI-1 V j iUNILL / FT,— MONUMENT ILLS OPD / RS- 5 O OUTLOT B GPI / GO � ZONING INFORMATION / �\�\ \ \ — _ �G i CURRENT ZONING OPD/RS-5 \./ \ y PROPOS®ZONING OPD/RhF12 ONING �\C� RS-5 _X /GI�C'�� \ \.\ \ Q .i_. �\ \ \ OUTLOT A \ �\ '� WOODS ZONES l / DEAN OAI(E MONO T 0NG ILLS � .�- _ 5 N r�,� y60��- � \ \ 1 oLD TGATE VILLAGE\ zoN H / \ `V zowNc OPD / RS-5 \ \ \i.. / / CC2 \ OLD TOWNE VLl?GE EGHTSR PDO/ R0 NGS5 \ ZONING \ \ \y /\�- RI-1 - CLIENT PROJECT SHEET TITLE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET NUMBER 1 Shoemaker ker NELSON CONSTRUCTION LOT 66 MONUMENT HILLS REZONING EXHIBIT 24317 &DEVELOPMENT Issued oATe osoazozs Igo. -I Haa land ORAWN9V CHECK BV. NIIWLCYL 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 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 MONUMENT HILLS, LLC RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 1 " TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY MAY 14, 2025 SITE DATA SILIC.LEFa�11 LY HOnE 51iES (lf�Tt 1- s, fib) 66 u — LOT TOTAL 1. uu1i5 4 0 N z F _ 0 71 150 aaz 300 Shoemaker CLIENT NELSON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT LOT 66 MONUMENT HILLS SHEET TITLE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROJECT NULIBER'. 24317 Haaland & DEVELOPMENT ISSUED DATE: 0sa�7-z0zs CHECK BY MMUMBER EXHIBIT 1 mAkREVISION DATE APPRGVED BV: M.M� 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 0 165 165 Single -Family Detached 31 units 210 9.43 50% 50% 292 0% 0.00 292 0% 0 0% 0 292 0 0 1 0 0 146 146 Senior Single -Family 6 units 251 4.31 50% 50% 26 0% 0.00 26 0% 0 0% 0 26 0 0 0 0 13 13 Senior Multi -Family 110 units 252 3.24 50% 50% 356 0% 0.00 356 0% 0 0% 0 356 0 0 0 0 178 178 Total 1004 1 0.00 1004 0 0 1004 0 0 0 0 502 502 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 18 Single -Family Detached 31 units 210 0.70 26% 74% 22 0% 0.00 22 0% 0 0% 0 22 0 0 0 0 6 16 Senior Single -Family 6 units 1 251 1 0.24 1 33% 1 67% 1 1 1 0% 1 0.00 1 1 0% 0 0% 0 1 0 1 0 11 0 1 0 0 1 Senior Multi -Family 110 units 252 0.20 1 34% 1 66% 1 22 1 0% 1 0.00 1 22 0% 0 0% 0 22 0 1 1 0 0 0 7 15 Total I 1 1 69 1 1 0.00 1 69 0 0 69 0 1 0 0 0 19 50 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 12 Single -Family Detached 31 units 210 0.94 63% 37% 29 0% 0.00 29 0% 0 0% 0 29 0 0 0 0 18 11 Senior Single -Family 6 units 1 251 1 0.30 1 61 % 1 39% 1 2 1 0% 1 0.00 1 2 0% 0 0% 0 2 0 1 0 11 0 1 0 1 1 Senior Multi -Family 110 units 252 0.25 1 56% 1 44% 1 28 1 0% 1 0.00 1 28 0% 0 0% 0 28 0 1 1 0 1 16 12 Total I 1 1 92 1 1 0.00 1 92 0 0 92 0 1 0 0 0 56 36 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 staffs 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 �AAL.n fIIi -44 y `Tq I i it Mqw- 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 -- -- I -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- I -- -- 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 EOD �1�7 HILLS IOWA CITY, IA 0� ...... LOT52 0, N GEI�ERPL SIiE DATA IP": ZIrv'T'('Pn Ill 1, D I I E 1, 11 D E I I 1 11 1 ZLLTEI'l—LY ��Z T—L —E-111 "I'll 11 1 PEI—T —E-111 161 we VG%UVaTFlffi5 LLC IPD 111 1 — DE—TY, I —LE 1-Y lElIDE-1 —H � PL—ED —ELIP—T --Y —E PR712 i R� �l — DE—TY, —TI I—LY REII—T- —H PL—ED Un ,T o 11IL-1 I �I� IED= AITI 11 11 T-1 ED— 1-1 1 tom— DUPL X X �gETX'Tl�ILIT I I I 11ILD I111 I MaTI-FAM I TT 'LIT'I - �TPBPL I—. E 1-1 PER 1� 11 PER — 11DE T-E 1n�l - �l FACILITY —1PERIEDR— x 1111EDR-1 - (3 ST , ORES) P—DED I.RTY.D 11 /z WP4—TI I—LY 11IL-1 IELDER ­RT—TI) E LoraDIPLE�XIT�IRTTRP­­ i E, I✓ DRI— 2 T—L —1— PRI—ED - I —El P—Ml RE ­RED IELDER --T—T H11-11 � 1— -R —T - I —El (ELDER ­RT—TI) De.-1-1 � I —El LOT; DUPLEXIT— —1— 6,111 11 IPE —1 1: 'lElEPTER —T LT X, 0 DTT.E LITIETI �R%I 11 IEET R11T enoID oT 15 �E�ER 11 IEET I—E, Il —T 1-1, —T IE IETI— 11 IEET �u -EX q —TI ILY _IMUM I I ' P' :EITIEDIIM ✓ L'PTE 0 �'IDT' LIT'I'ITIE 11 IEET 'ET " vc, IT 'R IDE �EIR 11 IEET I.T IET111 REIUIRED �—1 R—EITER I I 11ITT IPLI—T ­ElTl 11 IETI— I THE I —ER 11 n I.TT I R11HEITER 7'RE=I—lE M THE M.IMUM lUILD— HEIIHT 11M 11 TI 11 11R THE TI F ILY BU=TIOF AT—ESTSBS—E =,R(GRADE PLU- I MEUQLUET� Lp� HE 'E TED D RMG R U, E R�DOIIEITGHATaAl�REORMOmROIHEITER AlElUE AID I 110TTBOU- -D TO To THE FI El DEIELOPMEI�,PLAI '-p) — GH TTHO M0_ET'HjLlLITI'lUE B =. . A-L _ THERE _=E'D H. E, THE -1 IADP Al PART OF THII —ELOPM— INVISION 1..TA.'I'TYAI.N.�l�..�NTIIVIN. genus Shoemaker --T— I 1.;Od—p� architects dO, -i Haaland PLANTING SCHEDULE INVISION I IC.ZVC'11'1 NEUN.­ LIVIN. FACIUM PLANTING NOTES TREE REQUIREMENTS "'E'ITIEETT ITIE ETTREE ­ENTToPUBLCRoW I 1­1T­TH.1RETH.0NE 1RONT— ­ TRE— ,:�IU RE1111IT1111LINEIRIEET011RONTIE R�l TREEI UIT BE PL.TE1 ON PR I— PROP RTI I ENT TO THE R 0 W ­G E TREE � MUN BE PLANT ED 14 OF T HE R 0 w _'_ TREE .UT BE PL. TE T H N oT HE R o w INEI �"0LNFT�­,L,E,N,GTH III FE ET E= FRRE=E"T 10 TREftTPFRRo0�NDTEADGA I 41EI TREE RE.UIREMENTI FOR REIDENT11 UIE I I T F1 D­ NGI TREEIMUIT BE PLANTED ON I TE AT A = MUM R % o oF AT LEAT oNE TREE ER",o F oF ToT, ' U1 DING COIRAGE OF THE LOT BUILD NG FO 0 TP, R NRTE�'l TEEN TC OVETR � E lR5E9.2U5R E�F ­EET FRONTAGE TREE REQUREMENT 10 RE'DENTALTREE RE.U'REMENT 'o, TOTAL TREEI REQUIRED ON IITE III TOTAL TREEI PROVIDED ON 11TE III OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS oN Lo' CoNTANNG0MUEL­D_LLA=U LODFNTG' U"LUZEEET 1HALL BE PROV D N LOT 0 ENII011Q FE PER BEDROOM BUTNO LE11TH. FOUR HUNDRED 140011QU­ FEET TOTAL BEDROOMI 112 "2BED"o' OPEN I—E R�QUR2EoD I 1201F To BU=TL0TRE=3­4V1F9 210 IF �308ToA2L4­­40,U,� ­2,13244�545,F�F ,F 2 oF OPEN I—E PROVIDED 213 — IF r3 211 LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS 141BI MULTI F.