HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 02.18.2021-UPDATEDPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, February 18, 2021
Electronic Formal Meeting – 7:00 PM
Zoom Meeting Platform
Agenda:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
Development Items
4. Case Nos. ANN20-0002 and REZ20-0012
Applicant: MMS Consultants on behalf of the University of Iowa
Location: 1360 Melrose Avenue
An application submitted for an annexation of 3.61 acres of land currently in the City of
University Heights and a rezoning of 6.12 acres of land from University Heights
Commercial (C) and Institutional Public (P-2) to Institutional Public (P-2) and Medium
Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-20) with a Planned Development Overlay
(OPD/RM-20/P-2).
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is
impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of
Commission members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19.
You can participate in the meeting and can comment on an agenda item by
going to:
https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJYvcOyhqTwjGtCqO1QzNumjQLM7KKB8N
m60 to visit the Zoom meeting’s registration page and submitting the
required information. Once approved, you will receive an email message with
a link to join the meeting. If you are asked for a meeting or webinar ID, enter
the ID number found in the email. If you have no computer or smartphone, or
a computer without a microphone, you can call in by phone by dialing (312)
626-6799 and entering the meeting ID 922 7597 7904 when prompted.
Providing comment in person is not an option.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
February 18, 2021
5. Case No. REZ20-0016
Applicant: Axiom Consultants
Location: South of Scott Blvd and West of 1st Avenue, Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
An application for a rezoning of approximately 48.75 acres of land from Interim
Development Single-Family (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family with a Planned
Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5).
6. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: January 21, 2021
7. Planning & 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 anne-russett@iowa-city.org.
Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: March 4 / March 18 / April 1
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning & Zoning Commission Prepared by: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner &
Anne Russett, Senior Planner
Item: ANN20-0002 & REZ20-0012 Date: February 18, 2021
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: MMS Consultants
1917 S. Gilbert St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-351-8282
l.sexton@mmsconsultants.net
Contact Person: Ben Logsdon
Focus Development Co
319-512-5110
benl@focusdevco.com
Property Owner: Board of Regents State of Iowa for the Use &
Benefit of the University of Iowa
Requested Action: Annexation and Rezoning
Purpose: Annexation of 3.61 acres of land currently in
University Heights and a rezoning of 6.12 acres from
Institutional Public (P-2) and University Heights
Commercial (C) to Institutional Public (P-2),
Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-20)
with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-
20/P-2)
Location: 1360 Melrose Ave.
Location Map:
Size: Annexation: 3.61 acres
2
Rezoning: 6.12 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Commercial, University Heights Commercial (C)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Iowa City – Institutional Public (P2)
South: University Heights – R-1
East: University Heights – PUD/R-1
University Heights – CM/R-1
West: Iowa City – Institutional Public (P2)
Comprehensive Plan: Iowa City
District Plan: Northwest District Plan – Not adopted
Neighborhood Open Space District: SW2
File Date: December 3, 2020
45 Day Limitation Period: N/A since associated with an annexation
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The proposed annexation and rezoning are associated with the University of Iowa’s property at
1360 Melrose Avenue. The University is proposing to maintain ownership of this land, but enter
into a long-term lease with a senior housing developer to redevelop the property at 1360 Melrose
Avenue. Typically, the City does not review University projects because it is a State governmental
entity and not subject to City zoning regulations; however, the City does have jurisdiction with this
redevelopment. Specifically, 14-2F-6C of the zoning code states “Before a leasehold interest in
any land zoned public is conveyed to anyone for a use other than those allowed in the public
zone and to anyone other than the government of the United States, the state or a political
subdivision thereof, the land must be rezoned to an appropriate zone in which the use is
allowed. The use shall be subject to all requirements of the new zone. Further, the zone shall
be established as an overlay zone with the underlying zone retaining its original public zone
designation.”
A portion of this property is located within the City of University Heights. Therefore, concurrent
with the annexation and rezoning being reviewed by the City, the applicant has submitted a
severance application to the City of University Heights. In short, the proposal is to shift the
boundary lines of the two cities to avoid a development that crosses jurisdictional boundaries. City
staff has been coordinating with the City of University Heights throughout this process.
The applicant has proposed a 4-story senior housing complex that will include 116 dwelling units.
The project includes 263 parking spaces, which are located both underneath the building and on a
surface lot behind the building. The main access to the development is from Melrose Avenue.
The applicant held a virtual good neighbor meeting in September 2020. A summary of the
meeting provided by the applicant is attached.
ANALYSIS:
Annexation
The Comprehensive Plan has established a growth policy to guide decisions regarding
annexations. The annexation policy states that annexations are to occur primarily through
voluntary petitions filed by the property owners. Further, voluntary annexation requests are to be
3
reviewed under the following three criteria. The Comprehensive Plan states that voluntary
annexation requests should be viewed positively when the following conditions exist.
1. The area under consideration falls within the adopted long-range planning boundary.
A general growth area limit is illustrated in the Comprehensive Plan and on the City’s Zoning Map.
The City’s growth area is located at the fringes of the community within unincorporated Johnson
County. The proposed annexation is not located at the City’s outskirts, but rather close to the core
of the community. Specifically, the proposal requests transferring a portion of land currently within
the corporate limits of University Heights to the City of Iowa City.
2. Development in the area proposed for annexation will fulfill an identified need without imposing
an undue burden on the City.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages growth that is contiguous and connected to existing
neighborhoods to reduce the costs of providing infrastructure and City services. The subject
property is bordered by the city limits and contiguous to current development and meets the goal
of contiguous growth. Public sanitary sewer and water is available to the site and do not need to
be upgraded for the project. The site is already served by public transit. Melrose Avenue does
have traffic congestion during peak hours of the day; however, most of the congestion will be
contained on-site for the proposed use. More details related to the traffic study and proposed
improvements are discussed in the rezoning section of this report.
The City’s affordable housing annexation policy (Resolution 18-211) requires that annexations
resulting in 10 or more residential dwelling units provide affordable units equal to 10% of the total
units in the annexed area, with an assurance of long-term affordability. The policy was created to
apply to greenfield annexations of property in the County at the fringe of the City, and in
recognition of the City’s considerable discretion in determining whether to annex property. Neither
of these conditions are present here. In this case we are just shifting the boundary between two
already existing urbanized areas for the purpose of avoiding the unworkable circumstance of a
development that straddles two cities. The way that boundary shift is accomplished is through a
severance by one city and an annexation by another. Iowa City’s annexation of this property is
dependent on the severance of the property by University Heights which will be contingent on a
28E agreement specifying the rezoning being requested by the University and sharing of future
tax revenue. Therefore, staff has found that the annexation policy does not apply to this
annexation.
3. Control of the development is in the City’s best interest.
The property is adjacent to the City’s corporate limits on the north, west, and southwest. The City
already provides public services in this area, including transit, Fire, water, and sanitary sewer
service.
For the reasons stated above, staff finds that the proposed annexation complies with the growth
policy.
Rezoning
Current Zoning:
The subject property is currently zoned University Heights Commercial (C) & Institutional Public
(P-2). The P-2 zone is reserved for public uses of land owned or land controlled by the State or
Federal government, such as university campuses, regional medical facilities, post offices and
other State and Federally owned facilities.
Proposed Zoning:
The applicant is requesting rezoning the subject property to Medium Density Multi-Family (RM-20)
with a Planned Development Overlay. Since the University will maintain ownership of the land the
P-2 designation will remain. Therefore, the proposed rezoning request is to OPD/RM-20/P-2. The
4
proposed zone allows for a density of 24 dwelling units per net acre of land. The 6.12-acre site
could accommodate 146 dwelling units. The proposal is well under that at 116 dwelling units. As
the proposed rezoning will result in a parcel of land with two different zoning designations, staff is
recommending a condition that prior to issuance of a building permit the area be re-platted to
create lots that conform with the proposed zoning boundaries.
General Planned Development Approval Criteria:
Applications for Planned Development Rezonings are reviewed for compliance with the following
standards according to Article 14-3A of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance.
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, Land Uses, Mass & Scale – The proposed development includes 116 dwelling units at a
density of 18 dwelling units per acre. The development is intended for seniors, but it is staff
understanding that it will not be exclusively for seniors. The proposed block-scale building is over
700-feet in length and four stories in height. To the immediate east of the site is an existing single-
family and duplex development off of Birkdale Court. The development includes 6 units on 1.62
net acres (3.7 dwelling units per acre). These existing units are 1 to 1.5 stories in height. As part
of the OPD rezoning, the applicant is requesting a waiver from the 35’ height maximum in the RM-
20 zone to build a 63-foot building. The proposal attempts to address the difference in scale and
density by providing a landscaped buffer between the new building and the existing homes and
locating the new building approximately 111 feet away from the adjacent lot line. Existing single-
family homes are located to the south of the proposed development and are separated from it by
Melrose Avenue. Southwest of the proposed development, located in the City, are existing larger
scale multi-family buildings and multi-family zoning.
General Layout– Attachments 7 & 8 show the Preliminary OPD and Sensitive Areas Development
Plan and the building elevations. The OPD plan shows the general layout of the project site, which
includes a multi-family building that fronts both Finkbine Commuter Drive (a private street) and
Melrose Avenue. Surface parking is proposed on the eastern portion of the site off of Melrose
Avenue. 211 parking spaces are required and the plans shows 228 parking spaces and up to 263
through a potential phase 2 component of the site. This is between 17 and 52 more than is
required. The proposed building will be required to conform to the City’s Multi-Family Site
Development Standards, which regulate the design of parking, landscaping, and screening. This
will be reviewed as part of the Site Plan Review process.
The Multi-Family Site Development Standards require that parking be located behind the building
or screened from public rights-of-way. The applicant has requested a waiver from this standard
through the City’s minor modification process to allow up to seven parking stalls to be located on
the west side of the building. This is an administrative review that staff is currently evaluating. The
administrative hearing was held on Friday, February 12.
Open Space – The project incorporates an on-site open space area that will contain site amenities
such as patio space, seating and gathering areas. The required open space for the site is 2,590
square feet and the area depicted on the plan equals 7,300 square feet.
Traffic Circulation – The development will be accessed from Melrose Avenue through a drive
leading directly to the surface parking lot behind the building. Limited guest parking is provided off
of Finkbine Commuter Drive. Deliveries will also be able to access the site from Finkbine
Commuter Drive.
5
2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities.
The subject property can be serviced by both sanitary sewer and water. The site is also on the
City’s Melrose Express bus route.
As part of the rezoning, staff requested that the applicant complete a traffic study. The executive
summary is included in Attachment 9. Here is a summary of the findings of that report:
• Current southbound movements at Finkbine Commuter Drive and Melrose Avenue are a
Level-of-Service (LOS) F (i.e. failing) during the AM peak hour. This includes traffic
traveling south onto Emerald Street and west or east onto Melrose Avenue.
• Current eastbound left-turn movements at Finkbine Commuter Drive and Melrose
Avenue are a LOS F during the AM peak hour.
• A signal is currently warranted at Finkbine Commuter Drive and Melrose Avenue.
• While the proposed development does not add much traffic to Finkbine Commuter Drive
(e.g. deliveries and guest parking), it will not improve the current situation.
• Future southbound movements, at the proposed access to Melrose Avenue, are
anticipated to operate at a LOS F on opening day during the AM peak . Vehicle queues
would be contained to private property.
• An eastbound left-turn lane on Melrose Avenue, at the proposed access, is warranted
on opening day.
Any additional development along Finkbine Commuter Drive in the future, beyond what is
currently proposed, cannot occur without additional improvements at the Finkbine Commuter
Drive and Melrose Avenue intersection. At this time, staff is not recommending signalization of
this intersection, but will likely require it as part of any future rezonings. For this rezoning, staff
is recommending a condition requiring installation of an eastbound left-turn lane on Melrose
Avenue at the proposed access to the site.
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 proposed development is larger in scale than surrounding properties; however, light and air
are maintained through buffering and distance separation between the existing single-family and
duplex residences to the east and the new building. Furthermore, typical University development
does not require review by the City. But for the proposed long-term lease with a private senior
development group, the University could develop this site without compliance with City zoning.
4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying
zoning requirements or from City street standards will be in the public interest, in harmony
with the purposes of this Title, and with other building regulations of the City.
The applicant has requested a waiver from the 35-foot height maximum in the RM-20 zone and
proposes a building not to exceed 63-feet in height. Per 14-3A-4K Modifications to Zoning
Requirements, the maximum building height may be modified or waived, provided that the design
of the development results in sufficient light and air circulation for each building and adequate,
accessible open space for all residents of the development. The proposed elevations, show an s-
shaped building design that incorporates private balconies and shared open space.
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan:
There is no adopted district plan for the Northwest District, where this property is located.
However, the future land use map of the IC 2030 Comprehensive Plan indicates that this area of
Iowa City should consist of primarily of public/semi-public space because it is owned by the
University of Iowa.
6
The proposed rezoning aligns with several goals of the comprehensive plan:
• Land Use Element: 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.
• Housing Element: Encourage a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods:
o Identify and support infill development and redevelopment in areas where services
and infrastructure are already in place.
• Transportation Element: Maximize the safety and efficiency of the transportation network.
• Environment, Energy, and Resources Element: Recognize the essential role out 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
Neighborhood Open Space: Open space dedication or fees in lieu will be addressed at the time
of subdivision. Based on the 6.31 acres of RM-20 zoning, the developer would be required to
dedicate 0.65 acres of land or pay fees in-lieu. The site is located across the street from a
public golf course and Villa Park is located two blocks away on Westgate Street. Therefore,
fees in lieu would be appropriate.
Sensitive Areas Review:
The applicant has submitted a Sensitive Areas Development Plan due to the presence of a grove
of trees and slopes on the site. The purpose of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is to permit and
define the reasonable use of properties that contain sensitive environmental features and natural
resources and allowing reasonable development while protecting these resources from damage.
The following paragraphs describe the impact this development will have on the sensitive features
of this site.
Grove of Trees – The site contains a grove of trees totaling 52,426 square feet (1.2 acres). The
SADP identifies the removal of 71.5% (37,508 square feet) of those trees. Since this area of trees
is less than 2 acres in size it is not considered a woodland; and therefore, not subject to the
woodland retention requirements of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
Steep, Critical, and Protected Slopes – In terms of slopes, the site contains steep, critical and
protected slopes. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires a 2 ft. buffer for each foot of vertical
rise of the protected slope, up to a maximum buffer of fifty feet (50') (14-5I-8D-1). No development
activity, including removal of trees and other vegetation, will be allowed within the buffer. The
SADP contains 465 square feet of protected slopes, but no disturbance to protected slopes.
The SADP identifies the disturbance of 11,626 square feet or 62% of the 18,702 square feet of
critical slopes that exists on the site. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance allows a disturbance of
critical slopes up to 35%. Since the proposed SADP impacts critical slopes beyond 35% it
requires a Level II review (14-5I-3B), which requires a recommendation from the Planning and
Zoning Commission and approval by the City Council.
NEXT STEPS:
After recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission the following will occur:
• City Council will need to set a public hearing for both the annexation and rezoning.
• Prior to the public hearing, utility companies and non-consenting parties will be sent the
annexation application via certified mail.
• City Council will hold the public hearing on the annexation and rezoning.
7
• City Council must pass a resolution approving the 28E agreement with the City of
University Heights prior to passing a resolution approving the annexation.
• Additionally, the City of University Heights must pass a resolution approving the 28E
agreement and a resolution approving the severance.
• After approval of the annexation, severance, and 28E agreement by both jurisdictions, the
applications for annexation, severance, and the 28E agreement will be sent to the State
Development Board for consideration and approval.
• Upon approval by the State Development Review Board, the City Council can adopt the
rezoning ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of ANN20-0002 and REZ20-0012, a voluntary annexation of
approximately 3.61 acres of property located at 1360 Melrose Avenue in University Heights and
rezoning of approximately 6.12 acres from University Heights commercial (C) & institutional public
(P2) to medium density multi-family residential with a planned development overlay (OPD/RM-
20/P-2) subject to the following conditions:
1. No building permit shall be issued for any of the subject property until the City Council
approves a final plat subdividing the subject property to conform to the zoning boundaries
established by the zoning ordinance.
2. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, installation of an eastbound left turn lane on
Melrose Avenue at the proposed access subject to review and approval of specifications by
the City Engineer.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Applicant’s Statement
4. Annexation Exhibit
5. Rezoning Exhibit
6. Summary of Good Neighbor Meeting
7. Preliminary OPD and Sensitive Areas Development Plan
8. Elevations
9. Traffic Study, Executive Summary Only
Approved by: _______________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
MELROSE AVE
WESTGATESTG RA ND A V E
FINKBINECOMMUTERDRBIRKDALE CTUNI
VERSI
TYWAYSUNSETSTSUNSET STC
GILMORE CT
HIGHLAND DR
KOSER A V E
MELR O S E A V E
EMERALD STFINKBINECOMMUTERDRREZ20-00121360 Melrose Aveµ
0 0.055 0.110.0275 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: February 2020
An application submitted by MMS Consultants, on behalf of the University of Iowa for the rezoning of 6.12 acres of property from Institutional Public (P2) and University Heights Commercial (C) to Institutional Public (P-2), Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-20) with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-20/P-2) at 1360 Melrose Avenue.
