HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 08.27.2025PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Wednesday, August 27, 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
Comprehensive Plan Items
4. Case No. CPA25-0002
Location: 611 Greenwood Drive; Former Roosevelt Elementary School
A public hearing to consider an amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan future land
use map from Public/Semi-Public to Residential 16-24 DU/Acre and the Southwest District
Plan future land use map from Public Services/Institutional to Medium to High Density Multi-
Family for approximately 9.9 acres of property.
Rezoning Items
5. Case No. REZ25-0010
Location: 611 Greenwood Drive; Former Roosevelt Elementary School
An application for a rezoning of approximately 9.9 acres of land from Neighborhood Public
(P-1) zone to Medium Density Multi-Family Residential Zone with a Planned Development
Overlay (OPD-RM-20).
6. Consideration of meeting minutes: August 6, 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: September 3 / September 17 / October 1
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: CPA25-0002
611 Greenwood Dr.
Prepared by: Olivia Ziegler,
Planning Intern & Anne Russett,
Senior Planner
Date: August 27, 2025
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant/Owner:
TWG Iowa City, LP
1301 East Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46202
(317) 264-1833
Contact Person: Jon Marner
MMS Consultants
1917 South Gilbert Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
j.marner@mmsconsultants.net
(319) 351-8282
Requested Action: To amend the Comprehensive
Plan future land use map from
Public/Semi-Public to Residential
16-24 DU/A and the Southwest
District Plan future land use map
from Public Services/Institutional
to Medium to High Density Multi-
Family.
Purpose:
To allow for the development of a
187-unit affordable housing
project. The applicant is in the
process of pursuing Low Income
Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)
Location: 611 Greenwood Drive
Location Map:
Size: 9.90 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Neighborhood Public (P1) zone
2
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Medium Density Single-
Family Residential (RS-8)
South: Neighborhood Public (P1),
Medium Density Single-
Family Residential (RS-8)
East: Medium Density Single-
Family Residential (RS-8),
Medium Density Multi-
Family Residential (RM-
20)
West: High Density Single-Family
Residential (RM-44)
Comprehensive Plan:
Public/Semi-Public
Neighborhood Open Space District: SW3
Southwest District Plan: Public Services/Institutional
File Date: July 8th, 2025
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
TWG, Iowa City, LP purchased the former Roosevelt Elementary School site from the Iowa City
Community School District in 2021. The owner is working with MMS Consultants, Inc., to prepare
two applications to allow for the redevelopment of 9.90 acres of land at 611 Greenwood Drive, the
former Roosevelt Elementary School, and implement a 187-unit affordable housing project.
Attachment 3 includes the applicant submittal which illustrate the plan and includes the applicant
statement describing the rationale behind the request.
The first application to be considered is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA25-0002). The
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates this area is appropriate for Public/Semi-
Public land uses. The area is covered by the Southwest District Plan which identifies it as
appropriate for Public Services/Institutional land uses. The proposed amendment would change the
future land use designation for the subject property in the Comprehensive Plan to Residential 16-
24 DU/A and in the Southwest District Plan to Medium to High Density Multi-Family. The other
concurrent submitted application is a zoning map amendment (REZ25-0010), a request to rezone
the subject property, which totals 9.90 acres from Neighborhood Public (P1) zone to Medium
Density Single-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM20) zone. The
Comprehensive Plan Amendment must be approved prior to the changes to the zoning map.
Roosevelt Elementary School was constructed in 1931, opening for its inaugural year of classes in
1932. After 80 years of operation, Roosevelt Elementary closed its doors in 2012, in which the Iowa
City Community School District rebranded the building as the Theodore Roosevelt Education
Center (TREC), which housed the Home School Assistance Program, as well as other programs
for non-traditional students. In 2018, The TREC announced it would cease operations at the end of
the academic year, concluding its services in summer of 2019, transferring services to other
individual school buildings.
The applicant held a good neighbor meeting on May 29, 2025.
ANALYSIS:
3
The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan serves as a land-use planning guide by illustrating and
describing the location and configuration of appropriate land uses throughout the City, providing
notification to the public regarding intended uses of land; and illustrating the long-range growth
area limit for the City. Applicants may request an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan
with City Council approval after a recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Applicants for a comprehensive plan amendment must provide evidence that the request meets
the two approval criteria specified in Section 14-8D-3D. The comments of the applicant are found
in the attachments. Staff comments on the criteria are as follows.
1.Circumstances have changed and/or additional information or factors have come to light
such that the proposed amendment is in the public interest.
The subject property is identified as appropriate for Public Use in the IC2030 Comprehensive
Plan, which was adopted in 2013. At the time of plan adoption it was identified as appropriate for
Public/Semi Public uses based on the land being owned by a public entity. Following the closure
of the Roosevelt Elementary School in 2012, and the subsequent shutdown of The Roosevelt
Education Center in 2019, the building has since sat vacant. In 2021, the Iowa City Community
School District made the decision to sell the property. In August 2021, the property was purchased
by TWG Iowa City LP.
The proposed amendment would recognize the change in ownership from a public entity to a
private one. In addition, it would allow for the redevelopment of the subject property, creating
more opportunities for residential development, including the planned 187-unit affordable housing
project proposed by TWG. This amendment helps the City generate more housing opportunities
that are needed to accommodate a growing population.
2.The proposed amendment will be compatible with other policies or provisions of the
comprehensive plan, including any district plans or other amendments thereto.
At the time the IC2030 Comprehensive Plan was originally adopted in 2013, the TREC was fully
functioning. The adopted policy vision of the time aligned with the existing land use of Public Use,
but with the closure of the TREC, residential uses are more fitting for this site. The Southwest
District Plan acknowledges this within their Planning Principles chapter and is mirrored within the
IC2030 Comprehensive Plan. The text states the following: “Citizens stressed the importance of
providing a diversity of housing in the District, including homes for first time buyers, mid-sized
homes, estate-style homes, townhouses, condominiums, and apartments. The appropriate
design and mix of housing types if important to the creation of livable neighborhoods.” (p.18) In
short, the designation of this land as Public Use is no longer useful in serving the community
needs; the proposed amendment aligns with the Southwest District Plan in creating diverse
housing options.
Furthermore, the proposed amendment meets several goals and strategies regarding land use
and housing from the Comprehensive Plan. This includes the following:
Land Use Goals & Strategies:
• Encourage compact, efficient development that is contiguous and connected to existing
neighborhoods to reduce the cost of extending infrastructure and services and to preserve
farmland and open space at the edge of the city.
o Identify areas and properties that are appropriate for infill development.
o Ensure that infill development is compatible and complementary to the surrounding
neighborhood.
Housing Goals & Strategies:
• Encourage a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods.
4
o Ensure a mix of housing types within each neighborhood, to provide options for
households of all types (singles, families, retirees, etc.) and people of all incomes.
o Identify and support infill development and redevelopment opportunities in areas
where services and infrastructure are already in place.
o Concentrate new development in areas contiguous to existing neighborhoods
where it is most cost effective to extend infrastructure and services.
• Improve and maintain housing stock in established neighborhoods
o Identify areas within established neighborhoods where infill development would be
appropriate
• Support sustainability initiatives to create more energy efficient development
o Support compact, contiguous development to ensure the efficient use of land and
to enhance opportunities for alternatives to commuting by car
Environmental Goals & Strategies:
• Recognize the essential role our land use policies play in preserving natural resources
and reducing energy consumption
o Encourage compact, efficient development that reduces the cost of extending and
maintaining infrastructure and services
o Discourage sprawl by promoting small-lot and infill development
o Raise awareness of the environmental benefits of urban development that makes
efficient use of land and infrastructure that reduces reliance on cars for
transportation
For the reasons above, staff finds the requested comprehensive plan amendment to be
compatible with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of CPA25-0002, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan future
land use map from Public/Semi-Public to Residential 16-24 du/acre and the Southwest District
Plan future land use map from Public Services/Institutional to Medium to High Density Multi-
Family for approximately 9.9 acres of land located at 611 Greenwood Drive.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be
scheduled for consideration by the City Council.
After a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the following will occur:
• City Council will need to set a public hearing for both the Comprehensive Plan amendment
and rezoning applications
• City Council will consider approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment (CPA25-0002)
and must hold three readings including the public hearing for the rezoning (REZ25-0010).
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Applicant Submittal Materials
4. Good Neighbor Meeting Summary
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
ATTACHMENT 1
Location Map
µCPA25-0002 611 Greenwood Dr.
Prepared By: Olivia Ziegler
Date Prepared: July 2025
0 0.04 0.080.02 Miles
An application requesting an amendment to the future land use
map in the Comprehensive Plan, changing the future land use
designation of 9.90 acres of land at 611 Greenwood Dr. from
Public/Semi Public to Residential 16-24 DU/A.
ATTACHMENT 2
Zoning Map
Johnson County, Iowa GIS
µCPA25-0002 611 Greenwood Dr.
Prepared By: Olivia Ziegler
Date Prepared: July 2025
0 0.04 0.080.02 Miles
An application requesting an amendment to the future land use
map in the Comprehensive Plan, changing the future land use
designation of 9.90 acres of land at 611 Greenwood Dr. from
Public/Semi Public to Residential 16-24 DU/A.
P1
RS8
RS8
RM20
ATTACHMENT 3
Applicant Submittal Materials
June 27, 2025
City of Iowa City
410 E. Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Re: Roosevelt Ridge Comprehensive Plan Amendment
On behalf of the applicant, we are submitting a request for a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. The described land consists of 9.90 acres in total and is currently listed as
Public land use. The site has access to public streets and infrastructure via Greenwood
Drive and W. Benton Street.
Circumstances for this site have changed since the current plan was adopted. This site
is the former location of Roosevelt Elementary, which has since been closed by the
ICCSD, and sold to the applicant. We are proposing a change of the land use from Public
to Residential 16-24 DU/A. The proposed land use amendment is consistent with
existing a similar land use at the northeast of the property, and a more intense land use
west of the property.
If you have questions or require any additional information, please contact us
accordingly.
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Marner.
MMS Consultants, Inc.
11603-001L2.DOCX
RETR
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
T
O
F
S
U
R
V
E
Y
N42
°
3
1
'
2
5
"
E
98.
8
7
'
(
M
)
(
R
)
N54
°
4
7
'
0
6
"
E
281.
1
5
'
(
M
)
(
R
)
N72°49
'
0
6
"
E
208.23
'
(
M
)
(
R
)
N60°
3
4
'
0
6
"
E
182.
6
5
'
(
M
)
(
R
)
N42°19'14"E
25.06'(M)(R)
N0
2
°
3
3
'
3
8
"
W
40
3
.
9
1
'
(
M
)
(
R
)
S0
3
°
2
3
'
1
6
"
E
45
9
.
6
4
'
(
M
)
(
R
)
S89°08'51"W
30.55'(M)(R)
S0
1
°
4
1
'
5
6
"
E
34
8
.
6
6
'
(
M
)
(
R
)
S89°57'26"W660.30'(M) 659.30'(R)
9.90 AC
(319) 351-8282
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
www.mmsconsultants.net
1917 S. GILBERT ST.
IOWA CITY
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
6/27/2025
JDM
LSS
RRN
11603-001 1
1345
9.90 AC
PORTIONS OF LOT 3 AND
LOT 7 IN SCHOOL
COMMISSIONERS
SUBDIVISION OF SECTION
16, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH,
RANGE 6 WEST OF THE
FIFTH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN EXHIBIT
1
1"=100'
NOT TO SCALE
LOCATION MAP
PLAT PREPARED BY:
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
1917 S. GILBERT STREET
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXHIBIT
IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
APPLICANT/OWNER:
TWG DEVELOPMENT
1301 E WASHINGTON ST, SUITE 100
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46202
PORTIONS OF LOT 3 AND LOT 7 IN SCHOOL
COMMISSIONERS SUBDIVISION OF SECTION 16,
TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE FIFTH
PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
1"=100'
0 10 25 50 75 100
ATTACHMENT 4
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
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Roosevelt Ridge 611 Greenwood Drive
May 29, 6:30 -7:30
Horn Elementary cafeteria, 600 Koser Avenue
Jon Marner & Scott Pottorff(MMS Consultants)
Jackson Tayler & Brian Hiltunen(TWG), Aldo Sebben(Studio Arch)
Anne Russett
25 x
General concerns about existing traffic, traffic enforcement in the area. Concern about
maintenance of property.
Interest in type of affordable housing. Concern from most attendees regarding existing
traffic issues in the area and the additional traffic impact from this project. Pedestrian safety for
the area particularly at the proposed Greenwood Drive entrance location. Parking for tenants
and the potential impact to parking on streets. Some interest in capacity of existing sewer and
water infrastructure. Questions about possible amenities for the tenants and interest in a
community garden. Grading and design of the site.
A traffic study is being completed for the project to provide with the application.
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ25-0010 611 Greenwood Drive
Prepared by: Anne Russett, Senior Planner
Date: August 27, 2025
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Owner/Applicant: TWG Iowa City, LP
1301 East Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46202
(317) 264-1833
Contact Person: Jon Marner
MMS Consultants
1917 South Gilbert Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
j.marner@mmsconsultants.net
(319) 351-8282
Requested Action: Rezone approximately 9.90 acres of property
at 611 Greenwood Drive from Neighborhood
Public (P1) zone to Medium Density Multi-
Family Residential Zone with a Planned
Development Overlay (OPD/RM20).
Purpose:
To allow for the development of a 187-unit
affordable housing project.
Location: 611 Greenwood Drive
Location Map:
Size: 9.90 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Former Roosevelt Elementary School;
Neighborhood Public (P1)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Medium Density Single-Family
Residential (RS8)
South: Medium Density Single-Family
Residential (RS8) with a Historic
District Overlay (OHD),
2
Neighborhood Public (P1)
East: Medium Density Single-Family
Residential (RS8)
West: High Density Multi-Family
Residential (RM44)
Comprehensive Plan:
Residential 16-24 DU/A, pending
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA25-
0002)
Southwest District Plan:
Neighborhood Open Space District:
Public Meeting Notification:
Public Service/Institutional, pending
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA25-
0002)
SW3
Property owners and residents within 500’
of the property received notification of the
Planning and Zoning Commission public
meeting. A rezoning sign was posted on
August 19, 2025.
File Date: August 18, 2025
45 Day Limitation Period: October 2, 2025
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The owner, TWG Iowa City, LP, is working with MMS Consultants on two applications to allow for
the redevelopment of 9.90 acres of property at 611 Greenwood Drive, the former Roosevelt
Elementary School. The goal is to develop a 187-unit affordable housing project. Attachment 3
includes the applicant submittal which illustrates the proposed changes to the zoning map, the
Preliminary Planned Development Overlay and Sensitive Areas Development Plan, rendering of
the proposed multi-family buildings, and an applicant statement describing the rationale behind the
request.
The first application to be considered is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA25-0002). The
Comprehensive Plan future land use map designates this area is appropriate for Public/Semi-
Public. This area is covered by the Southwest District Plan. The proposed amendment would
change the future land use designation for the subject property in the Comprehensive Plan to
Residential 16-24 DU/Acre. The second application to be considered is a request to rezone
approximately 9.90 acres of the subject property, 611 Greenwood Drive, from Neighborhood Public
(P1) zone to Medium Density Multi-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay
(OPD/RM20) zone. The Comprehensive Plan amendment must be approved prior to changes to
the zoning map.
Good Neighbor Policy: The applicant has used the Good Neighbor Policy and held a Good
Neighbor Meeting on Thursday, May 29th, 2025. Twenty-five neighbors attended. A summary of the
good neighbor meeting is provided in Attachment 4.
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning: The 9.90-acre lot is currently zoned as Neighborhood Public (P1) zone. The
purpose of public use zones is to provide reference to public ownership and use of land, or use of
3
the land for infrastructure services that need to be located in or near the area where the service is
provided. Neighborhood Public (P1) zone allows uses such as schools, parks, police and fire
stations, necessary infrastructure and other civic buildings owned or otherwise controlled by the
County, the City, or the Iowa City Community School District.
Proposed Zoning: The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject property to Medium Density
Multi-Family Residential with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM20) zone. The purpose of
the Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-20) zone is to provide for the development of
medium density multi-family housing, which allows a mix of detached and attached single-family
housing, duplexes, and multi-family housing. Per the Preliminary OPD Plan (Attachment 3), the
request is to allow the development of a 187-unit multi-family building. Due to impacts to the
sensitive areas, an OPD is required. The OPD also allows the applicant to request waivers for
certain zoning standards. The applicant is requesting an increase in the maximum building height
from 35’ to 42’, which is discussed in more detail below.
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 Code.
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 applicant is requesting to rezone to OPD/RM-20, which allows for a density of
24 dwelling units per net acre of land area (total land minus streets right-of-way). The
proposed development has 187 units on 9.9 net acres for a density of 18.8 dwelling units
per acre. The development is clustered on the portion of the site that is already disturbed,
protecting the existing ravine and woodlands. Overall, the proposed plan complies with the
planned development density requirements for an RM-20 base zone.
Land Uses Proposed: The applicant is proposing to demolish the former Roosevelt
Elementary School with a 187-unit multi-family residential apartment building. The applicant
is working to secure Low Income Housing Tax Credits for the proposed development;
therefore, the proposed development is intended to be an affordable housing project.
The existing land uses that surround the subject property range from single-family, multi-
family, as well as some non-residential uses. Abutting the subject property to the east
include a single-family home at 612 W. Benton Street, a long-term care facility, and an
early childhood education center. To the north of the subject property are single-family
homes with access onto Greenwood Drive. These homes are separated from the
proposed development by the existing ravine and woodlands on the subject property and
the Greenwood Dr public right-of-way. Brookland Park is located north of the subject
property, as well. To the west, also separated by the ravine and the public right-of-way are
existing multi-family residential buildings. To the south of the subject property across the
W. Benton Street right-of-way are single-family homes and Benton Hill Park.
Mass, Scale and General Layout: The proposed development consists of one, 187-unit
building with a courtyard in the center. The building is setback 40’ from W. Benton Street
and approximately 140’ from the eastern property line. Parking is provided behind the
building and to the east of the building. The existing ravine will largely remain untouched.
To improvement pedestrian connectivity in the neighborhood and through the site, the plans
show a publicly accessible pedestrian path that runs north/south through the site from W.
Benton Street to Greenwood Drive. This walkway was incorporated since it was determined
4
that providing a sidewalk along Greenwood Drive would be very challenging due to existing
topography and the ravine. The proposed pedestrian path will include a public access
easement. It will include both a non-accessible route due to the steepness of the site that
requires incorporating stairs, as well as an ADA accessible route through the site. As a
condition of the rezoning staff recommends installation of a 10’ wide pedestrian connection
and dedication of an associated public access easement along the eastern portion of the
property to extend from W. Benton Street to Greenwood Drive. Pedestrian path shall also
include pedestrian scale lighting to be reviewed and approved by the City during the site
plan review process.
Renderings and building elevations are provided in Attachment 3. On the southern and
eastern facades, the proposed building incorporates design aspects that mimic townhomes
with separate entrances. The building also incorporates a setback between the 2nd and 3rd
stories at the southeast corner. These design features are incorporate in areas closest to
existing single-family homes. Lastly, the building is broken up by various levels of
articulation, different materials, and changes in rooflines to help break up the mass and
scale of the building.
The applicant has requested an increase in the maximum allowable height from 35’ to 42’.
Open Space: The proposed development will need to comply with the private open space
standards, outlined in section 14-2A-4E of the City Code. The proposed development
requires 3,150 feet of private usable open space (10 SF per bedroom). The proposed
development shows adequate private open space provided in the proposed courtyard,
which features a playground, open field area, and seating. The Preliminary OPD Plan also
shows a proposed dog park for the residents. The natural areas, including the ravine and
woodland, on the northern end of the site will largely remain.
Traffic Circulation: The subject property is currently accessed from Greenwood Drive, a
two-way local street, and W. Benton Street, a two-way collector street. The proposed
development will maintain those existing access points, but staff is recommending a
condition that access to and from W. Benton Street is limited only to emergency vehicles.
Access to the site by residents, visitors, deliveries, etc. must come off Greenwood Drive.
2. The development will not overburn existing streets and utilities.
Staff requested a traffic study as part of this rezoning, which is provided in Attachment 5.
The study noted that the proposed development is estimated to generate 86 peak hour trips
during the AM peak, and 82 trips during the PM peak hour. Despite the increase in traffic
the study states that the surrounding streets will operate with an acceptable capacity and
level of service.