-ITE DEVELOPMENT I ANDARDI ABUFFER=�DLETIToBEPRDOT�HDDBLEATNDECNEI oATNG E-12 IMU ED - M = AR AND ADIACENT PROPERT E� AND BE-EN MYP­N G AR�A AAND,TREETRoW THE CTMAE.EMPTFRoMTH, 'EQUREMENT Y'PEC F C LoCAToN 'oNGA"DE oR REAR 0-II—A-LEORDRI IIH—DWITH ANIUTTNGLOT THECTYMAYALIOWAI ICIE 'CREEN NG REQU'REMENT WHERE THE EW =NND T R OP E R T E oR ' LL BE B N C ANT CH TG E N GR E oR BY NAT UR 'o R H= 'FEGATF URE , UC H THAT �H m H� ICMEDEARNDG,11,EMFEFTECATILTYEPRRMONEDDEBY THDETBHUE LNTNEG T OF 'T DE D OFFICII 2 �ORPTAON'NG ARBEUALoRNDRO'HERHHLABEACGL�'AEGETORmLOo�ToGm�YEA APRON THINGI OColEATMUlToBFEAUTILEEDAORF,WI ACYEINMD AND,C, N, NG T FTY ER r T IGETATVECO I NG 1PACE1 ARE LOCATED —ERE �E _ GHT, oF = FHPNI E oNTo A W_ CoNT.N NG GR=Fl LMINE o1F 11NDDPAR,1TNoGA1TPL1E1TMUE1T,2E ,C Ro TH ­­1 '12 ITMDIDI ARE I FoLLor NoUGH,HRUB, TOFOR A­D1C1E1CREENRmGNG 3E­EN ­FEETAND FOUR FEET N HE GHT AT L—TATHRD oF THE HRUB, MUT GRoWTo NoLE"THM FoUR FEET LANDSCAPE DRAWING INDEX 1"11TTITI L000 CoRNoTE, Ll 00 ANDICIE PLAN 01RALL L101 ANDICIE PLAN ENL­EMENT L200 IITE DET-1 HEREBY BYME OR=FRYMTYHATRTEHCTPDEoRCIUOMNEANLTI'P'RPRIPOANRAND THATH�Tl AUDNUDLYLITCHEENI D 'Ro0FFTEH1E1,0TNA1Lo1D1CA1E ARC ECT ER L TE F O BRETT A DO-- DIE �==ONOEWIDIE IUNE102021 L001 L1001ERIE1 L300-OVEREDBYTHIIIEI gi5nus ) Shoemaker [ landscape architects I dO, II Haaland -ICNIOWAW ONE CALL ,A, Ng!TN%RN [5�0,0 gg� & ROCHESTER AVE 1�5 LANDSCAPE LEGEND LEGEND N 1111 E—IEE—EE—��E 0 = —E.REE 000 0 1—.E--EE ®�A.�� Eo��o E1EEMEA1ELEI-1 IINIIVSON Landsca Plan -Enlargement N NDENT LIVING FACILITY 0 n 0 genus �Shoemaker ^ NELNSON landscape architects I (/7 Haaland [Tol 0-1 ­T-1 TO �E —1E E—GI TO TREE .01—T IET ROOT —RE I ­ FIN H GR E RE RE CAGE FR oM H F o F R ooT —�op Gul I—E DoUBLE 1HREDDE1 H—OD MU LCH 2 FIN11H GRADE �E8E PHTC=DOPFZOTOAREATB1L 1-11 BACLTL�LITTH L TI NG 'o . 'o T �Ll 1ACLATL=T T G N111 101L I L—N UND11TURBED IUBGRADE OcVENSTOO'IYTE NEE PLANT NG E OTT Cl 'ET RooT FLARE 2 'oVE F N 'H —E REMOVE BURLAP D � RE C-E FROM TOP HALF OF ROOTBIL 1HREDDED H—OD MULCH 2 TH CNE" FINIIH -ADE BAC-L—TH P-1— 101L UND-URBED I—RADE 02 EN Oc'NAM AT TREE PLANTING T oT E NO T E 'ETRooTFL'E 2 'o'FNH —DE REMOI BURLI —RE —E FROM TOP HIF OF ROOTBIL DOUBLE 1HREDDED HARD —OD MULCH 2 TH C_" FINIIH —E B—FILL — P-1- 101L UNDIITURBED IUB—E ll L III 2.ROOTB 03 SHRUB PIT N'T N G 7o 7 o P—T— , o � 1PAC— PLANT CENTER AREA DMULCHOUE21HTRHECDDNEED—DMOD ROOTBIL 116 1 ITEELE-1- -V.11ED OR OTH ER 'ETEHEPR_-E MATE RI I — — — — — UND11TURBED I—RADE 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04 FcE' N A PLEANTING NoT _7 —BLE 1HREDDED HAR—OOD _CH 2 TH CNE" IEE IPECIFICIIONI I . 116 TEEL E-1- CoLoR BL- 16 .1 . — TIERED ITEEL I—E INLII—ED I PR EFoRMED ILOTI I IT— MIN PER 8 —MENT II —El, M iN PER 16 —MENT IC-1 TOP 6 OF I—RADE IURF ' E TO RE M IN PRIOR co N � PL.T N o 'o L M . T, UND11TURBED I—RADE 07,EE �G ,7NG _ Sc , E N T To INVISION gi5nus Shoemaker landscape architects I dO, 1�i Haaland 1,000 F-C Illlllll llllf lllllllll if Ili llllf Illlf Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllll llf f I�Illllll r Doc IO: 032554540004 Type: GEN F"' '"�4 ® Kind: ORDINANCE} Rb'�l Fee6rdeAmt� $22,00'Pape I of 449:12 PM � poles Johnson County Iowa Kim Painter County Recorder 13K5586 PG575-578 .0d aty of &YAN STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS JOHNSON COUNTY ) I, Kellie K. Grace, City Clerk of Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby certify that the Ordinance attached hereto is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 25-4960 which was passed by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of August 2025 is a true and correct copy, all as the same appears of record in my office. Dated at Iowa City, Iowa, this LZ�?Pd—day of August 2025. Kellie K. Grace City Clerk \ord 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET * IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240-1826 ■ (319) 356-5000 ■ FAX (319) 356-5009 Prepared by: Madison Conley, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 314356-5230 (RE225-0007) Ordinance No. 25-4960 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 Approval. 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 Map. 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 Owner's expense, upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance, as provided by law. Ordinance No. 25-4960 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 19 th day of August 2025 Miv6r Attest: I UGC ity Clerk Approved by City Attome s Office . (Liz Craig - 07130/2025) Ordinance No. 25-4960 Page No. 3 First Consideration: August 5, 2025 Vote for passage: AYES: Alter, Bergus, Moe Harmsen, Salih, Teague, Weilein NAYS: None ABSENT: alone Second Consideration: --------------------------- It was moved by Moe , 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, Bergus, Moe, Harmsen, Salih, Teague, Weilein NAYS: None ABSENT: None Pass and Adopt: It was moved by Moe , and seconded by Salih , that the ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: x ' Alter _y Bergus y— Hannsen x Moe x Salih x Teague x Weilein Date published: August 28, 2025 Kellie Grace From: Michael Welch <mwelch@shoemaker-haaland.com> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2025 7:59 AM To: Kellie Grace Cc: Madison Conley; Anne Russett; Jacob Wolfgang; Joe Clark (gjcl974@outlook.com) Subject: Expedited Action - Rezoning Lot 66 Monument Hills (REZ25-0007) Ai RI1 K ** 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. Good morning, On behalf of Monument Hits, LLC and Nelson Construction and Development, I would like to request that the council take expedited action on the rezoning item, Lot 66 Monument Hills (REZ25-0007), at the August 19th council meeting. Thankyou Michael Welch, PE Civil Department Lead Shoemaker & Haaland Engineering 1 31) Scanning I Land Surveying ❑:319.388�_ � 1 0:399.351.7150 www.shoemaker-haaland.com Item Number: 9.g. I, CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT August 19, 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, June 17, August 5] 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) Correspondence from Audrey Bahrick (included in the 8-5 late handouts) Correspondence from Sharon DeGraw (handed out at the 8-5 meeting) 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 W E S 0 0.01 0.02 0.04 Miles I i I i I REZ24-0001 911 N Governor Street Prepared By: Rachael Schaefer Date Prepared: January 2025 IR!3!B •.