WESTGATESTG R A N D A V E
FINKBINECOMMUTERDRBIRKDALE CTUNI
VERSI
TYWAYSUNSETSTSUNSET STCALVIN CT
GILMORE CT
HIGHLAND DR
KOSER AVE
MELROSE AVE
EMERALD STFINKBINECOMMUTERDRRM20
P2
RM44
RS5
P1
PUD/R-1
C
R-1
CM/R-1
REZ20-00121360 Melrose Aveµ
0 0.055 0.110.0275 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: February 2020
An application submitted by MMS Consultants, on behalf of the University of Iowa for the rezoning of 6.12 acres of property from Institutional Public (P2) and University Heights Commercial (C) to Institutional Public (P-2), Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-20) with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-20/P-2) at 1360 Melrose Avenue.
November 24th, 2020
The Board of Regents, State of Iowa, the University of Iowa, Build to Suit, and Newbury
Living are jointly submitting a request for: 1) voluntary severance/annexation from the
City of University Heights to the City of Iowa City; and 2) a rezoning from Public to an
Overlay Planned Development Overlay with underlying RM-20 and P-2 zoning. This is a
unique development on vacant land owned by the University of Iowa that does not
currently generate any tax revenue for the community. The site, which currently
includes property within the jurisdictional boundaries of both the City of Iowa City and
the City of University Heights, is an important gateway to the University, including the
University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics. The University will be granting the developers a
long-term ground lease to the site, but the University will continue to own the land.
The buildings and improvements developed on the site will be assessed and create new
tax base for the community. The development plans, site plans, and architectural
renderings have all been extensively vetted and approved by University leadership,
including the University’s planning department and the University Architect.
The annexation and severance from University Heights allows the city boundary to shift
to the east placing the entire parcel and development into the City of Iowa City. The
voluntary severance and annexation has been contemplated in a series of work sessions
over the past last 18 months with University Heights Council; subject to a 28E
Agreement for the sharing of property taxes and other items between the City of Iowa
City, the City of University Heights, and the University of Iowa.
The applicants propose a rezoning from Public to a Multifamily OPD-RM-20/P-2 zoning
to allow for the construction of an active adult multi-family project. The use is generally
consistent with the comprehensive plan for the area, and is compatible with the mix of
multi-family and medium to high density residential uses in the surrounding
neighborhood, complementary to the University of Iowa’s Finkbine Golf Course &
Clubhouse, and consistent with other recently completed re-development projects.
There is substantial existing public infrastructure and utilities in place to support the
requested change in zoning. Finally, the Developer has made a couple of informal
preliminary submittals to the City of Iowa City. Staff comments from those submittals
have been considered and plans have been adjusted where the design and development
team deemed appropriate. The final submittal illustrates a building which is four
stories and has one area of underground parking that is within the 15’ setback
recommended by the code. These variations warrant the request for a rezoning to an
Overlay Planned Development. These are the only remaining deviations from the
zoning code. Attached Exhibit A documents the deviations from the code sections along
with justifications for approval of the plan as submitted. At the request of Staff, the final
site submittals will be used to complete a traffic study as directed by Kent Ralston at
City of Iowa City. The plans for this site have resulted in a reduced the number of
parking stalls than were associated with the previous University Athletic Club located
on this same site. Traffic flows/movements from the new development will be an
improvement to the Melrose corridor when compared to the Athletic Club.
Finally, as recommended by staff, the applicants held a neighborhood meeting with the
surrounding community to introduce the project and solicit feedback/discussion. The
design team and University leadership presented the project and discussed the plans
for the development. Feedback and discussion at the meeting were overwhelmingly
positive. In addition to the meeting, members of the development team have met
several of the neighbors on-site. The comments from the on-site meetings were also
overwhelmingly positive. We believe this neighborhood support is further evidence
that we should be approved as submitted. Meeting notes from those discussions were
previously sent to City of Iowa City staff.
Exhibit A: Code Variation Items for The James on Melrose
14-5A-5:F1b: Title 14 Zoning Code, Chapter 5 – Site Development Standards, Article 5:
Construction and Design Standards, Section F. Standards for Structured Parking in
Multi-family, Subsection 1. Parking within Building, item b:
In Multi-Family Zones, structured parking is not permitted on the ground level
floor of the building for the first fifteen feet (15') of building depth as measured
from the street-facing building wall. On lots with more than one street frontage
this parking setback must be met along each street frontage, unless reduced or
waived by minor modification. When considering a minor modification request,
the City will consider factors such as street classification, building orientation,
location of primary entrance(s) to the building, and unique site constraints such
as locations where the residential building space must be elevated above the
floodplain.
The project requests a minor modification at the main entrance of the building,
located at the west elevation along Finkbine Commuter Drive, where grade would
drop down lower than the 3’ from ceiling height to be classified as underground
parking (subsection d) to accommodate the at grade entry. All other areas of
parking would meet the criteria of subsection d as it pertains to below-grade
parking and not being located within the first 15 feet of the ground floor.
14-2B-4:C1e: Title 14 Zoning Code, Chapter 2 – Base Zones, Article B: Multi-family
Residential Zones, Section 4: Dimensional Requirements, Subsection C: Building Bulk
Standards, item 1e:
Adjustment of Height Standards:
(1) The maximum height for a principal building may be increased; provided,
that for each foot of height increase above the height standard, the front, side,
and rear setbacks are each increased by an additional two feet (2'); and
provided, that an increase in height does not conflict with the provisions of
chapter 6, "Airport Zoning", of this title.
(2) A minor modification may also be requested to adjust the maximum height
for a particular building or property according to the procedures and
approval criteria for minor modifications contained in chapter 4, article B of
this title.
The project requests a minor modification to increase the overall height of the
building. The project does not conflict with the provisions of Chapter 6: Airport
Zoning. The requested height increase would be a height of 65’-0”. The project is
setback from neighboring properties where such height would not impede access
to sunlight. There are precedents for similar structures and height increases
located along Melrose. Grade level is raised on the south end of the buildin g to
place parking below grade and lower the height. The north end of the building is
lowered a full story to work with existing grade and lower the overall height as
well.
14-2B-6:C1e: Title 14 Zoning Code, Chapter 2 – Base Zones, Article B: Multi-family
Residential Zones, Section 6: Site Development Standards, Subsection C: Location and
Design Standards for Surface Parking and Detached Garages, item 1:
Location: Surface parking, parking within accessory structures, and loading
areas must be located behind principal building(s) and concealed from view of
fronting streets. Parking and loading areas may not be located directly between
a principal building and the street or within the required side setback area. Any
portion of a parking or loading area that is not completely concealed from view
of a fronting street must be screened to the S2 standard. (See figures 2B.4 and
2B.5 below.) (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005)
The project requests a minor modification to allow for a small amount of parking
on the west side of the building, located between the principle building and the
street frontage along Finkbine Commuter Drive. This parking will serve as
accessible parking and guest parking for visitors to the building. A precedent is
established at the Finkbine Clubhouse, located across the street from this project
where parking is located in the frontage.
CITY OF IOWA CITY
SE 1
4 - SE 1
4
SECTION 8-T79N-R6W
NE 1
4 - NE 1
4
SECTION 17-T79N-R6W
UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC CLUB
SUBDIVISION
1
2
3
4
5
6
OUTLOT
"A"
AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2015087
AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2015088
AUDITOR'S
PARCEL
2016091
Proposed Annexation
(319) 351-8282
LAND PLANNERS
LAND SURVEYORS
CIVIL ENGINEERS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS
www.mmsconsultants.net
1917 S. GILBERT ST.
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
11-10-2020
KJB
RLW
DMW
IOWA CITY
7331-050 1
3.61 AC
UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS
ANNEXATION EXHIBIT
1
1"=100'
FINKBINE GOLF COURSE
FINKBINE GOLF COURSE
NW 1
4 - NE 1
4
SECTION 17-T79N-R6W
MELRO
S
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
ANNEXATION EXHIBIT
UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS , JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
A PORTION OF LOT 1 OF UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC CLUB SUBDIVISION, A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17, OF TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN
LEGEND AND NOTES
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
1"=100'
0 10 25 50 75 100
LOCATION MAP - N.T.S.
PROPOSED ANNEXATION
Point of Beginning
UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC CLUB
SUBDIVISION
3.61 AC
A PORTION OF LOT 1 OF
UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC CLUB
SUBDIVISION, A PORTION OF
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 17, OF TOWNSHIP 79
NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE
FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN
DESCRIPTION - PROPOSED ANNEXATION
A PORTION OF LOT 1 OF UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC CLUB SUBDIVISION, AND A PORTION
OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17, OF
TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN,
JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Commencing at the Northeast Corner of Section 17, Township 79 North, Range 6 West, of the
Fifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa; Thence S88°51'11"W, along the North Line of
the Northeast Quarter of said Section 17, a distance of 656.83 feet, to the Point of Beginning;
Thence S01°08'49"E, 237.28 feet, to a Point on the East Line of Lot 1 of University Athletic
Club Subdivision, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 38 at Page 306
of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S86°17'36"W, along said
East Line, 46.00 feet; Thence S61°52'41"W, along said East Line, 61.55 feet; Thence
S00°03'18"E, along said East Line, 225.16 feet, to the Southeast Corner thereof; Thence
N75°44'24"W, along the South Line of said Lot 1, and the Northerly Right-of-Way Line of
Melrose Avenue, 192.89 feet; Thence N80°37'39"W, along said South Line and Northerly
Right-of-Way Line, 107.44 feet, to the Southwest Corner of said Lot 1; Thence N00°05'06"W,
along the West Line of said Lot 1, and the Northerly Projection thereof 421.60 feet, to its
intersection with the North Line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 17; Thence
N88°51'11"E, along said North Line, 388.89 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Annexation
Tract contains 3.61 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record.
CITY OF UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS
CITY OF UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS
CITY OF IOWA CITY
City of Iowa City
G:\7331\7331-050\7331-050A.dwg, 11/12/2020 11:12:17 AM
FINKBINE GOLF COURSE
SE 1
4 - SE 1
4
SECTION 8-T79N-R6W
NE 1
4 - NE 1
4
SECTION 17-T79N-R6W
UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC CLUB
SUBDIVISION
1
2
3
4
5
6
OUTLOT
"A"
AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2015087
AUDITOR'S PARCEL 2015088
AUDITOR'S
PARCEL
2016091
Proposed OPD RM-20/P-2 Zone
6.12 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.
AND IOWA CITY
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
11-10-2020
KJB
RLW
DMW
IOWA CITY
7331-050 1
6.12 AC
UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS
REZONING EXHIBIT
1
1"=100'
FINKBINE GOLF COURSE
FINKBINE GOLF COURSE
NW 1
4 - NE 1
4
SECTION 17-T79N-R6W
MELRO
S
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
REZONING EXHIBIT
TO IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
A PORTION OF LOT 1 OF UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC CLUB SUBDIVISION, A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF SECTION 17, AND A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, ALL OF TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN
A PORTION OF LOT 1 OF UNIVERSITY
ATHLETIC CLUB SUBDIVISION, A PORTION
OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER, AND A PORTION OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 17,
AND A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER
OF SECTION 8, ALL OF TOWNSHIP 79
NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE FIFTH
PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN
LEGEND AND NOTES
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
1"=100'
0 10 25 50 75 100
LOCATION MAP - N.T.S.
PROPOSED RM-20 ZONE
DESCRIPTION - PROPOSED OPD RM-20/P-2 ZONE
A PORTION OF LOT 1 OF UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC CLUB SUBDIVISION, A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER
OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, AND A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF SECTION 17, AND A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 8, ALL OF TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, JOHNSON
COUNTY, IOWA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Commencing at the Northeast Corner of Section 17, Township 79 North, Range 6 West, of the Fifth Principal Meridian,
Johnson County, Iowa; Thence S88°51'11"W, along the North Line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 17, a distance
of 656.83 feet, to the Point of Beginning; Thence S01°08'49"E, 237.28 feet, to a Point on the East Line of Lot 1 of University
Athletic Club Subdivision, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 38 at Page 306 of the Records of the
Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S86°17'36"W, along said East Line, 46.00 feet; Thence S61°52'41"W, along
said East Line, 61.55 feet; Thence S00°03'18"E, along said East Line, 225.16 feet, to the Southeast Corner thereof; Thence
N75°44'24"W, along the South Line of said Lot 1, and the Northerly Right-of-Way Line of Melrose Avenue, 192.89 feet;
Thence N80°37'39"W, along said South Line and Northerly Right-of-Way Line, 107.44 feet, to the Southwest Corner of said
Lot 1; Thence N80°31'33"W, along said Northerly Right-of-Way Line, 164.09 feet; Thence Northwesterly, 108.82 feet, along
said Northerly Right-of-Way Line on a 5779.65 foot radius curve, concave Southwesterly, whose 108.81 foot chord bears
N79°38'41"W, to its intersection with the Centerline of the Finkbine Commuter Drive; Thence N10°46'45"E, along said
Centerline, 23.66 feet; Thence Northeasterly, 62.46 feet, along said Centerline on a 50.00 foot radius curve, concave
Southeasterly, whose 58.48 foot chord bears N46°34'01"E; Thence N82°21'17"E, along said Centerline, 89.68 feet; Thence
Northeasterly, 162.00 feet, along said Centerline on a 112.50 foot radius curve, concave Northwesterly, whose 148.36 foot
chord bears N41°06'07"E; Thence N00°09'02"W, along said Centerline, 123.22 feet; Thence Northeasterly, 194.67 feet,
along said Centerline on a 197.50 foot radius curve, concave Southeasterly, whose 186.89 foot chord bears N28°05'14"E;
Thence N56°19'31"E, along said Centerline, 32.99 feet; Thence Northeasterly, 141.12 feet, along said Centerline on a
200.00 foot radius curve, concave Northwesterly, whose 138.21 foot chord bears N36°06'43"E; Thence N88°51'11"E,
222.70 feet; Thence S01°08'49"E, 226.90 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Tract of Land contains 6.12 Acres, and is
subject to easements and restrictions of record.
Point of Beginning
UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC CLUB
SUBDIVISION
ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING
MEETING MINUTES
ARCHITECTURE | INTERIORS | PLANNING
PROJECT NAME: Finkbine Active Adult
PROJECT
NUMBER: 19015
DATE: 09.17.2020 – 6:00pm – Good Neighbor
Meeting, via Zoom
PRESENT: Frank Levy, Newbury; Ben Logsdon, Focus; Nate Kaeding, BTS; Brent
Schipper, Kurtis Wolgast, ASK; Anne Russett, City of Iowa City; David
Kieft, Adele Vanarsdale, U of I, (+ 13 others);
Discussion Topics:
1. Meeting to discuss the project with the surrounding neighborhood and community.
a. DK: discussed how the project came to fruition, City process, property taxes, P3,
City jurisdiction and boundaries
b. BL: discussed existing site characteristics and context
c. BS: discussed proposed site plan, general discussion on site.
d. Site Design:
i. Breaking up façade with serpentine layout; other factors
e. Building Images:
i. Model shots of The James at Melrose shown
1. Made note of landscaping plan not fully developed – will consider
vegetative screening to neighboring developments
2. Visual screen along Melrose
3. Shortest point from Birkdale property line to our building is 130’.
ii. Reference to 4000 Ingersoll – north façade image shown
1. Emphasis on fenestration
2. Collection of materials
f. Next Steps
i. AR: discussed P&Z, City Council meeting – public meetings where people
can continue to voice their opinion.
ii. BL: anticipate rezoning application will be submitted mid‐October.
1. Approvals over winter, with anticipated start of Spring 2021.
2. Opening 2022.
iii. DK: Board of Regents meeting required for long term agreement – seen
as a formality at this point, and not concerned.
iv. DK: Annexation / severance documents of land between Iowa City and
University Heights.
1. Gifting tract of land to University Heights as part of agreement
2. Questions from Attendees:
ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNING
a. What is the price point?
FL: Around $2 / SF range.
b. What are the sizes of units?
FL: Size will range from 750sf – 1,200sf – 2,000sf unit sizes. Possible for a few
micro units
c. Are units able to be sublet?
FL: Units will not be able to be sublet.
d. Will there be a restaurant?
FL: no food service or restaurant planned. There will be a lounge area where food
could be catered, or tenants could reserve to host parties.
DK: The Finkbine clubhouse has restaurant and bar that is open to the public.
Several local shops and restaurants in the area that will benefit from a new influx
of people to this area.
e. What is the setback along Melrose?
KW: 40’ front yard setback. – confirmed by AR. Melrose will not be altered.
f. How far is the driveway to the Birkdale property line?
KW: 75’
g. What is the demographic?
FL: mid‐upper incomes; people in the latter stages of careers, near retirement.
h. Hope you will minimize light pollution (comment noted from chat).
