Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08-27-2025 Planning & Zoning Commission
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Wednesday, August 27, 2025 Formal Meeting — 6:00 PM Emma Harvat Hall Iowa City City Hall 410 E. Washington Street Agenda: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda Comprehensive Plan Items 4. Case No. CPA25-0002 Location: 611 Greenwood Drive; Former Roosevelt Elementary School A public hearing to consider an amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan future land use map from Public/Semi-Public to Residential 16-24 DU/Acre and the Southwest District Plan future land use map from Public Services/Institutional to Medium to High Density Multi- Family for approximately 9.9 acres of property. Rezoning Items 5. Case No. REZ25-0010 Location: 611 Greenwood Drive; Former Roosevelt Elementary School An application for a rezoning of approximately 9.9 acres of land from Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone to Medium Density Multi-Family Residential Zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD-RM-20). 6. Consideration of meeting minutes: August 6, 2025 7. Planning and Zoning Information 8. Adjournment If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact Anne Russett, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5251 or arussett(cDiowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Upcoming Planning &Zoning Commission Meetings Formal: September 3 / September 17 / October 1 Informal: Scheduled as needed. STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Olivia Ziegler, Item: CPA25-0002 Planning Intern & Anne Russett, 611 Greenwood Dr. Senior Planner Date: August 27, 2025 GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant/Owner: TWG Iowa City, LP 1301 East Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46202 (317) 264-1833 Contact Person: Jon Marner MMS Consultants 1917 South Gilbert Street Iowa City, IA 52240 I.marner(a-mmsconsultants.net (319) 351-8282 Requested Action: To amend the Comprehensive Plan future land use map from Public/Semi-Public to Residential 16-24 DU/A and the Southwest District Plan future land use map from Public Services/Institutional to Medium to High Density Multi- Family. Purpose: To allow for the development of a 187-unit affordable housing project. The applicant is in the process of pursuing Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) Location: 611 Greenwood Drive Location Map: _ Size: 9.90 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Neighborhood Public (P1) zone 2 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Medium Density Single- Family Residential (RS-8) South: Neighborhood Public (P1), Medium Density Single- Family Residential (RS-8) East: Medium Density Single- Family Residential (RS-8), Medium Density Multi- Family Residential (RM- 20) West: High Density Single-Family Residential (RM-44) Comprehensive Plan: Public/Semi-Public Neighborhood Open Space District: SW3 Southwest District Plan: Public Services/Institutional File Date: July 8t'', 2025 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: TWG, Iowa City, LP purchased the former Roosevelt Elementary School site from the Iowa City Community School District in 2021. The owner is working with MMS Consultants, Inc., to prepare two applications to allow for the redevelopment of 9.90 acres of land at 611 Greenwood Drive, the former Roosevelt Elementary School, and implement a 187-unit affordable housing project. Attachment 3 includes the applicant submittal which illustrate the plan and includes the applicant statement describing the rationale behind the request. The first application to be considered is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA25-0002). The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates this area is appropriate for Public/Semi- Public land uses. The area is covered by the Southwest District Plan which identifies it as appropriate for Public Services/Institutional land uses. The proposed amendment would change the future land use designation for the subject property in the Comprehensive Plan to Residential 16- 24 DU/A and in the Southwest District Plan to Medium to High Density Multi-Family. The other concurrent submitted application is a zoning map amendment (REZ25-0010), a request to rezone the subject property, which totals 9.90 acres from Neighborhood Public (P1) zone to Medium Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM20) zone. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment must be approved prior to the changes to the zoning map. Roosevelt Elementary School was constructed in 1931, opening for its inaugural year of classes in 1932. After 80 years of operation, Roosevelt Elementary closed its doors in 2012, in which the Iowa City Community School District rebranded the building as the Theodore Roosevelt Education Center (TREC), which housed the Home School Assistance Program, as well as other programs for non-traditional students. In 2018, The TREC announced it would cease operations at the end of the academic year, concluding its services in summer of 2019, transferring services to other individual school buildings. The applicant held a good neighbor meeting on May 29, 2025. ANALYSIS: 3 The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan serves as a land-use planning guide by illustrating and describing the location and configuration of appropriate land uses throughout the City, providing notification to the public regarding intended uses of land; and illustrating the long-range growth area limit for the City. Applicants may request an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan with City Council approval after a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Applicants for a comprehensive plan amendment must provide evidence that the request meets the two approval criteria specified in Section 14-8D-3D. The comments of the applicant are found in the attachments. Staff comments on the criteria are as follows. 1.Circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors have come to light such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest. The subject property is identified as appropriate for Public Use in the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in 2013. At the time of plan adoption it was identified as appropriate for Public/Semi Public uses based on the land being owned by a public entity. Following the closure of the Roosevelt Elementary School in 2012, and the subsequent shutdown of The Roosevelt Education Center in 2019, the building has since sat vacant. In 2021, the Iowa City Community School District made the decision to sell the property. In August 2021,the property was purchased by TWG Iowa City LP. The proposed amendment would recognize the change in ownership from a public entity to a private one. In addition, it would allow for the redevelopment of the subject property, creating more opportunities for residential development, including the planned 187-unit affordable housing project proposed by TWG. This amendment helps the City generate more housing opportunities that are needed to accommodate a growing population. 2.The proposed amendment will be compatible with other policies or provisions of the comprehensive plan, including any district plans or other amendments thereto. At the time the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted in 2013, the TREC was fully functioning. The adopted policy vision of the time aligned with the existing land use of Public Use, but with the closure of the TREC, residential uses are more fitting for this site. The Southwest District Plan acknowledges this within their Planning Principles chapter and is mirrored within the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan. The text states the following: "Citizens stressed the importance of providing a diversity of housing in the District, including homes for first time buyers, mid-sized homes, estate-style homes, townhouses, condominiums, and apartments. The appropriate design and mix of housing types if important to the creation of livable neighborhoods." (p.18) In short, the designation of this land as Public Use is no longer useful in serving the community needs; the proposed amendment aligns with the Southwest District Plan in creating diverse housing options. Furthermore, the proposed amendment meets several goals and strategies regarding land use and housing from the Comprehensive Plan. This includes the following: 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. Housing Goals & Strategies: • Encourage a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods. 4 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. • Improve and maintain housing stock in established neighborhoods o Identify areas within established neighborhoods where infill development would be appropriate • Support sustainability initiatives to create more energy efficient development o Support compact, contiguous development to ensure the efficient use of land and to enhance opportunities for alternatives to commuting by car Environmental Goals & 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 o Raise awareness of the environmental benefits of urban development that makes efficient use of land and infrastructure that reduces reliance on cars for transportation For the reasons above, staff finds the requested comprehensive plan amendment to be compatible with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of CPA25-0002, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan future land use map from Public/Semi-Public to Residential 16-24 du/acre and the Southwest District Plan future land use map from Public Services/Institutional to Medium to High Density Multi- Family for approximately 9.9 acres of land located at 611 Greenwood Drive. NEXT STEPS: Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be scheduled for consideration by the City Council. 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 (CPA25-0002) and must hold three readings including the public hearing for the rezoning (REZ25-0010). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Applicant Submittal Materials 4. Good Neighbor Meeting Summary Approved by: 1 ) , S' Diielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ATTACHMENT 1 Location Map ' 1 1 1 . • • 1 -�...-- CITY OF I©WA CITY It 1 1 1 1 1� 1 1: •�. •� Pr 4 M� ,ems Ilr h An application requesting an amendment to the future land use j A n map in the Comprehensive Plan,changing the future land use designation of 9.90 acres of land at 611 Greenwood Dr.from Public/Semi Public to Residential 16-24 DU/A. Q� ATTACHMENT 2 Zoning Map CPA25-0002 611 GreenwoodDr. -�...-- CITY OF I©WA CITY 1 0.02 0.04 0.08 Miles PreparedBy:Olivia Ziegler Date Prepared: 1 POW RM44 "`- a 48RLES" .. i �/ c >�/► k _ el RM44 , T a rirk {, n Ri EMI tomIt''711 ti� 9 L a rt _M RS$ ply _ r . �� "" b - �—'o'er•- :' - � _ ...�.:° ':� en •E E l An application requesting an amendment to the future land use - —" map in the Comprehensive Plan,changing the future land use ' , designation of 9.90 acres of land at 611 Greenwood Dr.from ti Public/Semi Public to Residential 16-24 DU/A. RS8 1 Johnson County, Iowa GIS \\ a�•' -- _ ice,- -�, b \ II ATTACHMENT 3 Applicant Submittal Materials 1917 S.Gilbert Street Iowa City,Iowa 52240 .8282 M MMS Consultants Inc. onsult nts.n ! mmsconsultants.net Experts in Planning and Development Since 1975 mms@mmsconsultants.net June 27, 2025 .0 v 0- Ln ro City of Iowa City E410 E.Washington Street Iowa City, IA S2240 2 LU Re: Roosevelt Ridge Comprehensive Plan Amendment On behalf of the applicant,we are submitting a request for a Comprehensive Plan 1A Amendment. The described land consists of 9.90 acres in total and is currently listed as Public land use. The site has access to public streets and infrastructure via Greenwood YDrive and W. Benton Street. U Circumstances for this site have changed since the current plan was adopted. This site Ln C is the former location of Roosevelt Elementary, which has since been closed by the 9 ICCSD, and sold to the applicant. We are proposing a change of the land use from Public to Residential 16-24 DU/A. The proposed land use amendment is consistent with existing a similar land use at the northeast of the property, and a more intense land use west of the property. Qj If you have questions or require any additional information, please contact us accordingly. C ro �1 Respectfully submitted, �n Jon Marner. MMS Consultants, Inc. ru 11603-001UDOU c M C W .5 U COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXHIBIT 9.90 AC ,t, PORTIONS OF LOT 3 AND LOT 7 IN SCHOOL 56 3at 31Ir506 COMMISSIONERS SUBDIVISION OF SECTION 16, u'= !11 _,` \ 626 `s22 6'141a5 326 Sz0 400 1 331 326 516 402 2 1,- 482 g6 ,0;, 243239 625Rf lTOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE FIFTH 61 f 603 403 517 505 c. 408 3D9 \ ,.2 4� 410 a 1 5 6 PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN 161 RS8 313 o.`f?r 421 422 - al 412 '�r, 41S a -- - - 423 424 568 402 I�e 316 308 mI4,2 o IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA 708 -832 _ 6rookt"d ---�T-T- '505 2� f 377, 3G99 10 I _ tF2 '12 gee a SJ' 815 8Q7 719 7t3 604 405 soy �Lf PLAT PREPARED BY: APPLICANT/OWNER: 55o MMS CONSULTANTS INC. TWG DEVELOPMENT 8"400 V 706 609 1917 S.GILBERT STREET 1301 E WASHINGTON ST,SUITE 100 afl` dZ4 816 80B' 804 712 710 tr2 ' \� L x1 615 V2 602 � ` IOWA CITY, IA 52240 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46202 904 Woodside Dr 619 1 610 60 �� � � ao 3 9nt 10 81s 811 807 841 711 707 612 614 1 f 603 i k.M44 916 -613 .r,'- .-- - $ 915 701 700 704 7t8 708 t ' - r I- - -- 71i2 735 7 00` n/ 1000 932 703 ,�6t5 736 701 - 702 P/V '.� s1s705 r CIVIL ENGINEERS 10,01 915 '1 -i10 ? 732. 705. 1116 us 76 710 LEGEND AND NOTES LAND PLANNERS 711 6 712 _a . T 700 11 730 713 714 71 T 1 if2'�•716 r 704 729 723 _ - 717 - 718 8 - CONGRESSIONAL CORNER, FOUND LAND SURVEYORS 713 718 701 710 727 719 w 720 721 722 — — - CONGRESSIONPROPERTY AL SECTION BOUNDARY NES ES 910 900 810o r15 $' 725 — - - - _ - - - -- RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES CENTER LINES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS _ - 721 612 608 T5201 dF 446 338 31 0 10 25 50 75 100 = EXISTING COOPERATIVE LIMITS 7W - LOT LINES, PLATTED OR BY DEED ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS W Benton Si GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET -------------- EXISTING EASEMENT LINES, PURPOSE NOTED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND HUNDREDTHS 747 733 72S � ens �.. 405 3,7 325 1"=100' 1917 S. GILBERT ST. fnfa gt1' eia, 335 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 75s 1,n11 pa 819 816 (319)351-8282 810 90.S RA444" 823 820 81�8 g10 T 173 194 g3o gap wWW.mmsconsultants.net 812 934 829 836 �34 1- 418 40 902 814 \\118 F38 154 gag a 909 c 910 904 107 134 gq0m 94a 915 9a0 417 421 407 / \ .� 12fs 9 921 922 441 97 \\ m s 924 416 44 28 Fha44 T3 '- 946 927 m 934 435 L �- _ 1010 LOT I9 908 912 $14 .i 612 951 ` 1013 1012 423 417 403 4T4 43$ 426 � � eon 961 LOT 15 Date Revision LOCATION MAP LOT 17 NOT TO SCALE \ / � LOT 16 �d 15 PART TWO, TERRACE HILL ' �OrO AUPITOR'S PARCEL 2003-017 ADDITION, IONA CITY, IOWA 6�3 � PLAT f�001C 45, PAGE 239 \P1T 1304C 2, PAA5�- - /� I JOtINSON COJNTY RE60RPER"5 M1lRl — I oFFIGE \ \\-- ' - 208 23'l o LOT I I > 6,06-- / I N72 LOT 10 I rn LEGAL DESCRIPTION TRACT 2 LOT 9 ALL THAT PART OF LOT 7, IN SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF PLAT PAY POWERS & ASSOCIATES � /` I z THE 5TH P.M., LYING AND BEING NORTH OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY RUNNING EAST PLAT BOOK 7, PACE 33 IN TI1E ti$ AND WEST (BENTON STREET) THROUGH SAID LOT 7, SAID LOT 7 BEING SO JOINSON COUNTY RE60RPER"5 I 6 DESIGNATED ON A PLAT OF SAID SECTION 16 RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE OFFICE / z� COUNTY AUDITOR OF JOHNSON COUNTY,IOWA,ON MAY 18, 1848. LOT 8 A PORTION OF LOT 3, IN I rn41 TRACT OF LAND DESGRIEED COMPREHENSIVE THIS CONVEYANCE IS MADE SUBJECT TO A LEASE COVERING THE PREMISES ABOVE i �5 v SC1100L GOMM15510NERS' SUISPIVISION cn DESCRIBED TO JAMES A. HENNESSEY AND REGINA HENNESSEY, EXPIRING MARCH 1, I 1 N A WARRANTY PEEP RECORDED OF 5EG- I/o-T79N�R((oW OF THE 5TFt P.M. / I N 300K AG88 AT PAGES 819-820 1928,WHICH LEASE HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO THE GRANTEE HEREIN. IOWA CITY, J011NSON COUNTY, IOWA PLAN EXHIBIT J011N6ON COUNTY RECORDER'S 7� ♦'c�� I OFFICE AND N42°19'14"E BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 3 IN SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS SUBDIVISION OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 51H P.M, CURRENT LAND USE: PUBLIC/SEMI—PUBLIC I WHICH SAID POINT OF BEGINNING IS 1927 FEET WEST AND 670 FEET NORTH OF THE I I SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 16, RUNNING I PROPOSED LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL 16-24 DU/A ,I THENCE WEST 693 FEET,THENCE NORTH 64 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE CENTER LINE / S89°08'51"W OF MYRTLE AVENUE (NOW KNOWN AS GREENWOOD DRIVE) IN IOWA CITY, IOWA, I // 9.90 AC I 30.55'(M)(R) THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SAID MYRTLE AVENUE I (GREENWOOD DRIVE) TO A POINT DIRECTLY NORTH OF THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, I / o PORTIONS OF LOT 3 AND THENCE SOUTH TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. I I / LOT 7 IN SCHOOL AS A FURTHER CONSIDERATION FOR SAID CONVEYANCE AND AS A COVENANT o i TRACT // // v COMMISSIONERS RUNNING WITH THE LAND,THE GRANTEE HEREIN HEREBY AGREES AND COVENANTS I W I / O ��e o qo SUBDIVISION OF SECTION THAT THE EAST 60 FEET OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PREMISES SHALL BE AND THE I �� vfi- m 16, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, SAME IS HEREBY OPENED AND DEDICATED AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY OR STREET AND I N I Q�QpC �� aa� RANGE 6 WEST OF THE THE SAID GRANTEE SHALL NOT BE PERMIT THE SAME TO BE OBSTRUCTED OR I P� 02 � I �� �� m �°�Q� FIFTH PRINCIPAL INTERFERED WITH IN ANY WAY AS A PUBLIC STREET, AND THE SAID HIGHWAY SHALL BE KEPT OPEN FOR THE USE OF THE PUBLIC AS FULLY AND EFFECTUALLY AS I I / / V0 C/ MERIDIAN IF THE SAME HAD BEEN PLATTED AND DEDICATED AND THE SAME ACCEPTED BY THE I W I / / z CITY OF IOWA CITY,IOWA AS A PUBLIC STREET,AND THE ACCEPTANCE THEREOF BY �D o THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, AS A PUBLIC STREET, AT ANY TIME HEREAFTER I Q I / / `� _ IOWA CITY SHALL COMPLETE THE SAID DEDICATION AS FULLY AND EFFECTUALLY AS IF THE /rRACr 3 w P� JOHNSON COUNTY SAME WERE ACCEPTED BY THE CITY AT THIS TIME. GRANTEE SHALL CONSTRUCT I Q Qi /DESCRIBED °J- IOWA PO SUCH FENCES AS SAID GRANTEE MAY DESIRE ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE STREET I / 1N A PEEPrn HEREIN DEDICATED BUT SHALL BE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO CONTRUST I / �/ �D 1N 02 A PORTION OF LOT 7, IN 2 MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. (CONSTRUCT) AND FENCES ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE STREET SO DEDICATED. I / �� PAeEs z93-2�k S6100L COv1M15510NERs' 6U69IVI6I0N I I OF 5EG. 1G-7791N-RGW OF THE 5711 P.M. Date: IONA CITY, JOFINSON GOLNTY, IOJVA ,� °v Q 6/27/2025 Designed by. Field Book No: 1345 JDM Drawn by Scale: LSS 1"=100' — — 660.30'(M)659.30'(R) Checked by. Sheet No: S89°57'26"W RRN W. �ENTON STREET - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Project No: I 11603-001 of: 1 ATTACHMENT 4 Good Neighbor Meeting Summary � r Summary Report for � o Good Neighbor Meeting ` CITY OF IOW \ CITY Project Name: Roosevelt Ridge Project Location: 611 Greenwood Drive Meeting Date and Time: May 29, 6.30 -7.30 Meeting Location: Horn Elementary cafeteria, 600 Koser Avenue Names of Applicant Representatives attending: Jon Marner & Scott Pottorff(MMS Consultants) Jackson Tayler&Brian Hiltunen(TWG),Aldo Sebben(Studio Arch) Names of City Staff Representatives attending: Anne Russett Number of Neighbors Attending: 25 Sign-In Attached? Yes X No General Comments received regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary)- General concerns about existing traffic, traffic enforcement in the area. Concern about maintenance of property. Concerns expressed regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary) - Interest in type of affordable housing. Concern from most attendees regarding existing traffic issues in the area and the additional traffic impact from this project. Pedestrian safety for the area particularly at the proposed Greenwood Drive entrance location. Parking for tenants and the potential impact to parking on streets. Some interest in capacity of existing sewer and water infrastructure. Questions about possible amenities for the tenants and interest in a community garden. Grading and design of the site. Will there be any changes made to the proposal based on this input? If so, describe: A traffic study is being completed for the project to provide with the application. Staff Representative Comments Name and contact information (optional): Comments: Svc," Or � �1e � ye ri o Yt "e v G '� Name and contact information (optional): Comments: n �V a4 \S 4 Y 475 5 v-- 5� w toe 1v2 G� S f�- f vi,a- �l�we c �'lp J So tr�t� ram V� ' `"`„— se �{�'' Name and contact information (optional): Comments:Lr (1 7 CL 7 a i i Nance and contact information (optional): Comments: tkr 0 tA A qP P ry ail vz 8 p des re � 61! s PP °J� �b Name and contact information (optional): Comments- 14 G'�ceaA ya Fnhb,P `/11L Le�G'�ic+�rt,�,��. Ink�sYwr� /964-/976 . STAFF REPORT To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner Item: REZ25-0010 611 Greenwood Drive Date: August 27, 2025 GENERAL INFORMATION: Owner/Applicant: TWG Iowa City, LP 1301 East Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46202 (317) 264-1833 Contact Person: Jon Marner MMS Consultants 1917 South Gilbert Street Iowa City, IA 52240 j.marner(ammsconsultants.net (319) 351-8282 Requested Action: Rezone approximately 9.90 acres of property at 611 Greenwood Drive from Neighborhood Public (P1) zone to Medium Density Multi- Family Residential Zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM20). Purpose: To allow for the development of a 187-unit affordable housing project. Location: 611 Greenwood Drive Location Map: s a� i L � Size: 9.90 acres Existing Land Use and Zoning: Former Roosevelt Elementary School; Neighborhood Public (P1) Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS8) South: Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS8)with a Historic District Overlay (OHD), 2 Neighborhood Public (P1) East: Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS8) West: High Density Multi-Family Residential (RM44) Comprehensive Plan: Residential 16-24 DU/A, pending Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA25- 0002) Southwest District Plan: Public Service/Institutional, pending Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA25- 0002) Neighborhood Open Space District: SW3 Public Meeting Notification: Property owners and residents within 500' of the property received notification of the Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting. A rezoning sign was posted on August 19, 2025. File Date: August 18, 2025 45 Day Limitation Period: October 2, 2025 BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The owner, TWG Iowa City, LP, is working with MMS Consultants on two applications to allow for the redevelopment of 9.90 acres of property at 611 Greenwood Drive, the former Roosevelt Elementary School. The goal is to develop a 187-unit affordable housing project. Attachment 3 includes the applicant submittal which illustrates the proposed changes to the zoning map, the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay and Sensitive Areas Development Plan, rendering of the proposed multi-family buildings, and an applicant statement describing the rationale behind the request. The first application to be considered is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA25-0002). The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designates this area is appropriate for Public/Semi- Public. This area is covered by the Southwest District Plan. The proposed amendment would change the future land use designation for the subject property in the Comprehensive Plan to Residential 16-24 DU/Acre. The second application to be considered is a request to rezone approximately 9.90 acres of the subject property, 611 Greenwood Drive, from Neighborhood Public (P1) zone to Medium Density Multi-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM20) zone. The Comprehensive Plan amendment must be approved prior to changes to the zoning map. Good Neighbor Policy: The applicant has used the Good Neighbor Policy and held a Good Neighbor Meeting on Thursday, May 29th, 2025. Twenty-five neighbors attended. A summary of the good neighbor meeting is provided in Attachment 4. ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: The 9.90-acre lot is currently zoned as Neighborhood Public (P1) zone. The purpose of public use zones is to provide reference to public ownership and use of land, or use of 3 the land for infrastructure services that need to be located in or near the area where the service is provided. Neighborhood Public (P1) zone allows uses such as schools, parks, police and fire stations, necessary infrastructure and other civic buildings owned or otherwise controlled by the County, the City, or the Iowa City Community School District. Proposed Zoning: The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property to Medium Density Multi-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM20) zone. The purpose of the Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-20) zone is to provide for the development of medium density multi-family housing, which allows a mix of detached and attached single-family housing, duplexes, and multi-family housing. Per the Preliminary OPD Plan (Attachment 3), the request is to allow the development of a 187-unit multi-family building. Due to impacts to the sensitive areas, an OPD is required. The OPD also allows the applicant to request waivers for certain zoning standards. The applicant is requesting an increase in the maximum building height from 35' to 42', which is discussed in more detail below. 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 Code. 