Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 06.18.2025PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Wednesday, June 18, 2025 Formal Meeting – 6:00 PM Emma Harvat Hall Iowa City City Hall 410 E. Washington Street Agenda: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda Rezoning Items 4. Case No. REZ25-0007 Location: Northwest corner of Rochester Ave and N. Scott Blvd. An application for a rezoning of approximately 7.76 acres of land from Low Density Single- Family Residential zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Low Density Multi-Family Residential zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-12). 5. Updates from Steering Committee members on the Comprehensive Plan Update 6. Consideration of meeting minutes: June 4, 2025 7. Planning and Zoning Information 8. Adjournment If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact Anne Russett, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5251 or arussett@iowa-city.org. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings Formal: July 2 / July 16 / August 6 Informal: Scheduled as needed. STAFF REPORT 221 E. Burlington St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Shoemaker & Haaland 160 Holiday Rd. Coralville, Iowa 52241 Single-Family Residential zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS- 5) to Low Density Multi-Family Residential zone with a Planned Development living community consisting of 3 duplexes and a 100-unit multi-family style Residential with a Planned Development Preserve, Low Density Single- Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) & Interim 2 Residential (ID-RS) South: Single-Family, Low Density Single-Family Residential (RS- Single-Family Residential (ID- Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay property received notification of the Planning and Zoning Commission public meeting. Rezoning signs were posted on the site at the corner of N. Scott Blvd and Rochester BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The applicant, Monument Hills, LLC, has requested a rezoning from Low Density Single-Family Residential zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) to Low Density Multi-Family Residential zone with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-12) for approximately 7.76 acres located on Lot 66 of Monument Hills subdivision northwest of Rochester Avenue and N. Scott Boulevard. The rezoning is required due to a change in ownership on the subject property. The proposed rezoning would allow for the construction of a senior living community consisting of 3 duplexes and a 100-unit multi-family style independent living building resulting in a total of 106 units on the subject property. The proposed development is shown in the Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan (Attachment 3). The subject property (Lot 66 of the Monument Hills subdivision) was created as part of the Monument Hills final plat and was rezoned and subdivided in 2022 and 2023. In terms of case history, here’s a summary: On August 16, 2022 the City Council approved a rezoning (REZ22-0008 & Ord. No 22-4885) for approximately 64.38 acres of the property to OPD/RS-5 and 0.31 acres to OPD/ID-RS to accommodate the existing communications tower. The rezoning included the following conditions: a. Prior to issuance of a building permit, Owner shall: 3 i. Dedicate a private access easement to the property hereby zoned OPD/ID-RS; ii. Dedicate a public access easement to allow a public trail from the proposed development to Calder Park in a form of agreement approved by the City Attorney and install a 10’ wide trail therein; iii. Dedicate to the City, without compensation, right-of-way along Rochester Ave and N. Scott Blvd. b. The final plat for any of the above-described land shall incorporate traffic calming generally in locations shown on the attached Overall Concept Plan. All of these conditions have been met through the final platting and building permit review processes. In September 2022, the City adopted a resolution that approved the Preliminary Plat of the Monument Hills subdivision. (SUB22-0006 & Res. No 22-240). The City adopted a resolution in April 2023 that approved the Final Plat of Monument Hills subdivision (SUB22-0015 & Res. No 23-103) which shows a conservation easement on the subject property. During final platting staff also approved the Final Sensitive Areas Development Plan. See Attachments 4 and 5. Attachment 6 includes the applicant submittal materials such as the Rezoning Exhibit, the Applicant Statement, Elevations and an updated Traffic Study. The applicant conducted a Good Neighbor meeting on June 5, 2025. A summary of the meeting is included in Attachment 7. ANALYSIS: Current Zoning: The property is currently zoned OPD/RS-5. The OPD is intended to permit flexibility in the use and design of structures and land in situations where conventional development may not be appropriate. With the previous rezoning, the subject property was approved for 12 single-family homes, 3 duplexes, and a two-story, 29-unit multi-family building, and a private clubhouse for the residents resulting in a total of 47 units. The RS-5 allows larger lot sizes and setbacks creating neighborhoods with a limited density. While the proposed development contains duplexes and a multi-family building, the OPD process allows for a mixture of uses in the RS-5 zone. Proposed Zoning: The proposed zone is OPD/RM-12. The OPD is intended to permit flexibility in the use and design of structures and land in situations where conventional development may not be appropriate. The RM-12 zone is intended to provide for the development of high density, single-family housing and low density, multi-family housing. The Preliminary OPD Plan for this rezoning proposes 3 duplexes and a 3-story, 100-unit multi-family style independent living building for a total of 106 units. The RM-12 zone is intended to provide a diverse variety of housing options in neighborhoods throughout the city. Careful attention to site and building design is important to ensure that the various housing types in any one location are compatible with one another. General Planned Development Approval Criteria: Applications for Planned Development Rezonings are reviewed for compliance with the following standards according to Article 14-3A of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance. 4 1. The density and design of the Planned Development will be compatible with and/or complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass and scale, relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout. Density - The OPD/RM-12 zone allows for a density of 15 dwelling units per net acre of land area (total land minus public and private streets right-of-way). The proposed development includes 106 dwelling units on 7.76 net acres. The proposed resulting density is 13.7 dwelling units per acre, which complies with the OPD/RM-12 density standard. Land Uses Proposed - The applicant is proposing the construction of a senior living community consisting of 3 duplexes and a 100-unit multi-family style independent living building. The addition of this senior housing will increase the diversity of housing types and help to satisfy an ongoing need for senior housing in the city. The Final Plat shows that there is an existing conservation easement at the northeast corner of the subject property. No development is allowed to occur in the conservation easement area due to the existing sensitive features. The proposed rezoning aims to continue to preserve and protect sensitive areas by clustering development and concentrating the more intense land uses near the arterial streets and away from the conservation easement. Lot 66 is adjacent to existing single-family lots and an outlot located to the north. The outlot, established through the approved Final Plat, contains a conservation easement that prohibits future development. As a result, no new construction can occur to the north of Lot 66 and the proposed development will not impact that area. Furthermore, the proposed development will be compatible with the adjacent single-family neighborhood, as any construction on Lot 66 must comply with the Multi-Family Site Development Standards, which are intended to support safe, attractive, and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods. Mass, Scale and General Layout - The development will include duplexes that help balance out the larger multi-family building. The multi-family building will be 3 stories and will be required to comply with the Multi-Family Site Development Standards. These standards aim to promote attractive, pedestrian friendly neighborhoods by regulating parking, requiring screening of unsightly features and ensuring clearly identified pedestrian connections. Additionally, the proposed development locates the duplexes next to the existing single-family homes along Heron Dr. and places the larger scale multi-family building at the corner of the two arterial streets. This allows for a transition from single-family to multi-family. The applicant has requested two waivers from the RM-12 zone dimensional standards. One waiver from the height requirement and the other from the arterial street front setback requirement at the corner of Rochester Ave. and N. Scott Blvd. The first waiver requests an increase in the maximum building height from 35 feet to 40 feet for the multi-family building to address site topography and building aesthetics. The site is unique in the sense that it slopes and requires a building design suitable for changes in elevation. Additionally, the multi-family building aims to have a pitched roof compared to a flat roof to allow for vaulted ceilings. The OPD rezoning process allows applicants to request waivers from certain development standards, including building height. However, the following approval criteria must be met (14-3A-4K-1b): 1. The maximum building height and building coverage may be modified or waived, provided the design of the development results in sufficient light and air circulation for each building and adequate, accessible open space for all residents of the development. 5 The increased roof height would allow for vaulted ceilings and help aesthetically transition the appearance of the multi-family building into the surrounding style of the neighborhood. The applicant has provided staff with the Preliminary OPD Plan that lists the required open space for this use. The amount of required open space for Lot 66 is 10 square feet per bedroom. The proposed bedroom count for the duplexes and multi-family building is 182 bedrooms. Therefore, the total amount of required open space for the proposed development on Lot 66 is 1,820 square feet. Features of the open space areas for the residents include sports courts, swimming pool, garden, and a dog run. Staff will ensure this standard is met during site plan review. The second waiver request is to reduce the arterial street front setback requirement from 40 feet to 32 feet at the corner of Rochester Ave. and N. Scott Blvd. Both of these streets are arterial streets which require a setback of 40 feet. Through the OPD rezoning process, minimum setbacks may be reduced if the following conditions are met (14-3A-4K-1a) 1. The setbacks proposed will provide adequate light, air, and privacy between dwellings and between dwellings and public rights of way. 2. Sufficient setbacks are incorporated to provide the opportunity for adequate private open space for each dwelling unit. 3. The setbacks proposed will provide sufficient area for utilities and street trees. 4. If front setbacks are reduced, measures should be taken to preserve privacy within residential dwellings and to provide a transition between the public right of way and private property. To ensure privacy within single-family and two-family dwellings for which setbacks are reduced, the first floor must be elevated at least thirty inches (30") above the grade of the adjacent public sidewalk. Other methods to increase privacy are also encouraged, such as use of front porches. 5. Residential buildings that are located in close proximity to each other must be designed to preserve privacy. This can be achieved by placement of windows to prevent direct views into the windows of adjacent residential dwelling units. In addition, balconies and air conditioning units may not be located along a building wall that is within twenty feet (20') of a building wall of an adjacent principal building on the same lot, if the wall of the adjacent building contains window or door openings into dwelling units. Proximity of building walls will be subject to all current building code fire protection requirement. The multi-family building has been designed to accommodate the site’s topographic conditions while maintaining compatibility with surrounding development. The Preliminary OPD Plan illustrates that the majority of the building frontage is set back more than 40 feet from the front property line. This setback provides space for street tree plantings, which will enhance neighborhood character and contribute to environmental quality. No reductions are proposed for any other setbacks, and all setback requirements will be verified during site plan review. Additionally, the plan demonstrates that the multi-family building is located more than 20 feet from the nearest duplexes, ensuring adequate separation between buildings. Based on these factors, staff finds the proposed front setback reduction to be appropriate. Open Space - The proposed development will need to comply with private open space standards, outlined in section 14-2A-4E of the City Code. The Preliminary OPD Plan for the senior living community requires 1,820 square feet of open space. These standards will be reviewed for compliance at site plan review. Traffic Circulation - The proposed development would include a private drive for the senior living community, which is proposed off of Heron Dr. to the west on the subject property. No access is proposed off of N. Scott Blvd or Rochester Ave. 2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities. 6 The subject property can be serviced by both sanitary sewer and water. Transportation Planning staff requested that the applicant submit an updated traffic study which examined how the proposed development on Lot 66, the 3 duplexes and 100-unit multi-family style independent living building, would impact traffic. The traffic study indicates that the total average daily trips generated by the proposed development on the subject property in addition to the 66 single-family homes included in the Monument Hills subdivision, is 1,004 new daily trips, which includes 69 new AM peak-hour trips, and 92 new PM peak-hour trips by the anticipated date the site is fully developed and occupied, 2026. The study analyses the following intersections at Rochester Ave: Scott Blvd., Heron Dr., Amhurst St., Teton Cr., and Allison Way. The study concludes that the intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable level-of- service (LOS) C or better in the 2026 baseline and 2026 future with development conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours. Staff has reviewed the traffic study and concurs with the analysis. 3. The development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property values and privacy of neighboring properties any more than would a conventional development. A portion of Lot 66 and the area north of Lot 66 is in a protected conservation easement which would prevent any development within these areas. However, there are existing single-family homes located along Heron Dr. to the west and north. Additionally, there are also existing single-family homes across Rochester Ave. to the south of the subject property. The proposed development locates the duplexes next to the existing single-family homes along Heron Dr. and places the larger scale multi-family building at the corner of the two arterial streets. This allows for a transition from single-family to multi-family. The proposed development will be required to meet the Multi-Family Site Development Standards that include screening requirements which will help integrate the proposed development. For these reasons staff finds that this development will not impact neighboring residences more than a conventional development. 4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying zoning requirements or from City street standards will be in the public interest, in harmony with the purposes of this Title, and with other building regulations of the City. The Preliminary OPD Plan for the subject property incorporates two-family and multi-family uses. The combination of land uses provides a diversity of housing options and helps to satisfy an ongoing need for senior housing. In summary, the proposed project balances the need for environmental protection with the need for an increased housing supply and diversity of housing types. Rezoning Review Criteria: Staff uses the following two criteria in the review of rezonings: 1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan; 2. Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character. Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The IC2030 Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map has identified this area as appropriate for Conservation Design. Conservation Design is appropriate in areas containing steep slopes, woodlands, stream corridors, and other sensitive features. Building sites are identified to take advantage of the preserved land and create streets that minimize disturbance of natural areas. Developments with a conservation design should be more compact with less pavement and more open space than conventional development. The 7 subject property has clustered development away from the environmentally sensitive areas and contains a conservation easement aimed to preserve and protect woodlands and sensitive slopes. The Northeast District Plan Future Land Use Map for the Bluffwood neighborhood (Figure 2) shows the subject property as appropriate for townhomes and small apartment buildings. The proposed development generally aligns with the land use envisioned by the plan since the proposed development provides duplexes that are a similar scale to single-family homes. The proposed multi-family style independent living building is more intense and is proposed at the intersection of Rochester Ave. and N. Scott Blvd. Figure 2. Northeast District Plan Future Land Use Map Both the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan and Northeast District Plan encourage a diversity of housing options. The proposed rezoning would incorporate duplexes and a multi-family building on Lot 66 which would help diversify the surrounding housing stock, which is primarily single- family to the northwest and south of the subject property. Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood Character: The proposed 3 duplexes and 100- unit multi-family style independent living building is generally consistent with the existing neighborhood character. Existing single-family homes are located northwest and south of the subject property. The proposal locates the higher density development in the southeast corner of Lot 66. Concentrating the multi-family development on this area of the property, along the arterial streets, provides a transition of land uses from single family neighborhoods to higher density development. Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The subject property contains steep slopes, critical slopes, woodlands, and wetlands. There is an approved Final Sensitive Areas Development Plan, Attachment 4, that will not change with this proposed rezoning. The conservation easement has been established as part of the Final Plat and the conservation easement that exists on the northeast portion of Lot 66 will remain. NEXT STEPS: Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed rezoning. 8 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of REZ25-0007, a proposal to rezone approximately 7.76 acres of land located on Lot 66 of Monument Hills subdivision northwest of Rochester Avenue and N. Scott Boulevard from OPD/RS-5 zone to OPD/RM-12 zone. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Zoning Map 3. Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan 4. Approved Final Sensitive Areas Development Plan 5. Approved Final Plat 6. Applicant Submittal Materials 7. Good Neighbor Meeting Summary Approved by: _________________________________________________ Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services ATTACHMENT 1 Location Map AmhurstSt Heron Pl Alley Westbury Dr Middlebury Rd Rochester A v e HeronCir Ea s t b u r y D r Lower West BranchRd AllisonWay Goldfinc h C i r Heron Dr Allison Way Harvest Rd SE NScottBlvdµREZ25-0007 Lot 66 Monument Hills Prepared By: Olivia Ziegler Date Prepared: June 2025 0 0.04 0.090.02 Miles Rezoning 7.76 acres from Low Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) zone to Low Density Multi- Family Residential with Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-12) zone. ATTACHMENT 2 Zoning Map Am h urst St Heron Pl Alley Westbury Dr Middlebury Rd Rochester A v e HeronCir Ea s t b u r y D r Lower West Branch Rd AllisonWay Goldfinc h C i r Heron Dr Allison Way Ha rvest R d SE NSco ttBlvd Johnson County, Iowa GIS µREZ25-0007 Lot 66 Monument Hills Prepared By: Olivia Ziegler Date Prepared: June 2025 0 0.04 0.090.02 Miles Rezoning 7.76 acres from Low Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) zone to Low Density Multi- Family Residential with Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-12) zone. OPD/RS5 IDRS RS5 MU ATTACHMENT 3 Preliminary Planned Development Overlay Plan 133' 32 3 ' 320' 24' 66 7.76 Ac 338,024 SF FDC LOT INFORMATION: TOTAL LOT AREA 338,024 SF 7.76 AC IMPERVIOUS AREA PAVEMENT (PARKING, DRIVES, SIDEWALKS)51,715 SF 1.19 AC BUILDING COVERAGE - DUPLEX 11,340 SF 0.36 AC BUILDING COVERAGE - MULTI-FAMILY 62,920 SF 1.49 AC TOTAL IMPERVIOUS 115,975 SF 2.66 AC PERCENT IMPERVIOUS 34.3 % CURRENT ZONING LOW-DENSITY, SINGLE-FAMILY / PLANNED OVERLAY RS-5/OPD PROPOSED ZONING LOW-DENSITY, MULTI-FAMILIY / PLANNED OVERLAY RM-12/OPD UNIT DENSITY: DWELLING BEDROOMS TOTAL BUILDING INFORMATION UNITS PER UNIT BEDROOMS MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING ONE-BEDROOM UNITS 30 1 30 TWO-BEDROOM UNITS 70 2 140 100 170 DUPLEX UNITS (3 BUILDINGS)6 2 12 SITE TOTAL 106 182 REQUIRED OPEN SPACE 10 SF PER BEDROOM x 182 BEDROOMS = 1,820 SF TOTAL UNITS 106 UNITS PER NET ACRE 106 / 7.76 = 13.7 ALLOWABLE UNITS PER NET ACRE (RM-12 PER CITY CODE TABLE 3A.1)= 15 PARKING MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING INTERIOR PARKING 110 SPACES EXTERIOR PARKING 25 SPACES DUPLEX UNITS GARAGE 1 SPACE x 6 UNITS 6 SPACES DRIVEWAY 1 SPACE x 6 UNITS 6 SPACES TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 147 SPACES PARKING REQUIRED (ELDER HOUSING)1 SPACE PER UNIT 106 SPACES RM-12 BASE ZONE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS DUPLEX LOT AREA - MINIMUM 6,000 SF AREA PER UNIT 3,000 SF OPEN SPACE 300 SF PER UNIT LOT WIDTH 55 FEET LOT FRONTAGE 40 FEET SETBACKS FRONT *15 FEET SIDE 5 FEET REAR 20 FEET * GARAGE, IF FRONT FACING, MUST BE SETBACK 25 FEET MULTI-FAMILY LOT AREA - MINIMUM 8,175 SF AREA PER UNIT - ALL TYPES 2,725 SF OPEN SPACE 10 SF / BEDROOM LOT WIDTH 60 FEET LOT FRONTAGE 40 FEET SETBACKS FRONT *20 FEET SIDE 10 FEET REAR 20 FEET * 40 FOOT SETBACK REQUIRED ALONG ROCHESTER & N. SCOTT APPLICANT REQUESTS 32' SETBACK AT THE CORNER OF N. SCOTT & ROCHESTER REQUESTED WAIVERS 1. REQUEST AN INCREASE IN THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FROM 35' TO 40' FOR THE MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING TO ADDRESS SITE TOPOGRAPHY (GRADE PLAN CALCULATION). 2. REQUEST CONTINUATION OF THE SETBACK REDUCTION GRANTED DURING PREVIOUS REZONING AT THE CORNER OF ROCHESTER AVENUE AND N. SCOTT BOULEVARD TO REDUCE THE SETBACK FROM 40' TO 30'. GENERAL SITE DATA: HE R O N D R I V E FEET 0 15 30 6045 ROCHE S T E R A V E N. S C O T T B L V D DUPLEX EXISTING CONSERVATION EASEMENT (MONUMENT HILLS) FIRE L A N E BUILDI N G S E T B A C K ( 4 0 ' ) UTILITY E A S E M E N T ( 1 5 ' ) UT I L I T Y E A S E M E N T ( 1 5 ' ) UTI L I T Y E A S E M E N T ( 1 5 ' ) BUILDIN G S E T B A C K ( 2 0 ' ) BU I L D I N G S E T B A C K ( 4 0 ' ) UT I L I T Y E A S E M E N T ( 1 5 ' ) EX I S T I N G S I D E W A L K PROPERTY BOUNDARY KITCHE N / S E R V I C E ENTRA N C E MA I N E N T R A N C E SCALE: SHEET: DATE:IOWA CITY INDEPENDENT LIVING 25009 (SHPE 24418) DUPLEX DUPLEX 70' 26' 21' 53.31' 34.9 5 ' 35' 24 ' 6' 12 ' 18 ' 16 ' 18 ' 50 . 1 5 ' 69 . 0 7 ' 46.48' 17.66' 25' 26 ' 80 ' 78' 20' 18' 6' 57 . 5 7 ' 36 ' 26' 26' 30' 17.86' 12 . 0 1 ' 11 . 4 6 ' 24 ' 29' 57 . 6 1 ' 41 . 