FINKBINEGOLF COURSESE 14 - SE 14SECTION 8-T79N-R6WNE 14 - NE 14SECTION 17-T79N-R6WUNIVERSITY ATHLETIC CLUBSUBDIVISION1234OUTLOT"A"FINKBINE GOLF COURSEFINKBINE GOLF COURSENW 14 - NE 14SECTION 17-T79N-R6WMELROSE AVENUEUNIVERSITY ATHLETIC CLUBSUBDIVISIONFINKBINE
COMMUTER DRIVE
DDDDD(319) 351-8282LAND PLANNERSLAND SURVEYORSCIVIL ENGINEERSLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSIOWA CITY, IOWA 52240MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTSwww.mmsconsultants.net1917 S. GILBERT ST.01-12-21Per city comments - kjbFINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSEIOWA CITYJOHNSON COUNTYIOWA11/12/2020KJBNPBJDM7331-05056.12 AC02-05-21Per city comments - bahPRELIMINARY OPD ANDSENSITIVE AREAS PLAN(SITE LAYOUT PLAN)11"=40'Commencing at the Northeast Corner of Section 17, Township 79 North, Range 6 West, of theFifth Principal Meridian, Johnson County, Iowa; Thence S88°51'11"W, along the North Line ofthe Northeast Quarter of said Section 17, a distance of 656.83 feet, to the Point of Beginning;Thence S01°08'49"E, 237.28 feet, to a Point on the East Line of Lot 1 of University Athletic ClubSubdivision, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 38 at Page 306 of theRecords of the Johnson County Recorder's Office; Thence S86°17'36"W, along said East Line,46.00 feet; Thence S61°52'41"W, along said East Line, 61.55 feet; Thence S00°03'18"E, alongsaid East Line, 225.16 feet, to the Southeast Corner thereof; Thence N75°44'24"W, along theSouth Line of said Lot 1, and the Northerly Right-of-Way Line of Melrose Avenue, 192.89 feet;Thence N80°37'39"W, along said South Line and Northerly Right-of-Way Line, 107.44 feet, to theSoutheast Corner of said Lot 1; Thence N80°31'33"W, along said Northerly Right-of-Way Line,164.09 feet; Thence Northwesterly, 108.82 feet, along said Northerly Right-of-Way Line on a5779.65 foot radius curve, concave Southwesterly, whose 108.81 foot chord bears N79°38'41"W,to its intersection with the Centerline of the Finkbine Commuter Drive; Thence N10°46'45"E,along said Centerline, 23.66 feet; Thence Northeasterly, 62.46 feet, along said Centerline on a50.00 foot radius curve, concave Southeasterly, whose 58.48 foot chord bears N46°34'01"E;Thence N82°21'17"E, along said Centerline, 89.68 feet; Thence Northeasterly, 162.00 feet, alongsaid Centerline on a 112.50 foot radius curve, concave Northwesterly, whose 148.36 foot chordbears N41°06'07"E; ThenceN00°09'02"W, along said Centerline, 123.22 feet; ThenceNortheasterly, 194.67 feet, along said Centerline on a 197.50 foot radius curve, concaveSoutheasterly, whose 186.89 foot chord bears N28°05'14"E; Thence N56°19'31"E, along saidCenterline, 32.99 feet; Thence Northeasterly, 141.12 feet, along said Centerline on a 200.00 footradius curve, concave Northwesterly, whose 138.21 foot chord bears N36°06'43"E; ThenceN88°51'11"E, 22.70 feet; Thence S01°08'49"E, 226.90 feet, to the Point of Beginning. Said Tractof Land contains 6.12 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record.GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET01"=40'410203040LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION (TYP)PROPOSEDBUILDINGDOMESTICAND FIRESERVICESSANITARYSERVICECONNECT TO EXISTINGWATERMAIN W/ TAPPINGSLEEVE AND SLEEVECONNECT SANITARYSEWER TO EXISTINGMANHOLEPROPOSAL LEGAL DESCRIPTION DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS CONSTRUCTION LIMITSNEW MANHOLE FORCULVERT EXTENSIONPRELIMINARY OPD AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLANFINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSEIOWA CITY, IOWANOT TO SCALELOCATION MAPIOWA CITY, IOWAFINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSEPROPOSEDBUILDINGLIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION (TYP)LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION (TYP)P.C.C. PAVEMENTP.C.C. PAVEMENTP.C.C. PAVEMENTP.C.C. PAVEMENTEXSITINGINTAKELIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION (TYP)SHAREDOPENSPACEPHASE TWO PARKINGG:\7331\7331-050\CONST\7331-050Y.dwg, 2/12/2021 10:04:52 AM
FINKBINEGOLF COURSESE 14 - SE 14SECTION 8-T79N-R6WNE 14 - NE 14SECTION 17-T79N-R6WUNIVERSITY ATHLETIC CLUBSUBDIVISION123456OUTLOT"A"FINKBINE GOLF COURSEFINKBINE GOLF COURSENW 14 - NE 14SECTION 17-T79N-R6WMELROSE AVENUEUNIVERSITY ATHLETIC CLUBSUBDIVISIONFINKBINE
COMMUTER DRIVE
(319) 351-8282LAND PLANNERSLAND SURVEYORSCIVIL ENGINEERSLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSIOWA CITY, IOWA 52240MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTSwww.mmsconsultants.net1917 S. GILBERT ST.01-12-21Per city comments - kjbFINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSEIOWA CITYJOHNSON COUNTYIOWA11/12/2020KJBNPBJDM7331-05056.12 AC02-05-21Per city comments - bahPRELIMINARY OPD ANDSENSITIVE AREAS PLAN(GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL)21"=40'CWPRDL010203DPROPOSEDBUILDINGEXISTING TREESTO BEPRESERVEDLIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION (TYP)FF=774.00LL=762.00CWPRDLPRELIMINARY OPD AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLANFINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSEIOWA CITY, IOWANOT TO SCALELOCATION MAPIOWA CITY, IOWAFINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSEGRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET01"=40'410203040DEXISTING TREESTO BEPRESERVEDEXISTING TREESTO BEPRESERVEDEXISTING TREESTO BEPRESERVEDLIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION (TYP)LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION (TYP)PLACE PERIMETER SILT FENCEAT LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION INTHIS AREALIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION (TYP)PLACE PERIMETER SILT FENCEAT LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION INTHIS AREAPROPOSEDBUILDINGFF=786.00LL=774.00G:\7331\7331-050\CONST\7331-050Y.dwg, 2/12/2021 10:04:35 AM
FINKBINEGOLF COURSESE 14 - SE 14SECTION 8-T79N-R6WNE 14 - NE 14SECTION 17-T79N-R6WUNIVERSITY ATHLETIC CLUBSUBDIVISION1234OUTLOT"A"FINKBINE GOLF COURSEFINKBINE GOLF COURSENW 14 - NE 14SECTION 17-T79N-R6WMELROSE AVENUEUNIVERSITY ATHLETIC CLUBSUBDIVISIONFINKBINE
COMMUTER DRIVE
(319) 351-8282LAND PLANNERSLAND SURVEYORSCIVIL ENGINEERSLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSIOWA CITY, IOWA 52240MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTSwww.mmsconsultants.net1917 S. GILBERT ST.01-12-21Per city comments - kjbFINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSEIOWA CITYJOHNSON COUNTYIOWA11/12/2020KJBNPBJDM7331-05056.12 AC02-05-21Per city comments - bahPRELIMINARY OPD ANDSENSITIVE AREAS PLAN(SENSITIVE AREAS MAP)31"=40'NOT TO SCALELOCATION MAPIOWA CITY, IOWAFINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSEPRELIMINARY OPD AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLANFINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSEIOWA CITY, IOWAGRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET01"=40'410203040LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION (TYP)LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION (TYP)LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION (TYP)STEEP SLOPE (11,420 SF - 100%)CRITICAL SLOPE (18,702 SF - 100%)PROTECTED SLOPE (465 SF)PROTECTED SLOPE BUFFERMAN MADE PROTECTED SLOPE (1,142 SF - 100%)CRITICAL SLOPE (DISTURBED) (11,626 SF - 62.2%)STEEP SLOPE (DISTURBED) (9,080 SF - 79.5%) MAN MADE PROTECTED SLOPE (DISTURBED) (1,142 SF - 100%)CONSTRUCTION LIMITSGROVE OF TREES (52,426 SF - 100%)GROVE OF TREES (TO BE REMOVED) (37,508 SF - 71.5%)G:\7331\7331-050\CONST\7331-050Y.dwg, 2/12/2021 10:04:19 AM
FINKBINEGOLF COURSESE 14 - SE 14SECTION 8-T79N-R6WNE 14 - NE 14SECTION 17-T79N-R6WUNIVERSITY ATHLETIC CLUBSUBDIVISION1234OUTLOT"A"FINKBINE GOLF COURSEFINKBINE GOLF COURSENW 14 - NE 14SECTION 17-T79N-R6WMELROSE AVENUEUNIVERSITY ATHLETIC CLUBSUBDIVISIONFINKBINE
COMMUTER DRIVE
(319) 351-8282LAND PLANNERSLAND SURVEYORSCIVIL ENGINEERSLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSIOWA CITY, IOWA 52240MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTSwww.mmsconsultants.net1917 S. GILBERT ST.01-12-21Per city comments - kjbFINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSEIOWA CITYJOHNSON COUNTYIOWA11/12/2020KJBNPBJDM7331-05056.12 AC02-05-21Per city comments - bahPRELIMINARY OPD ANDSENSITIVE AREAS PLANSLOPES41"=40'PRELIMINARY OPD AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLANFINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSEIOWA CITY, IOWANOT TO SCALELOCATION MAPIOWA CITY, IOWAFINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSEGRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET01"=40'410203040LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION (TYP)LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION (TYP)LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION (TYP)STEEP SLOPE (11,420 SF - 100%)CRITICAL SLOPE (18,702 SF - 100%)PROTECTED SLOPE (465 SF)PROTECTED SLOPE BUFFERMAN MADE PROTECTED SLOPE (1,142 SF - 100%)CRITICAL SLOPE (DISTURBED) (11,626 SF - 62.2%)STEEP SLOPE (DISTURBED) (9,080 SF - 79.5%) MAN MADE PROTECTED SLOPE (DISTURBED) (91 SF - 8.0%)CONSTRUCTION LIMITSG:\7331\7331-050\CONST\7331-050Y.dwg, 2/12/2021 10:04:03 AM
FINKBINE
GOLF COURSE
SE 1
4 - SE 1
4
SECTION 8-T79N-R6W
NE 1
4 - NE 1
4
SECTION 17-T79N-R6W
UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC CLUB
SUBDIVISION
1
2
3
4
OUTLOT
"A"
FINKBINE GOLF COURSE
FINKBINE GOLF COURSE
NW 1
4 - NE 1
4
SECTION 17-T79N-R6W
MELRO
S
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
UNIVERSITY ATHLETIC CLUB
SUBDIVISIONFINKBINECOMMUTER DRIVENOT TO SCALE
LOCATION MAP
IOWA CITY, IOWA
FINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSE
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
0
1"=40'
4 10 20 30 40
(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.
01-12-21 Per city comments - kjb
FINKBINE -
THE JAMES
ON MELROSE
IOWA CITY
JOHNSON COUNTY
IOWA
11/12/2020
KJB
NPB
JDM
7331-050 5
6.12 AC
02-05-21 Per city comments - bah
PRELIMINARY OPD AND
SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN
(LANDSCAPE PLAN)
5
1"=40'
CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
PRELIMINARY OPD AND SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN
FINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSE
IOWA CITY, IOWA
LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS:
PARKING AREA TREES
1 SMALL TREE WITHIN 40' OR 1 LARGE TREE WITHIN 60' OF EVERY
PARKING SPACE OR PORTION THEREOF.
-PROVIDED
STREET TREES
1 LARGE TREE FOR EVERY 40 LINEAL FEET OF FRONTAGE.
-MELROSE AVE: 573.24 / 40 = 15 REQUIRED
10 PROPOSED
5 EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL USE TREES
1 TREE FOR EVERY 550 SF OF TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE.
-48,779 / 550 =89 REQUIRED
17 PARKING AREA TREES
10 STREET TREES
64 RESIDENTIAL USE TREES
93 PROPOSED TREES
+11 EXISTING TREES
TOTAL =102 PROVIDED
PARKING AREA SCREENING
ALL PARKING AREAS MUST BE SCREENED FROM VIEW OF A
FRONTING STREET TO THE S2 STANDARD.
-PROVIDED
LANDSCAPE LEGEND:
PROPOSED SHADE TREE
PROPOSED SHRUBS
PROPOSED ORNAMENTAL TREE
PROPOSED STREET TREE
EXISTING SHADE TREE
EXISTING SHRUB
EXISTING ORNAMENTAL TREE
EXISTING EVERGREEN TREE
PROPOSED EVERGREEN TREE
G:\7331\7331-050\CONST\7331-050Y.dwg, 2/12/2021 10:03:43 AM
UP
1'-0"66'-0"1'-0"18'-0"30'-0"18'-0"A201
A1
A204
C1
A204
A1
A205
A4 1'-0"15'-6"1'-0"49'-6"1'-0"1'-0"184'-9 7/8"
1'-0"
9'-6 1/2"
1'-0"40'-7"8"8'-6"
8"
20'-8 1/2"20'-0"55'-0"
1 3 5 .0 0 °68'-0"9'-8"8"146'-0"129'-8"24'-6"27'-0"27'-0"1'-0"66'-0"1'-0"68'-0"18'-0"30'-0"18'-0"6 STALLS
57 STALLS
18 STALLS
5 STALLS 14 STALLS11 STALLSA201
C1
A4
A301
A2
A301
A3
A302
135.00°
1 3 5 .0 0 °
146'-7 1/2"
42'-11 1/2"1'-0"
8'-9 1/2"
1'-0"4'-3 1/4"
20'-0"180'-2 1/2"30'-5"5 1/2"6'-3"5 1/2"30'-5"68'-0"16'-6"13'-11"9"36'-10"12'-4"45'-5"12'-4"27'-8"12'-4"34'-8 5/8"15'-3 5/8"9"15'-1 1/2"12'-4"15'-8"12'-4"35'-8"12'-4"10'-4 1/4"1'-0"40'-6 7/8"5'-7 3/4"12'-4"39'-1 3/4"12'-4"27'-8"12'-4"27'-8"15'-2"
33'-10"12'-4"27'-6"12'-4"27'-8"12'-4"45'-5"12'-4"
10'-5 3/4"10'-0"30'-5"5 1/2"6'-3"5 1/2"30'-5"6'-3"1'-0"66'-0"1'-0"18'-0"30'-0"18'-0"5'-0"5'-0"A201
A110'-0"A204
C1
A204
A1
A203
C1
A203
A2
A202
C4
A205
A4
183'-9"171'-5 1/8"144'-9 5/8"1'-0"50'-0"1'-0"15'-0"1'-0"68'-0"1'-0"176'-3 3/4"130'-7"1'-0"1'-0"47'-11"1'-0"9'-0 1/8"8"100'-1 7/8"20 STALLS
19 STALLS
10 STALLS13 STALLS62 STALLS
258'-2 3/4"
A202
A1
A202
C1
A201
C1
A4
A301
A2
A301
C2
A301
C4
A301
A3
A302
9'-7 3/4"A203
A1
ASK
STUDIO
ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER
HOLD ALL RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT TO
THESE DRAWINGS. REPRODUCTIONS,
ALTERATIONS, MODIFICATIONS,
USAGE OR INCORPORATION INTO
OTHER DOCUMENTS MAY NOT
OCCUR WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF ASK STUDIO.