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 applicant is requesting to rezone to OPD/RM-20, which allows for a density of 24 dwelling units per net acre of land area (total land minus streets right-of-way). The proposed development has 187 units on 9.9 net acres for a density of 18.8 dwelling units per acre. The development is clustered on the portion of the site that is already disturbed, protecting the existing ravine and woodlands. Overall, the proposed plan complies with the planned development density requirements for an RM-20 base zone. Land Uses Proposed: The applicant is proposing to demolish the former Roosevelt Elementary School with a 187-unit multi-family residential apartment building. The applicant is working to secure Low Income Housing Tax Credits for the proposed development; therefore, the proposed development is intended to be an affordable housing project. The existing land uses that surround the subject property range from single-family, multi- family, as well as some non-residential uses. Abutting the subject property to the east include a single-family home at 612 W. Benton Street, a long-term care facility, and an early childhood education center. To the north of the subject property are single-family homes with access onto Greenwood Drive. These homes are separated from the proposed development by the existing ravine and woodlands on the subject property and the Greenwood Dr public right-of-way. Brookland Park is located north of the subject property, as well. To the west, also separated by the ravine and the public right-of-way are existing multi-family residential buildings. To the south of the subject property across the W. Benton Street right-of-way are single-family homes and Benton Hill Park. Mass, Scale and General Layout: The proposed development consists of one, 187-unit building with a courtyard in the center. The building is setback 40' from W. Benton Street and approximately 140' from the eastern property line. Parking is provided behind the building and to the east of the building. The existing ravine will largely remain untouched. To improvement pedestrian connectivity in the neighborhood and through the site, the plans show a publicly accessible pedestrian path that runs north/south through the site from W. Benton Street to Greenwood Drive. This walkway was incorporated since it was determined 4 that providing a sidewalk along Greenwood Drive would be very challenging due to existing topography and the ravine. The proposed pedestrian path will include a public access easement. It will include both a non-accessible route due to the steepness of the site that requires incorporating stairs, as well as an ADA accessible route through the site. As a condition of the rezoning staff recommends installation of a 10' wide pedestrian connection and dedication of an associated public access easement along the eastern portion of the property to extend from W. Benton Street to Greenwood Drive. Pedestrian path shall also include pedestrian scale lighting to be reviewed and approved by the City during the site plan review process. Renderings and building elevations are provided in Attachment 3. On the southern and eastern facades, the proposed building incorporates design aspects that mimic townhomes with separate entrances. The building also incorporates a setback between the 2"d and 3rd stories at the southeast corner. These design features are incorporate in areas closest to existing single-family homes. Lastly, the building is broken up by various levels of articulation, different materials, and changes in rooflines to help break up the mass and scale of the building. The applicant has requested an increase in the maximum allowable height from 35' to 42'. Open Space: The proposed development will need to comply with the private open space standards, outlined in section 14-2A-4E of the City Code. The proposed development requires 3,150 feet of private usable open space (10 SF per bedroom). The proposed development shows adequate private open space provided in the proposed courtyard, which features a playground, open field area, and seating. The Preliminary OPD Plan also shows a proposed dog park for the residents. The natural areas, including the ravine and woodland, on the northern end of the site will largely remain. Traffic Circulation: The subject property is currently accessed from Greenwood Drive, a two-way local street, and W. Benton Street, a two-way collector street. The proposed development will maintain those existing access points, but staff is recommending a condition that access to and from W. Benton Street is limited only to emergency vehicles. Access to the site by residents, visitors, deliveries, etc. must come off Greenwood Drive. 2. The development will not overburn existing streets and utilities. Staff requested a traffic study as part of this rezoning, which is provided in Attachment 5. The study noted that the proposed development is estimated to generate 86 peak hour trips during the AM peak, and 82 trips during the PM peak hour. Despite the increase in traffic the study states that the surrounding streets will operate with an acceptable capacity and level of service. The City's transportation planner and the City Engineer reviewed the traffic study and generally agree with its findings. Based on the traffic study staff is recommending two conditions: 1. Installation of a raised crosswalk across Greenwood Drive near the entrance to the site subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. Ensure that the design of the access drive from Greenwood Drive to the subject property is at or near a 90-degree angle subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. As for public utilities the site has access to City sanitary sewer and water and City staff has no concerns with existing capacity. Stormwater management plans will be reviewed during the site plan review process. 5 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. The nearest neighbors to the northwest of the proposed multi-family building are separated by a woodland preservation area. The property to the east (612 W. Benton Street) is separated from the proposed development by existing mature trees on their property and a side setback of approximately 30'. Additionally, the proposed building is approximately 160' away from the existing single-family home. The change in grade is also significant. The home is at an elevation of approximately 712' while the proposed building is at 750'. As such, the proposed development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property values, and neighboring properties' privacy any more than a conventional development would. 4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying zoning requirement 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 multi-family uses. The land use adds to the diversity of housing options within the surrounding area and helps to satisfy an ongoing need for affordable housing. Staff finds that the requested increase in height to 42' is reasonable given the location of the building on the site which is set back significantly from neighboring properties and public rights-of-ways. 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 proposed rezoning is reviewed using the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Southwest District Plan. 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 multi-family residential development. The comprehensive plan also 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. Housing Goals & Strategies: • Encourage a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods o Ensure of 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. • Improve and maintain housing stock in established neighborhoods 6 o Identify areas within established neighborhoods where infill development would be appropriate Environmental Goals & 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 o Raise awareness of the environmental benefits of urban development that makes efficient use of land and infrastructure that reduces reliance on cars for transportation Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood Character: The subject property is the former Roosevelt Elementary School (rebranded as the Theodore Roosevelt Education Center in 2012), which concluded its services in 2019. The subject property is bordered by Medium Density Single- Family Residential (RS-8) zone to the north and east, also to the east is Medium Density Multi- Family Residential (RM20) zone. To the west is High Density Multi-Family Residential (RM44) zone, and to the south is Neighborhood Public (P1) zone, and Medium Density Multi-Family Residential with a Historic District Overlay (OHD/RM20) zone. The area contains a mix of land uses, including single-family homes, multi-family apartment complexes, as well as non-residential uses such as a long-term care facility and an early childhood education center. Due to the existing mix of land uses staff finds that the proposed development is consistent with the existing neighborhood character. Furthermore, the site's topography and existing natural features provide separation between the proposed development and the existing built environment. Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The subject property contains regulated sensitive features including critical, protected, and altered protected slopes and woodlands. There is also a wetland on the property that may be a jurisdictional wetland. Regulated Slopes: The subject property contains critical, protected, and altered protected slopes. The impacts to these slopes are outlined in Table 1. The Planned Development Overlay rezoning is required due to proposed impacts to altered protected slopes. These impacts require review and approval by the City Council after a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission through the OPD rezoning process. Table 1 — Summary of Regulated Slopes Slopes Disturbed Preserved Total Square Percent Square Percent Square Percent Feet Feet Feet Critical 15,042 15.8% 79,929 84.2% 94,971 100% Altered Protected 2,702 17.8% 12,454 82.2% 15,156 100% Altered Slope Buffers 32,946 53.8% 28,252 46.2% 61,198 100% Protected 0 0% 3,788 100% 3,788 100% Protected Slope Buffers 0 0% 20,556 100% 20,556 100% Woodlands: The site contains 152,769 square feet of woodlands. Impacts beyond 80% (less than 20% retention) cannot be approved by staff. The plans show that 61.5% of the woodlands will be retained. Wetlands: The applicant's environmental consultant identified two wetlands on the subject property within the ravine. Staff asked the applicant to reach out to the Army Corp of Engineers 7 to determine if the wetlands are jurisdictional. If the Army Corp determines that they are not jurisdictional wetlands it is not a regulated wetland per the City's zoning ordinance. One of the wetlands is located at the eastern end of the ravine near the existing driveway off Greenwood Drive. Due to the location of the existing development on the site, particularly the driveway and existing pavement east and south of the ravine, the wetland cannot meet the buffer requirements. Additionally, as part of the proposed development, the driveway must be reconstructed which requires some additional impacts along the western portion of the driveway. Altering the location of the driveway along Greenwood Drive would only increase the impacts to the ravine and wetland. Staff considers this a nonconforming situation since the wetland buffer requirements cannot be met given the existing development on the subject property. For the remainder of the wetlands, the applicant is requesting a 50% reduction in the 100' buffer requirement. Based on the information provided by the wetland specialist the wetlands qualify for this reduction. CORRESPONDENCE: As of the writing of this report, staff received one piece of correspondence which is provided in Attachment 6. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ25-0010, a request to rezone approximately 9.90 acres of land located at 611 Greenwood Drive to Medium Density Multi-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM20) zone subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, installation of a 10' wide pedestrian connection and dedication of an associated public access easement along the eastern portion of the property to extend from W. Benton Street to Greenwood Drive. Pedestrian path shall also include pedestrian scale lighting to be reviewed and approved by the City during the site plan review process. Lighting shall be installed and maintained by the Owner. 2. Vehicular access to the site from W. Benton Street is restricted to emergency vehicles only. 3. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, installation of a raised crosswalk across Greenwood Drive near the entrance to the site subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 4. As part of the site plan approval, ensure that the design of the access drive from Greenwood Drive to the subject property is at or near a 90-degree angle subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 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 (CPA25-0002) and must hold three readings including the public hearing for the rezoning (REZ25-0010). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Applicant Submittal 4. Good Neighbor Meeting Summary 8 5. Traffic Study 6. Correspondence Approved by: Danie a Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ATTACHMENT 1 Location Map r CITY OF IOWA CITY 1 1 1 1 1� 1 1: • 1 1 1 / IMP— t. \� - Woodside Dr o F, _ o _ ooao< 44 e • 4r y4l' fr .cis' 1 :�k-A a f'r r _ m W Benton St An application requesting to rezone 9.90 acres of land at 611 Q ¢G e Greenwood Drive from Neighborhood Public (P1) zone to Medium Density Multi-Family Residential with a Planned y �k Development Overlay (OPD/RM20) zone. 1 °'� CD o _ e � ATTACHMENT 2 Zoning Map REZ25-0010 CITY OF I©WA CITY 1 0.02 0.04 0.08 Miles 111 Greenwood Dr. Prepared By:Olivia Date Prepared: 1 ,...E MWML Woodsi 1 W ;A�8 `�°N.- � ���� i► r { fY i ,. ;; �� 4 �i► i p0 G< RM20 .: 1E }� RM44 v _ Or _A ;r a) r� - IW W Benton St • VIM An application requesting to rezone 9.90 acres of land at 611 Greenwood Drive from Neighborhood Public (P1) zone to g Medium Density Multi-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay(OPD/RM20) zone. `°' - �l(D \J • e d +c 4 Jahnnapn County, Iowa GIS , Douglass St ATTACHMENT 3 Applicant Submittal 1917 S.Gilbert Street Iowa City,Iowa 52240 1.8282 M MMS Consultants Inc. onsu�ants.n ! mmsconsultants.net Experts in Planning and Development Since 1975 mms@mmsconsultants.net June 27, 2025 .0 City of Iowa City 0 Neighborhood and Development Services ro 410 E.Washington Street E Iowa City, IA 52240 c Re: Roosevelt Ridge w On behalf of the applicant, MMS Consultants requests a rezoning of the property located at 611 Greenwood Drive, from the current zoning of P1(Neighborhood Public) to OPD/RM20(Medium Density Multi-family Residential). The described land consists of 1A 9.90 acres in total. The site has access to public streets and infrastructure via Greenwood Drive and W. Benton Street. < This site is the former location of Roosevelt Elementary,which has since been closed by U the ICCSD, and sold to the applicant. The proposed zoning will allow development of a C planned 187 unit affordable housing project. The site is located in an area already 9 consisting of RM44 and RM20 properties, as well as some RSB. The site has access to the transit system nearby, as well as City park areas in the neighborhood. If you have questions or require any additional information, please contact us L accordingly. v c c C f6 Respectfully submitted, L vJon D. Marner MMS Consultants, Inc. c ru _J QJ 11603-001L1.docx C W C W .5 U REZONING PARCEL 9.90 AC IOWA CITY, IOWA REZONING EXHIBIT _ 1 313 PORTIONS OF LOT 3 AND LOT 7 IN SCHOOL _ \ 622 614 325 318 �z� Ate, COMMISSIONERS SUBDIVISION OF SECTION 16, v \ J 331 3Z6 S,fi 402 3 625 �'° °" ark°� � 1� 517 505 c. TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH , RANGE 6 WEST OF THE FIFTH 611 603 4(a 403 $ 3D9 4 1.2 qpg 410 a 1 u 5 kS6 '" Q. 421 422 d,2 PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN 415' 423 42d 568I 41Z 4D2 a 316 308 832 _ �,Pa 505 Q317 IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA 1" ,? aye 825 81s 8U7 T19 T19 604 505 sso PLAT PREPARED BY: APPLICANT/OWNER: MMS CONSULTANTS INC. TWG DEVELOPMENT �10 p 706 e� 1917 S.GILBERT STREET 1301 E WASHINGTON ST,SUITE 100 10021 a20 816 t3D6 80a 712 T10 1;2 $151ra saz� IOWA CITY, IA 52240 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46202 904 Woodside Dr 619 610 P - 1003 910 815 81, i307 b01 711 707 612 614 0 1�� 603 91S 701 700 '7d� 1 613 932 t112 1000 �3 7ti2 TZp 708 7t ac I 3,6 916 T� CIVIL ENGINEERS 916 707 ii0 733 7320 0 1 TOG ' T1e L—E G E N D AND NOTES LAND PLANNERS 711 712 _r ;i Ttia 72 '3^ 70t3 T�t 771 if2,,,716 g 723 'I T,,, - CONGRESSIONAL CORNER, FOUND LAND SURVEYORS PROPERTY &/or Tt3 T16 7G1 T10 727 r-19 �' 7-'L1 -, — — - CONGRESSIONAL SEOC110NRINEISES 410 900 bi0 800 - - - - - - - - RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 7is T �\ — - CENTER LINES 'm 612 6W 520 StF6 446 2336 320 010 25 50 75 100 - EXISTING COOPERATIVE LIMITS 76I1 =1\\� - LOT LINES, PLATTED OR BY DEED ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS `- W Benton S1 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET --- EXISTING EASEMENT ONES, PURPOSE NOTED _ - UNLESS NOTED OTHERMSE, ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN FEET AND HUNDREDTHS e� - 733 T2s � aos Im.. 337 325 1'-100' 1917 S. GILBERT ST. 71 ei1 812 339 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 1 755 819 816 gas ; �� �� (319)351-8282 810 3 10 823 a2O www.mmsconsultants.net b12 934 829 8 ' 434 a18 00 40_ l,�c '38 154 938 903 902 t1D4 1U7 �� 114,`\ � 1- 915 � 920 447 421' 4UT \ \'12€ 92t a 922 44a 97 a` m g4d s 924 416 4{ 26 � k,ha44 ,� \ - 9a6 9Z7 m 934 435 !a79952 923 L 905 1010 4M'417 403 LOT 19 912 81d 612 g$1 10i3 1012 itrul sm LOT 15 Date Revision LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE \ / LOT 17 � oLOT- 15 LOT IG �2 Oa PART TWO; TERRACE HILL NOro� AUPITOP'S PARCEL W 3-017 S APDITION, IOWA CITY, IOWA p t' PLAT f5OOr\ A-5, PAGE Z39 y d \PLfT 606t a, PAGE I5� - JOHN60N COUNTY RECORPER'S �� \23�M1lRl — I W OFfIGE LOT 11 � �'� I � LEGAL DESCRIPTION TRACTLOT 10 m 2 LOT 9 ALL THAT PART OF LOT 7, IN SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF PLAT 13Y POWERS & ASSOCIATES THE 5TH P.M., LYING AND BEING NORTH OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY RUNNING EAST PLAT 1500K 7, PAGE 33 IN THE AND WEST (BENTON STREET) THROUGH SAID LOT 7, SAID LOT 7 BEING SO JOHNSON COUNTY REGORPER'S DESIGNATED ON A PLAT OF SAID SECTION 16 RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE OFFICE / / I z�T11 COUNTY AUDITOR OF JOHNSON COUNTY,IOWA,ON MAY 18,1848. THIS CONVEYANCE IS MADE SUBJECT TO A LEASE COVERING THE PREMISES ABOVE LOT 5 / 15�N A PORTION OF LOT 5, IN I rll TRACT OF LAND PESCRI EP REZONING EXHIBIT DESCRIBED TO JAMES A. HENNESSEY AND REGINA HENNESSEY,EXPIRING MARCH 1 SCt100- COMMISSIONERS' 6Uf5PIVISION I n m IN A WARRANTY PEED RE ORPED / IN �OOtC 405 AT PAGES 519-510 1928,WHICH LEASE HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO THE GRANTEE HEREIN. �' OF SEC,- I( T79N-F4W OF THE 5Tf i P,M. JOHNSON COUNTY RECORPER'S c� IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA I OFFICE AND �7\ N42°19'14"E BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 3 IN SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS SUBDIVISION OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5- P.M., I REZONING PARCEL \ WHICH SAID POINT OF BEGINNING IS 1927 FEET WEST AND 670 FEET NORTH OF THE I I I SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 16,RUNNING ; ( P1 TO OPD/RM-20 ) I THENCE WEST 693 FEET,THENCE NORTH 64 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE CENTER LINE I 9.90 ACRES \� I S89°08'51"W OF MYRTLE AVENUE (NOW KNOWN AS GREENWOOD DRIVE) IN IOWA CITY, IOWA, II I I i ��\ I 30.55'(M)(R) THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SAID MYRTLE AVENUE I (GREENWOOD DRIVE) TO A POINT DIRECTLY NORTH OF THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, I / PORTIONS OF LOT 3 AND LOT 7 IN SCHOOL THENCE SOUTH TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. /_l � �c 1 COMMISSIONERS TRACT I , , 0` AS A FURTHER CONSIDERATION FOR SAID CONVEYANCE AND AS A COVENANT (� RUNNING WITH THE LAND,THE GRANTEE HEREIN HEREBY AGREES AND COVENANTS I I / i/ W �S � i�ry\ o SUBDIVISION O F SECTION THAT THE EAST 60 FEET OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PREMISES SHALL BE AND THE / I � \� Q�` ` m - 16, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, SAME IS HEREBY OPENED AND DEDICATED AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY OR STREET AND I �— I � 4 `\ P RANGE 6 WEST OF THE THE SAID GRANTEE SHALL NOT BE PERMIT THE SAME TO BE OBSTRUCTED OR I °' INTERFERED WITH IN ANY WAY AS A PUBLIC STREET, AND THE SAID HIGHWAY I J I 7 � m FIFTH PRINCIPAL� N MERIDIANSHALL BE KEPT OPEN FOR THE USE OF THE PUBLIC AS FULLY AND EFFECTUALLY AS I I i �P (� \ IF THE SAME HAD BEEN PLATTED AND DEDICATED AND THE SAME ACCEPTED BY THE z CITY OF IOWA CITY,IOWA AS A PUBLIC STREET,AND THE ACCEPTANCE THEREOF BY I o z THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, AS A PUBLIC STREET, AT ANY TIME HEREAFTER I Q I / / / N (�� z IOWA CITY SHALL COMPLETE THE SAID DEDICATION AS FULLY AND EFFECTUALLY AS IF THE I I _�lTRACr 3 w ME \\S JOHNSON COUNTY SA WERE ACCEPTED BY THE CITY AT THIS TIME. GRANTEE SHALL CONSTRUCT I Q I Qi /m5CR r °'- w IOWA SUCH FENCES AS SAID GRANTEE MAY DESIRE ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE STREET I I / IN A >� �\,�j� �.o HEREIN DEDICATED BUT SHALL BE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO CONTRUST / �REC��� IN v A PORTION OF LOT 7, IN K -4(� N',� MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. (CONSTRUCT) AND FENCES ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE STREET SO DEDICATED. I I Z PACES Z)3-2-9k SCHOOL OOvIMISSIONERS' 61-45PIVfSION OF SEC. 16-T79N-RGW OF THE 5TI1 P.M. Date: 6/27/2025 I IO�NA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA Q I / z Designed by: Field Book No: - - - \ � � - - - - - - — --- - - - - - -- ----- -- - Drawn by: JDM Scale: 1345 LSS 1"=100' Checked by Sheet No: 660.30'(M)659.30'(R) S89°5T26"W � RRN W. �ENTON STREET - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Project No: 11603-001 of: 1 PRELIMINARYSENSITIVE AREASDEVELOPMENT PLAN ANDOPD STANDARD LEGEND AND NOTES 8.95AC - PROPERTY &/or BOUNDARY LINES - CONGRESSIONAL SECTION LINES ------------- - RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES - EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES - CENTER LINES R OSEVELT RIDGENORTH - EXISTING CENTER LINES n - LOT LINES, INTERNAL LOT LINES, PLATTED OR BY DEED — — — — — — — — - PROPOSED EASEMENT LINES / \ \ -� 0". - BENCHMARK LINES OWA C I TY I OWA' / 0 4 10 20 30 40 ONS 22-1 - CURVE DSEGMENT NED UMBER / / -EXIST- -PROP- �� GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET $ - POWER POLE POLE W/DROP PREPARED BY: APPLICANT: MMS CONSULTANTS INC. TWG DEVELOPMENT N AIL - POWER POLE W/TRANS 1917 S. GILBERT STREET 1301 E WASHINGTON ST, SUITE 100 65 - POWER POLE W/LIGHT v 0715 IOWA CITY, IA 52240 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46202 o6'E1$� '� - LIGHT POLE D ` OO - SANITARY MANHOLE \n lqy • - FIRE HYDRANT O o I �SOO° WATER VALVE 4.11` V " ' ® - DRAINAGE MANHOLE PAVING LEGEND Will - CURB INLET X X - FENCE LINE v O \0- n- ED - EXISTING SANITARY SEWER - \ PCC PAVEMENT - PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER CIVIL ENGINEERS a .. a - EXISTING STORM SEWER - PROPOSED STORM SEWER \ /i s 00' PUBLIC (W) - EXISTING WATER PROPOS WATERILS LAND PLANNERS 0 • - 4 � IACCESS EASEMENT E - ELECTRICAL LINES AE2 ' / - PCC PAVEMENT T - TELEPHONE LINES LAND SURVEYORS LOT 11 N�2 I I 6.00' G - CONTOURSLINES (1' INTERVAL) LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS - PROPOSED GROUND > \ , ---%� - ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS X, ,I I .� o PCC SIDEWALK - EXISTING TREE LINE I - EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE & SHRUB • O 4 RETAINING WALL 4X� 1917 S. GILBERT ST. O � �ePCK ;I I IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 - EXISTING EVERGREEN TREES & SHRUBS (319)351-8282 O��' j t/ FROND APR SE I ° O Uj THE ACTUAL SIZE AND LOCATION OF ALL PROPOSED FACILITIES www.mmsconsultants.net SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, WHICH W ARE TO BE PREPARED AND SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE LL APPROVAL OF THIS DOCUMENT. LLJ v LEGAL DESCRIPTION PROPOSAL � I � W ALL THAT PART of LOT 7. IN SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH,RANGE 6 VEST OF APPLICANT PLANS TO CONSTRUCT A MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING RETAINING WALL Y 4 `° p W THE 5TH P.M.. LYING AND BEING NORTH OF THE PUBLIC HIGHWAY RUNNING EAST CONTAINING 187 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS ON A 8.95 ACRE SITE W W AND WEST (BENTON STREET) THROUGH SAID LOT 7, SAID LOT 7 BEING SO LLJ Cz Date Revision o p I DESIGNATED ON A PLAT OF SAID SECTION 16 RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE DEVELOPMENT SCt1EDULE iJ�I COUNTY AUDITOR OFJOxNsoN COUNTY,IOWA.oNMAY 1s.1s4s. APPLICANT PLANS TO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION IN SPRING 2026, 08/18/2025 PER CITY COMMENTS THIS CONVEYANCE IS MADE SUBJECT TO A LEASE COVERING THE PREMISES ABOVE LASTING THRU SPRING 2027. DESCRIBED TO JAMES A. HENNESSEY AND REGINA HENNESSEY,EXPIRING MARCH 1, DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS �Q / ` / / v 1928,WHICH LEASE HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO THE GRANTEE HEREIN. PROPOSED ZONING IS OPD/RM-20(MULTI-FAMILY) AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS � o � 5�` � ,. `°'<°g° °° I° � • "' BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE souTx LINE of LOT 3 IN scxooL COMMISSIONERS BUILDING SETBACKS: REQUIRED PROVIDED 0 :> I I :o SUBDIVISION OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH,RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 51H P.M., FRONT (GREENWOOD DR) 20 FEET 217 FEET </ 1 •/ p :O WHICH SAID POINT OF BEGINNING IS 1927 FEET WEST AND 670 FEET NORTH OF THE FRONT BENTON ST 40 FEET 40 FEET �'� Q p0��0O� 0� L�O� �9 �� 9 IJ I : N SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 16.RUNNING SIDE (EAST) ) 15 FEET 133 FEET ([7C�OOL� �OuVuuVu���DO�V��tl� 1 I : d THENCE REST 693 FEET.THENCE NORTH 64 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE CENTERLINE SIDE (WEST) 10 FEET 83 FEET m p OF MYRTLE AVENUE (NOW KNOWN AS GREENWOOD DRIVE) IN IOWA CITY, IOWA, REAR 20 FEET N/A �� D0�0�00�1 O1� LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE I : D THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF SAID MYRTLE AVENUE ' I (GREENWOOD DRIVE) TO A POINT DIRECTLY NORTH OF THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, '^ o p MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS SEC. a 6=779 I-RS OF 'TwF 18.00' 2$.. O1 1 .001 I ' 10 1 THENCE SOUTH TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING. MINIMUM LOT SIZE 5,000 SF 3,489,149 SF 0 1 m �\ LOT FRONTAGE 40 FEET 660 FEET -I AS A FURTHER CONSIDERATION FOR SAID CONVEYANCE AND AS A COVENANT .'/ ��� p°�° � � I � I I : m \ LOT WIDTH 60 FEET 660 FEET E " s I \ RUNNING WITH THE LAND,THE GRANTEE HEREIN HEREBY AGREES AND COVENANTS D MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 35 FEET 42 FEET* � THAT THE EAST 60 FEET OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PREMISES SHALL BE AND THE E I \ SAME IS HEREBY OPENED AND DEDICATED AS A PUBLIC HIGHWAY OR STREET AND \ LOT CHARACTERISTICS 2> ♦ I I, I THE SAID GRANTEE SHALL NOT BE PERMIT THE SAME TO BE OBSTRUCTED OR LOT AREA 389,849 SF (100%)(8.95AC) 0� I'.' INTERFERED WITH IN ANY WAY AS A PUBLIC STREET, AND THE SAID HIGHWAY I I (] SHALL BE KEPT OPEN FOR THE USE OF THE PUBLIC AS FULLY AND EFFECTUALLY AS PROPOSED BUILDING AREA 61,761 SF (15.8%) �D Q �/ 11.; I I IF THE SAME HAD BEEN PLATTED AND DEDICATED AND THE SAME ACCEPTED BY THE PROPOSED PAVING AREA 87,011 SF (22.3%) �0 . DUMPSTER PAD�E I CITY OF IOWA CITY,IOWA AS A PUBLIC STREET,AND THE ACCEPTANCE THEREOF BY GREEN SPACE AREA 241,077 SF (61.8%) O��'. I I THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA. AS A PUBLIC STREET, AT ANY TIME HEREAFTER SHALL COMPLETE THE SAID DEDICATION AS FULLY AND EFFECTUALLY AS IF THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS SAME WERE ACCEPTED BY THE CITY AT THIS TIME. GRANTEE SHALL CONSTRUCT REQUIRED PARKING: SUCH FENCES AS SAID GRANTEE MAY DESIRE ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE STREET PER CITY OF IOWA CITY ORDINANCE, NO PARKING IS REQUIRED FOR ' � , � • '• � ,. �• � ST AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. HEREIN DEDICATED BUT SHALL BE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO CONTRU RETAINING WALL BIKE 4PARKING , I I (CONSTRUCT) AND FENCES ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE STREET SO DEDICATED. PROVIDED PARKING: 00 I I STANDARD SPACES PROVIDED 130 i/ COMPACT SPACES PROVIDED 26 ® O M I ADA SPACES PROVIDED 6 / N ' M-- M M M M I i TOTAL SPACES PROVIDED 162 O00 ✓ O lil I 163 (ONE AND TWO BEDROOM UNITS) X 0.50 PER UNIT 82 SPACES - I m ®® ®® ® 24 (THREE BEDROOM UNITS) X 1.0 PER UNIT 24 SPACES ago I / , , I III ; I \O M -- SUBTOTAL 106 SPACES N ;� / 1 00' I: I. 15'FOOT FIRST 50 + 28 (56/2) = 78 SPACES REQUIRED SIDE YARD TOTAL BIKE PARKING PROVIDED 78 SPACES Z / S OUTSIDE SPACES 60 SPACES -- I INSIDE SPACES 18 SPACES SITE LAYOUT / I UNIT DENSITY REQUIREMENTS AND DIMENSION LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE--,""", I \,--S89*08'51" MAXIMUM DENSITY (OPD/RM-20) 24 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE �' O 8.95ACX24 = 214 / 22�00' 18.00� I .00' 30.56' /� 18.00' 22.00' i 16,417 SF J MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS 214 UNITS PLAN = 0 0 0 0 / ' OPEN SPACE DWELLING UNITS PROVIDED 187 UNITS f Q p������ �� ��� �fl �� �8 04 10.00' PUB I TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE SCHOOL C O 1MJ �I/ 0=OHEMS' � � oo . Qi � 6.00' I � v I � � � a ACCESS EASEMENT ✓ LOT AREA 389,849 SF �� o D0�/0�0�[� �� BUILDING FOOTPRINT 61,761 SF o I `- I Q BUILDING COVERAGE PERCENTAGE(MAX 50%) 15.8% SEC. 16_7�Tg�I_GRC� m OF 7H oo' I I : p z ' o 0 ® I 1 TOTAL BEDROOMS/UNIT 0_ 438.61' — 83 ONE BEDROOM/UNIT 83 BEDROOMS 80 TWO BEDROOMS/UNIT 160 BEDROOMS 1 / I m� — — — — — — — — — — — — — iJ 24 THREE BEDROOMS/UNIT 72 BEDROOMS �- I �� m I I TOTAL BEDROOM UNITS 315 BEDROOMS 16411 h„ ! cry cry CTV cry cry CTV cry I.L ..