The City’s transportation planner and the City Engineer reviewed the traffic study and
generally agree with its findings. Based on the traffic study staff is recommending two
conditions:
1. Installation of a raised crosswalk across Greenwood Drive near the entrance to the site
subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
2. Ensure that the design of the access drive from Greenwood Drive to the subject property
is at or near a 90-degree angle subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
As for public utilities the site has access to City sanitary sewer and water and City staff has
no concerns with existing capacity. Stormwater management plans will be reviewed during
the site plan review process.
5
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.
The nearest neighbors to the northwest of the proposed multi-family building are separated
by a woodland preservation area. The property to the east (612 W. Benton Street) is
separated from the proposed development by existing mature trees on their property and a
side setback of approximately 30’. Additionally, the proposed building is approximately 160’
away from the existing single-family home. The change in grade is also significant. The
home is at an elevation of approximately 712’ while the proposed building is at 750’. As
such, the proposed development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property
values, and neighboring properties’ privacy any more than a conventional development
would.
4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the
underlying zoning requirement 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 multi-family uses. The land
use adds to the diversity of housing options within the surrounding area and helps to satisfy
an ongoing need for affordable housing. Staff finds that the requested increase in height to
42’ is reasonable given the location of the building on the site which is set back significantly
from neighboring properties and public rights-of-ways. 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 proposed rezoning is reviewed using the IC2030
Comprehensive Plan and the Southwest District Plan. Concurrent with this rezoning, the owner
has requested an amendment to the land use policy direction of the comprehensive plan to show
this area as appropriate for multi-family residential development.
The comprehensive plan also includes goals and strategies that align with the proposed rezoning.
Land Use Goals & Strategies:
• Encourage compact, efficient development that is contiguous and connected to existing
neighborhoods to reduce the cost of extending infrastructure and services and to preserve
farmland and open space at the edge of the city.
o Identify areas and properties that are appropriate for infill development.
o Ensure that infill development is compatible and complementary to the surrounding
neighborhood.
Housing Goals & Strategies:
• Encourage a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods
o Ensure of a mix of housing types within each neighborhood, to provide options for
households of all types (singles, families, retirees, etc.) and people of all incomes.
o Identify and support infill development and redevelopment opportunities in areas
where services and infrastructure are already in place.
• Improve and maintain housing stock in established neighborhoods
6
o Identify areas within established neighborhoods where infill development would be
appropriate
Environmental Goals & Strategies:
• Recognize the essential role our land use policies play in preserving natural resources
and reducing energy consumption
o Encourage compact, efficient development that reduces the cost of extending and
maintaining infrastructure and services
o Discourage sprawl by promoting small-lot and infill development
o Raise awareness of the environmental benefits of urban development that makes
efficient use of land and infrastructure that reduces reliance on cars for
transportation
Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood Character: The subject property is the former
Roosevelt Elementary School (rebranded as the Theodore Roosevelt Education Center in 2012),
which concluded its services in 2019. The subject property is bordered by Medium Density Single-
Family Residential (RS-8) zone to the north and east, also to the east is Medium Density Multi-
Family Residential (RM20) zone. To the west is High Density Multi-Family Residential (RM44)
zone, and to the south is Neighborhood Public (P1) zone, and Medium Density Multi-Family
Residential with a Historic District Overlay (OHD/RM20) zone.
The area contains a mix of land uses, including single-family homes, multi-family apartment
complexes, as well as non-residential uses such as a long-term care facility and an early
childhood education center. Due to the existing mix of land uses staff finds that the proposed
development is consistent with the existing neighborhood character. Furthermore, the site’s
topography and existing natural features provide separation between the proposed development
and the existing built environment.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas: The subject property contains regulated sensitive features
including critical, protected, and altered protected slopes and woodlands. There is also a wetland
on the property that may be a jurisdictional wetland.
Regulated Slopes: The subject property contains critical, protected, and altered protected slopes.
The impacts to these slopes are outlined in Table 1. The Planned Development Overlay rezoning
is required due to proposed impacts to altered protected slopes. These impacts require review
and approval by the City Council after a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning
Commission through the OPD rezoning process.
Table 1 – Summary of Regulated Slopes
Slopes Disturbed Preserved Total
Square
Feet
Percent Square
Feet
Percent Square
Feet
Percent
Critical 15,042 15.8% 79,929 84.2% 94,971 100%
Altered Protected 2,702 17.8% 12,454 82.2% 15,156 100%
Altered Slope Buffers 32,946 53.8% 28,252 46.2% 61,198 100%
Protected 0 0% 3,788 100% 3,788 100%
Protected Slope Buffers 0 0% 20,556 100% 20,556 100%
Woodlands: The site contains 152,769 square feet of woodlands. Impacts beyond 80% (less than
20% retention) cannot be approved by staff. The plans show that 61.5% of the woodlands will be
retained.
Wetlands: The applicant’s environmental consultant identified two wetlands on the subject
property within the ravine. Staff asked the applicant to reach out to the Army Corp of Engineers
7
to determine if the wetlands are jurisdictional. If the Army Corp determines that they are not
jurisdictional wetlands it is not a regulated wetland per the City’s zoning ordinance.
One of the wetlands is located at the eastern end of the ravine near the existing driveway off
Greenwood Drive. Due to the location of the existing development on the site, particularly the
driveway and existing pavement east and south of the ravine, the wetland cannot meet the buffer
requirements. Additionally, as part of the proposed development, the driveway must be
reconstructed which requires some additional impacts along the western portion of the driveway.
Altering the location of the driveway along Greenwood Drive would only increase the impacts to
the ravine and wetland. Staff considers this a nonconforming situation since the wetland buffer
requirements cannot be met given the existing development on the subject property.
For the remainder of the wetlands, the applicant is requesting a 50% reduction in the 100’ buffer
requirement. Based on the information provided by the wetland specialist the wetlands qualify for
this reduction.
CORRESPONDENCE:
As of the writing of this report, staff received one piece of correspondence which is provided in
Attachment 6.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of REZ25-0010, a request to rezone approximately 9.90 acres of land
located at 611 Greenwood Drive to Medium Density Multi-Family Residential with a Planned
Development Overlay (OPD/RM20) zone subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, installation of a 10’ wide pedestrian
connection and dedication of an associated public access easement along the eastern
portion of the property to extend from W. Benton Street to Greenwood Drive. Pedestrian
path shall also include pedestrian scale lighting to be reviewed and approved by the City
during the site plan review process. Lighting shall be installed and maintained by the Owner.
2. Vehicular access to the site from W. Benton Street is restricted to emergency vehicles only.
3. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, installation of a raised crosswalk across
Greenwood Drive near the entrance to the site subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer.
4. As part of the site plan approval, ensure that the design of the access drive from Greenwood
Drive to the subject property is at or near a 90-degree angle subject to review and approval
by the City Engineer.
NEXT STEPS:
After a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the following will occur:
• City Council will need to set a public hearing for both the comprehensive plan amendment
and rezoning applications.
• City Council will consider approval of the comprehensive plan amendment (CPA25-0002)
and must hold three readings including the public hearing for the rezoning (REZ25-0010).
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Applicant Submittal
4. Good Neighbor Meeting Summary
8
5. Traffic Study
6. Correspondence
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
ATTACHMENT 1
Location Map
W Benton St
Melrose Ct
GreenwoodDr
Br
o
o
k
l
a
n
d
Pl
Oa
k
P
a
r
k
C
t
Myrtle Ave
Douglass St
Bento
n
Dr
Woodside Dr
Prair
i
e
H
i
l
l
L
n
Woodsid
e P
l
Mi
c
h
a
e
l
S
t
Mi
l
l
e
r
A
v
e
Gi
b
l
i
n
D
r
Hu
d
s
o
n
A
v
e
Mi
l
l
e
r
A
v
e
Ca
r
r
i
a
g
e
H
l
Oakcrest StµREZ25-0010
611 Greenwood Dr.Prepared By: Olivia ZieglerDate Prepared: July 202500.04 0.080.02 Miles
An application requesting to rezone 9.90 acres of land at 611Greenwood Drive from Neighborhood Public (P1) zone toMedium Density Multi-Family Residential with a PlannedDevelopment Overlay (OPD/RM20) zone.
ATTACHMENT 2
Zoning Map
W Benton St
Melrose Ct
GreenwoodDr
Br
o
o
k
l
a
n
d
Pl
Oa
k
P
a
r
k
C
t
Myrtle Ave
Douglass St
Bento
n
Dr
Woodside Dr
Prair
i
e
H
i
l
l
L
n
Woodsid
e P
l
Mi
c
h
a
e
l
S
t
Mi
l
l
e
r
A
v
e
Gi
b
l
i
n
D
r
Hu
d
s
o
n
A
v
e
Mi
l
l
e
r
A
v
e
Ca
r
r
i
a
g
e
H
l
Oakcrest St
Johnson County, Iowa GIS
µREZ25-0010
611 Greenwood Dr.Prepared By: Olivia ZieglerDate Prepared: July 202500.04 0.080.02 Miles
An application requesting to rezone 9.90 acres of land at 611Greenwood Drive from Neighborhood Public (P1) zone toMedium Density Multi-Family Residential with a PlannedDevelopment Overlay (OPD/RM20) zone.
P1
RS8
RS8
RM20
ATTACHMENT 3
Applicant Submittal
June 27, 2025 City of Iowa City Neighborhood and Development Services 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Re: Roosevelt Ridge On behalf of the applicant, MMS Consultants requests a rezoning of the property located at 611 Greenwood Drive, from the current zoning of P1(Neighborhood Public) to OPD/RM20(Medium Density Multi-family Residential). The described land consists of 9.90 acres in total. The site has access to public streets and infrastructure via Greenwood Drive and W. Benton Street. This site is the former location of Roosevelt Elementary, which has since been closed by the ICCSD, and sold to the applicant. The proposed zoning will allow development of a planned 187 unit affordable housing project. The site is located in an area already consisting of RM44 and RM20 properties, as well as some RS8. The site has access to the transit system nearby, as well as City park areas in the neighborhood. If you have questions or require any additional information, please contact us accordingly. Respectfully submitted, Jon D. Marner MMS Consultants, Inc. 11603-001L1.docx
RET
R
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
T
O
F
S
U
R
V
E
Y
N42
°
3
1
'
2
5
"
E
98.8
7
'
(
M
)
(
R
)
N54°4
7
'
0
6
"
E
281.1
5
'
(
M
)
(
R
)
N72°49'06
"
E
208.23'(M
)
(
R
)
N60°3
4
'
0
6
"
E
182.65
'
(
M
)
(
R
)
N42°19'14"E25.06'(M)(R)
N0
2
°
3
3
'
3
8
"
W
40
3
.
9
1
'
(
M
)
(
R
)
S0
3
°
2
3
'
1
6
"
E
45
9
.
6
4
'
(
M
)
(
R
)
S89°08'51"W30.55'(M)(R)
S0
1
°
4
1
'
5
6
"
E
34
8
.
6
6
'
(
M
)
(
R
)
S89°57'26"W660.30'(M) 659.30'(R)
9.90 ACRES
(319) 351-8282
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
www.mmsconsultants.net
1917 S. GILBERT ST.
IOWA CITYJOHNSON COUNTYIOWA
6/27/2025
JDM
LSS
RRN
11603-001 1
1345
9.90 AC
PORTIONS OF LOT 3 ANDLOT 7 IN SCHOOLCOMMISSIONERSSUBDIVISION OF SECTION16, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH,RANGE 6 WEST OF THEFIFTH PRINCIPALMERIDIAN
REZONING EXHIBIT
11"=100'
NOT TO SCALE
LOCATION MAP
IOWA CITY, IOWA
REZONING PARCEL
PLAT PREPARED BY:
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
1917 S. GILBERT STREET
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
REZONING EXHIBIT
IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
APPLICANT/OWNER:
TWG DEVELOPMENT
1301 E WASHINGTON ST, SUITE 100
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46202
PORTIONS OF LOT 3 AND LOT 7 IN SCHOOL
COMMISSIONERS SUBDIVISION OF SECTION 16,
TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE FIFTH
PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
1"=100'
0 10 25 50 75 100
LOT 17
LOT 16LOT 15
LOT 11
LOT 10
LOT 9
LOT 8
GRE
E
N
W
O
O
D
D
R
I
V
E
W.BENTON STREET
WO
O
D
S
I
D
E
PL
A
C
E
A PORTION OF LOT 3, IN
SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS'
SUBDIVISION OF
SEC. 16-T79N-R6W OF THE
5TH P.M.
A PORTION OF LOT 7, IN
SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS'
SUBDIVISION OF
SEC. 16-T79N-R6W OF THE
5TH P.M.
(319) 351-8282
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
www.mmsconsultants.net
1917 S. GILBERT ST.
08/18/2025 PER CITY COMMENTS
ROOSEVELT RIDGE
IOWA CITY
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
06/26/2025
CAT
HEH
CAT
11603-001 6
8.95 AC
SITE LAYOUT
AND DIMENSION
PLAN
1
1"=40'
PROPOSAL
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS
O CNE ALLSM
IOWA
PAVING LEGEND
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0
1"=40'
4 10 20 30 40
PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OPD
ROOSEVELT RIDGE
IOWA CITY, IOWA
PREPARED BY:
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
1917 S. GILBERT STREET
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
APPLICANT:
TWG DEVELOPMENT
1301 E WASHINGTON ST, SUITE 100
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46202
ROOSEVELT RIDGE
IOWA CITY, IOWA
G:
\
1
1
6
0
3
\
1
1
6
0
3
-
0
0
1
\
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
\
1
1
6
0
3
-
0
0
1
O
.
d
w
g
,
8
/
1
9
/
2
0
2
5
3
:
1
5
:
5
9
P
M
,
1
:
1
LOT 17
LOT 16LOT 15
LOT 11
LOT 10
LOT 9
LOT 8
GRE
E
N
W
O
O
D
D
R
I
V
E
W.BENTON STREET
WO
O
D
S
I
D
E
PL
A
C
E
A PORTION OF LOT 3, IN
SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS'
SUBDIVISION OF
SEC. 16-T79N-R6W OF THE
5TH P.M.
A PORTION OF LOT 7, IN
SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS'
SUBDIVISION OF
SEC. 16-T79N-R6W OF THE
5TH P.M.
(319) 351-8282
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
www.mmsconsultants.net
1917 S. GILBERT ST.
08/18/2025 PER CITY COMMENTS
ROOSEVELT RIDGE
IOWA CITY
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
06/26/2025
CAT
HEH
CAT
11603-001 6
8.95 AC
SITE GRADING
EROSION CONTROL
PLAN AND SWPPP
2
1"=40'
O CNE ALLSM
IOWA
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0
1"=40'
4 10 20 30 40
PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OPD
ROOSEVELT RIDGE
IOWA CITY, IOWA
PREPARED BY:
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
1917 S. GILBERT STREET
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
APPLICANT:
TWG DEVELOPMENT
1301 E WASHINGTON ST, SUITE 100
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46202
CW
PR
DL
D
CW
PR
DL
G:
\
1
1
6
0
3
\
1
1
6
0
3
-
0
0
1
\
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
\
1
1
6
0
3
-
0
0
1
O
.
d
w
g
,
8
/
1
9
/
2
0
2
5
3
:
1
6
:
0
3
P
M
,
1
:
1
LOT 17
LOT 16LOT 15
LOT 11
LOT 10
LOT 9
LOT 8
GRE
E
N
W
O
O
D
D
R
I
V
E
W.BENTON STREET
WO
O
D
S
I
D
E
PL
A
C
E
A PORTION OF LOT 3, IN
SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS'
SUBDIVISION OF
SEC. 16-T79N-R6W OF THE
5TH P.M.
A PORTION OF LOT 7, IN
SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS'
SUBDIVISION OF
SEC. 16-T79N-R6W OF THE
5TH P.M.
(319) 351-8282
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
www.mmsconsultants.net
1917 S. GILBERT ST.
08/18/2025 PER CITY COMMENTS
ROOSEVELT RIDGE
IOWA CITY
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
06/26/2025
CAT
HEH
CAT
11603-001 6
8.95 AC
SENSITIVE AREAS:
SLOPES
3
1"=40'
O CNE ALLSM
IOWA
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0
1"=40'
4 10 20 30 40
PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OPD
ROOSEVELT RIDGE
IOWA CITY, IOWA
PREPARED BY:
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
1917 S. GILBERT STREET
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
APPLICANT:
TWG DEVELOPMENT
1301 E WASHINGTON ST, SUITE 100
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46202
SENSITIVE AREAS LEGEND
G:
\
1
1
6
0
3
\
1
1
6
0
3
-
0
0
1
\
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
\
1
1
6
0
3
-
0
0
1
O
.
d
w
g
,
8
/
1
9
/
2
0
2
5
3
:
1
6
:
0
6
P
M
,
1
:
1
LOT 17
LOT 16LOT 15
LOT 11
LOT 10
LOT 9
LOT 8
GRE
E
N
W
O
O
D
D
R
I
V
E
W.BENTON STREET
WO
O
D
S
I
D
E
PL
A
C
E
A PORTION OF LOT 3, IN
SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS'
SUBDIVISION OF
SEC. 16-T79N-R6W OF THE
5TH P.M.
A PORTION OF LOT 7, IN
SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS'
SUBDIVISION OF
SEC. 16-T79N-R6W OF THE
5TH P.M.
(319) 351-8282
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
www.mmsconsultants.net
1917 S. GILBERT ST.
08/18/2025 PER CITY COMMENTS
ROOSEVELT RIDGE
IOWA CITY
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
06/26/2025
CAT
HEH
CAT
11603-001 6
8.95 AC
SENSITIVE AREAS:
WETLAND
4
1"=40'
O CNE ALLSM
IOWA
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0
1"=40'
4 10 20 30 40
PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OPD
ROOSEVELT RIDGE
IOWA CITY, IOWA
PREPARED BY:
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
1917 S. GILBERT STREET
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
APPLICANT:
TWG DEVELOPMENT
1301 E WASHINGTON ST, SUITE 100
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46202
SENSITIVE AREAS LEGEND
G:
\
1
1
6
0
3
\
1
1
6
0
3
-
0
0
1
\
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
\
1
1
6
0
3
-
0
0
1
O
.
d
w
g
,
8
/
1
9
/
2
0
2
5
4
:
0
4
:
5
9
P
M
,
1
:
1
LOT 17
LOT 16LOT 15
LOT 11
LOT 10
LOT 9
LOT 8
GRE
E
N
W
O
O
D
D
R
I
V
E
W.BENTON STREET
WO
O
D
S
I
D
E
PL
A
C
E
A PORTION OF LOT 3, IN
SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS'
SUBDIVISION OF
SEC. 16-T79N-R6W OF THE
5TH P.M.
A PORTION OF LOT 7, IN
SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS'
SUBDIVISION OF
SEC. 16-T79N-R6W OF THE
5TH P.M.
(319) 351-8282
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
www.mmsconsultants.net
1917 S. GILBERT ST.
08/18/2025 PER CITY COMMENTS
ROOSEVELT RIDGE
IOWA CITY
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
06/26/2025
CAT
HEH
CAT
11603-001 6
8.95 AC
SENSITIVE AREAS:
WOODLAND
5
1"=40'
O CNE ALLSM
IOWA
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0
1"=40'
4 10 20 30 40
PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OPD
ROOSEVELT RIDGE
IOWA CITY, IOWA
PREPARED BY:
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
1917 S. GILBERT STREET
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
APPLICANT:
TWG DEVELOPMENT
1301 E WASHINGTON ST, SUITE 100
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46202
SENSITIVE AREAS LEGEND
G:
\
1
1
6
0
3
\
1
1
6
0
3
-
0
0
1
\
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
\
1
1
6
0
3
-
0
0
1
O
.
d
w
g
,
8
/
1
9
/
2
0
2
5
3
:
1
6
:
1
1
P
M
,
1
:
1
LOT 17
LOT 16LOT 15
LOT 11
LOT 10
LOT 9
LOT 8
GRE
E
N
W
O
O
D
D
R
I
V
E
W.BENTON STREET
WO
O
D
S
I
D
E
PL
A
C
E
A PORTION OF LOT 3, IN
SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS'
SUBDIVISION OF
SEC. 16-T79N-R6W OF THE
5TH P.M.
A PORTION OF LOT 7, IN
SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS'
SUBDIVISION OF
SEC. 16-T79N-R6W OF THE
5TH P.M.
SHADE TREE 32
2" CAL.