COPYRIGHT 2018
ASK STUDIO
ISSUE DATE:
REVISIONS:
54321
D
C
B
A
ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER3716 Ingersoll Ave., Ste. A, Des Moines, IA 50312 office: 515.277.6707 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNINGD
C
B
A
54321 PROJECT 19015
A101
FLOOR PLANSFINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSENEWBURY LIVINGIOWA CITY, IOWASCHEMATIC - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"A2 00 - LOWER LEVEL
SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"C1 01 - FIRST FLOOR
11.12.2020
UNIT COUNTS:
SIZE 0 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL
1-BED 0 2 4 7 5 3 21
2-BED 0 6 12 12 13 4 47
3-BED 0 6 11 11 9 6 43
3L-BED 0 0 1 1 2 1 5
TOTAL 0 14 28 31 29 14 116
ENTRY CANOPY
ABOVE
MECHANICAL
REFUSE
1,308 SF
1,343 SF
1,102 SF
1,496 SF
1,496 SF
742 SF
742 SF
1,193 SF1,102 SF1,116 SF1,323 SF
1,512 SF
1,101 SF 1,101 SF
MAINTENANCE /
MECHANICAL SPACES
DWELLING UNITS: 0 SF
CIRCULATION: 794 SF
SERVICE: 676 SF
COMMON / AMENITY: 0 SF
PARKING: 18,741 SF
WALLS / STRUCTURE: 1,250 SF
LOWER FLOOR: 21,461 GSF
**UNIT BALCONIES, NOT INCLUDED IN GSF / UNIT SF
DWELLING UNITS: 16,677 SF
CIRCULATION: 2,227 SF
SERVICE: 311 SF
COMMON / AMENITY: 4,208 SF
PARKING: 21,087 SF
WALLS / STRUCTURE: 2,843 SF
UNIT BALCONIES: 1,479 SF**
FIRST FLOOR: 47,353 GSF
UP
49'-3"A201
C1 15'-2 3/4"9"15'-1 1/2"12'-4"15'-8"12'-4"35'-8"12'-4"16'-3 3/8"23'-9 3/8"13'-7"12'-4"31'-6 1/2"12'-4"27'-8"12'-4"15'-8"9"15'-8"12'-4"45'-5"12'-4"5'-3"8"9'-0"8"28'-0"12'-4"45'-5"12'-4"A202
A1
A202
C1
5'-3 1/2"
5'-2 1/4"
12'-9 1/2"39'-1 3/4"12'-4"27'-8"12'-4"27'-8"15'-2"30'-5"5 1/2"6'-3"5 1/2"30'-5"16'-6"13'-11"9"36'-10"33'-10"12'-4"27'-6"12'-4"27'-8"12'-4"45'-5"30'-5"5 1/2"6'-3"5 1/2"30'-5"20'-2 3/4"45'-5"12'-4"27'-8"12'-4"34'-6 1/8"33'-7 1/2"12'-4"
27'-6"
12'-4"35'-6"12'-4"14'-1"9"16'-8"12'-4"5'-0"22'-8 1/2"12'-4"27'-6"12'-4"27'-6"12'-4"16'-8"30'-5"5 1/2"6'-3"5 1/2"30'-5"5'-0"30'-5"5 1/2"6'-3"5 1/2"30'-5"6'-3"52'-0"5'-0"A201
A1
A204
C1
A204
A1
A203
C1
A203
A2
A202
C4
A205
A4 27'-8"12'-4"7'-9 1/2"183'-9"68'-0"157'-8"O P E N T O B E L O W
252'-0 1/4"
A4
A301
A2
A301
C2
A301
C4
A301
A3
A302
10'-0"A203
A1
31'-6"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"A201
C1
A202
A1
A202
C1
33'-10"12'-4"27'-6"12'-4"27'-8"12'-4"45'-5"12'-4"16'-6"13'-11"9"36'-10"68'-0"5'-7 3/4"12'-4"28'-10 1/4"
10'-3 1/2"
12'-4"27'-8"12'-4"27'-8"15'-2"12'-4"35'-8"12'-4"15'-8"12'-4"15'-1 1/2"9"34'-8 5/8"12'-4"27'-8"12'-4"45'-5"12'-4"33'-7 1/2"12'-4"27'-6"12'-4"35'-6"12'-4"14'-1"
9"
16'-8"12'-4"22'-8 1/2"12'-4"27'-6"12'-4"27'-6"12'-4"16'-8"16'-0 1/8"52'-0"30'-5"5 1/2"6'-3"5 1/2"30'-5"16'-3"23'-9 3/4"
13'-7"
12'-4"31'-6 1/2"12'-4"27'-8"12'-4"15'-8"9"15'-8"12'-4"45'-5"12'-4"5'-0"30'-5"5 1/2"6'-3"5 1/2"30'-5"A201
A15'-0"A204
C1
A204
A1
A203
C1
A203
A2
A202
C4
A205
A4
10'-5 3/4"68'-0"49'-3"1
2'-4"
4
5'-5"
1
2'-4"
2
8'-0"
1
0'-4"
5'-3"
1
5
7'-8"
183'-9"
A4
A301
A2
A301
C2
A301
C4
A301
A3
A302
A203
A1
10'-0"10'-0"10'-0"ASK
STUDIO
ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER
HOLD ALL RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT TO
THESE DRAWINGS. REPRODUCTIONS,
ALTERATIONS, MODIFICATIONS,
USAGE OR INCORPORATION INTO
OTHER DOCUMENTS MAY NOT
OCCUR WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF ASK STUDIO.
COPYRIGHT 2018
ASK STUDIO
ISSUE DATE:
REVISIONS:
54321
D
C
B
A
ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER3716 Ingersoll Ave., Ste. A, Des Moines, IA 50312 office: 515.277.6707 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNINGD
C
B
A
54321 PROJECT 19015
A102
FLOOR PLANSFINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSENEWBURY LIVINGIOWA CITY, IOWASCHEMATIC - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"A2 02 - SECOND FLOOR
SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"C2 03 - THIRD FLOOR
11.12.2020
UNIT COUNTS:
SIZE 0 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL
1-BED 0 2 4 7 5 3 21
2-BED 0 6 12 12 13 4 47
3-BED 0 6 11 11 9 6 43
3L-BED 0 0 1 1 2 1 5
TOTAL 0 14 28 31 29 14 116
1,512 SF
1,430 SF
1,591 SF1,693 SF
MECHANICAL
REFUSE
855 SF
827 SF
961 SF
1,961 SF
1,114 SF
1,117 SF
1,102 SF
756 SF
756 SF
1,496 SF
1,496 SF1,102 SF
1,102 SF1,248 SF
1,308 SF
1,343 SF
1,102 SF
1,496 SF
1,496 SF
742 SF
742 SF
1,193 SF1,102 SF1,116 SF1,323 SF
1,101 SF 1,101 SF
MECHANICAL
PATIO
950 SF
1,961 SF
1,114 SF
1,117 SF
1,102 SF
756 SF 756 SF
1,496 SF
1,496 SF
1,591 SF1,693 SF
1,102 SF
1,102 SF
1,430 SF
1,386 SF
1,308 SF
1,343 SF
1,102 SF
1,496 SF
1,496 SF
742 SF
742 SF
1,193 SF1,102 SF1,116 SF1,323 SF
1,512 SF
1,101 SF 1,101 SF
*COMMON PATIO, NOT INCLUDED IN GSF
**UNIT BALCONIES, NOT INCLUDED IN GSF / UNIT SF
DWELLING UNITS: 34,779 SF
CIRCULATION: 4,569 SF
SERVICE: 176 SF
COMMON / AMENITY: 2,549 SF
WALLS / STRUCTURE: 3,230 SF
UNIT BALCONIES: 3,110 SF**
COMMON PATIO: 950 SF*
SECOND FLOOR: 45,303 GSF
** +3,273 SF OF UNIT BALCONY, NOT INCLUDED IN GSF / UNIT SF
DWELLING UNITS: 37,422 SF
CIRCULATION: 4,548 SF
SERVICE: 176 SF
COMMON / AMENITY: 0 SF
WALLS / STRUCTURE: 3,144 SF
UNIT BALCONIES: 3,472 SF**
THIRD FLOOR: 45,290 GSF
A201
C1
A202
A1
A202
C1
5'-0"
A201
A1
A204
C1
A204
A1
A203
C1
A203
A2
A202
C4
A205
A4
63'-2 1/4"12'-4"27'-8"12'-4"57'-9"5'-0"25'-5"9"26'-10"5'-7 3/4"12'-4"28'-10 1/4"10'-3 1/2"12'-4"27'-8"12'-4"27'-8"15'-2"9"39'-3"9"57'-4 1/8"5 1/2"6'-3"5 1/2"30'-5"7'-9 1/2"12'-4"27'-8"12'-4"35'-8"12'-4"15'-8"12'-4"15'-1 1/2"9"15'-2 3/4"16'-3 3/8"23'-9 3/8"
13'-7"
12'-4"31'-6 1/2"12'-4"27'-8"12'-4"15'-8"9"15'-8"12'-4"45'-5"12'-4"
252'-0 1/8"
33'-7 1/2"12'-4"27'-6"12'-4"35'-6"12'-4"14'-1"9"16'-8"12'-4"
1
2'-4"
4
5'-5"
1
2'-4"
2
8'-0"
1
0'-4"5'-3"
2
2'-8 1/2"
1
2'-4"
2
7'-6"
1
2'-4"
2
7'-6"
1
2'-4"
1
6'-8"52'-0"4
9'-3"
1
5
7'-8"58'-0"A4
A301
A2
A301
C2
A301
C4
A301
A3
A302
A203
A1
10'-0"10'-0"A202
A1
A202
C1
A203
C1
A203
A2
A202
C4
ROOF BELOW
39'-1 1/4"27'-6"12'-4"35'-6"12'-4"14'-1"9"16'-8"12'-4"
37'-11 7/8"
13'-7"
12'-4"31'-6 1/2"12'-4"27'-8"12'-4"15'-8"9"15'-8"12'-4"45'-5"
3
6'-5 3/8"
1
0'-4"
2
8'-0"
1
2'-4"
4
5'-5"
1
6'-8"
1
2'-4"
2
7'-6"
6
2'-0 3/4"17'-0"30'-4"A205
B2
A4
A301
A2
A301
C2
A301
C4
A301
A3
A302
31'-6"
A203
A1
10'-0"10'-0"ASK
STUDIO
ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER
HOLD ALL RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT TO
THESE DRAWINGS. REPRODUCTIONS,
ALTERATIONS, MODIFICATIONS,
USAGE OR INCORPORATION INTO
OTHER DOCUMENTS MAY NOT
OCCUR WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF ASK STUDIO.
COPYRIGHT 2018
ASK STUDIO
ISSUE DATE:
REVISIONS:
54321
D
C
B
A
ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER3716 Ingersoll Ave., Ste. A, Des Moines, IA 50312 office: 515.277.6707 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNINGD
C
B
A
54321 PROJECT 19015
A103
FLOOR PLANSFINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSENEWBURY LIVINGIOWA CITY, IOWASCHEMATIC - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"A2 04 - FOURTH FLOOR
SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"C2 05 - FIFTH FLOOR
11.12.2020
UNIT COUNTS:
SIZE 0 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL
1-BED 0 2 4 7 5 3 21
2-BED 0 6 12 12 13 4 47
3-BED 0 6 11 11 9 6 43
3L-BED 0 0 1 1 2 1 5
TOTAL 0 14 28 31 29 14 116
MECHANICAL
REFUSE
COMMUNITY
ROOM 656 SF ROOFTOP
PATIO 749 SF
1,405 SF
2,086 SF
1,114 SF
1,117 SF
756 SF 756 SF
1,496 SF
1,496 SF
1,511 SF1,643 SF
1,102 SF
1,102 SF
1,430 SF
925 SF
1,961 SF
1,114 SF
1,102 SF
1,591 SF1,693 SF
MECHANICAL
REFUSE
855 SF
827 SF
961 SF
1,117 SF
756 SF 756 SF
1,496 SF
1,496 SF1,102 SF
1,102 SF
1,430 SF
1,248 SF
1,123 SF
1,343 SF
1,102 SF
1,274 SF
1,496 SF
1,512 SF
1,193 SF1,102 SF1,116 SF1,184 SF
1,697 SF 1,347 SF
**UNIT BALCONY, NOT INCLUDED IN GSF / UNIT SF
DWELLING UNITS: 36,154 SF
CIRCULATION: 4,548 SF
SERVICE: 176 SF
COMMON / AMENITY: 0 SF
WALLS / STRUCTURE: 3,132 SF
UNIT BALCONIES: 4,695 SF**
FOURTH FLOOR: 44,010 GSF
*COMMON BALCONY, NOT INCLUDED IN GSF
**UNIT BALCONY, NOT INCLUDED IN GSF / UNIT SF
DWELLING UNITS: 17,939 SF
CIRCULATION: 2,773 SF
SERVICE: 176 SF
COMMON / AMENITY: 656 SF
WALLS / STRUCTURE: 1,813 SF
UNIT BALCONIES: 3,343 SF**
COMMON BALCONY: 749 SF*
FIFTH FLOOR: 23,357 GSF
01 -FIRST FLOOR
0"
02 -SECOND FLOOR
12'-0"
03 -THIRD FLOOR
23'-2"
04 -FOURTH FLOOR
34'-4"
05 -FIFTH FLOOR
45'-6"
00 -LOWER LEVEL
-11'-10"
05B -NORTH ROOF
45'-6"
ALIGNED W/ ELEVATION PLANE
COMPOSITE WOOD SIDING
METAL PANEL SIDINGFCB SIDING VINYL SLIDING PATIO DOORS VINYL WINDOWS
GALV. STEEL BALCONY RAILING
GALV. STEEL BALCONY STRUCTURECONCRETE
A2
A301
PREFIN. METAL FASCIA
GRADE @ BUILDING
BELOW GRADE WALLS, FOOTINGS
& FOUNDATIONS (DASHED LINES)
01 -FIRST FLOOR
0"
02 -SECOND FLOOR
12'-0"
03 -THIRD FLOOR
23'-2"
04 -FOURTH FLOOR
34'-4"
05 -FIFTH FLOOR
45'-6"
06 -SOUTH ROOF
56'-8"
00 -LOWER LEVEL
-11'-10"
05B -NORTH ROOF
45'-6"
COMPOSITE WOOD SIDING VINYL SLIDING PATIO DOORSVINYL WINDOW
GALV. STEEL GUARDRAIL SYSTEM
FCB SIDINGMETAL PANEL SIDING
PREFIN METAL FASCIA
GALV. STEEL COLUMNS, PAINT
GALV. STEEL BALCONY STRUCTURE
STOREFRONT FRAMING
A4
A301
A3
A302
GALV. STEEL COLUMNS, PAINTED
METAL PANEL SIDING, TYPE B
ALIGNED W/ ELEVATION PLANE
61'-9"
GRADE @ BUILDING
BELOW GRADE WALLS, FOOTINGS
& FOUNDATIONS (DASHED LINES)
ASK
STUDIO
ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER
HOLD ALL RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT TO
THESE DRAWINGS. REPRODUCTIONS,
ALTERATIONS, MODIFICATIONS,
USAGE OR INCORPORATION INTO
OTHER DOCUMENTS MAY NOT
OCCUR WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF ASK STUDIO.
COPYRIGHT 2018
ASK STUDIO
ISSUE DATE:
REVISIONS:
54321
D
C
B
A
ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER3716 Ingersoll Ave., Ste. A, Des Moines, IA 50312 office: 515.277.6707 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNINGD
C
B
A
54321 PROJECT 19015
A201
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
11.12.2020FINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSENEWBURY LIVINGIOWA CITY, IOWASCHEMATIC - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"C1 WEST ELEVATION - NORTH 1
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A1 WEST ELEVATION - NORTH 2
01 -FIRST FLOOR
0"
02 -SECOND FLOOR
12'-0"
03 -THIRD FLOOR
23'-2"
04 -FOURTH FLOOR
34'-4"
05 -FIFTH FLOOR
45'-6"
06 -SOUTH ROOF
56'-8"
COMPOSITE WOOD SIDING
METAL PANEL SIDING
FCB SIDING
VINYL SLIDING PATIO DOORS VINYL WINDOWS
GALV. STEEL BALCONY RAILING
GALV. STEEL BALCONY STRUCTURE
CONCRETE
STOREFRONT FRAMING
GRADE LINE @ BUILDING
GALV. STEEL COLUMN. PAINT
METAL PANEL, TYPE BPREFIN. METAL FASICA
PREFIN. METAL FASICA
ENTRY CANOPY STRUCTURE
C2
A301
ALIGNED W/ ELEVATION PLANE
ALUM. STOREFRONT ENTRY
01 -FIRST FLOOR
0"
02 -SECOND FLOOR
12'-0"
03 -THIRD FLOOR
23'-2"
04 -FOURTH FLOOR
34'-4"
05 -FIFTH FLOOR
45'-6"
06 -SOUTH ROOF
56'-8"
05B -NORTH ROOF
45'-6"
COMPOSITE WOOD SIDING
METAL PANEL SIDING
FCB SIDING VINYL SLIDING PATIO DOORS
VINYL WINDOWS
GALV. STEEL BALCONY RAILING
GALV. STEEL BALCONY STRUCTURECONCRETE
PREFIN. METAL FASCIA
GRADE @ BUILDING BELOW GRADE WALLS,
FOOTINGS & FOUNDATIONS
C4
A301
ALIGNED W/ ELEVATION PLANE
01 -FIRST FLOOR
0"
02 -SECOND FLOOR
12'-0"
03 -THIRD FLOOR
23'-2"
04 -FOURTH FLOOR
34'-4"
05 -FIFTH FLOOR
45'-6"
06 -SOUTH ROOF
56'-8"
05B -NORTH ROOF
45'-6"
COMPOSITE WOOD
SIDING
METAL PANEL SIDINGFCB SIDING
VINYL WINDOWS GALV. STEEL BALCONY RAILS
CONCRETE
PREFIN. METAL FASCIA
ALIGNED W/ ELEVATION PLANE
GRADE @ BUILDING BELOW GRADE WALLS,
FOOTINGS & FOUNDATIONS
ASK
STUDIO
ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER
HOLD ALL RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT TO
THESE DRAWINGS. REPRODUCTIONS,
ALTERATIONS, MODIFICATIONS,
USAGE OR INCORPORATION INTO
OTHER DOCUMENTS MAY NOT
OCCUR WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF ASK STUDIO.