3 5 ' 172.2' PICKLE B A L L COURT BOCCE POOL 6' 16 ' 24 ' 26 ' 26' DOG RUN GAR D E N 25 ' 26' MULTI-FAMILY INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY (3 STORIES) 30' AS NOTED 05.19.25 C200 SITE PLAN OUTLOT C LOT 53 MONUMENT HILLS LOT 52 LOT 18 LOT 17 LOT 16 LOT 15 LOT 14 LOT 13 EX I S T I N G S I D E W A L K 30' BUILDING SETBACK NOTE: On June 5, Staff provided the applicant with several comments on this plan set. As of the publication of this agenda packet the revisions had yet to be received. Staff anticipates a revised plan set will be provided prior to the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. ATTACHMENT 4 Approved Final Sensitive Areas Development Plan SHEET SHEET NAME C1.00 COVER SHEET C1.10 REGULATED SLOPES C1.20 WOODLANDS C1.30 WETLANDS C2.00 OUTLOT E & F - SLOPES AND WETLANDS C2.10 OUTLOT E & F - WOODLANDS C1.00ISSUED DATE:REVISION: COVER SHEET FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN SHEET INDEX SHEET NUMBER:PROJECT NO: ISSUED DATE: PROJECT MANAGER: REVISION: PROJECT NAME: CLIENT: SHEET NAME: ENGINEER: REVISION LOG: REV DESCRIPTION DATE © 1026 WELCH C 03-21-2023 MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA MONUMENT HILLS, LLC -CITY REVIEW #1 10-07-22 A RESPOND TO CITY REVIEW #2 02-27-23 B RESPOND TO CITY REVIEW #3 03-09-23 C RESPOND TO CITY REVIEW #4 03-21-23 =1" WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 0 75 150 300225 150' FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA STEEP SLOPE (18%-25%) CRITICAL SLOPE (25%-40%) PROTECTED SLOPE (>40%) PROTECTED SLOPE - BUFFER REGULATED SLOPES: WOODLANDS: TREELINE CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS WETLANDS: WETLANDS BUFFER - 100' ROCHE S T E R A V E N U E N. S C O T T B O U L E V A R D HE R O N C I R C L E LOWE R W E S T B R A N C H R D AM H U R S T S T TE T O N C I R WI N D M I L L P L RALST O N C R E E K HA R V E S T R O A D S E N. S C O T T B O U L E V A R D GOLDF I N C H C I R LOW E R W E S T B R A N C H R D HICKORY TR L HIC K O R Y P L GREEN MOUNTAIN DR RALST O N C R E E K APPLICANT INFORMATION PROPERTY OWNER MONUMENT FARMS, LLC 3810 PERTERSON PL NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 DEVELOPER MONUMENT HILLS, LLC 221 E BURLINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52240 (319) 631-1894 CIVIL ENGINEER WELCH DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT MICHAEL J. WELCH, PE PO BOX 679 NORTH LIBERTY, IA 52317 (319) 214-7501 LEGEND TA M A R A C K T R L APPLICATION NOTES NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS WILL BE MET VIA DEDICATION OF OUTLOT E TO THE CITY OF IOWA CITY. THE FINAL OPD AND SADP FOR LOT 66 WILL BE PROVIDED AT TIME OF MAJOR SITE PLAN APPLICATION FOR LOT 66. LA R C H L A N E 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 12 11 10 9 8 68 67 66 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21222324252627 28 29 30 54 65 64 63 62 50 51 52 53 49 48 47 46 45 44 4342 41 40 39 57 58 59 60 61 55 56 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 OUTLOT C OUTLOT B OUTLOT A OUTLOT F OUTLOT E CITY OF IOWA CITY HARVEST PRESERVE OUTLOT A 16 STEEP SLOPE (18%-25%) STEEP SLOPE - IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPE (25%-40%) CRITICAL SLOPE - IMPACTED PROTECTED SLOPE (>40%)N/A PROTECTED SLOPE - BUFFER N/A CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY NOTE: THERE ARE NO PROTECTED SLOPES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY REFER TO SHEET C2.00 FOR GRADING PLAN LEGEND: REGULATED SLOPES =1" WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 0 50 100 200150 100' C1.10ISSUED DATE:REVISION: REGULATED SLOPES FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN SHEET NUMBER:PROJECT NO: ISSUED DATE: PROJECT MANAGER: REVISION: PROJECT NAME: CLIENT: SHEET NAME: ENGINEER: REVISION LOG: REV DESCRIPTION DATE © 1026 WELCH C 03-21-2023 MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA MONUMENT HILLS, LLC -CITY REVIEW #1 10-07-22 A RESPOND TO CITY REVIEW #2 02-27-23 B RESPOND TO CITY REVIEW #3 03-09-23 C RESPOND TO CITY REVIEW #4 03-21-23 LOCATION AREA (SF) 1,069 7,018 4,274 3,275 13,122 2,538 24,467 5,536 9,428 5,291 12,468 6,937 9,549 TOTAL IMPACTED 105,026 TOTAL STEEP SLOPE 215,827 PERCENT IMPACTED 49% IMPACTED STEEP SLOPES: A.1 A.2 A.3 A.4 A.5 A.6 A.1 A.2 A.3 A.4 A.5 A.6 A.7 A.8 A.9 A.10 A.11 A.12 A.13 A.7 A.8 A.9 A.10 A.13 A.12 B.2 B.3 B.4 B.5 B.6 B.10 B.7 B.8 B.9 B.12 B.11 LOCATION AREA (SF) 10,349 7,791 23,809 15,342 9,769 21,592 46,010 8,001 19,596 11,465 13,193 2,846 7,743 4,132 3,624 TOTAL IMPACTED 205,262 TOTAL CRITICAL SLOPE 403,791 PERCENT IMPACTED 51% IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPES: B.1 B.2 B.3 B.4 B.5 B.6 B.7 B.8 B.9 B.10 B.11 ROCHE S T E R A V E N U E HE R O N C I R C L E LOWE R W E S T B R A N C H R D AM H U R S T S T TE T O N C I R RALST O N C R E E K N. S C O T T B O U L E V A R D B.13 B.15 B.14 B.12 B.13 B.14 B.15 B.1 A.11 DEVELOPMENT RELATED: PRESERVED WOODLAND BUFFERED WOODLAND (50') IMPACTED WOODLAND CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY LEGEND: WOODLANDS =1" WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 0 50 100 200150 100' C1.20ISSUED DATE:REVISION: WOODLANDS FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN SHEET NUMBER:PROJECT NO: ISSUED DATE: PROJECT MANAGER: REVISION: PROJECT NAME: CLIENT: SHEET NAME: ENGINEER: REVISION LOG: REV DESCRIPTION DATE © 1026 WELCH C 03-21-2023 MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA MONUMENT HILLS, LLC -CITY REVIEW #1 10-07-22 A RESPOND TO CITY REVIEW #2 02-27-23 B RESPOND TO CITY REVIEW #3 03-09-23 C RESPOND TO CITY REVIEW #4 03-21-23 DEVELOPMENT-RELATED IMPACTS LOCATION AREA (SF) 230,671 12,735 13,217 81,293 74,609 20,687 36,850 52,066 80,800 5,543 IMPACTED AREA 608,471 34.7% BUFFER AREA 266,365 15.2% TOTAL EXISTING AREA 1,754,016 PERCENT RETAINED 50.1% PER IOWA CITY CODE, RS-5 ZONE MUST RETAIN AT LEAST 50% WOODLANDS. WOODLANDS WITHIN THE BUFFER AREAS DO NOT COUNT TOWARDS RETENTION VALUES. IMPACTED WOODLANDS C.1 ROCHE S T E R A V E N U E HE R O N C I R C L E LOWE R W E S T B R A N C H R D AM H U R S T S T TE T O N C I R RALST O N C R E E K N. S C O T T B O U L E V A R D C.2 C.3 C.4 C.5 C.6 C.7 C.8 C.9 C.1 C.3 C.4 C.4 C.2 C.5 C.6 C.7 C.8 C.8 C.9 C.10 C.10 C.1 C.1 C.1 C.1 730 740 740 74 0 740 760 750 75 0 76 0 770 78 0 770 760 770 750 760 770 780 770 780 770 780 790 78 0 79 0 79 0 770 WELTLAND BOUNDARY WETLAND BUFFER (100') WETLAND BUFFER REDUCTION WETLAND BUFFER ADDITION WETLAND WITHIN AVERAGED BUFFER AREA WETLAND FILL CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURE* EXISTING CONSERVATION EASEMENT * PROVIDE SILT FENCE ALONG CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS WHERE RUNOFF WILL FLOW TOWARD WETLAND AND WETLAND BUFFER AREAS. DETAILED DESIGN OF THESE MEASURES TO ACCOMPANY CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AND FINAL SADP LEGEND: WETLANDS =1" WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 0 50 100 200150 100' C1.30ISSUED DATE:REVISION: WETLANDS FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN SHEET NUMBER:PROJECT NO: ISSUED DATE: PROJECT MANAGER: REVISION: PROJECT NAME: CLIENT: SHEET NAME: ENGINEER: REVISION LOG: REV DESCRIPTION DATE © 1026 WELCH C 03-21-2023 MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA MONUMENT HILLS, LLC -CITY REVIEW #1 10-07-22 A RESPOND TO CITY REVIEW #2 02-27-23 B RESPOND TO CITY REVIEW #3 03-09-23 C RESPOND TO CITY REVIEW #4 03-21-23 ROCHE S T E R A V E N U E LOWE R W E S T B R A N C H R D TE T O N C I R RALST O N C R E E K N. S C O T T B O U L E V A R D D.3A D.3B D.4C D.4B D.4A E.3A E.4C E.4B E.4A LOCATION AREA (SF) 3,314 4.337 2,513 7,839 501 363 TOTAL IMPACTS (SF)18,867 WETLAND IMPACTS F.3A F.3B F.3A F.3B TAG AREA (SF) 27,717 THE BUFFER ASSOCIATED WITH WETLAND 1 WILL BE REDUCED BY 75' TO MAINTAIN NO LESS THAN 25' OF BUFFER AROUND WETLAND 1 PER SECTION 14-5I-6E-3. WETLAND AREA 1 H.1A H.1A H.2A H.3A H.3B H.3C 100' 100' 75' 100' 100' 62' 100' 58' 76' 100' 100' 76' 54' 96' 100' F.5A H.2B H.5A F.5A D.3C 68' 130' 36' F.6A F.6C F.6A F.6BCONSTRUCTION LIMIT DICTATED BY PUBLIC SIDEWALK ALONG ROCHESTER AVE TAG AREA (SF) 6,782 3,314 23,805 TOTAL 33,901 BUFFER (100-FOOT)236,372 BUFFER - REDUCTIONS 51,549 9,149 1,739 SUBTOTAL 62,437 BUFFER - ADDITIONS 77,881 BUFFER - NET CHANGE + 15,444 WETLAND AREA 3 H.3A H.3B H.3C D.3A D.3B D.3C E.2A TAG AREA (SF) 11,956 WETLAND AREA 5 H.5A H.4A F.6B F.6C WETLAND FILL REQUIRED FOR ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION WETLAND FILL REQUIRED FOR ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION NOTES: 1.ALL WETLANDS FILLED WILL BE COMPENSATED THROUGH THE PURCHASE OF WETLAND BANK CREDITS AS REQUIRED BY UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (USACE) NATIONWIDE PERMIT #29. THE RATIO OF CREDITS PURCHASED TO WETLANDS FILLED WILL BE 1:1. 2.BUFFER AVERAGING IS BEING UTILIZED TO INCREASE THE BUFFER AREAS PRIMARILY UPSLOPE OF THE WETLANDS TO OFFSET FOR IMPACTS TO BUFFER RESULTING FROM GRADING NECESSARY FOR ROADWAY AND/OR PUBLIC SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS. 3.REFER TO WETLAND REPORT AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING NEED FOR WETLAND FILL, OFFSITE MITIGATION, AND BUFFER AVERAGING. 50' 100' CONSTRUCTION LIMIT DICTATED BY PUBLIC SIDEWALK ALONG ROCHESTER AVE H.4A H.4A H.4A D.2B D.2A E.2A E.2A TAG AREA (SF) 9,230 8,399 TOTAL 17,629 BUFFER (100-FOOT)103,782 BUFFER - REDUCTIONS 3,063 830 SUBTOTAL 3,893 BUFFER - ADDITIONS 65,300 BUFFER - NET CHANGE + 61,407 WETLAND AREA 2 H.2A H.2B D.2A D.2B E.2A TAG AREA (SF) 21,830 BUFFER (100-FOOT)242,503 BUFFER - REDUCTIONS 566 3,776 6,052 SUBTOTAL 10,394 BUFFER - ADDITIONS 7,120 4,662 21,096 SUBTOTAL 28,799 BUFFER - NET CHANGE + 18,405 WETLAND AREA 4 H.4A D.4A D.4B D.4C E.4A E.4B E.4C BUFFER REDUCED PER SECTION 14-5I-6E-3 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS RALST O N C R E E K =1" WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 0 30 60 12090 60' C2.00ISSUED DATE:REVISION: OUTLOT E & F: SLOPES AND WETLANDS FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN SHEET NUMBER:PROJECT NO: ISSUED DATE: PROJECT MANAGER: REVISION: PROJECT NAME: CLIENT: SHEET NAME: ENGINEER: REVISION LOG: REV DESCRIPTION DATE © 1026 WELCH C 03-21-2023 MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA MONUMENT HILLS, LLC -CITY REVIEW #1 10-07-22 A RESPOND TO CITY REVIEW #2 02-27-23 B RESPOND TO CITY REVIEW #3 03-09-23 C RESPOND TO CITY REVIEW #4 03-21-23 REGULATED SLOPES1 STEEP SLOPE (18%-25%) STEEP SLOPE - IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPE (25%-40%) CRITICAL SLOPE - IMPACTED PROTECTED SLOPE (>40%) PROTECED SLOPE - IMPACTED PROTECTED SLOPE - BUFFER CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY LEGEND: REGULATED SLOPES LOCATION AREA (SF) 2,471 241 TOTAL IMPACTED 2,712 TOTAL STEEP SLOPE 20,773 PERCENT IMPACTED 13% IMPACTED STEEP SLOPES: V.1 V.2 LOCATION AREA (SF) 4,120 TOTAL IMPACTED 4,120 TOTAL CRITICAL SLOPE 10,411 PERCENT IMPACTED 40% IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPES: W.1 V.1 V.2 LOCATION AREA (SF) 1,928 6,009 TOTAL IMPACTED 7,937 TOTAL CRITICAL SLOPE 16,898 PERCENT IMPACTED 47% ALL IMPACTS TO THE PROTECTED SLOPES RESULT FROM ACTIVITIES ALLOWED BY IOWA CITY CODE(PUBLIC TRAIL, BRIDGE CROSSING, AND SANITARY SEWER) PER CODE 14-51-2D IMPACTED PROTECTED SLOPES: X.1 X.2 W.1 X.1 X.2 RALST O N C R E E K WETLANDS2 Y.1 WELTLAND BOUNDARY WETLAND AREA WETLAND BUFFER (100') WETLAND FILL LEGEND: WETLANDS GENERAL NOTES: ALL IMPACTS TO REGULATED SENSITIVE FEATURES SHOWN ON OUTLOT E AND OUTLOT F ARE FOR USES AND ACTIVITIES ALLOWED WITHIN PROTECTED BUFFERS PER IOWA CITY CODE 14-5I-2D: 1. PARKLAND, PRIVATE OPEN SPACE, AND TRAILS 2. STREAM CROSSINGS 3. ESSENTIAL PUBLIC UTILITIES (SANITARY SEWER) Y.2 Y.3 LOCATION AREA (SF) 3,314 4,337 2,513 TOTAL IMPACTS (SF)10,164 WETLAND IMPACTS Y.1 Y.2 Y.3 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS RALST O N C R E E K =1" WHEN PRINTED ON 22"x34" SHEET 0 30 60 12090 60' C2.10ISSUED DATE:REVISION: OUTLOT E & F: WOODLANDS FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN SHEET NUMBER:PROJECT NO: ISSUED DATE: PROJECT MANAGER: REVISION: PROJECT NAME: CLIENT: SHEET NAME: ENGINEER: REVISION LOG: REV DESCRIPTION DATE © 1026 WELCH C 03-21-2023 MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IOWA MONUMENT HILLS, LLC -CITY REVIEW #1 10-07-22 A RESPOND TO CITY REVIEW #2 02-27-23 B RESPOND TO CITY REVIEW #3 03-09-23 C RESPOND TO CITY REVIEW #4 03-21-23 WOODLANDS1 LOCATION AREA (SF) 18,082 IMPACTED AREA 18,082 BUFFER AREA 11,959 TOTAL EXISTING AREA 71,108 PERCENT REATAINED 58% IMPACTED WOODLANDS Z.1 Z.1 DEVELOPMENT RELATED: PRESERVED WOODLAND BUFFERED WOODLAND (50') IMPACTED WOODLAND CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY LEGEND: WOODLANDS GENERAL NOTES: ALL IMPACTS TO REGULATED SENSITIVE FEATURES SHOWN ON OUTLOT E AND OUTLOT F ARE FOR USES AND ACTIVITIES ALLOWED WITHIN PROTECTED BUFFERS PER IOWA CITY CODE 14-5I-2D: 1. PARKLAND, PRIVATE OPEN SPACE, AND TRAILS 2. STREAM CROSSINGS 3. ESSENTIAL PUBLIC UTILITIES (SANITARY SEWER) ATTACHMENT 5 Approved Final Plat ATTACHMENT 6 Applicant Submittal Materials – Rezoning Exhibit, Applicant Statement, Elevations and Traffic Study 1REZONING EXHIBIT 05-07-2025 MJW MJW REZONING EXHIBIT LOT 66 MONUMENT HILLS IOWA CITY, IA LEGAL DESCRIPTION APPLICANT INFORMATION PROPERTY OWNER MONUMENT HILLS, LLC 221 E BURLINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IA 52240 (319) 631-1894 APPLICANT / DEVELOPER JACOB WOLFGANG NELSON CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT 665 GRAND AVE, STE 200 DES MOINES, IA 50309 (515) 720-6170 CIVIL ENGINEER MICHAEL J. WELCH, PE SHOEMAKER AND HAALAND 160 HOLIDAY ROAD CORALVILLE, IA 52241 319-351-7150 ZONING INFORMATION CURRENT ZONING OPD / RS-5 PROPOSED ZONING OPD / RM-12 LOT 66 MONUMENT HILLS AS RECORDED IN BOOK 66 PAGES 267-269 OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, CITY OF IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA. SAID LOT CONTAINS 7.76 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. HERO N D R I V E HE R O N D R I V E ROCHE S T E R A V E NO R T H S C O T T B O U L E V A R D AL L I S O N W A Y ALLISO N W A Y FEET 0 50 100 200150 24317LOT 66 MONUMENT HILLS & DEVELOPMENT NELSON CONSTRUCTION Z: \ 2 0 2 4 \ 2 4 4 1 8 \ D R A W I N G S \ 2 4 4 1 8 R E Z O N I N G . D W G , RE Z O N I N G , 5/ 9 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 5 9 : 5 7 A M ISSUED DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECK BY: APPROVED BY: PROJECT NUMBER:SHEET NUMBER REV SHEET TITLEPROJECTCLIENT NO.REVISION DATE Shoemaker Haaland HE R O N C I R C L E GOLDF I N C H C I R C L E HA R V E S T R O A D S E ROCHES T E R A V E NO R T H S C O T T B O U L E V A R D WESTBU R Y D R I V E LOT 66 MONUMENT HILLS Project No. 24418 Page 1 May 7, 2025 APPLICANT’S STATEMENT FOR REZONING Lot 66 Monument Hills Parcel Number 1012127002 Please accept the following Applicant Statement submitted on behalf of Nelson Construction and Development, the Applicant. Lot 66 Monument Hills is located on the northwest corner of Rochester Avenue and N. Scott Boulevard in Iowa City. This property is identified as Parcel Number 1012127002 and is 7.76 acres in size. This lot was created as part of the Monument Hills subdivision. This included extending utilities and other public infrastructure to the property. It is bounded on the east by N. Scott Boulevard (462 LF of frontage), on the south by Rochester Avenue (638 LF of frontage), and the west by the newly constructed Heron Drive (326 LF of frontage). The area north of the parcel is a conservation area identified as Outlot C on the Monument Hills plat. During the subdivision process for Monument Hills, the property was rezoned from Interim Development Single- Family (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family with an overlay for sensitive areas (OPD/RS-5). Lot 66 was projected to have 12 single-family homes, 3 duplex homes, a 29-unit multi-family building, and a private clubhouse for the residents of these units. The Applicant is now requesting to rezone the property to Low Density Multi-Family with an overlay for sensitive areas (OPD/RM-12) to allow for the construction of a multi-family, independent living building and three duplex units. The courtyard of the multi-family building will have amenities for the residents. The multi-family building is projected to have 100 units, resulting in a total of 106 units on the property. The allowable number of units by code is 15 units per net acre. The net acreage of the subject property is 7.76 acres. Therefore, the allowable number of units on the property is 116 units (7.76 acres x 15 units/acre). North Scott Boulevard and Rochester Avenue are both classified as arterial streets. The proposed multi-family building is positioned to the east on the parcel. The duplex units front on Heron Drive on the west side of the parcel with the garages being accessed from a private drive that runs between the duplex units and the multi- family building. The Future Land Use Plan within the Comprehensive Plan contemplated this area as Conservation Design due to the presence of regulated slopes, woodlands, and wetlands on the property. The Northwest District Plan includes this property in the Bluffwood Neighborhood and indicates small apartment buildings at the corner of N. Scott Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. The Monument Hills subdivision addressed the preservation and protection of the regulated sensitive features, including a conservation easement at the northeast corner of Lot 66 to protect wetlands and regulated slopes. There are no changes proposed to this conservation easement, or other sensitive features addressed during the Monument Hills subdivision process. The site is currently served by city water and sanitary sewer. Any future development will need to comply with applicable city codes, including the sensitive area ordinance and storm water management. Project No. 24418 Page 2 Thank you for your consideration of this rezoning application. Sincerely, Michael J. Welch, PE SCALE: SHEET: DATE: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS IOWA CITY INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY IOWA CITY - CITY SUBMISSION 25009 04.22.25 A4 SOUTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION - TOWNHOME NORTH ELEVATION - TOWNHOME EAST ELEVATION - TOWNHOME SOUTH ELEVATION - TOWNHOME MTL FACIA TO MATCH SIDING ROOF +36'-0" LEVEL 2 +12'-0" LEVEL 3 +24'-0" LEVEL 1 0'-0" ROOF +36'-0" LEVEL 2 +12'-0" LEVEL 3 +24'-0" LEVEL 1 0'-0" ROOF +36'-0" LEVEL 2 +12'-0" LEVEL 3 +24'-0" LEVEL 1 0'-0" LOWER LEVEL -12'-0" 0 4 812FEET: 3/32"=1'-0" ROOF +36'-0" LEVEL 2 +12'-0" LEVEL 3 +24'-0" LEVEL 1 0'-0" ENGINEERED WD BOARD & BATTEN SIDING LP SMARTSIDE OR SIM T&G CEDAR SIDING - STAINALUM CLAD WD WINDOW PELLA, MARVIN, OR SIM KITCHEN MECH VENT/LOUVERSTAN BRICK GLEN-GERY, COLUMBIA ROMAN MAXIMUS OR SIM PREFABRICATED BLACK MTL RAILING TAN MTL FACIA ON BALCONIES TO MATCH BRICK BEADBOARD SOFFIT - STAIN BEADBOARD SOFFIT - STAIN CONC WALK-UP STOOP W/ BRICK WING WALLS PREFABRICATED BLACK MTL RAILING ALUM STOREFRONT WINDOWSDINING CANOPY ABOVE SUPPORTED BY WD & BRICK COLUMNS MTL FACIA TO MATCH SIDINGENGINEERED WD BOARD & BATTEN SIDING LP SMARTSIDE OR SIM T&G CEDAR SIDING - STAINALUM CLAD WD WINDOW PELLA, MARVIN, OR SIM CONC WALK-UP STOOP W/ BRICK WING WALLS PREFABRICATED BLACK MTL RAILING TAN BRICK GLEN-GERY, COLUMBIA ROMAN MAXIMUS OR SIM BUILDING ENTRANCE FROM XXX ST BEADBOARD SOFFIT - STAIN MTL FACIA TO MATCH SIDINGENGINEERED WD BOARD & BATTEN SIDING LP SMARTSIDE OR SIM T&G CEDAR SIDING - STAIN ALUM CLAD WD WINDOW PELLA, MARVIN, OR SIM TAN BRICK GLEN-GERY, COLUMBIA ROMAN MAXIMUS OR SIM PREFABRICATED BLACK MTL RAILING TAN MTL FACIA ON BALCONIES TO MATCH BRICK BEADBOARD SOFFIT - STAIN BEADBOARD SOFFIT - STAIN MTL FACIA TO MATCH SIDING PREFABRICATED BLACK MTL RAILING TAN MTL FACIA ON BALCONIES TO MATCH BRICK BEADBOARD SOFFIT - STAIN BEADBOARD SOFFIT - STAIN LINE OF GARAGE ENTRANCE BYND ENGINEERED WD BOARD & BATTEN SIDING LP SMARTSIDE OR SIM T&G CEDAR SIDING - STAINALUM CLAD WD WINDOW PELLA, MARVIN, OR SIM CONC WALK-UP STOOP W/ BRICK WING WALLS PREFABRICATED BLACK MTL RAILING TAN BRICK GLEN-GERY, COLUMBIA ROMAN MAXIMUS OR SIM ALUM STOREFRONT WINDOWS ENTRANCE CANOPY ABOVE W/ STAINED T&G WD SOFFIT & PAINTED STL STRUCTURET&G CEDAR SIDING - STAIN 12" DEEP, 1/4" ALUM PLATE WINDOW OPENING FRAME BUILDING BYND BUILDING BYND TAN BRICK GLEN-GERY, COLUMBIA ROMAN MAXIMUS OR SIM ENGINEERED WD HORIZ SIDING LP SMARTSIDE OR SIM ALUM CLAD WD WINDOW PELLA, MARVIN, OR SIM T&G CEDAR SIDING - STAIN CONC WALK-UP STOOP W/ BRICK WING WALLS PREFABRICATED BLACK MTL RAILING ARCHITECTURAL GRADE ASPHALT SHINGLES TAN BRICK GLEN-GERY, COLUMBIA ROMAN MAXIMUS OR SIM ENGINEERED WD HORIZ SIDING LP SMARTSIDE OR SIM ALUM CLAD WD WINDOW PELLA, MARVIN, OR SIM ARCHITECTURAL GRADE ASPHALT SHINGLES TAN BRICK GLEN-GERY, COLUMBIA ROMAN MAXIMUS OR SIM ENGINEERED WD HORIZ SIDING LP SMARTSIDE OR SIM ALUM CLAD WD WINDOW PELLA, MARVIN, OR SIM ARCHITECTURAL GRADE ASPHALT SHINGLES TAN BRICK GLEN-GERY, COLUMBIA ROMAN MAXIMUS OR SIM ENGINEERED WD HORIZ SIDING LP SMARTSIDE OR SIM ROOF ABOVE SUPPORTED BY WD & BRICK COLUMN ARCHITECTURAL GRADE ASPHALT SHINGLES OH GARAGE DOOR ARCHITECTURAL SHINGLES GAF TIMBERLINE TAN BRICK GLEN-GERY, COLUMBIA ROMAN MAXIMUS BOARD & BATTEN SIDING LP SMARTSIDE T&G WESTERN RED CEDAR SIDING HORIZONTAL LAP SIDING LP SMARTSIDE SITE KEY PLAN SC O T T B L V D ROCHESTER A V E PROJECT SITE S N W E ELEVATION KEY PLAN May 14, 2025 Report Summary On behalf of Monument Hills, LLC, the Cedar Rapids, Iowa office of Willett Hofmann and Associates, Inc. (WHA), in association with Shoemaker & Haaland of Iowa City, Iowa, prepared an updated Traffic Impact Study (TIS) for the Rochester Avenue corridor adjacent to the proposed Monument Hills residential development in Iowa City, Iowa. This document updates the original TIS report, dated June 30, 2022, which was prepared by Welch Design and Development (WDD). in partnership with Kimley-Horn and Associates. This updated TIS utilizes the “existing” March 2, 2022, traffic count data that was obtained for the original TIS report and which is included in the Attachment pages numbered “B-1” to “B-8”. This updated TIS also utilizes the Intersection Level of Service reports, generated by the Synchro 11 software, which were provided in the original TIS report for the 2022 Existing Conditions and the 2026 Baseline Conditions for both the AM and PM peak hours of Rochester Avenue traffic. These reports are included in the Attachment pages numbered “D-1” to “D-16”. This updated TIS also utilizes the sight distance analysis that was performed for the original TIS report. No new sight distance analysis was performed for this updated TIS report. This updated study once again evaluated the impacts of the proposed development on the traffic on Rochester Avenue adjacent to the development. Specifically, the existing intersections of Rochester Avenue with North Scott Boulevard, Heron Circle, Amhurst Street, and Teton Circle; and the proposed intersection of Rochester Avenue with Allison Way were evaluated. The conclusions of this updated Traffic Impact Study are: • • • • May 14, 2025Monument Hills, LLC Residential Development T raffic Impact Study Introduction The Monument Hills development will consist of 66 single-family detached residences (65 proposed residences and 1 existing residence), 6 senior single-family dwelling units, and 110 senior multi- family dwelling units. The development is located on the north side of Rochester Avenue, west of North Scott Boulevard. The development is anticipated to be constructed and fully occupied by 2026. The Overall Development Plan for the proposed Monument Hills residential subdivision is shown on Exhibit 1 on the following page. Methodology The trip generation for the Monument Hills development is calculated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 11th Edition (2021). The average trip generation rates for the ITE Land Use Code (LUC) 210 – Single-Family Detached Housing; LUC 251 – Senior Adult Housing, Single-Family; and LUC 252 – Senior Adult Housing, Multi-Family have been used. The following intersections are being analyzed as part of this report: 1.N Scott Blvd at Rochester Ave – All-way Stop-Controlled 2.Heron Cir / Heron Drive (Site Access 1) at Rochester Ave – Two-way Stop Controlled 3.Amhurst St at Rochester Ave – Two-way Stop Controlled 4.Teton Cir at Rochester Ave – Two-way Stop Controlled 5.Site Access 2 (Allison Way) at Rochester Ave – Two-way Stop Controlled The development is expected to be fully built out and occupied by the year 2026. Therefore, the year 2026 was used for future analysis. The analysis has been performed for the existing conditions, 2026 baseline conditions, and 2026 future with development conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. Traffic counts were collected at the existing study intersections by WDD, on Wednesday, March 2, 2022, for both the AM and PM peak hours of Rochester Avenue traffic. The 2026 baseline turning movements were calculated by applying an annually-compounding growth rate of 1% to the existing turning movement volumes. The 1% growth rate is based on conversations by WDD staff with Iowa City staff. The 2026 future with development turning movements have been calculated by adding the development’s trips to the 2026 baseline turning movements. The peak-hour level of service (LOS) analysis was completed using the Synchro 11 software. This software applies the operational analysis methodology of the current Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Traffic congestion is generally measured in terms of level of service. In accordance with the HCM 6th Edition, road facilities and intersections are rated between LOS A and LOS F, with LOS A being free flow and LOS F being forced flow or over-capacity conditions. The level of service criteria is summarized in Table 1 on the following page. The level of service at two-way stop-controlled intersections is based on the average delay of the worst approach. The level of service at signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections is based on the average delay for all approaches. Geometric characteristics and conflicting traffic movements are taken into consideration when determining level of service values. May 14, 2025Monument Hills, LLC Residential Development T raffic Impact Study Table 1: Level of Service Criteria for Intersections Level of 1 Service Expected Delay Intersection Control Delay (Seconds per Vehicle) Unsignalized Intersections Signalized Intersections A Little/No Delay <10 <10 B Short Delays >10 and <15 >10 and <20 C Average Delays >15 and <25 >20 and <35 D Long Delays >25 and <35 >35 and <55 E Very Long Delays >35 and <50 >55 and <80 F Extreme Delays2 >50 >80 The acceptable level of service for intersections within Iowa City is LOS C/D and the significance of impacts on intersections operating at LOS E or LOS F is taken on a case-by-case basis. 