HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 11.05.2020PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, November 5, 2020
Electronic Formal Meeting – 7:00 PM
Zoom Meeting Platform
Agenda:
1.Call to Order
2.Roll Call
3.Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
4.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
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting is being 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.
You can participate in the meeting and can comment on an agenda item by
going to: https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJYudOivrTIoGtSRIeghLa6-
C1hBo24AChZx to visit the Zoom meeting’s registration page and submitting
the required information. Once approved, you will receive an email message
with a link to join the meeting. If you are asked for a meeting or webinar ID,
enter the ID number found in the email. If you have no computer or
smartphone, or a computer without a microphone, you can call in by phone
by dialing (312) 626-6799 and entering the meeting ID 923 3173 9200 when
prompted. Providing comment in person is not an option.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
November 5, 2020
Land Development Items
5. 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.
Zoning Code Text Amendments
6. 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.
7. Overview of the City’s new online permitting system
8. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: October 15, 2020
9. Planning & Zoning Information
10. Adjournment
If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please
contact Anne Russett, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5251 or anne-russett@iowa-city.org.
Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: November 19 / December 5 / December 19
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
1
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: CPA20-0002 West Riverside
Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner
Date: November 5, 2020
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Steve Long
K&F Properties, LLC
220 SE 6th Street Suite 200
Des Moines, IA, 50309
319-621-3462
steve@salidapartners.com
Contact Person: Mark Seabold
Shive-Hattery Architecture-Engineering
2839 Northgate Drive
Iowa City, IA 52245
319-325-5350
mseabold@shive-hattery.com
Property Owner(s): K&F Properties, LLC
220 SE 6th Street Suite 200
Des Moines, IA, 50309
Requested Action: To add properties to the West Riverfront Subdistrict
of the Downtown & Riverfront Crossings Master Plan
Purpose: To develop a mixed-use project with housing, retail,
hospitality and neighborhood services
Location: 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court and
119, 201, 203, 205, 207, and 209 Myrtle Avenue
Location Map:
Size: 3.16 acres
2
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Residential; High Density Multi-Family Residential
Zone (RM-44) & Medium Density Single-Family
Residential (RS-8)
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), & Low Density Single-Family
Residential with Planned Development
Overlay (RS-5 OPD)
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
File Date: August 13, 2020
BACKGROUND:
K&F Properties, LLC owns property located at 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court and 119,
201, 203, 205, 207, and 209 Myrtle Ave. The owner is working with Shive-Hattery to prepare
three applications to allow development of a mixed-use project with housing, retail, hospitality,
and neighborhood service uses. This specific application (CPA20-0002) proposes to amend the
Comprehensive Plan by adding the subject properties, approximately 3.16 acres, to the West
Riverfront Subdistrict of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan. Attachment 4
illustrates the proposed changes to the plan.
The subject properties are included in the Southwest District of the Comprehensive Plan, which
indicates the properties are primarily appropriate for Medium to High Density Multi-Family,
specified as 8-16 Dwelling Units Per Acre in the Comprehensive Plan. 209 Myrtle Avenue is
shown as Single-Family/Duplex Residential, specified as 2-8 Dwelling Units Per Acre in the
Comprehensive Plan. The Riverfront Crossings Plan to which the subject properties are being
proposed for inclusion was adopted in 2013.
The other concurrently submitted applications include a zoning map amendment (REZ20-0003),
which would rezone properties the applicant owns from High Density Multi-Family Residential
Zone (RM-44), Community Commercial (CC-2), and Medium Density Single-Family Residential
(RS-8) to Riverfront Crossings-West Riverfront (RFC-WR), and a zoning text amendment
(REZ20-0004), which would amend the West Riverfront subdistrict regulating plan map and
3
increase the maximum bonus height from 5 to 7 stories along the north side of the Iowa
Interstate Railroad. Generally, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment must be approved for
changes to the zoning and regulating plan maps to comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
However, the bonus height zoning text amendment does not require the Comprehensive Plan
amendment to be approved.
The applicant submitted concept plans showing development scenarios for the properties they
own and a statement regarding the proposed amendment (Attachment 3). The concepts
illustrate the potential character of development but are subject to change.
The applicant held an online Good Neighbor Meeting on October 28, 2020. Letters were sent on
October 20 to property owners beyond the minimum required 300-foot distance informing
neighbors about the meeting. An account of the meeting is included in Attachment 5.
ANALYSIS:
The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan serves as a land-use planning guide by illustrating and
describing the location and configuration of appropriate land uses throughout the City, providing
notification to the public regarding intended uses of land; and illustrat ing the long-range growth
area limit for the City. Applicants may request an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan
with City Council approval after a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Applicants for a comprehensive plan amendment must provide evidence that the request meets
the approval criteria in Section 14-8D-3D. The comments of the applicant are found in the
attachments. Staff comments on the criteria is as follows.
14-8D-3D Approval Criteria: Applications for a comprehensive plan amendment must
include evidence that the following approval criteria are met:
1. Circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors have come
to light such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest.
When the Southwest District Plan was adopted in 2002, the land use scenario (Medium
to High Density Multi-Family and Single-Family/Duplex Residential) was a way to create
an appropriate transition from commercial uses along S. Riverside Drive to residential
uses on Olive Street. The adoption of the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master
Plan in 2013 was a significant policy evolution by encouraging a more form-based
development approach. The City implemented this change through the adoption of a
form-based code which increased allowable densities while maintaining appropriate
transitions through building height and bulk controls. Subsequently, two multi -family
projects were developed under this code to the south of the subject properties,
Riverview West and the Orchard Lofts. Staff believes the adoption of the master plan,
and its implementation, constitute a change in circumstances for the subject area.
In addition, ownership of the subject parcels has recently changed. K&F assembled the
subject properties, along with those directly east on S. Riverfront Drive, from December
2019 through June 2020. Prior to that point, the subject properties were under four
different owners, with a fifth owning the property along S. Riverside Drive. While some of
this assemblage is currently within the West Riverfront subdistrict of the master plan, the
subject properties are not. This recent unification of ownership presents redevelopment
opportunities that did not previously exist.
4
2. The proposed amendment will be compatible with other policies or provisions of
the comprehensive plan, including any district plans or other amendments thereto.