COPYRIGHT 2018
ASK STUDIO
ISSUE DATE:
REVISIONS:
54321
D
C
B
A
ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER3716 Ingersoll Ave., Ste. A, Des Moines, IA 50312 office: 515.277.6707 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNINGD
C
B
A
54321 PROJECT 19015
A202
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
11.12.2020FINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSENEWBURY LIVINGIOWA CITY, IOWASCHEMATIC - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A1 WEST ELEVATION - SOUTH 1
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"C1 WEST ELEVATION - SOUTH 2
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"C4 SOUTHWEST ELEVATION
01 -FIRST FLOOR
0"
02 -SECOND FLOOR
12'-0"
03 -THIRD FLOOR
23'-2"
04 -FOURTH FLOOR
34'-4"
05 -FIFTH FLOOR
45'-6"
06 -SOUTH ROOF
56'-8"
ALIGNED W/ ELEVATION PLANE
COMPOSITE WOOD SIDING
METAL PANEL SIDING FCB SIDING VINYL SLIDING PATIO DOORS VINYL WINDOWS
GALV. STEEL BALCONY RAILING
CONCRETE
PREFIN. METAL FASCIA
GRADE @ BUILDING
BELOW GRADE WALLS , FOOTINGS
& FOUNDATIONS (DASHED LINE)
FCB SIDING, TYPE B
C4
A301
01 -FIRST FLOOR
0"
02 -SECOND FLOOR
12'-0"
03 -THIRD FLOOR
23'-2"
04 -FOURTH FLOOR
34'-4"
05 -FIFTH FLOOR
45'-6"
06 -SOUTH ROOF
56'-8"
C2
A301
ALIGNED W/ ELEVATION PLANE
INSULATED METAL GARAGE DOORFIBER CEMENT BOARD PANELGALV. STEEL BALCONY STRUCTURE CONCRETE GALV. STEEL BALCONY GUARDRAILS
FIBER CEMENT BOARD LAP SIDING COMPOSITE WOOD SIDING
VINYL SLIDING PATIO DOORGRADE @ BUILDING
FOOTINGS & FOUNDATIONS
01 -FIRST FLOOR
0"
02 -SECOND FLOOR
12'-0"
03 -THIRD FLOOR
23'-2"
04 -FOURTH FLOOR
34'-4"
05 -FIFTH FLOOR
45'-6"
06 -SOUTH ROOF
56'-8"
05B -NORTH ROOF
45'-6"
ALIGNED W/ ELEVATION PLANE
SLIDING PATIO DOOR PREFIN. METAL FASCIA
GALV. STEEL BALCONY
GUARDRAIL
FCB LAP SIDING
FCB PANEL SIDING
VINYL WINDOW
GALV. STEEL
COLUMNS, PAINT
GRADE @ BUILDING
CONCRETE
STOREFRONT FRAMING
COMPOSITE WOOD
SIDING
GALV. STEEL BALCONY STRUCTURE
ASK
STUDIO
ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER
HOLD ALL RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT TO
THESE DRAWINGS. REPRODUCTIONS,
ALTERATIONS, MODIFICATIONS,
USAGE OR INCORPORATION INTO
OTHER DOCUMENTS MAY NOT
OCCUR WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF ASK STUDIO.
COPYRIGHT 2018
ASK STUDIO
ISSUE DATE:
REVISIONS:
54321
D
C
B
A
ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER3716 Ingersoll Ave., Ste. A, Des Moines, IA 50312 office: 515.277.6707 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNINGD
C
B
A
54321 PROJECT 19015
A203
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
11.12.2020FINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSENEWBURY LIVINGIOWA CITY, IOWASCHEMATIC - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A2 EAST ELEVATION - SOUTH 2
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"C1 EAST ELEVATION - SOUTH 1
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A1 EAST ELEVATION - CENTER 1
01 -FIRST FLOOR
0"
02 -SECOND FLOOR
12'-0"
03 -THIRD FLOOR
23'-2"
04 -FOURTH FLOOR
34'-4"
05 -FIFTH FLOOR
45'-6"
06 -SOUTH ROOF
56'-8"
00 -LOWER LEVEL
-11'-10"
05B -NORTH ROOF
45'-6"
COMPOSITE WOOD SIDING
FCB SIDING
VINYL SLIDING PATIO DOORS VINYL WINDOWSGALV. STEEL BALCONY RAILING
GALV. STEEL BALCONY
STRUCTURE
CONCRETE
PREFIN. METAL FASCIA
GRADE @ BUILDING
COMPOSITE WOOD
SIDING (BEYOND)
STOREFRONT FRAMING
FCB SIDING, TYPE B
STOREFRONT FRAMING
ALIGNED W/ ELEVATION PLANE
A4
A301
A3
A302
BELOW GRADE WALLS,
FOOTINGS & FOUNDATIONS
01 -FIRST FLOOR
0"
02 -SECOND FLOOR
12'-0"
03 -THIRD FLOOR
23'-2"
04 -FOURTH FLOOR
34'-4"
05 -FIFTH FLOOR
45'-6"
00 -LOWER LEVEL
-11'-10"
05B -NORTH ROOF
45'-6"
COMPOSITE WOOD SIDING
METAL PANEL
SIDING (BEYOND)
FCB SIDING
VINYL SLIDING PATIO DOORS VINYL WINDOWSGALV. STEEL BALCONY RAILING
GALV. STEEL BALCONY STRUCTURECONCRETE
FCB SIDING, TYPE B
GRADE @ BUILDING
INSULATED GARAGE DOOR
A2
A301
BELOW GRADE WALLS,
FOOTINGS & FOUNDATIONS
ASK
STUDIO
ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER
HOLD ALL RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT TO
THESE DRAWINGS. REPRODUCTIONS,
ALTERATIONS, MODIFICATIONS,
USAGE OR INCORPORATION INTO
OTHER DOCUMENTS MAY NOT
OCCUR WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF ASK STUDIO.
COPYRIGHT 2018
ASK STUDIO
ISSUE DATE:
REVISIONS:
54321
D
C
B
A
ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER3716 Ingersoll Ave., Ste. A, Des Moines, IA 50312 office: 515.277.6707 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNINGD
C
B
A
54321 PROJECT 19015
A204
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
11.12.2020FINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSENEWBURY LIVINGIOWA CITY, IOWASCHEMATIC - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A1 EAST ELEVATION - NORTH 2
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"C1 EAST ELEVATION - NORTH 1
01 -FIRST FLOOR
0"
02 -SECOND FLOOR
12'-0"
03 -THIRD FLOOR
23'-2"
04 -FOURTH FLOOR
34'-4"
00 -LOWER LEVEL
-11'-10"
05B -NORTH ROOF
45'-6"
COMPOSITE WOOD SIDING
METAL PANEL SIDING
FCB SIDING
VINYL WINDOWS
GALV. STEEL
BALCONY RAILING
GALV. STEEL
BALCONY STRUCTURE
CONCRETE
PREFIN. METAL FASCIA
GRADE @ BUILDING
BELOW GRADE WALLS , FOOTINGS &
FOUNDATION (DASHED LINES)
05 -FIFTH FLOOR
45'-6"
06 -SOUTH ROOF
56'-8"
05B -NORTH ROOF
45'-6"
COMPOSITE WOOD SIDING
GALV. STEEL
BALCONY RAILING
PREFIN. METAL FASCIA
ASK
STUDIO
ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER
HOLD ALL RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT TO
THESE DRAWINGS. REPRODUCTIONS,
ALTERATIONS, MODIFICATIONS,
USAGE OR INCORPORATION INTO
OTHER DOCUMENTS MAY NOT
OCCUR WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF ASK STUDIO.
COPYRIGHT 2018
ASK STUDIO
ISSUE DATE:
REVISIONS:
54321
D
C
B
A
ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER3716 Ingersoll Ave., Ste. A, Des Moines, IA 50312 office: 515.277.6707 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNINGD
C
B
A
54321 PROJECT 19015
A205
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
11.12.2020FINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSENEWBURY LIVINGIOWA CITY, IOWASCHEMATIC - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A4 NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"B2
NORTH ELEVATION @
ELEVATOR
01 -FIRST FLOOR
0"
02 -SECOND FLOOR
12'-0"
03 -THIRD FLOOR
23'-2"
04 -FOURTH FLOOR
34'-4"
05 -FIFTH FLOOR
45'-6"
00 -LOWER LEVEL
-11'-10"
05B -NORTH ROOF
45'-6"
DWELLING UNIT DWELLING UNIT
DWELLING UNIT DWELLING UNIT
DWELLING UNIT DWELLING UNIT
DWELLING UNIT DWELLING UNIT
PARKING
CORRIDOR
CORRIDOR
CORRIDOR
CORRIDOR
01 -FIRST FLOOR
0"
02 -SECOND FLOOR
12'-0"
03 -THIRD FLOOR
23'-2"
04 -FOURTH FLOOR
34'-4"
05 -FIFTH FLOOR
45'-6"
00 -LOWER LEVEL
-11'-10"
05B -NORTH ROOF
45'-6"
DWELLING UNIT
DWELLING UNIT
DWELLING UNIT
DWELLING UNIT
PARKING
DWELLING UNIT
DWELLING UNIT
DWELLING UNIT
DWELLING UNIT
12'-0"01 -FIRST FLOOR
0"
02 -SECOND FLOOR
12'-0"
03 -THIRD FLOOR
23'-2"
04 -FOURTH FLOOR
34'-4"
05 -FIFTH FLOOR
45'-6"
06 -SOUTH ROOF
56'-8"
DWELLING UNIT DWELLING UNITCORRIDOR
DWELLING UNIT DWELLING UNITCORRIDOR
DWELLING UNIT DWELLING UNITCORRIDOR
DWELLING UNIT DWELLING UNITCORRIDOR
PARKING
01 -FIRST FLOOR
0"
02 -SECOND FLOOR
12'-0"
03 -THIRD FLOOR
23'-2"
04 -FOURTH FLOOR
34'-4"
05 -FIFTH FLOOR
45'-6"
06 -SOUTH ROOF
56'-8"
05B -NORTH ROOF
45'-6"
PARKING
DWELLING UNIT DWELLING UNITCORRIDOR
DWELLING UNIT DWELLING UNITCORRIDOR
DWELLING UNIT DWELLING UNITCORRIDOR
DWELLING UNIT DWELLING UNITCORRIDOR
ASK
STUDIO
ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER
HOLD ALL RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT TO
THESE DRAWINGS. REPRODUCTIONS,
ALTERATIONS, MODIFICATIONS,
USAGE OR INCORPORATION INTO
OTHER DOCUMENTS MAY NOT
OCCUR WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF ASK STUDIO.
COPYRIGHT 2018
ASK STUDIO
ISSUE DATE:
REVISIONS:
54321
D
C
B
A
ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER3716 Ingersoll Ave., Ste. A, Des Moines, IA 50312 office: 515.277.6707 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNINGD
C
B
A
54321 PROJECT 19015
A301
BUILDING
SECTIONS
11.12.2020FINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSENEWBURY LIVINGIOWA CITY, IOWASCHEMATIC - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A4 NORTH END SECTION 2
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A2 NORTH END SECTION 1
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"C2 SOUTH END SECTION 1
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"C4 SOUTH END SECTION 2
01 -FIRST FLOOR
0"
02 -SECOND FLOOR
12'-0"
03 -THIRD FLOOR
23'-2"
04 -FOURTH FLOOR
34'-4"
05 -FIFTH FLOOR
45'-6"
06 -SOUTH ROOF
56'-8"
DWELLING UNIT
CORRIDOR
DWELLING UNIT
DWELLING UNITDWELLING UNIT
CORRIDOR
CORRIDOR COMMONS
LOUNGE
FITNESS
PATIO
PATIO
FITNESS ENTRY / LOBBY
DWELLING UNIT
ASK
STUDIO
ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER
HOLD ALL RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT TO
THESE DRAWINGS. REPRODUCTIONS,
ALTERATIONS, MODIFICATIONS,
USAGE OR INCORPORATION INTO
OTHER DOCUMENTS MAY NOT
OCCUR WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF ASK STUDIO.
COPYRIGHT 2018
ASK STUDIO
ISSUE DATE:
REVISIONS:
54321
D
C
B
A
ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER3716 Ingersoll Ave., Ste. A, Des Moines, IA 50312 office: 515.277.6707 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNINGD
C
B
A
54321 PROJECT 19015
A302
BUILDING
SECTIONS &
MODEL IMAGES
11.12.2020FINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSENEWBURY LIVINGIOWA CITY, IOWASCHEMATIC - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"A3 BUILDING SECTION @ ENTRY
SCALE:A1 ENTRANCE AERIAL 1
SCALE:C1 AERIAL FROM SOUTHWEST
SCALE:A2 ENTRANCE @ GRADE
SCALE:C2 AERIAL FROM EAST
SCALE:C4 FITNESS / LOUNGE AERIAL
ASK
STUDIO
ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER
HOLD ALL RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT TO
THESE DRAWINGS. REPRODUCTIONS,
ALTERATIONS, MODIFICATIONS,
USAGE OR INCORPORATION INTO
OTHER DOCUMENTS MAY NOT
OCCUR WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF ASK STUDIO.
COPYRIGHT 2018
ASK STUDIO
ISSUE DATE:
REVISIONS:
54321
D
C
B
A
ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER3716 Ingersoll Ave., Ste. A, Des Moines, IA 50312 office: 515.277.6707 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNINGD
C
B
A
54321 PROJECT 19015FINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSENEWBURY LIVINGIOWA CITY, IOWASCHEMATIC - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
11.12.2020
EXTERIOR
RENDERINGS
A303
VIEW AT MAIN ENTRANCE
ASK
STUDIO
ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER
HOLD ALL RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT TO
THESE DRAWINGS. REPRODUCTIONS,
ALTERATIONS, MODIFICATIONS,
USAGE OR INCORPORATION INTO
OTHER DOCUMENTS MAY NOT
OCCUR WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF ASK STUDIO.
COPYRIGHT 2018
ASK STUDIO
ISSUE DATE:
REVISIONS:
54321
D
C
B
A
ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER3716 Ingersoll Ave., Ste. A, Des Moines, IA 50312 office: 515.277.6707 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNINGD
C
B
A
54321 PROJECT 19015FINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSENEWBURY LIVINGIOWA CITY, IOWASCHEMATIC - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
11.12.2020
EXTERIOR
RENDERINGS
A304
VIEW FROM SOUTWEST CORNER
ASK
STUDIO
ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER
HOLD ALL RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT TO
THESE DRAWINGS. REPRODUCTIONS,
ALTERATIONS, MODIFICATIONS,
USAGE OR INCORPORATION INTO
OTHER DOCUMENTS MAY NOT
OCCUR WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN
PERMISSION OF ASK STUDIO.
COPYRIGHT 2018
ASK STUDIO
ISSUE DATE:
REVISIONS:
54321
D
C
B
A
ARCHITECTS SCHIPPER KASTNER3716 Ingersoll Ave., Ste. A, Des Moines, IA 50312 office: 515.277.6707 ARCHITECTURE INTERIORS PLANNINGD
C
B
A
54321 PROJECT 19015FINKBINE - THE JAMES ON MELROSENEWBURY LIVINGIOWA CITY, IOWASCHEMATIC - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
EXTERIOR
RENDERINGS
A305
11.12.2020
VIEW FROM THE EAST
Attachment 9 - Executive Summary Only
Melrose Avenue Traffic Impact Study IIW, P.C.
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IIW, P.C. has prepared this report for a proposed Active Adult development to be located at the northeast quadrant of
the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S). This study evaluated the effect
the development will have on traffic flow and intersection functionality along Melrose Avenue and at the Melrose
Avenue/Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S) intersection.
A turning movement count was performed at the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Finkbine Commuter
Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S) on November 19, 2020 during peak AM and PM hours. The peak hour in the AM was
determined to be 7:30 AM – 8:30 AM. The peak hour in the PM was determined to be 4:00 PM – 5:00 PM.
The sight distance at the existing intersection of Melrose Avenue and Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S)
and at the proposed intersection of Melrose Avenue & proposed development entrance was reviewed and found to
exceed AASHTO’s recommendations. Crash data was reviewed and the crash rate in the study area was less than
the statewide crash rate average for minor arterials.
A model was setup using Synchro traffic analysis software to analyze the existing flow of traffic at the intersection of
Melrose Avenue and Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S). Since the traffic counts in November 2020 were
taken during the COVID-19 pandemic, all traffic volumes collected in November 2020 were increased by 14% in the
AM and 6% in the PM, per direction from the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County (MPOJC).
Because the golf course was closed during the traffic counts, trip generation was used to determine the volume of
traffic that may be generated by the golf course. A growth rate of 0.73% on Melrose Avenue east of Finkbine Commuter
Drive, and 1.03% west of Finkbine Commuter Drive was used to estimate future traffic.
The proposed development will consist of 116 units which will have access to Melrose Avenue at an existing driveway
approximately 400 feet east of Finkbine Commuter Drive. There will also be a driveway from Finkbine Commuter Drive
for deliveries and visitors. Using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, trip generation rates were developed
for the proposed development using ITE Land Use code 252, Senior Adult Housing – Attached. The direction of traffic
was distributed entering and exiting the proposed development using the same percentages as existing traffic on
Melrose Ave.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) is a function of the volume to capacity ratio of the whole intersection. A value of
100% means that the intersection is at capacity. A volume to capacity ratio of less than or equal to 55% is an A, greater
than 55% to 64% is a B, and so on. The model indicated that the existing intersection of Melrose Avenue at Finkbine
Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S) with the COVID factor and golf course traffic is a level of service of E in the peak
AM, and a level of service of A in the peak PM. In the year 2042, without the proposed development, the intersection
will be a level of service of F in the AM and a level of service of A in the PM.
