HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-12-15 OrdinanceItem Number: 10.b.
D ecember 15, 2020
O rd inan ce conditional l y rezonin g ap p roximatel y 196.17 acres of l and l ocated
west of Hig h way 218 an d sou th of Roh ret Rd. from County Residen tial (R)
and County Urban Residen tial (R U A) to Interim Devel opmen t Sin g l e-F amily
Resid ential (ID-R S) zone.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Staff Report with Attachments
P&Z Minutes
Ordinance
Conditional Z oning A greement
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner
Item: ANN20-0001/REZ20-0002 Date: October 15, 2020
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: MMS Consultants
1917 S. Gilbert St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-351-8282
l.sexton@mmsconsultants.net
Contact Person: Jesse Allen
Allen Homes, Inc.
215 N. Linn St.
Iowa City, IA 52244
319-530-8238
allenhomesinc@gmail.com
Property Owner: Thomas L. Carson and Linda A. Carson Revocable
Living Trust
James T. Carson Revocable Trust
Rebecca Albertson Revocable Trust
Steven M. Carson
Requested Action: Annexation & Rezoning
Purpose: Annexation of 196.17 acres of land currently in
unincorporated Johnson County and rezoning it from
the County Residential (R) and County Urban
Residential (RUA) zone to Interim Development –
Single-Family Residential (ID-RS).
Location: West of Highway 218 and south of Rohret Rd.
Location Map:
Size: 196.17 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Farmland, County Residential (R) and County Urban
2
Residential (RUA)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: County RR-1 – Neighborhood Public
(Farmland)
South: County R – County Residential (Farmland)
East: RS-8 and RM-12 - Medium Density Single-
Family Residential (Residential) and Low
Density Multi-Family Residential
(Residential)
West: County R – Neighborhood Public (Farmland)
Comprehensive Plan: Iowa City/Johnson County Fringe Area
Agreement
District Plan: Southwest District Plan – Single-Family/Duplex
Residential; Open Space
Neighborhood Open Space District: NA
File Date: July 30, 2020
45 Day Limitation Period: N/A since associated with an annexation
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, MMS Consultants, with the consent of the owners, is requesting annexation and
rezoning of 196.17 acres of property located west of Highway 218 and south of Rohret Road. The
applicant has requested that the property be rezoned from County Residential (R) and County
Urban Residential (RUA) to Interim Development Single -Family (ID-RS) for the entire 196.17
acres.
This area is located adjacent to Iowa City’s current boundary and within Fringe Area C of Johnson
County’s Fringe Area Agreement with Iowa City. The Southwest District Plan shows this area
within the City’s growth area with a future land use of single-family residential and duplex housing
at a density of 2-12 dwelling units per acre. A northern portion of the property (shown below in
Figure 1.0) is shown as having a future land use of open space, surrounding a lake for stormwater
detention.
The City’s 2020-2024 Capital Improvement Plan includes the extension of the Abbey Lane trunk
sewer in its list of funded projects. Per the plan, construction is scheduled for 2023. The extension
of the sewer will allow development to continue west of Highway 218.
In anticipation of this trunk line extension, Planning staff is currently in the process of updating the
Rohret South Subarea portion of the Southwest District Plan, which was adopted in October 2002.
The Rohret South Subarea includes a concept plan (Figure 2) for the area contemplated for
annexation. With the update to the plan underway, the vision for development, including the
general intended land uses, street network, and storm water management system, will likely
change from what is currently shown in the adopted plan. The applicant has been informed of the
potential for change to the existing subarea plan.
3
Figure 1.0 – Subject Property within the Rohret South Subarea Future Land Use Map
4
Figure 2.0 – Rohret South Subarea Concept Plan
As of this writing, the applicant has not conducted a Good Neighbor Meeting.
ANALYSIS:
Annexation: The Comprehensive Plan has established a growth policy to guide decisions
regarding annexations. The annexation policy states that annexations are to occur primarily
through voluntary petitions filed by the property owners. Further, voluntary annexation requests are
to be reviewed under the following three criteria. The Comprehensive Plan states that voluntary
annexation requests should be viewed positively when the following conditions exist.
1. The area under consideration falls within the adopted long-range planning boundary.
A general growth area limit is illustrated in the Comprehensive Plan and on the City’s Zoning Map.
The subject property is located within the City’s long-range growth boundary.
2. Development in the area proposed for annexation will fulfill an identified need without imposing
an undue burden on the City. The Southwest District Plan identifies the subject area as being
appropriate for annexation and development upon provision of sanitary sewer and water services.
The City’s 2020-2024 Capital Improvement Plan identifies the extension of the Abbey Lane trunk
sewer line (Rohret South Sewer) as viable for construction in 2023. The purpose of the trunk
sewer line extension is to accommodate residential development that has been planned in the
Rohret South Subarea of the Southwest District Plan.
5
The Comprehensive Plan encourages growth that is contiguous and connected to existing
neighborhoods to reduce the costs of providing infrastructure and City services. The subject
property is bordered by the city limits on the north and east sides (across from Highway 218).
Therefore, the subject property is contiguous to current development and meets the goal of
contiguous growth.
The proposed annexation will help to accomplish the City’s larger goal of fulfilling the need for
expanded housing options to accommodate the City’s growing population. Because of this need,
staff is recommending that as a condition of the rezoning, the developer satisfy the
Comprehensive Plan’s Annexation Policy requirement, as stated in Resolution 18-211, related to
affordable housing. The policy requires annexation of land for residential use of 10 or more
dwelling units satisfy the City’s goal of creating and maintaining a supply of affordable housing by
providing affordable units equal to 10% of the total units in the annexed area, with an assurance of
long-term affordability.
3. Control of the development is in the City’s best interest. The property is within the City’s
designated Growth Area. It is appropriate that the proposed property be located within the city so
that residents of future development may be served by Fire, Police, water, and sanitary sewer
service. Annexation will allow the City to provide these services and control zoning so that the
subject area remains compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, upon annexation,
the City will be able to guide future development of the area’s road network and subdivision design
to meet the goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
For the reasons stated above, staff finds that the proposed annexation complies with the
annexation policy.
Zoning: The subject property is currently zoned County (R) Residential and County (RUA) Urban
Residential. The County (R) zone allows for single-family residential dwellings to be built in the
subject area, while the County (RUA) zone allows for multi-family residential at a density of up to
four units per acre. The Southwest District Plan currently calls for single-family and duplex
residential throughout the subject area. Because of the subject area’s location in Iowa City’s Fringe
Area within the growth boundary, all development in this area must be constructed to City
standards and it is unlikely that development would occur prior to annexation.
The applicant is requesting rezoning of the subject property to Interim Development Single-Family
(ID-RS) for all 196.17 acres of the property. The purpose of the Interim Development zone is to
provide areas of managed growth in which agricultural and non-urban land uses can continue until
the City is able to provide services to support development. Under this zoning, the only use that is
permitted by right is agriculture. Low density single-family residential development at a density of 1
dwelling unit per 5 acres is also allowed. The applicant is currently exploring options for
subdividing and developing the property. Interim zoning is appropriate for this property since it is
currently not served by City sanitary sewer and water. Additionally, the proposed layout of
development is still undetermined.
Sanitary Sewer and Water: The subject area is currently not serviced by City sanitary and water
utilities. The City currently has extension of the Abbey Lane trunk sewer line to the subject area
within its 5-year Capital Improvement Program. It is unlikely that this area will be serviced by
sanitary sewer, and therefore suitable for urban development, before 2023.
The nearest water main is located north of the subject property, along Rohret Road. The developer
will be required to pay a water main extension fee of $456.75 per acre before public improvements
are constructed.
6
Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The subject property does contain a blue line stream. The
stream will need to be incorporated into future development plans and may trigger a Level I or
Level II Sensitive Areas Review upon subsequent rezoning. The Office of the State
Archaeologist did state that an archaeological surface study should be conducted prior to
ground disturbing activities, as the potential for intact and significant archaeological sites is
moderate. It is expected that this survey will take place closer to subsequent rezoning and
development of the subject area.
Access and Street Design: Since the proposed rezoning is only for Interim Development
Single-Family residential (ID-RS), the applicant does not yet have a design for street access and
interior street connectivity on the subject property. These designs will become available for
analysis upon subsequent rezoning and platting of the property.
It is anticipated that access to the area will come from Rohret Road, north of the subject
property. As the area continues to develop, access to the west and south will need to be
provided. Staff hopes to have more direction on access and street design of the subject area
upon completion of the Rohret South Subarea plan update.
NEXT STEPS:
Pending recommendation of approval of the proposed annexation and rezoning from the Planning
and Zoning Commission, the City Council will hold a public hearing. Before the public hearing,
utility companies and non-consenting parties will be sent the application via certified mail. Pending
approval of the annexation by the City Council, the application for annexation will be sent to the
State Development Board for consideration of approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of ANN20-0001 and REZ20-0002, a voluntary annexation of
approximately 196.17 acres and a 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 Plan’s Annexation Policy, as stated in
Resolution 18-211.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Annexation Exhibit
2. Location Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Applicants Statement
5. Steve Carson Statement
6. Approximate Timeline of Annexation Approval
Approved by: _______________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
SW 1\4 - NW 1\4SECTION 20-T79N-R6WSE 1\4 - NE 1\4SECTION 19-T79N-R6WSW 1\4 - NE 1\4SECTION 19-T79N-R6W NE 1\4 - NE 1\4SECTION 19-T79N-R6WNW 1\4 - NE 1\4SECTION 19-T79N-R6WNW 1\4 - NW 1\4SECTION 20-T79N-R6WSE 1\4 - SE 1\4SECTION 18-T79N-R6WSW 1\4 - SE 1\4SECTION 18-T79N-R6WSE 1\4 - NW 1\4SECTION 20-T79N-R6WNE 1\4 - NW 1\4SECTION 20-T79N-R6WANNEXATION PARCEL
(319) 351-8282
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
www.mmsconsultants.net
1917 S. GILBERT ST.
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
07-29-2020
RLA 1291
RLW
GDM
7596-107
IOWA CITY
1
ANNEXATION
EXHIBIT
1
1"=200'SE 1\4 - NW 1\4SECTION 19-T79N-R6WNE 1\4 - NW 1\4SECTION 19-T79N-R6WPOINT OF BEGINNING
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
#
2
1
8
/
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
2
7
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
#
2
1
8
/
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
2
7
ROHRET ROAD
BRITT'S FIRST ADDITION
LOT 2
LOT 1 KITTY LEE ROADMWD DAVIS ADDITION
O.L. "B"
8
7
6
O.L. "A"
9
10
11
4
5"REVISED" R.H DAVIS SUBDIVISION4
4
4
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
8,545,327 SF 196.17 AC
ANNEXATION EXHIBIT
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER, THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, AND THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER
OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 20, ALL OF TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN
PLAT PREPARED BY:
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
1917 S. GILBERT STREET
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
OWNERS: APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY:
JAMES T CARSON REVOCABLE TRUST
REBECCA ALBERTSON REVOCABLE TRUST
THOMAS L CARSON & LINDA A CARSON
REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
STEVEN M. AND MARY BETH CARSON
3207 ROHRET ROAD
IOWA CITY, IA 52246
IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
800 LINCOLN WAY
AMES, IA 50010
ERIK SITTIG
119 WRIGHT STREET
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
APPLICANT:
ALLEN DEVELOPMENT LLC
PO BOX 3474
IOWA CITY, IA 52244
A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER, THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER, THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER, AND THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 19, AND A PORTION OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 20, ALL OF TOWNSHIP
79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, OF
THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0
1"=200'
20 50 100 150 200
LOCATION MAP - NOT TO SCALE
ANNEXATION PARCEL
DESCRIPTION - ANNEXATION PARCEL
A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER, AND THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, AND
A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, ALL
OF TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, JOHNSON
COUNTY, IOWA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Beginning at the Southeast Corner of the Northeast Quarter of Section 19, Township 79 North, Range 6
West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa; Thence S89°18'06"W, along the South Line of
said Northeast Quarter, 2651.04 feet, to the Southwest Corner thereof; Thence N00°00'29"E, along the
West Line of said Northeast Quarter, 2610.20 feet; Thence N44°43'20"E, 46.90 feet, to a Point on the North
Line of said Northeast Quarter; Thence N89°26'11"E, along said North Line, 2617.53 feet, to the Northeast
Corner thereof; Thence N89°44'19"E, along the North Line of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter of Section 20, Township 79 North, Range 6 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, 737.85 feet, to its
intersection with the Northeasterly Right-of-Way Line of Highway #218; Thence S48°04'02"E, along said
Northeasterly Right-of-Way Line, 793.23 feet, to its intersection with the East Line of said Northwest Quarter
of the Northwest Quarter; Thence S00°01'48"W, along said East Line, 630.90 feet, to its intersection with the
North Line of Lot 1 of Kitty Lee Subdivision, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 28 at
Page 3 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S87°35'06"W, along said North
Line, 306.03 feet, to the Northwest Corner of said Lot 1; Thence S01°42'33"W, along the West Line of said
Lot 1, a distance of 144.26 feet, to its intersection with the South Line of the Northwest Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter of said Section 20; Thence S89°47'19"W, along said South Line, 1017.56 feet, to the
Southwest Corner thereof, and the Northeast Corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of
said Section 19; Thence S00°00'12"E, along the East Line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter, 1318.50 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Annexation Parcel contains 196.17 Acres, and is
subject to easements and restrictions of record.
July 30, 2020
City of Iowa City
Planning and Community Development
Attn: Anne Russett
410 E Washington
Iowa City, IA 52240
RE: Carson Annexation
Dear Anne:
MMS Consultants, on behalf of Allen Development LLC, would like to request an
annexation for the property south of Rohret Road and west of Highway 218, please see attached
Annexation Exhibit for exact location. The property is currently owner by Thomas L Carson &
Linda A Carson Revocable Living Trust, James T Carson Revocable Trust, and Rebecca Albertson
Revocable Trust. Ownership is anticipated to be transferred to Allen Development LLC. The
property is currently within Johnson County and is zoned residential. The applicant is
proposing an annexation into the city limits of Iowa City.
The property is within the growth area of the City of Iowa City, and is in compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is requesting Interim Development zoning due to
infrastructure not being available at this time. As infrastructure becomes available, the
applicant intends to develop the property into new neighborhoods, in compliance with City
planning documents.
The property immediately to the north of the described parcels is within city limits, is
currently zoned RR-1 and is also owned by Thomas L Carson & Linda A Carson Revocable Living
Trust, James T Carson Revocable Trust, and Rebecca Albertson Revocable Trust. This property
is also anticipated to transfer ownership to Allen Development LLC and be developed in
conjunction with the property being requested for annexation. If you have any questions or
comments please feel free to contact myself or John Yapp.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Marner, Partner
7596-107L1.docx
Targeted Annexation/Rezoning Timeline (timeline subject to change):
• Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting – 10/15/20
• Mailing applications to utilities and non-consenting parties – 11/05/20
• Mailing public hearing notices – 11/05/20
• Setting of Public Hearing by City Council – 11/17/20
• City Council Public Hearing – 12/01/20
• City Development Board Submission – 12/04/20
• City Development Board Meeting – 01/14/21
• Annexation Approval – 02/15/21
MINUTES FINAL
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 15, 2020 – 7:00 PM
ELECTRONIC FORMAL MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Mark Nolte, Mark
Signs, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Ray Heitner, Sarah Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Luke Newton, Jon Harding, Jon Marner, Chant Eicke, Ryan Wade,
Jeff Clark, William Means
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.
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.
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.
CASE NOS. ANN20-0001 AND REZ20-0002:
Applicant: MMS Consultants
Location: West of Highway 218 and south of Rohret Rd.
An application submitted for an annexation and rezoning from County Residential (R) and
County Urban Residential (RUA) to Interim Development – Single-Family Residential (ID-RS)
zone for approximately 196.17 acres of land currently in unincorporated Johnson County.
Heitner began the staff report showing an aerial view of the subject property, it is located to the
City's immediate southwest. It is a pretty big piece of land at 196.17 acres. Heitner said the
current zoning is split zone with County Residential and County Urban Residential, which is one
of the more denser County zoning designations. He next showed a map of the growth area and
noted the entire subject property is within City's growth area. Heitner stated the entirety of the
rezoning would be to Interim Development Single Family Residential (ID-RS).
Heitner showed the concept plan from the current Southwest District Plan. The Plan envisions
this area as an array of single-family housing units, some open space and a detention lake
running through the middle of the subject property.
Regarding the annexation, staff looks at the Comprehensive Plan and established growth policy
to guide decisions regarding annexations. The annexation policy states that acquisitions occur
primarily through voluntary petitions filed by property owners and the Comprehensive Plan states
that voluntary annexation requests should be viewed positively when the following conditions
exist. First, the area under consideration falls within the adopted long-range planning boundary.
Heitner reiterated that is clearly the case here as the entirety of the subject property is within the
City’s growth area and annexation of this property is anticipated. Second, development in the
area proposed for annexation will fulfill an identified need without imposing an undue burden on
the City. Heitner did point out that this property is not serviced by sanitary sewer, but the City
does have in its Capital Improvement Plan an allocation to extend sanitary sewer to this area
projected for 2023. Heitner reiterated this annexation and rezoning would be to an interim zone
which is intended as a placeholder until a property can be fully serviced by City services and
development on this property will not take place until that sewer extension is provided.
Additionally, this property is contiguous to City limits to the north and to the east, although
separated by Highway 218, but it is not a leapfrog development being annexed. Third, control of
the development in the area is in the City’s best interest. Staff reviewed this and noted the
annexation will help accomplish the City's larger goal of fulfilling the need of expanding housing
options to accommodate the City's growing population.
Staff is recommending that a condition of the rezoning be the developer satisfy the
Comprehensive Plan’s Annexation Policy requirement, Resolution 18-211, related to affordable
housing, requiring that any development associated with annexation containing 10 or more
dwelling units must have 10% of that development meet affordable housing provisions.
In terms of zoning, Heitner reiterated it is currently in a split zone between County Rural and
Urban Residential. The entirety of this rezoning would be for ID-RS, single family residential and
again the ID-RS zone is to be in place until the City can provide services to support
development.
With respect to water, Heitner explained there are water mains on the north side of the road and
that would probably be the access point for water service to this development. City Engineering
staff has confirmed that facilitation of water service is possible upon subsequent developments,
the developer will be required to pay water main extension fee of $456.75 per acre before public
improvements are constructed. Heitner also noted the property does contain a blue line stream
so there is potential for sensitive areas analysis that would accompany any subsequent
development. Additionally, staff reached out to the Office of the State Archaeologist and that
office recommended that an archaeological surface study be conducted prior to ground
disturbing activities. Staff is not recommending that that study be a condition of this rezoning,
but staff would like to see that study conducted before subsequent development takes place on
this property.
Heitner noted as common with annexations and interim rezones, the applicant does not have a
design for street access or interior street connectivity to the property, those typically become
available on subsequent rezoning and planning of the property.
The role of the Commission is to determine whether the annexation and rezoning satisfies the
following conditions as stated by the Comprehensive Plan’s Annexation Policy that the area
under consideration falls within the adopted Long Range Planning Boundary and development in
the proposed area will fulfill an identified need without imposing an undue burden on the City,
and that control of the development is in the City's best interest.
In terms of next steps, pending approval from this Commission, Council would hold a public
hearing on this annexation and rezoning request. Prior to that public hearing, utility companies
and non-consenting parties will be sent the application by certified mail. Pending approval of
annexation by Council the application will be sent to the State Development Board for approval
as that's a requirement because there are other municipalities within two miles of this annexation
request.
Staff is recommending approval of ANN20-0001 & 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.
Hensch asked if there is any reason to believe the State Development Board would have any
objections to this. Heitner is not aware of any, the application fairly straightforward in terms of
being within the growth area and being contiguous to the City.
Hensch noted it is his understanding that that's really the biggest thing they look at with these
annexation applications is whether there's continuity, or whether there's a leapfrog development
being proposed so he suspects that the State Annexation Board will support this. Hensch added
for the benefit of the newer members, an interim development zoning is just a placeholder and
the Commission will see this again when it moves to a permanent rezoning for development.
Heitner confirmed the Commission will review subsequent rezonings that take place in this area
and said he only showed the concept plan that's currently within the Comprehensive Plan and
staff is actually actively involved in doing a revision to that subarea plan for this District Plan so
the sketch outlines a rough concept of streets but it's likely that that will be different as staff
revises the District Plan here.
Hensch also noted as an indicator of the growth going on this area, didn't the Commission a
couple months ago approve a plat for north of Rohret, east of Slothower, for some infill
development for that area. Heitner confirmed that is just north and west of this subject area. He
added there's still a continued demand to develop outward in this area and that is why staff is
working through the process of the revision to the sub area plan to make sure they have those
goals and objectives for this area in place ahead of when most development takes place, and
ahead of development and City service ability in this area. He stated that is something they hope
to accomplish within the next year, the current plan is about 20 years old so it's due for an
update.
Craig noted she was confused when she reviewed this material because of the concept plan
showed a huge body of water, but there's no water there in current pictures. She understands
now that the concept plan showed in the staff report is from the Plan and the developer has no
requirements to doing something that looks like that concept plan, they just have to follow the
other guidelines the City has, and they can come back with a plan that has no water in it.
Russett noted the maps that Heitner shared are the Future Land Use Map and associated
concept for this area that are adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan in the Southwest
District Plan so any proposals for development out here staff needs to review against those
adopted visions and policies. Staff is currently updating that vision and staff has known that the
sewer extension was going to be coming and knew that this area would be opened up for
development. Since this plan was adopted in 2002 it’s time to revisit it and update it and create a
new vision. They anticipate they will have a new plan adopted and any future rezonings will be
reviewed against the new plan and that is likely to happen before the development because that
isn't going to happen till 2023 when the sewer line is expanded as part of the Capital
Improvement Plan.
Nolte noticed in one of the concept drawings there was a fire station indicated. Heitner
acknowledged that but said that was just conceptualized back in 2002 but that illustration was
shown just as a reference there wouldn’t be any guarantee that there would be a fire station on
this corridor moving forward. Nolte stated that is some of his concern, that road is so heavily
trafficked right now. Watts Development is putting in 600 homes to the west, the Weber School
is already beyond capacity, and Kitty Lee Road is a is a very narrow chip seal road right now so
he doesn’t think it's a good feeder road to this development. He would also like to better
understand the identified need and if this is the type of housing they’re looking for in the future. It
appears to be unwalkable urban sprawl and he thought they were trying to get away from some
of that. The size and scope of this whole development scares him, he does like the
neighborhood commercial for the residents that already live in that area.
Signs asked what is a non-consenting party? Heitner replied that would be anyone opposed to
the application. Russett added they are specifically property owners within the proposed
annexation area. She added for this proposed annexation, there are no non-consenting parties.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Luke Newton (MMS Consultants) added that the developer is in conversations with the Iowa City
School District to address their needs and concerns.
Hensch noted they don’t have a full concept yet but asked if there would be a water detention
area somewhere. Newton confirmed there would be.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Hektoen asked for clarification on the annexation policy is with regards to affordable housing.
Heitner clarified that as a condition of the annexation, the developer would be required to abide
by the Comprehensive Plan’s affordable housing policy related to annexation, detailed and
Resolution 18-211 that basically states when new land is brought into the City, affordable
housing is addressed in the process.