ORNAMENTAL GRASS 139
18" HT.
DECIDUOUS SHRUB 167
18" HT.
EVERGREEN SHRUB 151
18" HT.
PLANTING SCHEDULE
LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
-SYNTHETIC FIELD TURF
-TURF GRASS SEED
-CRUSHED ROCK GRAVEL
-WOOD MULCH BED
-FALL PROTECTION SURFACE
-PLAY STRUCTURE ELEVATION
-RAISED GARDEN PLANTERS
LANDSCAPE LEGEND
STREET TREES:
1 TREE FOR EVERY 60 LF OF FRONTAGE ON LOTS LOTS WITH MORE THAN
ONE FRONTAGE.
-BENTON ST: 660.72 / 60 = 11 REQUIRED
11 PROVIDED
-GREENWOOD DR: 819.96 / 60 = 14 REQUIRED
14 PROVIDED (14 EXISTING)
RESIDENTIAL SITE TREES:
1 TREE FOR EVERY 550 SF OF TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE.
-61,772 / 550 =113 TREES REQUIRED
113 PROVIDED (81 EXISTING)
LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
(319) 351-8282
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
www.mmsconsultants.net
1917 S. GILBERT ST.
08/18/2025 PER CITY COMMENTS
ROOSEVELT RIDGE
IOWA CITY
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
06/26/2025
CAT
HEH
CAT
11603-001 6
8.95 AC
LANDSCAPE AND
FINAL STABILIZATION
PLAN
6
1"=40'
PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OPD
ROOSEVELT RIDGE
IOWA CITY, IOWA
PREPARED BY:
MMS CONSULTANTS INC.
1917 S. GILBERT STREET
IOWA CITY, IA 52240
APPLICANT:
TWG DEVELOPMENT
1301 E WASHINGTON ST, SUITE 100
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46202
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0
1"=40'
4 10 20 30 40
G:
\
1
1
6
0
3
\
1
1
6
0
3
-
0
0
1
\
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
\
1
1
6
0
3
-
0
0
1
O
.
d
w
g
,
8
/
1
9
/
2
0
2
5
3
:
1
6
:
1
5
P
M
,
1
:
1
OWNER
TWG Development, LLC
1301 E. Washington Street, Suite 100
Indianapolis, IN 46202
Chase Smith, VP of Market Rate Development
317.439.2703
csmith@twgdev.com
ARCHITECT
GENERAL CONTRACTOR
CIVIL/LANDSCAPE
MMS Consultants
917 S. Gilbert
Iowa City, IA 52240
Scott Pottorff
s.pottorff@mmsconsultants.net
PROJECT TEAM
TWG Development, LLC
1301 E. Washington Street, Suite 100
Indianapolis, IN 46202
Ryan Fitzpatrick, Preconstruction Director
317.264.1833
rfitzpatrick@twgdev.com
TWG Development, LLC
1301 E. Washington Street, Suite 100
Indianapolis, IN 46202
JOHN RUTHVEN , ARCHITECT
317.264.1833
jruthven@twgdev.com
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
LOCAL DESIGN INFORMATION
APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES
NOTE: ALL DWELLING UNITS ARE TO BE
COMPLIANT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT DESIGN
MANUAL. UNITS MARKED AS "HC" TO
MEET UFAS REQUIREMENTS
2024 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE
2017 ANSI A117.1 ACCESSIBLE AND USABLE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
FAIR HOUSING ACT DESIGN MANUAL (FHA SAFE HARBOR)
2024 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE
2024 UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE
2020 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE
2024 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE
2012 INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE
IOWA CITY CODE
STATE OF IOWA BUILDING CODES
UFAS - UNIFORM FEDERAL ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS
UNIT AREA DEFINITIONS
HUD NET AREA - DEFINED AS "PAINT TO PAINT". IT IS THE LIVING AREA OF THE
UNIT MEASURED TO THE INSIDE FACE OF THE UNIT PERIMETER DRYWALL.
HUD GROSS AREA - MEASURED FROM THE CENTERLINE OF DEMISING WALLS
"TO THE OUTSIDE FACE OF EXTERIOR WALLS AND FAR SIDE OF CORRIDOR
WALLS.
MARKET NET AREA - (BOMA/IREM, ANSI Z65.4) MEASURED FROM THE
CENTERLINE OF DEMISING WALLS TO THE OUTSIDE FACE OF EXTERIOR WALLS
AND FAR SIDE OF CORRIDOR WALLS.
MARKET GROSS AREA - MARKET NET AREA + ATTACHED BALCONIES +
EXTERIOR STORAGE AREAS DESIGNATED TO THE UNIT.
BALCONY AREA - MEASURED FROM THE EXTERIOR FACE OF EXTERIOR WALL,
TO EDGE OF BALCONY/PATIO.
BUILDING AREA DEFINITIONS
"NET" AREA - ALL AREA MEASURED FROM EXTERIOR FACE OF FRAMING. THIS
IS WHAT IS USED FOR BUILDING CODE AREAS.
"GROSS" AREA - ALL AREA MEASURED FROM EXTERIOR FACE OF FINISH
"LEASABLE" AREA - SUM OF THE "MARKET NET AREA" FOR ALL UNITS ON
EACH FLOOR
"COMMUNAL" AREA - ALL NON-LEASABLE SPACE WITHIN THE BUILDING
FOOTPRINT (CORRIDORS, AMENITY SPACES, LEASING OFFICE, ELECTRICAL
ROOMS, MECHANICAL ROOMS, MAINTENANCE ROOMS, ETC.)
UNIT AREAS & DETAILS
MARKET NET AREA
MARKET GROSS AREA
# OF BEDROOMS
# OF BATHROOMS
1A 1D 2A 2A-HC 2B 2C 2D 3A 3A-HC 3B1C
1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3
1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
1D.1 1D.2 1E-HC
1 1
1 1
704 829 784 868 851 887
723 836 795 889 869 895
930
939
930
955
1257
1299
1028
1039
1204
1229 1231
1207 1411
1450
1131
1138
UNIT SUMMARY
LEVEL
1
2
3
TOTAL BY UNIT TYPE
4
TOTAL BY BEDROOM
% BY UNIT TYPE
% BY BEDROOM #
UNIT TYPE
1A
6
1D 1E-HC 2A 2A-HC 2B 2C 2D 3A 3A-HC 3B #/FLR1C
6 1 1 13 2 -1 2 4 1 1
7 6 1 1 16 1 -1 3 4 1 3
6 10 1 16 1 2 1 3 4 1 -
4 1 1 12 2 1 -3 4 1 -
47
53
52
35
22 13 4 57 6 3 3 18726111644
83 80 24
26%26%15%4%71%7%4%4%14%66%17%17%
45%42%13%
1D.1 1D.2
6 3
6 3
--
--
12 6
14%7%
6
7
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION
IFA ISSUE
CO
P
Y
R
I
G
H
T
@
2
0
2
1
S
T
U
D
I
O
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
E
SHEET NO.
SHEET NAME
PROJ. NO.DATE
REVISIONS
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
13
0
1
E
.
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
S
u
i
t
e
1
0
0
In
d
i
a
n
a
p
o
l
i
s
,
I
N
4
6
2
0
2
31
7
.
6
7
2
.
0
9
3
2
00
COVER SHEET
61
1
G
R
E
E
N
W
O
O
D
D
R
61
1
G
r
e
e
n
w
o
o
d
D
r
I
o
w
a
C
i
t
y
,
I
A
5
2
2
4
6
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
22012_00 2023/05/23
611 GREENWOOD
611 Greenwood Dr Iowa City, IA 52246
Affordable Housing
PROPERTY
LOCATION
TRUE
NORTH
VICINITY MAP
BUILDING AREA - LEASABLE
NAME AREA
LEVEL 1
COMMUNAL 16,398 SF
LEASABLE 44,334 SF
60,732 SF
LEVEL 2
COMMUNAL 10,486 SF
LEASABLE 50,236 SF
60,722 SF
LEVEL 3
COMMUNAL 10,442 SF
LEASABLE 47,505 SF
57,947 SF
LEVEL 4
COMMUNAL 8,228 SF
LEASABLE 33,313 SF
41,541 SF
TOTAL 220,942 SF
BUILDING AREA - NET
LEVEL AREA
LEVEL 1 61,393 SF
LEVEL 2 61,393 SF
LEVEL 3 59,853 SF
LEVEL 4 42,406 SF
TOTAL 225,045 SF
BUILDING AREA - GROSS
NAME AREA
LEVEL 1
COURTYARD 17,664 SF
GROSS AREA 62,510 SF
LEVEL 2
GROSS AREA 62,196 SF
LEVEL 3
GROSS AREA 59,186 SF
LEVEL 4
GROSS AREA 42,859 SF
ROOF DECK 11,071 SF
255,484 SF
SHEET #SHEET NAME
CONCEPT
07/09/24
1 - ARCH - GEN
00 COVER SHEET ●
4 - ARCH
01 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN ●
02 LEVEL 1 - FLOOR PLAN ●
03 LEVEL 2 - FLOOR PLAN ●
04 LEVEL 3 - FLOOR PLAN ●
05 LEVEL 4 - FLOOR PLAN ●
06 ROOF PLAN ●
07A ELEVATIONS ●
07B 3D RENDERINGS ●
08 UNIT TYPE - 1A ●
09 UNIT TYPE - 1C ●
10 UNIT TYPE - 1D ●
11 UNIT TYPE - 1E-HC ●
12 UNIT TYPE - 2A ●
13 UNIT TYPE - 2A-HC ●
14 UNIT TYPE - 2B ●
15 UNIT TYPE - 2C ●
16 UNIT TYPE - 2D ●
17 UNIT TYPE - 3A ●
18 UNIT TYPE - 3A ●
19 UNIT TYPE - 3A-HC ●
20 UNIT TYPE - 3A-HC ●
21 UNIT TYPE - 3B ●
22 UNIT TYPE - 3B ●
WH WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
UP
UP
UP
UP
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH WH WH
WH
WH
WH
WHWH
WH
WH
WH
A
A
B
B
E
E
F F
G G
H H
I I
J J
K K
L
L
M M
1
1
2
2
D
D
3
3
9
9
10
10
11
11
7
7
8
86
6
5
5
4
4 12
12
UNIT 1C
BIKE
STORAGE
653 SF
COMMUNITY
978 SF
UNIT 1C
AMENITY
1,337 SF
UNIT 2D
ELEVATOR
ELEVATOR
STORAGE
484 SF
STORAGE
201 SF
CORRIDOR
UNIT 1C
UNIT 2A
UNIT 2A
STAIR 2
UNIT 2A-HCUNIT 2AUNIT 1D.2UNIT 1D.1UNIT 1D.1UNIT 2A
UNIT 2C
STAIR 3
UNIT 1A
UNIT 2A UNIT 2A
UNIT 1A
UNIT 1C
UNIT 1D.2
UNIT 1D.1
UNIT 1D.1
STAIR 1
UNIT 2A
UNIT 2A-HC
UNIT 1A
UNIT 3A UNIT 2A UNIT 1C
UNIT 3A-HC
UNIT 1E-HC
STORAGE
162 SF
UNIT 2A
UNIT 1D
UNIT 1D.1 UNIT 1D.2 UNIT 3B
BIKE STORAGE
UNIT 3A
UNIT 2A
UNIT 1D.1UNIT 1C
07A4
07A
3
07A
1
07A
2
07A
7
07A 6
UNIT 2A
UNIT 2A
UNIT 1A
UNIT 2A
UNIT 1A
UNIT 3A
UNIT 2A
UNIT 2D
UNIT 3A
STAIR 4
07A5
ELEVATOR
CORRIDOR
02
2
OPEN TO BELOW
25 SPACES
A A
B B
E E
D D
9
9
10
10
11
11
7
7
8
8
12
12
ELEVATOR
CORRIDOR
AMENITY
1,340 SF
LEASING
885 SF
FLOOR PLAN SYMBOLS
LEGEND
ACCESSIBLE UNIT
HEARING IMPAIRED UNIT
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION
IFA ISSUE
CO
P
Y
R
I
G
H
T
@
2
0
2
1
S
T
U
D
I
O
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
E
SHEET NO.
SHEET NAME
PROJ. NO.DATE
REVISIONS
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
13
0
1
E
.
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
S
u
i
t
e
1
0
0
In
d
i
a
n
a
p
o
l
i
s
,
I
N
4
6
2
0
2
31
7
.
6
7
2
.
0
9
3
2
02
LEVEL 1 - FLOOR
PLAN
61
1
G
R
E
E
N
W
O
O
D
D
R
61
1
G
r
e
e
n
w
o
o
d
D
r
I
o
w
a
C
i
t
y
,
I
A
5
2
2
4
6
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
22012_00 2023/05/23
1/16" = 1'-0"1 CONCEPT - LEVEL 1 PLAN
0 32 48 6416
GRAPHIC SCALE
1/16" = 1'-0"2 CONCEPT - AMENITY LEVEL PLAN
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
UP
UP
UP
UP
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH WH WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
A
A
B
B
E
E
F F
G G
H H
I I
J J
K K
L
L
M M
1
1
2
2
D
D
3
3
9
9
10
10
11
11
7
7
8
86
6
5
5
4
4 12
12
UNIT 3B
STORAGE
484 SF
STORAGE
201 SF
UNIT 2A
UNIT 2A
UNIT 2DSTORAGE
162 SF
UNIT 3B
07A4
07A
3
07A
1
07A
2
07A
7
07A 6
UNIT 1C
UNIT 1C
ELEVATOR
ELEVATOR
CORRIDOR
UNIT 1C
UNIT 2A
UNIT 2A
STAIR 2
UNIT 2AUNIT 2AUNIT 1D.2UNIT 1D.1UNIT 1D.1UNIT 2A
UNIT 2C
STAIR 3
UNIT 1A
UNIT 2A UNIT 2A-HC
UNIT 1A
UNIT 1C
UNIT 1D.2
UNIT 1D.1
UNIT 1D.1
STAIR 1
UNIT 2A
UNIT 2A
UNIT 1A
UNIT 3A UNIT 2A UNIT 1C
UNIT 3A-HC
UNIT 1E-HC
UNIT 2A
UNIT 1D
UNIT 1D.1 UNIT 1D.2 UNIT 3B
UNIT 1A
UNIT 3A
UNIT 2A
UNIT 1D.1UNIT 1C
UNIT 1A
UNIT 2D
UNIT 2A
UNIT 1A
UNIT 2A
UNIT 1A
UNIT 3A
UNIT 2A
UNIT 2D
UNIT 3A
STAIR 4
STORAGE
294 SF
07A5
ELEVATOR
CORRIDOR
FLOOR PLAN SYMBOLS
LEGEND
ACCESSIBLE UNIT
HEARING IMPAIRED UNIT
1/16" = 1'-0"3 CONCEPT - LEVEL 2 PLAN
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION
IFA ISSUE
CO
P
Y
R
I
G
H
T
@
2
0
2
1
S
T
U
D
I
O
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
E
SHEET NO.
SHEET NAME
PROJ. NO.DATE
REVISIONS
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
13
0
1
E
.
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
S
u
i
t
e
1
0
0
In
d
i
a
n
a
p
o
l
i
s
,
I
N
4
6
2
0
2
31
7
.
6
7
2
.
0
9
3
2
03
LEVEL 2 - FLOOR
PLAN
61
1
G
R
E
E
N
W
O
O
D
D
R
61
1
G
r
e
e
n
w
o
o
d
D
r
I
o
w
a
C
i
t
y
,
I
A
5
2
2
4
6
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
22012_00 2023/05/23
0 32 48 6416
GRAPHIC SCALE
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH WH WH WH WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
UP
UP
UP
UP
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WHWH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH WH
A
A
B
B
E
E
F F
G G
H H
I I
J J
K K
L
L
M M
1
1
2
2
D
D
3
3
9
9
10
10
11
11
7
7
8
86
6
5
5
4
4 12
12
UNIT 1A
UNIT 2D
UNIT 1C
STAIR 2
UNIT 2A-HC
UNIT 2A
UNIT 3A
UNIT 2AUNIT 1DUNIT 2A
UNIT 2A UNIT 2A
UNIT 2A
UNIT 2A
UNIT 2A
ELEVATOR
STORAGE
484 SF
UNIT 2A
CORRIDOR
CORRIDOR
UNIT 2A
UNIT 2A
UNIT 1A
STAIR 1
UNIT 1D
UNIT 2B
UNIT 1A
UNIT 1A
STAIR 3
UNIT 2C
UNIT 1D
UNIT 2AUNIT 2A UNIT 1C
UNIT 1C
UNIT 1A
UNIT 3A-HC
UNIT 1C
STORAGE
162 SF
STORAGE
201 SF
ELEVATOR
UNIT 2B
UNIT 1E-HC
ROOF BELOW
UNIT 1DUNIT 1D
UNIT 3A
UNIT 2A
UNIT 1DUNIT 1DUNIT 1DUNIT 1C
UNIT 1C
UNIT 1D
UNIT 1D
07A4
07A
3
07A
1
07A
2
07A
7
07A 6
UNIT 3A
UNIT 1A
UNIT 2A
UNIT 1A
UNIT 2D
UNIT 2A
UNIT 3A
UNIT 2D
STAIR 4
STORAGE
294 SF
ROOF BELOW
ROOF BELOW
07A5
ELEVATOR
FLOOR PLAN SYMBOLS
LEGEND
ACCESSIBLE UNIT
HEARING IMPAIRED UNIT
1/16" = 1'-0"1 CONCEPT - LEVEL 3 PLAN
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION
IFA ISSUE
CO
P
Y
R
I
G
H
T
@
2
0
2
1
S
T
U
D
I
O
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
E
SHEET NO.
SHEET NAME
PROJ. NO.DATE
REVISIONS
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
13
0
1
E
.
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
S
u
i
t
e
1
0
0
In
d
i
a
n
a
p
o
l
i
s
,
I
N
4
6
2
0
2
31
7
.
6
7
2
.
0
9
3
2
04
LEVEL 3 - FLOOR
PLAN
61
1
G
R
E
E
N
W
O
O
D
D
R
61
1
G
r
e
e
n
w
o
o
d
D
r
I
o
w
a
C
i
t
y
,
I
A
5
2
2
4
6
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
22012_00 2023/05/23
0 32 48 6416
GRAPHIC SCALE
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
WH
A
A
B
B
E
E
F F
G G
H H
I I
J J
K K
L
L
M M
1
1
2
2
D
D
3
3
9
9
10
10
11
11
7
7
8
86
6
5
5
4
4 12
12
UNIT 2B
UNIT 1A
UNIT 2D UNIT 3A
UNIT 2A UNIT 2A
UNIT 2A
UNIT 3A-HC
UNIT 2D
UNIT 2A UNIT 2A
ELEVATOR
ELEVATOR
STORAGE
484 SF
UNIT 2A
UNIT 2A-HC
UNIT 2A
UNIT 1A
STAIR 1
UNIT 1A
UNIT 1A
STAIR 3
UNIT 1D
UNIT 2AUNIT 2AUNIT 2A-HC
UNIT 1C
UNIT 1E-HC
UNIT 2AUNIT 2A UNIT 1C
UNIT 1C
UNIT 3A
UNIT 2D
STORAGE
162 SF
STORAGE
201 SF
UNIT 3A
UNIT 1C
07A4
07A
3
07A
1
07A
2
07A
7
07A 6
UNIT 3A
UNIT 1A
UNIT 2A
UNIT 1A
STAIR 4
STORAGE
294 SF
ELEVATOR
STIAR-2
CORRIDOR
CORRIDOR
2"
/
1
'
-
0
"
2"
/
1
'
-
0
"
2" / 1'-0"
2"
/
1
'
-
0
"
2" / 1'-0"
2" / 1'-0"
2"
/
1
'
-
0
"
2" / 1'-0"2" / 1'-0"
2"
/
1
'
-
0
"
FLOOR PLAN SYMBOLS
LEGEND
ACCESSIBLE UNIT
HEARING IMPAIRED UNIT
1/16" = 1'-0"1 CONCEPT-LEVEL 4 PLAN
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION
IFA ISSUE
CO
P
Y
R
I
G
H
T
@
2
0
2
1
S
T
U
D
I
O
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
E
SHEET NO.
SHEET NAME
PROJ. NO.DATE
REVISIONS
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
13
0
1
E
.
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
S
u
i
t
e
1
0
0
In
d
i
a
n
a
p
o
l
i
s
,
I
N
4
6
2
0
2
31
7
.