� _- ■ 1L2 go IM WE 41111*11141, IN", WAIN WA ,I�����;����� I��� sWWEWEWEWE ATTACHMENT 2 Preliminary Planned Development Overlay and Sensitive Areas Development Plan PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OPD SCARLETT POINT IOWA CITY, IOWA MNI'LP-1 F�� n�a, MMI NC B HOLD — LLC 'T T B . . . . . . 1917 � G LBERT O—CITI 1� C T, 4 ='22 'I N� 2: =2 _No LE, ELE-ON1 I lElIL71 SOUTH T QUARTER //"T — — — 114FST H E SOUTHIEkST QUART R SECTMH 3-T76N-Inow Al AMON OF T 3 )UTHEAST -e A TZn %F-COON --T 7 LOT 2 -Y- UH 18120c 010 HOLLOW L -1 PROPOSED BUILDING T/ F - -- - ------ - — — — — — — — — — LEA QCN�/ PROP El -E, \LOT I L// �-o �7/ x C �-ORMHA TOWN OF MWA CN`V OUTLOTMI BLWr 3 AMMON PE-1-1 111L� C HORTHIMME BLOCK 12 MWEV'S 7t0ttTttH LOCATION MAP m m CIVIL ENGINEERS uI,D PLANNERS G" S E" RS L.. IIE IRGUIFECTS RONVENTAL SPEGAULTS STANDARD LEGEND AND NOTES �NNIE'1'1.�N'l' Z� TN.D T W U -M EILIN � N-7E UNEE lEAl— —AlEl ANE T� E OTILL,END"N"�A" OBAL-1EES111METAL ISCE NT T I EN N—EILIE1 SITE LAYOUT AND DIMENSION PLAN SCARLETT POINT IOWA CITY LOU SON COUNTY I OWA MIS CONSULTANTS, INC. 9200-006 12 11 2024 1 -lo PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OPD SCARLETT POINT ALLT oR,AP­CLATNyC RkTl IOWA CITY, IOWA THiHOPUBL1CROSOUTHEAST QUART�R I OF 9F THE @ IOWA ONE CALL_ M p�57AoNPDARDe LEGEND AND [N OTE5 CIVIL ENOWEERS DRD PDNNERS CND SURVE"0RS IANDSCAPEARCnrECTS ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIHIIPTS SECTON 3 OgN=00 BLOCK 3 - -- O \ RLaD MOo N DO OA 4� ...= FFE-_00 �I r -_- — SITE ROS EROSION CONTROL LAN AND SWPPP �� -- EFi0.910N CONTROL LEGEND .........9woow„ Y. O - > O -- 0 L FE 1 0+ O.I if ,, ------" i J{ -- -- --" CARLETT POINT ��. a� � v � �� � iowA CITY..� LOU SON COUNTY "" - --- - - "----x"- - - 4 • o �6 �aDO��1��0�/L IT�_�0M1 _ O� �O V V O �1�T 11 MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. o OMTL00312 ®„ 2024 ADP s � O 9200-006 PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OPD SCARLETT POINT ALLT oR,AP­CLATNyC RkTl IOWA CITY, IOWA THiHOPUBL1CRO9F THE SOUTHEAST QUARTC R I OF BLOCK AM OOo N YT I, T 'AC r T -- — f _ — �,a�a ,�=n v , a ._ ----- ---— --- - -- 1 Q / c f TREE PROTECTIONo DETAIL , Ill ° O�OoMNAL TOVV��J ��p{�� OF OOWA CQTV IN @ IOWA ONE CALL- �� � M ono o „[cw p�57AoNDARD°[uL[EGENoDa�AN[D [N CTE5 CIVIL ENGINEERS IAno PDNNES CWD SURVEIORS ""1N6 LANDSCAPEARCnrECTS ENVIRONMEvNTAL SPECIHUETS on.00«o�W=,w�p�w� SITE SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN IOW A CITY LOU SON COUNTY owA WS CONSULTANTS, INC. ,211 2024 3 9200-006 PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OPD SCARLETT POINT IOWA CITY, IOWA SOUTHE SST QUARTER 9F THE SOUTHEAST QMLa\�\�C�\�\ I OF merry= �� -o-inwo e,�vov�x.vasx aru LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS LAN 35CAPE LEGEND —W1 1 "c /�\DDD�DOo PLANT5CIEDULE luT a� a\ — 11-1 R � w ti TWICAL —E F'LaiTNG DEfaL WE PING D— ([JEgD— PNU EVEEMAEENI M M N0ERS DRDPDNNERS DNOSURVElORS IANDSCFPEARcnrECTS ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIFII.TS LANDSCAPE AND FINAL STABILIZATION PLAN SCARLETT POINT IOW A CITY JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA ATTACHMENT 3 Building Elevations FRONT(STREET)ELEVATION — �J mERn�a EEa�E. ua°—�o o r ioit sosr u GOOSETOWN APARTMENTS 911 N. GOVERNOR STREET (42 UNITS) 1-30-2025 DSIDE YARD ELEVATION mERs��.s� I—E. u11 � �=xowoiEaoawo�wiM s�oxE � i=�wwoiEawwooaxa oEaw��war 21 10"PROPERTY UNE SIDE] 123 34'b" 24'-4" y 0 24'-4" y 0 24'-4" 34' 8 12;3" L— EEE.E. .1111E.re. .1111E I .1111E.1111E.re. nnoouEE"a" nnoouEE"a" EowEw EEEnnExE o O=O O=O OHO O=O �/ Oq ❑ 2 BED m PORCH „ Poecn 9 ❑ 2- EDRO m PORCH „ Poecn „ ❑ 2- EDRO m Poecn 9 Poecn „ STAR �' < 1- EDRO _ I- EDRO _ 1- EDRO ❑ 2- EDRO m Poecn „ � � ¢ APT. APT. IT ��0 APT. " ��0 AFT. Ci Ci H V�', - C®�O IITI ��IO CIO 3$ Wes__ (, ¢En ADA FRONT v a o n - CORRIDOR ZERO PORCH I I s d M ENTRY v a r _ _ J �- — L-- — L-- — t-- e °d n �O �O �O �O �O go �O II o + 14 ffril 0 00 00 0 EH SPRINKLER L� �� 0 0 M— 0 °Ffl REDRI � O 0mM � 0 �� �. ii �� ❑ II �� ROOV STAIR 02 Ll BEDPCM T.Poecn „ EM Poecn ❑ 02PT. M e Poecn „ 0 E�M Poecn „ ❑ 0APT OLL] 2 EAPTO. M e Poecn EAFTO. M e PoecnEm „ ❑ 02 EAFT. M e Poecn OHO OHO OHO OHO -- e e 14a. 4 1ST'FOR(PRELIMINARY) w Q o PLAN (PRELIMIN R`r) pta 3L�1 BLD�G,2 6€ DG 236'-10PROPERTYLINE SIDE] — 12';3" 346 14'0 45-4" 140 10'-4" IL18' 48'b" IL18" 24'-2' 12;3' w £w- S e c E���� re�--c J Q o N N Q U J LL wog � N g N U aa� o n 21 10 IveovEen uNE ODE s 123 3, 8 24'-4" 35' 0 24 35 0 24-4• 34 8 12 3• o m M L—EEE.E. nn .1111E"a" .1111E"a" Moo 1E .1111E"a.. nn000EE a nn000EE AA-���I EowEw EEEnnExE Mq ❑ O O 2 BEAPT APT. 3 SEASON I� ? SCREENED PORCH 1- EDRO 3 SEASON -_„ SCREENED ❑ PORCH L) pr-r�-r-�� "� 2- EDRO APT. 3 SEASON I� ?sceEENEo L��' vR E H 1- EDRO � 3 SEASON ? sPORCH ❑ voecH L) pr-r�-r-�� "� 2- EDRO APT. 3 SEASON ? SCREENED PORCH 1- EDRO 3 SEASONo ? SCREENED ❑ PORCH � 2- EDRO APT. 3 SEASON ? SCREENED STAIR PORCH Ll ❑ APT. ❑ APT. ❑ ❑ ❑ APT. ❑ ❑ 0uu ®❑ 0uu ®❑ ODU ®❑ =o R - CORRIDOR HELLOIL R ICI l� �O ITl �O I CDcc �� �O ITl