�......................................................... OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS cn w �// - ., cn I Q UJ � REQUIRED: 315 BEDROOMS X 10SF/BEDROOM - 3,150 SF OPEN SPACE // Y ♦ �" < I 0 Y) 1Z Q I I� PROVIDED: 16,417 SF OPEN SPACE / I - J <: o v 0 (SEE LANDSCAPE AND FINAL STABILIZATION PLAN, SHEET 6 FOR OPEN SPACE / m ♦ I I N o ��N AMENITIES) QLn co L D N "� Q: BIKE PARKING �� o ;o��v 0 AREA FIFE AVG GRADE ROOF LINE BLDG HT S>3 I m O ROOSEVELT RIDGE 1 750.00 746.63 788.00 41.37 / M Cu Z c o: / I Cu 2 750.00 a� N ' I I � o ROOSEVELT RIDGE O U/ LlJ o o: O3 750.00 *WAIVER REQUEST TO ALLOW MAXIMUM Z / • ' IOWA CITY, IOWA I� HEIGHT OF 42 FEET 3 I N I! O4 740.00 IOWA CITY ' ) - JOHNSON COUNTY I - - - - - - - - 0 0 750.00 IOWA a — J r 1 (- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I BIKE PARKING oW 0 O - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I Lu� �O v Z N 10.00' PUBLIC I 0 /` o BIKE PARKING o I RETAINING WALL : °� oq I i DOG PARK o ACCESS EASEMENT o I I Z,L� C LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE 0 ul 60.00' v�-cry , QlV- cry c, cry cry I cry bry cry cry cry cry cry cry cry cry cry cry cry cry cry cry cry cry I;v cry cry cry cry cry Z Q' uI .. ........... ................................................................................................................................................................. I......_.�._.. .�....... ENTRANCE SHALL BE RE TRICTED 40 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK I I 40 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK r 0 Z FOR EMERGENCY HICLES; I L — I I 6.00' vOv 0 NDESIGN O D VIEWED OWAM AND APPROVED W H SITE •, � - - CONSTRUCT! N PLAN w �� I - I' UTILITIES MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. �- RETAINING WALL 10.00' PUBLIC ONE CALL ATT8111 OR 8 0 NOTIFYOR SHALL 292-8989 ONE CALLSIVI_________ ---- - Date: ---- ---- - ------ -- -------- ---- ---------- --- ------- --- -- OF ANY DIGGING 8 EXCAVATION CE 1 ACCESS EASEMENT E L 0 T NO LESS THAN 48 HRS. IN ADVANCE 06/26/2025 0 0 ° ae Designed by. Field Book No: �^' ° o ° WHERE PUBLIC UTILITY FIXTURES ARE SHOWN AS EXISTING ON THE PLANS OR ENCOUNTERED WITHIN CAT �' ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° Eo o Eo Eo 0 o Eo Eo 0 0 0 0 o THE CONSTRUCTION AREA, IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY THE 4 cw ° c cry cry cry cry cry cry cry cry cry cry c pp cry cry cry Drawn by. Scale: T �F °BAN o T OWNERS OF THOSE UTILITIES PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF ANY CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR HEH 1"-40' ® ° ® SHALL AFFORD ACCESS TO THESE FACILITIES FOR NECESSARY MODIFICATION OF SERVICES. UNDERGROUND FACILITIES, STRUCTURES AND UTILITIES HAVE BEEN PLOTTED FROM AVAILABLE Checked by. Sheet No: SURVEYS AND RECORDS, AND THEREFORE THEIR LOCATIONS MUST BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE CAT 660.30'589°57'26"W o� ONLY. IT IS POSSIBLE THERE MAY BE OTHERS, THE EXISTENCE OF WHICH IS PRESENTLY NOT KNOWN Project No: WE �E wE—WE—WE—WE—WE—WE—WE WE w WE WE WE WE WE WE WE EWE �E WE WE—WE WE WE WE WE—WE—WE- OR SHOWN. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THEIR EXISTENCE AND EXACT �n�J �n�� �� LOCATION AND TO AVOID DAMAGE THERETO. NO CLAIMS FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION WILL BE of onE oHE OHE OHE onE ONE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE oHE onE `J`foo ���y-r-T\T_giro ALLOWED TO THE CONTRACTOR FOR ANY INTERFERENCE OR DELAY CAUSED BY SUCH WORK. 0 11603-001 of: 6 PRELIMINARYSENSITIVE AREASDEVELOPMENT PLAN ANDOPD STANDARD LEGEND AND NOTES 8.95AC - PROPERTY &/or BOUNDARY LINES - CONGRESSIONAL SECTION LINES ------------- - RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES - EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES - CENTER LINES R OSEVELT RIDGENORTH - EXISTING CENTER LINES n - LOT LINES, INTERNAL LOT LINES, PLATTED OR BY DEED - - - - - - - - - PROPOSED EASEMENT LINES i \ r - EXISTING EASEMENT LINES - BENCHMARK OWA C I TY ) I OWA (R) - RECORDED DIMENSIONS y �t�/ 0 4 10 20 30 40 22 1 CURVE SEGMENT NUMBER -EXIST- -PROP- o GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET - POWER POLE PREPARED BY: APPLICANT: 1"=40' $ - POWER POLE W/DROP MMS CONSULTANTS INC. TWG DEVELOPMENT -W 4W: - POWER POLE W/TRANS 1917 S. GILBERT STREET 1301 E WASHINGTON ST, SUITE 100 70T' - POWER POLE W/LIGHT O - • \1 � � - GUY POLE LOr 13 IOWA CITY, IA 52240 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46202 ��,. 700.11 WB >� # - LIGHT POLE O \ } / y ��70_93WT In' \� Y - FREITHY RANT HOLE O • ��° - WATER VALVE DRAINAGE MANHOLE ❑ - CURB INLET - _ "" • X ( X - FENCE LINE - EXISTING SANITARY SEWER - PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWERPROPOSED CIVIL ENGINEERS �) - EXISTING WATER R STORM ER LINES -(} W - PROPOSED WATER LINES LAND PLANNERS r E ELECTRICAL LINES T - TELEPHONE LINES LAND SURVEYORS OBE n i �:• I G - GAS LINES CONTOUR LINES (1' INTERVAL) LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS PROPOSED GROUND ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS - EXISTING TREE LINE 710.16WB 710.50WT I " _ _ �05 ' - EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE & SHRUB 1917 S. GILBERT ST. I IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 EXISTING EVERGREEN TREES & SHRUBS (319)351-8282 0/ www.mmsconsultants.net THE ACTUAL SIZE AND LOCATION OF ALL PROPOSED FACILITIES 715.96WT Z Z Z SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, WHICH n • n /�' �/ I ' 709.O1W6 W ARE TO BE PREPARED AND SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE � 11 157 1 a q 7 APPROVAL OF THIS DOCUMENT. r� 707.90WBO 716.38WT - �r0 / W EROSION CONTROL LEGEND -., - W � 6 719.04WT :/ W 710.30WB / Z Q W p ■■■■■■■■■■■ FINAL FILTER SOCK ®g' PERIMETER SILT FENCE W Q) SILT FENCE W Date Revision 08/18/2025 PER CITY COMMENTS �p TEMPORARY SOIL STOCKPILE AREA '718.00WB TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE/EXIT Z W DIRECTION OF OVERLAND FLOW p TEMPORARY PARKING AND STORAGE �' _ o � / ! v DUMPSTER FOR CONSTRUCTION WASTE - d , 720.73WB n �� � ��< / � � � u� � CW CONCRETE TRUCK/EQUIPMENT WASHOUT LL o /. .' / - _ a:g` 719.89WB ' - RIP RAP OUTLET PROTECTION ^,�O '/ PORTABLE RESTROOM A FJDH7�OK 00 LOT 39 �uV�a - - ' 724.00WT � DL DOCUMENT LOCATION (PERMITS, SWPPP, INSPECTION FORMS, ETC.) � I \ - 724.11 WT I Ln O FILTER SOCK INLET PROTECTION o 1 � � I �72 4.00W� T 725; N 723.85WB _ SIC. �o�f��[ 0���1 ����� ^ � I I ; FILTER SOCK BEHIND CURB AT CURB RAMP STH [PM. - - THE ABOVE LISTED ITEMS ARE SHOWN IN THEIR RECOMMENDED LOCATIONS. IF A CONTROL MEASURE IS ADDED OR MOVED TO A MORE 735 ,;' , / ' ' ' A - ->30 - , \� �� \ SUITABLE LOCATION, INDICATE THE REVISION ON THIS SHEET. THE BLANKS LEFT FOR OTHER MEASURES SHOULD BE USED IF AN ITEM NOT e ' \ SHOWN ABOVE IS IMPLEMENTED ON SITE, ADDITIONAL PRACTICES FOR EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL CAN BE FOUND IN / • ' /�� \ ` • ) I \ APPENDIX D OF THE SWPPP. 737.79WB � - AREA FFE 734.98WEI 735 )3p 1 750.00 �743.00WT -740.79WT 13 - I � �. � �2 750.00 736.71 WB 743.00WT - 738 750.00 -735 739.11 WB 1 � , �:1 O4 740.00 740.36W6 742.80WT' s 3g y j j I I I w 750.00 742.22W6 740 � rav � Im � 1 � 750.00 M M M. 745.20WT M o 747.66WT 740.82WB 747.50WT', �Ap I i... 749.38WT - - �u _ _ �� SITE GRADING EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND SWPPP WHOM COMMOXONEAS1 720 SEC. 8-779N=R Rm. . / ����,�,,, i p' I R O� 737.43WT �� 736.9OWB � r ' 748.85WT 750 - _ ^`o cS � � / I • _ _ 746.70WEI fQAlp 1 �1 ' �J m i U f F V N D� - i I� ROOSEVELT RIDGE 3 - IOWA CITY 1U U �` \ � �41a _ � ^ JOHNSON COUNTY m Z I 742.50WT n`� / �O - _ _ IOWA 1` - 746.79WT -.. Ng v' LU 750750.58WT ) 1 - - - - - - - - - a - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - i ^ 726.00WB � V I 742 77WT 752 OOWB,` 749.70WT I ♦ _ - V746.00""' 726.00WE or 749.99WB D K ♦ N / - • - - 'I Ag • i �45 _ s W - r ` cxv cry. .. ..0....................cN.......... cry .,I cry .....:N... cry c cry cry ♦ cry cry cry 1v cry �.l l.1.�1.1 L .E■.l�•11 ry \\O r' •• ... I ^............•..�5:.. ../.. .��! -I _ 1F ■a r. 749.29WT I - - _ •�� - - 0 - - - , / v v v - - s 748.50WT ■■■■■■ �40 1A _ _ _ _ _ , o OV ' - 753.24W6 - �\ - - _ - - � / � 140� _ � _ � � / UTILITIES - 1 - - MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. ` 755.72WT _ 750 750.50WT - �35 135 _ SHALL NOTIFY IOWA 0 �60 �748.62W6�---- -- _ yy� �(( 730_ ,I _ - - _ _ ONE CALL ATT8111 OR 800/292-8989 CAL Date: 55 - - ONE snn x - _ -- --- � � _ NO LESS THAN 8 HRS. IN ADVANCE �3� 'I`L5_ - 7 25 --------------- - - 761.72WB---- --- -- - -- 751.49WB - - _ , 4 N 06/26/2025 aE _ OF ANY DIGGING OR EXCAVATION. Designed by. Field Book No: FO �� ��� ��- Oro °Fo o Fo Fo ro o Fo FO o - Fo O Fa WHERE PUBLIC UTILITY FIXTURES ARE SHOWN AS EXISTING ON THE PLANS OR ENCOUNTERED WITHIN CAT 4 cu cry cry cry cry c cry cry crv -cry cN ory ev cv cry , / �- THE CONSTRUCTION AREA, IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY THE Drawn by. Scale: � � � J J � J J � � � � ,J OWNERS OF THOSE UTILITIES PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF ANY CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR HEH 1"-40' LinP� yP y c,� ° _�,� � _N) N �-1_> o SHALL AFFORD ACCESS TO THESE FACILITIES FOR NECESSARY MODIFICATION OF SERVICES. 0 _o _ o o ON o _ -I UNDERGROUND FACILITIES, STRUCTURES AND UTILITIES HAVE BEEN PLOTTED FROM AVAILABLE Checked by. Sheet No: rt - SURVEYS AND RECORDS, AND THEREFORE THEIR LOCATIONS MUST BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE CAT 11 WE-WE WE WE WE-WE-WE wE wE WE WE-WE WE-WE wE�wF wE WE we wE wE wE wE WE-WE WE WE- WE f ONLY. IT IS POSSIBLE THERE MAY BE OTHERS, THE EXISTENCE OF WHICH IS PRESENTLY NOT KNOWN Project No: _ wE wE � 1 � wE ( �wF v -_ � 2 �r-��] � FE��� ^ n n - OR SHOWN IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THEIR EXISTENCE AND EXACT OHE OHE OHE OHe OHE OHE OHE OHE - OH , OHE OHE OHE o E oHE v1 1��I 'T-^�1 �\I I 0 I ` \ LOCATION AND TO AVOID DAMAGE THERETO. NO CLAIMS FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION WILL BE `'' " N'CYl-rI-CT""7f-Tf�Y� ❑/ u v u u v ` ALLOWED TO THE CONTRACTOR FOR ANY INTERFERENCE OR DELAY CAUSED BY SUCH WORK. 11603-001 Of: 6 PRELIMINARYSENSITIVE AREASDEVELOPMENT PLAN ANDOPD STANDARD LEGEND AND NOTES 8.95AC - PROPERTY &/or BOUNDARY LINES - CONGRESSIONAL SECTION LINES ------------- - RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES - EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES - CENTER LINES R OSEVELT RIDGENORTH - EXISTING CENTER LINES n - LOT LINES, INTERNAL LOT LINES, PLATTED OR BY DEED — — — — — — — — - PROPOSED EASEMENT LINES i - EXISTING EASEMENT LINES / ' = BENCHMARK OD ED DIMENSIONS \ OWA CITY IOWA .,>/ - 22-1 CURVE SEGMENT NUMBER0 4 10 20 30 40 —EXIST— —PROP— GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET - POWER POLE PREPARED BY: APPLICANT: p ,�j 1"=40' $ - POWER POLE W/DROP MMS CONSULTANTS INC. TWG DEVELOPMENT - POWER POLE W/TRANS O 1917 S. GILBERT STREET 1301 E WASHINGTON ST, SUITE 100 - POWER GUYP POLE W/LIGHT �Tr 15 IOWA CITY, IA 52240 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46202 ` # - LIGHT POLE - SANITARY MANHOLE y ' lqyW - FIRE HYDRANT \ o - WATER VALVE 'I Ln / I OO ® - DRAINAGE MANHOLE - , Gw O - CURB INLET X X - FENCE LINE - EXISTING SANITARY SEWER - PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER _>00 - EXISTING STORM SEWER CIVIL ENGINEERS - PROPOSED STORM SEWER \ "/ - (W) - PROPOSED ED WATER LINESSTING WATER LINES LAND PLANNERS �' ' �I ` E - ELECTRICAL LINES \ °��.'/ ' I I T - TELEPHONE LINES LAND SURVEYORS n O� � � � G - GAS LINES LL - CONTOUR LINES (1' INTERVAL) LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS J I - PROPOSED GROUND ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS -oN r ' , 10� ° - EXISTING TREE LINE N `ram/ � - EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE & SHRUB 1917 S. GILBERT ST. / - I I J IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 - EXISTING EVERGREEN TREES & SHRUBS (319 351-8282 - z www.mmsconsultants.net THE ACTUAL SIZE AND LOCATION OF ALL PROPOSED FACILITIES Q SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, WHICH ARE TO BE PREPARED AND SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE up v APPROVAL OF THIS DOCUMENT. � / I W s/ �oCZ LLJ 0 z SENSITIVE AREAS LEGEND p E W / L O� 1 _ ; / Cz pup pW p - STEEP SLOPES (18%-25%) 17,444 SF IMPACTED (53.4%) J �Z W W � � (32,692 SF) Date Revision 08/18/2025 PER CITY COMMENTS - CRITICAL SLOPES (25%-40%) (94,971 SF) W15,042 SF IMPACTED (15.8%) PROTECTED SLOPES (40%+) it / ����/' / / / ' ` dao• I I (3,788 SF) if1�K 0O - 9 u I - ALTERED PROTECTED SLOPES 40%+ 15,156 SF CVO I!` [�i `Iv�i / `i I )I 0 2,702 SF IMPACTED (17.8%) p ' I : - PROTECTED SLOPES BUFFER LO ALTERED 61,198 SF 100% , ` IMPACTED (32,946 SF(53.8%) j I ;' UNALTERED (20,556 SF)(100%) 735 / 3 ✓ x - r I \ \ IMPACTED (0 SF)(0%) °aE �� ' / / O. LLLLLLLLLLLI / < �✓ / / / / ' // 1O / i J / \ i J Ili -LLLLLLLLLL \ -LLLLOLLL - IMPACTED AREAS ,'/ / / 1 ' � .•' , � 4j" , � / \ 1 J '_ _ — `_ _ � � / ;� � L I •'. / � � I _LLLLLLLLLLI LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE > L_�I_ _I_ °sue y� ✓ / .740 ' ! M M M ,R / it / / , ,� ✓ / / / , — — � I SENSITIVE AREAS: SLOPES r I . 720 L10 Q j — -C - - - 75 - _0 I � 0 I _ I qa /' y - � v � Q), - ROOSEVELT RIDGE 5 1j/ _ _ - I - - — _ I — IOWA CITY OHN ON COUNTY l' 1v v mz - - - - o - o - IOWA - - - - - - - L 5111 - - - - -- LEI- - �► � — — — — -� �— I—,�- — �-� DOG PARK � C'_�C L_L_O L_L_OL_ C / L-L-L/O L n /L p �. , OI-L-L_L_I-LLI-L CL� j �� 0 T , -- h — �L—CL_L— —1— I L—L_L_C o cry cry cry �^ cry cry ry c'''ryryry--yhl-air/ cry ` s ` .. CN CN C CN CTV CN C N ...IF....... / L. L� - _ _I- ' ,. ... ..... LLLL - LI/ L �4o CC _L_CCI_11I-10C ACC �Ov 0 'OW � s - - - L — - - - I_L_I7I � L_L-I L_I L-C1_L_L-l—L_L-Lt1LL-L-1 � T - _ UTILITIES - , - - - - — - - - L4� - MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. CI OBI L1C C� CC�L-CC�35-CIOCL-CL-.1��� _ � ° I �60 c _ �_O C L_ L —I—L-L L L- —�30'�L-L-L L �_ - - - J ' ONE CALTHE LRATTOR 8111 ORALL NO 800/292-8989 CALLSIV Date: ' - TIFY IOWA ONE 25]�I NO LESS THAN 48 HRS. IN ADVAN OZrJ -—---—---—---— -T - - - - - - - OF ANY DIGGING OR EXCAVATION. °E ° QHE - - �� OHE- WHERE Designed by. Field Book No: i Tni o ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° T° WHERE PUBLIC UTILITY FIXTURES ARE SHOWN AS EXISTING ON THE PLANS OR ENCOUNTERED WITHIN CAT 4 CTv ° CN CTV —CTv cN CN cN �C °N cN— cN cN aN °N CTv CTv , `° ° E°T—Eo ° ° Eo E°� E° ° ° ° E° THE CONSTRUCTION AREA, IT SHALL 8E THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY THE Drawn by. Scale: CLEAN J OWNERS OF THOSE UTILITIES PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF ANY CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL AFFORD ACCESS TO THESE FACILITIES FOR NECESSARY MODIFICATION OF SERVICES. _ — — 0 p (3' _p _Ln o o UNDERGROUND FACILITIES, STRUCTURES AND UTILITIES HAVE BEEN PLOTTED FROM AVAILABLE Checked by. Sheet No: SURVEYS AND RECORDS, AND THEREFORE THEIR LOCATIONS MUST BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE CAT WE WE WE WE WE WE WE \ WE WE WE w � � WE �E WE WE�� � WE WE �E �E w WE �E �E WE �E��E ONLY. IT IS POSSIBLE THERE MAY BE OTHERS, THE EXISTENCE OF WHICH IS PRESENTLY NOT KNOWN Project No: _ _ �� �� ^ n n OR SHOWN. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THEIR EXISTENCE AND EXACT r OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE - OHE OHE OHE OHE O E lJ lJ°HE "� I -•11 �\ I ° I ` \ ' LOCATION AND TO AVOID DAMAGE THERETO. NO CLAIMS FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION WILL BE v v Ns�„ �T"gam ❑, u v u ALLOWED TO THE CONTRACTOR FOR ANY INTERFERENCE OR DELAY CAUSED BY SUCH WORK. 11603-001 of: 6 PRELIMINARYSENSITIVE AREASDEVELOPMENT PLAN ANDOPD STANDARD LEGEND AND NOTES 8.95AC - PROPERTY &/or BOUNDARY LINES - CONGRESSIONAL SECTION LINES ------------- - RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES - EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES - CENTER LINES R OSEVELT RIDGENORTH - EXISTING CENTER LINES n - LOT LINES, INTERNAL LOT LINES, PLATTED OR BY DEED — — — — — — — — - PROPOSED EASEMENT LINES i \ - EXISTING EASEMENT LINES \/ �� - BENCHMARK OWA C I TY ) I OWA (R) - RECORDED DIMENSIONS y �t�/ 0 4 10 20 30 40 22 1 CURVE SEGMENT NUMBER -EXIST- -PROP- ; a GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET - POWER POLE PREPARED BY: APPLICANT: 0 1"=40' $ - POWER POLE W/DROP MMS CONSULTANTS INC. TWG DEVELOPMENT AIL 4V - POWER POLE W/TRANS 1917 S. GILBERT STREET 1301 E WASHINGTON ST, SUITE 100 - POWER POLE W/LIGHT Q �� ` - GUY POLE . �Tr 15 IOWA CITY, IA 52240 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46202 >� # - LIGHT POLE - SANITARY MANHOLE ' y ' 'ICY W - FIRE HYDRANT \ Jo 4O° - WATER VALVE OO\ 0 - DRAINAGE MANHOLE• - - CURB INLET X - FENCE LINE TARY SEWER - PROPOSED ED SASTING NITARY SEWER %� l , RM SEWER UO << - PROPOSED ED STING TSOTORM SEWER CIVIL ENGINEERS O \ � .• I - � (W) - EXISTING WATER LINES (} O - O° - 4.• r .�I W - PROPOSED WATER LINES LAND PLANNERS J ' _ ELECTRICAL LINES \ , - Ir / °��.� ' ' I I T - TELEPHONE LINES LAND SURVEYORS �O� {I {i WETL BUFFS��D AREA Il Il ° \ / °H'--/�� ' , •/ , I IN LIMITS 0ISTURBANCE. - - G - CONTOURSLINES (1' INTERVAL) LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS SEE NOTE IN LEEND. o - PROPOSED GROUND ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS ` - EXISTING TREE LINE -7p5 EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE & SHRUB 1917 S. GILBERT ST. v IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 f�O7 IJ O� + I - EXISTING EVERGREEN TREES & SHRUBS (319)351-8282 { i / + + + www.mmsconsultants.net Oz THE ACTUAL SIZE AND LOCATION OF ALL PROPOSED FACILITIES SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, WHICH +++ + + ++++ + + ++ + I — z LZ ARE TO BE PREPARED AND SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE - z ' j 7 L1� APPROVAL OF THIS DOCUMENT. +I + + + + + + + + + + + _ - ;'110 \ SENSITIVE AREAS LEGEND L\LJ LL + + +' + + + + + + + + + / L , + + +1 + + + + + + + + _ p W p - WETLAND AREA + + + + + + + /' / Z W v, p + + + + (152,769 SF) + + + + + - / : / p 0 9 + + + + ++ + + 18,151 SF IMPACTED (11.97.) Date Revision I W 08/18/2025 PER CITY COMMENTS + +_ ' / 4' - 50' WETLAND BUFFER REDUCTION) VIA BUFFS (81,734 SF) LL/ 3,023 SF IMPACTED (2.0%) , NOTE: THE IMPACTED BUFFER AREA DEPICTED IN PLAN VIEW L07 IS ALREADY IN NONCONFORMANCE WITH THE CODE DUE TO • / / � ' +/ + 7 I 0 THE EXISTING DRIVE LOCATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE FOR + + � THE PREVIOUS ROOSEVELT ELEMENTARY. THE EXISTING DRIVE + + L Q� ' WILL BE RECONSTRUCTED AS PART OF THIS PROJECT TO O CONFORM WITH CURRENT CITY OF IOWA CITY STANDARDS. ++++++ -C�� i J J / ` O - LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE + + + + ��o _ - ` WETLAND BUFFER REDUCTION: / 735 .; '+ + + + �`30 _ _ / J I \\\ \ THE 100' WETLAND BUFFER HAS BEEN REDUCED TO 50' IN + / + + + + ,��0 / - \ q� I \ ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS PER SECTION 1. THE WETLAND IS LESS THAN 5 ACRES IN AREA. + + ��, i - - I :': 2. SPECIES LISTED BY THE FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENT ' / , - - I AS ENDANGERED OR THREATENED, OR CRITICAL OR + + + 1 - , - I I I OUTSTANDING NATURAL HABITAT FOR THOSE SPECIES, WERE NOT IDENTIFIED. 3. DOES NOT CONTAIN DIVERSE PLANT ASSOCIATIONS OF INFREQUENT OCCURRENCE OR OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE. 4. IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN A REGULATED STREAM CORRIDOR. 10 � I / I + , 740 / + + ' ' + + / / ' ' M M M M + , v - r // + } �s - �0, SENSITIVE AREAS: II WETLAND + I I I I + 720� �� D �� �,� / + ' y TH P.M. - - �� .750 (31 + IQ J b' i F LO - ROOSEVELT RIDGE J — — — " - -75 � O — — °�' � - , ' , ,��;� � � 'Ss. ,� ^moo OHN ON COUNTY I - - - - - - - - - - - IOWA CITY � °. _ m z IOWA — -- - / �, cn W DOG PARK �, iT r cry sw _ cry c cry cry cri ry cry cry cry cry cry crvl cry r cry cry cry cry ' cry cry cry ' cry cry cry cry crv!cry cry �. W / --- l..................... i........................... �I............... L — - - - - - 7 e - _ - _ ,� _ - IOWA \ — _ 140 _ — I �� _ — — _ — 1 / UTILITIES MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. IV NOTIFY- ONE CALLSIV Date: ONE CALL CONTRACTOR ORAS 92 8989 --_�--- ----------- NOELESSLTHAN 48 HRSOI ADVANCE 06/26/2025 T-------- - _ - - - - - - _ OF ANY DIGGING OR EXCAVATION. Designed y leld Book No OHE 0E T^• TM7E b F Cn I "'E- Tni o ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° T° WHERE PUBLIC UTILITY FIXTURES ARE SHOWN AS EXISTING ON THE PLANS OR ENCOUNTERED WITHIN CAT s °T ° °N CTV CT °N °N °ry ry °N °N— °ry °N �, °N °T TTV E° ° EOT—Eo ° ° Eo E°� E° ° ° ° E° THE CONSTRUCTION AREA, IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY THE Drawn by. Scale: T � � �F J J � J � � � � CLEhN°,J OWNERS OF THOSE UTILITIES PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF ANY CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR HEH 1"-40' ® �_> cr P c,� ° _� _N N �_> o SHALL AFFORD ACCESS TO THESE FACILITIES FOR NECESSARY MODIFICATION OF SERVICES. _ — — 0 o `3' _o _ o o UNDERGROUND FACILITIES, STRUCTURES AND UTILITIES HAVE BEEN PLOTTED FROM AVAILABLE Checked by. Sheet No: rt — �� I I I o� / I , � SURVEYS AND RECORDS, AND THEREFORE THEIR LOCATIONS MUST BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE CAT WE WE WE WE WE WE WE \ WE WE WE � WE E---------- � � WEWE � � w WE WE � ONLY. IT IS POSSIBLE THERE MAY BE OTHERS, THE EXISTENCE OF WHICH IS PRESENTLY NOT KNOWN Project No: _ _ �� I� I1Cif3^ OR SHOWN. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THEIR EXISTENCE AND EXACT r OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE OHE — OHE � OHE OHE OH 0 E lJ lJ°HE LOCATION AND TO AVOID DAMAGE THERETO. NO CLAIMS FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION WILL BE N°r r�`T❑, u v u ALLOWED TO THE CONTRACTOR FOR ANY INTERFERENCE OR DELAY CAUSED BY SUCH WORK. 11603-001 of: 6 PRELIMINARYSENSITIVE AREASDEVELOPMENT PLAN ANDOPD STANDARD LEGEND AND NOTES 8.95AC - PROPERTY &/or BOUNDARY LINES - CONGRESSIONAL SECTION LINES ------------- - RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES - EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES - CENTER LINES R OSEVELT RIDGENORTH - EXISTING CENTER LINES n - LOT LINES, INTERNAL LOT LINES, PLATTED OR BY DEED — — — — — — — — - PROPOSED EASEMENT LINES i \ - EXISTING EASEMENT LINES \/ , ' �� - BENCHMARK OWA C I TY ) I OWA (R) - RECORDED DIMENSIONS y �t�/ 0 4 10 20 30 40 22 1 CURVE SEGMENT NUMBER -EXIST- -PROP- ; 0 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET - POWER POLE PREPARED BY: APPLICANT: 0 1"=40' $ - POWER POLE W/DROP MMS CONSULTANTS INC. TWG DEVELOPMENT AIL 4V - POWER POLE W/TRANS 1917 S. GILBERT STREET 1301 E WASHINGTON ST, SUITE 100 - POWER POLE W/LIGHT v O �Tr 15 IOWA CITY, IA 52240 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46202 - LIGHT POLE'� ` OO U - SANITARY MANHOLE �4y Y - FIRE HYDRANT n \ \ `1 WATER VALVE U' / "�` I OO ® - DRAINAGE MANHOLE \ i / ;_, - ❑ - CURB INLET ° I X ( X l NE _ EXISTING SANITARY SEWER °HE PRO EXIST NG OSEDSTORMTSEWEREWER CIVIL ENGINEERS \ %%� <, - PROPOSED STORM SEWER ( WATER - PRIOPO ED WATER LINES W) LINES LAND PLANNERS / 0� /` :t:': T - TELEPHONE LINES LAND SURVEYORS - GAS LINE 0 11 ° !��'�`� �` � :: �'�' ���?ObQ I I \ G - CONTOURS flLINES (1' INTERVAL) LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS - PROPOSED GROUND ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS ' o `,aN : .::': Q��aC? 1 C? Ili: - o - EXISTING TREE LINE " - - - 1917 S. GILBERT ST. : : , _} x "404�> �?�� 705 v - EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE & SHRUB IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 „ " „„ ._„"„ :".: ...:_. ..x�:: :: ::::„,.. :r y:l/ ' : .,.„ � C? � �? x - -i - EXISTING EVERGREEN TREES & SHRUBS (3 9)3 . . : x. .3- ,... .....: b. .b% . -� 1 51 8282 .... . .. ....." : . :�: :'. " '... . .p.4 �.. Q" www.mmsconsultants.net .:.x. - .;:„ . �.„ ';.. , .. :.: THE E AND LOCATION OF ALL PROPOSED FACILITIES .n s CUMENTS, WHICH O , .... . .... .,:° ., .. . K_... ..: : SUBSEQUENT TO THE ACTUAL SIZE : .. . .:: : ::::: . ....... . ....... . .:: . .., :.. ::. Q` `Q' z L1J APPROVAL OFRTHISRDOICUMEENTUBMITTED y• ,z RUCTION DO O _ t/ . . . „ .. %.x . ... -., ::: : ::. i ..... : ::: ..::x x ,M,:::: :.:. a "a . -I 24 v .• r O �" O. ",: . . .. . . ram._ , : . ,. :................ .... . .. a C5 0 V..a . - o v v z SENSITIVE AREAS LEGEND /' x ,. . .. �. " �.. ... .. ... ...... . b• b• o bx O. I - /, L' . . .... .. r ram. j. ... x x ti C? C? J� 0 V. Q W p x x x x - WOODLAND AREA �� ./... : ::.:. :i. : :;. : : ::" : '.:: : ::: . t:' :'.:: : ::: :::: ::::: -b �x bx �. z W Ul _ x x x x x x x x_>Z (152,856 SF) (100%) °E.. , . „ .. . .�. %.. . . - 4Q 440440 WW xx xxxxx I x Date Revision /�, � ::: " " .:: : :: ...:,: ....... : .: " :.:..: "", :. :: .:.... :::: ::. .................. . .r= :�? :�? � :�? v xxxxxxx r t. / .� • " "x�„ IL W 08/18/2025 PER CITY COMMENTS x . . . / �� r� „. ... . .. . ...�. _ . r. . ,�0: .. O4� 0���04E>4�x - 50' WOODLAND BUFFER AREA x., .... ..: : . . �:`. .. . . . .. .... . x, ., . c .., .. - 43423 SF 38.57 . . O.4 0 4=O 4 ! v � _ / ,• ..... . : ... : - x ;�. o. � �?'Q` IV" � Q` �'4 Q � 00z W OOOOOv . . . . �.".„ ✓ :::.: ::;. . : ;... �:.. .... ... x.. i .... .. ,�. E%`O €} •O*4 Gx 4 4 - WOODLAND AREA IMPACTS . . x. . ..x. :: _LLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLL ( ) ( ) � �.��a�. in � 15,483 SF 38.5% ....: s y ..> . . . �•- „ Q Q I -LLLLLLLLLLL : . .... .! bk n o ..... .., .. „ ... ..x..�...... ,..::�. .:. ... . .... . . . '�, . , , . '.". . . , . . . . . . �' . .. .. ,�. .,.. . .. ... . .. . . :� Qp� . . . . '� '� '�Ob" , � O , LLLLLLLLLLLL . . : . . .. ... .✓ :: : i.�. . . ,. ... . . �: o o _ , . ... . .. .. . . .. C� .C> .C? WOODLAND RETENTION .. / :: ::. . .. .. _ _ - LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE y. . „ 1 � ,� ,. . ". '�'., . .x., . .. ,O �E ...���.:....:.... ...�. ......,....�... ... ......r. ...;C�.. .. ..... .�.........;. ........ U. . . . . .. >. . . � OC xQ �b � �o aoo .. ,: . . . . VV 1 1 xb�. la � - � V.. .,. 0 00 J TREE PROTECTION DETAIL O�Q ?Ob��?Ob�f?J �?Ob�g �?Ob�?Ob O'•:�? ��€ 4�� L= =�} I L N.T.S. : .:::::.:: : ::::: . . : . :0 0 0,-'0 V. OQ o4 0� �,. . . .. .,�.X. .... . ,". . .. . ... . . . ... ... ... . .�:.. . . �, bx o b.o bx o �• .bx o. i ��b.� b•� bx o b.o. � _ � 2 � �. <0 ,0„ - - 4 x : 6 . 4 x D(FEET) = 1.5 X TRUNK 0 (FEET) X 12 C?Q Q� ? 'C?� TRUNK 0 MEASURED AT 24" I ABOVEGROUND 735� 04„0„ p . V. 0 . E ISTING TREE i. . O 4 0.4 „ O 4 O „0 4 O - I ACTED AREA ®Q,� 'x " ..h: .. ?Q.''Q Q. -Q.� Q.'K> Q740 - S E LEGEND : . . . .. , .„. . .. ." O„4 Or€} O E> O 4'bx4„ s is o Im /�� �� ;'�;":'•' � :,, ., ,. .!k .. . .. ... M M : :: . .. , . ... f , . . . r ,f . ` :. QQQ I ' - 4' HT. CONSTRUCTIONQ. C ? C � . ... . .„ FENCE :C}4 �aQ UPI POST : .. . .:. . .... . ....r:'.... .. Y0Y�oy4 „a _ i SENSITIVE AREAS. / , WOODLAND / :�:. .. .��:�: . .„ . # . . ....... ....„ . . ., i.b„,4.b„ 4. EXISTING oo ? .. . i` 0QQ QC?QQ, GROUND + r �@ � b• „ x - - - - I I yf INSTALL TO MEET CITY OF IOWA CITY REQUIREMENTS. DETAILS TO 720 „ ' ' ' Q �OQ4Q I;T _ I II 2 BE PROVIDED WITH CONSTRUCTION PLANS '. .. 4. _ ho CE cn .p.44�.�}.�.4 7 50 I v , � ,�04,�040404,�046 '. x• m / �oOQ� oQ0 Qo04� . Q LO I, Imo ' I m •4„O• x0„4„ i � 4� ,�'� u� °� •,� OQO ROOSEVELT RIDGE ' I ' ,d - _ .. I _ - L - — _ _ �10.b x... . .. Z IOWA CITY I / OHN ON COUNTY �' I - - - - - - - - - - - - J _ - - - D IOWA Ems: r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - --= - - ---- - - - - - - - - - -- - �'' w o �u o - - I DOG PARK 0 - I - - �� I s - � IITLI G NTRD c Iic c w E AREA cry I _ �CT c cry cry c cry cry cry c cry cry cry cry ry cry crv!ry _cry .....................1.......... uG... .. ....... /...... .. . . .. p .-. ... ................ .... ....... ................................. svou - O L — - - - - 740 A-0 _ _ ow / UTILITIES MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. Teo- THE CONTRACTOR SHALL /TIFY IOWApNE CALLSM!i � - \ - - � _730 - ONE CALL AT 811 OR 800 292-8989 Date: 'I --- -- --- --_ --- NO LESS THAN 48 HRS. I ADVANCE 06/26/2025 � 25 -—---—---—--- - - - _ - - - - - - - - OF ANY DIGGING OR EXCAVATION. ;0 a"E ° - b E b,E �� e - - - Designed by. Field Book No: ni o ° ° c ° ° c ° ° c ° c T° WHERE PUBLIC UTILITY FIXTURES ARE SHOWN AS EXISTING ON THE PLANS OR ENCOUNTERED WITHIN CAT 4 v ° cry OTv cTv c c ry ry c c --cry cN C cr cTv CTv i EO ° EOT—Eo ° ° Eo E0� E° ° ° ° E° THE CONSTRUCTION AREA, IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO NO11FY THE Drawn by. Scale: T � � �F J J � J � � � � CLEhN°�,J OWNERS OF THOSE UTILITIES PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF ANY CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR HEH 1"-40' UT -P � c,+ ° )-(-A > _N N ��_> o SHALL AFFORD ACCESS TO THESE FACILITIES FOR NECESSARY MODIFICATION OF SERVICES. _ — — U' _0 _ o cs o _ _ UNDERGROUND FACILITIES, STRUCTURES AND UTILITIES HAVE BEEN PLOTTED FROM AVAILABLE Checked by. Sheet No: MA MA rt — "sue o� SURVEYS AND RECORDS, AND THEREFORE THEIR LOCATIONS MUST BE CONSIDERED APPROXIMATE CAT WE �E WE WE �E �E WE WE �E WE w �E �E WE �E WE wE��E �E WEWE �E �E w WE �E �E WE �E �E ONLY. IT IS POSSIBLE THERE MAY BE OTHERS, THE EXISTENCE OF WHICH IS PRESENTLY NOT KNOWN Project No: �� ^ n n OR SHOWN. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THEIR EXISTENCE AND EXACT r OHE OHE OHE OHE OH OHE OHE °HE — OHE � OHE OHE OHE 0 E lJ lJ°HE "< I��I 'I-•11 �\ I ° i7\ ` \ ' LOCAl10N AND TO AVOID DAMAGE THERETO. NO CLAIMS FOR ADDI110NAL COMPENSATION WILL BE v v ED N°r r�`T"' �❑, u v u u v I ` ALLOWED TO THE CONTRACTOR FOR ANY INTERFERENCE OR DELAY CAUSED BY SUCH WORK. - 11603-001 of: 6 PRELIMINARYSENSITIVE AREASDEVELOPMENT PLAN ANDOPD STANDARD LEGEND AND NOTES 8.95AC - PROPERTY &/or BOUNDARY LINES - CONGRESSIONAL SECTION LINES ------------- - RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES - EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY LINES - CENTER LINES R OSEVELT RIDGENORTH - EXISTING CENTER LINES n - LOT LINES, INTERNAL LOT LINES, PLATTED OR BY DEED — — — — — — — — - PROPOSED EASEMENT LINES i - EXISTING EASEMENT LINES i a $., - BENCHMARK PART TM / � ' ADDITION, IOWA CITY IOWA i '/ 22-1 - CURVE DSEGMENT NUMBER ' 0 4 10 20 30 40 -EXIST- -PROP- GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET _ POWER POLE PREPARED BY: APPLICANT: , j' 1"=40' $ - POWER POLE W/DROP MMS CONSULTANTS INC. TWG DEVELOPMENT y 4W: - POWER POLE W/TRANS 1917 S. GILBERT STREET 1301 E WASHINGTON ST, SUITE 100 - POWER POLE W/LIGHT - GUY POLE v LOT 15 IOWA CITY, IA 52240 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46202 '� 1 _ # # - LIGHT POLE +:1 _ SANITARY MANHOLE �a \I( )) \ v , 'rI �e s�v W z�� gip✓ $ � �NGr s Y FIRE HYDRANT `-�C�// �� � /, � I ,� • �..n - WATER VALVE �i 1�l/�h ai/��� i��n��i1�i �ii��a- 7��� �i���• �ii,�� o��r �i�leti cGe� �il�� �i,�h= �'p° �O ° `` 12 aep aKI ,"""-ANC *74 A A w VG �' VM aV " �iM=,�a• pia• 9ia' �iia• pia=���' �i>> � ® - DRAINAGE MANHOLE INLET- CURB X ❑ - FENCE XLNE ( - EXISTING SANITARY SEWER - PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWER CIVIL ENGINEERS 1 � �, �<• - PROPOSED STORM SEWER ( ) - PROPOSED ED WATER LINESSTING WATER W LINES LAND PLANNERS E - ELECTRICAL LINES T - TELEPHONE LINES LAND SURVEYORS \ , �� •' a G - GAS LINES L07 1 \� r - - - CONTOUR LINES (1' INTERVAL) LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS I � >o \ � '/��' � , •/./ / / - ' a-�•`,"y:+:-.' _ _ _ 750 � ^4j� 1 - PROPOSED GROUND ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS - EXISTING TREE LINE 1917 S. GILBERT ST. / - EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE & SHRUB / / IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 " LO 10 '/ / / ' I - EXISTING EVERGREEN TREES & SHRUBS (319)351-8282 /'� /l '�-'a / �- / / /' jO� zp www.mmsconsultants.net o THE ACTUAL SIZE AND LOCATION OF ALL PROPOSED FACILITIES s � � / \ "• — 0' SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, WHICH O / r / II ARE TO BE PREPARED AND SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS DOCUMENT. i I 1 PLANTING SCHEDULE SHADE TREE 32 Date Revision / \ 2" CAL. 08/18/2025 PER CITY COMMENTS ORNAMENTAL GRASS 139 / - as •"`�•'" 1 ;� /• /� '� /`. �� /V /� ,1 /�_/� /� !�. /� , /� /. /� /� _� �� �� �'.. 'i ,- " U (O� ��P wf3C --L �" �o� f�� � ,6C ,BC C � C C C � LOT .� • , - � — .- — I�� \ \ � / DECIDUOUS SHRUB 167 /.. Q F)OH-Tp>� OF LOT �39 0�1 _ — — , — 'O - , I 1 8" HT. / I I EVERGREEN SHRUB 151 /� // / / / ll 11 ' SEC. 1 6—ll !/91M-H6 VW OF THk 1001-- � '' ��� p° lo — ' — / f „ L \� I e, LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS ' ,. ✓ / / - — STREET TREE5: I TREE FOR EVERY GO LF OF FRONTAGE ON LOTS LOTS WITH MORE THAN ONE FRONTAGE. BENTON ST: GG0.72 / 60 — I I REQUIRED ` l I I PROVIDED " I % — — I { '` - GREENWOOD DR: (519.9G / GO = 14 REQUIRED / a I Al, I I — r' 1 _ � ' 14 PROVIDED (14 EXISTING) a a a a I _ a RE51DENTIAL SITE TREES: ' ' I I TREE FOR EVERY 550 5F OF TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE. LANPSGAPE NOTES: - G 1 ,772 / 550 = 1 13 TREES REQUIRED I I I I w ; � I -TI-E L.MDSOAPE caNrRAOroR 5rwi vERFY ALL LocATIONS or uNVER6ROIirD un-.Iris ON 51rE Pwaz TO LAl WrAl.ATM ^ / / i ® ® J ® ® \ I \ 113 PROVIDED (8 I EXISTING) 2-PLANT qL*F rM ARE FOR INFORMATION ONLY;DRAWNG SHALL PREVAIL. Ir C FLIOT OOfURS. ♦ M M M M M I ' r { \ 9-KIND,517E AND W&ITY OF PLAW MATERIAL a1ALL OONFORM TO AMERII STANDARD FOR NLR56RY STOQC,ANSI Z60- rW,OR M05r REGENT API ION. 4-LAYOUT OF PLANE MATERIAL AT SITE SHALL PE APPROvID 15Y THE LAND5GAPE AIzrhrrF6T PRIOR TO NSTALLATION. \1 5-Al PLNJr1N6 MP AREAS 01&L HAVE gAfrY TOPSOL APPED (IF Nil 15Y Lo"NI E CONTRACTOR TO$RING PEP 6RADE5 V-4-00.0W EXISfNG / ,1 GOIJ 11 AREAS AND TOP OF DE60RATIVI=WALLS./ � I �' : ' / / , / , / ' � �. /\ I \ I III I -\• \ (PRIOR TO$DOING,CONTWYrOR 15 RECOrTI TO VI51T 5rrE) 6-FINISH GRADING Of RANT MP AND 60 AREAS eTIALL SE PERrOR N)6Y LANPSCA (.ONIRAGTOR �� , ;, . I:I.••.I. — LANDSCAPE LEGEND 7-ALL SHRlb AM PERENNIAL PLANrW AREAS SHAu HAVE A MNIMLM 5 INCH DEEP UP OF I HARDWOOD BARK MLL6H AND AN APPLICATION OF A PRE trr(`PRW4 �az PRovEP F FORwEW coNrROt_ I r I S LAwSGGAPE rD61NG»Er l PARK MULE AW LAWN AREAS SHALL OE a SPADE GJr®6E ®6E 5WYJ_$E INSTALLED VERTICAL AND AGGORDINFi TO DE AILS 5YNTH ETIC FIELD TURF 5-6rAKIN6 5rw L!_REgUIRED ON ALL TRW:6 vapr Mu-TII vARIum)5TnKE I (s)OR (9) s 6nm-'r PoSr RAOiq OUrsoE Or ROOreALL AV LANDSCAPE AND API1 RW TO T114M Or TRM WITH 10 GAUGE CADRE AND WOVIEN NA.ON TRFE STRAP•- ' , ' • y Y t \ \ I I 10-N1 TRff-5 FR�3TANDIN6 IN LAWN AREAS Al M RANfM6 b� SHALL M WRAPPED WITH A STANWARD MANI�AGTLRED TRI_WRAP A.D FA6ri3�WITH FINAL S TA B I L I ZAT I O N I , I A TWINE OR APPROVED METYiIA- / HAR PLAN- 1 I ALL TRff m S R �TAWN6 WfTHN LAWN AREAS 5HN1-HAVE A MIN�.M 4 Ff.DIA RING UBLE SH OF DOREDDED DWOOD 6ARK MU..CFf AT A 9 INCH DEPTH- AL TURF GRASS SEED ' 12- L LAPDSGAPE PL-WWIS AND SOD AREAS SHALL SE THI WATEREDTOTAL Or UPON WrAlATION AND A TO Or 5 WAT BEFORE Nf l&AGCEPr"Il ER i U 9 �� I ►�M # \ AFT A56WrA%M 60 SHALL WE MAIM FOR(Ill PAYS DAYS OR ROOW IN. () ERINGS M-LAII OONTRAGTOR MIY�i'FOLLON N1 PETALS PROVmED ON 5ft75 DE9GRIDIN6 LANDSCAPE GON5TW1GT10N TELFNIQUES. I : { - I : CRUSHED ROCK GRAVEL H-al PLANT MA PazlGv ONE YE<vz FROM DATE OF Nrrw ncc�rnNCE 'SM lommoK O I z K-MW ALL REMAINING AREAS WITH DOr IdRDAN MfK ISTH 1PI. ° _ _ _ a, y TYPICAL TREE PLANTING DETAIL — — — _ — — — V - WOOD MULCH BED N.T.S. �. PRUNE BROKEN BRANCHES AS NECESSARY, MAX. 1/3 TREE NORTH NARROW BRANCH UNION POST ANGLE WITH EVIDENCE OF k FALL PROTECTION SURFACE INCLUDED BARK AND/OR so BRANCH TRUNK DIAMETER � I RATIO GREATER THAN p SHALL BE REJECTED. WOVEN NYLON TREE 180' CABLE V PLAY STRUCTURE ELEVATION STRAPS. SIZE TO ALLOW STRAP 1.5"N i ' p / I PLACE OF TRUNK GROWTH, Kl LXJQ� /f \ - I , �� 0 FIRST EBRANCHFING EIGHT STAKING ORIENTATION PLAN foe 10U OF v z , I I / GALVANIZED AIRCRAFT— GRADE T Of 0 I I O _ 16 GAUGE CABLES, ONLY TIGHT �` PLANT WITH BASE OF TREE A 0 RAISED GARDEN PLANTERS ENOUGH TO PREVENT SLIPPING; MIN. 1" ABOVE ADJACENT GRADE ROOSEVELT RIDGE 0 / ALLOW SOME TREE MOVEMENT ENSURE ROOT FLARE IS VIABLE - - I 2' - 6" STEEL "T" POST, REMOVE ALL TWINE AND STRAPS STAKE PER STAKING OR CUT AND FOLD WIRE BASKET ORIENTATION PLAN, REMOVE AND CUT BURLAP FROM TOP 1/2 I AFTER TWO GROWING SEASONS OF ROOTBALL 3" MINIMUM DEPTH SHREDDED - EDGE OF MULCH AREA / l I MIN. 3' RADIUS HARDWOOD BARK MULCH, ENSURE IOWA CITY \ — — — ROOT FLARE IS VIABLE J O H N S O N COUNTY - o — / ,r —" • „y — — — — — — — — v cn — —I =. - •.`•`" =�`.' a — — — — - — — — — — !" / — - 3" WATER RETENTION SOIL RING — — V "-te 5" DEEP VERTICAL SPADE CUT EDGE R — EPLANTING MIX/NATIVE B ESOIL S UBBACG KRFAILDL STRIP FROM IMCHED AREA TREE PIT T0 BE MINIMUM OF E-�= - a` _ a I - � a a >, • Ia - a --, a a a _a y `�" a -- -., - a • a I , y•-��� � - 2.5 X ROOT BALL DIAMETERFERTILIZER TABLETS O AROUND ROOTBA INCREASE PIT DIAMETER IN C PER TREE SPAC = SLANT AND ROUGHEN SIDE S, - a/ aaaa>aaa aa- as,aa. aa a• aa a aa a. a . . a a La.•a .a• a.a• a�•a .m a•a,a y,1 1-a,_••a i .-•a,•a-aY G,aa -,s .a •-•a -cIv J. �" •P^•',`'•=r mac ," C p i a..crv•• 4 : / ' -' ` �••,"`a cry .a • . , HEAVY CLAY SOILS orvcrt- I c cry - a . a r v: "c o SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN ) N.T.S. o � a a a a a a a • � -CENTER SPACING ROOTBALL CONTAINER 1J¢ X MATURE ONg, ON-CENTER SPACING ROOT BALL BALL AND MMS CONSULTANTS, INC. a "r / ° _ - - RE DIAMETER OF SHRUB Date. 3E AND _,- - BUR APN2 OF BURLAPa _ , •, _ " - , a a a i a a " - a " ' - i' _ - _ (L ST FOR SPACING SEE PLAI1 OR T / . a , a - a a , , a 1 � .- . a - . - -�"> --- - --- ROOTBALL AND REMOVE 06/26/2025 rON �i r. - •r-.- 1" �r�--�.c�--� - -�.� - - - �L.,-.. -sue - - - :i.-�� - :�• - - -� I 1 GROWN) REMOVE ENTIRE CONTAINER BEFORE ) `-.` / INSTALA y " " " " - " -," .'> > BEFORE INSTALLATI a - , `. ." `a•� • a"•.`-" _ Designed geld Book No. TION EDGE OF SIDEWALK esigne b)r F n OR CURB PLANTING TOPSOIL CAT - o F0 G c c c c c G G c c c c FOR BACKFILLING i cry ° cry cry �CW cW cry cry M cry cry —cry cry ofv cTv cT�ry , Fo F/�o Fob ro Fo Fo Fo Fob Fo Fo Fo Fo `° TURF Drawn by, Scale: -AN OUT - 1"=40' III III III II=III=III 5" DEEP VERTICAL _ _ 1 • SPADE CUT EDGE Checked by. Sheet No: _ _ _ _I 4" MINIMUM DEPTH —III II III III II =_I11 rt ° SHREDDED HARDWOOD FERTILIZER TABLETS CAT i wE wE wa wE wE wE wE \ wE wE wE wE BARK MULCH BED — — — — — — — — — — — — — \ WE wE wE w wE �wE wE�wE wE wEt—wE WE wE w wE \ wE wE wE wE wE wE l —III _ _ _ _ ( ) PER SHRUB SPACED Project No:—_— — I I-11 I I 1 I-1 III-11 I-1 11=— I—III—I 3 P oHE ONE oeE oHE onE -off ONE onE - a� \ � on o V - PLANTING HOLE SHALL BE III— 1-111 111-111 1 - -111-111 111-111 1 EVENLY AROUND ROOTBALL oeE ONE onE \ OHE oeE g-r-�--�t 1 6 2X DIAMETER OF ROOTBALL EXISTING UNDISTURBED j I - - ❑, u u �i u w AND 6" MINIMUM DEEPER SUBGRADE 11603-001 of: 6 I 0 i w Iry PROJECT TEAM U w OWNER 2 TWG Development, LLC U 1301 E. Washington Street, Suite 100 < Q TWG Indianapolis, IN 46202 O •• DEVELOPMENT, LLC Chase Smith, VP of Market Rate Development 317.439.2703 csmith@twgdev.com U) GENERAL CONTRACTOR N O TWG Development, LLC O TWG 1301 E. Washington Street, Suite 100 CD Indianapolis, IN 46202 � _O •• DEVELOPMENT, LLC Ryan Fitzpatrick, Preconstruction Director :3 317.264.1833 U) ritzpatrick@twgdev.com Ir N 611 Greenwood Iowa Cit ARCHITECT CD TWG Development, LLC C= N W 0 T 1301 E. Washington Street, Suite 100 Affordable Housing •• Indianapolis, IN 46202 O DEVELOPMENT, LLC Z JOHN RUTHVEN, ARCHITECT — N 8 u liven@ jtwgdev.com V m Ln O FO CIVIL/LANDSCAPE UIr-w C � MMS Consultants O ~ MMS 917 S. Gilbert Q M Consultants. Iowa City, IA 52240 A � Scott Pottorff La s.pottorff@mmsconsultants.net J Z W 06 + o ., pin W d r IFA ISSUE .0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION •q �� • _ _ gill . LOCAL DESIGN INFORMATION I ,ram c, ... s - -_ !k. ,`gl•-Zcp •R ` _ . h '23l Q. is-�... . - q �'.� {.a t f' _ IRS,•,9� ' {,.. _ = APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES T 4: ,E 2024 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE 2017 ANSI A117.1 ACCESSIBLE AND USABLE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES _ .••,;�, . .� _ FAIR HOUSING ACT DESIGN MANUAL (FHA SAFE HARBOR) 2024 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE 2024 UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE 2020 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE 2024 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE 2012 INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE OWA CITY COD STATE OF IOWA BUILDING CODES UFAS - UNIFORM FEDERAL ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS NOTE . ALL DWELLING UNITS ARE TO BE 0 Q0 COMPLIANT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS N pL,7 CONCEPT UNIT SUMMARY OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT DESIGN O Q SHEET # SHEET NAME 07/09/24 UNIT TYPE MANUAL. UNITS MARKED AS 11 H C11 TO O 1 -ARCH -GEN MEET UFAS REQUIREMENTS M 00 COVER SHEET • LEVEL 1A 1C 1D 1D.1 1D.2 1E-HC 2A 2A-HC 2B 2C 2D 3A 3A-HC 3B #/FLR 4-ARCH 1 6 6 1 6 3 1 13 2 - 1 2 4 1 1 47 01 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN • O 02 LEVEL 1 -FLOOR PLAN 2 7 6 1 6 3 1 16 1 - 1 3 4 1 3 53 • W Q � 03 LEVEL 2-FLOOR PLAN • 3 7 6 10 - - 1 16 1 2 1 3 4 1 - 52 04 LEVEL 3- FLOOR PLAN • -0 U) 4 6 4 1 - - 1 12 2 1 - 3 4 1 - 35 O 05 LEVEL 4- FLOOR PLAN • O O 06 ROOF PLAN • TOTAL BY UNIT TYPE 26 22 13 12 6 4 57 6 3 3 11 16 4 4 187 3 _ 07A ELEVATIONS • TOTAL BY BEDROOM 83 80 24 N 07B 3D RENDERINGS • o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 08 UNIT TYPE - 1A /o BY UNIT IT TYPE 26/0 26/0 15/0 14/0 7/0 4/0 71 /0 7/0 4/0 4/0 14/0 66/0 17/0 17/o i 09 UNIT TYPE- 1C • % BY BEDROOM # 45% 42% 13% r �O CO r r _ 10 UNIT TYPE- 1 D • ' 11 UNIT TYPE- 1 E-HC • Q f w 12 UNIT TYPE-2A • UNIT AREAS & DETAILS 13 UNIT TYPE-2A-HC • n •,a y 14 UNIT TYPE-2B • 15 UNIT TYPE-2C . 1A 1C 1D 1D.1 1D.2 1E-HC 2A 2A-HC 2B 2C 2D 3A 3A-HC 3B REVISIONS Or 16 UNIT TYPE-2D • MARKET NET AREA 704 829 784 868 851 887 930 930 1131 1257 1028 1204 1207 1411 BUILDING AREA DEFINITIONS t 17 UNIT TYPE-3A • MARKET GROSS AREA 723 836 795 889 869 895 939 955 1138 1299 1039 1229 1231 1450 NO. DATE DESCRIPTION �r 0 18 UNIT TYPE -3A ' #OF BEDROOMS 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 "NET"AREA - ALL AREA MEASURED FROM EXTERIOR FACE OF FRAMING. THIS � 19 UNIT TYPE-3A-HC • r �,r 20 UNIT TYPE-3A-HC • #OF BATHROOMS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 IS WHAT IS USED FOR BUILDING CODE AREAS. A' } 21 UNIT TYPE-3B • 40 4 - PROPERTY 22 UNIT TYPE-3B • "GROSS"AREA - ALL AREA MEASURED FROM EXTERIOR FACE OF FINISH w LOCATION - q // II 11 11 A. h BUILDING AREA - LEASABLE BUILDING AREA NET LEASABLE AREA - SUM OF THE MARKET NET AREA FOR ALL UNITS ON EACH FLOOR NAME AREA LEVEL AREA COMMUNAL AREA ALL NON_LEASABLE SPACE WITHIN THE BUILDING LEVEL 1 LEVEL 1 61,393 SF FOOTPRINT (CORRIDORS, AMENITY SPACES, LEASING OFFICE, ELECTRICAL COMMUNAL 16,398 SF LEVEL 2 61,393 SF ROOMS, MECHANICAL ROOMS, MAINTENANCE ROOMS, ETC.) 0 1 LEASABLE 44,334 SF LEVEL 3 59,853 SF 60,732 SF LEVEL 4 42,406 SF LEVEL 2 TOTAL 225,045 SF COMMUNAL 10,486 SF ' LEASABLE 50,236 SF UNIT AREA DEFINITIONS 3 60,722 SF LEVEL 3 HUD NET AREA_- DEFINED AS "PAINT TO PAINT". IT IS THE LIVING AREA OF THE COMMUNAL 10,442 SF BUILDING AREA - GROSS UNIT MEASURED TO THE INSIDE FACE OF THE UNIT PERIMETER DRYWALL. LEASABLE 47,505 SF I LEVEL 57,947 SF NAME AREA HUD GROSS AREA_- MEASURED FROM THE CENTERLINE OF DEMISING WALLS "TO THE OUTSIDE FACE OF EXTERIOR WALLS AND FAR SIDE OF CORRIDOR COMMUNAL 8,228 SF , LEVEL 1 WALLS. PROJ. NO. DATE LEASABLE 133,313 SF COURTYARD 117,664 SF��yy 41,541 S F 22012_00 2023/05/23 TOTAL 220,942 SF GROSS AREA 162,510 SF MARKET NET AREA - (BOMA/IREM, ANSI Z65.4) MEASURED FROM THE LEVEL 2 CENTERLINE OF DEMISING WALLS TO THE OUTSIDE FACE OF EXTERIOR WALLS SHEET NAME GROSS AREA 62,196 SF - AND FAR SIDE OF CORRIDOR WALLS. COVER SHEET LEVEL 3 GROSS AREA 159,186 SF 611 13 Ft IF= IF= j %V ICI 1211) LEVEL 4 MARKET GROSS AREA - MARKET NET AREA + ATTACHED BALCONIES + GROSS AREA 42,859 SF EXTERIOR STORAGE AREAS DESIGNATED TO THE UNIT. TRUE ROOF DECK 111,071 SF NORTH 255,484 SF BALCONYAREA - MEASURED FROM THE EXTERIOR FACE OF EXTERIOR WALL, � SHEET NO. VICINITY MAP TO EDGE OF BALCONY/PATIO. 00 � FLOOR PLAN SYMBOLS w LEGEND U Q ACCESSIBLE UNIT Q �a O 0 Z) 4 07A 5 6 7 �8�'� 9 10 11 12 i cn �a HEARING IMPAIRED UNIT r D N CD 2' O N O �1 r _N 2 (n (D / 02 } / / r -—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—- - - A O I _ � o c U - I N B O O AMENITY — — I / �d' 1,340 SF - — / I z LEASING I / / (V 885 SF D fn Lu UNIT 1E-HC / / 03 N UNIT 2A UNIT IA OPEN TO BELOW �/ w a I I = C eb�l C) _ C co r CORRIDOR \, pc / \ \ Q r _ co i ELEVATOR / I J BIKESTORAGE K I --- _ - _ -r-- 25 SPACES w I� �h� ELEVATOR 1 0 I _ C R m1 — W UNIT3A � ---- ---- ---- i UNIT -- / UNIT 2A UNIT2A UNIT IC 06 � I UA F G \1 UNIT 2A-HC G /J9 -- II p 07A � A, � UNIT IC I Imo" r � � �Jb CONCEPT- AMENITY LEVEL PLAN 'I� 2 1/16 = 1 -0' a UNIT 1A� UNIT 3A IFA ISSUE cc STAIR 4 LJ _ UNIT 3A-HC 11 UNIT 2A U P ?I �j 4 07A y UNIT 2A /j j G% _ - -- ------- ILLI ,ry IIIII �• � UP :�r j STAIR 1 �7��� II UNIT 2A I^ I I I I I I I I I I � � o � � I I 07A UNIT 1A U \s ��, UNIT 1A ' UNIT 1D.1 7 I I �� UNIT 2D UNIT 1C UNIT 1D ` UNIT 2A I L — - — — IT l D.1 - - — H UNIT 2A UNIT 2A / STORAGE `�� ��J ' 201 SF NITS T UNIT CFJL_ -- - / co U A UNIT 2A UNIT N T 1 i I �' N N � O �j STORAGE STORAGE COMMUNITY L (� �' J O Q ELEVATOR �--�� i 484 SF 162 SF 978 SF 4_ L CORRIDOR CORRIDOR UNIT 1D.2 � LJ a `J I - O UNIT1A _ ; �� _ '. J i 1-c� fib". - -'C� \ ,=V i� V L 07A - - 6 ELEVATOR ° i�°' ] A U W - - C" - - a - �:: El jEL �� w _ W 1 O Lam, O LA A IA BIKE UNIT IC UNIT2A UNITID.1 iUN1 1D.1 \ UNITID.2 UNIT2A UNIT2A-HC = = UNIT 2A UNITID.1 UNIT1D.1 UNITID. UNIT313 % __ 2 -T I S ORAGE _ �j 653SF IL j — -- �` UNIT IC NI I I I�I I I I I I STAIR 3 REVISIONS 1111111 UP -- NO. DATE DESCRIPTION 5 07A 1 AMENITY 1,337 SF NIT 2C l � �9s 3 i I _ 07A I / I I i i 4 1 j 5 i � 6 � 7 8 PROJ.NO. DATE 22012_00 2023/05/23 SHEET NAME LEVEL 1 - FLOOR GRAPHIC SCALE PLAN 1 CONCEPT - LEVEL 1 PLAN 1/16" = 1'-0" 0 16 32 48 64 SHEET NO. 02 � FLOOR PLAN SYMBOLS w LEGEND Q U 10� ACCESSIBLE UNIT Q &!%❑ O 0 Z) cn / ` \ ❑ HEARING IMPAIRED UNIT 07A , 5 I\ 6 1 I 7 8 ( 9 ) 10 11 ( 12 1 ❑ O 2 O ii N O cn V , I ❑ A U) N O - O B 0 N O O - z i Dcn UNIT 3A _ UNIT 2A 71 - ---- U '� cn UNIT 2A UNIT 1A 6°'`' UNIT 313 / Lu O-N Q� ❑ uj --�� --- Z O r` UNIT1E-HCbli4 -- cv') -'� - -- �:� ❑ - % J c Q M C Ful J UNIT 1A — - �_-- - ,TF�'`1„- - --- � --- _ ..pT,F__�h�J: --- `❑ i mot- _ � � I � H 01 ELEVATOR Lu UNIT 3A r IL UNI 2 UNIT 2A UNIT 2A UNIT IC 0 j" / •jj \ I � ,J Q F / _ _ ❑ I W � r 0 ❑ G 07A 1 / X UNIT IC ,l UNIT 2A G � - UNIT 1A \_ STORAGE 294 SF UNIT 3A IFA ISSUE / OD STAIR 4 `J UNIT-3A HC _ _ - D�-I UNI 2A T UP F7 <4 II J/ I 1- UNIT 2A \ I - UP � STAIR 1 Q, UNIT 2A 77 ` r UNIT 1A % v 07A ❑(� 0 U UNIT IA ❑� 7 LL � UNITID.1 1 2 ( 3 fl � UNIT 2D UNIT 1C ' UNIT 2A UNIT ID_I H — - — - - - - - - — H 1 UNIT 1D _ UNIT 2A UNIT 2A-HC STORAGE � ❑ � / UNIT 3A UNIT 2A UNIT 2A UNIT 1C � 201 SF d. a - �j � ; 0L0 \_ — - - ❑ UNIT2 \ U� - - - --- u • • ' - - 1 STORAGE ELEVATOR STORAGE • , - - , • j - - - - Q 1 484 SF 162 SF ® ❑ _ ❑❑ .j. I I j ' ,' ❑ CORRIDOR --- - / -' - --- I - UNIT1D.2 O C - ' U CORRIDOR J JI -� - -- - J ,. ❑� a '" -� 07A — - - - , I UNIT IA ELEVATOR ❑ " UP j• • j ❑ LLI o nDc) - o 0 UNITIC' UNIT2A UNITID.1 �NIT/1D.1 UNIT1D2 �� Ll UNIT UNIT UNIT2A UNITID.1 UNITID.1 UNITID.2 UNIT3B LKF / ❑— r� (� ❑ UNIT IA - - - - i ry _J j - UNITIC � STAIR 3 -' REVISIONS UP i NO. DATE DESCRIPTION ❑°� 5 07A I I I n UNIT 313 UNIT2C (j / % 3 07A / , PROJ.NO. DATE 22012_00 2023/05/23 SHEET NAME LEVEL 2 - FLOOR GRAPHIC SCALE PLAN 3 CONCEPT - LEVEL 2 PLAN 1/16" = l'-0" 0 16 32 48 64 SHEET NO. 03 � FLOOR PLAN SYMBOLS w LEGEND U Q ACCESSIBLE UNIT Q �a O 0 HEARING IMPAIRED UNIT 07A 5 6 D 8 9 10 �11 ? �_ �_ D 0 2 � � � I o N V 2 Ur ROOF BELOW � I A I N L LL O , B � U) o U - ON - o 0 D z U I (6 j M E L� U - rn UNIT 3A / �' UNIT 2A UNIT 1A UNIT 2A L W 3: Q O N UNIT 1E-HC Ell r a - -- -- `- -- _ -- ��- 0 L; � ✓ -- d'i ILi� UNIT 2B M r r a � co —�- � a UNIT IA — K ���., ELEVATOR �• O T c W UNIT 3A UNIT 2A UNIT 2A UNIT I C IL r o r7 UNI�, ) J Lu - - c \ � G - r � _ r 07A �.- C UNIT 1C � � Li�l �', � UNIT 2A � UNIT IA STORAGE 294 SF uNlr3a � IFA ISSUE a� STAIR 4 UNIT 3A-HC —� Q Q _' 1 UNIT 2A UP Q� u UNIT 2A — UP UNIT 2A / STAIR 1 O � � O 77 UNIT 1D 07A UNIT 1A � � ->� 0 7 - UNIT 1A ® � � 2 1� 3 UNIT 2D I e l \ r / UNIT 1C j \ UNIT ID i O � H �UNIT 2A — — H 1 UNIT 1D UNIT 2A UNIT 2m > ,l IE ✓/ r STORAGE 20 RSF E UNIT 3A UNIT 2A UNIT 2A-HC UNIT 1C v J G x, / - S48F RSE --- - UNIT ID N - - Di - - NIT _ L =-- y ,a - - - -- CORRIDOR - C �- STORAGE <w„ = — 7�T� - CORRIDOR ELEVATOR 162 SF J N - I �jr Ln U I , rp UNIT 1A �i ,-T I '-�� lam) � �'-'- ..__..L�;t.i l �. j" �_,;,:_ — __,-;f ', Tr L ' _ •i `— --- --.v��-, - -- - _ t._=1 --- �l _ � — 6 d - 0) O7A � ELEVATOR of - L UF W 0 C . .. -, i x�!• � � \ .. x,•• .. 11 UNIT 26 — u o • yaw — J uu - - -- ---- J J -- --- - -- ---- - -- ---- J n_ o � i O O � � Q � C[I 1 ❑1 - I� Cfl � � z UNIT 1D UNIT 1D UNIT 1D UNIT �' -; UNIT 1C � UNIT2A \ / � UNIT UNIT UNIT 1D � UNIT 1D UNIT 1D / , K *UNIT1A�1� - - L j i - - - - - - - - - - C� Q — - - le M UNIT 1C M - STAIR 3 - / / REVISIONS i UP / ROOF BELOW NO. DATE DESCRIPTION 1 5 07A 0- 3 r 07A i jROOF BELOW \ � r 1 2 ) ( , i 3 ( 4 ( 5 i 6 PROJ.NO. DATE 22012_00 2023/05/23 SHEET NAME LEVEL 3 - FLOOR GRAPHIC SCALE PLAN FF 1 I CONCEPT - LEVEL 3 PLAN 11/16" = 1'-O" 0 16 32 48 64 SHEET NO. 04 � FLOOR PLAN SYMBOLS w LEGEND U Q ACCESSIBLE UNIT Q �a O I 9 11 12 �a HEARING IMPAIRED UNIT � 1 cn 4 07A 6 \ 7 $ i ) \10) G O 2 / O N O _ �n O s — — A � O N � O - Z IL D E N - UNIT 2A � __--- E `` Q Lu UNIT 1 E-HC r N U I 3 UNIT 2A NT A UNT1A = w Q � - -- _ = ; - -- 0 -- - - - UNIT2B U r co / x�i.� .a UNIT IA ELEVATO Lu UNIT 3A UNIT 2A UNIT 2A UNIT 1C O UN1T2D � J J O �� W F // — — F I W CORRIDOR ( Q G l G � 07A '. - - I C UNIT IC �� �. i „ UNIT 2A 1 " _ t.F� L I STORAGE / 294 SF ' I UNIT 1A UNIT 3A-HC Q a IFA ISSUE UNIT 2A-HC STAIR 4 D n , Q � , t UNIT 3A I--� it i I \\ !/ (4 4 07A UNIT 2A J /� \ UNIT 2A STAIR 1 01 / J I 07A� - - 7 UNIT 1A �. UNIT 2D G UNIT 2A --------------- � /I / UNIT1D UNIT 2A UNIT 2A I .� STORAGE - � �-' J 201 SF Q d' N � � UNIT 2D � �, UNIT 3A N ---- --- - STORAGE Cl - ---- L 484 SF O O STORAGE Q 1 // i - ELEVATOR % I„ � 162 SF CORRIDOR ' U 7A \�6 UNIT IA ELEVATOR -I LA ' I - -- . , - — r cn o ei UNIT1C % UNIT2A-HC = UNIT 2A , ' luupll--', IIII UNIT2A ' - 1 T J 1 � K - C� �: rT� . I UNIT 1A Q - r L _ UNIT I STAIR 3 •-i i T / -- _' REVISIONS i NO. DATE DESCRIPTION r-I i 2"/ 1'-0" 2"/ 1'-0" 2"/ 1'-0"' -N 3 N 3 4 5 ) 6 PROJ.NO. DATE 22012_00 2023/05/23 SHEET NAME LEVEL 4 - FLOOR GRAPHIC SCALE PLAN ul 1 CONCEPT-LEVEL 4 PLAN 1/16" = 1'-0" 0 16 32 48 64 SHEET NO. 05 w ry U w 2 U ry Q O 07A 5 6 7 8� 10 (11) 12 CN CD / 2 l O cn O r A � / N A O B - - O 7 - - - - - B �� - - - I D 4 -CD F- (!j coE > W > O O —CJE ~ W ti m � CD r` ' acy) M� I J z W Lu - - - - - - - - - - -- W G G 07A 1 � I I I _ I IFA ISSUE I I I I U07A I 1 / I I I I 07A 7 i I � N CN I O - / ROOF BELOW m i t-I_ r.1 r L O 07A 6 r r -T - - W oc - 70 W - N T U) O J.-- L I K ' K L _ s 7A, - . ... iI �lllr I L rr I�-1�.r.�r I 1 M ROOF BELOW REVISIONS NO. DATE DESCRI 2"/ 1'-0" _ 2"/ 1'-0" 2"/ 1'-0" o % I ROOF BELOW I CV N 07A I , 1 1 2 3 4 5 ) 6 ) 7 C8 ) 9 )(10 )( 11 \I ! 12 PROJ. NO. DATE 22012_00 2023/05/23 SHEET NAME ROOF PLAN GRAPHIC SCALE 1 CONCEPT-ROOF PLAN iii dole~ 1/16" = 1'-0" 0 16 32 48 64 SHEET NO. 06 w ry U w 2 U ry Q O U) N O O �N1 O V O 2 f) CD ry N O � o U 0 O N Z F- - N > V > � O) _ ROOF LEVEL _ ROOF LEVEL W O O ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ 07H 111 Fffl- 138'-0 3/4" Iffi-I FE-9 [H-11 ❑ [H-9 Im- ❑ 138'-0 3/4" V � M�❑® T❑� T❑0 r❑ . _ C t0 _ LEVEL 4 130'-01/ CD 130'EV01/2 � CD 7- PEH ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ 0-11 M�7flFlfl ❑❑ ❑I❑ E ❑ SE ❑ M LEH ❑ m �� Q - M T❑0 T❑ ❑ r r r T❑0 T❑ ❑T❑ ❑❑ ❑r _ LEVEL 3 _ LEVEL�3 7 120'-4 5/8" 120'-4 5/8" -17 0 f r PH ❑ ❑ ❑T❑ r r ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ r r ❑❑ r❑T E117 ❑ ❑❑ ❑T T ■ ❑❑r J LEVELL22 _ LEVEL2 110'-8 3/4" ''�� 110'-8 3/ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑I❑ MEE ❑❑ E ❑i❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑❑ Z r❑r❑ m ❑0 r❑r❑ ❑❑❑ ❑T❑T ❑f❑T ❑r❑r ❑T I❑T ❑❑ ❑❑ CI❑ ❑ ❑❑ W - -- - - -- - -- -- -- --- --- -- __- --_-_ LEVEL 1 100'-0" 100'-0�' 0 W GRAPHIC SCALE GRAPHIC SCALE y W T' ELEVATION 7 C ELEVATION 6 p 1/16" = 1'-0' V 1/16" = 1'-u 0 16 32 48 64 0 16 32 48 64 IFA ISSUE ROOF LEVEE 13F- r r ❑r ❑r MI Fffi- ❑r ❑r rm- rao TEH ro r ❑T r io rm _ LEVEL 4 130'-0 1/2" `- 1-1171 0❑T e P. F.T11T❑0 T❑0 E-El ❑❑ ED 01❑❑ T T EB ❑❑I❑ ❑I❑ EBll r r e 0 EB _ LEVEL 3 _ LEVELL33 - EI EM11 120'-4 5/ -J 120'-4 5/8" - ❑ [ ❑ ■ ❑ ■ ❑ ■ ■ ❑111I M rl0❑ ❑ EDEE pEEE ❑❑ ❑I ❑ PH ❑I❑ ❑I ❑ ❑I❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ EF0 E 0❑ . r r r E r r r ❑ r r❑ r r DI❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑❑r TIT ❑T❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑0 E _ LEVEL 2 _ LEVEL 110'-83%4" q 110'-83/4" ❑ A ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ET ❑❑ . . . ❑ ❑T :❑„ „❑ 000 ❑ o ❑ o T o00_ ❑❑ ❑ ❑r I� Q❑ ❑r ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑r . ❑r ❑ ❑0 ❑ ❑ I -- LEVEL 1 � - -- --- ��� - --- LEVEL 1 100�0" J - - - - - 100'0 i - AMENITY LEVEL 90' -01, U GRAPHIC SCALE GRAPHIC SCALE C;j ELEVATION 5 4 ELEVATION 4 1/16" = 1'-0" 1/16" = 1'-0" 0 16 32 48 64 0 16 32 48 64 N QLO N O Q O ------ FED ED ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ 138'-0 3/4" � � ❑❑ IF] Iffi-I ❑❑❑ T T T ❑r 0❑r ❑r❑r r❑r❑ ❑0❑r ❑� r Lu 0 c _ LEVEL�4 130'-0 1/2" W 7 ❑r 0 r❑0 r❑ ❑r❑r ❑ 0❑T r r❑ ❑ ❑❑ T❑T 0❑T ❑❑ MEL-iFM FEH ❑r❑r ❑ 021 ❑r r❑r❑ ❑r 0❑r ❑r❑r EB ❑0❑T T❑T❑ FE❑ Mai ❑❑ ❑ 0❑r ❑r ❑r 0❑T ❑r r ❑r r 1L LEVEL 0 3 120'-45/8® " ` O ■ ■ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ �BO ❑ ❑ ❑i❑_ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ■ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ��ELT ❑❑ ❑❑ ' ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ■ ❑❑ ❑ NT❑0 T❑ r❑r ❑❑ 0❑T r ❑❑❑r ❑T r T T ❑T �❑r r r r 0❑r r T r ❑❑ ❑T 0❑ T r ❑r❑ r r r❑T❑ ❑T 0❑T T❑T❑ 0 r r 0❑r r �r ❑� r r r r T I ❑❑ LEVEL�2 110'-8 3/4--U' �O E ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ML 9EL1 F[:� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑I❑= ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 000 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑I❑ - ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ' ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ FLE ❑ c0❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ - ❑❑- ❑❑o ❑❑ o o ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ o o ❑ o ❑❑ ❑❑❑ , T ❑❑_ ❑❑ ❑❑ o❑ ❑00 ❑❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ o ❑ -o ❑ ❑ o o T ❑0 - � o00 _ o00 -000 o00 000 o00 _ - 1 LEVEE, 100'-0" . REVISIONS GRAPHIC SCALE NO. DATE DESCRIPTION 3 ELEVATION 3 1/16" = 1'-0" 0 16 32 48 64 ROOF LEVY-, ❑�❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑�❑ BB ffl7M ❑❑ ❑ ❑�❑ ❑❑ ❑�❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ 138'-0 3/4 _ -I - - ROOF LEVEE❑T❑r r❑i ❑P 0 ❑r❑i t❑ ❑t ❑t ❑r❑ 1❑ ?❑ 00 ❑r❑r r❑T❑ �f t ❑ ❑ Mfflffi ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ffiF ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ fflffiMIffl I- F-I ❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ 138'-0 3/4" V _ LEVELL ❑R1r ❑❑r ❑r ❑❑ ❑r❑r ❑r❑T ❑r T❑ ❑r ❑❑r ❑r ❑r❑r ❑T ❑❑r 130'-0 1/2" '�-L' , ❑ ffl F -F- -1 ❑, ❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑ -❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ - 130.E T❑ �❑r ❑T❑� ❑r❑r ❑T❑r ❑r r❑r❑ ❑r 0❑r ❑r❑T ❑T❑T T❑0 T❑ ❑r❑r 0❑ T❑T❑ r ❑ ❑ m ❑I❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑I❑ ❑❑ ` ■ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ EBE■ ❑ ❑i❑ ❑' ❑ _ 0 ❑ � � ❑ o ® � 0 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 _LEVEE ❑T ❑r ❑T❑T r❑r❑ ❑r ❑r ❑r❑r ❑❑ ❑r❑T 0 r❑❑ ❑r ❑r ❑T❑ -❑r❑T ❑ ❑r❑T T❑r❑ =❑r ❑r 120'-4 5/8" PF7 ❑ ❑ Fffl- ❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ - ❑ M=Ea m7c� ❑❑ ❑ ❑ TEIR ❑ r r i - r - r 1 10 0 T T ❑r ❑� 00 ❑T❑-❑T❑T ❑r ❑❑ T❑0 T❑'_ ❑ T❑I T❑ r r ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑I❑ ❑ ❑ LEVEL 2 , ❑t ❑� T❑0 ❑T❑T T❑r❑ ❑❑❑r �❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ r❑r❑ ❑r ❑❑r �❑r ❑❑T -❑T❑ ❑T ❑❑ r T ❑r ❑❑r 110'-8 3/4" ' - _ _ - LEVEL 2 m El ❑ q M-1 ❑ ❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑ �JI T r❑ T ❑ ❑ 0❑ ❑❑ ❑I❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑I ❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ PROJ. N0. DATE ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑_ ❑00❑T ❑ ❑❑ -- ❑ ❑ ❑❑ r ❑ ❑ ❑ 0❑r ❑❑ ❑� ❑ ❑❑ ❑ ❑ 0❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑r EBA=L�LEL=Iir t T - - LEVEL 1 _ _.. _I � � ❑��r❑� _ - 100 0 --- LEVEL 1 22012 00 2023/05/23-, - 100� - , TIL:1111 �, ---- SHEET NAME L AMENITY LEVEL 90l -o il 1J _ AMENITY LEVEL ELEVATIONS 90'--0° GRAPHIC SCALE GRAPHIC SCALE 2 ELEVATION 2 1 ELEVATION 1 0 16 32 48 64 0 16 32 48 64 SHEET NO. 07A • :,ems .; • r� lr;•� ��• •r • � ' blr• AN v�• *24 wounaft ft a wNI "- ,-!