6
7
2
.
0
9
3
2
05
LEVEL 4 - FLOOR
PLAN
61
1
G
R
E
E
N
W
O
O
D
D
R
61
1
G
r
e
e
n
w
o
o
d
D
r
I
o
w
a
C
i
t
y
,
I
A
5
2
2
4
6
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
22012_00 2023/05/23
0 32 48 6416
GRAPHIC SCALE
A
A
B
B
E
E
F F
G G
H H
I I
J J
K K
L
L
M M
1
1
2
2
D
D
3
3
9
9
10
10
11
11
7
7
8
86
6
5
5
4
4 12
12
07A4
07A
3
07A
1
07A
2
07A
7
07A 6
2"
/
1
'
-
0
"
ROOF BELOW
ROOF BELOW
ROOF BELOW
2"
/
1
'
-
0
"
2" / 1'-0"2" / 1'-0"
2" / 1'-0"
2"
/
1
'
-
0
"
2"
/
1
'
-
0
"
2"
/
1
'
-
0
"
2" / 1'-0"2" / 1'-0"
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION
IFA ISSUE
CO
P
Y
R
I
G
H
T
@
2
0
2
1
S
T
U
D
I
O
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
E
SHEET NO.
SHEET NAME
PROJ. NO.DATE
REVISIONS
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
13
0
1
E
.
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
S
u
i
t
e
1
0
0
In
d
i
a
n
a
p
o
l
i
s
,
I
N
4
6
2
0
2
31
7
.
6
7
2
.
0
9
3
2
06
ROOF PLAN
61
1
G
R
E
E
N
W
O
O
D
D
R
61
1
G
r
e
e
n
w
o
o
d
D
r
I
o
w
a
C
i
t
y
,
I
A
5
2
2
4
6
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
22012_00 2023/05/23
1/16" = 1'-0"1 CONCEPT-ROOF PLAN
0 32 48 6416
GRAPHIC SCALE
100' - 0"
LEVEL 1
110' - 8 3/4"
LEVEL 2
120' - 4 5/8"
LEVEL 3
130' - 0 1/2"
LEVEL 4
138' - 0 3/4"
ROOF LEVEL
100' - 0"
LEVEL 1
110' - 8 3/4"
LEVEL 2
120' - 4 5/8"
LEVEL 3
130' - 0 1/2"
LEVEL 4
138' - 0 3/4"
ROOF LEVEL
100' - 0"
LEVEL 1
110' - 8 3/4"
LEVEL 2
120' - 4 5/8"
LEVEL 3
130' - 0 1/2"
LEVEL 4
138' - 0 3/4"
ROOF LEVEL
100' - 0"
LEVEL 1
110' - 8 3/4"
LEVEL 2
120' - 4 5/8"
LEVEL 3
130' - 0 1/2"
LEVEL 4
138' - 0 3/4"
ROOF LEVEL
90' - 0"
AMENITY LEVEL
100' - 0"
LEVEL 1
110' - 8 3/4"
LEVEL 2
120' - 4 5/8"
LEVEL 3
100' - 0"
LEVEL 1
110' - 8 3/4"
LEVEL 2
120' - 4 5/8"
LEVEL 3
130' - 0 1/2"
LEVEL 4
138' - 0 3/4"
ROOF LEVEL
90' - 0"
AMENITY LEVEL
100' - 0"
LEVEL 1
110' - 8 3/4"
LEVEL 2
120' - 4 5/8"
LEVEL 3
130' - 0 1/2"
LEVEL 4
138' - 0 3/4"
ROOF LEVEL
90' - 0"
AMENITY LEVEL
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION
IFA ISSUE
CO
P
Y
R
I
G
H
T
@
2
0
2
1
S
T
U
D
I
O
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
E
SHEET NO.
SHEET NAME
PROJ. NO.DATE
REVISIONS
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
13
0
1
E
.
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
S
u
i
t
e
1
0
0
In
d
i
a
n
a
p
o
l
i
s
,
I
N
4
6
2
0
2
31
7
.
6
7
2
.
0
9
3
2
07A
ELEVATIONS
61
1
G
R
E
E
N
W
O
O
D
D
R
61
1
G
r
e
e
n
w
o
o
d
D
r
I
o
w
a
C
i
t
y
,
I
A
5
2
2
4
6
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
22012_00 2023/05/23
1/16" = 1'-0"3 ELEVATION 3
1/16" = 1'-0"7 ELEVATION 7
1/16" = 1'-0"6 ELEVATION 6
1/16" = 1'-0"4 ELEVATION 4
1/16" = 1'-0"5 ELEVATION 5
0 32 48 6416
GRAPHIC SCALE
1/16" = 1'-0"1 ELEVATION 1
1/16" = 1'-0"2 ELEVATION 2
0 32 48 6416
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 32 48 6416
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 32 48 6416
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 32 48 6416
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 32 48 6416
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 32 48 6416
GRAPHIC SCALE
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION
IFA ISSUE
CO
P
Y
R
I
G
H
T
@
2
0
2
1
S
T
U
D
I
O
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
E
SHEET NO.
SHEET NAME
PROJ. NO.DATE
REVISIONS
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
13
0
1
E
.
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
S
u
i
t
e
1
0
0
In
d
i
a
n
a
p
o
l
i
s
,
I
N
4
6
2
0
2
31
7
.
6
7
2
.
0
9
3
2
07B
3D RENDERINGS
61
1
G
R
E
E
N
W
O
O
D
D
R
61
1
G
r
e
e
n
w
o
o
d
D
r
I
o
w
a
C
i
t
y
,
I
A
5
2
2
4
6
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
22012_00 2023/05/23
ATTACHMENT 4
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
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Roosevelt Ridge 611 Greenwood Drive
May 29, 6:30 -7:30
Horn Elementary cafeteria, 600 Koser Avenue
Jon Marner & Scott Pottorff(MMS Consultants)
Jackson Tayler & Brian Hiltunen(TWG), Aldo Sebben(Studio Arch)
Anne Russett
25 x
General concerns about existing traffic, traffic enforcement in the area. Concern about
maintenance of property.
Interest in type of affordable housing. Concern from most attendees regarding existing
traffic issues in the area and the additional traffic impact from this project. Pedestrian safety for
the area particularly at the proposed Greenwood Drive entrance location. Parking for tenants
and the potential impact to parking on streets. Some interest in capacity of existing sewer and
water infrastructure. Questions about possible amenities for the tenants and interest in a
community garden. Grading and design of the site.
A traffic study is being completed for the project to provide with the application.
ATTACHMENT 5
Traffic Study
Greenwood Affordable Housing
Traffic Impact Study
Impact Study Complete Draft
611 Greenwood Drive Iowa City, IA 52246
Prepared by:
Anderson-Bogert Engineers and Surveyors, Inc.
Date: 6.27.25
2
I hereby certify that this Engineering document was prepared by me or
under my direct personal supervision and that I am a duly Licensed
Engineer under the laws of the State of Iowa.
___________________________
Jacob M. Sprengeler Exp. Date: 12/31/2025
Iowa Registration No. 27485
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study was conducted on behalf of MMS Consultants, Inc. in order to identify potential traffic impacts relating
to a proposed affordable housing development located at 611 Greenwood Drive, Iowa City, Iowa. The
development is anticipated to contain 187 dwelling units within a single 4-story building.
The study area described within this report includes the following intersections:
· Benton Street at Greenwood Drive
· Greenwood Drive at the Proposed Development Entrance
· Riverside Drive at Myrtle Avenue
The study reviewed existing/no-build, opening day full-build (2026), and future no-build/full-build (2046) scenarios.
The current property contains an old school building which has been vacant for over 10 years. The proposed
development will completely demolish the site and completely rebuild.
Of the study intersections, the two located Benton Street and Riverside Drive both exhibit a high potential for crash
reduction. This matches several overrepresented collision patterns observed at these locations since 2020.
Several factors including sight distance, sight triangles, and non-standard intersection geometry may be
contributing to the collisions at Benton Street, while general signal visibility at Myrtle Avenue along with a
temporary adjacent construction project could have contributed to patterns at the Myrtle Avenue signal.
Existing counts were collected by the CLIENT at Benton Street and proposed site entrance. 2021 MPOJC data
was referenced at the Myrtle Avenue signal. Counts were adjusted/inflated since the observations were
completed outside of the University of Iowa academic semesters. The peak hours were determined to fall between
7:15-8:15am, and 4:30-5:30pm.
Based on current ITE generation rates, the site is estimated to generate about 85 peak hour tips during the AM
peak, and about 82 trips during the PM peak hour. All existing/opening day scenarios operated will likely operate
with acceptable capacity and LOS whether the development is constructed or not. In the future, background traffic
growth (particularly on Benton Street) will reduce the functional capacity of the Greenwood Drive southbound
approach. The intersection should continue to be monitored in the future as background traffic increases.
Generally, the southbound approach to the Myrtle Avenue signal on Riverside Drive plots within the warranted
area for the southbound right movement for a 40-mph approach. Criteria for speeds less than 40-mph are not
currently established, but this location (particularly in the PM peak) plots well within the established 40-mph
warrant. The eastbound left movement on Benton Street at Greenwood Drive also plots well within the warranted
left auxiliary lane warrant for urban streets.
The intersection on Benton Street at Greenwood Drive likely does not fully satisfy volume warrant criteria provided
in the MUTCD for Warrants 1 or 2 on opening day. At some point in the future as background traffic grows, these
warrants could be fully-satisfied with or without the proposed development traffic.
Several methods to improve alternate modes of transportation to/from the site were discussed. Particularly,
improving visibility of the pedestrian crosswalk on Benton Street at Greenwood Drive, along with the existing
midblock crossing at the proposed development entrance. Several improvements could be considered in order to
improve pedestrian access and overall visibility along Greenwood Drive.
4
INTRODUCTION
This study is being completed on behalf of MMS Consultants, Inc (the CLIENT), who is contracted on civil design
services for TWC Development (the DEVELOPER), to study potential impacts resulting in redevelopment of 611
Greenwood Drive. The property is midway along Greenwood Drive between Myrtle Avenue and Benton Street.
The developer intends to demolish the existing buildings and replace it with a multi-family low-rise affordable
housing development consisting of approximately 187 dwelling units across 4 stories.
STUDY AREA
After consulting with MPOJC and the CLIENT, the study area limits were determined and are shown in Figure 1
below. The three study intersections include:
- Greenwood Drive and West Benton Street
- Greenwood Drive and Proposed Site Access
- Riverside Drive and Myrtle Ave
Figure 1 - Study Area
5
EXISTING NO-BUILD CONDITIONS (2026)
EXISTING LAND USE
The existing site was previously developed as a school but has been in a state of disuse and vacancy for several
years. Therefore, at the time of the study and traffic counts, the development site was not generating traffic.
ZONING
The existing site is currently zoned within the P1-P2 public categories, which aligns with its former use as a school.
ADJACENT ROADWAY NETWORK
The adjacent roadway network is summarized below in Table 1.
Table 1 - Existing Roadway Network Summary
ADJACENT LAND USE
The areas adjacent to the proposed site are generally residential housing to the west and north. The primary
commercial/services land uses are to the south and east of the site. Downtown Iowa City and the University of
Iowa are located to the north and east.
Figure 2 - Adjacent Land Uses
Road Federal
Classification AADT Estimate Posted Speed
MPH
General Lane
Configuration Section Type Surfacing
Greenwood Dr Local 2760 25 (Assumed) Two-Lane Urban Asphalt
W Benton St Collector 9200 25 Two-Lane Urban Asphalt
Myrtle Ave Local 2,490 25 Two-Lane Urban Asphalt
Riverside Dr Principal
Arterial 23,200 30 4-Lane Urban Asphalt
Existing Roadway Network Characteristics
6
CRASH HISTORY AND POTENTIAL FOR CRASH REDUCTION (PCR)
The Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) maintains online crash databases known as the Iowa Crash
Analysis Tool (ICAT) and Potential for Crash Reduction (PCR). The PCR is a statistical value that compares
similarly categorized intersections and roadway stretches throughout the state. A positive PCR value represents
an intersection that is performing more poorly than similarly categorized intersections throughout the state. PCR
values greater than 0.2 are generally considered “statistically significant” for all crash severities. This significance
category includes the worst 2.22% of all paved intersections in the state. A PCR greater than 1.0 is considered
“High” and includes only the worst 0.65% of paved intersections in the state for all crash severities.
The safety analysis for the study intersections is summarized in Table 2.
Table 2 - Existing Crash Experience Summary
Primary Route Crossing
Street
Type of
Intersection
Control
Total
Crashes Fatality Serious
Injury
Minor
Injury
Possible
or
Unknown
Injury
Property
Damage
Only
KABCO
PCR
KABCO
PCR Category
(High,
Medium,
Negligible)
Statewide Category
Ranking
(1 = Worst Safety
Performance
History in Category)
Remarks/Comments
Greenwood Dr W Benton St Partial Stop 15 0 0 0 2 13 1.03 High 328/50,690
25% crashes happen at
night,
60% of crashes are
broadside of SB Left-
Turn with EB, 30%
crashes from following
too close
Greenwood Dr Private
Access Partial Stop 1 0 0 1 0 0 NA Negligible NA Pedestrian involved
crash
Riverside Dr Myrtle Ave
All-Way
Intersection
Stop
16 0 0 1 4 11 1.99 High 85/50,690
60% of crashes
occurred in 2024
(building construction
in 2024), 40% resulted
in SB rear-ends and
following too close
Iowa DOT ICAT and PCR Database Information Year 2020 - Present
7
Greenwood Drive at W Benton Street
This intersection exhibits a statistically significant PCR value. Of the 15 crashes experienced since 2020, over 1/3
involved collisions between southbound and eastbound traffic. About the same amount involved rear-end crashes
for westbound traffic.
The exact method for recording
vehicle directions and origins
cannot be determined directly
from the ICAT turning movement
map. One potential cause for this
overrepresented pattern may be
due to the close intersection
spacing between Carriage Hill
and Greenwood, creating a
potential for overlapping left turns
onto Benton Street as shown in
Figure 3. Based on the arrows in
the figure, it seems reasonable
that these intersecting paths could
be reported as shown in the ICAT
diagram attached in the
Appendix between a southbound
vehicle and “eastbound” vehicle.
The unusual geometry is typically not considered best practice by current design standards. One countermeasure
that may be considered to alleviate potential issues could be reducing the Carriage Hill driveway width and
configuring this private roadway to be an entrance only. The existing parking arrangement on Carriage Hill
appears to lend itself well to a potential one-way reconfiguration as shown in Figure 4.
Another potential cause for this type of crash could be the existing sight lines between eastbound vehicles and
southbound vehicles, particularly on Greenwood Drive. There is a significant number of obstructions between
these two approaches. A few of the notable obstructions include 2 utility poles, a bus stop shelter, stop sign and
other sign assemblies, gas marker, and guy wires.
Figure 3 - Benton Intersection Overlapping Lefts
Figure 4 - Carriage Hill Parking
8
Figure 5 shows the firsthand views for
these movements. The additional
visual stimuli combined with the
existing pedestrian crossing requires
a longer time for drivers to perceive
and react to potential collisions. With
many inputs, decision making
becomes much more difficult and time
consuming. Despite having the right-
of-way, eastbound traffic may not be
able to effectively perceive an errant
southbound vehicle in time to take
corrective action.
Removal of obstructions within
intersection sight lines is always
recommended. In this instance, the
bus stop could potentially be
relocated away from the intersection
to the north, and the city could work
with the utility company to either shift
or relocate existing utility poles out of
the sight lines (several of the utility
poles appear to also be within the
current preferred setback distance
provided in SUDAS and AASHTO
Roadside Design standards as well).
The existing crash data also show
that nearly 1/3 of the crashes
occurred during nighttime hours. The
intersection has two luminaires in the
general vicinity. Improving street
lighting and uniformity within an
intersection has been shown to generally reduce crashes per several studies published on USDOT’s Crash
Modification Factors Clearinghouse website1. Some studies have found that installing new or improving existing
lighting reduces crashes between 15%-25%.
An additional pattern evident at this intersection is unidirectional rear-end collisions, particularly on the
westbound approach. One potential reason why this manner of collision may be overrepresented may be a
combination of sight distance, pedestrian presence, and inadequate advanced warning of the hidden
intersection and pedestrian crossing at Greenwood Drive.
1 https://cmfclearinghouse.fhwa.dot.gov/
Figure 5 – Benton Intersection Sight Lines
9
Westbound Benton Street traffic must
traverse a vertical curve on approach to
the intersection with Greenwood Drive.
The existing Greenwood/Carriage Hill
intersection and uncontrolled pedestrian
midblock crossing are completely
obscured from view until about 200’ in
advance of the intersection based on
available streetview and site visit
observations.
For a posted speed of 25mph, the 85th
percentile speed is typically measured
and estimated between 30mph-35mph.
Given these speeds, the stopping sight
distance for Benton Street should be
between 200’-250’ in advance of the Greenwood Drive intersection. This limited sight distance may create
situations where westbound vehicles may need to rapidly break for traffic entering from Greenwood/Carriage
Hill, or a quick deceleration to yield near the intersection for pedestrians in the crosswalk. In the figure above,
the crosswalk is beyond the line of sight for westbound traffic.
Figure 6 shows a view several feet above a typical driver’s eye. From about 220 feet away, the crosswalk
cannot be seen, nor any pedestrians in the street. In fact, an oncoming vehicle which is at Greenwood Drive is
only just becoming visible to westbound traffic.
Traffic counts outside of the academic year by the
CLIENT showed over 10-20 pedestrians
using crosswalks within the
Greenwood/Carriage Hill intersection
each hour. During school, its reasonable
to assume this number would be even
larger. The prevalent pedestrian presence
here increases exposure to potential
speed differentials and collisions at this
location.
Due to the vertical curve, additional
advanced warning could help prevent
instances of hard breaking, speed
differentials, and rear-end crashes.
Several entities have found success
installing active crossing devices such as
a Rectangular-Rapid-Flashing-Beacon
(RRFB) and interconnected speed/queue
detection systems. Pictured in Figure 7 is
a typical interconnected advanced flasher
(Cedar Rapids), and a slow vehicle
detection system (US 151 in Fairfax, IA).
These types of advanced warning
systems could be beneficial for
westbound traffic in warning of either slow
vehicles or interconnected with
pedestrian crossing devices such as an RRFB.
Figure 6 - Benton Intersection WB Vertical Curve
Figure 7 - Advanced Warning Flasher Systems
1 0
Greenwood Drive @ Site Development Entrance
Near the proposed site entrance, there has been one crash since 2020. It involved a pedestrian and suspected
minor injury. The incident occurred during apparently normal daylight conditions. Therefore, it does not appear
that there is a correctable incident pattern at this location.
Riverside Drive @ Myrtle Avenue
This intersection contains the highest overall PCR value of the study intersections. The primary cause of crashes
at this location since 2020 have been rear-end crashes caused by “following too close”. Of the 16 collisions, 11
have been this type. Out of the 11 rear-end collisions, 8 have occurred in the southbound direction. 9 crashes
listed speed as one of the primary causes of the collision.
It was noted that there is not currently a dedicated southbound right auxiliary lane at this signal. Southbound right
turns must therefore queue and wait within the Riverside Drive through lane as they yield for pedestrians. Since
Riverside Drive is a primary arterial with high-volume, each instance of yielding in the through lane potentially
exposes motorists to speed differentials on the road. Increased exposure to speed differentials comes with
increased risk of collision. MPO counts showed that the pedestrian volume on the Myrtle Avenue crosswalk were
minimal during the peak hours. No counts were available during the midday hours where rear-end collisions have
been most prominent.
Another observation for the overrepresented southbound rear-ends is related to time-of-day and environmental
factors. The ICAT dashboard shown in Figure 8 shows the time-of-day distribution for rear end collisions at this
intersection. 6 of the 8 southbound rear-end collisions generally occurred between the hours of 11am and 2pm.
This collision window coincides with the time of day that the sun is typically aligned directly behind the southbound
signal assembly.
As shown in the figure, it would appear that during midday, the sun can tend to backlight the Myrtle signal. Since
the signal creates the potential for speed differentials (as the signal changes from green to yellow and red
especially), increasing signal visibility can be one of the most effective safety countermeasures. In this instance,
providing reflective tape for the backplates may improve night visibility. For daytime, potentially adding additional
supplemental indications on the vertical pole and potentially the near-side could improve visibility. These
supplemental indications would provide additional sight angle perhaps out of the sun’s path and potentially limit
instances where indications may be obscured by a vehicle in front (particularly larger vehicles like trucks and
buses).
