HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-11-17 ResolutionItem Number: 6.a.
1 CITY OF IOWA CITY
��.:.
-4
in � at
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
November 17, 2020
Resolution authorizing acceptance of Surface Transportation Block Grant
Program Funds from the Iowa Department of Transportation and authorizing
the City Manager to sign the Project Agreement [6-20-STBGU-016] for the
Melrose Avenue / IWV Road — Highway 218 to Hebl Avenue Project.
Prepared By: Melissa Clow, Special Projects Administrator
Reviewed By: Jason Havel, City Engineer
Ron Knoche, Public Works Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Fiscal Impact: None
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments: Resolution
IDOT Funding Agreement
Executive Summary:
This item approves an agreement to receive federal funding through the Surface Transportation
Block Grant (STBG) Program to construct the Melrose Avenue / IWV Road — Highway 218 to
Hebl Avenue Project.
Background /Analysis:
Melrose Avenue / IWV Road from Highway 218 to Hebl Avenue is an important link for the
residents of the County and the City, is a roadway with common interest and responsibility, and is
in need of improvements to serve current and anticipated future transportation needs.
The project is a joint project with Johnson County, and will include grading, excavation, drainage
structures, utility relocations, water main extension, PCC paving, erosion control and other general
elements associated with rural roadway improvements.
Project Timeline:
Design — 2020
Utility Relocations — 2020/2021
Construction — 2021
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Resolution
I DOT Funding Agreement
Prepared by: Melissa Clow, Engineering Division, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319)356-5413
Resolution No. 20-256
Resolution authorizing acceptance of Surface Transportation Block
Grant Program Funds from the Iowa Department of Transportation
and authorizing the City Manager to sign the Project Agreement [6-
20-STBGU-016] for the Melrose Avenue / IWV Road — Highway
218 to Hebl Avenue Project.
Whereas, Melrose Avenue i IWV Road from Highway 218 to Hebl Avenue is an important link
for the residents of the County and the City, is a roadway with common interest and
responsibility, and is in need of improvements to serve current and anticipated future
transportation needs; and
Whereas, the City has negotiated a funding agreement with the Iowa Department of
Transportation for this project; and
Whereas, projects utilizing STBGP funds are eligible for reimbursement of authorized and
approved eligible project activities and are limited to a maximum of either 80 percent of eligible
costs or the amount stipulated in the Johnson County Council of Governments current
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and approved in the Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP), whichever is less.
Whereas, the City Council deems it is in the public interest to enter into said agreement with the
Iowa Department of Transportation for the improvements to Melrose Avenue / IWV Road -
Highway 218 to Hebl Avenue.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
1. It is in the public interest to enter into the above-mentioned agreement, and the agreement
is hereby approved as to form and content, and found to be in the best interests of the
citizens of Iowa City, Iowa.
2. The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute in duplicate the Federal -aid
Agreement for a Surface Transportation Block Grant Program Project between Iowa City
and the Iowa Department of Transportation attached hereto and incorporated by reference
herein.
Passed and approved this 17th
Attest:
day of November
rE E
City Attorney's Office
(Sara Greenwood Hektoen -11/10/2020)
Resolution No. 20-256
Page 2
It was moved by Mims and seconded by Salih
Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
x
Bergus
x
Mims
x
Salih
x
Taylor
x
Teague
x
Thomas
x
Weiner
the
October 2018
IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal -aid Agreement
for a Surface Transportation Block Grant Program Project
Recipient: City of Iowa City
Project No.: STP -U-3715(668)--70-52
Iowa DOT Agreement No.: 6-20-STBGU-016
CFDA No. and Title: 20.205 Highway Planning and Construction
This is an agreement between the City of Iowa City, Iowa (hereinafter referred to as the Recipient) and the Iowa
Department of Transportation (hereinafter referred to as the Department). Iowa Code Sections 306A.7 and
307.44 provide for the Recipient and the Department to enter into agreements with each other for the purpose of
financing transportation improvement projects on streets and highways in Iowa with Federal funds. Federal
regulations require Federal funds to be administered by the Department.
The Recipient has received Federal funding through the Surface Transportation Block Grant (STSG) Program.
STGB funds are available for construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, restoration and operational
or safety improvement projects on Federal -aid highways, bridges on any public road, and several other types of
projects, as specified in 23 U.S.C. 133(b). Federal -aid highways include all Federal Functional Classifications,
except for rural minor collectors or local roads.
Pursuant to the terms of this agreement, applicable statutes, and administrative rules, the Department agrees to
provide STBG funding to the Recipient for the authorized and approved costs for eligible items associated with
the project.
Under this agreement, the parties further agree as follows:
1. The Recipient shall be the lead local governmental agency for carrying out the provisions of this
agreement.
2. All notices required under this agreement shall be made in writing to the appropriate contact person. The
Department's contact person will be the Local Systems Project Development Engineer, Christy
VanBuskirk, and the EastemRegion Local Systems Field Engineer, Kent L. Ellis. The Recipient's contact
person shall be the City Engineer.
3. The Recipient shall be responsible for the development and completion of the following described STBG
project:
PCC Pavement — Grade and Replace In the City of Iowa City and Johnson County on IWV Road, from
Hebl Ave east 1.5 Miles to Hwy 218, and Hebl Ave from IC Landfill to IWV Road.
4. Eligible project activities will be limited to the following: construction, engineering, inspection, and right-of-
way acquisition. Under certain circumstances, eligible activities may also include utility relocation or
railroad work that is required for construction of the project.
5. The Recipient shall receive reimbursement for costs of authorized and approved eligible project activities
from STBGP funds. The portion of the project costs reimbursed by STBG funds shall be limited to a
maximum of either 80 percent of eligible costs or the amount stipulated in the
Johnson County Council of Governments current Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and
approved in the current Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), whichever is less.
6. The Recipient shall pay for all project costs not reimbursed with STBG funds.
7. If the project described in Section 3 drops out of the Johnson County Council of Governments current TIP
or the approved current STIP prior to obligation of Federal funds, and the Recipient fails to reprogram the
project in the appropriate TIP and STIP within 3 years, this agreement shall become null and void.
8. The Recipient shall let the project for bids through the Department.
Page 2
9. If any part of this agreement is found to be void and unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this
agreement shall remain in effect.
10. it is the intent of both parties that no third party beneficiaries be created by this agreement.
11. This agreement and the attached Exhibit 1 constitute the entire agreement between the Department and
the Recipient concerning this project. Representations made before the signing of this agreement are not
binding, and neither party has relied upon conflicting representations in entering into this agreement. Any
change or alteration to the terms of this agreement shall be made in the form of an addendum to this
agreement. The addendum shall become effective only upon written approval of the Department and the
Recipient.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has executed this agreement as of the date shown opposite
its signature below.
City Signature Block
By 4 Date November 17 20 20
Mayor
Title of city official
1, Kellie K. Fruehling certify that I am the City Clerk of Iowa City, and
that Bruce Teague , who signed said Agreement for and on behalf of the city was duly
authorized to execute the same by virtue of a formal resolution duly passed and adopted by the city on the
17th ddayofp November 20 20
Signed �x to P ) Date November 17 .20 20
City Clerk of Iowa City, I
IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Highway Administration
BY 11< M � 01 , Date January 14 20 21
Kent L. Ellis, P.E.
Local Systems Field Engineer
Eastern Region
Page 3
EXHIBIT 1
General Agreement Provisions for use of Federal Highway Funds on Non -primary Projects
Unless otherwise specified in this agreement, the Recipient shall be responsible for the following:
1. General Requirements.
a. The Recipient shall take the necessary actions to comply with applicable State and Federal laws and
regulations. To assist the Recipient, the Department has provided guidance in the Federal -aid Project
Development Guide (Guide) and the Instructional Memorandums to Local Public Agencies (I.M.$) that are
referenced by the Guide. Both are available on-line at: https://www.iowadot.gov/local_systems/
publications/im/lpa_ims.htm. The Recipient shall follow the applicable procedures and guidelines
contained in the Guide and I.M.s in effect at the time project activities are conducted.
b. In accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and associated subsequent nondiscrimination
laws, regulations, and executive orders, the Recipient shall not discriminate against any person on the
basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. In accordance with Iowa Code Chapter 216, the
Recipient shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, creed, age, sex, sexual
orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, pregnancy, or disability. The Recipient agrees to
comply with the requirements outlined in I.M. 1.070, Title VI and Nondiscrimination Requirements.
c. The Recipient shall comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), the associated Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) that implement these laws, and the guidance provided in I.M. 1.080, ADA
Requirements. When pedestrian facilities are constructed, reconstructed, or altered, the Recipient shall
make such facilities compliant with the ADA and Section 504.
d. To the extent allowable by law, the Recipient agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold the Department
harmless from any action or liability arising out of the design, construction, maintenance, placement of
traffic control devices, inspection, or use of this project. This agreement to indemnify, defend, and hold
harmless applies to all aspects of the Department's application review and approval process, plan and
construction reviews, and funding participation.
e. As required by the 2 CFR 200.501 "Audit Requirements," a non -Federal entity expending $750,000 or
more in Federal awards in a year shall have a single or program -specific audit conducted for that year in
accordance with the provision of that part. Auditee responsibilities are addressed in Subpart F of 2 CFR
200. The Federal funds provided by this agreement shall be reported on the appropriate Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) using the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA)
number and title as shown on the first page of this agreement. If the Recipient will pay initial project costs
and request reimbursement from the Department, the Recipient shall report this project on its SEFA. If the
Department will pay initial project costs and then credit those accounts from which initial costs were paid,
the Department will report this project on its SEFA. In this case, the Recipient shall not report this project
on its SEFA.
f. The Recipient shall supply the Department with all information required by the Federal Funding
Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 and 2 CFR Part 170.
g. The Recipient shall comply with the following Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) requirements:
The Recipient shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the award
and performance of any DOT -assisted contract or in the administration of its DBE program or the
requirements of 49 CFR Part 26. The Recipient shall take all necessary and reasonable steps under
49 GFR Part 26 to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT -assisted
contracts.
ii. The Recipient shall comply with the requirements of I.M. 5.010, DBE Guidelines.
iii. The Department's DBE program, as required by 49 CFR Part 26 and as approved by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), is incorporated by reference in this agreement. Implementation of
this program is a legal obligation and failure to carry out its terms shall be treated as a violation of this
Page 4
agreement. Upon notification to the Recipient of its failure to carry out its approved program, the
Department may impose sanctions as provided for under Part 26 and may, in appropriate cases, refer
the matter for enforcement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986
(31 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.).
h. Termination of funds. Notwithstanding anything in this agreement to the contrary, and subject to the
limitations set forth below, the Department shall have the right to terminate this agreement without penalty
and without any advance notice as a result of any of the following: 1) The Federal government, legislature
or governor fail in the sole opinion of the Department to appropriate funds sufficient to allow the
Department to either meet its obligations under this agreement or to operate as required and to fulfill its
obligations under this agreement; or 2) If funds are de -appropriated, reduced, not allocated, or receipt of
funds is delayed, or if any funds or revenues needed by the Department to make any payment hereunder
are insufficient or unavailable for any other reason as determined by the Department in its sole discretion;
or 3) If the Department's authorization to conduct its business or engage in activities or operations
related to the subject matter of this agreement is withdrawn or materially altered or modified. The
Department shall provide the Recipient with written notice of termination pursuant to this section.
2. Programming and Federal Authorization.
a. The Recipient shall be responsible for including the project in the appropriate Regional Planning Affiliation
(RPA) or Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The
Recipient shall also ensure that the appropriate RPA or MPO, through their TIP submittal to the
Department, includes the project in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). If the
project is not included in the appropriate fiscal year of the STIP, Federal funds cannot be authorized.
b. Before beginning any work for which Federal funding reimbursement will be requested, the Recipient
shall contact the Department to obtain the procedures necessary to secure FHWA authorization. The
Recipient shall submit a written request for FHWA authorization to the Department. After reviewing the
Recipient's request, the Department will forward the request to the FHWA for authorization and obligation
of Federal funds. The Department will notify the Recipient when FHWA authorization is obtained. The
cost of work performed prior to FHWA authorization will not be reimbursed with Federal funds.
c. Upon receiving FHWA Authorization, the Recipient must show federal aid funding activity to receive the
programmed amount authorized for the project. If there are no funding activity for nine or more months
after the previous activity, the remaining unused programmed amount will be de -obligated from the
project and there will be no further federal aid reimbursement issued for the project. If the recipient knows
in advance that funding activity will not occur for the nine months, the Contract Administrator needs to be
notified to determine if programming of fund can be adjusted or other options can be explored.
3. Federal Participation in Work Performed by Recipient Employees.
a. If Federal reimbursement will be requested for engineering, construction inspection, right-of-way
acquisition or other services provided by employees of the Recipient, the Recipient shall follow the
procedures in I.M. 3.330, Federal -aid Participation in In -House Services.
b. If Federal reimbursement will be requested for construction performed by employees of the Recipient, the
Recipient shall follow the procedures in I.M. 6.010, Federal -aid Construction by Local Agency Forces.
c. If the Recipient desires to claim indirect costs associated with work performed by its employees, the
Recipient shall prepare and submit to the Department an indirect cost rate proposal and related
documentation in accordance with the requirements of 2 CFR 200. Before incurring any indirect costs,
such indirect cost rate proposal shall be certified by the FHWA or the Federal agency providing the
largest amount of Federal funds to the Recipient. If approved, the approved indirect cost rate shall be
incorporated by means of an amendment to this agreement.
.M
4. Design and Consultant Services
a. The Recipient shall be responsible for the design of the project, including all necessary plans,
specifications, and estimates (PS&E). The project shall be designed in accordance with the design
guidelines provided or referenced by the Department in the Guide and applicable I.M.s.
b. If the Recipient requests Federal funds for consultant services, the Recipient and the Consultant shall
prepare a contract for consultant services in accordance with 23 CFR Part 172. These regulations require
a qualifications -based selection process. The Recipient shall follow the procedures for selecting and
using consultants outlined in I.M. 3.310, Federal -aid Participation in Consultant Costs.
c. If Preliminary Engineering (PE) work is Federally funded, and if right-of-way acquisition or actual
construction of the road is not started by the close of the tenth fiscal year following the fiscal year in which
the Federal funds were authorized, the Recipient shall repay to the Department the amount of Federal
funds reimbursed to the Recipient for such PE work. PE includes work that is part of the development of
the PS&E for a construction project. This includes environmental studies and documents, preliminary
design, and final design up through and including the preparation of bidding documents. PE does not
include planning or other activities that are not intended to lead to a construction project. Examples
include planning, conceptual, or feasibility studies.
5. Environmental Requirements and other Agreements or Permits.
a. The Recipient shall take the appropriate actions and prepare the necessary documents to fulfill the FHWA
requirements for project environmental studies including historical/cultural reviews and location approval.
The Recipient shall complete any mitigation agreed upon in the FHWA approval document. These
procedures are set forth in I.M. 3.020, Concept Statement Instructions, 4.030, Environmental Data Sheet
Instructions, 4.020, NEPA Class of Action, and 4.120, Cultural Resource Regulations.
b. If farmland is to be acquired, whether for use as project right-of-way or permanent easement, the
Recipient shall follow the procedures in I.M. 4.170, Farmland Protection Policy Act.
c. The Recipient shall obtain project permits and approvals, when necessary, from the Iowa Department of
Cultural Affairs (State Historical Society of Iowa; State Historic Preservation Officer), Iowa Department of
Natural Resources, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Department, or other agencies
as required. The Recipient shall follow the procedures in I.M. 4.130, 404 Permit Process, 4.140, Storm
Water Permits, 4.190, Highway Improvements in the Vicinity of Airports or Heliports, and 4.160, Asbestos
Inspection, Removal, and Notification Requirements.
d. In all contracts entered into by the Recipient, and all subcontracts, in connection with this project that
exceed $100,000, the Recipient shall comply with the requirements of Section 114 of the Clean Air Act
and Section 308 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and all their regulations and guidelines. In
such contracts, the Recipient shall stipulate that any facility to be utilized in performance of or to benefit
from this agreement is not listed on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) List of Violating Facilities
or is under consideration to be listed.
6. Right -of -Way, Railroads and Utilities.
a. The Recipient shall acquire the project right-of-way, whether by lease, easement, or fee title, and shall
provide relocation assistance benefits and payments in accordance with the procedures set forth in I.M.
3.600, Right -of -Way Acquisition, and the Department's Right of Way Bureau Local Public Agency Manual.
The Recipient shall contact the Department for assistance, as necessary, to ensure compliance with the
required procedures, even if no Federal funds are used for right-of-way activities. The Recipient shall
obtain environmental concurrence before acquiring any needed right-of-way. With prior approval,
hardship and protective buying is possible. If the Recipient requests Federal funding for right-of-way
acquisition, the Recipient shall also obtain FHWA authorization before purchasing any needed right-of-
way.
b. If the project right-of-way is Federally funded and if the actual construction is not undertaken by the close
of the twentieth fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the Federal funds were authorized, the
Recipient shall repay the amount of Federal funds reimbursed for right-of-way costs to the Department.
Page 6
C. If a railroad crossing or railroad tracks are within or adjacent to the project limits, the Recipient shall
obtain agreements, easements, or permits as needed from the railroad. The Recipient shall follow the
procedures in I.M. 3.670, Work on Railroad Right -of -Way, and I.M. 3.680, Federal -aid Projects Involving
Railroads.
d. The Recipient shall comply with the Policy for Accommodating Utilities on City and County Federal -aid
Highway Right of Way for projects on non -primary Federal -aid highways. For projects connecting to or
involving some work inside the right-of-way for a primary highway, the Recipient shall follow the
Department's Policy for Accommodating Utilities on Primary Road System. Certain utility relocation,
alteration, adjustment, or removal costs to the Recipient for the project may be eligible for Federal funding
reimbursement. The Recipient should also use the procedures outlined in I.M. 3.640, Utility
Accommodation and Coordination, as a guide to coordinating with utilities.
e. If the Recipient desires Federal reimbursement for utility costs, it shall submit a request for FHWA
Authorization prior to beginning any utility relocation work, in accordance with the procedures outlined in
I.M. 3.650, Federal -aid Participation in Utility Relocations.
7. Contract Procurement.
The following provisions apply only to projects involving physical construction or improvements to
transportation facilities:
a. The project plans, specifications, and cost estimate (PS&E) shall be prepared and certified by a
professional engineer or architect, as applicable, licensed in the State of Iowa.
b. For projects let through the Department, the Recipient shall be responsible for the following:
i. Prepare and submit the PS&E and other contract documents to the Department for review and
approval in accordance with I.M. 3.700, Check and Final Plans and I.M. 3.500, Bridge or Culvert
Plans, as applicable.
ii. The contract documents shall use the Department's Standard Specifications for Highway and Bridge
Construction. Prior to their use in the PS&E, specifications developed by the Recipient for individual
construction items shall be approved by the Department.
iii. Follow the procedures in I.M. 5.030, Iowa DOT Letting Process, to analyze the bids received, make a
decision to either award a contract to the lowest responsive bidder or reject all bids, and if a contract
is awarded, execute the contract documents and return to Department.
c. For projects that are let locally by the Recipient, the Recipient shall follow the procedures in I.M. 5.120,
Local Letting Process- Federal -aid.
d. The Recipient shall forward a completed Project Development Certification (Form 730002) to the
Department in accordance with I.M. 5.050, Project Development Certification Instructions. The project
shall not receive FHWA Authorization for construction or be advertised for bids until after the Department
has reviewed and approved the Project Development Certification.
e. If the Recipient is a city, the Recipient shall comply with the public hearing requirements of the Iowa Code
section 26.12.
f. The Recipient shall not provide the contractor with notice to proceed until after receiving written notice the
Iowa DOT has concurred in the contract award.
8. Construction.
a. A full-time employee of the Recipient shall serve as the person in responsible charge of the project. For
cities that do not have any full time employees, the mayor or city clerk will serve as the person in
responsible charge, with assistance from the Department.
b. Traffic control devices, signing, or pavement markings installed within the limits of this project shall
conform to the "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways" per 761 IAC
Page 7
Chapter 130. The safety of the general public shall be assured through the use of proper protective
measures and devices such as fences, barricades, signs, flood lighting, and warning lights as necessary.
c. For projects let through the Department, the project shall be constructed under the Department's
Standard Specifications for Highway and Bridge Construction and the Recipient shall comply with the
procedures and responsibilities for materials testing according to the Department's Materials I.M.s.
Available on-line at: http://www.iowadot.gov/erl/current/IM/navigation/nay.htm.
d. For projects let locally, the Recipient shall provide materials testing and certifications as required by the
approved specifications.
e. If the Department provides any materials testing services to the Recipient, the Department will bill the
Recipient for such testing services according to its normal policy as per Materials I.M. 103.
f. The Recipient shall follow the procedures in I.M. 6.000, Construction Inspection, and the Department's
Construction Manual, as applicable, for conducting construction inspection activities.
9. Reimbursements.
a. After costs have been incurred, the Recipient shall submit to the Department periodic itemized claims for
reimbursement for eligible project costs. Requests for reimbursement shall be made at least annually but
not more than bi-weekly.
b. To ensure proper accounting of costs, reimbursement requests for costs incurred prior to June 30 shall be
submitted to the Department by August 1 if possible, but no later than August 15.
c. Reimbursement claims shall include a certification that all eligible project costs, for which reimbursement
is requested, have been reviewed by an official or governing board of the Recipient, are reasonable and
proper, have been paid in full, and were completed in substantial compliance with the terms of this
agreement.
d. The Department will reimburse the Recipient for properly documented and certified claims for eligible
project costs. The Department may withhold up to 5% of the Federal share of construction costs or 5% of
the total Federal funds available for the project, whichever is less. Reimbursement will be made either by
State warrant or by crediting other accounts from which payment was initially made. If, upon final audit or
review, the Department determines the Recipient has been overpaid, the Recipient shall reimburse the
overpaid amount to the Department. After the final audit or review is complete and after the Recipient has
provided all required paperwork, the Department will release the Federal funds withheld.
e. The total funds collected by the Recipient for this project shall not exceed the total project costs. The total
funds collected shall include any Federal or State funds received, any special assessments made by the
Recipient (exclusive of any associated interest or penalties) pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 384 (cities)
or Chapter 311 (counties), proceeds from the sale of excess right-of-way, and any other revenues
generated by the project. The total project costs shall include all costs that can be directly attributed to the
project. In the event that the total funds collected by the Recipient do exceed the total project costs, the
Recipient shall either:
1) in the case of special assessments, refund to the assessed property owners the excess special
assessments collected (including interest and penalties associated with the amount of the excess), or
2) refund to the Department all funds collected in excess of the total project costs (including interest and
penalties associated with the amount of the excess) within 60 days of the receipt of any excess funds.
In return, the Department will either credit reimbursement billings to the FHWA or credit the
appropriate State fund account in the amount of refunds received from the Recipient.
Page 8
10. Project Close-out.
a. Within 30 days of completion of construction or other activities authorized by this agreement, the
Recipient shall provide written notification to the Department. The Recipient shall follow and request a
final audit, in accordance with the procedures in I.M. 6.110, Final Review, Audit, and Close-out
Procedures for Federal -aid, Federal -aid Swap, and Farm -to -Market Projects. Failure to comply with the
procedures will result in loss of federal fund, reimbursed funds shall be returned and a possible
suspension may be placed on the Recipient from receiving federal fund on future projects until the
Recipient has demonstrated responsible management of federal funds on roadway projects.
b. For construction projects, the Recipient shall provide a certification by a professional engineer, architect,
or landscape architect as applicable, licensed in the State of Iowa, indicating the construction was
completed in substantial compliance with the project plans and specifications.
c. Final reimbursement of Federal funds shall be made only after the Department accepts the project as
complete.
d. The Recipient shall maintain all books, documents, papers, accounting records, reports, and other
evidence pertaining to costs incurred for the project. The Recipient shall also make these materials
available at all reasonable times for inspection by the Department, FHWA, or any authorized
representatives of the Federal Government. Copies of these materials shall be furnished by the Recipient
if requested. Such documents shall be retained for at least 3 years from the date of FHWA approval of the
final closure document. Upon receipt of FHWA approval of the final closure document, the Department
will notify the Recipient of the record retention date.
e. The Recipient shall maintain, or cause to be maintained, the completed improvement in a manner
acceptable to the Department and the FHWA.
Item Number: 6.b.
�, CITY OF IOWA CITY
-�"�'�� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
November 17, 2020
Resolution authorizing the acquisition of property interests necessary for
construction of the Gilbert Court Sidewalk Infill Project.
Prepared By: Josh Slattery, Sr. Civil Engineer
Reviewed By: Jason Havel, City Engineer
Ron Knoche, Public Works Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Fiscal Impact: Funding will be via the Gilbert Court Sidewalk Infill Project Account #S3957
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments: Location Map
Resolution
Executive Summary:
The Gilbert Court Sidewalk Infill Project involves the construction of 4 -foot wide sidewalks along
both sides of Gilbert Court adjacent to the properties immediately north of Highland Avenue.
Design for the project is nearing completion and it has been determined that temporary
construction easements are needed to construct the project.
Background /Analysis:
The City has received several requests for sidewalk along Gilbert Court. This is a heavily used
pedestrian area that also has a bus stop located near the intersection of Highland Avenue and
Gilbert Court. The only properties along Gilbert Court in this area that are missing sidewalk are the
properties on both sides of the street immediately north of Highland Avenue.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Location Map
Resolution
Prepared by. Josh Slattery, Engineering DiNsion, 410 E. Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240, 319356-5149 LP b
Resolution No. 20-257
Resolution authorizing the acquisition of property interests necessary
for construction of the Gilbert Court Sidewalk Infill Project.
Whereas, the City of Iowa City desires to construct the Gilbert Court Sidewalk Infill Project
("Project") which includes the construction of 4 -foot wide sidewalks along both sides of Gilbert
Court adjacent to the properties immediately north of Highland Avenue; and
Whereas, the City Council has determined that construction of the Project is a valid public
purpose under State and Federal law, and has further determined that acquisition of certain
property rights is necessary to construct, operate and maintain the proposed project; and
Whereas, the City staff has determined the location of the proposed Project; and
Whereas, City staff should be authorized to acquire necessary property rights at the best overall
price to the City; and
Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Gilbert Court Sidewalk Infill Project account #
S3957.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that
The City Council finds that it is in the public interest to acquire property rights by warranty
deed, quit -claim deed, and/or easement for the construction of the Gilbert Court Sidewalk
Infill Project ("Project") which Project constitutes a public improvement under Iowa law.
The City Council further finds that acquisition of said property rights is necessary to carry
out the functions of the Project, and that such Project constitutes a valid public purpose
under state and federal law.
2. The City Council hereby approves the preliminary or final route or site location of this
public improvement project, as shown in the attached Exhibit "A", attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference.
3. The City Manager or designee is hereby authorized and directed to negotiate the
purchase of property rights by warranty deed, quit -claim deed and/or easement for the
construction, operation and maintenance of the Project. The City Manager or designee is
authorized to sign purchase agreements for the purchase of property and/or easements,
and offers to purchase property and/or easements.
4. The City Manager or designee, in consultation with the City Attorney's Office, is authorized
and directed to establish, on behalf of City, an amount the City believes to be just
compensation for the property to be acquired, and to make an offer to purchase the
property for the established fair market value.
5. In the event negotiation is successful, the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to
execute and attest easement agreements and agreements in lieu of condemnation. The City
Attorney is hereby directed to take all necessary action to complete said transactions, as
required by law.
6. In the event the necessary property rights for the Project cannot be acquired by negotiation,
the City Attorney is hereby authorized and directed to initiate condemnation proceedings for
acquisition of any and all property rights necessary to fulfill the functions of the Project, as
provided by law.
Resolution No. 20-257
Page 2
Passed and approved this 17th day of November '2020
Ma
p ved by
Attest: �W
City Clerk City Attorney's Office
(Sara Greenwood Hektoen -11/10/2020)
It was moved by trims and seconded by
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes:
Nays:
Salih the Resolution be
Absent:
Bergus
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Weiner
'
o
z
Q
CZ
J_
COW
wC7�
ADDRESS:
I i
I I QLu
0 20'
408 HIGHLAND AVENUE
I
I Q Q
ADDRESS:
1306 GILBERT
I
COURT '
�
I
I -
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
�,
�:
0-131❑;
---------�
-------------------------------
GILBERT CT
w
I
Q
I I
-----
-
��;, z
I I
w
--
I
�¢
I
I
W
I
I
I
I
I
o=
I
I Q�
I
I
I
I
I
I
0)
I
ADDRESS:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1233 AND 1233 1/2
'
ADDRESS:
GILBERT COURT
I
I
390 HIGHLAND AVENUE
CITYF �
ENGINEERII"IG
� � �
CITY
H SCALE: 1" =20'
VSCALE: 1"—N/A
-
DESIGN: MLV
DRAWN: MLV
Project:
GILBERT CT SIDEWALK
Sheet Title:
EXHIBIT "A"
File #
Sheet
1
DIVISION
INFILL PROJECT
DATE: 2020
O
Z
iN=W
W ID
ADDRESS:
I
w N w
0 20•
408 HIGHLAND AVENUE
I I
'
l a
ADDRESS:
I
1306 I
i
I
COURT
I
I
I
• 3io.
GILBERT CT
I
w
I
i
z
I
I
°
=
Z
w
Na
I
<�
I
I
=
I
ADDRESS:
1233 AND 1233 1/2
ADDRESS:
I
GILBERT COURT
I
390 HIGHLAND AVENUE
I
I
RING
CITY OF IOWA CITY
-�
r_wA
�� MLV
M=: MLV
Pqx
GILBERT CT SIDEWALK
B+IT�
EXHIBIT •A'
F1
8AM
DIVISION
DAIS: =
INFILL PROJECT
1
Item Number: 6.c.
1 CITY OF IOWA CITY
��.:. -dry
in � at
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
November 17, 2020
Resolution accepting the work for the Spruce Street Water Main
Replacement Project.
Prepared By: Joe Welter, Sr. Civil Engineer
Reviewed By: Jason Havel, City Engineer
Ron Knoche, Public Works Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Fiscal Impact: None
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments: Engineer's Report
Resolution
Executive Summary:
Construction of the Spruce Street Water Main Replacement Project has been completed by B.G.
Brecke, Inc. of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in substantial accordance with the Project Manual developed
by Watersmith Engineering, LLC of Muscatine, Iowa. The Engineer's Report and Performance,
Payment, and Maintenance Bonds are on file with the City Clerk.
• Project Estimated Cost: $276,702.00
• Project Bid Received: $221,610.93
• Project Actual Cost: $242,948.21
Two change orders occurred on this project to adjust the water main profile and remove and
replace additional damaged pavement due to conditions discovered during construction.
Background /Analysis:
This project included water main replacement along the west side of Spruce Street between
Deforest Avenue and Friendly Avenue/Lower Muscatine Road. Approximately 900 feet of six-inch
cast iron pipe was replaced with eight -inch PVC pipe.
Throughout the project, trenchless installation methods were used to minimize disturbances to
roads, sidewalks, trees, and other surface features. Restoration of water services; some street
pavement; some sidewalks; several curb ramps; and seeding was included on this project.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Engineer's Report
Resolution
� r
m Ywl�
cccccrtz
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240 - 1826
(319) 356 - 5000
(319) 356 - 5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
ENGINEER'S REPORT
November 6, 2020
City Clerk
Iowa City, Iowa
Re: Spruce Street Water Main Replacement Project
Dear City Clerk:
I hereby certify that the Spruce Street Water Main Replacement Project has been completed by
B.G. Brecke, Inc, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in substantial accordance with the Project Manual
developed by Watersmith Engineering, LLC of Muscatine, Iowa.
The project was bid as a unit price contract and the final contract price is $242,948.21.
There were two (2) change orders on this project as follows:
1. Adjustment of water main profile (No change to contract cost)
2. Extra pavement removal and replacement ($34,138.75)
Total Cost Difference for Change Orders: $34,138.75
1 recommend that the above -referenced improvements be accepted by the City of Iowa City.
Sincerely,
Jason Havel
City Engineer
Prepared by: Joe Welter, Engineering Division, 410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5144
Resolution No. 20-258
Resolution accepting the work for the Spruce Street Water Main
Replacement Project
Whereas, the Engineering Division has recommended that the work for construction of the Spruce
Street Water Main Improvements Construction Project, as included in a contract between the City
of Iowa City and B.G. Brecke, Inc. of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, dated February 21, 2020, be accepted;
and
Whereas, the Engineer's Report and the performance, payment, and maintenance bond have
been filed in the City Clerk's office; and
Whereas, funds for this project are available in Spruce St. (1300 — 1400 Block) Water Main
Replacement, Account Number W3216; and
Whereas, the final contract price is $242,948.21.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that said
improvements are hereby accepted by the City of Iowa City, Iowa.
Passed and approved this 17th day of November , 2020
Attest:
Appr d b1,4(
City Attorney's Office
(Sara Greenwood Hektoen — 11/10/2020)
It was moved by Mims and seconded by
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes:
Nays:
Salih the Resolution be
Absent:
Bergus
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Weiner
Item Number: 6.d.
AL CITY OF IOWA CITY
=�c�-
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
November 17, 2020
Resolution accepting the work for the Pedestrian Mall Improvements Project.
Prepared By: Scott Sovers, Asst. City Engineer
Reviewed By: Jason Havel, City Engineer
Ron Knoche, Public Works Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Fiscal Impact: None
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments: Engineer's Report
Resolution
Executive Summary:
Work on the project was recently completed by Portzen Construction, Inc. of Dubuque, IA, in
substantial accordance with the plans and specifications. The Engineer's Report and Performance
and Payment bonds are on file with the City Clerk.
• Project Estimated Cost: $ 7,684,771.00
• Project Bid Received: $ 7,421,805.00
• Project Actual Cost: $ 7,881,090.99
There were 11 change orders on this project. They generally included improvements to the
Weather Dance Fountain and the Iowa City Public Library west entrance, modifications to the
limestone planter wall footings, vault repairs, addition of benches without intermediate arm rests,
changes to the concrete paver types and other associated work.
Background /Analysis:
This project generally involved the replacement of deteriorated pavements, upgrading of existing
utilities, enhancement of existing landscaping features, replacement of site furnishings and
installation of a permanent stage near the weather dance fountain within the Pedestrian Mall. The
Pedestrian Mall is more specifically defined as College Street (Clinton Street to Linn Street) and
Dubuque Street (Washington Street to College Street).
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Engineer's Report
Resolution
ENGINEER'S REPORT
November 6, 2020
City Clerk
Iowa City, Iowa
Re: Pedestrian Mall Improvements Project
Dear City Clerk:
l i
^ems.®
, t CMCCFh
VIII p
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240 - 1826
(319) 356 - 5000
(319) 356 - 5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
I hereby certify that the construction of the Pedestrian Mall Improvements Project has been
completed by Portzen Construction, Inc. of Dubuque, IA in substantial accordance with the
plans and specifications prepared by Genus Landscape Architects.
The project was bid as a unit price contract and the final contract price is $ 7,881,090.99.
There were eleven (11) change or extra work orders for the project as described below:
Change Order Description
1. Tree protection and the replacement of sanitary sewer
service line for 210 S. Dubuque Street.
2. Weather Dance Fountain Improvements.
3. Iowa City Public Library West Entrance Improvements.
4. Weather Dance Fountain granite color change, stage
canopy foundation revisions, and planter topsoil.
5. Repair of existing limestone art wall, limestone art wall size
adjustments and limestone planter wall foundation
revisions.
6. Reuse of existing painted benches and the addition of
benches without intermediate arm rests.
7. 132 S. Clinton Street vault structural repairs, new hatch and
waterproofing
8. Changed concrete paver finish from the standard finish to
the premier finish.
9. Electrical panel and circuiting changes, salvaged and
reinstalled children's garden soil and planter wall patching.
10. Black Hawk Mini Park story wall modifications and Weather
Dance Fountain chemical controller upgrade.
11. Removal and Disposal of cafe materials
TOTAL
Net Contract Change
$14,655.00
$88,238.00
$99,944.00
$15,676.80
$34,943.69
($3,271.92)
$21,990.00
$21,582.05
$11,810.00
$13,555.00
$1,465.00
$ 320,587.62
I recommend that the above -referenced improvements be accepted by the City of Iowa City.
Sincerely,
Jason Havel, P.E.
City Engineer
Prepared by: Scott Sovers, Assistant City Engineer, Public Works, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5142
Resolution No. 20-259
Resolution accepting the work for the Pedestrian Mall
Improvements Project
Whereas, the Engineering Division has recommended that the work for construction of the
Pedestrian Mall Improvements Project, as included in a contract between the City of Iowa City and
Portzen Construction Inc. of Dubuque, Iowa, dated April 9, 2020, be accepted; and
Whereas, the Engineer's Report and the performance, payment and maintenance bond have
been filed in the City Clerk's office; and
Whereas, funds for this project are available in the Pedestrian Mall Reconstruction account
#R4340; and
Whereas, the final contract price is $7,881,090.99.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that said
improvements are hereby accepted by the City of Iowa City, Iowa.
Passed and approved this 17th day of November , 2020
Ya or
App�d by �( J
Attest: ` l/:'� "
V
City Clerk City Attorney's Office
(Sara Greenwood Hektoen — 11/1012020)
It was moved by Mims and seconded by salih the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes:
x
Nays:
Absent:
Bergus
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Weiner
Item Number: 6.e.
1 CITY OF IOWA CITY
��.:. -dry
in � at
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
November 17, 2020
Resolution accepting the work for the storm sewer, drainageways, sanitary
sewer, water main, and paving public improvements for Cherry Creek
Subdivision, and declaring public improvements open for public access and
u se.
Prepared By:
Joe Welter, Sr. Civil Engineer
Reviewed By:
Jason Havel, City Engineer
Ron Knoche, Public Works Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Fiscal Impact:
None
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:
Engineer's Report
Resolution
Executive Summary:
Cherry Creek Subdivision is a twenty -lot, 18.03 -acre subdivision located between Pepperwood
Addition — Part Nine and Napoleon Park. Cherry Creek Subdivision extends Cherry Avenue
between Sandusky Drive and South Gilbert Street. The subdivision also includes Toby Circle.
Background /Analysis:
The construction of the storm sewer, drainageways, sanitary sewer, water main, and street paving
improvements for Cherry Creek Subdivision have been completed in substantial accordance with
the plans and specifications on file with the Engineering Division of the City of Iowa City.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Engineer's Report
Resolution
ENGINEER'S REPORT
November 6, 2020
e r
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240 - 1826
(319) 356 - 5000
(319) 356 - 5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Iowa City, Iowa
Re: Cherry Creek Subdivision
Dear City Clerk:
I hereby certify that construction of the sanitary sewer, storm sewer, drainageways, water main,
and street paving improvements for the Cherry Creek Subdivision have been completed by
Bedrock, LLC and their subcontractors, in substantial accordance with the plans and
specifications developed by MMS Consultants of Iowa City, Iowa. The plans and specifications
are on file with the Engineering Division of the City of Iowa City. The required maintenance bonds
are on file in the City Clerk's Office for the sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and water main
improvements constructed by Bockenstedt Excavating, Inc. of Iowa City, Iowa and for the paving
improvements constructed by Metro Pavers, Inc. of Iowa City, Iowa.
I recommend that the above -referenced improvements be accepted by the City of Iowa City.
Sincerely,
Jason Havel
City Engineer
Prepared by: Joe Welter, Engineering Division, 410 East Washington Street, Iowa City, Iowa 52240 (319) 356-5144
Resolution No. 20-260
Resolution accepting the work for the storm sewer,
drainageways, sanitary sewer, water main, and paving public
improvements for Cherry Creek Subdivision, and declaring
public improvements open for public access and use
Whereas, the Engineering Division has certified that the following improvements have been
completed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the Engineering Division.
Sanitary sewer, storm sewer, drainageways and water main improvements for Cherry
Creek Subdivision, as constructed by Bockenstedt Excavating, Inc. of Iowa City, Iowa.
Paving improvements for Cherry Creek Subdivision, as constructed by Metro Pavers, Inc.
of Iowa City, Iowa.
Whereas, the maintenance bonds have been filed in the City Clerk's Office; and
Whereas, the City of Iowa City has notified those contractors listed previously of the date on which
it will consider acceptance of the aforementioned public improvements; and
Whereas, the traffic control signs have been installed.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that said
improvements are hereby accepted by the City of Iowa City, Iowa and that all dedications and
public improvements previously set aside as not being open for public access are hereby formally
accepted and declared open for public access and use.
Passed and approved this 17th day of November , 2020
Attest:j4LL,L
City Clerk
City Attorney's Office
(Sara Greenwood Hektoen - 11/10/2020)
It was moved by Mims and seconded by salih the Resolution be
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes:
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Nays:
Absent:
Bergus
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Weiner
Item Number: 6.f.
1 CITY OF IOWA CITY
in � at
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
November 17, 2020
Resolution accepting the work for the storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water
main, certain concrete sidewalks, trails, and paving public improvements for
Community View — Part One Subdivision, and declaring public improvements
open for public access and use.
Prepared By: Josh Slattery, Sr. Civil Engineer
Reviewed By: Jason Havel, City Engineer
Ron Knoche, Public Works Director
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Fiscal Impact: None
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments: Engineer's Report
Resolution
Executive Summary:
Community View — Part One Subdivision is a 21 -lot, 33.39 -acre residential subdivision located
north of American Legion Road, between Eastbrook Street and Buckingham Lane. Lot 1 is
reserved for a future fire station, lots 2-4 are zoned RM -12, and lots 5-21 are zoned RS -5. The
subdivision also includes a 5.59 -acre outlot for private open space and stormwater management,
and an 11.57 -acre outlot that is reserved for future development.
Background /Analysis:
The construction of the storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water main, certain concrete sidewalk, trails,
and street paving improvements for Community View — Part One Subdivision have been
completed in substantial accordance with the plans and specifications on file with the Engineering
Division of the City of Iowa City.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Engineer's Report
Resolution
e r
qui A' �
A rsa®1
CITY OF IOWA CITY
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240 - 1826
(319) 356 - 5000
ENGINEER'S REPORT (319) 356 - 5009 FAX
www.icgov.org
November 12, 2020
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Iowa City, Iowa
Re: Community View — Part One Subdivision
Dear Honorable Mayor and Councilpersons:
I hereby certify that the construction of the sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water
main, certain concrete sidewalks, trails, and street paving improvements for
Community View — Part One Subdivision have been completed in substantial
accordance with the plans and specifications on file with the Engineering Division
of the City of Iowa City. The required maintenance bonds are on file in the City
Clerk's Office for the sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and water main improvements
constructed by Maxwell Construction, Inc. of Iowa City, Iowa and for the paving
improvements constructed by Streb Construction Co., Inc. of Coralville, Iowa.