1 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition. LOS A: Free-flow traffic conditions, with minimal delay to stopped vehicles (no vehicle is delayed longer than one cycle at signalized intersection). LOS B: Generally stable traffic flow conditions. LOS C: Occasional back-ups may develop, but delay to vehicles is short term and still tolerable. LOS D: During short periods of the peak hour, delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial but are tolerable during times of less demand (i.e., vehicles delayed one cycle or less at signal). LOS E: Intersections operate at or near capacity, with long queues developing on all approaches and long delays. LOS F: Jammed conditions on all approaches with excessively long delays and vehicles unable to move at times. 2 When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered with queuing which may cause severe congestion affecting other traffic movements in the intersection. Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment Trip generation calculations for the Monument Hills development are based on national statistics contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation, 11th Edition (2021). The average trip generation rates for the ITE Land Use Code (LUC) 210 – Single-Family Detached Housing; LUC 251 – Senior Adult Housing, Single-Family; and LUC 252 – Senior Adult Housing, Multi-Family have been used. There are a total of 66 single-family detached residences (65 proposed residences and 1 existing residence), 6 senior single-family dwelling units, and 110 senior multi- family dwelling units. May 14, 2025Monument Hills, LLC Residential Development T raffic Impact Study The Monument Hills development is anticipated to generate 1,004 new weekday daily trips, 69 new AM peak-hour trips and 92 new PM peak-hour trips. The trip generation is summarized in Table 2. Table 2: Trip Generation Summary Land Uses Average Daily Trips AM Peak-Hour Trips PM Peak-Hour Trips Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total LUC 210 – Single-Family Detached 66 Units Generation Rate 9.43 Trips per Unit 0.70 Trips per Unit 0.94 Trips per Unit Splits 50% 50% 100% 25% 75% 100% 63% 37% 100% Trips 311 311 622 12 34 46 39 23 62 LUC 251 – Senior Single-Family, 6 Units Generation Rate 4.31 Trips per Unit 0.24 Trips per Unit 0.30 Trips per Unit Splits 50% 50% 100% 33% 67% 100% 61% 39% 100% Trips 13 13 26 0 1 1 1 1 2 LUC 252 – Senior Multi-Family, 110 Units Generation Rate 3.24 Trips per Unit 0.20 Trips per Unit 0.25 Trips per Unit Splits 50% 50% 50% 34% 66% 100% 56% 44% 100% Trips 178 178 356 7 15 22 16 12 28 TOTAL 502 502 1004 19 50 69 56 36 92 The trip generation calculations are included in the attachments. Trip distribution and traffic assignments for the development are based on the existing turning movement counts. It is anticipated that 75% of the development traffic will travel to and from the west on Rochester Avenue and 25% will travel to and from the east on Rochester Avenue. Of the 25% of trips traveling to and from the east, 5% of these trips are anticipated to travel to and from the north along Scott Boulevard, 5% are anticipated to travel to and from the south on Scott Boulevard, and 15% are anticipated to continue traveling to and from the east along Rochester Avenue. Based on the proposed layout of the development’s street network and residential lots and the fact that motorists will generally seek to minimize their travel distance and travel time, it was assumed that: •Residents of approximately 53% of the development’s single-family detached housing (35 of the 66 lots) will use the site’s west access drive, Allison Way, to exit and enter the development; •Residents of approximately 47% of the development’s single-family detached housing (31 of the 66 lots) will use the site’s east access drive, Heron Drive, to exit and enter the development; and •Residents of all 6 senior adult single-family housing units and all 110 senior adult multi- family housing units, located in the east corner of the development, will use the site’s east access drive, Heron Drive, to exit and enter the development. The development trips are included in the turning movement sheets for the AM and PM peak hours. May 14, 2025Monument Hills, LLC Residential Development T raffic Impact Study Intersection Capacity and Level of Service Analysis The existing lane configurations at the study intersections, as well as the existing peak-hour factors, were utilized in performing the intersection capacity and level of service (LOS) analysis. The turning movements are included in the attachments. The level of service analysis for the normalized existing, 2026 baseline, and 2026 future with development conditions is summarized in Table 3. Table 3: Intersection Level of Service Summary Intersection Time Period 2022 Existing Conditions 2026 Baseline Conditions 2026 Future with Development Conditions LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay 1.Scott Boulevard at Rochester Avenue AM B 13.0 sec B 13.6 sec B 13.9 sec PM C 15.6 sec C 16.7 sec C 17.2 sec 2.Heron Circle at Rochester Avenue AM B 10.7 sec B 10.8 sec B 11.6 sec PM B 11.1 sec B 11.2 sec B 12.5 sec 3.Amhurst Street at Rochester Avenue AM B 11.0 sec B 11.2 sec B 11.5 sec PM B 11.5 sec B 11.7 sec B 12.2 sec 4.Teton Circle at Rochester Avenue AM B 12.2 sec B 12.4 sec B 13.1 sec PM B 12.3 sec B 12.6 sec B 13.4 sec 5.Allison Way (New Access) at Rochester Avenue AM --- --- --- --- B 10.7 sec PM --- --- --- --- B 10.4 sec The study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better in the 2022 existing, 2026 baseline and 2026 future with development conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours. Crash Data Analysis Crash data was compiled for the five-year period from 2020 through 2024 using data from the Iowa Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) Iowa Crash Analysis Tool (ICAT) for the four existing study intersections. During this time, there were six crashes (five broadside and one sideswipe) at the intersection of North Scott Boulevard and Rochester Avenue; one crash (with an animal) just west of the intersection of Heron Circle and Rochester Avenue; and one crash (with an animal) at the intersection of Teton Circle and Rochester Avenue. All but one of these eight crashes resulted in property damage only with no reported injuries. One crash, a broadside crash in 2024 at the Rochester Avenue / North Scott Boulevard intersection, was identified as a suspected minor injury crash resulting in one suspected minor/non-incapacitating injury. May 14, 2025Monument Hills, LLC Residential Development T raffic Impact Study There were no other crashes at the study intersections including the location where the development’s new access drive , Allison Way, is to be constructed on the north side of Rochester Avenue approximately midway between the Teton Circle and Amhurst Street intersections with Rochester Avenue. Based on the review, there is no significant crash history associated with the geometry of the road network at the study intersections. One crash trend was identified, however. Four of the five broadside crashes occurring at the Rochester Avenue / North Scott Boulevard intersection during the five-year analysis period involved a westbound vehicle on Rochester Avenue and either a northbound or southbound vehicle on North Scott Boulevard. This may be happening because 1) this is the first controlled intersection approach (by either a stop sign or a traffic signal) that westbound motorists on Rochester Avenue encounter upon entering the City limits, and 2) the Stop Ahead symbol warning sign for westbound Rochester Avenue traffic may be obstructed by vegetation during certain times of the year. This is shown in Exhibit 2 below. This exhibit is a screen capture taken from a June 2024 Google Maps Street View of the westbound approach of Rochester Avenue at a point approximately 400 feet east of the centerline of the North Scott Boulevard intersection. A crash diagram, a crash detail report, and a crash summary for the Rochester Avenue / North Scott Boulevard intersection are included in the attachments. Exhibit 2. June 2024 Google Maps Street View Screen Capture of Westbound Approach of Rochester Avenue Approximately 400 Feet East of North Scott Boulevard Centerline May 14, 2025Monument Hills, LLC Residential Development T raffic Impact Study Access Analysis The Overall Development Plan for the Monument Hills development provides two accesses to Rochester Avenue. One of the proposed accesses, Heron Drive, is located opposite an existing public street, Heron Circle. Construction of this access drive will convert an existing T-intersection into a four-legged intersection. Construction of the second access drive, Allison Way, will create a new T- intersection with Rochester Avenue. This T-intersection will be located approximately 507 feet east of Teton Circle and approximately 555 feet west of Amhurst Street. This access spacing exceeds the existing public road access spacing for Amhurst Street and Heron Circle, which is approximately 308 feet. Sight distance analysis for the new site access, Allison Way, was performed as part of the original traffic impact study conducted by WDD in Spring 2022. This analysis was conducted for stopping sight distance along Rochester Avenue, the major road, and intersection sight distance for the new site access, Allison Way, the minor road. The posted speed limit along Rochester Avenue is 35 mph. Per AASHTO guidelines, this would require 250 feet of stopping sight distance for passenger cars on Rochester Avenue, assuming a level roadway. Since the grade for the east approach of Rochester Avenue east of the new site access, Allison Way, is approximately a 2.1% downgrade, the required stopping sight distance for westbound passenger car traffic approaching the new site access, Allison Way, rounded up to the nearest five feet, would be 255 feet. Per AASHTO guidelines, with a posted speed limit of 35 mph along Rochester Avenue, the required intersection sight distance for motorists in passenger cars stopped on the new site access, Allison Way, would be 390 feet, assuming the approach grade of the new site access, Allison Way, does not exceed 3%. According to the original 2022 traffic impact study, there is clear stopping sight distance and intersection sight distance of more than 400 feet to the east and west of the proposed Allison Way access. Left-turn lane warrant analysis was performed for PM peak hour traffic on Rochester Avenue, assuming full build-out of the new development. This was done to determine if a dedicated left- turn lane is warranted for eastbound Rochester Avenue traffic at either of the development’s two proposed access drives, Allison Way or Heron Drive. The need for a dedicated left-turn lane at these two intersections has been evaluated using the Missouri DOT’s (MoDOT’s) online Engineering Policy Guide, specifically, Figure 940.9.1, Left Turn Lane Guidelines for Two-Lane Roads less than or equal to 40 mph. These two left-turn lane warrant analysis figures are included in the attachments. MoDOT’s Figure 940.9.1 is a reproduction of Figure 2-5(a), Guideline for determining the need for a major road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection, found on Page 22 of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 457, Engineering Study Guide for Evaluating Intersection Improvements. NCHRP Report 457 was authored by James A. Bonneson, P.E. and Michael D. Fontaine of the Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas in 2001. The analysis shows that the small number of eastbound left-turning vehicles on Rochester Avenue at both evaluated intersections does not reach the percentage threshold to warrant the addition of a dedicated left-turn lane at either intersection. May 14, 2025Monument Hills, LLC Residential Development T raffic Impact Study Conclusion This updated traffic impact study finds that: •The study intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable LOS C or better in the 2022 existing, 2026 baseline and 2026 future with development conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours. •The proposed Allison Way access location exceeds the existing public street separation distance along Rochester Avenue. •Sight distance requirements are met for the proposed Allison Way access location. •There is no significant crash history at the study intersections. •A dedicated eastbound left-turn lane on Rochester Avenue is not warranted at either proposed development access drive – Allison Way or Heron Drive. Based on these findings, from a traffic impact viewpoint, there is no reason not to approve the proposed access locations shown in the Overall Development Plan for the proposed Monument Hills residential development. Attachments Trip Generation A-1 to A-5 Traffic Counts B-1 to B-8 Turning Movements C-1 to C-10 Level of Service Calculations D-1 to D-26 Crash Data E-1 to E-11 Left-Turn Lane Warrant F-1 to F-2 ATTACHMENTS Monument Hills WHA #1296C25 Trip Generation for: Weekday (a.k.a.): Average Weekday Daily Trips (AWDT) NET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPE IN BOTH DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTS Gross Trips Transit Reduction TOTAL PASS-BY DIVERTED LINK NEW PASS-BY DIVERTED LINK NEW LAND USES VARIABLE ITE LU code Trip Rate % IN % OUT In+Out (Total) % of Gross Trips Trips In+Out (Total) In+Out (Total) % of Ext. Trips In+Out (Total) % of Ext. Trips In+Out (Total) In+Out (Total)In Out In Out In Out Single-Family Detached 35 units 210 9.43 50%50%330 0%0.00 330 0%0 0%0 330 0 0 0 0 165 165 Single-Family Detached 31 units 210 9.43 50%50%292 0%0.00 292 0%0 0%0 292 0 0 0 0 146 146 Senior Single-Family 6 units 251 4.31 50%50%26 0%0.00 26 0%0 0%0 26 0 0 0 0 13 13 Senior Multi-Family 110 units 252 3.24 50%50%356 0%0.00 356 0%0 0%0 356 0 0 0 0 178 178 Total 1004 0.00 1004 0 0 1004 0 0 0 0 502 502 A - 1 Monument Hills WHA #1296C25 Trip Generation for: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour between 7 and 9 AM (a.k.a.): Weekday AM Peak Hour NET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPE IN BOTH DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTS Gross Trips Transit Reduction TOTAL PASS-BY DIVERTED LINK NEW PASS-BY DIVERTED LINK NEW LAND USES VARIABLE ITE LU code Trip Rate % IN % OUT In+Out (Total) % of Gross Trips Trips In+Out (Total) In+Out (Total) % of Ext. Trips In+Out (Total) % of Ext. Trips In+Out (Total) In+Out (Total)In Out In Out In Out Single-Family Detached 35 units 210 0.70 26%74%24 0%0.00 24 0%0 0%0 24 0 0 0 0 6 18 Single-Family Detached 31 units 210 0.70 26%74%22 0%0.00 22 0%0 0%0 22 0 0 0 0 6 16 Senior Single-Family 6 units 251 0.24 33%67%1 0%0.00 1 0%0 0%0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Senior Multi-Family 110 units 252 0.20 34%66%22 0%0.00 22 0%0 0%0 22 0 0 0 0 7 15 Total 69 0.00 69 0 0 69 0 0 0 0 19 50 A - 2 Monument Hills WHA #1296C25 Trip Generation for: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour between 4 and 6 PM (a.k.a.): Weekday PM Peak Hour NET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPE IN BOTH DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTS Gross Trips Transit Reduction TOTAL PASS-BY DIVERTED LINK NEW PASS-BY DIVERTED LINK NEW LAND USES VARIABLE ITE LU code Trip Rate % IN % OUT In+Out (Total) % of Gross Trips Trips In+Out (Total) In+Out (Total) % of Ext. Trips In+Out (Total) % of Ext. Trips In+Out (Total) In+Out (Total)In Out In Out In Out Single-Family Detached 35 units 210 0.94 63%37%33 0%0.00 33 0%0 0%0 33 0 0 0 0 21 12 Single-Family Detached 31 units 210 0.94 63%37%29 0%0.00 29 0%0 0%0 29 0 0 0 0 18 11 Senior Single-Family 6 units 251 0.30 61%39%2 0%0.00 2 0%0 0%0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 Senior Multi-Family 110 units 252 0.25 56%44%28 0%0.00 28 0%0 0%0 28 0 0 0 0 16 12 Total 92 0.00 92 0 0 92 0 0 0 0 56 36 A - 3 Monument Hills WHA #1296C25 AM Peak-Hour New AM Peak Hour Trips New AM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total In Out Total 100%1004 19 50 69.00 100%1004 19 50 69 1%10.04 0.19 0.50 0.69 51%512.04 9.69 25.50 35.19 2%20.08 0.38 1.00 1.38 52%522.08 9.88 26.00 35.88 3%30.12 0.57 1.50 2.07 53%532.12 10.07 26.50 36.57 4%40.16 0.76 2.00 2.76 54%542.16 10.26 27.00 37.26 5%50.20 0.95 2.50 3.45 55%552.20 10.45 27.50 37.95 6%60.24 1.14 3.00 4.14 56%562.24 10.64 28.00 38.64 7%70.28 1.33 3.50 4.83 57%572.28 10.83 28.50 39.33 8%80.32 1.52 4.00 5.52 58%582.32 11.02 29.00 40.02 9%90.36 1.71 4.50 6.21 59%592.36 11.21 29.50 40.71 10%100.40 1.90 5.00 6.90 60%602.40 11.40 30.00 41.40 11%110.44 2.09 5.50 7.59 61%612.44 11.59 30.50 42.09 12%120.48 2.28 6.00 8.28 62%622.48 11.78 31.00 42.78 13%130.52 2.47 6.50 8.97 63%632.52 11.97 31.50 43.47 14%140.56 2.66 7.00 9.66 64%642.56 12.16 32.00 44.16 15%150.60 2.85 7.50 10.35 65%652.60 12.35 32.50 44.85 16%160.64 3.04 8.00 11.04 66%662.64 12.54 33.00 45.54 17%170.68 3.23 8.50 11.73 67%672.68 12.73 33.50 46.23 18%180.72 3.42 9.00 12.42 68%682.72 12.92 34.00 46.92 19%190.76 3.61 9.50 13.11 69%692.76 13.11 34.50 47.61 20%200.80 3.80 10.00 13.80 70%702.80 13.30 35.00 48.30 21%210.84 3.99 10.50 14.49 71%712.84 13.49 35.50 48.99 22%220.88 4.18 11.00 15.18 72%722.88 13.68 36.00 49.68 23%230.92 4.37 11.50 15.87 73%732.92 13.87 36.50 50.37 24%240.96 4.56 12.00 16.56 74%742.96 14.06 37.00 51.06 25%251.00 4.75 12.50 17.25 75%753.00 14.25 37.50 51.75 26%261.04 4.94 13.00 17.94 76%763.04 14.44 38.00 52.44 27%271.08 5.13 13.50 18.63 77%773.08 14.63 38.50 53.13 28%281.12 5.32 14.00 19.32 78%783.12 14.82 39.00 53.82 29%291.16 5.51 14.50 20.01 79%793.16 15.01 39.50 54.51 30%301.20 5.70 15.00 20.70 80%803.20 15.20 40.00 55.20 31%311.24 5.89 15.50 21.39 81%813.24 15.39 40.50 55.89 32%321.28 6.08 16.00 22.08 82%823.28 15.58 41.00 56.58 33%331.32 6.27 16.50 22.77 83%833.32 15.77 41.50 57.27 34%341.36 6.46 17.00 23.46 84%843.36 15.96 42.00 57.96 35%351.40 6.65 17.50 24.15 85%853.40 16.15 42.50 58.65 36%361.44 6.84 18.00 24.84 86%863.44 16.34 43.00 59.34 37%371.48 7.03 18.50 25.53 87%873.48 16.53 43.50 60.03 38%381.52 7.22 19.00 26.22 88%883.52 16.72 44.00 60.72 39%391.56 7.41 19.50 26.91 89%893.56 16.91 44.50 61.41 40%401.60 7.60 20.00 27.60 90%903.60 17.10 45.00 62.10 41%411.64 7.79 20.50 28.29 91%913.64 17.29 45.50 62.79 42%421.68 7.98 21.00 28.98 92%923.68 17.48 46.00 63.48 43%431.72 8.17 21.50 29.67 93%933.72 17.67 46.50 64.17 44%441.76 8.36 22.00 30.36 94%943.76 17.86 47.00 64.86 45%451.80 8.55 22.50 31.05 95%953.80 18.05 47.50 65.55 46%461.84 8.74 23.00 31.74 96%963.84 18.24 48.00 66.24 47%471.88 8.93 23.50 32.43 97%973.88 18.43 48.50 66.93 48%481.92 9.12 24.00 33.12 98%983.92 18.62 49.00 67.62 49%491.96 9.31 24.50 33.81 99%993.96 18.81 49.50 68.31 50%502.00 9.50 25.00 34.50 100%1004.00 19.00 50.00 69.00 %%New ADT New ADT A - 4 Monument Hills WHA #1296C25 PM Peak-Hour New PM Peak Hour Trips New PM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total In Out Total 100%1004 56 36 92.00 100%1004 56 36 92 1%10.04 0.56 0.36 0.92 51%512.04 28.56 18.36 46.92 2%20.08 1.12 0.72 1.84 52%522.08 29.12 18.72 47.84 3%30.12 1.68 1.08 2.76 53%532.12 29.68 19.08 48.76 4%40.16 2.24 1.44 3.68 54%542.16 30.24 19.44 49.68 5%50.20 2.80 1.80 4.60 55%552.20 30.80 19.80 50.60 6%60.24 3.36 2.16 5.52 56%562.24 31.36 20.16 51.52 7%70.28 3.92 2.52 6.44 57%572.28 31.92 20.52 52.44 8%80.32 4.48 2.88 7.36 58%582.32 32.48 20.88 53.36 9%90.36 5.04 3.24 8.28 59%592.36 33.04 21.24 54.28 10%100.40 5.60 3.60 9.20 60%602.40 33.60 21.60 55.20 11%110.44 6.16 3.96 10.12 61%612.44 34.16 21.96 56.12 12%120.48 6.72 4.32 11.04 62%622.48 34.72 22.32 57.04 13%130.52 7.28 4.68 11.96 63%632.52 35.28 22.68 57.96 14%140.56 7.84 5.04 12.88 64%642.56 35.84 23.04 58.88 15%150.60 8.40 5.40 13.80 65%652.60 36.40 23.40 59.80 16%160.64 8.96 5.76 14.72 66%662.64 36.96 23.76 60.72 17%170.68 9.52 6.12 15.64 67%672.68 37.52 24.12 61.64 18%180.72 10.08 6.48 16.56 68%682.72 38.08 24.48 62.56 19%190.76 10.64 6.84 17.48 69%692.76 38.64 24.84 63.48 20%200.80 11.20 7.20 18.40 70%702.80 39.20 25.20 64.40 21%210.84 11.76 7.56 19.32 71%712.84 39.76 25.56 65.32 22%220.88 12.32 7.92 20.24 72%722.88 40.32 25.92 66.24 23%230.92 12.88 8.28 21.16 73%732.92 40.88 26.28 67.16 24%240.96 13.44 8.64 22.08 74%742.96 41.44 26.64 68.08 25%251.00 14.00 9.00 23.00 75%753.00 42.00 27.00 69.00 26%261.04 14.56 9.36 23.92 76%763.04 42.56 27.36 69.92 27%271.08 15.12 9.72 24.84 77%773.08 43.12 27.72 70.84 28%281.12 15.68 10.08 25.76 78%783.12 43.68 28.08 71.76 29%291.16 16.24 10.44 26.68 79%793.16 44.24 28.44 72.68 30%301.20 16.80 10.80 27.60 80%803.20 44.80 28.80 73.60 31%311.24 17.36 11.16 28.52 81%813.24 45.36 29.16 74.52 32%321.28 17.92 11.52 29.44 82%823.28 45.92 29.52 75.44 33%331.32 18.48 11.88 30.36 83%833.32 46.48 29.88 76.36 34%341.36 19.04 12.24 31.28 84%843.36 47.04 30.24 77.28 35%351.40 19.60 12.60 32.20 85%853.40 47.60 30.60 78.20 36%361.44 20.16 12.96 33.12 86%863.44 48.16 30.96 79.12 37%371.48 20.72 13.32 34.04 87%873.48 48.72 31.32 80.04 38%381.52 21.28 13.68 34.96 88%883.52 49.28 31.68 80.96 39%391.56 21.84 14.04 35.88 89%893.56 49.84 32.04 81.88 40%401.60 22.40 14.40 36.80 90%903.60 50.40 32.40 82.80 41%411.64 22.96 14.76 37.72 91%913.64 50.96 32.76 83.72 42%421.68 23.52 15.12 38.64 92%923.68 51.52 33.12 84.64 43%431.72 24.08 15.48 39.56 93%933.72 52.08 33.48 85.56 44%441.76 24.64 15.84 40.48 94%943.76 52.64 33.84 86.48 45%451.80 25.20 16.20 41.40 95%953.80 53.20 34.20 87.40 46%461.84 25.76 16.56 42.32 96%963.84 53.76 34.56 88.32 47%471.88 26.32 16.92 43.24 97%973.88 54.32 34.92 89.24 48%481.92 26.88 17.28 44.16 98%983.92 54.88 35.28 90.16 49%491.96 27.44 17.64 45.08 99%993.96 55.44 35.64 91.08 50%502.00 28.00 18.00 46.00 100%1004.00 56.00 36.00 92.00 %%New ADT New ADT A - 5 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING PEAK HOUR: 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM,Wednesday, 3-2-2022 Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Total Approach Name Rochester Ave Rochester Ave N Scott Blvd Scott Blvd Peak Hour Factor (PHF)0.77 0.72 0.78 0.92 0.89 % of Heavy Vehicles 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% Scott Blvd 518 170 348 7 128 35 66 207 86 173 21 462 Rochester Ave Rochester Ave 422 92 255 142 249 21 114 190 72 170 376 In = 974 546 Out = 974 N Scott Blvd N B - 1 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING PEAK HOUR: 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM,Wednesday, 3-2-2022 Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Total Approach Name Rochester Ave Rochester Ave N Scott Blvd Scott Blvd Peak Hour Factor (PHF)0.85 0.87 0.86 0.86 0.97 % of Heavy Vehicles 0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% Scott Blvd 657 274 383 17 226 31 99 237 157 263 7 476 Rochester Ave Rochester Ave 526 113 239 100 263 26 63 171 132 259 366 In = 1,142 625 Out = 1,142 N Scott Blvd N B - 2 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING PEAK HOUR: 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM,Wednesday, 3-2-2022 Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Total Approach Name Rochester Ave Rochester Ave Heron Cir --- Peak Hour Factor (PHF)0.78 0.79 0.75 #DIV/0!0.83 % of Heavy Vehicles 