�. - � 1 � 1. '•'�' � 4^ - .. _ - ` I -, R:- �. , •=$.mil! i r - ,�... •' _, _ rs* _ ._ -!,� - - I ,a' ., r ,_,tip ^'v: �• ( �r }I x --�::.i• �s - l`, `,. -i� - 5.;� A '�"e'� r ��._�e p�sV„ t I 'S y^. *'•^•-t' ., .. '�i _:[S�"''r: — _- .Y - -- 5 ' �r{_ S _- -- ��i+ h ._�, 9, �-,-1L \ i.Y: �.�`Si ' �' •, - .?tadVtfd'�y• '-,. =' - ��' , r , lit OpOiNO 10 11 I ' .',� .� .yrrt� �R 4- -:�r�;3—' f`r']�,i,!�,,Q�r .'�f '1�.. '4:- to n •.:sk.: +R� A.+ '.►, Y.. - - .�.�, - �r._ .'_.. - -•�1� --s,..--. t,.{ F ., ! :j;„'�,L 7. !a t . .�,/y'; yf .'' ,. �.6 ? '>�,• r a#�jJf .� , .w ,� :g _ /` / T' - 'c, ,rs i.:" .i -•T'�':. ""`r^"CL' v��, ,T _,w - w ' 1 ,. , .. _. _ : �\ ,. �Sxt.} f ,. .. . ..1't 1r.. r .. �:' ,... �, "k .L. n,� 'yf-_ / - -,r. (• �<' �.* .- k -,: ),1 .. �11fy, S. - __ •P l:: t - h /-' - _ '4- r - '.. - -.�' -'r - 'i� � aqq�t lrlP ti.x�x 1-,�`s.u,.z•'."� ��" ,�,.,.�c V�_4 7 ay.Ch �f ^. c 1• ME ev : .. . _ • .. . _.- .. ... -►wi•.,.- r_, ,.. ._.. ,y_Q``� 'm,_ r-_... .., :•.�'' -. .. c^ � .- -- -_.. `ems•-'-•,• r -Sz' a -^^+. ts----:-_.--ar..f....;i w+T'1.^T'+ v r...- +t .fit .SF. : P! +,. .+". - - _ - ---`►�,F, -/. \_ y__'' - - •-_ r Tom. _ ''.: w - — T L r \ \ y�c : .- }�riiCt 'zGkZS _ - �. . -i . �..r _.11�}►:3' ror �„' _ _ �$r s F' ::�� 'YI` v` �� >. ,fir,-.►,' u_ _ - - �¢: - �-=� � _ •,"may`�"•- J � `.. '. -.- ai> V � .. L yt F` =P - I�I �11 --r•1.-�._ .0 ��z�•< ..t _ r.�. � .-L- �..: -- v ,5 oL'' •.�i`���_ I ,II '" +� _ '^. .ate = - ® SL. a4or -- vv� r - f� _ r J I r 1 ` J . _ -.', ..+,.+•,}_,..e+'.: I FI ... S_ .. �....J 74 - - 13W: fl tN'qlp — --.. AAW i.. at I r:r:. -.. _ Iri�d F ;•,,. .,. .--,..-. _axfiL. I , , .. - tNl�'nw � r I` n' �I .: .. �' .. ...... .. � .., { , _ .. ... -_ .. .. -v ._- ....tea. -''.., ' .. \ • - Y {1 ts ;.: I n .. -,.... ... - ... .. _ .'. , , : _.s ' ' ' ;�.: ,�= - �• -'ate: ,rn-- .. r - ; : .�• �� ,,,,.. ;",. Na.. ..•j , ::� ' •�''\. ,``•" ,•r' , ,a:: - t•_� 'i'r 4 +.9. a r`... � - .. ..--•. At _ 'e 1 i��'.,A.,N w,r Sr .:. �•. ..�.FF,1k. :O- _ _ �' {.,a �: i _ 1, .., f' �;�. � l .y. Y e ., .,.__.,,r � •'� ,.. �', ) . .. ,./-, - 1 .f :1 ,(� .� _ n,r Ott•.. �i+=t -- _ t:\`mo ., .- n F� ' ;•./ . J :.:.. �. :,_ ! _ r r' =``fir r r -- �\ " .r- t r , t r , c f R. •t, -, •ems . .. � _: .. ; i g �pp 4:.. ,. _ �". `:-,. �. w. R.:n ._! - � .:•'M!•a 1 L,:. �' �. ..z r�l,. .. ��. t, ..- - - .. •./; __. !. .. - �, ly .I r,'�", { }{ �"" ��_. �� . � M. Sa.IT y V ., ti . i .,Qd/��,•s.:, N �::. _ 1, 1 jS�'tij _ YY:I.' _- -� F y.. _ pl,,.r� • I ■ ATTACHMENT 4 Good Neighbor Meeting Summary � r Summary Report forOno � . rf�►� Good Neighbor Meeting _ -� CITY OF IOWA CITY Project Name: Roosevelt Ridge Project Location: 611 Greenwood Drive Meeting Date and Time: May 29, 6.30 -7.30 Meeting Location: Horn Elementary cafeteria, 600 Koser Avenue Names of Applicant Representatives attending: Jon Marner & Scott Pottorff(MMS Consultants) Jackson Tayler&Brian Hiltunen(TWG),Aldo Sebben(Studio Arch) Names of City Staff Representatives attending: Anne Russett Number of Neighbors Attending: 25 Sign-In Attached? Yes X No General Comments received regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary)- General concerns about existing traffic, traffic enforcement in the area. Concern about maintenance of property. Concerns expressed regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary) - Interest in type of affordable housing. Concern from most attendees regarding existing traffic issues in the area and the additional traffic impact from this project. Pedestrian safety for the area particularly at the proposed Greenwood Drive entrance location. Parking for tenants and the potential impact to parking on streets. Some interest in capacity of existing sewer and water infrastructure. Questions about possible amenities for the tenants and interest in a community garden. Grading and design of the site. Will there be any changes made to the proposal based on this input? If so, describe: A traffic study is being completed for the project to provide with the application. Staff Representative Comments Name and contact information (optional): Comments: }hvf0fj ( Jt �,l. fYee_r t .t S l+r✓� !e/ C" aqf\y sou Jy s c Berl t✓OOJ � f! CAIJ -�1,t l am f f �.�� �• Yee*.�,,�. S h. Pic Name and contact information (optional): �zq Comments: AavtAs fur -fib 1 . -1 1,0, Uk "4q I 9Ng GfiYw�s SD Jy Lao k-� C �S G�/J prbol� �j -f6 -jo Is dU 4+1 0 JC L'/k Y1 �wa a4ACe d<puf 4AI s�t Name and contact information (optional): .2 Lie a 6)0 : Comments: � I 7 I Y Name and contact information (optional): Comments: �j �-1� -01 t� propitx vz 1 b p �,e &d Name and contact information (optional): KR�K� WfIDE FG7a�/P /6/ r — � `�* 7�775ftccL�/lPdP/✓ate �um�w-a�.a. �io�.e lNauP�l �`f�6 � 4 ' AAW , P� — �IB�!'d %h�e 'd�rSi a be ,�vr� o��ted �Jutke MrJj,4 ATTACHMENT 5 Traffic Study AMLI'L Committed to providing professional and relationship-based engineering services. 0% 4050 River Center Court NE Cedar Rapids, IA 52402 Office: (319) 377-4629 BOGERT Fax: (319) 377-8498 Greenwood Affordable Housing Traffic Impact Study Impact Study Complete Draft 611 Greenwood Drive Iowa City, IA 52246 Prepared by: Anderson-Bogert Engineers and Surveyors, Inc. Date: 6.27.25 I hereby certify that this Engineering document was prepared by me or under my direct personal supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Engineer under the laws of the State of Iowa. Jacob M. Sprengeler Exp. Date: 12/31/2025 Iowa Registration No. 27485 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study was conducted on behalf of MMS Consultants, Inc. in order to identify potential traffic impacts relating to a proposed affordable housing development located at 611 Greenwood Drive, Iowa City, Iowa. The development is anticipated to contain 187 dwelling units within a single 4-story building. The study area described within this report includes the following intersections: • Benton Street at Greenwood Drive • Greenwood Drive at the Proposed Development Entrance • Riverside Drive at Myrtle Avenue The study reviewed existing/no-build,opening day full-build(2026),and future no-build/full-build(2046)scenarios. The current property contains an old school building which has been vacant for over 10 years. The proposed development will completely demolish the site and completely rebuild. Of the study intersections,the two located Benton Street and Riverside Drive both exhibit a high potential for crash reduction. This matches several overrepresented collision patterns observed at these locations since 2020. Several factors including sight distance, sight triangles, and non-standard intersection geometry may be contributing to the collisions at Benton Street, while general signal visibility at Myrtle Avenue along with a temporary adjacent construction project could have contributed to patterns at the Myrtle Avenue signal. Existing counts were collected by the CLIENT at Benton Street and proposed site entrance. 2021 MPOJC data was referenced at the Myrtle Avenue signal. Counts were adjusted/inflated since the observations were completed outside of the University of Iowa academic semesters.The peak hours were determined to fall between 7:15-8:15am, and 4:30-5:30pm. Based on current ITE generation rates,the site is estimated to generate about 85 peak hour tips during the AM peak, and about 82 trips during the PM peak hour.All existing/opening day scenarios operated will likely operate with acceptable capacity and LOS whether the development is constructed or not. In the future,background traffic growth (particularly on Benton Street) will reduce the functional capacity of the Greenwood Drive southbound approach.The intersection should continue to be monitored in the future as background traffic increases. Generally, the southbound approach to the Myrtle Avenue signal on Riverside Drive plots within the warranted area for the southbound right movement for a 40-mph approach. Criteria for speeds less than 40-mph are not currently established, but this location (particularly in the PM peak) plots well within the established 40-mph warrant.The eastbound left movement on Benton Street at Greenwood Drive also plots well within the warranted left auxiliary lane warrant for urban streets. The intersection on Benton Street at Greenwood Drive likely does not fully satisfy volume warrant criteria provided in the MUTCD for Warrants 1 or 2 on opening day.At some point in the future as background traffic grows,these warrants could be fully-satisfied with or without the proposed development traffic. Several methods to improve alternate modes of transportation to/from the site were discussed. Particularly, improving visibility of the pedestrian crosswalk on Benton Street at Greenwood Drive, along with the existing midblock crossing at the proposed development entrance.Several improvements could be considered in order to improve pedestrian access and overall visibility along Greenwood Drive. 3 INTRODUCTION This study is being completed on behalf of MMS Consultants, Inc(the CLIENT),who is contracted on civil design services for TWC Development(the DEVELOPER),to study potential impacts resulting in redevelopment of 611 Greenwood Drive. The property is midway along Greenwood Drive between Myrtle Avenue and Benton Street. The developer intends to demolish the existing buildings and replace it with a multi-family low-rise affordable housing development consisting of approximately 187 dwelling units across 4 stories. STUDY AREA After consulting with MPOJC and the CLIENT,the study area limits were determined and are shown in Figure 1 below.The three study intersections include: - Greenwood Drive and West Benton Street - Greenwood Drive and Proposed Site Access - Riverside Drive and Myrtle Ave Figure 1 -Study Area 6 MYRTLE AVENUE ,• i �0WAIIyTERSTq T E R ;y a+ PRUPOSED • DEVELOPMENT BENTON STREET — r '• ANALYSIS _ � ! INTERSECTIONS J y Y 4 EXISTING NO-BUILD CONDITIONS (2026) EXISTING LAND USE The existing site was previously developed as a school but has been in a state of disuse and vacancy for several years.Therefore, at the time of the study and traffic counts,the development site was not generating traffic. ZONING The existing site is currently zoned within the P1-P2 public categories,which aligns with its former use as a school. ADJACENT ROADWAY NETWORK The adjacent roadway network is summarized below in Table 1. Table 1 -Existing Roadway Network Summary Existing Roadway Network Federal Posted Speed General Lane RoadClassification "AADT Estimate MPH Configuration Section •- Surfacing Greenwood Dr Local 2760 25(Assumed) Two-Lane Urban Asphalt W Benton St Collector 9200 25 Two-Lane Urban Asphalt Myrtle Ave Local 2,490 25 Two-Lane Urban Asphalt Riverside Dr Principal 23,200 30 4-Lane Urban Asphalt Arterial ADJACENT LAND USE The areas adjacent to the proposed site are generally residential housing to the west and north. The primary commercial/services land uses are to the south and east of the site. Downtown Iowa City and the University of Iowa are located to the north and east. Figure 2-Adjacent Land Uses �r�x•: ,fir +{� � r !t,';•+ l �' _ RESIDENTIAL } �r SITE RESIDENTIAL Y�-' COMMERC IAA, 5 CRASH HISTORY AND POTENTIAL FOR CRASH REDUCTION(PCR) The Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) maintains online crash databases known as the Iowa Crash Analysis Tool (ICAT) and Potential for Crash Reduction (PCR). The PCR is a statistical value that compares similarly categorized intersections and roadway stretches throughout the state.A positive PCR value represents an intersection that is performing more poorly than similarly categorized intersections throughout the state. PCR values greater than 0.2 are generally considered"statistically significant'for all crash severities.This significance category includes the worst 2.22%of all paved intersections in the state. A PCR greater than 1.0 is considered "High"and includes only the worst 0.65%of paved intersections in the state for all crash severities. The safety analysis for the study intersections is summarized in Table 2. Table 2- Existing Crash Experience Summary DamageIowa DOT[CAT and PCIR Database Information Year 2020-Present KABCO Statewide Category Type of Possible .. ary Route Crossing intersection Total Serious Minor or erty PCR Category Ranking Prim Street Crashes Fatality Control Injury Injury Unknown Only PCR Medium, Performance injury Negligible) History in Category) 25%crashes happen at night; 60%of crashes are Greenwood Or W Benton St Partial Stop 15 0 2 13 1.03 High 328/50,690 broadside of SB Left- Turn with EB,30% crashes from following too close Greenwood Dr Private Partial Stop 1 0 1 0 0 NA Negligible NA Pedestrian involved Access crash 60%of crashes All-Way occurred in 2024 Riverside Or Myrtle Ave Intersection 16 0 1 4 11 1.99 High 85/50,690 (buildingconstruction Stop in 2024),40%resulted in SB rear-ends and followingtoo close Greenwood Drive at W Benton Street This intersection exhibits a statistically significant PCR value.Of the 15 crashes experienced since 2020,over 1/3 involved collisions between southbound and eastbound traffic.About the same amount involved rear-end crashes for westbound traffic. The exact method for recording Figure 3-Benton Intersection Overlapping Lefts vehicle directions and origins cannot be determined directly ppl— from the ICAT turning movement map. One potential cause for this overrepresented pattern may be due to the close intersection spacing between Carriage Hill and Greenwood, creating a potential for overlapping left turns onto Benton Street as shown in _r 1 Figure 3. Based on the arrows in the figure, it seems reasonable a a: rim a: that these intersecting paths could , . be reported as shown in the ICAT ~- diagram attached in the Fill, Appendix between a southbound vehicle and"eastbound"vehicle. The unusual geometry is typically not considered best practice by current design standards.One countermeasure that may be considered to alleviate potential issues could be reducing the Carriage Hill driveway width and configuring this private roadway to be an entrance only. The existing parking arrangement on Carriage Hill appears to lend itself well to a potential one-way reconfiguration as shown in Figure 4. Figure 4-Carriage Hill Parking Another potential cause for this type of crash could be the existing sight lines between eastbound vehicles and southbound vehicles, particularly on Greenwood Drive. There is a significant number of obstructions between these two approaches. A few of the notable obstructions include 2 utility poles, a bus stop shelter, stop sign and other sign assemblies,gas marker,and guy wires. 7 Figure 5 shows the firsthand views for Figure 5—Benton Intersection Sight Lines these movements. The additional visual stimuli combined with the existing pedestrian crossing requires l a longer time for drivers to perceive --- �' and react to potential collisions. With many inputs, decision making ° becomes much more difficult and time consuming. Despite having the right- of-way, eastbound traffic may not be able to effectively perceive an errant _ southbound vehicle in time to take corrective action. Removal of obstructions within - intersection sight lines is always recommended. In this instance, the bus stop could potentially be relocated away from the intersection ' to the north, and the city could work with the utility company to either shift t or relocate existing utility poles out of the sight lines (several of the utility � i,, a• poles appear to also be within the current preferred setback distance — " provided in SODAS and AASHTO Roadside Design standards as well). The existing crash data also show Y that nearly 1/3 of the crashes ; ' occurred during nighttime hours.The intersection has two luminaires in the general vicinity. Improving street lighting and uniformity within an intersection has been shown to generally reduce crashes per several studies published on USDOT's Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse website'.Some studies have found that installing new or improving existing lighting reduces crashes between 15%-25%. An additional pattern evident at this intersection is unidirectional rear-end collisions, particularly on the westbound approach.One potential reason why this manner of collision may be overrepresented may be a combination of sight distance, pedestrian presence,and inadequate advanced warning of the hidden intersection and pedestrian crossing at Greenwood Drive. https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/ 8 Westbound Benton Street traffic must Figure 6 -Benton Intersection WB Vertical Curve traverse a vertical curve on approach to the intersection with Greenwood Drive. The existing Greenwood/Carriage Hill intersection and uncontrolled pedestrian midblock crossing are completely ' obscured from view until about 200' in advance of the intersection based on available streetview and site visit -- observations. For a posted speed of 25mph,the 85th percentile speed is typically measured _ and estimated between 30mph-35mph. Given these speeds,the stopping sight distance for Benton Street should be between 200'-250' in advance of the Greenwood Drive intersection.This limited sight distance may create situations where westbound vehicles may need to rapidly break for traffic entering from Greenwood/Carriage Hill, or a quick deceleration to yield near the intersection for pedestrians in the crosswalk. In the figure above, the crosswalk is beyond the line of sight for westbound traffic. Figure 6 shows a view several feet above a typical driver's eye. From about 220 feet away,the crosswalk cannot be seen, nor any pedestrians in the street. In fact, an oncoming vehicle which is at Greenwood Drive is only just becoming visible to westbound traffic. Traffic counts outside of the academic year by the CLIENT showed over 10-20 pedestrians Figure 7-Advanced Warning Flasher Systems using crosswalks within the Greenwood/Carriage Hill intersection each hour. During school, its reasonable j to assume this number would be even larger.The prevalent pedestrian presence here increases exposure to potential , speed differentials and collisions at this '� c location. Due to the vertical curve, additional _ y advanced warning could help prevent instances of hard breaking, speed differentials,and rear-end crashes. Several entities have found success installing active crossing devices such as a Rectangular-Rapid-Flashing-Beacon (RRFB)and interconnected speed/queue detection systems. Pictured in Figure 7 is a typical interconnected advanced flasher (Cedar Rapids), and a slow vehicle detection system (US 151 in Fairfax, IA). These types of advanced warning systems could be beneficial for westbound traffic in warning of either slow vehicles or interconnected with pedestrian crossing devices such as an RRFB. 9 Greenwood Drive @ Site Development Entrance Near the proposed site entrance, there has been one crash since 2020. It involved a pedestrian and suspected minor injury. The incident occurred during apparently normal daylight conditions. Therefore, it does not appear that there is a correctable incident pattern at this location. Riverside Drive C@ Myrtle Avenue This intersection contains the highest overall PCR value of the study intersections.The primary cause of crashes at this location since 2020 have been rear-end crashes caused by"following too close". Of the 16 collisions, 11 have been this type. Out of the 11 rear-end collisions, 8 have occurred in the southbound direction. 9 crashes listed speed as one of the primary causes of the collision. It was noted that there is not currently a dedicated southbound right auxiliary lane at this signal. Southbound right turns must therefore queue and wait within the Riverside Drive through lane as they yield for pedestrians. Since Riverside Drive is a primary arterial with high-volume, each instance of yielding in the through lane potentially exposes motorists to speed differentials on the road. Increased exposure to speed differentials comes with increased risk of collision. MPO counts showed that the pedestrian volume on the Myrtle Avenue crosswalk were minimal during the peak hours. No counts were available during the midday hours where rear-end collisions have been most prominent. Another observation for the overrepresented southbound rear-ends is related to time-of-day and environmental factors. The ICAT dashboard shown in Figure 8 shows the time-of-day distribution for rear end collisions at this intersection. 6 of the 8 southbound rear-end collisions generally occurred between the hours of 11 am and 2pm. This collision window coincides with the time of day that the sun is typically aligned directly behind the southbound signal assembly. Figure 8-ICAT Rear-End Collision Time-of-Day Time of Day 12 1 2 3 d 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 N AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM AM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM r_. As shown in the figure, it would appear that during midday,the sun can tend to backlight the Myrtle signal. Since the signal creates the potential for speed differentials (as the signal changes from green to yellow and red especially), increasing signal visibility can be one of the most effective safety countermeasures. In this instance, providing reflective tape for the backplates may improve night visibility. For daytime, potentially adding additional supplemental indications on the vertical pole and potentially the near-side could improve visibility. These supplemental indications would provide additional sight angle perhaps out of the sun's path and potentially limit instances where indications may be obscured by a vehicle in front (particularly larger vehicles like trucks and buses). The majority of speed-related crashes occurred in 2024 (5 of 9) which is around the same time that the new development was being constructed at this intersection. The remainder of the years saw 1 speed-related crash each.Therefore,the intersection should be monitored for speed-related collisions moving forward to determine if temporary conditions from the development possibly contributed to the 2024 spike, or if something has permanently changed to create a new pattern of speed-related collisions. 10 EXISTING TRAFFIC PARAMETERS AND DATA Counts were observed by MPOJC at the following location in 2021 while University of Iowa was in session: • Riverside Drive @ Myrtle Avenue Counts were observed by MPOJC at the following location in 2019 while University of Iowa was in session: • Benton Street @ Greenwood Drive/Carriage Hill Counts were observed by the CLIENT in May 2025 at the following locations: • Benton Street @ Greenwood Drive/Carriage Hill • Greenwood Drive @ Proposed Development Entrance (Briarwood Heath Center) Counts were observed by third-party Shive Hattery in September 2020 at the following location: • S Riverside Drive @ Myrtle Avenue The most recent CLIENT counts were completed after the conclusion of the University of Iowa academic calendar which ends in the first week of May.Therefore,traffic conditions (particularly in areas on or adjacent to campus) when counts were observed may differ from the typical peak hour conditions when the University of Iowa is in session. MPOJC also provided a traffic impact study for an off-site development located in the southwest corner of Myrtle Avenue and Riverside Drive.The counts for this study were completed during the COVID Pandemic where many public studies have shown a significant reduction in overall traffic nationwide. Iowa DOT AADT and turning movement data along Riverside from Benton Street to Highway 6 was also available in 2014 and 2018. The various sources of input data and associated parameters are summarized in the table below: 11 Cedar Rapids www.anderson-bogert.com Table 3-Input Data Summary InputSource of Data • .. • CO • Date May 2025 Jan 2025 July 2021 November 2020 October 2019 2014,2018 Counts-Riverside x x 2023 @ Benton Counts-Riverside x x 2023 @ Highway 6 Counts-Riverside @ x x 2023 Myrtle Counts-Benton @ x x 2022 Greenwood Counts- Greenwood @ x 2022 Development AM Peak Hour 7:15-8:15a 7:30-8:30a 7:15-8:15a 7:00-8:00a,7:30- 8:30 estimated AM PHF: 0.86 0.87 0.83-0.86 PM Peak Hour 4:30-5:30p 4:15-5:15p 4:30-5:30p 4:15-5:15p After 5:30pm 5:00-6:00p, 4:00-5:00 PM PHF: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.89-0.95 Background Myrtle 0.76% Annual Growth Background Riverside 1% 0.94°% AnnualGrowth From these sources,the following existing traffic parameters were determined for the study area: AM Peak: 7:15a-8:15a PHF:0.86 %Trucks: 1%(No 2025 Data—Assumed from Shive Hattery and MPOJC Counts at Myrtle Signal Approach) PM Peak: 4:30p-5:30p PHF:0.95 %Trucks: 1%(No 2025 Data—Assumed from Shive Hattery and MPOJC Counts @ Myrtle Signal Approach) Background Growth Rate: 1% 12 The previous data source table demonstrates that none of the three study intersections have true comparable data for counts during and outside of school.Therefore,adjusting the most recent CLIENT provided counts at the Benton Street and development entrance intersections must be assumed. A previous study by Anderson Bogert located at the intersection of Highway 6, Riverside Drive,and Highway 1 in January 2025 considered similar issues. However, better direct counts were available for times during the academic year, as well as during breaks.The following is a direct excerpt from this study: "The mainline traffic[volumes collected in January 2025 during academic break were]compared at the two ends of Sturgis Corner Drive with the volumes collected during `normal" traffic operations by MPOJC in October [of 2024]. These results are shown in the table below. At both locations, one direction of travel was higher during the Anderson-Bogert counts. This is contrary to what might be expected when a major generator[such as the University of Iowa]is notfullyoperational while counting. Table 4-Previous Study Count Comparison Anderson-Bogert C• • •. • Approach @ Anderson-Bogert Approach MPOJC Approach Roadway Sturgis Corner Total Total Difference Ratio Drive Riverside Drive Northbound 765 880 -115 0.87 Riverside Drive Southbound 1173 1087 86 1.08 Highway 6 Eastbound 1392 1175 217 1.18 Highway 6 Westbound 1297 1368 -71 0.95 Since the signalized intersection counts were collected during an ideal time, they will be kept constant while the Sturgis Corner Drive counts are adjusted. At the south end of Sturgis Corner Drive, the eastbound movements were reduced and westbound increased in order to balance.At the north end, the northbound movements increased and the southbound decreased. Since the largest discrepancy was 87% between the MPOJC and Anderson-Bogert counts, all movements to/from Sturgis Corner Drive were increased by a minimum of 15%during the balancing... IDOT has counted this intersection [at Riverside Drive and Highway 6] about every 4 years since 2010, including 2010, 2014, and 2018. In 2014, the DOT counted outside of the University of Iowa academic calendar. Therefore, from 2010—2018 the intersection saw about 1%annualized growth during this period. Therefore, it's estimated that the background growth rate for the study location is about 1%. Assuming this growth rate, the 2010 DOT counts were brought forward to 2014, estimating about 45,300 as the total daily entering AADT for the signalized intersection of Highway 6 and Highway 1. The DOT annualized counts in 2014 were completed in July (outside of the university's standard academic semester)and was only about 41,500. This is about 8.5%less than predicted utilizing an average growth rate between 2010 to 2018. Therefore, the assumption to balance movements to the signalized intersection counts of MPOJC and ensure all movements to/from Sturgis Corner Drive are inflated by 15%seems adequate for analysis purposes." The comparative study found that counts along Riverside Drive (a primary arterial through the heart of the University of Iowa Campus)during a school break were as much as 15%lower in one direction, but 8%higher in the opposite direction.This suggests that while the University of Iowa is a major generator, the majority of traffic along Riverside Drive comes from vehicles unaffiliated by the University,or generally unaffected by the academic school term. The impact of counting outside the academic calendar likely provides a more substantial impact on Greenwood Drive compared with Benton Street.This is primarily due to Benton Street's collector geometry,serving significant pass-through traffic.This is in comparison to Greenwood Drive which is primarily an unconnected local street. As 13 a conservative assumption, the 2025 counts observed by the CLIENT along Greenwood Drive were inflated by 15%.As a collector road,a similar pattern on Benton Street can be reasonably assumed compared to the results seen along Riverside Drive in January of 2025. Since one direction of counts was lower outside of school,while the other was higher,inflating all Benton Street counts arbitrarily by 15%may result in an excessively conservative analysis.Therefore, a lower inflation rate on the order of 6-7%seems more appropriate. Of the two sources of count data available on Myrtle Avenue at Riverside Drive,the Shive Hattery data was taken during the COVID pandemic and may be unreliable.Therefore,the 2021 MPOJC counts for this intersection were utilized and brought forward by the assumed growth rate to 2025.Additional trips generated by the Shive-Hattery study were then added to the intersection. The other two intersections along Greenwood Drive utilized the CLIENT's recent counts from May 2025, with Greenwood Drive counts inflated by 15% and Benton Street counts inflated by 6.5%. The resulting existing/opening day no-build analysis volumes are shown in Figure 9. 