ITl �O Irl �O ICI l� ME ® ® �MFJ I � ® I ® I I ® I w - - - - p�,, - p�,, - ���� - �p����,, - - - ❑ LL Go' 0 0 0 0 0 0 _- ❑ O�� - �❑ O�� --� OM� - EH MECH ROOM - ❑ ❑ 0❑ ❑ _ 1- EDRO M 1- EDRO M 1- EDRO M 2 BEDRO M 2- EDRO M 2- EDRO M 2- EDRO M STAR APT. APT. T APT. e O _ s s ❑ e is' -a" N, APT, Oj�O 14. DECK `� O m 1.4 14. DECK ❑ e 1.4 io'-e" APT, Oj�O 14. DECK `� O m 1.4 14H DECK `� ❑ - 1.4 io'-e" APT, Oj�O ia'-o" DECK m O � 1.4 14. DECK `� ❑ - 1.4 io'-e" APT, OLEO 14. m io'-z' is' -a" e'-s 2ND & BIRD FLOOR PLAN (PRELIMINAR`) U voam Ncum 3LDG.1 BLDG.2 Z w w Z Q N QOQ z 0 0 O O J > - O O 0 m _ TEE U U m U Z S F ] 0 U O U p w N y _ iA N O 4 ATTACHMENT 4 Rezoning Exhibit LEGEND AND NOTES A - CONGRESSIONAL CORNER, FOUND ® - CONGRESSIONAL CORNER, REESTABLISHED - - CD GRESSIDNAL CORNER, RECORDED LOCATION PROPOSED OPD/RS12 ZONING • - PROPERTY CORNER'S). FOUND I- no c) PROPERTY cmNERS SET O - a' Iron Pin x tic LS Co (5/ / yNlsx, plos p ® -CUT 4Xse0 xitH "MMS" - PROPOSED OPD RM20 ZONING LINES - PROPERTY & or BOUNDARYLINES SECTION LINES - CONGRESSIONALLINES — LINES - RIGHT-0 LINES - CENTER LINES ----------- --------- (M, (R) C22-1 UNLESS NOTED ETHERMISE, ALL - LOT LINES INTERNAL = LOT LINET PLATTED OR BY DEED N PURPOSE NOTED EASEMENT LINES, T LINES, EXISTING EASEMENT LINES, PURPOSE NOTED - RECORDED DIMENSIONS - MEASURED DIMENSIONS NUMB -CURVE SEGMENT NUMBER DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND HUNDREDTHS _ PAPLAT J'rtIN901J h PERTO FAMLY REVLGAp-E\/ SET / GRAPHICSIE IN NfINNEiT� a 1"-50' e U o MUM0 J 010ARM KC70N 3-779O-ft)K� _w I1E rSAT Tn ERECF aEccxoEo `� H L-KnNCE IN �`qC AT PAGE LF THE RECGROS GF TFIE ,KiMVS✓TI GLIINTv REGGRGER'S GFFIGE. `� to n F �/ BERRY VAN1 T 1HADRIL1 ALLEN OVEfC1 eER L 2` �\ Po� <> ti REZONING EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION -REZONING PARCEL #1 (OPD/RM20) IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA 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 Count Recorder's 9 Y Office' Thence S89°33'04"W alongthe South Line of said Bacon's Subdivision and the South Line of Lots:1 and 50 ofthe Subdivision of the Southeast Quarter Section,I in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Book 1 at Page 1 ofthe Records ofthe Johnson County Recorder's Office, 758.91 feet, to its intersection with the Easterly Right -of -Way Line of North Dodge Street; Thence N00°5546"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 ofthe Southeast Quarter Section 3-T79N-R6W; Thence N89°37'57"E, alongsaid 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 9 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 Corner thereof, and a Point on the WesterlyRight-of-Wa Line of North Governor Street' Thence S28°36'44"E alon said Westerl Y 9 Y 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 1s subject to easements and restrictions of record. DESCRIPTION - REZONING PARCEL #2 (OPD/RS12) 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 ofthe Records ofthe 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 ofrecord. POINT OF BEGINNING �0 NQ REZONING PARCEL #2 P / 6 TONN RENTALS. L:77 I EW9ETONN RENTALS. \ N89°37 57"E 96.71I N89°37'57"E 246.17' ' / ` Z O NO PROPOSED ZONING PARCEL#2 I (OS12) 7, 97 7,5975E Q I7 AE , �m PERRY CLtRT LTD PARTkER'SHP S00°13'35"E \ //\J 4.49' . ! N89°18'10"E 172.08' /1 7 U YILTLRM 61LPIN `` �r PROPOSED ZONING PARCEL #1 PATTI PREVER FIJJ `�""' (OPD/RM20) Z532 ACF � b zti 0((UInI Ino���Ir���OI���}OIr���Ov�vR�}IIoIF TrIl E�<SOUTMH W ADAM 6 KRLEEER / 1�,Q�IA 11�LSll 11 MUM �OO IIU NJ� II IJ J��� D)i�'���,/`�' L IN 4A OR 41.NE WTn T1 I�AT T1 REG �UJ VJ 5TER£N VOYCEE N00°55'46"W 46.06' 1 STPGEY NOLLE IN BOCK I AT PAGE I GF T R G GE T ,YxMSGN GLN REGGR RS GF IGE. ALPREY 5 PAhRICK 758.91' NGRTn 53 FEET OF TYIE WEST I60 F T SA APA LLC -1- IAOF TFIE -1 A5 T—N IIowA CITY r o 000GS�aL90o Oo 0 �IO��O��L9 __------- IN AGLORDANCE WITH THE PLAT TI FffOF REGGRDED IN BOCK 67 AT PAGE 223 GF Tn REL— T Tn ,OYINSON LAINTY REGGRGE2'5 GFFIGE u 8 IDO �DEILYMJE NANN2A MMNU / C z� Y MV ( PLEOE9e &R-oup L Zi L 0 Cyr g) \ KALLM N LAR0..U5 IUVAI UP v. \ PVNALD ERRS G f� \� EDWARD J LF,Ntt REvaAPLF TRusr t J'1. VJ K LPNN 0000M0 00 0 0MMOM IN AGCGRDANCE VWIN TINE AAT TnEREGE RECGRGEp } } IN 60GK I AT PAGE 5 GF TINE F GR GF TINE 1� 1� .1MI— L' R GRCERs— S89°33'04"W CITY OF 10NA CITY OEM 13 DMHL'AL 70*JN OF MAMA CM IN .CLROANGE Wlm TNf REGGRGED IN F­ I AT PAGE IIb OF TINE REGLRCS OF TFIE ,liNNS IiJ 1q REGGRDERS GFFIGE. REVLYAp-E TRUST KGRIfHP DD0C SURD =��OS�DO Fn YlAN K LEN1Y REVLtAPLE I 7R%T ELIUPETfI AM 119ER 0 ) I I eem ELerrA,�E�Ra1cleeoN LOOcv 12 POINT OF BEGINNING QOOD�OCI�� REZONING PARCEL #1 M M CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS 1917 S. GILBERT ST. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 (319) 351-8282 Dote Revision 12-2-2024 PER RRN REVIEW - RLW N 20-2025 per city comments Fdm ZONING EXHIBIT IOWA CITY JOHNSON COUNTY IOWA MMS CONSULTANTS, INC Dote: 11-30-2024 Desig— Dy. I'Mid Book No: JDM 1380 Drosn Dy. Scole: RLW 1"=50' CHeckerl Dy. SHeet No: RRN Project No: 'I IOWA CITY 9200-0— x„ o 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 10=© The crossing options are extremely dangerous for pedestrians, bikes, or any ADA use. Wheel chair access into and out of the development is an impossibility. Pedestrian access to the park, school, and grocery amenities for kids or mobility challenged occupants of the development requires a sprint across a two lane highway at the bottom of an S-curve. At peak times this traffic will be moving at different speeds, creating a very dangerous condition for both pedestrians and drivers, With minimal design interventions these could be remedied to better align with the Comprehensive Plan. The land to the west is held by the same developer. By asking to conjoin the parking lots it creates joint access that betters north and south bound access for both the new and the existing developments. Providing a pedestrian connection to the park also enhances both developments while providing a means of safe pedestrian access to the park, elementary school and beyond. 