Craig moved to recommend 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:
2. The developer satisfies the comprehensive plans annexation policy, as stated in
Resolution 18- 211.
Signs seconded the motion.
Hensch acknowledge this is a little scary as it is a very large annexation, 200 acres almost, and
no concept plan, however he really encourage people to look at this for what it is, interim
development, and they will see this again. Also, staff is working on the Southwest District Plan
so clearly that will change. Hensch wanted to caution everybody to not get too concerned about
a concept plan.
Signs noted also the process of changing the Southwest District Plan is going to involve a lot of
public input and public meetings so the public will be able to weigh in on what they would actually
like to see in this area.
Townsend added she would just hope that the affordable housing pieces in there stay affordable,
not just for 10 years or 20 years.
Heitner agreed there would be plentiful opportunities for public involvement and the Commission
will see the update as well. Signs noted having been through that process with the South District
Plan here a couple years ago, it's extensive. Russett added they are taking a more targeted
approach to this update, it's not an overall update of the entire District Plan, they're really
focusing on this sub area, and this concept is pretty targeted.
Martin noted she is typically not opposed to development, but one of the things that distresses
her a little bit is that they are losing more and more farmland and while one of the things that they
talk about is affordable housing, but there is also so much food insecurity. Granted the farmland
out here is probably corn or soybeans, not something typically people are going to go and eat,
but the point is that in the State of Iowa there is so much amazing land that is not used to its full
potential. She understands this is going to take years and years to develop but wanted to put it
on the record for people to think about the fact that making farmland available to smaller farms,
people that are growing food to actually consume, should be at the forefront of conversation
more so than just taking these this hundreds of acres and paving it over.
Nolte agreed with Martin and is pro-development but stated this just doesn't make sense if they
aspire to affordability and walkability and better transit and all those things, they can't just keep
sprawling out like this. What good is it to have an affordable housing in a place where one must
drive to get anywhere. He is also protective of farmland and realizes people own that land to
develop it but it doesn't seem like the right way to grow the community over time.
Hensch noted it's a voluntary annexation, so that's important to remember. Also if they don't
allow for urban density within the City, then those houses will go somewhere, and then it will end
up with one and five acre lots all throughout the County and actually take more land out of out of
production. He doesn’t know what the CSR (corn suitability rating) on this land is but that's a
pretty important consideration, if it is in the 80s that's prime farmland, but if it's the 20s, 30s or
40s then it's production value is pretty low. He suggested perhaps in the future annexations they
can be given the CSR listed on the properties. He added he is also responsible for local foods
for Johnson County so he is very sensitive to this issue but these farms, like Martin said, are just
corn and soybeans, there's nothing here that's going to be consumed by humans, and certainly
not going to be consumed locally. He noted that is another issue and as a Commission how can
they be proponents of local foods, or foods that humans consume locally, when the problem is
land is so expensive in Johnson County that a farmer who's not growing commodity crops is
likely unable to afford to purchase land to grow on those non commodity crops. Hensch
acknowledged it's very difficult issue and something they probably should take up and have
discussions about.
Martin noted regarding the one and five acre plots and that taking up more land, when she was
sent to New Orleans for a planning and zoning conference a few years back, one of the classes
she took was on sustainability in food productivity, and those little lots can produce an enormous
amount of food. She acknowledged that is a topic for a different time but just want to put that out
there. Hensch agreed but unfortunately, those acres won't be zoned for agriculture or
commercial production, so people wouldn't be able to grow crops for sale on those residential
lots.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-2 (Nolte and Martin dissenting).
Deferred to 1/5/21
Prepared by: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5238 (REZ20-
0002)
Ordinance No.
Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 196.17 acres of land located
west of Highway 218 and south of Rohret Rd. from County Residential (R)
and County Urban Residential (RUA) to Interim Development Single -Family
Residential (ID -RS) zone. (REZ20-0002)
Whereas, the owners of of approximately 196.17 acres of land located west of Highway 218
and south of Rohret Road have requested that the land be rezoned from County Residential (R)
zone and County Urban Residential (RUA) to Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -
RS) zone; and
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Southwest District Plan, indicates that the
subject area is appropriate for residential development; and
Whereas, interim zoning allows for managed growth until utilities are identified and the
land is platted; and
and Whereas, there is a public need to accommodate demand for affordable housing in Iowa City;
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with reasonable
conditions regarding satisfaction of these public needs through the provision of affordable
housing, the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa that:
Section I Approval. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and
incorporated herein, the property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning
designation of County Residential (R) zone and County Urban Residential (RUA) zone to Interim
Development Single -Family Residential (ID -RS) zone:
A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, AND THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF SECTION 19, AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, ALL OF TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST,
OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
Beginning at the Southeast Corner of the Northeast Quarter of Section 19, Township 79 North,
Range 6 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa; Thence S89018'06"W, along
the South Line of said Northeast Quarter, 2651.04 feet, to the Southwest Comer thereof; Thence
N00°00'29"E, along the West Line of said Northeast Quarter, 2610.20 feet; Thence N44°43'20"E,
46.90 feet, to a Point on the North Line of said Northeast Quarter; Thence N89'26'1 VE, along said
North Line, 2617.53 feet, to the Northeast Comer thereof; Thence N89°44'19"E, along the North
Line of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 20, Township 79 North, Range
6 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, 737.85 feet, to its intersection with the Northeasterly Right -
of -Way Line of Highway #218; Thence S48°04'02"E, along said Northeasterly Right -of -Way Line,
Ordinance No.
Page 2
793.23 feet, to its intersection with the East Line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter;
Thence S00001'48"W, along said East Line, 630.90 feet, to its intersection with the North Line of
Lot 1 of Kitty Lee Subdivision, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 28 at Page
3 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S87°35'06"W, along said North
Line, 306.03 feet, to the Northwest Corner of said Lot 1; Thence S01 042'33"W, along the West Line
of said Lot 1, a distance of 144.26 feet, to its intersection with the South Line of the Northwest
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 20; Thence S89047'11 9'W, along said South Line,
1017.56 feet, to the Southwest Corner thereof, and the Northeast Corner of the Southeast Quarter
of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 19; Thence S00°00'12"E, along the East Line of said
Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, 1318.50 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said
Annexation Parcel contains 196.17 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record.
Section II. Zoning Map. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage,
approval and publication of this ordinance by law.
Section III. Conditional Zoning Agreement. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to sign,
and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s) and the
City, following passage and approval of this Ordinance.
Section IV. Certification And Recording. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City
Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same,
at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, at the owner's expense, all as
provided by law.
Section V. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section VI. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a
whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section VII, Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of 20—.
Mayor
Approved
t: .� � . J
City Clerk City Attorney's Office
(Sara Greenwood Hektoen —11/24/2020)
Prepared by: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5238 (REZ20-0002)
Conditional Zoning Agreement
This agreement is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter "City"); and Thomas L. Carson and Linda A. Carson Revocable Living Trust, James
T. Carson Revocable Trust, Rebecca Albertson Revocable Trust, and Steven M. and Mary Beth
Carson, (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Owner"), and Allen Homes, Inc. (hereinafter
referred to as "Applicant').
Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 196.17 acres of property
located west of Highway 218 and south of Rohret Road; and
Whereas, Applicanthas requested the rezoning of approximately 196.17 acres of land
located west of Highway 218 and south of Rohret Road from County Residential (R) zone and
County Urban Residential (RUA) zone to Interim Development Single -Family Residential (ID -
RS) zone; and
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Southwest District Plan, indicates
that the subject area is appropriate for residential development; and
Whereas, this rezoning creates public needs to accommodate demand for affordable
housing in Iowa City; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with reasonable
conditions regarding satisfaction of these public needs through the provision of affordable
housing, the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and
Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2020) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in
order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
Whereas, the Owner and Applicant agree to develop this property in accordance with the
terms and conditions of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as
follows:
Thomas L. Carson and Linda A. Carson Revocable Living Trust, James T. Carson
Revocable Trust, Rebecca Albertson Revocable Trust, Steven M. and Mary Beth
Carson, are the legal title holders of the property legally described as:
A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER
OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, AND THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF SECTION 19, AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20, ALL OF TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6
WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
Beginning at the Southeast Corner of the Northeast Quarter of Section 19, Township 79 North,
Range 6 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa; Thence S89018'06'9N,
along the South Line of said Northeast Quarter, 2651.04 feet, to the Southwest Corner thereof;
Thence N00000'29"E, along the West Line of said Northeast Quarter, 2610.20 feet; Thence
N44°43'20"E, 46.90 feet, to a Point on the North Line of said Northeast Quarter; Thence
N89°26'11"E, along said North Line, 2617.53 feet, to the Northeast Corner thereof; Thence
N89'44'1 9"E, along the North Line of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section
20, Township 79 North, Range 6 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian, 737.85 feet, to its
intersection with the Northeasterly Right -of -Way Line of Highway #218; Thence S48°04'02"E,
along said Northeasterly Right -of -Way Line, 793.23 feet, to its intersection with the East Line of
said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; Thence S00°01'48"W, along said East Line,
630.90 feet, to its intersection with the North Line of Lot 1 of Kitty Lee Subdivision, in
accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 28 at Page 3 of the Records of the
Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S87°35'06"W, along said North Line, 306.03 feet, to
the Northwest Corner of said Lot 1; Thence S01°42'33"W, along the West Line of said Lot 1, a
distance of 144.26 feet, to its intersection with the South Line of the Northwest Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter of said Section 20; Thence S89°47'19"W, along said South Line, 1017.56
feet, to the Southwest Corner thereof, and the Northeast Corner of the Southeast Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter of said Section 19; Thence S00°00'12"E, along the East Line of said
Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, 1318.50 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said
Annexation Parcel contains 196.17 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions of
record.
2. Owner and Applicant acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the
principles of the Comprehensive Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code
§414.5 (2020) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on
granting a rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy
public needs caused by the requested change.
3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner and Applicant agree
that development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the
Zoning Code, as well as the following conditions:
a. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owners shall execute an affordable housing
agreement committing to one or more of the following methods to satisfy the
annexation policy:
i. rent or sell 10% of the total units constructed on the above-described real
estate to income -eligible families for a period of 20 years from the date
certificates of occupancy are issued for each such affordable unit, to be
administered in accordance with Iowa City Code of Ordinance 14-2G-8, or a
similar state or federal affordable housing program; or
ii. convey 10% of the total units to the City or an affordable housing provider for
such affordable housing purposes; or
iii. the payment of a fee -in -lieu thereof to the City's affordable housing fund, in
an amount established by Resolution 18-213, approved on July 17, 2018, or,
if said Resolution has been rescinded at the time Owners apply for a building
permit, as otherwise established by Council resolution.
4. The conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under
2
Iowa Code §414.5 (2020), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused
by the requested zoning change.
5. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the
land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with
title to the land, unless or until released of record by the City of Iowa City. The parties
further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all
successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties. In the event the subject property
is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all development will conform with the
terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
6. Nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner
from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the
ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the
ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at
the Applicant's expense.
Dated this day of 20—.
City of Iowa City Thomas L. Carson and Linda A. Carson
Revocable Living Trust
Bruce Teague, Mayor
Attest:
Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk
Appr ed b
y:: /
City Attorney's Office
(Sara Greenwood Hektoen — 11/24/2020)
M
James T. Carson Revocable Trust
A
Rebecca Albertson Revocable Trust
Mary Beth Carson
a
Steven M. Carson
Allen Homes, Inc.
By:
City of Iowa City Acknowledgement:
State of Iowa )
ss:
Johnson County )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on 20_ by Bruce Teague
and Kellie Fruehling as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
Thomas L. Carson and Linda A. Carson Revocable Living Trust Acknowledgement:
State of
County of
This record was acknowledged before me on , 2020 by
(Name(s) of individual(s) as
(type of authority, such as officer or trustee) of Thomas L. Carson and Linda A. Carson
Revocable Living Trust.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
My commission expires:
James T. Carson Revocable Trust Acknowledgement:
State of
County of
This record was acknowledged before me on , 2020 by
(Name(s) of individuals) as
(type of authority, such as officer or trustee) of the James T. Carson Revocable Trust.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
My commission expires:
Rebecca Albertson Revocable Trust Acknowledgement:
State of
County of
This record was acknowledged before me on 2020 by
(Name(s) of individual(s) as
(type of authority, such as officer or trustee) of the Rebecca Albertson' Revocable Trust.
NotaryPublic in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
My commission expires:
Steven M. and Mary Beth Carson Acknowledgement:
State of
County of
This record was acknowledged before me
Mary Beth Carson.
Allen Homes, Inc. Acknowledgement:
State of Wllv,4
County of _ sroiya/jam
2020 by Steven M. and
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
My commission expires:
This record was acknowledged before me on /d•e 2-7 , 2020 by
��c "f; IQ (Name(s) of individual(s) as OU94
(type of authority, such as officer or trustee) of Allen Homes, Inc.
—7 vt �e,r
Notary Public in and f r the State of Iowa
tm IONN W vols (Stamp or Seal) IE:
Commisaian NumhR a11110 ra15696My Commiulan EX11fol Title (and Rank)al„3
Msrch 8 4022 2
My commission expires:
Iowa Code §414.5 (2020), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused
by the requested zoning change.
5. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the
land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with
title to the land, unless or until released of record by the City of Iowa City. The parties
further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all
successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties. In the event the subject property
is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all development will conform with the
terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
6. Nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner
from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
7. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the
ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the
ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at
the Applicant's expense.
Dated this day of
City of Iowa City
Bruce Teague, Mayor
Attest
Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk
Approved by:
City Attorney's Office
3
20
Thomas L. Carson and Linda A. Carson
Revocab16 Living Trust
By:
James T. Carson Revocable Trust
Rebecca Albertson Revocable Trust
M
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
My commission expires:
James T. Carson Revocable Trust Acknowledgement:
State of-T;�a
County of WRR2EQ
This record was acknowledged before me on 3c) 2020 by
Manes 0iyrso✓% (Name(s) of indMdual(s) as 'frust e e
(type of authority, such as officer or trustee) of the James T. Carson Revocable Trust.
DEBORAH S ELGIN Notary Public in and for the to of Iowa
Owwriksion Number ti20YJ
W►'c0"'�?'}" (Stamp orSeao
Title (and Rank)
My commission expires:%8
Rebecca Albertson Revocable Trust Acknowledgement:
State of
County of
This record was acknowledged before me on , 2020 by
(Name(s) of individual(s) as
(type of authority, such as officer or trustee) of the Rebecca Albertson Revocable Trust.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
My commission expires:
5
IXg Code §414.5 (zaao), Mal std axwvt qty rift ids mat are prlUSCd
by trip rovieved zorko Oanp.
5. Thts Conftonal Zoning AgrOemrA SW tem dermad to boa oovcnarx ruA" vdrfi tha
Lafmil ILS vdth We to tlw land, 8nd"*omaHt In full Smrcxr ane e'ied as n eowtnant wflh
titkj to thb land, urlmsz or wa rbloased of mx}rd by true GsY of lb" City, The pwf*%
fo�jhw cc*srrmvWja 415.tt this agrOernerA shat inure to the ber&M of wttd blAd 9A
suOot swrr.. r�roscs t ms, tctd assigns pi ft tom• In Ina ew�ffl the su*0 farOxr9y
is U"Jrarc9. 6W. rciwrlopod, Or ubdivded, a's dov6Vmv l will Owform vv`lh tho
terms of ghk.9%nd.-6ml Zornerg JV2mmenL
6, WLiuSeg in M Cond-,"M Zoning Agromwn! stt*➢ t c amstnred ba Mk" the Owrecz
from coenptylng vlith all other ap ka9k lacer, SM. . ffid fedcv+d MDL"10"S,
?, This Cotdblanal Zwing AyVMW " to kwvporaimd by Wamnaa snob Ino
a liwee mza sed tbo suite propedy, and mai upon a^Joptian "d pAiiCAtar of the
O*rmm,co, this pgtoonwnt"be m cOrdad ks the f6hnsm CounlY ROOWdmfa Olr" at
tho Appieant'a expcnse-
DAtctJMIS-Ad'+Yot, 0000 14&— . 20.V
city of kms City Thema* I.- Carson and Unds A. Cwton
Revombta Ewing Tnat
Ul
,20
tL' m TOasgve, 6fpyr RY
A7tcst:
.James T. Cancan Revocabin Trust
tft Er n ,citym1k,
City Auurmy'a Olt"
3
ar.
We= Albertson RavoubkTrust
BY:
Wry Hath Coma"
ny:
Si*vsn h1. Carron
A11on Romos, Inc.
8y;
City ad Iowa CHy Asknawladgvrnsnt:
Slate d land }
ss:
Johnsen Cmwy )
This kr:ttum" was *&JW*&N*W befora me on .20L -by Bruce Tongue
and kus o FropfJsrg as Mat or and Ci4 Ckui , ros{�arx?.*, of the City of taxa City.
hslaay Pcdr7c h and (vr ttro Stato al Cara
(S" at Sea!)
TWO (mod Rank)
Thomas L Canon and Until A. Carson Rrvacable Uy1f'Q Trosl Ackrmw4dgemenl:
SaotaaS.
County ad A41 nn �'hv'S
TWromdwas oduk*wieogedbefomme0,1 Q��vm,,]F-
70M 41iV;rte fNa:ne(s)oIkedn�uu3(s) —:1q t;
(typo of auihwity, such fla OPF"f tx tnwtarr) of Thomas L 6 coa and Lhoo A. Cameo
Rvvoou* Wing Trust.
tlSt WP f4V"yNUchorrdfor ChaSWOo! ()fgly -
IIF rc"ll trliLVNLM
NjIlhl Sylr: pMOpv (S'brnP Or Sc*
eOtht,*.'Sa�r:i1� ISOrlr
Idn CCn/a]GyS/L/+�)[nNlSO7*11>r Fii. T� TAO(WW pxl� )
Ur-V'� V 4 U.� y
R'yI 1 -4
Jemrs T. Corson Rfvocablf Trust Acknow)fdpf wnt;
Sta'c et
Caulty o1
Tem record aaa oto beiMo go orL_. 2020 by
VM of atJsxity, mh as o� ort lee) d�Jnmes T. Conon Ranombk Trust
Navy Pubic in w d tet tM State of lox8
(soup or sw
Tera fora! RW*j
my corn wiw aapses
Rebecaf AMwhc o Rreocable Trust Ackaoasfdyfmrnt:
Stata vd_
Cam* cd
TW ro=d was allmcrAlbdW bet= me co 20 by
(morair) Of Irx4r14uff(f) as
Poo of auftmy, such as ager or cmaxe) of the Rol o AACIW1on Revocable Tnat.
Navy P eiaedfor SSwoofkla
twat"
TAe (and Rmk)
My eonwssloh egares:
Mary Beth Carson
Steven M. Carson
By:
Allen Homes, Inc.
City of Iowa City Acknowledgement:
State of Iowa )
ss:
Johnson County )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on
and Kellie Fruehling as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City, Bruce Teague
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Sea[)
Title (and Rank)
Thomas L. Carson and Linda A. Carson Revocable Living Trust Acknowledgement:
State of
County of
This record was acknowledged before me on
2020 by
(Name(s) of individuals) as
(type of authority, such as officer or trustee) of Thomas L. Carson and Linda A. Ca
Revocable Living Trust. rson
Steven M. and Mary Beth Carson Acknowledgement:
State of—:rOUZ
County ofTM hQ:50
This record was acknowledged before me
Mary Beth Carson.
Allen Homes, Inc. Acknowledgement:
State of _
County of
V� 2020 by Steven M. and
in and for
(Stamp or Seal)
4�� a FFiERE3AACASWEl.1
Ti le (�(gapk) ; wo r821688
��JJ�L r
w
My commission expires:
This record was acknowledged before me on
2020 by
(Name(s) of individual(s) as
(type of authority, such as officer or trustee) of Allen Homes, Inc.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
My commission expires:
M
Iowa Code §414.5 (2020), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused
by the requested zoning change.
5. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the
land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with
title to the land, unless or until released of record by the City of Iowa City. The parties
further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all
successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties. In the event the subject property
is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all development will conform with the
terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
6. Nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner
from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
7. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the
ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the
ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at
the Applicant's expense.
Dated this day of
City of Iowa City
Bruce Teague, Mayor
Attest:
Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk
Approved by:
City Attorney's Office
20
Thomas L. Carson and Linda A. Carson
Revocable Living Trust
By:
James T. Carson Revocable Trust
By:
Rebecca Albertson Revocable Trust
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
My commission expires:
James T. Carson Revocable Trust Acknowledgement:
State of
County of
This record was acknowledged before me on 2020 by
(Name(s) of individual(s) as
(type of authority, such as officer or trustee) of the James T. Carson Revocable Trust.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
My commission expires:
Rebecca Albertson Revocable Trust Acknowledgement:
State of VA
County of 5(. 0a -4 -
This record was acknowledged before me on—/ 1, 30 2020 by
i e\Oeeca M6,ko (Name(s) of individual(s) as Tr.,4ee
(type of authority, such as officer or trustee) of the Rebecca Albertson Revocable Trust.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
V, N:
� 4 My commission expires: A YO t3 7,,z 1
L SEP"'
n111to
5
Item Number: 10.c.
D ecember 15, 2020
O rd inan ce conditional l y rezonin g ap p roximatel y 12,000 sq u are feet of lan d
l ocated at 400 N. Cl inton Street and 112 E. Daven p ort Street to Plan n ed
High Density Mu l ti-F amil y Residen tial (P R M) zone. (R E Z 20-0008) (Second
Consid eration)
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
P Z Staff Report w A ttachments
Correspondence
F inal P Z Minutes
Ordinance & C Z A with attachments
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner
Item: REZ20-0008 – 400 N. Clinton St. & Date: October 15, 2020
112 E. Davenport St.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Jeff Clark
319/ 631-1867
jeffmc1973@yahoo.com
Property Owner: John R. Rummelhart, Jr.
Requested Action: Rezoning from High Density Multi-Family
Residential (RM-44) to Planned High Density Multi-
Family Residential (PRM)
Purpose: Development of multi-family housing
Location: 400 N. Clinton Street & 112 E. Davenport Street
Location Map:
Size: 12,000 square feet
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Residential, RM-44
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: 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
2
District Plan: Central District, High Density Multi-Family
Neighborhood Open Space District: C1
Public Meeting Notification: 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.
File Date: September 24, 2020
45 Day Limitation Period: November 9, 2020
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
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
4
ANALYSIS:
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: __________________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
N CLINTON STN DUBUQUE STN CAPITOL STFAIRCHILD ST
E DAVENPORT ST N LINN STREZ20-0008400 N Clintion & 112 E Davenportµ
0 0.03 0.060.015 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: October 2020
An application submitted by Jeff Clark, for the rezoning ofapproximately 0.3 acres of property located at 400 North Clinton Street and 112 East Davenport Street from High Density Multi-family (RM-44) to Planned High Density Multi-Family (PRM).
N CLINTON STN DUBUQUE STN CAPITOL STFAIRCHILD ST
E DAVENPORT ST N LINN STCB2
RNS12
PRM
RM44
P2
REZ20-0008400 N Clintion & 112 E Davenportµ
0 0.03 0.060.015 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: October 2020
An application submitted by Jeff Clark, for the rezoning ofapproximately 0.3 acres of property located at 400 North Clinton Street and 112 East Davenport Street from High Density Multi-family (RM-44) to Planned High Density Multi-Family (PRM).
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
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.
