HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.20.25 BOA Agenda PacketAgenda:
1.Call to Order
2.Roll Call
3.Special Exception Item
a.EXC25-0001: An application requesting a special exception to allow a drive-through
facility associated with an eating establishment in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone
at 21 Sturgis Corner Dr. (EXC25-0001)
4.Consideration of Meeting Minutes: January 8, 2025
5.Board of Adjustment Information
6.Adjournment
If you need disability-related accommodations in order to participate in this meeting, please
contact Parker Walsh, Urban Planning at 319-356-5238 or at pwalsh@iowa-city.org. Early
requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Board of Adjustment Meetings
Formal: March 12 / April 9 / May 14
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
IOWA CITY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Thursday, February 20, 2025 – 5:15 PM
City Hall, 410 East Washington Street
Emma Harvat Hall
February 20, 2025
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC25-0001
ITEM 3a ON THE AGENDA
Staff Report
Prepared by Staff
1
STAFF REPORT
To: Board of Adjustment
Item: EXC25-0001
Parcel Number: 1015329001
21 Sturgis Corner Drive
Prepared by: Madison Conley, Associate Planner
Date: February 12, 2025
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant/Property Owner: Sturgis Investments, LLC
327 2nd St. Unit 300
Coralville, IA 52241
KHF@shuttleworthlaw.com
Contact Person(s): Jon Marner
1917 S. Gilbert St
Iowa City, IA 52240
j.marner@mmsconsultants.net
Hans Kuhlmann
3405 East Eastman Ave
Denver, Colorado 80210
(720)308-1541
hans@halifaxdevelopment.net
Requested Action: Approval of a special exception to allow a drive-
through facility associated with an eating
establishment in a Community Commercial (CC-2)
zone.
Purpose: Redevelopment of an eating establishment and
development of a drive-through.
Location: 21 Sturgis Corner Drive
2
Location Map:
Size: 24,482 square feet
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Eating Establishment; Community Commercial (CC-
2)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North: General Office; Community Commercial
(CC-2)
East: General Office; Community Commercial
(CC-2)
South: Highway 6 E; Governmental Purposes;
Neighborhood Public (P-1)
West: Vehicle Repair; Community Commercial
(CC-2)
Applicable Code Sections: 14-4B-3A: General Approval Criteria
14-4C-2K: Drive-Through Facilities
File Date: January 10, 2025
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Sturgis Investments, LLC, intends to use the subject property at 21 Sturgis Corner
Drive as an eating establishment that will include a drive-through facility. The subject property and
surrounding properties are currently zoned Community Commercial (CC-2) which allows drive-
through facilities by special exception.
Currently, a Los Amigos restaurant operates at the subject property and is classified as an eating
establishment per the Iowa City Zoning Code. The developer plans to demolish the existing
structure and construct a new eating establishment with an associated drive-through.
The site plan (Attachment 3) shows that the proposed development will have access from Sturgis
Corner Dr. At the request of the City Engineer, staff requested a traffic study outlining impacts to
the existing street network. The Traffic Impact Study found that the Sturgis Corner Drive and S.
Riverside Drive intersection is already functioning poorly. The Traffic Impact Study finds that the
proposed development will make traffic slightly worse at this intersection. Also, the Traffic Impact
Study finds that the westbound to southbound turning movement from Sturgis Corner Drive onto S.
3
Riverside Drive is currently functioning as a level-of-service (F) during PM peak hours. The
proposed development has a moderate impact to the westbound to southbound delay. At this time
the City does not have a proposed project to deal with the failing turning movement; therefore,
staff is not recommending any off-site improvements in conjunction with the proposed project. In
the future, the City could move forward with a stand-alone intersection improvement project or
couple the intersection project with the larger future Highway 1/6/Riverside project that is currently
being planned to address the failing level-of-service. The Traffic Impact Study is included with the
Application Materials (Attachment 4).
The proposed drive-through does not include an order board. The applicant has stated that the new
eating establishing will include a “Chipotlane”. The “Chipotlane” is a new drive-through format for
Chipotle and is intended to service as the pick-up lane for online orders placed via the app or
website. The proposed restaurant is estimated to have 2,300 square feet of usable space with an
occupancy load of 49 people.
ANALYSIS:
The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare;
to conserve and protect the value of property throughout the city; and to encourage the most
appropriate use of land. It is the intent of the Ordinance to permit the full use and enjoyment of
property in a manner that does not intrude upon adjacent property. The Board may grant the
requested special exception if the requested action is found to be in accordance with the specific
criteria included in Section 14-4C-2K-3, pertaining to Drive-Through Facilities requiring special
exceptions, as well as the general approval criteria in Section 14-4B-3A.
For the Board of Adjustment to grant this special exception request, each of the following criterion
below must be met. The burden of proof is on the applicant, and their comments regarding each
criterion may be found on the attached application. Staff comments regarding each criterion are
set below.
Specific Standards 14-4C-2K-3: Drive Through Facilities:
a.Access and Circulation: The transportation system should be capable of safely
supporting the proposed drive-through use in addition to the existing uses in the
area. Evaluation factors include street capacity and level of service, effects on
traffic circulation, access requirements, separation of curb cuts, and pedestrian
safety in addition to the following criteria:
1)Wherever possible and practical, drive-through lanes shall be accessed from
secondary streets, alleys, or shared cross access drives. If the applicant can
demonstrate that access from a secondary street, alley, or shared cross access
drive is not possible, the board may grant access to a primary street, but may
impose conditions such as limiting the width of the curb cut and drive, limiting
the number of lanes, requiring the drive-through bays and stacking lanes to be
enclosed within the building envelope, and similar conditions.
FINDINGS:
•A Traffic Impact Study was requested by the City for the proposed redevelopment.
The Traffic Impact Study found that the Sturgis Corner Drive and S. Riverside Drive
intersection is already functioning poorly. The Traffic Impact Study finds that the
proposed development will make traffic slightly worse at this intersection.
4
•The Traffic Impact Study finds that the westbound to southbound turning movement
from Sturgis Corner Drive onto S. Riverside Drive is currently functioning as a level-of-
service (F) during PM peak hours. The proposed development has a moderate impact
to the westbound to southbound delay.
•At this time the City does not have a proposed project to deal with the failing turning
movement; therefore, staff is not recommending any off-site improvements.
•In the future, the City could move forward with a stand-alone intersection
improvement project or couple the intersection project with the larger future Highway
1/6/Riverside project that is currently being planned to address the failing level-of-
service.
•The proposed drive-through associated with the eating establishment would be
accessed from Sturgis Corner Drive which is a secondary street.
2)To provide for safe pedestrian movement, the number and width of curb cuts
serving the use may be limited. A proposal for a new curb cut on any street is
subject to the standards and restrictions in chapter 5, article C, "Access
Management Standards", of this title.
FINDINGS:
•The site currently has three curb cuts. The site plan shows that one of the curb
cuts will be removed as part of redevelopment of the site.
•Access to the proposed development would be from two curb cuts on Sturgis
Corner Drive.
•The site plan also shows that new sidewalks will be installed as part of the
development along Sturgis Corner Drive.
•Staff also recommends general compliance with the attached site plan be a condition
of approval to help ensure safe pedestrian travel.
•Staff will ensure all relevant standards are met during site plan review.
3)An adequate number of stacking spaces must be provided to ensure traffic
safety is not compromised. A minimum of six (6) stacking spaces is
recommended for drive-through facilities associated with eating establishments
and a minimum of four (4) stacking spaces for banking, pharmacies, and similar
nonfood related drive-through facilities. "Stacking spaces" shall be defined as
being twenty feet (20') in length and the width of a one lane, one-way drive. The
board may reduce the recommended number of stacking spaces if the applicant
can demonstrate that the specific business has unique characteristics such that
the recommended number of parking spaces is excessive (i.e., a drive- through
that is to be used for pick up only and not ordering).
FINDINGS:
•The site plan shows a single drive-through lane that leads to the pick-up window
and includes a bypass lane.
•The site plan shows 6 stacking spaces in the drive-through lane which meets the
recommended minimum requirement for eating establishments.
•The parking aisle around and to the drive-through provides additional space to
help accommodate spillover traffic and minimize traffic safety impacts.
5
4)Sufficient on site signage and pavement markings shall be provided to indicate
direction of vehicular travel, pedestrian crossings, stop signs, no entrance
areas, and other controls to ensure safe vehicular and pedestrian movement.
FINDINGS:
•The site plan indicates directional arrows in the drive-through and parking areas,
a ‘digital pick up ahead’ pavement marking to the drive-through entrance and
includes a ‘do not enter sign’ at each one-way exit in addition to “do not enter”
pavement markings. The signage helps prevent improper lane travel and
promotes the safety of vehicular circulation on the site.
•The site plan shows a pedestrian route where it crosses parking drives to the
west, which helps improve pedestrian safety.
b. Location:
1)In the CB-2 zone and in all subdistricts of the riverfront crossings district located
east of the Iowa River, drive-through lanes and service windows must be located
on a nonstreet-facing facade. In all other locations where drive-throughs are
allowed, this location standard must be met, unless the applicant can
demonstrate that a street-facing location is preferable for the overall safety and
efficiency of the site, does not conflict with adjacent uses or pedestrian access,
and does not compromise the character of the streetscape or neighborhood in
which it is located.
FINDINGS:
•A portion of the drive-through lane is located between Highway 6 and the
building. Staff finds that even though a portion of the drive-through lane is located
on the Highway 6 facing side of the lot the proposed design is preferable for the
overall safety and efficiency of the site.
•The drive-through will not impact the design quality of the streetscape because it
is on the interior portion of the lot, is adequately set back, and is screened to the
S2 standard from Sturgis Corner Drive, Highway 6 E, and the adjacent property
to the west by the building and landscaping.
•The drive-through is on the interior portion of the lot and is screened from Sturgis
Corner Drive and Highway 6 E by landscaping which helps integrate it into the
landscape and streetscape design of the neighborhood.
•The site plan shows that sidewalks will be installed on both sides of Sturgis
Corner Drive.
•Staff recommends a condition that prior to issuance of a building permit, the
developer shall pay the City a fee for the cost of installing a sidewalk along the
Highway 6 East portion of the site. The sidewalk will be installed by the City at a
future date. This condition will help improve the pedestrian environment.
2)Drive-through lanes must be set back at least ten feet (10') from adjacent lot
lines and public rights of way and screened from view according to the design
standards below.
FINDINGS:
•The drive-through lane is setback 46 feet from the adjacent lot line to the west
and screened to the S2 standard.
6
•Staff will ensure all standards are met during site plan review.
c.Design Standards: The number of drive-through lanes, stacking spaces, and paved
area necessary for the drive-through facility will not be detrimental to adjacent
residential properties or detract from or unduly interrupt pedestrian circulation or
the commercial character of the area in which the use is located. The board of
adjustment may increase or reduce these standards according to the
circumstances affecting the site.
1)To promote compatibility with surrounding development, the number of drive-
through lanes should be limited such that the amount of paving and stacking
space does not diminish the design quality of the streetscape or the safety of
the pedestrian environment.
FINDINGS:
•The site plan proposes one drive-through lane 10 feet wide for pick-up and one
bypass lane 12 feet wide.
•The drive-through will not impact the design quality of the streetscape because it
is on the interior portion of the lot, is adequately set back, and is screened to the
S2 standard from Sturgis Corner Drive, Highway 6 E, and the adjacent property
to the west by the building and landscaping.
•The site plan shows that sidewalks will be installed on both sides of Sturgis
Corner Drive.
•Staff recommends a condition that prior to issuance of a building permit, the
developer shall pay the City a fee for the cost of installing a sidewalk along the
Highway 6 East portion of the site. The sidewalk will be installed by the City at a
future date. This condition will help improve the pedestrian environment.
2)Drive-through lanes, bays, and stacking spaces shall be screened from views
from the street and adjacent properties to the S2 standard. If the drive-through
is located adjacent to a residential use or property zoned residential, it must be
screened from view of these properties to at least the S3 standard. To preserve
the pedestrian oriented character of streets in the CB-2 zone and the riverfront
crossings district, the board may require the drive-through to be incorporated
within the building or be screened with masonry street walls and landscaping.
Street walls shall be a minimum of five feet (5') in height and shall be designed
to complement the principal building on the site.
FINDINGS:
•The eating establishment is proposing only one drive-through lane that will be
screened appropriately to the S2 standard from adjacent properties and street
rights-of-way.
•All surrounding properties are zoned CC-2. The neighboring property to the west
is an auto repair shop and the properties to the north and east are a mix of
offices.
•Directly south of the subject property is Highway 6 E and there are no residential
properties in the surrounding area.
7
3)Multiple windows servicing a single stacking lane (e.g., order board, payment
window, pick up window) should be considered to reduce the amount of idling
on the site.
FINDINGS:
•There will be no order board associated with the proposed drive-through lane
since orders will have been placed online. Orders are placed in advance for pick-
up.
4)Stacking spaces, driveways, and drive-through windows shall be located to
minimize potential for vehicular and pedestrian conflicts and shall be integrated
into the surrounding landscape and streetscape design of the neighborhood in
which it is located.
FINDINGS:
•The drive-through lane is separated from the parking areas by pavement
markings to avoid vehicular conflicts.
•The drive-through is on the interior portion of the lot and is screened from Sturgis
Corner Drive and Highway 6 E by landscaping which helps integrate it into the
landscape and streetscape design of the neighborhood.
5)Lighting for the drive-through facility must comply with the outdoor lighting
standards set forth in chapter 5, article G of this title and must be designed to
prevent light trespass and glare onto neighboring residential properties.
FINDINGS:
•Staff will ensure lighting meets the City standards to prevent light trespass during
site plan review.
6)(Repealed by Ordinance No. 16-4685 on 11-15-2016)
7)Loudspeakers or intercom systems, if allowed, should be located and directed
to minimize disturbance to adjacent uses. Special consideration should be
given to locations adjacent to residential uses to ensure such systems do not
diminish the residential character of the neighborhood.
FINDINGS:
•Loudspeakers or intercom systems are not proposed with the drive-through due
to the absence of an order board.
General Standards: 14-4B-3: Special Exception Review Requirements:
1.The specific proposed exception will not be detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, comfort or general welfare.
FINDINGS:
•A Traffic Impact Study was requested by the City for the proposed redevelopment.
The Traffic Impact Study found that the Sturgis Corner Drive and S. Riverside Drive
8
intersection is already functioning poorly. The Traffic Impact Study finds that the
proposed development will make traffic slightly worse at this intersection.
•The Traffic Impact Study finds that the westbound to southbound turning movement
from Sturgis Corner Drive onto S. Riverside Drive is currently functioning as a level-of-
service (F) during PM peak hours. The proposed development has a moderate impact
to the westbound to southbound delay.
•At this time the City does not have a proposed project to deal with the failing turning
movement; therefore, staff is not recommending any off-site improvements.
•In the future, the City could move forward with a stand-alone intersection
improvement project or couple the intersection project with the larger future Highway
1/6/Riverside project that is currently being planned to address the failing level-of-
service.
•Onsite vehicular circulation and access are adequate to accommodate anticipated
users and drive-through traffic, and proposed signs and pavement markets will help
efficiently direct traffic.
•Pedestrian circulation on the site will be improved with the inclusion of pedestrian
paths that provide routes within the site, as well as to the new sidewalks along
Sturgis Corner Dr.
2.The specific proposed exception will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of
other property in the immediate vicinity and will not substantially diminish or impair
property values in the neighborhood.
FINDINGS:
•The surrounding properties to the west, north, and east are also zoned CC-2. The
proposed eating establishment is a permitted use in the CC-2 zone.
•The only abutting property is the property to the west, which is an existing vehicle
repair use. The proposed development will be required to incorporate screening along
the western property subject to City standards.
•To the south is Highway 6 E, which separates the subject property to the City-owned
land to the south.
•The use does not interfere with the use of the surrounding properties which include
vehicle repair and general office.
3.Establishment of the specific proposed exception will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses
permitted in the district in which such property is located.
FINDINGS:
•The surrounding properties are developed with general office uses to the north and
east, vehicle repair use to the west, and Highway 6 E and an institutional use to the
south. The site is suitable for the proposed infill development due to the existing City
services that are provided to the subject property.
•The proposed drive-through lane is on the interior of the lot and will be appropriately
screened from adjacent properties.
•The Traffic Impact Study finds that the westbound to southbound turning movement
from Sturgis Corner Drive onto S. Riverside Drive is currently functioning as a level-of-
service (F) during PM peak hours. The proposed development has a moderate impact
9
to the westbound to southbound delay. This is an existing condition that may affect
future redevelopment and improvement; however, that condition is not created due to
the proposed drive-through facility.
4.Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or
are being provided.
FINDINGS:
•The subject property is an infill parcel surrounded by existing development.
•Sanitary sewer and water mains can service the subject property and have sufficient
capacity to accommodate the proposed use.
•A Traffic Impact Study was requested by the City for the proposed redevelopment.
The Traffic Impact Study found that the Sturgis Corner Drive and S. Riverside Drive
intersection is already functioning poorly. The Traffic Impact Study finds that the
proposed development will make traffic slightly worse at this intersection.
•The Traffic Impact Study finds that the westbound to southbound turning movement from
Sturgis Corner Drive onto S. Riverside Drive is currently functioning as a level-of-service
(F)during PM peak hours. The proposed development has a moderate impact to the
westbound to southbound delay.
•At this time the City does not have a proposed project to deal with the failing turning
movement; therefore, staff is not recommending any off-site improvements.
•In the future, the City could move forward with a stand-alone intersection improvement
project or couple the intersection project with the larger future Highway 1/6/Riverside
project that is currently being planned to address the failing level-of-service.
5.Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress or egress
designed to minimize traffic congestion on public streets.
FINDINGS:
•A Traffic Impact Study was requested by the City for the proposed redevelopment.
The Traffic Impact Study found that the Sturgis Corner Drive and S. Riverside Drive
intersection is already functioning poorly. The Traffic Impact Study finds that the
proposed development will make traffic slightly worse at this intersection.
•The Traffic Impact Study finds that the westbound to southbound turning movement from
Sturgis Corner Drive onto S. Riverside Drive is currently functioning as a level-of-service
(F)during PM peak hours. The proposed development has a moderate impact to the
westbound to southbound delay.
•At this time the City does not have a proposed project to deal with the failing turning
movement; therefore, staff is not recommending any off-site improvements.
•In the future, the City could move forward with a stand-alone intersection improvement
project or couple the intersection project with the larger future Highway 1/6/Riverside
project that is currently being planned to address the failing level-of-service.
•The site plan shows adequate stacking spaces (6) for an eating establishment.
6.Except for the specific regulations and standards applicable to the exception being
considered, the specific proposed exception, in all other respects, conforms to the
applicable regulations or standards of the zone in which it is to be located.
FINDINGS:
10
•Staff will ensure the proposed development conforms with all applicable zoning
standards and regulations during the subsequent site plan and building permit review.
7.The proposed exception will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City,
as amended.
FINDINGS:
•The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map shows this area as Mixed Use, and
the Future Land Use Map of the Southwest District Plan shows this area as Community
Commercial.
•The Comprehensive Plan generally supports compatible infill development.
•The proposed exception would allow the redeveloped eating establishment to include
a drive-through facility, both of which are classified as commercial uses and are
consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of EXC25-0001, to allow for a drive-through facility for the property
located at 21 Sturgis Corner Drive subject to the following conditions:
1.Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall pay the City a fee for the cost of
installing a sidewalk along Highway 6 East to be installed by the City at a future date. Fee
to be determined by the City Engineer.
2.General compliance with the site plan dated 02-05-25 [Attachment 3].
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Location Map
2.Zoning Map
3.Site Plan
4.Application Materials
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
February 20, 2025
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC25-0001
ATTACHMENT 1
Location Map
Sturgis
C
orner Dr
St
u
r
g
i
s
C
o
r
n
e
r
D
r
Highw
ay6E
Highw
a
y
6
E
ʹͷǦͲͲͲͳ
ʹͳ q
Prepared By: Rachael Schaefer
Date Prepared: January 2025
0 0.02 0.040.01 Miles
An application requesting a special exception to allow for
a drive-through facility associated with an eating
establishment in a Community Commercial (CC-2) zone.