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 Kellie Grace From: abahrick <asbahrick@gmail.com> 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. ** 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 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, olarge apartment complex cannot bebuilt immediately next door mt the whim ofadeveloper. There has uofar been noacknowledgement ofthe loss oftransitional zoning due tothe inclusion ufQOONDodge EUinthe OPD. |nfact, the opposite istrue: inmycorrespondence with the City Attorney and Senior Planner, both have denied the reality ofthe loss oftransitional zoning. What are vvanot understanding aboutupzuningVoRK4-2Oandthebui|ding rights now and inthe future that come with that designation. Given the City aomo-app|imant.transparency inyour process should beu high priority. |tshould beexemplary. Yet the Staff Report obfuscates the purpose ofincluding 0OONDodge, which iosolely hocreate unused density which can betransferred toreach 84units onthe Q11 property ablock away. The Report only hints that this iuso, instating that asacondition of upzoningtoRM'2Oitwill beconverted tuasingle unit "to comply with density nsquireman1o"Rezoning 000NDodge Gtsets abad precedent, undermines public trust, and should beremoved from the OPD. With the City aaoo-appicant,Planning and Zoning would have been under pressure Loapprove and did so. Planning and Zoning appears tohave approved the rezoning without having digested major concerns raised by community. |nthe May 0City Council consultation, Pand Zinaccurately reported achief concern ofthe neighborhood anbeing ^tradfo^and then dismissed this with "development brings increased traffic". The actual neighborhood concern here imsafety for both drivers and pedestrians and the lack ofinfrastructure \osupport safety. Bringing such olarge development 0nthis land island situated between north and south one-way streets with aggressive traffic, no crosswalks, and no safe pedestrian route out imtoentrench and exacerbate already unsafe conditions for ohundred plus new residents. Aconcern ofthe neighborhood, clearly articulated incorrespondence and oral presentations, is lack ofpedestrian safety and lack cfinfrastructure tu support the increased density. Access topublic transportation ortoHy\Aye from the development requires jay walking across two lanes ofaggressive highway 1 traffic sko point oflow visibility for drivers. Access to Mann school requires the same orcutting through the woods without a designated path. |tiainappropriate topress forward with development without addressing these inadequacies that likely rise (uthe level of illegalities. | believe ADArequires new development hoprovide access to public transportation and zoning code specifies development occur where there is infrastructure iosupport it. The zoning code itself says that RM-2Ozoning issuitable for areas with adequate infrastructure, but there is no sidewalk on Governor Street to this property. Where else inthe City are there D4apartments with nopedestrian aomouo/ Issues related to the treatment ofthe critical slopes and the ways inwhich this appears toconflict with zoning code have been detailed in correspondence and spoken about onMay Oth.This needs 1nbe responded toaawell. |omaware that Councilor Moe, anarchitect, has inthe past called for hiring anurban planner bconsult re: difficult zoning matters. The many challenges presented indeveloping this land island, and with the potential tnexacerbate 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 bovote for this plan because ofathreat nfanother expensive lawsuit over this property. Yes, lawsuits may be expensive, but diligent, competent good government — doing the right thing —is beyond price. Placing 84apartments inalocation with nopublic sidewalk access ianot good governance. | urge City Council not bzmove forward with approval. You could improve the process with accurately and systematically reflecting hearing community concerns and with collaboration with unurban planner to address the complexities ofsafety, infrastructure, and density. Sincerely. Kellie Grace From: gmlauer@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 5:46 PM To: *City Council Subject: North Governor reasoning - oppose 84 units too many for that neighborhoodW A ** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Ptease 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 my whole 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@gmail.com 1223 Maple St Iowa city, la Kellie Grace From: Matt Drabek <matt.drabek@gmail.com> 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 i 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 16), b Kellie Grace From: Bahrick, Audrey 5 <abahrick@uiowa.edu> Late Handouts Distributed Sent: Monday, August 4, 2025 11:42 PM To: *City Council Subject: Letter to City Councilors for Aug 5 meeting11 g ---) 2-S Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; Factual inaccuracypuT (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 August 2025 Dear City Council Members, 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 --i- �-�/(_ -, , " , b 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 R313 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 0 5 2025 Northside Neighborhood, Iowa City City Clerk Iowa City, Iowa 8/5/2025 Doc ID: 032554550009 Type: GEN Kind: ORDINANCE Recorded: 08/25/2025 at 01:00:04 PM Fee Amt: $47.00 Paqe 1 of 9 Johnson County Iowa Kim Painter County Recorder BK6686PG679-687 STATE OF IOWA ) ) SS JOHNSON COUNTY ) I, Kellie K. Grace, City Clerk of Iowa City, Iowa, do hereby certify that the Ordinance attached hereto is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 25-4961 which was passed by the City Council of Iowa City, Iowa, at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of August 2025 is a true and correct copy, all as the same appears of record in my office. Dated at Iowa City, Iowa, this 27— nG-1day of August 2025. 