Traffic expected to be generated by the proposed development was added to the model to determine what effect the
development had on traffic flow. The table on the next page summarizes the capacity and level of service of the
intersection with and without the proposed development. As shown, there is very little change in the capacity of the
intersection with the development traffic added.
Melrose Avenue Traffic Impact Study IIW, P.C.
2
Summary of Intersection Capacity with and without Development
Melrose Avenue at Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S)
Time Period Intersection Capacity Utilization
%, LOS
No Development, AM 2022 84.7, E
Development, AM 2022 85.0, E
No Development, PM 2022 46.0, A
Development, PM 2022 46.1, A
No Development, AM 2027 86.9, E
Development, AM 2027 87.2, E
No Development, PM 2027 46.6, A
Development, PM 2027 46.9, A
No Development, AM 2042 94.3, F
Development, AM 2042 94.6, F
No Development, PM 2042 49.9, A
Development, PM 2042 50.1, A
The intersection of Melrose Avenue with the new development driveway was also reviewed. In opening year, in the
peak AM and PM hours the level of service is expected to be a C & A, respectively. In the Year 2042, the level of
service in the AM and PM hours for the intersection will be D and A, respectively. Although the delay for vehicles
exiting the new development is high in the Peak AM, this is a function of the heavy existing traffic on Melrose Avenue.
A traffic signal warrant analysis was completed for the proposed intersection of Melrose Avenue and the new
development, and for the existing intersection of Melrose Avenue and Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S).
The proposed development is not expected to generate enough traffic to warrant a traffic signal at the entrance on
Melrose Avenue. At the existing intersection of Melrose Avenue and Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S),
without any proposed development traffic, the peak hour traffic signal warrant is satisfied assuming a one-lane
approach on Finkbine Commuter Drive. (Only one lane is marked, however, the approach is wide enough for two lanes
and vehicles were observed using it as two lanes at the approach.) The proposed development as shown in Appendix
15 will add very little, if any traffic to Finkbine Commuter Drive, and will add approximately 11 vehicles to Melrose
Avenue; therefore, the proposed development traffic does not impact the traffic signal warrant analysis.
With a traffic signal installed at the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Finkbine Commuter Drive, using 2042 traffic
volumes, the model indicates that the intersection will operate much more efficiently than it currently operates. A fully
actuated intersection with left turn lanes on Melrose Avenue in both directions may operate at a level of service of C in
the AM, and a B in the PM.
The need for turn lanes at the proposed development driveway was analyzed. A westbound right turn lane into the
proposed development is not warranted. An eastbound left turn lane on Melrose Avenue at the proposed development
driveway is warranted. A proposed left turn lane of 120 feet will be adequate for storage and deceleration.
A new 140-room Marriott hotel is being built approximately ½ mile away from this study area. While there may be a
few trips generated by the hotel which will pass by the Active Adult development, it is not expected to have an impact
on the traffic in the study area. The developer of the Active Adult building is also considering an additional development
Melrose Avenue Traffic Impact Study IIW, P.C.
3
of approximately 41 townhomes on the west side of Finkbine Commuter Drive. These units may have access to
Melrose Avenue at Westgate Street and MacBride Road, west of this study area. This additional development is
expected to have very little impact on the traffic in the study area.
Melrose Avenue Traffic Impact Study IIW, P.C.
4
INTRODUCTION
IIW, P.C. has prepared this report for a proposed Active Adult development to be located at the northeast quadrant of
the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S). See Appendices 1 and 2 for
project location. This study evaluated the effect the development will have on traffic flow and intersection functionality
along Melrose Avenue and at the Melrose Avenue/Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S) intersection.
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
Study Area
Melrose Avenue is a minor arterial that runs east-west through the cities of Iowa City and University Heights. It is a
curbed four lane divided roadway with a curbed grass median west of Finkbine Commuter Drive and becomes a two-
lane undivided roadway approximately 300 feet east of Finkbine Commuter Drive. Sidewalks are present on both sides
of the street. The speed limit is 25 mph where undivided, and 35 mph on the divided section. Driveways are present
along the roadway near the study area for an apartment complex (west of Finkbine Commuter Drive) and a storage
shed (east of Finkbine Commuter Drive) with a fully curbed entrance. In addition, two driveways exist at the project
site, serving a vacant property.
Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S) runs roughly north-south from W. Benton Street to Hawkins Drive. It is
a curbed two-lane undivided roadway, except for a grassed median extending approximately 100 feet north of the
intersection with Melrose Avenue. Finkbine Commuter Drive appears to be a private street and is posted at 15 mph.
Finkbine Commuter Drive provides access to the Finkbine Golf Course, an 18-hole golf course with a golf shop and a
restaurant, and hundreds of parking spaces at Finkbine Commuter Lot and faculty and staff parking for the University
of Iowa Hospital. There are gates at the south end of the commuter parking lot which were open at the time of an on-
site visit, and vehicles were observed traveling from Melrose Avenue, north to the commuter lot and further north to
the University of Iowa Hospital parking.
Erin Shane, Associate Director for University of Iowa Parking & Transportation, indicated that usage of the commuter
lot in November 2020, was down 24% to 30% from usage in November 2019. In early November 2020, the Hawkeye
Commuter lot was closed and parking for many UIHC employees was temporarily relocated to the Finkbine Commuter
lot. Even with this change, utilization of the Finkbine Commuter lot was down from last year. The gates at the south
end of the commuter lot were left open so that they did not have to re-program all the affected access cards during the
temporary relocation. See Appendix 38.
There is a small parking lot in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Finkbine Commuter
Drive. The parking lot connects Finkbine Commuter Drive with Melrose Avenue at Westgate Street. Vehicles were
observed using the parking lot to bypass traffic on Melrose Avenue at the intersection of Finkbine Commuter Drive.
Emerald Street is a two-lane undivided roadway which provides access to a fire station and several apartment
complexes. The speed limit is 25 mph and on-street parking is only allowed on the west side of the street. A sidewalk
is present on the west side of Emerald Street.
The intersection of Melrose Avenue and Finkbine Commuter Drive is two-way stop-controlled, with stop signs placed
at Finkbine Commuter Drive(N) and Emerald Street(S). Both roadways have street lighting at the intersection and
within the study area. An existing bus stop is present at the southeast quadrant of the intersection and was assumed
to have a negligible effect on traffic flow. As motorists proceed eastbound on Melrose Avenue approaching Finkbine,
Melrose Avenue Traffic Impact Study IIW, P.C.
5
there are warning signs that indicates the right lane ends. However, in the morning peak hour, it was observed that
much of the through traffic stayed in the right lane to travel through the intersection so as not to get delayed behind a
left turning vehicle. During non-peak hours, most of the traffic traveled through the intersection in the left lane since
the right lane ended approximately 300 feet east of the intersection.
Traffic Data
The Iowa DOT has an AADT traffic count from 2018 on Melrose Avenue east of Finkbine Commuter Drive of 13,400
vehicles per day (vpd). Since no other traffic data was available, a turning movement count was performed at the
intersection of Melrose Avenue and Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S) on November 19, 2020 during
peak AM and PM hours. See Appendices 3 & 4. At the time of the traffic count, it appears that the public schools were
open with 50% of the students attending classes in person, University of Iowa classes were in session although it is
unknown how many of these classes may be virtual, the golf course was closed for the season, the golf shop was
open, and the restaurant was open for carry-out only. The peak hour in the AM was determined to be 7:30 AM – 8:30
AM. 64% of the traffic in the intersection was going east on Melrose Avenue and 34% was going west. The peak hour
in the PM was determined to be 4:00 PM – 5:00 PM. 30% of the traffic in the intersection was going east on Melrose
Avenue, 51% was going west, and 17% was going south on Finkbine Commuter Drive.
Heavy vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles were also counted. The volume of heavy vehicles was almost entirely from
buses and was determined to be 1% of the traffic. In the AM peak hour, there were 28 pedestrians within the
intersection and 9 bicyclists. In the PM peak hour, there were 52 pedestrians and 9 bicyclists.
Emily Bothell, Transportation Engineering Planner with Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County
(MPOJC), indicated that traffic volumes in the Iowa City area were down compared to previous years by 14% in the
AM and 6% in the PM. Erin Shane, Associate Director for University of Iowa Parking & Transportation, indicated that
usage of the commuter lot in November 2020, was down 24% to 30% from usage in November 2019. In order to better
represent typical traffic volumes, all traffic volumes collected in November 2020 were increased by 14% in the AM and
6% in the PM, this includes traffic on Finkbine Commuter Drive and Emerald Street. Even though usage of the
commuter lot was down by 24% to 30%, it is assumed that if the lot was at a normal usage level, some of the traffic
would have accessed the lot from Hawkins Drive; therefore, not all of the 24% to 30% should be added to the Melrose
Avenue/Finkbine Commuter Drive intersection. See Appendices 3A and 4A for the existing traffic volumes with a
COVID factor applied to better represent typical traffic volumes.
Sight Distance
The sight distance at the existing intersection of Melrose Avenue and Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S)
and at the proposed intersection of Melrose Avenue & proposed development entrance was reviewed. LiDAR was
used to determine the existing grades. Since no field topographic data was taken, and due to the accuracy of LiDAR
data, the measured intersection sight distances are approximate. AASHTO’s criteria for passenger cars was used.
Since the speed limit changes near this location, a design speed of 35 mph was used when looking west, and a design
speed of 25 mph was used when looking east.
At the existing intersection, vehicles exiting Finkbine Commuter Drive turning left will cross 2-lanes and a 30-foot
median. The required sight distance is calculated to be 476 feet. The measured sight distance is over 600 feet. For
vehicles turning right, the required sight distance is 240 feet, and the measured sight distance is over 600 feet.
Melrose Avenue Traffic Impact Study IIW, P.C.
6
Vehicles exiting Emerald street turning left will cross 2-lanes and a 30-foot median. The design speed is assumed to
be 25 mph. The required sight distance is calculated to be 340 feet. The measured sight distance is over 600 feet.
For vehicles turning right, the required sight distance is 390 feet, and the measured sight distance is over 600 feet.
For vehicles exiting the new development driveway and turning left onto Melrose Avenue, the required sight distance
is 390 feet. The measured sight distance is approximately 490 feet. If there is a vehicle in the left lane on Melrose
Avenue stopped to turn left onto Finkbine Commuter Drive, the measured sight distance is reduced to approximately
420 feet.
For vehicles exiting the new development driveway and turning right onto Melrose Avenue, the required sight distance
is 280 feet, and the measured sight distance is approximately 450 feet.
Crash Data
Crash data was collected from the Iowa DOT website https://icat.iowadot.gov on Melrose Avenue in the study area. In
the last 5 years, there have been 9 crashes. Crashes are summarized in the following table, and the crash report is
attached as Appendix 5. For an AADT of 13,400, and a study area of 0.20 miles, the crash rate is 184 per hundred
million vehicles miles (HMVMT). The statewide 5-year crash rate average is 202 for minor arterials.
Table 1 – Crash Summary
Date Type Severity Major Cause
01/01/2016 Angle PDO Failure to yield making a left turn
06/10/2016 Rear-end PDO Improper lane change
02/24/2017 Rear-end PDO Followed too close
02/28/2017 Rear-end PDO Followed too close
10/26/2017 Rear-end PDO Followed too close
04/10/2018 Rear-end PDO Vision obstructed
06/29/2018 Sideswipe PDO Unknown
10/03/2018 Sideswipe PDO Improper lane change
07/15/2019 Sideswipe PDO Improper lane change
Existing Level of Service
A model was setup using Synchro traffic analysis software to analyze the existing flow of traffic at the intersection of
Melrose Avenue and Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S). Synchro uses the Highway Capacity Manual’s
(HCM) methods for analyzing traffic. The HCM uses a Level of Service (LOS) to represent the delay experienced by
motorists. LOS A is the best operating conditions and LOS F is the worst. For un-signalized intersections, the delay
for the thru traffic is essentially zero; therefore, the HCM can be used to compute the level of service for the minor
movements, but not the intersection as a whole. Synchro reports for all scenarios are in Appendix 40. For Existing
Conditions, the recorded traffic volumes taken in November 2020 were increased by 14% in the AM and 6% in the PM,
and these volumes are shown in appendices 3A & 4A. The following table summarizes the Delay in seconds and the
LOS on the northbound and southbound approaches, and the eastbound and westbound left turn approaches, which
are the legs of the intersections where conflicts exist.
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) is a function of the volume to capacity ratio of the whole intersection. A value of
100% means that the intersection is at capacity. It is an accepted technique for transportation planning studies, future
Melrose Avenue Traffic Impact Study IIW, P.C.
7
roadway design considerations and congestion management/mitigation programs. A volume to capacity ratio of less
than or equal to 55% is an A, greater than 55% to 64% is a B, and so on. The ICU and LOS for the existing intersection
is summarized in the following table.
Table 2 – Delays (in seconds) and LOS for Existing Conditions,
Melrose Avenue at Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S)
Time
Period
Southbound Approach
Delay, LOS
Northbound Approach
Delay, LOS
Eastbound Left
Delay, LOS
Westbound Left
Delay, LOS
ICU
%, LOS
AM PEAK *, F 14.8, B 67.4, F 12.7, B 79.6, D
PM PEAK 17.6, C 31.3, D 9.1, A 8.4, A 43.9, A
* Delay exceeds 300 seconds
Since the golf course was closed during the traffic counts, trip generation was used to determine the volume of traffic
that may be generated by the golf course. From ITE Trip Generation manual, the Land Use is 430 - Golf Course. The
ITE Trip Generation Manual indicates that the trip generation rates include some sites that conta ined a driving range,
club house, pro shop, restaurant, lounge, and banquet facilities. The Manual shows Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs.
Acres and Holes. The ITE trip generation manual states that due to the small sample size, trips generated by number
of acres should be used with caution. Therefore, for this study, trips generated by number of holes will be used. A
phone call to the golf shop indicated the golf course has 18 holes. Rates for Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic were
used since the peak hour of the golf course does not typically correspond to the peak hour of the adjacent street. It is
assumed that all golf course trips use the Melrose Avenue intersection with Finkbine Commuter Drive since users are
not likely to have a parking pass to access the Finkbine Commuter Lot.
Table 3 – Trips Generated by Land Use Golf Course
Time
Period
Acres /
Holes
Average
Rate
Trips
Generated
(vph)
% Entering % Exiting
Trips
Generated
Entering
(vph)
Trip
Generated
Exiting
(vph)
Pk Hr AM 18 Holes 1.76 32 79 21 25 7
Pk Hr PM 18 Holes 2.91 52 53 47 27 25
These trips generated by the golf course are added to the Existing Conditions volumes shown in appendices 3A & 4A
to account for the golf course being closed during the traffic counts. These volumes are shown in Appendices 6 & 7.
Delays and LOS are shown in the following table.
Table 4 - Delays (in seconds) and LOS for Existing Conditions w/Golf Course,
Melrose Avenue at Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S)
Time
Period
Southbound Approach
Delay, LOS
Northbound Approach
Delay, LOS
Eastbound Left
Delay, LOS
Westbound Left
Delay, LOS
ICU
%, LOS
AM PEAK *, F 14.8, B 81.6, F 12.7, B 84.2, E
PM PEAK 16.7, C 23.0, C 9.2, A 8.4, A 45.9, A
* Delay exceeds 300 seconds
Melrose Avenue Traffic Impact Study IIW, P.C.
8
Growth Rate
The growth rate data was provided by the Metropolitan Planning Organization of Johnson County (MPOJC). Their
model estimates an annual growth rate of 0.73% on Melrose Avenue east of Finkbine Commuter Drive, and 1.03%
west of Finkbine Commuter Drive. See Appendix 8.
In order to determine the level of service for Melrose Avenue without the proposed development, the through volumes
on Melrose Avenue shown in Appendix 6 & 7 will be increased by these growth rates by 1 year for Year 2022 Without
Development, by 6 years for Year 2027 Without Development, and by 21 years for Year 2042 Without Development.
The growth rates will not be applied to the golf course volumes since it is assumed the golf course will not expand, and
they will not be applied to traffic on Finkbine Commuter Drive since it is assumed that the commuter lot will not expand.
These volumes are shown in Appendices 9 - 14 and the delays and levels of service are summarized in the following
tables.