February 20, 2025
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC25-0001
ATTACHMENT 2
Zoning Map
Sturgis
C
orner Dr
St
u
r
g
i
s
C
o
r
n
e
r
D
r
Highw
ay6E
Highw
a
y
6
E
CC2
CC2
CC2
CC2
P1
CC2
CC2
CC2
CC2 ʹͷǦͲͲͲͳ
ʹͳ q
ǣ2
ǣ
ʹͲʹͷ
0 0.02 0.040.01 Miles
Ǧ
ȋǦʹȌǤ
February 20, 2025
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC25-0001
ATTACHMENT 3
Site Plan
February 20, 2025
Board of Adjustment Meeting
EXC25-0001
ATTACHMENT 4
Application Materials
Chipotle Iowa City Traffic Impact Study
21 Sturgis Corner Dr, Iowa City, IA 52246
Prepared by:
Anderson-Bogert Engineers and Surveyors, Inc.
Date: 1.9.25
2
I hereby certify that this Engineering document was prepared by me or
under my direct personal supervision and that I am a duly Licensed
Engineer under the laws of the State of Iowa.
___________________________
Jacob M. Sprengeler Exp. Date: 12/31/2025
Iowa Registration No. 27485
1.9.2025
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study was completed on behalf of Halifax Development, LLC to identify potential traffic impacts resulting from
the redevelopment of 21 Sturgis Corner Drive in Iowa City, Iowa. The existing site is a Los Amigos Mexican style
restaurant. While counting the adjacent intersection, it was observed that the existing site was generating
negligible traffic. The developer plans to demolish the existing structure and construct a new Chipotle fast-food
restaurant, complete with the new “Chipotlane” drive-through lane. The proposed development will not operate
during the AM peak hour. Therefore, only the PM peak hour was analyzed and counted.
After consulting the City of Iowa City and local MPO, the study area was determined to include both ends of
Sturgis Corner Drive, and the signalized intersection located at the intersection of Highway 1 and Highway 6.
Highways 1 and 6 are both classified as major arterials, and Sturgis Corner Drive is a local street. Due to the time
restrictions on this report, counts were acquired by Anderson-Bogert at both ends of Sturgis Corner Drive in
December 2024, during finals week at the University of Iowa. Counting so close to a major university during off
peak times is not ideal. MPOJC conducted traffic counts while the university was operating in normal session
during October 2024. When comparing Anderson-Bogert’s counts to the MPOJC counts, half of the movements
were heavier than the adjacent MPO counts, and the other half were less. Therefore, the counts along Riverside
Drive were generally balanced to the MPO counts. The Sturgis Corner Drive counts were balanced and inflated
based on historic area counts taken by Iowa DOT during non-school periods.
According to available Iowa DOT crash data and statistical modeling, the north end of Sturgis Corner Drive at
Riverside Drive has experienced issues with crashes involving left turning movements, particularly the westbound
left movement off of Sturgis Corner Drive. Represented in over 50% of the crashes for the past 4 years, the
intersection has a high potential for crash reduction. It ranks within the worst 1% of all similar intersections
throughout the state. The signalized intersection at Highways 1/6, and the south end of Sturgis Corner Drive do
not exhibit abnormal potential for crash reduction.
The existing no-build scenario found several traffic movements in the study area operate with unacceptable LOS
E during the PM peak hour. Riverside Drive between Benton Street and Highway 1 is impacted by signal queues
for most of the peak hour. The result of this congestion causes most side streets/commercial access points to
operate with LOS E or F during the PM peak hour. This includes the north side of Sturgis Corner Drive, which
operates with LOS F without the proposed development.
The signal at Highway 1/6 operates near its capacity, within the low end of LOS D. The southbound approach
and westbound through movements operate with unacceptable LOS E before the proposed development is
considered. With preexisting movement restrictions at the south end of Sturgis Corner Drive, the southbound
movement operates with acceptable LOS C with and without the proposed development.
The development is expected to generate about 76 trips during the PM peak. When added to the existing traffic,
all study intersections operate with comparable LOS to the no-build scenarios.
There are no existing public sidewalks in the immediate development’s immediate vicinity. Current city and Iowa
DOT plans call for the addition of major pedestrian facilities along Highway 6 as soon as 2028. The proposed site
should plan for additional future sidewalk connections to the perimeter of the site should public pedestrian facilities
be added within the public ROW in the future.
Three sides of the building have been restricted to one-way circulating travel around the proposed building. The
site plan showed a few pavement markings at critical locations to deter wrong way driving. No specific signs were
shown on the site plan. The final site development plan should include information on signing used to help direct
traffic throughout the site.
This report found that the adjacent road network will see negligible impact from the addition of the proposed
development. Several recommendations for the city unrelated to the proposed development were suggested to
improve operations within the study area. Several recommendations relating to the site layout, signing, and
marking were also made within the proposed development site.
4
INTRODUCTION
This study is being completed on behalf of Halifax Development, LLC (The Developer) to study potential impacts
resulting in redevelopment of the existing Los Amigos Restaurant property located at 21 Sturgis Corner Dr, Iowa
City, IA 52246. The developer intends to demolish the existing property immediately in favor of a new Chipotle
franchise facility. The proposed development will not be open during the AM peak hour, therefore only the PM
peak hour is analyzed within this report.
STUDY AREA
After consulting with City of Iowa City staff, the appropriate study area was identified. Figure 1 below shows the
analysis area. The three intersections for analysis are as follows:
· Riverside Drive (Highway 6) and Highway 6/Highway 1
· Riverside Drive (Highway 6) and Sturgis Corner Drive (North)
· Highway 6 and Sturgis Corner Drive (South)
Figure 1 - Study Area
Analysis
Intersection
5
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
EXISTING LAND USE
The existing site is currently developed
as a commercial restaurant facility “Los
Amigos”. This land use is most closely
described by ITE Land Use Code 932 –
High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant.
At the time of this study, the restaurant
appears to be operating at a small
fraction of its potential capacity, if at all.
ZONING
The site is currently zoned CC2
Community Commercial according to
the Iowa City Zoning Map hosted on the
Johnson County GIS current as of this
report. According to 14-2C-2 of the Iowa
City Zoning code, eating establishments
are permitted. Thus, the existing zoning
appears to be consistent with both the
existing and proposed developments.
ADJACENT ROADWAY NETWORK
The adjacent network is summarized
below in Table 1. The Highway 6 route is classified as a principal arterial in the vicinity of the site, whereas
Sturgis Corner Drive is a local road. An estimate of pavement serviceability index (PSI) has been provided on a
visual basis only. PSI is generally a measurement of pavement condition used in the design life of pavement
sections and pavement thickness. Rated on a 5-point scale, 5.0 represents perfect pavement, whereas 0
represents no pavement/impassible. When pavement is newly installed, it usually is assumed to have a PSI of
around 4.2-4.5. Pavements are typically perceived as poor and needing immediate replacement at a PSI of
around 2.25-2.5 according to Iowa SUDAS. The table below estimates current PSI as a general reference to
quickly compare relative quality of observed pavement conditions.
The intersection of Highway 1/Highway 6 with Riverside drive is a signalized intersection. Both ends of Sturgis
Corner Drive are unsignalized with stop or yield control on the minor street approaches.
Figure 2 - Existing Site
Road Federal
Classification AADT Estimate Posted Speed
MPH
Lane
Configuration
Urban or
Rural Section Surfacing Surface Condition
Visual
Estimate of
Pavement
Serviceability
Index
Riverside Drive (Hwy 6) Pricipal Arterial 23,200 30
5 Lanes - with
TWLTL Urban HMA Acceptable 3
Sturgis Corner Drive Local 2,275
Not Posted
(assumed 25)2 Lane Urban PCC Good 3.5
Highway 6 Pricipal Arterial 27,600 35
4 Lane -
Divided Urban HMA Good 3.25
Existing Roadway Network Characteristics
Table 1 - Adjacent Network
6
ADJACENT LAND USE
The areas immediately adjacent to the site are fully developed for commercial use. The site is located about ¾
from residential areas to the west and east and lies on the south end of Iowa City’s primary “urban core downtown”.
EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS
Traffic counts at the signalized intersection of Highway 1 and Riverside Drive (Highway 6) were acquired by the
Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County (MPOJC) in October 2024. Anderson-Bogert collected
counts at each unsignalized end of Sturgis Corner Drive in December 2024. Based on the CLIENT’s desired
deadline, Anderson-Bogert collected counts in the second half of December during final exam week at the
University of Iowa. As a result, it is expected that the street network was not serving normal traffic volumes present
during a typical weekday while the university is in session.
Existing unadjusted count data is shown on the following page in Figure 4. No counts were adjusted using IDOT
daily and seasonal AADT factors. This is more conservative than if AADT factors were applied. Counting traffic
midweek between Tuesday and Thursday typically results in a combined AADT factor of less than 1.0 (to account
for the lower traffic volumes typically seen on weekends or holidays, and especially non-school days).
Due to existing development time constraints, at the direction of the CLIENT, Anderson-Bogert collected manual
counts on both ends of Sturgis Corner Drive in the second half of December during finals week at the University
of Iowa. As a result, the school which is perhaps the largest overall traffic generator in Iowa City, was not
experiencing normal operations. During finals week, classes do not meet and there may be less students and
staff commuting than on a typical day during the semester. Universities tend to create less-severe peaks
compared with primary schools such as K-12 institutions. At K-12 institutions, all students and staff are typically
done at the same time, whereas the University of Iowa hosts countless courses and campus activities that start
and end throughout the day, rather than at one specific time.
Due to the uncertainty with the accuracy in counts collected during finals week, additional adjustments to
Anderson-Bogert’s counts were considered. Between the two ends of Sturgis Corner Drive and the signalized
highway intersection, there is only one driveway access which is located on Riverside Drive.
Figure 3 - Driveway Between Sturgis Corner Drive and Signalized Intersection
8
All the developments located on the west side of Riverside Drive are high-turnover commercial developments.
The majority of users entering and exiting these properties during the peak hour arrive and depart within 60
minutes, and a portion of the generated trips for these types of facilities are from pass-by trips. Therefore, counts
on Riverside Drive at Sturgis Corner Drive may not balance exactly. For analysis purposes, it was assumed that
these two locations should generally balance.
The mainline traffic was compared at the two ends of Sturgis Corner Drive with the volumes collected during
“normal” traffic operations by MPOJC in October. These results are shown below in Table 2. At both locations,
one direction of travel was higher during the Anderson-Bogert counts. This is contrary to what might be expected
when a major generator is not fully operational while counting.
Since the signalized intersection counts were collected during an ideal time, they will be kept constant while the
Sturgis Corner Drive counts are adjusted. At the south end of Sturgis Corner Drive, the eastbound movements
were reduced and westbound increased in order to balance. At the north end, the northbound movements
increased and the southbound decreased. Since the largest discrepancy was 87% between the MPOJC and
Anderson-Bogert counts, all movements to/from Sturgis Corner Drive were increased by a minimum of 15%
during the balancing. The balanced analysis volumes are shown below in Figure 5.
BACKGROUND GROWTH RATE AND EFFECT OF NON-STANDARD SCHOOL OPERATIONS
IDOT has counted this intersection about every 4 years since 2010, including 2010, 2014, and 2018. In 2014, the
DOT counted outside of the University of Iowa academic calendar. Therefore, from 2010 – 2018 the intersection
saw about 1% annualized growth during this period. Therefore, it’s estimated that the background growth rate for
the study location is about 1%.
Assuming this growth rate, the 2010 DOT counts were brought forward to 2014, estimating about 45,300 as the
total daily entering AADT for the signalized intersection of Highway 6 and Highway 1. The DOT annualized counts
in 2014 completed in July outside of the university’s standard academic semesters was only about 41,500. This
is about 8.5% less than predicted utilizing an average growth rate between 2010 to 2018. Therefore, the
assumption to balance movements to the signalized intersection counts of MPOJC and ensure all movements
to/from Sturgis Corner Drive are inflated by 15% seems adequate for analysis purposes.
PEAK HOUR PARAMETERS
The peak hour parameters were determined from the MPOJC October 2024 counts:
PM Peak
4:15 PM – 5:15 PM
Peak Hour Factor (PHF): 0.95
Trucks: 4%
Table 2 - Traffic Count Comparison
Roadway
Approach @
Sturgis Corner
Drive
Anderson-Bogert Approach
Total
MPOJC Approach
Total Difference Ratio
Riverside Drive Northbound 765 880 -115 0.87
Riverside Drive Southbound 1173 1087 86 1.08
Highway 6 Eastbound 1392 1175 217 1.18
Highway 6 Westbound 1297 1368 -71 0.95
Anderson-Bogert Count Comparison
1 0
CRASH HISTORY AND POTENTIAL FOR CRASH REDUCTION (PCR)
The Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) maintains online crash databases known as the Iowa Crash
Analysis Tool (ICAT) and Potential for Crash Reduction (PCR). The PCR is a statistic value that compares
similarly categorized intersections and roadway stretches throughout the state. A larger positive PCR value
represents an intersection that is performing more poorly than similar ones throughout the state. A large potential
for crash reduction represents an opportunity to reduce the intersection’s crashes towards the statistical category
average.
The safety analysis for the three study intersections is provided in Table 3. Of the three intersections, the
signalized intersection at Highway 1 and Riverside Drive has a negligible PCR value despite the large number
crashes. All intersections have a negligible PCR value relating to severe injury or fatality crashes. The south end
of Sturgis Corner Drive has a medium PCR value. With all crashes being rear-end headed in the westbound
direction, queues from the upstream signals are likely a primary cause, especially compared with other “right-in-
right-out” locations which are not located in close proximity to traffic signals.
The Highway 6 corridor has been previously studied by MPOJC with regards to pedestrian safety. The corridor
between Orchard Street and the Iowa River experienced 2 vulnerable road user fatalities between 2013 and 2022.
Within the study area, there was one vulnerable road user crash in 2020 located within the Highway 1/Highway 6
signalized intersection.
Primary Route Crossing Route
Total
Crashes
Fatality
Crash
Major
Injury
Crash
Minor
Injury
Crash
Possible
or
Unknown
Injury
Crash
Property
Damage
Only
Crashes
PCR PCR
Category
Statewide
Category Ranking
(1 = Worst Safety
Performance
History in
Category)
Category Remarks/Comments
Riverside Drive Sturgis Corner
Drive 25 0 0 1 1 23 1.34 High 203/50,690
Undivided
Low Speed
Partial Stop
25% caused by failing to yield
ROW on left turn, 40% were
broadside crashes, all crashes
occurred during the day.
Westbound left turns have
been the primary cause (9
crashes) comared with
southbound left (3) and
northbound left (2)
Riverside Drive Highway 1 71 0 1 5 9 56 -0.5 Negligible 491/932 Divided Low-
Speed Signal
Largest cause was following
too close (40%) resulting in
rear-end collisions (67% of
crashes).
Highway 6 Sturgis Corner
Drive 6 0 0 1 1 4 0.72 Medium 3/67
Divided, Low
Speed Yield
All crashes were rear-end
caused by following too close
Iowa DOT ICAT and PCR Database Information 2020 - Present
Table 3 - Crash Analysis
1 1
The north end of Sturgis Corner Drive exhibits a high PCR value for all crashes. The largest manner of collision
was broad-side occurring from nearly 60% of crashes involving a left-turning vehicle. The primary troublesome
movement appears to be the westbound left movement off of Sturgis Corner Drive headed southbound on
Riverside Drive. About a third as
many crashes occurred on the
southbound left movement. This
location has not seen any fatalities
or major injuries. This seems
consistent with the low speeds
typical at this intersection. This
location is between two close
signals, and within a primary
arterial corridor with a large
access driveway density. During
observation, these factors lead to
regular traffic queuing through the
intersection and general speeds
well below the posted limit.
Therefore, despite the primary
manner of collision being
broadside, there have not been
any fatalities or major injuries
within the past 5 years.
Despite the westbound
movement accounting for less
than 1% of all entering traffic, it
has caused or been involved in
over 50% of all crashes reported
in the past 4 years. As an added
concern, the existing commercial
driveway across from Sturgis
Corner Drive is offset to the south. With the Riverside Drive median, this leads to diagonal crossing paths, and
overlapping left turns as shown Figure 6. This could also be a contributing factor to the overrepresented left turn
crashes experienced at this location.
PREVIOUS AREA STUDIES
Anderson-Bogert previously studied the Riverside Drive Corridor from Benton Street through the VA hospital in
2021 along with retiming the existing signals. Earlier in 2024, Anderson-Bogert completed study and signal timings
along Highway 6 from Gilbert Street through the eastern city limits.
MPOJC conducted a jurisdiction-wide pedestrian collision analysis for the years 2013-2022. The study identified
substantial vulnerable road user use along Highway 1/6 adjacent to the proposed development. At least one
pedestrian fatality occurred near the Iowa River Bridge prior to the analysis period of this report beginning in 2020.
The report identified the need for pedestrian facilities along Highway 6 next to the development.
Figure 6 - Offset Intersection Legs
1 2
EXISTING HCM CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The current standard for defining roadway performance is the Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition. This
reference defines Level of Service (LOS) as a “quantitative stratification of a performance measure or measures
representing quality of service”. As delay per vehicle increases, the perceived quality of performance decreases.
The current criteria for two-way stop-controlled intersections and signalized intersections is provided in Table 4.
Current design standards typically provide thresholds that should be achieved in the design process. Iowa SUDAS
current lists LOS C/D as the “preferred” LOS for use in design on local, collector, and arterial streets. SUDAS lists
D/E as “acceptable” design LOS if the preferred metrics cannot be reasonably obtained. The capacity analysis
tables for the corridor are provided below. Note that HCM 7th Edition analysis methodology can only be applied to
standard NEMA phasing. Since the signalized intersection is split-phased and non-standard timing, the Synchro
methodology was utilized to analyze delay and performance. Similarly, HCM TWSC only applies for intersections
with at least 1 stop-controlled approach. The south end of Sturgis Corner Drive is yield controlled; therefore, the
only available theoretical methodology is HCM 2000.
Table 4 – HCM 7th Edition LOS Criteria
v/c <= 1.0 v/c > 1.0
0-10 A F
>10-15 B F
>15-25 C F
>25-35 D F
>35-50 E F
>50 F F
v/c <= 1.0 v/c > 1.0
0-10 A F
>10-20 B F
>20-35 C F
>35-55 D F
>55-80 E F
>80 F F
Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition Unsignalized TWSC and
AWSC Level-of-Service Criteria
Control Delay
(s/veh)
LOS by Volume-to-Capacity Ratio
Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition Signalized
Level-of-Service Criteria
Control Delay
(s/veh)
LOS by Volume-to-Capacity Ratio
1 3
The south end of Sturgis Corner Drive contains geometry allowing only 2 movements, a right-in and right-out.