The Roosevelt Subarea of the Southwest District Plan, which contains the subject
properties, has several goals relevant to the proposed amendment. One of its primary
goals is to provide an opportunity for all types of households to live close to the
University and downtown, including singles, young families, university students and
elderly populations. To this end, the plan encourages stabilizing single-family
neighborhoods and developing high-quality multi-family housing that is compatible with
surrounding neighborhoods. Its recommendations emphasize design standards to
ensure new multi-family development is sensitive to the environment, topography, and
neighborhood. Similarly, the plan encourages the development of attractive, mixed-use
buildings which include commercial uses serving the needs of nearby residents. These
goals reflect broader goals in the comprehensive plan, such as promoting compatible
infill, preventing sprawl, enabling alternatives to commuting by car, providing a diverse
community, and supporting the vitality of downtown.
The City adopted the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan to implement
similar policies in the Riverfront Crossings District. Much of the master plan focuses on
encouraging pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use development to enhance the urban fabric.
This is achieved by mixing housing and commercial infill development and activating and
improving streetscapes with pedestrian amenities. In the West Riverfront subdistrict, this
is envisioned as occurring over time as commercial uses west of S. Riverside Drive take
on a more pedestrian-friendly framework or transition to urban apartments and mixed-
use development with buildings at corners and vehicular access behind to create a
pedestrian-oriented street frontage. East of S. Riverside Drive, the master plan
encourages utilizing river views with walkable commercial or niche residential uses,
including townhouses or mid-rise condominium buildings.
While the goals of these two plans generally align, some apparent differences must be
reconciled. The Southwest District Plan notes to avoid concentrations of high-density
multi-family zoning adjacent to low-density single-family zones. It uses its future land use
map to facilitate a transition between higher density uses on S. Riverside Drive and low-
density residential neighborhoods to the west. Alternatively, the master plan encourages
appropriate transitions through its regulating plan incorporated in the Zoning Code (City
Code, Title 14). The West Riverfront subdistrict allows a base height of up to 4 stories
with a 10-foot step back above the third floor on facades facing streets or single-family
residential zones. The maximum height may be increased to five stories where not
abutting a residential zone. While the strategies are different, they achieve the same
ends of appropriately transitioning from lower to higher density uses. The Riverfront
Crossing Form-Based Code also includes enhanced building, frontage, and design
requirements, which further ensures a higher quality of design and supports both plans.
To understand compatibility, the specific context is also relevant. The subject parcels
currently contain 144 dwelling units, primarily in two- to three-story multi-family buildings,
though also in some lower density properties. The Southwest District Plan Future Land
Use Map designations of Single-Family/Duplex Residential, Medium to High Density
Multi-Family, and Mixed Use reflect this situation. Surrounding properties include public
uses to the north, commercial uses to the east, a railroad and high-density multi-family
uses to the south, and some medium-density single-family uses to the west. The subject
parcels are immediately adjacent to areas within the West Riverfront subdistrict and
5
contain similar uses to those in the subdistrict. As such, it makes sense to include the
subject parcels though this was not contemplated in the master plan.
Expanding the West Riverfront subdistrict will increase the allowable density of the subject
properties, but staff believes it maintains compatibility with single-family homes to the west
in this case. Steep slopes create 50 feet of grade change between those homes and the
subject parcels, and West Riverfront parcels abutting a residential zone can only have
buildings up to four stories. As a result, the proposed buildings are expected to have a
three-story exposure to the single-family homes, which is comparable to what would be
allowed in the current zone if the properties were at the same grade. It is also only one
story taller than the existing buildings, maintaining a similar context for homes to the west.
In addition, redevelopment of the site meets other goals in the Southwest District and
Riverfront Crossings plans. First, it allows for a more cohesive development with better
circulation and a high-quality, pedestrian-oriented design. The concept also contains a
mixed of senior and market-rate housing, retail, hospitality and neighborhood services, all
organized around a central, pedestrian-scale plaza. While the concept will increase traffic
to the site, the Traffic Impact Study which was submitted with the application indicates that
all study intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service and th at queuing is not
anticipated to be an issue.
For these reasons, staff finds that the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment to
expand the West Riverfront subdistrict to include the subject properties in the Downtown
and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan is compatible with the surrounding development
and other policies in the Comprehensive Plan. However, implementing this proposed
amendment requires amending the zoning code map and the regulating plan (to be
considered under REZ20-0003 and REZ20-0004 respectively).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of CPA20-0002, a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan,
to add approximately 3.16 acres of property to the West Riverfront Subdistrict of the Downtown
and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan located at 219, 223, and 245 S. Riverside Court and 119,
201, 203, 205, 207, and 209 Myrtle Ave.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Application Submittal
4. Proposed Changes to the Downtown & Riverfront Crossings Master Plan
5. Good Neighbor Meeting Materials
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
SRIVERSIDEDRMYRTLE AVE
S RIVERSIDE CTOLIVE STCPA20-0002West of Riverfront Drive,South of Mrytle Avenue.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 aComprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designationof approximately 3.16 acres of property from High Density Multifamily(RM-44) and Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to IowaRiverfront Crossings, West Riverfront (IRC-WR).
S RIVERSIDE DRMYRTLE AVE
S RIVERSIDE CTOLIVE STRFC-O
P2
RFC-WR
RS8
CC2
RM44
RS5
CPA20-0002West of Riverfront Drive,South of Mrytle Avenue.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 aComprehensive Plan Amendment to change the land use designationof approximately 3.16 acres of property from High Density Multifamily(RM-44) and Medium Density Single-Family (RS-8) to IowaRiverfront Crossings, West Riverfront (IRC-WR).
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 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
DEVELOPMENTCOMPREHENSIVE 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 buildinglocated 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
downtown & riverfront crossings
january 2013
master plan
ADOPTED
october 2015
july 2016
XXXXX 2020
AMENDED
downtown and riverfront crossings plan2 24
23
2
1
3
4 5
7 8 9
18
19
21
11
12
10
13
22
14 15
16
17
20
1
2
3
4
5
Downtown Infill Development
Burlington Street Pedestrian Enhancements
New Student Housing
Clinton Plaza
Clinton Street Promenade
Ralston Creek Reconstruction
Rock Island Train Depot/Potential Passenger Rail Station
Transit Oriented Development and Station Civic Plaza
Central Crossings Light Rail Stop
Cottage Homes
Artist Courts
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Park District Mixed-Use Development
River Outlook
Potential Arts Center
Regional Park
Gilbert Street Mixed-Use District
South Gilbert Light Rail Stop
Riverview Townhomes
Riverfront Residential Tower
Riverside Drive Commercial Redevelopment
Riverside Drive Pedestrian Enhancements
Entrance Monuments
Orchard Court Sub-District (July 5, 2016)
Expansion of West Riverfront Subdistrict
RALSTON CREEK
IOWA RIVER
6
11 22
24
23
downtown and riverfront crossings plan4
sub-districts
During the course of the planning process, several prominent
features were discussed on a recurring basis. Due to either their
prominent role in the plan or their relevance and impact on other
elements, these features became to be known as Framework
Elements. Framework Elements consist of Sub-Districts, Primary
Streets and Required Retail Storefronts, Mobility, Green Space,
Public Art, and Student Housing. These Framework Elements will
be discussed in further detail on the following pages.
The Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan Study Area
is very large in size and contains a number of neighborhoods and
settings, each with their own identity. Instead of combining them
into one homogeneous district, it was determined that it would be
more useful, and appropriate, to break the Study Area into sub-
districts. These sub-districts would be identified based on their
location, primary use, scale, and other identifying features. In all,
eight districts were identified:
›Downtown
›South Downtown
›Central Crossings
›Gilbert
›West Riverfront
›Orchard
›University
›Park
›South Gilbert
Many of these sub-districts existed in a geographic sense, but
were unnamed and given “formal” names as part of the planning
process. Other times, the sub-districts were known by their
formal names, but did not have defined geographic boundaries.
Each sub-district will be described in more detail in the following
chapter.
Johnson County
Sub-District Map for RFC Plan
Right: Sub-District Diagram
West
Riverfront
District
University
District
Park
District
Central
Crossings
District
South
Downtown
District
Downtown
District
Gilbert
District
South
Gilbert
District
Orchard
District
28
5
downtown district
West Riverfront Expansion
Orchard
District(appx. 2)
53
south downtown district
7
West
Riverfront Expansion
Orchard
District
(appx. 2)
59
central crossings district
9
West
Riverfront Expansion
Orchard
District
(appx. 2)
65
gilbert district
11
West Riverfront
Expansion
Orchard
District(appx. 2)
73
west riverfront district
13
West
Riverfront Expansion
Orchard
District
(appx. 2)
79
The West Riverfront District is a high-traffic, auto-oriented corridor
situated on the west side of the Iowa River. South Riverside
Drive bisects the district and connects U.S. Highway 6 with the
University of Iowa campus. It is lined by commercial uses set
back behind surface parking lots. Pedestrians are typically an
afterthought. Unlike the rest of the study area, this district plays by
different rules in terms of achieving an urban, pedestrian friendly
environment.
As redevelopment of the district occurs, new development
should capitalize on the Iowa River and its close proximity to the
campus. In addition, it should take advantage of the access and
visibility provided by Highway 6. It is envisioned that over time,
the commercial development on the west side of South Riverside
Drive will take on a more pedestrian-friendly framework, or it will
transition to urban apartments and mixed-use development. In
the development of gas stations and drive thru businesses, the
building should be anchored at the corner, with vehicular access
and amenities moved to the back to create a pedestrian oriented
street frontage (See Appendix A). Redevelopment on the east side
of the district will take advantage of river views, and will consist
of either pedestrian-friendly commercial uses or niche residential,
including higher end townhouses or mid-rise condo towers.
West Riverfront District Summary
Master Plan Objectives:
›Capitalize on Highway 6 access and visibility
›Improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation
›Capitalize on the Iowa River
›Extend the riverfront trail
›Capture the football crowd
Development Character:
›Temper auto orientation
›Open views and access to river
›Enhance the streetscape and overall aesthetics
Development Program:
›Multiple housing typologies, including condo towers,
apartments and townhouses
›Destination river view restaurants
›Commercial , possible small to midsize box
›Hospitality
downtown and riverfront crossings plan14
west riverfront district
PRENTISS ST.
WRIGHT ST.
LAFAYETTE ST.
BENTON ST.
BENTO
N
ST.
KIRKWOOD AVE.
HIGHWAY 6
ST
U
R
G
I
S
C
O
R
N
E
R
D
R
.SOUTH RIVERSIDE DR.MAIDEN LANEGILBERT ST.I
O
W
A
R
I
V
E
RR A L S T O NORCHARD ST.CREEKDUBUQUE ST.CAPITOL ST.GILBERT ST.80
WR1
WR2
WR3
WR4
WR6
WR5
WR7
WR – 1: Riverfront Enhancements – In order to help encourage
development within the district, a program to enhance the west
bank of the Iowa River should be undertaken. This would include
utilitarian elements, such as stabilizing the riverbank to prevent
further erosion, functional elements, such as extending the
riverfront trail to the north and south, and aesthetic elements,
such as providing additional landscaping. Included in this would
be interpretative stations along the river to provide educational
opportunities relating to the river and its plant and wildlife,
including the many Bald Eagles that frequent this stretch.
WR – 2: Riverside Drive Enhancements – Riverside Drive is very
auto-oriented, with few pedestrian amenities and unappealing
aesthetics. As the district transitions into a more urban setting,
the right-of-way will need to be redesigned in order to provide
enhanced aesthetics and a more walkable environment for
pedestrians.
Enhancements to the pedestrian environment should include the
following:
›Reduce the number of curb cuts along the street
›Provide a wider sidewalk that is set back from the curb a
minimum of six feet and preferably more
›Provide enhanced pedestrian crossings across Riverside Drive
and its cross streets
›Provide a safe pedestrian connection on the west side of
Riverside Drive under the Iowa Interstate Railroad bridge.
Aesthetic enhancements should include the following:
›Gateway signage and landscaping at the intersection of U.S.
Highway 6
›Buried utilities
›Streetscape enhancements, including street trees and other
forms of landscaping
WR – 3: Westside Redevelopment – Located along the west side
of Riverside Drive and north of Benton Street, the car dealership
site provides a large and strategic site for redevelopment. As
shown in the plan, the northwest corner of the intersection is
reserved for an attached green, which would double the amount of
available frontage for neighborhood retail or restaurant uses. This
landscaped green could provide outdoor seating for restaurants
or cafes, and is the “identity” of the site. The remaining buildings
on the site would be pedestrian oriented, with street frontage
and parking in the rear. They are designed to accommodate retail
uses on their first floors, and apartments on the upper floors. This,
as well as the area north of the railroad, could be an appropriate
location for dormitory style housing as discussed earlier. There is
the possibility for a higher room count if housing developed with
a private dorm, provided there is an agreement with the University
to provide car storage offsite.