I recommend that the above -referenced improvements be accepted by the City
of Iowa City.
Sincerely,
Jason Havel, P.E.
City Engineer
Prepared by: Josh Slattery, Engineering Division, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5149
Resolution No. 20-261
Resolution accepting the work for the storm sewer, sanitary
sewer, water main, certain concrete sidewalks, trails, and paving
public improvements for Community View — Part One
Subdivision, and declaring public improvements open for public
access and use
Whereas, the Engineering Division has certified that the following improvements have been
completed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the Engineering Division.
Sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and water main improvements for Community View — Part
One Subdivision, as constructed by Maxwell Construction, Inc. of Iowa City, Iowa.
Paving improvements for Community View — Part One Subdivision, as constructed by
Streb Construction Co., Inc. of Coralville, Iowa.
Whereas, the maintenance bonds have been filed in the City Clerk's office; and
Whereas, the City of Iowa City has notified those contractors listed previously of the date on which
it will consider acceptance of the aforementioned public improvements; and
Whereas, the traffic control signs have been installed.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that said
improvements are hereby accepted by the City of Iowa City, Iowa and that all dedications and
public improvements previously set aside as not being open for public access are hereby formally
accepted and declared open for public access and use.
Passed and approved this 17th day of November 12020
It was moved by Mims and seconded by Salih
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
Bergus
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Weiner
the Resolution be
Item Number: 6.g.
1 CITY OF IOWA CITY
in � at
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
November 17, 2020
Resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign and manage separate
Automatic Aid Agreements with the cities of Coralville and Tiffin to render
mutual aid for emergency incidents on portions of Interstate 80 and Highway
218.
Prepared By: John Grier, Fire Chief
Eric Goers, Assistant City Attorney
Reviewed By: Ashley Monroe, Assistant City Manager
John Grier, Fire Chief
Eric Goers, Assistant City Attorney
Fiscal Impact: No Impact
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments: Resolution and separate agreements with both the Tiffin Fire Association and
the city of Coralville.
Executive Summary:
This agreement will allow for automatic and simultaneous dispatch by the Joint Emergency
Communications Center (J ECC) for motor vehicle accidents and motor vehicle fires occurring in
on Iowa Highway 218. ICFD will respond to incidents in the northbound lanes between exit 91
(Melrose Avenue) to the Interstate 80/380 interchange, including the eastbound and westbound 80
on -ramps. TFA will respond to incidents in the southbound lanes from mile marker 92 to exit 91
(Melrose Avenue). In the event of an automatic aid request, each department will send resources
as determined by their respective standard operating guidelines.
Background /Analysis:
ICFD, CFD, and TFA are parties to the existing 28E Agreement for Fire Protection, which
provides for sharing resources, including personnel and equipment, when the requesting
jurisdiction is on a call for service and requires additional assistance. This agreement does not
replace the 28E agreement - it simply allows for additional resources to be automatically and
simultaneously dispatched to qualifying incidents. Potential areas of response delays were
identified during planning meetings with the Iowa DOT, prompting mutual aid fire departments to
develop contingency response plans to emergencies.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Resolution
Automatic Aid Agreement -Highway 218 Tiffin Fire Association and Iowa City Fire Department
Automatic Aid Agreement -Interstate 80/Highway 218 Coralville Fire Department and Iowa City
Fire Department
Prepared by: Eric Goers, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5030
Resolution number 20-262
Resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign and manage
separate Automatic Aid Agreements with the cities of Coralville
and Tiffin to render mutual aid for emergency incidents on
portions of Interstate 80 and Highway 218.
Whereas, a formal Chapter 28E Mutual Aid Agreement signed by Iowa City, Coralville, and Tiffin,
among others, already exists; and
Whereas, Iowa City, Coralville, and Tiffin wish to increase the speed of response to calls for
service on Interstate 80 and Iowa Highway 218 in locations that extend travel times for the
respective fire departments of Iowa City, Coralville, and Tiffin; and
Whereas, the Automatic Aid Agreements will provide for an automatic and simultaneous page
within the computer aided dispatch system to all relevant departments in the event of an
emergency call for specified locations on Interstate 80 and Highway 218; and
Whereas, it is in the City's best interest to approve the attached Automatic Aid Agreements with
Coralville and Tiffin.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that:
1. The attached Automatic Aid Agreements with Coralville and Tiffin are hereby approved
and ratified.
2. The City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized to manage said Agreements.
Passed and approved this 17th day of November —,20 20
kA S16
r
ved by
J
City Attorney's Office
(Eric Goers -11/10/2020)
L121
Resolution No. 20-262
Page 2
It was moved by Mims and seconded by
adopted, and upon roll call there were:
Salih
Ayes:
Nays: Absent
x
Bergus
x
Mims
x
Salih
x
Taylor
x
Teague
x
Thomas
x
Weiner
the Resolution be
AUTOMATIC AID AGEEMENT - HIGHWAY 218
TIFFIN FIRE ASSOCIATION AND IOWA CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT
This Automatic Aid Agreement is entered into by and between the Tiffin Fire
Association (hereinafter "TFA"), a nonprofit corporation organized under Iowa Code
Chapter 504, and the City of Iowa City (hereinafter "Iowa City"), an Iowa municipal
corporation. TFA and Iowa City are individually each a "Party" to this Agreement, and
may be collectively described as "the Parties."
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the TFA and Iowa City Fire Department ("ICFD") (together, the
"departments") both provide fire, first responder and rescue emergency response
services to areas which include portions of Iowa Highway 218; and
WHEREAS, motor vehicle collisions and motor vehicle fires on Highway 218
sometimes occur in locations that extend travel times or overtax the resources available
to the ICFD and the TFA; and
WHEREAS, the timely response of sufficient emergency and rescue personnel and
equipment to motor vehicle collisions and motor vehicle fires can improve the likelihood
of successful outcomes for such incidents; and
WHEREAS, both departments receive and respond to calls for service as
dispatched by the Johnson County Joint Emergency Communications Center ("JECC");
and
WHEREAS, both departments wish to enter into an automatic aid agreement to
help maximize the effectiveness for rescue and fire response,
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL
OBLIGATIONS AND PROMISES CONTAINED HEREIN, AND FOR OTHER
GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, THE RECEIPT AND SUFFICIENCY
OF WHICH IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. JECC Page for Service. The Parties shall work together and with JECC to
ensure the delivery of an automatic and simultaneous page from within
JECC's computer-aided dispatch system to both departments in the event
of an incident that qualifies as a "motor vehicle accident" or "vehicle fire"
(together, "qualifying emergency incidents") within the designated area of
their respective fire districts, as set forth in Paragraphs 3 and 4, below.
1
2. Automatic Response and Logistics. The Parties agree to automatically
respond upon receiving a page from JECC for an incident qualifying as
either a "motor vehicle accident" or "vehicle fire' within their designated
response areas as set forth below. The logistics of each party's response
shall be governed by the Chapter 28E Mutual Aid Agreement already fn
effect among and between the Parties, and by the standard principles of the
National Incident Management System.
3. Iowa City Response in Tiffin Fire District ICFD will respond
automatically to JECC pages for service arising from qualifying emergency
incidents in the northbound lanes of Highway 218 between exit 91
(Melrose) to the Interstate 80/380 interchange, including the WB 80 on-
ramp.
4. Tiffin Response in _Iowa City Fire District. The TFA will respond
automatically to JECC pages for service arising from qualifying emergency
incidents in the southbound lanes of Highway 218 from Mile Marker 92 to
Exit 91 (Melrose).
5. Resources Provided. In the event of an automatic aid request, each
department will directly send resources as determined by their respective
standard operating guidelines, which are driven by the type of call for
service.
6. Effective upon Execution. Amendment. Thus Agreement becomes
effective upon execution by both of the Parties. The Parties may amend this
Agreement in writing from time to time as they may determine.
7. Withdrawal. Either party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving
thirty (30) days' written notice to the other party.
8. Execution of Instruments. The Parties agree to promptly execute whatever
documents may be necessary to give full effect to their obligations under
this Agreement.
9. Incorporation of Recitals. The recital paragraphs appearing at the
beginning of this Agreement are substantive portions hereof and are
incorporated by this reference herein.
10. CaptionWritles. The paragraph titles, headings, and/or captions set forth
in this Agreement have been employed solely as a means of reference and
convenience. Such designations shall not affect the interpretation or
K
construction of this Agreement and shall not define, limit, extend, or
otherwise describe the scope of the Agreement or the intent of any
provisions hereof. Such designations are not substantive.
11. Acknowledgment of Understanding. The Parties acknowledge that they
have read the foregoing Agreement, understand its terms, and freely and
voluntarily execute the Agreement.
12. Execution in Counterparts; Facsimile Signatures. This Agreement may be
executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an
original, and which counterparts shall together contain the signatures of all
of the Parties hereto and shall constitute a single binding, and complete
Agreement. The Parties agree that facsimile signatures are and will be
treated the same as original signatures.
[Remainder of this page intentionally left blank]
3
TIFFIN FIRE ASSOCIATION
By: "14tit C4_ry" Date:
Gene Charbon, Association President II
By: '�O— Dte:
Brian Detert, Fire Chief
STATE OF IOWA, JOHNSON COUNTY: ss
—
On this -11 day of !L + -em bA L 2020, before me, the undersigned, a Notary
Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared Gene Charbon and Brian Detert, to
me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Association
President and Fire Chief, respectively, of the Tiffin Fire Association, and that the instrument
was signed and sealed on behalf of the association by the authority of its board, on the 3 j_
day of S tom+ember 2020; and that Gene Charbon and Brian Detert acknowledged
the execution of the instrument to be their voluntary act and deed and the voluntary act and
deed of the corporation, by it and by them voluntarily executed.
STEVEN L. BERNER
CJ i Ion ir
y Co N. bE 150581
ir
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
Bbzde Teague, Mayor C,
ATTEST:
Kelli Fruehlmg, 'ty Clerk
SPATE OF IOWA, JOHNSON COUNTY: ss
On this 17th day of November 2020, before me, the undersigned, a Notary
Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared Bruce Teague and Kellie Fruehling,
to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor
and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation; that
the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of the municipal
corporation; and that the instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of the municipal
corporation by the authority of its City Council, as contained in Resolution No. 20-262
4
4
JO
NwnN
Number 806232
ission Expires
enrol {o a)e)g aq) .ntl a ul Algttd aapaoN ------
•pa)ivaxa ,<lueatmlon
uiatl) dq pue )I ,iq aril PO I,n,'l, JIM' IM' :UelunlOn ay) ptre paap pue lae
d.te)unlon alatp aq a) }uawn.t.)sul aqa p, uwnln,.,xa all pa�ipal,HOuyae Yurlthn.i { agla)l pue
01IReaIl. al. q.tCl )ell) l)Ue 'OZOZ zagmano(1— )o ,iepga L ... oy) uo ll.xinti7 ,Qt-) atl) jo
AUTOMATIC AID AGEEMENT - INTERSTATE 80/HIGHWAY 218
CORALVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND IOWA CITY FIRE
DEPARTMENT
This Automatic Aid Agreement is entered into by and between the City of
Coralville (hereinafter "Coralville"), a nonprofit corporation organized under Iowa Code
Chapter 504, and the City of Iowa City (hereinafter "Iowa City"), an Iowa municipal
corporation. Coralville and Iowa City are individually each a "Party" to this Agreement,
and may be collectively described as "the Parties."
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Coralville Fire Department ("CFD") and Iowa City Fire
Department ("ICFD") (together, the "departments") both provide fire, first responder
and rescue emergency response services to areas which include portions of Iowa
Highway 218 and Interstate 80; and
WHEREAS, motor vehicle collisions and motor vehicle fires on Highway 218
sometimes occur in locations that extend travel times or overtax the resources available
to the ICFD and the TFA; and
WHEREAS, the timely response of sufficient emergency and rescue personnel and
equipment to motor vehicle collisions and motor vehicle fires can improve the likelihood
of successful outcomes for such incidents; and
WHEREAS, both departments receive and respond to calls for service as
dispatched by the Johnson County Joint Emergency Communications Center ("JECC");
and
WHEREAS, both departments wish to enter into an automatic aid agreement to
help maximize the effectiveness for rescue and fire response,
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL
OBLIGATIONS AND PROMISES CONTAINED HEREIN, AND FOR OTHER
GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, THE RECEIPT AND SUFFICIENCY
OF WHICH IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. IECC Page for Service. The Parties shall work together and with JECC to
ensure the delivery of an automatic and simultaneous page from within
JECC's computer-aided dispatch system to both departments in the event
of an incident that qualifies as a "motor vehicle accident' or "vehicle fire"
(together, "qualifying emergency incidents") within the designated area of
their respective fire districts, as set forth in Paragraphs 3 and 4, below.
1
2. Automatic Response and Logistics. The Parties agree to automatically
respond upon receiving a page from JECC for an incident qualifying as
either a "motor vehicle accident" or "vehicle fire' within their designated
response areas as set forth below. The logistics of each party's response
shall be governed by the Chapter 28E Mutual Aid Agreement already in
effect among and between the Parties, and by the standard principles of the
National Incident Management System.
3. Iowa City Response in Coralville Fire District ICFD will respond
automatically to JECC pages for service arising from qualifying emergency
incidents in the northbound lanes of Highway 218 between exit 91
(Melrose) to the Interstate 80/380 interchange, including the eastbound 80
on-ramp.
4. Resources Provided. In the event of an automatic aid request, each
department will directly send resources as determined by their respective
standard operating guidelines, which are driven by the type of call for
service.
5. Effective upon Execution, Amendment. This Agreement becomes
effective upon execution by both of the Parties. The Parties may amend this
Agreement in writing from time to time as they may determine.
6. Withdrawal. Either party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving
thirty (30) days' written notice to the other party.
Execution of Instruments. The Parties agree to promptly execute whatever
documents may be necessary to give full effect to their obligations under
this Agreement.
8. Incorporation of Recitals. The recital paragraphs appearing at the
beginning of this Agreement are substantive portions hereof and are
incorporated by this reference herein.
9. Captions/litles. The paragraph titles, headings, and/or captions set forth
in this Agreement have been employed solely as a means of reference and
convenience. Such designations shall not affect the interpretation or
construction of this Agreement and shall not define, limit, extend, or
otherwise describe the scope of the Agreement or the intent of any
provisions hereof. Such designations are not substantive.
2
10. Acknowledgment of Understanding. The Parties acknowledge that they
have read the foregoing Agreement, understand its terms, and freely and
voluntarily execute the Agreement.
11. Execution in Counterparts; Facsimile Signatures. This Agreement may be
executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an
original, and which counterparts shall together contain the signatures of all
of the Parties hereto and shall constitute a single binding, and complete
Agreement. The Parties agree that facsimile signatures are and will be
treated the same as original signatures.
[Remainder of this page intentionally left blank]
CITY OF CORALVILLE, IOWA
By:fJellMayor
AT�
Thorsten Jot on, City Clerk
STATE OF IOWA, JOHNSON COUNTY: ss
On this15 day of IA2020, before me, the undersigned, a Notary
Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared John Lundell and Thorsten Johnson,
to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor
and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Coralville, Iowa, a municipal corporation; that
the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of the municipal
corporation; and that the instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of the municipal
corporation by the authority of its City Council, a¢ contained in Resolution No. ,Z bt 0-17 Z
Of the City Council on the day of that 2020, and that John Lundell
and Thorsten Johnson acknowledged the execution o e instrument to be their voluntary
act and deed and the voluntary act and deed of the corporation, by it and by them
voluntarily
Ken u Olson
ESep'ember
mission Number 820208
Commission Expires
TIOWN 19, 2022
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
0
AT
)—r' i —U
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
Bruce Teague, Mayor
STATE OF IOWA, JOHNSON COUNTY: ss
OntffiS 17th day of November 2020, before me, the undersigned, a Notary
Public in and for the State of Iowa, personally appeared Bruce Teague and Kellie Fruehling,
to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that they are the Mayor
and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation; that
the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of the municipal
corporation; and that the instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of the municipal
4
corporation by the authority of its City Council, as contained in Resolution No. 20-262
of the City Council on the 17 th day of November '2020; and that Bruce Teague
and Kellie Pruehling acknowledged the execution of the instrument to be their voluntary
act and deed and the voluntary act and deed of the corporation, by it and by them
voluntarily executed.
V-V%s CHRISTINE OLNEY
z 111 i Commission Number 806232
t M Commission Expires
oV;A -s-a
5
k�
Notary Public in a for the State of Iowa
RESOLUTION NO. 2020 - 17
RESOLUTION APPROVING AUTOMATIC AID AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF
CORALVILLE AND THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, CITY OF NORTH LIBERTY AND CITY OF
TIFFIN.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Coralville has heretofore deemed it necessary and
desirable to give automatic aid to and to receive automatic aid from the City of Iowa City Fire
Department, City of North Liberty Fire Department and City of Tiffin Fire Department in case of motor
vehicle collisions and motor vehicle fires on I-80, I-380, Hwy 218 and/or the I-80/1-380 Interchange; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Iowa City, City of North Liberty and City of Tiffin
have also deemed it necessary and desirable to give automatic aid to and to receive automatic aid from the
City of Coralville Fire Department in case of motor vehicle collisions and motor vehicle fires on 1.80,1-
380, Hwy 218 and/or the I-80/1-380 Interchange; and
WHEREAS, all cities have submitted an Automatic Aid Agreements detailing the terms and
conditions for providing and receiving automatic aid in the case of motor vehicle collisions and motor
vehicle fires on I-80, I-380, Hwy 218 and/or the I-80/1-380 Interchange.
WHEREAS, the Fire Chief has recommended approval of said agreements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Coralville, Johnson
County, Iowa, that the aforementioned agreements be and the same is hereby approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mayor or Mayor Pro -tem and City Clerk are hereby
authorized and directed to execute said agreements on behalf of the City.
Passed and approved this 131 day of October, 2020.
ATTEST:
horst n, City r
The above foregoing Resolution 2020-172 was introduced by
Council Member Huynh moved for its adoption. This motion was
seconded by Council Member Gross after discussion, the following
roll was called:
AYES: Huynh, Dodds, Goodrich, Foster, Gross
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Whereupon the Mayor declared the motion duly carried and
the Resolution duly adopted October 13, 2020.
J A. Lunde) , Mayor
ATTEST:
Thorst ity Clerl<---
CERTIFICATE
I, Thorsten J. Johnson, City Clerk of the City of Coralville, Johnson
County, Iowa, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution
No. 2020-172 was duly passed by the City Council on October 13,
2020 at a Regular meeting of said City Council held in City Hall.
Seal _1 _
-----------------------
Thorsten J. Johnson, City Clerk
Item Number: 7.a.
November 17, 2020
Motion setting a public hearing for December 1, 2020 on an ordinance to
amend Title 14 Zoning to allow minor adjustments in Planned High Density
Multi -Family Residential Zone (PRM) zones for new construction projects
which involve preserving a separate historic structure. (REZ20-0005)
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Staff Report
P&Z Minutes 10-15-2020
t
-�, CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 15, 2020
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Zoning Code Amendment (REZ20-0005) to allow minor adjustments in Planned High
Density Multi -Family Residential Zone (PRM) zones for new construction projects
which involve preserving a separate historic structure
Introduction
The proposed amendment (REZ20-0005) modifies the PRM Zone Bonus Provisions in Iowa City
Code section 14-213-7. It allows an applicant to seek minor adjustments in the Planned High
Density Multi -Family Residential (PRM) Zone for new construction projects which involve the
preservation of a separate historic structure. Specifically, the proposed amendment allows the
Staff Design Review Committee to consider waiving or modifying several standards. The purpose
is to incentivize the designation of 410-412 N. Clinton Street as a local historic landmark, which
would occur in conjunction with the redevelopment of 400 N. Clinton Street and 112 E. Davenport
Street. The amendment may incentivize some future historic preservation efforts, though its
application is limited. The proposed amendment is detailed in Attachment 1.
Background
At City Council's work session on August 4, 2020, staff presented concepts for the potential
redevelopment of 400 N. Clinton Street and 112 E. Davenport Street and input regarding the
concept from the Historic Preservation Commission and Friends of Historic Preservation. The
redevelopment would require relief from certain provisions of the zoning code, so in exchange,
the owner would designate 410-412 N. Clinton Street as a local historic landmark. Council
indicated that staff should proceed with code changes to provide the flexibility necessary for the
redevelopment so long as the historic property is concurrently preserved.
Proposed Amendment
Staff developed the proposed amendment to be similar to existing forms of flexibility and
incorporated it into the PRM Zone Bonus Provisions (14-213-7) section. It is written so new
construction projects which involve the preservation of a separate abutting structure that is eligible
to be designated as an Iowa City Historic Landmark can utilize the provision, as will be the case
at 400 N. Clinton Street. However, the minor adjustment provisions cannot be used in conjunction
with other PRM Zone Bonus provisions. While all properties do not need to be under the same
ownership, all owners must agree on the project.
Waivers
The proposed amendment allows applicants to request waivers from the following standards:
1) 14-213-4 Dimensional Requirements: Includes lot size, setbacks, height and width, lot
coverage, open space, number of bedrooms per unit, and dwelling unit density;
October 15, 2020
Page 2
2) 14-213-6 Multi -Family Site Development Standards: Includes parking area setbacks,
location and screening, pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation, building
entrances, materials, scale, and design.
3) 14-5 Site Development Standards: Includes general standards for off street parking and
loading, signs, access management, intersection visibility standards, landscaping and
trees, screening and buffering, outdoor lighting, and performance standards, but
sensitive lands and features or floodplain management are specifically excluded.
Approval Criteria
The proposed amendment includes several requirements and approval criteria to ensure that the
amendment meets its intent. First, the abutting historic structure cannot be designated as a local
historic landmark prior to the minor adjustment application. In addition, the Design Review
committee, through a level I design review process, must find that the requested minor adjustment
meets the following approval criteria:
1. Historic Landmark Documentation. Must document that the historic property is being
designated as an Iowa City Historic Landmark in conjunction with the minor
adjustment. Council must approve the landmark prior to a building permit being issued.
2. Rehabilitation Plan. Must detail how the project preserves the abutting historic property
and its timeline for completion. This must be approved by the Historic Preservation
Commission prior to submittal.
3. Landfill Diversion Plan. Must contain specifications as required by the Design Review
Committee where such a project will involve the demolition of any existing buildings.
4. Redevelopment Character and Limitations. The proposed building height shall not
exceed five stories and 60 feet, and its design will be reviewed to ensure it is sensitive
to preserving the historic property and the characteristics of the site and the
surrounding neighborhood. In addition, the project shall not detract from or be injurious
to other property or improvements in the vicinity.
5. Consistency with Plans. The adjustment must be consistent with the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan, District Plans, and Historic Preservation Plan, as applicable.
Because the amendment requires a design review process, staff will also receive a site plan and
concept for the redeveloped property. If an applicant disagrees with a staff determination about a
project, it may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment.
Analysis
The proposed amendment would only affect PRM zones in Iowa City, which are relatively limited
in their geographic scope. PRM zones, shown in Figure 1 below, are primarily located in three
areas, all of which are near downtown and/or the University of Iowa:
1. Near the west University of Iowa campus, between Highway 6 W and Newton Road;
2. In Riverfront Crossings, bounded by E. Harrison Street to the north, S. Linn Street to the
east, the Iowa Interstate Railroad to the south, and S. Capitol Street to the west; and
3. Near the northside, bounded roughly by E. Davenport Street to the north, N. Dubuque
Street to the east, E. Jefferson Street to the south, and N. Clinton Street to the west.
This final area near the northside is where 400 N. Clinton and the proposed redevelopment are
located. Based on this and the location of existing historic resources, staff anticipates the near
northside area would be most likely to continue utilizing the minor adjustment in the future. While
some other areas have historic resources, specifically in Riverfront Crossings, staff believes these
are more likely to be rezoned and developed under the form -based code standards rather than
through the proposed amendment due to the potential for higher densities.
October 15, 2020
Page 3
Consequently, the implications of the proposed amendment are relatively limited. As noted, the
PRM zones in Iowa City are geographically concentrated. There is also not much overlap between
potentially historic properties and PRM zones, except in the northside and Riverfront Crossings,
the latter of which is not likely to redevelop under the PRM zoning designation. As such, the
proposed amendment may lead to the designation of additional buildings as local historic
landmarks while promoting infill redevelopment that would further the goals of the City, similar to
the proposed redevelopment at 400 N. Clinton Street. However, it is not likely to be widespread
in its application.
Figure 1. Map of PRM Zones
J Zoning (Iowa City)
Iowa City Zonis
■Planned High Density N9., --=arnily Residential
(PRM)
inl mol
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
The proposed amendment effectively pairs goals related to the preservation and rehabilitation of
historic buildings with the demand for infill development near downtown. By providing flexibility
for redevelopment in return for the designation of historic properties, the proposed amendment
helps preserve key buildings that contribute to the historic character of Iowa City's downtown
neighborhoods. In addition, the requirement that a Rehabilitation Plan be submitted for the historic
property, to be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission, ensures that historic
properties continue to see investment. Adoption also furthers climate action goals related to the
diversion of landfill waste associated with the demolition of any buildings involved in the project.
More specifically, the proposed amendment supports the following goals and strategies from the
comprehensive plan:
Identify and support infill development and redevelopment opportunities in areas where
services and infrastructure are already in place.
Support the Historic Preservation Commission's efforts to meet its goals.
October 15, 2020
Page 4
Support housing rehabilitation programs and re -invest in housing in existing
neighborhoods.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of REZ20-0005, a proposed amendment to the zoning code to allow
minor adjustments in Planned High Density Multi -Family Residential Zone (PRM) zones for new
construction projects which involve preserving a separate historic structure, as illustrated in
Attachment 1.
Next Steps
Because this zoning text amendment is directly connected to 400 N. Clinton St., 112 E. Davenport
St, and 410-412 N. Clinton St., following a vote by the Planning and Zoning Commission, this
amendment will be held to run concurrently through City Council with the following applications:
1. The rezoning of 400 N. Clinton St. and 112 E. Davenport St. from RM -44 to PRM (REZ20-
0008)
2. The local landmark designation of 410-412 N. Clinton St. (REZ20-0009)
All three applications are expected to be on the December 1, 2020 City Council agenda, with
public hearings set at Council's November 17 meeting.
Attachments
1. Proposed Zoning Code Text Amendment
Approved by: 1
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
Attachment 1
Page 1
Draft Zoning Code Text Amendments
Underlined text is suggested new language. Strike -through notation indicates language to be
deleted. Italics indicate notes.
Amend 14-2B-7 as follows:
PRM ZONE BONUS AND MINOR ADJUSTMENT PROVISIONS:
A. Purpose: The PRM zone bonus provisions provide an incentive for developments to
incorporate features that provide a public benefit and encourage excellence in
architectural design. The PRM zone minor adjustment provisions allow flexibility to a
project in a PRM zone which involves new construction in coniunction with the
preservation of nearby historic properties.
B. Application: The bonus and minor adjustment provisions will be administered through the
design review process as set forth in chapter 8, article B, "Administrative Approval
Procedures'; of this title. Decisions of the committee may be appealed to the board of
adjustment. A project shall use either the provisions in C. "Bonus Provisions" or the
provisions in D. "Minor Adjustments" below, but not both.
1. Bonuses Provisions include allowance of dwelling units in excess of the density
otherwise achievable under the provisions of the base zone, additional building bulk,
and/or reductions of the required setback area. Bonuses are based on a point system.
Points may be awarded for public benefit features that the design review committee
determines are appropriate in design and location. Bonuses will not be granted for site
development features or standards already required by this title. De iSiens of +"o
committee may e appealed to the beam! „fadjustment. The number of points allowed
for public benefit features and the number of points required per bonus item are set
forth in C. "Bonus Provisions" below.:
2. Minor adiustments to dimensional and site development standards may be allowed for
a newly constructed building where the project also preserves a historic property as
set forth in D. "Minor Adjustments" below.
C. Bonus Provisions in the PRM Zone: Development that includes the following public benefit
features may qualify for the bonuses listed in the Bonus Menu below.
Public Benefit Features:
a. Materials: Masonry finish on all nonfenestrated areas of walls visible from a public
street. For purposes of this provision, "masonry" is defined as fired brick, stone or
similar such materials, not including concrete blocks and undressed poured
concrete. "Masonry" may include stucco or like material when used in combination
with other masonry finish. Points allowed: 5
b. Open Space: The provision of usable open space of a size and at a grade that, at
a minimum, allows passive recreational uses and is accessible to all residential
occupants of the building. Such space may include yards, other than required
setback areas, terraces and rooftop gardens designed and approved for outdoor
activities. Balconies serving individual dwelling units are not eligible for this bonus.
Points allowed: 1 per 250 square feet
c. Historic Buildings: Rehabilitation of a historically significant building as determined
by the survey of the historic and architectural resources for the vicinity. Points
allowed: 7
d. Assisted Housing: Dwelling units committed to the city's assisted housing program
or some other affordable housing program approved by the city, provided such
units do not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total units contained within a
building. Points allowed: 3 per unit
Attachment 1
Page 2
e. Streetscape Amenities: The provision of funds for all street furniture, lighting and
landscaping improvements along adjacent street rights of way in accordance with
an approved city streetscape plan. Points allowed: 5
f. Landscaping: The provision of additional landscaped areas that are visible from a
public street. Required setback areas and required landscape buffers do not
qualify for bonus points. Points allowed: 1 per 250 square feet
g. Windows: Installing individual window units that have a height that is at least one
and one-half (1.5) times greater than the width of the window unit in all primary
living spaces, such as living rooms, dining rooms and bedrooms. Individual window
units may be located side by side in a wider window opening. Skylights, windows
in bathrooms and kitchens, and decorative windows, such as stained glass and
ocular windows, are not required to meet this standard for the building to qualify
for bonus points. Points allowed: 3
2. Bonus Menu:
a. Setback Reduction: The front setback may be reduced by a maximum of fifty
percent (50%). When determining the appropriateness of such a reduction, the
character of adjacent development and setbacks will be considered. Points
required: 7
b. Height Increase: The maximum allowed building height may be increased from
thirty five feet (35) up to a maximum of sixty five feet (65), provided the portion of
building exceeding thirty five feet (35) is stepped back a minimum of five feet (5)
for each story located above thirty five feet (35) to reduce the appearance of the
bulk of the building. Points required: 7
c. Density Bonus:
(1) For effinienc-y pa4mento the minimum Int area per unit my be reduced to
five hundred (500) quare feet Points required. 7
O1 For one bedroom apartments the 4h* -n um Int area ner unit may he reduGerl
to soden hundred (700) quare feet. Points renu;.re_ l• 7
{} For efficiency apartments, the minimum lot area per unit may be reduced to
four hundred twenty (420) square feet. Points required: 12
(il) Cor one bedroom apartments the minimum Int area ner unit may he reiLUnerl
to four edfifty ( 4 Sn square feet. required. 1
d. Building Coverage Increase: The maximum building coverage may be increased
to sixty five percent (65%). Points required: 7
D. Minor Adiustments in the PRM Zone:
Minor Adjustments: Through a Level l Design Review, the Design Review Committee
may approve a minor adjustment from any standard found in 14-2B-4 "Dimensional
Requirements", 14-2B-6 "Multi -Family Site Development Standards," or 14-5 "Site
Development Standards", except for those in 14-51 "Sensitive Lands and Features"
and 14-5J "Floodplain Management Standards". Historic properties may have
standards waived through the 14 -2B -8A "Historic Preservation Exceptions" process.
2. Applicability: The minor adjustment provides flexibility for new construction projects
which involve preservation of a separate historic structure provided the following
circumstances are met:
a. The property for which a minor adiustment is requested abuts a property in any
zone that is eligible to be designated as an Iowa City Historic Landmark (herein
"historic property");
b. The historic property is not designated as an Iowa City Historic Landmark prior to
receipt of an application for a minor adjustment; and
c. An acknowledged statement from all owner(s), including those of the historic
Property, is provided in a form acceptable to the City of Iowa City, including that
Attachment 1
Page 3
any required plans submitted are done so with their free consent and are in
accordance with the desires of said owner(s).
3. Approval Criteria: The request for a minor adjustment shall meet the following
approval criteria to the satisfaction of the Design Review Committee:
a. Documentation that the historic property is pursuing designation as an Iowa City
Historic Landmark in coniunction with the minor adjustment. The City shall not
issue a building permit for the proiect seeking the minor adiustment until the City
Council has approved the Iowa City Historic Landmark designation of the historic
property;
b. Submittal of a rehabilitation plan approved by the Historic Preservation
Commission that details how the proiect preserves the abutting historic property
and its timeline for completion;
c. If the proiect involves demolition of (an) existing building(s), submittal of a
demolition waste landfill diversion plan as required by the Design Review
Committee;
d. The proposed building height shall not exceed five (5) stories and sixty feet (60'),
and its design shall be sensitive to preserving the historic property and shall fit the
characteristics of the site and the existing neighborhood context;
e. The proiect shall not detract from or be injurious to other property or improvements
in the vicinity; and
f. The requested adiustment shall be consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive
Plan, District Plans, and Historic Preservation Plan, as applicable.
Amend 14-2B-4 as follows:
Dimensional Requirements: The dimensional requirements for the multi -family
residential zones are stated in table 2B-2, located at the end of this section. Each of the
following subsections describes in more detail the regulations for each of the dimensional
requirements listed in the table. Provisional uses and uses allowed by special exception
may have specific dimensional requirements not specified in table 2B-2, located at the
end of this section. Approval criteria for these uses are addressed in chapter 4, article B
of this title. Dimensional requirements may be waived or modified for developments
approved through the planned development process (see chapter 3, article A, "Planned
Development Overlay Zone (OPD)'; of this title) or through minor adjustments in PRM
Zones as outlined in section 14-2B-7. "PRM Zone Bonus and Minor Adiustment
Provisions" or historic preservation exception as outlined in section 14-2B-8, "Special
Provisions", of this article.
Amend 14-2B-6 as follows:
K. Exceptions and Minor Adiustments: A special exception to waive or modifv specific
provisions of this section may be requested through the historic preservation exception as
outlined in section 14-2B-8, "Special Provisions", of this article. A minor adiustment to
modify specific provisions of this section may be requested as specified in Minor
Adiustments in PRM Zones" as found in section 14-2B-7. "PRM Zone Bonus and Minor
Adiustment Provisions".
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 15, 2020 —7:00 PM
ELECTRONIC FORMAL MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
OTHERS PRESENT
FINAL
Susan Craig, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Mark Nolte, Mark
Signs, Billie Townsend
Ray Heitner, Sarah Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett
Luke Newton, Jon Harding, Jon Marner, Chant Eicke, Ryan Wade,
Jeff Clark, William Means
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting was held because a meeting in person is impossible or impractical
due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission members, staff and the public
presented by COVID-19.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission set a public hearing for November 5, 2020 on an application to
amend the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, a component of the City's
Comprehensive Plan, to expand the West Riverfront Subdistrict to include approximately 3.16
acres south of Myrtle Avenue, west of Riverside Drive, north of the Iowa Interstate Railroad, and
east of Olive Street.
By a vote of 6-0 the Commissions recommends approval of REZ20-0001, a proposal to rezone
approximately 3.1 acres of property located at the corner of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and Camp
Cardinal Road, across the street from 80 Gathering Place Lane from Neighborhood Public (P-1)
to Community Commercial with a Planned District Overlay (OPD/CC-2) subject to conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of building permits, provision of a 15 -foot -wide utility easement
along the property's east side.
2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, payment of $5,000 toward the upgrading of
approximately 25 feet of Camp Cardinal Road that is adjacent to the subject property that
does not meet City standards is made. This amount is based off of Camp Cardinal Road
being a collector street, and the applicant contributing 25% of the cost of the
approximately 25 feet of the road that needs to be improved to the north property line.
By a vote of 6-0 the Commissions recommends approval of VAC20-0001 a vacation of 0.06
acres of Camp Cardinal Road right-of-way north of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and west of
Gathering Place Lane in Iowa City.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2020
Page 2 of 24
By a vote of 4-2 (Martin & Nolte dissenting) the Commissions recommends approval of ANN20
0001 and REZ20-0002, a voluntary annexation of approximately 196.17 acres rezoning from
County Residential (R) and County Urban Residential (RUA) to Interim Development — Single -
Family Residential (ID -RS) with the following conditions:
1. The developer satisfies the comprehensive plans annexation policy, as stated in
Resolution 18- 211.
By a vote of 6-0 the Commissions recommends approval of VAC20-0002, a vacation of the St.
Mathias Alley right-of-way south of North Dodge Street and east of 1120 North Dodge Street in
Iowa City, Iowa with the amendment to just include the western tip of the alley right-of-way.
By a vote of 5-1 (Townsend dissenting) the Commissions recommends approval of REZ20-0008,
a proposal to rezone approximately 12,000 square feet of land located at 400 North Clinton
Street and 112 East Davenport Street from High -Density Multifamily Residential (RM -44) zone to
Planned High Density Multifamily Residential (PRM zone subject to the following condition:
1. Substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations dated July 1, 2020 if any PRM
bonus provisions or minor adjustments are requested for the property.
By a vote of 6-0 the Commissions recommends approval of REZ20-005, a proposed amendment
to the zoning code to allow minor adjustments in Planned High Density Multifamily Residential
Zones (PRM) for new construction projects which involve preserving a separate historic
structure, as illustrated in attachment one of the staff report.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CASE NO. CPA20-0002:
Applicant: K&F Properties, LLC
Location: 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court and 119, 201, 203, 205, 207, and 209 Myrtle
Avenue
A request to set a public hearing for November 5, 2020 on an application to amend the
Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, a component of the City's Comprehensive
Plan, to expand the West Riverfront Subdistrict to include approximately 3.16 acres south of
Myrtle Avenue, west of Riverside Drive, north of the Iowa Interstate Railroad, and east of Olive
Street.
Russett stated staff doesn't have a presentation for the Commission tonight on this item, they
have received a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan, so they are asking the Commission
to set a public hearing for that application for November 5.
Hensch opened the public comment.
Hearing no comments, Hensch closed the public comment.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2020
Page 20 of 24
Signs is also concerned with the materials. When he looks at this plan what comes to mind is the
look of the property on South Riverside or one of the properties over on Iowa Avenue, that seem
to contemporary for the spot. He feels it could very easily be modified to have more of a historic
appearance. He is surprised there hasn't been more outcry about this application.
Hensch noted he feels the primary importance is for 410-412 North Clinton Street to be
preserved and not only preserved but rehabilitated so that it can last another 150 years. He also
noted Mr. Clark is still on the call so he can hear their conversations regarding their desire, even
though it may happen later on down the road for it to aesthetically fit in this neighborhood.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1 (Townsend dissenting).
CASE NO. REZ20-0005:
Minor Adjustments in the PRM Zone Bonus Provisions Ordinance
Consideration of the Minor Adjustments in the PRM Zone Bonus Provisions Ordinance, which
amends Title 14 Zoning to allow minor adjustments in Planned High Density Multi -Family
Residential Zone (PRM) zones for new construction projects which involve preserving a separate
historic structure.
Lehmann began noting a lot of background on this item was address in the previous item. A
PRM zone has special bonus provisions that can increase density and increase height, but it
does not have the flexibility required to do the project as it's been currently described in the
previous item. Therefore, at Council's August 4 work session, staff presented this concept to
potentially redevelop 400 North Clinton Street and 112 East Devonport Street with some zoning
code relief or some flexibility. In return the developer would preserve and designate 410-412
North Clinton Street as a local historic landmark. Lehmann added this concept was also
presented to the Historic Preservation Commission and they also got input from the Friends of
Historic Preservation and all that was presented to Council. Based off that information Council
had indicated that staff should proceed with Code changes to provide flexibility so long as
historic property is preserved
Lehmann noted this amendment is pretty focused on this application, but it may incentivize some
future historic preservation efforts.
Lehmann stated this proposed amendment allows some minor adjustments in the PRM zones,
which provides flexibility from zoning regulations. The brief bullet points of the amendment
include things like parking, setback, density requirements, the project must involve new
construction, and it must involve the preservation of a separate potentially historic structure that
is not yet locally protected. Lehmann noted using this amendment would require staff review and
approval through the design review committee, through the level one design review process.
Lehmann reiterated this amendment is designed for new construction projects, specifically in
PRM zones, and have to involve the preservation of a separate abutting structure that is eligible
to be designated as an Iowa City landmark. Lehmann defined abutting as it must share a
property line and can't be across the street. Additionally, the property must not yet be
designated as a landmark. So if it's already locally protected, one could not use this provision.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2020
Page 21 of 24
The minor adjustment provisions can't be used in conjunction with the other existing PRM zone
bonus provisions. Generally, the things that they can't do is make a building up to 65 feet in
height, which is allowed under the bonus provisions. In addition, all properties don't need to be
under the same ownership for this to move forward but all owners must agree to the project. This
would be a minor adjustment process, and a level one staff review so it doesn't go to Council.
Lehmann next discussed the waivers that can be requested using the proposed amendment.
First is multifamily zone dimensional requirements found at 14-213-4 and includes a lot of the
standards of zoning such as minimum lot size, setbacks, height, width, lot coverage, open space,
number of bedrooms per unit, and dwelling unit density. It also includes multifamily zone site
development standards found at 14-213-6 and includes things like parking area setbacks,
locations, screening, pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation, building entrances, there
are some material requirements and then also scale and design. Finally there are also general
site development standards, found at 14-5 and include general standards for off street parking,
loading signs, access management, intersection visibility, landscaping, screening and buffering,
outdoor lighting performance standards, but does specifically exclude sensitive lands and
features and floodplain management standards.