Table 5 - Delays (in seconds) and LOS for Year 2022 without Development,
Melrose Avenue at Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S)
Time
Period
Southbound Approach
Delay, LOS
Northbound Approach
Delay, LOS
Eastbound Left
Delay, LOS
Westbound Left
Delay, LOS
ICU
%, LOS
AM PEAK *, F 14.8, B 85.2, F 12.8, B 84.7, E
PM PEAK 16.8, C 23.3, C 9.3, A 8.4, A 46.0, A
* Delay exceeds 300 seconds
Table 6 - Delays (in seconds) and LOS for Year 2027 without Development,
Melrose Avenue at Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S)
Time
Period
Southbound Approach
Delay, LOS
Northbound Approach
Delay, LOS
Eastbound Left
Delay, LOS
Westbound Left
Delay, LOS
ICU
%, LOS
AM PEAK *, F 15.2, C 104.8, F 13.2, B 86.9, E
PM PEAK 17.5, C 24.5, C 9.4, A 8.4, A 46.6, A
* Delay exceeds 300 seconds
Table 7 - Delays (in seconds) and LOS for Year 2042 without Development,
Melrose Avenue at Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S)
Time
Period
Southbound Approach
Delay, LOS
Northbound Approach
Delay, LOS
Eastbound Left
Delay, LOS
Westbound Left
Delay, LOS
ICU
%, LOS
AM PEAK *, F 16.7, C 191.0, F 14.5, B 94.3, F
PM PEAK 20.1, C 30.0, D 9.9, A 8.6, A 49.9, A
* Delay exceeds 300 seconds
PROPOSED CONDITIONS
Trip Generation
The proposed development will consist of 116 units which will have access to Melrose Avenue at an existing driveway
approximately 400 feet east of Finkbine Commuter Drive. There will also be driveways from Finkbine Commuter Drive
for deliveries and visitors. These driveways will be located across from existing driveways to the golf course. See
Appendix 15. For the purposes of this report, it will be assumed that all trips generated in the peak hours will use the
driveway on Melrose Avenue.
Melrose Avenue Traffic Impact Study IIW, P.C.
9
Using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, trip generation rates were developed for the proposed
development. The developer indicated that the target market is Active Adults, 55+ and that 116 units will be
constructed. Therefore, the ITE Land Use Code 252, Senior Adult Housing – Attached was used. ITE’s description of
this Land Use is “Senior adult housing consists of attached independent living developments, including retirement
communities, age-restricted housing and active adult communities. These developments may include limited social or
recreational services. However, they generally lack centralized dining and onsite medical facilities. Residents in these
communities live independently, are typically active and may or may no t be retired…. the overall highest vehicle
volumes during the AM and PM on a weekday were counted between 11:45 AM and 12:45 PM and 12:00 PM and 1:00
PM respectively.” See Appendix 16. Since the peak hour of the generator does not coincide with the peak hour of
adjacent streets, Weekday Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic was used. The trips generated by this development
are summarized in the following table.
Table 8 – Trips Generated by Land Use Senior Adult Housing - Attached
Average Rates* AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use ITE Land
Use Code
Dwelling
Units
AM Peak
(vph)
PM Peak
(vph)
Entering
(vph)
Exiting
(vph)
Entering
(vph)
Exiting
(vph)
Senior Adult Housing –
Attached 252 116 0.20 0.26
Directional Distribution 35% 65% 55% 45%
Trip Generation 24 31 8 16 17 14
*Average rate on weekday for AM & PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, 10th Edition Trip Generation Manual
Trip Distribution
Currently, in the Peak AM hour with the COVID factor, there are approximately 1,880 vehicles on Melrose Avenue that
pass by the proposed entrance to the development, 44% are traveling west, and 56% are traveling east. In the Peak
PM hour with the COVID factor, there are approximately 1,050 vehicles on Melrose Avenue that pass by the proposed
entrance to the new development, 64% are traveling west, and 36% are traveling east. The trips generated by the new
development will be distributed based on these same percentages. See Appendices 17 - 20.
For simplicity and the purposes of this report, it will be assumed that opening year will be in year 2022 and the
development will be at full capacity. The trips generated by the new development and shown on Appendices 17 – 20
are added to the trips from Year 2022 Without Development, which are shown on Appendices 9 & 10, to create the
turning movements at the new entrance in opening year, Year 2022 With Development, shown in appendices 21 & 22,
and turning movements at the existing intersection of Melrose Avenue at Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald
Street(S) shown in appendices 23 & 24. These trips were then increased by the growth rate to generate turning
movements for Year 2027 with Development (Opening Year + 5) and for Year 2042 with Development (Opening Year
+ 20). See appendices 25 – 32. Delays and levels of service are summarized in the following tables.
Table 9 - Delays (in seconds) and LOS for Year 2022 with Development, Melrose Avenue at Proposed
Development
Time
Period
Southbound Approach
Delay, LOS
Eastbound Left
Delay, LOS
ICU
%, LOS
AM PEAK 53.1, F 9.8, A 69.4, C
PM PEAK 17.7, C 9.3, A 47.5, A
* Delay exceeds 300 seconds
Melrose Avenue Traffic Impact Study IIW, P.C.
10
Table 10 - Delays (in seconds) and LOS for Year 2022 with Development,
Melrose Avenue at Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S)
Time
Period
Southbound Approach
Delay, LOS
Northbound Approach
Delay, LOS
Eastbound Left
Delay, LOS
Westbound Left
Delay, LOS
ICU
%, LOS
AM PEAK *, F 14.9, B 87.7, F 12.8, B 85.0, E
PM PEAK 17.0, C 23.6, C 9.3, A 8.4, A 46.1, A
* Delay exceeds 300 seconds
Table 11 - Delays (in seconds) and LOS for Year 2027 with Development,
Melrose Avenue at Proposed Development
Time
Period
Southbound Approach
Delay, LOS
Eastbound Left
Delay, LOS
ICU
%, LOS
AM PEAK 60.8, F 10.0, A 71.4, C
PM PEAK 18.3, C 9.4, A 49.4, A
* Delay exceeds 300 seconds
Table 12 - Delays (in seconds) and LOS for Year 2027 with Development,
Melrose Avenue at Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S)
Time
Period
Southbound Approach
Delay, LOS
Northbound Approach
Delay, LOS
Eastbound Left
Delay, LOS
Westbound Left
Delay, LOS
ICU
%, LOS
AM PEAK *, F 15.3, C 108.5, F 13.2, B 87.2, E
PM PEAK 17.7, C 24.9, C 9.5, A 8.4, A 46.9, A
* Delay exceeds 300 seconds
Table 13 - Delays (in seconds) and LOS for Year 2042 with Development,
Melrose Avenue at Proposed Development
Time
Period
Southbound Approach
Delay, LOS
Eastbound Left
Delay, LOS
ICU
%, LOS
AM PEAK 99.4, F 10.7, B 78.1, D
PM PEAK 20.1, C 9.7, A 53.1, A
* Delay exceeds 300 seconds
Table 14 - Delays (in seconds) and LOS for Year 2042 with Development,
Melrose Avenue at Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S)
Time
Period
Southbound Approach
Delay, LOS
Northbound Approach
Delay, LOS
Eastbound Left
Delay, LOS
Westbound Left
Delay, LOS
ICU
%, LOS
AM PEAK *, F 16.7, C 195.8, F 14.6, B 94.6, F
PM PEAK 20.3, C 30.6, D 10.0, A 8.6, A 50.1, A
* Delay exceeds 300 seconds
ANALYSIS
The following table summarizes the effect of the development on the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Finkbine
Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S). As shown in the table, the delay is essentially the same with or without the
development. At the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Finkbine Commuter Drive, in the peak hour AM, southbound
Melrose Avenue Traffic Impact Study IIW, P.C.
11
traffic on Finkbine Commuter Drive trying to make a left or go straight to Emerald Street currently experience long
delays. During the traffic counts, 4 vehicles were observed making this maneuver.
Table 15 – Comparing Delays (in seconds) and LOS With and Without Development,
Melrose Avenue at Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S)
Time Period Southbound
Delay, LOS
Northbound
Delay, LOS
Eastbound Left
Delay, LOS
Westbound Left
Delay, LOS
ICU
%, LOS
No Development, AM 2022 *, F 14.8, B 85.2, F 12.8, B 84.7, E
Development, AM 2022 *, F 14.9, B 87.7, F 12.8, B 85.0, E
No Development, PM 2022 16.8, C 23.3, C 9.3, A 8.4, A 46.0, A
Development, PM 2022 17.0, C 23.6, C 9.3, A 8.4, A 46.1, A
No Development, AM 2027 *, F 15.2, C 104.8, F 13.2, B 86.9, E
Development, AM 2027 *, F 15.3, C 108.5, F 13.2, B 87.2, E
No Development, PM 2027 17.5, C 24.5, C 9.4, A 8.4, A 46.6, A
Development, PM 2027 17.7, C 24.9, C 9.5, A 8.4, A 46.9, A
No Development, AM 2042 *, F 16.7, C 191.0, F 14.5, B 94.3, F
Development, AM 2042 *, F 16.7, C 195.8, F 14.6, B 94.6, F
No Development, PM 2042 20.1, C 30.0, D 9.9, A 8.6, A 49.9, A
Development, PM 2042 20.3, C 30.6, D 10.0, A 8.6, A 50.1, A
* Delay exceeds 300 seconds
Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis
Criteria in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) was used to determine if a traffic signal may be
warranted in conjunction with the proposed development, now or in the future. Although eight hours of traffic volume
data was not collected, the peak hour volumes were used to determine if additional data should be collected. With the
development, the highest traffic volume exiting the proposed development during peak hours is 16 vehicles in the Peak
AM. This is less than what would be required to warrant a traffic signal. ITE land use Senior Housing – Attached,
generates the highest vehicle volumes between 11:45 AM and 1:00 PM. However, even at these peak hours of 11:45
AM to 12:45 PM or 12:00 PM to 1:00 PM, 116 units is estimated to generate 38 trips which is less than would be
required for a traffic signal.
The existing intersection of Melrose Avenue at Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S) was also reviewed for
a traffic signal. Traffic counts were taken from 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM, and 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM. These volumes were
increased by the COVID factor, the estimated golf course traffic was added to the volumes, and a growth rate was
applied to obtain estimated traffic volumes in the year 2022. Without any proposed development traffic, in the peak
PM, traffic exiting Finkbine Commuter Drive in 2022 is estimated to be 250 vehicles, with 83% of that traffic turning
right. Through traffic on Melrose Avenue is estimated to be 1,107. This does meet the peak hour warrant assuming
there is only 1 lane on Finkbine Commuter Drive. (Only 1 lane is marked, however, the approach is wide enough for
two lanes and vehicles were observed using it as two lanes at the approach.)
None of the other traffic signal warrants were satisfied. Of the five hours of counts, two of the required eight hours of
Warrant 1 was satisfied. With the COVID factor, a growth factor for volumes in 2022, and estimated golf course traffic,
the three hours counted in the afternoon satisfied three of the required four hours of Warrant 2. It is possible that if
additional traffic counts were taken from 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM or from 6:00 PM to 7:00 PM, all four hours of Warrant 2
Melrose Avenue Traffic Impact Study IIW, P.C.
12
may be satisfied. See Appendix 39. The proposed development as shown in Appendix 15 will add very little, if any
traffic to Finkbine Commuter Drive, and will add approximately 11 vehicles to Melrose Avenue; therefore, the proposed
development traffic does not impact the traffic signal warrant analysis.
With a traffic signal installed at the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Finkbine Commuter Drive, using 2042 traffic
volumes, the model indicates that the intersection will operate much more efficiently than it currently operates. A fully
actuated intersection with left turn lanes on Melrose Avenue in both directions may operate at a level of service of C in
the AM, and a B in the PM.
Turn Lane Warrants
The need for turn lanes at the proposed development was analyzed using National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) Report 457. This is the method approved by the Iowa DOT in urban settings. The criteria for a
westbound right turn was determined by using figure 2-6 from the NCHRP Report 457. For the AM peak hour, using
a major road speed of 25 mph, the major-road volume estimated in year 2042 in one direction is 1,027 vph, and the
right turn volume is 4 vph. Using this method, a right turn lane is not warranted. See Appendix 33. For the PM peak
hour, the major road volume estimated in year 2042 in one direction is 864 vph, and the right turn volume is 11 vph. A
right turn lane is not warranted. See Appendix 34.
An eastbound left turn was also analyzed using figure 2-5 from the NCHRP Report 457. For the AM peak hour in year
2042, using a major road speed of 35 mph, opposing volume is 1,027 vph, advancing volume is 1,237 vph, and
percentage of left turn is 1%, a left turn lane is warranted. A cursory review of the volumes indicated that the eastbound
left turn lane is also warranted in year 2022. Figure 2-7 from the NCHRP Report 457 was used to determine the
required length of the left turn lane. A proposed left turn lane of 120 feet will be adequate for storage and deceleration
in the AM and PM. See Appendices 35, 36 & 37.
Future Development Considerations
A new 140-room Marriott hotel is being built approximately ½ mile away from this study area. See Appendix 1 for hotel
location. Peter Harman, one of the owners, indicated that the hotel intends to provide services for patients, families,
and visitors to the hospital and wants to build a relationship with the University athletic department. It is then assumed
that much of the traffic generated by the hotel will be centered around Melrose Avenue and Hawkins Drive. While there
may be a few trips generated by the hotel which will pass by the Active Adult development, it is not expected to have
an impact on the traffic in the study area.
The developer of the Active Adult building is also considering an additional development of townhomes on the west
side of Finkbine Commuter Drive. Phase 1 may have up to 18 units, and phase 2 may have approximately 23 units.
These units may have access to Melrose Avenue at Westgate Street and MacBride Road, west of this study area.
Phase 1 & Phase 2 combined is estimated to generate 25 trips in the AM, and 28 trips in the PM, equivalent to
approximately 1 vehicle every 2 minutes. Also, only a portion of these trips would travel through the study area by
exiting to the east or arriving from the east. Therefore, unless this development will have access onto Finkbine
Commuter Drive, this additional development is not expected to have an impact on the traffic in the study area.
Summary
116 units of Land Use Senior Housing – Attached generates approximately 24 trips in the AM and 31 trips in the PM.
Analysis shows that the intersection on Melrose Avenue with the new development driveway in the peak AM and PM
Melrose Avenue Traffic Impact Study IIW, P.C.
13
hours will be a level of service C & A, respectively, in opening year. See Table 9. In the Year 2042, the level of service
in the AM and PM hours for the intersection will be D and A, respectively. See Table 13. These levels of service were
determined without the warranted eastbound left turn lane into the new development. Although the delay for vehicles
exiting the new development is high in the Peak AM, this is a function of the heavy existing traffic on Melrose Avenue.
Crashes at this location are less than the statewide average for minor arterials. The sight distance at this location is
greater than recommended by AASHTO, and traffic signal warrants are not expected to be met. Also, the proposed
development will have very little effect on traffic flow and intersection functionality along Melrose Avenue and at the
Melrose Avenue/Finkbine Commuter Drive(N)/Emerald Street(S) intersection.
STAFF REPORT - UPDATED
To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner
Item: REZ20-0016 Date: February 18, 2021
Originally Published: February 12, 2021
Republished: February 16, 2021
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Axiom Consultants
60 E. Court Street, Unit 3
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-519-6220
MWelch@Axiom-con.com
Joseph Clark
221 E. Burlington St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
Nelson Development 1, LLC
ATTN: Jacob Wolfgang
218 6th Ave., Ste 200
Des Moines, IA 50309
Jacob@Nelsonconstruct.com
Property Owner: ACT, Inc.
ATTN: Jason Happel
500 ACT Drive
Iowa City, IA 52243-0168
Jason.Happel@act.org
Requested Action: Rezoning from Interim Development – Single
Family (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family with a
Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5).
Purpose: Development of single-family housing and a senior
living facility.
Location: South of N. Scott Blvd, West of N. 1st Ave.
Location Map:
2
Size: 48.75 Acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Open Space, Interim Development – Single Family
(ID-RS)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: RM-12, Low density Multi-family Residential
RDP, Research Development Park
ODP, Office Development Park
South: P-1, Neighborhood Public
East: RS-8, Medium Density Single Family
Residential
ID-RS, Interim Development – Single
Family Residential
ID-RP, Interim Development – Research
Park
West: P-1, Neighborhood Public
RS-5, Low Density Single Family
Residential
Comprehensive Plan: 2-8 units / acres
District Plan: Northeast District
Neighborhood Open Space District: C8
Public Meeting Notification: Property owners and expanded area residents
received notification of the Planning and Zoning
Commission public meeting. This included residents
to both the west in the Hickory Heights development
and owners east of 1st Avenue. Rezoning signs were
posted on the site at both Scott Boulevard and 1st
Avenue. Staff has also worked with Friends of
Hickory Hill Park to keep those involved informed of
the application’s progress and meeting notification.
Additional signage was placed at kiosk locations at
Park entrances (as requested by FHH).
File Date: January 22, 2021
45 Day Limitation Period: March 8, 2021
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Axiom Consultants, applying on behalf of Joseph Clark and Nelson Development
1, LLC., has requested a rezoning from Interim Development – Single Family (ID-RS) zone to
Low Density Single Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) zone for 48.75
acres of land located south of N. Scott Boulevard and west of N. 1st Avenue. The applicant
intends to develop the property with a combination of approximately 43 detached single-family
residential homes and 10 detached single-family condominium dwelling units over 39.37 acres.
The remaining 9.38 acres would be developed with a senior living facility, which will contain
approximately 135 bedrooms for its residents.
The development proposes to extend Hickory Trail between 1st Avenue to the east, and Scott
3
Boulevard to the north to accommodate the detached single-family housing units and senior living
facility. A smaller curved private street, Hickory Commons, is proposed to house the detached
condominium dwelling units. The Hickory Trail extension would provide connectivity for
pedestrians, linking existing sidewalks along Scott Boulevard and 1st Avenue with trails within
Hickory Hill Park.