WR – 4: Riverside Commercial Redevelopment – The commercial
property on the west side of Riverside Drive and south of Benton
Street will take on a more pedestrian friendly format. In order for
this to occur, a slip lane will need to be constructed. This lane will
provide access to the retail uses, as well as “on-street” parking.
In addition, it will be the organizing feature of the site, and help
provide a common “build-to” line for new development to address.
New commercial buildings will be adorned with enhanced facades
and improved landscaping, and overflow parking will be provided
to the rear of the buildings.
WR – 5: Sturgis Corner Redevelopment – The commercial uses on
the Sturgis Corner site were developed in a conventional manner,
with multiple architectural styles, buildings set back behind large
surface parking lots, and limited pedestrian amenities. As this
area begins to redevelop, development guidelines will establish a
new development framework, one that is much more pedestrian
friendly. New commercial buildings will front onto Sturgis
Corner Drive, sidewalks will connect buildings, and parking will
be provided on-street and to the rear of buildings. In addition,
a new building site has been proposed for a new condo tower
overlooking the river and future regional park.
15
WR 3: Westside Redevelopment
WR 4: Riverside Commercial Development
WR 5: Sturgis Corner Redevelopment
81
WR – 6: Riverview – A new neighborhood is designated for
the north side of Benton Street. This neighborhood, which will
overlook the Iowa River and riverfront trail, will contain a new
mid-rise condo tower and townhouses that front onto greens
that provide access and view corridors to the river. All buildings
will be designed with parking on the ground floor in order to
raise habitable space above the floodplain. This design also
allows residents to get a more commanding view of the river. A
restaurant or retail site is located at the intersection of Benton
Street and Riverside Drive. This restaurant would have trail access
and is designed with a large patio with views of the river.
WR – 7: West Riverfront Expansion – The West Riverfront Sub-
District was expanded by a comprehensive plan amendment
(CPA20-0002) on XXXX, XX, 2020. The uses on the site at the time
of expansion were existing single-family and multi-family uses.
The site contains more than 50 feet of grade change, which is
atypical of the subdistrict. Redevelopment of the site will allow
the development of a larger, mixed-use project which may include
housing, retail, hospitality and/or neighborhood services. The new
development would make the site more cohesive and pedestrian-
friendly. However, the development must remain sensitive to the
less dense, single-family homes to the west.
downtown and riverfront crossings plan16
WR 6: Before and After Renderings Showing the New Riverview Neighborhood Development in the West Riverfront District
82
17
PRENTISS ST.
WRIGHT ST.
LAFAYETTE ST.
BENTON ST.
BENTO
N
ST.
KIRKWOOD AVE.
HIGHWAY 6
ST
U
R
G
I
S
C
O
R
N
E
R
D
R
.SOUTH RIVERSIDE DR.MAIDEN LANEGILBERT ST.I
O
W
A
R
I
V
E
RR A L S T O NORCHARD ST.CREEKDUBUQUE ST.CAPITOL ST.GILBERT ST.15
16 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
28
1 2
3
4
5
6 789
10 11
12
13
14
west riverfront yield analysis
83
downtown and riverfront crossings plan18
WEST RIVERFRONT DISTRICT
Building Building Square Comm.Office Mixed Resid Hotel Misc Suite Residential Hotel Parking Parking
Building ID Type Footprint Stories Footage SF SF SF SF SF SF Units Units Rooms Demand Provided Private Pkg Lot Pkg Gar Notes
WR-1 Commercial 3,900 1 3,900 3,900 - - - - - - - -16 18 -18 -
WR-2 Commercial 5,000 1 5,000 5,000 - - - - - - - -20 26 -26 -
WR-3 Commercial 16,805 1 16,805 16,805 - - - - - - - -67 45 -45 -
WR-4 Commercial 23,365 1 23,365 23,365 - - - - - - - -93 68 -68 -
WR-5 Commercial 10,350 1 10,350 10,350 - - - - - - - -41 42 -42 -
WR-6 Commercial 1,400 1 1,400 1,400 - - - - - - - - 6 5 - 5 -
WR-7 Commercial 1,400 1 1,400 1,400 - - - - - - - - 6 5 - 5 -
WR-8 Commercial 1,400 1 1,400 1,400 - - - - - - - - 6 5 - 5 -
WR-9 Commercial 1,400 1 1,400 1,400 - - - - - - - - 6 5 - 5 -
WR-10 Commercial 4,200 2 8,400 8,400 - - - - - - 3 -38 26 -26 -
WR-11 Mixed Use 2,555 2 5,110 - -2,555 2,555 - - - 2 -12 10 -10 -
WR-12 Mixed Use 11,255 4 45,020 - -11,255 33,765 - - -21 -73 45 -45 -
WR-13 Mixed Use 13,835 4 55,340 - -13,835 41,505 - - -27 -91 56 -56 -
WR-14 Residential 11,640 4 46,560 - - -46,560 - - -32 -48 61 -61 -
WR-15 Residential 11,250 4 45,000 - - -45,000 - - -28 -42 53 -53 -
WR-16 Townhomes 2,885 3 6,675 - - -6,675 - - - 3 - 6 8 6 2 -
WR-17 Townhomes 5,330 3 12,460 - - -12,460 - - - 5 -10 13 10 3 -
WR-18 Townhomes 4,080 3 9,560 - - -9,560 - - - 4 - 8 12 8 4 -
WR-19 Townhomes 6,080 3 14,070 - - -14,070 - - - 6 -12 14 12 2 -
WR-20 Townhomes 6,080 3 14,070 - - -14,070 - - - 6 -12 13 12 1 -
WR-21 Residential 20,315 8 68,875 - - -68,875 - - -40 -63 40 30 10 -parking on ground level
WR-22 Commercial 5,185 1 5,185 5,185 - - - - - - - -21 14 -14 -
WR-23 Mixed Use 10,355 5 45,085 - -3,665 41,420 - - -28 -55 34 17 17 -
WR-24 Commercial 8,835 1 8,835 8,835 - - - - - - - -35 44 -44 -
WR-25 Commercial 7,195 1 7,195 7,195 - - - - - - - -29 36 -36 -
WR-26 Commercial 6,575 1 6,575 6,575 - - - - - - - -26 20 -20 -
WR-27 Commercial 5,000 1 5,000 5,000 - - - - - - - -20 25 -25 -
WR-28 Residential 14,520 7 68,940 - - -68,940 - - -38 -57 57 37 20 -parking on ground level
WR-29 Hotel 13,620 4 54,480 - - - -54,480 - - -108 108 90 -90 -