As far as staff review of a project requesting the proposed amendment, there are five sets of
approval criteria that they have to pass. First is a Historic Landmark Documentation which is
where the applicant must document the historic property being designated as an Iowa City
Historic Landmark in conjunction with the minor adjustment, and Council must approve that
historic application prior to a building permit being issued. Second, is the Rehabilitation Plan. The
applicant must detail how the project preserves the abutting historic property and also provide a
timeline for completion. This must be approved by the Historic Preservation Commission prior to
submittal. Third is a Landfill Diversion Plan. One of the Historic Preservation Commission's
concerns was about the landfill waste that is created through the demolition of existing
properties, so the applicant must contain specifications as required by the design review
committee where such a project will involve demolition of any buildings. Fourth, there are
Redevelopment Character and Limitations that they wanted to ensure are part of the staff review.
The building height can't exceed five stories and 60 feet and the building design must be
sensitive to preserving the historic property and the characteristics of the site and surrounding
neighborhood. In addition, the project shall not detract from or be injurious to other property or
improvements in the vicinity. Finally, fifth is Consistency with Plans. The minor adjustment must
be consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, District Plans, and Historic Preservation
Plan.
Lehmann noted when the City was looking at this amendment, staff was interested in sharing
where might this amendment be used in the future since it was pretty specifically tailored for this
certain circumstance. PRM zones in general are located in three areas across the City. First,
there's an area near the west university campus, between Highway 6 and Newton Road. The
second area is in Riverfront Crossings District, bounded by East Harrison Street in the north,
South Linn Street on the east, the Iowa Interstate Railroad in the south and South Capitol Street
in the West. Finally there's the Near North Side area, which is where the proposed
redevelopment is that's bounded by East Davenport Street to the north, North Dubuque Street to
the east, East Jefferson Street to the South and North Clinton Street to the west.
So in terms of where might this be used in the future, staff anticipates the Near North Side would
be the most likely area to use this provision as it tends to have more historic nearby properties
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2020
Page 22 of 24
that could be protected that are not currently historic landmarks. Lehmann noted there are
historic landmarks in the other areas, especially the Riverfront Crossings area, but those are
already historic designated areas and also the Riverfront Crossings Codes allows much more
flexibility as it allows a lot more density than what would be allowed through the PRM zone, even
using the minor modification process and staff anticipates that area would be developed under
that Form -Based Code instead.
Lehmann reiterated the PRM zones are pretty geographically concentrated and have limited
overlap with historic properties and staff hopes that it may promote some infill and lead to
designation of additional buildings as historic landmarks, and staff doesn't expect it to be too
widespread in its application or use in the future.
As far as consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed amendment does relate to
historic preservation and infill provisions of the Plan. It does provide some flexibility for
redevelopment which can be a barrier to infill and it preserves key buildings contributing to Iowa
City's historic neighborhoods. Additionally, the rehabilitation plan requirement ensures that
investments in historic properties are maintained. This amendment also specifically supports the
following goals and strategies. The first is identify and support infill development or
redevelopment opportunities in areas where services and infrastructure are already in place. The
second is support the Historic Preservation Commission's effort to meet its goals and the third is
support housing rehabilitation programs and reinvest in housing in existing neighborhoods. In
addition, that the fact that there's the diversion of landfill waste associated as an approval
criterion, does further some climate action goals as well with making sure that demolition waste
is being recycled to the extent possible or reused and diverted from the landfill.
The role of the Commission is to determine if the proposed zoning code text amendment should
be recommended for approval to City Council and City Council will make the final decision
following three readings which will include a public hearing.
Staff recommends approval of REZ20-005, a proposed amendment to the zoning code to allow
minor adjustments in Planned High Density Multifamily Residential Zones (PRM) for new
construction projects which involve preserving a separate historic structure, as illustrated in
attachment one of the staff report.
Signs asked if the Historic Preservation Commission has weighed in on this yet and what was
their opinion. Lehmann stated they have not weighed in on this specific proposed text
amendment but staff crafted it based on the input they had gotten during the concept phases and
were in communications with developers and based on feedback from Council.
Hensch asked if there any other examples of the approval criteria because he really liked the
landfill diversion of demolition materials language. Lehmann replied it is the first example, but
staff is interested in exploring this as a further requirement criteria. Hensch agreed and really
encourages staff to use it as approval criteria for other applications also because greenhouse
gas emission, sustainability and wise use of resources is important.
Craig asked staff about the areas chosen and what the thought process was as they are three
pretty small areas. It also seems like there are historic structures outside of those three areas
that have some potential for this so why limit it to those areas. Lehmann said at the moment
they're limiting it to those areas because it's a pretty targeted amendment and the PRM zone
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2020
Page 23 of 24
already has bonus provisions that are allowed.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Hearing from no one, Hensch closed the public hearing.
Nolte moved to recommend approval of REZ20-005, a proposed amendment to the zoning
code to allow minor adjustments in Planned High Density Multifamily Residential Zones
(PRM) for new construction projects which involve preserving a separate historic
structure, as illustrated in attachment one of the staff report.
Craig seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: OCTOBER 1, 2020:
Signs moved to approve the meeting minutes of October 1, 2020.
Townsend seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett noted one item at the last meeting the Commission discussed the Good Neighbor
Program and she wanted to tell the Commission about next steps. She will take the
Commission's recommendations and prepare a memo to the City Council, probably in the next
month or so, and she can keep the Commission posted on that.
ADJOURNMENT:
Craig moved to adjourn.
Townsend seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
Item Number: 7.b.
November 17, 2020
Motion setting a public hearing for December 1, 2020 on an ordinance
conditionally rezoning approximately 12,000 square feet of land located at
400 N. Clinton Street and 112 E. Davenport Street to Planned High Density
Multi -Family Residential (PRM) zone. (REZ20-0008)
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
PZ Staff Report w Attachments
Final PZ Minutes
Correspondence
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ20-0008 — 400 N. Clinton St. &
112 E. Davenport St.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Location Map:
Size:
Existing Land Use and Zoning:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner
Date: October 15, 2020
Jeff Clark
319/ 631-1867
0effmc1973(a)-yahoo.com
John R. Rummelhart, Jr.
Rezoning from High Density Multi -Family
Residential (RM -44) to Planned High Density Multi -
Family Residential (PRM)
Development of multi -family housing
400 N. Clinton Street & 112 E. Davenport Street
`wk_�
12,000 square feet
Residential, RM -44
North: RM -44, Multi -family residential
South: PRM, Multi -family residential
East: RM -44, Multi -family residential
West: Institutional Public (P-2), Residence Hall
Comprehensive Plan: 25+ dwelling units / acres
District Plan:
Neighborhood Open Space District
Public Meeting Notification:
File Date:
45 Day Limitation Period:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
K
Central District, High Density Multi -Family
C1
Property owners and some residents located within
500' of the project site received notification of the
Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting.
Rezoning signs were also posted on the site.
September 24, 2020
November 9, 2020
The applicant, Jeff Clark, has requested a rezoning from High -Density Multi -Family Residential
(RM -44) zone to Planned High Density Multi -Family Residential (PRM) zone for 12,000 square
feet of land located at 400 N. Clinton Street and 112 E. Davenport Street. The proposed rezoning
request is being pursued in conjunction with the proposed zoning code amendment to allow minor
adjustments in PRM zones for new construction projects which involve preserving a separate
historic structure (REZ20-0005) and a rezoning application to designate the property at 410-412
N. Clinton Street as an Iowa City Historic Landmark (REZ20-0009).
Staff has been coordinating with the applicant on the proposed redevelopment of 400 N. Clinton
Street and 112 E. Davenport Street for several months. Here is a summary of the timeline:
January 2019:
o The City Council considered an Iowa City Historic Landmark rezoning for the
property at 410-412 N. Clinton Street (Figure 1). Both the Historic Preservation
Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of
the landmark rezoning. While a majority of the City Council supported the
designation, the vote ultimately failed as a supermajority was required, but not
reached.
o After the failed vote at Council, City staff reached out to the property owner to
explore possible scenarios that could result in a voluntary local historic landmark
designation. Through discussions, the property owner of 410-412 N. Clinton Street
mentioned the possibility of acquiring two properties immediately to the south —
400 N. Clinton Street and 112 E. Davenport Street (Figure 2). Assuming acquisition
of these properties, the property owner was open to exploring a scenario in which
the City would grant extra development potential on those lots in exchange for the
local landmark designation of 410-412 N. Clinton Street. The additional
development potential would include a rezoning of 400 N. Clinton Street and 112
E. Davenport Street to the PRM zone and potential text amendments to the PRM
zone bonus provisions, which offer regulatory incentives for projects that provide
public benefits.
• May 2019: Prior to exploring this option with the property owner, staff presented this option
at a City Council work session. During this work session the City Council expressed a
willingness to consider a rezoning and text amendment.
• January 2020: Staff presented the proposal to redevelop 400 N. Clinton Street and 112
E. Davenport Street in exchange for the designation of 410-412 N. Clinton Street as a
local historic landmark to the Historic Preservation Commission. The main takeaway from
3
this meeting was to continue to explore solutions resulting in the local landmark
designation of 410-412 N. Clinton Street.
• February 2020: Staff shared the Historic Preservation Commission's comments with the
City Council.
• February — June 2020: After the February Council meeting, the applicant worked with an
architect to further revise the plans for the proposed redevelopment of 400 N. Clinton
Street and 112 E. Davenport Street.
July 2020: Both the Historic Preservation Commission and the City Council reviewed the
revised plans [Attachment 3]. The Historic Preservation Commission and the City Council
supported the revised plans and had the following comments:
o Development of a rehabilitation plan based on the Secretary of Interior Standards
for the 1860s historic building located at 410-412 N. Clinton Street.
o Salvage of demolished buildings at 400 N. Clinton and 112 E. Davenport Streets.
o Ensure that the proposed wall around the open space is not physically connected
to the historic structure.
o Substantial compliance with the concept plan and elevations to ensure the height
is capped at 5 stories.
Figure 1
. 410-412 N. Clinton Street
Figure 2. 400 N. Clinton Street & 112 E. Davenport Street
ri
U"k FTIT W&I
Current Zoning: The property is currently zoned RM -44. The purpose of the RM -44 zone is to
establish areas for the development of high density, multi- family dwellings and group living
quarters. Properties zoned RM -44 should have good access to all city services and facilities,
including transit. Vehicular access and parking should be designed carefully to ensure efficient
traffic and pedestrian circulation on adjacent streets. Due to the high density permitted in this
zone, careful attention to site design is expected.
Proposed Zoning: The applicant has requested a rezoning to PRM. The purpose of the planned
high-density multi -family residential zone (PRM) is to provide for development of high-density
multi -family housing in close proximity to centrally located employment, educational, and
commercial uses. Because of the high density of development anticipated in this zone, special
consideration of building and site design is required. The PRM bonus provisions provide
regulatory incentives for projects that provide public benefits. For example, increases in height,
density, and reductions in setbacks. The maximum base height in the PRM zone is 35 -feet, but
with bonuses may increase to 65 -feet.
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive
Plan has designated this area for residential development at a density of 25+ dwelling units per
acre. The Central District Plan identifies this area as appropriate for High Density Multi -Family
Residential Development, which is intended for high density residential development at 16-49
dwelling units per acre. This designation is reserved for areas close to downtown, the
University, and other employment centers that have good access to city services and facilities.
The proposed amendment aligns with goals related to the preservation and rehabilitation of
historic buildings with the demand for infill development near downtown. Specifically:
• Identify and support infill development and redevelopment opportunities in areas where
services and infrastructure are already in place.
• Support the Historic Preservation Commission's efforts to meet its goals.
• Support housing rehabilitation programs and re -invest in housing in existing
neighborhoods.
Compatibility with Neighborhood: The site of the proposed rezoning is surrounded by
existing multi -family residential development, as well as University of Iowa residence halls. The
existing building to the north is two stories in height. Currier Hall across Clinton Street to the
west is five stories in height. The concept provided by the applicant shows a five -story building
with 32 dwelling units, 71 bedrooms and 21 subterranean parking spaces. It also incorporates
1,768 square feet of open space between the historic structure at 410-412 N. Clinton Street and
the new building. Figure 3 shows the west elevation of the building which incorporates many of
the suggestions made by staff, the Historic Preservation Commission, and the City Council. The
concept shows a building that was reduced to five stories from previous concepts to align better
with the height of Currier Hall across the street. It also incorporated a flat roof to visually reduce
the building scale and added open space. The plans incorporate a portion of the new
construction that wraps around the historic structure. That portion of the building is reduced to
three stories. To ensure compatibility with the existing context of the neighborhood in terms of
scale, and honor the Historic Preservation Commission's request that the height not exceed the
56 -feet as shown, staff proposes a condition to require substantial compliance with the attached
site plan and elevations.
5
Figure 3. West Elevation
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be
scheduled for consideration by the City Council. This rezoning is connected to the proposed
PRM text amendment (REZ20-0005) and the local landmark rezoning of 410-412 N. Clinton
Street (REZ20-0009), which will also be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Staff plans to have all three applications on the December 2, 2020 City Council agenda, with
public hearings set at the Council's November 17 meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of REZ20-0008, a proposal to rezone approximately 12,000 square
feet of land located at 400 N. Clinton Street and 112 E. Davenport street from High -Density Multi -
Family Residential (RM -44) zone to Planned High Density Multi -Family Residential (PRM) zone
subject to the following condition:
1) Substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations dated July 1, 2020 if any PRM
bonus provisions or minor adjustments are requested for the property.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Site Plan and Elevations; July 1, 2020.
Approved by: 1
+10
DOFi Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
i r
_4
CITY OF IOWA CITY
i*6
- .4
FAIRCHILD ST_
r- ! 4
•.- � •�. _� 1 "ice _ - :� ■.�"+
_ ..
will
_ r
z ?
r+
0] J
EDAVENPORT ST ` 1'
la
LOW
3
Os
ti _� r•: S1 '7 —�
iL
An application submitted by Jeff Clark, for the rezoning of
approximately 0.3 acres of property located at 400 North Clinton
Street and 112 East Davenport Street from High Density Multi-
family
ulti family (RM -44) to Planned High Density Multi -Family (PRM). i I
designer
Shelley McCafferty
shellmac7@yahoo.com
605.209.7898
sheet title
Site Plan
date
July 1, 2020
sheet number
Garage Floor Plan
1 Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
designer
Shelley McCafferty
shellmac7@yahoo.com
605.209.7898
sheet title
First Floor Plan
date
July 1, 2020
sheet number
First Floor Plan
1 Scale: 1/8" =1 '-0"
designer
Shelley McCafferty
shellmac7@yahoo.com
605.209.7898
r�
u
O
O
cc
sheet title
First Floor Plan
date
July 1, 2020
sheet number
3
Q
Second Floor Plan
1 scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
designer
Shelley McCafferty
shellmac7@yahoo.com
605.209.7898
r�
u
O
O
cc
sheet title
Second Floor Plan
date
July 1, 2020
sheet number
Q
Third Floor Plan
1 Scale: 1/8" = T-0"
designer
Shelley McCafferty
shellmac7@yahoo.com
605.209.7898
r�
u
O
O
cc
sheet title
Third Floor Plan
date
July 1, 2020
sheet number
5
Q
Fourth Floor Plan
1Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" (4)
designer
Shelley McCafferty
shellmac7@yahoo.com
605.209.7898
r�
u
O
O
cc
sheet title
Fourth Floor Plan
date
July 1, 2020
sheet number
Q
Fifth Floor Plan
1 Scale: 1/8" = T-0"
designer
Shelley McCafferty
shellmac7@yahoo.com
605.209.7898
r�
u
O
O
cc
sheet title
Fifth Floor Plan
date
July 1, 2020
sheet number
7
Q
1 Roof Plan
Scale: 1/8" = T-0"
designer
Shelley McCafferty
shellmac7@yahoo.com
605.209.7898
r�
u
O
O
cc
sheet title
Roof Plan
date
July 1, 2020
sheet number
Q
nnrTAI CII Mlnln
DRll,f\ QUF\LLIV VVfiLL
I II I I
I I I I
L
I � -
� I
r_J_�_� r_�_L_,
I I I I
I I I I
j) -West Elevation
Scale: 1/8" = T-0"
designer
Shelley McCafferty
shellmac7@yahoo.com
605.209.7898
rim
Imo- J
O
O
cc
sheet title
West Elevation
date
July 1, 2020
sheet number
Q
a
I
■ _=■==gin= ■ __■_■_= ■
ROOFTOP TERRACE
I�
I�
I�
I�
I�
I�
I�
I�
II�
I I I,
I�
I�
I�
I�
I,
I,
JI�
1 South Elevation
scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
designer
Shelley McCafferty
shellmac7@yahoo.com
605.209.7898
LE
O
O
cc
sheet title
South Elevation
date
July 1, 2020
sheet number
10
Q
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J——J —L
iL L ----
East Elevation
Scale: 1/8" = T-0"
designer
Shelley McCafferty
shellmac7@yahoo.com
605.209.7898
r�
u
O
O
cc
sheet title
East Elevation
date
July 1, 2020
sheet number
11
Q
ss
T-1-
T
L --- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------L---J ----
S-------------------------------------------------------------------J
r T r
F--J-L-�-------------- F- L--1
L -----J L---------------- L -----J
North Elevation
Scale: 1/8" = T-0"
designer
Shelley McCafferty
shellmac7@yahoo.com
605.209.7898
r�
u
O
O
cc
sheet title
North Elevation
date
July 1, 2020
sheet number
12
Q
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2020
Page 16 of 24
Hensch stated he is a huge fan and proponent of neighborhood commercial and completely
supports this.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CASE NO. REZ20-0008:
Applicant: Jeff Clark
Location: 400 N. Clinton Street and 112 E. Davenport Street
An application for a rezoning from High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -44) zone to
Planned High Density Multi -Family Residential (PRM) zone for approximately 12,000 square
feet.
Russett began the staff report noting the property is located at the corner of North Clinton Street
and East Davenport Street. The zoning map shows the area is currently zoned RM -44 and the
proposal is to PRM and there is some PRM to the south and to the west.
Russett stated there's a lot of background and history on this proposed rezoning. Back in
January 2019 the Historic Preservation Commission submitted an application to designate the
adjacent property, which is 410-412 North Clinton as an Iowa City Historic Landmark. This
landmark rezoning was supported by both the Historic Preservation Commission and the
Planning and Zoning Commission. It required a supermajority vote at the City Council which
failed. After that failed vote, staff reached out to the property owner to identify a potential solution
to help save that 410-412 North Clinton Street property and get that property landmarked and the
property owner had proposed a solution of redeveloping 400 North Clinton Street and 112 East
Davenport Street and voluntarily landmarking 410-412. Staff took that proposal to City Council in
May 2019 and the City Council said that they were willing to consider three separate actions. The
first would be the local landmark rezoning of 410-412. The second, which the Commission is
considering right now, is the rezoning of 400 North Clinton Street and 112 East Davenport Street
to PRM, and then the last is a text amendment to the PRM zone as what the applicant is
proposing on this site goes above what current zoning in the PRM zoning would allow so that
text amendment provides some flexibility and some bonus provisions in exchange for
landmarking 410-412. In January 2020 this item was discussed with the Historic Preservation
Commission and the main takeaway from that meeting was to continue to explore solutions to
get 410-412 landmarked and Council concurred with that direction in February 2020. Since that
time, the applicant has been working with an architect on plans for the site. Those plans have
been reviewed by both the Historic Preservation Commission and City Council and they
supported moving forward.
Russett next showed some photos of the area and the proposed site plan. Currently on the
historic property there's 18 residential units, the property to the south currently had 11 units. The
proposal the applicant has submitted is of 32 units, 71 bedrooms and 21 parking spaces so in
total it would be 50 units on this entire site around which is about 90 dwelling units per acre.
Russett showed the elevation from North Clinton Street, noting the historic property and the five -
story construction along North Clinton and East Davenport Streets. The applicant is proposing a
portion of that building to wrap around the historic structure so that portion has been reduced to
three stories.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2020
Page 17 of 24
Craig asked how much taller the new building to the current structure at 400 North Clinton Street
is. Russett said the current structure is two stories, maybe two and a half with the attic, the new
building is five stories, she is not sure how many feet taller it will be.
Russett next provided a summary of the input from the Historic Preservation Commission, which
reviewed these plans in July, and they supported the plans with a few requests. One is that there
be an associated rehabilitation plan for the property at 410-412, that there's some consideration
for salvage of demolished buildings, and they also wanted to ensure separation between the
proposed open space and then also substantial compliance with the concept plan and the
elevations to ensure no building would be above five stories.
Russett reiterated the current zoning is RM -44, which allows multifamily dwellings but the
maximum height in that zone is 35 feet. Both the RM -44 and the proposed PRM zoning allow
higher density residential land uses but the PRM zone has a base max height of 35 feet but there
are currently bonus provisions in the PRM zones that allow applicants to increase the height up
to 65 feet.
In terms of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, the Future Land Use Map shows this area
to be appropriate for higher density residential as 25 dwelling units per acre and the Central
District Plan also recommends multifamily residential at a density of 16 to 49 dwelling units per
acre. Lastly, this this proposed rezoning aligns with goals related to historic preservation as well
as infill development.
In terms of compatibility with the neighborhood, the site is surrounded by existing multifamily
residential as well as university residence halls. The proposed height of the building is the same
height as Currier Hall across the street, and the plans incorporate a flat roof to visually reduce
the building scale. Additionally, the proposal shows open space which goes beyond what is
required by Code, and the portion behind the historic structure of the new building is reduced to
three stories. Staff is recommending one condition with this rezoning to require substantial
compliance with the site planning elevations to ensure compatibility with the existing context of
the neighborhood and also to honor the Historic Preservation Commission's request that the
height is capped at five stories.
Russett noted the role of the Commission is to consider the proposed rezoning from RM -44 to
PRM. The associated text amendment will be discussed as the next agenda item, but at this
point the Commission's role is to determine if the PRM zoning designation is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and compatible with the neighborhood.
In terms of next steps, the Commission will make a recommendation to City Council and in
addition to this rezoning and the proposed text amendment (which the Commission will hear
next) there is also the proposed rezoning for designating 410-412 as a local historic landmark
that will come before the Commission next month.
Staff did receive one email which Russett forwarded on to the Commission from a neighbor that
did have concerns with the proposed rezoning and are opposed to the change.
Staff is recommending approval of REZ20-0008, a proposal to rezone approximately 12,000
square feet of land located at 400 North Clinton Street and 112 East Davenport Street from High-
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2020
Page 18 of 24
Density Multifamily Residential (RM -44) zone to Planned High Density Multifamily Residential
(PRM zone subject to the following condition:
1. Substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations dated July 1, 2020 if any PRM
bonus provisions or minor adjustments are requested for the property.
Hensch asked if staff knew the reasons for the failed City Council supermajority vote. Russett
replied that since the property owner objected to the rezoning it required a supermajority vote
and at least one of the Council members didn't support it for property rights reasons.
Hensch asked if the Historic Preservation Commission is supporting this proposal. Russett
confirmed they are. Hensch asked if there is an affordable housing requirement associated with
this development. Russett replied no because the affordable housing requirement is only in
Riverfront Crossings. He asked where the nearest adjacent PRM zone is located. Russett said
it is to the south.
Regarding the Historic Preservation Commission recommended rehabilitation plan 410-412
North Clinton Street Hensch asked if that is just a recommendation or can the Commission add
that as a condition if they choose to approve this, because that rehabilitation plan should be a
requirement because that is a beautiful structure but if it's not rehabilitated it just slowly going to
fall apart. Russett explained that staff is proposing to require that as part of the request for
flexibility to the zoning standards which will be addressed next with the text amendment.
Signs asked if both the historic property and the proposed property are going to be owned by the
same person or entity. Russett confirmed it is her understanding that they have a purchase
agreement to purchase 112 East Davenport Street.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Jeff Clark (applicant) said he was just present to answer any questions the Commission may
have.
Nolte noted It looks like the applicant has done a lot of work to accommodate all the changes
and everything and is the applicant comfortable with where the development stands or are there
other issues that as the developer is concerned with. Clark replied he thinks they've worked their
way through everything and are just hoping to get it approved so they can get a plan finalized
and get started.
William Means thanked for the opportunity to speak, he is pleased that the house will be
preserved but his concern in looking at the modified plan is the setback is a major change in the
neighborhood. He does not think that the steel siding is compatible with all the brick buildings
that are currently in the neighborhood. If it's a foregone conclusion that this needs to happen to
save the house, he would like to have the City look at those aesthetics because those are major
changes that will be starting in that area. He concluded since his family's been in that area for so
long he is concerned and just wanted to thank the Commission for allowing him to express his
opinion.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend approval of REZ20-0008, a proposal to rezone approximately
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2020
Page 19 of 24
12,000 square feet of land located at 400 North Clinton Street and 112 East Davenport
Street from High -Density Multifamily Residential (RM -44) zone to Planned High Density
Multifamily Residential (PRM zone subject to the following condition:
2. Substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations dated July 1, 2020 if any
PRM bonus provisions or minor adjustments are requested for the property.
Nolte seconded the motion.
Craig agrees with Mr. Means' concerns about the aesthetics as it concerns her that one of the
criteria is that something fits into the neighborhood. She does appreciate all the changes that
have been made and all the work that's obviously been done on this. She might reluctantly be
able to support it, given her understanding that the Historic Preservation Commission has
approved of it, but does agree with Mr. Means on the aesthetic.
Hensch asked where is there an opportunity to just discuss our address aesthetic issues?
Russett replied it has to go through the site plan review and there is a portion of the proposed
new building, which is on the 410-412 property that would have to go to the Historic Preservation
Commission for review.
Hensch agrees it is a valid point to make sure the aesthetics blend in with historic property and
with the character of the neighborhood so he would just feel better if they knew that that would
be addressed somewhere in the process. Russett also added if the plan is to request an
adjustment from standards, it does that have to go to the design review committee.
Townsend shared concerns about the building itself, in that neighborhood, with all of those
historic houses that are there, other than the dorms that have been there for years. She had the
same concern with the construction on Burlington, putting a huge building amid all of those lower
houses. She also thinks it takes away from the looks of the university.
Martin asked if there is any way to know if the Historic Preservation Commission had concerns
about the aesthetics or what their notes were from their meeting. Russett acknowledged the
Historic Preservation Commission did have concerns with the demolition of those two structures
and a larger building. The applicant worked with their architect on several changes that were
requested by the Commission such as they originally had a pitched roof but revised it to a flat
roof based on comments from the Historic Preservation Commission and the Friends of Historic
Preservation. The main thing that came out of those meetings with the Historic Preservation
Commission was that they felt very strongly that 410-412 should be landmarked.
Townsend noted another concern is that a lot of those properties around the University are
rentals and they've been renting them for years so if they put in this huge apartment complex it
will take away from the properties that have been rented for years. She wondered if anybody
knew how many vacancies there are around the university right now. Martin said they could call
Brad Comer at the Iowa City Assessor's Office as he usually has his finger on the pulse of
vacancies as best they can.
Craig is interested in whether the university has an opinion about this, or were they made aware
of this as it is right in the heart of one of the oldest parts of their campus. Signs noted the
University is one of the main ones that seem to be tearing down houses and building new
buildings so he would guess they don't have any concerns and they don't care.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2020
Page 20 of 24
Signs is also concerned with the materials. When he looks at this plan what comes to mind is the
look of the property on South Riverside or one of the properties over on Iowa Avenue, that seem
to contemporary for the spot. He feels it could very easily be modified to have more of a historic
appearance. He is surprised there hasn't been more outcry about this application.
Hensch noted he feels the primary importance is for 410-412 North Clinton Street to be
preserved and not only preserved but rehabilitated so that it can last another 150 years. He also
noted Mr. Clark is still on the call so he can hear their conversations regarding their desire, even
though it may happen later on down the road for it to aesthetically fit in this neighborhood.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1 (Townsend dissenting).
CASE NO. REZ20-0005:
Minor Adjustments in the PRM Zone Bonus Provisions Ordinance
Consideration of the Minor Adjustments in the PRM Zone Bonus Provisions Ordinance, which
amends Title 14 Zoning to allow minor adjustments in Planned High Density Multi -Family
Residential Zone (PRM) zones for new construction projects which involve preserving a separate
historic structure.
Lehmann began noting a lot of background on this item was address in the previous item. A
PRM zone has special bonus provisions that can increase density and increase height, but it
does not have the flexibility required to do the project as it's been currently described in the
previous item. Therefore, at Council's August 4 work session, staff presented this concept to
potentially redevelop 400 North Clinton Street and 112 East Devonport Street with some zoning
code relief or some flexibility. In return the developer would preserve and designate 410-412
North Clinton Street as a local historic landmark. Lehmann added this concept was also
presented to the Historic Preservation Commission and they also got input from the Friends of
Historic Preservation and all that was presented to Council. Based off that information Council
had indicated that staff should proceed with Code changes to provide flexibility so long as
historic property is preserved
Lehmann noted this amendment is pretty focused on this application, but it may incentivize some
future historic preservation efforts.
Lehmann stated this proposed amendment allows some minor adjustments in the PRM zones,
which provides flexibility from zoning regulations. The brief bullet points of the amendment
include things like parking, setback, density requirements, the project must involve new
construction, and it must involve the preservation of a separate potentially historic structure that
is not yet locally protected. Lehmann noted using this amendment would require staff review and
approval through the design review committee, through the level one design review process.
Lehmann reiterated this amendment is designed for new construction projects, specifically in
PRM zones, and have to involve the preservation of a separate abutting structure that is eligible
to be designated as an Iowa City landmark. Lehmann defined abutting as it must share a
property line and can't be across the street. Additionally, the property must not yet be
designated as a landmark. So if it's already locally protected, one could not use this provision.
From:
William Means
To:
Anne Russett
Cc:
Jessica Bristow
Subject:
Zoning Meeting on 400 N Clinton
Date:
Thursday, October 15, 2020 12:10:25 PM
I
F�I$K
Dear Anne: & Members of the Zoning Commission
Just yesterday I found out about the hearing about the re -zoning meeting tonight for 400 N. Clinton and
112 E. Davenport. Hopefully this email will get to you in time to include in the meeting.
AM OPPOSED TO MAKING A ZONING CHANGE. I understand that the new zoning classification will
allow for increased density and raises the maximum height of any new building. I believe that I emailed
you in March of my opposition.
My family has resided on the northwest corner of Fairchild and Dubuque Streets since 1920. 1 am the 3rd
generation to live at 120 Fairchild. I maybe the last owner occupied residence in the area. (Market to
Church, Dubuque to Clinton.) My house and carriage house was listed on the National Registry of
Historical Places with the State of Iowa and the National Park Service in 1982 as the Jackson -Swisher -
Keyser House & Carriage House. I have just completed a major restoration of the exterior.
An article in the 20 February 2020 Iowa City Press -Citizen described the Cochran-Sharpless-Dennis
House as as being one of very few pre -Civil War buildings that remain in town and deserves to be
restored and preserved. For over 50 years the height restrictions in this area has limited building to three
stories. Just to the north, and within the 400 block of North Clinton is the Schaumberg House which the
University moved from the 300 block of North Clinton and restored for use by the writers' program.
Across the street at 507 North Clinton is the Dey House which is the headquarters of the Writer's Worship
Program. North Clinton Street ends after the 500 block at Church Street with the University President's
House. My home at 120 Fairchild is sightly over 1/2 block from 412 North Clinton. Any new apartment
building over 3 stories would significantly change the overall architectural climate of what remains of the
original homes. No building North of Market Street is currently over 3 stories.
Within one block of the area proposed to be rezoned to allow for increased height and density are four
homes of significance: (1) Schaumberg House, (2) The Dey House, (3) the President's House, and (4) the
Jackson -Swisher -Keyser House & Carriage House. Also, in the immediate area are two sorority house
and a church. Any apartment buildings built in the last 30 years have meet current standards - even as
they replaced the original homes. The zoning needs to remain to current height and density. Any new
building needs to conform to the current standards.
Of additional concern is while the area is very attractive for student housing, the current enrollment at the
University has decreased and is projected to continue to decline. Significant new construction in the
down -town and immediate areas has resulted in a surplus in housing units. The Clarks were recently
approved to build 15 story buildings on Burlington Street which will add 1,575 beds. Major redevelopment
is approved for the 100 block of College Street. There is no need to increase the number of units in the
proposed rezoning area. Making the proposed zoning changes will just be another example of those with
deep pockets getting their way and changing neighborhoods.
The majority of the homes, converted homes, and apartments are owned by small landlords. It has been
the policy of the City of Iowa City to encourage the converted homes in the Near NorthSide Neighborhood
to be restored to single family homes. Saving and moving the Gloria Dei Lutheran home across Market
Street to a city owned parking lot is an example of the previous commitment of the City Government to
character of the neighborhood.
Making the proposed zoning change is unnecessary and will significantly change the charm of the
neighborhood. While I would like to see the Cochran-Sharpless-Dennis house preserved and restored, I
do not think that it is necessary to make such significant zoning changes to do so.
Thank You,
William Means
120 East Fairchild Street
Item Number: 7.c.
November 17, 2020
Motion setting a public hearing for December 1, 2020 on a resolution to
amend the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, a part of Iowa
City's Comprehensive Plan, to include property located north of the Iowa
Interstate Railroad, east of Olive Street, and south of Myrtle Avenue in the
West Riverfront Subdistrict. (CPA20-0002)
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Planning & Zoning Commission Packet 11-5-2020
Correspondence
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner
Item: CPA20-0002 West Riverside Date: November 5, 2020
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Steve Long
K&F Properties, LLC
220 SE 6th Street Suite 200
Des Moines, IA, 50309
319-621-3462
steve@salidapartners.com
Contact Person: Mark Seabold
Shive-Hattery Architecture -Engineering
2839 Northgate Drive
Iowa City, IA 52245
319-325-5350
mseabold@shive-hattery.com
Property Owner(s):
Requested Action:
Purpose:
Location:
Location Map:
Size:
K&F Properties, LLC
220 SE 6th Street Suite 200
Des Moines, IA, 50309
To add properties to the West Riverfront Subdistrict
of the Downtown & Riverfront Crossings Master Plan
To develop a mixed-use project with housing, retail,
hospitality and neighborhood services
219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court and
119, 201, 203, 205, 207, and 209 Myrtle Avenue
3.16 acres
1
Existing Land Use and Zoning
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
Comprehensive Plan:
District Plan:
File Date:
BACKGROUND:
Residential; High Density Multi -Family Residential
Zone (RM -44) & Medium Density Single -Family
Residential (RS -8)
North: Institutional (Open Space & Parking),
Institutional Public (P-2)
East: Residential & Commercial; Riverfront
Crossings, West Riverfront (RFC -WR) &
Community Commercial (CC -2)
South: Iowa Interstate Railroad & Residential;
Riverfront Crossings, West Riverfront (RFC -
WR), Riverfront Crossings, Orchard (RFC -
0), & Low Density Single -Family
Residential with Planned Development
Overlay (RS -5 OPD)
West: Residential; Medium Density Single -Family
Residential (RS -8)
Residential 2-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre, Residential
8-16 Dwelling Units Per Acre, & Mixed Use
Southwest District Plan: Single-Family/Duplex
Residential, Medium to High Density Multi -Family, &
Mixed Use
August 13, 2020
K&F Properties, LLC owns property located at 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court and 119,
201, 203, 205, 207, and 209 Myrtle Ave. The owner is working with Shive-Hattery to prepare
three applications to allow development of a mixed-use project with housing, retail, hospitality,
and neighborhood service uses. This specific application (CPA20-0002) proposes to amend the
Comprehensive Plan by adding the subject properties, approximately 3.16 acres, to the West
Riverfront Subdistrict of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Attachment 4
illustrates the proposed changes to the plan.
The subject properties are included in the Southwest District of the Comprehensive Plan, which
indicates the properties are primarily appropriate for Medium to High Density Multi -Family,
specified as 8-16 Dwelling Units Per Acre in the Comprehensive Plan. 209 Myrtle Avenue is
shown as Single-Family/Duplex Residential, specified as 2-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre in the
Comprehensive Plan. The Riverfront Crossings Plan to which the subject properties are being
proposed for inclusion was adopted in 2013.
The other concurrently submitted applications include a zoning map amendment (REZ20-0003),
which would rezone properties the applicant owns from High Density Multi -Family Residential
Zone (RM -44), Community Commercial (CC -2), and Medium Density Single -Family Residential
(RS -8) to Riverfront Crossings -West Riverfront (RFC -WR), and a zoning text amendment
(REZ20-0004), which would amend the West Riverfront subdistrict regulating plan map and
increase the maximum bonus height from 5 to 7 stories along the north side of the Iowa
Interstate Railroad. Generally, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment must be approved for
changes to the zoning and regulating plan maps to comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
However, the bonus height zoning text amendment does not require the Comprehensive Plan
amendment to be approved.
The applicant submitted concept plans showing development scenarios for the properties they
own and a statement regarding the proposed amendment (Attachment 3). The concepts
illustrate the potential character of development but are subject to change.
The applicant held an online Good Neighbor Meeting on October 28, 2020. Letters were sent on
October 20 to property owners beyond the minimum required 300 -foot distance informing
neighbors about the meeting. An account of the meeting is included in Attachment 5.
ANALYSIS:
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 approval criteria in Section 14 -8D -3D. The comments of the applicant are found in the
attachments. Staff comments on the criteria is as follows.
14 -8D -3D Approval Criteria: Applications for a comprehensive plan amendment must
include evidence that the following approval criteria are met:
1. Circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors have come
to light such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest.
When the Southwest District Plan was adopted in 2002, the land use scenario (Medium
to High Density Multi -Family and Single-Family/Duplex Residential) was a way to create
an appropriate transition from commercial uses along S. Riverside Drive to residential
uses on Olive Street. The adoption of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master
Plan in 2013 was a significant policy evolution by encouraging a more form -based
development approach. The City implemented this change through the adoption of a
form -based code which increased allowable densities while maintaining appropriate
transitions through building height and bulk controls. Subsequently, two multi -family
projects were developed under this code to the south of the subject properties,
Riverview West and the Orchard Lofts. Staff believes the adoption of the master plan,
and its implementation, constitute a change in circumstances for the subject area.
In addition, ownership of the subject parcels has recently changed. K&F assembled the
subject properties, along with those directly east on S. Riverfront Drive, from December
2019 through June 2020. Prior to that point, the subject properties were under four
different owners, with a fifth owning the property along S. Riverside Drive. While some of
this assemblage is currently within the West Riverfront subdistrict of the master plan, the
subject properties are not. This recent unification of ownership presents redevelopment
opportunities that did not previously exist.
2. The proposed amendment will be compatible with other policies or provisions of
the comprehensive plan, including any district plans or other amendments thereto.
The Roosevelt Subarea of the Southwest District Plan, which contains the subject
properties, has several goals relevant to the proposed amendment. One of its primary
goals is to provide an opportunity for all types of households to live close to the
University and downtown, including singles, young families, university students and
elderly populations. To this end, the plan encourages stabilizing single-family
neighborhoods and developing high-quality multi -family housing that is compatible with
surrounding neighborhoods. Its recommendations emphasize design standards to
ensure new multi -family development is sensitive to the environment, topography, and
neighborhood. Similarly, the plan encourages the development of attractive, mixed-use
buildings which include commercial uses serving the needs of nearby residents. These
goals reflect broader goals in the comprehensive plan, such as promoting compatible
infill, preventing sprawl, enabling alternatives to commuting by car, providing a diverse
community, and supporting the vitality of downtown.
The City adopted the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan to implement
similar policies in the Riverfront Crossings District. Much of the master plan focuses on
encouraging pedestrian -oriented, mixed-use development to enhance the urban fabric.
This is achieved by mixing housing and commercial infill development and activating and
improving streetscapes with pedestrian amenities. In the West Riverfront subdistrict, this
is envisioned as occurring over time as commercial uses west of S. Riverside Drive take
on a more pedestrian -friendly framework or transition to urban apartments and mixed-
use development with buildings at corners and vehicular access behind to create a
pedestrian -oriented street frontage. East of S. Riverside Drive, the master plan
encourages utilizing river views with walkable commercial or niche residential uses,
including townhouses or mid -rise condominium buildings.
While the goals of these two plans generally align, some apparent differences must be
reconciled. The Southwest District Plan notes to avoid concentrations of high-density
multi -family zoning adjacent to low-density single-family zones. It uses its future land use
map to facilitate a transition between higher density uses on S. Riverside Drive and low-
density residential neighborhoods to the west. Alternatively, the master plan encourages
appropriate transitions through its regulating plan incorporated in the Zoning Code (City
Code, Title 14). The West Riverfront subdistrict allows a base height of up to 4 stories
with a 10 -foot step back above the third floor on facades facing streets or single-family
residential zones. The maximum height may be increased to five stories where not
abutting a residential zone. While the strategies are different, they achieve the same
ends of appropriately transitioning from lower to higher density uses. The Riverfront
Crossing Form -Based Code also includes enhanced building, frontage, and design
requirements, which further ensures a higher quality of design and supports both plans.
To understand compatibility, the specific context is also relevant. The subject parcels
currently contain 144 dwelling units, primarily in two- to three-story multi -family buildings,
though also in some lower density properties. The Southwest District Plan Future Land
Use Map designations of Single-Family/Duplex Residential, Medium to High Density
Multi -Family, and Mixed Use reflect this situation. Surrounding properties include public
uses to the north, commercial uses to the east, a railroad and high-density multi -family
uses to the south, and some medium -density single-family uses to the west. The subject
parcels are immediately adjacent to areas within the West Riverfront subdistrict and
4
contain similar uses to those in the subdistrict. As such, it makes sense to include the
subject parcels though this was not contemplated in the master plan.
Expanding the West Riverfront subdistrict will increase the allowable density of the subject
properties, but staff believes it maintains compatibility with single-family homes to the west
in this case. Steep slopes create 50 feet of grade change between those homes and the
subject parcels, and West Riverfront parcels abutting a residential zone can only have
buildings up to four stories. As a result, the proposed buildings are expected to have a
three-story exposure to the single-family homes, which is comparable to what would be
allowed in the current zone if the properties were at the same grade. It is also only one
story taller than the existing buildings, maintaining a similar context for homes to the west.
In addition, redevelopment of the site meets other goals in the Southwest District and
Riverfront Crossings plans. First, it allows for a more cohesive development with better
circulation and a high-quality, pedestrian -oriented design. The concept also contains a
mixed of senior and market -rate housing, retail, hospitality and neighborhood services, all
organized around a central, pedestrian -scale plaza. While the concept will increase traffic
to the site, the Traffic Impact Study which was submitted with the application indicates that
all study intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service and that queuing is not
anticipated to be an issue.