I 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. I 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
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.
x lac
Kellie Fruehling
From: Tim Weitzel, M.A. <historicconsulting@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 9:23 AM
To: Council; Anne Russett Late Handouts Distributed
Subject: Re: Development Proposal, 400 Block N Clinton St.
12-I'te4 -20
1r (Date)
�als�
Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council:
As a reminder, I expressed this view in Februrary this year. Demolition of two historic properties to save a third is a poor
preservation ethic.
Tim Weitzel, M.A.
On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 11:38 AM Tim Weitzel, M.A. <historicconsultine@gmail.com> wrote:
Honorable Council Members:
I am writing today regarding three buildings located at the corner of N Clinton Street and E Davenport Street
and including the street addresses 400 N Clinton Street, 410 N Clinton Street, 412 N Clinton Street, and 112
E Davenport Street.
In general, and probably to the dismay of some of our community's preservationists, I am not supportive of the
concept to demolish 400 N Clinton Street and 112 E Davenport Street for the sake of saving 410 N Clinton
Street. I say this because while the professional opinions of 410 N Clinton Street are somewhat ambiguous as
to if the building could be listed on the National Register, the surrounding properties would not be so
adversely affected by the removal of the building that the surrounding district could not still be considered for
a National Register Nomination. While we can hope that we demolish no additional buildings that are
potentially historical in Iowa City, that seems extremely unlikely. Therefore, the question at hand is somewhat
one of ethics as well as property development.
It is worth noting that the entire 400 block of the east side of N Clinton Street as well as the adjoining section
of E Davenport Street has been recommended as potentially contributing to as yet not designated National
Register historic district, absent 430 N Clinton Street (ISN 52-01029), which was moved in 2002 from 219 N
Clinton St. Further research and evaluation of current condition of the buildings would need to be conducted
prior to consideration of a nomination for the district, however and in general, the exterior condition of these
buildings appears good with regards to historic integrity.
112 E Davenport Street (ISN 52-01029) has twice been recommended as contributing to a National Register
historic district.
400 N Clinton Street, (ISN 52-01037) has been evaluated three times for eligibility for the National Register of
Historic Places, including 1981, 1990, and 1995. The building was not recommended to be individually eligible
for the NRHP, but has been recommended as contributing to a potential historic district.
410-412 N Clinton Street, Cochran -Dennis House (ISN 52-01038) has been evaluated twice, including 1980
and 1995. The 1980 recommendation was that the building was not individually eligible. However, in 1995,
the building was recommended as individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Based on
style of construction, the building likely had both additions, including the large "motel style" unit of 412 N
Clinton Street at the time of that evaluation. The building is included in Marget N. Keyes book Nineteenth
Century Home Architecture of Iowa City (1993) as an example of houses with one-story verandas found in
Iowa City.Keyes reported the construction date was 1865 of this building. It should be noted that Keyes was
not specifically conducting evaluations of historic properties. In fact, the base work for her book occurred prior
to the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act and the subsequent guidance on conducting inventory and
evaluation for nominations to the National Register. In summary, the building has an ambiguous history of
recommendations to the State Historic Preservation Office. Subsequent research and evaluation would be
necessary prior to submitting a nomination for the property. Beyond that, the building has been the subject of
two local considerations by City Council to preserve the building, once as a landmark, and secondly for a city-
wide property development rights transfer policy. Both times City Council rejected the proposals.
While I have not conferred with the State Historic Preservation Office regarding this matter, I have fairly
extensive experience working with them and I am all but absolutely certain they would not suggest demolition
of a property that is not clearly without historical merit (400 N Clinton St) to save another is a wise choice,
particularly when the property to be saved by the proposal (410-412 N Clinton St) isn't clearly eligible for the
National Register.
Further, a property that has been twice evaluated as eligible to the National Register as part of a potential, as
yet not contemplated, historic district further sours the proposal from a dispassionate preservationist
viewpoint. Again, no buildings that are potentially historic should be demolished, but the fate of 401-412 N
Clinton Street seems to have been sealed in previous City Council decisions.
Best Regards,
Tim Weitzel
Historic Preservation Consultant
IOP
Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; (REZ20-0008)
Ordinance No.
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).
Whereas, the applicant, Joe Clark, has requested a rezoning of property 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 for approximately 12,000
square feet;
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan, specifically the Central District Plan, indicates that the
subject area is appropriate for high density multi -family residential development; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed zoning and
determined that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan provided that it meets a condition
addressing substantial compliance with the site plan and elevations if future development
requests bonus provisions; and
Whereas, a public need is created by the rezoning since the PRM zone bonus provisions
allow for additional development potential, and therefore, substantial compliance with the site
plan and elevations will ensure a building with a maximum height of 5 -stories, which is
compatible to surrounding uses; and
Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2020) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable
conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to
satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
Whereas, the owner and applicant have agreed that the property shall be developed in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to
ensure appropriate development in this area of the city; and
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa that:
Section I Approval. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and
incorporated herein, the property described below is hereby classified Planned High Density Multi -
Family Residential (PRM) zone:
The east 50 feet of the south half of Lot 6, in Block 75, in Iowa City, Iowa, according to the
recorded plat thereof; subject to easements and restrictions of record; and
The south half of Lots 5 and 6 in Block 75 in Iowa City, Iowa, according to the plat thereof
recorded in Book 1, Page 116, Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa, except the east 50 feet
of the south half of said Lot 6, subject to easements and restrictions of record.
Section II. Zoning Map. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change
the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final
passage, approval and publication of this ordinance by law.
Section III. Conditional Zoning Agreement. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to
sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s)
and the City, following passage and approval of this Ordinance.
Section IV. Certification and Recording. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the
same, at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, at the owner's expense, all
as provided by law.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
Section V. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section VI. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a
whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section VII. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of 120.
Mayor
Approvedy:
Y'� �Qs/'
City Clerk City Attorney's Office
(Sara Greenwood Hektoen —11/24/2020)
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by _
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Bergus
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Weiner
that the
First Consideration 12/01/2020
Vote for passage:
AYES: Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner, Bergus, Mims, Salih.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 12/15/2020
Vote for passage:
AYES: Mims, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner, Bergus.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: Salih.
Date published
Prepared by Anne Russett, Senior Planner. 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5230 (REZ20-0008)
Conditional Zoning Agreement
This agreement is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter "City"), John R. Rummelhart, Jr. (hereinafter "Owner"), and Jeff Clark (hereinafter
"Applicant").
Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 0.275 acres of property located
at 400 N. Clinton Street and 112 E. Davenport Street; and
Whereas, the Applicant has requested the rezoning of said property from High Density
Multi-Family (RM-44) to Planned High Density Multi-Family (PRM); and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate
conditions regarding substantial compliance with the attached site plan and elevations, the
requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and
Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2020) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in
order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
Whereas, the Owner acknowledges that certain conditions and restrictions are
reasonable to ensure the development of the property is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan and the need to ensure that future development is compatible with the existing
neighborhood in terms of height and mass of the building; and
Whereas, the PRM zone bonus provisions allow for additional development potential,
and therefore, substantial compliance With the site plan and elevations will ensure a building
with a maximum height of 5-stories, which is compatible to surrounding uses; and
Whereas, the Owner agrees to develop this property in accordance with the terms and
conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement.
Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as
follows:
1. John R. Rummelhart, Jr. is the legal title holder of the properties legally described as:
The south half of Lots 5 and 6 in Block 75 in Iowa City, Iowa, according to the plat
thereof recorded in Book 1, Page 116, Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa, except
the east 50 feet of the south half of said Lot 6, subject to easements and restrictions of
record; and
The east 50 feet of the south half of Lot 6, in Block 75, in Iowa City, Iowa, according to
the recorded plat thereof; subject to easements and restrictions of record.
2. Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the
Comprehensive Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2020)
provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a
rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public
needs caused by the requested change.
3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner and Applicant agree
that development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the
zoning chapter, as well as the following conditions:
a. In the event that any development on the subject property relies upon a PRM bonus
provision or minor adjustment, the development must substantially comply with the site
plan and elevations dated July 1, 2020 (attached).
4. The conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under
Iowa Code §414.5 (2020), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused
by the requested zoning change.
5. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the
land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with
title to the land, unless or until released of record by the City of Iowa City. The parties
further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all
successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties. In the event the subject property
is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all development will conform with the
terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
6. Nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner
from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
7. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the
ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the
ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at
the Owner's expense.
Dated this day of 20_.
City of Iowa City
Bruce Teague, Mayor
Attest:
Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk
Jeff Clark
By:
Appro p by:
City Attorney's Office n -4i'
City of Iowa City Acknowledgement:
State of Iowa )
) ss:
Johnson County )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 20_ by Bruce Teague
and Kellie Fruehling as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City.
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
(Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
Jeff Clark Acknowledgement:
State of 1-A
County of
This record was acknowledged before me on r 20U by Jeff Clark.
Notary Public a for sal ounty and State
`per JOSHUA L. WNETSTINE
1
_=' Commisslon Number 710850
My Commission Expires (Stamp or Sea[)
My commission expires:
John R. Rummelhart, Jr. Acknowledgment:
State of '*�A
County of �c kll s0
This record was acknowledged before
Rummelhart, Jr.
^
�^.''�
JOSHUA L. WNETSTINE
Commission Number 710650
My Commission Expires
I------i�>�`�
/OWr.
- ------
me Qn 2026 by John R.
Notary is In and for said County and State
(Stamp or Sea])
My commission expires: _�t0'� 0
4—
aioxcLxzrorxn
lsroxcxoLas
'�/�%Y�`ice✓%A%%/f/i/£"r✓md%%il////%/d. j
Ix'd xSd
e
00
Xlaxclslraxn
MMIYExi M]AYI
and
�CRExl CxxMt1130 m
� 6tft Ip4.
Pxw
I�ERIAG.
NN
LOTH
Kw ff
xx MX
]w R
LOTW.t1VC£
169018
p11LMf NV9Il£1A1fi14
cross n
rEw �a9oLxxnk om] n
xev rsmuc.
cm s
Xax.nwlnox
XfNXFeSfN11NYN1]
I IINRS ]nl 1S1 1M W
xM
rLow1 s
x 1 a
u
rLooxz ]
] 1 o
n
ftOA] ]
] 1 x
war ]
t e
u
u
1 x
1 1 t x
n
=A
rorw
n x x
n
IXaszleazrruxua
1 wnmva
xnaxelxuoe
mlrnxTsia
IIORty.
m:
IIYV.IGME:
I.w ipL.11n
1
n� asLov�
1 1�
N
n Garage Floar Plan
Ljsme ve•-ra
1
V,
on
Nn.
0
M3
1.
El
unr.
carts
E
C•
n Ftrat Ploor Plan
sale va'-ry
amps
wBtdkftl
+1�igMa
O
C
++ P
A �
d
v
C
61
d
mwm
n Second Floor Plan
rI
ELI
n yd Floor Plan
LThlhl ve•-ro
Eos
Wo4d'o
•IYsapEwO
MS�1�
4�
n Fourth Floor Pian
smc ua-ra
V
z
CD
N
d
C
rL
u
LJn TaT Floaor Plan fi
ami s•-r
",orm.
E=M
CO)
C
O
w
C
V
Z
O
O
W
N
ca
V
C
d
.y
d
amu.
FM b
ame
M4�
7
Roof Plan
smc va-ia
W
�1
NR11lRKTE
R1.CJLBIIMIL
YEI MMG
smx[uxias
uEruwnE
sa�ax
smxEGw
u[ru cu�wnrmG
�nueucary
gILgXG
�uowssw,G
xwomvs
YEIIL ILMG
NMIFR
EE+umxE
Gmu wr�ar
AER51W STdIE U^
Ne We
tO19wl�
EEk
Yvl awYA
West Qevatlon
t sm� va•-ra
Y
n East Elevation
suc va-ra
V
Z 5
O
O
el' g
cc a
eC �
d �
w
c
as
.y
CL)
O.'
ill
Item Number: 10.d.
D ecember 15, 2020
O rd inan ce to amend Titl e 14 Z on ing to al l ow min or adjustments in Pl anned
High Density Mu l ti-F amil y Residen tial (P R M) zones for n ew con struction
p rojects which in vol ve preserving a separate h istoric stru cture. (R E Z 20-0005)
(Second Consid eration)
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Staff Report
P&Z Minutes 10-15-2020
Ordinance
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 14-2B-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 (14-2B-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) 14-2B-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) 14-2B-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
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.
Area 1
Area 2
Area 3
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:
_____________________________________________
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 conjunction 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. Decisions of the
committee may be appealed to the board of adjustment. 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 adjustments 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.
1. 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 efficiency apartments, the minimum lot area per unit may be reduced to
five hundred (500) square feet. Points required: 7
(2) For one bedroom apartments, the minimum lot area per unit may be reduced
to seven hundred (700) square feet. Points required: 7
(3) For efficiency apartments, the minimum lot area per unit may be reduced to
four hundred twenty (420) square feet. Points required: 12
(4) For one bedroom apartments, the minimum lot area per unit may be reduced
to four hundred fifty (450) square feet. Points required: 12
d. Building Coverage Increase: The maximum building coverage may be increased
to sixty five percent (65%). Points required: 7
D. Minor Adjustments in the PRM Zone:
1. Minor Adjustments: Through a Level I 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 14-5I “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 adjustment 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 conjunction with the minor adjustment. The City shall not
issue a building permit for the project seeking the minor adjustment 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 project preserves the abutting historic property
and its timeline for completion;
c. If the project 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 project shall not detract from or be injurious to other property or improvements
in the vicinity; and
f. The requested adjustment 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 Adjustment
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 Adjustments: A special exception to waive or modify 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 adjustment to
modify specific provisions of this section may be requested as specified in Minor
Adjustments in PRM Zones” as found in section 14-2B-7, “PRM Zone Bonus and Minor
Adjustment Provisions”.
MINUTES FINAL
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 1 5 , 2020 – 7:00 PM
ELECTRONIC FORMAL MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Mark Nolte, Mark
Signs, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Ray Heitner, Sarah Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Luke Newton, Jon Harding, Jon Marner, Chant Eicke, Ryan Wade,
Jeff Clark, William Means
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.
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.
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 14-2B-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 14-2B-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.
Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 (REZ20-0006)
Ordinance No.
Ordinance to amend Title 14 Zoning to allow minor adjustments in Planned
High Density Multi -Family Residential (PRM) zones for new construction
projects which involve preserving a separate historic structure (REZ20-0005)
Whereas, it is in the public interest to designate historic properties as Iowa City historic
landmarks, such as the property at 410-412 N. Clinton Street; and
Whereas, Planned High Density Multi -Family Residential (PRM) zone provides bonus
provisions to encourage high quality redevelopment and properties zoned PRM may be located
near properties that are potentially eligible to be designated as a local historic landmark; and
Whereas, to incentivize historic preservation, it is reasonable to provide relief from certain
provisions of the zoning code for the redevelopment of property abutting a historic property, so
long as the abutting historic property is concurrently zoned a local historic landmark pursuant to
the Iowa City Zoning Code; and
Whereas, it is reasonable to grant relief from dimensional and site development standards
through an administrative minor adjustment, subject to criteria that ensure that the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan, District Plans, and Historic Preservation Plan are met; and
Whereas, the City's comprehensive plan encourages infill development where services and
infrastructure are already in place, supports the Historic Preservation Commission's efforts to
meet its goals, and provides for housing rehabilitation programs and reinvestment in housing in
existing neighborhoods; and
Whereas, efficiency and one -bedroom units in PRM zones require only 435 square feet of lot
area per unit minimum, which is denser than provided for in the bonus options;
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the zoning code amendment
set forth below and recommends approval.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa:
Section I. Amendments. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby
amended by adding the following underlined language:
A. Amend 14-26-7 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 desiqn. The PRM zone minor adiustment nrnvisinnq allnw flaYihility fn
Ordinance No.
Page 2
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 Design Review Committee may be appealed to
1L... o.... -J ..f AI; ... .___.
C.
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. 9esisleas of thA
GeFRFRittee FRay be appealed to the bGaFd Of . 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 adjustments to dimensional and site development standards maybe allowed for
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
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
Ordinance No.
Page 3
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:
(a) For efficiency apartments, the minimum lot area per unit may be reduced to
four hundred twenty (420) square feet. Points required: 12
to fe-0 hundred fifty (450) squaFe feet. PG RtG r8qUiFed:42
d. Building Coverage Increase: The maximum building coverage may be increased
to sixty five percent (65%). Points required: 7
D. Minor Adjustments:
1. Minor Adjustments Through a Level I Design Review, the Design Review Committee
may approve a minor adiustment from any standard found in 14-213-4 "Dimensional
Ranuiramanfc" 1d -?R -R "KA,dfi r7—il„ c;+., 11 -- ..
Uevelopment 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 14-213-8A "Historic Preservation Exceptions" process
2. Applicability: The minor adiustment provides flexibility for new construction proiects
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 adiustment and
c. The Owners of all impacted property, including the historic property, shall provide
a written acknowledgement in a form acceptable to the City of Iowa City, stating
that any required plans submitted are done so with their free consent and are in
accordance with their desires.
3. Approval Criteria: The request for a minor adiustment 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 conjunction with the minor adiustment The City shall not
issue a building permit for the project 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 project preserves the abutting historic property
Ordinance No.
Page 4
C.
Cl
e. The project shall not detract from or be incurious to other property or improvements
in the vicinity: and
B. Amend 14-26-4 as follows:
Dimensional Requirements: The dimensional requirements for the multi -family
residential zones are stated in table 213-2, 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 213-
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 14-213-7 "PRM Zone Bonus and Minor
Adjustment Provisions' or historic preservation exception as outlined in section 14-213-8,
"Special Provisions", of this article.
C. Amend 14-2B-6 as follows:
as outlined in section 14-213-8. "Special Provisions" of this article. A minor adjustment to
modify specific provisions of this section may be requested as specified in Minor
Adjustments in PRM Zones" as found in section 14-28-7. "PRM Zone Bonus and Minor
Adjustment Provisions'.
Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a
whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication.
Passed and approved this day of 2020.
Ordinance No.
Page 5
Mayor
Approved by%/�
Attest: , ' �l./
City Clerk City Attorney's Office
(Sara Greenwood Hektoen —11/24/2020)
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by _
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
Bergus
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Weiner
that the
First Consideration 12/01/2020
Vote for passage:
AYES: Teague, Thomas, Weiner, Bergus, Mims, Salih, Taylor.
NAYS: None. AYES: None.
Second Consideration 12/15/2021
Vote for passage:
AYES: Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner, Bergus, Mims.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: Salih.
Date published
Item Number: 10.e.
D ecember 15, 2020
O rd inan ce conditional l y rezonin g ap p roximatel y 4 acres of lan d located at
Myrtle Ave. an d S. Riversid e Dr. to Riverfront Crossings - West Riverfron t
District (R F C-W R) zone. (R E Z 20-0003) (Second Consid eration)
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Staff Report with Attachments
P&Z Minutes
Correspondence
Ordinance
Correspondence from S teve L ong
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
salidapartners@gmail.com
Contact Person: Mark Seabold
Shive-Hattery Architecture-Engineering
2839 Northgate Drive
Iowa City, IA 52245
319-354-3040
mseabold@shive-hattery.com
Owner: K&F Properties, LLC.
319-621-3462
salidapartners@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: To develop a mixed-use project with housing, retail,
hospitality and neighborhood services.
Location: 215, 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court;
119, 201, 203, 205, 207, and 209 Myrtle Avenue;
517 and 527 S. Riverside Drive
Location Map:
Size: Approximately 4 acres
2
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-O), 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 2.0.1
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
1 Floor area ratio is the total floor area within a building or buildings on a lot divided by the total
area of that lot.
4
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.
Figure 1 – West Riverfront District Summary
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.
6
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-1d-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
7
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.
Figure 2 – 100 and 500-year Floodplains
NEXT STEPS:
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.
8
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
MYRTLE AVE SRIVERSIDEDRS RIVERSIDE CTOLIVE STREZ20-0003517, 527 South Riverside Dr.215, 219, 223, 245 South Riverside Ct.119, 201, 203, 205, 207, 209 Mrytle Ave.µ
0 0.025 0.050.0125 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: August 2020
An application submitted by K & F Properties, LLC to request therezoning of approximately 4.0 acres of property from MediumDensity Single-Family (RS-8), High Density Multifamily (RM-44), andCommunity Commercial (CC-2) to Riverfront Crossings, WestRiverfront (RFC-WR).
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT | COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING 1SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA | AUGUST 13, 2020
SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA
AUGUST 13, 2020
RIVERFRONT WEST
DEVELOPMENT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT &
REZONING
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT | COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING 2SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA | AUGUST 13, 2020
EXISTING SITE PHOTOGRAPHY
No existing pedestrian circulation throughout the site. Lack of defined vehicular entrances from Riverside Drive.
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT | COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING 3SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA | AUGUST 13, 2020
EXISTING SITE PHOTOGRAPHY
Outdated buildings lack energy efficiency. Site contributes to heat island effect in this area.
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT | COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING 4SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA | AUGUST 13, 2020
EXISTING SITE PHOTOGRAPHY
Lack of green space/ vegetated area does not relate to surrounding area. Most of site area devoted to parking.
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT | COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING 5SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA | AUGUST 13, 2020
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 | COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING 6SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA | AUGUST 13, 2020
EXISTING SITE PHOTOGRAPHY
Buildings do not relate to Myrtle Street. Extreme grade change from Myrtle to existing buildings.
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT | COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING 7SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA | AUGUST 13, 2020
EXISTING SITE PHOTOGRAPHY
Lack of green space/ vegetated area does not relate to surrounding area.
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT | COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING 8SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA | AUGUST 13, 2020
PROPOSED SITE MASSING
PERSPECTIVES
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT | COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING 9SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA | AUGUST 13, 2020
MASSING STUDIES | RIVERSIDE DRIVE LOOKING WEST
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT | COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING 10SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA | AUGUST 13, 2020
MASSING STUDIES | 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
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 | COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING 11SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA | AUGUST 13, 2020
MASSING STUDIES | CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MRYTLE AVE LOOKING
SET BACK 10’
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.
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT | COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING 12SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA | AUGUST 13, 2020
MASSING STUDIES | 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 | COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING 13SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA | AUGUST 13, 2020
MASSING STUDIES | RETAIL PLAZA LOOKING SOUTH
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.
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 | COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING 14SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA | AUGUST 13, 2020
MASSING STUDIES | 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
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT | COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING 15SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA | AUGUST 13, 2020
PROPOSED SUBDISTRICT
WEST RIVERFRONT
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT | COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING 16SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA | AUGUST 13, 2020
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.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT | COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING 17SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA | AUGUST 13, 2020
EXISTING CONDITIONS | CURRENT ZONING OF PROPERTIES
RIVERFRONT WEST DEVELOPMENT | COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT & REZONING 18SW CORNER OF RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND MYRTLE AVE, IOWA CITY, IA | AUGUST 13, 2020
PROPOSED WEST RIVERFRONT SUBDISTRICT
PROPOSED WEST RIVERFRONT
SUBDISTRICT
CURRENTLY WEST
RIVERFRONT SUBDISTRICT
WEST RIVERFRONT
SUBDISTRICT
WEST RIVERFRONT
SUBDISTRICT
Principal buildings with frontage
on the Iowa River may be eight (8)
stories maximum in height before
application of bonus provisions
Principal buildings with frontage
on the Iowa River may be eight (8)
stories maximum in height before
application of bonus provisions
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.