WEST RIVERFRONT DISTRICT TOTALS 597,455 106,210 0 31,310 405,455 54,480 0 0 243 108 1,026 890 132 758 0
84
university district
19
West
Riverfront Expansion
Orchard
District
(appx. 2)
85
park district
21
West
Riverfront Expansion
Orchard
District
(appx. 2)
91
south gilbert district
downtown and riverfront crossings plan22
West
Riverfront Expansion
Orchard
District
(appx. 2)
96
THOMAS A PAULSEN
1203 SANTA FE DR
IOWA CITY, IA 52246
BENNY LEE STEVENSON
531 OLIVE ST
IOWA CITY, IA 52246
DAVID ALLEN WADKINS
533 OLIVE ST
IOWA CITY, IA 52246
IHAWK INVESTMENTS LLC
1107 RYAN CIR
IOWA CITY, IA 52246
SKYLER A MOSS
527 OLIVE ST
IOWA CITY, IA 52246
ARTHUR T JOHNSON
50 PRAIRIE DR
WALKER, IA 52352
ALFRED R & MARTHA G KLEINMEYER
530 OLIVE ST
IOWA CITY, IA 52246
PRESTIGE PROPERTIES III LLC
329 E COURT ST STE 2B
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
MARTHA KLEINMEYER
530 OLIVE ST
IOWA CITY, IA 52246
RIVER CROSSINGS LLC
2626 NEWPORT RD NE
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
ELISA G WALLICK
534 OLIVE ST
IOWA CITY, IA 52246
TIMOTHY A KLEINMEYER
532 OLIVE ST
IOWA CITY, IA 52246
CHRISTOPHER TRAETOW
475 N MCKENZIE LN
NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317
KAREN EAKES
702 GIBLIN DR
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
KEYSTONE PROPERTY MANGEMENT
533 SOUTHGATE AVE
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
HOWARD M FIELD
2732 HIDDEN VALLEY TRL NE
SOLON, IA 52333-9551
PETRO-KING INC
606 S RIVERSIDE DR
IOWA CITY, IA 52246-5606
MCWANE DAIRY QUEEN INC
526 S RIVERSIDE DR
IOWA CITY, IA 52246
STATE OF IOWA
4 JESSUP HALL
IOWA CITY, IA 52242
TIMOTHY J & SHEILA M KELLY
1094 BLACK DIAMOND RD
PARNELL, IA 52325
M & W PROPERTIES LLC
916 MAIDEN LN
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
RIVERVIEW WEST LLC
404 E COLLEGE ST #1501
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
L & K PROPERTIES LLC
380 WHITMAN AVE
NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317
513 RIVERSIDE LLC
13 WOODCREST LN NE
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
FIRST MENNONITE CHURCH OF IC
405 MYRTLE AVE
IOWA CITY, IA 52246
BARKALOW INVESTMENTS INC
PO BOX 1490
IOWA CITY, IA 52244-1490
H SHELTON & ANN M STROMQUIST
316 MYRTLE AVE
IOWA CITY, IA 52246
MAG DEVELOPMENT LLC
PO BOX 5325
CORALVILLE, IA 52241
JAMES M & MARY K KRIER
28042 280TH ST
OLLIE, IA 52576
RIVERFRONT WEST GOOD NEIGHBOR MEETING
October 28, 2020 4:30 pm – 6:00 pm (Zoom)
Attendees
Neighbors: Nick Faselt, Carrie Floss, Mary Knudson, Ann Stomquist, Shel Stromquist, Paula
Swygard, Chris Traetow
Applicant: Mark Seabold (Shive Hattery), Steve Long, Kevin Kain & Adam Carper
(Riverfront West), Maryann Dennis (Riverfront West affordable housing
consultant)
City Staff: Ray Heitner, Kirk Lehman & Marcia Bollinger
Comments & Questions
• What about development on the east side of Riverside Drive, along the Iowa River?
• Are we working with the university?
• When we go before Planning and Zoning will we have a final concept?
• Please explain the comprehensive plan and rezoning process.
• Total number of units proposed?
• Will there be affordable housing replacement?
• Will you meet with us again after rezoning to show us the concept?
• The intersection of Riverside and Benton is so much nicer now and this project
continues that. It’s great. It would add to this area of town.
• Any concerns about the noise from the railroad?
• Updates on the railroad tunnel project?
• Concern about connecting to the neighborhood to the south, if the tunnel is not
constructed.
• Properties that abut the homes on Olive Court is there a buffer, similar to Riverfront
West -Orchard?
• What is the development timeline?
• How much neighborhood commercial space?
Zoom Chat Question
What type of housing is being thought to go here? Hotel?/Senior?/Multi-family?
City Staff Representative Comments
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
DEVELOPMENTCOMPREHENSIVE 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 buildinglocated 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.
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.
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
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.
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 3 of 24
Martin moved 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.
Townsend seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CASE NO. REZ20-0001:
Applicant: MMS Consultants, on behalf of Jon Harding
Location: North of Camp Cardinal Boulevard, west of Camp Cardinal Road
An application submitted for a Planned Development Overlay rezoning of approximately 3.18
acres of land from Neighborhood Public (P-1) zone to Community Commercial with a Planned
Development Overlay (OPD/CC-2) zone.
Heitner began the staff report showing an aerial view of the property as well as the zoning map.
The subject property is zoned P-1 with Urban Development Research Park zoning to the north,
and RS-5 zoning to the east.
Regarding the background on this case, Heitner stated the current owner, Jon Harding is looking
to rezone this property to develop a community event center, upwards of 7000 square feet. This
application triggers a level two sensitive areas plan requirement because it contains a wetland
which then triggers a required Plan Development Overlay (OPD) to accompany the rezoning.
Heitner explained OPDs are a little bit different from standard rezonings as there is some specific
criteria that they must analyze which is laid out in the Code.