This movement generally operates freely from Highway 6 onto Sturgis Corner Drive. The movement onto
Highway 6 is yield controlled. The Synchro queue analysis aligns with the conditions observed in the field. The
westbound queue from the signal regularly backs up several hundred feet. With only about 400 feet from the
stop bar to Sturgis Corner Drive, the average queue occupies 75% of this distance. The largest queues extend
Table 5 - Existing Capacity Analysis
Approach Lanes
Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue, ft LOS
Southbound
Left
Through
Right 1 9 15 2 C
Eastbound
Left
Through 2 1175 0 0 A
Right
Westbound
Left
Through 2 1359 0 0 A
Right 1 15 0 0 A
Intersection 0.1 A
HCM 2000 Analysis
No-Build
Riverside Drive (Hwy 6) at Sturgis Corner Drive
PM Peak
Full-Build
Approach Lanes
Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue,
veh
LOS
Southbound
Left 1 21 10 0.1 B
Through 2 1045
Right - 8
Eastbound
Left - 6
Through 1 1 35.2 0.6 E
Right - 17
Northbound
Left 1 24 11.1 0.1 B
Through 2 841
Right - 15
Westbound
Left 1 16 74.9 0.9 F
Through 1 0 12.1 0.3 B
Right - 44
Intersection 1.5
HCM 7th TWSC Analysis
No-Build
Riverside Drive (Hwy 6) at Sturgis Corner Drive
PM Peak
Full-Build
Approach Lanes
Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue, ft LOS
Southbound
Left 1 447 70.8 346 E
Thru/Left 1
Through 1 337 57.1 295 E
Right 1 303 8.8 73 A
Eastbound
Left 1 274 52.3 284 D
Through 2 610 33.3 281 C
Right - 15
Northbound
Left 1 38 38.3 52 D
Through 2 173 40.3 85 D
Right 1 118 8.2 36 A
Westbound
Left 1 162 46.3 156 D
Through 2 773 67.2 402 E
Right 1 433 7.8 84 A
Intersection 43 D
Synchro Signalized Analysis
No-Build
Highway 1 at Riverside Drive and Highway 6
PM Peak
Full-Build
1 4
to and past the yield-control lane during extreme peaks (20% or less of the peak hour). With less than 10
existing vehicles using this exit to Highway 6 during the peak hour, there is typically enough opportunity to enter
Highway 6 at the end of the signal queue or immediately following the period where the queue is cleared each
cycle. As such, this intersection is operating with acceptable LOS in the no-build condition.
The signalized intersection contains a shared through/left southbound lane. Accordingly, split phasing is
required in the northbound and southbound directions. The most critical movement appears to be the
southbound movement which operates with LOS E. This delay is very sensitive to the green time provided, and
coordination parameters. Just a slight change of a few seconds on these parameters results in a decrease to
LOS F. The westbound movement also operates with unacceptable LOS E during the PM peak hour.
Based on timings provided by MPOJC, the signal appears to be coordinated along the Highway 1 corridor to the
west. Therefore, this intersection represents the confluence of 3 separate signal coordination corridors.
Coordination with one direction helps in a given direction but often has an opposite effect on the other two
coordinated approaches. When manual optimization from the provided 100 second cycle length was attempted,
improving LOS in one movement typically caused other equally critical movements within the intersection to
operate with unacceptable LOS. Therefore, the provided timings generally appear to be optimal for the given
volumes.
Based on the critical movement being southbound at this signal, the southbound approach stands to benefit the
most from coordination (along Riverside Drive). The geometry on the other three approaches appears to be
better suited to accommodate queueing vehicles without impacting operations of adjacent access points or
intersections. The southbound approach contains the only full-access commercial access points whose
performance and safety is primarily based on the constant presence of queued vehicles. The queues from this
signal regularly back through both ends of Sturgis Corner Drive, particularly on the northern end of this local
road.
Overall, the northern unsignalized end of Sturgis Corner Drive operates with acceptable LOS on Riverside
Drive, but Sturgis Corner Drive and the commercial driveway on the west side do not operate with acceptable
LOS. This intersection is also regularly impacted by queues from both adjacent signals along Riverside Drive.
As a result, the full capacity of the intersection is never achieved during the peak hour. Slowed or stopped
vehicles often create operational issues and obscure sight lines for the side street/driveway entering traffic.
Furthermore, the westbound left movement operates with LOS F. With less than 20 vehicles in the peak hour,
westbound queuing is not necessarily the primary concern. However, when vehicles are stuck at a stop line for
such a long duration of time (an average of 75 seconds per capacity analysis), drivers often begin to get
impatient, or worried about vehicles waiting behind them in the queue. As a result, drivers will accept smaller
gaps and other more dangerous situations in order to enter Riverside Drive. Despite being less than 1% of all
entering traffic, the westbound left movement has caused or been involved with over 50% of all crashes at this
intersection. These issues are likely related to the poor capacity of the westbound approach due to the high-
volume congested traffic on Riverside Drive. Therefore, the westbound and eastbound approaches to this
intersection do not operate with acceptable LOS during the existing PM peak hour.
1 5
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT
The proposed development is a Chipotle chain restaurant with about 2,300 square feet of useable space. The
restaurant will also contain a “Chipotlane” drive-through lane for online-order pickup. The current site plan is shown
below in Figure 7.
BUILD-OUT SCHEDULE
For analysis purposes, the site will be fully constructed and operational in 2025.
PROPOSED LAND USE
The proposed land use is commercial food service. This is permitted according to the current Iowa City Zoning
Code for this property which is currently zoned CC2. Therefore, the proposed development is consistent with the
existing zoning.
Figure 7 - Proposed Site Development
1 6
DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION
The ITE Land Use which most closely represents the proposed development is 934 – Fast-Food Restaurant
with Drive-Through. The drive-through for this facility is nicknamed “Chipotlane” and is intended for pickup of
online orders placed via app or website. This is slightly different than a traditional drive-through which allows
ordering and pickup at the same time. Based on this land use and the anticipated restaurant size, the trip
generations for the proposed site were estimated in Table 6. The restaurant will not open until after the AM Peak.
Therefore, it will only generate traffic during the PM peak hour. The PM peak hour is expected to generate around
76 total trips.
Since this format for drive-through is fairly new,
especially for Chipotle, it may follow a slightly different
generation pattern than a typical fast-food restaurant.
Chipotle has funded and developed an existing traffic
study of the “Chipotlane” completed by Ohio traffic
engineers in 2022. It is attached at the end of this
report. The study found that the general service time
for a Chipotlane is about 2 minutes and 33 seconds,
compared to the average nationwide fast-food
average of 6 minutes and 13 seconds. The study
observed Chipotlanes at 6 high-volume locations
which included 2 in Los Angeles (CA), 2 in Boston
(MA), and 2 in Columbus (OH). These locations saw
an average of about 25 vehicles per hour, with a 98th
percentile queue of less than 4 cars. A more typical
queue was about 2 vehicles. In absence of other
specific data, it is assumed that the ITE Trip
Generation rate is still the most accurate. For purposes
of this analysis, it seems reasonable that the majority
of trip generations using Chipotlane were still likely to
visit the restaurant for food or utilized a standard drive-
through lane if present. Therefore, Chipotlane are
generally captured within the ITE Trip generation rates
provided in the table above.
IN** OUT** IN** OUT**
Code Unit of Measure Quantity
934 1000 SF 2.3 Not Open Not Open 40 36
0 76
**Values have been rounded (+- 2 vehicles) from the ITE Manual to match trip assignment rounding provided later in this report.
Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Through
Estimated Site Trip Generation, ITE 11th Edition
Chipotle Iowa City TIS
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Description Peak of Adjacent Streets, 7 - 9 Peak of Adjacent Streets, 4 - 6
Table 6 - ITE Trip Generation
Figure 8 - Chipotlane Findings
1 7
In the ITE trip generation appendices for
pass-by trips distributions, 11 studies of
similar restaurants found that on average
about 55% of trips generated are pass-by
trips. Pass-by trips are vehicles which were
already traveling on the adjacent roadway.
Once the proposed development is built,
they pull off the road to visit the site and then
pull back onto the road. This is shown at
right in Figure 9.
The study area required by the city
effectively creates a development with 2
exits to the adjacent streets located at either
end of Sturgis Corner Drive. Since these two
exits are on different roads, and certain
movements are prohibited at some exits,
traditional “pass-by” trips are not applicable
to this situation. Instead of “passing by”,
these vehicles are diverting from their
original route to visit the site before
potentially exiting to a different roadway
altogether. Diverted trips are not subtracted
from the adjacent network like pass-by trips.
For analysis purposes, these trips are
considered newly generated primary trips.
Based on estimated trip generation discussed above, trip distribution which follows, and the volume of existing
background traffic on the highways, accounting for any potential pass-by or reduction from existing traffic would
result in a negligible difference in the analysis. Therefore, it is appropriate that all trips are considered newly
generated for this report.
DEVELOPMENT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
The trip distribution is typically influenced by surrounding commercial vs residential population densities in the
surrounding area. The majority of residential areas are east of the site along Highway 6, but the University of Iowa
has housing facilities north of site along Riverside Drive. Most residential areas to the south would access the site
from Highway 6 via Gilbert Street to the east. An existing Chipotle exists in downtown Iowa City on Clinton Street.
This location is likely more bus/transit friendly, as CAMBUS and city transit routes regularly run in close proximity
to the existing location. The existing Chipotle is also closer to campus dorms. The closest transit stop to the
proposed development is located near the Benton Street Intersection with Riverside Drive, a block or two west of
the site on Highway 1.
Generally, the west, north, and east directions from the development all contain large residential areas and
commercial locations. Therefore, it seems reasonable that the proposed development will generate similar traffic
between the three directions. There is not as much development or residential properties directly accessible from
the south of the site along Riverside Drive. Therefore, this direction is expected to attract the least number of trips.
After distributing the trips, these were assigned to the network and added/rerouted as appropriate from the existing
background traffic. The distribution, assignment, and full-build analysis volumes are provided below in the
following figures.
Figure 9 - Pass-By Trip Definition
2 1
MULTI-MODAL ANALYSIS
The nearest public transit stops to the proposed development are located at Riverside Drive and Benton Street
signal to the north, or along Highway 1 to the east of Riverside Drive. There are not currently any pedestrian
sidewalks which connect the site to the nearby public transportation network. The closest existing sidewalks are
on Sturgis Corner Drive near the existing Hampton Inn hotel on the north side of the road. This sidewalk connects
to the Riverside Drive sidewalks heading toward Benton Street.
If not required by the city, the site should plan for future accommodation of pedestrian connections to a public
sidewalk along Sturgis Corner Drive. At the current point in time, there are no pedestrian facilities located along
Highway 6 west of the Iowa River. According to Iowa City Council meeting documents dated September 17, 2024,
the Iowa DOT and city plan to replace the existing Highway 6 Iowa River bridge in 2028. Additional details are
provided in the appendix. The project will include substantial dedicated pedestrian improvements.
These improvements have the
possibility to increase pedestrian
demand for the site, and general
pedestrian presence in the area. At
minimum, the site development should
grade out about 7 feet within the ROW
boundary to easily accommodate future
pedestrian sidewalk paving should the
city infill the area. In addition, the
proposed site design improvements
should consider what future adjustments
may be required to connect the site with
the public network. Based on the current
layout, two locations which could
minimize future site impact are shown in
RED on Figure 13 .
ADA ANALYSIS
The site shows provisions for two
pedestrian accessible stalls immediately
in front of the building. The access lane
appears to be appropriately designated.
It was assumed that adequate
circulation paths from the stalls to the building will be provided and constructed with ADA compliant slopes.
Figure 13 - Consider Potential Pedestrian Access
2 2
GENERAL CIRCULATION
The site appears to provide adequate space
for the circulation of typical patrons. The
north side of the building is configured for
one-directional travel with a portion of the
width being reserved for Chipotlane queuing.
Based on the provided pickup lane study in
the appendix, the site appears to provide
adequate queue space. The site plane does
not show traffic signs. It is assumed that in
addition to the pavement marking shown in
the attached site plan, standard MUTCD “Do
Not Enter” signs will also be posted on either
side of this one-way circulation lane. A
similar signing strategy should be employed
at the one-way lane on the south end of the
building.
If issues with wrong way driving or
encroachment occur on site, it appears that
tubular delineators could be accommodated
along the drive through lane to assist with
circulation.
Refuse and delivery by vehicles similar to a
WB-50 appear to be accommodated within
the design.
ACCESS MANAGEMENT
For a local road, current SUDAS design
guidelines stipulate a minimum separation of
75 feet from adjacent intersections to site
driveways. There is no designated driveway
separation requirement. The guide
recommends radii for the entrance design
but allows for straight flares in
residential/agricultural areas. The proposed
driveways are about 24 feet in width with
entrance radii meeting the SUDAS
requirements.
The northern driveway appears to be sufficiently spaced from existing driveways. The eastern entrance has been
located to maximize spacing to the Highway 6 right-in-right-out driveway. It’s not directly across from the existing
driveway. Typically, this is preferred. However, Sturgis Corner Drive will remain completely developed once the
Chipotle is in place. Significant future traffic volume and speed changes are unlikely. Therefore, the placement of
the proposed east driveway to maximize distance to Highway 6 and optimize site circulation is appropriate as
shown in the figure.
Figure 14 - Site Circulation
2 3
ANALYSIS OF OPENING DAY CONDITIONS
CAPACITY ANALYSIS – RIVERSIDE DRIVE AT NORTH END OF STURGIS CORNER DR
For easy comparison, the table above shows the previous “existing no-build” analysis as well as the full-build
analysis. Overall, the proposed development has negligible impact on northbound/southbound operations based
on the HCM 7th calculations. The additional westbound traffic created will increase delays for the eastbound
commercial driveway as these vehicles are required to yield ROW to westbound traffic more frequently. The
westbound approach whose performance is already breaking down in the existing scenario will see average 95th
percentile queues increase to around 2-3 vehicles during the peak hour. The delay on this movement will degrade
by nearly 35 seconds per vehicle since the movement already operated with LOS F and does not contain
adequate capacity in today’s scenario.
Based on the existing available ROW and conditions, the most likely way to improve performance at the
intersection is to restrict movements. If both eastbound and westbound lefts were eliminated through ¾ access
implementation, exiting vehicles need only be concerned with 2 lanes of traffic coming from one direction, rather
than all 4. The current development on the west side of Riverside Drive provides convenient access onto Orchard
Street on the west side of the development. This recently reconstructed street has a lower volume and also
provides quick access to signalized intersections on Highway 1 or Benton Street without requiring inconvenient
or out-of-the-way detours when the minor street left is prohibited.
Restricting the westbound left movement is more inconvenient for the properties along Sturgis Corner Drive.
Traffic leaving the site headed towards the east direction will be required to divert up to Benton Street since the
next closest river crossing to the south is McCollister Boulevard. With protected-only phasing and no right-turn
Approach Lanes
Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue,
veh
LOS Approach Lanes
Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue,
veh
LOS
Southbound Southbound
Left 1 21 10 0.1 B Left 1 35 10.2 0.2 B
Through 2 1045 Through 2 1045
Right - 8 Right - 8
Eastbound Eastbound
Left - 6 Left - 6
Through 1 1 35.2 0.6 E Through 1 1 38.1 0.7 E
Right - 17 Right - 17
Northbound Northbound
Left 1 24 11.1 0.1 B Left 1 24 11.1 0.1 B
Through 2 841 Through 2 845
Right - 15 Right - 27
Westbound Westbound
Left 1 16 74.9 0.9 F Left 1 29 110.5 2 F
Through 1 0 12.1 0.3 B Through 1
Right - 44 Right - 53
Intersection 1.5 Intersection 2.6
HCM 7th TWSC Analysis
No-Build
Riverside Drive (Hwy 6) at Sturgis Corner Drive
PM Peak
Full-Build
HCM 7th TWSC Analysis
Full-Build
Riverside Drive (Hwy 6) at Sturgis Corner Drive
PM Peak
Full-Build
Table 7 - Full-Build Capacity Analysis
2 4
overlaps at the Highway 1 signal, if these vehicles were to exit the south entrance of Sturgis Corner Drive and
then make a U-turn at the Highway 1 signal, safety concerns would likely be mitigated since this would be a
protected movement.
This westbound left restriction at the north end of Sturgis Corner Drive would also eliminate the safety issues
currently present at the intersection. With westbound left traffic being overrepresented in at least 50% of the
crashes since 2020, eliminating the movement would eliminate exposure for this crash pattern to continue in the
future.
CAPACITY ANALYSIS – RIVERSIDE DRIVE AT NORTH END OF STURGIS CORNER DR
In the absence of any other geometric changes to the study area, the overall intersection will continue to operate
at the low end of LOS D. The southbound approach and westbound through movements suffer the most, still
operating with LOS E. The anticipated queuing change will be negligible. All queues will see about one vehicle
length change at the most according to the analysis. Therefore, the proposed development will have a negligible
impact on the operations of the existing signal.
Table 8 - Full-Build Capacity Analysis – No Geometry Changes
Approach Lanes
Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue, ft LOS Approach Lanes
Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue, ft LOS
Southbound Southbound
Left 1 447 70.8 346 E Left 1 460 77.1 359 E
Thru/Left 1 Thru/Left 1
Through 1 337 57.1 295 E Through 1 337 59.4 299 E
Right 1 303 8.8 73 A Right 1 303 8.8 73 A
Eastbound Eastbound
Left 1 274 52.3 284 D Left 1 274 53.6 301 D
Through 2 610 33.3 281 C Through 2 610 33.3 283 C
Right - 15 Right - 15
Northbound Northbound
Left 1 38 38.3 52 D Left 1 38 38.4 52 D
Through 2 173 40.3 85 D Through 2 175 40.5 86 D
Right 1 118 8.2 36 A Right 1 118 8.2 36 A
Westbound Westbound
Left 1 162 46.3 156 D Left 1 164 46.5 156 D
Through 2 773 67.2 402 E Through 2 781 71 408 E
Right 1 433 7.8 84 A Right 1 437 7.8 85 A
Intersection 43 D Intersection 44.8 D
Synchro Signalized Analysis
No-Build
Highway 1 at Riverside Drive and Highway 6
PM Peak
Full-Build
Synchro Signalized Analysis
Full-Build
Highway 1 at Riverside Drive and Highway 6
PM Peak
Full-Build
2 5
The most likely method to improve LOS and manage queues at this signal would be to expand the available traffic
lanes and eliminate the required split phasing.
By providing additional lanes and eliminating split phasing, the overall LOS could be improved to LOS C based
on today’s traffic volume as shown on the left side of Table 9. While some movements only see marginal delay
improvements, the lane expansion significantly reduces many of these queues. This could alleviate some
operational issues for neighboring access points and overall improve flow within and between corridors. With
queues being reduced, delays for individual movements become more a function of the selected cycle length,
rather than a function of the vehicular volumes.
If all 29 westbound left vehicles from the north end of Sturgis Corner Drive elected to use the south exit to Highway
6 and then make a westbound U-Turn at the signal, the movement would still operate with acceptable LOS as
shown on the right side of Table 9. The estimated 95th percentile queue (expected only 5% of the time) would
increase by about one vehicle length and would extend to the end of the existing left turn bay.
OPENING DAY WARRANT ANALYSIS
Auxiliary Lanes
Based on existing traffic volumes and current turn lane warrant guidance provided in NCHRP Reports 745 and
457, the site does not warrant auxiliary turning lanes based on the estimated trip generation.
Table 9 - Potential Signal Adjustment Analysis
Approach Lanes
Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue, ft LOS
Southbound
Left 2 460 45.3 203 D
C
Through 2 337 32.9 151 A
Right 1 303 7 72
Eastbound
Left 2 274 47.3 137 D
Through 2 610 30.6 254 C
Right - 15
Northbound
Left 1 38 44.1 57 D
Through 2 175 46.3 95 D
Right 1 118 2.8 1 A
Westbound
Left 1 164 52.6 172 D
Through 2 781 32.2 315 C
Right 1 437 5.4 71 A
Intersection 30.3 C
Synchro Signalized Analysis
Future Intersection Expansion
Highway 1 at Riverside Drive and Highway 6
PM Peak
Full-Build
Approach Lanes
Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue, ft LOS
Southbound
Left 1 460 77.1 359 E
Thru/Left 1
Through 1 337 59.4 299 E
Right 1 303 8.8 73 A
Eastbound
Left 1 274 53.6 301 D
Through 2 610 35.2 292 C
Right - 15
Northbound
Left 1 38 38.4 52 D
Through 2 175 40.5 86 D
Right 1 118 8.2 36 A
Westbound
Left 1 193 47.6 181 D
Through 2 781 71 408 E
Right 1 437 7.8 85 A
Intersection 45.2 D
Synchro Signalized Analysis
Westbound U-Turns
Highway 1 at Riverside Drive and Highway 6
PM Peak
Full-Build
2 6
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
UTILIZING COUNTS FROM OUTSIDE UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC CALENDAR
Based on this report, recounting the two ends of Sturgis Corner Drive while the University of Iowa is in regular
session would not result in changes to the ultimate findings discussed in the report. Based on the collected
volumes, half the traffic movements were actually heavier compared to when MPOJC counted the signalized
intersection in October. With the balancing procedures conducted in this report, the north end of Sturgis Corner
Drive operates with unacceptable LOS due to the heavy background traffic already on Riverside Drive. On the
south end, the intersection contains plenty of capacity; enough to service the observed Sturgis Corner Drive traffic
at least 4 or 5 times over. The impact of the University is not expected to account for this amount of difference in
the counts based on historic data available from the Iowa DOT. Therefore, we recommend that Sturgis Corner
Drive not be recounted for analysis purposes within this report.