14 N 0 MYRTLE AVENUE ryp1 78(97) 21(61) \ NW (n 1 tip\ J� FOR ANLAYSIS PURPOSES m O� THIS IS TREATED AS ONE U) 00 COMBINED DRIVEWAY m oo� m ti^ PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 44(31) BENTON STREET 15(1) 6(4) 91(34) 1 344(361 DRAWN BY:JMS FIGURE 9 A APPROVED BY: DERSONISBOGE" ADJUSTED EXISTING/OPENING DAY DATE:JUNE 2025 ANALYSIS VOLUMES AM(PM) 15 OPENING DAY CONDITIONS (2025) DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT The proposed development(DEVELOPMENT) is located at 611 Green Drive, Iowa City, IA 52246.The CLIENT generally described the facility as an affordable multi-family residential facility. It will consist of 187 total units spread across 4 floors. The architect's rendering of the proposed facility is shown below in Figure 10. Figure 10-Development Rendering i,� The current engineer's site plan is attached below in Figure 11.The CLIENT indicated the primary site access is to Greenwood Drive.The access to Benton Street may or may not be eliminated from the design. If it is to remain, the access will be gated and used for emergency vehicles only (gate shown in PINK). BUILD-OUT SCHEDULE The entire development is scheduled to be operational upon opening day(assumed as 2026 for purposes of this study). 16 Figure 11 -Site Plan I � � r � Q o 1' _ _.. _,_.___..._. _.._.._.. .._...—LJ___ PROPOSED LAND USE AND ZONING The proposed zoning for this site is OPD-RM-20(MULTI-FAMILY).This is different than the zoning shown on the Johnson County Property Information Viewer at the time of this report(Institutional Public(P2)). According to the Iowa City Zoning Code at the time of this report,the development complies with permitted uses of RM-20 zoning. Based on the information provided by the CLIENT,the proposed ITE Land Use Code with is the most applicable is 223 — Affordable Housing. This land use code has a relatively "small sample size" within the ITE data. However, when compared to the next closest land use (Multifamily Mid-Rise), the estimated trips were within about 3%,which is a negligible difference for purposes of this study DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION The development characteristics were used to enter the ITE 11 th Edition generation chart for land use 221. The estimated site trip distribution is summarized below: Table 5-Site Trip Distribution EditionEstimated Site Trip Generation,ITE 11th Greenwood DriveAffordable Housing AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour IN I OUT IN I OUT Land Use Description Code Unit of Measure Quantity Peak of Adjacent Streets,7-9 Peak of Adjacent Streets,4-6 Affordable Housing 223 Dwelling Units 187 25 61 48 34 Full-Build 25 61 48 34 Peak Hou r Trips 86 82 Total Weekday Trips 837 17 ADJACENT OFF-SITE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENTS At the time of this report,a new development was being constructed off-site at 525 S Riverside Drive. Not yet fully operational at the time of counting, vehicles from this local generator require adjustment of the counts acquired by the CLIENT.The off-site property is located in the SW corner of the signalized intersection on Riverside Drive at Myrtle Avenue. MPOJC provided the traffic impact study for this site. According to the report, the off-site development was anticipated to generate 133 trips during the AM peak, and 179 trips during the PM peak after internal capture reductions. Only about 3%of the off-site development traffic was estimated to utilize Greenwood Drive(less than 5 vehicles total in each peak hour). Therefore, for the study intersections on Greenwood Drive, the impact of the off-site development were assumed to be negligible. The off-site development is likely to impact the Myrtle signal which is analyzed in this report. The off-site development's impact on this intersection was discussed in the existing conditions section and is accordingly accounted for in the"existing background traffic". DEVELOPMENT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The CLIENT provided that this affordable housing complex was not necessarily targeting college students as primary tenants. These types of tenants are generally more likely to utilize alternative modes of transportation to/from activities on campus than a personal car. Students would be largely attracted to the university campus which is located northeast of the site. The typical tenants for this site are likely distributed in accordance with the general commercial density distribution surrounding this site. Tenants most likely travel to and from jobs at commercial entities or are traveling to/from commercial retail/service sites. According to currently published Iowa City Laborshed Data2, about 53%of Iowa City's workforce lives within the city, and about 79% of the workforce lives within 24 miles. The average employee in the Iowa City laborshed travels about 17 minutes or less to work.Therefore,the majority of site users will likely be destined to stay within the Iowa City municipal area. From the site, the closest commercial services (grocery stores, eating establishments, etc) are located to the south and east of the site. The primary areas of commercial and professional employment (including University of Iowa,and general downtown area)are located northeasterly of the site.Therefore,its expected that the majority of site users will likely be attracted to Riverside Drive as the primary means of accessing the site. The assumed trip distribution,assignment,and opening day full-build analysis volumes are shown in the following figures. 2 https:Hiwd-Imi.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=96b4ef5dal9045578ce80eadfbf5827f 18 N MYRTLE AVENUE 1° (40%) n D ;0 G) m J� FOR ANLAYSIS PURPOSES m O� THIS IS TREATED AS ONE _W 00 COMBINED DRIVEWAY 0 OQ� m PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AM IN:25 ya AM OUT:61 \5° PM IN:48 PM OUT:34 BENTON STREET 15% DRAWN BY:JMS ANDERSONOS6OGERT FIGURE 12 BY: APPROVED BY: TRIP DISTRIBUTION DATE:JUNE 2025 TRIPS IN(TRIPS OUT) 19 N MYRTLE AVENUE �o 24(14) �n 19(10) ^p\ Np U) m A J� FOR ANALYSIS PURPOSES m O� THIS IS TREATED AS ONE _Ln 00 COMBINED DRIVEWAY 0 OQ� m PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AM IN:25 �y AM OUT:61 /`y PM IN:47 R/�" PM OUT:34 4(7) BENTON STREET 4(7) DRAWN BY:JMS FIGURE 13 A APPROVED BY: DERSONOSBOGERT TRIP ASSIGNMENT DATE:JUNE 2025 AM(PM) 20 N N O MYRTLE AVENUE P1 102(111) 40(71) J� FOR ANLAYSIS PURPOSES m O� THIS IS TREATED AS ONE U) 00 COMBINED DRIVEWAY 0 OQ� m oy PROPOSED ,ryyb DEVELOPMENT 25(449) 2(7) BENTON STREET 15(1) 6(4) 95(41) 1 344(361 DRAWN BY:JMS FIGURE 14 A APPROVED BY: DERSONISBOGERT OPENING DAY FULL-BUILD VOLUMES DATE:JUNE 2025 AM(PM) 21 Cedar Rapids www.anderson-bogert.com FUTURE CONDITIONS (2045) BUILD-OUT SCHEDULE The entire site will be constructed by opening day.Therefore,the development has the same generation potential on opening day compared with the future scenario. ADJACENT OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT At the time of this study,no pending off-site developments in the immediate vicinity of the study area were brought to the attention of Anderson-Bogert.Since the majority of adjacent properties are already developed,it is assumed that the adjacent network will continue to operate comparably with opening day. For purposes of this analysis, no other external future development or roadway network factors were assumed to impact the study area. To obtain future analysis volumes,the existing no-build volumes were inflated by the assumed background growth rate over 20 years.The development's estimated trips were then added to the network in order to obtain the future no-build/full-build analysis volumes shown in Figure 15 and Figure 16, respectively. CAPACITY ANALYSIS The current general method to analyze intersections for capacity is to utilize methods of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The two intersections with partial stop control can be analyzed using this method. The signal located on Riverside Drive at Myrtle Avenue contains a ped hold phase (phase 4) and therefore cannot be analyzed with the HCM methodology. Therefore, Synchro methodology was used instead assuming uncoordinated operation (as of the previous MPOJC project the signal had not yet been connect to the coordination corridor and does not appear to be running signal timings generated with the previous project based on data provided by MPOJC for this study). The general definitions for Level-of-Service are Table 6- LOS Definitions summarized in the table to the right. LOS A generally represents "free-flow" conditions whereas LOS _ represents a complete breakdown in flow. Capacity AWSC Level-of-Service Criteria At the time of this report, Iowa SUDAS generally Control Delay LOS by Volume-to-Capacity Volurne-to-Capacity Ratio suggests LOS"C"as preferred for intersections overall, s/veh v/c<=1.0 v/c>1.0 with LOS D referred for individual movements. LOS D to A F p >10-15 B F for the intersection and LOS E for individual movements >15-25 C F are considered"acceptable"in the design year. >25-35 D F >35-50 E F The capacity analysis for all scenarios and study >50 F F intersections are summarized in the tables below. SignalizedHighway Capacity Manual 7th Edition Level-of-Service Criteria Control Delay LOS by Volume-to-Capacity Ratio s/veh v/c<=1.0 v/c>1.0 0-10 A F >10-20 B F >20-35 C F >35-55 D F >55-80 E F >80 F F 22 N MYRTLE AVENUE �o 95(118) 2s pa) al a`8 h� 17 FOR ANLAYSIS PURPOSES m O� THIS IS TREATED AS ONE U) 00 COMBINED DRIVEWAY 0 OQ� m ti PROPOSED ba`ry^ryo DEVELOPMENT ,L66 54(38) 75(548) 2(9) BENTON STREET 1717(l) 7(5) 111(4 0( 1)� 42440 1(1) DRAWN BY:BY: ANDERSONISBOGERT FUTURE 15 APPROVED BY: NO-BUILD DATE:JUNE 2025 ANALYSIS VOLUMES AM(PM) 23 N MYRTLE AVENUE �N 119(118) 45(84) al J� FOR ANLAYSIS PURPOSES m O� THIS IS TREATED AS ONE U) 00 COMBINED DRIVEWAY 0 OQ� m PROPOSED NQ DEVELOPMENT 75(548) 2(9) BENTON STREET 17(1� 7(5) 115(48)� 1(1) DRAWN BY:JMS ANDERSONISBOGERT FIGURE 16 BY: APPROVED BY: FUTURE FULL-BUILD DATE:JUNE 2025 ANALYSIS VOLUMES AM(PM) 24 Cedar Rapids k www.anderson-bogert.com BENTON STREET AT GREENWOOD DRIVE Table 7-Benton Street At Greenwood Drive Capacity Analysis 1.Benton Street At Greenwood Drive AM Peak Opening D Opening Day Full-Build Future No-Build Future Full-Build QueueApproach Lanes Volume Delay 95%itle Volume Delay 95%itle Volume Delay 95%itle 95%itle LOS Queue, LOS -• Eastbound Left - 91 8.2 25.i A 95 8.2 25 A 111 8.5 25 A 115 8.5 25 A Through 1 344 0 0 A 344 0 0 A 420 0 0 A 420 0 0 A Right - 1T 0 M - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - - 0 , - Westbound 10 It Left - 2 8.1 0 A 2 8.1 1 0 A 2 8.4 0 A "- 0 Through 1 225 0] A 225 0 0 A 275 0 0 A Right - 44 0 - 48 0 - 54 0 - Northbound Left - 1 1 1 1 Through 1 1 12.9 25 B 1 13 25 B 1 14.4 25 B 1 1. 5 25 B Right - 7 7 9 9 I I I I Southbound Left - 21 30 _ 26 _ 35 Through 1 1 16.4 25 C 1 17.7 25 C 1 22.3 25 C 1 25.3 50 D Right - 28 37 34 43 Intersection 2.2 2.7 2.7 3.3 1.Benton Street At Greenwood Drive PM Peak Opening Day No-Build Opening Day Full-Build Future No-Build Future Full-Build (vph) (s Queue LOS Volume Delay Volume Delay Volume Delay Eastbound Left - 34 8.6 25 i A 41 i 8.6 25 A 41 9 i 25 A 48 i 9 25 A Through 1 361 0 0 A 361 0 0 A 440 0 0 A 440 0 0 A Right - 1 - 0 0 - 1 � 0 - Westbound Aff Left - 7 8.1 0 A,, 7 8.11 0 A 9 8.4 0 A 9 8.4 0 A Through 1 449 0 0 0 A 548 0 . 0 A 548 0 0 0 A Right - 31 - 0 0 - 38 - 0 - 45 - 0 - Northbound Left 3 4 4 Through 1 1 14.5 25 B 1 1.4,8. 25 B 1 18.5 25 C 1 19 25 C Right - 10 10 12 12 I Souhbound Left - 49 _ 54 _ 60 65 Through 1 2 21.8 75 C 2 23.8 75 C 2 41.6 125 E 2 - :. Ri ht 100 105 122 127 Intersection 3.7 4.2 6.6 8 No-Build Under opening day conditions, the intersection currently operates with acceptable LOS. All movements operate at LOS C or better.The southbound movement is the most critical,at LOS C.According to the HCM methodology, the expected southbound queue is usually less than one vehicle. The future no-build scenario sees the LOS for the southbound approach degrade to LOS E.This is primarily due to the background traffic growth assumption along Benton Street. With nearly 1,000 combined EB/WB vehicles during the PM peak,southbound traffic may have difficulty entering Benton Street due to the heavy EB/WB traffic. The longest expected queue may exceed 5 vehicles. 25 Full-Build The intersection generally continues to operate comparably with the no-build scenario. The intersection's performance will be primarily driven by the background traffic already using the intersection. GREENWOOD DRIVE AT DEVELOPMENT ENTRANCE Table 8-Greenwood Drive At Development Entrance Capacity Analysis 2.Greenwood Drive At Development Opening Day No-Build Opening Day Full-Build AM Peak Future No-Build Future Full-Build Volume Delay 95%itl Volume Delay 95%itle 95%itle 95%itle Approach Lanes e LOS Queue, • - Queue, Eastbound Left Through 1 117 - uE 0 y - 117 0 - 143 = - 0 - 143 = 0 - Right 25 ,Ji 0 33 0 31 - 0 i - 39 0 Westbound Left - 10 7.6 0 A 27 7.7 25 A 12 7.7 0 A 29 7.7 25 A Through 1 45 0 A 45 0 . 0 A 55 0 0 A 55 0 A Right �L Northbound Left 9 27 11 29 Through 11 0 9.6 25 A 0 10.1 25 B 0 9.9 25 A 0 ULS 25 B Right - 14 57 17 60 Southbound Left 0 0 0 0 Through 0 0 0 A 0 0 'WO A 0 0 0 A 0 0 Right 0 0 0 0 Intersection 1.3 3.5 1.4 3.3 Development2.Greenwood Drive At PM Peak Opening D Opening D Approach Lanes Volume Delay 95%itle 95%itle 95%itle 95%itle Queue LOS Volume Delay LOS Volume Delay Volume Delay it It ft Eastbound Left Through 1 71 0 - 71 0 - 87 0 - Z87 �10 Right - 12 � 0 - 2s 0 - 15 �_ 0 _A - 0 Westbound qr Left - 21 7.5 0 A 54 7;s 25 A 26 Z5 25 A 59 74 25 ;A, Through 1 124 0 0 0 A 151 0 0 _M A 151. Right Northbound Left - 23 28 �� 38 Through 1 0 9.9 25 A., 0 fti.3; 25 B 0 10.3 25 B 0 10.9 25 B Right - 18 22 46 Southbound Left 0 0 0 0 Through 0 0 A 0 0 0 A 0 0 A 0 , 0 Right 0 0 0 0 Intersection 1 2.1 3.4 2.2 3.3 No-Build and Full-Build Assuming the two individual site driveways act"as one", the intersection will operate with good LOS during both all scenarios. Neither the background growth nor the proposed development appear to have noticeable impact on the capacity and performance of this intersection. 26 RIVERSIDE DRIVE AT MYRTLE AVENUE Table 9-Riverside Drive At Myrtle Avenue Capacity Analysis Queue, Synchro Signalized Analysis 3.Riverside Drive At Myrtle Avenue AM Peak Opening Day No-Build Opening Day Full-Build Future No-Build Future Full-Build Approach Lanes Volume Delay 95%itle LOS Volu e Delay 95%itle 95%itle 95%itle u • - - • - e LOS Eastbound Left 1 78 19.6 75 B 102 20.4 75 C 95 21 75 C 119 21.9 75 C Through Right 1 21 9 25 A 40 7.5. 25 A 26 8.3 251 A 45 .:.2 25 A Westbound Left Through Right = Northbound Left 1 91 5.4 25 A 98 5.9 1111�150 A 111 6.4 50 A 118 7.3 :50 A Through 2 809 4.9 100 A 809 5.2 100 A 987 5.6 125 A 987 650 A Right Southbound Left Through 2 487 10.8 125 B 487 11.2 125 B 594 11.6 150 B 594 13 150 B Ri M 86 96 105 115 Intersection 7.9 A 8.4 A 8.7 A 9.6 A Synchro Signalized Analysis 3.Riverside Drive At Myrtle Avenue PM Peak Opening Day No-Build Opening Day Full-Build Future No-Build Future Full-Build Approach Lanes Volume Delay 95%itle Volu 95%itle 95%itle Volume Delay 95%itle (vph) (s Queue LOS (,me (sDelay Queue, LOS Volume Delay Queue LOS Queue, LOS Eastbound Left 1 97 26.1 100 C 111 i 27.2 r 125 C 118 27.5 125 C 132 28.4 125 C Through T Right 1 61 8.9 50 A 71 8.5 050 A 74 8.4 i 50 A 84 _9.3 50 A Westbound Left Through _- Right Northbound Left 1 63 12.4 75 B 77 IJ 13.3 075 B 77 13.4 75 B 91 15.6 100 B Through 2 723 9.8 275 A 7231 9.8 275 A 882 10.6 325 B 882 11.2 325 B Right Southbound Left 1� Through 2 1047 19.5 650 B 1047 21.4 675 C 1278 25.8 850 C 1278 36.1 850 D Ri ht 93 112 113 132 Intersection 15.9 B 17.1 B 19.7 B 25.6 C No-Build This intersection operates with good LOS B or better for both no-build scenarios. For all no-build scenarios, the intersection operates with LOS B or better. The most critical movements are eastbound and southbound. Both operate with good LOS C or better for both time horizons. Full-Build The proposed development will likely not have a noticeable impact on individual movement delay for the opening day scenario.The analysis suggests that all movement delays change by less than around 2 seconds per vehicle. In the PM future full-build scenario,delay appears to increase by nearly 10 seconds per vehicle but still operates with acceptable LOS D.This increase is likely due to the overall coordination corridor parameters of the Synchro model. Anderson-Bogert's previous Riverside Drive model was utilized and included the entire coordination corridor.The Synchro delay methodology is more sensitive to neighboring intersection parameters than the HCM methodology.This likely accounts for the majority of the apparent delay increase. 27 WARRANT ANALYSIS AUXILIARY LANES At the time of this report, Iowa SUDAS design standards specify current guidelines for evaluating potential uncontrolled auxiliary lane warrants. The guidance currently references NCHRP Report 745 (Left Turn Treatments)and NCHRP Report 457(Right Turn Treatments). NCHRP 745 warrants are not dependent on speed. NCHRP Report 457 was originally based upon rural high- speed roads.Therefore,the research presents warrant criteria that changes as the posted/851h percentile speeds change. The lowest relationship criteria curve provided in this report is 40-mph. All roads within the study area most likely have an 851h percentile speed which is at or below 40 mph. Therefore,the warrant criteria presented in Report 457 are not directly applicable to the curves shown in the tables below. Furthermore,the Myrtle Avenue intersection is signalized.Therefore,the uncontrolled approach warrant criteria do not directly apply. However, its worth consideration for periods during green where southbound traffic is free flowing during the peak hour. The following table shows how the study analysis plots against the closest relevant warrant criteria published in Report 457. Table 10- Right Auxiliary Lane Warrant Criteria Right-Turn Bay Warrant Benton Street @ Right-Turn Bay Warrant Greenwood Drive @ Greenwood Drive WBR Development 140 140 NBR -40 mph -40 mph s` 120 ANNBPM r 120 yX Analysis Volumes y > 100 > 100 X Analysis y Wild ai Volumes E 80 E 80 > o 60PMFFult-Build � 60 c f' 40PMF No-Build � 40 m -Build yr Cc 20 AM ac 20 0 pening 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Major-Road Approach Volume,(one direction),veh/hr Major-Road Approach Volume,(one direction),veh/hr Right-Turn Bay Warrant Four-Lane Riverside 140 Dr @ Myrtle PMF Full-Build AMOFuil-Bull AMFFull-Build 120 PMO Full-Build s 100 PMF No-Build m ' MF No-Build 80 PM Ex/Opening o NB 60 -40 mph 40 X Analysis Volumes E AM Ex Opening NB 20 0 300 500 700 900 1100 1300 1500 1700 1900 Major-Road Approach Volume,one direction,veh/hr 28 Cedar Rapids • • Benton Street @ Greenwood Avenue WBR The table above suggests that the WBR movement from Benton Street to Greenwood Drive does not satisfy warrant criteria even if the 85th percentile speed was 40 mph. Greenwood Drive @ Development NBR The table shows that this location is unlikely to satisfy warrant criteria even if the 851h percentile speed was 40 mph on this road. Riverside Drive @ Myrtle Avenue SBR This is a signalized approach.Therefore,the warrant criteria is not directly applicable.The need for a turn bay is more typically based on capacity and safety operations. It can be noted from the table that if the southbound traffic was uncontrolled (such as may be the case during extended periods of green indication)the PM traffic is heavy enough for all scenarios that the SBR movement would fall comfortably within a warrant for an 85th percentile speed of 40 mph. Although the warrant criteria cannot be directly applied, previous research and guidance from AASHTO and SUDAS both state that providing auxiliary lanes at intersections has been demonstrated to improve safety and operations.Therefore,even though the capacity of the intersection appears to be adequate for all study scenarios, a southbound right dedicated lane may help to improve and prevent rear-end collisions which have been overrepresented at this intersection.As previously discussed,a spike of collisions occurred in 2024(nearly 5 of 9 collisions)while other years only experienced one or less collisions.This year happened to coincide with adjacent construction at the intersection. Additional monitoring is required to determine if a new pattern has truly been created or if 2024 was an anomaly. The following table demonstrates the left Table 11 - Left Auxiliary Lane Criteria auxiliary lane warrant criteria within the study area. Left-Turn Treatment for Urban/Suburban Arterials-Three Leg The proposed development entrance does not Greenwood Drive @ Development SBL approach the established criteria during either L AMO FuII-Build opening day peak hour. In the future, the SBL , 45 40 PMF No-Build AMF FuII-Build movement could approach the established 35 warrant criteria. The table at right shows that = 25 the AM future scenario only just plots to the 20 / -Leh-Turn Lane Warrant right of the warrant curve. � is / x Analysis Volumes r ME./Opening NB AMFNo-Bull 5 ° AM Ex/Opening NB The future data plots are therefore sensitive to 0 50 100 150 200 250 30° 350 400 450 the assumptions (existing count inflation and Major Highway Opposing Volume(veh/hr/tn) background inflation) made within this report. Therefore, the location should continue to be Left-Turn Treatment for Urban/Suburban Arterials-Three Leg monitored as background traffic grows in order Greenwood Drive @ Benton Street EBL to confirm assumptions within this report. 120 "f AMF FuII-Build ,n AMFNo-Build 100 LAMg NB At the Benton Street and Greenwood Drive > PMO FuII-Build intersection the EBL movement consistently BO PMFFufI-Build > > 60plots well to the right and above the > -Left-Turn Lane Warm nt established warrant curve for all scenarios 40 PMFNa-BuildX AnalysisVolumes whether the development is constructed or 20PMEx/OpeningNB not. The capacityanalysis earlier su/' ested ° Y gg 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 that the delay for this movement is acceptable Major Highway OpposingVolume(veh/hr/ln) but does suggest that the longest queue is expected to be one vehicle. 29 Therefore,there may be some operational and safety benefits for providing even a short queuing space (50 feet or less)outside of the major eastbound through lane. SIGNALIZED CONTROL Since the intersection along Greenwood Drive at the proposed development operates with good LOS,mostly free of auxiliary lane warrants, and generally free from a significant crash history, it was assumed this intersection would not satisfy signal warrant criteria for any scenario. The challenges involved with the dual private approach could potentially create more operational issues than signalization would solve. On Benton Street at Greenwood Drive,the signal warrant analysis is summarized in the table below.Anderson- Bogert did not collect any new counts for this report, and the CLIENT completed counts while school was not in session during only the assumed peak hours.Therefore, at least 8 hours of count data was not collected for this study. To fully and confidentially state that MUTCD warrant criteria are met, 8 hours of data are needed for volume Warrant 1 and 4 for Warrant 2. Instead,the peak hour counts were extrapolated over 24 hours utilizing a typical municipal streets daily distribution as reported by Iowa DOT in the most recent 2022 Annual Automated Traffic Counter Report. 12am-12pm were extrapolated using the AM peak hour data,and 12pm-12am were extrapolated using PM peak data.The existing data shows a significantly higher volume of traffic on the southbound Greenwood Drive approach in the PM. As a result, the extrapolated 24-hour data is provided in the Appendix shows that most hours where criteria are satisfied tend to follow from the PM peak hour.Therefore,this report cannot definitely state whether signal criteria are fully satisfied. Instead,the extrapolated data based on a typical similar road classification was used to estimate the likelihood of this intersection's potential to satisfy warrant criteria. Table 12-Signal Warrant Estimate Combo EstimatedWarrant Estimated Warrant Estimated Warrant Estimated Warrant SatisfiedSatisfied? Hours Satisfied? Hours Satisfied? Hours Satisfied? Hours Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Existing/Opening No-Build N 1 N 3 N 4 N 3 Opening Full-Build N 3 N 3 N 6 N 3 Future No-Build N 3 Y 8 Y 8 Y 4 Future Full-Build N 5 Y 10 Y 8 Y 6 The table above suggests that warrants are not satisfied for either the existing or opening day full-build scenarios. However,as background traffic grows heavier(particularly EB/WB),the intersection may satisfy criteria at a point in the future before the +20-analysis period expires. In particular, Warrant 1 B is geared towards intersections where the major street traffic is so heavy that it causes excessive delay to the minor street(as opposed to Warrant 1 A which is overall volume shared between all approaches).The Benton Street intersection at first glance appears to be heavily weighted to the EBWB movements.We see this reflected in the warrant summary table above under the column for Warrant 1 B. The charts in the Appendix demonstrate that the nearly all the warranted hours are satisfied based on the PM extrapolated data. Therefore, additional counting during regular University operations is recommended in the future as background traffic continues to grow towards the point of fully satisfying warrant criteria. 