0.0%0.0%0.0%#DIV/0! --- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 261 250 251 1 429 Rochester Ave Rochester Ave 425 0 168 161 174 7 11 0 13 8 24 In = 443 32 Out = 443 Heron Cir N B - 3 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING PEAK HOUR: 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM,Wednesday, 3-2-2022 Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Total Approach Name Rochester Ave Rochester Ave Heron Cir --- Peak Hour Factor (PHF)0.91 0.93 0.60 #DIV/0!0.92 % of Heavy Vehicles 0.0%0.0%0.0%#DIV/0! --- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 172 165 172 7 451 Rochester Ave Rochester Ave 439 0 279 262 267 17 7 0 5 24 12 In = 463 36 Out = 463 Heron Cir N B - 4 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING PEAK HOUR: 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM,Wednesday, 3-2-2022 Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Total Approach Name Rochester Ave Rochester Ave Amhurst St --- Peak Hour Factor (PHF)0.79 0.80 0.75 #DIV/0!0.86 % of Heavy Vehicles 0.0%0.0%0.0%#DIV/0! --- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 275 257 262 5 432 Rochester Ave Rochester Ave 420 0 157 146 158 11 18 0 12 16 30 In = 449 46 Out = 449 Amhurst St N B - 5 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING PEAK HOUR: 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM,Wednesday, 3-2-2022 Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Total Approach Name Rochester Ave Rochester Ave Amhurst St --- Peak Hour Factor (PHF)0.92 0.90 0.71 #DIV/0!0.93 % of Heavy Vehicles 0.0%0.0%0.0%#DIV/0! --- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 169 156 170 14 473 Rochester Ave Rochester Ave 450 0 304 273 280 31 13 0 7 45 20 In = 494 65 Out = 494 Amhurst St N B - 6 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING PEAK HOUR: 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM,Wednesday, 3-2-2022 Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Total Approach Name Rochester Ave Rochester Ave Teton Cir --- Peak Hour Factor (PHF)0.73 0.89 0.71 #DIV/0!0.91 % of Heavy Vehicles 0.0%0.0%0.0%#DIV/0! --- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 313 265 268 3 494 Rochester Ave Rochester Ave 439 0 181 165 171 16 48 0 6 19 54 In = 503 73 Out = 503 Teton Cir N B - 7 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. EXISTING PEAK HOUR: 4:30 PM to 5:30 PM,Wednesday, 3-2-2022 Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Total Approach Name Rochester Ave Rochester Ave Teton Cir --- Peak Hour Factor (PHF)0.86 0.87 0.67 #DIV/0!0.91 % of Heavy Vehicles 0.0%0.0%0.0%#DIV/0! --- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 181 160 167 7 513 Rochester Ave Rochester Ave 466 0 332 296 299 36 21 0 3 43 24 In = 523 67 Out = 523 Teton Cir N B - 8 1 N Scott Blvd @ Rochester Ave Synchro ID:1 Existing 170 518 348 Average Weekday 7 128 35 92 190 66 AM Peak Hour  7 N Scott Boulevard 66 Year: 3/2/22 207 86 86 173 114 21  Data Source:462 Rochester Avenue 974 Rochester Avenue 422 North 92 35 | 255 142 142 249 21 N Scott Boulevard 72  21 128 21 114 190 72 170 546 376 Future without Project 176 539 363 Average Weekday 7 133 36 96 198 69 AM Peak Hour  7 N Scott Boulevard 69 Year:2026 215 89 89 180 Growth Rate =1.0%119 22  Years of Growth =4 481 Rochester Avenue 1,014 Rochester Avenue 439 North Total Growth =1.0406 96 36 | 266 148 148 259 22 N Scott Boulevard 75  22 133 22 119 198 75 177 569 392 Total Project Trips 1 3 2 Average Weekday 1 0 0 2 0 0 AM Peak Hour  1 N Scott Boulevard 0 4 2 2 2 1 0  16 Rochester Avenue 16 Rochester Avenue 10 North 2 0 | 12 8 8 8 2 N Scott Boulevard 0  2 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 1 Future with Project 177 542 365 Average Weekday 8 133 36 98 198 69 AM Peak Hour  8 N Scott Boulevard 69 219 91 91 182 120 22  497 Rochester Avenue 1,030 Rochester Avenue 449 North 98 36 | 278 156 156 267 24 N Scott Boulevard 75  24 133 22 120 198 75 179 572 393 Welch Design Development C - 1 2 Heron Cir @ Rochester Ave Synchro ID:2 Existing 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 0 0 0 AM Peak Hour  0 ---0 Year: 3/2/22 261 250 250 251 11 1  Data Source:429 Rochester Avenue 443 Rochester Avenue 425 North 0 0 | 168 161 161 174 7 Heron Circle 13  7 0 1 11 0 13 8 32 24 Future without Project 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 0 0 0 AM Peak Hour  0 ---0 Year:2026 271 260 260 261 Growth Rate =1.0%11 1  Years of Growth =4 446 Rochester Avenue 461 Rochester Avenue 443 North Total Growth =1.0406 0 0 | 175 168 168 182 7 Heron Circle 14  7 0 1 11 0 14 8 33 25 Total Project Trips 32 45 13 Average Weekday 24 0 8 10 0 3 AM Peak Hour  24 Heron Drive 3 25 1 1 4 0 0  39 Rochester Avenue 50 Rochester Avenue 16 North 10 8 | 14 4 4 12 0 Heron Circle 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future with Project 32 45 13 Average Weekday 24 0 8 10 0 3 AM Peak Hour  24 Heron Drive 3 296 261 261 265 11 1  485 Rochester Avenue 511 Rochester Avenue 459 North 10 8 | 189 172 172 194 7 Heron Circle 14  7 0 1 11 0 14 8 33 25 Welch Design Development C - 2 3 Amhurst St @ Rochester Ave Synchro ID:3 Existing 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 0 0 0 AM Peak Hour  0 ---0 Year: 3/2/22 275 257 257 262 18 5  Data Source:432 Rochester Avenue 449 Rochester Avenue 420 North 0 0 | 157 146 146 158 11 Amhurst Street 12  11 0 5 18 0 12 16 46 30 Future without Project 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 0 0 0 AM Peak Hour  0 ---0 Year:2026 286 267 267 272 Growth Rate =1.0%19 5  Years of Growth =4 449 Rochester Avenue 466 Rochester Avenue 436 North Total Growth =1.0406 0 0 | 163 152 152 164 11 Amhurst Street 12  11 0 5 19 0 12 16 47 31 Total Project Trips 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 0 0 0 AM Peak Hour  0 ---0 25 25 25 25 0 0  39 Rochester Avenue 39 Rochester Avenue 39 North 0 0 | 14 14 14 14 0 Amhurst Street 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future with Project 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 0 0 0 AM Peak Hour  0 ---0 311 292 292 297 19 5  488 Rochester Avenue 505 Rochester Avenue 475 North 0 0 | 177 166 166 178 11 Amhurst Street 12  11 0 5 19 0 12 16 47 31 Welch Design Development C - 3 4 Teton Cir @ Rochester Ave Synchro ID:4 Existing 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 0 0 0 AM Peak Hour  0 ---0 Year: 3/2/22 313 265 265 268 48 3  Data Source:494 Rochester Avenue 503 Rochester Avenue 439 North 0 0 | 181 165 165 171 16 Teton Circle 6  16 0 3 48 0 6 19 73 54 Future without Project 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 0 0 0 AM Peak Hour  0 ---0 Year:2026 326 276 276 279 Growth Rate =1.0%50 3  Years of Growth =4 515 Rochester Avenue 524 Rochester Avenue 457 North Total Growth =1.0406 0 0 | 189 172 172 178 17 Teton Circle 6  17 0 3 50 0 6 20 76 56 Total Project Trips 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 0 0 0 AM Peak Hour  0 ---0 38 38 38 38 0 0  53 Rochester Avenue 53 Rochester Avenue 53 North 0 0 | 15 15 15 15 0 Teton Circle 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future with Project 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 0 0 0 AM Peak Hour  0 ---0 364 314 314 317 50 3  568 Rochester Avenue 577 Rochester Avenue 510 North 0 0 | 204 187 187 193 17 Teton Circle 6  17 0 3 50 0 6 20 76 56 Welch Design Development C - 4 5 Site Access @ Rochester Ave Synchro ID:5 Existing 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 0 0 0 AM Peak Hour  0 ---0 Year: 3/2/22 275 275 275 275 0 0  Data Source:432 Rochester Avenue 432 Rochester Avenue 432 North 0 0 | 157 157 157 157 0 ---0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future without Project 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 0 0 0 AM Peak Hour  0 ---0 Year:2026 286 286 286 286 Growth Rate =1.0%0 0  Years of Growth =4 449 Rochester Avenue 449 Rochester Avenue 449 North Total Growth =1.0406 0 0 | 163 163 163 163 0 ---0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Project Trips 18 24 6 Average Weekday 14 0 4 5 0 1 AM Peak Hour  14 Allison Way 1 38 24 24 25 0 0  53 Rochester Avenue 58 Rochester Avenue 39 North 5 4 | 15 10 10 14 0 ---0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future with Project 18 24 6 Average Weekday 14 0 4 5 0 1 AM Peak Hour  14 Allison Way 1 324 310 310 311 0 0  502 Rochester Avenue 507 Rochester Avenue 488 North 5 4 | 178 173 173 177 0 ---0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welch Design Development Volumes extrapolated form west leg of Amhurst St at Rochester Ave. C - 5 1 N Scott Blvd @ Rochester Ave Synchro ID:1 Existing 274 657 383 Average Weekday 17 226 31 113 171 99 PM Peak Hour  17 N Scott Boulevard 99 Year: 3/2/22 237 157 157 263 63 7  Data Source:476 Rochester Avenue 1,142 Rochester Avenue 526 North 113 31 | 239 100 100 263 26 N Scott Boulevard 132  26 226 7 63 171 132 259 625 366 Future without Project 285 684 399 Average Weekday 18 235 32 118 178 103 PM Peak Hour  18 N Scott Boulevard 103 Year:2026 247 163 163 273 Growth Rate =1.0%66 7  Years of Growth =4 496 Rochester Avenue 1,188 Rochester Avenue 546 North Total Growth =1.0406 118 32 | 249 104 104 273 27 N Scott Boulevard 137  27 235 7 66 178 137 269 650 381 Total Project Trips 3 5 2 Average Weekday 3 0 0 2 0 0 PM Peak Hour  3 N Scott Boulevard 0 13 7 7 7 3 0  22 Rochester Avenue 22 Rochester Avenue 12 North 2 0 | 9 5 5 5 2 N Scott Boulevard 0  2 0 0 3 0 0 2 5 3 Future with Project 288 689 401 Average Weekday 21 235 32 120 178 103 PM Peak Hour  21 N Scott Boulevard 103 260 170 170 280 69 7  518 Rochester Avenue 1,210 Rochester Avenue 558 North 120 32 | 258 109 109 278 29 N Scott Boulevard 137  29 235 7 69 178 137 271 655 384 Welch Design Development C - 6 2 Heron Cir @ Rochester Ave Synchro ID:2 Existing 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Peak Hour  0 ---0 Year: 3/2/22 172 165 165 172 7 7  Data Source:451 Rochester Avenue 463 Rochester Avenue 439 North 0 0 | 279 262 262 267 17 Heron Circle 5  17 0 7 7 0 5 24 36 12 Future without Project 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Peak Hour  0 ---0 Year:2026 179 172 172 179 Growth Rate =1.0%7 7  Years of Growth =4 470 Rochester Avenue 482 Rochester Avenue 457 North Total Growth =1.0406 0 0 | 291 273 273 278 18 Heron Circle 5  18 0 7 7 0 5 25 37 12 Total Project Trips 24 59 35 Average Weekday 18 0 6 27 0 8 PM Peak Hour  18 Heron Drive 8 23 5 5 13 0 0  53 Rochester Avenue 67 Rochester Avenue 22 North 27 6 | 30 3 3 9 0 Heron Circle 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future with Project 24 59 35 Average Weekday 18 0 6 27 0 8 PM Peak Hour  18 Heron Drive 8 202 177 177 192 7 7  523 Rochester Avenue 549 Rochester Avenue 479 North 27 6 | 321 276 276 287 18 Heron Circle 5  18 0 7 7 0 5 25 37 12 Welch Design Development C - 7 3 Amhurst St @ Rochester Ave Synchro ID:3 Existing 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Peak Hour  0 ---0 Year: 3/2/22 169 156 156 170 13 14  Data Source:473 Rochester Avenue 494 Rochester Avenue 450 North 0 0 | 304 273 273 280 31 Amhurst Street 7  31 0 14 13 0 7 45 65 20 Future without Project 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Peak Hour  0 ---0 Year:2026 176 162 162 177 Growth Rate =1.0%14 15  Years of Growth =4 492 Rochester Avenue 514 Rochester Avenue 468 North Total Growth =1.0406 0 0 | 316 284 284 291 32 Amhurst Street 7  32 0 15 14 0 7 47 68 21 Total Project Trips 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Peak Hour  0 ---0 23 23 23 23 0 0  53 Rochester Avenue 53 Rochester Avenue 53 North 0 0 | 30 30 30 30 0 Amhurst Street 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future with Project 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Peak Hour  0 ---0 199 185 185 200 14 15  545 Rochester Avenue 567 Rochester Avenue 521 North 0 0 | 346 314 314 321 32 Amhurst Street 7  32 0 15 14 0 7 47 68 21 Welch Design Development C - 8 4 Teton Cir @ Rochester Ave Synchro ID:4 Existing 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Peak Hour  0 ---0 Year: 3/2/22 181 160 160 167 21 7  Data Source:513 Rochester Avenue 523 Rochester Avenue 466 North 0 0 | 332 296 296 299 36 Teton Circle 3  36 0 7 21 0 3 43 67 24 Future without Project 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Peak Hour  0 ---0 Year:2026 188 166 166 173 Growth Rate =1.0%22 7  Years of Growth =4 533 Rochester Avenue 543 Rochester Avenue 484 North Total Growth =1.0406 0 0 | 345 308 308 311 37 Teton Circle 3  37 0 7 22 0 3 44 69 25 Total Project Trips 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Peak Hour  0 ---0 27 27 27 27 0 0  69 Rochester Avenue 69 Rochester Avenue 69 North 0 0 | 42 42 42 42 0 Teton Circle 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future with Project 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Peak Hour  0 ---0 215 193 193 200 22 7  602 Rochester Avenue 612 Rochester Avenue 553 North 0 0 | 387 350 350 353 37 Teton Circle 3  37 0 7 22 0 3 44 69 25 Welch Design Development C - 9 5 Site Access @ Rochester Ave Synchro ID:5 Existing 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Peak Hour  0 ---0 Year: 3/2/22 169 169 169 169 0 0  Data Source:473 Rochester Avenue 473 Rochester Avenue 473 North 0 0 | 304 304 304 304 0 ---0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future without Project 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM Peak Hour  0 ---0 Year:2026 176 176 176 176 Growth Rate =1.0%0 0  Years of Growth =4 492 Rochester Avenue 492 Rochester Avenue 492 North Total Growth =1.0406 0 0 | 316 316 316 316 0 ---0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Project Trips 12 33 21 Average Weekday 9 0 3 16 0 5 PM Peak Hour  9 Allison Way 5 27 18 18 23 0 0  70 Rochester Avenue 78 Rochester Avenue 53 North 16 3 | 43 27 27 30 0 ---0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future with Project 12 33 21 Average Weekday 9 0 3 16 0 5 PM Peak Hour  9 Allison Way 5 203 194 194 199 0 0  562 Rochester Avenue 570 Rochester Avenue 545 North 16 3 | 359 343 343 346 0 ---0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welch Design Development Volumes extrapolated form west leg of Amhurst St at Rochester Ave. C - 10 Monument Hills Iowa 2022 Existing Conditions 1: N Scott Boulevard & Rochester Avenue AM Peak-Hour Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF 090222040]HCM 6th AWSC Intersection Level of Service.syn Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 13 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 92 142 21 21 86 66 114 190 72 35 128 7 Future Vol, veh/h 92 142 21 21 86 66 114 190 72 35 128 7 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 103 160 24 24 97 74 128 213 81 39 144 8 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 2 2 HCM Control Delay 12.4 12.2 14.2 11.9 HCM LOS B B B B Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, %100%0% 100%0% 100%0% 100%0% Vol Thru, %0%73%0%87%0%57%0%95% Vol Right, %0%27%0%13%0%43%0%5% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 114 262 92 163 21 152 35 135 LT Vol 114 0 92 0 21 0 35 0 Through Vol 0 190 0 142 0 86 0 128 RT Vol 0 72 0 21 0 66 0 7 Lane Flow Rate 128 294 103 183 24 171 39 152 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X)0.245 0.506 0.207 0.336 0.048 0.312 0.079 0.283 Departure Headway (Hd)6.895 6.192 7.213 6.612 7.394 6.574 7.269 6.722 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 519 580 495 540 482 543 490 531 Service Time 4.667 3.964 4.993 4.391 5.181 4.36 5.056 4.509 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.247 0.507 0.208 0.339 0.05 0.315 0.08 0.286 HCM Control Delay 11.9 15.2 11.9 12.7 10.6 12.4 10.7 12.2 HCM Lane LOS B C B B B B B B HCM 95th-tile Q 1 2.8 0.8 1.5 0.2 1.3 0.3 1.2 D - 1 Monument Hills Iowa 2022 Existing Conditions 2: Heron Circle & Rochester Avenue AM Peak-Hour Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF 090222040]HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 161 7 1 250 11 13 Future Vol, veh/h 161 7 1 250 11 13 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length ----0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 --0 0 - Grade, %0 --0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 83 83 83 83 83 83 Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 194 8 1 301 13 16 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 202 0 501 198 Stage 1 ---- 198 - Stage 2 ---- 303 - Critical Hdwy -- 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ---- 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ---- 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy -- 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver -- 1370 - 530 843 Stage 1 ---- 835 - Stage 2 ---- 749 - Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -- 1370 - 529 843 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ---- 529 - Stage 1 ---- 835 - Stage 2 ---- 748 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 10.7 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)663 -- 1370 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.044 -- 0.001 - HCM Control Delay (s)10.7 -- 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B --A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.1 --0 - D - 2 Monument Hills Iowa 2022 Existing Conditions 3: Amhurst Street & Rochester Avenue AM Peak-Hour Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF 090222040]HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 146 11 5 257 18 12 Future Vol, veh/h 146 11 5 257 18 12 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length ----0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 --0 0 - Grade, %0 --0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 170 13 6 299 21 14 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 183 0 488 177 Stage 1 ---- 177 - Stage 2 ---- 311 - Critical Hdwy -- 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ---- 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ---- 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy -- 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver -- 1392 - 539 866 Stage 1 ---- 854 - Stage 2 ---- 743 - Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -- 1392 - 536 866 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ---- 536 - Stage 1 ---- 854 - Stage 2 ---- 739 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 11 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)632 -- 1392 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.055 -- 0.004 - HCM Control Delay (s)11 -- 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B --A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.2 --0 - D - 3 Monument Hills Iowa 2022 Existing Conditions 4: Teton Circle & Rochester Avenue AM Peak-Hour Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF 090222040]HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 165 16 3 265 48 6 Future Vol, veh/h 165 16 3 265 48 6 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length ----0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 --0 0 - Grade, %0 --0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 181 18 3 291 53 7 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 199 0 487 190 Stage 1 ---- 190 - Stage 2 ---- 297 - Critical Hdwy -- 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ---- 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ---- 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy -- 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver -- 1373 - 540 852 Stage 1 ---- 842 - Stage 2 ---- 754 - Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -- 1373 - 538 852 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ---- 538 - Stage 1 ---- 842 - Stage 2 ---- 752 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 12.2 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)561 -- 1373 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.106 -- 0.002 - HCM Control Delay (s)12.2 -- 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B --A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.4 --0 - D - 4 Monument Hills Iowa 2022 Existing Conditions 1: N Scott Boulevard & Rochester Avenue PM Peak-Hour Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF KH #090222040]HCM 6th AWSC Intersection Level of Service.syn Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 15.6 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 113 100 26 7 157 99 63 171 132 31 226 17 Future Vol, veh/h 113 100 26 7 157 99 63 171 132 31 226 17 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 116 103 27 7 162 102 65 176 136 32 233 18 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 2 2 HCM Control Delay 12.8 16.5 16.8 15.7 HCM LOS B C C C Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, %100%0% 100%0% 100%0% 100%0% Vol Thru, %0%56%0%79%0%61%0%93% Vol Right, %0%44%0%21%0%39%0%7% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 63 303 113 126 7 256 31 243 LT Vol 63 0 113 0 7 0 31 0 Through Vol 0 171 0 100 0 157 0 226 RT Vol 0 132 0 26 0 99 0 17 Lane Flow Rate 65 312 116 130 7 264 32 251 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X)0.134 0.573 0.252 0.258 0.015 0.508 0.067 0.488 Departure Headway (Hd)7.421 6.599 7.798 7.137 7.721 6.932 7.577 7.015 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 483 547 460 503 463 520 473 514 Service Time 5.167 4.345 5.55 4.889 5.471 4.681 5.326 4.764 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.135 0.57 0.252 0.258 0.015 0.508 0.068 0.488 HCM Control Delay 11.3 17.9 13.2 12.4 10.6 16.7 10.9 16.3 HCM Lane LOS B C B B B C B C HCM 95th-tile Q 0.5 3.6 1 1 0 2.8 0.2 2.6 D - 5 Monument Hills Iowa 2022 Existing Conditions 2: Heron Circle & Rochester Avenue PM Peak-Hour Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF KH #090222040]HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 262 17 7 165 7 5 Future Vol, veh/h 262 17 7 165 7 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length ----0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 --0 0 - Grade, %0 --0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 285 18 8 179 8 5 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 303 0 489 294 Stage 1 ---- 294 - Stage 2 ---- 195 - Critical Hdwy -- 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ---- 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ---- 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy -- 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver -- 1258 - 538 745 Stage 1 ---- 756 - Stage 2 ---- 838 - Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -- 1258 - 534 745 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ---- 534 - Stage 1 ---- 756 - Stage 2 ---- 832 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 11.1 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)605 -- 1258 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.022 -- 0.006 - HCM Control Delay (s)11.1 -- 7.9 0 HCM Lane LOS B --A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.1 --0 - D - 6 Monument Hills Iowa 2022 Existing Conditions 3: Amhurst Street & Rochester Avenue PM Peak-Hour Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF KH #090222040]HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 273 31 14 156 13 7 Future Vol, veh/h 273 31 14 156 13 7 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length ----0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 --0 0 - Grade, %0 --0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 294 33 15 168 14 8 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 327 0 509 311 Stage 1 ---- 311 - Stage 2 ---- 198 - Critical Hdwy -- 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ---- 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ---- 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy -- 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver -- 1233 - 524 729 Stage 1 ---- 743 - Stage 2 ---- 835 - Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -- 1233 - 517 729 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ---- 517 - Stage 1 ---- 743 - Stage 2 ---- 824 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.7 11.5 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)576 -- 1233 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.037 -- 0.012 - HCM Control Delay (s)11.5 --8 0 HCM Lane LOS B --A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.1 --0 - D - 7 Monument Hills Iowa 2022 Existing Conditions 4: Teton Circle & Rochester Avenue PM Peak-Hour Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF KH #090222040]HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 296 36 7 160 21 3 Future Vol, veh/h 296 36 7 160 21 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length ----0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 --0 0 - Grade, %0 --0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 325 40 8 176 23 3 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 365 0 537 345 Stage 1 ---- 345 - Stage 2 ---- 192 - Critical Hdwy -- 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ---- 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ---- 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy -- 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver -- 1194 - 505 698 Stage 1 ---- 717 - Stage 2 ---- 841 - Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -- 1194 - 501 698 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ---- 501 - Stage 1 ---- 717 - Stage 2 ---- 835 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 12.3 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)519 -- 1194 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.051 -- 0.006 - HCM Control Delay (s)12.3 --8 0 HCM Lane LOS B --A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.2 --0 - D - 8 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Baseline Conditions 1: N Scott Boulevard & Rochester Avenue AM Peak-Hour Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF 090222040]HCM 6th AWSC Intersection Level of Service.syn Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 13.6 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 96 148 22 22 89 69 119 198 75 36 133 7 Future Vol, veh/h 96 148 22 22 89 69 119 198 75 36 133 7 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 108 166 25 25 100 78 134 222 84 40 149 8 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 2 2 HCM Control Delay 12.9 12.6 15 12.3 HCM LOS B B B B Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, %100%0% 100%0% 100%0% 100%0% Vol Thru, %0%73%0%87%0%56%0%95% Vol Right, %0%27%0%13%0%44%0%5% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 119 273 96 170 22 158 36 140 LT Vol 119 0 96 0 22 0 36 0 Through Vol 0 198 0 148 0 89 0 133 RT Vol 0 75 0 22 0 69 0 7 Lane Flow Rate 134 307 108 191 25 178 40 157 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X)0.26 0.536 0.219 0.357 0.052 0.335 0.083 0.304 Departure Headway (Hd)6.998 6.294 7.431 6.829 7.625 6.801 7.507 6.95 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 509 567 486 529 472 533 480 519 Service Time 4.794 4.09 5.131 4.529 5.325 4.501 5.207 4.66 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.263 0.541 0.222 0.361 0.053 0.334 0.083 0.303 HCM Control Delay 12.3 16.2 12.2 13.3 10.7 12.9 10.9 12.7 HCM Lane LOS B C B B B B B B HCM 95th-tile Q 1 3.2 0.8 1.6 0.2 1.5 0.3 1.3 D - 9 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Baseline Conditions 2: Heron Circle & Rochester Avenue AM Peak-Hour Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF 090222040]HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 168 7 1 260 11 14 Future Vol, veh/h 168 7 1 260 11 14 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length ----0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 --0 0 - Grade, %0 --0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 83 83 83 83 83 83 Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 202 8 1 313 13 17 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 210 0 521 206 Stage 1 ---- 206 - Stage 2 ---- 315 - Critical Hdwy -- 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ---- 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ---- 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy -- 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver -- 1361 - 516 835 Stage 1 ---- 829 - Stage 2 ---- 740 - Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -- 1361 - 515 835 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ---- 515 - Stage 1 ---- 829 - Stage 2 ---- 739 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 10.8 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)656 -- 1361 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.046 -- 0.001 - HCM Control Delay (s)10.8 -- 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B --A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.1 --0 - D - 10 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Baseline Conditions 3: Amhurst Street & Rochester Avenue AM Peak-Hour Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF 090222040]HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 152 11 5 267 19 12 Future Vol, veh/h 152 11 5 267 19 12 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length ----0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 --0 0 - Grade, %0 --0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 177 13 6 310 22 14 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 190 0 506 184 Stage 1 ---- 184 - Stage 2 ---- 322 - Critical Hdwy -- 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ---- 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ---- 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy -- 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver -- 1384 - 526 858 Stage 1 ---- 848 - Stage 2 ---- 735 - Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -- 1384 - 523 858 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ---- 523 - Stage 1 ---- 848 - Stage 2 ---- 731 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 11.2 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)616 -- 1384 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.059 -- 0.004 - HCM Control Delay (s)11.2 -- 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B --A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.2 --0 - D - 11 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Baseline Conditions 4: Teton Circle & Rochester Avenue AM Peak-Hour Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF 090222040]HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 172 17 3 276 50 6 Future Vol, veh/h 172 17 3 276 50 6 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length ----0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 --0 0 - Grade, %0 --0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 189 19 3 303 55 7 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 208 0 508 199 Stage 1 ---- 199 - Stage 2 ---- 309 - Critical Hdwy -- 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ---- 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ---- 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy -- 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver -- 1363 - 525 842 Stage 1 ---- 835 - Stage 2 ---- 745 - Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -- 1363 - 523 842 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ---- 523 - Stage 1 ---- 835 - Stage 2 ---- 743 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 12.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)545 -- 1363 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.113 -- 0.002 - HCM Control Delay (s)12.4 -- 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B --A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.4 --0 - D - 12 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Baseline Conditions 1: N Scott Boulevard & Rochester Avenue PM Peak-Hour Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF 090222040]HCM 6th AWSC Intersection Level of Service.syn Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 16.7 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 118 104 27 7 163 103 66 178 137 32 235 18 Future Vol, veh/h 118 104 27 7 163 103 66 178 137 32 235 18 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 122 107 28 7 168 106 68 184 141 33 242 19 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 2 2 HCM Control Delay 13.2 17.7 18.1 16.8 HCM LOS B C C C Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, %100%0% 100%0% 100%0% 100%0% Vol Thru, %0%57%0%79%0%61%0%93% Vol Right, %0%43%0%21%0%39%0%7% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 66 315 118 131 7 266 32 253 LT Vol 66 0 118 0 7 0 32 0 Through Vol 0 178 0 104 0 163 0 235 RT Vol 0 137 0 27 0 103 0 18 Lane Flow Rate 68 325 122 135 7 274 33 261 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X)0.143 0.609 0.269 0.274 0.016 0.54 0.071 0.52 Departure Headway (Hd)7.573 6.75 7.969 7.308 7.883 7.092 7.738 7.174 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 473 533 450 490 453 507 462 501 Service Time 5.329 4.505 5.734 5.072 5.641 4.85 5.498 4.934 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.144 0.61 0.271 0.276 0.015 0.54 0.071 0.521 HCM Control Delay 11.6 19.5 13.7 12.8 10.8 17.9 11.1 17.5 HCM Lane LOS B C B B B C B C HCM 95th-tile Q 0.5 4 1.1 1.1 0 3.2 0.2 3 D - 13 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Baseline Conditions 2: Heron Circle & Rochester Avenue PM Peak-Hour Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF 090222040]HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 273 18 7 172 7 5 Future Vol, veh/h 273 18 7 172 7 5 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length ----0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 --0 0 - Grade, %0 --0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 297 20 8 187 8 5 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 317 0 510 307 Stage 1 ---- 307 - Stage 2 ---- 203 - Critical Hdwy -- 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ---- 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ---- 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy -- 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver -- 1243 - 523 733 Stage 1 ---- 746 - Stage 2 ---- 831 - Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -- 1243 - 519 733 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ---- 519 - Stage 1 ---- 746 - Stage 2 ---- 825 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 11.2 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)591 -- 1243 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.022 -- 0.006 - HCM Control Delay (s)11.2 -- 7.9 0 HCM Lane LOS B --A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.1 --0 - D - 14 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Baseline Conditions 3: Amhurst Street & Rochester Avenue PM Peak-Hour Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF 090222040]HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 284 32 15 162 14 7 Future Vol, veh/h 284 32 15 162 14 7 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length ----0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 --0 0 - Grade, %0 --0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 305 34 16 174 15 8 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 339 0 528 322 Stage 1 ---- 322 - Stage 2 ---- 206 - Critical Hdwy -- 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ---- 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ---- 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy -- 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver -- 1220 - 511 719 Stage 1 ---- 735 - Stage 2 ---- 829 - Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -- 1220 - 503 719 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ---- 503 - Stage 1 ---- 735 - Stage 2 ---- 817 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.7 11.7 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)559 -- 1220 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.04 -- 0.013 - HCM Control Delay (s)11.7 --8 0 HCM Lane LOS B --A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.1 --0 - D - 15 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Baseline Conditions 4: Teton Circle & Rochester Avenue PM Peak-Hour Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. [SPF 090222040]HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 308 37 7 166 22 3 Future Vol, veh/h 308 37 7 166 22 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length ----0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 --0 0 - Grade, %0 --0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 338 41 8 182 24 3 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 379 0 557 359 Stage 1 ---- 359 - Stage 2 ---- 198 - Critical Hdwy -- 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ---- 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ---- 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy -- 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver -- 1179 - 491 685 Stage 1 ---- 707 - Stage 2 ---- 835 - Platoon blocked, %--- Mov Cap-1 Maneuver -- 1179 - 487 685 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ---- 487 - Stage 1 ---- 707 - Stage 2 ---- 828 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 12.6 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)504 -- 1179 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.055 -- 0.007 - HCM Control Delay (s)12.6 -- 8.1 0 HCM Lane LOS B --A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh)0.2 --0 - D - 16 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Future with Development Conditions 1: N Scott Boulevard & Rochester Avenue AM Peak-Hour Willett, Hofmann and Associates, Inc. [1296C25]HCM 6th AWSC Intersection Level of Service - 2026 Future with Development.syn Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 13.9 Intersection LOS B Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 98 156 24 22 91 69 120 198 75 36 133 8 Future Vol, veh/h 98 156 24 22 91 69 120 198 75 36 133 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 110 175 27 25 102 78 135 222 84 40 149 9 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 2 2 HCM Control Delay 13.3 12.8 15.5 12.5 HCM LOS B B C B Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, %100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, %0% 73% 0% 87% 0% 57% 0% 94% Vol Right, %0% 27% 0% 13% 0% 43% 0% 6% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 120 273 98 180 22 160 36 141 LT Vol 120 0 98 0 22 0 36 0 Through Vol 0 198 0 156 0 91 0 133 RT Vol 0 75 0 24 0 69 0 8 Lane Flow Rate 135 307 110 202 25 180 40 158 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X)0.268 0.55 0.228 0.385 0.053 0.342 0.085 0.309 Departure Headway (Hd)7.16 6.456 7.465 6.859 7.67 6.85 7.567 7.015 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 504 561 482 526 467 525 474 513 Service Time 4.874 4.169 5.183 4.578 5.409 4.588 5.306 4.754 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.268 0.547 0.228 0.384 0.054 0.343 0.084 0.308 HCM Control Delay 12.5 16.8 12.4 13.8 10.8 13.1 11 12.9 HCM Lane LOS B C B B B B B B HCM 95th-tile Q 1.1 3.3 0.9 1.8 0.2 1.5 0.3 1.3 D - 17 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Future with Development Conditions 2: Heron Circle/Heron Drive & Rochester Avenue AM Peak-Hour Willett, Hofmann and Associates, Inc. [1296C25]HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service - 2026 Future with Development.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.4 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 10 172 7 1 261 3 11 0 14 8 0 24 Future Vol, veh/h 10 172 7 1 261 3 11 0 14 8 0 24 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length -- - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 12 207 8 1 314 4 13 0 17 10 0 29 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 318 0 0 215 0 0 568 555 211 562 557 316 Stage 1 -- - - - - 235 235 - 318 318 - Stage 2 -- - - - - 333 320 - 244 239 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 -- - - - -6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 -- - - - -6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1242 - - 1355 - - 434 440 829 438 439 724 Stage 1 -- - - - - 768 710 - 693 654 - Stage 2 -- - - - - 681 652 - 760 708 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1242 - - 1355 - - 413 435 829 425 434 724 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver -- - - - - 413 435 - 425 434 - Stage 1 -- - - - - 760 702 - 685 653 - Stage 2 -- - - - - 653 651 - 736 700 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 0 11.6 11.2 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)574 1242 - - 1355 - - 616 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.052 0.01 - - 0.001 - - 0.063 HCM Control Delay (s) 11.6 7.9 0 - 7.7 0 - 11.2 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0 - - 0 - - 0.2 D -18 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Future with Development Conditions 3: Amhurst Street & Rochester Avenue AM Peak-Hour Willett, Hofmann and Associates, Inc. [1296C25]HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service - 2026 Future with Development.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.8 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 166 11 5 292 19 12 Future Vol, veh/h 166 11 5 292 19 12 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 86 86 86 86 86 86 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 193 13 6 340 22 14 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 206 0 552 200 Stage 1 - - - - 200 - Stage 2 - - - - 352 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1365 - 495 841 Stage 1 - - - - 834 - Stage 2 - - - - 712 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1365 - 493 841 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 493 - Stage 1 - - - - 834 - Stage 2 - - - - 708 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 11.5 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)587 - - 1365 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.061 - - 0.004 - HCM Control Delay (s) 11.5 - - 7.6 0 HCM Lane LOS B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 0 - D - 19 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Future with Development Conditions 4: Teton Circle & Rochester Avenue AM Peak-Hour Willett, Hofmann and Associates, Inc. [1296C25]HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service - 2026 Future with Development.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 187 17 3 314 50 6 Future Vol, veh/h 187 17 3 314 50 6 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 205 19 3 345 55 7 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 224 0 566 215 Stage 1 - - - - 215 - Stage 2 - - - - 351 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1345 - 486 825 Stage 1 - - - - 821 - Stage 2 - - - - 713 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1345 - 485 825 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 485 - Stage 1 - - - - 821 - Stage 2 - - - - 711 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 13.1 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)507 - - 1345 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.121 - - 0.002 - HCM Control Delay (s) 13.1 - - 7.7 0 HCM Lane LOS B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.4 - - 0 - D - 20 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Future with Development Conditions 5: Rochester Avenue & Allison Way AM Peak-Hour Willett, Hofmann and Associates, Inc. [1296C25]HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service - 2026 Future with Development.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.5 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 173 310 1 4 14 Future Vol, veh/h 5 173 310 1 4 14 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, % - 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 5 188 337 1 4 15 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 338 0 - 0 536 338 Stage 1 - - - - 338 - Stage 2 - - - - 198 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1221 - - - 505 704 Stage 1 - - - - 722 - Stage 2 - - - - 835 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1221 - - - 502 704 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 502 - Stage 1 - - - - 718 - Stage 2 - - - - 835 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0 10.7 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1221 - - - 646 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 - - - 0.03 HCM Control Delay (s) 8 0 - - 10.7 HCM Lane LOS A A - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1 D - 21 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Future with Development Conditions 1: N Scott Boulevard & Rochester Avenue PM Peak-Hour Willett, Hofmann and Associates, Inc. [1296C25]HCM 6th AWSC Intersection Level of Service - 2026 Future with Development.syn Intersection Intersection Delay, s/veh 17.2 Intersection LOS C Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 120 109 29 7 170 103 69 178 137 32 235 21 Future Vol, veh/h 120 109 29 7 170 103 69 178 137 32 235 21 Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Heavy Vehicles, %2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 124 112 30 7 175 106 71 184 141 33 242 22 Number of Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Approach EB WB NB SB Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB Opposing Lanes 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB Conflicting Lanes Left 2 2 2 2 Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB Conflicting Lanes Right 2 2 2 2 HCM Control Delay 13.5 18.5 18.6 17.2 HCM LOS B C C C Lane NBLn1 NBLn2 EBLn1 EBLn2 WBLn1 WBLn2 SBLn1 SBLn2 Vol Left, %100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% Vol Thru, %0% 57% 0% 79% 0% 62% 0% 92% Vol Right, %0% 43% 0% 21% 0% 38% 0% 8% Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Traffic Vol by Lane 69 315 120 138 7 273 32 256 LT Vol 69 0 120 0 7 0 32 0 Through Vol 0 178 0 109 0 170 0 235 RT Vol 0 137 0 29 0 103 0 21 Lane Flow Rate 71 325 124 142 7 281 33 264 Geometry Grp 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Degree of Util (X)0.151 0.617 0.276 0.291 0.016 0.56 0.072 0.532 Departure Headway (Hd)7.663 6.839 8.039 7.374 7.949 7.164 7.831 7.259 Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cap 467 526 445 485 449 501 457 496 Service Time 5.423 4.599 5.809 5.143 5.713 4.928 5.594 5.022 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.152 0.618 0.279 0.293 0.016 0.561 0.072 0.532 HCM Control Delay 11.8 20.1 13.9 13.2 10.8 18.7 11.2 18 HCM Lane LOS B C B B B C B C HCM 95th-tile Q 0.5 4.1 1.1 1.2 0 3.4 0.2 3.1 D - 22 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Future with Development Conditions 2: Heron Circle/Heron Drive & Rochester Avenue PM Peak-Hour Willett, Hofmann and Associates, Inc. [1296C25]HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service - 2026 Future with Development.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 27 276 18 7 177 8 7 0 5 6 0 18 Future Vol, veh/h 27 276 18 7 177 8 7 0 5 6 0 18 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None Storage Length -- - - - - - - - - - - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 29 300 20 8 192 9 8 0 5 7 0 20 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 201 0 0 320 0 0 591 585 310 584 591 197 Stage 1 -- - - - - 368 368 - 213 213 - Stage 2 -- - - - - 223 217 - 371 378 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 -- - - - -6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 -- - - - -6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1371 - - 1240 - - 419 423 730 423 420 844 Stage 1 -- - - - - 652 621 - 789 726 - Stage 2 -- - - - - 780 723 - 649 615 - Platoon blocked, % - - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1371 - - 1240 - - 399 409 730 409 406 844 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver -- - - - - 399 409 - 409 406 - Stage 1 -- - - - - 635 605 - 768 721 - Stage 2 -- - - - - 757 718 - 627 599 - Approach EB WB NB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.6 0.3 12.5 10.6 HCM LOS B B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)492 1371 - - 1240 - - 667 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.027 0.021 - - 0.006 - - 0.039 HCM Control Delay (s) 12.5 7.7 0 - 7.9 0 - 10.6 HCM Lane LOS B A A - A A - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 0.1 - - 0 - - 0.1 D - 23 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Future with Development Conditions 3: Amhurst Street & Rochester Avenue PM Peak-Hour Willett, Hofmann and Associates, Inc. [1296C25]HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service - 2026 Future with Development.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 314 32 15 185 14 7 Future Vol, veh/h 314 32 15 185 14 7 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 93 93 93 93 93 93 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 338 34 16 199 15 8 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 372 0 586 355 Stage 1 - - - - 355 - Stage 2 - - - - 231 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1186 - 473 689 Stage 1 - - - - 710 - Stage 2 - - - - 807 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1186 - 466 689 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 466 - Stage 1 - - - - 710 - Stage 2 - - - - 795 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.6 12.2 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)522 - - 1186 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.043 - - 0.014 - HCM Control Delay (s) 12.2 - - 8.1 0 HCM Lane LOS B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 - D - 24 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Future with Development Conditions 4: Teton Circle & Rochester Avenue PM Peak-Hour Willett, Hofmann and Associates, Inc. [1296C25]HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service - 2026 Future with Development.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 350 37 7 193 22 3 Future Vol, veh/h 350 37 7 193 22 3 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 - Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 385 41 8 212 24 3 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Conflicting Flow All 0 0 426 0 634 406 Stage 1 - - - - 406 - Stage 2 - - - - 228 - Critical Hdwy - - 4.12 - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.218 - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1133 - 443 645 Stage 1 - - - - 673 - Stage 2 - - - - 810 - Platoon blocked, % - - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1133 - 439 645 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 439 - Stage 1 - - - - 673 - Stage 2 - - - - 804 - Approach EB WB NB HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.3 13.