WEST RIVERFRONT
SUBDISTRICT
Principal buildings with frontage
on the Iowa River may be eight (8)
stories maximum in height before
application of bonus provisions
3.16 acres
TEXT AMENDMENT TO WEST RIVERFRONT SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW
HEIGHT BONUS ALLOWANCE TO 7 STORIES MAX FOR PROPERTIES
NORTH OF AND ADJOINING IOWA INTERSTATE RAILROAD
Project 1191830
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.
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
MYRTLE AVE SRIVERSIDEDRS RIVERSIDE CTOLIVE STRS8
RFC-O
RFC-WR
P2
RFC-WR
CC2
RS5
RS8
RS8
CC2
CC2
RS5
P2
RM44
REZ20-0003517, 527 South Riverside Dr.215, 219, 223, 245 South Riverside Ct.119, 201, 203, 205, 207, 209 Mrytle Ave.µ
0 0.025 0.050.0125 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: August 2020
An application submitted by K & F Properties, LLC to request therezoning of approximately 4.0 acres of property from MediumDensity Single-Family (RS-8), High Density Multifamily (RM-44), andCommunity Commercial (CC-2) to Riverfront Crossings, WestRiverfront (RFC-WR).
222 3rd Avenue SE, Suite 300 | P.O. Box 1803 | Cedar Rapids, IA 52406-1803
319.364.0227 ext. 2266 | fax: 319.364.4251| shive-hattery.com
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
Page 1 of 44
Project # 1191830
Traffic Impact Study:
Riverside Development
Iowa City, Iowa
October 13, 2020
Prepared for: Riverfront West
Prepared by:
316 Second Street SE, Suite 500
Cedar Rapids, IA 52406
(515) 364-0027
Page 1 of 44
Project # 1191830
CONTENTS
Executive Summary ..................................................................................... 3
Existing & Projected No Build Conditions .................................................. 6
Adjacent Streets .................................................................................................................................... 7
Existing Intersection Conditions ............................................................................................................ 8
Traffic Volume Data ............................................................................................................................... 9
Background Traffic Growth.................................................................................................................... 9
Crash Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 16
Multimodal Review .............................................................................................................................. 19
Projected Buildout Conditions .................................................................. 20
Project Description .............................................................................................................................. 20
Trip Generation ................................................................................................................................... 21
Trip Distribution ................................................................................................................................... 23
Projected Buildout Turning Movement Volumes ................................................................................. 24
Recommended Buildout Lane Configuration & Control ...................................................................... 35
Traffic Modeling .......................................................................................... 37
Operational Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 37
Summary & Recommendations ................................................................. 43
Figures
Figure ES1 Project Trip Distribution .................................................................................................................................. 4
Figure 1 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
Figure 10 Multimodal Facilities ..................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 11 Preliminary Site Plan .................................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 12 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
Page 2 of 44
Project # 1191830
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
Table 5 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
Table 9 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
Appendix 2 ..................................................................................................................... Crash Data
Appendix 3 .................................................................................... Internal Capture Analysis Sheets
Appendix 4 ........................................................................................... Operational Analysis Sheets
Page 3 of 44
Project # 1191830
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 hereaft er)
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
Page 4 of 44
Project # 1191830
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
1st Avenue
Burlington St
Benton St
Myrtle Ave Olive St Lot 48 Access
Page 5 of 44
Project # 1191830
Vehicular operational analysis for this study was performed using the methodology of the 6 th 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 measure1 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 s ignal 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.
1 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.
42nd Street
Jefferson High
School
Page 6 of 44
Project # 1191830
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 genera tion 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.
Page 7 of 44
Project # 1191830
Figure 1 Study Area Map
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.
Burlington St
Benton St
Myrtle Ave Olive St Lot 48 Access Development
Site
Page 8 of 44
Project # 1191830
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
Burlington St
Myrtle Ave Olive St Lot 48 Access Benton St
Page 9 of 44
Project # 1191830
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
Page 10 of 44
Project # 1191830
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 cons tant 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
Burlington St
Myrtle Ave Olive St Lot 48 Access Benton St
Page 11 of 44
Project # 1191830
Figure 5 Study Intersections – Existing 2020 PM Peak Hour No Build Volumes
Burlington St
Myrtle Ave Olive St Lot 48 Access Benton St
Page 12 of 44
Project # 1191830
Figure 6 Study Intersections – Projected 2022 AM Peak Hour No Build Volumes
Burlington St
Myrtle Ave Olive St Lot 48 Access Benton St
Page 13 of 44
Project # 1191830
Figure 7 Study Intersections – Projected 2022 PM Peak Hour No Build Volumes
Burlington St
Myrtle Ave Olive St Lot 48 Access Benton St
Page 14 of 44
Project # 1191830
Figure 8 Study Intersections – Projected 2042 AM Peak Hour No Build Volumes
Burlington St
Myrtle Ave Olive St Lot 48 Access Benton St
Page 15 of 44
Project # 1191830
Figure 9 Study Intersections – Projected 2042 PM Peak Hour No Build Volumes
Burlington St
Myrtle Ave Olive St Lot 48 Access Benton St
Page 16 of 44
Project # 1191830
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 =1,000,000×Total Crashes
AADTEntering vpd ×365×# 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)
Study Intersection Total
Crashes
Daily
Entering
Volume
Crash Rate
(crashes/MEV)
Statewide Average
Crash Rate
(crashes/MEV)
Comparison to
Statewide Average
Crash Rate
1 Myrtle Avenue &
Greenwood Drive 1 1,960 0.14 1.30 Lower
2 Myrtle Avenue &
Lot 48 Access 0 1,940 0.00 1.30 Lower
3 Myrtle Avenue &
Olive Street 2 1,930 0.28 1.30 Lower
5 Riverside Drive &
Burlington Street 142 30,510 1.28 1.00 Higher
6 Riverside Drive &
Myrtle Avenue 64 19,000 0.92 0.80 Lower
8 Riverside Drive &
Benton Street 153 26,970 1.55 1.00 Higher
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.
Page 17 of 44
Project # 1191830
Table 2 Manner of Collision (1/1/10 – 12/31/19)
Study Intersection
Manner of Collision
Rear
End
Head
On
Single
Vehicle Broadside
Angle,
Oncoming
Left
Sideswipe,
Same
Direction
Sideswipe,
Opposite
Direction
Other/
Unknown/
Not
Reported
Rear
to
Side
Total
1 Myrtle Avenue &
Greenwood Drive 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
2 Myrtle Avenue &
Lot 48 Access 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 Myrtle Avenue &
Olive Street 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2
5 Riverside Drive &
Burlington Street 81 2 14 6 10 28 1 0 0 142
6 Riverside Drive &
Myrtle Avenue 36 0 2 10 6 8 1 1 0 64
8 Riverside Drive &
Benton Street 71 0 9 34 9 24 2 3 1 153
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 Av enue (#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.
Page 18 of 44
Project # 1191830
Table 3 Potential Intersection Treatments to Reduce Crash Frequency
Crash Type
Applicability Treatment CMF ID Expected Reduction in Crash Frequency
and notes
Rear End
Implement automated speed enforcement
cameras 2913 -26%, This CMF applies to all crash severities.
Install pedestrian countdown timer 8793 -8%, This CMF applies to all crash severities
Implement systemic signing and visibility
improvements at signalized intersections 8924 -.026%, This CMF applies to all crash severities
Oncoming
Left Turn
Install red-light cameras 421 -.16%, This CMF applies to serious, minor, and
possible injury crash severities
Implement automated speed enforcement
cameras 2914 -88%, This CMF applies to all crash severities.
Install red-light indicator lights 8822 -40%, This CMF applies to all crash severities.
Sideswipe
Implement speed enforcement cameras 2912 -48%, This CMF applies to all crash severities.
Upgrade existing markings to wet-
reflective pavement markings 8112 -.059%, This CMF applies to all crash severities.
Broadside
Install red-light cameras 420 -25%, This CMF applies to all crash severities
Implement automated speed enforcement
cameras 2914 -88%, This CMF applies to all crash severities.
Implement automated speed enforcement
cameras at signalized intersections 6883 -31%, This CMF applies to all crash severities.
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
Number
of
Crashes
Severity
Fatal
Suspected Possible/
Unknown
Injury
Property
Damage
Only
Injuries Per
Crash Serious
Injury
Minor
Injury
1 Myrtle Avenue &
Greenwood Drive 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.00
2 Myrtle Avenue &
Lot 48 Access 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
3 Myrtle Avenue &
Olive Street 2 0 0 0 0 2 0.00
5 Riverside Drive &
Burlington Street 142 0 2 9 21 110 0.23
6 Riverside Drive &
Myrtle Avenue 64 0 1 3 15 45 0.34
8 Riverside Drive &
Benton Street 153 0 2 12 14 125 0.22
Study intersection crash data for the analysis period is provided in Appendix 2.
Page 19 of 44
Project # 1191830
Multimodal Review
Bus stop locations and hard surface trails (delineated in red) within the study area are identified in the following
figure. Bus route names are provided to indicate the route that serve each bus stop in the following figure.
Figure 10 Multimodal Facilities
LEGEND
Bus stop
Off Street
Paved Path
Burlington St
Myrtle Ave Olive St Lot 48 Access Benton St
Blue Route, Hawkeye
Interdorm, Interdorm
WCTC Oakcrest Night &
Saturday and
Westport Plaza Westport Plaza
Westport Plaza
Westport Plaza Oakcrest Night &
Saturday and
Westport Plaza
Westport Plaza
Oakcrest Night &
Saturday and
Westport Plaza
Oakcrest and
Oakcrest Night &
Saturday
Westport Plaza
Westport Plaza
Page 20 of 44
Project # 1191830
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 zon es 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
Page 21 of 44
Project # 1191830
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
Land Use
ITE
Code 1 Quantity
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Trips % In % Out
Trips
In
Trips
Out Trips % In % Out
Trips
In
Trips
Out
Multifamily
Housing (Mid-
Rise)
221 54
DU 2 19 26% 74% 5 14 24 61% 39% 14 10
Senior Adult
Housing –
Attached
252 187
DU 2 37 4 35% 65% 13 24 47 5 55% 45% 26 21
Hotel 310 110
Rooms 50 6 59% 41% 29 21 56 7 51% 49% 28 28
General Office
Building 710 14.00
KSF 3 40 8 86% 14% 34 6 18 9 16% 84% 3 15
Shopping
Center 820 12.10
KSF 3 11 62% 38% 7 4 114 10 48% 52% 55 59
Total 157 56% 44% 88 69 259 49% 51% 126 133
1 Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook, 10th 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)
5 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)
7 Fitted curve equation T = 0.75(X) – 26.02 was used (R2 = 0.80)
8 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 (R2 = 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 oth er 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.
Page 22 of 44
Project # 1191830
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
Land Use
ITE
Code 1 Quantity
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Trips % In % Out
Trips
In
Trips
Out Trips % In % Out
Trips
In
Trips
Out
Multifamily
Housing (Mid-
Rise)
221 54
DU 2 16 31% 69% 5 11 15 53% 47% 8 7
Senior Adult
Housing –
Attached
252 187
DU 2 33 33% 67% 11 22 29 52% 48% 15 14
Hotel 310 110
Rooms 45 60% 40% 27 18 47 47% 53% 22 25
General Office
Building 710 14.00
KSF 3 31 87% 13% 27 4 11 9% 91% 1 10
Shopping
Center 820 12.10
KSF 3 8 63% 37% 5 3 77 53% 47% 41 36
Total 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
Page 23 of 44
Project # 1191830
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 inclu ded 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
1 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
Land Use
ITE
Code 1 Quantity
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Trips % In % Out
Trips
In
Trips
Out Trips % In % Out
Trips
In
Trips
Out
Multifamily
Housing (Mid-
Rise)
221 54
DU 2 2 50% 50% 5 11 15 53% 47% 8 7
Senior Adult
Housing –
Attached
252 187
DU 2 31 36% 64% 11 22 29 52% 48% 15 14
Hotel 310 110
Rooms 60 60% 40% 27 18 47 47% 53% 22 25
General Office
Building 710 14.00
KSF 3 31 87% 13% 27 4 11 9% 91% 1 10
Shopping
Center 820 12.10
KSF 3 8 63% 37% 5 3 50 53% 47% 24 26
Shopping
Center
(Existing)
820 3.56
KSF 3 -3 63% 37% -2 -1 -31 50% 50% -16 -15
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.
Page 24 of 44
Project # 1191830
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.
Burlington St
Myrtle Ave Lot 48 Access Benton St Olive St
Page 25 of 44
Project # 1191830
Figure 13 Study Intersections – AM Peak Hour Primary Trips
Burlington St
Myrtle Ave Olive St Lot 48 Access Benton St
Page 26 of 44
Project # 1191830
Figure 14 Study Intersections – PM Peak Hour Pass-by Trips
Burlington St
Myrtle Ave Olive St Lot 48 Access Benton St
Page 27 of 44
Project # 1191830
Figure 15 Study Intersections – PM Peak Hour Primary Trips
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.
Burlington St
Myrtle Ave Olive St Lot 48 Access Benton St
Page 28 of 44
Project # 1191830
Figure 16 Study Intersections – Projected 2022 AM Peak Hour Buildout Volumes
Burlington St
Myrtle Ave Lot 48 Access Benton St Olive St
Page 29 of 44
Project # 1191830
Figure 17 Study Intersections – Projected 2022 PM Peak Hour Buildout Volumes
Burlington St
Myrtle Ave Olive St Lot 48 Access Benton St
Page 30 of 44
Project # 1191830
Figure 18 Study Intersections – Projected 2042 AM Peak Hour Buildout Volumes
Burlington St
Myrtle Ave Olive St Lot 48 Access Benton St
Page 31 of 44
Project # 1191830
Figure 19 Study Intersections – Projected 2042 PM Peak Hour Buildout Volumes
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)
• Projected 2022 No Build
• Background Traffic Growth (2020-2042)
• Projected 2042 No Build
• Riverside Pass-by Trips (access points only)
• Riverside Primary Trips
• Projected 2022 Buildout
• Projected 2042 Buildout
Burlington St
Myrtle Ave Lot 48 Access Benton St Olive St
Page 32 of 44
Project # 1191830
Table 10 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes
#1 Myrtle Avenue & Greenwood Drive
Traffic Volume Classification
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Int.
Count NA Myrtle Avenue Greenwood Drive Myrtle Avenue
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
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
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Int.
Count Lot 48 Access Myrtle Avenue NA Myrtle Avenue
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
Existing 2020 No Build 0 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 5 58 0 158
Projected 2042 Buildout 0 0 1 0 86 19 0 0 0 6 64 0 176
#3 Myrtle Avenue & Olive Street
Traffic Volume Classification
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Int.
Count NA Myrtle Avenue Olive Street Myrtle Avenue
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
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
Page 33 of 44
Project # 1191830
Table 10 AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes Continued
#5 Riverside Drive & Burlington Street
Traffic Volume Classification
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Int.
Count Riverside Drive Burlington Street Riverside Drive Grand Avenue
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
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 52 328 212 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 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 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 0 564 85 0 0 0 94 892 0 65 0 28 1,728
#7 Riverside Drive & Access Point
Traffic Volume Classification
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Int.
Count Riverside Drive Burlington Street Riverside Drive Grand Avenue
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
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
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Int.
Count Riverside Drive Benton Street Riverside Drive Benton Street
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
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
Page 34 of 44
Project # 1191830
Table 11 PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes
#1 Myrtle Avenue & Greenwood Drive
Traffic Volume Classification
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Int.
Count NA Myrtle Avenue Greenwood Drive Myrtle Avenue
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
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 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 0 0 23 0 82 0 0 23 202
#2 Myrtle Avenue & Lot 48 Access
Traffic Volume Classification
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Int.
Count Lot 48 Access Myrtle Avenue NA Myrtle Avenue
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 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 77 6 0 0 0 5 100 0 214
#3 Myrtle Avenue & Olive Street
Traffic Volume Classification
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Int.
Count NA Myrtle Avenue Olive Street Myrtle Avenue
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
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
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
Page 35 of 44
Project # 1191830
Table 11 PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Volumes Continued
#5 Riverside Drive & Burlington Street
Traffic Volume Classification
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Int.
Count Riverside Drive Burlington Street Riverside Drive Grand Avenue
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
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
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Int.
Count Riverside Drive NA Riverside Drive Myrtle Avenue
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
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.
Count Riverside Drive Burlington Street Riverside Drive Grand Avenue
Left Thru Right 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
Traffic Volume Classification
Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Int.
Count Riverside Drive Benton Street Riverside Drive Benton Street
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left 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 192 938 124 194 349 203 104 595 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.
Page 36 of 44
Project # 1191830
Figure 20 Study Intersections – Recommended Buildout Lane Configuration & Control
The subsequent analysis intends to justify the recommended buildout lane configuration and control shown in
the figure above.
Burlington St
Myrtle Ave Olive St Lot 48 Access Benton St
Page 37 of 44
Project # 1191830
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 traffi c 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. Th e 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 6 th 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 & TWSC Intersections
LOS
Signalized Intersection
Average Control Delay
(sec/veh)
TWSC Intersection Delay
(sec/veh)
A 10 10
B > 10 to 20 > 10 to 15
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 6th 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.
Page 38 of 44
Project # 1191830
Table 13 Operational Analysis
Intersection Scenario Metric
AM
Peak Hour
PM
Peak Hour
NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
1
Myrtle
Avenue &
Greenwood
Drive
Existing 2020
No Build
Approach Delay - - - - - - - -
Approach LOS - - - - - - - -
95th Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement) in Feet
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
Projected 2022
No Build
Approach Delay - - - - - - - -
Approach LOS - - - - - - - -
95th Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement) in Feet
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
Projected 2022
Buildout
Approach Delay - - - - - - - -
Approach LOS - - - - - - - -
95th Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement) in Feet
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
Projected 2042
No Build
Approach Delay - - - - - - - -
Approach LOS - - - - - - - -
95th Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement) in Feet
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
Projected 2042
Buildout
Approach Delay - - - - - - - -
Approach LOS - - - - - - - -
95th Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement) in Feet
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
2
Myrtle
Avenue &
Lot 48
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
95th 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
95th Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement) in Feet
- LR LT TR - LR LT TR
- 1 1 0 - 2 1 0
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
95th 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
95th 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
95th 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 6th Edition Methodology
Page 39 of 44
Project # 1191830
Table 13 Operational Analysis Continued
Intersection Scenario Metric
AM
Peak Hour
PM
Peak Hour
NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
3
Myrtle
Avenue &
Olive Street
Existing 2020
No Build
Approach Delay 8.8 - 0.0 0.1 9.3 - 0.0 0.6
Approach LOS A - A A A - A A
95th Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement) in Feet
LR - TR LT LR - TR LT
1 - 0 0 1 - 0 1
Projected 2022
No Build
Approach Delay 8.8 - 0.0 0.1 9.3 - 0.0 0.6
Approach LOS A - A A A - A A
95th Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement) in Feet
LR - TR LT LR - TR LT
1 - 0 1 1 - 0 1
Projected 2022
Buildout
Approach Delay 8.8 - 0.0 0.0 9.3 - 0.0 0.6
Approach LOS A - A A A - A A
95th Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement) in Feet
LR - TR LT LR - TR LT
1 - 0 0 1 - 0 1
Projected 2042
No Build
Approach Delay 8.8 - 0.0 0.1 9.4 - 0.0 0.6
Approach LOS A - A A A - A A
95th Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement) in Feet
LR - TR LT LR - TR LT
1 - 0 1 1 - 0 1
Projected 2042
Buildout
Approach Delay 8.9 - 0.0 0.1 9.4 - 0.0 0.6
Approach LOS A - A A A - A A
95th Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement) in Feet
LR - TR LT LR - TR LT
1 - 0 1 1 - 0 1
4
Myrtle
Avenue &
Access Point
Existing 2020
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
LR - TR LT LR - TR LT
0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0
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
95th Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement) in Feet
LR - TR LT LR - TR LT
0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0
Projected 2022
Buildout
Approach Delay 8.8 - 0.0 3.4 9.1 - 0.0 2.8
Approach LOS A - A A A - A A
95th Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement) in Feet
R - TR LT R - TR LT
2 - 0 4 3 - 0 3
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
LR - TR LT LR - TR LT
0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0
Projected 2042
Buildout
Approach Delay 8.8 - 0.0 3.0 9.2 - 0.0 2.6
Approach LOS A - A A A - A A
95th Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement) in Feet
R - TR LT R - TR LT
2 - 0 4 3 - 0 3
Queue, Delay, and LOS analysis based on HCM 6th Edition Methodology
Page 40 of 44
Project # 1191830
Table 13 Operational Analysis Continued
Intersection Scenario Metric
AM
Peak Hour
PM
Peak Hour
NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
5
Riverside
Drive &
Burlington
Street
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
(Longest Movement) in Feet
L T T R T T R R
207 253 184 129 270 282 230 195
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
95th Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement) in Feet
L T T R T T R R
184 234 155 109 241 250 205 173
Intersection Delay & LOS 30.4, C 32.3, C
Projected 2022
Buildout
Approach Delay 24.1 27.9 40.7 36.1 27.2 30.3 40.8 37.8
Approach LOS C C D D C C D D
95th Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement) in Feet
L T R R T T R L
191 248 160 108 252 262 210 169
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
(Longest Movement) in Feet
L T T R T T R L
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
(Longest Movement) in Feet
L T R R T T R L
218 307 185 121 329 354 239 195
Intersection Delay & LOS 32.6, C 37.4, D
6
Riverside
Drive &
Myrtle
Avenue
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
(Longest Movement) in Feet
T TR L - T TR L -
343 400 33 - 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
(Longest Movement) in Feet
T TR L - T TR L -
126 157 35 - 145 339 56 -
Intersection Delay & LOS 9.2, A 13.8, B
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
(Longest Movement) in Feet
T TR L - T TR L -
145 1192 64 - 151 394 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
(Longest Movement) in Feet
T TR L - T TR L -
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
(Longest Movement) in Feet
T TR L - T TR L -
190 231 71 - 192 541 100 -
Intersection Delay & LOS 12.4, B 21.6, C
Page 41 of 44
Project # 1191830
Table 13 Operational Analysis Continued
Intersection Scenario Metric
AM
Peak Hour
PM
Peak Hour
NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB
7
Riverside
Drive &
Access Point
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 -
95th Percentile Queue
(Longest Movement) in Feet
L TR LR - L TR LR -
0 0 0 - 0 0 0 -
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 -
8
Riverside
Drive &
Benton Street
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
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 T L
522 236 174 187 325 574 231 243
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 6th Edition Methodology
Page 42 of 44
Project # 1191830
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.
Page 43 of 44
Project # 1191830
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 Av enue
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.
Page 44 of 44
Project # 1191830
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 6 th Edition Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) through Synchro traffic analysis software. Operational analysis is generall y
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 ti me 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 95 th 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.
3 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.
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 5, 2020 – 7:00 PM
ELECTRONIC FORMAL MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Mark
Nolte, Mark Signs, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Ray Heitner, Sara Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Seabold, Kevin Kane, Steve Long, Mary Ann Dennis
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission 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.
By a vote of 7-0 the Commissions recommends approval of REZ20-0003 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 South Riverside Drive frontage.
2. Provision of a pedestrian linkage between Myrtle Avenue and South Riverside Drive
through the project site, subject to review and approval of the Form-Based Code
Committee.
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 South Riverside Drive
that shall feature a right-in/right-out design.