30 ANALYSIS OF SITE GEOMETRICS ACCESS MANAGEMENT The proposed development has two (2) access points. The primary access is located on the local Greenwood Drive roadway.The alternate access is to be gated and restricted for emergency use only(per the CLIENT).This access is on the collector road. According to SUDAS, direct access to individual properties is generally discouraged along arterials and collectors. It would appear that the proposed site design follows this design guidance with the main entrance being located off of the adjacent collector road. The gated access also falls within the vertical curve portion of Benton Street which reduces sight distance for EB/WB traffic along Benton. Therefore, if this access is to remain, we recommend it is gated and restricted for emergency use only. Figure 17-Proposed Access cs Carly Explorers EL The primary site access will replace an existing driveway.There is only one other driveway located on the eastern half of Greenwood Drive. It sits immediately to the east of the proposed site. SUDAS does not list any specific separation requirements for residential driveways on local streets in Table 5L-3.05. Typical best practice is to separate driveways as much as feasible and line them up directly across from other driveways/approaches. The existing site poses grade challenges that may create more safety issues than it solves if the site's driveway is shifted to the west. Furthermore, the intersection has not experienced a statistically significant crash history since 2015 (oldest crash data published on ICAT by the Iowa DOT). Thus, the existing configuration does not seem to cause a correctable pattern of crashes.The previous school has been closed since about 2012,so crash data only covers years where the driveway access has likely not seen regular use. Based on current geometry, it doesn't appear that separating the driveways would result in significant line-of-sight improvements. Therefore, the primary improvement which would provide the most benefit would involve private collaboration to combine both driveways into a single access. However, since no existing safety issues are apparent at this location, additional monitoring may be more appropriate for opening day. 31 MULTI-MODAL ANALYSIS Figure 17 above shows an existing mid-block crossing on Greenwood Drive between the two existing driveways. The proposed site plans in the Appendix appear to show this sidewalk generally reconstructed in this current location.The lone recorded collision at this location since 2020 involved a pedestrian. Figure 18-Existing Crosswalk Since cyclists and pedestrians may increase as a result of the development,advanced visibility may help improve the safety of this midblock crossing.With the driveways on either side,the current W11-2 warning signs shown in the figure below also contain diagonal downward arrows on supplemental plaques.Typically,this configuration is used when the signs are posted at the actual crossing. In advance, these signs should list the distance to the crossing. -, r With the proposed design,the crosswalk remains wedged between the existing driveways. If one vehicle is queue at both driveways, the pedestrians might be completely obscured to through traffic. The pedestrian's sight line could also potentially be restricted during these instances. The is an existing park with trails located to the northeast of the site.The closest transit route currently runs to the west of the site along Woodside Place. This is the only pedestrian crossing currently designated between Woodside Place and Myrtle Avenue.Therefore,some type of crossing should remain across Greenwood in order to provide a safe location.A few potential ways to improve visibility of the crossing may include: • Reducing the width of Greenwood Drive at the mid-block crossing to create the feeling of mini"bumpouts" where crosswalk warning sign with arrow plaque can be placed at the crossing along with corresponding advanced warning signs on each approach. Signs may be installed with RRFB flashing devices as an additional visibility improvement. • Square up the existing midblock crossing by adjusting the proposed site driveway to be perpendicular to Greenwood Avenue, relocating the northside ramp to the other side of the residential driveway. This is sketched in Figure 19. • Relocate crosswalk to east side of the Briarwood driveway, square the development driveway up with Greenwood Drive, consider sidewalk along the south side of Greenwood Drive westward to Woodside Place and provide an additional pedestrian crossing at this location.The combination of these items could improve crosswalk safety,visibility,and overall vulnerable road user accessibility within the corridor.The pedestrian crossing should still receive pavement markings, signage at the crossing, along with advanced signage on the approaches.This may need to be coordinated with existing advanced railroad warning signs.This concept is shown below in Figure 20. 32 Figure 19-Squared up Crosswalk Gie � FigurePotential Site Driveway Improvements r l _ y .. � •�irri� b r y Cedar Rapids Marion www.anderson-bogert.com TRANSIT ACCESS The closest transit route is the Oakcrest route which is shown in the figure below. As a result, residents riding public transportation may be likely to exit the site from the north and head westward along Greenwood Drive. Therefore, potentially providing sidewalk along the south side of Greenwood Drive towards Woodside Place, along with a crossing at Woodside Place might provide a logical path for pedestrians that discourages jaywalking. Figure 21 -Transit Route Map n » 7 m _ (1 WoodSiyP 0 Lot 48 815 Oakcrest St Brookland Park Myrtle 1n t t Oakcrest SI&Woodside Dr od '- e�.r+o p Oaknoll Retirement Center#2 v,e "wa f"r"rrtate Railroad O` n 0 Benton St&Oaknoll Dr = Greenw Dr&Ben to t W Benton St Benton Hill Park 3 c 34 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS The site will generally allow the existing network to continue operating comparably with existing conditions. The site and it's generated traffic are not likely to create any new inherent capacity, safety, and operational issues within the study area. With this in mind,the following conclusions and recommendations were formulated by this report: 1. Consider immediate low-cost safety improvements for Benton Street at Greenwood Drive Intersection relating to existing crash experience This intersection exhibits a high potential for crash reduction and several apparent crash patterns. Several low-cost improvements which could potentially help include better crosswalk or "hidden driveway"signage, particularly on the westbound approach where a vertical curve hides the Greenwood intersection and pedestrian intersection until westbound vehicles are at or within safe stopping distance. An RRFB system could increase visibility of the pedestrian crossing, along with an interconnected advanced flasher for the westbound approach.The flasher system would illuminate when the RRFB's at the ped crossing are activated. An additional immediate improvement to consider would be removal of obstacles from within intersection sight triangles. Particularly between the southbound and eastbound traffic, an overrepresented collision pattern between these two movements is apparent. Increasing visibility between the two movements by relocating utility poles and potentially the existing bus stop away from the intersection could improve line of sight. An additional consideration now or in the future may be to reconfigure the Carriage Hill access as an entrance only, or a right-in-right-out. This would eliminate overlapping SBL between Carriage Hill and Greenwood Drive which could contribute to the existing crash patterns. The MPOJC and Iowa City should continue to monitor this intersection as background traffic grows. As Benton Street traffic grows,Greenwood Drive capacity will continue to degrade,and eastbound left traffic will experience higher delay. Without a dedicated eastbound-left lane, these vehicles may start to regularly queuing in the through lane of Benton Street thereby disrupting traffic.The EBL movement does not currently appear to be causing operational or safety issues at the intersection despite meeting a left- turn bay auxiliary warrant for all existing and full-build scenarios. As background traffic grows, the city should start planning for the potential addition of an EBL auxiliary lane at this location. 2. Monitor the Riverside Drive at Myrtle Avenue Intersection The City should continue to monitor the safety performance of this intersection, particularly for southbound traffic.The existing crash history shows an overrepresented pattern of southbound rear-end collisions. These appear to have spiked in 2024 (5 of 9 crashes since 2020) which coincided with the new development construction at this intersection.The city should monitor the intersection over the next several years to see if something in 2024 changed intersection conditions permanently, or if the southbound collision pattern for 2024 was an anomaly. If collision issues persist,the city should consider countermeasures to reduce this collision pattern. Several countermeasures which could help would include reflective backplates on the signal heads (primarily night visibility), additional supplemental southbound signal heads located on the right side of the road(on the vertical signal pole and/or a near side supplemental head),and potentially a southbound right turning lane.According to established criteria,if Riverside Drive 851h percentile speeds were 40 mph, this location would comfortably satisfy auxiliary lane criteria(particularly in the PM peak hour). 35 3. Optimize Site Driveway Alignment to Greenwood Drive The proposed site driveway could be modified from the existing alignment to be at a perpendicular (90 degree) angle with Greenwood Drive. This would help improve site lines to Greenwood Drive (which currently is uphill toward the west).This realignment would also give more space for the existing midblock crosswalk (should it remain in place) or allow it to be squared up with Greenwood Drive as well (ideal pedestrian crossing is perpendicular). 4. Improve Visibility and Alignment of Existing Mid-Block Greenwood Drive Pedestrian Crossing and Sidewalk Network With the current dual driveway configuration,this midblock crossing does not have the best visibility for pedestrians or motorists.The warning signing is not quite typical per MUTCD application with the current placement of the W11-2 crossing warning signs and diagonal plaques which are to be installed at the crossing location, not 50' in advance. In conjunction with the potential site driveway perpendicular adjustment,additional improvements can be made to improve crossing safety and visibility.The crossing should be squared up with Greenwood Drive so that crossing is perpendicular to vehicular traffic.Warning signs should be placed at the crossing,and in advance of both approaches per MUTCD guidance. Advanced warning signage may need to be coordinated with the current advanced railroad warning signage to ensure proper visibility and effectiveness of both signs. Additional consideration should be made for potentially relocating the midblock crossing eastward to the other side of existing Briarwood driveway. This would improve geometry and visibility for the crossing compared with the existing location between twin driveways. In conjunction with the mid-block shift, consideration should be given to adding sidewalk along the south side of Greenwood Drive up to Woodside place with a designated crossing to the transit stop. This would be one potential route for pedestrians that would provide safe connectivity to the transit stop, and sidewalk network already along the north side of Greenwood Drive to Benton Street.The Greenwood Drive alignment appears to contain adequate stopping sight distance for design speeds between 30-35 mph. This crosswalk would also require appropriate advanced warning signage to maintain visibility. 36 APPENDICES Previous Shive-Hattery TIS (not attached -available from MPOJC) Synchro Files or Reports -Available Upon Request 37 W W AFFORDABLE HOUSING 611 GREENWOOD DRIVE IOWA CITY, IOWA \ a o s L3 17 _ LT ii i Ldr II `- - - I LOT 5 � f � r / % N i y l FAieeue. LOL \ "� AND .�ou+...w STANDARD IEGE�NDDTW 0 Xt / s exoPos®v.xxs.Au a. g t:��n _ s9n„w m nxnxo eE®n� .sw� L4 - °=` ss.s: 0 A i C / o PAVING LEGEND — ! Lu p S, ca I � REVISIONS E�«• 4 / w.are oesrnimcw ;{ 611 GREENWOOD DRIVE I I, IOWA Cf1Y,OWA 1 I � I Li L --- - - -- ' - - =-- - ------- - - - ------- - - I I- - MENSION PLAN LOGATM N MAP MAP C120 Benton St @ Greenwood Collision Diagram 15 Crashes Clear 9/244//2 2 7/20/2024 nK-- 10/5/2021 =i � 10/20/2021 Q � 8/29/2022 10/1/2024 6/16/2022 1/17/2023-1 11/5/2024 3/21/2024 12/4/2023" a 5/14/2022 6/13/2023 HBO 4/27/2023� 2021 Straight Parked Fatal Fixed objects: < Stopped Erratic O Major Ei General ® Pole Unknown Out of control Minor Ea Signal o Curb � C ® Tree Animal � Backing Right turn O Injury DUI � Overtaking Left turn X Pedestrian 3rd vehicle < Sideswipe U-turn X Bicycle Nighttime Crash Maaic Online 6/17/2025 Riverside @ Myrtle Collision Diagram 16 Crashes Clear 0 _ M V N N NO N C N �N O O N O N O V/ O IyO N N �M N �M N 1 N XN O O O N N O 00 O O 2/13/2024, 11/18/2024� 2/21/2024 H 7/31/2021 N N AN O O O 9/28/2 24 N N N o c0 v N M oO EE( Straight Parked Fatal Fixed objects: < Stopped Erratic O Major Ei General ® Pole Minor Ea Signal o Curb Unknown Out of control C ® Tree Animal � Backing Right turn O Injury DUI � Overtaking Left turn X Pedestrian 3rd vehicle < Sideswipe U-turn X Bicycle Nighttime Crash Maaic Online 6/17/2025 MUTCD TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Benton Street • Greenwood Drive Location: Date Data Taken: Population: 185,000 By: JMS Analysis By: JMS Comment: Existing/Opening Day NB MinorRoadway Data Major Street Name: Benton Street Greenwood Drive Number of Approach Lanes: 1 1 n 85th Percentile Speed (mph): 30 30 m m North-South Street: x o Critical Stopped Approach #of Lanes: 1 O Intersection Legs: 3 D 0 W Entering Traffic Total • Highest Critical Critical Warrants Hour Benton Street Greenwood Drive Entering Street Minor •• Cntrl Stop Ending EB WB NB SB Traffic Total Approach Direction Delay, sec 1A 1B 2 0100 39 24 1 4 68 63 4 0200 25 16 0 3 44 41 3 0300 19 12 0 2 33 31 2 0400 19 12 0 2 33 31 2 0500 36 23 1 4 64 59 4 0600 95 59 2 11 167 154 11 0700 201 125 4 23 353 326 23 0800 436 271 8 50 765 707 50 0900 412 256 8 47 723 668 47 1000 342 212 6 39 599 554 39 1100 360 224 7 41 632 584 41 1200 279 343 10 106 738 622 106 1300 306 376 11 117 810 682 117 1400 300 369 11 114 794 669 114 1500 319 392 11 122 844 711 122 X 1600 376 463 13 143 995 839 143 X X X 1700 396 487 14 151 1048 883 151 X X X X 1800 386 475 14 147 1022 861 147 X X X 1900 280 344 10 107 741 624 107 2000 214 263 8 82 567 477 82 2100 171 211 6 65 453 382 65 2200 122 149 4 46 321 271 46 2300 79 97 3 30 209 176 30 2400 48 59 2 18 127 107 18 Warrant Criteria Hours Met 1 3 4 3 RequiredHours Required 8 8 8 4 MajorWarrant Warrant Met: N N N N 1A 500 150 1 B 750 75 Combo A 400 120 Combo B 600 60 2&3 See Figures 3A& 3B Anderson-Bogert Engineers Surveyors, Inc. MUTCD TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Benton Street • Greenwood Drive Location: Date Data Taken: Population: 185,000 By: JMS Analysis By: JMS Comment: Opening Day FB MinorRoadway Data Major Street Name: Benton Street Greenwood Drive Number of Approach Lanes: 1 1 n 85th Percentile Speed (mph): 30 30 m m North-South Street: x o Critical Stopped Approach #of Lanes: 1 O Intersection Legs: 3 D 0 W Entering Traffic Total • Highest Critical Critical Warrants Hour Benton Street Greenwood Drive Entering Street Minor •• Cntrl Stop Ending EB WB NB SB Traffic Total Approach Direction Delay, sec 1A 1B 2 0100 39 24 1 6 70 63 6 0200 26 16 0 4 46 42 4 0300 19 12 0 3 34 31 3 0400 19 12 0 3 34 31 3 0500 37 23 1 6 67 60 6 0600 96 60 2 15 173 156 15 0700 203 127 4 31 365 330 31 0800 440 275 8 68 791 715 68 0900 416 260 8 64 748 676 64 1000 345 216 6 53 620 561 53 1100 364 227 7 56 654 591 56 1200 284 348 10 113 755 632 113 1300 311 381 11 124 827 692 124 X 1400 305 374 11 122 812 679 122 X 1500 324 397 11 130 862 721 130 X 1600 383 469 13 153 1018 852 153 X X X X 1700 403 494 14 161 1072 897 161 X X X X 1800 393 482 14 157 1046 875 157 X X X X 1900 284 349 10 114 757 633 114 2000 218 267 8 87 580 485 87 2100 174 214 6 70 464 388 70 2200 124 152 4 49 329 276 49 2300 81 99 3 32 215 180 32 2400 49 60 2 19 130 109 19 Warrant Criteria Hours Met 3 3 6 3 RequiredHours Required 8 8 8 4 MajorWarrant Warrant Met: N N N N 1A 500 150 1 B 750 75 Combo A 400 120 Combo B 600 60 2&3 See Figures 3A& 3B Anderson-Bogert Engineers Surveyors, Inc. Benton . Greenwood Drive Location: Date Data Taken: Population: 185,000 By: JMS Analysis By: JMS Comment: Future No-Build Roadway Major Street Minor Street Name: Benton Street Greenwood Drive m Number of Approach Lanes: 1 1 85th Percentile Speed (mph): 30 30 m m North-South Street: x m Critical Stopped Approach #of Lanes: 1 p Intersection Legs: 3 D 0 Entering Traffic TotalMajor • Hour Benton Street Greenwood Drive Entering Street Minor Stop Cntrl Stop Cntrl Ending EB WB NB SB Traffic Total Approach Direction Delay, sec 1A1B 0 0100 47 29 1 5 82 76 5 0200 31 19 1 4 55 50 4 0300 23 15 0 3 41 38 3 0400 23 14 0 3 40 37 3 0500 44 28 1 5 78 72 5 0600 116 72 2 13 203 188 13 0700 245 152 5 28 430 397 28 0800 532 331 10 61 934 863 61 0900 503 313 9 58 883 816 58 1000 417 259 8 48 732 676 48 1100 440 274 8 50 772 714 50 1200 339 419 8 130 896 758 130 X X 1300 371 459 9 142 981 830 142 X X 1400 364 450 9 139 962 814 139 X X 1500 387 479 10 148 1024 866 148 X X X 1600 457 565 11 175 1208 1022 175 X X X X 1700 481 595 12 184 1272 1076 184 X X X X 1800 469 580 12 180 1241 1049 180 X X X X 1900 339 420 8 130 897 759 130 X X 2000 260 322 6 99 687 582 99 2100 208 257 5 80 550 465 80 2200 148 183 4 56 391 331 56 2300 96 119 2 37 254 215 37 2400 58 72 1 22 153 130 22 Warrant Criteria Hours Met 3 18 18 4 Required Hourly VolumeHours Required 8 8 8 4 MajorWarrant Met: N Y Y Y 1A 500 150 1 B 750 75 Combo A 400 120 Combo B 600 60 2&3 See Figures 3A&3B Anderson-Bogert Engineers Surveyors, Inc. MUTCD TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Benton Street • Greenwood Drive Location: Date Data Taken: Population: 185,000 By: JMS Analysis By: JMS Comment: Future Full-Build MinorRoadway Data Major Street Name: Benton Street Greenwood Drive Number of Approach Lanes: 1 1 n 85th Percentile Speed (mph): 30 30 m m North-South Street: x o Critical Stopped Approach #of Lanes: 1 O Intersection Legs: 3 D 0 W Entering Traffic Total • Highest Critical Critical Warrants Hour Benton Street Greenwood Drive Entering Street Minor •• Cntrl Stop Ending EB WB NB SB Traffic Total Approach Direction Delay, sec 1A 1B 2 0100 47 30 1 7 85 77 7 0200 31 20 1 5 57 51 5 0300 24 15 1 3 43 39 3 0400 23 14 1 3 41 37 3 0500 45 28 1 7 81 73 7 0600 117 73 3 17 210 190 17 0700 247 154 7 36 444 401 36 0800 536 335 16 79 966 871 79 X 0900 506 317 15 75 913 823 75 X 1000 420 263 13 62 758 683 62 1100 443 277 13 65 798 720 65 1200 345 424 8 137 914 769 137 X X 1300 378 465 9 150 1002 843 150 X X X X 1400 370 456 9 147 982 826 147 X X X 1500 393 484 10 156 1043 877 156 X X X X 1600 465 572 11 184 1232 1037 184 X X X X 1700 489 602 12 194 1297 1091 194 X X X X 1800 477 587 12 189 1265 1064 189 X X X X 1900 345 425 8 137 915 770 137 X X 2000 264 326 6 105 701 590 105 2100 212 260 5 84 561 472 84 2200 150 185 4 60 399 335 60 2300 98 120 2 39 259 218 39 2400 59 73 1 23 156 132 23 Warrant Criteria Hours Met 5 10 8 6 RequiredHours Required 8 8 8 4 MajorWarrant Warrant Met: N Y Y Y 1A 500 150 1 B 750 75 Combo A 400 120 Combo B 600 60 2&3 See Figures 3A& 3B Anderson-Bogert Engineers Surveyors, Inc. Traffic Count Intersection Benton Street and Carriage Hill,Iowa City Pedestrians MMS Project#11603-001 Wednesday 05/21/2025 7:00-9:00am Eastbound Northbound Westbound Southbound Intersection Total Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:00-7:15 Total 58 1 2 1 50 1 113 5 614 7:15-7:30 Total 1 83 4 52 2 142 6 2 659 0.87633 7:30-7:45 Total 1 101 1 66 1 1 171 1 1 647 7:45-8:00 Total 1 132 1 51 3 188 3 2 613 8:00-8:15 Total 11 85 2 2 58 1b8i 6 560 8:15-8:30 Total 63 1 65 1 130 4 8:30-8:45 Total 74 2 1 2 58 137 4 1 5 1 8:46-9:00 Total 1 77 2 54 1 135 1 1 2 Uninflated Peak 14 401 0 1 0 7 2 227 1 0 0 6 659 I nflation Factor 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5°h 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% Adjusted Peak Total 15 427 0 1 0 7 2 242 1 0 0 6 702 Traffic Count Intersection Benton Street and Carriage Hill,Iowa City MMS Project#11603-001 Wednesday 05/21/2025 7:00-9:00am Eastbound Northbound Westbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:00 to 8:00 3 374 0 2 0 7 1 219 1 1 0 6 15 5 0 0 7:15 to 8:15 14 401 0 1 0 7 2 227 1 0 0 6 16 5 0 0 7:30 to 8:30 13 381 0 1 0 4 2 240 1 0 0 5 14 3 0 0 7:45 to 8:45 12 354 0 2 0 5 4 232 0 0 0 4 F17 2 5 1 8:00 to 9:00 12 299 0 2 0 6 4 235 0 1 0 1 15 01 7 1 Traffic Count Intersection Benton Street and Carriage Hill,Iowa City MMS Project 411603-001 Pedestrians Wednesday 05121/20254:00-6:00pm Eastbound Northbound Westbound Southbound IrderSecdanTota1 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Lett Thru FIRM Left Thru Right LeR That Right Lett Thru Right 4:00-4:15 Total 76 1 2 2 80 169 1 1 820 4:36-4:30 Total 2 84 1.. 104 191 3. 11 8T/ 4:30-4:45 Total 90. 1 1 2 118 2 1 1 216 2. 3 2. 884 4:45-5:00 Total 1 101 1 4 1 136 2441 5 891 0.91291 5:00-5:15 Total 83 4 2 135 1 226 1 830 5:15-5:30 Total 87 1 1 3, 2 105 1 198 2 9 6:30-5:45 Total 1 10fi 7 2 307 _a 1 1 5:45-6:00 Total 1 I 84 1 1 96 1 1 1 1 183 1 Unirdlated Peak 1 361 2 3 0 9 7 495 4 1 0 1 884 Intlation Factor 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.596 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.596 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% Adjusted Peak Total 1 394 2 3 0 10 7 527 4 1 0 1 941 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Traffic Count 61 201 2 0 Eastbound Northbound Westbound Southbound 5 20 2 0 LeR Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lett Thru Right 4 18 2 0 4:00 to 5:00 1 31 3511 21 41 01 41 61 446 +2' 1 D 1 3 M 0 0 4:15 to 5:15 3 358 1 2 0 8 6 494 1 0 1 3 12 0 0 4:30 to 5:30 1 T. 2 3 0 9 7 495 1 0 1 C45 to 5:45 2 377 8 4 0 9 5 484 D 0 0 5:OOto 8:00 2 360 8 3 0 Si 5 444 1 0 0 Traffic Count Intersection Benton Street and Greenwood Drive,Iowa City Pedestrians MMS Project#11603-001 Wednesday 05/21/2025 7:00-9:00am Eastbound Northbound Westbound Southbound Intersection Total Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:00-7:15 Total 14 47 49 1 4 2 117 1 651 7:15-7:30 Total 25 62 45 9 3 7 151 2 1 697 0.85 7:30-7:45 Total 21 80 60 8 2 7 178 692 7:45-8:00 Total 27 106 45 16 1 5 6 205 2 656 8:00-8:15 Total 12 75 56 8 8 4 163 589 8:15-8:30 Total 13 51 54 16 1 11 146 1 8:30-8:45 Total 12 63 56 3 4 4 142 8:45-9:00 Total 1 18 61 47 3 2 7 1 138 Unadjusted Pee 85 323 0 0 0 0 0 206 41 18 0 24 697 Factor 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% Adjusted Peak 91 344 0 0 0 0 0 219 44 21 0 28 747 Traffic Count Intersection Benton Street and Greenwood Drive,Iowa City MMS Project#11603-001 Wednesday 05/21/2025 7:00-9:00am Eastbound Northbound Westbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 7:00to8:00 87 295 0 0 0 0 0 199 34 14 0 22 4 2 7:15to8:15 85 323 0 0 0 0 0 206 41 18 0 24 4 1 7:30 to 8:30 73 312 0 0 0 0 0 215 48 16 0 28 3 0 7:45 to 8:45 64 295 0 0 0 0 0 211 43 18 0 25 3 0 8:00 to 9:00 55 250 0 0 0 0 0 213 30 15 0 26 1 0 Traffic Count Intersection Benton Street and Greenwood Drive,Iowa City Pedestrians MMS Project#11603-001 Wednesday 05/21/20254:00-6:OOpm Eastbound Northbound Westbound Southbound Intersection Total 2019 MPOIC Eastbound Westbound Lek Th. Right Left Thru Right Left Third Right Left Thru Right 4:00-4:15 Total 7 69 78 9 6 12 181 877 4:15-4:30 Total 3 81 91 9 6 14 204 3 2 939 4:30-4.45 Total 7 84 102 8 14 1 20 236 2 1 950 0.927734 4:45-5:00 Total 11 94 110 4 10 1 26 256 1 1 942 5.00-5:15 Total 7 60 119 9 9 20 243 1 1 881 5:15-5:30 Total 7 81 07 8 11 21 215 2 1 5:30-5:45 Total 6 100 93 7 61 14 228 213 1 5.45.6:00 Total 6. 79 80 7 1 8 1 17 195 . Unadjusted Peak 32 339 0 0 0 0 0 418 29 43 2 87 950 Factor 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% Adjusted Peak 34 361 0 A' 0 0 ;0: 445 31 49 100 1022 Traffic Count Intersection Benton Street and Greenwood Drive,Iowa City MMS Project#11603-001 Wednesday 05/21120254;00-6:00pm Eastbound Northbound Westbound Southbound Left Thru Right Lett Thru Right Lek Thru Right Left Thru Right Eastbound Westbound 4:00 to 5:00 28 328 0 01 01 0 0 3811 301 361 21 72 6 4 4:15 to 5:15 28 339 01 0 i 0 0 422 30 38i 0 7 5 4:30 t0 5:30 32 339 0 0 0 0 0 418 29 43 2 87 6 4 4:45 to 5:45 31 355 0 0 0 0 0 409 28 37 1 81 5 5:00 to 6:00 26 340 0 01 01 0 0 3791 311 331 01 72 4 2 Traffic Count Intersection Greenwood Drive and Briarwood Entrance,Iowa City,Iowa Pedestrians M MS Project#11603-001 Thursday 05/22/2025 7:00-9:00am Eastbound Northbound Westbound Intersection Total Eastbound Westbound Thru Right Left Right Left Thru 7:00-7:15 Total 12 4 1 2 8 27 12 1 179 7:15-7:30 Total 14 4 2 3 3 6 32 5 195 7:30-7:45 Total 30 7 3 5 1 8 54 6 204 0.77 7:45-8:00 Total 39 7 2 4 2 12 66 6 1 190 8:00-8:15 Total 19 4 2 2 3 13 43 11 2 152 8:15-8:30 Total 15 7 1 2 5 11 41 7 8:30-8:45 Total 16 4 2 5 3 10 40 10 8:45-9:00 Total 16 2 1 r 2 1 0 7 28 3 Uninflated Peak 102 22 9 14 9 39 195 28 3 741 0.772727 0 0 Inflation Factor 15.0% 15.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.0% 15.0% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% Adjusted Peak Total 117 25 9 14 10 45 220 30 3 789 1 0 0 Traffic Count Intersection Greenwood Drive and Briarwood Entrance,Iowa City,Iowa MMS Project#11603-001 Thursday 05/22/2025 7:00-9:00a m Eastbound Northbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound Thru Right Left Right Left Thru 7:00 to 8:00 95 22 8 12 8 34 29 2 7:15 to 8:15 102 22 9 14 9 39 28 3 7:30 to 8:30 103 25 8 13 11 44 30 3 7:45 to 8:45 89 22 7 13 13 46 34 3 8:00 to 9:00 66 17 6 11 11 41 31 2 Traffic Count Intersection Greenwood Drive and Briarwood Entrance,Iowa City,Iowa Pedestrians MMS Project#11603-001 Thursday 05/22/2025 4:00-6:00pm Eastbound Northbound Westbound Intersection Total Eastbound Westbound Thru Right Left Right Left Thru 4:00-4:15 Total 14 4 5 1 2 21 47 3 7 203 4:15-4:30 Total 2 1 2 2 4 24 35 3 3 207 4:30-4:45 Total 11 2 5 8 2 34 62 1 4 239 0.891791 4:45-5:00 Total 16 2 6 4 4 27 59 3 8 211 5:00-5:15 Total 14 2 4 3 6 22 51 5 6 181 5:15-5:30 Tota 1 21 4 8 3 6 25 67 2 7 5:30-5:45 Total 12 1 3 2 2 14 34 2 9 5:45-6:00 TotaL 4 1 5 1 1 17 29 5 3 Uninflated Peak 62 10 23 18 18 108 239 11 25 631 0.891791 0 0 Inflation Factor 15.0% 15.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.0% 15.0% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% Adjusted Peak Total 71 12 23 18 21 124 269 12 27 672 1 0 0 Traffic Count Intersection Greenwood Drive and Briarwood Entrance,Iowa City,Iowa MMS Project#11603-001 Thursday 05/22/2025 4:00-6:00pm Eastbound Northbound Westbound Thru Right Left Right Left Thru Eastbound Westbound 4:00 to 5:00 43 9 18 15 12 106 10 22 4:15to5:15 43 7 17 17 16 107 12 21 4:30to5:30 62 10 23 18 18 108 11 25 4:45to5:45 63 9 21 12 18 88 12 30 5:00 to 6:00 51 8 20 91 15 78 14 25 File Name:S:JCCOG\TRANS\Traffic Counts\Peak Hr\COVID COUNTS\2021\February\Riverside Dr and Myrtle Ave-AM-Feb21 Start Date:2/18/2021 Start Time:7:15:00 AM RIVERSIDE DR MYRTLE AVE RIVERSIDE DR MYRTLE AVE From North From East From South From West 15 min Vehicle A roach Totals Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Totals Peak Hr? LEGi LEG2 LEG3 LEe4 IMERSECT 7:15 AM 9 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 177 12 0 4 0 14 0 302 1348 95 0 189 18 302 7:30 AM 9 126 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 198 16 0 3 0 10 0 362 1325 k 135 0 214 13 362 7:45 AM 15 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 207 17 0 4 0 12 2 365 1271 .. 145 0 224 16 385 8:00 AM 12 104 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 158 8 0 8 0 9 1 299 a 116 0 166 17 299 8:15 AM 9 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 156 7 0 2 0 12 1 279 102 0 163 14 279 11:30 AM 8 119 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 157 6 2 9 0 9 0 308 127 0 163 18 308 Pk hr totals 45 446 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 740 53 0 19 0 45 3 1348 591Increase 2 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 3 0 1 0 2 0 67 Adjusted Peak Hour 47 468 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 777 56 0 20 0 47 3 1415 2025 Vol 49 487 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 809 58 0 21 0 49 3 %of—t 1% 91% 0% #Dtv/01 #Dlv/ol #DIv/01 0% 93% 7% ao% V. 70% %N tU tr lc 3% 337. 0% 0% 0% 0% W. 55% 4% 1% 0% 3% mwema,% 35% M 59% 5% PHF By Movement 0.75 0.87 IV/OI#D #DIV/01 #DIV/01 #DIV/01 #DIV/01 0.87 0.71 1.06 #DIV/01 0.90 Approach 0:86 #DIV/01 0.86 0.94 Intersection 0:88 RIVERSIDE DR MYRTLE AVE RIVERSIDE DR MYRTLE AVE Trucks #Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #All vehicles 45 446 0 0. 0 0 0 740 53 191 01 45 %Trucks 0% 0% #DIV/01 #DIV/01 I #DIV/01 I #DIV/01 #DIV/01 0% 0%: 1 0%1 #DIV/01 1 01/6 RIVERSIDE DR MYRTLE AVE RIVERSIDE DR MYRTLE AVE Bikes #Bikes 0. 