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT Capacity (veh/h)456 - - 1133 - HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.06 - - 0.007 - HCM Control Delay (s) 13.4 - - 8.2 0 HCM Lane LOS B - - A A HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 0 - D - 25 Monument Hills Iowa 2026 Future with Development Conditions 5: Rochester Avenue & Allison Way PM Peak-Hour Willett, Hofmann and Associates, Inc. [1296C25]HCM 6th TWSC Intersection Level of Service - 2026 Future with Development.syn Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.4 Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Vol, veh/h 16 343 194 5 3 9 Future Vol, veh/h 16 343 194 5 3 9 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop RT Channelized - None - None - None Storage Length - - - - 0 - Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 0 - 0 - Grade, %- 0 0 - 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 17 373 211 5 3 10 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor2 Conflicting Flow All 216 0 - 0 621 214 Stage 1 - - - - 214 - Stage 2 - - - -407 - Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - - 6.42 6.22 Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 - Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 - Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - - 3.518 3.318 Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1354 - -- 451 826 Stage 1 - - - - 822 - Stage 2 - - - -672 - Platoon blocked, %- - - Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1354 - -- 444 826 Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - -444 - Stage 1 - - - -809 - Stage 2 - - - -672 - Approach EB WB SB HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0 10.4 HCM LOS B Minor Lane/Major Mvmt EBL EBT WBT WBR SBLn1 Capacity (veh/h)1354 - - - 680 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.013 - - - 0.019 HCM Control Delay (s) 7.7 0 - - 10.4 HCM Lane LOS A A - - B HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - - 0.1 D - 26 Rochester Ave at N Scott Blvd Collision Diagram (2020-2024) 6 Crashes Clear 1/13/20207/14/2021 7/15/2021 6/13/2023 12/7/2023 3/16/2024 Straight Stopped Unknown Backing Overtaking Sideswipe Parked Erratic Out of control Right turn Left turn U-turn Fatal Major Minor Injury Pedestrian Bicycle Fixed objects: General Pole Signal Curb Tree Animal DUI 3rd vehicle Nighttime Crash Magic Online 4/21/2025 Crash Magic Online E-1 20201156632 01/13/2020 09:49 County: Johnson City: Iowa City ROCHESTER AVE AND N SCOTT BLVD Major Cause:Made improper turn Roadway Type:Feature: Non-junction/no special feature Severity::Property Damage Only Fatalities:0 Major Injuries:0 Minor Injuries:0 Possible Injuries:0 Manner of Crash:Sideswipe (same direction) Surface Conditions:Dry Light Conditions:Daylight Weather Conditions:Clear Drug/Alc Involved:None Indicated Severity::Property Damage Only Property Damage:$10,500 Number of Vehicles:2 Init Trav Dir: Veh Action: Configuration: Driver Age: Driver Gender: Driver Cond: Driver Contr 1: Driver Contr 2: Fixed Object: Unit 1 West Turning right Tractor/semi-trailer 45 M Apparently normal Made improper turn Not reported None (no fixed object struck) Unit 2 West Movement essentially straight Sport utility vehicle 25 F Apparently normal No improper action Not reported None (no fixed object struck) Unit 20211250984 07/14/2021 13:38 County: Johnson City: Iowa City ROCHESTER AVE AND N SCOTT BLVD Major Cause:Other Roadway Type:Intersection: Four-way intersection Severity::Property Damage Only Fatalities:0 Major Injuries:0 Minor Injuries:0 Possible Injuries:0 Manner of Crash:Broadside (front to side) Surface Conditions:Dry Light Conditions:Daylight Weather Conditions:Clear Drug/Alc Involved:None Indicated Severity::Property Damage Only Property Damage:$7,000 Number of Vehicles:2 Init Trav Dir: Veh Action: Configuration: Driver Age: Driver Gender: Driver Cond: Driver Contr 1: Driver Contr 2: Fixed Object: Unit 1 North Movement essentially straight Passenger car 70 F Apparently normal No improper action Not reported None (no fixed object struck) Unit 2 West Movement essentially straight Sport utility vehicle 64 F Apparently normal Other Not reported None (no fixed object struck) Unit April 21, 2025 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Page E-2 Crash Detail Report 20211251015 07/15/2021 11:32 County: Johnson City: Iowa City N SCOTT BLVD Major Cause:Unknown Roadway Type:Intersection: Four-way intersection Severity::Property Damage Only Fatalities:0 Major Injuries:0 Minor Injuries:0 Possible Injuries:0 Manner of Crash:Broadside (front to side) Surface Conditions:Dry Light Conditions:Daylight Weather Conditions:Cloudy Drug/Alc Involved:None Indicated Severity::Property Damage Only Property Damage:$9,000 Number of Vehicles:2 Init Trav Dir: Veh Action: Configuration: Driver Age: Driver Gender: Driver Cond: Driver Contr 1: Driver Contr 2: Fixed Object: Unit 1 West Movement essentially straight Four-tire light truck (pick-up) 53 M Apparently normal Unknown Not reported None (no fixed object struck) Unit 2 North Movement essentially straight Passenger car 25 M Apparently normal Unknown Not reported None (no fixed object struck) Unit 20231366058 06/13/2023 17:53 County: Johnson City: Iowa City ROCHESTER AVE Major Cause:Unknown Roadway Type:Intersection: Four-way intersection Severity::Property Damage Only Fatalities:0 Major Injuries:0 Minor Injuries:0 Possible Injuries:0 Manner of Crash:Broadside (front to side) Surface Conditions:Dry Light Conditions:Daylight Weather Conditions:Clear Drug/Alc Involved:None Indicated Severity::Property Damage Only Property Damage:$7,500 Number of Vehicles:2 Init Trav Dir: Veh Action: Configuration: Driver Age: Driver Gender: Driver Cond: Driver Contr 1: Driver Contr 2: Fixed Object: Unit 1 East Movement essentially straight Sport utility vehicle 75 M Apparently normal Unknown Not reported None (no fixed object struck) Unit 2 North Movement essentially straight Passenger car 80 F Apparently normal Unknown Not reported None (no fixed object struck) Unit April 21, 2025 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Page E-3 Crash Detail Report 20231396828 12/07/2023 06:50 County: Johnson City: Iowa City SCOTT BLVD AND ROCHESTER AVE Major Cause:FTYROW: From stop sign Roadway Type:Intersection: Four-way intersection Severity::Property Damage Only Fatalities:0 Major Injuries:0 Minor Injuries:0 Possible Injuries:0 Manner of Crash:Broadside (front to side) Surface Conditions:Dry Light Conditions:Dawn Weather Conditions:Clear Drug/Alc Involved:None Indicated Severity::Property Damage Only Property Damage:$6,000 Number of Vehicles:2 Init Trav Dir: Veh Action: Configuration: Driver Age: Driver Gender: Driver Cond: Driver Contr 1: Driver Contr 2: Fixed Object: Unit 1 West Starting in road Sport utility vehicle 50 F Apparently normal FTYROW: From stop sign Not reported None (no fixed object struck) Unit 2 North Starting in road Passenger car 63 M Apparently normal No improper action Not reported None (no fixed object struck) Unit 20241413567 03/16/2024 21:02 County: Johnson City: Iowa City ROCHESTER AVE AND SCOTT BLVD Major Cause:Unknown Roadway Type:Intersection: Four-way intersection Severity::Suspected Minor Injury Crash Fatalities:0 Major Injuries:0 Minor Injuries:1 Possible Injuries:0 Manner of Crash:Broadside (front to side) Surface Conditions:Dry Light Conditions:Dark - unknown roadway lighting Weather Conditions:Cloudy Drug/Alc Involved:None Indicated Severity::Suspected Minor Injury Crash Property Damage:$7,000 Number of Vehicles:2 Init Trav Dir: Veh Action: Configuration: Driver Age: Driver Gender: Driver Cond: Driver Contr 1: Driver Contr 2: Fixed Object: Unit 1 South Movement essentially straight Passenger car 65 M Apparently normal Unknown Not reported None (no fixed object struck) Unit 2 West Movement essentially straight Sport utility vehicle 37 F Apparently normal Unknown Not reported None (no fixed object struck) Unit April 21, 2025 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Page E-4 Crash Detail Report Crash Severity Fatal Crash 0 Suspected Serious Injury Crash 0 Suspected Minor Injury Crash 1 Possible/Unknown Injury Crash 0 Property Damage Only 5 6 Injury Status Summary Fatalities 0 Suspected serious/incapacitating 0 Suspected minor/non-incapacitating 1 Possible (complaint of pain/injury)0 Uninjured 0 Unknown 0 Not Reported 0 1 Property Damage Total (dollars):47,000.00 Average (per crash dollars):7,833.33 Total Vehicles:12.00 Average (per crash):2.00 Total Occupants:19.00 Average (per crash):3.17 Property/Vehicles/Occupants Fatalities/Fatal Crash:0.00 Fatalities/Crash:0.00 Injuries/Crash:0.17 Major Injuries/Crash:0.00 Minor Injuries/Crash:0.17 Possible/Unknown Injuries/Crash:0.00 Average Severity 04/21/2025 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2020-2024 E-5 Major Cause Animal 0 Ran stop sign 0 FTYROW: At uncontrolled intersection 0 FTYROW: From stop sign 1 FTYROW: Making left turn 0 FTYROW: From parked position 0 FTYROW: Other 0 Disregarded RR Signal 0 Crossed median (divided)0 Aggressive driving/road rage 0 Exceeded authorized speed 0 Operating vehicle in an reckless/erratic/care...0 Passing: On wrong side 0 Passing: With insufficient distance/inadequa...0 Passing: Other passing 0 Driver Distraction: Manual operation of an e...0 Driver Distraction: Talking on a hands free ...0 Driver Distraction: Other electronic device ...0 Driver Distraction: Unrestrained animal 0 Driver Distraction: Inattentive/lost in thou...0 Driver Distraction: Exterior distraction 0 Ran off road - straight 0 Lost control 0 Over correcting/over steering 0 Failure to signal intentions 0 Vehicle stopped on railroad tracks 0 Other: Improper operation 0 Other: Disregarded signs/road markings 0 Downhill runaway 0 Towing improperly 0 Equipment failure 0 Other: Getting off/out of vehicle 0 Improper backing 0 Illegally parked/unattended 0 Operator inexperience 0 Unknown 3 Other: No improper action 0 Ran traffic signal 0 Failed to yield to emergency vehicle 0 FTYROW: Making right turn on red signal 0 FTYROW: From yield sign 0 FTYROW: From driveway 0 FTYROW: To pedestrian 0 Drove around RR grade crossing gates 0 Crossed centerline (undivided)0 Traveling wrong way or on wrong side of road 0 Driving too fast for conditions 0 Improper or erratic lane changing 0 Followed too close 0 Passing: Where prohibited by signs/markings 0 Passing: Through/around barrier 0 Made improper turn 1 Driver Distraction: Talking on a hand-held d...0 Driver Distraction: Adjusting devices (radio...0 Driver Distraction: Passenger 0 Driver Distraction: Reaching for object(s)/f...0 Driver Distraction: Other interior distracti...0 Ran off road - right 0 Ran off road - left 0 Swerving/Evasive Action 0 Failed to keep in proper lane 0 Traveling on prohibited traffic way 0 Other: Vision obstructed 0 Other: Disregarded warning sign 0 Other: Illegal off-road driving 0 Separation of units 0 Cargo/equipment loss or shift 0 Oversized load/vehicle 0 Failure to dim lights/have lights on 0 Improper starting 0 Driving less than the posted speed limit 0 Other 1 Not reported 0 6 04/21/2025 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2020-2024 E-6 Time of Day/Day of Week Day of Week to 2 AM to 4 AM to 6 AM to 8 AM to 10 AM 10 AM to Noon to 2 PM to 4 PM to 6 PM to 8 PM to 10 PM to 12 AM Not reporte d Total Sunday 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Monday 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Tuesday 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Wednesday 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Thursday 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Friday 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Saturday 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Total 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 6 Manner of Crash Collision Non-collision (single vehicle)0 Head-on (front to front)0 Rear-end (front to rear)0 Angle (oncoming left turn)0 Broadside (front to side)5 Sideswipe (same direction)1 Sideswipe (opposite direction)0 Rear to rear 0 Rear to side 0 Not reported 0 Other 0 Unknown 0 6 Surface Conditions Dry 6 Wet 0 Ice/frost 0 Snow 0 Slush 0 Mud/dirt 0 Water (standing or moving)0 Sand 0 Oil 0 Gravel 0 Not reported 0 Other 0 Unknown 0 6 Fixed Object Struck Bridge overhead structure 0 Bridge/bridge rail parapet 0 Ditch 0 Ground 0 Guardrail - face 0 Concrete traffic barrier (median or right sid...0 Cable barrier 0 Utility pole/light support 0 Traffic signal support 0 Fire hydrant 0 Tree 0 Snow bank 0 Wall 0 Other fixed object 0 Bridge pier or support 0 Curb/island/raised median 0 Embankment 0 Culvert/pipe opening 0 Guardrail - end 0 Other traffic barrier 0 Impact attenuator/crash cushion 0 Traffic sign support 0 Other post/pole/support 0 Mailbox 0 Landscape/shrubbery 0 Fence 0 Building 0 None (no fixed object struck)12 12 04/21/2025 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2020-2024 E-7 Driver Age/Driver Gender Driver Age - 5 year Bins Female Male Not reported Unknown Total < 14 0 0 0 0 0 = 14 0 0 0 0 0 = 15 0 0 0 0 0 = 16 0 0 0 0 0 = 17 0 0 0 0 0 = 18 0 0 0 0 0 = 19 0 0 0 0 0 = 20 0 0 0 0 0 >= 21 and <= 24 0 0 0 0 0 >= 25 and <= 29 1 1 0 0 2 >= 30 and <= 34 0 0 0 0 0 >= 35 and <= 39 1 0 0 0 1 >= 40 and <= 44 0 0 0 0 0 >= 45 and <= 49 0 1 0 0 1 >= 50 and <= 54 1 1 0 0 2 >= 55 and <= 59 0 0 0 0 0 >= 60 and <= 64 1 1 0 0 2 >= 65 and <= 69 0 1 0 0 1 >= 70 and <= 74 1 0 0 0 1 >= 75 and <= 79 0 1 0 0 1 >= 80 and <= 84 1 0 0 0 1 >= 85 and <= 89 0 0 0 0 0 >= 90 and <= 94 0 0 0 0 0 >= 95 0 0 0 0 0 Not reported 0 0 0 0 0 Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 Total 6 6 0 0 12 Alcohol Test Given None 12 Blood 0 Urine 0 Breath 0 Vitreous 0 Refused 0 Not reported 0 12 Drug Test Given None 12 Blood 0 Urine 0 Breath 0 Vitreous 0 Refused 0 Not reported 0 12 Drug Test Result Negative 0 Cannabis 0 Central Nervous System depressants 0 Central Nervous System stimulants 0 Hallucinogens 0 Inhalants 0 Narcotic Analgesics 0 Dissociative Anesthetic (PCP)0 Prescription Drug 0 Not reported 12 Other 0 12 Drug/Alcohol Related Drug 0 Alcohol (< Statutory)0 Alcohol (Statutory)0 Drug and Alcohol (< Statutory)0 Drug and Alcohol (Statutory)0 Refused 0 Under Influence of Alcohol/Drugs/Medications 0 None Indicated 6 6 04/21/2025 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2020-2024 E-8 Crash Severity - Annual Crash Year Fatal Crash Suspected Serious Injury Crash Suspected Minor Injury Crash Possible/Unknown Injury Crash Property Damage Only Total 2015 0 0 0 0 0 0 2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 2020 0 0 0 0 1 1 2021 0 0 0 0 2 2 2022 0 0 0 0 0 0 2023 0 0 0 0 2 2 2024 0 0 1 0 0 1 2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 1 0 5 6 Severity/Year 04/21/2025 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2020-2024 E-9 Injury Status - Annual Crash Year Fatalities Suspected serious/incapac itating Suspected minor/non- incapacitating Possible (complaint of pain/injury)Uninjured Unknown Not Reported Total 2015 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2022 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2023 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2024 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2025 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Injury Status/Year 04/21/2025 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2020-2024 E-10 Jurisdiction: Cities (Iowa City) Year: 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 Map Selection: Yes Filter: None Meeting the following criteria Rochester Ave at N Scott Blvd (2020-2024) Analyst Information 04/21/2025 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Quick Report 2020-2024 E-11 F-1 Rochester Avenue at Allison Way (2026 Future with Development Conditions: PM Peak Hour) The following data are required: 1. Opposing Volume (veh/hr) - VO - The opposing volume is to include only the right-turn and through movements in the opposite direction of the left-turning vehicle. [199] 2. Advancing Volume (veh/hr) - VA - The advancing volume is to include the right-turn, left-turn and through movements in the same direction as the left-turning vehicle. [359] 3. Operating Speed (mph) - The greatest of anticipated operating speed, measured 85th percentile speed or posted speed. [35 mph] 4. Percentage of left turns in VA. [16 / 359 = 4.5%] Left turn lane is not needed for left turn volume less than 10 vph. However, criteria other than volume, such as crash experience, may be used to justify a left turn lane. The appropriate trend line is identified on the basis of the percentage of left-turns in the advancing volume, rounded up to the nearest percentage trend line. If the advancing and opposing volume combination intersects above or to the right of this trend line, a left-turn lane is appropriate. Source: Missouri DOT (MoDOT) Engineering Policy Guide Website [https://epg.modot.org/index] F-2 Rochester Avenue at Heron Drive (2026 Future with Development Conditions: PM Peak Hour) The following data are required: 1. Opposing Volume (veh/hr) - VO - The opposing volume is to include only the right-turn and through movements in the opposite direction of the left-turning vehicle. [185] 2. Advancing Volume (veh/hr) - VA - The advancing volume is to include the right-turn, left-turn and through movements in the same direction as the left-turning vehicle. [321] 3. Operating Speed (mph) - The greatest of anticipated operating speed, measured 85th percentile speed or posted speed. [35 mph] 4. Percentage of left turns in VA. [27 / 321 = 8.4%] Left turn lane is not needed for left turn volume less than 10 vph. However, criteria other than volume, such as crash experience, may be used to justify a left turn lane. The appropriate trend line is identified on the basis of the percentage of left-turns in the advancing volume, rounded up to the nearest percentage trend line. If the advancing and opposing volume combination intersects above or to the right of this trend line, a left-turn lane is appropriate. Source: Missouri DOT (MoDOT) Engineering Policy Guide Website [https://epg.modot.org/index] ATTACHMENT 7 Good Neighbor Meeting Summary Summary Report for Good Neighbor Meeting Project Name: ___________________________Project Location: _________________________ Meeting Date and Time: ________________________________________________________ Meeting Location: _____________________________________________________________ Names of Applicant Representatives attending: ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Names of City Staff Representatives attending: _______________________________________ Number of Neighbors Attending: ________ Sign-In Attached? Yes ______ No ______ General Comments received regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary)- _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ Concerns expressed regarding project (attach additional sheets if necessary) - _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ Will there be any changes made to the proposal based on this input? If so, describe: ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ Staff Representative Comments ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Lot 66 Monument Hills Rezoning Lot 66 Monument Hills Thursday June 5, 2025 - 6:00pm - 7:30pm FeatherStone Assisted Living, 2450 Hickory Trail, Iowa City Michael Welch, - Shoemaker and Haaland Jacob Wolfgang - Nelson, Evan Shaw, Invision Madison Conley & Parker Walsh 5 X An overview of the proposed rezoning request was presented to attendees. We explained how this request differed from the previous proposal originally presented with the Monument Hills rezoning. We presented an overview of the general features of the proposal and then opened the meeting to questions. Neighbors immediately across the street (Rochester Ave) expressed concerns about the change to their view looking north from their homes. The impact of the additional traffic at the intersection of Heron Drive and Rochester Avenue was also a primary concern. Residents indicated that traffic on Rochester often travels faster than the posted speed limit and that there are delays for traffic turning onto Rochester Avenue from Heron Circle during peak traffic times. Some residents were concerned that the rents in the building would be market-rate rather than "affordable". The size of the building and number of units was a concern from some neighbors. Not specifically; however, the applicant previously reduced the size of the proposed building from 130+ units down to 103 units during prior reviews with Iowa City staff. The applicant also included a revised traffic study with the rezoning submittal at staff's request. MINUTES PRELIMINARY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 4, 2025 – 6:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Steve Miller, Scott Quellhorst (via zoom), Billie Townsend, Chad Wade MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Anne Russett, Rachael Schaefer OTHERS PRESENT: Christopher Shires CALL TO ORDER: Elliott called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. UPDATE AND DISCUSSION ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE: Christopher Shires (Principal, Confluence) is with the consulting firm hired by the city of Iowa City to help update the Comprehensive Plan. He noted he has a presentation, and this is the time when they want to hear from the Commission on their thoughts and ideas and initial feedback. Shires began with a recap of the project scope and schedule, he noted this is a five step process, there is a steering committee, they’ve finished phase one with the initial assessment and analysis and those presentations are available on the project website. Right now, they’re in the middle of the public input process which is phase two. They are getting a lot of great community feedback, they are doing one on one stakeholder interviews, some small group interviews and also some focus group meetings. Then they've had a series of listening sessions, as well as some public workshops, so they're hearing a lot of good things of what people want and there's a lot of optimism. Shires noted that doesn't mean there's not some challenges and issues, as well as some conflicting ideas and once they get done with this phase they'll be sharing that feedback with the steering committee and that information will be made available on the website. After the public input process, they’ll go to phase three and establishing the big goals and the big ideas. Then in phase four they will begin the Plan drafting, rolling it back out to the public, and this Commission, to make sure they've got it right, but still very much in a draft form so if people have feedback they can and will make those edits, and get that all finalized. Then phase five is the adoption process, where it first comes to this Commission for reviewing and vetting, and then this Commission will send forward a recommendation to the City Council on adopting the Comprehensive Plan, and then hopefully get that final Council approval. Shires next reviewed the project schedule, in a nutshell it's a year and a half long process and if they stay on schedule they will finish next May. Shires noted they are not trying to rush through this and are taking public engagement and the analysis very seriously, and so it does take some time. Shires stated to begin work on a new Comprehensive Plan they first need to look at the current 2030 IC Plan. He noted it’s ready to be updated, it is aged. In that Plan there are seven major chapters, or elements, or components that he wants to highlight as a way to trigger some of the thought processes. First, land use goals, this is the major category under land use and one of the Planning and Zoning Commission June 4, 2025 Page 2 of 16 most important components of a comprehensive plan, a future land use plan, plus the major goals and action steps. Shires noted this is used to help make recommendations for a rezoning, a subdivision, a development plan for this Commission’s initial review and vetting to then forward to the City Council. In the current Plan they want to promote compact, efficient development, contiguous and connected. They want to plan for commercial nodes and small scale neighborhood retail centers, industrial development on land suitable for industrial development, a strong access to downtown that's accessible and pedestrian oriented, to protect the community's historical, environmental and other assets, and they also want review zoning and annexation and undeveloped areas. The current Future Land Use Map from the 2030 Plan, adopted in 2013, and how the City is set up for new growth and development in new areas