The majority of speed-related crashes occurred in 2024 (5 of 9) which is around the same time that the new
development was being constructed at this intersection. The remainder of the years saw 1 speed-related crash
each. Therefore, the intersection should be monitored for speed-related collisions moving forward to determine if
temporary conditions from the development possibly contributed to the 2024 spike, or if something has
permanently changed to create a new pattern of speed-related collisions.
Figure 8 - ICAT Rear-End Collision Time-of-Day
1 1
EXISTING TRAFFIC PARAMETERS AND DATA
Counts were observed by MPOJC at the following location in 2021 while University of Iowa was in session:
· Riverside Drive @ Myrtle Avenue
Counts were observed by MPOJC at the following location in 2019 while University of Iowa was in session:
· Benton Street @ Greenwood Drive/Carriage Hill
Counts were observed by the CLIENT in May 2025 at the following locations:
· Benton Street @ Greenwood Drive/Carriage Hill
· Greenwood Drive @ Proposed Development Entrance (Briarwood Heath Center)
Counts were observed by third-party Shive Hattery in September 2020 at the following location:
· S Riverside Drive @ Myrtle Avenue
The most recent CLIENT counts were completed after the conclusion of the University of Iowa academic calendar
which ends in the first week of May. Therefore, traffic conditions (particularly in areas on or adjacent to campus)
when counts were observed may differ from the typical peak hour conditions when the University of Iowa is in
session.
MPOJC also provided a traffic impact study for an off-site development located in the southwest corner of Myrtle
Avenue and Riverside Drive. The counts for this study were completed during the COVID Pandemic where many
public studies have shown a significant reduction in overall traffic nationwide. Iowa DOT AADT and turning
movement data along Riverside from Benton Street to Highway 6 was also available in 2014 and 2018.
The various sources of input data and associated parameters are summarized in the table below:
1 2
From these sources, the following existing traffic parameters were determined for the study area:
AM Peak:
7:15a-8:15a
PHF: 0.86
% Trucks: 1% (No 2025 Data – Assumed from Shive Hattery and MPOJC Counts at Myrtle Signal Approach)
PM Peak:
4:30p-5:30p
PHF: 0.95
% Trucks: 1% (No 2025 Data – Assumed from Shive Hattery and MPOJC Counts @ Myrtle Signal Approach)
Background Growth Rate:
1%
Source
CL
I
E
N
T
(
M
M
S
)
C
o
u
n
t
s
An
d
e
r
s
o
n
-
B
o
g
e
r
t
Ri
v
e
r
s
i
d
e
/
H
w
y
6
S
t
u
d
y
An
d
e
r
s
o
n
-
B
o
g
e
r
t
/
M
P
O
J
C
Ri
v
e
r
s
i
d
e
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
T
i
m
i
n
g
Ri
v
e
r
s
i
d
e
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
TI
S
MP
O
J
C
C
o
u
n
t
s
(
*
*
*
m
o
s
t
li
k
e
l
y
a
f
t
e
r
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
)
Io
w
a
D
O
T
T
u
r
n
i
n
g
Mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
*
*
P
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
60
-
m
i
n
i
n
t
e
r
v
a
l
s
o
n
t
h
e
ho
u
r
)
Io
w
a
D
O
T
A
A
D
T
Date May 2025 Jan 2025 July 2021 November 2020 October 2019 2014, 2018
Counts - Riverside
@ Benton x x 2023
Counts - Riverside
@ Highway 6 x x 2023
Counts - Riverside
@ Myrtle x x 2023
Counts - Benton @
Greenwood x x 2022
Counts -
Greenwood @
Development
x 2022
AM Peak Hour 7:15-8:15a 7:30-8:30a 7:15-8:15a 7:00-8:00a, 7:30-
8:30 (estimated)
AM PHF: 0.86 0.87 0.83-0.86
PM Peak Hour 4:30-5:30p 4:15-5:15p 4:30-5:30p 4:15-5:15p After 5:30pm 5:00-6:00p,
4:00-5:00p
PM PHF: 0.92 0.95 0.95 0.89-0.95
Background Myrtle
Annual Growth 0.76%
Background
Riverside
AnnualGrowth
1% 0.94%
Source of Input Data
Table 3 - Input Data Summary
1 3
The previous data source table demonstrates that none of the three study intersections have true comparable
data for counts during and outside of school. Therefore, adjusting the most recent CLIENT provided counts at the
Benton Street and development entrance intersections must be assumed.
A previous study by Anderson Bogert located at the intersection of Highway 6, Riverside Drive, and Highway 1 in
January 2025 considered similar issues. However, better direct counts were available for times during the
academic year, as well as during breaks. The following is a direct excerpt from this study:
“The mainline traffic [volumes collected in January 2025 during academic break were] compared at the
two ends of Sturgis Corner Drive with the volumes collected during “normal” traffic operations by
MPOJC in October [of 2024]. These results are shown in the table below. At both locations, one
direction of travel was higher during the Anderson-Bogert counts. This is contrary to what might be
expected when a major generator [such as the University of Iowa] is not fully operational while counting.
Since the signalized intersection counts were collected during an ideal time, they will be kept constant
while the Sturgis Corner Drive counts are adjusted. At the south end of Sturgis Corner Drive, the
eastbound movements were reduced and westbound increased in order to balance. At the north end,
the northbound movements increased and the southbound decreased. Since the largest discrepancy
was 87% between the MPOJC and Anderson-Bogert counts, all movements to/from Sturgis Corner
Drive were increased by a minimum of 15% during the balancing…
IDOT has counted this intersection [at Riverside Drive and Highway 6] about every 4 years since
2010, including 2010, 2014, and 2018. In 2014, the DOT counted outside of the University of Iowa
academic calendar. Therefore, from 2010 – 2018 the intersection saw about 1% annualized growth
during this period. Therefore, it’s estimated that the background growth rate for the study location is
about 1%.
Assuming this growth rate, the 2010 DOT counts were brought forward to 2014, estimating about
45,300 as the total daily entering AADT for the signalized intersection of Highway 6 and Highway 1.
The DOT annualized counts in 2014 were completed in July (outside of the university’s standard
academic semester) and was only about 41,500. This is about 8.5% less than predicted utilizing an
average growth rate between 2010 to 2018. Therefore, the assumption to balance movements to
the signalized intersection counts of MPOJC and ensure all movements to/from Sturgis Corner Drive
are inflated by 15% seems adequate for analysis purposes.”
The comparative study found that counts along Riverside Drive (a primary arterial through the heart of the
University of Iowa Campus) during a school break were as much as 15% lower in one direction, but 8% higher in
the opposite direction. This suggests that while the University of Iowa is a major generator, the majority of traffic
along Riverside Drive comes from vehicles unaffiliated by the University, or generally unaffected by the academic
school term.
The impact of counting outside the academic calendar likely provides a more substantial impact on Greenwood
Drive compared with Benton Street. This is primarily due to Benton Street’s collector geometry, serving significant
pass-through traffic. This is in comparison to Greenwood Drive which is primarily an unconnected local street. As
Roadway
Approach @
Sturgis Corner
Drive
Anderson-Bogert Approach
Total
MPOJC Approach
Total Difference Ratio
Riverside Drive Northbound 765 880 -115 0.87
Riverside Drive Southbound 1173 1087 86 1.08
Highway 6 Eastbound 1392 1175 217 1.18
Highway 6 Westbound 1297 1368 -71 0.95
Anderson-Bogert Count Comparison
Table 4 - Previous Study Count Comparison
1 4
a conservative assumption, the 2025 counts observed by the CLIENT along Greenwood Drive were inflated by
15%. As a collector road, a similar pattern on Benton Street can be reasonably assumed compared to the results
seen along Riverside Drive in January of 2025. Since one direction of counts was lower outside of school, while
the other was higher, inflating all Benton Street counts arbitrarily by 15% may result in an excessively conservative
analysis. Therefore, a lower inflation rate on the order of 6-7% seems more appropriate.
Of the two sources of count data available on Myrtle Avenue at Riverside Drive, the Shive Hattery data was taken
during the COVID pandemic and may be unreliable. Therefore, the 2021 MPOJC counts for this intersection were
utilized and brought forward by the assumed growth rate to 2025. Additional trips generated by the Shive-Hattery
study were then added to the intersection.
The other two intersections along Greenwood Drive utilized the CLIENT’s recent counts from May 2025, with
Greenwood Drive counts inflated by 15% and Benton Street counts inflated by 6.5%. The resulting
existing/opening day no-build analysis volumes are shown in Figure 9.
1 6
OPENING DAY CONDITIONS (2025)
DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT
The proposed development (DEVELOPMENT) is located at 611 Green Drive, Iowa City, IA 52246. The CLIENT
generally described the facility as an affordable multi-family residential facility. It will consist of 187 total units
spread across 4 floors.
The architect’s rendering of the proposed facility is shown below in Figure 10.
The current engineer’s site plan is attached below in Figure 11. The CLIENT indicated the primary site access is
to Greenwood Drive. The access to Benton Street may or may not be eliminated from the design. If it is to remain,
the access will be gated and used for emergency vehicles only (gate shown in PINK).
BUILD-OUT SCHEDULE
The entire development is scheduled to be operational upon opening day (assumed as 2026 for purposes of this
study).
Figure 10 - Development Rendering
1 7
PROPOSED LAND USE AND ZONING
The proposed zoning for this site is OPD-RM-20(MULTI-FAMILY). This is different than the zoning shown on the
Johnson County Property Information Viewer at the time of this report (Institutional Public (P2)). According to the
Iowa City Zoning Code at the time of this report, the development complies with permitted uses of RM-20 zoning.
Based on the information provided by the CLIENT, the proposed ITE Land Use Code with is the most applicable
is 223 – Affordable Housing. This land use code has a relatively “small sample size” within the ITE data.
However, when compared to the next closest land use (Multifamily Mid-Rise), the estimated trips were within
about 3%, which is a negligible difference for purposes of this study
DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION
The development characteristics were used to enter the ITE 11th Edition generation chart for land use 221. The
estimated site trip distribution is summarized below:
IN OUT IN OUT
Code Unit of Measure Quantity
223 Dwelling Units 187 25 61 48 34
25 61 48 34Full-Build
Peak Hour Trips 86 82
Total Weekday Trips 837
Affordable Housing
Estimated Site Trip Generation, ITE 11th Edition
Greenwood Drive Affordable Housing
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Description Peak of Adjacent Streets, 7 - 9 Peak of Adjacent Streets, 4 - 6
Figure 11 - Site Plan
Table 5 - Site Trip Distribution
1 8
ADJACENT OFF-SITE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENTS
At the time of this report, a new development was being constructed off-site at 525 S Riverside Drive. Not yet fully
operational at the time of counting, vehicles from this local generator require adjustment of the counts acquired
by the CLIENT. The off-site property is located in the SW corner of the signalized intersection on Riverside Drive
at Myrtle Avenue. MPOJC provided the traffic impact study for this site. According to the report, the off-site
development was anticipated to generate 133 trips during the AM peak, and 179 trips during the PM peak after
internal capture reductions.
Only about 3% of the off-site development traffic was estimated to utilize Greenwood Drive (less than 5 vehicles
total in each peak hour). Therefore, for the study intersections on Greenwood Drive, the impact of the off-site
development were assumed to be negligible.
The off-site development is likely to impact the Myrtle signal which is analyzed in this report. The off-site
development’s impact on this intersection was discussed in the existing conditions section and is accordingly
accounted for in the “existing background traffic”.
DEVELOPMENT TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
The CLIENT provided that this affordable housing complex was not necessarily targeting college students as
primary tenants. These types of tenants are generally more likely to utilize alternative modes of transportation
to/from activities on campus than a personal car. Students would be largely attracted to the university campus
which is located northeast of the site.
The typical tenants for this site are likely distributed in accordance with the general commercial density distribution
surrounding this site. Tenants most likely travel to and from jobs at commercial entities or are traveling to/from
commercial retail/service sites.
According to currently published Iowa City Laborshed Data2, about 53% of Iowa City’s workforce lives within the
city, and about 79% of the workforce lives within 24 miles. The average employee in the Iowa City laborshed
travels about 17 minutes or less to work. Therefore, the majority of site users will likely be destined to stay within
the Iowa City municipal area.
From the site, the closest commercial services (grocery stores, eating establishments, etc) are located to the
south and east of the site. The primary areas of commercial and professional employment (including University
of Iowa, and general downtown area) are located northeasterly of the site. Therefore, its expected that the majority
of site users will likely be attracted to Riverside Drive as the primary means of accessing the site.
The assumed trip distribution, assignment, and opening day full-build analysis volumes are shown in the following
figures.
2 https://iwd-lmi.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=96b4ef5da19045578ce80eadfbf5827f
21
2 2
FUTURE CONDITIONS (2045)
BUILD-OUT SCHEDULE
The entire site will be constructed by opening day. Therefore, the development has the same generation potential
on opening day compared with the future scenario.
ADJACENT OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
At the time of this study, no pending off-site developments in the immediate vicinity of the study area were brought
to the attention of Anderson-Bogert. Since the majority of adjacent properties are already developed, it is assumed
that the adjacent network will continue to operate comparably with opening day. For purposes of this analysis, no
other external future development or roadway network factors were assumed to impact the study area.
To obtain future analysis volumes, the existing no-build volumes were inflated by the assumed background growth
rate over 20 years. The development’s estimated trips were then added to the network in order to obtain the future
no-build/full-build analysis volumes shown in Figure 15 and Figure 16, respectively.
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
The current general method to analyze intersections for capacity is to utilize methods of the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM). The two intersections with partial stop control can be analyzed using this method. The signal
located on Riverside Drive at Myrtle Avenue contains a ped hold phase (phase 4) and therefore cannot be
analyzed with the HCM methodology. Therefore, Synchro methodology was used instead assuming
uncoordinated operation (as of the previous MPOJC project the signal had not yet been connect to the
coordination corridor and does not appear to be running signal timings generated with the previous project based
on data provided by MPOJC for this study).
The general definitions for Level-of-Service are
summarized in the table to the right. LOS A generally
represents “free-flow” conditions whereas LOS
represents a complete breakdown in flow.
At the time of this report, Iowa SUDAS generally
suggests LOS “C” as preferred for intersections overall,
with LOS D preferred for individual movements. LOS D
for the intersection and LOS E for individual movements
are considered “acceptable” in the design year.
The capacity analysis for all scenarios and study
intersections are summarized in the tables below.
v/c <= 1.0 v/c > 1.0
0-10 A F
>10-15 B F
>15-25 C F
>25-35 D F
>35-50 E F
>50 F F
v/c <= 1.0 v/c > 1.0
0-10 A F
>10-20 B F
>20-35 C F
>35-55 D F
>55-80 E F
>80 F F
Control Delay
(s/veh)
LOS by Volume-to-Capacity Ratio
Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition Unsignalized TWSC and
AWSC Level-of-Service Criteria
Control Delay
(s/veh)
LOS by Volume-to-Capacity Ratio
Highway Capacity Manual 7th Edition Signalized
Level-of-Service Criteria
Table 6 - LOS Definitions
23
24
2 5
BENTON STREET AT GREENWOOD DRIVE
No-Build
Under opening day conditions, the intersection currently operates with acceptable LOS. All movements operate
at LOS C or better. The southbound movement is the most critical, at LOS C. According to the HCM methodology,
the expected southbound queue is usually less than one vehicle.
The future no-build scenario sees the LOS for the southbound approach degrade to LOS E. This is primarily due
to the background traffic growth assumption along Benton Street. With nearly 1,000 combined EB/WB vehicles
during the PM peak, southbound traffic may have difficulty entering Benton Street due to the heavy EB/WB traffic.
The longest expected queue may exceed 5 vehicles.
Table 7 - Benton Street At Greenwood Drive Capacity Analysis
Approach Lanes Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue,
ft
LOS Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue,
ft
LOS Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue,
ft
LOS Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue,
ft
LOS
Eastbound
Left - 34 8.6 25 A 41 8.6 25 A 41 9 25 A 48 9 25 A
Through 1 361 0 0 A 361 0 0 A 440 0 0 A 440 0 0 A
Right - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 -
Westbound
Left - 7 8.1 0 A 7 8.1 0 A 9 8.4 0 A 9 8.4 0 A
Through 1 449 0 0 A 449 0 0 A 548 0 0 A 548 0 0 A
Right - 31 - 0 - 38 - 0 - 38 - 0 - 45 - 0 -
Northbound
Left - 3 3 4 4
Through 1 1 14.5 25 B 1 14.8 25 B 1 18.5 25 C 1 19 25 C
Right - 10 10 12 12
Southbound
Left - 49 54 60 65
Through 1 2 21.8 75 C 2 23.8 75 C 2 41.6 125 E 2 49.6 150 E
Right - 100 105 122 127
Intersection 3.7 4.2 6.6 8
Future No-Build Future Full-Build
PM Peak
Opening Day Full-BuildOpening Day No-Build
HCM 7th Edition TWSC Analysis
1. Benton Street At Greenwood Drive
Approach Lanes Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue, ft LOS Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue,
ft
LOS Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue,
ft
LOS Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue,
ft
LOS
Eastbound
Left - 91 8.2 25 A 95 8.2 25 A 111 8.5 25 A 115 8.5 25 A
Through 1 344 0 0 A 344 0 0 A 420 0 0 A 420 0 0 A
Right - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 1 - 0 -
Westbound
Left - 2 8.1 0 A 2 8.1 0 A 2 8.4 0 A 2 8.4 0 A
Through 1 225 0 0 A 225 0 0 A 275 0 0 A 275 0 0 A
Right - 44 - 0 - 48 - 0 - 54 - 0 - 58 - 0 -
Northbound
Left - 1 1 1 1
Through 1 1 12.9 25 B 1 13 25 B 1 14.4 25 B 1 14.5 25 B
Right - 7 7 9 9
Southbound
Left - 21 30 26 35
Through 1 1 16.4 25 C 1 17.7 25 C 1 22.3 25 C 1 25.3 50 D
Right - 28 37 34 43
Intersection 2.2 2.7 2.7 3.3
HCM 7th Edition TWSC Analysis
1. Benton Street At Greenwood Drive
Opening Day No-Build Opening Day Full-Build Future No-Build Future Full-Build
AM Peak
2 6
Full-Build
The intersection generally continues to operate comparably with the no-build scenario. The intersection’s
performance will be primarily driven by the background traffic already using the intersection.
GREENWOOD DRIVE AT DEVELOPMENT ENTRANCE
No-Build and Full-Build
Assuming the two individual site driveways act “as one”, the intersection will operate with good LOS during both
all scenarios. Neither the background growth nor the proposed development appear to have noticeable impact
on the capacity and performance of this intersection.
Approach Lanes Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue, ft LOS Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue,
ft
LOS Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue,
ft
LOS Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue,
ft
LOS
Eastbound
Left
Through 1 117 - 0 - 117 - 0 - 143 - 0 - 143 - 0 -
Right - 25 - 0 - 33 - 0 - 31 - 0 - 39 - 0 -
Westbound
Left - 10 7.6 0 A 27 7.7 25 A 12 7.7 0 A 29 7.7 25 A
Through 1 45 0 0 A 45 0 0 A 55 0 0 A 55 0 0 A
Right
Northbound
Left - 9 27 11 29
Through 1 0 9.6 25 A 0 10.1 25 B 0 9.9 25 A 0 10.5 25 B
Right - 14 57 17 60
Southbound
Left 0 0 0 0
Through 0 0 0 A 0 0 0 A 0 0 0 A 0 0 0 A
Right 0 0 0 0
Intersection 1.3 3.5 1.4 3.3
HCM 7th Edition TWSC Analysis
2. Greenwood Drive At Development
AM Peak
Opening Day No-Build Opening Day Full-Build Future No-Build Future Full-Build
Approach Lanes Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue,
ft
LOS Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue,
ft
LOS Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue,
ft
LOS Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue,
ft
LOS
Eastbound
Left
Through 1 71 - 0 - 71 - 0 - 87 - 0 - 87 - 0 -
Right - 12 - 0 - 26 - 0 - 15 - 0 - 29 - 0 -
Westbound
Left - 21 7.5 0 A 54 7.5 25 A 26 7.5 25 A 59 7.6 25 A
Through 1 124 0 0 A 124 0 0 A 151 0 0 A 151 0 0 A
Right
Northbound
Left - 23 33 28 38
Through 1 0 9.9 25 A 0 10.3 25 B 0 10.3 25 B 0 10.9 25 B
Right - 18 42 22 46
Southbound
Left 0 0 0 0
Through 0 0 0 A 0 0 0 A 0 0 0 A 0 0 0 A
Right 0 0 0 0
Intersection 2.1 3.4 2.2 3.3
Opening Day Full-Build Future No-Build Future Full-Build
HCM 7th Edition TWSC Analysis
2. Greenwood Drive At Development
Opening Day No-Build
PM Peak
Table 8 - Greenwood Drive At Development Entrance Capacity Analysis
2 7
RIVERSIDE DRIVE AT MYRTLE AVENUE
No-Build
This intersection operates with good LOS B or better for both no-build scenarios. For all no-build scenarios, the
intersection operates with LOS B or better. The most critical movements are eastbound and southbound. Both
operate with good LOS C or better for both time horizons.