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.
5. Dedication of approximately 75 square feet of South 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.
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission 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 in the staff report.
CASE NO. REZ20-0003:
Applicant: K&F Properties, LLC
Location: 215, 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court; 119, 201, 203, 205, 207, and 209 Myrtle
Avenue; 517 and 527 S. Riverside Drive
An application submitted for a rezoning of approximately 4 acres of land from Medium Density
Single-Family Residential (RS-8) zone, High Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-44) zone, and
Community Commercial (CC-2) zone to Riverfront Crossings, West Riverfront (RFC-WR) zone.
Heitner began the staff report noting this is the second prong of three applications on this
development. The first prong was the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and now is
consideration and review of applying the Riverfront Crossings, West Riverfront zone.
Heitner stated this area includes about four acres and includes businesses there that already
have a CC-2 zoning and were included into the West Riverfront Subdistrict. The current zoning
of the subject property has three different zones, as previously mentioned the Community
Commercial (CC-2) zone, High Density Multifamily Residential (RM-44) and then Medium
Density Single Family Residential (RS-8) for a couple parcels. The proposed zoning again is for
the entire assemblage to be rezone to West Riverfront Crossings. Heitner noted typically what
is envisioned for this zone is commercial and mixed-use developments. The zone has a base
max height of four stories with an additional bonus height up to five stories with the exception of
parcels adjacent to residential zones where the max height is four stories.
In terms of review criteria for rezonings, staff uses two criteria points for rezoning review which
are consistency with Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with the existing neighborhood
character. In terms of consistency with Comprehensive Plan, so the list of Riverfront Districts
lays out a series of objectives and ambitions for development character. Staff believes that the
proposed project would accomplish quite a few of those objectives such as the desire to improve
pedestrian circulation and connectivity in this area. Staff believes that can be accomplished in a
couple ways by having a sidewalk along the west side of South Riverside Drive and also some
internal connectivity for the associated development with this rezoning application. Heitner
pointed out there is a pretty expansive surface parking element to this subject area that doesn't
conform with the goals of the West Riverfront District. The District also strives to generally
enhance streetscape and overall corridor aesthetics with a more form-based building massing.
Heitner noted a couple of interesting goals within this District discuss potential for hospitality and
commercial uses and the applicant has already alluded to the potential for featuring those uses
with their proposal.
Heitner showed some images of the area to illustrate the form that is envisioned with this plan
where there would be shallower setbacks, buildings closer to the front right-of-way, tree lined
sidewalks, a certain design element to buildings. Heitner showed the proposed concept and
pointed out how it accomplishes those goals. He next showed some images of potential internal
circulation and connectivity that would be associated with this project.
In terms of compatibility with the existing neighborhood, the West Riverfront zoning is already
found to the east of Riverside Drive and then also directly adjacent to this property assemblage
in the southwest corner of Riverside and Myrtle. Heitner noted they’ve already talked about
building scale and there's already some sizable multifamily directly south about four stories. The
existing density within this area, RM-44 is a fairly dense zone, as is with about a one bedroom
per 500 square feet of lot area density. Staff did acknowledge in the report that it would
potentially be an adjustment having allowable buildings up to four stories adjacent to the existing
neighborhood at Olive Street but also as already discussed there is a significant grade difference
and that adds some needed physical context to the consideration of this rezoning as there is a
50 foot grade difference between buildings on the western end of proposed development and the
homes on Olive Street. One condition that staff would like to recommend as a part of this
rezoning to address that issue a bit more head on would be to provide traditional design
elements for any building seeking any height bonus next to Olive Street and that would be
determined at staff design review. For example if a project was seeking that fifth story, adjacent
to the existing residences on Olive Street, staff would institute additional measures to soften that
transition such as step backs within the building.
Heitner again showed pictures to show the grade change and also the current outcropping of the
West Riverfront Subdistrict. He pointed out the plans, building massing and how some buildings
that are already there are of taller scale. Additionally the plan envisions them transitioning down
in scale so it could be fitting to have buildings that could be four or five stories of scale. Heitner
noted in the West Riverfront zone technically four stories are built up on a little bit of a berm so
effectively the massing could be argued to be a little more than four stories. Lastly Heitner
showed the view looking northward on Riverside Drive to show the transition to the form-based
goals that the City's putting into this area already take place with the sidewalk being put in, the
landscaping taking route, the buildings being brought closer to the street, and parking being
tucked back or underneath these buildings.
Next, in terms of traffic implications and access, Heitner stated the applicant did submit a traffic
study that City transportation planning staff did request, a fairly extensive study, and the study
found that all intersections and all intersection approaches that were analyzed would operate at
acceptable levels of service as determined by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Heitner
explained allowable levels of service at D or E or better, the scale goes from A to F with A being
pretty free flowing traffic and F being sort of gridlock. For the most part, most of those
intersections were still even with this development around A or B or C but there were a couple
that came out to D or E and some of that really had almost as much to do with just anticipated
trends and traffic growth and not so much with the addition of units that that might be expected
for a rezoning here. The study determined that the estimated peak hour trips generated from the
proposed use, given the variety of uses that might be envisioned associated with the proposed
development, would be about 259 and that would include trips to and from the use.
Finally Heitner wanted to reiterate the City is still working with the railroad in hopes of getting a
pedestrian tunnel underneath the railroad overpass and again that projects already been
budgeted and planned for it's just trying to come to an agreement and a solution with the railroad
to do that in a manner that they feel won't compromise any structural integrity of the railroad
elevation there.
Going back to the traffic study, Heitner noted the study was of eight intersections that were
analyzed, mostly along Myrtle and Riverside. Staff is recommending conditions to approval that
are related to traffic implications. In an effort to limit curb cuts on Riverside Drive, staff is
recommending just one access point from the subject property, with a right-in right-out design,
onto Riverside Drive. There is also an irregular piece of land that juts out from where the rest of
the right-of-way is flush and staff will like to acquire 75 square feet of that right-of-way to make
the right-of-way line flush, and then they would like the applicant and developer to replat this
area when the plans get a bit further along to help consolidate some of these lots that are on the
subject area and ideally assign one lot per building.
Heitner noted there could potentially be some challenges in developing this site with respect to
utilities but those things typically get worked out at a site plan review stage. He noted there are
several existing water service lines for all these buildings that would have to be retired and
capped at the respective water mains that they originate from, and that's something to be
expected with a development like this. There is an existing sanitary sewer easement located on
the property that could potentially need to be relocated if a plan shows that a building would be
over the top of that sewer easement. He added there will still be stormwater management
requirements associated with redevelopment of this property and a small portion of the subject
area in the 500 year floodplain and so any development in the subject area would be required to
comply with the City's floodplain management standards.
Regarding correspondence received, staff did receive two letters of correspondence, one in
support of the project and one with some concerns on the project. Some of those concerns
including form-based code standards for West Riverfront Crossings originally targeted
redevelopment strictly on the buildings along Riverside Drive, that the Orchard Subdistrict was
developed to transition to residential zones and that Orchard Subdistrict zone might be more
appropriate than the West Riverfront zone next to an RS-8 zone and that there is already existing
opportunity to redevelop properties within the RM-44 zone. The letter had some concerns about
negative impacts from adjacent buildings in relation to the Olive Street homes with respect to
noise and lighting. Heitner noted the Commission has already discussed some questions on
demand for the amount of ground floor commercial space that may result from this project and
concern over the development as creating an island without a pedestrian tunnel, south of the
railroad tracks. Concerns about increased auto congestion from a project of this scale were also
raised as well as loss of affordable rental housing. Heitner did add though they did get some
support from Olive Street property owners as well.
Heitner stated the role of the Commission is to determine whether the rezoning complies with the
Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the existing neighborhood character. Next steps
would be pending recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission the City Council
will hold a public hearing on the rezoning.
Staff is recommending approval of 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 South Riverside Drive frontage.
2. Provision of a pedestrian linkage between Myrtle Avenue and South Riverside Drive through
the project site, subject to review and approval of the Form-Based Code Committee.
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 South Riverside Drive that shall
feature a right-in/right-out design.
5. Dedication of approximately 75 square feet of South Riverside Ct. territory to City right-of-way
when the subject area is replated.
6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the subject area shall be replated in a manner that
conforms with the future layout of development.
Hensch started with a couple questions on the conditions the staff enumerated, specifically the
second one and the provision of pedestrian linkage between Myrtle and South Riverside Drive,
does that mean like a sidewalk through the property, he would like to more information on that.
Heitner noted the preliminary concept plan showed a pedestrian walkway that took a little more
than a 90-degree right angle between Myrtle and Riverside. Staff is not saying that needs to be
built exactly in that form but just to facilitate a bit more connectivity within the development staff
would like to see some sort of connection between Myrtle and Riverside.
Hensch’s second question was he believes the Commission approved that eight story building
abutting the Iowa Interstate Railroad on the Prentiss Street project between Gilbert and Ralston
Creek, and then the Council approved the bonus height on that building. Russett confirmed that
was correct. Hensch thought there was some conversation about reducing the number of
subdistricts in the Riverfront Crossings and wondered if that's proceeding. Russett noted
Lehmann is actually working on some amendments to the Riverfront Crossings code right now, a
lot of them are cleanup items but one thing that they are exploring is the possibility of
consolidating districts.
Martin asked if the right in - right out in the traffic is similar to what is located at Red Ginger on
Gilbert Street because it is absolutely awful and very difficult to go right. Since there is a light at
Myrtle, she suggested maybe they think about something else.
Signs asked about the use of ground floor garages in place of commercial space and what does
the Code say about that, it is being done a lot in Coralville and it makes a ton of sense to him.
Russett replied that the Code does not allow for first floor parking in lieu of commercial space in
the Riverfront Crossings Code but has what could be described as a parking setback where the
parking has to be behind occupied space. She added however this area doesn't require first floor
commercial so the first floor could be other types of uses besides commercial space.
Elliott noted regarding a pedestrian friendly sidewalk they showed a photo of a six-foot sidewalk
with no trees and that feels totally unsafe to her and not pedestrian friendly at all. Tonight, the
proposal shows a nice picture of the trees and it seems completely different so how do they
ensure that it will be a pedestrian friendly parkway with separation with trees. Heitner said with
respect to trees, the West Riverfront Code requires trees to be planted every 30 feet along that
frontage at a minimum and that sort of landscaping element would be approved by or reviewed
by the City Forester in site plan review. Signs noted the trees along the large building south of
the tracks are pretty small, and Lehmann stated they also appear to be west of the sidewalk
rather than between the sidewalk and the street, in that case it could be tied to utilities,
sometimes that happens too.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Mark Seabold (Shive-Hattery) began by thanking the Commission for approving the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He noted Heitner had talked about the two pieces of
correspondence that came in and wanted to add they also had a good neighbor meeting for
about an hour and a half and had seven residents that were in attendance and there was some
great dialogue and conversation about the project. Seabold acknowledged they have a lot of
work to do, obviously with planning staff, to make sure that project is compliant with the form-
based code and with the new zoning criteria. Overall they really want to provide a quality project
on this site. Seabold did want to address the comment regarding the Riverside Drive right-in
right-out. When the staff comment said restricting that would be the public access that they were
asking for just that as a private, probably an entrance only for firetruck and delivery access to go
around the site.
Heitner confirmed that is why they included item four in the staff conditions, as the Public Works
staff was adamant about only having one access point onto Riverside Drive. Seabold noted
reading the comments from K&F traffic study it sounded like they were worried about that being
an egress point but from an access only standpoint, and they are willing to have that
conversation, and think it'll be a lot easier to have traffic route through the site along there, give
the Fire Department access and full 360 degree coverage around the whole perimeter of the
project. Additionally regarding egressing from that point, especially adjacent to the abutment on
the railroad bridge, and in the potential pedestrian connection, but what do they need to do with
that item, is that something they need to talk about further, or is staff still going to be
recommending that condition. Russett said staff is still going to be recommending that condition,
Public Works is very adamant that is only one access, and even if they want it to be private, just
for fire access, Public Works is not in support of that, they want only one access that's limited to
right-in right-out.
Hensch noted in that area there appears to be multiple vehicular access and egress right now to
Myrtle and South Riverside and this proposal is actually going to clean that up. He added there's
a pretty high accident rate at the intersection of Riverside and Myrtle so if they are able to funnel
this down into fewer ingress and egresses, they're going to have better control of that area. He
did point out that off of Myrtle it looks like there's at least four egress areas currently, and then on
Riverside, it's just a mess. Seabold agreed and said it is their goal is to clean that up and to
make it compliant with what the traffic coding standards are. Right now all those drives on Myrtle
are needed because they are all individual properties and need those individual access points
but once they consolidate those, then they can strip those down to two access points on Myrtle
and then that right-in right-out public access.
Hensch stated his other question is this area is just quite the heat island so what are their plans
to cool the area and to decrease the big area of impervious surfaces to have better stormwater
management and add green space. Seabold said as they've looked at this property, they are
looking forward to capitalizing the amount of green space in between building spaces.
Specifically, in between those two commercial buildings they’re looking for that to be a
pedestrian walkway and add some greenery there. Additionally really capitalizing on the roof
decks and having those be active accessible spaces to not only the residents in the buildings,
but also areas that would be designated for the public to go and enjoy some time up on the roof.
The views of downtown will be fantastic from some of the higher elevations and they want to
make sure they're taking advantage of that and it will help with stormwater detention with
providing those green roof systems. Right now it is a paved site with zero control so they would
put in some water quality items, some to slow it down with the adjacency to the river, and maybe
a detention requirement.
Craig noted when talking about the views, someday they could have a seven-story building right
across from this. Seabold said that is correct however the area is pretty small on that side of
Riverside Drive, specifically the Dairy Queen lot and the moped store, those are pretty small.
Additionally in the form-based code, it's highly dependent on parking so those will be challenging
sites to get that kind of density.
Townsend noted those sites on the east side of Riverside Drive were also in the flood zone,
which Seabold confirmed. Townsend asked a question about traffic and even though they have
an extensive traffic review, that area has horrible traffic, especially when people are working
during rush hour, so coming off of that one exit is still of concern to her. Seabold noted there is a
road connection all the way through the site so people will have opportunities to choose which
street they want to either enter or exit from and on Myrtle there is a light.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Craig moved to recommend approval of of 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 South Riverside Drive frontage.
2. Provision of a pedestrian linkage between Myrtle Avenue and South Riverside Drive
through the project site, subject to review and approval of the Form-Based Code
Committee.
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 South Riverside Drive
that shall feature a right-in/right-out design.
5. Dedication of approximately 75 square feet of South Riverside Ct. territory to City
right-of-way when the subject area is replated.
6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the subject area shall be replated in a
manner that conforms with the future layout of development.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Hensch stated he feels this application was really well put together and acknowledged it is a
difficult area, it is just sort of a hodgepodge development over time, Myrtle Avenue hill makes it
very tough and Riverside is a really busy street, so this is a tough area to redevelop.
Signs agreed and noted to the north of this site is really just and open hillside off of Riverside up
to the University parking lot at the top of the hill and then there is the natural area that surrounds
the law building so it is his feeling the proposed mass is appropriate since there's a large body of
greenspace to the north, which will also add really nice views for the people who live in those in
those units. He did agree, as the letter from Olive Street resident indicated, the Olive Street view
may change but is very minimal from what he can tell. He also really appreciates that section
going up Myrtle and did want to put a bug in in both the developer and staff’s ear for that
potential access drive around the perimeter. He has some seen some projects in other places
where they used a permeable paver grass mixed with a permeable mesh where the grass was
grown in and it provided the support necessary for an access point, but it also was very green.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
From:Paula Swygard
To:PlanningZoningPublic
Subject:CPA20-0002, REZ20-0003, and REZ20-0004
Date:Monday, November 2, 2020 1:29:12 PM
Attachments:image.png
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
Code14-2G-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 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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
answer.
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
Prepared by: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; (REZ20-0003)
Ordinance No. 20-4839
An ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 4 acres of land located
at Myrtle Avenue and S. Riverside Drive to Riverfront Crossings — West
Riverfront (RFC -WR) zone. (REZ20-00013)
Whereas, the owner, K and F Properties, LLC., has requested a rezoning of 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) to Riverfront Crossings — West Riverfront (RFC -WR) zone; and
Whereas, this property is located within the Riverfront Crossings — West Riverfront Subdistrict
of the Comprehensive Plan; and
Whereas, there is a public need to provide a more pedestrian -friendly framework along the
west side of S. Riverside Drive, and between S. Riverside Drive and Myrtle Avenue; and
Whereas, there is a public need to provide a transition in building mass and height to the
existing single-family residences on Olive Street; and
Whereas, there is a public need to reduce the number of vehicular access points onto
arterial roads such as S. Riverside Drive; and
Whereas, there is a public need to replat the existing arrangement of properties to
conform to future development plans; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with reasonable
conditions regarding satisfaction of public needs through installation of a sidewalk and
pedestrian connection between S. Riverside Drive and Myrtle Avenue, transition in building
mass and height, limitation of vehicular access points onto S. Riverside Drive, and replatting of
the subject area, the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa that:
Section I Approval. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and
incorporated herein, the property described below is hereby classified Riverfront Crossings —
West Riverfront (RFC -WR):
119 Myrtle Avenue:
Lot "F in a survey of a part of Lot I of the Subdivision of Government Lot 3 of
Section 16, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th P.M., as shown by survey recorded in
Book 4, Page 387, Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa.
Also:
Commencing at a point 159 feet west of the intersection of the west line of Riverside Drive and the
south line of Myrtle Avenue; thence west along the south line of Myrtle Avenue, 60 feet; thence
South at right angles with Myrtle Avenue, 160 feet; thence east to a point 160 feet south of the
point of beginning; thence north 160 feet to the point of beginning, being a part of Lot 1 in the
subdivision of Government Lot 3, Section 16, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th P.M.
Ordinance No. 20-4839
Page 2
201, 203, and 205 Myrtle Avenue:
A portion of Tract "C" in the Subdivision of Lot I of Government Lot 3 in the Northeast Quarter of
Section 16, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, Iowa City, Iowa,
according to the plat thereof recorded in Book 4, Page 387, Plat Records of Johnson County,
Iowa, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest Comer of said Tract
"C"; thence S00°16'45" E, 153.92 feet along the West line of Tract "C"; thence N89043'15" E,
30.00 feet; thence N00°16'45" W, 27.00 feet; thence N89043'15" E, 24.99 feet; thence N00°
16'45" W, 13.54 feet; thence N89043' 15" E, 55.00 feet to a point on the East line of Tract "C";
thence Northerly along said East line to the Northeast corner of Tract "C", thence Westerly 110
feet to the Northwest Corner of said Tract "C" and the Point of Beginning,
and
A portion of Lots "C" and "E" in the Subdivision of Lot I of Government Lot 3 in the Northeast
Quarter of Section 16, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, Iowa City,
Iowa as recorded in Book 4, Page 387, Johnson County Recorder's Office, more particularly
described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest Corner of said Lot "C"; thence S00016'45"E,
153.92 feet along the West line of Lots "C" and "E" to the point -of -beginning; thence N89°43'
15"E, 30.00 feet; thence N00°16'45"W, 27.00 feet; thence N89°43' 15"E, 24.99 feet; thence
N00016'45"W, 13.54 feet; thence N89°43'15"E, 55.00 feet to a point on the East line of said Lots
"C" and "E", thence S00'1 6'45"E, 149.14 feet along said East line; thence S88°59'31 "W, 110.00
feet along the South line of said Lot" E"; thence N00016'45"W, 110.00 feet to the point -of -
beginning.
TOGETHER BEING THE SAME: PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS:
Lots "C" and "E" (also sometimes referred to as Tracts "C" and "E", respectively) in the
Subdivision of Lot 1 of Government Lot 3 in the Northeast Quarter of Section 16, Township 79
North, Range 6 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, Iowa City, Iowa, as recorded in Book 4, Page
387, Johnson County Recorder's Office.
207 Myrtle Avenue:
Lot B of Subdivision of part of Lot 1 of Government Lot 3 in Sec. 16, Township 79 North, Range 6
West of the 5th P.M., as shown on Plat Recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 387, Plat Records,
Johnson County, Iowa and
Beginning at the Northwest comer of "B" (according to the plat thereof recorded in Book 4, Page
387, Deed Records of Johnson County, Iowa); thence East 63.20 feet on the South line of Myrtle
Avenue; thence South 00016'45"East 263.92 feet on the East line of said Lot "B"; thence North
88059'31" East 83.21 feet; thence South 00051 '59" East 65 feet; thence West 81 feet; thence
North 20 feet; thence West 80 feet; thence South 20 feet; thence West 55 feet; thence North
00034'27" East 65 feet; thence North 89046'23" East 64.50 feet; thence North 00026'03" East
264.87 feet on the West line of said Lot "B" to the point of beginning, subject to a non-exclusive
right-of-way easement over and across the following described real estate; Commencing at the
Northwest comer of said Lot "B'; thence East 44.20 feet on the South line of Myrtle Avenue to the
point of beginning; thence East 10.00 feet; thence South 00°16'45" East 308.92 feet; thence West
10.00 feet; thence North 00016'45" West 308.92 feet to the point of beginning.
209 Myrtle Avenue:
Beginning at a point 459 feet West of the intersection of the West line of Riverside Drive and the
South line of Myrtle Avenue; thence South 133 feet; thence East parallel to the South line of
Myrtle Avenue 64 Yz feet; thence North 133 feet to a point 64 % feet East of the point of
beginning; thence West 64 '/z feet to the point of beginning, being a part of Lot 1 of the
Subdivision of Government Lot 3 of Section 16, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th
P.M., which said sub -division was recorded February 24, 1873, in Deed Book 36, at Page 234, of
the Deed Records of Johnson County, Iowa, being tract "A" in the survey of Harlan H. Schwob,
dated October 15, 1957, recorded in Page 387 of Book 4, Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa.
Ordinance No. 20-4839
Page 3
Subject to easements and restrictions of record.
Parcel Number 1016178001:
Tract D as shown on a plat made pursuant to survey by Harlan H. Schwob on October 12, 1957,
which plat is recorded in Book 4, Page 387, Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa.
245 Riverside Court:
Lots 2 and 7, in the subdivision of Lot 3, Sec. 16, Twp. 79 N., R. 6 West of the 5th
P.M., according to the plat thereof recorded in Deed Record 36, Page 234, of the records of
Johnson County, Iowa except so much thereof as lies South of the North line of the right of way of
the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, and excepting the following part thereof:
Commencing at the intersection of the North line of said Lot 2 as established by decree in Court
Record JJ, Page 306, District Court Records of Johnson County, Iowa, with the West line of
Riverside Drive, shown on plat recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 96, Plat Records of said County;
thence West 275 feet; thence South to the North line of said Railway right of way; thence
Northeasterly along the North line of said Railway right of way to the West line of Riverside Drive;
thence North to the place of beginning. Also a right of way over the North 25 feet of said excepted
tract last above described.
Except the following: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot "B" (according to the plat thereof
recorded in Book 4, Page 387, Deed Records of Johnson County, Iowa); thence East 63.20 feet
on the South line of Myrtle Avenue; thence South 00016'45" East 263.92 feet on the East line of
said Lot "B"; thence North 88°59'31" East 83.21 feet; thence South 00051 '59" East 65 feet;
thence West 81 feet; thence North 20 feet; thence West 80 feet; thence South 20 feet; thence
West 55 feet; thence North 00°34'27" East 65 feet; thence North 89°46'23" East 64.50 feet;
thence North 00026'03" East 264.87 feet on the West line of said Lot "B" to the point of beginning.