The following recommendations are made for the proposed site development:
No-Build (Non-Site-Specific Existing Issues)
1. General Access Management Along Riverside Drive – The City of Iowa City should begin planning
and construction activities relating to reducing the number of commercial access points on Riverside
Drive between Benton Street and Highway 1. This stretch of roadway is typically impacted by signal
queues for nearly the entire length of the road during peak hours. The commercial driveways likely all
operate with unacceptable LOS based on the one representative intersection studied at Sturgis Corner
Drive. These capacity issues have been demonstrated to create safety concerns and cause crashes as
evident in the Iowa DOT ICAT database from the past 4 years. Methods which may be effective at
reducing conflicts and improving overall operations include alternatives such as: closure, ¾ access with
channelizers or medians, and right-in-right-out restrictions with channelizers or medians. Particularly for
the properties on the west side of Riverside Drive, Orchard Street provides a convenient access
alternative to allowing direct access to Riverside Drive.
2. Close Commercial Access Across from the North End of Sturgis Corner Drive – This intersection
is geometrically offset from the commercial access across the street. Consideration should be given to
removing the commercial drive across from the Sturgis Corner approach to eliminate conflict points within
the intersection. There are several alternate driveways on either side of this access which could be used
(all with similar unacceptable LOS due to the traffic on Riverside Drive). This improvement could be made
prior to considering further restriction of westbound movements at the intersection.
3. Evaluate Minor Approach Left Turn Treatments at the North End of Sturgis Corner Drive –The
majority of crashes at this location involved westbound left traffic, leading this intersection to a high
Potential for Crash Reduction. It ranks within the worst 1% of all other comparable intersections across
the state. While most crashes were low speed not resulting in serious injury or fatality, property damage
crashes still result in societal costs from traffic flow disruptions. Two potential causes for the
overrepresentation of include the offset minor approaches (eastbound driveway and westbound Sturgis
Corner Drive), and the poor minor street level of service and operational issues entering Riverside Drive
during severe congestion. Additional intersection improvements to improve overall safety and operations
should be considered. If the closure of the offset driveway does not have a noticeable impact on safety
at the intersection, the westbound left movement could be restricted and eliminated via conversion to a
¾ access intersection. This would make exiting the development toward Highway 6 and the Iowa River
Bridge more difficult.
4. Consider Planning for Expansion at Highway 1/6 Signalized Intersection – The intersection is
operating towards the low end of acceptable LOS D in the existing condition. The proposed development
will create a negligible impact. In the immediate future, pedestrian improvements are scheduled along
Highway 1/6 through this intersection. The additional pedestrian presence likely created by dedicated
facilities will only degrade intersection operational performance further. Providing additional lanes (such
2 7
as dedicated dual left lanes) for some if not all movements could eliminate the necessity for split phasing.
Split phasing is typically less efficient than standard 8 phase operation, particularly when it is the only
split phased intersection within a coordinated corridor. The southbound approach (North Leg) appears to
be the most constricted leg of the intersection with regards to expanding additional lanes.
Full-Build (Site Specific) Recommendations
1. ADA Facilities and Future Vulnerable Road User Connections – The site should consider how a
future accessible route to a public sidewalk network along Sturgis Corner Drive will be accommodated
once a public sidewalk is constructed.
The site should accommodate future pedestrian/bike connections to the public network. While no current
connections to the site are available, current efforts by the City and DOT indicate a need for dedicated
vulnerable road user (pedestrians and bikes, people not within a car/vehicle) facilities adjacent to the
development site along Highway 6. Without knowing if such facilities will be exclusively on one side of
Highway 6 or both, the design should be prepared to make pedestrian improvements within the site to
connect with a future public sidewalk within the existing ROW of Sturgis Corner Drive. The area along
the inside of the ROW boundary should be graded during construction to account for future sidewalk
paving which minimizes impacts to private property.
2. Ensure Adequate Circulation Signage/Delineators – Signage plans were not provided by the CLIENT.
From the proposed site plan, it’s evident that only one side of the site allows travel in both directions (the
east side). The other three sides of the building circulate in a counterclockwise fashion. In addition to the
apparent pavement markings shown on the plan, the site plan should aim to provide MUTCD compliant
signing (or as similar as possible to improve driver familiarity) to discourage wrong way driving. Based
on the provided Chipotlane queuing study, this drive-through lane will only have around two vehicles
waiting for the drive-through on average. In extreme circumstances, it suggested the queue would only
exceed 4 vehicles for about 2% (15-minutes) of a regular day. If encroachment or wrong way driving in
the drive through lane becomes an issue in the future, it appears that the design could accommodate
additional traffic control devices such as a tubular delineator curb system for the drive through lane.
2 8
APPENDICES
STU
R
G
I
S
C
O
R
N
E
R
D
R
I
V
E
HIG
H
W
A
Y
#
6
E
A
S
T
LOT 5
STURGIS CORNER
ADDITION PART II
LOT 4
LOT 6
LOT 9
D
D
D
DO
N
O
T
E
N
T
E
R
DO
N
O
T
E
N
T
E
R
DIG
I
T
A
L
PIC
K
U
P
AH
E
A
D
(319) 351-8282
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
www.mmsconsultants.net
1917 S. GILBERT ST.
21 STURGIS
CORNER DRIVE
IOWA CITY
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
01/10/2024
JDM
TAV
JDM
12124-001 1
0.56 AC
1
1"=20'
SPECIAL EXCEPTION EXHIBIT
21 STURGIS CORNER DRIVE
IOWA CITY, IOWA
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ACCESSORY USE - SPECIAL EXCEPTION
ZONING REQUIREMENTS:
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0
1"=20'
2 5 10 15 20
24 STURGIS CORNER DR
CC-2: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONE
70 STURGIS CORNER DR
CC-2: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONE
19 STURGIS CORNER DR
CC-2: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONE
DUMPSTER
DRIVE THRU
WINDOW
PROPOSED RESTAURANT
WITH DRIVE THRU
PARKING LOT SCREENING
PARKING LOT SCREENING
PARKING LOT SCREENING
DRIVE WAY
MARKING (TYP)
PYLO SIGN
LANE MARKING (TYP)
19
6
F
E
E
T
16
2
F
E
E
T
G:
\
1
2
1
2
4
\
1
2
1
2
4
-
0
0
1
\
1
2
1
2
4
-
0
0
1
N
-
E
X
C
E
P
T
2
.
d
w
g
,
1
/
9
/
2
0
2
5
2
:
3
0
:
2
6
P
M
Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Total PHF
4:15:00 PM 1 261 3 0 10 0 7 0 4 196 9 0 1 0 3 0 495
4:30:00 PM 0 302 5 0 10 0 2 0 3 188 5 0 7 1 1 0 524
4:45:00 PM 2 290 5 0 5 0 4 0 1 169 6 0 4 0 1 0 487
5:00:00 PM 5 276 5 0 13 0 1 0 3 180 1 0 6 0 1 0 491
Total 8 1129 18 0 38 0 14 0 11 733 21 0 18 1 6 0 1997 0.95
Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Total PHF
4:15:00 PM 0 0 0 0 3 326 0 0 0 336 0 0 665
4:30:00 PM 1 0 0 0 5 327 0 0 0 316 0 0 649
4:45:00 PM 3 0 0 0 2 294 0 0 0 399 0 0 698
5:00:00 PM 3 0 0 0 3 343 0 0 0 341 0 0 690
Total 7 0 0 0 13 1290 0 0 0 1392 0 0 2702 0.97
Raw Data Counts 12.18.24
Sturgis Drive Highway 6 Highway 6
From North From East From West
Riverside Drive and Sturgis Corner Drive
Raw Data Counts 12.17.24
Highway 6 and Sturgis Corner Drive
Riverside Dr Sturgis Corner Dr Riverside Dr Parking Lot
From North From East From South From West
Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Totals Peak Hr?LEG 1 LEG 2 LEG 3 LEG 4 INTERSECT
4:15 PM 65 77 102 0 105 200 41 0 30 41 9 0 6 192 65 0 933 3683 244 346 80 263 933
4:30 PM 78 82 107 0 128 203 31 0 33 61 8 0 6 143 61 0 941 3570 267 362 102 210 941
4:45 PM 92 99 104 0 132 184 46 0 26 41 10 0 2 154 78 0 968 3444 295 362 77 234 968
5:00 PM 68 79 134 0 68 186 44 0 29 30 11 0 1 121 70 0 841 281 298 70 192 841
5:15 PM 70 78 116 0 69 176 41 0 38 32 9 0 4 130 57 0 820 264 286 79 191 820
5:30 PM 64 56 128 0 74 197 25 0 34 30 8 0 3 150 46 0 815 248 296 72 199 815
Pk hr totals 303 337 447 0 433 773 162 0 118 173 38 0 15 610 274 0 3683
% of mvmt 28% 31% 41% 32% 57% 12% 36% 53% 12% 2% 68% 30%
% of ttl traffic 8% 9% 12% 12% 21% 4% 3% 5% 1% 0% 17% 7%
movement % 30%37%9%24%
PHF
By Movement 0.97 1.03 1.04 0.85 0.95 1.31 0.89 0.71 1.19 0.63 1.07 1.12
Approach 1.02 0.94 0.81 1.07
Intersection 0.98
Trucks
# Trucks 7 10 14 2 11 11 5 7 0 3 25 8
# All vehicles 303 337 447 433 773 162 118 173 38 15 610 274
% Trucks 2% 3% 3% 0% 1% 7% 4% 4% 0% 20% 4% 3%
Bikes
# Bikes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
# All vehicles 303 337 447 433 773 162 118 173 38 15 610 274
% Bikes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
File Name: Hwy 1 and Riverside Dr - PM
Start Date: 10/9/2024
Start Time: 4:15:00 PM
RIVERSIDE DR HWY 6 RIVERSIDE DR HWY 1
RIVERSIDE DR
From North
HWY 6
From East
RIVERSIDE DR
From South
HWY 1
From West 15 min Vehicle Approach Totals
RIVERSIDE DR HWY 6 RIVERSIDE DR HWY 1
Prepared By:Sarah Walz, Associate Transportation Planner
Reviewed By:Kent Ralston, Transportation Planner
Tracy Hightshoe, Director of Neighborhood and
Development Services
Jason Havel, City Engineer
Fiscal Impact:None
Staff Recommendation:Approval
Commission Recommendations:N/A
Attachments:Resolution
Item Number: 6.b.
September 17, 2024
Resolution Declaring the City of Iowa City’s Application for the Statewide Transportation
Alternatives Set-Aside Program (TA Set-Aside) Funds for the Construction of Pedestrian
Facilities on Highway 6 and 1 between Gilbert Street and Orchard Street.
Executive Summary:
The Statewide Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside (TA Set-Aside) program supports the
construction and improvement of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. The program
emphasizes the expansion of multi-modal trail networks through the completion of trail
linkages as well as projects that improve access and safety for all transportation modes. TA
Set-Aside program funds may reimburse up to 80 percent of eligible costs or up to the
approved grant maximum, whichever is less.
The Iowa DOT has programmed reconstruction of the Highway 6 bridge over the Iowa River
in 2028, which will include separated facilities for bicycles and pedestrians. By way of
coordination, the City intends to construct bicycle and pedestrian facilities between Gilbert
Street and Orchard Street to ensure access to the new bridge and improve safety for
pedestrians and bicyclists traveling along the highway corridor. The projects will ultimately
complete the entirety of the Highway 1 and Highway 6 Trail system and make the bridge
crossing fully accessible for all users.
Background / Analysis:
Highways 1 and 6 on the south side of Iowa City serve as a main commercial corridor for the
community, carrying an average of 34,000 vehicles per day. While the existing Highway 6
bridge over the Iowa River provides narrow (approximately 3 feet wide) pedestrian passages
separated from the vehicle lanes, pedestrian facilities are not present on either side of the
bridge between Gilbert Street (to the east) and Orchard Street (to the west) and no
pedestrian facilities are provided at the Highway 1/6 and S. Riverside Drive intersection.
Despite the lack of facilities, pedestrians and bicyclists regularly use the highway shoulder
(where provided) or grassy areas along the highway between Gilbert Street and Orchard
Street to access jobs, services, and shopping. A count taken in September found an average
of 122 pedestrians/bicycles cross the bridge per day. During dark conditions, those walking
along the shoulder are even harder to see due to the absence of street lighting. The Iowa City
Pedestrian Collision Analysis (2013-2022) identified this segment of roadway as one of the
highest frequency/severity collision corridors in the community.
Approval of this resolution is necessary for the City of Iowa City to submit a qualifying
application for TA Set-Aside funding.
Modified PM
HCM 7th TWSC
41: S Riverside Drive/S Riverside Dr & Sturgis Corner Dr 01/08/2025
PMX PMX 4:35 pm 06/04/2024 PMX Synchro 11 Report
Jacob Sprengeler, PE Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 1 17 16 0 44 24 841 15 21 1045 8
Future Vol, veh/h 6 1 17 16 0 44 24 841 15 21 1045 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - 50 - - 50 - - 50 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 6 1 18 17 0 46 25 885 16 22 1100 8
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1642 2100 554 1538 2096 451 1108 0 0 901 0 0
Stage 1 1148 1148 - 944 944 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 493 952 - 595 1153 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.58 6.58 6.98 7.58 6.58 6.98 4.18 - - 4.18 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.58 5.58 - 6.58 5.58 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.58 5.58 - 6.58 5.58 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.54 4.04 3.34 3.54 4.04 3.34 2.24 - - 2.24 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 65 50 471 77 50 551 614 - - 737 - -
Stage 1 208 267 - 278 335 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 521 332 - 453 266 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, %- - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 55 46 471 68 47 551 614 - - 737 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 55 46 - 68 47 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 202 259 - 267 321 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 458 318 - 421 258 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v35.23 28.88 0.3 0.2
HCM LOS E D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 614 - - 144 68 551 737 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.041 - - 0.175 0.249 0.084 0.03 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 11.1 - - 35.2 74.9 12.1 10 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - E F B B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.1 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
30: Highway 6 & S Riverside Drive 01/08/2025
PMX PMX 4:35 pm 06/04/2024 PMX Synchro 11 Report
Jacob Sprengeler, PE Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 274 610 15 162 773 433 38 173 118 447 337 303
Future Volume (vph) 274 610 15 162 773 433 38 173 118 447 337 303
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 300 0 190 250 240 240 350 290
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 100 100 100 100
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00
Frt 0.996 0.850 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.982
Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 3457 0 1736 3471 1553 1736 3471 1553 1579 3265 1553
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.982
Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 3457 0 1736 3471 1553 1736 3471 1553 1579 3265 1553
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 2 456 147 319
Link Speed (mph) 30 35 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 684 515 452 570
Travel Time (s) 15.5 10.0 10.3 13.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 288 642 16 171 814 456 40 182 124 471 355 319
Shared Lane Traffic (%)43%
Lane Group Flow (vph) 288 658 0 171 814 456 40 182 124 268 558 319
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1
Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 100 20
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 20 6 20 20 6 20
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6
Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Perm
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 3 3
Permitted Phases 2 4 3
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
30: Highway 6 & S Riverside Drive 01/08/2025
PMX PMX 4:35 pm 06/04/2024 PMX Synchro 11 Report
Jacob Sprengeler, PE Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Detector Phase 1 6 5 2 2 4 4 4 3 3 3
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 12.0 16.0 12.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 17.0 17.0 17.0
Total Split (s) 25.0 27.0 25.0 27.0 27.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 23.0 23.0 23.0
Total Split (%) 25.0% 27.0% 25.0% 27.0% 27.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 23.0% 23.0% 23.0%
Maximum Green (s) 20.5 21.1 20.5 21.1 21.1 19.3 19.3 19.3 16.9 16.9 16.9
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.6 3.0 3.6 3.6 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.6 3.6 3.6
All-Red Time (s) 1.5 2.3 1.5 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 5.9 4.5 5.9 5.9 5.7 5.7 5.7 6.1 6.1 6.1
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None Min None None None None None None None None None
Act Effct Green (s) 18.6 25.7 14.0 21.1 21.1 11.0 11.0 11.0 16.9 16.9 16.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.29 0.16 0.23 0.23 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.19 0.19 0.19
v/c Ratio 0.80 0.67 0.63 1.00 0.64 0.19 0.43 0.39 0.90 0.91 0.58
Control Delay (s/veh) 52.3 33.3 46.3 67.2 7.8 38.3 40.3 8.2 70.8 57.1 8.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 52.3 33.3 46.3 67.2 7.8 38.3 40.3 8.2 70.8 57.1 8.8
LOS D C D E A D D A E E A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 39.1 45.9 28.5 46.8
Approach LOS D D C D
Queue Length 50th (ft) 154 169 93 ~251 0 21 52 0 167 174 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #284 #281 156 #402 84 52 85 36 #346 #295 73
Internal Link Dist (ft) 604 435 372 490
Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 190 250 240 240 350 290
Base Capacity (vph) 396 989 396 816 713 373 746 449 297 615 551
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.73 0.67 0.43 1.00 0.64 0.11 0.24 0.28 0.90 0.91 0.58
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 100
Actuated Cycle Length: 89.9
Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.00
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 43.0 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.3% ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
30: Highway 6 & S Riverside Drive 01/08/2025
PMX PMX 4:35 pm 06/04/2024 PMX Synchro 11 Report
Jacob Sprengeler, PE Page 3
Splits and Phases: 30: Highway 6 & S Riverside Drive
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
70: Highway 6 & Sturgis Corner Dr 01/08/2025
PMX PMX 4:35 pm 06/04/2024 PMX Synchro 11 Report
Jacob Sprengeler, PE Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 1175 1359 15 0 9
Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 1175 1359 15 0 9
Sign Control Free Free Yield
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 1237 1431 16 0 9
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 515
pX, platoon unblocked 0.84
vC, conflicting volume 1431 2050 716
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1431 1868 716
tC, single (s) 4.2 6.9 7.0
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 98
cM capacity (veh/h) 461 53 368
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 SB 1
Volume Total 619 619 716 716 16 9
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 0 0 16 9
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 368
Volume to Capacity 0.36 0.36 0.42 0.42 0.01 0.02
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 2
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0
Lane LOS C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 15.0
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
HCM 7th TWSC
41: S Riverside Drive/S Riverside Dr & Sturgis Corner Dr 01/08/2025
PMP PMP 5:09 pm 01/07/2025 PMP Synchro 11 Report
Jacob Sprengeler, PE Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 6 1 17 29 0 53 24 845 27 35 1045 8
Future Vol, veh/h 6 1 17 29 0 53 24 845 27 35 1045 8
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length - - - 50 - - 50 - - 50 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, %- 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95
Heavy Vehicles, % 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Mvmt Flow 6 1 18 31 0 56 25 889 28 37 1100 8
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1673 2146 554 1578 2136 459 1108 0 0 918 0 0
Stage 1 1178 1178 - 954 954 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 495 968 - 624 1182 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy 7.58 6.58 6.98 7.58 6.58 6.98 4.18 - - 4.18 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.58 5.58 - 6.58 5.58 - - - - - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.58 5.58 - 6.58 5.58 - - - - - - -
Follow-up Hdwy 3.54 4.04 3.34 3.54 4.04 3.34 2.24 - - 2.24 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 61 47 471 72 47 544 614 - - 727 - -
Stage 1 199 259 - 274 331 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 520 326 - 435 258 - - - - - - -
Platoon blocked, %- -- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 50 42 471 62 43 544 614 - - 727 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 50 42 - 62 43 - - - - - - -
Stage 1 189 246 - 263 317 - - - - - - -
Stage 2 447 312 - 395 244 - - - - - - -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s/v38.14 47.08 0.3 0.33
HCM LOS E E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1WBLn2 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)614 - - 134 62 544 727 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.041 - - 0.189 0.494 0.103 0.051 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 11.1 - - 38.1 110.5 12.4 10.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS B - - E F B B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.7 2 0.3 0.2 - -
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
30: Highway 6 & S Riverside Drive 01/08/2025
PMP PMP 5:09 pm 01/07/2025 PMP Synchro 11 Report
Jacob Sprengeler, PE Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 284 610 15 164 781 437 38 175 118 460 337 303
Future Volume (vph) 284 610 15 164 781 437 38 175 118 460 337 303