Full-Build
The proposed development will likely not have a noticeable impact on individual movement delay for the opening
day scenario. The analysis suggests that all movement delays change by less than around 2 seconds per vehicle.
In the PM future full-build scenario, delay appears to increase by nearly 10 seconds per vehicle but still operates
with acceptable LOS D. This increase is likely due to the overall coordination corridor parameters of the Synchro
model. Anderson-Bogert’s previous Riverside Drive model was utilized and included the entire coordination
corridor. The Synchro delay methodology is more sensitive to neighboring intersection parameters than the HCM
methodology. This likely accounts for the majority of the apparent delay increase.
Approach Lanes Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue, ft LOS Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue,
ft
LOS Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue,
ft
LOS Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue,
ft
LOS
Eastbound
Left 1 78 19.6 75 B 102 20.4 75 C 95 21 75 C 119 21.9 75 C
Through
Right 1 21 9 25 A 40 7.5 25 A 26 8.3 25 A 45 7.2 25 A
Westbound
Left
Through
Right
Northbound
Left 1 91 5.4 25 A 98 5.9 50 A 111 6.4 50 A 118 7.3 50 A
Through 2 809 4.9 100 A 809 5.2 100 A 987 5.6 125 A 987 6 150 A
Right
Southbound
Left
Through 2 487 10.8 125 B 487 11.2 125 B 594 11.6 150 B 594 13 150 B
Right - 86 96 105 115
Intersection 7.9 A 8.4 A 8.7 A 9.6 A
Synchro Signalized Analysis
3. Riverside Drive At Myrtle Avenue
AM Peak
Opening Day No-Build Opening Day Full-Build Future No-Build Future Full-Build
Approach Lanes Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue,
ft
LOS Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue,
ft
LOS Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue,
ft
LOS Volume
(vph)
Delay
(sec/veh)
95%itle
Queue,
ft
LOS
Eastbound
Left 1 97 26.1 100 C 111 27.2 125 C 118 27.5 125 C 132 28.4 125 C
Through
Right 1 61 8.9 50 A 71 8.5 50 A 74 8.4 50 A 84 8.3 50 A
Westbound
Left
Through
Right
Northbound
Left 1 63 12.4 75 B 77 13.3 75 B 77 13.4 75 B 91 15.6 100 B
Through 2 723 9.8 275 A 723 9.8 275 A 882 10.6 325 B 882 11.2 325 B
Right
Southbound
Left
Through 2 1047 19.5 650 B 1047 21.4 675 C 1278 25.8 850 C 1278 36.1 850 D
Right - 93 112 113 132
Intersection 15.9 B 17.1 B 19.7 B 25.6 C
Future No-Build Future Full-BuildOpening Day Full-Build
Synchro Signalized Analysis
3. Riverside Drive At Myrtle Avenue
PM Peak
Opening Day No-Build
Table 9 - Riverside Drive At Myrtle Avenue Capacity Analysis
2 8
WARRANT ANALYSIS
AUXILIARY LANES
At the time of this report, Iowa SUDAS design standards specify current guidelines for evaluating potential
uncontrolled auxiliary lane warrants. The guidance currently references NCHRP Report 745 (Left Turn
Treatments) and NCHRP Report 457 (Right Turn Treatments).
NCHRP 745 warrants are not dependent on speed. NCHRP Report 457 was originally based upon rural high-
speed roads. Therefore, the research presents warrant criteria that changes as the posted/85th percentile speeds
change. The lowest relationship criteria curve provided in this report is 40-mph. All roads within the study area
most likely have an 85th percentile speed which is at or below 40 mph. Therefore, the warrant criteria presented
in Report 457 are not directly applicable to the curves shown in the tables below. Furthermore, the Myrtle Avenue
intersection is signalized. Therefore, the uncontrolled approach warrant criteria do not directly apply. However, its
worth consideration for periods during green where southbound traffic is free flowing during the peak hour.
The following table shows how the study analysis plots against the closest relevant warrant criteria published in
Report 457.
Table 10 - Right Auxiliary Lane Warrant Criteria
2 9
Benton Street @ Greenwood Avenue WBR
The table above suggests that the WBR movement from Benton Street to Greenwood Drive does not satisfy
warrant criteria even if the 85th percentile speed was 40 mph.
Greenwood Drive @ Development NBR
The table shows that this location is unlikely to satisfy warrant criteria even if the 85th percentile speed was 40
mph on this road.
Riverside Drive @ Myrtle Avenue SBR
This is a signalized approach. Therefore, the warrant criteria is not directly applicable. The need for a turn bay is
more typically based on capacity and safety operations. It can be noted from the table that if the southbound traffic
was uncontrolled (such as may be the case during extended periods of green indication) the PM traffic is heavy
enough for all scenarios that the SBR movement would fall comfortably within a warrant for an 85th percentile
speed of 40 mph.
Although the warrant criteria cannot be directly applied, previous research and guidance from AASHTO and
SUDAS both state that providing auxiliary lanes at intersections has been demonstrated to improve safety and
operations. Therefore, even though the capacity of the intersection appears to be adequate for all study scenarios,
a southbound right dedicated lane may help to improve and prevent rear-end collisions which have been
overrepresented at this intersection. As previously discussed, a spike of collisions occurred in 2024 (nearly 5 of 9
collisions) while other years only experienced one or less collisions. This year happened to coincide with adjacent
construction at the intersection. Additional monitoring is required to determine if a new pattern has truly been
created or if 2024 was an anomaly.
The following table demonstrates the left
auxiliary lane warrant criteria within the study
area.
The proposed development entrance does not
approach the established criteria during either
opening day peak hour. In the future, the SBL
movement could approach the established
warrant criteria. The table at right shows that
the AM future scenario only just plots to the
right of the warrant curve.
The future data plots are therefore sensitive to
the assumptions (existing count inflation and
background inflation) made within this report.
Therefore, the location should continue to be
monitored as background traffic grows in order
to confirm assumptions within this report.
At the Benton Street and Greenwood Drive
intersection, the EBL movement consistently
plots well to the right and above the
established warrant curve for all scenarios
whether the development is constructed or
not. The capacity analysis earlier suggested
that the delay for this movement is acceptable
but does suggest that the longest queue is
expected to be one vehicle.
Table 11 - Left Auxiliary Lane Criteria
3 0
Therefore, there may be some operational and safety benefits for providing even a short queuing space (50 feet
or less) outside of the major eastbound through lane.
SIGNALIZED CONTROL
Since the intersection along Greenwood Drive at the proposed development operates with good LOS, mostly free
of auxiliary lane warrants, and generally free from a significant crash history, it was assumed this intersection
would not satisfy signal warrant criteria for any scenario. The challenges involved with the dual private approach
could potentially create more operational issues than signalization would solve.
On Benton Street at Greenwood Drive, the signal warrant analysis is summarized in the table below. Anderson-
Bogert did not collect any new counts for this report, and the CLIENT completed counts while school was not in
session during only the assumed peak hours. Therefore, at least 8 hours of count data was not collected for
this study. To fully and confidentially state that MUTCD warrant criteria are met, 8 hours of data are needed for
volume Warrant 1 and 4 for Warrant 2.
Instead, the peak hour counts were extrapolated over 24 hours utilizing a typical municipal streets daily distribution
as reported by Iowa DOT in the most recent 2022 Annual Automated Traffic Counter Report. 12am-12pm were
extrapolated using the AM peak hour data, and 12pm-12am were extrapolated using PM peak data. The existing
data shows a significantly higher volume of traffic on the southbound Greenwood Drive approach in the PM. As
a result, the extrapolated 24-hour data is provided in the Appendix shows that most hours where criteria are
satisfied tend to follow from the PM peak hour. Therefore, this report cannot definitely state whether signal criteria
are fully satisfied. Instead, the extrapolated data based on a typical similar road classification was used to estimate
the likelihood of this intersection’s potential to satisfy warrant criteria.
The table above suggests that warrants are not satisfied for either the existing or opening day full-build scenarios.
However, as background traffic grows heavier (particularly EB/WB), the intersection may satisfy criteria at a point
in the future before the +20-analysis period expires. In particular, Warrant 1B is geared towards intersections
where the major street traffic is so heavy that it causes excessive delay to the minor street (as opposed to Warrant
1A which is overall volume shared between all approaches). The Benton Street intersection at first glance appears
to be heavily weighted to the EBWB movements. We see this reflected in the warrant summary table above under
the column for Warrant 1B.
The charts in the Appendix demonstrate that the nearly all the warranted hours are satisfied based on the PM
extrapolated data. Therefore, additional counting during regular University operations is recommended in the
future as background traffic continues to grow towards the point of fully satisfying warrant criteria.
Table 12 - Signal Warrant Estimate
Scenario
Warrant
Satisfied?
Estimated
Hours
Satisfied
Warrant
Satisfied?
Estimated
Hours
Satisfied
Warrant
Satisfied?
Estimated
Hours
Satisfied
Warrant
Satisfied?
Estimated
Hours
Satisfied
Existing/Opening No-Build N 1 N 3 N 4 N 3
Opening Full-Build N 3 N 3 N 6 N 3
Future No-Build N 3 Y 8 Y 8 Y 4
Future Full-Build N 5 Y 10 Y 8 Y 6
Warrant 1A Warrant 1B Combo 1+2 Warrant 2
3 1
ANALYSIS OF SITE GEOMETRICS
ACCESS MANAGEMENT
The proposed development has two (2) access points. The primary access is located on the local Greenwood
Drive roadway. The alternate access is to be gated and restricted for emergency use only (per the CLIENT). This
access is on the collector road. According to SUDAS, direct access to individual properties is generally
discouraged along arterials and collectors. It would appear that the proposed site design follows this design
guidance with the main entrance being located off of the adjacent collector road.
The gated access also falls within the vertical curve portion of Benton Street which reduces sight distance for
EB/WB traffic along Benton. Therefore, if this access is to remain, we recommend it is gated and restricted for
emergency use only.
The primary site access will replace an existing driveway. There is only one other driveway located on the eastern
half of Greenwood Drive. It sits immediately to the east of the proposed site. SUDAS does not list any specific
separation requirements for residential driveways on local streets in Table 5L-3.05. Typical best practice is to
separate driveways as much as feasible and line them up directly across from other driveways/approaches.
The existing site poses grade challenges that may create more safety issues than it solves if the site’s driveway
is shifted to the west. Furthermore, the intersection has not experienced a statistically significant crash history
since 2015 (oldest crash data published on ICAT by the Iowa DOT). Thus, the existing configuration does not
seem to cause a correctable pattern of crashes. The previous school has been closed since about 2012, so crash
data only covers years where the driveway access has likely not seen regular use.
Based on current geometry, it doesn’t appear that separating the driveways would result in significant line-of-sight
improvements. Therefore, the primary improvement which would provide the most benefit would involve private
collaboration to combine both driveways into a single access. However, since no existing safety issues are
apparent at this location, additional monitoring may be more appropriate for opening day.
Figure 17 - Proposed Access
3 2
MULTI-MODAL ANALYSIS
Figure 17 above shows an existing mid-block crossing on Greenwood Drive between the two existing driveways.
The proposed site plans in the Appendix appear to show this sidewalk generally reconstructed in this current
location. The lone recorded collision at this location since 2020 involved a pedestrian.
Since cyclists and pedestrians may increase as a result of the development, advanced visibility may help improve
the safety of this midblock crossing. With the driveways on either side, the current W11-2 warning signs shown in
the figure below also contain diagonal downward arrows on supplemental plaques. Typically, this configuration is
used when the signs are posted at the actual crossing. In advance, these signs should list the distance to the
crossing.
With the proposed design, the crosswalk remains wedged between the existing driveways. If one vehicle is queue
at both driveways, the pedestrians might be completely obscured to through traffic. The pedestrian’s sight line
could also potentially be restricted during these instances.
The is an existing park with trails located to the northeast of the site. The closest transit route currently runs to the
west of the site along Woodside Place. This is the only pedestrian crossing currently designated between
Woodside Place and Myrtle Avenue. Therefore, some type of crossing should remain across Greenwood in order
to provide a safe location. A few potential ways to improve visibility of the crossing may include:
· Reducing the width of Greenwood Drive at the mid-block crossing to create the feeling of mini “bumpouts”
where crosswalk warning sign with arrow plaque can be placed at the crossing along with corresponding
advanced warning signs on each approach. Signs may be installed with RRFB flashing devices as an
additional visibility improvement.
· Square up the existing midblock crossing by adjusting the proposed site driveway to be perpendicular to
Greenwood Avenue, relocating the northside ramp to the other side of the residential driveway. This is
sketched in Figure 19.
· Relocate crosswalk to east side of the Briarwood driveway, square the development driveway up with
Greenwood Drive, consider sidewalk along the south side of Greenwood Drive westward to Woodside
Place and provide an additional pedestrian crossing at this location. The combination of these items could
improve crosswalk safety, visibility, and overall vulnerable road user accessibility within the corridor. The
pedestrian crossing should still receive pavement markings, signage at the crossing, along with
advanced signage on the approaches. This may need to be coordinated with existing advanced railroad
warning signs. This concept is shown below in Figure 20.
Figure 18 - Existing Crosswalk
3 3
Figure 19 - Squared up Crosswalk
Figure 20 - Potential Site Driveway Improvements
3 4
TRANSIT ACCESS
The closest transit route is the Oakcrest route which is shown in the figure below. As a result, residents riding
public transportation may be likely to exit the site from the north and head westward along Greenwood Drive.
Therefore, potentially providing sidewalk along the south side of Greenwood Drive towards Woodside Place,
along with a crossing at Woodside Place might provide a logical path for pedestrians that discourages jaywalking.
Figure 21 - Transit Route Map
3 5
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The site will generally allow the existing network to continue operating comparably with existing conditions. The
site and it’s generated traffic are not likely to create any new inherent capacity, safety, and operational issues
within the study area. With this in mind, the following conclusions and recommendations were formulated by this
report:
1. Consider immediate low-cost safety improvements for Benton Street at Greenwood Drive
Intersection relating to existing crash experience
This intersection exhibits a high potential for crash reduction and several apparent crash patterns.
Several low-cost improvements which could potentially help include better crosswalk or “hidden
driveway” signage, particularly on the westbound approach where a vertical curve hides the Greenwood
intersection and pedestrian intersection until westbound vehicles are at or within safe stopping distance.
An RRFB system could increase visibility of the pedestrian crossing, along with an interconnected
advanced flasher for the westbound approach. The flasher system would illuminate when the RRFB’s at
the ped crossing are activated.
An additional immediate improvement to consider would be removal of obstacles from within intersection
sight triangles. Particularly between the southbound and eastbound traffic, an overrepresented collision
pattern between these two movements is apparent. Increasing visibility between the two movements by
relocating utility poles and potentially the existing bus stop away from the intersection could improve line
of sight.
An additional consideration now or in the future may be to reconfigure the Carriage Hill access as an
entrance only, or a right-in-right-out. This would eliminate overlapping SBL between Carriage Hill and
Greenwood Drive which could contribute to the existing crash patterns.
The MPOJC and Iowa City should continue to monitor this intersection as background traffic grows. As
Benton Street traffic grows, Greenwood Drive capacity will continue to degrade, and eastbound left traffic
will experience higher delay. Without a dedicated eastbound-left lane, these vehicles may start to
regularly queuing in the through lane of Benton Street thereby disrupting traffic. The EBL movement does
not currently appear to be causing operational or safety issues at the intersection despite meeting a left-
turn bay auxiliary warrant for all existing and full-build scenarios. As background traffic grows, the city
should start planning for the potential addition of an EBL auxiliary lane at this location.
2. Monitor the Riverside Drive at Myrtle Avenue Intersection
The City should continue to monitor the safety performance of this intersection, particularly for
southbound traffic. The existing crash history shows an overrepresented pattern of southbound rear-end
collisions. These appear to have spiked in 2024 (5 of 9 crashes since 2020) which coincided with the
new development construction at this intersection. The city should monitor the intersection over the next
several years to see if something in 2024 changed intersection conditions permanently, or if the
southbound collision pattern for 2024 was an anomaly. If collision issues persist, the city should consider
countermeasures to reduce this collision pattern.
Several countermeasures which could help would include reflective backplates on the signal heads
(primarily night visibility), additional supplemental southbound signal heads located on the right side of
the road (on the vertical signal pole and/or a near side supplemental head), and potentially a southbound
right turning lane. According to established criteria, if Riverside Drive 85th percentile speeds were 40 mph,
this location would comfortably satisfy auxiliary lane criteria (particularly in the PM peak hour).
3 6
3. Optimize Site Driveway Alignment to Greenwood Drive
The proposed site driveway could be modified from the existing alignment to be at a perpendicular (90
degree) angle with Greenwood Drive. This would help improve site lines to Greenwood Drive (which
currently is uphill toward the west). This realignment would also give more space for the existing midblock
crosswalk (should it remain in place) or allow it to be squared up with Greenwood Drive as well (ideal
pedestrian crossing is perpendicular).
4. Improve Visibility and Alignment of Existing Mid-Block Greenwood Drive Pedestrian Crossing
and Sidewalk Network
With the current dual driveway configuration, this midblock crossing does not have the best visibility for
pedestrians or motorists. The warning signing is not quite typical per MUTCD application with the current
placement of the W11-2 crossing warning signs and diagonal plaques which are to be installed at the
crossing location, not 50’ in advance.
In conjunction with the potential site driveway perpendicular adjustment, additional improvements can be
made to improve crossing safety and visibility. The crossing should be squared up with Greenwood Drive
so that crossing is perpendicular to vehicular traffic. Warning signs should be placed at the crossing, and
in advance of both approaches per MUTCD guidance. Advanced warning signage may need to be
coordinated with the current advanced railroad warning signage to ensure proper visibility and
effectiveness of both signs.
Additional consideration should be made for potentially relocating the midblock crossing eastward to the
other side of existing Briarwood driveway. This would improve geometry and visibility for the crossing
compared with the existing location between twin driveways. In conjunction with the mid-block shift,
consideration should be given to adding sidewalk along the south side of Greenwood Drive up to
Woodside place with a designated crossing to the transit stop. This would be one potential route for
pedestrians that would provide safe connectivity to the transit stop, and sidewalk network already along
the north side of Greenwood Drive to Benton Street. The Greenwood Drive alignment appears to contain
adequate stopping sight distance for design speeds between 30-35 mph. This crosswalk would also
require appropriate advanced warning signage to maintain visibility.
3 7
APPENDICES
Previous Shive-Hattery TIS (not attached - available from MPOJC)
Synchro Files or Reports - Available Upon Request
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
611 GREENWOOD DRIVE
IOWA CITY, IOWA
PAVING LEGEND
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0
1"=40'
4 10 20 30 40
NO.DATE DESCRIPTION
IFA ISSUE
CO
P
Y
R
I
G
H
T
@
2
0
2
1
S
T
U
D
I
O
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
E
SHEET NO.
SHEET NAME
PROJ. NO.DATE
REVISIONS
AR
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
13
0
1
E
.
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
,
S
u
i
t
e
1
0
0
In
d
i
a
n
a
p
o
l
i
s
,
I
N
4
6
2
0
2
31
7
.
6
7
2
.