6 ci Kellie K. Grace City Clerk \ord 410 EAST WASHINGTON STREET. IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240-1826 • (319) 356-5000 9 FAX (319) 356-5009 7 I �1 Prepared by. Anne Russett, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; (REZ24-0001) Ordinance No. 25-4961 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 (R313) 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 (R3B), while other portions of the subject property are zoned with various modern 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 infill 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 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"; 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. 25-496I 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 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 SOO°36'51"E, 66.71 feet; Thence S89°23'45"W, 130.27 feel, 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 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 Ordinance No. gs_Aosi 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 feet, 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 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. Section It. 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 19th day of August , 2025 Mdw Attest: ar"a . City Clerk Approved by City Attorra 's Office (Liz Craig — 03/27/2025) Ordinance No. 25-4961 Page No. 4 It was moved by Alter , and seconded by Bergus , 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 —� Weilein First Consideration: May 6. 9029 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: ABSENT: Date published: August 28, 2025 Prepared by: Anne Russet Senior Planner, 410 E, Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (REZ240001) 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 titleholder of the property legally described as: 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 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 feel; 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 Comer 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 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 Corner thereof, and a Point on the Westerly Right -of -Way Line of North Governor Street; Thence S28°36'44"E, along said Westedy 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 tight -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, 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. 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 title 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 MWI} 2025. QLY of Iowa City T_Uo Teague, Mayor V I Attest: 1)' r-t Kellie Grace, City Clerk Approved by: City A ey's Office City of Iowa City Acknowledgement: State of Iowa ) ) as: Johnson County ) This instrument was acknowledged before me on August 19 , 2025 by Bruce Teague and Kettle Grace as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City. Notary Public in and for the State of (Stamp or �CONNIE MC 50' My TSB Holdings, LLC Acknowledgement: State of County of This record was acknowledged before me on MA an Iq , 2025 by T .rnroj re-L) (name) as IiJunincZ (title) of TSB Holdings, LLC. e A���}.Nt EflIKA ANDEREON �otary Public in and for the State of Iowa Commleemn Number ]e1091 My Commission Expires (Stamp or Seal) My commission expires: I ! i -4 P. �..n� City Council Supplemental Meeting Packet CITY OF IOWA CITY August 19, 2025 Information submitted between the Supplemental Meeting Packet on Monday and 3:00 pm on Tuesday. Late Handoutfs) 9.g. Rezoning - N. Governor St: See Correspondence from City 10.h. Equal Protection Resolution: See Council Correspondence from David Sterling, Renne Harper and Allison Jaynes August 19.2025 City of Iowa City �9. J Kellie Grace From: Eric Goers Late Handouts Distributed Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 11:29 AM To: Bahrick, Audrey S; *City Council Subject: RE: Letter to City Council re: 911 N. Governor St rezoning _ /Q _ ZS (Date) Ms. Bahrick, Thank you for your latest request for clarification in the form of your email to Council yesterday afternoon. You are correct that under Iowa City Code 14-8D-7(C)(4), preliminary OPD plans can expire after 24 months. However, under 14-8D-7(D), final OPD plans do not expire. The final OPD plan is approved at the staff level. The final OPD plan is typically reviewed during the final plat or site plan review process, both of which have already been submitted by the applicant. Staff anticipates approving the site plan and final OPD plan shortly after approval of the rezoning and final plat by the City Council. Following that staff approval of the final OPD plan, all changes would need to be approved, and only non -substantial changes to the OPD plan could be approved by staff. As I mentioned in the last Council meeting, substantive changes to the OPD plan require a rezoning process, which must be approved by Council after a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. See Iowa City Code 14-8D-7(E): Requests for substantive changes to an approved preliminary