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 300 0 190 250 240 240 350 290
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 100 100 100 100
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00
Frt 0.996 0.850 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.982
Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 3457 0 1736 3471 1553 1736 3471 1553 1579 3265 1553
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.982
Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 3457 0 1736 3471 1553 1736 3471 1553 1579 3265 1553
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 2 460 147 319
Link Speed (mph) 30 35 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 684 515 452 570
Travel Time (s) 15.5 10.0 10.3 13.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 299 642 16 173 822 460 40 184 124 484 355 319
Shared Lane Traffic (%)43%
Lane Group Flow (vph) 299 658 0 173 822 460 40 184 124 276 563 319
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1
Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 100 20
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 20 6 20 20 6 20
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6
Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Perm
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 3 3
Permitted Phases 2 4 3
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
30: Highway 6 & S Riverside Drive 01/08/2025
PMP PMP 5:09 pm 01/07/2025 PMP Synchro 11 Report
Jacob Sprengeler, PE Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Detector Phase 1 6 5 2 2 4 4 4 3 3 3
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)7.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s)12.0 16.0 12.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 17.0 17.0 17.0
Total Split (s)25.0 27.0 25.0 27.0 27.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 23.0 23.0 23.0
Total Split (%)25.0% 27.0% 25.0% 27.0% 27.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 23.0% 23.0% 23.0%
Maximum Green (s) 20.5 21.1 20.5 21.1 21.1 19.3 19.3 19.3 16.9 16.9 16.9
Yellow Time (s)3.0 3.6 3.0 3.6 3.6 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.6 3.6 3.6
All-Red Time (s)1.5 2.3 1.5 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Lost Time Adjust (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s)4.5 5.9 4.5 5.9 5.9 5.7 5.7 5.7 6.1 6.1 6.1
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None Max None Max Max None None None None None None
Act Effct Green (s)19.0 26.0 14.1 21.1 21.1 11.0 11.0 11.0 16.9 16.9 16.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.29 0.16 0.23 0.23 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.19 0.19 0.19
v/c Ratio 0.82 0.66 0.64 1.01 0.64 0.19 0.43 0.39 0.94 0.92 0.58
Control Delay (s/veh) 53.6 33.3 46.5 71.0 7.8 38.4 40.5 8.2 77.1 59.4 8.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 53.6 33.3 46.5 71.0 7.8 38.4 40.5 8.2 77.1 59.4 8.8
LOS D C D E A D D A E E A
Approach Delay (s/veh)39.6 48.1 28.7 49.7
Approach LOS D D C D
Queue Length 50th (ft) 161 170 94 ~257 0 21 53 0 173 176 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #301 #283 156 #408 85 52 86 36 #359 #299 73
Internal Link Dist (ft)604 435 372 490
Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 190 250 240 240 350 290
Base Capacity (vph) 394 996 394 811 715 371 742 447 295 611 550
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.76 0.66 0.44 1.01 0.64 0.11 0.25 0.28 0.94 0.92 0.58
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 100
Actuated Cycle Length: 90.3
Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.01
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 44.8 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.3%ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
30: Highway 6 & S Riverside Drive 01/08/2025
PMP PMP 5:09 pm 01/07/2025 PMP Synchro 11 Report
Jacob Sprengeler, PE Page 3
Splits and Phases: 30: Highway 6 & S Riverside Drive
HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis
70: Highway 6 & Sturgis Corner Dr 01/08/2025
PMP PMP 5:09 pm 01/07/2025 PMP Synchro 11 Report
Jacob Sprengeler, PE Page 1
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 0 1188 1359 29 0 23
Future Volume (Veh/h) 0 1188 1359 29 0 23
Sign Control Free Free Yield
Grade 0% 0% 0%
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 1251 1431 31 0 24
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type None None
Median storage veh)
Upstream signal (ft) 515
pX, platoon unblocked 0.84
vC, conflicting volume 1431 2057 716
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
vCu, unblocked vol 1431 1876 716
tC, single (s) 4.2 6.9 7.0
tC, 2 stage (s)
tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.3
p0 queue free % 100 100 93
cM capacity (veh/h) 461 52 368
Direction, Lane # EB 1 EB 2 WB 1 WB 2 WB 3 SB 1
Volume Total 626 626 716 716 31 24
Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume Right 0 0 0 0 31 24
cSH 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 368
Volume to Capacity 0.37 0.37 0.42 0.42 0.02 0.07
Queue Length 95th (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 5
Control Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.5
Lane LOS C
Approach Delay (s/veh) 0.0 0.0 15.5
Approach LOS C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 0.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.6% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
30: Highway 6 & S Riverside Drive 01/08/2025
PMP UTurns PMP UTurns 10:40 am 01/08/2025 UTurns Synchro 11 Report
Jacob Sprengeler, PE Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 284 610 15 193 781 437 38 175 118 460 337 303
Future Volume (vph) 284 610 15 193 781 437 38 175 118 460 337 303
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 300 0 190 250 240 240 350 290
Storage Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
Taper Length (ft) 100 100 100 100
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00
Frt 0.996 0.850 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.982
Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 3457 0 1736 3471 1553 1736 3471 1553 1579 3265 1553
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.982
Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 3457 0 1736 3471 1553 1736 3471 1553 1579 3265 1553
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 2 460 147 319
Link Speed (mph) 30 35 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 684 515 452 570
Travel Time (s) 15.5 10.0 10.3 13.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 299 642 16 203 822 460 40 184 124 484 355 319
Shared Lane Traffic (%)43%
Lane Group Flow (vph) 299 658 0 203 822 460 40 184 124 276 563 319
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 12 12 12 12
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1
Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 100 20
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 20 6 20 20 6 20
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6
Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Split NA Perm Split NA Perm
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 4 4 3 3
Permitted Phases 2 4 3
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
30: Highway 6 & S Riverside Drive 01/08/2025
PMP UTurns PMP UTurns 10:40 am 01/08/2025 UTurns Synchro 11 Report
Jacob Sprengeler, PE Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Detector Phase 1 6 5 2 2 4 4 4 3 3 3
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s)7.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s)12.0 16.0 12.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 17.0 17.0 17.0
Total Split (s)25.0 27.0 25.0 27.0 27.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 23.0 23.0 23.0
Total Split (%)25.0% 27.0% 25.0% 27.0% 27.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 23.0% 23.0% 23.0%
Maximum Green (s) 20.5 21.1 20.5 21.1 21.1 19.3 19.3 19.3 16.9 16.9 16.9
Yellow Time (s)3.0 3.6 3.0 3.6 3.6 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.6 3.6 3.6
All-Red Time (s)1.5 2.3 1.5 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Lost Time Adjust (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s)4.5 5.9 4.5 5.9 5.9 5.7 5.7 5.7 6.1 6.1 6.1
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lead
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None Max None Max Max None None None None None None
Act Effct Green (s)19.0 24.8 15.4 21.1 21.1 11.0 11.0 11.0 16.9 16.9 16.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.27 0.17 0.23 0.23 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.19 0.19 0.19
v/c Ratio 0.82 0.69 0.69 1.01 0.64 0.19 0.43 0.39 0.94 0.92 0.58
Control Delay (s/veh) 53.6 35.2 47.6 71.0 7.8 38.4 40.5 8.2 77.1 59.4 8.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 53.6 35.2 47.6 71.0 7.8 38.4 40.5 8.2 77.1 59.4 8.8
LOS D D D E A D D A E E A
Approach Delay (s/veh)40.9 48.3 28.7 49.7
Approach LOS D D C D
Queue Length 50th (ft) 161 174 110 ~257 0 21 53 0 173 176 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) #301 #292 181 #408 85 52 86 36 #359 #299 73
Internal Link Dist (ft)604 435 372 490
Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 190 250 240 240 350 290
Base Capacity (vph) 394 949 394 811 715 371 742 447 295 611 550
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.76 0.69 0.52 1.01 0.64 0.11 0.25 0.28 0.94 0.92 0.58
Intersection Summary
Area Type:Other
Cycle Length: 100
Actuated Cycle Length: 90.3
Natural Cycle: 90
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.01
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 45.2 Intersection LOS: D
Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.3%ICU Level of Service D
Analysis Period (min) 15
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.
Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
30: Highway 6 & S Riverside Drive 01/08/2025
PMP UTurns PMP UTurns 10:40 am 01/08/2025 UTurns Synchro 11 Report
Jacob Sprengeler, PE Page 3
Splits and Phases: 30: Highway 6 & S Riverside Drive
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
30: Highway 6 & S Riverside Drive 01/08/2025
PM EXPANDED LANES PMP_Expanded Lanes 5:41 pm 01/07/2025 PMP_Expanded Lanes Synchro 11 Report
Jacob Sprengeler, PE Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 284 610 15 164 781 437 38 175 118 460 337 303
Future Volume (vph) 284 610 15 164 781 437 38 175 118 460 337 303
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Storage Length (ft) 300 0 190 250 240 240 350 290
Storage Lanes 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 1
Taper Length (ft) 100 100 100 100
Lane Util. Factor 0.97 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.00
Frt 0.996 0.850 0.850 0.850
Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (prot) 3367 3457 0 1736 3471 1553 1736 3471 1553 3367 3471 1553
Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 0.950
Satd. Flow (perm) 3367 3457 0 1736 3471 1553 1736 3471 1553 3367 3471 1553
Right Turn on Red Yes Yes Yes Yes
Satd. Flow (RTOR) 2 460 209 319
Link Speed (mph) 30 35 30 30
Link Distance (ft) 684 515 452 570
Travel Time (s) 15.5 10.0 10.3 13.0
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Adj. Flow (vph) 299 642 16 173 822 460 40 184 124 484 355 319
Shared Lane Traffic (%)
Lane Group Flow (vph) 299 658 0 173 822 460 40 184 124 484 355 319
Enter Blocked Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No
Lane Alignment Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right Left Left Right
Median Width(ft) 24 24 24 24
Link Offset(ft) 0 0 0 0
Crosswalk Width(ft) 16 16 16 16
Two way Left Turn Lane
Headway Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Turning Speed (mph) 15 9 15 9 15 9 15 9
Number of Detectors 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1
Detector Template Left Thru Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
Leading Detector (ft) 20 100 20 100 20 20 100 20 20 100 20
Trailing Detector (ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Position(ft) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Detector 1 Size(ft) 20 6 20 6 20 20 6 20 20 6 20
Detector 1 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 1 Channel
Detector 1 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Queue (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 1 Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Detector 2 Position(ft) 94 94 94 94
Detector 2 Size(ft) 6 6 6 6
Detector 2 Type Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex Cl+Ex
Detector 2 Channel
Detector 2 Extend (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Turn Type Prot NA Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm Prot NA Perm
Protected Phases 1 6 5 2 7 4 3 8
Permitted Phases 2 4 8
Lanes, Volumes, Timings
30: Highway 6 & S Riverside Drive 01/08/2025
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Detector Phase 1 6 5 2 2 7 4 4 3 8 8
Switch Phase
Minimum Initial (s) 7.0 10.0 7.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0
Minimum Split (s) 12.0 16.0 12.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 17.0 17.0 17.0
Total Split (s) 19.0 35.0 22.0 38.0 38.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 27.0 27.0 27.0
Total Split (%) 19.0% 35.0% 22.0% 38.0% 38.0% 16.0% 16.0% 16.0% 27.0% 27.0% 27.0%
Maximum Green (s) 14.5 29.1 17.5 32.1 32.1 10.3 10.3 10.3 20.9 20.9 20.9
Yellow Time (s) 3.0 3.6 3.0 3.6 3.6 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.6 3.6 3.6
All-Red Time (s) 1.5 2.3 1.5 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Lost Time (s) 4.5 5.9 4.5 5.9 5.9 5.7 5.7 5.7 6.1 6.1 6.1
Lead/Lag Lead Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag Lead Lag Lag
Lead-Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Recall Mode None Max None Max Max None None None None None None
Act Effct Green (s) 12.8 30.9 14.1 32.2 32.2 10.1 10.2 10.2 18.1 24.9 24.9
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.13 0.32 0.15 0.34 0.34 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.19 0.26 0.26
v/c Ratio 0.66 0.59 0.68 0.70 0.56 0.22 0.50 0.35 0.76 0.39 0.50
Control Delay (s/veh) 47.3 30.6 52.6 32.2 5.4 44.1 46.3 2.8 45.3 32.9 7.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay (s/veh) 47.3 30.6 52.6 32.2 5.4 44.1 46.3 2.8 45.3 32.9 7.0
LOS D C D C A D D A D C A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 35.8 26.1 30.6 31.0
Approach LOS D C C C
Queue Length 50th (ft) 91 178 102 234 0 23 57 0 146 104 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 137 254 172 315 71 57 95 1 203 151 72
Internal Link Dist (ft) 604 435 372 490
Turn Bay Length (ft) 300 190 250 240 240 350 290
Base Capacity (vph) 512 1120 318 1169 827 187 375 354 738 913 643
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.58 0.59 0.54 0.70 0.56 0.21 0.49 0.35 0.66 0.39 0.50
Intersection Summary
Area Type: Other
Cycle Length: 100
Actuated Cycle Length: 95.6
Natural Cycle: 70
Control Type: Actuated-Uncoordinated
Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.76
Intersection Signal Delay (s/veh): 30.3 Intersection LOS: C
Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.6% ICU Level of Service C
Analysis Period (min) 15
Splits and Phases: 30: Highway 6 & S Riverside Drive
12124-001M1-General.docx
January 10, 2025
City of Iowa City
Urban Planning
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
RE: General Approval Criteria for a Special Exception application at 21 Sturgis Corner
Drive (DRIVE-THROUGH)
Code Section 14‐4B‐3:
1. The proposed site is designed to minimize vehicular conflicts with other existing
access points to Sturgis Corner Drive and allow appropriate spacing for traffic
utilizing Highway 6. Multiple access points to Sturgis Corner Drive on the east
and north sides provide options for customers depending on traffic patterns.
Consideration has been given to the recommendations and information provided
in the Traffic Impact Study included with this application.
2. The site is located amidst a mix of other complimentary uses, all within the
Corridor Commercial zoning district and does not interfere with the use of those
properties.
3. This site is an in-fill property. The current surrounding properties have already
been developed. This proposal would not impede the existing uses.
4. All utilities, access roads, and necessary facilities are existing and able to meet
the proposed site requirements.
5. The proposed site design allows traffic to access Sturgis Corner Drive from two
points, with one on each side of a right angle turn for the public roadway. These
two proposed access points will encourage customers to utilize both the existing
right-out to Highway 6 and the Sturgis Corner Drive access to Riverside Drive.
The proposed site design is a reduction in the existing three access points to
Sturgis Corner Drive from this property.
6. The site design conforms to the applicable zoning standards and regulations.
7. The site use is an allowed use for the existing zone. This zoning and use are
consistent with the current Comprehensive plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon D. Marner, Partner
12124-001M1-Specific.docx
January 10, 2025
City of Iowa City
Urban Planning
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
RE: Specific Approval Criteria for a Special Exception application at 21 Sturgis Corner
Drive (DRIVE-THROUGH)
Code Section 14‐4C‐2:
K.1 Allowed Facilities: Drive-through facilities are allowed in a CC-2 zone by special
exception.
K.3.a Access and Circulation:
1)The site design and mobile pick-up drive-through lanes have been situated to
access Sturgis Corner Drive, the local public road serving seven Corridor
Commercial properties. Sturgis Corner Drive allows right-in and right-out only
access to Highway 6, and full access with a dedicated right exit and left exit to
Riverside Drive. Consideration has been given to the recommendations and
information provided in the Traffic Impact Study included with this application.
2)The current site has three access points to Sturgis Corner Drive. This proposal
will restrict the access points to two curb cuts. Pedestrian traffic within the site
allows for safe access to the restaurant. There are no existing pedestrian walks
adjacent to the site. The proposed site is designed to accommodate connections
to future public pedestrian infrastructure if necessary.
3)The proposed plan provides six stacking spaces for a mobile order pick-up
business model to be utilized for this site. Additional documentation regarding
the typical operations of the mobile pick-up drive-through has been included
with this application for reference.
4)Pavement markings and signage will be provided as required by staff to ensure
safe vehicular movement on the site.
K.3.b Location:
1)While this site lies within the Riverfront Crossings District, it is west of the Iowa
River, and a rezoning is not currently contemplated. The mobile pick-up drive-
through window is situated such that it does not face any public roadway.
2)The mobile pick-up drive-through exit lane has been setback and screened as
required on the south side of the property.
12124-001M1-Specific.docx
K.3.c Design Standards:
1)The proposed site design shows the mobile pick-up drive-through and stacking
primarily at the west and north sides of the building with limited visibility or
impact to the streetscape and pedestrian safety for both Sturgis Corner Drive
and Highway 6.
2)The mobile pick-up drive-through has been screened from adjacent properties
to the required S2 standard on the south side. The west side of the drive-
through has parking to provide a buffer next to the existing commercial
building immediately to the west.
3)This proposed use is for a mobile order pick-up lane only, and does not include
a separate menu order board.
4)The site has been designed to minimize pedestrian and vehicular conflicts. The
entrance on the east side of the site has been located to provide ample distance
to and from the existing right-in and right-out lanes for Highway 6. There are
no existing public pedestrian walks in the immediate vicinity.
5)Lighting will be provided to comply with outdoor lighting standards.
7)The mobile pick-up drive-through for this site does not include outdoor
speakers or an intercom system.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon D. Marner, Partner
12124-001M1-Specific.docx
LOT 5 OF STURGIS CORNER ADDITION PART TWO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECORDED PLAT
THEREOF, CONTAINING 0.56 ACRES, AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF
RECORD.
Parcel Number Mailing Name1 Mailing Address1 Mailing Address2
1016407010 GATEWAY ONE GA23 LLC 1250 5TH ST #150
1016401010 GHUBRIL PROPERTIES LLC 2938 MARSHALL RD
1015329003 DM HOLDINGS LLC 3038 SIDCO DR
1015329002 SJM REALTY INC 19 STURGIS CORNER DR
1016401011 GASKILL SIGNS INC 11 ARBURY DR
1015329004 BAKAK CAPITAL INVESTMENTS LLC 1463 MCCLEARY LN
1016401007 RIVERSIDE R E LLC 1516 LAPORTE RD
1015303001 CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 E WASHIHGTON ST
1015329001 STURGIS INVESTMENTS LLC 118 2ND ST
1015328006 STURGIS PLACE SOUTH LLP 52 STURGIS CORNER DR
1015257009 SJR PROPERTIES LLC 7010 CHAVENELLE RD
1015328002 STURGIS CORNER ASSOCIATES 52 STURGIS CORNER DR
1015330001 RAVI LODGING INC 2706 JAMES ST
Mailing Address3 Mailing Zip Code Property Class Property Address
CORALVILLE, IA 52241 C 11 HIGHWAY 1 W
PITTSBURGH, PA 15214 C 1029 S RIVERSIDE DR
NASHVILLE, TN 37204 C 9 STURGIS CORNER DR
IOWA CITY, IA 52246 C 19 STURGIS CORNER DR
IOWA CITY, IA 52246 C
IOWA CITY, IA 52245 C 5 STURGIS CORNER DR
WATERLOO, IA 50702 C 1025 S RIVERSIDE DR
IOWA CITY, IA 52240 C 1001 S CLINTON ST
CORALVILLE, IA 52241 C 21 STURGIS CORNER DR
IOWA CITY, IA 52246-5617 C 70 STURGIS CORNER DR
DUBUQUE, IA 52002 C 830 S RIVERSIDE DR
IOWA CITY, IA 52246-5617 C 24 STURGIS CORNER DR
CORALVILLE, IA 52241 C 4 STURGIS CORNER DR
February 20, 2025
Board of Adjustment Meeting
PRELIMINARY MEETING MINUTES
ITEM 4 ON THE AGENDA
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
FORMAL MEETING
EMMA HARVAT HALL
JANUARY 8, 2025 – 5:15 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry Baker, Nancy Carlson, Mark Russo, Paula Swygard, Ernie
Cox
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Grant Lientz (guest counsel), Sue Dulek, Parker Walsh
OTHERS PRESENT: Gregg Geerdes, Frank Wagner, Dave Moore, Danielle Sitzman,
Eric Goers, Matt Adam, Doug Fisher, Jamie Maher
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 5:15 PM.