223 Riverside Court:
Commencing at a point 25 feet south of the north line of Lot 2 in the subdivision of part of Lot 3,
Section 16, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th P.M., according to the plat thereof
recorded in Plat Book 36, Page 234, of the Records of Johnson County, Iowa, and 205 feet west
of the west line of Riverside Drive, in Iowa City, Iowa, thence West 70 feet, thence South to the
north line of the right of way of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, thence
northeasterly along the north line of said right of way to a point directly south of the place of
beginning, thence North to the place of beginning.
219 Riverside Court:
Commencing at a point 150 feet west of the west line of Riverside Drive in Iowa City, Iowa, and 25
feet south of the north line of Lot 2, Subdivision of Lot 3, School Commissioner's Subdivision of
Section 16, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th P.M. as established by decree of court
recorded in Court Record JJ, page 306, District Court Records of Johnson County, Iowa, thence
west parallel with said north line of Lot 2, 55 feet, thence south to the north line of the right of way
of the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, thence Northeasterly along the north line
of said right of way to a point that is due south of the point of beginning, thence north to the point
of beginning. Also an easement over and across the following described real estate: Commencing
at the northeast corner of said Lot 2, above referred to, thence west along the north line of said
Lot 2, 205 feet, thence south 25 feet, thence east parallel with the said north line of Lot 2, to the
west line of said Riverside Drive, thence north to the point of beginning.
215 Riverside Court:
Commencing at a point 25 feet south of the north line of Lot 2 in the subdivision of part of Lot 3 of
Section 16, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th P.M. according to the plat thereof
recorded in Deed Record 36, page 234 of the Records of Johnson County, Iowa, and 150 feet
west of the west line of Riverside Drive in Iowa City, Iowa, thence east 50 feet, thence south 40
Ordinance No. 20-4839
Page 4
feet, thence east 100 feet to the west line of said Riverside Drive, thence South along said west
line to the north line of the right of way of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company,
thence southwesterly along the north line of said right of way to a point directly south of the place
of beginning, thence north to the place of beginning, excepting any part thereof conveyed by
deeds recorded in Book 245, page 43, and in Book 254, page 23, Deed Records of Johnson
County, Iowa; excluding
Commencing at the North line of said Lot 2 of Government Lot 3 and the West Right -Of -Way line
of South Riverside Drive as recorded in Book 245, Page 15 of the Johnson County Recorder's
Office, thence South a distance of 65.21 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve concave West
with a central angle of 00059'15", along a 3784.00 foot radius with a chord that bears South
05053'16" East, 65.21 feet along said West Right -Of -Way line to the point of beginning; thence
South a distance of 33.61 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve concave West with a central
angle of 00°30'32", along a 3784.00 foot radius with a chord that bears South 05008'23" East,
33.61 feet continuing along said West Right -Of -Way line to the North Right -Of -Way line of the
Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company; thence West a distance of 53.77 feet along
the arc of a non -tangent curve concave North with a central angle of 00°19' 45", along a 9363.36
foot radius with a chord that bears South 72°08'18" West, 53. 77 feet along said North Right -Of -
Way line; thence North 03051'30" West, 3.84 feet; thence North 85055'43" East, 10.44 feet;
thence Northeast a distance of 17.29 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve concave
Southeast with a central angle of 47°10'39", along a 21.00 foot radius with a chord that bears
North 48°33'08" East, 16.81 feet; thence East a distance of 6.46 feet along the arc of a tangent
curve concave North with a central angle of 00°02'22", along a 9355.36 foot radius with a chord
that bears North 72°07'17" East, 6.46 feet; thence East a distance of 17.52 feet along the arc of a
tangent curve concave North with a central angle of 77°13'36", along a 13.00 foot radius with a
chord that bears North 33029'17" East, 16.23 feet; thence North a distance of 18.57 feet along the
arc of a tangent curve concave West with a central angle of 00°16'55", along a 3772.00 foot
radius with a chord that bears North 05015'58" West, 18.57 feet; thence North 88043' 48" East,
12.03 feet to the point of beginning.
527 Riverside Drive:
Commencing at a point 25 feet south of the northeast corner of Lot 2 in the subdivision of Lot 3 of
School Commissioner's Subdivision of Section 16, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th
P.M., according to the plat thereof recorded in Book 36, Page 234, Deed Records of Johnson
County, Iowa, thence west 100 feet, thence south 40 feet, thence east 100 feet, thence north 40
feet to the place of beginning, except that portion thereof conveyed to the State of Iowa by
Warranty deed dated July 27, 1960, and recorded February 9, 1961, in Book 245 at Page 42,
Deed Records of Johnson County, Iowa; excluding
Commencing at the north line of said Lot 2 of Government Lot 3 and the west right-of-way line of
South Riverside Drive as recorded in Book 245, Page 15 of the Johnson County Recorder's office,
thence south a distance of 25.09 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve concave west with a
central angle of 00°22'48", along a 3784.00 foot radius with a chord that bears South 06°11'29"
East, 25.09 feet along said west right-of-way line to the point of beginning; thence south a
distance of 40.12 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve concave west with a central angle of
00°36'27", along a 3784.00 foot radius with a chord that bears South 05°41'52" East, 40.12 feet
continuing along said west right-of-way line; thence South 88°43'48" West, 12.03 feet; thence
north a distance of 40.12 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve concave west with a central
angle of 00°36'34", along a 3772.00 foot radius with a chord that bears North 05°42'43" West,
40.12 feet; thence North 88°43'48" East, 12.04 feet to the point of beginning.
517 Riverside Drive:
Beginning at a point which is 519.5 feet east of the southwest corner of Lot 1 of the subdivision of
part of Lot 3 of the School Commissioner's subdivision of Section 16, Township 79 North, Range
6 West of the 5th P.M., according to the plat thereof recorded in Deed Record 36, page 234,
Ordinance No. 20-4839
Page 5
thence North 100 feet, thence east to the west bank of the Iowa River, thence in a Southeasterly
direction along the west bank of Iowa River, to a point 50 links north of a point due east of the
point of beginning, thence west 1.3 chains, thence south 50 links, thence west along the south line
of said Lot 1 to the place of beginning, excepting therefrom all roadways and rights of way over
and across said premises, and excepting all that part thereof which lies east of U.S. Highway No.
218 as now located, and further excepting therefrom the right of way conveyed on Deed recorded
in Book 6017, Page 642, Johnson County Recorder Records.
AND
Beginning at a point on the south line of Lot one (1) of the sub -division of part of Lot three (3) of
the School's Commissioner's sub -division of section sixteen (16) in township seventy-nine (79)
North, Range six (6) West of the 5th P.M., according to the plat thereof recorded in Deed Record
36, page 234, which point is 459.5 feet east of the southwest corner of said Lot one (1), thence
north 100 feet, thence east parallel with the south line of said Lot one (1), 60 feet thence south
100 feet, thence west 60 feet to the place of beginning.
Riverside Court (alley):
The North 25 feet of the East 275 feet of Lot 2 of the Plat of Survey for Sharps & others Feby 1 st
1879 in Tp79N of R6W of the 5th P.M. in Lot 3 sect 16 , in accordance with the Plat thereof
Recorded in Deed Book 36 at Page 234 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office,
except that portion conveyed to the State of Iowa by Quit Claim Deed, as Recorded in Deed Book
254 at Page 23 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office,
which is also legally described as:
Part of Lot 2 of Ryerson's and Sharp's Subdivision of Government Lot 3 in Section Sixteen (16),
Township Seventy-nine (79) North, Range Six (6) West of the 5th P.M., Johnson County, Iowa,
described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast Corner of said Lot 2 of said Ryerson's and
Sharp's Subdivision, thence West 275 feet, thence South 25 feet, thence East 275 feet to the
West line of Riverside Drive, thence North 25 feet to the Point of Beginning, EXCEPT the land
conveyed to the State of Iowa in Deed Record 254, Page 23, said exception being more
particularly described as follows: all of the above-described real estate lying east of a line 36 ft,
radially distant westerly of and concentric with the centerline of Primary Road No. U.S. 6 and No.
U.S. 218 as described in said Deed Record 254, Page 23.
Section II. Zoning Mao. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change
the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final
passage, approval and publication of this ordinance by law.
Section III. Conditional Zoning Agreement. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to
sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s)
and the City, following passage and approval of this Ordinance.
Section IV. Certification and Recording. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the
same, at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, at the owner's expense, all
as provided by law.
Section V. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section VI. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a
whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section VII. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval
and publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of 20
Ordinance No. 20-4839
Page 6
Mgydr
Attest:
City lark
Ad 7by:
p
(7�j—
Ci+'A'To-iney's Office
(Sara Greenwood Hektoen — 12/01/2020)
Ordinance No. 20-4839
Page 7
It was moved by Mims and seconded by Weiner that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES:
NAYS: ABSENT:
Bergus
x
Mims
x Salih
x
Taylor
x
Teague
x
Thomas
x
Weiner
First Consideration 12/01/2020
Vote for passage:
AYES: Weiner, Bergus, Mims, Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published 12/23/2020
Moved by Mims, seconded by Thomas, that the rule requiring ordinances
to be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings
prior to the meeting at which it is to be finally passed be suspended,
the second consideration and vote be waived and the ordinance be
voted upon for final passage at this time.
AYES: Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner, Bergus, Mims.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: Salih.
Prepared by: Ray Heltner, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (REZ20-0003)
Conditional Zoning Agreement
This agreement is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation
(hereinafter "City") and K and F Properties, LLC. (hereinafter collectively referred to as
"Owner").
Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 4 acres of property 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; and
Whereas, the Owner has requested the rezoning of the property legally described below
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 (RFC -
WR) zone; and
Whereas, this rezoning creates public needs to provide a more pedestrian -friendly
framework along the west side of S. Riverside Drive, to provide a transition in building mass and
height to the west, to reduce the number of vehicular access points onto S. Riverside Drive, and
to replat the subject area to conform to future development; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate
conditions regarding the installation of a sidewalk along S. Riverside Drive and pedestrian
connection between Myrtle Avenue and S. Riverside Drive, enhanced review of buildings
seeking a height bonus adjacent to existing Olive Street homes, limiting the subject area to one
(1) vehicular access point onto S. Riverside Drive, and replatting the subject area to better
conform with future development plans, the requested zoning is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan; and
Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2020) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in
order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
Whereas, the Owner agrees to develop this property in accordance with the terms and
conditions of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as
follows:
1. K and F Properties, LLC. is the legal title holder of the property legally described as:
119 Myrtle Avenue:
Lot "F" in a survey of a part of Lot I of the Subdivision of Government Lot 3 of
Section 16, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th P.M., as shown by survey recorded in
Book 4, Page 387, Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa.
Also:
Commencing at a point 159 feet west of the intersection of the west line of Riverside Drive and
the south line of Myrtle Avenue; thence west along the south line of Myrtle Avenue, 60 feet;
thence South at right angles with Myrtle Avenue, 160 feet; thence east to a point 160 feet south
of the point of beginning; thence north 160 feet to the point of beginning, being a part of Lot 1 in
the subdivision of Government Lot 3, Section 16, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th
P.M.
201, 203, and 205 Myrtle Avenue:
A portion of Tract "C" in the Subdivision of Lot I of Government Lot 3 in the Northeast Quarter of
Section 16, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, Iowa City, Iowa,
according to the plat thereof recorded in Book 4, Page 387, Plat Records of Johnson County,
Iowa, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest Corner of said Tract
"C"; thence S00016'45" E, 153.92 feet along the West line of Tract "C"; thence N89043'15" E,
30.00 feet; thence N00°16'45" W, 27.00 feet; thence N89043'15" E, 24.99 feet; thence N00°
16'45" W, 13.54 feet; thence N89"43' 15" E, 55.00 feet to a point on the East line of Tract "C';
thence Northerly along said East line to the Northeast corner of Tract "C", thence Westerly 110
feet to the Northwest Corner of said Tract "C" and the Point of Beginning,
and
A portion of Lots "C" and "E" In the Subdivision of Lot I of Government Lot 3 in the Northeast
Quarter of Section 16, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, Iowa
City, Iowa as recorded in Book 4, Page 387, Johnson County Recorder's Office, more
particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest Comer of said Lot "C"; thence
S00"16'45"E, 153.92 feet along the West line of Lots "C" and "E" to the point -of -beginning;
thence N89043' 15"E, 30.00 feet; thence N00"16'45"W, 27.00 feet; thence N89"43' 15"E, 24.99
feet; thence N00°16'45"W, 13.54 feet; thence N89°43'15"E, 55.00 feet to a point on the East line
of said Lots "C" and "E", thence S00°16'45"E, 149.14 feet along said East line; thence
S88"59'31"W, 110.00 feet along the South line of said Lot" E'; thence N00016'45"W, 110.00 feet
to the point -of -beginning.
TOGETHER BEING THE SAME: PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS:
Lots "C" and "E" (also sometimes referred to as Tracts "C" and "E", respectively) in the
Subdivision of Lot 1 of Government Lot 3 in the Northeast Quarter of Section 16, Township 79
North, Range 6 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, Iowa City, Iowa, as recorded in Book 4, Page
387, Johnson County Recorder's Office.
207 Myrtle Avenue:
Lot B of Subdivision of part of Lot 1 of Government Lot 3 in Sec. 16, Township 79 North, Range
6 West of the 5th P.M., as shown on Plat Recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 387, Plat Records,
Johnson County, Iowa and
Beginning at the Northwest corner of "B" (according to the plat thereof recorded in Book 4, Page
387, Deed Records of Johnson County, Iowa); thence East 63.20 feet on the South line of
Myrtle Avenue; thence South 00016'45"East 263.92 feet on the East line of said Lot "B"; thence
North 88059'31' East 83.21 feet; thence South 00"51 '59" East 65 feet; thence West 81 feet;
thence North 20 feet; thence West 80 feet; thence South 20 feet; thence West 55 feet; thence
North 00°3427" East 65 feet; thence North 89°46'23" East 64.50 feet; thence North 00026'03"
East 264.87 feet on the West line of said Lot "B" to the point of beginning, subject to a non-
exclusive right-of-way easement over and across the following described real estate;
Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Lot "B'; thence East 44.20 feet on the South line
of Myrtle Avenue to the point of beginning; thence East 10.00 feet; thence South 00°1645" East
308.92 feet; thence West 10.00 feet; thence North 00016'45" West 308.92 feet to the point of
beginning.
209 Myrtle Avenue:
Beginning at a point 459 feet West of the intersection of the West line of Riverside Drive and the
South line of Myrtle Avenue; thence South 133 feet; thence East parallel to the South line of
Myrtle Avenue 64 '/2 feet; thence North 133 feet to a point 64 '/2 feet East of the point of
beginning; thence West 64 '/z feet to the point of beginning, being a part of Lot 1 of the
Sub -division of Government Lot 3 of Section 16, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th
P.M., which said sub -division was recorded February 24, 1873, in Deed Book 36, at Page 234,
of the Deed Records of Johnson County, Iowa, being tract "A" in the survey of Harlan H.
Schwob, dated October 15, 1957, recorded in Page 387 of Book 4, Plat Records of Johnson
County, Iowa.
Subject to easements and restrictions of record.
Parcel Number 1016178001:
Tract D as shown on a plat made pursuant to survey by Harlan H. Schwob on October 12, 1957,
which plat is recorded in Book 4, Page 387, Plat Records of Johnson County, Iowa.
245 Riverside Court:
Lots 2 and 7, in the subdivision of Lot 3, Sec. 16, Twp. 79 N., R. 6 West of the 5th
P.M., according to the plat thereof recorded in Deed Record 36, Page 234, of the records of
Johnson County, Iowa except so much thereof as lies South of the North line of the right of way
of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company, and excepting the following part
thereof: Commencing at the intersection of the North line of said Lot 2 as established by decree
In Court Record JJ, Page 306, District Court Records of Johnson County, Iowa, with the West
line of Riverside Drive, shown on plat recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 96, Plat Records of said
County; thence West 275 feet; thence South to the North line of said Railway right of way;
thence Northeasterly along the North line of said Railway right of way to the West line of
Riverside Drive; thence North to the place of beginning. Also a right of way over the North 25
feet of said excepted tract last above described.
Except the following: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot "B" (according to the plat thereof
recorded in Book 4, Page 387, Deed Records of Johnson County, Iowa); thence East 63.20 feet
on the South line of Myrtle Avenue; thence South 00°1645" East 263.92 feet on the East line of
said Lot "B"; thence North 88°59'31" East 83.21 feet; thence South 00051 '59" East 65 feet;
thence West 81 feet; thence North 20 feet; thence West 80 feet; thence South 20 feet; thence
West 55 feet; thence North 00634'27" East 65 feet; thence North 89°46'23" East 64.50 feet;
thence North 00026'03" East 264.87 feet on the West line of said Lot "B" to the point of
beginning.
223 Riverside Court:
Commencing at a point 25 feet south of the north line of Lot 2 in the subdivision of part of Lot 3,
Section 16, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th P.M., according to the plat thereof
recorded in Plat Book 36, Page 234, of the Records of Johnson County, Iowa, and 205 feet
west of the west line of Riverside Drive, in Iowa City, Iowa, thence West 70 feet, thence South
to the north line of the right of way of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company,
thence northeasterly along the north line of said right of way to a point directly south of the place
of beginning, thence North to the place of beginning.
219 Riverside Court:
Commencing at a point 150 feet west of the west line of Riverside Drive in Iowa City, Iowa, and
25 feet south of the north line of Lot 2, Subdivision of Lot 3, School Commissioner's Subdivision
of Section 16, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th P.M. as established by decree of
court recorded in Court Record JJ, page 306, District Court Records of Johnson County, Iowa,
thence west parallel with said north line of Lot 2, 55 feet, thence south to the north line of the
right of way of the Chicago, Rods Island & Pacific Railway Company, thence Northeasterly
along the north line of said right of way to a point that is due south of the point of beginning,
thence north to the point of beginning. Also an easement over and across the following
described real estate: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot 2, above referred to,
thence west along the north line of said Lot 2, 205 feet, thence south 25 feet, thence east
parallel with the said north line of Lot 2, to the west line of said Riverside Drive, thence north to
the point of beginning.
215 Riverside Court:
Commencing at a point 25 feet south of the north line of Lot 2 in the subdivision of part of Lot 3
of Section 16, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the 5th P.M. according to the plat thereof
recorded in Deed Record 36, page 234 of the Records of Johnson County, Iowa, and 150 feet
west of the west line of Riverside Drive in Iowa City, Iowa, thence east 50 feet, thence south 40
feet, thence east 100 feet to the west line of said Riverside Drive, thence South along said west
line to the north line of the right of way of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pack Railway
Company, thence southwesterly along the north line of said right of way to a point directly south
of the place of beginning, thence north to the place of beginning, excepting any part thereof
conveyed by deeds recorded in Book 245, page 43, and in Book 254, page 23, Deed Records
of Johnson County, Iowa; excluding
Commencing at the North line of said Lot 2 of Government Lot 3 and the West Right -Of -Way
line of South Riverside Drive as recorded in Book 245, Page 15 of the Johnson County
Recorder's Office, thence South a distance of 65.21 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve
concave West with a central angle of 0005915", along a 3784.00 foot radius with a chord that
bears South 05053'16" East, 65.21 feet along said West Right -Of -Way line to the point of
beginning; thence South a distance of 33.61 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve concave
West with a central angle of 00030'32", along a 3784.00 foot radius with a chord that bears
South 05°08'23" East, 33.61 feet continuing along said West Right-OfnWay line to the North
Right -Of -Way line of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company; thence West a
distance of 53.77 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve concave North with a central angle
of 00"19' 45", along a 9363.36 foot radius with a chord that bears South 7200818" West, 53. 77
feet along said North Right -Of -Way line; thence North 03051'30" West, 3.84 feet; thence North
85`55'43" East, 10.44 feet; thence Northeast a distance of 17.29 feet along the arc of a non -
tangent curve concave Southeast with a central angle of 47°10'39", along a 21.00 foot radius
with a chord that bears North 48033'08" East, 16.81 feet; thence East a distance of 6.46 feet
along the am of a tangent curve concave North with a central angle of 00002'22", along a
9355.36 foot radius with a chord that bears North 72°07'17" East, 6.46 feet; thence East a
distance of 17.52 feet along the arc of a tangent curve concave North with a central angle of
77°13'36", along a 13.00 foot radius with a chord that bears North 33029'17" East, 16.23 feet;
thence North a distance of 18.57 feet along the arc of a tangent curve concave West with a
central angle of 00°16'55", along a 3772.00 foot radius with a chord that bears North 05°15'58"
West, 18.57 feet; thence North 88"43' 48" East, 12.03 feet to the point of beginning.
527 Riverside Drive:
Commencing at a point 25 feet south of the northeast corner of Lot 2 in the subdivision of Lot 3
of School Commissioner's Subdivision of Section 16, Township 79 North, Range 6 West of the
5th P.M., according to the plat thereof recorded in Book 36, Page 234, Deed Records of
Johnson County, Iowa, thence west 100 feet, thence south 40 feet, thence east 100 feet, thence
north 40 feet to the place of beginning, except that portion thereof conveyed to the State of Iowa
by Warranty deed dated July 27, 1960, and recorded February 9, 1961, in Book 245 at Page 42,
Deed Records of Johnson County, Iowa; excluding
Commencing at the north line of said Lot 2 of Government Lot 3 and the west right-of-way line
of South Riverside Drive as recorded in Book 245, Page 15 of the Johnson County Recorder's
office, thence south a distance of 25.09 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve concave west
with a central angle of 00°22'48", along a 3784.00 foot radius with a chord that bears South
06'1129" East, 25.09 feet along said west right-of-way line to the point of beginning; thence
south a distance of 40.12 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve concave west with a central
angle of 00036'27", along a 3784.00 foot radius with a chord that bears South 05°41'52" East,
40.12 feet continuing along said west right-of-way line; thence South 88943'48" West, 12.03
feet; thence north a distance of 40.12 feet along the arc of a non -tangent curve concave west
with a central angle of 00°36'34", along a 3772.00 foot radius with a chord that bears North
05°42'43" West, 40.12 feet; thence North 8804348" East, 12.04 feet to the point of beginning.
517 Riverside Drive:
Beginning at a point which is 519.5 feet east of the southwest corner of Lot 1 of the subdivision
of part of Lot 3 of the School Commissioner's subdivision of Section 16, Township 79 North,
Range 6 West of the 5th P.M., according to the plat thereof recorded in Deed Record 36, page
234, thence North 100 feet, thence east to the west bank of the Iowa River, thence in a
Southeasterly direction along the west bank of Iowa River, to a point 50 links north of a point
due east of the point of beginning, thence west 1.3 chains, thence south 50 links, thence west
along the south line of said Lot 1 to the place of beginning, excepting therefrom all roadways
and rights of way over and across said premises, and excepting all that part thereof which Iles
east of U.S. Highway No. 218 as now located, and further excepting therefrom the right of way
conveyed on Deed recorded in Book 6017, Page 642, Johnson County Recorder Records.
AND
Beginning at a point on the south line of Lot one (1) of the sub -division of part of Lot three (3) of
the School's Commissioner's sub -division of section sixteen (16) in township seventy-nine (79)
North, Range six (6) West of the 5th P.M., according to the plat thereof recorded in Deed
Record 36, page 234, which point is 459.5 feet east of the southwest corner of said Lot one (1),
thence north 100 feet, thence east parallel with the south line of said Lot one (1), 60 feet thence
south 100 feet, thence west 60 feet to the place of beginning.