and the undeveloped areas, and even infill and redevelopment that this Commission is tasked with when looking at a rezonings in town. Shires stated they will be updating that Future Land Use Map and will also work with the County on the Fringe Area Plan, luckily Iowa City is in a county that is willing to work with the City on coming to a mutual agreement on how land within certain areas is best developed, and if it's going to be developed it coincides with City's plans as well as the County's plans. He noted in the growth area plan they have a tiered system on these areas may grow outside City limits where closer in the City gets a little more priority in saying what happens but then outside of the growth area the county has more priority. Shires next moved onto housing goals and noted housing is going to be a big component, as it should be, and encouraging a diverse housing stock and housing options to improve and maintain the existing stock. The current Plan states they want housing to be safety, they want to protect the integrity of the neighborhoods, especially the historic neighborhoods, mitigate impact of large scale residential developments and support sustainability initiatives. Under economic development goals, the Plan calls to increase the diversity of the property tax base, support quality employment that provides a living wage, encourage a healthy mix of independent, locally owned business. Shires stated that is what he is hearing that from the community as well, they really like locally owned and this community also supports entrepreneurial activity. There are goals to improve the environmental and economic health of the community, collaborate with other local jurisdictions, and then judicious use of financial incentives. Another goal in the current Plan is transportation goals, and they want to accommodate all the different ways to get around. They want to encourage walking and biking, using public transit, maximize safety and efficiency, mobility for elderly and all folks at all ability levels, and encourage economic vitality. For the environmental goals Shires recognizes the role land use plays in into the environment. He presented to the Climate Action Commission and they provided some very direct feedback. The current Plan states to identify and preserve those natural features they want to enhance and save, protect the watersheds, floodplains, greenways, ensure water quality, reduce lawn chemicals and fertilizers, promote sustainable resources, continue to track and measure how they're doing towards goals. Shires added they will propose a climate action goal to raise awareness and expand opportunities for waste reduction, energy efficiency and so forth. Next, Parks and Rec and open space goals, they want to ensure that they've got adequate and appropriate parks to serve the neighborhoods, to improve overall access and awareness of the system and trails partnerships, improve awareness and access to the river, and then work with residents and other partners to make sure there is adequate funding. Lastly, arts and culture goals and to recognize the economic importance of arts and culture for Iowa City, support programming, especially with changing demographics, and increase funding and develop partnerships to build on. Shires stated they like to review the current Plan so they do not start with a ground zero, they are Planning and Zoning Commission June 4, 2025 Page 3 of 16 building upon the past good work, but some of these may not be relevant anymore or need to be rethought. So, with that the first question is do you think they're all valid, is that all the goals or what is missing. Hensch stated he wrote down five things, that are included but it's question of emphasis. He has been on this Commission for 10 years and one thing he’s thought about a lot is the primary geographic feature in Johnson County is the Iowa River and the contributing creeks. They really need to treat this other than as a drainage ditch but treat it as an economic and recreation opportunity and that can't happen without the emphasis to make that happen. Iowa City is actually a pretty old town, 1848, and at some point turned their back on the Iowa River but need to face it because it's how they got here in the first place, the Iowa River is how people came up here. It's a conservation effort, it's a recreation effort, and it's an economic opportunity, and he would hate to see that not have the emphasis it probably deserves. Another thing, having lived in this County since 1985 and driving around he is increasingly asking himself why development isn’t occurring in Iowa City at the same rate as it is in Coralville, North Liberty and Tiffin, that's a question that has to be asked and has to be answered. This body has ownership of it, City Council certainly has ownership of it, City staff would have some ownership of it so it's a question that needs to be asked and answered. Third, they need to actively encourage annexation to increase development. They're going to have a presentation later about infill development but there just isn't enough infill development sites to meet the housing demand, and the only way to get annexation is two ways, voluntary annexation and involuntary annexation. They don't want to involuntary annex if they can avoid it, but they certainly need the developers to know that the City welcomes annexation. The City has an opportunity to be partners with these people to grow opportunities for housing in Johnson County. While it may not belong in this Plan, another thing is they need to actively support growing the property tax base. Due to the high number of government owned properties, nonprofit owned properties and parcels in Iowa City, the fundamental question is who's going to pay property taxes, somebody has to. The City is financing programs such as funding to nonprofits, parks and recreation, libraries and that funding comes from property taxes so they need to increase the number of properties that pay taxes. Lastly, Hensch believes they need to increase generational wealth opportunities among lower income residents in Johnson County by assisting home ownership opportunities such as down payment support, buy downs on house prices or something, because if they want a solution to poverty in a long term, one of the most proven fundamental ways to do that is by increasing generational wealth. If the City keeps spending all their money on rental assistance but not helping people own houses, then the financial situation of families through generations won't change. If people are able to own houses and then sell those, or through inheritance, provide those to their families, generational wealth is accumulated. He noted this is not Rockefeller type generational wealth, it’s just talking about a grandma owned a house, then the parents owned it, now the children own it and that can only happen by not having housing costs where all someone’s money goes to housing. They need to be thinking long term in addition to short term for housing solutions and for social economic assistance solutions. Quellhorst thinks those are great points and particularly agrees with the point about the Iowa River, that is underutilized, and it would be great to explore ways to make use of that space. The one thing that he would add is when it comes to affordable housing it would be helpful to incorporate some specifics, because everyone recognizes that that's a priority but it has been difficult to find ways to actually move it forward, so the more specific that they can be about how they want to increase the housing supply and bring down cost for people, the better. Planning and Zoning Commission June 4, 2025 Page 4 of 16 Hensch agreed and noted when they talk to people in the community, many people have the concept that affordable housing just magically happens, it’s just somehow there. He thinks they need to list how affordable housing would occur by working with developers or cities and counties buying properties, and then make those available. If they don't tell people how it can happen, then the magical thinking just continues. Craig thinks they have to also consider what Iowa City currently does a very good job of, but you can’t lesson up on it, and that is good rental opportunities, particularly for non-students. The housing market is crazy so she worries, coming from someone whose family never owned a house, that there are people that are, for whatever reason, lack of a decent paying job, family illness, or whatever are never going to have the opportunity to own a house but they still deserve a quality of living that is appropriate for human beings. She thinks they can't just do affordable housing, which she is a huge advocate for, people need to take advantage of different kinds of programs to be able to buy their first home, they bought their first home because her husband got a VA loan, but don't forget the people who live in rental spaces, it's not just the place that has four walls but where they are in the community and the access that they need to community amenities. Wade would also add Iowa City is getting older in a lot of ways, outside the student population, and have seen tremendous growth in independent assisted living and memory care, with very little growth in long term care or nursing homes, which ends up being a bottleneck in the process, those places are all moving to the outskirts, other than one that's just been built close to Hickory Hill. So it does become a bit of a social network challenge as well, because they're not able to integrate at the same effort. Shires stated he has definitely heard similar comments from some of the stakeholder interviews. Hensch also wanted to mention Highway 6, it is almost like a river going through Iowa City, if someone lives south of Highway 6, where he has ever since his family moved there in 1983, it's really hard to get across Highway 6 because there's not sidewalks the length of Highway 6, there's not the frequent protected crosswalk opportunities and it really creates a segregated, and not by race, but segregated by access for people on bicycles and pedestrians to the rest of Iowa City. Hensch acknowledged it's a US highway so the DOT owns it, but it is missing sidewalk sections and there is a lack of opportunities to cross it safely. Craig noted she lived south of Highway 6 in her first house, bought in 1977, and at that time there was no pedestrian crossings except maybe at Gilbert Street. Shires asked regarding the goals he reviewed, were there any that the Commission doesn’t think are relevant anymore or are not a priority. Townsend noted the one thing that concerns her, back to affordable housing, not affordable housing, per se, but the term itself and they need to reevaluate what affordable housing actually is because many times what they call affordable units are not really affordable. Wade noted at the end of the day it's the economics of it that's going to end up supporting development and interest, it's all sizing compared to the economics to make it somewhat balanced and that's a fine line. Planning and Zoning Commission June 4, 2025 Page 5 of 16 Townsend stated they don't have to reinvent the wheel, she was in Omaha last weekend and listening to their newscast, their Habitat is going to do 100 affordable homes this year. They're small units, but they're homes, so Iowa City might want to see how they're planning to do that and maybe model something like that. Miller agrees with a lot of the points that have been made, one area maybe not in agreement with is the expansion. One of his personal priorities is to encourage, urban development, infill which was the first goal in development, compact, urban development, infill. He agrees they do need housing of all types, across the spectrum, which includes some annexation probably, and a little more on the edges, but also anything they can do to limit the expansion of City resources to be able to provide more housing within the infrastructure that they already have is best. He noted he just learned today that Cedar Rapids has a ton of roads, maybe as many roads as San Francisco, so that scale of that much population density versus the infrastructure can't be good. So, the ability to maintain some density that's more efficient for the City to maintain, and its better quality of life, because if it's more dense it's more walkable, is a big one. He also loves what was said about any kind of financial assistance they can provide as a community to build generational wealth for people that traditionally don't have it, that would be wonderful. Access across Highway 6, connectivity there would be great. Miller stated another important topic is the connectivity of trails and bike lanes so that it doesn't just abruptly end and all of a sudden you're on a busy street. This is important in Iowa City but then also regionally connected, this would be really great for attractiveness of and livability to get people to want to come live here. He noted he was in a presentation earlier about the Iowa Workforce Development and they did a labor shed analysis and 51% of employees that work in Iowa City live in Iowa City and 49% are coming in from other communities. So that's a lot of people that if there was the housing here would probably want to live here. Townsend wanted to add to that Omaha business that's Blue Stem Prairie Habitat for Humanity of Omaha that is building 85 homes on 19 acres. To follow up on what Miller said, Hensch thinks that one of the greatest illustrations of people working Iowa City but not being able to afford to live here is that the largest employer in Washington County is the University of Iowa, which is located in Iowa City. Townsend asked about streets, there's so many older roads in Iowa City that need to be redone, not just with a little tar and feathers, but with concrete that's going to last forever. She lives off Kimball Road and when they redid Kimball Road all they did was put rocks and a little asphalt down and now that's all worn off in a year. She thinks they need to be a little more concerned about the streets. Shires agreed and noted that would probably be one of those specific little comments that's not quite so loud in the current Comprehensive Plan that they can be more loud about in the new Plan. Hensch noted that's one of the bigger indicators of quality of life and if there's the number one thing that is missing from the Plan is the focus on quality of life to make people happy and satisfied with where they live, and the focus on the features that contribute to the quality of life. Everything on top after that is just window dressing, because if someone is happy where they live, they feel safe, they feel satisfied, everything else is just gravy after that. Craig noted regarding living in Washington County, part of that is a desire for the American Planning and Zoning Commission June 4, 2025 Page 6 of 16 dream, a giant house on an acre of land and Iowa City is an urban city so a giant house on an acre of land is unaffordable so they have to get that quality of life someplace else. They need to lure them to a much smaller piece of property with the quality of life, ability to walk places, a bookmobile that comes to the park on Thursday afternoons, all the opportunities kids have in urban areas they are not going to get in rural Washington County. Shires noted anecdotally he’s heard from many folks that used to live here, grew up here, went to school here, went away for awhile and now are back. They come back from one of the coasts, they come back from some significant living centers where people think the quality of life is high, so that is a really great sign. He loves this focus on quality of life and to make Iowa City the environment everyone wants to live in, because they don't have the mountains or the ocean. Craig noted her son lives in Brooklyn, New York, with two teenagers in a two bedroom apartment that they rent, but that's what everybody does because they have all that other stuff which is sometimes a blessing and sometimes a curse. Hensch stated yes, they’d love to have destination attractions here, and maybe that should be in the plan, but quality of life is more important than destination attractions Shires moved on to pivot the thinking to be more specific to their experiences of serving on this Commission, what's working well and what's not working well, and how could this Plan maybe help improve that. Hensch stated what works really well is they have an outstanding staff for Iowa City, the employees of Iowa City are first rate. People need to recognize that and start listening to the staff and not trying to substitute their own opinions for what experts on the staff do every day and have studied and committed their careers to. He is offended when he hears, like on a recent thing the Council did where they substituted their judgment for what City staff recommended, yes they can do that, but is it wise. Quellhorst agrees they have a wonderful staff, and the City needs to make sure that they do what they need to do to retain them and allow them to do their jobs. Craig noted in her five years on the Commission there are two themes that they’ve made very little progress on. Number one is affordable housing, and number two is something that comes up over and over again without any solution, is the significant areas of joint property. Everybody wants to live on a slope overlooking a woodland but no one takes care of the woodland because it's all owned jointly by the group. This Commission has had several conversations about that, and how those pieces of jointly owned property are not being taken care of properly. Hensch agreed, outlots and property owned by the HOAs are not being maintained. They sign an agreement with the City to maintain it but then don't and that's a problem. Elliott noted one of the things she has appreciated being on the Commission is the involvement of the community and the leadership of this Commission in making sure that they're transparent and that the community has a voice. This Commission has been very respectful. Another thing is the agenda packets are well done, always in the packets it lists out how the project will fit into the Comprehensive Plan or doesn't, and that helps tremendously for the Commission. Planning and Zoning Commission June 4, 2025 Page 7 of 16 Craig noted that was interesting to her in the recent action that they took on the strange piece of property between Dodge and Jefferson, the history of the crazy rezoning that was in that area, made her think of all the land sitting out there that someone could suddenly come along and do something awful on if the zoning was not up to date. Miller stated he’s been on the Commission significantly less time than everyone else, but in his limited time they’ve had a couple cases come forth where they need additional height because of different circumstances. In his professional work, working with developers and clients, not only in Iowa City but in other communities, it's often the ability to go taller to get more housing in an urban infill situation. Adding another story adds a little bit more density. He feels like the 35 foot maximum in all the zoning outside of the CB districts limits developers so he’d like to see explored and could they go higher because he thinks that would help get some more housing in the City. Additionally, the City is also already studying the parking, but having less parking requirements would also help get more housing. Minneapolis got rid of it completely. Having it studied and having a recommendation on how to decrease the parking requirements may help. Craig noted they are a pretty process driven community and have a real sense of people being treated equitably, so they need to make sure to keep that. Hensch completely agrees, they spend hundreds of hours in public hearings and sometimes they seem tedious but they're critically important to a functioning democracy. One criticism he has about process, it just seems that if a developer or an applicant complies with all the rules, meets with City staff and works with City staff in goodwill and City staff endorses the project it should be almost pro forma that that project gets approved because these rules have been established by City Council and Planning and Zoning. If P&Z or Council don't like the rules then they should change them, not just tell somebody when come for approval. That is how they are discouraging development, when people can't predict that their project will be approved if they follow all the rules and if they work with City staff. That's how they become development averse from different developers, and they'll just develop somewhere else and not in Iowa City. Planning and Zoning has been sensitive to all sides of the equation and tried to show everybody respect since he’s been here but that maybe hasn’t always been true and they need to get over that, find a way to kill that reputation that Iowa City is anti-development because without development they can't grow and they have to grow because they need to have affordable housing, and employment opportunities, and recreation opportunities, they need to have quality of life and all that happens with growth, stagnant just means they just stay exactly how they are, nothing improves. Wade agrees, one thing that they don't really always see is the cost associated with time or professional services so to request a change or delay to next meeting can be a deterrent. He has not seen it here with P&Z very often here but has seen it in other locals, but if a project getting held up, but they still have money tied up in the land costs it does is becomes a deterrent, so they need to be to ensure that they’re progress friendly with growth as well. Shires noted one thing they have an opportunity through this comprehensive plan is to reinforce how and when development occurs and what are those areas in town for whatever level of development. He stated he’s hearing a little bit on both sides on that, one from the community not wanting a three story apartment next to them and then also an area that would be perfect but the code doesn't allow for a three story apartment, so how do they marry those and fill that gap. Sometimes a land use plan and some of the policies and recommendations that are in a plan can really help figure that out and have a little more to increase that predictability. Consistency Planning and Zoning Commission June 4, 2025 Page 8 of 16 zoning, where they're rezoning the property consistent with the Comprehensive Plan is the best case scenario so can they make that a little more predictable and update the Plan with a sharp focus. Craig asked but how do you encourage development, one of the disappointments as she goes off the board is that they changed all that zoning south of Highway 6 and no major development has occurred down there since. Yes, they were in the middle of Covid so was it because of Covid, or the economy from Covid, and then the price of housing is going up or did they make a mistake with that zoning. She stands by that decision and feels it's the right thing for the City but don't have a developer that wants to build down there so what incentives can they give a developer. Wade noted recently there was a good partnership between development and the builder where there were some opportunities in the code based design that the developer built the case on showing the challenges and so they refined it the code. That just recently went through but it was good to see that kind of partnership to make it economically viable and make it work. Shires acknowledged that is one part of the equation, literally hearing directly from the folks that might be doing a project, what's the issue or infrastructure hurdle. The other part of the equation is, and not that this isn’t a noble goal of the City, is to have that good compact growth. They need competition in the marketplace and need a lot of open land available for development because not everybody's interested in developing at a certain time, at a certain rate, or for certain price. The City has to get land in the right hands and that's so hard to do. They've had a lot of communities that they worked with that'll have high demand for development, but all the land is in certain ownerships that have zero interest in either selling for development or being a developer or have a really unrealistic expectation for raw land prices, they run into that constantly, which is why some cities are so aggressive on annexation. He is not suggesting the City needs to get aggressive on annexation, because there's some costs with that, but they need to try to open up more land availability in the marketplace. Developers are risk averse, they go where it's easiest first and right now Iowa City has a lot of neighbors where the land availability and maybe the perception of ease is there. It was asked earlier why Iowa City is not growing as fast as neighbors and