For these reasons, staff finds that the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment to
expand the West Riverfront subdistrict to include the subject properties in the Downtown
and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan is compatible with the surrounding development
and other policies in the Comprehensive Plan. However, implementing this proposed
amendment requires amending the zoning code map and the regulating plan (to be
considered under REZ20-0003 and REZ20-0004 respectively).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of CPA20-0002, a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan,
to add approximately 3.16 acres of property to the West Riverfront Subdistrict of the Downtown
and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan located at 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court and 119,
201, 203, 205, 207, and 209 Myrtle Ave.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Application Submittal
4. Proposed Changes to the Downtown & Riverfront Crossings Master Plan
5. Good Neighbor Meeting Materials
Approved : * St
pp b Y
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
di
.
,_
!..J-
!'
J .�
AWL. 0
M, 40' 0.6
4 or
t. 1
An application submitted by K & F Properties, LLC to request a ._
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designation
of approximately 3.16 acres of property from High Density Multifamily
(RM -44) and Medium Density Single -Family (RS -8) to Iowa p
Riverfront Crossings, West Riverfront (IRC -WR).
i r
CITY OF IOWA CITY
.T� -
Cn _
z
m
N ul� r
m !
0
�j !
S RIVERSIDE CT 9..e
SHIVEHATTCRY
A R C H IT E C T U R E+ E N G IN E E R ING
CPA20-0001
Applicant's statement — The proposed amendment will be compatible with other policies or provisions
of the Comprehensive Plan, including any District Plans or other amendments thereto.
Below verbiage included on page 16 of submitted document
"Riverfront West Development requests that Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan be amended to extend the
Riverfront Crossings District west in the area indicated above from the existing properties in the West
Riverfront Subdistrict along Riverside Drive to the eastern property line of the residential properties
located on Olive Street and 215/213 Myrtle Ave. The existing West Riverfront Subdistrict would be
expanded west as part of this amendment.
This expansion of the West Riverfront Subdistrict would redefine an existing RM -44 zoned area with
existing apartment buildings and two converted/ leased single family residential houses. The properties
to be included in the current RM -44 zoned area are 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court and 119, 201,
203, 205, and 207 Myrtle Ave. This area also includes a single RS8 lot, 209 Myrtle Ave.
Expanding the West Riverfront Subdistrict is appropriate for this site due to the over 50' of grade change.
Because of this topography, which is atypical of the West Riverfront Subdistrict, the proposed height of
the buildings will present a three-story exposure to the Olive Street residences. This is approximately a
single story more than the existing apartments building
located there now.
This Comprehensive Plan Amendment would allow for a more cohesive development while still being
sensitive to the neighborhood scale to the west."
Neighboring Property Listing — file attached for property owners within 300 feet of the exterior limits of
the properties involved in this application.
Project 1191830
shive-hattery.com F
RIVERFRONT WEST
DEVELOPMENT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT &
REZONING
SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA
AUGUST 13, 2020
SHIVEHATTERY
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
EXISTING SITE PHOTOGRAPHY
No existing pedestrian circulation throughout the site. Lack of defined vehicular entrances from Riverside Drive.
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING SH IVEHATTERY 2
SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA I AUGUST 13, 2020 ARC H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
.. 11 _ �- _ mss,,,•, 1 .4.• t..�. - � r. � �•.� -+lam• r - _ . _.. -
IMP
it
;: t
y.,��rl J ► N� iY
zs
woo
.�
-a,
ow
t
tp
'Y -
44
:. . 'i. i.c';x:* Y { +■ ` _ �, r. -�- + w"
All
SIP
.".� h •, A'y' f t
Toft
jig'�.R F! • r1 �Eer...
i-ismr --
TER
_ - '!1 r �. �'✓ f -. � �� .y 1�"ti '-' .". r • .� i � Y'': - .. 9'�y oLi
44
LE
EEI
Ole
ij
TA
'-ack of green space/ vegetated area does not relate to surrounding area. Most of site area devoted to parking.
s
.� � • AjRa .i.:"
&PUFUT I• 11 \ ! \ ! 11 \ ■ 11 \Z 21=7*111'LIC'�A
EXISTING SITE PHOTOGRAPHY
Buildings do not relate to each other. Views are to backs of other buildings both within the site and from Olive Street.
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING SH IVEHATTERY 5
SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA I AUGUST 13, 2020 A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
Wo
. i L :-,•. . `� '---'��'� � �:a � �„vg.� .�.�r ._.��_ • f = � � •5,..
qp �.
_ .
Al
y• �
"Jr.IR
If
Le
_ - r � -:4 � r.�'� _ _ : r. ' � - �� � .+ �- 's - err �•.' 1� � `-'tih ll -
10
L ,r• .. .. f� '�.,r �-f -`�5!f�,!R� �d
WU
MWAL
WR
411
'". - _ # ' s, �. �� ^�, Esq ^ �ae .�.�;c -, . '�} � • �� . • � x. "4,.�y,+,•, �i
r. Y '.. :.vii''. `'� k��.-`k. _ -�-:v �`� � fit. a.r_. •�.:�,":
Alwm■0�=
x-. � . r .s �� ..'Alm � •-�,!•' - � � �r -
A
T •' _ _ fes_
- -�.��f * _��i��r _ � J �'+•Njrl � • ,:'J.L •a'Y�L. '• - •�F; .--� Y tri�� y�_I �� � .. � (���� .:1
44
—71
114
r 111 "' •�4 j. .it-a r. ,:_ f _ -- 3#
�.� - --__� arm._ - � .. .�, R - � �• Y - .. r,
- I. �� -- -'� '-r �. � • =r; r, .. _ -- •-1� � �•�,~ �i. r,' ��,-'!-fit �.��g��qp,r, -i�ti � -
PROPOSED SITE MASSING
PERSPECTIVE `
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING SH IVEHATTERY g
SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA I AUGUST 13, 2020 A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
MASSING STUDIES I RIVERSIDE DRIVE LOOKING WEST
Tf11Tfl
"1Trf111011171
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING SH IVEHATTERY 9
SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA I AUGUST 13, 2020 A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
MASSING STUDIES I RIVERSIDE DRIVE LOOKING WEST
TEXT AMENDMENT TO WEST RIVERFRONT SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW
HEIGHT BONUS ALLOWANCE TO 7 STORIES MAX FOR PROPERTIES
. NORTH OF AND ADJOINING IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING
SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA I AUGUST 13, 2020
• CORNER PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED WEST RIVERFRONT SUBDISTRICT
FIVE (5) STORIES MAXIMUM FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE WEST RIVERFRONT
• SUBDISTRICT THAT DO NOT HAVE FRONTAGE ALONG THE IOWA RIVER.
HOWEVER, BONUS HEIGHT IS NOT ALLOWED ON LOTS THAT ABUT A RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
SHIVEHATTERY to
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
MASSING STUDIES I CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MRYTLE AVE LOOKING
SET BACK 10'
•TEXT AMENDMENT TO WEST RIVERFRONT SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW
'HEIGHT BONUS ALLOWANCE TO 7 STORIES MAX FOR PROPERTIES
;NORTH OF AND ADJOINING IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD
CORNER PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED WEST RIVERFRONT SUBDISTRICT
FIVE (5) STORIES MAXIMUM FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE WEST RIVERFRONT
SUBDISTRICT THAT DO NOT HAVE FRONTAGE ALONG THE IOWA RIVER.
• HOWEVER, BONUS HEIGHT IS NOT ALLOWED ON LOTS THAT ABUT A RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
• ,� srd SFr 7
= -r
. SET BACK 10'
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING SH IVEHATTERY 11
SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA I AUGUST 13, 2020 A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
MASSING STUDIES I HOTEL ENTRANCE LOOKING NORTH
CORNER PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED WEST RIVERFRONT SUBDISTRICT
FIVE (5) STORIES MAXIMUM FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE WEST RIVERFRONT
SUBDISTRICT THAT DO NOT HAVE FRONTAGE ALONG THE IOWA RIVER.
• HOWEVER, BONUS HEIGHT IS NOT ALLOWED ON LOTS THAT ABUT A RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING SH IVEHATTERY 12
SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA I AUGUST 13, 2020 A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
MASSING STUDIES I RETAIL PLAZA LOOKING SOUTH
TEXT AMENDMENT TO WEST RIVERFRONT SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW :CORNER PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED WEST RIVERFRONT SUBDISTRICT
. HEIGHT BONUS ALLOWANCE TO 7 STORIES MAX FOR PROPERTIES
'NORTH OF AND ADJOINING IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD ' FIVE (5) STORIES MAXIMUM FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE WEST RIVERFRONT
SUBDISTRICT THAT DO NOT HAVE FRONTAGE ALONG THE IOWA RIVER.
.HOWEVER, BONUS HEIGHT IS NOT ALLOWED ON LOTS THAT ABUT A
'RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING SH IVEHATTERY 13
SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA I AUGUST 13, 2020 A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
MASSING STUDIES I RIVERSIDE DRIVE LOOKING NORTH
! FUTURE TUNNEL LOCATION
TEXT AMENDMENT TO WEST RIVERFRONT SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW
• HEIGHT BONUS ALLOWANCE TO 7 STORIES MAX FOR PROPERTIES
NORTH OF AND ADJOINING IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD
I�li[s ygCKS
IN
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING SH IVEHATTERY 14
SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA I AUGUST 13, 2020 A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
DPOSED SUBDISTRICT
WEST RIVERFRONT
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING SH IVEHATTERY 15
SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA I AUGUST 13, 2020 A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
PROPOSED •REZONING
My
ffT
f:.
H�
ai 11.1 � ��� � � si��
Legend
-
South Downtown Subdistrict
University Subdistrict
Central Crossings Subdistrict
Gilbert Subdistrict
Park Subdistrict
South Gilbert Subdistrict
West Riverfront 5ubdlstrict
1L Public Parks and Open Space
gV Green Spare
Primary Street
-J Required Retail Storefront
Required Ralston Creek Frontage
Riverfront Crossings Boundary
University of Iowa Campus
Al
J
E
7 TTT TFT- F FF ri fir__ _9 7
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Riverfront West Development requests that Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan be amended to extend the Riverfront Crossings
District west in the area indicated above from the existing properties in the West Riverfront Subdistrict along Riverside Drive
to the eastern property line of the residential properties located on Olive Street and 215/213 Myrtle Ave. The existing West
Riverfront Subdistrict would be expanded west as part of this amendment.
This expansion of the West Riverfront Subdistrict would redefine an existing RM -44 zoned area with existing apartment
buildings and two converted/ leased single family residential houses. The properties to be included in the current RM -44
zoned area are 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court and 119, 201, 203, 205, and 207 Myrtle Ave. This area also includes a
single RS8 lot, 209 Myrtle Ave.
Expanding the West Riverfront Subdistrict is appropriate for this site due to the over 50' of grade change. Because of this
topography, which is atypical of the West Riverfront Subdistrict, the proposed height of the buildings will present a three-story
exposure to the Olive Street residences. This is approximately a single story more than the existing apartments building
located there now.
This Comprehensive Plan Amendment would allow for a more cohesive development while still being sensitive
to the neighborhood scale to the west.
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING SH IVEHATTERY 16
SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA I AUGUST 13, 2020 A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
EXISTING CONDITIONS I CURRENT ZONING OF PROPERTIES
PropertyJohnson County
1W Search by parcel number (ex. 101528014) kua i s dubuque st) Q
Fna
,4
RFC -.O
1:880 RSE
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING
SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA I AUGUST 13, 2020
4
. - - ison C-ougW I JoMnson t-oontn- Iowa Ub EL-M-1�111111
SHIVEHATTERY 17
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
PROPOSED WEST RIVERFRONT SUBDISTRICT
�,4
rmm�- �r
-. s � r Y _ t k _ �.�F � • .
FIVE (5) STORIES MAXIMUM FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE WEST RIVERFRONT
SUBDISTRICT THAT DO NOT HAVE FRONTAGE ALONG THE IOWA RIVER.
'HOWEVER, BONUS HEIGHT IS NOT ALLOWED ON LOTS THAT ABUT A RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
'TEXT AMENDMENT TO WEST RIVERFRONT SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW
HEIGHT BONUS ALLOWANCE TO 7 STORIES MAX FOR PROPERTIES
NORTH OF AND ADJOINING IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD
w
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING SH IVEHATTERY 18
SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA I AUGUST 13, 2020 A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
d o w n t o w n
Wit...
:
.r
u
• �..�,..�..�
i . � :•vim ... "ist .....
& r i v e r f r o n t
crossing s
master plan
ADOPTED
January 2013
AMENDED
october 2015
july 2016
XXXXX 2020
ANW,
AL
6;r;A
4
MEW.
it
77
>
z _etc.$
GI.E R7T
•2
IeOT ST.!'- GILBERT ST.
MAIDEN LANE
•E
7 jH4f4*M4Hj
oif il loo a
%
*o
0 s
.N: SIT*.'
er S1.
te.
%J, If
L
%
JAMA
DUBUQUE S
-7
11z:
0.
LINTON ST.DN ST.
IC
L L
L
-S
mow, __; .
F?
AOM-�
Aia
FRONT -ST.
12 ar Is
19 13 River Ou
8
14
Potentia
■ , a �' _ �'��— 1� 2 — 151-01 egional
16. Gilbert S
South
18 1 Rivervit
191 Riverf
20. -Riversi4
3
21 Riversid(
t&nce
.2
a
sub -districts
During the course of the planning process, several prominent
features were discussed on a recurring basis. Due to either their
prominent role in the plan or their relevance and impact on other
elements, these features became to be known as Framework
Elements. Framework Elements consist of Sub -Districts, Primary
Streets and Required Retail Storefronts, Mobility, Green Space,
Public Art, and Student Housing. These Framework Elements will
be discussed in further detail on the following pages.
The Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan Study Area
is very large in size and contains a number of neighborhoods and
settings, each with their own identity. Instead of combining them
into one homogeneous district, it was determined that it would be
more useful, and appropriate, to break the Study Area into sub -
districts. These sub -districts would be identified based on their
location, primary use, scale, and other identifying features. In all,
eight districts were identified:
> Downtown
> South Downtown
> Central Crossings
> Gilbert
> West Riverfront
> Orchard
> University
> Park
> South Gilbert
Many of these sub -districts existed in a geographic sense, but
were unnamed and given "formal" names as part of the planning
process. Other times, the sub -districts were known by their
formal names, but did not have defined geographic boundaries.
Each sub -district will be described in more detail in the following
chapter.
Right: Sub -District Diagram
28 downtown and riverfront crossings plan
Orchard
District 1.
r---------------�
1 I
i I
I �
I I
Downtown
District
1 I
1 I
� 1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
Gilbert
District
downtown district
i Downtownl
.I o
�I
-
___ _
BURLINGTON ST- -_--
I
South Downtown I I
' !L__ w COURT ST. II '
II
II
71 I I
University �`r^'� ARR1111=1111
\\ District
A \
1 II PR EN TI$$ ST. ,I•"' I
Central Crossings
1�1 MA , II WRIGHT 57. 1 r__
k I West I 1 1 I I 1 1 \
Riverfront Gilbert
Expansion f 11 1 I
'L---,LAFAYET,E ST � j District !
If
Orchard 1 1 \ I l !
District
(appx2) , II 6ENi6N S7. I ! V
w
West 1 ♦ Park District I! a / :E 0 1
jRiverfront
I \ I KIRKWOOD AVE.; ; IL ----I
/I
South
Gilbert j
! 1a!
r ta' ♦ !
\__r_J HIGHLAND AVE.
sot .`L, downtown district
---------------
r —
-------------r— WASHINGTON ST. ' I
z Downtown
COLLEGE �ST.I I o
L— __ _
r------^,�� ---__ _ _—_ —J
-- BORLINGTON
-- A
1 South Downtown
g \ University
District
A 1 II PRENT4SS ST.
Central Crossings
59
r — — —
WRIGHT $7.
LI r
1 West
1 Expansio r
Expansion 1
II I I Gilbert \
I I r r
1
�`�� s_
'�•---,LAFAYETTE ST. 01 District
r
1
\ II I
1 Orchard I
r r
District I \
1
(appx2) ;
1
II I I z I
1! AENTON 51.
L St
7 I Ok
1 aEµ
I j 1 p
1 I West
\1
Park District Ij j
Ll
— — 1 Riverfront
I o IJ 1
r
I ----__.i II �--�
I
` 1
KIRKWOOD AVE.;
South r
Gilbert
HIGHLAND AVE_
59
central crossings district
- —. r-------------�"h
i I
I I
r ---J WASHINGTON ST.
I I
r Downtown
z w
o I
I z
COLLEGE ST.I z
I o
I I
L . J _�
r______ -,r----- -------------- r-- BURLINGTON ST.
1 II II I
0
o i U South Downtown
LL!- , COURT 5T. 11 /
I I
11 o a h I
I
1 11 U o Ir I
4 , university IL---71A=RIso=Sfi,r, --.—
\ ; District 1 J•� I
w+►OI-
1 Ce t I Crossings5�� I
rye r--
1 West
1 Rnt
� Expansion / 11\` �I r `L�� ! Gilbert j
!I
! District
L-- I
)rchard
»strict
Ip+px2) \ geNTok ; N a 4° ':��
I West 1 \ Park District
Riverfront�_ =j
1 ` I KIRKWOOD AVE ; I ----I
o ♦ 1 :B ;« ,: / w 1 South !
°°�tiFP 1 j j Z j Gilbert j
j 1 Q j I
HIGHLAND AVE
-
H(GHWgY 6
65
gilbert district
_____________
1 I
r ---J WASHINGTON ST.
! 1
l Downtown I
I I
I V
COLLEGE 5T.1 °
°
I 1
`— _J
r — — — ---i --- — — — —
r --------------'i —1 BURLINGTON ST.
1 I I h -- -----
-- I
1 � II o I rll
South Downtown �' -g `'+�
l LL I yf
LL 7 N
COURT ST. III
0 1 11 1r,
F
University IARRIso-s1 =r—= Distric#�.-1
♦ r
P.1
1 I I PRENTISS ST. 4--_71Z
1 II Central Crossings �I
WRIGHT ST_
�.
West -tea l
1 Riverfront I 1 ♦ I I 1
Expansion ! 1 ♦� I j Jj nGil Bert ;1
�`--ifLA FAYETTE $T. r ::�. �✓�S#ri
ctl",-'!
IF o 1`
Orchard I 1 ♦ - II i .
District I ` 1
(appx2) 11 RENTON $T.
L I I West 1`1 "'00�♦ Park District II !
L — — Riverfront
I ` I KI R K W OCD AVE.''.�--w.
/ f 7,— 1
j LPc, ♦ 1 /� I South
sc011"1e1 j o j Gilbert I
0 1
I�
_s m
`�----� HIGHLAND AVE_
x�GHW
AY6
73
west riverfront district
�.1
n West
1 R'roe&mt
' Fxpansior
r 1,__
orchard
r District
L(appx2)
r -------------
r.--- j
------------r---j WASHINGTON ST. 1
I z Downtown
I z COLLEGE ST.1
I O
I I
L_ -J
rr--------- -----
T_____—_7 r_—__ ______1 r___, BURUN G70N ST.
1 II II I
0
South Downtown
COURT 57.
11 0
04 1 II ARRISON S mss ---7 11 1
` University 1r� fir`•' —
District [1 �� — =N.11
p 1 II PRENTISs ST. LL= —JI
1 II 'I— I
Central Crossings r___;
-i I
1 it WRIGHT ST. I
-7-
I
Gilbert
_J L� LAFAYETTE ST. i [ District
II BENTON ST I I s V 1
West 1 Park District
o
I KIRKWOOD AYE ' IL
�r7tial i / / • � � / �
1 :�'.x t,r�; /!w I South
Gilbert j
HIGHLAND AVE.
— — I Riverfront _
L
HIGh,W� r 6
79
west riverfront district
The West Riverfront District is a high -traffic, auto -oriented corridor
situated on the west side of the Iowa River. South Riverside
Drive bisects the district and connects U.S. Highway 6 with the
University of Iowa campus. It is lined by commercial uses set
back behind surface parking lots. Pedestrians are typically an
afterthought. Unlike the rest of the study area, this district plays by
different rules in terms of achieving an urban, pedestrian friendly
environment.
As redevelopment of the district occurs, new development
should capitalize on the Iowa River and its close proximity to the
campus. In addition, it should take advantage of the access and
visibility provided by Highway 6. It is envisioned that over time,
the commercial development on the west side of South Riverside
Drive will take on a more pedestrian -friendly framework, or it will
transition to urban apartments and mixed-use development. In
the development of gas stations and drive thru businesses, the
building should be anchored at the corner, with vehicular access
and amenities moved to the back to create a pedestrian oriented
street frontage (See Appendix A). Redevelopment on the east side
of the district will take advantage of river views, and will consist
of either pedestrian -friendly commercial uses or niche residential,
including higher end townhouses or mid -rise condo towers.
West Riverfront District Summary
Master Plan Objectives:
> Capitalize on Highway 6 access and visibility
> Improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation
> Capitalize on the Iowa River
> Extend the riverfront trail
> Capture the football crowd
Development Character:
> Temper auto orientation
> Open views and access to river
> Enhance the streetscape and overall aesthetics
Development Program:
> Multiple housing typologies, including condo towers,
apartments and townhouses
> Destination river view restaurants
> Commercial, possible small to midsize box
> Hospitality
80 downtown and riverfront crossings plan
r— — — — — — — — —
I
I
I
I
WR J
1 7
1
1
1
kk
f
0
•
M • • •e
•°
•
e° e •
s° •
r f •�
•0 •
r• •
°• • •e
�� �•i • °••• ••
m 3R i - •°• ° • r--- -
•
0 • •• !�
'M
LLU
o � •
= t.� • °mom W • i i••�
o••
o oe� ` o
0
M WF ° ° N
N 4 °
eo o
� o
A °
° W o
o °
$ 0 0 0 o sT(/ `• 5 1 0 cc 00
0 0 o 0o cc
0 00 00 00�J° 0 00 00
00 0 0 '• C ° oo co
o co
v° + 0 F1P oo co
0 0
v°� •� °o
•••f
ti
WR— I : Riverfront Enhancements — In order to help encourage
development within the district, a program to enhance the west
bank of the Iowa River should be undertaken. This would include
utilitarian elements, such as stabilizing the riverbank to prevent
further erosion, functional elements, such as extending the
riverfront trail to the north and south, and aesthetic elements,
such as providing additional landscaping. Included in this would
be interpretative stations along the river to provide educational
opportunities relating to the river and its plant and wildlife,
including the many Bald Eagles that frequent this stretch.
WR - 2: Riverside Drive Enhancements — Riverside Drive is very
auto -oriented, with few pedestrian amenities and unappealing
aesthetics. As the district transitions into a more urban setting,
the right-of-way will need to be redesigned in order to provide
enhanced aesthetics and a more walkable environment for
pedestrians.
Enhancements to the pedestrian environment should include the
following:
> Reduce the number of curb cuts along the street
> Provide a wider sidewalk that is set back from the curb a
minimum of six feet and preferably more
> Provide enhanced pedestrian crossings across Riverside Drive
and its cross streets
> Provide a safe pedestrian connection on the west side of
Riverside Drive under the Iowa Interstate Railroad bridge.
Aesthetic enhancements should include the following:
> Gateway signage and landscaping at the intersection of U.S.
Highway 6
> Buried utilities
> Streetscape enhancements, including street trees and other
forms of landscaping
WR — 3: Westside Redevelopment — Located along the west side
of Riverside Drive and north of Benton Street, the car dealership
site provides a large and strategic site for redevelopment. As
shown in the plan, the northwest corner of the intersection is
reserved for an attached green, which would double the amount of
available frontage for neighborhood retail or restaurant uses. This
landscaped green could provide outdoor seating for restaurants
or cafes, and is the "identity" of the site. The remaining buildings
on the site would be pedestrian oriented, with street frontage
and parking in the rear. They are designed to accommodate retail
uses on their first floors, and apartments on the upper floors. This,
as well as the area north of the railroad, could be an appropriate
location for dormitory style housing as discussed earlier. There is
the possibility for a higher room count if housing developed with
a private dorm, provided there is an agreement with the University
to provide car storage offsite.
WR -4: Riverside Commercial Redevelopment —The commercial
property on the west side of Riverside Drive and south of Benton
Street will take on a more pedestrian friendly format. In order for
this to occur, a slip lane will need to be constructed. This lane will
provide access to the retail uses, as well as "on -street" parking.
In addition, it will be the organizing feature of the site, and help
provide a common "build -to" line for new development to address.
New commercial buildings will be adorned with enhanced facades
and improved landscaping, and overflow parking will be provided
to the rear of the buildings.
WR — 5: Sturgis Corner Redevelopment — The commercial uses on
the Sturgis Corner site were developed in a conventional manner,
with multiple architectural styles, buildings set back behind large
surface parking lots, and limited pedestrian amenities. As this
area begins to redevelop, development guidelines will establish a
new development framework, one that is much more pedestrian
friendly. New commercial buildings will front onto Sturgis
Corner Drive, sidewalks will connect buildings, and parking will
be provided on -street and to the rear of buildings. In addition,
a new building site has been proposed for a new condo tower
overlooking the river and future regional park.
WR 3: Westside Redevelopment
WR 4: Riverside Commercial Development
WR 5: Sturgis Corner Redevelopment
91
WR - 6: Riverview - A new neighborhood is designated for
the north side of Benton Street. This neighborhood, which will
overlook the Iowa River and riverfront trail, will contain a new
mid -rise condo tower and townhouses that front onto greens
that provide access and view corridors to the river. All buildings
will be designed with parking on the ground floor in order to
raise habitable space above the floodplain. This design also
allows residents to get a more commanding view of the river. A
restaurant or retail site is located at the intersection of Benton
Street and Riverside Drive. This restaurant would have trail access
and is designed with a large patio with views of the river.
WR - %: West Riverfront Expansion -The West Riverfront Sub
District was expanded by a comprehensive plan amendment
(CPA20-0002) on XXXX, XX, 2020. The uses on the site at the time
of expansion were existing single-family and multi -family uses.
The site contains more than 50 feet of grade change, which is
atypical of the subdistrict. Redevelopment of the site will allow
the development of a larger, mixed-use project which may include
housing, retail, hospitality and/or neighborhood services. The new
development would make the site more cohesive and pedestrian -
friendly. However, the development must remain sensitive to the
less dense, single-family homes to the west.
82 downtown and riverfront crossings plan
WR 6: Before and After Renderings Showing the New Riverview Neighborhood Development in the West Riverfront District
west riverfront yield analysis
I
1
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
1
�)An
' s
• e
•• ••° •
• • •°• °• •
•0 • • i
•
0% 1000 go
ij •••
�• S�� •00 ••o*
N
J
Q
Q
U
r
e �
s
I
e
�
e
•�
o a
o
�
°•
v
o 0 1
000 O
e �
•e 00 o e i
0.0 !0 E
e
0 00 0• 0000 0 a
oe0
�o
o
eeeoeo
0
0000• •oo
i
0 000 • •
0 ••
00 oe
e
0 O
• coo
L
m
essoeeeooess
e
e
eee o 000
e Oe e
90
000 co 0e
e
®i°o•e°$8 $i8e8
o
eo o•
0
coo
0
oe 00
e
00 eo
1
�
0o
O�
O
Oe lb0�10
O
1
ce o �
00 0
WEST RIVERFRONT DISTRICT
WEST RIVERFRONT DISTRICT TOTALS
1
597,455 106,210 0 31,310 405,455 54,480 0 0 243 108 1,026 890 132 758 0
84 downtown and riverfront crossings plan
Building
Building
Square
Comm.
Office Mixed
Resid Hotel Misc
Suite Residential
Hotel Parking
Parking
Building ID
Type
Footprint
Stories
Footage
SF
SF SF
SF SF SF
Units Units
Rooms Demand
Provided
Private
Pkg Lot Pkg Gar Notes
WR -1
Commercial
3,900
1
3,900
3,900
16
18
18
WR -2
Commercial
5,000
1
5,000
5,000
20
26
26
WR -3
Commercial
16,805
1
16,805
16,805
67
45
45
WR -4
Commercial
23,365
1
23,365
23,365
93
68
68
WR -5
Commercial
10,350
1
10,350
10,350
41
42
42
WR -6
Commercial
1,400
1
1,400
1,400
6
5
5
WR -7
Commercial
1,400
1
1,400
1,400
6
5
5
WR -8
Commercial
1,400
1
1,400
1,400
6
5
5
WR -9
Commercial
1,400
1
1,400
1,400
6
5
5
WR -10
Commercial
4,200
2
8,400
8,400
-
-
3
38
26
26
WR -11
Mixed Use
2,555
2
5,110
-
2,555
2,555
2
12
10
10
WR -12
Mixed Use
11,255
4
45,020
11,255
33,765
21
73
45
45
WR -13
Mixed Use
13,835
4
55,340
13,835
41,505
27
91
56
56
WR -14
Residential
11,640
4
46,560
-
46,560
32
48
61
61
WR -15
Residential
11,250
4
45,000
45,000
28
42
53
-
53
WR -16
Townhomes
2,885
3
6,675
6,675
3
6
8
6
2
WR -17
Townhomes
5,330
3
12,460
12,460
5
10
13
10
3
WR -18
Townhomes
4,080
3
9,560
9,560
4
8
12
8
4
WR -19
Townhomes
6,080
3
14,070
14,070
6
12
14
12
2
WR -20
Townhomes
6,080
3
14,070
14,070
6
12
13
12
1
WR -21
Residential
20,315
8
68,875
68,875
40
63
40
30
10 parking on ground level
WR -22
Commercial
5,185
1
5,185
5,185
-
-
-
21
14
-
14
WR -23
Mixed Use
10,355
5
45,085
-
3,665
41,420
28
55
34
17
17
WR -24
Commercial
8,835
1
8,835
8,835
-
-
-
35
44
-
44
WR -25
Commercial
7,195
1
7,195
7,195
29
36
36
WR -26
Commercial
6,575
1
6,575
6,575
26
20
20
WR -27
Commercial
5,000
1
5,000
5,000
-
-
20
25
-
25
WR -28
Residential
14,520
7
68,940
-
68,940
38
- 57
57
37
20 parking on ground level
WR -29
Hotel
13,620
4
54,480
54,480
-
108 108
90
-
90
WEST RIVERFRONT DISTRICT TOTALS
1
597,455 106,210 0 31,310 405,455 54,480 0 0 243 108 1,026 890 132 758 0
84 downtown and riverfront crossings plan
university district
ami?_ _ cTF-.-_F. M
n� - -- r-------------,�+�`
I
I 1
I
r ---J WASHINGTON ST.
I I
I z Downtown
I o I w
y z
COLLEGE ST.I z
r ----L ---------------, r-- �, BURUN G70N ST.
'• E I N � I I
South Downtown
COURT sT.
• � �,� II f I o � � II
University r 1
District `----J
PRENTISS ST. L
Central Crossings
WRIGHT $L. I
-r LL—, I!
., I 1
1 west
Expan�on 1 \`:,�.. �Ij II j Gilbert j
1 I 1 i;�,.�•S.ti JLC _-7 LAFAYETTE ST.
District �
Orchard 1 I I I !
I 1 II li z I
District �
' (aggX. % \ I Il aENTON ST. I I u
1 Ih w
L — SS I I w j
1 I West 1 \1 Park District
L-- j Riverfront—r.=j
I ; I KIRKW00D AYul
E,;
tf
South
I o ! Gilbert j
1 ! 1
•■ 4 MyG..
HIGHLAND AVE.
H/C,HWgY s
DR
park district
I
r---, WASHINGTON ST.
I z Downtown ' 1
0
- I COLLEGE ST.1 Q
I O
i �rt I f
L,. —J
r-------7 r ----- -...------ ------- BURLINGTON
� II Ij I
0
o i V South Downtown
COURT ST.
♦ I I O d �.
z
♦ II � o
11 I
49 1♦ University
District II JJ j II I
II PRENTISS ST. LL
Central Crossings
I
r _ _ _ IL_ WRIGHT ST
I ♦ 1 L_
1 West I I I 11 I I 1
1 Riverfront 1 II 1 1 Gilbert
1 Expansion 1 I C I I J1 1
7LAFAYETTE ST. r 1 District 1
J. r ♦, lyra s*+'^ :
ir
Orchard 1 ► �' r a I I!
District I ♦ 1 ' �' �3' j 11 z 1
1 ' (appx.2) ♦ 1• .•1 r:.. - .� I BENTON ST. I ! V
1 i West 1 Park District
E -- L— 1 Riverfront 1 "' 1 m ��
1 - ♦ /1
m+r ��, ♦ *� 1 South 1
Gilbert j
HIGHLAND AVE.
H)V+HW^ r 6
liiAu
91
south gilbert district
Ing .
_ I--------------
r-
r- WASHINGTON ST.
T I
Downtown
z w
o {
I z
COLLEGE ST.I .�
L----------------- J
r-------, r----_ -__-_______ r__ BURLINGTON ST.
O
o i U South Downtown
COURT 57.
II I
1 University r"—� ARRISON s
District�Z ll j
II PRENTISS ST.
Central Crossings II r_r__;� I I -- I
r - --i ►
WRIGHT
�`-;�
ST.
II I
1 west I
I I
I I 1
�Expansion on/
�,
II
j j Gilbert I
���
J L---,LAFAYETTE
5T. 1 District I
L — — r
___-----II
o
I r I
II
kct,ard
1 I I
II
1isUict I
Ippx2)
�
,
� �
II H z
II BENTON $1. ' V
`I 8F�
I
West
Park District
Ij j j
-- j
Riverfront
a
❑
` I KIRNw OOD
AVE' `'
S�°acs
---J
%w
1
1
Lunn: : South
�o
I
/U!.
- I"F� ► 1 1 0 �: Gilbert : I
` moi♦ t�`; 1, ~�l�
P J HIGHLAND AVE.
A
F
96 downtown and riverfront crossings plan
HrGkkgY 6
Page 1 of 2
Notice of Good Neighbor Meeting and Open House
October 19, 2020
To Our Neighbors:
The Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) will soon consider a comprehensive plan amendment and
rezoning for a property in your area. The property is located at the corner of Riverside Drive and Myrtle Ave. (see attached
map). The proposed change is to replace the existing multi -family housing and commercial currently on site and allow
development of a mixed-use project with housing, retail, hospitality, and neighborhood service uses.
The Planning and Zoning Commission will review this proposal on November 5, 2020 at 7:OOpm. A notice of a formal
review by the Planning and Zoning Commission will be sent to all property owners within 300' of the property under review
by the City. You are encouraged to virtually attend these meetings and voice your opinions.
As the representatives of this request we would like to invite you to take the time to review the information provided on
riverfrontwest.com and the City's website and learn about the requested land use change so we may gather comments
and feedback regarding this proposal.
At riverfrontwest.com there is a link to the City of Iowa City Planning and Zoning Website that contains the relevant
Riverfront West project information and Iowa City planning staff comments.
Due to the COVID-19 situation we will not be conducting an in-person Good Neighbor meeting, instead we will schedule a
virtual open house on October 28th from 4:30 — 6:00. Please visit riverfrontwest.com for more information on the project
and for a link to the virtual meeting.
Time: Oct 28, 2020 4:30 — 6:00 PM Central Time
Join Zoom Meeting
https:flus 02web.zoom. us/J19311347580?pwd=U2k3cVVNOW82SVpwMlitzMFY4ZmdyQT09
Meeting ID: 931 134 7580 Passcode: 6QSLPy
Dial by your location — 312-626-6799
We will also accept comments and questions directly via email or letter at the addresses below.
Steve Long — Riverfront West, LLC - steve(LbsaIidapartners. com
Mark Seabold — Shive-Hattery - mseabold(o).shive-hattery.com
Letter comments may be sent to
Mark Seabold at Shive-Hattery, 2839 Northgate Drive, Iowa City, Iowa, 52245
If you have questions for City Staff, please contact Kirk Lehman, Associate Planner, at Kirk-Lehman@iowa-city.org or at
319-356-5247.
Thank You,
fi*L6** C-.1)
Mark Seabold, AIA, LEED AP
Page 2 of
THOMAS A PAULSEN BENNY LEE STEVENSON DAVID ALLEN WADKINS
1203 SANTA FE DR 531 OLIVE ST 533 OLIVE ST
IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY, IA 52246
IHAWK INVESTMENTS LLC SKYLER A MOSS ARTHUR T JOHNSON
1107 RYAN CIR 527 OLIVE ST 50 PRAIRIE DR
IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY, IA 52246 WALKER, IA 52352
ALFRED R & MARTHA G KLEINMEYER PRESTIGE PROPERTIES III LLC MARTHA KLEINMEYER
530 OLIVE ST 329 E COURT ST STE 2B 530 OLIVE ST
IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY, IA 52240 IOWA CITY, IA 52246
RIVER CROSSINGS LLC ELISA G WALLICK TIMOTHY A KLEINMEYER
2626 NEWPORT RD NE 534 OLIVE ST 532 OLIVE ST
IOWA CITY, IA 52240 IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY, IA 52246
CHRISTOPHER TRAETOW KAREN EAKES KEYSTONE PROPERTY MANGEMENT
475 N MCKENZIE LN 702 GIBLIN DR 533 SOUTHGATE AVE
NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 IOWA CITY, IA 52240 IOWA CITY, IA 52240
HOWARD M FIELD PETRO -KING INC MCWANE DAIRY QUEEN INC
2732 HIDDEN VALLEY TRL NE 606 S RIVERSIDE DR 526 S RIVERSIDE DR
SOLON, IA 52333-9551 IOWA CITY, IA 52246-5606 IOWA CITY, IA 52246
STATE OF IOWA TIMOTHY J & SHEILA M KELLY M & W PROPERTIES LLC
4 JESSUP HALL 1094 BLACK DIAMOND RD 916 MAIDEN LN
IOWA CITY, IA 52242 PARNELL, IA 52325 IOWA CITY, IA 52240
RIVERVIEW WEST LLC L & K PROPERTIES LLC 513 RIVERSIDE LLC
404 E COLLEGE ST #1501 380 WHITMAN AVE 13 WOODCREST LN NE
IOWA CITY, IA 52240 NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 IOWA CITY, IA 52240
FIRST MENNONITE CHURCH OF IC BARKALOW INVESTMENTS INC H SHELTON &ANN M STROMQUIST
405 MYRTLE AVE PO BOX 1490 316 MYRTLE AVE
IOWA CITY, IA 52246 IOWA CITY, IA 52244-1490 IOWA CITY, IA 52246
MAG DEVELOPMENT LLC JAMES M & MARY K KRIER
PO BOX 5325 28042 280TH ST
CORALVILLE, IA 52241 OLLIE, IA 52576
RIVERFRONT WEST GOOD NEIGHBOR MEETING
October 28, 2020 4:30 pm — 6:00 pm (Zoom)
Attendees
Neighbors: Nick Faselt, Carrie Floss, Mary Knudson, Ann Stomquist, Shel Stromquist, Paula
Swygard, Chris Traetow
Applicant: Mark Seabold (Shive Hattery), Steve Long, Kevin Kain & Adam Carper
(Riverfront West), Maryann Dennis (Riverfront West affordable housing
consultant)
City Staff: Ray Heitner, Kirk Lehman & Marcia Bollinger
Comments & Questions
• What about development on the east side of Riverside Drive, along the Iowa River?
• Are we working with the university?
• When we go before Planning and Zoning will we have a final concept?
• Please explain the comprehensive plan and rezoning process.
• Total number of units proposed?
• Will there be affordable housing replacement?
• Will you meet with us again after rezoning to show us the concept?
• The intersection of Riverside and Benton is so much nicer now and this project
continues that. It's great. It would add to this area of town.
• Any concerns about the noise from the railroad?
• Updates on the railroad tunnel project?
• Concern about connecting to the neighborhood to the south, if the tunnel is not
constructed.
• Properties that abut the homes on Olive Court is there a buffer, similar to Riverfront
West -Orchard?
• What is the development timeline?
• How much neighborhood commercial space?
Zoom Chat Question
What type of housing is being thought to go here? Hotel?/Senior?/Multi-family?
City Staff Representative Comments
From: Paula Swyaard
To: PlanninaZoninaPublic
Subject: CPA20-0002, REZ20-0003, and REZ20-0004
Date: Monday, November 2, 2020 1:29:12 PM
Attachments: imaae.ona
Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
I am writing to ask you to consider the following regarding CPA20-0002 (comp plan),
REZ20-0003 (rezoning), and REZ20-0004 (modification to WRFC for height bonus), for the
properties at 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court and 119, 201, 203, 205, 207, and 209
Myrtle Ave.
The West Riverfront subdistrict of the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan was designed to
allow for infill redevelopment of the commercial properties along Riverside Drive. Among its
major goals were to develop a mixed-use, pedestrian friendly area and to improve the current
streetscape as Riverside Drive transitioned from a strictly commercial area. Orchard Street
was used as the western boundary for the West Riverfront subdistrict south of the railroad
bridge, and properties designated as appropriate for the West Riverfront subdistrict north of
the railroad bridge were limited to the commercial properties as clearly delineated on the
Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, p. 80, shaded in blue below.
It is notable that the West Riverfront Crossings subdistrict did not extend across Orchard
Street or into the RM 44 properties west along Myrtle Avenue. The form based code
standards for West Riverfront Crossings do not address the redevelopment of residential
properties whether they be RM 44 or RS8 in the area abutting or adjacent to the West
Riverfront Crossings subdistrict. It targeted the redevelopment of commercial buildings into
mixed use buildings along Riverside Drive.
When redevelopment was sought of the multi -family and residential zoned properties north of
Orchard Street, a new Riverfront Crossings subdistrict, The Orchard District, was developed.
The Orchard District, created after the initial Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan
was approved, was developed to "provide a transition between higher intensity mixed-use
areas along Riverside Drive and low -scale residential neighborhoods to the west." (Zoning
Code 14-2G-3: Subdistrict Standards) It specifies what types of buildings can be built in the
district and has different subdistrict form based guidelines for development. Most notably, it
limits buildings to 3 stories. It has different form based zoning guidelines and restrictions
which are sensitive to RS8 zoning which the West Riverfront Crossings subdistrict does not
have. In particular, it requires more setback between RS8 properties and properties
redeveloped using the form based code for the Orchard District. In addition to guiding what
type of buildings are allowed in the area, it also addresses placement of parking, screening,
lighting, etc. The district was created to allow for a smooth transition between what is allowed
in different zonings (not because of topography).