ROLL CALL:
A brief opening statement was read by Baker outlining the role and purpose of the Board and
the procedures that would be followed in the meeting.
APPEAL ITEM APL24-0001:
An application submitted by David Moore requesting to overturn a decision of the Building
Official to issue a building permit for a single-family home at 319 N. Van Buren Street: alleging
that minimum lot size, setback, building bulk and maximum lot coverage requirements of City
Code are not met and his sewer line runs underneath the proposed structure interfering with his
easement rights.
Baker noted he would introduce this item but then would recuse himself because this property
and applicant were involved in a prior application before this Board at which time he had a
conflict based on prior conversations and recused himself and to be entirely consistent with that
he is going to have to recuse himself on this issue as well and turn it over to the vice chair.
Swygard opened the public hearing and stated there will be an introduction by the secretary to
the Board regarding the administrative decision on appeal and the appellants grounds for the
appeal.
Walsh noted that in cases of a recusal the Board of Adjustment bylaws do allow staff to appoint
an alternate, so Ernie Cox is graciously joining the Board tonight. The Board also has an
independent legal counselor tonight to represent the Board that being city of North Liberty
attorney Grant Lientz and due to this being an appeal of the building official decision Walsh is
only acting as the Board of Adjustment Secretary tonight.
Beginning with a little bit of background Walsh stated the building official issued a building
permit in November 2024 to allow the construction of a single family home at 319 North Van
Board of Adjustment
January 8, 2025
Page 2 of 22
Buren Street and then the City did receive an appeal application in December 2024 submitted
by Mr. Moore requesting to overturn a decision of the building official to issue a building permit
for a single family home at 319 North Van Buren Street alleging that minimum lot size, set back,
building bulk and maximum lot coverage requirements of the City Code are not met and that a
sewer line runs underneath the proposed structure interfering with Mr. Moore’s easement rights.
Walsh then turned the case over to the Board and resumed his role as secretary.
Swygard requested the appellant or the appellant's representative please come forward and
state the grounds of the appeal.
Gregg Geerdes stated he is a lawyer in Iowa City and represents Mr. Moore. Geerdes began
by handing out documents he had prepared for the Board. He noted the issues here can be
summed up into three or four different problems, the first problem is the sewer line issue,
second will be about the setback issues and there's also a parking issue.
Swygard interjected that the sewer issue is not under the jurisdiction of the Board.
Geerdes respectfully disagrees and can explain briefly. He shared an excerpt from the City
Code, Title 14 of the zoning code, not in the building code, it states what it is they are to
consider, what they can do and what they cannot do and it also states that if they have two
different code provisions that are in conflict they are to choose the one that is most restrictive in
response to the specific question. Geerdes stated that in the zoning code it states it is not
intended to interfere or abrogate any easements, covenants or other agreements between the
parties and it is the appellant’s view that the evidence is going to clearly show that this sewer
line has been there for over a hundred years and underneath that code section he just cited the
Board is powerless to take action which interferes with those rights. Therefore, it is their
contention that the building official has violated that section by depriving Mr. Moore of the
benefits of his sewer easement and by interfering with those rights therefore it is the building
official’s error in granting the permit which interferes with the construction which is one of the
grounds that they are appealing. The building official lacks the authority underneath the zoning
code to do what was done and that is one of the reasons why they are appealing, it's just a
matter of applying the code.
Geerdes shared a letter from the City with a photograph which shows the problem and noted
that Mr. Moore has lived at 425 Davenport Street for more than 40 years. Geerdes pointed out
where Mr. Moore's sewer line goes through his property and then that it crosses 319 Van Buren
Street. Up until about 2017 or so there was a very small cottage on the far easterly portion of
319 Van Buren Street and the sewer line went to the west of the structure and the small cottage
did not pose any threat to the existence or the use of that sewer line. The new structure that the
building official erroneously approved however has the foundation on ground that sits directly on
top of the sewer line. Geerdes stated it is their contention that underneath the code section that
he cited it certainly interferes with the existence of that sewer line, it may or may not have been
broken in construction, it may or may not have already been damaged, it may well be damaged
in the future and they may not be able to fix it because this line has been covered up by this
new house. It may well be a violation of the building code also but the zoning code which is the
code that this Board has full jurisdiction to implement and address this and it was simply an
error for the building official to ignore Mr. Moore’s rights and to interfere with the use of that
sewer line.
Board of Adjustment
January 8, 2025
Page 3 of 22
The second issue that Geerdes would like to bring to the Board’s attention, with some
background information that is important, this is the third time that this property has been before
the Board of Adjustment. Geerdes distributed to the Board those decisions, they were setback
violations that the building official approved erroneously, and this Board granted the appeal
overturn of those decisions. Geerdes was involved in the last case which involved a front
setback violation and this one now again involves the front setback violation and other
violations. With regards to the front setback violation that they are concerned with, he
highlighted that portion on the building plan, he quotes section 14-2B-4 (4), stating he agrees
that because of setback averaging 9'8” front setback meets the requirement the issue then
becomes what can be put into that setback that is legal as there are only limited types of things
that can intrude into a setback. 14-2B-4 shows where ramps can intrude into a setback but only
by 8’, that's the code, when they look at the construction plans and the highlighted portion he
shared, it is noted that their proposed ramp intrudes by 9’6”. Geerdes acknowledged a foot and
a half may not seem like much but in this case this is a house that is only 10’ from the lot line,
it's a fairly large house at about 2100 square feet proposed, and it's right up to the sidewalk.
Geerdes recalled the last time he was here they were talking about a proposed front step that
intruded too far into the front setback in violation of the code, and they have replaced that illegal
step with a ramp and unfortunately the ramp also intrudes into the setback.
The next violation Geerdes discussed was the side setback obligations and requirements for
ramps. In this case the ramp goes all the way to the lot line, and it intrudes the entire width of
the side setback. Geerdes quoted again 14-2B-4 which states it must be set back 3’ and
therefore the ramp violates the side setback requirements in addition to front setback
requirements.
Regarding the side setback problem on the north side of the house Geerdes pointed out on the
site plan the window wells intrude into the north setback by 3’. He stated property windows are
not permitted to intrude into side setbacks, again the list of things which can protrude into side
setbacks are listed in code section 14-2B-4 (4), he also wanted to note that bay windows are
specifically prohibited from being in the side setback window well, he is unsure if the window
shown on the site plan falls underneath the definition of a bay window or not but it is essentially
the same scenario and certainly is not allowed in the side setback.
The last issue is combination of parking and setback, Geerdes noted when looking at the site
plan again there is a parking stall towards the west end and on the south side of the property.
Underneath the code off street parking is subject to setback requirements which means that the
off street parking spot has to comply with the minimum 5’ side setback but the site plan shows
that there is no setback there.
Geerdes reiterated that the issue of the sewer line is a very big deal, what are they going to do if
the sewer line is disconnected, lost or broken, obviously it could be a tremendous expense to
get it fixed. He stated he is concerned about some inconsistencies that the building official has
exhibited in this matter and has asked Mr. Frank Wagner who's a local contractor to share what
his experience with this issue has been.
Geerdes also wanted to point out something that may or may not affect this appeal so much as
it affects how they conduct the Board going forward and that's with the timing of this whole
matter. They filed their appeal on December 10th and the City's stop work order wasn't issued
until 10 days later and then after the stop work order was issued substantial work continued on
Board of Adjustment
January 8, 2025
Page 4 of 22
the property including the installation of the entire first floor complete with joist and tongue and
grove plywood sub-flooring and framing in the basement. The stop work order is there for a
reason, to prevent illegal construction from going forward and to minimize the loss to the public
and to the builder. He certainly does not want there to be an argument that they've completed
the foundation and done all of these things so let's just let it go, that's why it's a mistake to wait
so long in issuing stop work orders because if that had been promptly issued on the date of the
appeal things would be a whole lot different and would look a whole lot different than they do
now.
Swygard noted Geerdes shared a lot of new material that they haven't had opportunity to look
at. Geerdes acknowledged that and stated maybe what makes sense is to defer their decision
until they've had a chance to come up to speed on things.
Russo stated there's lots to consider, they got their agenda package Friday and this is a serious
and complicated, multifaceted issue. He hasn’t had a chance to digest much of that let alone
this new material shared this evening, and now find out that it was accelerated for some reason
so he is personally inclined to ask for more time.
Geerdes has no objection to that because there is an issue about what the timing should have
been for this appeal and looking at the scheduling deadline if that deadline had been complied
with they would be doing this at next month's meeting so this process was accelerated for
reasons he doesn’t know and protests.
Swygard stated that process is not under the control of the Board except to agree whether they
can meet or not again.
Geerdes respectfully disagrees with that because this is the City’s scheduling order and it’s
deadline, the appellant followed the schedule and filed their appeal on December 10, 2024, by
the Board of Adjustment deadline set out there that was to be heard on the February 12th
meeting, it was accelerated and that's part of the reason why they've not had a chance to review
things and it's also part of the reason why he has been rushed in trying to get this done, it's hard
for everybody.
Carlson questioned why this came up now because the Board had been informed that there
would be no meeting in January and then got a notice from staff asking if they would be
available for this meeting. Leintz noted this issue was raised in advance of the Board's meeting
with respect to the timing and the calendar day and his interpretation of this body's rules for its
calendaring was that today is the proper date for this hearing based on the timing of the
application, the deadlines and the Board rules for when the calendar is set. That is his
interpretation of those rules which he informed Mr. Geerdes and Mr. Moore of which is that
today is the proper hearing and advises the Board with the same. Leintz also advised the Board
to take the full record into account and take time to issue the decision that they think is
appropriate. He reiterated he advises them to make sure that they are considering all the
evidence and today is the correct day but they certainly have the right to continue these
proceedings later on if they want to, but they should plan on having a full meeting tonight. If
they run out of time they can schedule further deliberations at a future date.
Russo asked for explanation because Mr. Geerdes stated that the deadline for submittal was
December 6th for the meeting of January 8th and his submittal occurred four days later on
Board of Adjustment
January 8, 2025
Page 5 of 22
December 10th so what procedural rule do they have that allows that. Leintz explained the City
ordinance says the Board adopts the rules as far as when hearings are and the Board's rules
state they hear regular meetings on these days and if an application is submitted by certain day
of the month then the hearing is on the next scheduled day and his reading of that and his
advice to the Board is that today is the correct day. He reiterated that is the advice he gave to
both parties as well.
Russo noted a couple concerns, one was in the packet to prepare for this meeting there wasn’t
any discussion of the potential violations around the ramp or the side parking stall. Leintz
advised then it was not a matter that was properly raised in the appeal and the Board should not
probably consider it. If they receive new information they should air on the side of considering
evidence, he will not advise them to exclude evidence just because it might not be timely with
respect to the schedule and would encourage the Board to spend as much time as they can to
consider the elements in front of them.
Geerdes respectfully responded that he can’t make it any more clear that setback has always
been an issue in this case, obviously the City knows about it because they're the ones who
prepared that slide and it most clearly states setback. Geerdes noted they are starting to get
into the same problem that they've had in the last two appeals which is that the City, in his
humble view, is somewhat obsessed with having too big of a house built on this very small lot.
Leintz stated to Mr. Geerdes that's not the question before the Board tonight, the question is
whether the building official errored in issuing a building permit which is an administrative act.
Geerdes continued that the setback is specifically mentioned in the last two times they've had
similar violations caused by the City's much too fast planning to move forward to get too big of a
house built on this very small lot.
Frank Wagner stated he is a local residential contractor in Iowa City and was asked to speak on
an experience he had about 10 years ago on a property, a duplex at 109-110 Summit Street.
The duplex sits on a hill on the south side of the lot and the clients wished to build a two car
garage to the north of the structure. When they applied for the building permit and supplied the
site plan they discovered that the sewer line went right through where the garage was going to
be placed. Wagner admitted he can't say with certainty whether the building plumbing inspector
at the time, Bernie Oswald, said it was not to code to do so but he advised strongly against
placing the garage over the top of the 100 year old sewer line and advised that it be moved so
that didn't go underneath the garage but circumvented the garage and then went under the
driveway which is permissible and then tie into the sewer line. Wagner noted the difference
here also would be when they then did that his clients paid for that work to be done and the
issue here tonight is not so much that it's the sewer line going under a structure, which might
not be to code and is definitely unadvisable, but that it should be moved and who pays for it.
Wagner believes it should not be the homeowner because it's not his property and it is the
homeowner's responsibility to maintain sewer lines as long as it's on the homeowner's property
but the moment it goes through there it becomes the issue and the expense of that person.
Russo believes the homeowner owns the sewer and the water line all the way out to the main
so how does that not remain his responsibility. Wagner replied it would be a question whether
there's an easement going across another property. Russo stated with or without an easement
it's still his responsibility.
Board of Adjustment
January 8, 2025
Page 6 of 22
Dave Moore (425 Davenport Street) wanted to say with this timing issue the rules clearly state if
they wanted to be here today they would have had to make their appeal before December 6th
and they ended up getting around to making the appeal on December 10th which puts them into
the February meeting. He is not hearing why they're here today rather than February when
there's posted online rules that are clearly in the other direction and would love to hear from Mr.
Leintz or whoever has the answer why they're here today and why the rules were not adhered
to.
Danielle Sitzman (Neighborhood and Development Services Coordinator) stated the information
that they provided as part of this application is what's been worked up and included in the
memos in the agenda packet and the supplemental memo in agenda packet. A lot of what
they're hearing tonight is new information to the Board as well as to her, so she’ll do her best to
answer questions, but her presentation tonight is primarily addressing what was presented in
the application.
Sitzman began to review the grounds of the appeal that's provided by the appellant Mr. Moore
and his attorney Mr. Geerdes. The first ground for appeal that she will address is the minimum
lot size setback, building bulk, and maximum lot coverage requirements which contained in 14-
2A-4 table 2A that she shared with the Board. The lot size for this zone, RNS-12 zone, states
lot size per unit is minimum of 5,000 square feet, and the site plan that was submitted with the
building permit application drawn up by the engineering firm provides a lot size of 2,842 square
feet. In 14-2A-7 Special Provisions it states since this property is a single family use and in the
RNS-12 zone it is eligible to make use of single family density bonus options in the zoning code
and that would constrict the vehicular access to garages and off street parking spaces to be
from alleys, then that allows a reduction from 5,000 square feet to 3,000 square feet for lot size.
319 North Van Buren is a non-conforming lot so the provisions of section 14-4E-7C Regulation
of Nonconforming Lots does apply to this lot and that states that in any zone in which single
family uses are permitted, a single family use with accessory structures may be established on
any lot of record notwithstanding failure to meet the minimum lot area requirements of the zone.
The subject property is zoned to allow single family uses therefore in spite of the failure to meet
the minimum lot area requirements of 14-2A-4 table 2A the establishment of a single-family use
on the lot is permitted. Moving on to lot width, the site plan shows a lot frontage of 35’74” and
because this is a rectangular lot the rear opposite the frontage is roughly the same. Again, per
the footnote 8 and the Single-Family Density Bonus Provisions for RNS-12 single family density
bonus options allow the minimum lot width to be reduced to 30’ so because it's measuring 35’
it's well over that. The subject property is zoned to allow single family uses and is again going
to restrict vehicular access to the proposed dwelling from the alley and therefore the applicable
lot and width standards for the subject property of 30’ is met. Moving on to frontage, as
mentioned the site plan shows a frontage dimension of 35’74”, again the RNS-12 zone and the
single-family density bonus options apply and that means the minimum lot width can be reduced
to 20’ so the subject property is zoned appropriately. To make use of this density bonus
vehicular access is going to be restricted to the alley and therefore the applicable lot frontage
standard for the subject property is 20’ and the standard of 25’ is met even without the density
bonus.
Sitzman next discussed setbacks, the front setback for the principal building is what's itemized
in the table and the lot does qualify for setback averaging and because of that the calculated
average is 9’.8”. The site plan again showing a setback of 10’ so it is meeting the required
setbacks, in fact exceeding them. Moving on to side setbacks, again the table shows the
Board of Adjustment
January 8, 2025
Page 7 of 22
required side setback of 5’ and the site plan shows the dimensions for the north and south side
setbacks of 5’14” and 5’12”, therefore the minimum side setbacks for the proposed building are
met. For rear setbacks again there's a dimension of at least 20’55” shown on the site plan and
they’ve also scale measured that drawing at approximately 25’9”. The subject property is
located within the Central Planning District and has a lot depth of 80’ thus requiring a 20’ rear
setback and the site plan shows the rear setback again at 25’9”, therefore the rear setback for
the proposed dwelling is met.
Regarding building bulk, the maximum dimension requirement for this ordinance was recently
amended and 27’ is the new required maximum height. The site plan notes the building height
of 24’10” as measured from the average grade for this particular type of roof type, therefore the
maximum height for the proposed dwelling is met.
Finally moving on to the maximum lot coverage, the site plan calculates that using dimensions
provided by the engineering firm, it does meet the 40% maximum as it's a 39.3% coverage and
therefore maximum lot coverage for the proposed building is met.
Non-conforming rights were also included in the application, so staff did address them as well.
As mentioned earlier in this presentation Sitzman explained they are talking about the non-
conforming section of the code pertaining to non-conforming lots and it specifically does state
that in any zone in which single family uses are permitted a single-family use and accessory
structures may be established on any lot of record notwithstanding failure to meet the minimum
lot area requirements of the zone in which the lot is located. The subject property is zoned to
allow single family uses therefore in spite of the failure to meet the minimum lot area the
establishment of a single-family use on the lot is permitted and not tied to the previous structure.
Finally, the appellant has raised the issue of a conflict with a private sewer line and referenced
14-1B-1b and to the best of staff's knowledge there's been no legal proceeding to establish the
establishment of easement rights Mr. Moore claims. Regardless it's not the role of the Board of
Adjustment to settle civil disputes between parties such as whether Mr. Moore possesses a
legal easement over the Maher property. In any event the decision to issue a building permit to
the Mahers does nothing to offend Iowa City code 14-1B-1b so the issuance of a building permit
over a private sanitary service line easement is not a violation of the zoning code and thus the
Board of Adjustment does not have the jurisdiction over the easement issue. Appeals over the
building code issues do go to a separate body, they go to the Board of Appeals and Mr. Moore
has filed a separate appeal to that Board.
To address the other issues raised, Sitzman stated in regard to the window well projection staff
would interpret those window wells as fire escapes since they are being provided as egress
escape windows for basement habitation as required by fire egress requirements and the code
does allow projections of those kinds of structures into the side setback. Staff would not have
an issue in interpreting that those window wells meet the code requirements for allowable side
projections. In regard to the handicap ramp, that’s again a new issue staff is hearing for the first
time tonight but there are processes to allow those kinds of structures to project or to encroach
into setbacks, specifically handicap ramps, and there's an administrative process where those
can be granted so a handicap ramp is not typically a large conflict and the City wants to
encourage ADA access and has adopted specific universal design and accessibility standards
under a building code to ensure that houses are built so that they can be accessible to all.
Board of Adjustment
January 8, 2025
Page 8 of 22
To address the question about when the stop work order was issued and why work was allowed
to continue after a certain point once this proceeding started Sitzman stated there is wording in
the code that says it's meant to stop work immediately unless it's unsafe to stop work
immediately so the determination was made that simply ceasing construction at the exact
moment in time that the application was received would not be safe for the public as there were
open holes in the ground that would have been dangerous and filling them in to a certain point
made more sense and was better for the safety of the community. Sitzman did confirm that Mr.