orfinal OPD or sensitive areas development plan may not be approved administratively, but must be submitted as on amendment to such a plan and will be reviewed according to the procedures for approval cf a planned development overlay rezoning, as specified in this section. (emphasis added.) In summary, if Council approves the rezoning and final plat, and staff approves the final OPD, any non -substantive changes to the OPD would require staff approval, and any substantive changes would require rezoning. Eric R. Goers (he/him/his)* City Attorney 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 319-356-5030 egoers@iowa-city.org *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. Iowa City Transit is now FARE FREE! Learn more at ICGOV.ORG/FAREFREE Notice: Since e-mail messages sent between you and the City Attorney's Office and its employees are transmitted over the internet, the City Attorneys Office cannot assure that such messages are secure. you should be careful in transmitting information to the City Attorneys 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 Attorneys Office. Without written notification that you do not wish to communicate with the City Attorneys 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. -----Original Message -- From: Bahrick, Audrey S <abahrick@uiowa.edu> Sent: Monday, August 18, 202512:56 PM To: *City Council <CityCouncil@iowa-city.org> Subject: Letter to City Council re: 911 N. Governor St rezoning ** 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 t City Council Supplemental Meeting Packet CITY OF IOWA CITY August 19, 2025 Information submitted between distribution of the meeting packet on Thursday and 4:00 pm on Monday. Late Addition(s): 6.b. 2025 Johnson County, IA Countywide Hazard Mitigation Plan Late Handout(s): 9.g. Rezoning - N. Governor St: See Council Correspondence from Audrey Bahrick 11.a. Community Police Review Board - See addition of item number on agenda. Community Police Review Board - One vacancy to fill an unexpired term, upon appointment - June 30, 2027 (Jam MacConnell resigned). Staff is requesting indefinite deferral due to Senate File 311 and item #10.f, ordinance dissolving the Board. August 79, 2025 City or Iowa City �99 Kellie Grace From: Bahrick, Audrey S <abahrick@uiowa.edu> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2025 12:56 PM To: *City Council Subject: Letter to City Council re: 911 N. Governor St rezoning Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; City Council letter 818.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. Late Handouts Distributed s-�s-a5 (Date) Letterto Iowa City Council Re: Transitional Zoning and OPD Clarification August 18, 2025 Dear Council Members, I'd like to thank Eric Goers, the City Attorney, for providing an explanation during the August 41M1 City Council meeting re: the claim in his March 27th memo that the "transitional zoning is retained" in the OPD as one reason for his recommendation that Council should approve the rezoning. Transparency in decision -making is always appreciated. Yet I must express concern with both the reasoning provided and the accuracy of assertions made. Below, Mr. Goat's public remarks are transcribed: Erik Goats's response So as was covered in the staff report from Planning and Zoning the transition comes from the fact that this is an OPD zoning. Absolutely correct that this goes from RS 12 to RM20 however, as part of an OPD that property that Ms Bahrick raised is presently duplex. As part of rezoning it'll have to be converted to a single-family home going down in density. If that were to be demolished, before anything else could be built It would have to be rezoned, which means they would have to come back before either this Council or some subsequent Council, and you know at that point Ms Bahrick could complain about the property immediately to her north and that would be up to that council to decide whether it's an appropriate transition or not. In plain language, putting an RS-20 parcel next to an RS-8 parcel eliminates transitional zoning. Framing the situation as "retaining" transitional zoning while simultaneously increasing the potential for future density is m isleadIng. It obscures the broader issue of the significant change in underlying zoning classification and fails to address the long-term i mpItcations for the neighborhood's density and character. A temporary decrease in dwelling units occurs, yet the long-term potential for higher density development is inherent in the RM-20 zoning. The OPD is set to expire in two years if construction is not started. What happens then is unclear. Typically, developers do not allow OPDs to expire, yet in this case, expiration seems more likely due to land development challenges, the current owner's lack of intent to build, and attempts to sell the land. Therefore, it's more accurate to say if the OPD would expire, construction at 900 N Dodge St would be subject to the rules and regulations of the RM-20 zoning, not necessarily requiring a completely new rezoning. The city's Planning and Zoning Commission and City Councilwill have already approved the rezoning to RM-20, signifying their agreement on the suitability of that designation forth a property. I would ask the City Attorney to cite the section of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance that requires a rezoning of an RM-20 property once an OPD expires, as he asserts. I was unable to locate this in the code and am doubtful this can be provided. Rather than focusing solely on the immediate, potentially temporary effect on density, a final vote should not proceed until future repercussions are understood and acknowledged. The 