Citing Orchard Lofts as a circumstance that has changed in the area and therefore a valid
reason to support the comp plan amendment is misleading. Orchard Lofts is in a different
Riverfront Crossings subdistrict, the Orchard District, than the West Riverfront Crossings
subdistrict.
The Riverview West apartment complex, also cited as a circumstance that has changed, is the
kind of infill redevelopment targeted by the West Riverfront Crossings subdistrict master
plan. This residential complex was built on a vacant commercial property, formerly a car
dealership, located within the original West Riverfront Crossings subdistrict boundary in the
master plan. The property never abutted residential properties — Orchard St separates the West
Riverfront Crossings subdistrict from the now Orchard District. It was developed
appropriately according to the West Riverfront Crossings subdistrict guidelines and applicable
form based code. Most notably, it adheres to the four stories laid out in the master plan.
The development standards set forth in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master plan
for the RFC -WR District and the applicable form based code are not designed to abut and
transition to RS8 properties. The form based code for the RFC -WR district does not even
address this, however, the form based code for the Orchard District does.
Faulting the topography seems to be a reason to justify 4 stories abutting the RS8 zone.
Visually, the placement of a 4 story building against the backdrop of the hill may offer a
transition between the two zones. However, overall this will amount to an upzoning and the
proposed apartment building along the west boundary of the property looks expansive. The
RM44 properties could be attractively redeveloped similar in density to the current outdated
buildings rather than through upzoning as would happen by applying RFC -WR. Instead, the
Orchard District zoning and its form based code could be used as a model or extended to this
area. Currently the zoning for the properties is RM44 which allows for three stories. This is
what is allowed in the Orchard District. The form based code for the Orchard District steps
down from development along Riverside Drive and is sensitive to RS8 development. As the
RM44 properties are redeveloped, limiting buildings to 3 stories would maintain better
compatibility between the one story single family homes along Olive Street and these parcels.
Currently, the majority homes along Olive Street actually have no RM44 apartments abutting
them - there is an undeveloped lot and a single family home located within the RM44 zoning
abutting the rear of the majority of the homes. Per staff report'the proposed buildings are
expected to have a three-story exposure to the single-family homes, which is comparable to
what would be allowed in the current zone if the properties were at the same grade." So it
follows that if three stories were permitted instead of four, the proposed buildings would then
have a two-story exposure to the single family homes. Regardless, the current apartment
buildings are not close to the Olives St homes but are downhill so that the roofline might
possibly be visible from the RS8 properties, and there is currently no development abutting
them so this would be a huge change for the RS8 properties.
From p. 20 of 44 in the Riverside Development Traffic Impact Study - Preliminary Site Plan -
The plan shows a four story apartment building next to the RS8 properties. It discusses a
Myrtle Avenue semi -truck egress access point. During the Good Neighbor meeting it was
mentioned that the developers are looking at putting a 60' drive behind the back of the
proposed 4 story apartment building. I'm wondering if the current empty lot will remain
empty behind the RS8 homes or will it be removed to make way for development? At any
rate, this will create a huge change for the rear of the RS8 homes along Olive where they've
enjoyed the relative quiet and space between their homes and the one single family
home/downhill 3 story apartments to their rear with the empty lot acting as a buffer. This
proposed drive will light up the night. It will create semi -truck and delivery noises at odd
hours, more car traffic noises due to there being many more apartments than are there
currently, and maintenance noise from garbage and snow removal. It will put a driveway curb
cut for semi- and delivery vehicles on Myrtle St which will create a whole other set of
problems for traffic on a hill on Myrtle, the grade of which may not be appropriate for semis,
delivery, or maintenance vehicles. The roofs of the current 3 story apartments appear to be at a
lower grade than the top of the hill/rear of the RS8 properties. The new apartments would have
the potential to invade that privacy, even if only one story taller, with lights, balconies and
windows facing looking the rear of the RS8 properties where now there is nothing. As you
well know, the actual design of the buildings is not under your control.
Just as was done when the Orchard District was created, a new district can be designed using
the Orchard District as a model or the Orchard District can be applied to redevelop the RM44
properties.
There is also a request to amend the zoning code (REZ20-0004) which would amend the West
Riverfront Crossings subdistrict and would increase the maximum bonus height from five to
seven stories along the north side of the Iowa Interstate Railroad. I still struggle with putting
living space or hotel space alongside the railroad. I can hear the train whistles and grinding of
wheels from my home many blocks away. Anyway, I assume the reasoning is that if 4 story
buildings are permitted in the area currently zoned RM44 which is up on a hill, additional
stories are needed down along Riverside Dr. to create visual continuity. However, if the
Comp Plan allowed for 3 story development on the hill remained similar to the RM44 there
now (i.e. the Orchard District), the additional stories on Riverside Dr. may not necessarily be
needed, and the West Riverfront Crossings subdistrict development standards could remain
unchanged. Perhaps they are also trying to capitalize on "the view" that additional height
would give, but, as a reminder, much of that view could be blocked with any future
development across the street along the east side of Riverside Dr. Seven stories along the west
side of Riverside Drive is not the concept designed by the master plan consultants after much
discussion with residents, approved by the then Planning and Zoning Commission, and
adopted by the City Council. The five story limit was designed to step down from
development on the east side of Riverside Drive.
Every time changes to the core master plan are approved, a precedent is set which is then cited
to steer further and further away from the vision set forth in the Downtown and Riverfront
Crossings Master Plan.
We are in a tremendous period of change. We are still looking at developing more 1 st floor
brick and mortar commercial space as we transition to online work/retail. Does the market in
Iowa City still support this? What is the vacancy rate for 1 st floor commercial in all the new
mixed-use buildings that have sprung up in the Riverfront Crossings area? In the world of
Amazon, it seems only certain kinds - mostly a repetition - of retail fill some of the emptiness.
Maybe this area of Riverside Drive doesn't need much 1 st floor commercial space. I assume
the retail and neighborhood services that might locate in the proposed development will target
the residents who will occupy the apartments, guests of the proposed hotel, and office workers
should office space be included. Otherwise, Myrtle and Riverside Drive is too far from
campus to be an option for students for food between classes. The restaurants currently along
Riverside Drive and in the Hwy 1 strip mall that attract community visitors are primarily auto -
oriented and don't rely solely on neighborhood residents to support them. The Miller Orchard
neighborhood consists primarily of mid- and lower income owner occupied housing and
rentals whose occupants are attracted to affordable options and who might have difficulty
supporting upscale hospitality development.
Since the creation of the Southwest District Plan of 2002 (18 years ago), "enabling alternatives
to commuting by car" has been a goal for the area. There's nothing in this proposal that
transforms the current transportation in the area or that would encourage alternatives to cars
until the tunnel is built by the City through the railroad embankment. While this proposal
creates a nice visual with the potential for revitalizing the area north of the railroad bridge
to Myrtle, it would initially be created as an island with no guarantee of when it will be
connected by a tunnel. Residents of Riverview West/Orchard Lofts and those in the Miller
Orchard neighborhood cannot walk to it without crossing Riverside Drive then re -crossing at
Myrtle. People are just not likely to go to that trouble and will drive if there is some retail or
neighborhood service in the proposed development they want to go to. Although I could walk
the distance, I drove when we wanted pizza from The Wedge. The same will most likely
happen with folks wanting to get to Kum & Go from the Myrtle/Riverside Dr development.
I've seen many try to dangerously walk between Riverside Dr. and the embankment. And
without the tunnel, there is no safe way to directly bike there either. Biking on Riverside Drive
would be downright treacherous.
There was a lengthy traffic study done for this project and I didn't read the details extensively,
but after having lived in the area for so long, my experience is there is already more auto
congestion from Riverview West and Orchard Loft and that this upzoning would bring even
more auto congestion. It appears the best option for traffic will be to exit onto Myrtle for the
best route to get to campus or downtown. Traffic exiting the proposed development using the
Riverside Dr. curb cut will have to turn right/south onto Riverside Drive. If they find it easier
to turn right onto Riverside using the Riverside Dr exit to avoid the stoplight, they will then
either turn left at Benton/Riverside and cross that bridge or creatively cut through Kum & Go
(I see this all the time) dodge traffic to turn left (or right) onto Benton, and then get headed
north or towards downtown at Benton/Riverside. It's always worth a reminder that the
increase in traffic in the area is not limited to Myrtle/Riverside Drive, Riverside/Burlington or
Benton/Riverside but also includes additional traffic that spills over into the interior cut
through routes in the area, notably Orchard Street, Hudson, and Miller Avenue as people look
for the path of least resistance (fewer stoplights) to/from Hwy 1 (Aldi's, Walmart). I
appreciate the work of those completing the study, but they are not always aware of the day-
to-day traffic issues faced by those of us who walk and drive in the neighborhood.
From the Staff Report: "The proposed development also contains a mix of senior and market -
rate housing, retail, hospitality and neighborhood service uses, organized around a central,
pedestrian plaza." Market rate housing will increase rents dramatically compared with rents
charged for current apartments, making them less affordable. The affordable housing
requirement was discussed during the Good Neighbor meeting but it is notable that many
redevelopments opt for fees in lieu of instead of creating affordable units.
While I understand that the City is reluctant to interfere with the question of whether a
developer should or should not invest in the redevelopment of a property, the City is
responsible for guiding the development of the city over the long term. The City is
responsible for allowing overdevelopment of 1 st floor commercial leading to vacancies that
adversely affect neighborhoods. It's responsible for upzoning. It's responsible for replacing
once affordable housing with housing that is no longer affordable for a lot of
residents, especially close to the core of the city. It's responsible for adhering to Master Plans
adopted for development.
For many years now, residents of Miller Orchard have looked forward to revitalization of our
area and Riverside Drive. Redevelopment that will be advantageous for both the City and for
the neighborhood are welcome. Overdevelopment that is disconnected, once again limits
affordability close to the center of Iowa City, and infringes on RS8 housing might not be the
KIRWAVOW
Please dive deeply into the form based subdistrict standards for both the Orchard District
subdistrict and the West Riverfront Crossings subdistrict as you consider CPA20-0002,
REZ20-0003, and REZ20-0004, the significant upzoning of the area approval would bring,
and especially the impact on the RS8 housing to the west.
I know that's a lot to wade through. Thanks for taking time to read.
Paula Swygard
From:
chris kleinmever
To:
Anne Russett
Subject:
Re: Project at Myrtle & Riverside
Date:
Thursday, November 5, 2020 9:48:13 AM
Attachments:
imaoe005.g_na
image004.g_na
imaae003.g_na
image002.g_na
imaae001.g_na
Hello Anne
I wanted to let you and the planning and zoning board know the the Kleinmeyer family fully
supports the New Project for the Mtytle & Riverside area.
The family sold a portion of our mothers back lot to let the project proceed forward. We are
all onboard.
The project will be a welcome change to the current buildings, vacant lots and the few older
homes. Having been a life long Olive St neighborhood resident the project will be a benefit
for us all.
Thank you,
Chris Kleinmeyer
501 Melrose Court
Iowa City Iowa 52246
Ckleinmeyer@yahoo.com
319-330-5329
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Thursday, November 5, 2020, 8:28 AM, Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> wrote:
Hi, Chris —
I received your message yesterday, but have been unable to get through to you on the
phone. I've called several times and am unable to leave a message. Steve Long provided
me with your email address. Please feel free to reach out at the number below. Alternatively
you can email me with questions.
Also, I wanted to let you know that if you have comments on the project, but prefer not to
speak at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting tonight, you can provide your
comments in writing via email to me and I will pass them along to the Commission. The
meeting starts at 7 PM tonight, so I would need comments by 5 PM today.
Thanks, Anne
CITY OF IOWA CITY Anne Russett, AICP
UNESCO CITY OF UTERATURE
Senior Planner
WWW.ICGOV.ORG She/Her/Hers
Disclaimer
p:319-356-5251
410 E Washington St
Iowa City, IA 52240
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended
solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient,
you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of
the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
Item Number: 7.d.
�r
P_
"m J IM%
CITY OE IOWA CITY
www.iogov.org
November 17, 2020
Motion setting a public hearing for December 1, 2020 on an ordinance
conditionally rezoning approximately 4 acres of land located at 215, 219, 223,
and 245 S. Riverside Court.; 119, 201, 203, 205, 207, and 209 Myrtle Avenue;
and 517 and 527 S. Riverside Drive from Medium Density Single -Family
Residential (RS -8), High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -44), and
Community Commercial (CC -2) zone to Riverfront Crossings - West
Riverfront District (RFC -WR). (REZ20-0003)
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Staff Report with Attachments
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner
Item: REZ20-0003 Date: November 5, 2020
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: K&F Properties, LLC.
319-621-3462
sal idapartners(a-)gmail. corn
Contact Person: Mark Seabold
Shive-Hattery Architecture -Engineering
2839 Northgate Drive
Iowa City, IA 52245
319-354-3040
mseabold(a)sh ive-hatters. com
Owner: K&F Properties, LLC.
319-621-3462
sal idapartners(a)gmail. com
Requested Action: Rezoning of 4 acres from Medium Density Single -
Family Residential (RS -8), High Density Multi -Family
Residential (RM -44), and Community Commercial
(CC -2) to Riverfront Crossings — West Riverfront
District (RFC -WR).
Purpose:
Location:
Location Map:
To develop a mixed-use project with housing, retail,
hospitality and neighborhood services.
215, 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court;
119, 201, 203, 205, 207, and 209 Myrtle Avenue;
517 and 527 S. Riverside Drive
Size: Approximately 4 acres
K
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Residential; High Density Multi -Family Residential
Zone (RM -44) & Medium Density Single -Family
Residential (RS -8)
Commercial; Community Commercial (CC -2)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Institutional (Open Space & Parking)
Institutional Public (P-2)
East: Residential & Commercial, Riverfront
Crossings, West Riverfront (RFC -WR) &
Community Commercial (CC -2)
South: Iowa Interstate Railroad & Residential;
Riverfront Crossings, West Riverfront
(RFC -WR), Riverfront Crossings, Orchard
(RFC -0), and Low Density Single -Family
Residential with Planned Development
Overlay (OPD/RS-5)
West: Residential; Medium Density Single -Family
Residential (RS -8)
Comprehensive Plan:
Residential 2-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre,
Residential 8-16 Dwelling Units Per Acre, & Mixed
Use
District Plan:
Southwest District Plan: Single-Family/Duplex
Residential, Medium to High Density Multi -Family,
& Mixed Use
Neighborhood Open Space District:
SW3
Public Meeting Notification: Property owners located within 300' of the project site
(and approximately 550' west of the project site)
received notification of the Planning and Zoning
Commission public meeting. Rezoning signs were
also posted on the site.
File Date: 10/14/2020
45 Day Limitation Period: 11/28/2020
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
K&F Properties, LLC owns approximately 4 acres of property located at 219, 223, and 245 S.
Riverside Court; 119, 201, 203, 205, 207, and 209 Myrtle Ave.; and 517 and 527 S. Riverside
Drive. The owner is working with Shive-Hattery to prepare three applications to allow development
of a mixed-use project with housing, retail, hospitality, and neighborhood service uses. This
specific application (REZ20-0003) proposes to rezone the parcels currently zoned Medium
Density Single -Family Residential (RS -8), High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -44), and
Community Commercial (CC -2) to the Riverfront Crossings -West Riverfront (RFC -WR) zone.
The other concurrently submitted applications include a request to amend the City's
Comprehensive Plan (CPA20-0002) by adding the subject property to the West Riverfront
Subdistrict of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan and a zoning text amendment
3
(REZ20-0004), which would amend the West Riverfront subdistrict regulating plan map and
increase the maximum bonus height from 5 to 7 stories along the north side of the Iowa Interstate
Railroad. Generally, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment must be approved for changes to the
zoning and regulating plan maps to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. However, the bonus
height zoning text amendment does not require the Comprehensive Plan amendment to be
approved.
The applicant submitted concept plans showing development scenarios for the properties they
own and a statement regarding the proposed rezoning (Attachments #2 and #3). The concepts
illustrate the potential character of development but are subject to change.
The applicant held a virtual Good Neighbor Meeting on Wednesday, October 28th, 2020. The
meeting was attended by approximately seven neighborhood residents. Primary questions and
concerns stemming from the meeting included sensitivity of building heights to existing neighbors
residing on Olive St., solutions for future housing and accommodation of low-income housing
residents, and connectivity to the rest of S. Riverside Drive corridor. The applicant's summary of
the meeting is included in Attachment #4.
ANALYSIS -
Current Zoning: The subject area currently has three different zoning designations, including
Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS -8), High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -44),
and Community Commercial (CC -2). The current layout of these zoning designations can be seen
in the attached Zoning map (Attachment #5).
The purpose of the medium density single-family residential zone (RS -8) is primarily to provide for
the development of small lot single-family dwellings. The regulations allow for some flexibility of
dwelling types to provide housing opportunities for a variety of household types. The RS -8 zone
allows a maximum building height of 35' and a maximum density of eight (8) dwelling units per acre
for detached, single-family dwelling units.
The purpose of the high density multi -family residential zone (RM -44) is to establish areas for the
development of high density, multi- family dwellings and group living quarters. Due to the high
density permitted in this zone, careful attention to site design is expected to ensure that buildings
are compatible with surrounding land uses and that a quality living environment will be maintained
over time. The RM -44 zone allows a maximum building height of 35' and a maximum density of 29
— 87 dwelling units per acre, depending on the number of bedrooms per unit.
The purpose of the community commercial zone (CC -2) is to provide for major business districts to
serve a significant segment of the total community population. In addition to a variety of retail goods
and services, these centers may typically feature a number of large traffic generators requiring
access from major thoroughfares. The CC -2 zone allows a maximum building height of 35' and a
floor area ratio of 2.0.'
Proposed Zoning: The applicant is requesting to rezone the entire 4 -acre subject area to the RFC -
WR zone. The RFC -WR zone is intended for commercial and mixed use development in buildings
with street -facing entries opening onto streetscapes designed to provide a comfortable and
attractive environment for pedestrians buffered from vehicular traffic on Riverside Drive.
The RFC -WR zone does not have a maximum density requirement, however height is regulated
within the zone. The zone has a base maximum height of four (4) stories, with an additional story
' Floor area ratio is the total floor area within a building or buildings on a lot divided by the total
area of that lot.
C!
of bonus height allowed, for a maximum height of five (5) stories. Properties within the RFC -WR
zone that abut residential zones cannot have buildings higher than four (4) stories. An
accompanying application for this project includes a text amendment to allow a building up to
seven (7) stories in height to be located within 200' north of the Iowa Interstate Railroad right-of-
way.
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.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The properties that are currently zoned
Community Commercial (CC -2) are already included in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings
Plan's West Riverfront Subdistrict. The residentially zoned properties are currently in the
Southwest District of the Comprehensive Plan, which indicates the properties are primarily
appropriate for Medium to High Density Multi -Family, specified as 8-16 Dwelling Units Per Acre
in the Comprehensive Plan. However, 209 Myrtle Avenue is shown as Single-Family/Duplex
Residential, specified as 2-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre in the Comprehensive Plan. A
comprehensive plan amendment is pending that would incorporate this entire area into the
Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan's West Riverfront Subdistrict.
Figure 1 shows an excerpt from the master plan that lists the plan objectives, desired development
character for the district, and the types of development envisioned for this area. The development
that is currently planned for the proposed rezoning would satisfy several of these objectives. The
development associated with the rezoning could improve pedestrian circulation in this section of
the West Riverfront Subdistrict. Staff is recommending the installation of a 6 -foot sidewalk along
the west frontage of S. Riverside Drive before a certificate of occupancy is issued within the
subject area as a condition of the rezoning. In addition, staff is recommending a condition that the
developer provides a pedestrian linkage between Myrtle Avenue and S. Riverside Drive through
the project site, subject to review and approval of the Form -Based Code Committee.
ILL. UIG 1 - VVV,L RIVCI II VI IL LJWLIIL.L JV 111111
West Riverfront District Summary
Plaster Plan Obfectfves.
x Capitalize on Highway 6 access and visibility
x Improve pedestrian and bi€Me circulation
x Capitalize on the Iowa River
� Extend the riverfront trail
x Capture the football crowd
Development Character:
s Temper auto orientation
} Open views and access to river
}Enhance the streetscape and overall aesthetics
Development Program:
) Multiple housing typologies, including condo towers,
apartments and townhouses
x Destination river view restaurants
x Commercial, possiblesmall to midsize box
x Hospitality
5
The development will also temper the corridor's auto orientation by replacing the existing surface
parking lots and sporadic commercial lots with several mixed use buildings that have shallower
setbacks along Riverside Drive and Myrtle Avenue. This should also help to enhance the
streetscape and overall aesthetics of the S. Riverside Drive corridor. The proposed concept
shows multiple housing typologies, with two mixed use buildings containing multi -family housing,
a hotel, townhouse style housing, and a building intended for senior living. It is believed that the
development will also feature hospitality and commercial uses that will be located within walking
distance from Kinnick Stadium, potentially capturing the University's football crowds. The
development plan is conceptual at this stage. Changes to the development plan are probable.
The proposed rezoning would create a transition from larger -scale mixed use and commercial
buildings along Riverside Dr. to single family housing to the west of the district. Rezoning the
property to the new designation will facilitate the type of redevelopment envisioned for this specific
area in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. This conformance with the form -
based code complies with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for this area.
Compatibility with the Existing Neighborhood Character: The Riverfront Crossings, West
Riverfront zone can be found to the immediate northeast of the subject area, at the southwest
corner of Myrtle Avenue and S. Riverside Drive. The RFC -WR zone can also be found along the
west side of S. Riverside Drive, south of the Iowa Interstate Railroad tracks. There are currently
two sizeable multi -family residential buildings in this area south of the railroad tracks. An extension
of the RFC -WR Subdistrict into the subject area is appropriate, given the proximity of the current
RFC -WR zoning to the south, in addition to the adjacency to the West Riverfront Subdistrict from
the comprehensive plan to the east.
The subject area currently contains three different zoning designations. A large portion of the
subject area is zoned High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -44). Under this zoning
designation, a density of one bedroom per 500 square feet of lot area could be built by right.2
While the current conditions of the subject area is not as dense as what is allowable by code, the
opportunity for increased density already exists in much of this area. Table 1 shows the current
number of dwelling units, versus what could be allowed in a scenario with all 1 -bedroom units.
Table 1 — RM -44 (Current Zoning) Parcels Unit Count3
Address:
Current Units
Allowable 1 -BD Units
207 Myrtle Avenue
30
58
205 Myrtle Avenue
4
15
201 Myrtle Avenue
7
12
119 Myrtle Avenue
22
30
203 Myrtle Avenue
44
29
219 S. Riverside Ct.
1
14
223 S. Riverside Ct.
1
19
245 S. Riverside Ct.
1
60
Total:
110
237
The southeastern portion of the subject area is currently zoned Community Commercial (CC -2)
and contains a mixture of businesses that are more commonplace in a traditional commercial
highway setting.
Two parcels in the far western portion of the subject area are zoned Medium Density Residential
(RS -8). These parcels are just east of several single-family residential properties located to the
2 The RM -44 zone has a maximum height of 35 ft.
3 Does not include additional requirements pertaining to required parking, FAR, etc.
M
immediate west of the subject area, on Olive Street. The RFC -WR zone limits building heights on
lots that abut residential zones to four (4) stories (per 14 -2G -7G-1 d-4 of City Code). Staff
recognizes that construction of a building of this size will present a notable change in the eastern
view of these residents. With this concern in mind, staff is recommending a condition that in the
event that the owner pursues any height bonus for buildings proposed next to the existing single-
family on Olive Street, careful attention must be given to the interface and transition between the
development and the single-family housing to the west. Any such application shall include
mitigating, transitional design elements, including but not limited to increased separation or
increased stepbacks.
With respect to compatibility with other surrounding uses, the property to the north is currently
open space owned by the university. The Iowa Interstate Railroad acts as a natural buffer to the
properties to the south. Since the properties to the east are already located within the Riverfront
Crossings, West Riverfront Subdistrict, it is likely these properties will redevelop to a greater
intensity in the future, likely matching or exceeding the height and density proposed in the
associated development concept plan for the subject area on the west side of S. Riverside Dr.
Properties with Iowa River frontage are allowed to have a maximum height of eight (8) stories
before application of bonus height provisions.
Rezoning of the subject area to the RFC -WR zone will trigger the affordable housing requirement.
The requirement states that except for developments exclusively providing elder apartment
housing, any development containing ten (10) or more dwelling units on land zoned a riverfront
crossings zoning designation is required to provide affordable housing dwelling units in an amount
equal to or greater than ten percent (10%) of the total number of dwelling units.
Traffic Implications and Access: The applicant submitted a traffic study (Attachment #6) as
requested by City transportation planning staff. The study was initiated to identify potential traffic
impacts on the adjacent roadway network. The analysis estimates the associated development's
impact on the following intersections:
1. Myrtle Avenue & Greenwood Drive
2. Myrtle Avenue & Lot 48 Access
3. Myrtle Avenue & Olive Street
4. Myrtle Avenue & Access Point
5. Riverside Drive & Grand Avenue/West Burlington Street
6. Riverside Drive & Myrtle Avenue
7. Riverside Drive & Access Point
8. Riverside Drive & W. Benton Street
The analysis found that based on anticipated buildout of the associated development, all studied
intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS), with intersections operating at
LOS D or better and all approaches at LOS E or better during A.M. and P.M. peak hour conditions,
through the year 2042.
To avoid additional traffic conflicts on S. Riverside Drive, staff is recommending a condition of the
rezoning that the subject area be limited to one (1) access point onto S. Riverside Drive that
features a right-in/right-out design.
Since S. Riverside Ct. (a private street), currently has approximately 75 square feet extending
beyond the western right-of-way line for S. Riverside Drive, staff is recommending a condition of
the rezoning be that the City acquires the aforementioned 75 square feet of right-of-way from the
applicant before the property develops.
Transportation planning staff is still reviewing the traffic study. Additional conditions may be
VA
recommended by staff based on this review. Staff plans to have an update for the Commission at
its meeting.
Lastly, because the subject area contains fifteen different parcels, staff is recommending a
condition of the rezoning be that the applicant replat the subject area when a development plan
is ready for City review. Staff envisions that the replatted area will consolidate several of the
existing lots.
Utilities and Floodplain: Redevelopment of the subject area will require several water service
lines to be retired and capped at the respective water mains. An existing sanitary sewer easement
that is located on the property will need to be relocated in the event that buildings are built over
the easement. As the property redevelops, it will be subject to on-site storm water management
requirements.
As seen in Figure 3 below, a small portion of the subject area is within the 500 -year floodplain.
Subsequent development of the subject area will be required to comply with the City's floodplain
management standards.
0I*:�9NIX&3
Upon recommendation from the Planning & Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be scheduled
for consideration of the application by City Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that an application submitted by K&F Properties, LLC. for a rezoning from
Medium Density Single -Family Residential (RS -8), High Density Multi -Family Residential (RM -44),
and Community Commercial (CC -2) to West Riverfront District (RFC -WR) for approximately 4 acres
of land located at 215, 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court; 119, 201, 203, 205, 207, and 209
Myrtle Avenue; 517 and 527 S. Riverside Drive be approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, installation of a 6' wide sidewalk along the west
side of S. Riverside Drive frontage.
2. Provision of a pedestrian linkage between Myrtle Avenue and S. Riverside Drive through the
project site, subject to review and approval of the Form -Based Code Committee.
n
3. In the event that the owner pursues any height bonus for buildings proposed next to the
existing single-family on Olive Street, careful attention must be given to the interface and
transition between the development and the single-family housing to the west. Any such
application shall include mitigating, transitional design elements, including but not limited to
increased separation or increased stepbacks.
4. The subject area shall be limited to one (1) access point onto S. Riverside Drive that shall
feature a right-in/right-out design.
5. Dedication of approximately 75 square feet of S. Riverside Ct. territory to City right-of-way
when the subject area is replatted.
6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the subject area shall be replatted in a manner that
conforms with the future layout of development.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Massing Concepts
3. Applicant Statement
4. Good Neighbor Meeting Summary
5. Zoning Map
6. Traffic Impact Study
Approved by.
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
y
Ul-
LU
a -M NN
_ .����1F
y.� - •,ice-'
4 .1
IN
CITY OF IOWA CITY
♦. -jay a..
J
An application submitted by K & F Properties, LLC to request the
rezoning of approximately 4.0 acres of property from Medium
Density Single -Family (RS -8), High Density Multifamily (RM -44), and
Community Commercial (CC -2) to Riverfront Crossings, West; -�
Riverfront (RFC -WR).
T —•� IJ
PA -
� M�
[ 1714
i.
�1
S RIVERSIDE CT
1
I _
�M _�y • . � ,
-1V
♦. -jay a..
J
An application submitted by K & F Properties, LLC to request the
rezoning of approximately 4.0 acres of property from Medium
Density Single -Family (RS -8), High Density Multifamily (RM -44), and
Community Commercial (CC -2) to Riverfront Crossings, West; -�
Riverfront (RFC -WR).
T —•� IJ
PA -
� M�
RIVERFRONT WEST
DEVELOPMENT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT &
REZONING
SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA
AUGUST 13, 2020
SHIVEHATTERY
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
EXISTING SITE PHOTOGRAPHY
No existing pedestrian circulation throughout the site. Lack of defined vehicular entrances from Riverside Drive.
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING SH IVEHATTERY 2
SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA I AUGUST 13, 2020 ARC H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
.. 11 _ �- _ mss,,,•, 1 .4.• t..�. - � r. � �•.� -+lam• r - _ . _.. -
IMP
it
;: t
y.,��rl J ► N� iY
zs
woo
.�
-a,
ow
t
tp
'Y -
44
:. . 'i. i.c';x:* Y { +■ ` _ �, r. -�- + w"
All
SIP
.".� h •, A'y' f t
Toft
jig'�.R F! • r1 �Eer...
i-ismr --
TER
_ - '!1 r �. �'✓ f -. � �� .y 1�"ti '-' .". r • .� i � Y'': - .. 9'�y oLi
44
LE
EEI
Ole
ij
TA
'-ack of green space/ vegetated area does not relate to surrounding area. Most of site area devoted to parking.
s
.� � • AjRa .i.:"
&PUFUT I• 11 \ ! \ ! 11 \ ■ 11 \Z 21=7*111'LIC'�A
EXISTING SITE PHOTOGRAPHY
Buildings do not relate to each other. Views are to backs of other buildings both within the site and from Olive Street.
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING SH IVEHATTERY 5
SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA I AUGUST 13, 2020 A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
Wo
. i L :-,•. . `� '---'��'� � �:a � �„vg.� .�.�r ._.��_ • f = � � •5,..
qp �.
_ .
Al
y• �
"Jr.IR
If
Le
_ - r � -:4 � r.�'� _ _ : r. ' � - �� � .+ �- 's - err �•.' 1� � `-'tih ll -
10
L ,r• .. .. f� '�.,r �-f -`�5!f�,!R� �d
WU
MWAL
WR
411
'". - _ # ' s, �. �� ^�, Esq ^ �ae .�.�;c -, . '�} � • �� . • � x. "4,.�y,+,•, �i
r. Y '.. :.vii''. `'� k��.-`k. _ -�-:v �`� � fit. a.r_. •�.:�,":
Alwm■0�=
x-. � . r .s �� ..'Alm � •-�,!•' - � � �r -
A
T •' _ _ fes_
- -�.��f * _��i��r _ � J �'+•Njrl � • ,:'J.L •a'Y�L. '• - •�F; .--� Y tri�� y�_I �� � .. � (���� .:1
44
—71
114
r 111 "' •�4 j. .it-a r. ,:_ f _ -- 3#
�.� - --__� arm._ - � .. .�, R - � �• Y - .. r,
- I. �� -- -'� '-r �. � • =r; r, .. _ -- •-1� � �•�,~ �i. r,' ��,-'!-fit �.��g��qp,r, -i�ti � -
PROPOSED SITE MASSING
PERSPECTIVE `
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING SH IVEHATTERY g
SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA I AUGUST 13, 2020 A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
MASSING STUDIES I RIVERSIDE DRIVE LOOKING WEST
Tf11Tfl
"1Trf111011171
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING SH IVEHATTERY 9
SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA I AUGUST 13, 2020 A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
MASSING STUDIES I RIVERSIDE DRIVE LOOKING WEST
TEXT AMENDMENT TO WEST RIVERFRONT SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW
HEIGHT BONUS ALLOWANCE TO 7 STORIES MAX FOR PROPERTIES
. NORTH OF AND ADJOINING IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING
SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA I AUGUST 13, 2020
• CORNER PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED WEST RIVERFRONT SUBDISTRICT
FIVE (5) STORIES MAXIMUM FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE WEST RIVERFRONT
• SUBDISTRICT THAT DO NOT HAVE FRONTAGE ALONG THE IOWA RIVER.
HOWEVER, BONUS HEIGHT IS NOT ALLOWED ON LOTS THAT ABUT A RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
SHIVEHATTERY to
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
MASSING STUDIES I CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MRYTLE AVE LOOKING
SET BACK 10'
•TEXT AMENDMENT TO WEST RIVERFRONT SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW
'HEIGHT BONUS ALLOWANCE TO 7 STORIES MAX FOR PROPERTIES
;NORTH OF AND ADJOINING IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD
CORNER PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED WEST RIVERFRONT SUBDISTRICT
FIVE (5) STORIES MAXIMUM FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE WEST RIVERFRONT
SUBDISTRICT THAT DO NOT HAVE FRONTAGE ALONG THE IOWA RIVER.
• HOWEVER, BONUS HEIGHT IS NOT ALLOWED ON LOTS THAT ABUT A RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
• ,� srd SFr 7
= -r
. SET BACK 10'
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING SH IVEHATTERY 11
SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA I AUGUST 13, 2020 A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
MASSING STUDIES I HOTEL ENTRANCE LOOKING NORTH
CORNER PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED WEST RIVERFRONT SUBDISTRICT
FIVE (5) STORIES MAXIMUM FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE WEST RIVERFRONT
SUBDISTRICT THAT DO NOT HAVE FRONTAGE ALONG THE IOWA RIVER.
• HOWEVER, BONUS HEIGHT IS NOT ALLOWED ON LOTS THAT ABUT A RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING SH IVEHATTERY 12
SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA I AUGUST 13, 2020 A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
MASSING STUDIES I RETAIL PLAZA LOOKING SOUTH
TEXT AMENDMENT TO WEST RIVERFRONT SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW :CORNER PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED WEST RIVERFRONT SUBDISTRICT
. HEIGHT BONUS ALLOWANCE TO 7 STORIES MAX FOR PROPERTIES
'NORTH OF AND ADJOINING IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD ' FIVE (5) STORIES MAXIMUM FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE WEST RIVERFRONT
SUBDISTRICT THAT DO NOT HAVE FRONTAGE ALONG THE IOWA RIVER.
.HOWEVER, BONUS HEIGHT IS NOT ALLOWED ON LOTS THAT ABUT A
'RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING SH IVEHATTERY 13
SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA I AUGUST 13, 2020 A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
MASSING STUDIES I RIVERSIDE DRIVE LOOKING NORTH
! FUTURE TUNNEL LOCATION
TEXT AMENDMENT TO WEST RIVERFRONT SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW
• HEIGHT BONUS ALLOWANCE TO 7 STORIES MAX FOR PROPERTIES
NORTH OF AND ADJOINING IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD
I�li[s ygCKS
IN
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING SH IVEHATTERY 14
SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA I AUGUST 13, 2020 A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
DPOSED SUBDISTRICT
WEST RIVERFRONT
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING SH IVEHATTERY 15
SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA I AUGUST 13, 2020 A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
PROPOSED •REZONING
My
ffT
f:.
H�
ai 11.1 � ��� � � si��
Legend
-
South Downtown Subdistrict
University Subdistrict
Central Crossings Subdistrict
Gilbert Subdistrict
Park Subdistrict
South Gilbert Subdistrict
West Riverfront 5ubdlstrict
1L Public Parks and Open Space
gV Green Spare
Primary Street
-J Required Retail Storefront
Required Ralston Creek Frontage
Riverfront Crossings Boundary
University of Iowa Campus
Al
J
E
7 TTT TFT- F FF ri fir__ _9 7
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Riverfront West Development requests that Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan be amended to extend the Riverfront Crossings
District west in the area indicated above from the existing properties in the West Riverfront Subdistrict along Riverside Drive
to the eastern property line of the residential properties located on Olive Street and 215/213 Myrtle Ave. The existing West
Riverfront Subdistrict would be expanded west as part of this amendment.
This expansion of the West Riverfront Subdistrict would redefine an existing RM -44 zoned area with existing apartment
buildings and two converted/ leased single family residential houses. The properties to be included in the current RM -44
zoned area are 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court and 119, 201, 203, 205, and 207 Myrtle Ave. This area also includes a
single RS8 lot, 209 Myrtle Ave.
Expanding the West Riverfront Subdistrict is appropriate for this site due to the over 50' of grade change. Because of this
topography, which is atypical of the West Riverfront Subdistrict, the proposed height of the buildings will present a three-story
exposure to the Olive Street residences. This is approximately a single story more than the existing apartments building
located there now.
This Comprehensive Plan Amendment would allow for a more cohesive development while still being sensitive
to the neighborhood scale to the west.
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING SH IVEHATTERY 16
SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA I AUGUST 13, 2020 A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
EXISTING CONDITIONS I CURRENT ZONING OF PROPERTIES
PropertyJohnson County
1W Search by parcel number (ex. 101528014) kua i s dubuque st) Q
Fna
,4
RFC -.O
1:880 RSE
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING
SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA I AUGUST 13, 2020
4
. - - ison C-ougW I JoMnson t-oontn- Iowa Ub EL-M-1�111111
SHIVEHATTERY 17
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
PROPOSED WEST RIVERFRONT SUBDISTRICT
�,4
rmm�- �r
-. s � r Y _ t k _ �.�F � • .
FIVE (5) STORIES MAXIMUM FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE WEST RIVERFRONT
SUBDISTRICT THAT DO NOT HAVE FRONTAGE ALONG THE IOWA RIVER.
'HOWEVER, BONUS HEIGHT IS NOT ALLOWED ON LOTS THAT ABUT A RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
'TEXT AMENDMENT TO WEST RIVERFRONT SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW
HEIGHT BONUS ALLOWANCE TO 7 STORIES MAX FOR PROPERTIES
NORTH OF AND ADJOINING IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD
w
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING SH IVEHATTERY 18
SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA I AUGUST 13, 2020 A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
SHIVEHATTCRY
A R C H IT E C T U R E+ E N G IN E E R ING
CPA20-0001
Applicant's statement — The proposed amendment will be compatible with other policies or provisions
of the Comprehensive Plan, including any District Plans or other amendments thereto.
Below verbiage included on page 16 of submitted document
"Riverfront West Development requests that Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan be amended to extend the
Riverfront Crossings District west in the area indicated above from the existing properties in the West
Riverfront Subdistrict along Riverside Drive to the eastern property line of the residential properties
located on Olive Street and 215/213 Myrtle Ave. The existing West Riverfront Subdistrict would be
expanded west as part of this amendment.
This expansion of the West Riverfront Subdistrict would redefine an existing RM -44 zoned area with
existing apartment buildings and two converted/ leased single family residential houses. The properties
to be included in the current RM -44 zoned area are 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court and 119, 201,
203, 205, and 207 Myrtle Ave. This area also includes a single RS8 lot, 209 Myrtle Ave.
Expanding the West Riverfront Subdistrict is appropriate for this site due to the over 50' of grade change.
Because of this topography, which is atypical of the West Riverfront Subdistrict, the proposed height of
the buildings will present a three-story exposure to the Olive Street residences. This is approximately a
single story more than the existing apartments building
located there now.
This Comprehensive Plan Amendment would allow for a more cohesive development while still being
sensitive to the neighborhood scale to the west."
Neighboring Property Listing — file attached for property owners within 300 feet of the exterior limits of
the properties involved in this application.
Project 1191830
sh ive-hattery.com
RIVERFRONT WEST GOOD NEIGHBOR MEETING
October 28, 2020 4:30 pm — 6:00 pm (Zoom)
Attendees
Neighbors: Nick Faselt, Carrie Floss, Mary Knudson, Ann Stomquist, Shel Stromquist, Paula
Swygard, Chris Traetow
Applicant: Mark Seabold (Shive Hattery), Steve Long, Kevin Kain & Adam Carper
(Riverfront West), Maryann Dennis (Riverfront West affordable housing
consultant)
City Staff: Ray Heitner, Kirk Lehman & Marcia Bollinger
Comments & Questions
• What about development on the east side of Riverside Drive, along the Iowa River?
• Are we working with the university?
• When we go before Planning and Zoning will we have a final concept?
• Please explain the comprehensive plan and rezoning process.
• Total number of units proposed?
• Will there be affordable housing replacement?
• Will you meet with us again after rezoning to show us the concept?
• The intersection of Riverside and Benton is so much nicer now and this project
continues that. It's great. It would add to this area of town.
• Any concerns about the noise from the railroad?
• Updates on the railroad tunnel project?
• Concern about connecting to the neighborhood to the south, if the tunnel is not
constructed.
• Properties that abut the homes on Olive Court is there a buffer, similar to Riverfront
West -Orchard?
• What is the development timeline?
• How much neighborhood commercial space?
Zoom Chat Question
What type of housing is being thought to go here? Hotel?/Senior?/Multi-family?
City Staff Representative Comments
N
W , E
S.
0 0.0125 0.025 0.05 Miles
I i I i I
■ ■ a
■
I u des ■ ■ ■ mom ■ ■ ■■t3 a
- !.
■
I I.� ■
i IMPI 0 0 ♦■
REZ20-0003
517, 527 South Riverside Dr.
215, 219, 223, 245 South Riverside Ct.
119, 201, 203, 205, 207, 209 Mrytle Ave.
Prepared By: Joshua Engelbrecht
Date Prepared: August 2020
r`
f
Riverside Development
Traffic Impact Study
Iowa City, IA
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS ENGINEERING DOCUMENT
WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT PERSONAL
SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF IOWA.