0 0 0 i 01 0 0 i 0 i 0 i 0 #All vehicles 451 446 0 1 01 0 0 7401 53 19 0 45 %Bikes 0% 0% #DIV/0! #DIV/01 #DIV/01 DN/010 # #DIV/01 0% 0% 0%1 #DIV/0! 1 0% File Name:S:\JCCOG\TRANS\Traffic Counts\Peak Hr\COVID COUNTS\2021\February\Riverside Dr and Myrtle Ave-PM-Feb21 Start Date:2/11/2021 Start Time:4:15:00 PM RIVERSIDE DR MYRTLE AVE RIVERSIDE DR MYRTLE AVE From North From East From South From West 15 min Vehicle A roach Totals Star)Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Totals Peak Hr? LEG 1 LEG 2 LED 3 LEa 4 INTERSECT 4:15 PM 5 220 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 178 2 0 9 0 11 0 425 1867 225 0 180 20 425 4:30 PM 18 266 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 213 10 0 13 0 13 0 533 1871 a 284 0 223 26 533 4:45 PM 11 251 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 174 4 0 19 0 14 0 473 1720 k 262 0 178 33 473 5:00 PM 20 223 0 0 0 0 0 1 25 135 11 0 6 0 16 0 436 243 0 171 22 436 5:15 PM 13 227 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 146 11 0 18 0 14 1 429 a 240 0 157 32 429 5:30 PM 24 173 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 151 8 0 11 0 14 0 382 197 0 160 25 382 Pk hr totals 62 967 0 0 0 0 0 2 25 668 36 0 56 0 57 1 1871 4%Increase 2 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 27 1 0 2 0 2 0 75 Adjusted Peak Hour 64 1006 0 0 0 0 0 2 26 695 37 0 58 0 59 1 1946 2025 Vol 67 1047 0 0 0 0 0 2 27 723 39 0 61 0 62 1 2025 %of mvmt 6% 9491. 0%. #DIV/01 #DIV/01 #DIV/01 3% 92% 51% 50% 0% 509/6 %of Wtraffic 3% 52% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 36% 21/6 31/6 0% 3/ movement% 55% 0% 399/6 8% PMF By Movement 1.41 0.96 #DIV/0! #DIV/01 #DIV/01 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.96 2.25 0.74 IV/O1 1.02#DI Approach 0.98 #DIV/01 1 1.02 1 0.86 Intersection 0.99 RIVERSIDE DR MYRTLE AVE RIVERSIDE DR MYRTLE AVE Trucks #Trucks i 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #All vehicles 62 967 0 0 0 0 25 668 36 56 0 57 %Trucks 0% 0% #DIV/01 #DIV/01 I #DIV/01 I #DIV/01 I I 0%.1 0% 0% 1 0%1 #DIWOI 1 0% RIVERSIDE DR MYRTLE AVE RIVERSIDE DR MYRTLE AVE Bikes #Bikes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 #All vehicles 62 967 0 0 0 0 25 668 36 56 0 57 %Bikes 0% 0% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/01 #DIV/01 0% 0% 0% 0% #DIV/01 0% ATTACHMENT 6 Correspondence From: Chandler Tinsman To: Anne Russett Cc: Carolina Deifelt Streese Subject: 611 Greenwood Dr rezoning comments Date: Tuesday,August 19,2025 12:30:51 PM Rl�x'd **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. To the Planning and Zoning Commission: We are Chandler Tinsman and Carolina Deifelt Streese, residents and homeowners at 606 Greenwood Drive, directly across from 611 Greenwood Drive. We recently received notice regarding the request to rezone 611 Greenwood from Public/Semi-Public to Multi-Family Residential. We fully support the addition of more multi-family housing in Iowa City, as well as the plan to refurbish the school lot into a use that will benefit the community. At the same time, we respectfully ask the Commission to consider the future of the wooded area on the north side of the property, known as Roosevelt Ravine. This ravine contains nature trails historically used by neighborhood residents,provides important habitat for native birds, and serves as a natural buffer against wind and erosion. For these reasons, we request that Roosevelt Ravine remain zoned as Semi-Public, ensuring that it can continue to be preserved, maintained, and enjoyed by the people of Iowa City. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Chandler Tinsman& Carolina Deifelt Streese PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAY AND CITY CoUiNCIL inwA ary, iowA CiTY OF 10 PKA CITY We,the undem,iped,being the c,%,ners of properly included in the proposed zoning chauge, or the owners of property which is located within two bundred feet of the exterior boundaries of[be property for Nvhich the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of tho following p-rqpc,1-ty: CPA25-0002 Roosevelt Ridge Project This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intetifion that such rezorting shall not b"onie effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the mernbers, of the council,all in accordance with -Section 414,5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Addrass- 612 West Benton Street Iowa City, Iowa 52246 Property Ownor(s): Sadie a May By: By.: INDIVIDUAL PRO]PEPTy 01171`rER(S). STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY This insu-a lent was ack-nowledged before me on ics t Z-C"7-5 (Date)by and (name(s) of individual prop;rtsr-Owm-�Crw JOSEPH MIGENT-MAW)'�! UDirwriission Number F30-1586 AUTJIORIZED RFPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNE R(S). STATE OF 10ANFA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) &ss: This instrurnffut was acknowledged before ine on (Date)by (name(s) of person(s))as (type of authority, such -w offici-,r,trustee)of (name of property owner) Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Ong:Council packet 05,-2022 Cc: CA-N DS 612 West Denton St, Iowa City, Iowa 52246 August 15, 2025 Dear Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission: I, Sadie S. May, am writing to address try concerns about the rezo-ning application for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA25-0002) for the Roosevelt Ridge Project Proposal. I own and live at 6 t2'West Bew-on Street, Iowa City with Members of my family. The legal description of-iny property is attached to my letter- The only privately owned residential property contiguous with the proposed development is mine, which is adversely affected by this plan. I stand in opposi ti on to this plan. My de op objection are grounded in the secorid bullet point of the citys Land Use Goals& Strategies of the Comprehensive Plan; Ensure that brOl development Is compatible and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed Roosevelt Ridge Project does not meet this criteria in several ways. It is neithel compatible nor complemenwy to the surrounding,neighboiUod, My objections and concerns are w follows: M The proposed.Roosevelt Ridge Project is not the right project to maintain and complement the character of the Roosevelt neighborhood that has existed for decades in Iowa City. This dm-clopment project negatively changes the attributes of the Roosevelt noighborhood of single family homes on Benton Street. This high density proposal is too large for the acreage and the existing infrastructure of the neighborhood. 'The plan transfom-is this older section of Benton Street iwo an apartment ruix, obliterating its longstanding single farnily rcsidcntial identity. N I am a senior citizen and the primary residential propeTty uwincr directly impacted by this plan.The implementation of the project will disrupt and diminish the quality of my life on my property and in my neighborhood. r will lose the peaceful vistas, their privacy and the security afforded by the green spaces in my own yard. Imttad,these bene-fits,will be replaced by rioise,chaos, pollution, trash, trespassing, and passible crime, if this proposed project goes ahead. If the Roosevelt Ridge Project were iatcrested iu keeping the character of the neighborhood,they would have put parking on the west side of the development wbeyo thff r,are no close existing single family homes. However,the Roosevelt Ridge Project proposes parking within 20-0 feet of my home and property, where there v�ill be constant light aBdsouud disruptions as residents carpets for limited parking spaces around the clock. This will only be intensified durfiig football season. In addition,my humcowner's insurance will increase while my property value will be devalucd. Such a development will make my property undesirable to maintain and continue as a single family residential property. During construction, my lift will be impacted by continuous noise, interruption of utilities and disruption of infiastructure. Disturbance of the soil on the hill�Nih irreparably harru my property,through cros ion and runoff causing damage froni rainwater, snow and soil into my yard. How will drainage from the complex be addressed siD that my propcA)r Is not negatively affeotc&What are the plans for snow removal from. the counplax and parking lots 3'D the winter to prevent draimge onto-my property'? NrIicrc will ITash,bim and garbage disposal be located so that smells and vun,-tin do not infest my property?What farriers ivill be erected to minimjza sound between the complex and Pay house?Tfacso issues arc,of direcL concern to me in relation to my properly, Farthermoie,the addition of 187 apartments, with t1wir accompanying cars will drastically 11jurcas.-the traffic,noise, and pollution on Beaton Street, Grcenwood DrivD, Hud-ion Avenue, and Miller Avenue, As it is, sometimes we have to wait more than Eve minutcs for traffic to case for us to get out of our driveway on nougame days, MiUcr and Hudson Avenues are currently so narrow that only one lane of traffic can travel in a direction at a time on the street. They are not designed for two-way traffic. The traffic iTupact on the surrounding streets in the neighborhood are detrimc-ntal to Briarwood Health Care Center and the Early Explorers Dayeare Cr-7iter. It is clear that the proposed high density plan for Roosevelt Ridge doe�,not offer adequate parking for the number of residents. This means that parking in the neighborhood outside of tbe complex will become even more difficult, and on game days both the traffic and parking problems intensify. The Roosevelt Ridge Project will irnpcda the quality of fife,I have enjoyed in this neighborbood for nc-arly seven.decades. J L w i 11 also diminish my legacy to my children zed grandchildren. I support affordablu housing, especially when it preserves existing residential noighborhoods in a suslaimble manner. I contend that the propcscd Roosevelt Midge development will permanently harm both my iticigbborhood and my quality of life. The loss of peace, green space,privacy, security and residential value is too rnuc7i. The increased traffic,not-ge, and pollution is too much. The resulting chaos fTom a high density multi-Ludt dwelling right next door also too much- This project, as currently mnstituted, decimates the historic nature of lower West Beaton Street as a residential community of single family homes, I urge this Commission to reject this proposal. It is not the Tight fit for the Roosevelt neighborhood. S incerely, JOSEPH ViNf,ENT rCarnmisslosi Number&o,,-rs6 Sadie S. Mav My Comm-Fpsionl— .NP I'S The May property consists of SchoC?[Commissioner's Subdivision, subdivision pt of Lot 6; Lots 1& , as wei.l as School Comm issionerrs Subdivision,subdivlsion pt of Lot 6, wester[yr 11 Q'Lot B. MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 2025 — 6:00 PM — FORMAL MEETING E M M A J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Kaleb Beining, James Davies, Maggie Elliott, Steve Miller, Scott Quellhorst, Billie Townsend, Chad Wade MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Liz Craig, Anne Russett, Olivia Ziegler OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Welch RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends set a public hearing for August 27, 2025 on a proposed amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan future land use map from Public/Semi-Public to Residential 16-24 DU/Acre and the Southwest District Plan future land use map from Public Services/Institutional to Medium to High Density Multi-Family for approximately 9.9 acres of property. By a vote of 5-1 (Davies dissenting, Miller recused) the Commission recommends approval of REZ25-0011, a request to rezone approximately 1.04 acres of land affecting the properties at: 804, 810, and 824 Maiden Lane; 410, 416, and 418 E. Benton Street; and 815 Gilbert Court from Intensive Commercial zone (CI-1) and Medium Density Single-Family Residential zone (RS-8) to Community Commercial zone (CC-2). 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. CPA25-0002: Location: 611 Greenwood Drive; Former Roosevelt Elementary School A request to set a public hearing for August 27, 2025 on a proposed amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan future land use map from Public/Semi-Public to Residential 16-24 DU/Acre and the Southwest District Plan future land use map from Public Services/Institutional to Medium to High Density Multi-Family for approximately 9.9 acres of property. Quellhorst moved to set a public hearing for August 27, 2025 on a proposed amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan future land use map from Public/Semi-Public to Residential 16-24 DU/Acre and the Southwest District Plan future land use map from Public Services/ Institutional to Medium to High Density Multi-Family for approximately 9.9 acres of property. Seconded by Townsend. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. Planning and Zoning Commission August 6, 2025 Page 2 of 7 REZONING ITEMS: CASE NO. REZ25-0011: Location: 804, 810, 824 Maiden Lane; 410,416,418 E. Benton Street, 815 Gilbert Court An application for a rezoning of approximately 1.04 acres of land from Intensive Commercial (CI- 1) zone and Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) zone to Community Commercial (CC-2) zone. Commissioner Miller recused himself because he attended the Good Neighbor Meeting. Ziegler began the staff report with an aerial map of the subject property and then the zoning map. The subject property currently has two zoning designations, Intensive Commercial (CI-1) zone on the west and northern portion, and Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) zone in the southeast. Ziegler noted the RS-8 zone does expand east and south of the property, and then to the north and west of the property the zoning is Community Commercial (CC-2). Regarding background information, Ziegler stated these properties are currently for sale and the Great Plains Action Society is looking to purchase them but the sale is contingent on the approval of the request for the rezoning. The applicants are requesting to rezone the subject area from CI-1 and RS-8 to CC-2 with the goal of repurposing existing buildings to support community focused endeavors which includes things like small commercial spaces for entrepreneurs and startup businesses, a community meeting space, cafe, offices and green space for gardens and outdoor gatherings. The rezoning is needed to allow uses that are not allowed in the current zoning designations. The Great Plains Action Society hosted a good neighbor meeting on July 17, which had six attendees. The questions from the attendees were regarding the plan and vision for the subject property. Ziegler shared photographs of the buildings along Maiden Lane and noted the building that Great Plains Action Society envisions as their community space, formerly a business that sold mopeds. The subject property also includes three existing single family homes and a vacant lot. The current 1.04 acres of the subject area currently consists of the CI-1 and RS-8 zoning, and the current Intensive Commercial zoning is not compatible with the existing neighborhood, which is a mix of single family homes, retail businesses and restaurants. Ziegler stated the request to zone it all to CC-2 would allow both residential and non-residential uses. The CC-2 designation allows uses like assisted group living, multifamily, office, retail and restaurants. Additionally, the rezoning request for CC-2 is more consistent with the current zoning pattern as it's a less intense zoning designation and is therefore more compatible with the existing residential development. The two criteria the City uses to review all rezonings are consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with the existing neighborhood. When looking at the Future Land Use Map from the IC 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the subject area is designated for mixed use which aligns with the requested rezoning. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan has a list of goals and strategies that align with this request including things such as encouraging compact, efficient development, planning for commercial development, discouraging linear strip commercial development, provide for appropriate transitions, encourage a healthy mix of independent, locally owned businesses and national businesses, and lastly, improve the environmental and economic health of the community through efficient use of resources. Ziegler noted some of the subject Planning and Zoning Commission August 6, 2025 Page 3 of 7 property is within the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan specifically located in the Gilbert Subdistrict. She explained the Gilbert Subdistrict is intended for lower intensity mixed use development and to create a transition between higher intensity mixed use areas and lower medium intensity residential areas. Again, the proposed rezoning does align with the directions of the Master Plan objectives which include to maintain informal, eclectic character of the neighborhood and promote artistic and creative class uses. Additionally, the Master Plan discusses the vision of development character which the proposed rezoning aligns with and includes things like maintaining smaller scale and lower intensity uses south of the railroad, promote variety and diversity of form and materials, and creative an adaptive use of existing structures. Ziegler noted while the Gilbert Subdistrict does envision potential redevelopment within the area Great Plains Action Society is not proposing redevelopment, but rather reuse of existing buildings, but their vision will define this neighborhood and create a space where community members can gather and collaborate. In terms of compatibility with the neighborhood, there are single family homes to the east and the south, and restaurants and retail businesses to the north and Kennedy Plaza and Gilbert Court, as well as a mix of retail businesses and residential to the west. As previously stated, the current Intensive Commercial zoning is not compatible with the existing neighborhood and the proposed rezoning of Community Commercial provides for a smoother transition to the abutting residential areas and is therefore more compatible with the existing neighborhood. Staff received one piece of correspondence which was shared with the Commission. Staff recommends approval of REZ25-0011, a request to rezone approximately 1.04 acres of land affecting the properties at: 804, 810, and 824 Maiden Lane; 410, 416, and 418 E. Benton Street; and 815 Gilbert Court from Intensive Commercial zone (CI-1) and Medium Density Single-Family Residential zone (RS-8) to Community Commercial zone (CC-2). Regarding next steps, the City Council will schedule the date for the public hearing at the next City Council meeting on August 19, following that they will consider the rezonings at future meetings. Elliott asked how the houses are currently zoned. Russett replied they are currently RS-8. Davies asked if single family is not allowable in CC-2. Russett confirmed single family is not allowed in CC-2. Wade noted with CC-2 abutting RS-8 along the lot lines, what is the requirement for CC-2 setbacks, do they have to honor the residential setbacks or do they have different setbacks. Russett stated typically when commercial abuts residential there is an increased requirement. Wade also asked about the screening requirements between the two. Russett stated it would be S2 that is normally used for Community Commercial zone and would require S2 screening along the right of way and along abutting property lines. Davies asked if there was any consideration to split this into two different or another classification, like mixed use. Russett explained based on the vision that Great Plains Action Society has and the existing zoning in the area, staff thought CC-2 was most appropriate and Planning and Zoning Commission August 6, 2025 Page 4 of 7 there's no mixed use zoning in this area. Additionally, this is just a request to continue the zoning that exists to the north and to the west and allow their vision to come to fruition. Davies noted concern if the current owner doesn't close on the property, or they decide to move, it leaves two single family homes that are now classified as CC-2 and can't be used as single family homes so they would essentially just have to be demolished. Russett stated the City very flexible non-conforming provisions for non-conforming single family uses. In that instance, it would just be non-conforming, or it could be converted to an office or another commercial use, if that was the interest. Quellhorst opened the public hearing. Mike Welch (Shoemaker and Holland) is representing the applicant, Great Plains Action Society. He noted Great Plains Action Society's intent is to repurpose the existing building to the north, the existing auto service shop will probably get torn down to meet the parking requirements, and the single family house at the corner of East Benton and Gilbert will likely get demolished just because of the condition that the building is in. For the other two single family homes the intent is to convert those to a commercial office, healing space use, for therapy. In the applicant statement they talk about the entrepreneurial space, the small business startup space that would be in the long building at the southwest corner. Welch reiterated the idea is to create some small retail spaces for someone starting a business to have an opportunity to lease or rent a space that's not very large, but just enough to get a foot in the door and a place to test out the business before committing to a larger lease. In the existing large building that was the scooter shop, that will be a community space for gatherings, for larger events or other public facing events as well as some office space. The property that abuts Gilbert Court on the east side will be used as a community garden space. Again, the overall idea is to really engage the public and create a community public space, which was touched on in the Master Plan for this area, a gathering and collaboration space. Davies asked about parking surfaces and noted there's no street parking in front on East Benton. Welch noted on the south side of the old scooter building, there's parking there and they will create the same thing on the north side of the building. He reiterated getting rid of the auto repair shop that was there would allow for more parking. He also acknowledged because the Crandic railroad runs on Maiden Lane there is no opportunity for on street parking there either. There are existing curb cuts already there to allow for the parking access. Davies noted there is no sidewalk there. Welch acknowledged there's sidewalk missing and there will be sidewalk likely required during site plan improvements, but they haven't really studied that yet and they will do that during site plan. Davies asked if they considered buffering with mixed use or any other zoning. Welch confirmed they started with thinking mixed use might be the one that was appropriate, but as they looked at what they wanted to do and what was actually allowed, CC-2 fit better and it also was consistent with the zoning to the north, that's already CC-2. Planning and Zoning Commission August 6, 2025 Page 5 of 7 Beining stated Welch had mentioned a lot about the community involvement and those aspects, which he thinks is wonderful, but is curious if the intention of adding the green spaces is driven more from community involvement or is it more of an environmental thing that would help soften the request of CC-2. Welch replied both, but a big part of their vision and goal for the property is to get rid of some of the Intensive Commercial use that's there and repurpose that. He noted in talking to the current owner, whose family has owned it for a while, there used to be a family garden plot up there so this is a chance to restore the site to what it used to be like and get a little bit more green space and more open space than what's currently there. Tom Wilson (510 East Benton Street and 514 East Benton Street) stated he is interested in the impact of the higher density, he has lived there about 35 years and noted along the railroad tracks there's a lot of cars that are stored there and they get parked there for long periods of time and now they are up zoning it to intensive for higher density. Quellhorst closed the public hearing. Wade moves to recommend approval of REZ25-0011, a request to rezone approximately 1.04 acres of land affecting the properties at: 804, 810, and 824 Maiden Lane; 410, 416, and 418 E. Benton Street; and 815 Gilbert Court from Intensive Commercial zone (CI-1) and Medium Density Single-Family Residential zone (RS-8) to Community Commercial zone (CC-2). Elliott seconded the motion. Wade stated the CC-2 zoning makes sense for this area, the only issue is the one residential RS-8 lot on the corner of Gilbert Court and East Benton and for residential zoning the rear setback is 20 foot but it's only a five foot setback on the side. His concern is if those houses get torn down at a later time there is a potential for a 35 foot building close to that lot line. Elliott feels it fits the criteria with the Comprehensive Plan and fitting into the neighborhood. She admires the intent and the mission. Quellhorst thinks this is a great use of the property and as there are already some fairly substantially intensive uses in this area CC-2 makes for a nice transition so he would support the rezoning petition. Townsend agrees it seems that this would be the right choice for that area since it's all CC-2 to the north. She also noted for them to actually redo the buildings that are already there, as opposed to tearing down and rebuilding, seems like a good thing to do at this time. Beining stated it's always a sensitive topic when going into neighborhoods and beginning to move dirt. He does really appreciate the community engagement driven efforts, as well as the sustainability efforts, and thinks this will add amenities that can increase the quality of life for the residents in the community, and also possibly retrain and attract young talent, so he thinks that that it sounds like an awesome project. Davies stated he generally supports the use but is struggling just reading the definition or the Planning and Zoning Commission August 6, 2025 Page 6 of 7 purpose of a mixed use zone, he just thinks it makes more sense. He is envisioning what happens to this space should this institution pull out of that space. The purpose of mixed use is to provide a transition from commercial and employment centers to less intensive residential zones and mixed use permits all of the uses such as lower scale retail, office uses and a variety of residential uses. He is a little concerned that they are basically dooming those two single family homes and potentially that third one by putting in the CC-2 zoning when it seems to support mixed use very cleanly and plainly. Overall, he is generally supportive of the use and likes repurposing the buildings to have a cafe or an office space next to retail, he is just worried about what could come after. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1 (Davies dissenting, Miller recused). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JULY 16 2025: Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes from July 16, 2025. Miller seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: None. ADJOURNMENT: Miller moved to adjourn, Beining seconded and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2024-2025 2/21 4/3 511 6/26 9/4 9/18 11/20 12/4 2/19 3/5 5/7 6/4 6/18 7/2 7/16 8/6 B E I N I N G, KA L E B -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X O X DAVIES, JAMES -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X CRAIG, SUSAN X X X X X X X X X X X X X ---- ---- -- -- ELLIOTT, MAGGIE X X X O/E X X O/E X X X X X X X O/E X HENSCH, MIKE X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X X -- -- -- -- -- -- MILLER, STEVE -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- X X X X X X X X O/E X X X PADRON, MARIA X O/E O/E -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- ---- QUELLHORST, SCOTT X O/E X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X WADE, CHAD X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member