27 property owners who signed petitions deserve that degree of respect. Being advised, should the OPD expire— to "protest again at that time" -- essentially to make this a future Council's headache, does not honor Council's investment of time and effort, the considerable civic engagement shown on this issue by a resounding majority of the neighborhood (not just Ms Bahrick as Mr Goers seems to suggest), nor is it a wise use of taxpayer moneyto take nearly a year working on this complex issue and mothball it for a future council. Nearly 90%of eligible individuals protested specifically against the loss of this transitional zoning. This level of public involvement —through petitioning, letters, meeting attendance, and public remarks —deserves respect and careful consideration, not having the issue kicked down the road to be taken up again on an another date. Being advised to protest again without having taken the time now to address underlying issues and identify sustainable solutions will perpetuate a cycle of discontent. The time to safeguard transitional zoning is now, before the final vote is taken Respectfully, Audrey Bahrick 830 N Dodge St Iowa City, IA. Item Number: 10.f. CITY OF IOWA CITY COUNCIL ACTION REPORT August 19, 2025 Ordinance amending Article V., entitled "Boards, Commissions and Committees", Section 5.01, entitled "Establishment", of the Iowa City Charter, and repealing Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations", Chapter 8, entitled "Community Police Review Board", to dissolve the Community Police Review Board. (First Consideration) Prepared By: Reviewed By: Fiscal Impact: Commission Recommendations Attachments: Ordinance Eric R. Goers, City Attorney Chris O'Brien, Deputy City Manager None. The Community Police Review Board unanimously recommended the body be dissolved. Executive Summary: The City of Iowa City has for years had a Community Police Review Board. It was originally created so that members of the community could make complaints about police conduct to fellow members of the community serving on the Board, for the Board to review. With the passage of SF 311, that review is no longer permissible. The CPRB unanimously recommended that the Board be dissolved, given the defeat of their primary purpose for being. These amendments to the City Code and Charter effectuate that recommendation. Background / Analysis: The City Council will soon be discussing whether a different group, formal or informal, might be able to continue to serve in an advisory capacity to the Chief of Police. Prepared by: Eric R. Goers, City Attorney, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030 Ordinance No. An ordinance amending Article V., entitled "Boards, Commissions and Committees", Section 5.01, entitled "Establishment", of the Iowa City Charter, and repealing Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations", Chapter 8, entitled "Community Police Review Board", to dissolve the Community Police Review Board. Whereas, with the passage of Iowa Senate File 311, effective August 16, 2025, Iowa municipalities can no longer, "adopt, enforce, or otherwise administer... a board or other entity for the purpose of citizen review of the conduct of officers..."; and Whereas, at its July 8, 2025 meeting, the Community Police Review Board ("CPRB") discussed the passage of SF 311 and what to do in response; and Whereas, the CPRB wrote a letter to Council, dated July 29, 2025, which stated as follows, "The Board agrees SF311 removes the primary purpose for which the CPRB was originally created. With the ability to receive and to review officer conduct no longer an option, any community impact would be limited. While Police Department policies have also been reviewed, the general orders are now available to the public online. Annual forums have been held over the years with limited success, again related in part to the constraints of the meeting agenda. With the original purpose no longer an option, there would be limited scope and impact. The CPRB unanimously recommends dissolving the Board, and reallocating time and resources to a staff led process with the goal to strengthen trust & involvement across the community."; and Whereas, Council considered the CPRB's July 29t" letter in its August 5t" Work Session and decided to accept the CPRB's unanimous recommendation to dissolve the body; and Whereas, Council will soon discuss the scope and form of an alternative to the CPRB to engage in pertinent activities which remain legal following SF 311; and Whereas, the CPRB is a body described in and required by both Section 5.01 of the Iowa City Charter and Title 8, Chapter 8 of the Iowa City Code; and Whereas, both Section 5.01 and Title 8, Chapter 8 need to be amended and deleted, respectively, to effectuate the CPRB recommendation and Council decision. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. Amendments. Iowa City Charter: Article V. of the Iowa City Charter, entitled "Boards, Commissions and Committees", Section 5.01, entitled "Establishment', is hereby amended by repealing paragraph B. in its entirety. Iowa City Code: Title 8, entitled "Police Regulations", is amended by repealing and reserving Chapter 8, entitled "Community Police Review Board", in its entirety. Chapter 9, entitled "Unbiased Policing", shall remain identified as Chapter 9. Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III. 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 IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon publication. Passed and approved this Mayor Attest: City Clerk It was moved by day of , 2025. Approved by City Attorney's Office 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