Criteria number one: the density and design of the planned development will be compatible and
is complimentary to adjacent development in terms of land, use, building mass and scale,
relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and in general layout. Heitner explained staff's
interpretation of how this proposed rezoning is affected by each of those terms. In terms of
density the Code is addressing compatibility to residential development and there is no
residential development associated with this plan so it's a non-factor. Regarding the Land Use
proposed, the community event center is allowable by right in a CC-2 zone. In terms of open
space, there will be a generous amount of open space on the property, about 1.74 acres, which
includes the remaining wetland for this property, forested wetland, and buffer for the wetland.
Next is the mass scale and general layout and Heitner noted the building that's proposed is
about 7840 square feet, including a 2240 square foot outdoor patio. He added there's an
accompanying application for a vacation along with this rezoning of about 0.06 acres of City
right-of-way on Camp Cardinal Road and the event center building will be required to conform to
the City's commercial site development standards. Heitner showed some elevation sketches of
the proposed building, it is proposed to be about roughly two stories in size. He also showed on
a map the area that's proposed to be vacated just to the east of the subject property. Next in the
approval criteria is in terms of traffic circulation and the proposal only contains one access onto
Camp Cardinal Road and City transportation planning staff has identified that as sufficient.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2020
Page 4 of 24
Heitner did want to add that when the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for this area was
discussed at a Commission meeting a couple months ago there was a quite a bit of discussion
about traffic concerns but in talking about this with the transportation planning staff, they view
this as potential event traffic, meaning that it's not going to be a constant 100 vehicles on site all
the time, it's more similar to that of a church or something that has fairly infrequent capacity
reached with its parking. Therefore only probably a handful of times a week would one see full
capacity or full use of this parking lot and the transportation planning staff felt comfortable with
that volume of traffic joining up with the traffic volumes that are seen on Camp Cardinal
Boulevard and Camp Cardinal Road.
Criteria number two: the development will not overburden existing streets or utilities. Staff finds
there is City water and sanitary sewer available to the site, it’s currently situated on the east side
of Camp Cardinal Road and those extensions can be made to the site. Heitner already covered
the point on event traffic but one thing that staff is requesting as a condition of the rezoning is for
the applicant to contribute $5,000 toward the improvement of Camp Cardinal Road from roughly
where the road is improved to the edge of the property line which is about 25 feet as the road
transitions into a rural type surface currently. The $5,000 contribution would be about 25% of that
improvement cost.
Criteria number three: the development will not adversely affect the use light and air, property
values and privacy of neighboring properties any more than conventional development. Staff
doesn’t believe this will be the case, they did not request the applicant do anything like a view
shed analysis or line of sight analysis but with the OPD plan, this building will be roughly two
stories in height, and there will be trees preserved to the south and to the west screening the
building from interstate view for the most part. Additionally, the property to the north is vacant
and there is very light use to the east and therefore don't see this development as having a major
impact on surrounding properties.
Criteria number four: the combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the
underlying zoning requirements or street standards will be in the public interest. Heitner stated
again this application is not requesting any waivers to modify zoning requirements or street
standards as part of this OPD.
Next Heitner discussed the application in terms of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He
stated there was an amendment passed to the City's Future Land Use Map on September 1,
2020, to change the land use from Public Private Open Space to General Commercial, therefore,
this rezoning to Community Commercial would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
In terms of Sensitive Areas Review, Heitner noted there's a few things they had to look at. The
biggest sensitive area they had to review with this application was Jurisdictional Wetlands. The
subject property does have a fairly sizable wetland on it and within the wetland there is a portion
that would be directly impacted by the development for the construction of parking. According to
City ordinance a wetland requires a 100-foot buffer around the entirety of its perimeter, but the
ordinance does allow for that buffer to be averaged down to a 50 foot buffer. He noted about
12% would cross over the buffer but the Code allows for this so long as the average buffer is
equal to or greater than the square footage that would be required of the 100-foot buffer. Heitner
explained the 100-foot buffer would come out to 50,725 square feet, and the average wetland
buffer would come out to over 52,000 square feet and really what is being accomplished with the
average buffer is that it would preserve the wetlands that are to the south and west of the parking
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2020
Page 5 of 24
area in addition to preserving the remaining wetland. About 71% of the wetland would remain
not disturbed or not within the newly average buffer. In terms of mitigation that's being proposed,
they are proposing mitigation at a 3:1 ratio, which is the highest level of mitigation that's required
by Code. Technically, for this development, the City would only require a 1:1 mitigation, or
possibly a 0.5:1 mitigation if it was done on site. The mitigation would be comprised of 0.27
acres of emergent enhancement and Heitner stated that includes some management of invasive
species reduction of up to 90% invasive species, establishing an assemblage of native wetland
species within about five years of starting mitigation and also establishing forest and forest
ecotone plantings to an area within the area. Heitner noted one of the other sensitive areas on
this piece of property is stream corridor and there's a requirement for a 15 foot natural buffer
from the stream corridor, and since the stream corridor is fairly far away from the areas to be
impacted on this property staff doesn’t view any real issues with the stream corridor. He noted
there are some steep, critical and protected slopes on the property and under no circumstances
can the protected slopes be altered. Heitner noted there is a 50-foot buffer around the protected
slopes. He noted there are also some critical slopes on this property and this plan is only
proposing disturbance 2% of those slopes and City ordinance allows for disturbance up to 35%.
City Engineering staff reviewed these plans and how they would impact the steep slopes and
they're comfortable with this plan going forward.
Staff is proposing two conditions upon recommended approval.
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 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.
In terms of next steps upon approval from this Commission, the item would proceed to Council
for consideration and the applicant would be required to submit a final Sensitive Areas
Development Plan and Site Plan, both of which would be reviewed by staff before building
permits are issued.
Staff 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 mentioned above.
Hensch asked for clarification on rezoning a public area and wondered why this area was
originally zoned P-1. Heitner explained this land was owned by the County and then was
purchased by an individual sometime within the last 10 years. When the County owned the
property, it was set aside for public use. The new landowner, Mr. Harding, made the request to
have the Comprehensive Plan amended, which was approved a couple weeks ago, from public
to general commercial.
Hensch noted from the property inventory map it looks like there's been a roadway out there and
some gravel, was it a storage area for other construction activities. Heitner is not exactly sure if
there was really any official use associated with this property but has also heard that it was used
as a storage area for other construction projects.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2020
Page 6 of 24
Hensch opened the public comment.
Luke Newton (MMS Consultants) noted that he is available for questions.
Hensch asked about the invasive species on the property.