Moore did give staff his appeal on December 10th, construction on this project could have
started immediately after issuance of the building permit on November 22nd and between
November 22nd and December 10th there was no concern about an appeal.
Russo noted one of the issues in front of the Board is whether or not they have jurisdiction over
this issue of the easement and Sitzman has stated they don’t. Is that a legal opinion or is that
staff's conclusion.
Eric Goers (City Attorney for the city of Iowa City) stated staff consulted with the City Attorney’s
office to determine whether or not this was an issue that's appropriate for this Board as opposed
to the Board of Appeals, which will be hearing this a week from tonight, and the conclusion was
that no that's a building code issue not a zoning code issue and there is a forum for that appeal,
they’ve taken advantage of that and that's next week. In so far as the easement is concerned in
any event there's been usually prescriptive easements which need either something in writing to
establish an easement or a judge's order, one cannot just claim it otherwise people could be
claiming easements all over the place. Goers stated it is his opinion that's a red herring in so far
as this Board is concerned, it's maybe an issue for the Board of Appeals but not for this Board
until they receive evidence from the applicant that they have clearly established a prescriptive
easement across the property of 319 Van Buren it's a non-issue.
Carlson noted the lawyer brought up under 14-1B he said when regulations are equally specific
or when it is unclear which regulation to apply, use the more restrictive provision. She is
unclear which regulations apply. Leintz explained the Board’s jurisdiction is they are created by
the zoning code and live in the zoning code so their jurisdiction is generally limited to violations
of the zoning code. This Board is not intended to abrogate the rights or interfere with any
easements, covenants or other agreements between the parties. However, in issuing a building
permit it cannot interfere with anyone else's right so giving permission to build a house, if
building that house substantially interferes with someone else's easement rights the issuance of
a building permit does not delete or infringe on their easement rights. But again, this is not the
body to enforce easement rights. This Board is limited to respect with the setbacks and other
provisions in the zoning code.
Russo asked for clarification about the density bonus. Sitzman explained RNS-12 is a single-
family zoning district so all of the primary dimensional standards and regulations that apply to it
are coming from one specific chapter of the code, and in that specific chapter there are the base
requirements and then there's an additional bonus or exception to things if other criteria are
met. For example, if they have vehicular access limited to the alley then they don't have to
follow just the base standards they can make use of the additional flexibility of the bonus. The
table she showed has the minimum requirements however there is additional flexibility in the
code specific to very specific situations and if they meet those prerequisites of being in the right
zoning district, having the right kind of structure, and/or the right kind of access then they can
make use of those reduced dimensions.
Board of Adjustment
January 8, 2025
Page 9 of 22
Cox asked about the parking stall and if the code regulates required parking in that area.
Sitzman stated it may simply be a non-required parking stall in which case it wouldn't have as
many restrictions on it, they have sufficient parking somewhere else and that's just a paved
area. She does not have the specific code references readily available regarding required
parking for this specific structure however when they reviewed this permit it meant the required
parking and it does meet the required parking it needs to be as parking depends on the
occupancy. The garage is a two-car garage so there's definitely parking in the garage and
maybe this pad is the third space, but parking has not been a concern in the review of this and it
was a new issue brought up tonight.
Goers reiterated that neither tonight nor leading up to tonight has there been any allegations
that this property does not have enough parking.
Russo stated the minimum lot coverage meets the standard by 0.7%, if that is translated into
square feet how certain are they it still meets the standard, was this property surveyed. Sitzman
stated these estimates are based on the drawings that were provided with the building permit by
an architect and an engineer so that's their liability to ensure they're doing that right and they
rely on surveyors to draw those up and staff trusts that those third parties who are licensed in
the state of Iowa are providing accurate information.
Russo noted in one of these clauses she used the word approximately. Sitzman stated if this
boils down to square inches using the word approximately is because they were measuring a
scale drawing rather than sending it back to the engineer and they did an approximation
because they were already sure it was beyond the requirement.
Carlson questioned the side setback requirement and that Sitzman said the window wells on the
north side, although they impede upon the side setback, are acceptable because they are for
fire egress. Sitzman stated she would interpret that to be part of dimensional requirements for
this zoning district and 14-2A-4b has allowed projections as part of building features permitted
within required setback areas and 14-4A-4c talks about fire escapes and states fire escapes can
extend into any setback provided they do not extend more than 3’ into any side setback. She
feels like this is a fire escape apparatus for a subterranean unit and the described window well
is most likely a fire escape projection under the building features permitted within those required
setback areas.
Carlson asked about the extra parking space. She stated there has to be a certain amount of
space for that parking stall, right now they're using part of the setback and if they cannot use
part of the setback then they have to move it farther north and they could still have it. Sitzman
will review it again to see but if there was some reason that they weren't in compliance with the
code they may very well have room to move it, she will also have to look at open space
requirements because they have to keep some of their rear yard open as open space.
Matt Adam (attorney, Simmons Perrine Moyer Bergman) represents the homeowners Rob and
Jamie Maher and is present to speak in opposition of this appeal. First, regarding the timing
issue that seemed to pop up, this permit was issued November 22nd and Mr. Moore appealed
this on December 10th, that is a critical date because the deadline to file an appeal is 20 days
which means it would have expired on December 12th. On December 10th Mr. Moore submitted
his appeal and got a memo from staff stating that the appeal is inadequate as he has to list the
grounds for the appeal and they weren't going to consider the appeal until he did so. In the
Board of Adjustment
January 8, 2025
Page 10 of 22
Board’s agenda packet they will find an email that was sent by attorney Geerdes on December
13th presumably supplementing his appeal and setting forth the grounds. That is critical
because any grounds for appeal after that date cannot be heard by this Board it would have
been untimely and an invalid appeal. Adam stated it is their position that the December 13th
email are the grounds for which they are basing the appeal, there was a lot of talk about side
setbacks, window wells, ramps, a parking spot yet none of that appears in the packet in that
email. In fact City staff was quite confused about these new grounds for appeal because they
did not address any of that in their staff report that they laid out for the Board, but they've done a
great job going on the fly and addressing those issues and what is clear is that even if those
issues were in the appeal the building permit issued would still be valid. Window wells don't
count, the parking space specifically is not required because there's two parking spots in their
garage, and the ramp would have been granted as well. Therefore, it is his position those
issues should not be in consideration on this Board because those issues were not raised in a
timely manner but even if they were raised the application is still good and the building permit is
still good when focusing on the zoning code which is what this body is here to determine. Staff
went to great lengths in their packet to provide a strong outline of exactly why this building
official did their job correctly. Adam would reiterate everything that Ms. Sitzman said and to
even forget the procedural stuff about timing, which is important, but substantively this permit is
still good and meets all the zoning requirements. Adam stated his clients worked diligently with
City staff to make this project comply with the zoning code, they spent hours planning, designing
and working with staff to get this building permit so they would ask that this Board honor the
permit and find that it is in fact in compliance with the zoning code.
Adam also wanted to address the sewer issue, Mr. Lientz is correct that the Board does not
have jurisdiction over that particular issue, Mr. Geerdes and Mr. Moore are working under the
assumed belief that an easement exists but it doesn't, Adam stated he personally reviewed the
abstract of title to this lot and there's no easement in there for a sewer. There is not an
easement so they are wrongly assuming and trying to conflict the issue by claiming they have a
sewer easement, this is not a public line, this is a private line and in theory they could cap it but
don't plan to do that. His clients tried working with Mr. Moore to figure this out once it became
known to them, they've been very accommodating and tried to work out and maybe relocate it.
However, the real legal opinion is that it doesn't matter, they can build structures over sewer
lines and there's nothing stopping that, this is a hypothetical issue when they say what if there's
a problem and they have to fix their sewer, well that's a private matter between two property
owners and has nothing to do with this Board. Incidentally they've already put the foundation in
the house because that was done before the stop work order was put in and it did not impact
the sewer, he can still flush his toilet, run his drains and everything so there's no problem there.
Adam is asking this Board to put aside that red herring and not consider it but even so they can
rest assured knowing this is a non-issue.
Adam circled back to the timing argument, Mr. Geerdes provided a lot of information tonight and
some of the Board is concerned that you didn't have an opportunity to review, and it is Adam’s
opinion that was Mr. Geerdes point and wanted a reason to defer these proceedings. Had Mr.
Geerdes wanted the Board to have all this information he could have presented it before the
appeal deadline, but he didn't, he chose not to so he waived his rights. All of these things he
could have provided in the time deadline to appeal and he didn't do it so he could now come
and bombard you with this new information and ask for a delay, it's simply an attempt to further
delay Adam’s client's project and cost them more money when they've complied with all the
rules and that's not something this Board should support and he asks this Board not to support
Board of Adjustment
January 8, 2025
Page 11 of 22
that kind of behavior. They had time to provide this information, the Board was provided a
packet on Friday, the same as before any other meeting, and time to digest it and it had a lot of
good information about all the reasons why the Board should deny this appeal and they are
asking that the Board do so.
Cox asked when did the clients purchase this lot. Adam replied November 15, 2024.
Carlson asked about the wheelchair ramp, they’ve talked about all the things that Mr. Geerdes
has brought up except for that so she would like to know his thoughts on that on the wheelchair
ramp in the front of the house. Adam replied he would have to defer to staff and Ms. Sitzman
on that. He will however use this as an opportunity to reiterate his earlier point that issue is
untimely and should not be considered, if Mr. Geerdes would have raised it in a timely manner
when he appealed City staff would have that answer in their packet just like they have all the
other answers, so he would argue that should be a non-issue for this Board. Adam stated the
purpose of filing an appeal is to put everybody on notice of what they are claiming, to put City
staff on notice and to put opposing clients on notice so they can prepare for these hearings,
neither were properly notified that they were challenging a ramp or a window well or an extra
parking spot outside the building, they had no idea of any of those things so it's a bit unfair to
have to defend positions that they just found out about an hour ago. This is not fair to him or his
clients to have to address those issues, they are untimely and the appellant didn't raise them
but Adam would certainly allow and want Ms. Sitzman to answer that question because as he
understands it would have been allowed had they known about it because it's an ADA ramp.
Cox asked if the application for the permit include any modification request to permit such as a
minor modification which is a separate application. Sitzman replied no, they had not received a
minor modification application for this property, this permit was granted without any changes.
Leintz noted this is an appeal and they are restricted to what they can present, generally
speaking this is not a court of law this is a quasi-judicial entity and so the rules for evidence and
such are somewhat relaxed nevertheless the arguments about traditional fairness apply and the
Board is certainly allowed to disregard things that were submitted untimely. He is going to stop
short of encouraging them to do so and would listen to the arguments from the parties. With
respect to whether they should or should not consider arguments that were submitted before the
Board and not included in the packet, the answer is generally they are limited to the arguments
raised in the appeal application, but the Board does have some discretion. He noted it's easier
if the parties were to all agree for example and say they all need more time to address these
matters, then he might suggest the Board consider doing that but when one party has asked for
more time but the City has not yet indicated whether they are interested in that and the property
owners are objecting, that's within the Board’s discretion. All things being equal he would weigh
the evidence that they have available to them and if they feel they can make an appropriate
decision based on the evidence they have.
Russo noted because under the City's synopsis alleging that minimum lot size, setbacks,
building bulk and maximum lot coverage requirements are met, isn’t the appellants questions on
window wells, ramps and parking included in that. Leintz stated the concept of a notice
pleading is to give the other party an idea of what the person is going to be complaining about
specifically and then that needs to be flushed out with more detail before the night of the show,
giving the other party sufficient information to be able to respond is an essential element of due
process and having fair proceedings.
Board of Adjustment
January 8, 2025
Page 12 of 22
However, Leintz is not aware of case law that says they can't consider evidence that's
presented right now, but the principle is that generally they are allowed to disregard untimely
evidence. They do not have to, but when they make their findings tonight, whatever findings
they go with, they need to be able to state effectively and clearly all the reasons for the decision.
Russo said then it becomes a fact then about appeal dates. Leintz disagreed and is not
advising the filing date has anything to do with this, the question is does this building permit
violate the zoning code and the zoning code specifically with respect to lot size, setbacks,
building bulk, maximum lot coverage and leave off the part about the sewer line, those are the
questions that are properly before the Board. If the Board wants to also consider, and the City
doesn't object, additional details that are being offered in support of those tonight, but other
arguments about whether someone had a bad experience on another project or whether
previous owners had difficulty with this property or the motivations of the City staff, unless
absent evidence that is not really relevant to what's here tonight. Was the City right or wrong in
issuing the permit and the Board will need to identify the specific code provision that they got
wrong if that is the answer.
Adam stated he would also like to state the burden of proof is on the appellant to show that the
City official got it wrong, it's not on his client to prove that they got it right, although he believes
they did get it right.
Doug Fisher stated he is a lifelong resident of Iowa City and has been in the water and sewer
business since 1983 and is here to talk about the sewer, not about the setbacks or any of the
other items. Fisher believes a lot of questions could have been solved if this sewer was
cameraed and located long before any it got this far, before they build over it. Regarding the
integrity of the sewer, they know it's clay, it's probably two foot sections, clay itself is a brilliant
product for sewer but the downfall is there's a joint every two foot that lets in roots that shift, let
out water and things get muddy and start going wacko. Fisher stated he met with Mr. Moore the
day he dropped off his little excavator up there to start doing some exploratory digs to try to find
the existing sewer to the house that they tore down, to see if it was a viable sewer to hook this
new house up to, had nothing to do with Mr. Moore’s sewer, but he and Fisher got into quite a
little discussion when Mr. Moore learned where the house was going and they talked about the
house running over his sewer line. Fisher suggested if they were unsure of where the sewer
line went they could look at it with a camera, it's a $300- $400 price tag option to look at it and if
it's any question at all before they start building they should dig across that lot to replace it with
PVC and put it in right with gravel bedding and pack the ditch back up and they can build a
skyscraper over the top of it because that sewer is going to last another hundred years if put in
right. What that also would have done is that sewer line would have been running straight,
assuming it runs straight and everybody believes that it runs straight but again they don't know
because nobody spent $300 or $400 to look at it, and lay it out on the ground. If it does get
replaced and it in fact runs under that building and needs moved and they start getting into a
bunch of elbows and bends to divert out and the City code only allows three bends for a total of
135° before they have to put in cleanouts that come clear to the surface and then they get in the
way, they get broke and it's just not a good deal. Again, the ideal time would have been to do it
before construction started and to put it in straight and it would have been bulletproof for long
past our lives. Fisher also wanted to say he was there after the foundation was dug when the
basement was put in and the garage footings were dug out and he’s been in business long
enough to know that if 100 years ago if that sewer was put in there they're going to see
evidence of mixed up dirt between the clay and the dark soils when the ditch is back in when it's
Board of Adjustment
January 8, 2025
Page 13 of 22
wide open like that and he could almost say right there is where that sewer line is because of
the soils, he looked at it and saw no evidence that there's a ditch running across in that spot
through the garage area which is where everybody is just assuming it runs through, again
nobody's located it for $300 or $400 and all this stuff about the sewer may be a moot point if it
doesn't run under that garage. Fisher noted it was mentioned earlier about who is responsible
for the sewer and Mr. Russo hit on it that the homeowner is responsible up to and including the
connection to the City services, which in this case is the main in the center of the alley, and at
no time does anybody else take responsibility for paying for anything. Even if they had an
easement for that property the homeowner is still responsible for the maintenance and the
repair of anything that has to do with his sewer, no matter where it runs, even if as soon as it
leaves his property and it goes on to somebody else's property. Fisher has been in business
for a long time and the homeowners always had to pay the cost no matter where it is. Frank
Wagner was talking about a job on Summit and Washington, Fisher actually did that job for
Wagner 10, 12 or 14 years ago and he's right, he did move the sewer because the addition he
was putting on that house did go over the existing sewer that was to that house. What he's
forgetting is the new addition was lowered down so the footings would have been into the sewer
because there was a driveway elevation issue, in fact if one were to drive by that house today
part of the driveway is still way too steep and it should have been lower. But they replaced the
sewer and went outside of the footprint because it was easy to do and it allowed the house to
stay running while they ran the new sewer and didn't have to take them offline. They put in the
new sewer and new water service at the same time so whether he had to do it because of the
addition or in this case it had to be done because the elevation was down into the sewer, there
was no other way to do it. Fisher just wanted to clarify what Mr. Wagner was talking about. But
again, Fisher just wants to bring back to the forefront that nobody's located the sewer, nobody's
looked with a camera to see how bad it is, Mr. Moore did tell Fisher he has had problems with
the sewer, he said once or twice a year he has to have it cleaned out with a rooter thing
because of roots, more evidence that it should be replaced, at least underneath that part of the
property.
Jamie Maher (319 North Van Buren) stated her and her husband Rob are the new owners of
319 North Van Buren Street, they bought this lot because honestly they had this dream of being
in downtown Iowa City and looked for a long time for different properties and different lots and
when they saw this lot they looked at it and it was a unique lot but kept going back to it and
loved the location of this lot. She kept dragging her parents, her husband, everybody she knew
back to this lot to show them how great it is and that it's right downtown Iowa City. Maher stated
they worked diligently for a long time and they knew the history of this lot and knew that it had
multiple appeals filed against it because it appeared to them that nobody wanted a house on
this lot. But the City said it was a buildable lot, it was sold as a buildable lot, so she and her
husband worked diligently and even before they purchased the lot they went to the City and
actually met with Danielle Sitzman at one point and went through the code. Maher believes she
knows more about the Iowa City code than she ever wanted to know, she has nightmares about
the City code when she sleeps at night because every time they went through a code she was
just told nope, that doesn't meet zoning requirements, and then they’d try it again and nope that
doesn't meet zoning requirements, finally after a couple of months of working on this very
diligently, spending hours, spending days, spending weekends, her kids, her husband, anybody
that knows them can confirm they put the time in to make sure that they meet every single
zoning and building code to this lot. They put their hearts and souls into this and did not want to
do anything to hurt the Moore family and even approached them to discuss any concerns, went
and introduced themselves to be neighborly, she even gave them a hug when she walked out of
Board of Adjustment
January 8, 2025
Page 14 of 22
their house and made a comment that when they're all done with this she could bring them
cookies and they could be neighbors. She didn't think they'd be standing here arguing about
this, they got their building permit and went and got the foundation in the ground. Maher noted
again that they worked on this a long time before they purchased the lot so they had spent
literally a couple of months working through the code and putting a house plan together so even
though they bought the lot on November 15th they had been working on the plan well before that
to make sure that it met zoning requirements so when they approved it on November 22nd they
were ready to go and had the contractors ready to go because they were on a timeline for
getting a foundation in the ground before winter. Mr. Moore told them that he would have to
stop their project and she questioned why as they had done everything, had met every single
rule they needed to meet, worked hard and if there was something wrong they were willing to try
and help fix it, they didn't want to do anything wrong and the City didn't view them as having
anything wrong so they just continued to move forward. Maher is here to ask the Board today,
they have heard the City, and from their attorney and she thinks the opposing side efforts
tonight are a last ditch effort and they threw things out at everyone but she is telling the Board
that they did everything they had to meet code and all they want to do is build a house in Iowa
City. She is asking tonight for the Board to rule in favor of that building permit as it will do
nothing but help the city of Iowa City, it will do nothing but help that neighborhood, something
needs to be built there as it's a vacant lot that was housing trucks and garbage, they’re planning
to put up a beautiful home and they did it the right way. The City was accurate in issuing a
building permit and they just want to continue building.
Swygard asked if City staff was ready with any new information regarding the window wells and
the ramp.