while there's a combination of factors, a developer is going to go where it is easiest. Yes, sometimes it depends on who owns the land and in other cases maybe the utility extension is too expensive, or the developer can't make that 14% profit or 12% whatever their margin is, it's complicated. That's why Iowa City has to have a robust approach, and an open book approach, with the development community on where are the gaps. Shires noted they have also been asking different developers they're meeting with these questions and will share that feedback in the report. Miller noted that aligns with that presentation he just came from and the person that was presenting said it's a lot of factors such as interest rates, but the number one thing he said was acquisition costs are just sky high so one of the solutions was creative public private partnerships to help bring down that cost. Shires stated one of the things some communities do is land bank and try to actively acquire land for redevelopment. If you have a lot of little parcels that are vacant and abandoned independently, they're not buildable, but if you can assemble several at time, some communities are doing that and then they can offer them on the marketplace of the development community, or even at a discount, to do whatever great project they would hope would show up there. He Planning and Zoning Commission June 4, 2025 Page 9 of 16 noted they don't see that so much in greenfield development. That's more of a downtown, urban redevelopment. Shires noted in his old job he worked for a very rapid growing suburb and when asked what he did for a living his response was his job is to make farmers rich and rich farmers richer because they were selling raw farmland, undeveloped, no infrastructure, at $40,000 an acre, that's a really steep number, even today. Townsend stated someone mentioned at the last meeting on Monday that developers come in and put up rental property and then they decide to not run it and they sell it to someone else. Shires confirmed yes, land speculation and large investment companies do that and they can’t stop that from happening, he doesn’t know of any legal tools to do that. What you can do is through your rental housing inspection, which he believes Iowa City already does, is have a local agent and that local agent and contact information has to be available to the City so that if there is a problem, there's a contact. The property could still be owned by some company or conglomerate out of Florida, but it has to have a local property management identified and listed. Shires asked if there are any other emerging trends the Commission might want to be make sure Confluence is aware of and considering. Hensch noted an emerging issue is the Coralville Reservoir is getting silted in, and that's a huge recreation economic opportunity driver for Johnson County and if that goes from being a lake to a marsh, how's that going to affect Iowa City. It's filling in pretty rapidly, he doesn’t know what the timeline is, but that is something they need to be thinking about and planning for. Wade stated there's a nonprofit that's trying to get some momentum around that but it's really not discussed very often. Hensch noted the Core of Engineers have always planned on it to fill in someday, they had a projected date when they developed it in the late 1950s, early 1960s, and their management plan was just understanding it would silt in. Townsend stated another emerging issues is charging stations for electrical vehicles, should that be part of the Plan to require them. That's going to be a concern for people with electric cars that are coming to Iowa City, how are they going to charge them and if they're living here, is there something close. Shires replied they can look at it two ways, permissiveness in the code, that they can go where they need to go, as well as a parking requirement, although they're trying to get away from parking requirements. Regarding parking, Townsend asked when all of the parking meters became scan and pay, no longer talking coins. Shires agreed that is an issue, and maybe an aging issue for those that are not smartphone savvy, and everything now requires a smartphone. He did note what’s great for Iowa City’s meter app system is rather universal and many cities have the same one. Shires shared another issue is the climate issues, storms are getting stronger, droughts are getting longer, the wets are getting wetter. Never heard the term Derecho until they had one in Iowa. Also the change of how people work and the impact of so many more people working from home, there is a lot more office vacancy and that changes even the shopping dynamic and the retail economy, moving away from buying most of your goods locally and at stores to buying so Planning and Zoning Commission June 4, 2025 Page 10 of 16 much online. Miller stated he has only lived in Iowa City for nine years but has heard a lot of people talk about how since Covid, but even before that, downtown just isn't as vibrant as it used to be and part of that's obviously e-commerce, but also there's just less people working downtown. He doesn’t know how to get more people working downtown, but having more people living downtown helps. Craig noted having a library downtown helps too, and that was a battle for 30 years, people are finally understanding if you want families in downtown Iowa City, then you build the public library there. Shires asked what comes to mind when they think top priorities for this new comprehensive plan. Hensch replied quality of life, number one, number two, economic opportunity, people can't live here if they don't have jobs, jobs that they can live on. Townsend stated affordable housing that is affordable. Craig said aggressive growth. Somehow Iowa City needs to be the new Tiffin and get out there, she doesn’t know what they did, but Iowa City is not going to grow at that percentage rate and they need to be not complacent about thinking everybody wants to live in Iowa City. Hensch stated they need to get away from the cynicism and go to the optimism, optimism drives change and when people are positive cheerleaders for a community that brings growth. Quellhorst would say the priority is affordable housing, clearly the climate is changing, and in particular getting worse as they’ve seen storms and flooding as well as changes in the insurance market. They should probably be thinking about how to protect the community against those risks. Shires noted climate resiliency is important. Shires asked the next question, is there anything else from the Commission’s perspective that they think this comprehensive plan can support them as a current Commissioner and future commissioners in their work in managing the growth of the City. Hensch stated that all the district plans are up to date, every district has a plan and frankly they probably have too many plans with some of the lines for the districts rather arbitrary so consolidation would be his recommendation for many of them. Quellhorst agrees, they just have so many plans and maintaining them seems kind of unworkable so condensing them and then making sure that those that remain are up to date is a laudable goal. Shires wondered do they need district plans or could the new comprehensive plan cover it. Townsend noted there are some areas, like the downtown area, where they are going to need some differences. Shires noted in the comp plan they can list a certain base level of certain land use categories and have goals related to transition and neighborhood development and things like that. Maybe Planning and Zoning Commission June 4, 2025 Page 11 of 16 downtown still needs its own little special plan, and maybe some areas, but do they need them to cover the entire city and need them everywhere, maybe not. Maybe there's only some focused areas. Craig stated if a current district plan is out of date, it should go away, they aren’t using it anymore. If an area plan has not been updated in 20 years they shouldn't even be looking at it, except in the historical perspective. Quellhorst agrees and is in support of getting rid of the district plans while there might be certain areas that require special considerations, but he would suggest just addressing those in the overall plan as that would just make it logistically easier for everybody, particularly staff and the Commission. Miller is curious from a staff perspective what is the reaction to the idea of consolidating district plans within the comp plan. Russett acknowledges that it makes sense for a variety of reasons, it is unmanageable and unworkable to continually update these and most the areas are not that uniquely different. Some plans are 20 years old, some are inconsistent, some have different land use legends, they have different future land use maps for the same properties. She wanted to add one more thing, if there are special areas those areas can be highlighted but be articulated within the same document. Shires noted he has enjoyed working with Iowa City because there's a lot of vision and optimism. Moving forward they are continuing to have a lot of engagement, tomorrow they’re at the party in the park, and then they have their continuation of public workshops, and then some pop up events. He noted all this information is on the City's website. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION ON THE 2024 IOWA CITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS: Schaefer shared the data that staff gathered and what they learned from the 2024 Iowa City Residential Development Analysis. She began by explaining that every year the city of Iowa City analyzes local data to identify development patterns and track recent and long term trends. The goal of this project is to provide accurate information that can inform land use and policy decision making. One of the fundamental aspects of the planning is accommodating the growth of the community, and they want to look at where there is a demand for housing and when that goes unmet what can the City do and how they might see impacts as far as population growth and the growth of the surrounding communities. Schaefer first wanted to highlight some of the definitions in the document, residential development is the process in which land is prepared for new dwellings, either as new construction of vacant land or redevelopment on land that was previously developed. Final plats permanently delineate lots and other features pertinent to the transfer property. Building permits are the final administrative approval of building plans that allow construction. Single family units have one principal dwelling on a lot, those can be attached or detached, attached being separated by lot lines. There are also duplexes, which are two principal units on one lot and then there is multifamily, which is the biggest category in the City and is anything that's three or more principal dwelling units, regardless of the ownership structure. That would also include mixed use buildings. Town home development, condos, large apartments, anything three or more units falls under multifamily. Finally, there are accessory dwelling units (ADUs), which is the smallest type Planning and Zoning Commission June 4, 2025 Page 12 of 16 of dwelling, it can be accessory to single family or two family uses. To reviews the key takeaways from the 2024 Residential Development Analysis Schaefer begun by noting subdivision activity in 2024 dropped well below the average, with sharp declines across all housing types, especially single family lots which fell 75% below the five year average. Additionally, notably they had no new attached single family or duplex lots plotted within the last year. Single family permits in 2024 slightly exceeded five year trends, but also total permits were less than half of the 10 year average. Multifamily development was at a decade low and almost no attached single family or duplex activity when it came to permitting. As far as dwelling demolitions there was a decline in 2024 from the previous year with just 11 units removed in 2024 and that's well below the five year average of 34 demolitions and the 10 year average of 39 demolitions. More key takeaways, as far as the activity in the University Impact Area, it was also lower this year due to a lack of the multifamily developments that was seen in previous years. Furthermore, the trend of converting duplexes to single family homes has continued in that area but has slowed compared to previous years. As far as vacant lots go, the number of buildable vacant lots increased in 2024 and this was largely due to new infrastructure built in the City and they also had a revised method of counting infill lots with this report. In previous years, they didn't count lots that were owned by adjacent owners, so if someone had their property that had a single family home on it and then also owned the separate vacant lot next door, those previously weren't included in the vacant lots because there was an assumption made that those two would always be sold together and remain under shared or the same ownership. They've removed that assumption because they’ve been seeing parcels divided and being sold off. Therefore, to compare numbers from 2023 to 2024 that's attributing to that jump in vacant land available because of that method change. Schaefer also noted another big takeaway, if permitting trends from 2020 through 2024 continue, the City is expected to only meet 68% of the demand for new housing by 2030 with a deficit of approximately 1490 dwelling units leaving a housing shortage. As far as analyzing this data, Schaefer noted one of the first things that they look at is the final plat activity. Final plats are a leading indicator for the anticipated number of single family and duplex dwelling units that will be developed, and to a lesser extent can foreshadow multifamily. Multifamily is a little harder to predict as there's a little more variation of how many units can be built on a lot platted for multifamily. Based on the size of the lots and the preliminary plans from the developer and the zoning districts, staff can anticipate how many units will be developed based on how many lots are being created via platting. In 2024 there was only six final plats that were approved by Council and nearly all of these plats created small, single family infill lots. Four of those plats were responsible for the 13 units seen in the chart and those are single family units. All of the proposed multifamily that the City is getting from plats is from that Western Homes GPD plat the Commission recently reviewed. She noted while some on the plat appeared like single family, and there were some homes, some duplexes, they are all counted in multifamily since they're all on that shared lot for the 55 and older community. Schaefer reiterated recent trends in the single family lot creation is lower compared to historic trends, the 10 year average was 273 units, the five year average was down to 221 but 2024 was still well below that at only 138 units to be added, based on lots platted. Elliott noted hopefully people from Iowa City will move into that Western Homes development and open up more housing for younger folks in the City. Schaefer stated in addition to the final plats, staff also looks at building and demolition permits as Planning and Zoning Commission June 4, 2025 Page 13 of 16 some insight into the development process. In 2024 145 units were permitted again well below the five and 10 year averages. She did note the total number of single family detached units permitted did exceed the five year trends but multifamily permits were at 10 year low and duplex permits were lower than the five and 10 year trends as well. Looking at demolition permits, when combined with the building permits issued it indicates the total anticipated changes in dwellings for a certain year. In 2024 there were 11 units demolished and when they combine that with 145 building permits that were issued in 2024 it is a net gain of 134 units that were permitted to be built. Schaefer shared a map showing where those building permits are being issued to and where the demolitions are occurring. Much of the building permit activity is happening in the newer subdivisions that were platted in previous years and the demolitions are a little more sporadic, but many are for projects that the City has been in contact with developers on and there's an anticipated upcoming project and that's why the demolition has occurred. Schaefer stated they also look specifically at the permit activity within the University Impact Area because this includes residential neighborhoods near the University of Iowa campus that contain higher levels of undergraduate students, including, but not limited to, the Northside, Goosetown, College Hill, Melrose and the Miller Orchard neighborhood. Changes to the University Impact Area are often attributed to large scale redevelopment projects in the Riverfront Crossing Districts, those larger scale rental developments or student housing type projects. In 2024 there were three single family detached homes and one townhome style multifamily development developed in the University Impact Area for a total of eight units added in 2024 and no residential building permits were issued for the Riverfront Crossing District portion of the University Impact Area. She pointed to the difference in 2023 where they saw a large influx of permits and multifamily. The last group of data that they look at is the City's vacant lot supply and how those properties may develop. A build out analysis of the vacant lot supply estimates how long it would take for the current number of vacant buildable lots to be developed, based on 10 year averages and building permits issued per year. Shaefer explained several factors can improve that outlook, such as construction of infrastructure for unimproved lots. Overall, this analysis is more important to single family and duplex development because they're easier to predict the number of units versus multifamily where those numbers can fluctuate. Based on 2024 data it's anticipated that it would take three years to fully develop all buildable, vacant, single family detached lots that are in Iowa City, 5.3 years for single family attached lots, 7.6 years for duplex size lots and two years for multifamily lots to be totally built out. Therefore, the anticipated build out time frame for vacant single family lots increased from 2023 and this was due to the low building permit numbers in 2024 and the construction of new infrastructure, which made more lots come online. Schaefer also wanted to note the duplex timeframe, since it is a striking difference from last year. Staff believes this increase happened due to the recent creation of duplex lots that they're seeing in some of the newer subdivisions. There was a lack of those duplex permits for 2024 specifically so it is assumed they're just in the development process and it hasn't occurred yet. Schaefer stated the last projection is to determine if Iowa City's anticipated needs will be met, the City compares the numbers of permits recently issued to the expected population growth. The population projection they're currently using is from the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County, and in a previous report they projected that Iowa City's population will reach approximately 85,070 residents by 2030 so they're using that number for this analysis. That number is an increase of around 10,240 new residents from 2020 to 2026 and suggests a demand of over 4610 new dwelling units needed within that timeframe to meet the new Planning and Zoning Commission June 4, 2025 Page 14 of 16 population growth. Using the recent permit trends, this suggests that the City will only see 3120 new units in that same timeframe which accommodates just 68% of the projected housing demand, leaving a deficit of 1490 units. This shortfall represents an increase from last year of 430 units so Iowa City is even farther behind then projected last year again, indicating that that housing deficit is growing in Iowa City based on permitting trends. She noted this projected deficit may encourage additional growth in nearby cities such as Tiffin and North Liberty, which has seen a proliferation of new residential development and can negatively impact the City's environmental goals as homes are built further away from those employment centers and the commuting distances, car dependency and traffic congestion all increase as a symptom of that. In addition, an insufficient supply of housing can increase housing costs which the supply cannot meet. When the supply cannot meet the demand of new dwellings Iowa City will become less affordable if this trend progresses. So consequently, it's important to continue encouraging residential growth in areas that have access to City services such as infill locations as well as the City’s designated growth areas which are anticipated to become a part of the City's boundary in the future. Elliott asked whatever happened to the Carson farm, is that land included in this report. Russett explained that land was part of an annexation several years ago that was ultimately withdrawn because there seemed to be lack of support from City Council. The ownership is going to change soon so they may be seeing some activity out there. The City did recently put in a trunk sewer to provide more infrastructure to that land and is working on a regional storm water system for that area as well, which should help with the growth. Wade noted this last year, ADUs and duplexes were two significant changes to hope to spur growth in that area, however they’re not seeing the result to that, do they think it's a time issue and it needs more time, or are there some other challenges. He spends a lot of time driving around North Liberty, Tiffin, and some of the neighboring communities, and duplexes are everywhere left and right so it's not based on a regional market demand. Russett said it goes back to the conversation earlier this evening about all the complications that come with land development, and they can only control the regulations and have tried to do everything they can to make it easier, at least from the regulatory side, to build these types of units but there's still property ownership and financing. Even with ADUs, they’ve gotten a lot of inquiries on ADUs but it's a lot of money. So they aren’t seeing a huge change from those regulations but maybe over time they will see some more come online. Wade asked with the form based code down in the Sycamore area that they just made some changes on, are there any duplexes there or is that all single family development. Schaefer replied that will be a mix of housing types, there’s a wide array of housing types from single family, duplex, some townhome style. Elliott noted with the ADUs they restricted it to owner occupied and if staff hears a lot of requests for non-owner occupied, will they come back to the Commission with that. Russett explained the State actually preempted them from regulating ADUs to some extent and the City can no longer require the owner occupancy and as of July 1 that will change and Iowa City will be required to implement that new state law. So if a landlord comes in and wants to build an ADU and rent both the single family unit and the ADU that will be allowed. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: MAY 7 2025: Planning and Zoning Commission June 4, 2025 Page 15 of 16 Hensch moved to approve the meeting minutes from May 7, 2025. Townsend seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett noted this is Hensch and Craig’s last month with the Commission, she wanted to share how much their commitment to the Commission has been appreciated. Craig asked what the status is of the Governor Street project. Russett replied the applicant requested deferral of the third reading because they wanted it aligned with the approval of the final plat. Craig noted there's a rezoning sign on the corner of Scott and Rochester, what is happening there. Russett said that will be coming to the Commission, they actually might see that at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Hensch moved to adjourn, Craig seconded and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE RECORD 2023-2025 12/6 12/20 1/17 2/7 2/21 4/3 5/1 6/26 9/4 9/18 11/20 12/4 2/19 3/5 5/7 6/4 CRAIG, SUSAN X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ELLIOTT, MAGGIE X X X O/E X X X O/E X X O/E X X X X X HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X MILLER, STEVE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X X X X PADRON, MARIA O/E X X X X O/E O/E -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- QUELLHORST, SCOTT X X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X X X X TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X X X X X X X X O/E X X X X X WADE, CHAD X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Not a Member