Chant Eicke (Impact 7G) stated in the wetland area there's a significant component of reed
canary grass which is an invasive non-native species. He added the forested areas are in pretty
good condition. W ithin the average buffer area to the south and west, there's some decent sized
white oak trees and some younger hickory trees. The area that is on the northside of the property
(north and east) the area to be developed is in and around where that gravel storage, or
whatever was going on in there, is. Eicke explained the plan is to take care of the reed canary
grass problem with some good sedge meadow component in there as it's really good conditions
for that. There's a little bit of sawston bull brush and indications of other good stuff in there, but
it's mostly overtaken by reed canary grass. The forested areas are not quite as overtaken by
reed canary because the shade helps other plants establish. Their plan will definitely increase
the ecological value of the property in that area.
Signs noted a little bump out of the critical slope area on the north and asked if in the proposal
they are planning to install a retaining wall at the base of that area to keep it protected. Eicke
replied yes at the critical slope there they will install a retaining wall along that south west edge of
the parking lot to minimize the impacts further down the hillside that would further impact that
critical slope.
Hensch closed the public comment.
Nolte moved to recommend 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:
3. Prior to the issuance of building permits, provision of a 15-foot-wide utility
easement along the property’s east side.
4. 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.
Martin seconded the motion.
Hensch noted thinks this is a great development for this area, it's a difficult area that’s been a
historic remnant from the Old County Poor Farm when it was cut off from 218 being constructed.
It's a difficult parcel to develop with some interesting features and this looks like it will actually
improve several of the features to the positive betterment for the community.
Signs agreed and noted they've done a really good job of trying to fit the space within the
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2020
Page 7 of 24
constraints of that property. He added a little farther to the south and east there is some
additional commercial property that fronts on to Camp Cardinal Boulevard and there is a church
to the west so it seems like an appropriate use of the parcel.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CASE NO. VAC20-0001:
Applicant: MMS Consultants, on behalf of Jon Harding
Location: North of Camp Cardinal Boulevard, west of Gathering Place Lane
An application submitted for a vacation of approximately 2,514 square feet of public right-of-way.
Heitner stated this vacation is the third of three applications associated with this development.
First was the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, second was the rezoning that was just
discussed, and third is this vacation.
Heitner showed the plat for the vacation and noted one thing that was a little bit of a challenge
with this vacation is that Camp Cardinal Road being a collector street requires 33 feet of right-of-
way from the road centerline to the property line. He added there's a number of factors that staff
looks at with vacations. First is vehicular and pedestrian circulation and access to private
property. Heitner stated right now this area isn't used for anything and there is no vehicular or
pedestrian circulation uses to be concerned about. Second is emergency and utility service
access. Again, there won't be any effect, the current right-of-way has no navigable purpose.
Third is the impact on access of adjacent properties. Currently there are no formal means of
access for the property and the OPD shows an access point onto Camp Cardinal Road to the
west so there would be no real effect to the formal means of access with this vacation. Fourth is
desirability of right-of-way for access or circulation needs. City transportation planning staff
indicated that a basically a 66-foot right-of-way for Camp Cardinal Road or 33 feet from
centerline to property line is plenty sufficient and any future widening of Camp Cardinal Road is
unlikely. Fifth is the location of utilities and other easements or restrictions on the property. As
discussed in the rezoning application, staff is recommending a 15-foot-wide utility easement
within this area to the property line going west and that is because there is an existing cable TV
utility line that runs along the far east side of the property. Finally, sixth is any other relevant
factors pertaining to the specific requested vacation and staff hasn't found any other relevant
factors pertaining to this requested vacation. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the
required purchase agreement from the applicant for this right-of-way and Council will also need
to approve that submitted purchase agreement offer along with the vacation request.
In summary Heitner stated the right-of-way really has no practical use, it is just vegetation and
grassland right now. The owner of the property the west intends to purchase the vacated and
conveyed land at fair market value and convert the right-of-way into access for the proposed
event center’s parking area. The conveyed right-of -way would also feature a utility easement.
Upon recommendation of approval by this Commission, the proposed vacation will be reviewed
by Council and as mentioned Council will discuss the vacation as well as the conveyance.
Staff recommends approval of VAC20-0001, a vacation of 0.06 acres of Camp Cardinal Road
right-of-way north of Camp Cardinal Boulevard and west of Gathering Place Lane in Iowa City.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2020
Page 8 of 24
Signs asked if the 4 sq. ft. at the very tippy north end is excluded from this vacation or are there
any issues there. Heitner confirmed that only the right triangle shown on the map would be
included in this vacation and he doesn’t believe there are any additional issues to consider right.
Hensch asked if the City will get an appraisal and then the vacated right-of-way will be sold to the
parcel owner at that price. Hekteon said they are not requiring an appraisal; the City will use the
assessed value of the adjacent land as the purchase price.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Hearing no comments nor questions for the applicants, nor any member of the public, Hensch
closed the public hearing.
Nolte moved to recommend 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.
Signs seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
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
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2020
Page 9 of 24
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.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2020
Page 10 of 24
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.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2020
Page 11 of 24
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. W atts 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
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2020
Page 12 of 24
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
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2020
Page 13 of 24
lots.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-2 (Nolte and Martin dissenting).
CASE NO. VAC20-0002:
Applicant: J+M Civil Design LLC
Location: Within the western 10 feet of the St. Mathias Alley right-of-way, adjacent to parcel
number 1002334001
An application for a vacation of approximately 1,444 square feet of public right-of-way.
Heitner began the staff report with an aerial view of the subject property noting the proposed
vacation is just to the east of1120 North Dodge on St. Mathias Alley. The right-of-way is about
30 feet wide and this vacation would be for the western 10 feet of that alley. The zoning for 1120
North Dodge is Community Commercial (CC-2) and there is multifamily RM-12 to the east and
south.
Regarding background for this request, the applicant is preparing for redevelopment and reuse of
1120 North Dodge Street which would ultimately function as a mixed-use building with a pickup
window and drive-through aisle on the ground floor and apartment above. The conveyed right-
of-way will allow for the applicant to accommodate a drive-through aisle and pickup window.
Heitner reiterated there's a series of evaluation criteria with vacation requests. Regarding impact
on pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation access to private property, the existing right-
of-way comes south from Dodge Street, and then turns southwest and eventually empties out on
the St. Clement Street and the proposed vacation area would be the westerly 10 feet or so.