10/13/2020
SIGNATURE DATE
PRINTED OR TYPED NAME: MARCUS H. JANUARIO
LICENSE NUMBER: 23116
MY LICENSE RENEWAL DATE IS: 12/31/2020
PAGES, SHEETS, OR DIVISIONS COVERED BY THIS
SEAL: ALL
SHIVEHATTCRY
ARCH I T E C T U R F+ E NGINEFRING
222 3rd Avenue SE, Suite 300 1 P.O. Box 1803 1 Cedar Rapids, IA 52406-1803
319.364.0227 ext. 2266 1 fax: 319.364.42S1I shive-hattery.com
Traffic Impact Study:
Riverside Development
Iowa City, Iowa
October 13, 2020
Prepared for: Riverfront West
Prepared by:
SH IVEHATTC RY
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
316 Second Street SE, Suite 500
Cedar Rapids, IA 52406
(515) 364-0027
Page 1 of 44
CONTENTS
Executive Summary.....................................................................................3
Existing & Projected No Build Conditions..................................................6
AdjacentStreets....................................................................................................................................7
Existing Intersection Conditions............................................................................................................8
TrafficVolume Data...............................................................................................................................9
Background Traffic Growth....................................................................................................................9
CrashAnalysis....................................................................................................................................16
MultimodalReview..............................................................................................................................19
Projected Buildout Conditions..................................................................20
ProjectDescription..............................................................................................................................20
TripGeneration...................................................................................................................................21
TripDistribution...................................................................................................................................23
Projected Buildout Turning Movement Volumes.................................................................................24
Recommended Buildout Lane Configuration & Control......................................................................35
TrafficModelinq..........................................................................................37
OperationalAnalysis...........................................................................................................................37
Summary & Recommendations.................................................................43
Figures
Figure ES1
Project Trip Distribution..................................................................................................................................4
Figure1
Study Area Map.............................................................................................................................................7
Figure 2
Study Intersections —
Existing (2020) Lane Configuration and Control..........................................................8
Figure 3
Study Area Projected
AADT's Annual Growth Rates.....................................................................................9
Figure 4
Study Intersections —
Existing 2020 AM Peak Hour No Build Volumes.......................................................10
Figure 5
Study Intersections —
Existing 2020 PM Peak Hour No Build Volumes.......................................................11
Figure 6
Study Intersections —
Projected 2022 AM Peak Hour No Build Volumes.....................................................12
Figure 7
Study Intersections —
Projected 2022 PM Peak Hour No Build Volumes.....................................................13
Figure 8
Study Intersections —
Projected 2042 AM Peak Hour No Build Volumes.....................................................14
Figure 9
Study Intersections —
Projected 2042 PM Peak Hour No Build Volumes.....................................................15
Figure10
Multimodal Facilities.....................................................................................................................................19
Figure11
Preliminary Site Plan
....................................................................................................................................20
Figure12
Trip Distribution............................................................................................................................................24
Figure 13
Study Intersections —
AM Peak Hour Primary Trips.....................................................................................25
Figure 14
Study Intersections —
PM Peak Hour Pass -by Trips....................................................................................26
Figure 15
Study Intersections —
PM Peak Hour Primary Trips.....................................................................................27
Figure 16
Study Intersections —
Projected 2022 AM Peak Hour Buildout Volumes......................................................28
Figure 17
Study Intersections —
Projected 2022 PM Peak Hour Buildout Volumes......................................................29
Figure 18
Study Intersections —
Projected 2042 AM Peak Hour Buildout Volumes......................................................30
Figure 19
Study Intersections —
Projected 2042 PM Peak Hour Buildout Volumes......................................................31
Figure 20
Study Intersections —
Recommended Buildout Lane Configuration & Control.............................................36
Project # 1191830 SH IVEHATTE W
ARCH 1 T E C T U RE- E NGINEERI NO
Page 2 of 44
Tables
Table 1
Intersection Crash Rate Summary (1/1/10 — 12/31/19) ..................................................16
Table 2
Manner of Collision (1/1/10 — 12/31/19).........................................................................17
Table 3
Potential Intersection Treatments to Reduce Crash Frequency.....................................18
Table 4
Crash Injuries at each Intersection by Crash Severity (1/1/10 — 12/31/19) .....................18
Table5
Trip Generation..............................................................................................................21
Table 6
Internal Capture Rates...................................................................................................22
Table 7
Trip Generation with Internal Capture & Multimodal Reductions....................................22
Table 8
Retail Pass -By & Primary Trip Percentages...................................................................23
Table9
Net Trip Generation.......................................................................................................23
Table 10
AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes..................................................................32
Table 11
PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes..................................................................34
Table 16
LOS Criteria for Signalized & TWSC Intersections.........................................................37
Table 13
Operational Analysis......................................................................................................38
Appendices
Appendix 1..................................................................................................Turning Movement Data
Appendix2..................................................................................................................... Crash Data
Appendix 3.................................................................................... Internal Capture Analysis Sheets
Appendix 4........................................................................................... Operational Analysis Sheets
Project # 1191830 SH IVCHATTCRY
ARCH I T E C T U R E+ E NGIN E ERI NG
Page 3 of 44
Executive Summary
Riverfront West initiated this traffic impact study to identify potential traffic impacts on the adjacent roadway
network and provide traffic mitigation measures, if necessary, due to their proposed Riverside development,
which will be bounded within Olive Street to the west, Myrtle Avenue to the north, Riverside Drive to the east,
and the Iowa Interstate Railroad to the south in Iowa City, IA. The proposed Riverside development is a multi-
story residential and mixed-use development bounded within Olive Street to the west, Myrtle Avenue to the
north, Riverside Drive to the east, and the Iowa Interstate Railroad to the south in Iowa City, IA and is expected
to be completely built by the end of 2022. Two passenger vehicle access points are proposed, with one on
Myrtle Avenue and one on Riverside Drive in the approximate location of existing access points to the site.
The access point on Riverside Drive is anticipated to be a right -in right -out (RIRO) access point. The Myrtle
Avenue access points is anticipated to be a full access point, with no turning movement restrictions. A semi-
trailer truck ingress access point and egress access point are proposed on Riverside Drive and Myrtle Avenue,
respectively. Due to the expected relatively low volume of semi -trailer trips entering and exiting the site the
semi -trailer truck access points are not analyzed herein. Sight visibility zones corresponding to intersection
sight distance calculations as defined through AASHTO should be identified and maintained at these access
points. These zones should not contain structures or plantings that would preclude unobstructed views of
oncoming traffic. Current designs for the development do not indicate obstructions within the sight visibility
zones.
The following study intersections within the study area were identified for analysis:
1. Myrtle Avenue & Greenwood Drive
2. Myrtle Avenue & Lot 48 Access
3. Myrtle Avenue & Olive Street
4. Myrtle Avenue & Access Point
5. Riverside Drive & Grand Avenue/W Burlington Street (Riverside Drive & Burlington Street hereafter)
6. Riverside Drive & Myrtle Avenue
7. Riverside Drive & Access Point
8. Riverside Drive & W Benton Street
The above list assigns each study intersection with a number that is used hereafter. (e.g. #1 = Myrtle Avenue
and Greenwood Drive).
The area immediately surrounding the proposed development generally incorporates services, retail, and
residential ITE land uses. A study area map identifying the location of the study intersections, as well the
location of proposed development (delineated in red) is depicted in the following figure.
Turning movement volumes were collected at the study intersections on Tuesday, September 15, 20220. The
peak hours of the study intersections were determined based on the highest consecutive four 15 -minute turning
movement counts between the hours of 7:00 and 9:00 AM and 4:00 and 6:00 PM, respectively at the Riverside
Drive and Burlington Street (study intersection #4) intersection. The AM and PM peak hours at the Riverside
Drive and Burlington Street (study intersection #4) intersection governed the AM and PM peak hours at the
study intersections because it is the study intersection with the highest volume of entering vehicles. The AM
peak hour was determined to occur between 7:15 and 8:15. The PM peak hour was determined to occur
between 4:15 and 5:15. The raw and refined volume data are provided in Appendix 1.
Projected traffic analysis will typically apply an annual growth rate to study intersections' existing turning
movement volumes prior to adding project development trips to account for growth in background traffic (traffic
growth unrelated to the proposed Riverside development). In coordination with the local metropolitan planning
organization the annual growth rates identified in Figure 3 were identified based on projected 2025 and 2045
annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes that are also shown in Figure 3.
The Iowa Crash Analysis Tool (ICAT) website administered by Iowa DOT was used to collect available crash
data at the study intersections for the ten-year period between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2019. Over
Project # 1191830 SH IVEHATTERY
ARCH I T E C T U R E+ E NGIN E ERI NG
Page 4 of 44
this period a total of 362 crashes were reported at the study intersections. All of the study intersections had
crash rates that were lower than the statewide average for intersections with a similar daily volume of entering
vehicles, except for the Riverside Drive & Burlington Street (study intersection #4) and Riverside Drive &
Benton Street (study intersection #6) intersections.
Trip distribution percentages for the proposed Riverside development are based upon existing traffic patterns
observed in the collected AM and PM peak hour turning movement volumes, as well as expected travel
patterns in the surrounding roadway network over the 2042 design year. The assumed trip distribution for the
Riverside development is presented in the figure below.
Figure ES1 Trip Distribution
Project # 1191830 SH IVCHATTCRY
ARCH I T E C T U R E+ E NGIN E ERI NG
Page 5 of 44
Vehicular operational analysis for this study was performed using the methodology of the 6th Edition Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) through Synchro traffic analysis software. Operational analysis is generally
categorized in terms of Level of Service (LOS). LOS describes the quality of traffic operations and is graded
from A to F; with LOS A representing free-flow conditions and LOS F representing congested conditions.
Acceptable LOS conditions can generally be defined as average intersection control delay at LOS D or better
and all approaches at LOS E or better. Control delay is the delay experienced by vehicles slowing down as
they are approaching the intersection, the wait time at the intersection and the time for vehicles to speed up
through the intersection and enter the traffic stream. The average intersection control delay is a volume
weighted average of delay experienced by all motorists entering the intersection on all intersection approaches.
At two-way stop -controlled (TWSC) intersections the primary LOS measure to consider is the intersection
approach with the longest control delay, which as stated above would need to be LOS E or better to generally
be deemed acceptable. The primary LOS measure' at signalized intersections is average intersection control
delay and approach control delay.
The analysis presented herein indicates all the study intersections will operate at acceptable LOS D or better,
with all approaches at LOS E or better during the AM and PM peak hour conditions through 2042 with buildout
of the proposed Riverside development. This determination assumes the recommended lane configuration and
control presented in Figure 20, as well as regularly optimizing traffic signal timings as deemed appropriate.
The existing condition LOS issues can be addressed by modifying the traffic signal timings. The 95th percentile
queues at the study intersections were also analyzed. A vehicle queue is a line of vehicles waiting to pass
through an intersection. The 95th percentile queue is the length of which the queue will be less than 95 percent
of the time. Based on these queue lengths no issues, such as a queue extending upstream to an adjacent
intersection are anticipated. Operational analysis worksheets are contained in Appendix 4.
' Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratio is another measurement used to determine LOS. If the V/C ratio is greater than 1.0 LOS is F regardless
of delay. An expanded discussion of v/c ratios is provided in Appendix 4.
Project# 1191830 SHIVEHATTERY
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
Page 6 of 44
Existing & Projected No Build Conditions
Riverfront West initiated this traffic impact study to identify potential traffic impacts on the adjacent roadway
network and provide traffic mitigation measures, if necessary, due to their proposed Riverside development,
which will be bounded within Olive Street to the west, Myrtle Avenue to the north, Riverside Drive to the east,
and the Iowa Interstate Railroad to the south in Iowa City, IA. The proposed Riverside development is a multi-
story residential and mixed-use development and is expected to be completely built by the end of 2022. As of
October 2020, the site was occupied by a single 3.56 thousand square foot retail (futon shop) development.
Trips generated (discussed in greater detail in the trip generation section) by the retail (futon shop)
development are only reflected in the existing 2020 analysis year. Two passenger vehicle access points are
proposed, with one on Myrtle Avenue and one on S Riverside Drive (Riverside Drive hereafter) in the
approximate location of existing access points to the site. The access point on Riverside Drive is anticipated
to be a right -in right -out (RIRO) access point. The Myrtle Avenue access points is anticipated to be a full access
point, with no turning movement restrictions. A semi -trailer truck ingress access point and egress access point
are proposed on Riverside Drive and Myrtle Avenue, respectively. Due to the expected relatively low volume
of semi -trailer trips entering and exiting the site the semi -trailer truck access points are not analyzed herein.
The following study intersections within the study area were identified for analysis:
1. Myrtle Avenue & Greenwood Drive
2. Myrtle Avenue & Lot 48 Access
3. Myrtle Avenue & Olive Street
4. Myrtle Avenue & Access Point
5. Riverside Drive & Grand Avenue/W Burlington Street (Riverside Drive & Burlington Street hereafter)
6. Riverside Drive & Myrtle Avenue
7. Riverside Drive & Access Point
8. Riverside Drive & W Benton Street
The above list assigns each study intersection with a number that is used hereafter. (e.g. #1 = Myrtle Avenue
and Greenwood Drive).
The area immediately surrounding the proposed development generally incorporates services, retail, and
residential ITE land uses. A study area map identifying the location of the study intersections, as well the
location of proposed development (delineated in red) is depicted in the following figure.
Project # 1191830 SH IVEHATTERY
ARCH I T E C T U R E+ E NGIN E ERI NG
Figure 1
Study Area Map
Page 7 of 44
Adjacent Streets
The following descriptions are specific to the area near the study intersections. The study intersection roadway
functional classifications are taken from the Future Forward 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan Federal
Functional Classification Map, prepared by Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County.
Riverside Drive is a north/south four -lane (two lanes in each direction) principal arterial roadway. On -street
parking is prohibited along Riverside Drive and the posted speed limit is 30 mph.
Burlington Street is an east/west four -lane (two lanes in each direction) principal arterial roadway. On -street
parking is prohibited along Burlington Street and the posted speed limit is 25 mph.
Benton Street is an east/west four -lane (two lanes in each direction [at its intersection with Riverside Drive])
collector roadway. On -street parking is prohibited along Benton Street and the posted speed limit is 25 mph.
Project # 1191830 SH IVCHATTCRY
ARCH I T E C T U R E+ E NGIN E ERI NG
Page 8 of 44
Myrtle Avenue is an east/west two-lane (one lane in each direction) local roadway. On -street parking is
prohibited along Myrtle Avenue and the posted speed limit is 25 mph.
Olive Street is a north/south two-lane (one lane in each direction) local roadway, with a posted speed limit of
25 mph. On -street parking is prohibited along the southbound lane between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM and
prohibited along the northbound lane of Olive Street.
Existing Intersection Conditions
The existing lane configuration and control for the study intersections are presented in the following figure.
Figure 2 Study Intersections — Existing (2020) Lane Configuration and Control
Project # 1191830
a
SHIVC-HATTERY
ARCHITECTURE+ENGINEERING
Page 9 of 44
Traffic Volume Data
Turning movement volumes were collected at the study intersections on Tuesday, September 15, 20220. The
peak hours of the study intersections were determined based on the highest consecutive four 15 -minute turning
movement counts between the hours of 7:00 and 9:00 AM and 4:00 and 6:00 PM, respectively at the Riverside
Drive and Burlington Street (study intersection #4) intersection. The AM and PM peak hours at the Riverside
Drive and Burlington Street (study intersection #4) intersection governed the AM and PM peak hours at the
study intersections because it is the study intersection with the highest volume of entering vehicles. The AM
peak hour was determined to occur between 7:15 and 8:15. The PM peak hour was determined to occur
between 4:15 and 5:15. The raw and refined volume data are provided in Appendix 1.
Background Traffic Growth
Projected traffic analysis will typically apply an annual growth rate to study intersections' existing turning
movement volumes prior to adding project development trips to account for growth in background traffic (traffic
growth unrelated to the proposed Riverside development). In coordination with the local metropolitan planning
organization the annual growth rates (in red) in the following figure were identified based on projected 2025
and 2045 annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes.
Figure 3
Study Area Projected AADT's Annual Growth Rates
Project# 1191830 SHIVEHATTERY
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
Page 10 of 44
The annual growth rates identified above were applied to the study intersection turning movement volumes to
reflect future conditions, which could be expected through a sustained constant area growth without the
proposed Riverside development. It should be noted, over time growth rates generally do not exhibit a straight-
line growth, but rather tend to level off as the surrounding area continues to develop. Therefore, the use of a
straight-line growth rate for the prediction of future events can be thought of as conservative and should be
considered as such when reviewing the output of this analysis. All other traffic volume growth generated by
developments in the area that have been/will be constructed between 2020 and 2042 are assumed to be
included in the annual growth rates identified above. Existing 2020, projected 2022, and projected 2042 AM
and PM peak hour no build volumes (without the proposed Riverside development) are presented in the
following figures.
Figure 4 Study Intersections — Existing 2020 AM Peak Hour No Build Volumes
I�r�r� �rrt silo
}
25 5 y 17 53 r — 88 5T —� v— 9Q
45 55 r— 74 1 1 O 0
m 0 C
NAA O J A �J 4[�•�00
45
X82 �• las 32 0 J
67 25 a 8
l � 4
Project# 1191830 SHIVC-HATTERY
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
Page 11 of 44
Figure 5 Study Intersections — Existing 2020 PM Peak Hour No Build Volumes
mwa W CV
zra 247 53
14477 55
SV
Project # 1191830
163 67 log -r
1
D
8 J { 195 X
7 121 47
�►
W A QWA
SHIVC-HATTERY
ARCHITECTURE+ENGINEERING
Page 12 of 44
Figure 6 Study Intersections — Projected 2022 AM Peak Hour No Build Volumes
Project# 1191830 SHIVEHATTERY
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
f
25
45
$
17 1d —� r
75 �
89 D
� 1
'� _ - 91
� y � a
Wim—+
�78
fW�r
"f
�
X85
32
:Z5
a
a
44g
►r
f�}
� tIl
dl
yA�
Project# 1191830 SHIVEHATTERY
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
Figure 7
Study Intersections — Projected 2022 PM Peak Hour No Build Volumes
:...+ �.N. 0 G
00
D co
0 .
Mr
i • CA
M M y rt I e Ale� i I
Page 13 of 44
r G
25 5 17 54 -t w 89
y� 46 55 ------ r- 75 1
NMJ
A
r14
32
68 0 84
114
46
140 32 C, 70w�5W P m
Project# 1191830 SHIVC-HATTERY
ARCHITECTURE+ENGINEERING
Page 14 of 44
Figure 8 Study Intersections — Projected 2042 AM Peak Hour No Build Volumes
Of
Project# 1191830 SHIVEHATTERY
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
28 51
}
J
19 �0
00
0 �"
-- 102
167
+ 2 63
36
28 _
Dr.
57��
157
z'50
1gg
�T �la7
� N
tiN.l
Project# 1191830 SHIVEHATTERY
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
Page 15 of 44
Figure 9 Study Intersections — Projected 2042 PM Peak Hour No Build Volumes
23 5 g
72 98 ------t- 75
rpP
�iT
3T2 282 60 J
167 S2
Project # 1191830
11B 76 122 -r ❑- 102
0 A 7 0 0
41)
0 131
iS2 �' 1
4
SHIVC-HATTERY
ARCHITECTURE+ENGINEERING
Page 16 of 44
Crash Analysis
The Iowa Crash Analysis Tool (ICAT) website administered by Iowa DOT was used to collect available crash
data at the study intersections for the ten-year period between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2019. Over
this period a total of 362 crashes were reported at the study intersections. It should be noted, crashes that may
have occurred at the existing site access points (study intersection #4 and #7) are accounted for at the
Riverside Drive & Myrtle Avenue (study intersection #6), due to the relative close proximity of the intersections.
Intersection crash rates are expressed in crashes per million entering vehicles (crashes/MEV) and can be
calculated with the following equation:
Crash Rate =
1,000,000xTotal Crashes
AADTEnteringvpdx365x# of Years in Study Period
The following table summarizes crash rates at the study intersections and compares them to average statewide
crash rates for intersections with a similar volume of entering vehicles. For the purposes of this analysis, the
respective weekday PM peak hour entering traffic volume at the study intersections was assumed to be 10%
of the daily weekday entering volume, which is standard for urban intersections and is consistent with the
methodology used by the Federal Highway Administration. The statewide average crash rate for intersections
with a similar volume of entering vehicles was prepared by the Iowa DOT, Bureau of Transportation Safety.
Table 1 Intersection Crash Rate Summary (1/1/10 — 12/31/19)
Source: Iowa Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Safety.
All of the study intersections had crash rates that were lower than the statewide average for intersections with
a similar daily volume of entering vehicles, except for the Riverside Drive & Burlington Street (study intersection
#4) and Riverside Drive & Benton Street (study intersection #6) intersections (highlighted above).
The following table presents crash statistics at the study intersection organized by manner of collision. For the
purposes of this analysis, 10 or more of the same manner of collision or crash type over the ten-year analysis
period was identified as a trend. Identified crash trends are highlighted in the following table.
Project # 1191830 SH IVCHATTCRY
ARCH I T E C T U R E+ E NGIN E ERI NG
Total
Daily
Crash Rate
Statewide Average
Comparison to
Study Intersection
Crashes
Entering
tcrashes/MEV)
Crash Rate
Statewide Average
Volume
crashes/MEV)
Crash Rate
1
Myrtle Avenue &
1
1,960
0.14
1.30
Lower
Greenwood Drive
2
Myrtle Avenue &
0
1,940
0.00
1.30
Lower
Lot 48 Access
3
Myrtle Avenue &
2
1,930
0.28
1.30
Lower
Olive Street
5
Riverside Drive &
142
30,510
1.28
1.00
Higher
Burlington Street
6
Riverside Drive &
64
19,000
0.92
0.80
Lower
Myrtle Avenue
8
Riverside Drive &
153
26,970
1.55
1.00
Higher
Benton Street
Source: Iowa Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Safety.
All of the study intersections had crash rates that were lower than the statewide average for intersections with
a similar daily volume of entering vehicles, except for the Riverside Drive & Burlington Street (study intersection
#4) and Riverside Drive & Benton Street (study intersection #6) intersections (highlighted above).
The following table presents crash statistics at the study intersection organized by manner of collision. For the
purposes of this analysis, 10 or more of the same manner of collision or crash type over the ten-year analysis
period was identified as a trend. Identified crash trends are highlighted in the following table.
Project # 1191830 SH IVCHATTCRY
ARCH I T E C T U R E+ E NGIN E ERI NG
Page 17 of 44
Table 2 Manner of Collision (1/1/10 — 12/31/19)
Source: Iowa Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Safety.
The following crashes trends were identified:
• Riverside Drive & Burlington Street (#4) — 81 rear -end type crashes
• Riverside Drive & Burlington Street (#4) — 14 single vehicle type crashes
• Riverside Drive & Burlington Street (#4) — 10 angle, oncoming left type crashes
• Riverside Drive & Burlington Street (#4) — 10 sideswipe, same direction type crashes
• Riverside Drive & Myrtle Avenue (#5) — 36 rear -end type crashes
• Riverside Drive & Myrtle Avenue (#5) — 10 broadside type crashes
• Riverside Drive & Benton Street (#6) — 71 rear -end type crashes
• Riverside Drive & Benton Street (#6) — 34 broadside type crashes
• Riverside Drive & Benton Street (#6) — 24 sideswipe, same direction type crashes
While it is common to refer to the "cause" of a crash, in reality, most crashes cannot be related to a singular
causal event. Instead, crashes are the result of a convergence of a series of events that are influenced by a
number of contributing factors (time of day, driver attentiveness, speed, vehicle condition, road design, etc.).
These contributing factors influence the sequence of events before, during, and after a crash. In some cases,
the roadway/intersection configuration and traffic control may affect the expected average crash frequency.
The quantification of this effect is referred to as a crash modification factor (CMF). CMF is an index of how
much crash experience is expected to change following a modification in design or traffic control. CMF is the
ratio between the number of crashes per unit of time expected after a modification or measure is implemented
and the number of crashes per unit of time estimated if the change does not take place. (Highway Safety
Manual, 2010).
The CMF Clearinghouse website, which is administered by the Federal Highway Administration, provides a
library of CMFs for various modifications to intersections and roadways. The following table provides several
potential treatments and their expected percent reduction in crash frequency for the identified crash trends
listed above.
Project# 1191830 SHIVC-HATTERY
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
Manner of Collision
Study Intersection
Rear
Head
Single
Angle,
Sideswipe,
Sideswipe,
Other/
Unknown/
Rear
End
On
Vehicle
Broadside
Oncoming
Same
Opposite
Not
to
Total
Left
Direction
Direction
Reported
Side
1
Myrtle Avenue &
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Greenwood Drive
2
Myrtle Avenue &
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Lot 48 Access
3
Myrtle Avenue &
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
Olive Street
5
Riverside Drive &
81
2
14
6
10
28
1
0
0
142
Burlington Street
6
Riverside Drive &
36
0
2
10
6
8
1
1
0
64
Myrtle Avenue
8
Riverside Drive &
71
0
9
34
9
24
2
3
1
153
Benton Street
Source: Iowa Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Safety.
The following crashes trends were identified:
• Riverside Drive & Burlington Street (#4) — 81 rear -end type crashes
• Riverside Drive & Burlington Street (#4) — 14 single vehicle type crashes
• Riverside Drive & Burlington Street (#4) — 10 angle, oncoming left type crashes
• Riverside Drive & Burlington Street (#4) — 10 sideswipe, same direction type crashes
• Riverside Drive & Myrtle Avenue (#5) — 36 rear -end type crashes
• Riverside Drive & Myrtle Avenue (#5) — 10 broadside type crashes
• Riverside Drive & Benton Street (#6) — 71 rear -end type crashes
• Riverside Drive & Benton Street (#6) — 34 broadside type crashes
• Riverside Drive & Benton Street (#6) — 24 sideswipe, same direction type crashes
While it is common to refer to the "cause" of a crash, in reality, most crashes cannot be related to a singular
causal event. Instead, crashes are the result of a convergence of a series of events that are influenced by a
number of contributing factors (time of day, driver attentiveness, speed, vehicle condition, road design, etc.).
These contributing factors influence the sequence of events before, during, and after a crash. In some cases,
the roadway/intersection configuration and traffic control may affect the expected average crash frequency.
The quantification of this effect is referred to as a crash modification factor (CMF). CMF is an index of how
much crash experience is expected to change following a modification in design or traffic control. CMF is the
ratio between the number of crashes per unit of time expected after a modification or measure is implemented
and the number of crashes per unit of time estimated if the change does not take place. (Highway Safety
Manual, 2010).
The CMF Clearinghouse website, which is administered by the Federal Highway Administration, provides a
library of CMFs for various modifications to intersections and roadways. The following table provides several
potential treatments and their expected percent reduction in crash frequency for the identified crash trends
listed above.
Project# 1191830 SHIVC-HATTERY
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
Page 18 of 44
Table 3 Potential Intersection Treatments to Reduce Crash Frequency
Crash Type
Severity
Expected Reduction in Crash Frequency
Applicability
Treatment
CMF ID
and notes
Possible/
Implement automated speed enforcement
2913
-26%, This CMF applies to all crash severities.
of
cameras
Minor
Rear End
Install pedestrian countdown timer
8793
-8%, This CMF applies to all crash severities
Crash
Implement systemic signing and visibility
8924
026%, This CMF applies to all crash severities
Injury
improvements at signalized intersections
Injury
Only
Install red-light cameras
421
-.16%, This CMF applies to serious, minor, and
0
0
0
possible injury crash severities
Oncoming
Implement automated speed enforcement
2914
-88%, This CMF applies to all crash severities.
Left Turn
cameras
Install red-light indicator lights
8822
-40%, This CMF applies to all crash severities.
Myrtle Avenue &
Implement speed enforcement cameras
2912
-48%, This CMF applies to all crash severities.
0
0
0
0.00
Sideswipe
Upgrade existing markings to wet
8112
°
-.059 /°, This CMF applies to all crash severities.
reflective pavement markings
Install red-light cameras
420
-25%, This CMF applies to all crash severities
0
Implement automated speed enforcement
2914
-88%, This CMF applies to all crash severities.
2
cameras
Olive Street
Broadside
Implement automated speed enforcement
6883
-31 %, This CMF applies to all crash severities.
cameras at signalized intersections
5
Riverside Drive &
Install red-light indicator lights
8821
-.095%, This CMF applies to all crash severities.
Source: Federal Highway Administration
The following table presents crash injury statistics at the study intersections organized by severity.
Table 4 Crash Injuries at each Intersection by Crash Severity (1/1/10 — 12/31/19)
Study intersection crash data for the analysis period is provided in Appendix 2.
Project# 1191830 SHIVC-HATTERY
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
Severity
Number
Suspected
Possible/
Property
Injuries Per
Study Intersection
of
Serious
Minor
Crashes
Fatal
Unknown
Damage
Crash
Injury
Injury
Injury
Only
1
Myrtle Avenue &
1
0
0
0
0
1
0.00
Greenwood Drive
2
Myrtle Avenue &
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
Lot 48 Access
3
Myrtle Avenue &
2
0
0
0
0
2
0.00
Olive Street
5
Riverside Drive &
142
0
2
9
21
110
0.23
Burlington Street
6
Riverside Drive &
64
0
1
3
15
45
0.34
Myrtle Avenue
8
Riverside Drive &
153
0
2
12
14
125
0.22
Benton Street
Study intersection crash data for the analysis period is provided in Appendix 2.
Project# 1191830 SHIVC-HATTERY
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
Oakcrest and
Oakcrest Night._.
Saturda
# J s
®®
Blue Route, Hawkeye Burlington
Int6rdorm, Interdorm
WCTC
— r-- ® Oakcrest Night&
7 ' Westport Plaza Saturday apd
Westport Plaza
oir
LEGEND
Bus stop
Off Street
Paved Path
o:
O
pWestport Plaza00
D
n Westport Plaza
cn
(n Myrtle Ave
04,
AQ akcrest Night &
&JIM Saturday and
' Westport Plaza
AC
rt Plaza Oakcrest Night &
Saturday and
Benton St Westport Plaza
Page 20 of 44
Projected Buildout Conditions
Project Description
The proposed Riverside development is a multi -story residential and mixed-use development bounded within
Olive Street to the west, Myrtle Avenue to the north, Riverside Drive to the east, and the Iowa Interstate
Railroad to the south in Iowa City, IA and is expected to be completely built by the end of 2022. Two passenger
vehicle access points are proposed, with one on Myrtle Avenue and one on Riverside Drive in the approximate
location of existing access points to the site. The access point on Riverside Drive is anticipated to be a right -
in right -out (RIRO) access point. The Myrtle Avenue access points is anticipated to be a full access point, with
no turning movement restrictions. A semi -trailer truck ingress access point and egress access point are
proposed on Riverside Drive and Myrtle Avenue, respectively. Due to the expected relatively low volume of
semi -trailer trips entering and exiting the site the semi -trailer truck access points are not analyzed herein. Sight
visibility zones corresponding to intersection sight distance calculations as defined through AASHTO should
be identified and maintained at these access points. These zones should not contain structures or plantings
that would preclude unobstructed views of oncoming traffic. Current designs for the development do not
indicate obstructions within the sight visibility zones. The proposed Riverside development preliminary site
plan is presented in the figure below.
Figure 11 Preliminary Site Plan
'f r -
Y,
T_
rTTF
� I x
I , I
TSE AVE 9!r— — —
Project # 1191830 SH IVCHATTCRY
ARCH I T E C T U R E+ E NGIN E ERI NG
Page 21 of 44
Trip Generation
The proposed Riverside development's trip generation is based on nationally accepted trip generation rates
and fitted curve equations contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual,
10th Edition, 2017. Trips were generated for the expected type of project and correspond to the AM and PM
peak hour of the adjacent roadway network. The following table identifies the ITE land use, ITE land use code,
and independent variable use to calculate the trip generation estimate for the proposed Riverside development.
Table 5 Trip Generation
1 Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook, 10'h Edition, 2017
2 DU = Dwelling Units
3 KSF = Thousand Square Feet
4 Fitted curve equation T = 0.20(X) — 0.18 was used (R2 = 0.98)
6 Fitted curve equation T = 0.24(X) + 2.26 was used (R2 = 0.96)
6 Fitted curve equation T = 0.50(X) — 5.34 was used (R2 = 0.85)
Fitted curve equation T = 0.75(X) — 26.02 was used (RI = 0.80)
6 Fitted curve equation T = 0.94(X) + 26.49 was used (R2 = 0.85)
9 Fitted curve equation Ln(T) = 0.95 Ln(X) + 0.36 was used (R'= 0.88)
10 Fitted curve equation Ln(T) = 0.74 Ln(X) + 2.89 was used (R2 = 0.82)
Generally, within multi -use developments such as the one proposed for the Riverside development, there is a
likelihood of internal interaction between the various land uses contained within the development. For example,
some trips generated by the Shopping Center (retail) and Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) (residential) land
uses can be reasonably expected to originate from each other within the proposed mixed-use development
site. This internal interaction between land uses at a site is known as internal capture and reduces the quantity
of trips generated to the site via the surrounding roadway system. The following table presents internal trip
capture rates to/from retail, office, and residential during the AM and PM peak hours from the ITE Trip
Generation Handbook, Third Edition, September 2017. Internal trip calculation worksheets are provided in
Appendix 3.
Project# 1191830 SHIVEHATTERY
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Trips
Trips
Trips
Trips
ITE
Land Use
Code
Quantity
Tris
% In
% Out
In
Out
Tris
% In
% Out
In
Out
Multifamily
54
Housing (Mid-
221
DU 2
19
26%
74%
5
14
24
61%
39%
14
10
Rise)
Senior Adult
Housing —
252
DU7
37'
35%
65%
13
24
471
55%
45%
26
21
Attached
Hotel
310
110
506
59%
41%
29
21
56 7
51%
49%
28
28
Rooms
General Office
710
14.00
408
86%
14%
34
6
189
16%
84%
3
15
Building
KSF 3
Shopping
820
12.10
11
62%
38%
7
4
11410
48%
52%
55
59
Center
KSF 3
Total
157
56%
44%
88
69
259
49%
51%
126
133
1 Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook, 10'h Edition, 2017
2 DU = Dwelling Units
3 KSF = Thousand Square Feet
4 Fitted curve equation T = 0.20(X) — 0.18 was used (R2 = 0.98)
6 Fitted curve equation T = 0.24(X) + 2.26 was used (R2 = 0.96)
6 Fitted curve equation T = 0.50(X) — 5.34 was used (R2 = 0.85)
Fitted curve equation T = 0.75(X) — 26.02 was used (RI = 0.80)
6 Fitted curve equation T = 0.94(X) + 26.49 was used (R2 = 0.85)
9 Fitted curve equation Ln(T) = 0.95 Ln(X) + 0.36 was used (R'= 0.88)
10 Fitted curve equation Ln(T) = 0.74 Ln(X) + 2.89 was used (R2 = 0.82)
Generally, within multi -use developments such as the one proposed for the Riverside development, there is a
likelihood of internal interaction between the various land uses contained within the development. For example,
some trips generated by the Shopping Center (retail) and Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) (residential) land
uses can be reasonably expected to originate from each other within the proposed mixed-use development
site. This internal interaction between land uses at a site is known as internal capture and reduces the quantity
of trips generated to the site via the surrounding roadway system. The following table presents internal trip
capture rates to/from retail, office, and residential during the AM and PM peak hours from the ITE Trip
Generation Handbook, Third Edition, September 2017. Internal trip calculation worksheets are provided in
Appendix 3.
Project# 1191830 SHIVEHATTERY
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
Page 22 of 44
Table 6 Internal Capture Rates
Origin/Destination
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
To
Shopping Center (Retail)
From
Office
32%
8%
Residential 17%
10%
From
Shopping Center (Retail)
To
Office
29%
2%
Residential 14%
26%
To
General Office (Office)
From
Retail
4%
31%
Residential 3%
57%
From
General Office (Office)
To
Retail
28%
20%
Residential 1%
2%
To
Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) (Residential)
From
Retail
0%
4%
Office 2%
46%
From
Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise) (Residential)
TO
Retail
1%
42%
Office 2%
4%
The following table presents full buildout AM and PM peak hour trip generation estimates for the proposed
Riverside development land uses with internal capture reductions, as well as an assumed ten percent
multimodal reduction for trips not made by a vehicle.
Table 7 Trip Generation with Internal Capture & Multimodal Reductions
Traffic impact studies for retail (Shopping Center ITE Code 820) developments will generally consider two
types of trips, pass -by trips and primary trips. As discussed in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, Third Edition,
September 2017, pass -by trips are trips attracted from the existing traffic stream passing the site on an adjacent
street with direct access to the site. Consequently, these types of trips do not add new traffic to the adjacent
street system but do add trips to the development's access points. These trips are essentially minor diversions
for motorists on their way to their ultimate destinations. In other words, the development did not generate these
trips, they were already on the roadway network and as such are only accounted for at the development's
access points. For this study, it can be reasonably assumed some pass -by trips will be attracted from the direct
access points on Riverside Drive and Myrtle Avenue. Primary trips, as discussed in the ITE Trip Generation
Handbook, Third Edition, September 2017, are trips made for the specific purpose of visiting the generator.
The stop at the generator (i.e. the proposed development) is the primary reason for the trip. Primary trips
typically go from origin to generator and then returns to the origin. For example, a home -to -shopping -to -home
combination of trips is a primary trip set.
The percent of pass -by and primary trips attracted to the proposed development's access points are based
upon the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, Third Edition, September 2017, as well as existing traffic patterns as
Project# 1191830 SHIVEHATTERY
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Trips
Trips
Trips
Trips
ITE
Land Use
Code
Quantity
Tris
% In
% Out
In
Out
Tris
% In
% Out
In
Out
Multifamily
54
Housing (Mid-
221
DU 2
16
31%
69%
5
11
15
53%
47%
8
7
Rise)
Senior Adult
Housing —
252
DU 2
33
33%
67%
11
22
29
52%
48%
15
14
Attached
Hotel
310
110
45
60%
40%
27
18
47
47%
53%
22
25
Rooms
General Office
710
14.00
31
87%
13%
27
4
11
9%
91%
1
10
Building
KSF 3
Shopping
820
12.1
8
63%
37%
5
3
77
53%
47%
41
36
CenterTotal
KSFO
133
56%
44%
75
58
179
49%
51%
87
92
Traffic impact studies for retail (Shopping Center ITE Code 820) developments will generally consider two
types of trips, pass -by trips and primary trips. As discussed in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, Third Edition,
September 2017, pass -by trips are trips attracted from the existing traffic stream passing the site on an adjacent
street with direct access to the site. Consequently, these types of trips do not add new traffic to the adjacent
street system but do add trips to the development's access points. These trips are essentially minor diversions
for motorists on their way to their ultimate destinations. In other words, the development did not generate these
trips, they were already on the roadway network and as such are only accounted for at the development's
access points. For this study, it can be reasonably assumed some pass -by trips will be attracted from the direct
access points on Riverside Drive and Myrtle Avenue. Primary trips, as discussed in the ITE Trip Generation
Handbook, Third Edition, September 2017, are trips made for the specific purpose of visiting the generator.
The stop at the generator (i.e. the proposed development) is the primary reason for the trip. Primary trips
typically go from origin to generator and then returns to the origin. For example, a home -to -shopping -to -home
combination of trips is a primary trip set.
The percent of pass -by and primary trips attracted to the proposed development's access points are based
upon the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, Third Edition, September 2017, as well as existing traffic patterns as
Project# 1191830 SHIVEHATTERY
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
Page 23 of 44
reflected in the existing AM and PM peak hour turning movement volumes. Trip generation reductions due to
internal trip capture between the various land uses, as well as a multimodal trip reduction are included in the
calculation of retail (Shopping Center ITE Code 820) primary trips and pass -by trips during the PM peak hour.
The ITE Trip Generation Handbook, Third Edition, September 2017 does not include AM peak hour
percentages for the ITE Code 820 land use. Assumed retail (Shopping Center ITE Code 820) land use pass -
by and primary trip percentages are presented in the following table.
Table 8 Retail Pass -By & Primary Trip Percentages
Shopping Center Trip
Classification
AM
Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Percent
In
Out
Total
Percent
In
Out
Total
Pass -by Trips 1
-
-
-
-
34%
13
14
27
Primary Trips 1
-
-
-
-
66%
24
26
50
Total Generation
-
-
-
-
100%
37
40
77
Calculated based on the expected amount of pass -by trips and primary trips as reported by the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, Third Edition, September
2017.
The development site is currently occupied by an existing retail establishment, which will be demolished in
conjunction with the construction of the proposed Riverside development. The following table presents the net
AM and PM peak hour primary trip generation estimates for the proposed Riverside development, with internal
capture, pass -by trip, and multimodal reductions, as well as subtracting the existing retail establishment (PM
peak hour pass -by trips are assumed) AM and PM peak hour trips.
Table 9 Net Trip Generation
Trip Distribution
Trip distribution percentages for the proposed Riverside development are based upon existing traffic patterns
observed in the collected AM and PM peak hour turning movement volumes, as well as expected travel
patterns in the surrounding roadway network over the 2042 design year. The assumed trip distribution for the
Riverside development is presented in the figure below.
Project# 1191830 SHIVEHATTERY
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Trips
Trips
Trips
Trips
ITE
Land Use
Code
Quantity
Tris
% In
% Out
In
Out
Tris
% In
% Out
In
Out
Multifamily
54
Housing (Mid-
221
DU 2
2
50%
50%
5
11
15
53%
47%
8
7
Rise)
Senior Adult
Housing —
252
DU 2
31
36%
64%
11
22
29
52%
48%
15
14
Attached
Hotel
310
110
60
60%
40%
27
18
47
47%
53%
22
25
Rooms
General Office
710
14.00
31
87%
13%
27
4
11
9%
91%
1
10
Building
KSF 3
Shopping
820
12.1
8
63%
37%
5
3
50
53%
47%
24
26
CenterShopping
KSF0
3.56
Center
820
KSF 3
-3
63%
37%
-2
-1
-31
50%
50%
-16
-15
(Existing)
Total
130
56%
44%
73
57
121
50%
50%
54
67
Trip Distribution
Trip distribution percentages for the proposed Riverside development are based upon existing traffic patterns
observed in the collected AM and PM peak hour turning movement volumes, as well as expected travel
patterns in the surrounding roadway network over the 2042 design year. The assumed trip distribution for the
Riverside development is presented in the figure below.