0
9
3
2
C120
SITE LAYOUT AND
DIMENSION PLAN
61
1
G
R
E
E
N
W
O
O
D
D
R
61
1
G
r
e
e
n
w
o
o
d
D
r
I
o
w
a
C
i
t
y
,
I
A
5
2
2
4
6
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
11603-001 08-05-2024
NOT TO SCALE
LOCATION MAP
IOWA CITY, IOWA
611 GREENWOOD DRIVE
G:
\
1
1
6
0
3
\
1
1
6
0
3
-
0
0
1
\
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
\
1
1
6
0
3
-
0
0
1
O
-
I
F
A
.
d
w
g
Collision Diagram
15 Crashes Clear
5/14/2021
9/24/2021
10/5/2021
10/20/2021
5/14/2022
6/16/2022
8/29/2022
1/17/2023
4/27/2023
6/13/2023
12/4/2023
3/21/2024
7/20/2024
10/1/2024
11/5/2024
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 6/17/2025
Crash Magic Online
Benton St @ Greenwood
Collision Diagram
16 Crashes Clear
10
/
4
/
2
0
2
0
7/31/2021
12
/
1
0
/
2
0
2
1
10
/
1
7
/
2
0
2
2
9/
2
3
/
2
0
2
3
11
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
3
2/21/2024
2/13/2024
8/
1
4
/
2
0
2
4
8/
2
3
/
2
0
2
4
8/
2
4
/
2
0
2
4
9/
7
/
2
0
2
4
9/28/2024
11/18/2024
12
/
8
/
2
0
2
4
3/
1
0
/
2
0
2
5
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 6/17/2025
Crash Magic Online
Riverside @ Myrtle
Date Data Taken:
185,000 By: JMS
JMS Comment:
Name:
Number of Approach Lanes:
85th Percentile Speed (mph):
North-South Street:
Critical Stopped Approach # of Lanes:
Intersection Legs:
Total Major Highest Critical Critical
Hour Entering Street Minor Stop Cntrl Stop Cntrl
Ending EB WB NB SB Traffic Total Approach Direction Delay, sec 1A 1B 2
0100 39 24 1 4 68 63 4
0200 25 16 0 3 44 41 3
0300 19 12 0 2 33 31 2
0400 19 12 0 2 33 31 2
0500 36 23 1 4 64 59 4
0600 95 59 2 11 167 154 11
0700 201 125 4 23 353 326 23
0800 436 271 8 50 765 707 50
0900 412 256 8 47 723 668 47
1000 342 212 6 39 599 554 39
1100 360 224 7 41 632 584 41
1200 279 343 10 106 738 622 106
1300 306 376 11 117 810 682 117
1400 300 369 11 114 794 669 114
1500 319 392 11 122 844 711 122 X
1600 376 463 13 143 995 839 143 X X X
1700 396 487 14 151 1048 883 151 X X X X
1800 386 475 14 147 1022 861 147 X X X
1900 280 344 10 107 741 624 107
2000 214 263 8 82 567 477 82
2100 171 211 6 65 453 382 65
2200 122 149 4 46 321 271 46
2300 79 97 3 30 209 176 30
2400 48 59 2 18 127 107 18
Hours Met 1 3 4 3
Hours Required 8 8 8 4
Warrant Major St Minor St Warrant Met: N N N N
1A 500 150
1B 750 75
Combo A 400 120
Combo B 600 60
2&3
Benton Street @ Greenwood Drive
MUTCD TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
Location:
Population:
Analysis By: Existing/Opening Day NB
See Figures 3A & 3B
Roadway Data
Required Hourly Volume
Warrant Criteria
Benton Street
1 1
30 30
Major Street Minor Street
Benton Street Greenwood Drive
Co
m
b
o
Warrants
x
Greenwood Drive
Entering Traffic
1
3
Wh
e
n
N
e
i
t
h
e
r
1
A
o
r
1
B
Ei
t
h
e
r
/
O
r
Anderson-Bogert
Engineers Surveyors, Inc.
Date Data Taken:
185,000 By: JMS
JMS Comment:
Name:
Number of Approach Lanes:
85th Percentile Speed (mph):
North-South Street:
Critical Stopped Approach # of Lanes:
Intersection Legs:
Total Major Highest Critical Critical
Hour Entering Street Minor Stop Cntrl Stop Cntrl
Ending EB WB NB SB Traffic Total Approach Direction Delay, sec 1A 1B 2
0100 39 24 1 6 70 63 6
0200 26 16 0 4 46 42 4
0300 19 12 0 3 34 31 3
0400 19 12 0 3 34 31 3
0500 37 23 1 6 67 60 6
0600 96 60 2 15 173 156 15
0700 203 127 4 31 365 330 31
0800 440 275 8 68 791 715 68
0900 416 260 8 64 748 676 64
1000 345 216 6 53 620 561 53
1100 364 227 7 56 654 591 56
1200 284 348 10 113 755 632 113
1300 311 381 11 124 827 692 124 X
1400 305 374 11 122 812 679 122 X
1500 324 397 11 130 862 721 130 X
1600 383 469 13 153 1018 852 153 X X X X
1700 403 494 14 161 1072 897 161 X X X X
1800 393 482 14 157 1046 875 157 X X X X
1900 284 349 10 114 757 633 114
2000 218 267 8 87 580 485 87
2100 174 214 6 70 464 388 70
2200 124 152 4 49 329 276 49
2300 81 99 3 32 215 180 32
2400 49 60 2 19 130 109 19
Hours Met 3 3 6 3
Hours Required 8 8 8 4
Warrant Major St Minor St Warrant Met: N N N N
1A 500 150
1B 750 75
Combo A 400 120
Combo B 600 60
2&3
Benton Street @ Greenwood Drive
MUTCD TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
Location:
Population:
Analysis By: Opening Day FB
See Figures 3A & 3B
Roadway Data
Required Hourly Volume
Warrant Criteria
Benton Street
1 1
30 30
Major Street Minor Street
Benton Street Greenwood Drive
Co
m
b
o
Warrants
x
Greenwood Drive
Entering Traffic
1
3
Wh
e
n
N
e
i
t
h
e
r
1
A
o
r
1
B
Ei
t
h
e
r
/
O
r
Anderson-Bogert
Engineers Surveyors, Inc.
Date Data Taken:
185,000 By: JMS
JMS Comment:
Name:
Number of Approach Lanes:
85th Percentile Speed (mph):
North-South Street:
Critical Stopped Approach # of Lanes:
Intersection Legs:
Total Major Highest Critical Critical
Hour Entering Street Minor Stop Cntrl Stop Cntrl
Ending EB WB NB SB Traffic Total Approach Direction Delay, sec 1A 1B 2
0100 47 29 1 5 82 76 5
0200 31 19 1 4 55 50 4
0300 23 15 0 3 41 38 3
0400 23 14 0 3 40 37 3
0500 44 28 1 5 78 72 5
0600 116 72 2 13 203 188 13
0700 245 152 5 28 430 397 28
0800 532 331 10 61 934 863 61
0900 503 313 9 58 883 816 58
1000 417 259 8 48 732 676 48
1100 440 274 8 50 772 714 50
1200 339 419 8 130 896 758 130 X X
1300 371 459 9 142 981 830 142 X X
1400 364 450 9 139 962 814 139 X X
1500 387 479 10 148 1024 866 148 X X X
1600 457 565 11 175 1208 1022 175 X X X X
1700 481 595 12 184 1272 1076 184 X X X X
1800 469 580 12 180 1241 1049 180 X X X X
1900 339 420 8 130 897 759 130 X X
2000 260 322 6 99 687 582 99
2100 208 257 5 80 550 465 80
2200 148 183 4 56 391 331 56
2300 96 119 2 37 254 215 37
2400 58 72 1 22 153 130 22
Hours Met 3 8 8 4
Hours Required 8 8 8 4
Warrant Major St Minor St Warrant Met: N Y Y Y
1A 500 150
1B 750 75
Combo A 400 120
Combo B 600 60
2&3
Benton Street @ Greenwood Drive
Location:
Population:
Analysis By: Future No-Build
See Figures 3A & 3B
Roadway Data
Required Hourly Volume
Warrant Criteria
Benton Street
1 1
30 30
Major Street Minor Street
Benton Street Greenwood Drive
Co
m
b
o
Warrants
x
Greenwood Drive
Entering Traffic
1
3
Wh
e
n
N
e
i
t
h
e
r
1
A
o
r
1
B
Ei
t
h
e
r
/
O
r
Anderson-Bogert
Engineers Surveyors, Inc.
Date Data Taken:
185,000 By: JMS
JMS Comment:
Name:
Number of Approach Lanes:
85th Percentile Speed (mph):
North-South Street:
Critical Stopped Approach # of Lanes:
Intersection Legs:
Total Major Highest Critical Critical
Hour Entering Street Minor Stop Cntrl Stop Cntrl
Ending EB WB NB SB Traffic Total Approach Direction Delay, sec 1A 1B 2
0100 47 30 1 7 85 77 7
0200 31 20 1 5 57 51 5
0300 24 15 1 3 43 39 3
0400 23 14 1 3 41 37 3
0500 45 28 1 7 81 73 7
0600 117 73 3 17 210 190 17
0700 247 154 7 36 444 401 36
0800 536 335 16 79 966 871 79 X
0900 506 317 15 75 913 823 75 X
1000 420 263 13 62 758 683 62
1100 443 277 13 65 798 720 65
1200 345 424 8 137 914 769 137 X X
1300 378 465 9 150 1002 843 150 X X X X
1400 370 456 9 147 982 826 147 X X X
1500 393 484 10 156 1043 877 156 X X X X
1600 465 572 11 184 1232 1037 184 X X X X
1700 489 602 12 194 1297 1091 194 X X X X
1800 477 587 12 189 1265 1064 189 X X X X
1900 345 425 8 137 915 770 137 X X
2000 264 326 6 105 701 590 105
2100 212 260 5 84 561 472 84
2200 150 185 4 60 399 335 60
2300 98 120 2 39 259 218 39
2400 59 73 1 23 156 132 23
Hours Met 5 10 8 6
Hours Required 8 8 8 4
Warrant Major St Minor St Warrant Met: N Y Y Y
1A 500 150
1B 750 75
Combo A 400 120
Combo B 600 60
2&3
Benton Street @ Greenwood Drive
MUTCD TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS
Location:
Population:
Analysis By: Future Full-Build
See Figures 3A & 3B
Roadway Data
Required Hourly Volume
Warrant Criteria
Benton Street
1 1
30 30
Major Street Minor Street
Benton Street Greenwood Drive
Co
m
b
o
Warrants
x
Greenwood Drive
Entering Traffic
1
3
Wh
e
n
N
e
i
t
h
e
r
1
A
o
r
1
B
Ei
t
h
e
r
/
O
r
Anderson-Bogert
Engineers Surveyors, Inc.
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
7:00 - 7:15 Total 58 1 2 1 50 1 113 5 614
7:15 - 7:30 Total 1 83 4 52 2 142 6 2 659 0.87633
7:30 - 7:45 Total 1 101 1 66 1 1 171 1 1 647
7:45 - 8:00 Total 1 132 1 51 3 188 3 2 613
8:00 - 8:15 Total 11 85 2 2 58 158 6 560
8:15 - 8:30 Total 63 1 65 1 130 4
8:30 - 8:45 Total 74 2 1 2 58 137 4 5 1
8:45 - 9:00 Total 1 77 2 54 1 135 1 2
Uninflated Peak 14 401 0 1 0 7 2 227 1 0 0 6 659
Inflation Factor 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5%
Adjusted Peak Total 15 427 0 1 0 7 2 242 1 0 0 6 702
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
7:00 to 8:00 3 374 0 2 0 7 1 219 1 1 0 6 15 5 0 0
7:15 to 8:15 14 401 0 1 0 7 2 227 1 0 0 6 16 5 0 0
7:30 to 8:30 13 381 0 1 0 4 2 240 1 0 0 5 14 3 0 0
7:45 to 8:45 12 354 0 2 0 5 4 232 0 0 0 4 17 2 5 1
8:00 to 9:00 12 299 0 2 0 6 4 235 0 1 0 1 15 0 7 1
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Intersection Total
Westbound Southbound
Traffic Count
Intersection Benton Street and Carriage Hill, Iowa City
MMS Project #11603-001
Wednesday 05/21/2025 7:00-9:00am
Eastbound Northbound Westbound Southbound
Traffic Count
Intersection Benton Street and Carriage Hill, Iowa City
MMS Project #11603-001
Wednesday 05/21/2025 7:00-9:00am
Eastbound Northbound
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Pedestrians
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
4:00 - 4:15 Total 76 1 2 2 88 169 1 1 820
4:15 - 4:30 Total 2 84 1 104 191 3 11 877
4:30 - 4:45 Total 90 1 1 2 118 2 1 1 216 2 3 2 884
4:45 - 5:00 Total 1 101 1 4 1 136 244 5 891 0.91291
5:00 - 5:15 Total 83 4 2 136 1 226 1 830
5:15 - 5:30 Total 87 1 1 1 2 105 1 198 2 9
5:30 - 5:45 Total 1 106 7 2 107 223 1 1
5:45 - 6:00 Total 1 84 1 96 1 183 1
Uninflated Peak 1 361 2 3 0 9 7 495 4 1 0 1 884
Inflation Factor 6.5%6.5%6.5%6.5%6.5%6.5%6.5%6.5%6.5%6.5%6.5%6.5%6.5%
Adjusted Peak Total 1 384 2 3 0 10 7 527 4 1 0 1 941
6 20 2 0
5 20 2 0
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right 4 18 2 0
4:00 to 5:00 3 351 2 4 0 4 6 446 2 1 0 1 3 16 0 0
4:15 to 5:15 3 358 1 2 0 8 6 494 3 1 0 1 3 12 0 0
4:30 to 5:30 1 361 2 3 0 9 7 495 4 1 0 1
4:45 to 5:45 2 377 8 4 0 9 5 484 2 0 0 0
5:00 to 6:00 2 360 8 3 0 5 5 444 2 1 0 0
Intersection Total
Traffic Count
Intersection Benton Street and Carriage Hill, Iowa City
MMS Project #11603-001
Wednesday 05/21/2025 4:00-6:00pm
Eastbound Northbound Westbound Southbound
Traffic Count
Eastbound Northbound Westbound Southbound
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Pedestrians
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
7:00 - 7:15 Total 14 47 49 1 4 2 117 1 651
7:15 - 7:30 Total 25 62 45 9 3 7 151 2 1 697 0.85
7:30 - 7:45 Total 21 80 60 8 2 7 178 692
7:45 - 8:00 Total 27 106 45 16 5 6 205 2 656
8:00 - 8:15 Total 12 75 56 8 8 4 163 589
8:15 - 8:30 Total 13 51 54 16 1 11 146 1
8:30 - 8:45 Total 12 63 56 3 4 4 142
8:45 - 9:00 Total 18 61 47 3 2 7 138
Unadjusted Peak 85 323 0 0 0 0 0 206 41 18 0 24 697
Factor 6.5% 6.5% 6.5%6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0%
Adjusted Peak 91 344 0 0 0 0 0 219 44 21 0 28 747
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
7:00 to 8:00 87 295 0 0 0 0 0 199 34 14 0 22 4 2
7:15 to 8:15 85 323 0 0 0 0 0 206 41 18 0 24 4 1
7:30 to 8:30 73 312 0 0 0 0 0 215 48 16 0 28 3 0
7:45 to 8:45 64 295 0 0 0 0 0 211 43 18 0 25 3 0
8:00 to 9:00 55 250 0 0 0 0 0 213 30 15 0 26 1 0
Intersection Total
Westbound Southbound
Traffic Count
Intersection Benton Street and Greenwood Drive, Iowa City
MMS Project #11603-001
Wednesday 05/21/2025 7:00-9:00am
Eastbound Northbound Westbound Southbound
Traffic Count
Intersection Benton Street and Greenwood Drive, Iowa City
MMS Project #11603-001
Wednesday 05/21/2025 7:00-9:00am
Eastbound Northbound
Eastbound Westbound
Pedestrians
Eastbound Westbound
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
4:00 - 4:15 Total 7 69 78 9 6 12 181 877
4:15 - 4:30 Total 3 81 91 9 6 14 204 3 2 939
4:30 - 4:45 Total 7 84 102 8 14 1 20 236 2 1 950 0.927734
4:45 - 5:00 Total 11 94 110 4 10 1 26 256 1 1 942
5:00 - 5:15 Total 7 80 119 9 8 20 243 1 1 881
5:15 - 5:30 Total 7 81 87 8 11 21 215 2 1
5:30 - 5:45 Total 6 100 93 7 8 14 228 213 1
5:45 - 6:00 Total 6 79 80 7 6 17 195 249
Unadjusted Peak 32 339 0 0 0 0 0 418 29 43 2 87 950
Factor 6.5% 6.5% 6.5%6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0%
Adjusted Peak 34 361 0 0 0 0 0 445 31 49 2 100 1022
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
4:00 to 5:00 28 328 0 0 0 0 0 381 30 36 2 72 6 4
4:15 to 5:15 28 339 0 0 0 0 0 422 30 38 2 80 7 5
4:30 to 5:30 32 339 0 0 0 0 0 418 29 43 2 87 6 4
4:45 to 5:45 31 355 0 0 0 0 0 409 28 37 1 81 5 3
5:00 to 6:00 26 340 0 0 0 0 0 379 31 33 0 72 4 2
2019 MPOJC
Traffic Count
Intersection Benton Street and Greenwood Drive, Iowa City
MMS Project #11603-001
Wednesday 05/21/2025 4:00-6:00pm
Eastbound Northbound Westbound Southbound
Intersection Total
Traffic Count
Intersection Benton Street and Greenwood Drive, Iowa City
MMS Project #11603-001
Wednesday 05/21/2025 4:00-6:00pm
Eastbound Northbound Westbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
Eastbound Westbound
Pedestrians
Thru Right Left Right Left Thru
7:00 - 7:15 Total 12 4 1 2 8 27 12 1 179
7:15 - 7:30 Total 14 4 2 3 3 6 32 5 195
7:30 - 7:45 Total 30 7 3 5 1 8 54 6 204 0.77
7:45 - 8:00 Total 39 7 2 4 2 12 66 6 1 190
8:00 - 8:15 Total 19 4 2 2 3 13 43 11 2 152
8:15 - 8:30 Total 15 7 1 2 5 11 41 7
8:30 - 8:45 Total 16 4 2 5 3 10 40 10
8:45 - 9:00 Total 16 2 1 2 0 7 28 3
Uninflated Peak 102 22 9 14 9 39 195 28 3 741 0.772727 0 0
Inflation Factor 15.0% 15.0% 0.0% 0.0% 15.0% 15.0% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5% 6.5%
Adjusted Peak Total 117 25 9 14 10 45 220 30 3 789 1 0 0
Thru Right Left Right Left Thru
7:00 to 8:00 95 22 8 12 8 34 29 2
7:15 to 8:15 102 22 9 14 9 39 28 3
7:30 to 8:30 103 25 8 13 11 44 30 3
7:45 to 8:45 89 22 7 13 13 46 34 3
8:00 to 9:00 66 17 6 11 11 41 31 2
Intersection Total
Westbound
Traffic Count
Intersection Greenwood Drive and Briarwood Entrance, Iowa City, Iowa
MMS Project #11603-001
Thursday 05/22/2025 7:00-9:00am
Eastbound Northbound Westbound
Traffic Count
Intersection Greenwood Drive and Briarwood Entrance, Iowa City, Iowa
MMS Project #11603-001
Thursday 05/22/2025 7:00-9:00am
Eastbound Northbound
Pedestrians
Eastbound Westbound
Eastbound Westbound
Thru Right Left Right Left Thru
4:00 - 4:15 Total 14 4 5 1 2 21 47 3 7 203
4:15 - 4:30 Total 2 1 2 2 4 24 35 3 3 207
4:30 - 4:45 Total 11 2 5 8 2 34 62 1 4 239 0.891791
4:45 - 5:00 Total 16 2 6 4 4 27 59 3 8 211
5:00 - 5:15 Total 14 2 4 3 6 22 51 5 6 181
5:15 - 5:30 Total 21 4 8 3 6 25 67 2 7
5:30 - 5:45 Total 12 1 3 2 2 14 34 2 9
5:45 - 6:00 Total 4 1 5 1 1 17 29 5 3
Uninflated Peak 62 10 23 18 18 108 239 11 25 631 0.891791 0 0
Inflation Factor 15.0%15.0%0.0%0.0%15.0%15.0%6.5%6.5%6.5%6.5%6.5%6.5%
Adjusted Peak Total 71 12 23 18 21 124 269 12 27 672 1 0 0
Thru Right Left Right Left Thru
4:00 to 5:00 43 9 18 15 12 106 10 22
4:15 to 5:15 43 7 17 17 16 107 12 21
4:30 to 5:30 62 10 23 18 18 108 11 25
4:45 to 5:45 63 9 21 12 18 88 12 30
5:00 to 6:00 51 8 20 9 15 78 14 25
Eastbound Northbound Westbound
Intersection Total
Traffic Count
Intersection Greenwood Drive and Briarwood Entrance, Iowa City, Iowa
MMS Project #11603-001
Thursday 05/22/2025 4:00-6:00pm
Eastbound Northbound Westbound
Traffic Count
Intersection Greenwood Drive and Briarwood Entrance, Iowa City, Iowa
MMS Project #11603-001
Thursday 05/22/2025 4:00-6:00pm
Pedestrians
Eastbound Westbound
Eastbound Westbound
Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Totals Peak Hr?LEG 1 LEG 2 LEG 3 LEG 4 INTERSECT
7:15 AM 9 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 177 12 0 4 0 14 0 302 1348 95 0 189 18 302
7:30 AM 9 126 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 198 16 0 3 0 10 0 362 1325 135 0 214 13 362
7:45 AM 15 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 207 17 0 4 0 12 2 385 1271 145 0 224 16 385
8:00 AM 12 104 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 158 8 0 8 0 9 1 299 116 0 166 17 299
8:15 AM 9 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 156 7 0 2 0 12 1 279 102 0 163 14 279
8:30 AM 8 119 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 157 6 2 9 0 9 0 308 127 0 163 18 308
Pk hr totals 45 446 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 740 53 0 19 0 45 3 1348
5% Increase 2 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 3 0 1 0 2 0 67
Adjusted Peak Hour 47 468 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 777 56 0 20 0 47 3 1415
2025 Vol 49 487 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 809 58 0 21 0 49 3
% of mvmt 1% 91% 0% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0% 93% 7% 30% 0% 70%
% of ttl traffic 3% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 55% 4% 1% 0% 3%
movement %36%0%59%5%
PHF
By Movement 0.75 0.87 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.87 0.71 1.06 #DIV/0! 0.90
Approach 0.86 #DIV/0!0.86 0.94
Intersection 0.86
Trucks
# Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
# All vehicles 45 446 0 0 0 0 0 740 53 19 0 45
% Trucks 0% 0% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0% 0% 0% #DIV/0! 0%
Bikes
# Bikes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
# All vehicles 45 446 0 0 0 0 0 740 53 19 0 45
% Bikes 0% 0% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0% 0% 0% #DIV/0! 0%
15 min Vehicle Approach Totals
RIVERSIDE DR MYRTLE AVE RIVERSIDE DR MYRTLE AVE
RIVERSIDE DR MYRTLE AVE RIVERSIDE DR MYRTLE AVE
RIVERSIDE DR
From North
MYRTLE AVE
From East
RIVERSIDE DR
From South
MYRTLE AVE
From West
File Name: S:\JCCOG\TRANS\Traffic Counts\Peak Hr\COVID COUNTS\2021\February\Riverside Dr and Myrtle Ave - AM - Feb21
Start Date: 2/18/2021
Start Time: 7:15:00 AM
Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Totals Peak Hr?LEG 1 LEG 2 LEG 3 LEG 4 INTERSECT
4:15 PM 5 220 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 178 2 0 9 0 11 0 425 1867 225 0 180 20 425
4:30 PM 18 266 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 213 10 0 13 0 13 0 533 1871 284 0 223 26 533
4:45 PM 11 251 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 174 4 0 19 0 14 0 473 1720 262 0 178 33 473
5:00 PM 20 223 0 0 0 0 0 1 25 135 11 0 6 0 16 0 436 243 0 171 22 436
5:15 PM 13 227 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 146 11 0 18 0 14 1 429 240 0 157 32 429
5:30 PM 24 173 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 151 8 0 11 0 14 0 382 197 0 160 25 382
Pk hr totals 62 967 0 0 0 0 0 2 25 668 36 0 56 0 57 1 1871
4% Increase 2 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 27 1 0 2 0 2 0 75
Adjusted Peak Hour 64 1006 0 0 0 0 0 2 26 695 37 0 58 0 59 1 1946
2025 Vol 67 1047 0 0 0 0 0 2 27 723 39 0 61 0 62 1 2025
% of mvmt 6% 94% 0% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 3% 92% 5% 50% 0% 50%
% of ttl traffic 3% 52% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 36% 2% 3% 0% 3%
movement %55%0%39%6%
PHF
By Movement 1.41 0.96 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.96 2.25 0.74 #DIV/0! 1.02
Approach 0.98 #DIV/0!1.02 0.86
Intersection 0.99
Trucks
# Trucks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
# All vehicles 62 967 0 0 0 0 25 668 36 56 0 57
% Trucks 0% 0% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0% 0% 0% 0% #DIV/0! 0%
Bikes
# Bikes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
# All vehicles 62 967 0 0 0 0 25 668 36 56 0 57
% Bikes 0% 0% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0% 0% 0% 0% #DIV/0! 0%
MYRTLE AVE
From East
RIVERSIDE DR
From South
MYRTLE AVE
From West
File Name:S:\JCCOG\TRANS\Traffic Counts\Peak Hr\COVID COUNTS\2021\February\Riverside Dr and Myrtle Ave - PM - Feb21
Start Date: 2/11/2021
Start Time: 4:15:00 PM
15 min Vehicle Approach Totals
RIVERSIDE DR MYRTLE AVE RIVERSIDE DR MYRTLE AVE
RIVERSIDE DR MYRTLE AVE RIVERSIDE DR MYRTLE AVE
RIVERSIDE DR
From North
ATTACHMENT 6
Correspondence
From:Chandler Tinsman
To:Anne Russett
Cc:Carolina Deifelt Streese
Subject:611 Greenwood Dr rezoning comments
Date:Tuesday, August 19, 2025 12:30:51 PM
** This email originated outside of the City of Iowa City email system. Please take extra care opening
any links or attachments. **
This message is from an external sender.