Riverside Court (alley):
The North 25 feet of the East 275 feet of Lot 2 of the Plat of Survey for Sharps & others Feby
1st 1879 in Tp79N of R6W of the 5th P.M. in Lot 3 sect 16 , in accordance with the Plat thereof
Recorded in Deed Book 36 at Page 234 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's
Office,
except that portion conveyed to the State of Iowa by Quit Claim Deed, as Recorded in Deed
Book 254 at Page 23 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office,
which is also legally described as:
Part of Lot 2 of Ryerson's and Sharp's Subdivision of Government Lot 3 in Section Sixteen (16),
Township Seventy-nine (79) North, Range Six (6) West of the 5th P.M., Johnson County, Iowa,
described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast Corner of said Lot 2 of said Ryerson's and
Sharp's Subdivision, thence West 275 feet, thence South 25 feet, thence East 275 feet to the
West line of Riverside Drive, thence North 25 feet to the Point of Beginning, EXCEPT the land
conveyed to the State of Iowa in Deed Record 254, Page 23, said exception being more
particularly described as follows: all of the above-described real estate lying east of a line 36 ft,
radially distant westerly of and concentric with the centerline of Primary Road No. U.S. 6 and
No. U.S. 218 as described in said Deed Record 254, Page 23.
2. Owner acknowledges that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the
Comprehensive Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2020)
provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a
rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public
needs caused by the requested change.
3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner agrees that
development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the Zoning
Code, as well as the following conditions:
a. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any development on the subject
property, Owner shall install a 6' wide sidewalk along the length of the property
abutting S. Riverside Drive.
b. Any development shall include a pedestrian link between Myrtle Avenue and S.
Riverside Drive through the project site, subject to review and approval of the Form -
Based Code Committee.
c. In the event that the owner pursues any height bonus for buildings proposed next to
the single-family zone to the west, the development shall be designed in a manner
that gives careful attention to the interface and transition between the development
and the single-family zone to the west. Any such application shall include mitigating,
transitional design elements, including but not limited to increased separation or
increased stepbacks.
d. The subject area shall be limited to one (1) vehicular access point onto S. Riverside
Drive that shall feature a right-in/right-out design.
e. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the subject area shall be replatted in a
manner that conforms with the layout of the proposed development, which plat shall
include the dedication of right-of-way within the current S. Riverside Court to create a
consistent right-of-way line along S. Riverside Drive.
4. Owner acknowledges the requirements of Iowa City Code of Ordinances 14-2G-8, which
requires the execution of an affordable housing agreement to satisfy the affordable
housing obligations through the provision of on-site owner -occupied dwelling units, on-
site rental dwelling units, and/or the payment of a fee in lieu of the remaining dwelling
units not provided on-site or as otherwise agreed to between Owner and the City.
5. The conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under
Iowa Code §414.5 (2020), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused
by the requested zoning change.
6. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the
land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with
title to the land, unless or until released of record by the City of Iowa City. The parties
further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all
successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties. In the event the subject property
is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all development will conform with the
terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
7. Nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner
from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
8. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the
ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the
ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at
the Owner's expense.
Dated this 15thday of December , 20 20
City of Iowa City
Br ce Teague, Mayo
Attest:
Kelli Fruehling, Ci y Clerk
A &Aftomeyv"s
/
City Office— Pdk-4ocr, r I zo
City of Iowa City Acknowledgement:
State of Iowa )
) ss:
Johnson County )
K and F Properties, LLC.
r
This instrument was acknowledged before me on L- Y PJAh F 1 ,5'rh , 20LOby Bruce Teague
and Kellie Fruehling as Mayor and City Clerk, respe ivel , of th ity f Iowa City.
��a CHRISTINE OLNEY Notary Public in and fo a State of Iowa
� � Commission Number 806232
z
++ My Commission Expires (Stamp or Seal)
IOW4
Title (and Rank)
K and F Properties, LLC. Acknowledgement:
State of-�-6W6tr
County of TO6%&b V-%
This record was acknowledged before me on �noynly� � 2020 by
��rC - (name) as c (title) of K and F Properties, LLC.
Came Lynne Canning Notary Public in and r the State of Iowa
Iowa Notarial Seal (Stamp or Seal)
Commission No. 22 71
MYCanlnssionEvhs; a Title (and Rank)
My commission expires: 01 b10 Z
Item Number: 10.f.
D ecember 15, 2020
O rd inan ce to amend Titl e 14 Z on ing to expan d th e West Riverfront
Subdistrict b oundaries an d to increase th e maximum b onus h eig h t in the
West Riverfront Su b d istrict to seven stories for p roperties n orth of and n ear
the Iowa Interstate Rail road . (R E Z 20-0004) (Second Consid eration)
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Planning & Z oning Commission Packet 11-5-2020
Correspondence
Planning & Z oning Commission Minutes
Ordinance
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 pe destrian-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 w/in 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
Draft Zoning Code Text Amendments (REZ20-0004)
Underlined text is suggested new language. Strike-through notation indicates language to be
deleted. Italics indicates notes.
Replace Figure 2G-1 found in 14-2G-2 with the following image:
Replace Figure 2G-2 found in 14-2G-2 with the following image:
Replace Figure 2G-12 found in 14-2G-3D with the following image:
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
properties within the West Riverfront Subdistrict north of and abutting 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.
Project 1191830
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.
From:Paula Swygard
To:PlanningZoningPublic
Subject:CPA20-0002, REZ20-0003, and REZ20-0004
Date:Monday, November 2, 2020 1:29:12 PM
Attachments:image.png
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
Code14-2G-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 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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 1st 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
answer.
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 kleinmeyer
To:Anne Russett
Subject:Re: Project at Myrtle & Riverside
Date:Thursday, November 5, 2020 9:48:13 AM
Attachments:image005.png
image004.png
image003.png
image002.png
image001.png
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
WWW.ICGOV.ORG
Anne Russett, AICP
Senior Planner
She/Her/Hers
p: 319-356-5251
410 E Washington St
Iowa City, IA 52240
Disclaimer
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.
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 5 , 2020 – 7:00 PM
ELECTRONIC FORMAL MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Mark
Nolte, Mark Signs, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Ray Heitner, Sara Hektoen, Kirk Lehmann, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Mark Seabold, Kevin Kane, Steve Long, Mary Ann Dennis
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission 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.
By a vote of 7-0 the Commissions recommends approval of REZ20-0003 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 South Riverside Drive frontage.
2. Provision of a pedestrian linkage between Myrtle Avenue and South Riverside Drive through
the project site, subject to review and approval of the Form-Based Code Committee.
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 South Riverside Drive that shall
feature a right-in/right-out design.
5. Dedication of approximately 75 square feet of South Riverside Ct. territory to City right-of-way
when the subject area is replatted.
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.
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 5, 2020
Page 2 of 20
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.
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission 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 in the staff report.
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM and welcomed new member Maggie Elliott.
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 public hearing 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.
Lehmann reiterated this is a public hearing to amend the Downtown Riverfront Crossings Master
Plan, which is a sub-component of the City's Comprehensive Plan and incorporate it into the
West Riverfront Subdistrict. Regarding background, K&F Properties owns approximately four
acres south of Myrtle Avenue and west of South Riverside Drive. Lehmann will just begin with a
general background because all three applications on the agenda tonight are tied to the same
project. The 3.16 acres is west of the Downtown in the Riverfront Crossings Masterplan area and
approximately 0.84 acres of that is in the West Riverfront Subdistrict already. Across the four
acres there are three zones, medium density single family residential (RS-8), high density
multifamily residential (RM-44) and community commercial (CC-2). The applicant, K&F
Properties, have submitted three applications to develop a mixed-use project with housing, retail,
hospitality, and neighborhood services uses. The first is CPA20-0002 to expand the West
Riverfront subdistrict and add it into the Downtown Riverfront Crossings Master Plan, it is
followed by REZ20-0003 which is to rezone all four acres to the Riverfront Crossings West
Riverfront zone, and finally REZ20-0004 to modify the text of the zoning code to reflect the
changes caused by the expansion of the West Riverfront Subdistrict in CPA20-0002 and add that
into the regulating plan which is in the zoning code. Additionally they will also look to increase the
maximum height bonus from five to seven stories for properties north of and abutting the railroad
in the West Riverfront zone.
Beginning with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Lehmann explained for the rezoning and
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 5, 2020
Page 15 of 20
Townsend seconded the motion.
Hensch stated he feels this application was really well put together and acknowledged it is a
difficult area, it is just sort of a hodgepodge development over time, Myrtle Avenue hill makes it
very tough and Riverside is a really busy street, so this is a tough area to redevelop.
Signs agreed and noted to the north of this site is really just and open hillside off of Riverside up
to the University parking lot at the top of the hill and then there is the natural area that surrounds
the law building so it is his feeling the proposed mass is appropriate since there's a large body of
greenspace to the north, which will also add really nice views for the people who live in those in
those units. He did agree, as the letter from Olive Street resident indicated, the Olive Street view
may change but is very minimal from what he can tell. He also really appreciates that section
going up Myrtle and did want to put a bug in in both the developer and staff’s ear for that
potential access drive around the perimeter. He has some seen some projects in other places
where they used a permeable paver grass mixed with a permeable mesh where the grass was
grown in and it provided the support necessary for an access point, but it also was very green.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
CASE NO. REZ20-0004:
Applicant: K&F Properties, LLC
Modifications to the Riverfront Crossings, West Riverfront Subdistrict Ordinance
Consideration of the Modifications to the Riverfront Crossings, West Riverfront Subdistrict
Ordinance, which amends Title 14 Zoning 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 height bonus from five to seven
stories for properties north of and abutting the Iowa Interstate Railroad in the West Riverfront
Subdistrict.
Lehmann began the staff report stating the applicant is requesting to amendments to the
Riverfront Crossings form-based regulations in the zoning code. The first is to expand the
Riverfront Crossings, West Riverfront Subdistrict boundaries to match the regulating plan which
is in the zoning code text to match the Comprehensive Plan amendment that that was approved
earlier tonight. The second piece is to increase the maximum bonus height from five to seven
stories for properties in the West Riverfront Subdistrict zone that is north of the Iowa Interstate
Railroad. Lehmann noted the Riverfront Crossings form-based development standards are
located in Iowa City Code, Title 14, Chapter 2, Article G, and those are the standards that really
implement the 2013 Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Lehmann explained it does include the
regulating county boundaries and includes the general requirements and the bonus height as
well as the base height. Finally there are also some other small references throughout that have
to be amended, just to make sure that everything lines up including all the maps throughout the
zoning code text.
Lehmann reiterated the first piece is to just expand that western boundary north of the railroad.
Currently that area is outside of the Riverfront Crossings District and even if it was rezoned then
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 5, 2020
Page 16 of 20
this is a zoning code cleanup item where the Regulating Plan would be modified to be the same
as the Comprehensive Plan. The rezoning is really focusing on pedestrian streetscape and
ensuring that parking is not first and foremost, but rather the buildings in that pedestrian space
are first and foremost. So currently that Riverfront Crossings West Riverfront Subdistrict is
bounded 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 South Riverside Drive north
of the railroad, and the proposals to expand that over to the properties on all streets. Lehmann
showed a map of the area.
The second part is the increase in maximum building height. Lehmann noted the text
amendment was constructed in a way to ensure that it's an area to allow the concept as
proposed to increase to seven stories within 200 feet of the railroad right-of-way, in the Riverfront
Crossings, West Riverfront zone if it's north of and abutting the railroad. Lehmann also stated
the code includes a maximum base height, which occurs by right, and then a maximum bonus
height, which is a discretionary process that the City can use to increase height. The bonus
height does require that there's some specified public benefit that matches what is currently in
the zoning code text (provisions in 14-2G-7G). It includes things like providing affordable
housing, hotel space, class A office space, and a number of other bonuses that can be chosen
from a menu of options. If the request is two stories or less above the base height, it is a staff
review, if it's three or more stories or a transfer of development rights, then it also gets reviewed
by Council and they have to approve it. Again the West Riverfront Crossings Subdistrict baseline
is four stories if there is frontage on the Iowa River which both the properties to the east of the
proposed area have Iowa River frontage and base height is eight stories with a bonus height of
five stories so the max can be up to 12 stories. However, Lehmann reiterated if it abuts a
residential zone no bonus height is allowed regardless of what the maximum bonus height is.
Additionally, there is also that 10 foot step back above the third floor if it's visible from the
residential properties. So in this case, if a project builds a building that is proposed seven stories
it would require Council approval because it's above the two stories that would be done just by a
staff review. Lehmann referred them to the table in the staff report and he also showed a map
showing the rezoning and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment area. Lehmann noted they are
anticipating the replatting of parcels that reflect the buildings that are going to be constructed
there based on the concept submitted. The concept shows a residential building on the west
side of the property, that would potentially be one parcel, another two buildings, or possibly the
commercial building, would probably be its own parcel, and on the southeast part of the site
would be the hotel or whatever that would be seven stories and its own parcel. There would be
pedestrian connections but they are imagining the area being replatted to correspond with the
buildings, roughly a single plat for each building.
Russett confirmed what Lehmann is saying as a possibility but since they haven’t received a plat
from the applicants, they don't really know what the applicants are envisioning. What is being
shown here is the proposed text amendment is applied to the existing lot lines and these would
be the stories that would be allowed, she would envision that the red area shown on the map is
probably going to be a smaller area when the applicant replats it.
Craig stated that is her concern as she could support this but she’s not sure she could support it
if the red area was smaller and those houses on Olive Street will have a seven-story building out
their back door.
Russett agreed and noted that is why they recommended the condition on the rezoning that talks
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 5, 2020
Page 17 of 20
about if any bonus height is proposed next to the residential, that it needs to incorporate some
design features that ensure that there's no impacts, and that there's a transition from those
existing single family homes. Additionally, Lehmann added they also proposed the 200 foot
buffer from the railroad, so they could not have a single plat that takes up the entire east half of
the property where it could all be seven stories. He did remind them there is a de facto hundred-
foot buffer with 40 feet of grade change,
Lehmann moved onto the analysis side of things. The West Riverfront Subdistrict should be
expanded in the Regulating Plan to make sure that everything is lined up properly and the bonus
height increase requested is required for the concept as shown. In the expanding of the
Subdistrict it increases density, but maintains compatibility, it's got more stringent design
standards, a higher level of review, the typography and the zone height limitations and the step
backs as they're currently constructed to ensure that appropriate transition. Additionally, the
Riverfront Crossings District is subject to affordable housing requirements and 10% of the units
must be affordable, or a fee in lieu is required, which would pay for affordable units elsewhere in
the District. Regarding the seven-story bonus height next to the railroad, staff does believe that if
it's constructed the text amendment limits any negative impacts to surrounding properties. Staff
review would be required for five or six stories of bonus heights, and Council would have to
approve it if it was seven stories high which does provide a level of review against making sure
that seven stories isn’t’ happening right next to single family homes. Second, it makes sense
because east of South Riverside Drive, eight stories are allowed by right so it's not that different
from what one might find in the other side of the streets. Lehmann reiterated if those properties
abut residential zones, they can’t utilize bonus heights. He also brought up again that with the
seven stories relative to the properties to the west, there is 50 feet of grade change over the site.
In terms of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, it calls for expansion of the West
Riverfront Subdistrict and this also 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. For the bonus height on the
two places where that really fits in is allowing growth and development in Riverfront Crossings
District in a manner that increases its residential appeal and enhances the commercial viability of
downtown. Obviously, the more people in the space the greater the viability of commercial uses
in the area. Additionally, it does also help promote the commercial development on the west side
of South Riverside Drive, which can transition to urban apartments and mixed-use development.
In terms of public correspondence, Lehmann noted in one of the correspondence it was noted
that the Orchard Subdistrict may be more appropriate than the West Riverfront Subdistrict next to
an RS-8 zone and that difference in grade may not provide enough transition and they
encourage a lower building heights. They also noted that increased building height may not be
needed if the current zoning is retained or that or a different zone is preferred. They also noted
that use of the river created by a seven-story development could be blocked by subsequent
development to the east if that was one of the intentions. Lehmann noted all those comments
were addressed previously tonight. The letter writer also noted that increased height doesn't
match the current concept from the plan as it's currently approved. Then on the flip side,
generally there's just been support for the project from the Olive Street property owners.
The role of the Commission and next steps is to determine if the proposed zoning code text
amendment should be recommended for City Council for which they'll make a decision following
three readings which will include a public hearing. It will run concurrently with the other two
Planning and Zoning Commission
November 5, 2020
Page 18 of 20
amendments that have been approved earlier tonight.
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 A of the staff
report.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Mark Seabold (Shive-Hattery) wanted to stress they will continue to work with City staff.
Hensch asked if they had started working on the plat yet for the development. Seabold replied
they haven’t but what Lehmann presented tonight is pretty close, they are going to be taking
careful look at that making sure they're complying with the requirements of the City and making
sure they're allowing enough of a buffer from the neighborhood and working with both the
building height and the grades to make sure that they're not impacting the neighborhood. He
reiterated it is a challenging site but also a great opportunity to do some really quality
development that is sensitive to the neighborhood, but also creates a little more vitality for this
area.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend 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 a on the staff report.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Signs noted he is not a huge fan of these narrowly refined text amendments in general, but
having said that, this makes total sense in this spot, so he'll be supporting it.
Hensch agreed and noted they just approved something very similar, not in actual design, but in
height on Gilbert and Prentiss abutting the Iowa Interstate Railroad. It had a unique topography
and was railroad adjacent.
Martin acknowledged she is still hung up on right-in right-out and also doesn’t feel a hotel is
appropriate for this particular piece but she’ll get over it. Russett acknowledged the right-in right-
out by Red Ginger has been discussed and staff knows it is a problem and agrees they don’t
want to recreate the same problem in another location.
Townsend acknowledged she still has concerns about the seven foot plus bonuses in that area,
but it's a way of the time.
A vote was taken and motion passed 7-0.
Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 (REZ20-0006)
Ordinance No. 20-4840
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)
Whereas, the City Council amended the City's Comprehensive Plan in Resolution 20-274
to expand the boundaries of the West Riverfront Subdistrict to include properties at 219, 223, and
245 S. Riverside Court and 119, 201, 203, 205, 207, and 209 Myrtle Avenue in the Downtown
and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan; and
Whereas, consistent with the objectives and desired development character set forth in the
master plan, new standards need to be incorporated into the Riverfront Crossings form -based
code, including a new regulating plan, building height diagram, and accompanying zoning
standards; and
Whereas, K&F Properties, LLC, has requested a code amendment to increase the maximum
allowable bonus height from five to seven stories for properties in the West Riverfront Subdistrict
that are north of and adjacent to the Iowa Interstate Railroad right-of-way; and
Whereas, the topography of the site and applicable form -based development standards create
an appropriate transition from single-family homes on Olive Street to the proposed mixed-use
development; and
Whereas, increased bonus height along the Iowa Interstate Railroad provides opportunities
for strategic and contextual infill and enhances the commercial viability of this area while
minimizing impacts on nearby properties; and
Whereas, this additional bonus height is similar to what is allowed on the east side of Riverside
Drive; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the zoning code amendment
set forth below and recommends approval.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa:
Section I. Amendments. The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby
amended as follows:
��
IffJ ���
�-_
Ordinance No. 20-4840
Page 3
B. Replace Figure 2G-2: Riverfront Crossings Height Diagram in Title 14 with the following:
Figure 2G-2
Riverfront Crossings Height Diagram
■b■ M
■ ■ mf
® rpt
A yg
■/
Legend
- 3 stones max. e
- 4 stones may
2 stones min.. 8 stones may
2 stories min.. a stories max.
8 stones max. mth Iowa River Frontage
Public Parks and Open Space
IWXGreen Space
Ordinance No. 20-4840
Page 4
C. Replace Figure 2G-12: Subdistrict Locator -West Riverfront in Title 14 with the following:
Figure 2G-12
Subdistrict Locator - West Riverfront
D. Amend 14 -2G -7G-1 d-(4) by adding the following underlined language:
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
not allowed on lots that abut a residential zone.
Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to
be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a
whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication.
Ordinance No. 20-4840
Page 5
Passed and approved this 15th day of December
'Mayor
�l
Attest: a
CitCk
2020.
Approved by
&
City Attorney's Office
(Sara Greenwood Hektoen — 11/24/2020)
Ordinance No. 20-4840
Page 6
It was moved by Mims and seconded by Thomas
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Bergus
Mims
Sahh
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Weiner
that the
First Consideration 12/01/2020
Vote for passage:
AYES: Bergus, Mims, Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published 12/23/2020
Moved by Mims, seconded by Taylor, that the rule requiring ordinances
to be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior
to the meeting at which it is to be finally passed be suspended,
the second consideration and vote be waived and the ordinance be voted
upon for final passage at this time.
AYES: Thomas, Weiner, Bergus, Mims, Taylor, Teague.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: Salih.
Item Number: 12.
D ecember 15, 2020
Un b iased Pol icin g O rdin ance. (Pass & Adop t)
Prepared B y:Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Reviewed By:Eleanor Dilkes, City A ttorney
F iscal I mpact:No I mpact
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:Ordinance
Executive S ummary:
I owa City policy has long prohibited biased based policing and the I owa C ity P olice D epartment is
committed to the equitable treatment of all individuals. T his ordinance was developed
collaboratively with the NA A C P and takes the important step to codify the C ity's commitment to
unbiased policing and details the complaint process for the public.
Background / Analysis:
I n J une of 2020, the City Council made a strong commitment to address systemic racism. W hile
the I owa City Police Department has had longstanding policies prohibiting racial prof iling and
biased based policing, there is no explicit prohibition in the City Code. After conversations with the
NA A C P, staff recognizes that codifying that commitment is an important step forward f or the
community and one that f ew cities in I owa have taken. T he N AAC P provided the template for this
ordinance and staff has made changes to reflect local considerations such as the role played by our
Human Rights Commission and staff, as well as the Community Police Review Board.
T he ordinance def ines important terms including B iased P olicing, F air and I mpartial Treatment
and Racial Prof iling. I t explicitly prohibits biased policing and racial prof iling including
discriminatory pretextual stops. T he ordinance requires employees to articulate reasonable
suspicion and probable cause and prohibits uses of language that is derogatory, tends to belittle,
show contempt for or defame any individual demographic.
T he ordinance requires employees to report and intervene when observing biased policing or
racial prof iling. I t further outlines the complaint procedures for anyone claiming to be aggrieved or
a witness to such police actions. Further, the ordinance requires all sworn officers to receive, at
minimum, annual training on topics such as cultural competency, implicit bias and de-escalation.