Project# 1191830 SHIVEHATTERY
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
Page 24 of 44
Figure 12 Trip Distribution
Projected Buildout Turning Movement Volumes
Projected 2022 and 2042 AM and PM peak hour buildout primary trips generated by the proposed Riverside
development, as well as pass -by (PM peak hour only) trips attracted to the development are shown in the
following figures. To reiterate from above, pass -by trips are only accounted for at the development's access
points.
Project# 1191830 SHIVEHATTERY
ARCHITECTURE+ENGINEERING
Page 25 of 44
Figure 13 Study Intersections — AM Peak Hour Primary Trips
Ol
as
o
f� 2 2 r— 2
0 29
r 5 n
Project # 1191830
2
A,.
2 { 70
SHIVC-HATTERY
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
Page 26 of 44
Figure 14 Study Intersections — PM Peak Hour Pass -by Trips
I
fO `O
r 7
a � � o
Project# 1191830 SHIVC-HATTERY
ARCHITECTURE+ENGINEERING
Page 27 of 44
Figure 15 Study Intersections — PM Peak Hour Primary Trips
v o
0 0
2 2
vwo �o r 0
� 1`r A a
2 52
m
Projected 2022 and 2042 AM and PM peak hour turning movement volumes with buildout of the proposed
Riverside development are shown in the following figures.
Project # 1191830
SHIVC-HATTERY
ARCHITECTURE+ENGINEERING
Page 28 of 44
Figure 16 Study Intersections — Projected 2022 AM Peak Hour Buildout Volumes
25 iMI.-
56 91
1
f j
�N y
WAS L� -4 0�
X49
y'�S � 1A6 61
�t 1To i3 25
Project # 1191830
2 l 70
SHIVC-HATTERY
ARCHITECTURE+ENGINEERING
w�4s
J
179
184
49
V� m
SHIVC-HATTERY
ARCHITECTURE+ENGINEERING
Page 29 of 44
Figure 17 Study Intersections — Projected 2022 PM Peak Hour Buildout Volumes
n
20 4J 5 106 �� r 70 109 —r 91
67 90 ------r-- 69 0 6 3 J F 53
a�n mm J
ups
ONff N W j y Obi�a
250 89
ara �� 21
r 152 96 5642 10204
03
24 ,
Project# 1191830 SHIVC-HATTERY
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
Figure 18
Study Intersections — Projected 2042 AM Peak Hour Buildout Volumes
Aim I`•4
' ti
�:
Page 30 of 44
I
Project# 1191830 SHIVC-HATTERY
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
53
6
DE
102 2 ��
1 �
=102
f 70
1 �
r� N
A�
's872G
m--.
r-
�
Project# 1191830 SHIVC-HATTERY
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
Page 31 of 44
Figure 19 Study Intersections — Projected 2042 PM Peak Hour Buildout Volumes
W W
y
1
23 6} 74 100 77
GLY, J.
7"
i .
10 -. . 78 13 3
2 ❑ pz
The following tables present turning movement volumes at the study intersection organized by the following
volume classifications:
Existing 2020 No Build (with futon shop trips) Riverside Pass -by Trips (access points only)
Projected 2022 No Build Riverside Primary Trips
Background Traffic Growth (2020-2042) Projected 2022 Buildout
Projected 2042 No Build Projected 2042 Buildout
Project# 1191830 SHIVC-HATTERY
ARCHITECTURE+ENGINEERING
Page 32 of 44
Table 10 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes
Project # 1191830 SH IVCHATTCRY
ARCH I T E C T U R E+ E NGIN E ERI NG
#1 Myrtle Avenue & Greenwood Drive
Traffic Volume Classification
Left
Southbound
NA
Thru Right
Left
Westbound
Myrtle Avenue
Thru Right
Northbound
Greenwood Drive
Left Thru Right
Left
Eastbound
Myrtle Avenue
Thru Right
Int.
Count
Existing 2020 No Build
0
0
0
45
0 0
44
0 28
0
0
25
142
Projected 2022 No Build
0
0
0
46
0 0
44
0 28
0
0
25
143
Background Traffic Growth (2020 — 2042)
0
0
0
6
0 0
6
0 4
0
0
3
19
Projected 2042 No Build
0
0
0
51
0 0
50
0 32
0
0
28
161
Riverside Primary Trips
0
0
0
2
0 0
0
0 2
0
0
0
4
Projected 2022 Buildout
0
0
0
48
0 0
44
0 30
0
0
25
147
Projected 2042 Buildout
0
0
0
53
0 0
50
0 34
0
0
28
165
#2 Myrtle Avenue & Lot 48 Access
Traffic Volume Classification
Left
Southbound
Lot 48 Access
Thru
Left
Westbound
Myrtle Avenue
Thru Right
Left
Northbound
NA
Thru I Right
Left
Eastbound
Myrtle Avenue
Thru Right
Int.
Count
Existing 2020 No Build
0
_Right
0 1
0
74 17
0
0 0
5
55
0
152
Projected 2022 No Build
0
0 1
0
75 17
0
0 0
5
56
0
154
Background Traffic Growth (2020 — 2042)
0
0 0
0
10 2
0
0 0
1
7
0
20
Projected 2042 No Build
0
0 1
0
84 19
0
0 0
6
62
0
172
Riverside Primary Trips
0
0 0
0
2 0
0
0 0
0
2
0
4
Projected 2022 Buildout
0
0 1
0
77 17
0
0 0
1 5
1 58
0
158
Projected 2042 Buildout
0
0 1
0
1 86 19
0
0 0
6
64
0
176
#3 Myrtle Avenue & Olive Street
Traffic Volume Classification
Left
Southbound
NA
I Thru Right
Left
Westbound
Myrtle Avenue
Thru Right
Left
Northbound
Olive Street
Thru Right
Left
Eastbound
M rtle Avenue
Thru Right
Int.
Count
Existing 2020 No Build
0
0 0
1
88 0
1
0 3
0
53
1
147
Projected 2022 No Build
0
0 0
1
89 0
1
0 3
0
54
1
149
Background Traffic Growth (2020 — 2042)
0
0 0
0
12 0
0
0 0
0
7
0
19
Projected 2042 No Build
0
0 0
1
100 0
1
0 3
0
60
1
166
Riverside Primary Trips
0
0 0
0
2 0
0
0 0
0
2
0
4
Projected 2022 Buildout
0
0 0
1
91 0
1
0 3
0
56
1
153
Projected 2042 Buildout
0
0 0
1
102 0
1
0 3
0
62
1
170
#4 Myrtle Avenue & Access Point
Traffic Volume Classification
Southbound
Westbound
Northbound
Eastbound
Int.
Count
NA Myrtle Avenue Access Point
Myrtle Avenue
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
Left Thru Right
Existing 2020 No Build
0
0 0
0
90 0
0
0 0
0
57
0
147
Projected 2022 No Build
0
0 0
0
91 0
0
0 0
0
58
0
149
Background Traffic Growth (2020 — 2042)
0
0 0
0
12 0
0
0 0
0
7
0
19
Projected 2042 No Build
0
0 0
0
102 0
0
0 0
0
64
0
166
Riverside Pass -by Trips
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
Riverside Primary Trips
0
0 0
70
0 0
2
0 29
0
0
2
103
Projected 2022 Buildout
0
0 0
70
91 0
2
0 29
0
58
2
252
Projected 2042 Buildout
0
0 0
70
102 0
2
0 29
0
64
2
269
Project # 1191830 SH IVCHATTCRY
ARCH I T E C T U R E+ E NGIN E ERI NG
Page 33 of 44
Table 10 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes Continued
Project# 1191830 SHIVEHATTERY
ARCHITECTURE+ENGINEERING
#5 Riverside Drive & Burlington Street
Traffic Volume Classification
Left
Southbound
Riverside Drive
Thru Right
Westbound
Burlington Street
Left Thru Right
Northbound
Riverside Drive
Left Thru Right
Left
Eastbound
Grand Avenue
Thru Right
Int.
Count
Existing 2020 No Build
With Futon Shop Trips)
224
534 82
67
176 146
149
352
165
45
281
182
2,403
Projected 2022 No Build
227
541 83
68
178 148
152
359
168
46
285
185
2,440
Background Traffic Growth (2020 — 2042)
37
87 14
9
25 21
34
80
38
7
47
30
429
Projected 2042 No Build
261
621 96
76
201 167
183
432
203
52
1 328
212
2,832
Riverside Primary Trips
0
23 0
5
0 0
7
18
4
0
0
9
66
Projected 2022 Buildout
227
564 83
73
178 148
159
377
172
46
285
194
2,506
Projected 2042 Buildout
261
644 96
81
201 167
190
450
207
52
328
221
2,898
#6 Riverside Drive & Myrtle Avenue
Traffic Volume Classification
Southbound
Westbound
Northbound
Eastbound
Int.
Count
Riverside Drive NA Riverside Drive Myrtle Avenue
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru
I Right
Existing 2020 No Build
With Futon Shop Trips)
0
460 39
0
0 0
51
742
0
32
0
25
1,349
Projected 2022 No Build
0
468 40
0
0 0
52
755
0
32
0
25
1,372
Background Traffic Growth (2020 — 2042)
0
104 9
0
0 0
10
150
0
4
0
3
280
Projected 2042 No Build
0
564 48
0
0 0
61
892
0
36
1 0
28
1,629
Riverside Primary Trips
0
0 37
0
0 0
33
0
0
29
0
0
99
Projected 2022 Buildout
0
468 77
0
0 0
85
755
0
61
0
25
1,471
Projected 2042 Buildout
0
1 564 85
0
0 0
94
892
0
65
0
28
1,728
#7 Riverside Drive & Access
Point
Traffic Volume Classification
Left
Southbound
Riverside Drive
Thru Right
Westbound
Burlington Street
Left Thru Right
Northbound
Riverside Drive
Left Thru Right
Left
Eastbound
Grand Avenue
Ri
Thru ht
Int.
Count
Existing 2020 No Build
0
484 1
0
0 0
0
793
0
0
0
0
1,278
Projected 2022 No Build
0
492 0
0
0 0
0
806
0
0
0
0
1,298
Background Traffic Growth (2020 — 2042)
0
98 -1
0
0 0
0
160
0
0
0
0
257
Projected 2042 No Build
0
582 0
0
0 0
0
953
0
0
0
0
1,535
Riverside Pass -by Trips
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Riverside Primary Trips
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
33
0
0
0
26
59
Projected 2022 Buildout
0
492 0
0
0 0
0
839
0
0
0
26
1,357
Projected 2042 Buildout
0
582 0
0
0 0
0
986
0
0
0
26
1,594
#8 Riverside Drive
& Benton Street
Traffic Volume Classification
Left
Southbound
Riverside Drive
Thru Right
Left
Westbound
Benton Street
Thru Right
Northbound
Riverside Drive
Left Thru Right
Left
Eastbound
Benton Street
Thru Right
Int.
Count
Existing 2020 No Build
109
353 30
69
136 162
66
597
127
69
180
48
1,946
Projected 2022 No Build
111
358 31
71
139 166
67
604
129
70
184
49
1,979
Background Traffic Growth (2020 — 2042)
22
70 6
22
43 51
11
95
20
18
46
12
416
Projected 2042 No Build
131
423 36
91
179 213
77
692
147
87
226
60
2,362
Riverside Primary Trips
5
19 2
0
0 7
0
23
0
3
0
0
59
Projected 2022 Buildout
116
377 33
71
139 173
67
627
129
73
184
49
2,038
Projected 2042 Buildout
136
442 38
91
179 220
77
715
147
90
226
60
2,421
Project# 1191830 SHIVEHATTERY
ARCHITECTURE+ENGINEERING
Page 34 of 44
Table 11 PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes
Project # 1191830 SH IVCHATTCRY
ARCH I T E C T U R E+ E NGIN E ERI NG
#1 Myrtle Avenue & Greenwood Drive
Traffic Volume Classification
Left
Southbound
NA
Thru Right
Left
Westbound
Myrtle Avenue
Thru Right
Northbound
Greenwood Drive
Left Thru Right
Left
Eastbound
Myrtle Avenue
Thru Right
Int.
Count
Existing 2020 No Build
0
0
0
64
0 0
20
0
71
0
0
20
175
Projected 2022 No Build
0
0
0
65
0 0
20
0
72
0
0
20
177
Background Traffic Growth (2020 — 2042)
0
0
0
8
0 0 1
3
0
9
0
0
3
23
Projected 2042 No Build
0
0
0
72
0 0
23
0
80
0
0
23
198
Riverside Primary Trips
0
0
0
2
0 0
0
0
2
0
0
0
4
Projected 2022 Buildout
0
0
0
67
0 0
20
0
74
0
0
20
181
Projected 2042 Buildout
0
0
0
74
1 0 0
23
0
82
0
0
23
202
#2 Myrtle Avenue & Lot 48 Access
Traffic Volume Classification
Southbound
Lot 48 Access
Left Thru Right
Left
Westbound
Myrtle Avenue
Thru Right
Left
Northbound
NA
Thru
Right
Eastbound
Int.
Count
Myrtle Avenue
Left Thru
Right
Existing 2020 No Build
16
0
7
0
66 5
0
0
0
4
87
0
185
Projected 2022 No Build
16
0
7
0
67 5
0
0
0
4
88
0
187
Background Traffic Growth (2020 — 2042)
2
0
1
0
9 1
0
0
0
1
11
0
25
Projected 2042 No Build
18
0
8
0
75 6
0
0
0
5
98
0
210
Riverside Primary Trips
0
0
0
0
2 0
0
0
0
0
2
0
4
Projected 2022 Buildout
16
0
7
0
69 5
0
0
0
4
90
0
191
Projected 2042 Buildout
18
0
8
0
1 77 6
0
0
0
5
100
0
214
#3 Myrtle Avenue & Olive Street
Traffic Volume Classification
Left
Southbound
NA
I Thru Right
Left
Westbound
Myrtle Avenue
Thru Right
Left
Northbound
Olive Street
Thru Right
Left
Eastbound
M rtle Avenue
Thru Right
Int.
Count
Existing 2020 No Build
0
0 0
6
67 0
4
0
5
0
103
0
185
Projected 2022 No Build
0
0 0
6
68 0
4
0
5
0
104
0
187
Background Traffic Growth (2020 — 2042)
0
0 0
1
9 0
1
0
1
0
13
0
25
Projected 2042 No Build
0
0 0
7
76 0
5
0
6
0
116
0
210
Riverside Primary Trips
0
0 0
0
2 0
0
0
0
0
2
0
4
Projected 2022 Buildout
0
0 0
6
70 0
4
0
5
0
106
0
191
Projected 2042 Buildout
0
0 0
7
78 0
5
0
6
0
118
0
214
#4 Myrtle Avenue & Access Point qv --w
--- 11111111111F
Traffic Volume Classification
Southbound
Westbound
Northbound
Eastbound
Int.
Count
NA Myrtle Avenue Access Point
Myrtle Avenue
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
Left Thru Right
Existing 2020 No Build
0
0 0
0
90 0
0
0
0
0
108
0
198
Projected 2022 No Build
0
0 0
0
91 0
0
0
0
0
109
0
200
Background Traffic Growth (2020 — 2042)
0
0 0
0
12 0
0
0
0
0
14
0
26
Projected 2042 No Build
0
0 0
0
102 0
0
0
0
0
122
0
224
Riverside Pass -by Trips
0
0 0
1
0 0
1
0
1
0
0
1
4
Riverside Primary Trips
0
0 0
52
0 0
2
0
35
0
0
2
91
Projected 2022 Buildout
0
0 0
53
91 0
3
0
36
0
109
3
295
Projected 2042 Buildout
0
0 0
53
102 0
3
0
36
0
122
3
319
Project # 1191830 SH IVCHATTCRY
ARCH I T E C T U R E+ E NGIN E ERI NG
Page 35 of 44
Table 11 PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes Continued
Recommended Buildout Lane Configuration & Control
Through a thorough operational analysis (methodology discussed in the Operational Analysis section)
recommended lane configuration and control at the study intersections under projected buildout conditions
was identified and is presented in the following figure. The sole recommended modification to the existing lane
configuration and control is to convert the Riverside Drive and Access Point (study intersection #7) to a RIRO
configured intersection as shown in the figure below.
Project # 1191830 SH IVCHATTCRY
ARCH I T E C T U R E+ E NGIN E ERI NG
#5 Riverside Drive & Burlington Street
Traffic Volume Classification
Left
Southbound
Riverside Drive
Thru Right
Westbound
Burlington Street
Left Thru I Right
Northbound
Riverside Drive
Left Thru Right
Eastbound
Grand Avenue
Left Thru Right
Int.
Count
Existing 2020 No Build
124
533 128
146
294 249
215
687
95
88
240
268
3,067
Projected 2022 No Build
126
535 130
148
298 250
217
695
96
88
243
272
3,098
Background Traffic Growth (2020 — 2042)
21
83 21
21
41 33
47
151
20
13
40
44
535
Projected 2042 No Build
145
616 149
167
335 282
262
838
115
101
280
312
3,602
Riverside Primary Trips
0
17 0
4
0 0
9
21
5
0
0
7
63
Projected 2022 Buildout
126
552 130
152
298 250
226
716
101
88
243
279
3,161
Projected 2042 Buildout
145
633 149
171
335 282
271
859
120
101
280
319
3,665
#6 Riverside Drive & Myrtle Avenue
Traffic Volume Classification
Left
Southbound
Riverside Drive
Thru Right
Left
Westbound
NA
Thru Right
Northbound
Riverside Drive
Left Thru Right
Eastbound
Myrtle Avenue
Left Thru Right
Int.
Count
Existing 2020 No Build
0
973 53
0
0 0
25
757
0
53
0
55
1,916
Projected 2022 No Build
0
983 54
0
0 0
25
762
0
54
0
56
1,934
Background Traffic Growth (2020 — 2042)
0
213 12
0
0 0
5
143
0
7
0
7
387
Projected 2042 No Build
0
1,186 65
0
0 0
30
900
0
60
0
62
2,303
Riverside Primary Trips
0
0 28
0
0 0
24
0
0
35
0
0
87
Projected 2022 Buildout
0
983 82
0
0 0
49
762
0
89
0
56
2,021
Projected 2042 Buildout
0
1,186 93
0
0 0
54
900
0
95
0
62
2,390
#7 Riverside Drive & Access Point
Traffic Volume Classification
Southbound
Westbound
Northbound
Eastbound Int.
Grand Avenue Count
Left Thru Right
Riverside Drive Burlington Street Riverside Drive
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
Existing 2020 No Build
0
1,020 8
0
0 0
7
774
0
8
0
7
1,824
Projected 2022 No Build
0
1,037 0
0
0 0
0
787
0
0
0
0
1,824
Background Traffic Growth (2020 — 2042)
0
206 -8
0
0 0
-7
156
0
-8
0
-7
332
Projected 2042 No Build
0
1,226 0
0
0 0
0
930
0
0
0
0
2,156
Riverside Pass -by Trips
0
0 11
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
12
23
Riverside Primary Trips
0
0 0
0
0 0
0
24
0
0
0
30
54
Projected 2022 Buildout
0
1,037 11
0
0 0
0
811
0
0
0
42
1,901
Projected 2042 Buildout
0
1,226 11
0
0 0
0
954
0
0
0
42
2,233
#8 Riverside Drive & Benton
Street
is
Traffic Volume Classification
Left
Southbound
Riverside Drive
Thru Right
Left
Westbound
Benton Street
Thru Right
Northbound
Riverside Drive
Left Thru Right
Left
Eastbound Int.
Benton Street Count
Thru Right
Existing 2020 No Build
156
768 102
147
265 151
90
503
84
105
219
121
2,711
Projected 2022 No Build
158
776 103
151
272 154
91
505
85
106
224
124 2,749
Background Traffic Growth (2020 — 2042)
30
149 19
47
84 47
14
75
14
26
57
31
593
Projected 2042 No Build
186
917 121
194
349 198
104
578
98
131
276
152 3,304
Riverside Primary Trips
6
21 3
0
0 5
0
17
0
2
0
0
54
Projected 2022 Buildout
164
797 106
151
272 159
91
522
85
108
224
124 2,803
Projected 2042 Buildout
192
938 124
1 194
349 203
104
595
98
133
276
152 3,358
Recommended Buildout Lane Configuration & Control
Through a thorough operational analysis (methodology discussed in the Operational Analysis section)
recommended lane configuration and control at the study intersections under projected buildout conditions
was identified and is presented in the following figure. The sole recommended modification to the existing lane
configuration and control is to convert the Riverside Drive and Access Point (study intersection #7) to a RIRO
configured intersection as shown in the figure below.
Project # 1191830 SH IVCHATTCRY
ARCH I T E C T U R E+ E NGIN E ERI NG
Page 36 of 44
Figure 20 Study Intersections — Recommended Buildout Lane Configuration & Control
O O � O O
Y l�
The subsequent analysis intends to justify the recommended buildout lane configuration and control shown in
the figure above.
Project# 1191830 SHIVC-HATTERY
RC0ITECTU RE+ENGINEERING
Page 37 of 44
Traffic Modeling
Operational Analysis
Vehicular operational analysis for this study was performed using the methodology of the 6th Edition Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) through Synchro traffic analysis software. Operational analysis is generally
categorized in terms of Level of Service (LOS). LOS describes the quality of traffic operations and is graded
from A to F; with LOS A representing free-flow conditions and LOS F representing congested conditions.
Acceptable LOS conditions can generally be defined as average intersection control delay at LOS D or better
and all approaches at LOS E or better. Control delay is the delay experienced by vehicles slowing down as
they are approaching the intersection, the wait time at the intersection and the time for vehicles to speed up
through the intersection and enter the traffic stream. The average intersection control delay is a volume
weighted average of delay experienced by all motorists entering the intersection on all intersection approaches.
At two-way stop -controlled (TWSC) intersections the primary LOS measure to consider is the intersection
approach with the longest control delay, which as stated above would need to be LOS E or better to generally
be deemed acceptable. The primary LOS measure2 at signalized intersections is average intersection control
delay and approach control delay.
A queueing analysis was also performed at the study intersections. A vehicle queue is a line of vehicles waiting
to pass through an intersection. As vehicles arrive the queue grows and as the movement is served, the queue
length shrinks. To account for this variation, it is common to consider the 95th percentile queue length. The 95th
percentile queue is the length of which the queue will be less than 95 percent of the time.
The following table presents the range of traffic delays associated for signalized and TWSC intersections. It
should be noted delay thresholds for a given LOS for TWSC intersections are lower than those given for
signalized intersections. This difference, as explained in Chapter 20 of the HCM 6th Edition, is to account for
the greater variability in delay associated with TWSC movements in addition to different driver expectations
associated with each type of intersection control, with the expectation that signalized intersections are
designed to carry higher traffic volumes and therefore will experience greater delay than a TWSC intersection.
Table 12 LOS Criteria for Signalized 8r TWSC Intersections
LOS
Signalized Intersection
Average Control Delay
(sec/veh)
TWSC Intersection Delay
(sec/veh)
A
< 10
<_ 10
B
>10to20
>10to15
C
> 20 to 35
> 15 to 25
D
> 35 to 55
> 25 to 35
E
> 55 to 80
> 35 to 50
F
>80
>50
Source: HCM 6' Edition, Exhibit 19-8 LOS Criteria for Signalized Intersections and
Exhibit 20-2 LOS Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections.
sec/veh = seconds per vehicle
The following table presents operational conditions at the study intersections under existing and projected no
build and buildout AM and PM peak hour conditions. It should be reiterated, at two-way stop control (TWSC)
controlled intersections the primary LOS measure to consider is the intersection approach with the longest
delay, which as stated above would need to be LOS E or better to generally be deemed acceptable. Highlighted
cells indicate a LOS issue in the following tables. Existing signal timings were used for the existing conditions
analysis. Projected analysis assumes optimized signal timings.
2 Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratio is another measurement used to determine LOS. If the V/C ratio is greater than 1.0 LOS is F regardless
of delay. An expanded discussion of v/c ratios is provided in Appendix 4.
Project# 1191830 SHIVEHATTERY
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
Page 38 of 44
Table 13 Operational Analysis
Intersection
Scenario
Metric
AM PM
Peak Hour Peak Hour
NB SB EB WB NB
SB EB
WB
Existing 2020
No Build
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
95`h Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement in Feet
Projected 2022
No Build
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
95`h Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement) in Feet
- - - - -
- -
1
Myrtle
Avenue &
Greenwood
Drive
Projected 2022
�
Buildout
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
- - - - -
- -
-
95'h Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement in Feet
Projected 2042
No Build
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
95`h Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement in Feet
Projected 2042
Buildout
Approach Delay
Approach LOS
95`h Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement in Feet
Existing 2020
No Build
Approach Delay
8.8 0.6 0.0
9.3 0.3
0.0
Approach LOS
A A A
A A
A
95`h Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement) in Feet
LR LT TR
LR LT
TR
1 1 0
2 1
0
Projected 2022
No Build
Approach Delay
8.8 0.6 0.0
9.3 0.3
0.0
Approach LOS
A A A
A A
A
95`h Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement in Feet
- LR LT TR -
LR LT
TR
1 1 0
2 1
0
2
Myrtle
A &
Lot 48
Projected 2022
Buildout
Approach Delay
8.8 0.6 0.0
9.4 0.3
0.0
Approach LOS
A A A
A A
A
95`h Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement) in Feet
- LR LT TR -
LR LT
TR
1 1 0
2 1
0
Projected 2042
No Build
Approach Delay
8.9 0.7 0.0
9.5 0.3
0.0
Approach LOS
A A A
A A
A
95`h Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement) in Feet
LR LT TR
LR LT
TR
1 1 0
3 1
0
Projected 2042
Buildout
Approach Delay
8.9 0.7 0.0
9.5 0.3
0.0
Approach LOS
A A A
A A
A
951h Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement) in Feet
LR LT TR
LR LT
TR
1 1 0
3 1
0
Queue, Delay, and LOS analysis based on HCM 6'h Edition Methodology
Project# 1191830 SHIVEHATTERY
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
Page 39 of 44
Table 13 Operational Analysis Continued
Queue, Delay, and LOS analysis based on HCM 6' Edition Methodology
Project# 1191830 SHIVEHATTERY
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
AM
PM
Peak Hour
Peak Hour
Intersection
Scenario
Metric
NB
SB EB
WB
NB
SB EB
WB
Approach Delay
8.8
0.0
0.1
9.3
0.0
0.6
Existing 2020
No Build
Approach LOS
A
A
A
A
A
A
95th Percentile Queue LR TR LT LR TR
LT
(Longest Movement in Feet
1
0
0
1
0
1
Approach Delay
8.8
0.0
0.1
9.3
0.0
0.6
Projected 2022
No Build
Approach LOS
A
A
A
A
A
A
951h Percentile Queue LR TR LT LR - TR
LT
(Longest Movement in Feet
1
0
1
1
0
1
Approach Delay
8.8
0.0
0.0
9.3
0.0
0.6
3
Myrtle
Avenue &
Olive Street
Projected 2022
Buildout
Approach LOS
A
A
A
A
A
A
95th Percentile Queue LR TR LT LR TR
LT
(Longest Movement in Feet
1
0
0
1
0
1
Approach Delay
8.8
0.0
0.1
9.4
0.0
0.6
Projected 2042
No Build
Approach LOS
A
A
A
A
A
A
95th Percentile Queue LR TR LT LR TR
LT
(Longest Movement in Feet
1
0
1
1
0
1
Approach Delay
8.9
0.0
0.1
9.4
0.0
0.6
Projected 2042
Buildout
Approach LOS
A
A
A
A
A
A
95th Percentile Queue
LR
TR
LT
LR
TR
LT
(Longest Movement in Feet
1
0
1
1
0
1
Approach Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Existing 2020
No Build
Approach LOS
A
A
A
A
A
A
95th Percentile Queue LR TR LT LR TR
LT
(Longest Movement) in Feet
0
0
0
0
0
0
Approach Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Projected 2022
No Build
Approach LOS
A
A
A
A
A
A
95th Percentile Queue LR - TR LT LR - TR
LT
(Longest Movement in Feet
0
0
0
0
0
0
Approach Delay
8.8
0.0
3.4
9.1
0.0
2.8
4
Myrtle
Avenue &
Access Point
Projected 2022
Buildout
Approach LOS
A
A
A
A
A
A
95th Percentile Queue R - TR LT R - TR
(Longest Movement) in Feet 2 0 4 3 0
LT
3
Approach Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Projected 2042
No Build
Approach LOS
A
A
A
A
A
A
95th Percentile Queue
LR
TR
LT
LR
TR
LT
(Longest Movement) in Feet
0
0
0
0
0
0
Approach Delay
8.8
0.0
3.0
9.2
0.0
2.6
Projected 2042
Buildout
Approach LOS
A
A
A
A
A
A
95th Percentile Queue
R
TR
LT
R
TR
LT
(Longest Movement) in Feet
2
0
4
3 1
0
3
Queue, Delay, and LOS analysis based on HCM 6' Edition Methodology
Project# 1191830 SHIVEHATTERY
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
Page 40 of 44
Table 13 Operational Analysis Continued
Intersection
Scenario
AM PM
Peak Hour Peak Hour
Metric NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
Existing 2020
No Build
Approach Delay 26.6 30.4 48.5
43.5 31.8 33.1 47.0 43.2
Approach LOS C C D
D C C D D
95th Percentile Queue L T T
(Longest Movement in Feet 207 253 184
R T T R R
129 270 282 230 195
Intersection Delay & LOS 35.1, D 37.4, D
Projected 2022
No Build
Approach Delay 23.9 27.3 40.3
36.2 26.6
28.9 40.8 38.2
Approach LOS C C D
D C
C D D
95'h Percentile Queue L T T
(Longest Movement in Feet 184 234 155
R T
T R R
109 241
250 205 173
Intersection Delay & LOS 30.4, C 32.3, C
5
Riverside
Drive &
Burlington
Street
Projected 2022
Buildout
40.7 36.1 27.2
Approach Delay 24.1 27.9LR
30.3 40.8
37.8
Approach LOS C C D D C
C D
D
95th Percentile Queue L T R T
Lon est Movement in Feet 191 248160 108 252
T R
L
262 1 210
169
Intersection Delay & LOS 30.7, C 32.7, C
Projected 2042
No Build
Approach Delay 24.8 31.1 41.9 36.4 31.1 38.6 41.0 37.3
Approach LOS C C D D C D D D
95th Percentile Queue L T T R T T R L
(Longest Movement) in Feet 213 288 182 123 315 331 231 190
Intersection Delay & LOS 32.2, C 36. 1, D
Projected 2042
Buildout
Approach Delay 25.2
32.6
41.1 35.9 32.2
42.0 41.4 37.1
Approach LOS C
C
D D C
D D D
95th Percentile Queue L
(Longest Movement in Feet 218
T
R R T
T R L
307
185 121 329
354 239 195
Intersection Delay & LOS 32.6, C 37.4, D
Existing 2020
No Build
Approach Delay 30.8 92.7 33.7
- 36.8
448.8 31.4 -
Approach LOS C F C
D
F C
95th Percentile Queue T TR L
(Longest Movement) in Feet 343 400 33
T
TR L
366
1,599 51
Intersection Delay & LOS 53.6, D 257.6, F
Projected 2022
No Build
Approach Delay 5.3 13.0 35.9
6.6
17.6 33.8
Approach LOS A B D
A
B C
95th Percentile Queue T TR L
(Longest Movement in Feet 126 157 35
T
TR L
145
339 1 56
Intersection Delay & LOS 9.2, A 13.8, B
6
Riverside
Drive &
Myrtle
Avenue
Projected 2022
Buildout
Approach Delay 6.3
16.2 34.5 7.1
22.7 34.1
Approach LOS A
B C A
C C
95th Percentile Queue T
(Longest Movement in Feet 145
TR L T
TR L
1192 64 151
394 1 94
Intersection Delay & LOS 11.4, B 17.0, B
Projected 2042
No Build
Approach Delay 6.2 14.9 35.2 7.5 23.6 33.6
Approach LOS A B D A C C
95th Percentile Queue T TR L T TR L
(Longest Movement in Feet 169 204 40 188 466 62
Intersection Delay & LOS 10.4, B 17.5, B
Projected 2042
Buildout
Approach Delay 7.1 17.8
34.3 7.9 30.7 34.2
Approach LOS A B
C A C C
95th Percentile Queue T TR
Longest Movement in Feet 190 231
L T TR L
71 192 541 100
Intersection Delay & LOS 12.4, B 21.6, C
Project # 1191830 SH IVCHATTCRY
ARCH I T E C T U R E+ E NGIN E ERI NG
Page 41 of 44
Table 13 Operational Analysis Continued
Intersection
Scenario
Metric
AM
Peak Hour
PM
Peak Hour
NB SB EB
WB NB SB EB
WB
Existing 2020
No Build
Approach Delay
0.0
0.0
9.8
0.1
0.0
25.3
Approach LOS
A A A
A A D
95th Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement in Feet
L TR LR
L TR LR
0 0 0
1 0 6
Projected 2022
No Build
Approach Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Approach LOS
A A A
A A A
951h Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement in Feet
L TR LR
L TR LR
0 0 0
0 0 0
7
Riverside
Drive &
Access Point
Projected 2022
Buildout
Approach Delay
0.0
0.0
9.9
0.0
0.0
12.9
Approach LOS
A A A
A A B
95th Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement in Feet
L TR R
L TR R
0 0 2
0 0 7
Projected 2042
No Build
Approach Delay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Approach LOS
A A A
A A A
95th Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement in Feet
L TR LR
L TR LR
0 0 0
0 0 0
Projected 2042
Buildout
Approach Delay
0.0
0.0
10.3
0.0
0.0
14.2
Approach LOS
A A A
A A B
95th Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement in Feet
L TR R
L TR R
0 0 3
0 0 8
Existing 2020
No Build
Approach Delay
218.8
44.3 28.2
24.7
49.7
126.7
32.8
28.7
Approach LOS
F D C
C D F C
C
95th Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement in Feet
T T T
R T T T
L
879 228 99
99 316 728 147
155
Intersection Delay & LOS
109.9, F 72.5, E
Projected 2022
No Build
Approach Delay
54.2
35.0
34.2
30.2
36.1
55.2
37.7
32.3
Approach LOS
D
C
C
C D E D
C
95th Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement) in Feet
T
T
T
R T T T
L
435
198
120
122 267 470 169
159
Intersection Delay & LOS
41.9, D 42.9, D
8
Riverside
Drive &
Benton Street
Projected 2022
Buildout
Approach Delay
55.1
34.8
34.9
31.0
36.5
55.7
38.3
32.7
Approach LOS
E
C C
C D E D
C
95th Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement in Feet
T
T T
R T T T
L
453
203 122
130 276 486 171
159
Intersection Delay & LOS
42.5, D 43.5, D
Projected 2042
No Build
Approach Delay
56.0
36.4
40.6
36.0
39.1
55.3
45.0
40.4
Approach LOS
E D D D D E D
D
95th Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement in Feet
T T T R T T I T
L
522 236 174 187 325 574 1 231
243
Intersection Delay & LOS
44.7, D 46.5, D
Projected 2042
Buildout
Approach Delay
56.9
35.8
41.7
37.2
39.3
55.8
45.9
40.9
Approach LOS
E D D D D E D
D
95th Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement in Feet
T T T R T T T
L
540 243 178 197 334 588 234
243
Intersection Delay & LOS
45.3, D 47.0, D
Queue, Delay, and LOS analysis based on HCM 61h Edition Methodology
Project # 1191830 SH IVCHATTCRY
ARCH I T E C T U R E+ E NGIN E ERI NG
Page 42 of 44
The analysis presented herein indicates all the study intersections will operate at acceptable LOS D or better,
with all approaches at LOS E or better during the AM and PM peak hour conditions through 2042 with buildout
of the proposed Riverside development. This determination assumes the recommended lane configuration and
control presented in Figure 20, as well as regularly optimizing traffic signal timings as deemed appropriate.
The existing condition LOS issues can be addressed by modifying the traffic signal timings. The 95th percentile
queues at the study intersections were also analyzed. Based on these queue lengths no issues, such as a
queue extending upstream to an adjacent intersection are anticipated. Operational analysis worksheets are
contained in Appendix 4.
Project# 1191830 SHIVEHATTERY
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
Page 43 of 44
Summary & Recommendations
Riverfront West initiated this traffic impact study to identify potential traffic impacts on the adjacent roadway
network and provide traffic mitigation measures, if necessary, due to their proposed Riverside development,
which will be bounded within Olive Street to the west, Myrtle Avenue to the north, Riverside Drive to the east,
and the Iowa Interstate Railroad to the south in Iowa City, IA. The proposed Riverside development is a multi-
story residential and mixed-use development bounded within Olive Street to the west, Myrtle Avenue to the
north, Riverside Drive to the east, and the Iowa Interstate Railroad to the south in Iowa City, IA and is expected
to be completely built by the end of 2022. Two passenger vehicle access points are proposed, with one on
Myrtle Avenue and one on Riverside Drive in the approximate location of existing access points to the site.
The access point on Riverside Drive is anticipated to be a right -in right -out (RIRO) access point. The Myrtle
Avenue access points is anticipated to be a full access point, with no turning movement restrictions. A semi-
trailer truck ingress access point and egress access point are proposed on Riverside Drive and Myrtle Avenue,
respectively. Due to the expected relatively low volume of semi -trailer trips entering and exiting the site the
semi -trailer truck access points are not analyzed herein. Sight visibility zones corresponding to intersection
sight distance calculations as defined through AASHTO should be identified and maintained at these access
points. These zones should not contain structures or plantings that would preclude unobstructed views of
oncoming traffic. Current designs for the development do not indicate obstructions within the sight visibility
zones.
The following study intersections within the study area were identified for analysis:
1. Myrtle Avenue & Greenwood Drive
2. Myrtle Avenue & Lot 48 Access
3. Myrtle Avenue & Olive Street
4. Myrtle Avenue & Access Point
5. Riverside Drive & Grand Avenue/W Burlington Street (Riverside Drive & Burlington Street hereafter)
6. Riverside Drive & Myrtle Avenue
7. Riverside Drive & Access Point
8. Riverside Drive & W Benton Street
The above list assigns each study intersection with a number that is used hereafter. (e.g. #1 = Myrtle Avenue
and Greenwood Drive).
The area immediately surrounding the proposed development generally incorporates services, retail, and
residential ITE land uses. A study area map identifying the location of the study intersections, as well the
location of proposed development (delineated in red) is depicted in the following figure.
Turning movement volumes were collected at the study intersections on Tuesday, September 15, 20220. The
peak hours of the study intersections were determined based on the highest consecutive four 15 -minute turning
movement counts between the hours of 7:00 and 9:00 AM and 4:00 and 6:00 PM, respectively at the Riverside
Drive and Burlington Street (study intersection #4) intersection. The AM and PM peak hours at the Riverside
Drive and Burlington Street (study intersection #4) intersection governed the AM and PM peak hours at the
study intersections because it is the study intersection with the highest volume of entering vehicles. The AM
peak hour was determined to occur between 7:15 and 8:15. The PM peak hour was determined to occur
between 4:15 and 5:15. The raw and refined volume data are provided in Appendix 1.
Projected traffic analysis will typically apply an annual growth rate to study intersections' existing turning
movement volumes prior to adding project development trips to account for growth in background traffic (traffic
growth unrelated to the proposed Riverside development). In coordination with the local metropolitan planning
organization the annual growth rates identified in Figure 3 were identified based on projected 2025 and 2045
annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes that are also shown in Figure 3.
Project # 1191830 SH IVCHATTCRY
ARCH I T E C T U R E+ E NGIN E ERI NG
Page 44 of 44
The Iowa Crash Analysis Tool (ICAT) website administered by Iowa DOT was used to collect available crash
data at the study intersections for the ten-year period between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2019. Over
this period a total of 362 crashes were reported at the study intersections. All of the study intersections had
crash rates that were lower than the statewide average for intersections with a similar daily volume of entering
vehicles, except for the Riverside Drive & Burlington Street (study intersection #4) and Riverside Drive &
Benton Street (study intersection #6) intersections.
The proposed Riverside development is a multi -story residential and mixed-use development bounded within
Olive Street to the west, Myrtle Avenue to the north, Riverside Drive to the east, and the Iowa Interstate
Railroad to the south in Iowa City, IA and is expected to be completely built by the end of 2022. Two passenger
vehicle access points are proposed, with one on Myrtle Avenue and one on Riverside Drive in the approximate
location of existing access points to the site. The access point on Riverside Drive is anticipated to be a right -
in right -out (RIRO) access point. The Myrtle Avenue access points is anticipated to be a full access point, with
no turning movement restrictions. A semi -trailer truck ingress access point and egress access point are
proposed on Riverside Drive and Myrtle Avenue, respectively. Due to the expected relatively low volume of
semi -trailer trips entering and exiting the site the semi -trailer truck access points are not analyzed herein. Sight
visibility zones corresponding to intersection sight distance calculations as defined through AASHTO should
be identified and maintained at these access points. These zones should not contain structures or plantings
that would preclude unobstructed views of oncoming traffic. Current designs for the development do not
indicate obstructions within the sight visibility zones.
Acceptable LOS conditions can generally be defined as average intersection control delay at LOS D or better
and all approaches at LOS E or better. At two-way stop -controlled (TWSC) intersections the primary LOS
measure to consider is the intersection approach with the longest delay, which as stated above would need to
be LOS E or better to generally be deemed acceptable. The primary LOS measures at signalized intersections
is average intersection control delay and approach delay.
Vehicular operational analysis for this study was performed using the methodology of the 6th Edition Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) through Synchro traffic analysis software. Operational analysis is generally
categorized in terms of Level of Service (LOS). LOS describes the quality of traffic operations and is graded
from A to F; with LOS A representing free-flow conditions and LOS F representing congested conditions.
Acceptable LOS conditions can generally be defined as average intersection control delay at LOS D or better
and all approaches at LOS E or better. Control delay is the delay experienced by vehicles slowing down as
they are approaching the intersection, the wait time at the intersection and the time for vehicles to speed up
through the intersection and enter the traffic stream. The average intersection control delay is a volume
weighted average of delay experienced by all motorists entering the intersection on all intersection approaches.
At two-way stop -controlled (TWSC) intersections the primary LOS measure to consider is the intersection
approach with the longest control delay, which as stated above would need to be LOS E or better to generally
be deemed acceptable. The primary LOS measure3 at signalized intersections is average intersection control
delay and approach control delay.