To the Planning and Zoning Commission:
We are Chandler Tinsman and Carolina Deifelt Streese, residents and homeowners at 606
Greenwood Drive, directly across from 611 Greenwood Drive. We recently received notice
regarding the request to rezone 611 Greenwood from Public/Semi-Public to Multi-Family
Residential.
We fully support the addition of more multi-family housing in Iowa City, as well as the plan to
refurbish the school lot into a use that will benefit the community. At the same time, we
respectfully ask the Commission to consider the future of the wooded area on the north side of
the property, known as Roosevelt Ravine.
This ravine contains nature trails historically used by neighborhood residents, provides
important habitat for native birds, and serves as a natural buffer against wind and erosion. For
these reasons, we request that Roosevelt Ravine remain zoned as Semi-Public, ensuring that it
can continue to be preserved, maintained, and enjoyed by the people of Iowa City.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Chandler Tinsman & Carolina Deifelt Streese
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 6, 2025 – 6:00 PM – FORMAL MEETING
EMMA J. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kaleb Beining, James Davies, Maggie Elliott, Steve Miller, Scott
Quellhorst, Billie Townsend, Chad Wade
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT: Liz Craig, Anne Russett, Olivia Ziegler
OTHERS PRESENT: Mike Welch
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends set a public hearing for August 27, 2025 on a
proposed amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan future land use map from
Public/Semi-Public to Residential 16-24 DU/Acre and the Southwest District Plan future land use
map from Public Services/Institutional to Medium to High Density Multi-Family for approximately
9.9 acres of property.
By a vote of 5-1 (Davies dissenting, Miller recused) the Commission recommends approval of
REZ25-0011, a request to rezone approximately 1.04 acres of land affecting the properties at:
804, 810, and 824 Maiden Lane; 410, 416, and 418 E. Benton Street; and 815 Gilbert Court from
Intensive Commercial zone (Cl-1) and Medium Density Single-Family Residential zone (RS-8) to
Community Commercial zone (CC-2).
CALL TO ORDER:
Quellhorst called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEMS:
CASE NO. CPA25-0002:
Location: 611 Greenwood Drive; Former Roosevelt Elementary School
A request to set a public hearing for August 27, 2025 on a proposed amendment to change the
Comprehensive Plan future land use map from Public/Semi-Public to Residential 16-24 DU/Acre
and the Southwest District Plan future land use map from Public Services/Institutional to Medium
to High Density Multi-Family for approximately 9.9 acres of property.
Quellhorst moved to set a public hearing for August 27, 2025 on a proposed amendment
to change the Comprehensive Plan future land use map from Public/Semi-Public to
Residential 16-24 DU/Acre and the Southwest District Plan future land use map from
Public Services/ Institutional to Medium to High Density Multi-Family for approximately 9.9
acres of property. Seconded by Townsend.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 6, 2025
Page 2 of 7
REZONING ITEMS:
CASE NO. REZ25-0011:
Location: 804, 810, 824 Maiden Lane; 410,416,418 E. Benton Street, 815 Gilbert Court
An application for a rezoning of approximately 1.04 acres of land from Intensive Commercial (Cl-
1) zone and Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8) zone to Community Commercial
(CC-2) zone.
Commissioner Miller recused himself because he attended the Good Neighbor Meeting.
Ziegler began the staff report with an aerial map of the subject property and then the zoning
map. The subject property currently has two zoning designations, Intensive Commercial (Cl-1)
zone on the west and northern portion, and Medium Density Single-Family Residential (RS-8)
zone in the southeast. Ziegler noted the RS-8 zone does expand east and south of the property,
and then to the north and west of the property the zoning is Community Commercial (CC-2).
Regarding background information, Ziegler stated these properties are currently for sale and the
Great Plains Action Society is looking to purchase them but the sale is contingent on the
approval of the request for the rezoning. The applicants are requesting to rezone the subject
area from CI-1 and RS-8 to CC-2 with the goal of repurposing existing buildings to support
community focused endeavors which includes things like small commercial spaces for
entrepreneurs and startup businesses, a community meeting space, cafe, offices and green
space for gardens and outdoor gatherings. The rezoning is needed to allow uses that are not
allowed in the current zoning designations. The Great Plains Action Society hosted a good
neighbor meeting on July 17, which had six attendees. The questions from the attendees were
regarding the plan and vision for the subject property.
Ziegler shared photographs of the buildings along Maiden Lane and noted the building that Great
Plains Action Society envisions as their community space, formerly a business that sold mopeds.
The subject property also includes three existing single family homes and a vacant lot. The
current 1.04 acres of the subject area currently consists of the CI-1 and RS-8 zoning, and the
current Intensive Commercial zoning is not compatible with the existing neighborhood, which is a
mix of single family homes, retail businesses and restaurants. Ziegler stated the request to zone
it all to CC-2 would allow both residential and non-residential uses. The CC-2 designation allows
uses like assisted group living, multifamily, office, retail and restaurants. Additionally, the
rezoning request for CC-2 is more consistent with the current zoning pattern as it's a less intense
zoning designation and is therefore more compatible with the existing residential development.
The two criteria the City uses to review all rezonings are consistency with the Comprehensive
Plan and compatibility with the existing neighborhood. When looking at the Future Land Use Map
from the IC 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the subject area is designated for mixed use which aligns
with the requested rezoning. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan has a list of goals and
strategies that align with this request including things such as encouraging compact, efficient
development, planning for commercial development, discouraging linear strip commercial
development, provide for appropriate transitions, encourage a healthy mix of independent, locally
owned businesses and national businesses, and lastly, improve the environmental and economic
health of the community through efficient use of resources. Ziegler noted some of the subject
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 6, 2025
Page 3 of 7
property is within the Downtown and Riverfront Crossings Master Plan specifically located in the
Gilbert Subdistrict. She explained the Gilbert Subdistrict is intended for lower intensity mixed use
development and to create a transition between higher intensity mixed use areas and lower
medium intensity residential areas. Again, the proposed rezoning does align with the directions
of the Master Plan objectives which include to maintain informal, eclectic character of the
neighborhood and promote artistic and creative class uses. Additionally, the Master Plan
discusses the vision of development character which the proposed rezoning aligns with and
includes things like maintaining smaller scale and lower intensity uses south of the railroad,
promote variety and diversity of form and materials, and creative an adaptive use of existing
structures. Ziegler noted while the Gilbert Subdistrict does envision potential redevelopment
within the area Great Plains Action Society is not proposing redevelopment, but rather reuse of
existing buildings, but their vision will define this neighborhood and create a space where
community members can gather and collaborate.
In terms of compatibility with the neighborhood, there are single family homes to the east and the
south, and restaurants and retail businesses to the north and Kennedy Plaza and Gilbert Court,
as well as a mix of retail businesses and residential to the west. As previously stated, the current
Intensive Commercial zoning is not compatible with the existing neighborhood and the proposed
rezoning of Community Commercial provides for a smoother transition to the abutting residential
areas and is therefore more compatible with the existing neighborhood.
Staff received one piece of correspondence which was shared with the Commission.
Staff recommends approval of REZ25-0011, a request to rezone approximately 1.04 acres of
land affecting the properties at: 804, 810, and 824 Maiden Lane; 410, 416, and 418 E. Benton
Street; and 815 Gilbert Court from Intensive Commercial zone (Cl-1) and Medium Density
Single-Family Residential zone (RS-8) to Community Commercial zone (CC-2).
Regarding next steps, the City Council will schedule the date for the public hearing at the next
City Council meeting on August 19, following that they will consider the rezonings at future
meetings.
Elliott asked how the houses are currently zoned. Russett replied they are currently RS-8.
Davies asked if single family is not allowable in CC-2. Russett confirmed single family is not
allowed in CC-2.
Wade noted with CC-2 abutting RS-8 along the lot lines, what is the requirement for CC-2
setbacks, do they have to honor the residential setbacks or do they have different setbacks.
Russett stated typically when commercial abuts residential there is an increased requirement.
Wade also asked about the screening requirements between the two. Russett stated it would be
S2 that is normally used for Community Commercial zone and would require S2 screening along
the right of way and along abutting property lines.
Davies asked if there was any consideration to split this into two different or another
classification, like mixed use. Russett explained based on the vision that Great Plains Action
Society has and the existing zoning in the area, staff thought CC-2 was most appropriate and
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 6, 2025
Page 4 of 7
there's no mixed use zoning in this area. Additionally, this is just a request to continue the zoning
that exists to the north and to the west and allow their vision to come to fruition.
Davies noted concern if the current owner doesn't close on the property, or they decide to move,
it leaves two single family homes that are now classified as CC-2 and can't be used as single
family homes so they would essentially just have to be demolished. Russett stated the City very
flexible non-conforming provisions for non-conforming single family uses. In that instance, it
would just be non-conforming, or it could be converted to an office or another commercial use, if
that was the interest.
Quellhorst opened the public hearing.
Mike Welch (Shoemaker and Holland) is representing the applicant, Great Plains Action Society.
He noted Great Plains Action Society’s intent is to repurpose the existing building to the north,
the existing auto service shop will probably get torn down to meet the parking requirements, and
the single family house at the corner of East Benton and Gilbert will likely get demolished just
because of the condition that the building is in. For the other two single family homes the intent is
to convert those to a commercial office, healing space use, for therapy. In the applicant
statement they talk about the entrepreneurial space, the small business startup space that would
be in the long building at the southwest corner. Welch reiterated the idea is to create some small
retail spaces for someone starting a business to have an opportunity to lease or rent a space
that's not very large, but just enough to get a foot in the door and a place to test out the business
before committing to a larger lease. In the existing large building that was the scooter shop, that
will be a community space for gatherings, for larger events or other public facing events as well
as some office space. The property that abuts Gilbert Court on the east side will be used as a
community garden space. Again, the overall idea is to really engage the public and create a
community public space, which was touched on in the Master Plan for this area, a gathering and
collaboration space.
Davies asked about parking surfaces and noted there's no street parking in front on East Benton.
Welch noted on the south side of the old scooter building, there's parking there and they will
create the same thing on the north side of the building. He reiterated getting rid of the auto repair
shop that was there would allow for more parking. He also acknowledged because the Crandic
railroad runs on Maiden Lane there is no opportunity for on street parking there either. There are
existing curb cuts already there to allow for the parking access.
Davies noted there is no sidewalk there. Welch acknowledged there's sidewalk missing and
there will be sidewalk likely required during site plan improvements, but they haven't really
studied that yet and they will do that during site plan.
Davies asked if they considered buffering with mixed use or any other zoning. Welch confirmed
they started with thinking mixed use might be the one that was appropriate, but as they looked at
what they wanted to do and what was actually allowed, CC-2 fit better and it also was consistent
with the zoning to the north, that's already CC-2.
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 6, 2025
Page 5 of 7
Beining stated Welch had mentioned a lot about the community involvement and those aspects,
which he thinks is wonderful, but is curious if the intention of adding the green spaces is driven
more from community involvement or is it more of an environmental thing that would help soften
the request of CC-2. Welch replied both, but a big part of their vision and goal for the property is
to get rid of some of the Intensive Commercial use that's there and repurpose that. He noted in
talking to the current owner, whose family has owned it for a while, there used to be a family
garden plot up there so this is a chance to restore the site to what it used to be like and get a
little bit more green space and more open space than what's currently there.
Tom Wilson (510 East Benton Street and 514 East Benton Street) stated he is interested in the
impact of the higher density, he has lived there about 35 years and noted along the railroad
tracks there's a lot of cars that are stored there and they get parked there for long periods of time
and now they are up zoning it to intensive for higher density.
Quellhorst closed the public hearing.
Wade moves to recommend approval of REZ25-0011, a request to rezone approximately
1.04 acres of land affecting the properties at: 804, 810, and 824 Maiden Lane; 410, 416, and
418 E. Benton Street; and 815 Gilbert Court from Intensive Commercial zone (Cl-1) and
Medium Density Single-Family Residential zone (RS-8) to Community Commercial zone
(CC-2).
Elliott seconded the motion.
Wade stated the CC-2 zoning makes sense for this area, the only issue is the one residential
RS-8 lot on the corner of Gilbert Court and East Benton and for residential zoning the rear
setback is 20 foot but it's only a five foot setback on the side. His concern is if those houses get
torn down at a later time there is a potential for a 35 foot building close to that lot line.
Elliott feels it fits the criteria with the Comprehensive Plan and fitting into the neighborhood. She
admires the intent and the mission.
Quellhorst thinks this is a great use of the property and as there are already some fairly
substantially intensive uses in this area CC-2 makes for a nice transition so he would support the
rezoning petition.
Townsend agrees it seems that this would be the right choice for that area since it's all CC-2 to
the north. She also noted for them to actually redo the buildings that are already there, as
opposed to tearing down and rebuilding, seems like a good thing to do at this time.
Beining stated it's always a sensitive topic when going into neighborhoods and beginning to
move dirt. He does really appreciate the community engagement driven efforts, as well as the
sustainability efforts, and thinks this will add amenities that can increase the quality of life for the
residents in the community, and also possibly retrain and attract young talent, so he thinks that
that it sounds like an awesome project.
Davies stated he generally supports the use but is struggling just reading the definition or the
Planning and Zoning Commission
August 6, 2025
Page 6 of 7
purpose of a mixed use zone, he just thinks it makes more sense. He is envisioning what
happens to this space should this institution pull out of that space. The purpose of mixed use is
to provide a transition from commercial and employment centers to less intensive residential
zones and mixed use permits all of the uses such as lower scale retail, office uses and a variety
of residential uses. He is a little concerned that they are basically dooming those two single
family homes and potentially that third one by putting in the CC-2 zoning when it seems to
support mixed use very cleanly and plainly. Overall, he is generally supportive of the use and
likes repurposing the buildings to have a cafe or an office space next to retail, he is just worried
about what could come after.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-1 (Davies dissenting, Miller recused).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JULY 16 2025:
Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes from July 16, 2025. Miller seconded the
motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Miller moved to adjourn, Beining seconded and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2024-2025
2/21 4/3 5/1 6/26 9/4 9/18 11/20 12/4 2/19 3/5 5/7 6/4 6/18 7/2 7/16 8/6
BEINING, KALEB -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X O X
DAVIES, JAMES -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X
CRAIG, SUSAN X X X X X X X X X X X X X -- -- -- -- -- --
ELLIOTT, MAGGIE X X X O/E X X O/E X X X X X X X O/E X
HENSCH, MIKE X X X X O/E X X X X O/E X X X -- -- -- -- -- --
MILLER, STEVE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X X X X O/E X X X
PADRON, MARIA X O/E O/E -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
QUELLHORST, SCOTT X O/E X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X
TOWNSEND, BILLIE X X X X X X O/E X X X X X X X X X
WADE, CHAD X X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member