Staff fully supports this action and will f urther support the NA A C P and other stakeholder groups
that aim to introduce similar language in statewide legislation in 2021.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Ordinance
Ordinance No. 20-4841
Unbiased Policing Ordinance
Whereas, in 2001 the Iowa City Council passed Resolution No. 01-41 adopting a City of Iowa City
Law Enforcement Non -Discrimination Policy which required the Iowa City Police Department to
"continually conduct an examination of traffic enforcement strategies, and if appropriate, refine
mission and value statements, training programs, field supervision, and the evaluation and
documentation of citizen complaints and related responses to citizens, to ensure that racial profile
traffic and pedestrian stops are not being employed by individuals within the Police Department
and that citizens are treated equally and fairly pursuant to the Iowa and United States
Constitutions."; and,
Whereas, the City Council reaffirmed the City's law enforcement non-discrimination policy in 2017
by resolution No. 17-183; and,
Whereas, since 2001 the Iowa City Police Department has had a General Order that prohibits
biased based policing; and,
Whereas, the Iowa City Police Department has collected demographic data on traffic stops since
1999, has had that data analyzed to determine the level of disproportionality, and has refined
employee training programs, updated policies and operational standards, and conducted
outreach programs aimed at eliminating racial profiling, heighten awareness of implicit bias, and
build trust and respect between law enforcement and all communities and persons in Iowa City;
and,
Whereas, Iowa City has had a Community Police Review Board since 1997; and,
Whereas, on June 16, 2020 the City Council passed a Resolution of Initial Council Commitments
addressing the Black Lives Matter Movement and Systemic Racism in the wake of the murder of
George Floyd by the Minneapolis police and calls for action from protesters and residents
(Resolution No. 20-159), in which it committed to a plan to restructure the Iowa City Police
Department towards community policing and review of various police policies and procedures;
and,
Whereas, the NAACP has been instrumental in encouraging cities in Iowa to address unbiased
policing and measures to address the same by ordinance and has proposed measures at the
state level to address unbiased policing, including an amendment to the Iowa Civil Rights Act
(ICRA) to specifically prohibit discriminatory pretextual stops; and,
Whereas, currently the Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC) has jurisdiction over racial profiling
complaints against law enforcement because such complaints allege discrimination in public
accommodations by a local government unit that offers services to the public based on the
individual demographics prohibited by the Iowa Civil Rights Act, Iowa Code Sec. 216.7. While the
Iowa City Human Rights Commission may not address complaints against Iowa City police
officers, the commission staff may educate the public about the complaint process at the state
level regarding bias -based policing and may offer to assist, and shall assist individuals in filing a
biased policing or racial profiling complaint with the ICRC and complaints regarding discriminatory
Ordinance No. 20-4841
Page 2
pretextual stops in the event the ICRA is amended to include the proposed prohibition on
discriminatory pretextual stops; and,
Whereas, considering the Council's recent commitments to address systemic racism in
Resolution No. 20-159, the City Council of the City of Iowa City believes it is in the best interests
of the residents of the city to codify its policies prohibiting bias -based policing by ordinance.
Now therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City:
Section I. Amendment: The City Code of the City of Iowa City is hereby amended to add the following
new Chapter 9 to Title 8 entitled "Police Regulations'
CHAPTER 9 UNBIASED POLICING
8-9-1 Policy Statement.
8-9-2 Definitions.
8-9-3 Prohibitions and Procedures.
8-9-4 Complaints and Compliance.
8-9-5 Data
8-9-6 Training.
8-9-7 Penalty
Sec. 8-9-1. Policy Statement.
The City of Iowa City and the Iowa City Police Department shall be committed to the unbiased,
equitable treatment of all. Department employees ("employees") shall treat all in a fair, impartial and
objective manner, in accordance with law, and without consideration of their individual demographics as
defined in this Chapter.
Sec. 8-9-2 Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed
to them below, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
Biased Policing means differential treatment in the performance of law enforcement duties or
delivery of police services towards a person or classes of persons when one or more individual
demographics was a motivating factor in the action taken. If a person's individual demographics played
a part in the employee's decision, then that personal characteristic was a motivating factor of the action
taken.
Fair and Impartial Treatment means persons, irrespective of individual demographics, are
treated in the same manner under the same or similar circumstances. Reasonable concessions and
accommodations may be made, when dealing with individuals with physical, developmental or mental
disabilities, injury, illness, deafness, blindness, substance abuse disorders or similar conditions,
Ordinance No. 20-4841
Page 3
individuals whose primary language is a language other than English, individuals of various cultural
backgrounds, and individuals of youthful age, or when information about a person legally necessitates
different treatment.
Individual Demographics means personal characteristics to include, but not limited to: race,
creed, color, ethnicity, national origin, ancestry, religion, age, gender, sex, gender identity/ expression,
sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, disability, immigration status, familial status, marital status,
housing status, occupation, language fluency, cultural group, political status, or source of income, or
any other identifiable characteristics.
Police Services means actions and activities that contribute to the overall well-being and safety
of the public. These tasks include but are not limited to: crime prevention and investigation, preventive
patrol, traffic control, traffic accidents, medical emergencies and lifesaving services, assistance at fire
scenes, public information and education.
Racial Profiling means that form of biased policing where a motivating factor of the action taken
is based on an individual's race, color, ethnicity, religion or national origin rather than on the individual's
behavior or on information of the type and kind customarily and reasonably relied upon in identifying the
individual as having engaged in prohibited activity. Racial profiling includes but is not limited to vehicle,
pedestrian, and bicycle stops where race, color, ethnicity, religion or national origin was a motivating
factor for the stop or enforcement action taken during the stop.
Specific subject description -based identification means a reasonably detailed physical
description of the personal identifying characteristics of a potential suspect or victim, including but not
limited to age, sex, ethnicity, race, or English language proficiency.
Sec. 8-9-3. Prohibitions and Procedures.
A. Fair & Impartial Treatment.
1. Biased policing is prohibited both in enforcement of the law and the delivery of police
services by any employee.
2. Racial Profiling is prohibited both in enforcement of the law and the delivery of police
services by any employee. Discriminatory pretextual stops are prohibited under state and federal law
and are also prohibited by this ordinance.
3. Employees shall exercise their authority and act to accord fair and impartial treatment to all
persons.
4. Employees shall not consider individual demographics when performing law enforcement
duties or delivering police services except when such characteristics are part of a specific subject
description -based identification.
5. Employees shall not use any terms, language or remarks that are derogatory, tend to belittle,
show contempt for or defame any individual demographic, except when necessary to include such
terms, language or remarks used by another for the preparation of official reports or testimony.
6. Employees must be able to articulate reasonable suspicion or probable cause supporting
any police action.
Ordinance No. 20-4841
Page 4
7. Employees shall not take any law-enforcement action based on information from members of
the public or other employees that they know, or reasonably should know, under all circumstances
present is the product of, or motivated by, bias based on individual demographics unless the
circumstances indicate that harm is imminent or a crime has been committed.
B. Department Policies and Procedures Accessible to the Public. The Department's General Orders
shall be made available to the public through publication on the City's website and hard copies shall be
available upon request in accordance with Iowa Code Chapter 22.
Sec. 8-9-4. Complaints and Compliance.
A. Employees who witness or who are aware of instances of biased policing or racial profiling shall
report the incident to a supervisor and shall provide all information known to them before the end of the
shift during which they make the observation or become aware of the incident or as soon thereafter as
practicable under the circumstances. Where appropriate, employees are encouraged to intervene at
the time the biased policing or racial profiling incident occurs and, in any event, shall report such biased
policing or racial profiling to a supervisor as soon as practicable under the circumstances. Where
unreasonable use of force occurs, officers have a duty to immediately physically intervene, when in a
position to do so, to prevent the use of unreasonable force.
B. Any employee who opposes any practice occurring in violation of this Chapter shall not be
discriminated against in any manner for opposing such practice, testifying, assisting or participating in
any investigation, proceeding or hearing arising out of this Chapter.
C. Supervisors shall ensure the working environment is free of bias and free of racial profiling. This
oversight responsibility may include periodic inspections of body and in -car audio/video systems, traffic
stop data, reports and field inspections during police interactions with members of the public.
Supervisors shall:
1. Take the appropriate action when a violation of this Chapter occurs.
2. Ensure that there is no retaliation for individuals reporting such violations.
D. Any person claiming to be aggrieved or to have witnessed biased policing or racial profiling may file
a complaint. No person shall be discouraged, intimidated, or coerced from filing such a complaint, nor
shall any person be discriminated or retaliated against because he or she has filed a complaint of this
nature.
1. While the Iowa City Human Rights Commission will not have jurisdiction to investigate or
adjudicate alleged violations of this ordinance, the commission staff shall educate the public about the
complaint process and shall assist individuals in filing a biased policing or racial profiling complaint with
the Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC). The ICRC has jurisdiction over racial profiling complaints
against law enforcement as such complaints allege discrimination in public accommodations by a local
government unit that offers services to the public based on the individual demographics prohibited by
the Iowa Civil Rights Act. Iowa Code Sec. 216.7; see also, Iowa Code Sec. 216.2(13) as now adopted
or hereinafter amended. The remedies afforded by the Iowa Civil Rights Act are not exclusive and do
not foreclose a person from asserting any remedies he or she may have based on the Federal or Iowa
Constitutions, Federal or Iowa Codes, or common law.
2. All complaints of biased policing or racial profiling brought to the City shall be filed directly
with the Police Department or the Iowa City Community Police Review Board.
Ordinance No. 20-4841
Page 5
Sec. 8-9-5 Data
The Iowa City Police Department shall collect, analyze and publicly report data related to policing
activity. Such data shall include information on calls for service, related contacts with members of the
public, and outcomes of such contacts. Race, ethnicity, gender, age and other available demographic
or personal characteristic information should be analyzed in aggregate in order to ascertain trends in
disproportionality.
Sec. 8-9-6 Training.
At least annually all sworn officers shall receive and participate in training and guidance in regard to
unbiased policing and prohibited racial profiling while conducting law enforcement activities and police
services, which training shall include de-escalation, cultural diversity, cultural competency, and implicit
bias and may include, but is not limited to: training on subjects related to police ethics, police
interactions with members of the public, active by-stander intervention, standards of conduct,
conducting motor vehicle stops, and related topics suitable for preventing incidents of biased policing
and racial profiling.
Sec. 8-9-6 Penalties.
Racial profiling and biased policing are violations of this Chapter. Any penalty for violation of this Chapter
related to any employee not acting in conformity therewith shall be limited to that provided under state or
federal law, which violation may include serving as cause for discipline up to and including termination
from employment as consistent with federal and state law requirements including Iowa Code Chapters
400, 80F and 20 as applicable. The limitation related to violations of this Chapter related to employee
violations is not intended to expand or limit any other remedy or cause of action available under state or
federal law, nor to expand or restrict the time for seeking such remedy or cause of action and shall not
be construed as doing so, nor as conferring jurisdiction on the Iowa City Human Rights Commission but,
pursuant to Section 8-9-4 hereof, Commission staff shall assist individuals who desire to file any
complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission for investigation and resolution. The declaration of the
prohibitions set forth in this Chapter shall not create any new or separate legal rights or claims by or on
behalf of any third party and shall not be construed as a waiver, modification, or alteration of any available
defense or governmental immunity of the city under federal or state law.
Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance
are hereby repealed.
Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section,
provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication,
as provided by law.
Passed and approved this 15th day of December _'2020.
Ordinance No. 20-4841
Page 6
2.a
Mayor
Attest:
City Cluric
Armed by
Cty Attomey's Office -12/99
Ordinance No. 20-4841
Page 7
It was moved by Thomas and seconded by Taylor that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
x
Bergus
Mims
Salih
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Weiner
First Consideration 11/17/2020
Vote for passage:
AYES: Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner, Bergus, Mims.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 12/01/2020
Vote for passage:
AYES: Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner, Bergus, Mims, Salih.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Date published 12/23/2020
Ordinance No.
Unbiased Policing Ordinance
Whereas, in 001 the Iowa City Council passed Res
Law Enforce nt Non -Discrimination Policy which
"continually con uct an examination of traffic enfoi
mission and val statements, training program
documentation of ci zen complaints and related r
traffic and pedestrian tops are not being e/Pa
e(
and that citizens are treated equally anly
Constitutions."; and,
Whereas, the City Council
by resolution No. 17-183;
Whereas, since 2001 the Iowa
biased based policing; and,
Whereas, the Iowa City F
1999, has had that data
employee training prog
outreach programs aime
build trust and respect/" S
and,
'I ti No. 01-41 adopting a City of Iowa City
e fired the Iowa City Police Department to
mart strategies, and if appropriate, refine
field supervision, and the evaluation and
onses to citizens, to ensure that racial profile
by individuals within the Police Department
pursuant to the Iowa and United States
law enforcement non-discrimination policy in 2017
Police Department has had a General Order that prohibits
e/Oepartent has collected demographic data on traffic stops since
flyzed to termine the level of disproportionality, and has refined
s, updated olicies and operational standards, and conducted
eliminating ra 'al profiling, heighten awareness of implicit bias, and
en law enforce ent and all communities and persons in Iowa City;
Whereas, Iowa City/fias had a Community Police }review Board since 1997; and,
Whereas, on Ju 16, 2020 the City Council passed Resolution of Initial Council Commitments
addressing the lack Lives Matter Movement and Syst is Racism in the wake of the murder of
George Floyd/by the Minneapolis police and calls for action from protesters and residents
(Resolution Vo. 20-159), in which it committed to a pla to restructure the Iowa City Police
Department owards community policing and review of vari s police policies and procedures;
and,
Wherea , the NAACP has been instrumental in encouraging citie in Iowa to address unbiased
policin and measures to address the same by ordinance and ha proposed measures at the
state I vel to address unbiased policing, including an amendment t the Iowa Civil Rights Act
(ICR ) to specifically prohibit discriminatory pretextual stops; and,
/acommodations
reas, currently the Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC) has jurisdicti over racial profiling
plaints against law enforcement because such complaints allege dis 'mination in public
by a local government unit that offers services to the pu lic based on the
idual demographics prohibited by the Iowa Civil Rights Act, Iowa Code Sec. 16.7. While the
Iowa City Human Rights Commission may not address complaints against to a City police
officers, the commission staff may educate the public about the complaint proces at the state
level regarding bias -based policing and may offer to assist, and shall assist individuals in filing a
biased policing or racial profiling complaint with the ICRC and complaints regarding discriminatory
Page 2
Ordinance
pretextual stops in the event the ICRA is amended to include the proposed prohibition on
discriminatory pretextual stops; and,
Wherea considering the Council's recent commitments to address systemic racism in
Resoluti n No. 20-159, the City Council of the City of Iowa City believes it is in the best interests
of the resioents of the city to codify its policies prohibitiN bias -based policing by ordinance.
Now therefore, be
new Chapter 9 to Title
8-9-1 Policy Statement.
8-9-2 Definitions.
8-9-3 Prohibitions and
by the City Council of the City
The City Code of the City of
entitled "Police Regulations"
City:
is hereby amended to add the following
CHAPTER 9 UNBIASED POLICING
8-9-4 Complaints and Compliance.
8-9-5 Data
8-9-6 Training.
8-9-7 Penalty
CHAPTER III. UNBIASED POLICING
Sec. 8-9-1. Policy
The City of Iowa City the Iowa City Police Department hall be committed to the unbiased,
equitable treatment of,/Department employees ("employe s") shall treat all in a fair, impartial and
objective manner, in dance with law, and without consid ation of their individual demographics as
defined in this Chapte
Sec. 8-9-2 DefinitZ
.
The following worerms and phrases, when used in this Chapter, hall have the meanings ascribed
to them below, ex where the context clearly indicates a different m aning:
Biased P licing means differential treatment in the performance c law enforcement duties or
delivery of polic services towards a person or classes of persons when on or more individual
demographics as a motivating factor in the action taken. If a person's indivi al demographics played
a part in the a ployee's decision, then that personal characteristic was a moti ting factor of the action
taken.
Fair and Impartial Treatment means persons, irrespective of individual demo aphics, are
treated in the same manner under the same or similar circumstances. Reasonable con ssions and
accommodations may be made, when dealing with individuals with physical, developmen al or mental
2
Page 3
Ordinance
disabilities, injury, illness, deafness, blindness, substance abuse disorders or similar conditions,
individuals whose primary language is a language other than English, individuals of various cultural
backgrounds, and individuals of youthful age, or when information about a person legally necessitates
different treatment.
Indivual Demographics means personal characteristics to include, but not limited to: race,
creed, color, a nicity, national origin, ancestry, religion, age, gender, se gender identity/ expression,
sexual orientati , socioeconomic status, disability, immigration status amiIial status, marital status,
housing status, o upation, language fluency, cultural group, politica tatus, or source of income, or
any other identifiab characteristics.
Police Service means actions and activities that contri to to the overall well-being and safety
of the public. These tas s include but are not limited to: crim prevention and investigation, preventive
patrol, traffic control, trafficaccidents, medical emergencie and lifesaving services, assistance at fire
scenes, public information nd education.
Racial Profiling mean that form of biased poli ng where a motivating factor of the action taken
is based on an individual's rac color, ethnicity, reli on or national origin rather than on the individual's
behavior or on information of the peand kind cu omarily and reasonably relied upon in identifying the
individual as having engaged in pr hibited activi . Racial profiling includes but is not limited to vehicle,
pedestrian, and bicycle stops where ace, colo , ethnicity, religion or national origin was a motivating
factor for the stop or enforcement acti take during the stop.
Specific subject
description of the personal identifying
limited to age, sex, ethnicity, race, or
Sec. 8-9-3. Prohibitions and
(a) Fair & Impartial Treatment.
(1) Biased policing is
services by any employee.
(2) Racial Profiling is
services by any employee. D
and are also prohibited by tai
bited both in
rohibited both in enfoi
criminatory pretextual
ordinance.
m means a reasonably detailed physical
of a potential suspect or victim, including but not
to proficiency.
(3) Employees sI exercise their authority and act
persons. /
of the law and the delivery of police
of the law and the delivery of police
•e prohibited under state and federal law
(4) Employeeshall not consider individual demograph
duties or delivering pc ce services except when such character
description -based id tification.
(5) Employes shall not use any terms, language or remarks
belittle, show contempt for or defame any individual demographic, er
fair and impartial treatment to all
such terms, language or remarks used by another for the preparation of
performing law enforcement
part of a specific subject
(6) Employees must be able to articulate reasonable suspicion or
any police action.
are derogatory, tend to
\when necessary to include
fH ial reports or testimony.
cause supporting
Page 4
Ordinance
(7) Employees shall not take any law-enforcement action based on information from members
of the public or other employees that they know, or reasonably should know, under all circumstances
present is the product of, or motivated by, bias based on individual demographics unless the
circumstances indicate that harm is imminent or a crime has been committed.
(b) Department Policies and Procedures Accessible to the Public. The Department's General Orders
shall be made available to the public through publication on the City's website and hard copies shall be
available upotiZ request in accordance with Iowa Code Chapter 22.
Sec. 8-9-4. Complaints and Compliance.
(a) Employees wh witness or who are aware of instances of b' sed policing or racial profiling shall
report the incident to supervisor and shallprovide all infor tion known to them before the end of the
shift during which the make the observation or become al
are of the incident or as soon thereafter as
practicable under the ci umstances. Where appropria , employees are encouraged to intervene at
the time the biased polici or racial profiling incident ccurs and, in any event, shall report such biased
policing or racial profiling to supervisor as soon a practicable under the circumstances. Where
unreasonable use of force o urs, officers have duty to immediately physically intervene, when in a
position to do so, to prevent th use of unreas able force.
(b) Any employee who opposes 4QY practi96 occurring in violation of this Chapter shall not be
discriminated against in any mann for o posing such practice, testifying, assisting or participating in
any investigation, proceeding or hea arising out of this Chapter.
(c) Supervisors shall ensure the wor m environment is free of bias and free of racial profiling. This
oversight responsibility may includ pent is inspections of body and in -car audio/video systems, traffic
stop data, reports and field ins pe ions dur g police interactions with members of the public.
Supervisors shall:
(1) Take the appropri to action when a olation of this Chapter occurs.
(2) Ensure that the a is no retaliation for in viduals reporting such violations
(d) Any person claiming o be aggrieved or to have w essed biased policing or racial profiling may file
a complaint. No per so shall be discouraged, intimidat , or coerced from filing such a complaint, nor
shall any person be d' criminated or retaliated against be arse he or she has filed a complaint of this
nature.
(1) While he Iowa City Human Rights Commission 'll not have jurisdiction to investigate or
adjudicate allege violations of this ordinance, the commissionaff shall educate the public about the
complaint proCivil s and shall assist individuals in filing a biased p\icing or racial profiling complaint with
the Iowa Civil ghts and
(ICRC). The ICRC has jurisdicti over racial profiling complaints
against law, a orcement as such complaints allege discrimination in blit accommodations by a local
government nit that offers services to the public based on the individu demographics prohibited by
the Iowa Ci I Rights Act. Iowa Code Sec. 216.7; see also, Iowa Code SeX. 216.2(13) as now adopted
or hereinaf r amended. The remedies afforded by the Iowa Civil Rights Ac are not exclusive and do
not foreclose a person from asserting any remedies he or she may have bason the Federal or Iowa
Constitutions, Federal or Iowa Codes, or common law.
Page 5
Ordinance
(2) All complaints of biased policing or racial profiling brought to the City shall be filed directly
with the Police Department or the Iowa City Community Police Review Board.
Sec. 8-9-5 Dat
The Iowa City Po a Department shall collect, analyze and publicly report data related to policing
activity. Such data hall include information on calls for service, related cont is with members of the
public, and outcome of such contacts. Race, ethnicity, gender, age and o er available demographic
or personal character tic information should be analyzed in aggregate ' order to ascertain trends in
disproportionality.
Sec. 8-9-6 Training.
At least annually all sworn 2, ers shall receive and Parti ' ate in training and guidance in regard to
unbiased policing and prohibit racial profiling while c ducting law enforcement activities and police
services, which training shall in\plic,
-escalation, c tural diversity, cultural competency, and implicit
bias and may include, but is noIito: training subjects related to police ethics, police
interactions with members of thactive by stander intervention, standards of conduct,
conducting motor vehicle stopsated to ' s suitable for preventing incidents of biased policing
and racial profiling.
Sec. 8-9-6 Penalties.
Racial profiling and biased policing ar iolati ns of this Chapter. Any penalty for violation of this Chapter
related to any employee not acting i conformi therewith shall be limited to that provided under state or
federal law, which violation may in ude servin as cause for discipline up to and including termination
from employment as consistent w' h federal and tate law requirements including Iowa Code Chapters
400, 80F and 20 as applicable. line limitation rela d to violations of this Chapter related to employee
violations is not intended to exp
nd or limit any
othe remedy or cause of action available under state or
federal law, nor to expand or r strict the time for see ing such remedy or cause of action and shall not
be construed as doing so, no as conferring jurisdiction n the Iowa City Human Rights Commission but,
pursuant to Section 8-9-4 ereof, Commission staff all assist individuals who desire to file any
complaint with the Iowa Ci it Rights Commission for inve ligation and resolution. The declaration of the
prohibitions set forth in th' Chapter shall not create any n\co
arate legal rights or claims by or on
behalf of any third party d shall not be construed as a waification, or alteration of any available
defense or government I immunity of the city under federalaw.
Section Il. Repealer. II ordinances and parts of ordinancet with the provision of this Ordinance
are hereby repealed.
Section III. Severabilitv. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinanc shall be adjudged to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ord i ance as a whole or any section,
provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passa&, approval and publication,
as provided by law.
Page 6
Ordinance No
Al
IM
It was roved by and seconded by that the
Ordinank as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: ',NAYS: ABSENT:
Teague
Thomas
Weiner
First Consideration
Votefor passage:
AYES: Salih, ylor, Tea e, Thomas, Weiner, Bergus, Mims.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 12/01/2020
Vote for pass e:
AYES: Tay or, Teague, Thomas, finer, Bergus, Mims, Salih.
NAYS: No e. ABSENT: None.
Date published _L