Again, the purpose is to accommodate a drive-through lane for a proposed mixed-use
development. To the east of the drive-through lane would be about 20 feet of paved right-of-way
that would allow for a navigable two way traffic, as is currently the case, in the alley, the only
difference would be as far as the two way traffic is concerned, it would go from a 30 foot right-of-
way to a 20 foot right-of-way, but there would still be the ability to maintain that two way
navigability east of the 1120 North Dodge Street parcel and then continuing southward to the
western property line of the 1120 North Dodge Street parcel and then taper down to the existing
alleyway system to the west.
Regarding impact on emergency and utility vehicle access and circulation, there wouldn't be
impairments with the navigability for those vehicles, they still have a 20 foot right-of-way for
north/south traffic which City engineering staff and transportation planning staff deemed is
appropriate for this alley use and the 20 foot right-of -way meets the minimum standard allowed in
City Code.
Staff doesn't see any negative impacts to adjacent properties, the right-of-way will be maintained
between North Dodge and St. Clement Streets and once again that existing to access will
remain. In terms of desirability of right-of-way for access or circulation needs, Heitner reiterated
the right-of-way is meant to facilitate development of a drive-through lane for a ground floor
commercial use and the right-of-way vacation facilitates that drive-through lane is necessary
because of how the building at 1120 North Dodge Street is situated within the property, making it
necessary to have that extra 10 feet of vacated space to accommodate that drive-through lane.
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2020
Page 14 of 24
In terms of utilities and other easements or restrictions on the property, the subject area does not
contain any utilities, easements or other restrictions and staff hasn't found any other relevant
factors pertaining to the specific requested vacation.
Heitner noted the City Attorney's Office has reviewed the required purchase agreement from the
applicant for this right-of-way area and City Council will need to approve the submitted purchase
agreement offer.
In summary, staff finds subject right-of-way can be vacated and conveyed to the applicant while
maintaining a safe two-way means of travel through the remaining St. Matthias Alley right-of-
way. Existing two-way travel patterns will remain in place and improvements made to the alley
between the intersection of North Dodge Street and the western property line will create an
improved driving surface for that portion of the alley.
In terms of next steps, pending approval from this Commission the vacation will be reviewed by
Council and Council will discuss the vacation as well as the proposed conveyance of land. The
applicant has offered fair market value for the vacation.
Staff 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.
Hensch asked if there is access from St. Matthias Alley into St. Joseph cemetery. Heitner
confirmed there is but noted the vacation won't affect that access to the cemetery.
Hensch asked if the sale purchase agreement is based on the assessed value from the City
Assessor again like the one on Camp Cardinal Road. Hektoen confirmed it was.
Craig asked regarding the paved area of what is being called an alley, is that all at the owner’s
expense and maintenance not the City. Heitner confirmed that was correct and noted the
improvements on the vacated right-of-way will be at the owner’s expense as well as the
maintenance. Russett noted the City will continue to maintain the alley maintenance as it will
remain a public alley. Craig stated the City does not plow snow in all public alleyways and asked
though if the property owner is installing the hard surface on the alley for access to their drive-
through, who would maintain it. Russett said the City would be responsible for maintenance in
terms of potholes and that type of thing, but she is unsure about snow removal. Likely whoever
is plowing it now will be the person who plows it in the future that won't change with the vacation.
Craig noted the moment it snows there may be an issue.
Another issue Craig noted was the traffic going out on to North Dodge and one of the nice things
about trying to get onto North Dodge is that there's not much traffic coming from that side of the
road with the HyVee over there. How close is this to the HyVee? Russett said it is just across the
street from the HyVee. Craig stated she thinks traffic is going to be an issue, depending on what
the business is, but places with drive-throughs can be busy certain times of the day. She is
amazed at that Starbucks in southwest Iowa City, every time she drives by there are six or seven
cars in line for the Starbucks.
Russett noted the drive-through requires a special exception from the Board of Adjustment so
that would have to be reviewed by the Board at that time, and traffic circulation is something that
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 15, 2020
Page 15 of 24
they would look at as well as stacking spaces and impacts to North Dodge Street.
Craig asked if there is a business there now or is it vacant. Russett said the applicant is
proposing to reuse the building and have a residence on the upper floor. She added this also
relates to the text amendment that the Commission reviewed at the last meeting related to
providing some more flexibility to infill commercial sites.
Signs asked if there's any place else where there is a drive-through lane literally a foot away from
the public street, or alley in this case. He noted it looks like there's going to be a curb median
with some colors and traffic delineators but are there examples of this and other places. Russett
is not sure if there are other examples out there or not of drive-throughs that close to an alley.
Signs noted his concern is are they setting a precedent here, while he is very excited to see
something done with that building because it's been sitting there empty for ever since he moved
to town, he is a little concerned about this tiny little strip of space.
Hensch stated he is presuming that on the alley there's no average annual daily traffic count. He
is asking because from his recollection of that area there are a lot of funerals at that cemetery
that use that roadway. Russett said the alley doesn’t extend west, it is only access for 1120
North Dodge and the cemetery.
Craig stated she would really like to have an answer to who is going to maintain the alley for
snow removal.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Ryan Wade (applicant, 1120 North Dodge Street) stated they will plow that alleyway as it is
access for their pickup window, drive-though, and the circulation with their customers coming in
and out of the building. He does not expect the City to maintain that snow removal and there can
be a clause in the purchase agreement with an easement or statement that he has no hesitation
to maintain that. He doesn’t want the tenants or customers coming in there to have issues getting
in and out of the lot. Wade added he is very excited about this property, he has been looking at
this property for a good 15 years and wanting to save it. He feels what they have planned now is
a great concept, he doesn’t want to tear this building down, it's got a cool backstory as it is one of
the older homes up front and was added on to later on so it’s going to be a cool little
neighborhood piece.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Nolte moved to recommend 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.
Martin seconded the motion.
Martin again supports a new business going in during a pandemic and hopes there's a lot of
traffic and they succeed. This is a case where instead of doing away with something, they are
recreating what is already there and adding to the community in an actual neighborhood.
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.
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.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2020-2021
7/16 8/6 8/20 10/1 10/15
CRAIG, SUSAN X X X X X
DYER, CAROLYN O/E O/E -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X
MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X X
NOLTE, MARK -- -- -- -- X X X
SIGNS, MARK X X X X X
TOWNSEND, BILLIE O/E X X X X
Vacancy
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member