Sitzman shared what she found regarding the location of the easement and pointed out since
their exhibit's been used a couple times, the letter that went out showing the sewer line is an
approximated guess and she wanted to point out they haven’t used a camera to scope that line
so they don't know the exact alignment but they do know that there are two points and they
have to connect somewhere so somewhere along the alley is a point where they know the
manholes are and that there are connections to City service and they know it's coming from the
house. All they know is there are two points, they don't know if the line is a straight line or if the
line zigzags, that's unknown information and she didn't want to misinterpret that drawing and
that letter that was sent out. The Board has heard a couple times it's not established where the
sewer easement actually runs and she just want to make sure everyone is understanding that
map. Regarding the question about parking, parking standards are set by zoning districts and
by use so for this particular use, which is a single family detached home in RNS-12, for a
dwelling unit with three or more bedrooms (and this is proposed to be a three-bedroom home)
two parking spaces are required plus one addition additional parking space for each adult
occupant beyond three occupants. Therefore, it really depends on the number of occupants in
this dwelling, but the minimum requirement is two and they have two parking spaces in their
garage. That section of the code is regarding minimum parking requirements, it only requires a
minimum amount of parking, if someone were to provide excess parking those standards don't
necessarily apply, they’re just ensuring that there's a minimum amount of properly sized
parking. Therefore, for a three-bedroom home they are required to provide two parking spaces
plus one additional parking space for each adult occupant beyond three. The exhibit provided
tonight mentioned a 5’ setback requirement and that's for principal structures, the 5’ side yard
setback is for the house it's not for the parking stall, so whether it's in or not in that side yard
setback doesn't really matter and it may not even be a required parking stall and can be looked
Board of Adjustment
January 8, 2025
Page 15 of 22
at as only a paved area. They are allowed to put a car on it only if it meets a certain dimension
of 9’ by 18’ which is the required size for a parking stall. Sitzman noted from the aerial view of
this alley, that alley is just paved right at the entire alley so that makes sense therefore staff
does not have an issue with parking.
Sitzman noted again the review tonight is of City standards and the words for the stay of
proceedings having to do with safety are straight out of the section pertaining to the Board
activity.
Gregg Geerdes stated he made a lot of different notes during others testimony but Mr. Adam
talked about the appeal deadline as being 20 days, Geerdes stated that's incorrect and he
would refer the Board to their own procedural rules which they have adapted and are on the
website. The procedural rules say that the appeal must be filed within 30 days, the building
permit was issued November 20 and the appeal was filed on December 10th, so well within the
30 days and it was immediately supplemented when City staff wanted more information. The
email from City staff was sent on December 13th so they still had a week to go before their
deadline expired. Second, regarding the late submittal, again it's interesting that they received
more information from the City this morning and the City somehow is offended when they give
them information today, but again the Board’s own procedural rules contemplate the way this
was handled. Specifically, section 6 discusses briefs, which what Geerdes gave to the Board is
a brief which is a legal written discussion of points, the Board may request written briefs for legal
argument, applicants may submit written briefs if they so choose, which they did, and there's no
deadline for filing that brief. In fact, hearings are where evidence is presented and when they
give the specifics. Again, setback has always been an issue in this case and it's unfortunate
that the opponents want to hang this matter up on a procedural issue even though the appellant
has met all deadlines by at least a week. Geerdes also noted they are opponents, maybe
friendly opponents but opponents, and their interpretation of the code is not binding on them
and his interpretation of the code is not binding on them or on the Board, it's up to the Board to
decide and get to be judges. It is up to the Board to read the code and decide what the code
means and that's what they're asking them to do. Again the front setback issue is night and
day, it's interesting that they say well if they had followed the process and gotten the minor
review they probably would have approved it, that process is exactly what happened the first
time this matter was subject to a Board of Appeal several years ago they went through that
process and the Board of Adjustments said no to the minor adjustment because in that case the
problem was self-inflicted that they’re building too big of a property on that lot. Geerdes stated
that's what's going on again here too.
Cox stated this permit had no adjustments so it's not the same as the previous case Mr.
Geerdes is referencing, they are subject to the code but he is citing a case that had an
application for an adjustment and this one does not include that.
Geerdes acknowledged that was correct and what happened is the City in that previous case
several years ago had an internal review process and they approved the setback reduction and
the Board of Adjustment said no. There is a process for them to go through but that's not a
surefire thing and there are limitations and there are rights and there's a hearing procedure that
hasn’t been done. With regards to Mr. Russo’s question about jurisdiction, the zoning code is
not a smorgasbord where they can pick and choose what they want, the zoning code is the
zoning code and things are there for a purpose and again the authors of this zoning code put
provisions in there as far as limitations on the rights of other parties. For this particular case
Board of Adjustment
January 8, 2025
Page 16 of 22
underneath the code language it states that private agreements are not meant to be interfered
with by this zoning and they’ve got this sewer line that runs across the property that doesn’t
need an easement underneath the code, they just need an agreement and can argue about
whether or not there is a legal prescriptive easement or not. Is there an agreement, well
certainly there's been an agreement as that line has been there for 30 years at least because
Mr. Moore has lived there 30 or 40 years and the house is probably 100 years old, so that sewer
line obviously was put in with the agreement of everybody involved. Geerdes noted when they
compare the site plan with the size of the building it has to cross that sewer line because the
building is just too big, extends too far to the west, and it crosses the line. Yes, they would like
to do something about it and have a different opinion about the good faith efforts that have been
made to try to rectify this situation. Mr. Moore is going to tell about the cops being called on him
and him getting served with a no trespass order when he was trying to have a discussion about
this and of course nobody wants to stand the financial consequences of any of these things.
Regarding the window wells, the City says that the window wells that protrude on the north side
are fire escapes, when Geerdes was reading the code he saw that and thought no that’s not a
fire escape as defined, so Geerdes went down to the public library and copied the definition of
fire escape and what Webster's Third New International Dictionary says is that a fire escape is a
device for facilitating escape from a burning building as a stairway, usually of steel attached to
the outside of a building, or a wheel extension ladder. Geerdes doesn’t know about the wheels
extension ladder being a fire escape but apparently it is to them, but this isn't what fire escapes
are. Looking at the Midwest One Bank building you see a fire escape and you can see them all
over town, they are just as what is said here a steel stairway attached to the outside of a
building. That doesn't comply or comport with a window well. The City said it was okay to
frame out the basement and to put the floor joist in and lay down the subfloor because that's
necessary for public safety but when he drives around town he sees some steel fence posts get
driven in around the site and the orange snow fence material gets put up and that's where the
building stops until the appeal is resolved. The City talks about the parking issue, again that's
something that one has to read the code for and it says off street parking spaces are subject to
the location and setback requirements specified in the base zone. They know that the side
setback is 5’ and they know that this parking spot doesn't meet that 5’ setback requirement.
They're trying to say that they don't need it, if they don't need it obviously they're limited on how
many adults can occupy that structure and Geerdes submits that if they didn't need it they
wouldn't have shown it on the plan but if it's shown on the plan everyone should expect what's
shown on the plan complies with zoning code and as shown on the plan it does not meet
setback requirements. The same of course can be said of the front setback obligations, they've
simply not been complied with as the ramp does not meet zoning codes. The City doesn’t deny
that they just say if they were pushed on it they’d approve it but they can't just approve, they've
got obligations and requirements, it's not a unilateral decision that they can make. Again, if it's
shown on the plan it needs to meet zoning code and without applying for a minor modification it
certainly does not. Again, there is the process in the procedural rules and the appellant has
followed them and met the obligations, they’ve given the Board clearcut documentation of proof.
This is stuff that comes from their plans and as Geerdes noted in his brief, there is a letter
showing the current owners knew about the sewer problem since at least October 8th so it's
unfortunate that they didn't make the effort to try to work out this situation rather than give the
ultimatums and no compromises.
Dave Moore (425 Davenport Street) wanted to point out that there's been an implication that
they're trying to rush things here with some paperwork that was passed out but they got an
email yesterday from Parker Walsh that it was okay to pass out paperwork at the meeting.
Board of Adjustment
January 8, 2025
Page 17 of 22
Regarding rushing this whole affair part of it is that rules are rules and that these scheduling
rules state this meeting should have been in February. The number of days between December
20th and today is like 18 days and if you take out all the weekends and Christmas and
Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve and New Year's Day they end up with about 10 to 14 days
to prepare. That is why they feel rushed. For them to wait until December 10th to file the
appeal, well that was the day excavation started and he noticed they actually are doing this so
they got together and filed knowing that date puts them into February and would have some
time. As far as a stop work order goes he has photos that are dated that the orange sign that
says the stop work order begins December 18th, on December 19th they did not just put some
sheathing on top of the foundation, on December 19th they framed in the rooms in the
basement which has nothing to do with public safety, that was one day after the stop work order
was issued. Moore has a photo of rooms that were framed and on that shows the day before
the 18th rooms were not framed, so that was just plain violated. Moore noted when he and Mr.
Fisher had their amiable conversation Moore stated this whole thing is coming fast and he told
Mr. Fisher about the events in his life that were really crazy for the next four or five days. The
date when Moore and Mr. Fisher talked was the 26th and excavation started around the fourth or
fifth. Moore wanted to note is that pretty much everything he’s heard from a common sense
point of view, every contractor he’s talked to, every realtor he’s talked to, their first reaction is
“you got to be kidding me, that sewer has been there for a 100 years and you got something
called a prescriptive easement”, they can't believe a permit was extended over that sewer line,
that's just a common sense thing. Finally, Moore wanted to respond to what Mrs. Maher said
that they tried to work with them. Mrs. Maher and her father-in-law Mike Crantz were in Moore’s
home on the day of December 5th and it was very clear their stance was there were two
options, one was that they build over it, which they've already done with that foundation, or they
move the sewer line at Mr. Moore’s expense. His interpretation of that conversation is a whole
different deal than what Mrs. Maher is implying, his wife asked the question directly twice about
who would pay for it and were told the Moore’s would have to pay for it. Again, they were firmly
told that they only had two options, the Maher’s build over the line or the Moore’s pay to move
the line.
Eric Goers reiterated it is the City's position that the Board should be making their decision
tonight based on matters raised on appeal within the 30-day appeal deadline. Tonight of course
is well past that deadline and Goers assumes that when Mr. Moore chose to file his appeal he
knew why he wanted to file his appeal otherwise that appeal would have been in bad faith and if
he knew back then why he wanted to raise his appeal there's no reason why he couldn't have
specifically delineated all the things that he provided to the Board tonight, but he didn't and
Goers thinks there's probably a reason why he didn't. In any event like Mr. Adam said the
Board should only be basing the decision on matters that were timely raised on appeal. Ms.
Sitzman has made clear why nothing about the issuance of this building permit offended the
zoning code, even addressing some of the matters that she was hearing about for the very first
time tonight. The sewer line is at best from the appellant perspective a building code issue for
the Board of Appeals to consider and the reality is it's a private civil matter between the Mahers
and the Moore’s, it's the Maher property rights versus Mr. Moore’s claims of property rights and
that's not for this Board to decide that's a private civil matter. Goers noted that Mr. Adam
indicated he had searched the abstract looking for evidence of an easement and found none,
that went uncontradicted, and finally appellants have not met their burden of proof. Goers
reiterated it is the appellants burden of proof to indicate that the building permit was improperly
issued and for that reason the City asked that the Board of Adjustment affirm the building official
decision.
Board of Adjustment
January 8, 2025
Page 18 of 22
Swygard closed the public hearing.
Leintz stated the Board rules section 11 state motions have to be made in the affirmative, so the
motion should be stated as a motion to reverse the building official’s decision, then second it
and with following discussion the Board would need to have a roll call vote and would need
three yes votes to pass. They will also need a findings of fact and he recommends the Board
make a motion to establish what the findings are that they agree on.
Leintz also noted if the Board wanted they could defer and to continue these proceedings but he
would urge them not to do so unless they find a compelling need. People are spending money
on attorneys to be here tonight and have set aside their schedules for this as it is a big deal for
the part for the parties.
Leintz noted section 10 of the Board’s rules, under Board deliberation, it says after all the
parties have been heard the public hearing will be declared closed so that the Board may
deliberate the case amongst themselves.
Cox stated he has been on this Board off and on for several years and the charge of this Board
is to deal with zoning questions about individual properties, so the easement thing is a non-
issue and the appealing party has already put it before the Board of Appeals. This Board’s
issue is the individual lot and whether or not the permit that was approved meets the lot
requirements. He noted this is a non-conforming lot and an old lot in an old neighborhood, the
City code has non-conforming adjustments for this very case where there is someone that
wants to build a new modern build building on a funky lot in a funky part of town. He referred to
page two of the packet and code 14-2A-4 where there's the table that they've referenced before
and comparing the numbers there to the numbers on the permit there's not one number in their
permit request that exceeds that table with the non-conforming adjustments that are available
for this lot.
Leintz noted for the ease of discussion members of the Board can choose to adopt the
statement of another member or adopt with modification or expound on it.
Carlson stated as far as the lot size, the setbacks and everything the general measurements on
everything are as stated in the zoning code, her concern is with the two window wells as it
states balconies and bay windows may not extend into the acquired side setback so that is a
sticky point.
Cox pointed out that a bay window or a balcony is very different than an egress window out of a
subterranean floor. He noted looking around town it is seen that this has become a pretty
common way for people to maximize the square footage on some of these lots, to have livable
space subterranean with the egress windows that are in this design but noted they don't have
the same impact on the setback that a balcony or a bay window would have.
Russo stated one could argue that a window well is not an architectural feature but rather a
feature of landscaping and one could grade a lot in such a way that wouldn't violate any of the
setback requirements and still allow for egress. He has a little confusion about whether it is
architectural or part of the landscaping and grade.
Board of Adjustment
January 8, 2025
Page 19 of 22
Swygard stated she would say that she doesn’t consider the window wells the same as bay
windows and are definitely a different feature. She would also agree that the sewer line is not
anything that this Board needs to consider, it is not in their purview.
Carlson agreed, they are here to deal with the zoning code. Additionally, the dates that things
were supposed to be introduced and all that may be getting into the weeds and they could
spend a lot of time on that but she thinks the major problem they need to deal with is the zoning
code. Swygard agrees.
Russo stated this is a tough one as it's unfortunate that it arrived at this state and unfortunate
that for one reason or another this occurred, they are all intelligent people and he hoped they
could prevent something like this but apparently not. Russo thinks that the City's done its due
diligence and this Board should not get involved in issues or questions of whether or not there's
an easement, but he does think there are questions about the building size and the
arrangements but thinks that the City has crossed their t’s and dotted their I’s, and they've
conformed to the tables and the size requirements diligently so he doesn’t see a strong basis to
overturn the City's building permit at this stage. Swygard agrees.
Cox moved to let the decision of the building official stand for this permit based on the
factual knowledge that this Board has reviewed that all of the permit specifications met
the code that applied to them.
Carlson seconded the motion.
Carlson noted probably everyone would like to see a cute little cottage on that little lot but that is
not the reality and they need to deal with the reality of what can be put on there and can it
contribute to the feel of the neighborhood.
Cox stated he has been in Iowa City for 25 years and part of why he is on this Board is because
he is invested in this City and the ongoing evolution of the code is trying to do what everyone
wants while encouraging people to keep investing in this town and having housing that makes
sense for them. This is a case exactly why they have some of the pieces of these ordinances
and the non-conforming components so they can have families invest in a modern home on a
lot where that really wasn't the original idea. He stated this permit is following the entire intent
and the guidelines in the City’s ordinance and encouraging investment infill in the City. He
noted they do want to encourage ongoing investment within the existing City so those reasons
outside of the code that it's encouraging that this permit met them.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-0 (Baker recused).
Swygard stated the motion declared approved, any person who wishes to appeal this decision
to a court of record may do so within 30 days after this decision is filed with the City Clerk’s
Office.
Leintz and Cox left the meeting, Baker returned and was reestablished as Chair.
Board of Adjustment
January 8, 2025
Page 20 of 22
DISCUSSION ON GENERAL CRITERION - SUBSTANTIALLY DIMINISH OR IMPAIR
PROPERTY VALUES:
Dulek noted this was a request of the Chair to expand on the criterion regarding what
substantially diminishes or impairs property values. Dulek stated what's important for the Board
is she concluded that as at the Supreme Court said when it looked at this it said that expert
testimony is not necessary so if they're looking at whether it impacts or diminishes the value the
Board does not have to hear from a real estate broker or an appraiser to make a decision. Also
anecdotal personal experience is important and also common sense inferences from what the
Board hears is important, all of that should be taken into consideration. Dulek also wanted to
point out it's just not the diminishment or the impairment of property values but the substantial
diminishment or the impairment of property values so that's very important and again it's the
burden of the person making the application for the special exception.
Carlson asked if it must substantially diminish or impair all the properties or one property. Dulek
stated it is it the values in the neighborhood and explained neighborhood usually means more
than one and the code says with disturbances such as barking dogs or loud music it has to be a
disturbance of the neighborhood and one person isn't a neighborhood so it must substantially
diminish or impair to more than one property.
Baker stated he just want to understand this process and the burden of establishing whether the
project creates a substantial burden starts with the applicant who determines that. Dulek
reiterated it is will not substantially diminish or impair property values and that is what the
applicant has to approve. Baker asked does the staff have the chance to agree or disagree with
the applicant. Dulek replied that yes, staff can overrule the applicant, and the report Board
would get from staff would state the reason why staff believes the application would
substantially diminish or impair property values and then the applicant would come to the
podium and explain why they disagree with staff. Baker asked if the applicant has to provide
proof or can they just make the assertion. Dulek stated there has to be something there, it can
be anecdotal noting other people who have said anecdotally that this same situation happened
in their neighborhood and it didn't affect them or the applicant can have a study from other cities
where this similar thing happened and there was no impact on values, etc.
Baker stated he questioned this because several months ago there was that time when there
were over a hundred signatures on a petition but what the code states is that it's their obligation
to disprove the applicant. Dulek confirmed that they have to convince the Board of that yes.
Baker asked is there a difference between the value of the anecdotal evidence assertion made
by the applicant versus the anecdotal evidence or assertion made by the objectors. Dulek
replied that it is up to the Board to weigh that and again there's the burden. Baker recalls one of
the objections cited the withdrawal of a sale of property that wouldn't establish a neighborhood
problem it would only establish that for that one property. Dulek reiterated because the criteria
is it will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood so the Board
could look at that and say well that's one house so can they reasonably infer that would impact
other properties and need to apply common sense with anecdotal evidence.
Baker asked if the anecdotal evidence has to be presented formally at a meeting or can
someone's letter suffice because there is no way to question the letter writer. Dulek stated they
Board of Adjustment
January 8, 2025
Page 21 of 22
would probably give the letter less weight because they're not able to ask questions but it's still
evidence.
Baker was hoping this whole process was a little less subjective and had a little bit more clear
standards that they could go by but they go back to anecdotal evidence being acceptable and to
be evaluated subjectively weighed by common sense. Dulek stated that's why they have a five
person Board to have five reasonable persons who try very hard to listen and to come to a
reasonable decision based on their life's experiences and information given to them.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Baker stated he would be glad to serve again as Chair unless someone else would like the
opportunity.
Swygard moved to have Baker serve as Chair, Russo seconded, a vote was taken and the
motion passed 4-0.
Swygard moved to have Russo serve as Vice Chair, Baker seconded, a vote was taken and the
motion passed 4-0.
CONSIDER NOVEMBER 13, 2024 MINUTES:
Swygard moved to approve the minutes of November 13, 2024. Russo seconded. A vote was
taken and the motion carried 5-0.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT INFORMATION:
Dulek announced that a new Board member was appointed by City Council last night and they
will welcome Julie Tallman to the Board. Tallman worked for the City for 28 years and will bring
lots of experience to the Board.
ADJOURNMENT:
Swygard moved to adjourn this meeting, Russo seconded, a vote was taken and all approved.
Board of Adjustment
January 8, 2025
Page 22 of 22
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2023-2025
NAME TERM
EXP.
4/19 5/10 6/14 7/12 11/8 12/13 3/13 4/10 8/22 10/10 11/13 1/8
BAKER, LARRY 12/31/2027 O/E X X X X X X X X X X X
PARKER, BRYCE 12/31/2024 O/E X X X X X X X X O/E O/E -- --
SWYGARD, PAULA 12/31/2028 X X X X X X O/E X X X X X
CARLSON, NANCY 12/31/2025 X X X X O/E X X X O/E X X X
RUSSO, MARK 12/31/2026 X O/E O/E X O/E X X X X X X X
TALLMAN, JULIE 12/31/2029 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Key: X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
-- -- = Not a Member