The analysis presented herein indicates all the study intersections will operate at acceptable LOS D or better,
with all approaches at LOS E or better during the AM and PM peak hour conditions through 2042 with buildout
of the proposed Riverside development. This determination assumes the recommended lane configuration and
control presented in Figure 20, as well as regularly optimizing traffic signal timings as deemed appropriate.
The existing condition LOS issues can be addressed by modifying the traffic signal timings. The 95th percentile
queues at the study intersections were also analyzed. A vehicle queue is a line of vehicles waiting to pass
through an intersection. The 95th percentile queue is the length of which the queue will be less than 95 percent
of the time. Based on these queue lengths no issues, such as a queue extending upstream to an adjacent
intersection are anticipated. Operational analysis worksheets are contained in Appendix 4.
s Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratio is another measurement used to determine LOS. If the V/C ratio is greater than 1.0 LOS is F regardless
of delay. An expanded discussion of v/c ratios is provided in Appendix 4.
Project# 1191830 SHIVEHATTERY
A R C H I T E C T U R E+ E N G I N E E R I N G
Item Number: 7.e.
�r
p-
CITY OE IOWA CITY
www.iogov.org
November 17, 2020
Motion setting a public hearing for December 1, 2020 on the Riverfront
Crossings, West Riverfront Changes Ordinance to amend Title 14 Zoning to
expand the West Riverfront Subdistrict boundaries and to increase the
maximum bonus height in the West Riverfront Subdistrict to seven stories for
properties north of and near the Iowa Interstate Railroad. (REZ20-0004)
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Planning & Zoning Commission Packet 11-5-2020
Correspondence
CITY OF IOWA CITY
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 5, 2020
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Kirk Lehmann, AICP, Associate Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services
Re: Amendment to Title 14, Zoning Code expanding the West Riverfront Subdistrict on the
Riverfront Crossing regulating plan and increasing the maximum bonus height allowed
in specific locations of the West Riverfront Subdistrict (REZ20-0004)
Introduction
K&F Properties, LLC owns property located at 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court and 119,
201, 203, 205, 207, and 209 Myrtle Ave. The owner is working with Shive-Hattery to prepare three
applications to allow development of a mixed-use project with housing, retail, hospitality, and
neighborhood service uses. This specific application (REZ20-0004) requests two amendments to
the Riverfront Crossings form -based regulations in the zoning code (Title 14, Chapter 2, Article G
of the Iowa City Municipal Code):
1) To expand the Riverfront Crossings, West Riverfront Subdistrict boundaries on the
Riverfront Crossing's regulating plan to include approximately 3.16 acres at 219, 223, and
245 S. Riverside Court and 119, 201, 203, 205, 207, and 209 Myrtle Avenue; and
2) To increase the maximum bonus height from 5 to 7 stories for properties within the West
Riverfront Subdistrict that are north of and abut the Iowa Interstate Railroad.
The other concurrently submitted applications include a comprehensive plan amendment
(CPA20-0002), which would add the subject properties to the West Riverfront Subdistrict of the
Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, and a zoning map amendment (REZ20-0003),
which would rezone properties the applicant owns from High Density Multi -Family Residential
Zone (RM -44), Community Commercial (CC -2), and Medium Density Single -Family Residential
(RS -8) to Riverfront Crossings -West Riverfront (RFC -WR). Generally, the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment must be approved for changes to the zoning and regulating plan maps to comply
with the Comprehensive Plan. However, the bonus height zoning text amendment does not
require the Comprehensive Plan amendment to be approved.
Background
In 2013, the City adopted the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan which identifies
subdistricts and their different characteristics. The West Riverfront subdistrict is described as a
high -traffic, auto -oriented corridor west of the Iowa River. It is envisioned that over time,
commercial development west of South Riverside Drive will take on a more pedestrian -friendly
framework or will transition to urban apartments and mixed-use development. Redevelopment on
the Iowa River is described as utilizing river views to provide either pedestrian -friendly commercial
uses or niche residential uses, including townhouses or mid -rise condo towers. Generally, the
master plan shows building heights of 1 to 3 stories on the subject parcels because the plan did
not anticipate redevelopment. Buildings south of the railroad and on the Iowa River were expected
to be taller, which would be accomplished through new development.
To implement the master plan, the City adopted the Riverfront Crossings Form -Based
Development Standards which includes a regulating plan codifying the location of each
subdistrict. In addition, subdistrict standards determine the maximum base building height allowed
by right, which can be increased to a maximum bonus building height through special provisions
that incentivize the incorporation of features providing public benefits. Whereas the
comprehensive plan amendment modifies the plan, the zoning code text and map amendments
allow the applicant to act on these changes.
Proposed Amendments
Expansion of the West Riverfront Subdistrict Boundaries in the Regulating Plan
Per the Riverfront Crossings regulating plan, the West Riverfront Subdistrict (RFC -WR) is
bounded roughly by Myrtle Avenue to the north, the Iowa River to the east, Highway 6 to the
south, and to the west, Orchard Street south of the railroad and parcels abutting S. Riverside
Drive north of the railroad. The subdistrict is intended for commercial and mixed-use development
in buildings with street -facing entries opening onto streetscapes designed to provide a
comfortable and attractive environment for pedestrians buffered from vehicular traffic on S.
Riverside Drive. Along streets in this subdistrict, buildings are designed with facades aligned
parallel to Riverside Drive with parking located in midblock and side yard locations.
The proposed amendment, which implements proposed changes to the master plan as requested
in the concurrent Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA20-0002), expands the boundary of the
West Riverfront Subdistrict north of the railroad to the edge of the single-family properties on Olive
Street (Figure 1). Specifically, 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court and 119, 201, 203, 205, 207,
and 209 Myrtle Avenue. These properties are currently outside of the Riverfront Crossing's district
and cannot pursue development under the form -based development standards.
Figure 1. West Riverfront Subdistrict and Proposed Changes
Increase in Maximum Bonus Height
The Riverfront Crossings form -based code includes both a maximum base building height, which
is provided by right, and a maximum bonus height, which may be granted through a transfer of
development rights or other bonus height provisions in 14 -2G -7G. Bonus height requests for up
to 2 stories above the base height are approved through the Form -Based Code Committee design
review process. If more than two stories are requested, or bonus height is requested through a
transfer of development rights, the proposal must also be approved by the City Council.
In the RFC -WR subdistrict, the maximum base building height is 4 stories, unless a lot has
frontage on the Iowa River, in which case it is 8 stories. Utilizing bonus provisions, the RFC -WR
subdistrict has a maximum bonus building height of up to 5 stories, though lots abutting a
residential zone may not utilize bonus height provisions. Where a property in the RFC -WR
subdistrict has frontage on the Iowa River, its maximum bonus height is 12 stories. In addition,
building facades must step back at least 10' above the third floor where they are visible from
streets, plazas, parks, and single-family residential zones.
The proposed zoning code text amendment would increase the allowable maximum bonus height
from 5 stories to 7 stories for properties in the West Riverfront Subdistrict that are north of and
abut the Iowa Interstate Railroad and are within 200 feet of the railroad right of way. However,
properties abutting residential zones would still not be allowed to utilize bonus height provisions.
Given that the base height in the RFC -WR subdistrict is 4 stories, reaching the proposed bonus
height of 7 stories would require Council approval. The current maximum base and bonus height
standards, and proposed changes, are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of Current v. Proposed RFC -WR Height Standards
Applicable Parcels
Current Max.
Base Height
Current Max.
Bonus Height
Proposed Max.
Bonus Height
Abutting residential zones
4 stories
4 stories
4 stories no change)
Not abutting residential zones
4 stories
5 stories
5 stories no change)
Abutting and Win 200' of railroad
but not abutting residential zones
4 stories
5 stories
7 stories
(2 -story increase)
With Iowa River frontage
8 stories
12 stories
12 stories no change)
Analysis
The parcels that would be incorporated in the RFC -WR subdistrict in the regulating plan currently
contain 144 dwelling units in primarily high-density multifamily buildings that are two or three
stories, with some lower density properties. REZ20-0003, under concurrent consideration, would
rezone these parcels as RFC -WR. Surrounding properties include public uses to the north,
commercial uses to the east, a railroad and high-density multifamily uses to the south, and some
medium density single-family uses to the west.
The submitted concept would include a mixed-use project with housing, retail, hospitality and
neighborhood services surrounding a pedestrian plaza. Most buildings illustrated in the concept
are 4 to 5 stories, with a 7 -story building shown on land adjacent to S. Riverside Drive and abutting
the north side of the railroad. The proposed zoning code text amendment would be required to
allow the development concept to occur as currently shown, specifically by allowing a taller
building by the railroad.
Expanding the West Riverfront subdistrict in the regulating plan will increase the allowable density
of the subject parcels because there are no restrictions on residential density for this zone.
However, staff believes it maintains compatibility with single-family homes to the west. First,
properties in the Riverfront Crossings district are held to more stringent design standards and are
subject to staff design review by the Form -Based Code Committee. This is a higher level of review
than would be required if redevelopment occurred under the current multi -family zoning. Second,
the topography of the site and height limitations tied to the zone ensure an appropriate transition.
Steep slopes on the site create 50 feet of grade change between the single-family homes on Olive
Street and the subject parcels, and properties zoned RFC -WR abutting a residential zone can
only be four stories tall with the fourth story set back an additional 10 feet. As a result, the
proposed buildings are expected to have a three-story exposure to the existing homes. This is
comparable to what would be allowed in the current zone were the properties at the same grade
and is only one story taller than the existing buildings. Consequently, the proposed amendment
maintains a similar context for the existing homes.
In addition, inclusion of the subject parcels in the Riverfront Crossings District makes them subject
to the Affordable Housing Requirement. As such, at least 10 percent of the development's
dwelling units must be designated as affordable housing or a fee must be paid in lieu of affordable
units, to be used for affordable housing in the area.
Increasing the bonus height from 5 to 7 stories on property north of and abutting the railroad would
somewhat change the nature of development in the RFC-WR subdistrict, but its effect is limited.
Properties abutting residential zones are limited to 4 stories, staff will review buildings over that
height, and Council must approve any building over 6 stories. It also maintains an appropriate
transition with surrounding properties, as discussed above, and is similar to what would be
allowed on the east side of Riverside Drive where buildings may be up to 8 stories by right or 12
stories with bonus height. Furthermore, increasing the bonus height only for properties north of
and abutting the railroad minimizes its impact on neighboring properties. The railroad acts as a
100-foot buffer with approximately 20 feet of grade change to the south, which is why increased
bonus height is limited to within 200 feet of the railroad. In addition, the north side of the railroad
has a significantly larger change in grade compared to the south side of the railroad. As such,
staff believes the proposed amendment would not negatively impact surrounding properties.
Comprehensive Plan Consistency
The ways in which the expansion of the West Riverfront Subdistrict supports the Comprehensive
Plan, and relevant subdistrict plans, is discussed in detail in the staff report for CPA20-0002. In
general, it maintains an appropriate transition of land uses, provides for high-quality pedestrian-
oriented design, allows for better circulation and a mix of uses, and promotes infill development
which strengthens downtown Iowa City. In addition, increased bonus height along the north side
of the Iowa Interstate Railroad supports goals and strategies in the Comprehensive Plan related
to promoting infill and strengthening the vitality of downtown, specifically by allowing "growth and
development in the Riverfront Crossings District in a manner that increases its residential appeal
and enhances the commercial viability of the Downtown". The increased density also helps fulfill
the vision of the West Riverfront Subdistrict in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master
Plan by promoting "commercial development on the west side of South Riverside
Drive... transition[ing] to urban apartments and mixed-use development."
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of REZ20-0004, a proposed amendment to the zoning code to
expand the Riverfront Crossings, West Riverfront Subdistrict boundaries to include 219, 223, and
245 S. Riverside Court and 119, 201, 203, 205, 207, and 209 Myrtle Avenue; and to increase the
maximum bonus height from five to seven stories for properties in the West Riverfront Subdistrict
north of and abutting the Iowa Interstate Railroad, as illustrated in Attachment 1.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Zoning Code Text Amendment
2. Application Submittal
Approved by:
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
Replace Figure 2G-2 found in 14-2G-2 with the following image:
Figure 2-
iverfront Crossings Height Diagram
A
Legend
- 3 stories max.
- 4 stories max.
2 stories min., 6 stiories max.
- 2 stories min., 8 AD -ries max.
8 stories max. with Iowa River Frontage or T skonesinex_ abutting the raitoad
Public Parks and Open Space
F�' Green Space
Replace Figure 2G-12 found in 14 -2G -3D with the following image:
Figure 2-12
Subdistrict Locator - West Riverfront
rfront
Amend 14 -2G -7G -1d-(4) as follows:
Five (5) stories maximum for properties within the Gilbert Subdistrict and properties within
the West Riverfront Subdistrict that do not have frontage along the Iowa River. For
oroaerties within the West Riverfront Subdistrict north of and abuttina the Iowa Interstate
Railroad. this may be increased to seven (7) stories maximum if within 200 feet of the
railroad right of way. However, bonus height is not allowed on lots that abut a residential
zone.
SHIVEHATTCRY
A R C H IT E C T U R E+ E N G IN E E R ING
REZ20-0004 — Text amendment
Applicant's statement — K & F Properties, LLC request the following text amendment to the Iowa
Riverfront Crossings, West Riverfront Subdistrict.
TEXT AMENDMENT TO WEST RIVERFRONT SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW HEIGHT BONUS ALLOWANCE TO 7
STORIES MAX FOR PROPERTIES NORTH OF AND ADJOINING IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD
K & F Properties, LLC feels this zoning change is warranted due to the extensive grade change in this
area of the West Riverfront Subdistrict and its proximity to the Iowa Interstate Railroad. Allowing for a
height bonus to 7 stories max., meeting the requirements of the Iowa Riverfront Crossings Building Height
Bonus Provisions, for properties north of and abutting the Iowa Interstate Railroad is compatible with the
Olive Street neighborhood due to the difference in grade elevation. It is also compatible with sites south
of the railroad because of the railroad grade elevation compared to the grades on both the north and
south sides.
By providing a height bonus for this area the project will have no more impact than the allowed 8 story
maximum height allowed for sites in the West Riverfront Subdistrict with River Frontage in Figure 2G-2
Riverfront Crossings Height Diagram.
Project 1191830
shine-hattery.com i f
From: Paula Swyaard
To: PlanninaZoninaPublic
Subject: CPA20-0002, REZ20-0003, and REZ20-0004
Date: Monday, November 2, 2020 1:29:12 PM
Attachments: imaae.ona
Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
I am writing to ask you to consider the following regarding CPA20-0002 (comp plan),
REZ20-0003 (rezoning), and REZ20-0004 (modification to WRFC for height bonus), for the
properties at 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court and 119, 201, 203, 205, 207, and 209
Myrtle Ave.
The West Riverfront subdistrict of the Riverfront Crossings Master Plan was designed to
allow for infill redevelopment of the commercial properties along Riverside Drive. Among its
major goals were to develop a mixed-use, pedestrian friendly area and to improve the current
streetscape as Riverside Drive transitioned from a strictly commercial area. Orchard Street
was used as the western boundary for the West Riverfront subdistrict south of the railroad
bridge, and properties designated as appropriate for the West Riverfront subdistrict north of
the railroad bridge were limited to the commercial properties as clearly delineated on the
Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, p. 80, shaded in blue below.
It is notable that the West Riverfront Crossings subdistrict did not extend across Orchard
Street or into the RM 44 properties west along Myrtle Avenue. The form based code
standards for West Riverfront Crossings do not address the redevelopment of residential
properties whether they be RM 44 or RS8 in the area abutting or adjacent to the West
Riverfront Crossings subdistrict. It targeted the redevelopment of commercial buildings into
mixed use buildings along Riverside Drive.
When redevelopment was sought of the multi -family and residential zoned properties north of
Orchard Street, a new Riverfront Crossings subdistrict, The Orchard District, was developed.
The Orchard District, created after the initial Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan
was approved, was developed to "provide a transition between higher intensity mixed-use
areas along Riverside Drive and low -scale residential neighborhoods to the west." (Zoning
Code 14-2G-3: Subdistrict Standards) It specifies what types of buildings can be built in the
district and has different subdistrict form based guidelines for development. Most notably, it
limits buildings to 3 stories. It has different form based zoning guidelines and restrictions
which are sensitive to RS8 zoning which the West Riverfront Crossings subdistrict does not
have. In particular, it requires more setback between RS8 properties and properties
redeveloped using the form based code for the Orchard District. In addition to guiding what
type of buildings are allowed in the area, it also addresses placement of parking, screening,
lighting, etc. The district was created to allow for a smooth transition between what is allowed
in different zonings (not because of topography).
Citing Orchard Lofts as a circumstance that has changed in the area and therefore a valid
reason to support the comp plan amendment is misleading. Orchard Lofts is in a different
Riverfront Crossings subdistrict, the Orchard District, than the West Riverfront Crossings
subdistrict.
The Riverview West apartment complex, also cited as a circumstance that has changed, is the
kind of infill redevelopment targeted by the West Riverfront Crossings subdistrict master
plan. This residential complex was built on a vacant commercial property, formerly a car
dealership, located within the original West Riverfront Crossings subdistrict boundary in the
master plan. The property never abutted residential properties — Orchard St separates the West
Riverfront Crossings subdistrict from the now Orchard District. It was developed
appropriately according to the West Riverfront Crossings subdistrict guidelines and applicable
form based code. Most notably, it adheres to the four stories laid out in the master plan.
The development standards set forth in the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master plan
for the RFC -WR District and the applicable form based code are not designed to abut and
transition to RS8 properties. The form based code for the RFC -WR district does not even
address this, however, the form based code for the Orchard District does.
Faulting the topography seems to be a reason to justify 4 stories abutting the RS8 zone.
Visually, the placement of a 4 story building against the backdrop of the hill may offer a
transition between the two zones. However, overall this will amount to an upzoning and the
proposed apartment building along the west boundary of the property looks expansive. The
RM44 properties could be attractively redeveloped similar in density to the current outdated
buildings rather than through upzoning as would happen by applying RFC -WR. Instead, the
Orchard District zoning and its form based code could be used as a model or extended to this
area. Currently the zoning for the properties is RM44 which allows for three stories. This is
what is allowed in the Orchard District. The form based code for the Orchard District steps
down from development along Riverside Drive and is sensitive to RS8 development. As the
RM44 properties are redeveloped, limiting buildings to 3 stories would maintain better
compatibility between the one story single family homes along Olive Street and these parcels.
Currently, the majority homes along Olive Street actually have no RM44 apartments abutting
them - there is an undeveloped lot and a single family home located within the RM44 zoning
abutting the rear of the majority of the homes. Per staff report'the proposed buildings are
expected to have a three-story exposure to the single-family homes, which is comparable to
what would be allowed in the current zone if the properties were at the same grade." So it
follows that if three stories were permitted instead of four, the proposed buildings would then
have a two-story exposure to the single family homes. Regardless, the current apartment
buildings are not close to the Olives St homes but are downhill so that the roofline might
possibly be visible from the RS8 properties, and there is currently no development abutting
them so this would be a huge change for the RS8 properties.
From p. 20 of 44 in the Riverside Development Traffic Impact Study - Preliminary Site Plan -
The plan shows a four story apartment building next to the RS8 properties. It discusses a
Myrtle Avenue semi -truck egress access point. During the Good Neighbor meeting it was
mentioned that the developers are looking at putting a 60' drive behind the back of the
proposed 4 story apartment building. I'm wondering if the current empty lot will remain
empty behind the RS8 homes or will it be removed to make way for development? At any
rate, this will create a huge change for the rear of the RS8 homes along Olive where they've
enjoyed the relative quiet and space between their homes and the one single family
home/downhill 3 story apartments to their rear with the empty lot acting as a buffer. This
proposed drive will light up the night. It will create semi -truck and delivery noises at odd
hours, more car traffic noises due to there being many more apartments than are there
currently, and maintenance noise from garbage and snow removal. It will put a driveway curb
cut for semi- and delivery vehicles on Myrtle St which will create a whole other set of
problems for traffic on a hill on Myrtle, the grade of which may not be appropriate for semis,
delivery, or maintenance vehicles. The roofs of the current 3 story apartments appear to be at a
lower grade than the top of the hill/rear of the RS8 properties. The new apartments would have
the potential to invade that privacy, even if only one story taller, with lights, balconies and
windows facing looking the rear of the RS8 properties where now there is nothing. As you
well know, the actual design of the buildings is not under your control.
Just as was done when the Orchard District was created, a new district can be designed using
the Orchard District as a model or the Orchard District can be applied to redevelop the RM44
properties.
There is also a request to amend the zoning code (REZ20-0004) which would amend the West
Riverfront Crossings subdistrict and would increase the maximum bonus height from five to
seven stories along the north side of the Iowa Interstate Railroad. I still struggle with putting
living space or hotel space alongside the railroad. I can hear the train whistles and grinding of
wheels from my home many blocks away. Anyway, I assume the reasoning is that if 4 story
buildings are permitted in the area currently zoned RM44 which is up on a hill, additional
stories are needed down along Riverside Dr. to create visual continuity. However, if the
Comp Plan allowed for 3 story development on the hill remained similar to the RM44 there
now (i.e. the Orchard District), the additional stories on Riverside Dr. may not necessarily be
needed, and the West Riverfront Crossings subdistrict development standards could remain
unchanged. Perhaps they are also trying to capitalize on "the view" that additional height
would give, but, as a reminder, much of that view could be blocked with any future
development across the street along the east side of Riverside Dr. Seven stories along the west
side of Riverside Drive is not the concept designed by the master plan consultants after much
discussion with residents, approved by the then Planning and Zoning Commission, and
adopted by the City Council. The five story limit was designed to step down from
development on the east side of Riverside Drive.
Every time changes to the core master plan are approved, a precedent is set which is then cited
to steer further and further away from the vision set forth in the Downtown and Riverfront
Crossings Master Plan.
We are in a tremendous period of change. We are still looking at developing more 1 st floor
brick and mortar commercial space as we transition to online work/retail. Does the market in
Iowa City still support this? What is the vacancy rate for 1 st floor commercial in all the new
mixed-use buildings that have sprung up in the Riverfront Crossings area? In the world of
Amazon, it seems only certain kinds - mostly a repetition - of retail fill some of the emptiness.
Maybe this area of Riverside Drive doesn't need much 1 st floor commercial space. I assume
the retail and neighborhood services that might locate in the proposed development will target
the residents who will occupy the apartments, guests of the proposed hotel, and office workers
should office space be included. Otherwise, Myrtle and Riverside Drive is too far from
campus to be an option for students for food between classes. The restaurants currently along
Riverside Drive and in the Hwy 1 strip mall that attract community visitors are primarily auto -
oriented and don't rely solely on neighborhood residents to support them. The Miller Orchard
neighborhood consists primarily of mid- and lower income owner occupied housing and
rentals whose occupants are attracted to affordable options and who might have difficulty
supporting upscale hospitality development.
Since the creation of the Southwest District Plan of 2002 (18 years ago), "enabling alternatives
to commuting by car" has been a goal for the area. There's nothing in this proposal that
transforms the current transportation in the area or that would encourage alternatives to cars
until the tunnel is built by the City through the railroad embankment. While this proposal
creates a nice visual with the potential for revitalizing the area north of the railroad bridge
to Myrtle, it would initially be created as an island with no guarantee of when it will be
connected by a tunnel. Residents of Riverview West/Orchard Lofts and those in the Miller
Orchard neighborhood cannot walk to it without crossing Riverside Drive then re -crossing at
Myrtle. People are just not likely to go to that trouble and will drive if there is some retail or
neighborhood service in the proposed development they want to go to. Although I could walk
the distance, I drove when we wanted pizza from The Wedge. The same will most likely
happen with folks wanting to get to Kum & Go from the Myrtle/Riverside Dr development.
I've seen many try to dangerously walk between Riverside Dr. and the embankment. And
without the tunnel, there is no safe way to directly bike there either. Biking on Riverside Drive
would be downright treacherous.
There was a lengthy traffic study done for this project and I didn't read the details extensively,
but after having lived in the area for so long, my experience is there is already more auto
congestion from Riverview West and Orchard Loft and that this upzoning would bring even
more auto congestion. It appears the best option for traffic will be to exit onto Myrtle for the
best route to get to campus or downtown. Traffic exiting the proposed development using the
Riverside Dr. curb cut will have to turn right/south onto Riverside Drive. If they find it easier
to turn right onto Riverside using the Riverside Dr exit to avoid the stoplight, they will then
either turn left at Benton/Riverside and cross that bridge or creatively cut through Kum & Go
(I see this all the time) dodge traffic to turn left (or right) onto Benton, and then get headed
north or towards downtown at Benton/Riverside. It's always worth a reminder that the
increase in traffic in the area is not limited to Myrtle/Riverside Drive, Riverside/Burlington or
Benton/Riverside but also includes additional traffic that spills over into the interior cut
through routes in the area, notably Orchard Street, Hudson, and Miller Avenue as people look
for the path of least resistance (fewer stoplights) to/from Hwy 1 (Aldi's, Walmart). I
appreciate the work of those completing the study, but they are not always aware of the day-
to-day traffic issues faced by those of us who walk and drive in the neighborhood.
From the Staff Report: "The proposed development also contains a mix of senior and market -
rate housing, retail, hospitality and neighborhood service uses, organized around a central,
pedestrian plaza." Market rate housing will increase rents dramatically compared with rents
charged for current apartments, making them less affordable. The affordable housing
requirement was discussed during the Good Neighbor meeting but it is notable that many
redevelopments opt for fees in lieu of instead of creating affordable units.
While I understand that the City is reluctant to interfere with the question of whether a
developer should or should not invest in the redevelopment of a property, the City is
responsible for guiding the development of the city over the long term. The City is
responsible for allowing overdevelopment of 1 st floor commercial leading to vacancies that
adversely affect neighborhoods. It's responsible for upzoning. It's responsible for replacing
once affordable housing with housing that is no longer affordable for a lot of
residents, especially close to the core of the city. It's responsible for adhering to Master Plans
adopted for development.
For many years now, residents of Miller Orchard have looked forward to revitalization of our
area and Riverside Drive. Redevelopment that will be advantageous for both the City and for
the neighborhood are welcome. Overdevelopment that is disconnected, once again limits
affordability close to the center of Iowa City, and infringes on RS8 housing might not be the
KIRWAVOW
Please dive deeply into the form based subdistrict standards for both the Orchard District
subdistrict and the West Riverfront Crossings subdistrict as you consider CPA20-0002,
REZ20-0003, and REZ20-0004, the significant upzoning of the area approval would bring,
and especially the impact on the RS8 housing to the west.
I know that's a lot to wade through. Thanks for taking time to read.
Paula Swygard
From:
chris kleinmever
To:
Anne Russett
Subject:
Re: Project at Myrtle & Riverside
Date:
Thursday, November 5, 2020 9:48:13 AM
Attachments:
imaoe005.g_na
image004.g_na
imaae003.g_na
image002.g_na
imaae001.g_na
Hello Anne
I wanted to let you and the planning and zoning board know the the Kleinmeyer family fully
supports the New Project for the Mtytle & Riverside area.
The family sold a portion of our mothers back lot to let the project proceed forward. We are
all onboard.
The project will be a welcome change to the current buildings, vacant lots and the few older
homes. Having been a life long Olive St neighborhood resident the project will be a benefit
for us all.
Thank you,
Chris Kleinmeyer
501 Melrose Court
Iowa City Iowa 52246
Ckleinmeyer@yahoo.com
319-330-5329
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
On Thursday, November 5, 2020, 8:28 AM, Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> wrote:
Hi, Chris —
I received your message yesterday, but have been unable to get through to you on the
phone. I've called several times and am unable to leave a message. Steve Long provided
me with your email address. Please feel free to reach out at the number below. Alternatively
you can email me with questions.
Also, I wanted to let you know that if you have comments on the project, but prefer not to
speak at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting tonight, you can provide your
comments in writing via email to me and I will pass them along to the Commission. The
meeting starts at 7 PM tonight, so I would need comments by 5 PM today.
Thanks, Anne
CITY OF IOWA CITY Anne Russett, AICP
UNESCO CITY OF UTERATURE
Senior Planner
WWW.ICGOV.ORG She/Her/Hers
Disclaimer
p:319-356-5251
410 E Washington St
Iowa City, IA 52240
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended
solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient,
you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of
the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
Item Number: 13.
AL CITY OF IOWA CITY
=�c�-
COUNCIL ACTION REPORT
November 17, 2020
Resolution establishing the City of Iowa City's 2021 legislative priorities.
Prepared By: Rachel Kilburg, Assistant to the City Manager
Reviewed By: Ashley Monroe, Assistant City Manager
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Fiscal Impact: None
Recommendations: Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments: City Manager's Office Memo
Iowa League of Cities 2021 Legislative Priorities
Resolution
Executive Summary:
Prior to the start of each State of Iowa legislative session, the City Council traditionally adopts
legislative priorities by formal resolution and communicates the City's positions on those issues to
our elected delegation.
Background /Analysis:
The 2021 legislative priorities were developed in alignment with Iowa City's adopted 2020-2021
Strategic Plan and council's discussion at the November 2, 2020 work session, and express
support for aligned legislative efforts of the Iowa League of Cities and Iowa Metropolitan
Coalition.
A special work session has been scheduled for November 23, 2020 to discuss council's adopted
priorities with our state delegation and contracted lobbyists.
The 2021 State of Iowa Legislative Session will commence on January 11, 2021. This session
marks the start of a new biennium (89th Iowa General Assembly), which means any previous bills
may be resurrected or re -imagined, and that all bills will be subject to the funnel deadlines. The
City's contract with Carney & Appleby to provide consultant and lobbying services has been
renewed for the 2021 session.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Iowa League of Cities 2021 Legislative Priorities
Resolution
LEGISLATIVE FOCUS
Iowa League of Cities 89th General Assembly
Legislative Values
Local Control
Home Rule is the right to make local decisions at the local level — where
decisions are made closest to those affected and can be tailored to fit
unique conditions, needs, and concerns free from state interference.
Financial Stability
The commitment to reimburse local governments for lost resources due
to state action must be maintained to prevent an increased burden on
property tax payers or a reduction in city services. Mandates imposed on
local governments must include appropriate funding mechanisms. Local
governments need diversified revenue options that are fair and related to
cost drivers.
Economic Development
Maintaining the flexibility of economic development tools is essential
for economic growth in cities of all sizes and is vital to the success
and advancement of the State of Iowa and its economy. Iowa needs
more tools and funding to promote quality of life, community vitality,
economic development, and to address housing needs.
Infrastructure
Iowa's infrastructure is in need of repair and upgrade. It is vital
that cities of all sizes have the resources to meet the infrastructure,
technology, and human needs necessary to connect, transport, and grow.
Public Safety
Safety is essential to the health, stability, and vitality of communities.
Cities must have the human and economic resources, tools, and
technology to provide appropriate
public safety services for their I Daniel Stalder is the government
communities and citizens. •
affairs outreach coordinator with
the League and may be reached at
danielstalder@iowaleague.org or
(515)244-7282.
Project Finance:
Planning Through Maturity
Full Service
Platform:
• Placement Agent
• Underwriter
• Municipal Advisory
Scott Stevenson
Managing Director
(515) 471-2721
SStevenson@dadco.com
Michael Maloney
Senior Vice President
(515) 471-2723
MMaloney@dadco.com
Nathan Summers
Vice President
(515) 471-2722
NSummers@dadco.com
0
D A DAVIDSON
FIXED INCOME CAPITAL MARKETS
D.A. Davidson & Co. member SIPC and FINRA
515 East Locust St., Suite 200
Des Moines, IA
(515) 471-2700 1 (800) 642-5082
dadavidson.com
Iowa League of Cities I November 2020 19
Ede
Prepared by: Rachel Kilburg, Assistant to the City Manager, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5014
Resolution No. 20-263
Resolution Establishing The City Of Iowa City's
2021 Legislative Priorities
Whereas, the Iowa City City Council seeks to encourage legislation that enhances the quality of life
for residents in Iowa City as well as the State of Iowa; and
Whereas, the City of Iowa City and other cities play a critical role in the future of the State; and
Whereas, it is in the interest of the residents of Iowa City that the City Council establish legislative
priorities and convey said priorities to our State delegation and other relevant stakeholders.
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Iowa City City Council hereby outlines its legislative
proposals to the Iowa City area legislative delegation for the 2021 Iowa State legislative session as
follows:
Strategic plan objective: demonstrate leadership in climate action
Support for Climate Action Initiatives
Support initiatives and legislation that further the goals contained in Iowa City's Climate Action
and Adaptation Plan and Accelerating Iowa City Climate Actions report. Iowa City encourages
the State to adopt the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code and provide cities the ability
to make local amendments. The City also encourages the state to initiate a statewide climate
action plan and invest directly in environmental and ecological efforts that will support all Iowans.
Strategic plan objective: advance social justice, racial equity, and human rights
Support reform measures to reduce racial disparity in the criminal justice system and
address systemic racism
In the state of Iowa, Black people and persons of color are a small percentage of the population
but are significantly overrepresented in the criminal justice system. Discriminatory criminal
justice policies and disparate enforcement outcomes should be addressed through uniform
minimum implicit bias and cultural competency training requirements for law enforcement and
decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana. Iowa City also supports the recommendations
issued by the Governors FOCUS Committee on Criminal Justice Reform to promote unbiased
policing, which include requiring and automating data collection on race/ethnicity from traffic
stops and adopting a statutory ban on disparate treatment in law enforcement activities.
Additionally, the City requests the State conduct a statewide review of community police review
boards and corresponding legislative policies to ensure these bodies have adequate oversight
powers.
Law enforcement agencies also need expanded legal avenues for addressing hate related acts.
Currently, the State Hate Crimes provision, Iowa Code Chapter 729A, enhances the penalty for
certain crimes when they are committed because of a person's race, color, religion, ancestry,
national origin, political affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, age or disability, but harassment and
Resolution No. 20-263
Page 2
trespass with the intent to harass are not included as enhanceable offenses. Iowa City
encourages the State to amend the existing Iowa hate crimes law to include harassment as an
enhanceable offense.
Support crisis intervention efforts and provide adequate funding for localities to
implement a mental health care continuum of services responsive to local need
Local law enforcement agencies are developing innovative solutions for preventing or improving
the response to calls for service which involve individuals experiencing a behavioral health,
substance abuse, housing, or other similar form of crisis. One strategy being explored locally
involves law enforcement documenting information about the contact made with an individual in
these types of incidents and sharing this information with licensed health care or social service
providers. The goal of information sharing is to provide opportunity for referral or intervention
and reduce the likelihood of the need for future police involvement. To ensure an effective
response is not dampened by confidentially concerns for the crisis victim's information, Iowa City
supports confidentiality protections for reports by law enforcement regarding contact with a
person experiencing a crisis that contain personally -identifiable information.
Additionally, Iowa City encourages the State to enhance and expand support for mental health
care and intervention services to better treat those individuals who are at -risk for hospitalization
orjailing. Specifically, the City supports lifting the moratorium on specialty courts and increasing
funding through the Iowa Department of Corrections and Iowa Department of Justice for
specialty courts, including the proposed Sixth Judicial District Civil Mental Health Court.
Additionally, the State is encouraged to seek additional capacity for mental health care in Iowa,
including investing in Assistive Outpatient Treatment (AOT) and increasing the reimbursement
rates for mental health providers.
Strategic plan objective: invest in public infrastructure, facilities, and fiscal reserves
Ensure the continued funding of commercial & industrial property tax replacement
payments
2013 property tax reform measures are placing significant financial pressures on cities across
the state. Backfilling a portion of property tax revenue lost to local jurisdictions was an important
component of the 2013 legislation and recognized the necessity of this revenue for local
government operations. However, in recent years, state -level discussions of eliminating or
phasing out the backfill payments has been a threat to Iowa cities' abilities to maintain basic
service levels.
The Fiscal Year 2021 backfill payment to Iowa City is estimated to be approximately $1.6 million.
To demonstrate the magnitude of these payments, this equates to the annual personnel
expenses for approximately 15 full-time firefighters. Cuts to such basic services would be
necessary, in addition to raising property tax rates, to compensate for lost reimbursement
revenue. Raising tax rates to compensate for reduced taxable value negates the intention of
property tax reform. The City of Iowa City encourages the State to continue funding for
commercial and industrial property tax backfill payments to cities and fulfill these
reimbursements at the full amount.
Resolution No. 20-263
Page 3
Continue Resource Enhancement and Protection (REAP) funding
The REAP grant program has been critical for improvements and protection of Iowa City's
natural resources, park areas, and open spaces. Although REAP has been authorized to receive
$20 million in funding until Fiscal Year 2021, the state legislature has historically appropriated
less. In 2020, the REAP was appropriated $12 million (approximately $12.5 million including
interest income). The City encourages the State to extend funding authorizations for REAP and
increase the annual appropriation to ensure continued conservation of Iowa's natural resources.
Strategic plan objective: foster health neighborhoods and affordable housing throughout the city
Protect Home Rule authority for local governments
Local governments are uniquely positioned to respond to the needs and priorities of our
residents and taxpayers. Cities innovate in response to local conditions and implement new
ideas that can benefit the State as a whole, and more closely reflect the priorities of the public
we serve. This includes local flexibility in local building codes, revenue options, and land use
decisions and the preservation of cities' authority to restrict housing discrimination based on
source of income.
Support University of Iowa Student Government (USG) proposal regarding rental property
move -in checklists
During the 2020 Iowa legislative session, a bill (S.F. 2216) was introduced which would require
landlords to provide and use an inventory checklist at the start and end of a tenancy and
included a process for implementation. Important requirements which protect tenants against
unfair withholdings of rental deposits are detailed in the bill, including a list of required items to
be included on the checklist, a file retention period, and a requirement for landlords to provide a
copy of this documentation to tenants. Iowa City registered in support of this proposal.
With University of Iowa students representing a significant portion of rental tenants in the Iowa
City, the University's student government has advocated for these protections. Iowa City stands
with USG in encouraging the State to pursue rental property move -in checklists.
Support legislation protecting the rights of manufactured housing residents
Recent sales of manufactured housing communities statewide and the resulting impact on those
communities has led to discussions at both the state and local levels regarding how best to
protect the rights of the families living in these communities. The City of Iowa City supports
rights for the residents of manufactured housing which include: rent protections including a
statewide cap on frequency and percentage of increases and lengthened notice periods for
proposed increases, uniform good cause eviction statewide standards, fair fee regulations
including standardized time frames for assessing late fees, and fair lease provisions and
effective enforcement mechanisms to combat illegal provisions.
Additionally, when manufactured housing communities are put up for sale, residents should be
offered first right of purchase and be protected from premature eviction during pursuit of local
ownership. If displacement is forced as a last resort, the owners profiting from the sale of the
park must be required to provide fair relocation assistance. The City also encourages the State
Resolution No. 20-263
Page 4
to consider a tax credit program which incentivizes the transfer/sale of land to residents of the
community, allowing them to build equity, and protects against "bad -actor" ownership.
During the 2020 state legislative session, the City of Iowa City registered in support of H.F.
2351, which addressed many of these issues. Iowa City continues to support the protections for
manufactured housing residents outlined in this bill and encourages the State to resurrect and
adopt such legislation.
Promote equitable access and affordability of high-speed, broadband internet, including
sustainable investment in cities' critical technological infrastructure
High-speed broadband is a driving force behind the local and state economy and is an indicator
of quality of life alongside minimum basic needs such as clean water and maintained roadways.
The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed many inequities in availability and affordability of high-
speed broadband internet access in cities across Iowa. It is critical that Iowans of all income
levels are on a level playing field when it comes to broadband access, speed, choice, and cost.
This will require the State to pursue significant investments in and sustainable funding for critical
infrastructure, such as fiber, and next -generation technology which will drive education,
employment, and basic human services.
Iowa City encourages the State to take measures which will expand access to high-speed,
affordable broadband in cities, specifically for low- and moderate -income Iowans in urban
neighborhoods. Additionally, the City supports efforts which incentivize public-private
partnerships and ensure reasonable local flexibility as communities work towards cost-effective,
universal broadband access.
Strategic plan objective: promote an inclusive & resilient economy throughout the city
Support the continued excellence of the State's primary, secondary, and higher education
institutions and advocate for additional education funding
Iowa's primary and secondary schools are fundamental drivers of the State's economic growth,
standard of living, and future prosperity. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the decreased
enrollment at primary and secondary schools would result in significant funding decreases based
on the State's existing per pupil finance formula. It is essential for the success of the State and
our local communities that support for our schools is a top priority in the State's budget and
funding is responsive of COVID-19 impacts.
The City also encourages the State to expand access, affordability, and quality of early
childhood education and care. Specifically, the City supports increased reimbursement rates for
Child Care Assistance (CCA) providers, to ensure families with parents who wish to enter the
workforce can find and afford quality child care
The University of Iowa plays a critical role in the supporting statewide economic, social, and
cultural growth. It is important the State of Iowa provides the university the needed resources to
ensure the university's continued ability to facilitate growth opportunities in varied sectors of the
business community. Likewise, community colleges play an important role in ensuring the
continued competitiveness and inclusivity of the state's economy. The City encourages the State
Resolution No. 20-263
Page 5
to carefully consider and support the legislative and financial priorities of the University of Iowa
and Kirkwood Community College.
Continue use of federal funding to support residents and businesses in recovery from the
COVID-19 pandemic
Cities across Iowa are experiencing severe economic impacts due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Even after aggressive spending cuts to operations and capital outlays, the revenue loss is of
such magnitude that it limits cities' abilities to provide basic assistance to local businesses and
residents in responding to the pandemic. Direct and flexible funding allocations to cities are
essential to ensuring local needs are addressed adequately through locally viable and effective
solutions. Iowa City encourages the State to continue investing available CARES Act dollars and
other federal funding in local municipalities to support Iowa residents and businesses in
recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Strategic plan objective: strengthen community engagement and intergovernmental relations
Support the legislative efforts of the Iowa League of Cities and the Metro Coalition
Iowa City, as a member of both organizations, supports the legislative priorities set forth by the
Iowa League of Cities and by the Metropolitan Coalition for the 2021 session.
Passed and approved this 17th day of November , 20 20
ATTEST: ) i.. -e , L
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
AIR
r ed by
City Attorney's Office -11/12/2020
Resolution No. 20-263
Page 6
It was moved by Weiner and seconded by Taylor the
Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS
ABSENT:
Bergus
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Weiner