The applicant also intends to grant the entirety of Outlot A from the OPD Plan (approximately
10.86 acres) to the City as neighborhood open space. This would exceed the required open
space contribution of 1.1 acres and would increase Hickory Hill Park’s size by about 5.5%.
Because the proposed development proposes removal of portions of a woodland in excess of the
woodland retention requirements contained in section 14-5I-9, "Wooded Areas", a Level II
Sensitive Areas Review is required. A Level II Sensitive Areas Review requires submission of a
sensitive areas development plan (SADP). Furthermore, a Level II sensitive areas review is
considered a type of planned development and as such, must comply with the applicable approval
criteria set forth in chapter 3, article A, "Planned Development Overlay Zone (OPD)".
The applicant conducted a virtual Good Neighbor meeting on December 21, 2020. Staff has
received several additional emails concerning the proposed rezoning, which are attached.
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning: The subject property is currently zoned Interim Development – Single Family
Residential (ID-RS). In ID-RS zones, only plant related agriculture is allowed by right. This zoning
designation effectively pauses development for a property until a time that the preferred use can
be developed, and the property can be rezoned.
Proposed Zoning: The applicant is requesting to rezone the entire property (48.75 acres) to Low
Density Single-Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5). The RS-5 zone is
intended to provide housing opportunities for individual households. The zone generally provides
a collection of homes with larger lot sizes and setbacks creating neighborhoods with a limited
density. While the proposed development does contain some single-family detached
condominium housing and group living in the senior living facility, the OPD process allows for a
mixture of uses, provided that additional criteria in section 14-3A-4C of the City Code are met.
General Planned Development Approval Criteria:
Applications for Planned Development Rezonings are reviewed for compliance with the following
standards according to Article 14-3A of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance.
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 – Table 3A-1 from the City Code outlines the maximum allowable density for planned
development zones. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to an OPD/RS-5 zone, which allows for
a density of (5) dwelling units per net acre of land area (total land minus public and private streets
right-of-way). The proposed development would include 53 detached single-family dwelling units.
The senior living facility is considered a group living use, as the proposed facility most closely
resembles the following criteria for a group living use from section 14-4A-3B-1 of the City Code:
“Rooming units contain private space for living and sleeping, but not for cooking. Bathroom facilities
may be private or shared. There may also be shared kitchen and dining facilities and shared
common rooms and amenities for all residents. The rooming units are furnished with locks through
which one member of the group may prevent other members of the group from entering his/her
4
private rooming unit. The residents may or may not receive any combination of care, training, or
treatment, but those receiving such services must reside at the site.” The senior living facility is
estimated to have 135 bedrooms. These bedrooms are not included in the site’s density calculation.
The site has a net land area of 44.52 acres and 53 detached single-family dwelling units. Therefore,
the site’s proposed density is approximately 1.2 dwelling units per acre. This level of density is
allowed within an OPD/RS-5 zone.
Land Uses Proposed – The applicant is proposing two different land uses under the requested
OPD/RS-5 zoning designation. The predominant land use will be in the form of detached single-
family residential housing, which is allocated for development of 43 lots along the extension of
Hickory Trail. An additional 10 single-family condominium-style dwelling units can be found on Lot
45 of the OPD Plan.
Single-family residential land use within an RS-5 zone can be found in various locations around the
subject property. The Hickory Heights subdivision, another OPD/RS-5 zoned subdivision, can be
found to the west of the subject property. Several other RS-5 subdivisions can be found east of 1st
Avenue and south of Hickory Hill Park. The Hickory Pointe Condominiums building, located just
east of the subject property, contains an OPD/RS-8 zoning designation.
A group living land use (shown more closely in Attachment #6), which is intended to accommodate
a senior living facility, is proposed in the southeast portion of the subject property. There are
currently two different multi-family developments adjacent to the subject property. The first of which,
Oaknoll East, can be found north of the subject property, along Scott Boulevard. The second of
which, the Hickory Pointe Condominiums, can be found directly east of the proposed senior living
facility. The addition of the senior living facility will help to satisfy an ongoing need for elder housing
within the City, while increasing the diversity of housing that is offered in the Northeast District. The
proposed senior living facility will be reviewed against the Multi-Family Site Development Standards
during Design Review.
Mass, Scale and General Layout– The applicant intends to develop 43 detached single-family
residential homes. A waiver has not been requested for these homes through the OPD process,
therefore, the homes will be required to conform to the dimensional requirements for detached
single-family homes, as detailed in section 14-2A-4 of the City Code. All 43 detached single-family
homes will be situated within the western portion of the subject property, all on the proposed
extension of Hickory Trail to the west and north. Staff encourages connectivity within this
neighborhood and supports the idea of having a continuous street extension in this area instead of
two separate cul-de-sacs. The City’s subdivision code allows cul-de-sacs when it can be
demonstrated that a street cannot be continued. The applicant has demonstrated that this street
can continue and connect with Scott Blvd.
The applicant also intends to develop 10 detached condominium dwelling units, shown in
Attachment #7 as Lot 45. These homes would be developed on a new private street, Hickory
Commons. Staff requested the applicant to show imaginary lot lines on the OPD plan for comparison
to the RS-5 zoning standards as required per 14-3A-4K. The proposal meets the standards of the
RS-5 zone and the applicant is not requesting any waivers from development standards.
Lastly, the senior living facility will be reviewed against the Multi-Family Site Development Standards
during the project’s Design Review phase. At a ground-floor area of 69,060 square feet, the footprint
of the senior living facility will be considerably larger than that of the Hickory Pointe Condominiums
building, which has a footprint of only 1,499 square feet. The applicant has requested a waiver for
the maximum height requirement of 35’, requesting an allowable height of 40’. The senior living
facility would be a 3-story structure, compared to the Hickory Pointe Condominiums building, which
is only 2 stories.
5
Open Space – The proposed development will need to comply with private open space standards,
outlined in section 14-2A-4 of the City Code. The senior living facility will be required to
accommodate 10 square feet of private open space per bedroom, for a total of 1,350 square feet of
private open space. All single-family dwelling units will be required to accommodate 500 square
feet of rear yard private open space. The open space proposed for the single-family uses on Lot 45
include a shared open space area along the private street.
A neighborhood open space requirement of approximately 1.1 acres accompanies the proposed
OPD rezoning. The applicant intends to eventually dedicate the entirety of Outlot A for future Hickory
Hill Park, which is approximately 10.86 acres.
City Code requires that at least 90% of the land required to be dedicated be located outside of
floodways, lakes or other water bodies, areas with slopes greater than 15%, wetlands subject to
federal or state regulatory jurisdiction and other areas the city reasonably deems unsuitable for
neighborhood open space due to topography, flooding or other appropriate considerations.
However, the Code allows land in addition to the required dedication amount to include lakes,
ponds, creeks, other water bodies, wetlands falling under the jurisdiction of state or federal agencies
and other sensitive areas including woodland areas. City Staff views the proposed 10.86 acres of
dedication from Outlot A as sufficient abutting land that would be usable and extend the existing
Hickory Hill Park. This addition would increase the Park’s acreage by approximately 5.5% and result
in Hickory Hill Park having street frontage along N. Scott Blvd.
Prior to the City acquiring the land in Outlot A for Hickory Hill Park, Staff recommends that the
applicant submit a Woodland Management Plan that shall consist of a plan to remove any invasive
species within the Outlot A area, as well as removal of any hazardous trees or limbs. The plan shall
be prepared by a woodland specialist and approved by the City Forrester. Invasive species removal
will be the responsibility of the owner and must be completed prior to transfer of Outlot A to the City.
In addition to the dedication of land from Outlot A, Staff recommends that the applicant provide the
trail connections that are shown on the OPD Plan (Attachment #5).
Traffic Circulation – The proposed development will be situated along an extension of Hickory Trail,
from the existing stub at the western limits of the Hickory Pointe Condominiums site, west and north
to Scott Boulevard. As this extension will result in a street with a block length longer than desired,
Staff recommends that the applicant incorporate traffic calming devices to help reduce speeds and
break up the long block length. Specifically, the OPD plan shows raised crosswalks at two locations
that provide trail connection and access to the park. One location is between lots 40 and 41 and the
other is near the senior living facility next to Lot 26. Staff also recommends that the applicant install
trees within the right-of-way, as shown on the landscape plan (Attachment #5). The applicant’s
OPD Plan, shows a traffic circle on Hickory Trail, between Lot 8 to the east and Lot 45 to the west.
During the final plat process, all traffic calming devices must be in locations approved by and
designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities.
The subject property can be serviced by both sanitary sewer and water. Public Works has indicated
that both sanitary sewer and water mains have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed
development.
Transportation Planning Staff requested that the applicant submit a traffic study which examined
how the proposed development would impact traffic at the intersection of 1st Avenue and Hickory
Trail. The traffic study (Attachment #8) submitted by Axiom Consultants (performed by Gibson
Traffic Consultants, Inc.) indicates that the total average daily trips generated by the proposed
development is 808 (404 entering / 404 exiting) split between the accesses to Scott Boulevard and
6
1st Avenue at full build-out. During peak hours this breaks down to a total of 58 AM peak hour trips
and 74 PM peak hour trips split between the two accesses – or less than one additional car per
minute, on average, utilizing each access. The study shows that all movements at the 1st Avenue /
Hickory Trail access currently operate at a Level-of-Service D (or better) and remain at a LOS D (or
better) with the proposed development. The study further shows the same is true at the proposed
access at Scott Boulevard. As none of the individual movements at either intersection are
anticipated to reach a failing Level-of-Service, Staff is not recommending any off-site improvements
at this time as a result of the proposed development.
Furthermore, 2018 Iowa DOT Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts show an ADT of 7,500 on 1st
Avenue near Hickory Trail and 13,100 on Scott Boulevard near the proposed access. Given that
the theoretical capacity of a two-lane arterial street is conservatively more than 14,000-16,000 trips
per day at a LOS E, the additional traffic generated by the development alone will not over-burden
Scott Boulevard or 1st Avenue as currently constructed. Iowa DOT collision data indicates there
have only been (3) total collisions from 2015-2020 ((1) involving an animal) at the 1st Avenue /
Hickory Trail intersection, which indicates there is not a concerning collision trend associated with
the current traffic volumes or roadway geometry.
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 subject property is bordered by two existing residential developments. The Hickory Heights
Lane subdivision borders the northwestern portion of the property, while the Hickory Pointe
Condominiums border the southeast portion of the property. The applicant’s SADP plan is showing
a minimum separation distance of 263’ between the rear property line of the condominium dwelling
unit lot (Lot 45) and the rear property line of the eastern Hickory Heig hts Lane properties.
Furthermore, the condominium dwelling units will be down slope from the properties on Hickory
Heights Lane, which should help to lessen their visual effect.
Attachment #6 shows the proposed elevations for the senior living facility. The facility will be roughly
four stories in height, which is about twice as tall as the Hickory Pointe Condominiums building to
the east, but similar in height to the Oaknoll East buildings off Scott Boulevard. Additionally, the
OPD plan is showing a separation distance of approximately 185’ between the senior living facility
and the Hickory Point Condominiums property. A combination of shade and evergreen trees are
proposed to soften this transition to the east.
The majority of the property borders Hickory Hill Park to the west and south. The applicant’s OPD
plan is showing a range of separation distances between the rear yards of the homes along the
western and southern sides of the proposed Hickory Trail extension, and the current eastern
boundary of Hickory Hill Park. The closest distance between the proposed home and the existing
park boundary is approximately 35’. Each lot would have a 20’ rear yard setback, which would put
a minimum buffer distance of 55’ between any house structure and the existing park boundary. The
parcels within the southwest portion of the subject property would also be situated anywhere from
10’ to 24’ above the elevations within the Park’s east side area. Staff understands that the proposed
proximity to the Park will allow for some of the proposed homes to be viewable from within the
existing Park limits. However, Staff does not believe that the placement of these homes will
adversely affect light and air, property values or privacy of neighboring properties any more than
would a conventional development. Staff acknowledges that the homes along the west side of
Hickory Trail will likely be viewable from the eastern portions of the Park. The City Forrester has
discussed putting in additional landscaping with a mixture of evergreen and shade trees along the
rear yards of the western properties to provide additional screening from the west.
7
4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying
zoning requirements or from City street standards will be in the public interest, in harmony
with the purposes of this Title, and with other building regulations of the City.
Staff finds that the combination of land uses and building types meets the public interest. Staff
finds the requested height waiver of 40’ versus the allowable 35’ in an RS-5 zone to be
reasonable. Lastly, Staff recommends that no building permit shall be issued for any of the
subject property until the City Council approves a final plat subdividing the subject property to
confirm to the zoning boundaries established by the zoning ordinance.
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan:
With respect to compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Staff looks to the IC2030
Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast District Plan for direction. The Northeast District Plan
features several areas of focus for the subject property’s neighborhood (the Bluffwood
Neighborhood) that are discussed in more detail below.
Preserve Natural Features – The Plan emphasizes the use of cul-de-sac streets and single
loaded streets (i.e. homes only on one side), where appropriate, to preserve sensitive areas.
The Plan’s intent is to preserve areas with ravines and potential wetland areas as a buffer along
the eastern and northern edges of Hickory Hill Park. Additionally, the City’s comprehensive plan
encourages the development of single-loaded street along parks.
The Bluffwood Neighborhood map (Figure #2 below) shows two cul-de-sac streets within the
subject property. One cul-de-sac is stemming southward from Scott Boulevard, while the other
is a westward continuation of an extension to Hickory Trail. Housing is shown mostly on both
sides of the street on the northern cul-de-sac, with an exception for the southwestern portion of
the cul-de-sac. The southern cul-de-sac shows housing only on one side of the street. A
woodland buffer is shown on the map, but dimensions for how wide the buffer are not provided.
Figure #2 - Bluffwood Neighborhood Map
8
Rather than constructing two separate cul-de-sacs, as is shown in the Plan, the applicant is
intending to build one continuous through street between 1st Avenue and Scott Boulevard.
However, section 15-3-2A-4 of the City Code states the following “Use of cul-de-sacs and other
roadways with a single point of access should be avoided. Cul-de-sacs will be considered where
it can be clearly demonstrated that environmental constraints, existing development, access
limitations along arterial streets, or other unusual features prevent the extension of the street to
the property line or to interconnect with other streets within or abutting the subdivision.” In this
instance, the applicant has demonstrated that a through street can be provided in this location
without impacting the protected slopes to the east of the proposed street extension, or the
wetlands that exist on the property.
The preliminary OPD shows housing on both sides of Hickory Trail, which departs from the
Bluffwood Neighborhood Map. The applicant is proposing at least 35’ of separation distance
between the rear yards of the western properties along Hickory Trail, and the existing eastern
park boundary.
Additionally, pending completion of a woodland mitigation plan, the applicant intends to grant
the entire 10.86 acres of Outlot A to the City as neighborhood open space. This will technically
remove the buffer distance on paper, but in practice, will keep a woodland buffer in this area, as
it is absorbed into Hickory Hill Park.
Provide Pedestrian/Bicyclist Connections – The Plan calls for an interconnected sidewalk
system that is augmented by a trail system that will provide opportunities for people to walk,
bike, or jog to various destinations. The applicant is showing 5’ wide sidewalks along both sides
of the Hickory Trail extension, which will connect with existing sidewalks along Scott Boulevard
and 1St Avenue. The OPD Plan also shows connections to the trail network in Hickory Hill Park
at two different locations. One connection will be made about halfway through the street
extension, between Lots 40 and 41 on the OPD Plan. The other connection will be made toward
the southern end of the development, between the senior living facility and Lot 26 of the OPD
Plan. Both trail connections will feature raised crosswalks to help slow down vehicular traffic on
Hickory Trail and provide a more apparent connection from the crosswalk area to the Park’s
internal trail network.
Build Streets that Enhance Neighborhood Quality – With respect to the subject property, this
section of the Northeast District Plan focuses on providing traffic calming for local streets within
the Bluffwood Neighborhood. As was stated earlier in the report, the applicant will be required to
work with City Engineering Staff on providing the appropriate amount of traffic calming for this
development as it moves to platting.
Encourage a Reasonable Level of Housing Diversity – The Plan acknowledges that detached
single-family residential housing will be the predominant land use in the Bluffwood
Neighborhood. This matches what the applicant is proposing, as the majority of the Hickory Trail
extension would be occupied by single-family housing. This section of the Plan reemphasizes
the need for cul-de-sac street design and single-loaded streets, where appropriate. The design
of a through street will provide the connectivity that is emphasized within the City’s subdivision
code, while providing limited impact to the property’s existing sensitive areas. The City’s
Comprehensive Plan also encourages the development of interconnected streets as a means of
reducing vehicle miles traveled each day within a neighborhood, providing more direct walking
and biking routes to neighborhood destinations, and reducing the cost of providing City services.
The Plan also calls for townhouses or small apartment houses at the edges of neighborhoods,
where the increased density can take advantage of the being located near major arterial streets.
In-lieu of small apartment buildings, the applicant is proposing condominium-style single-family
9
residential dwelling units, as shown in Attachment #7. The 10-unit condo unit along with the
proposed senior living facility, help to increase the types of housing available in this area.
Create and Enhance Neighborhood Parks within the District (Natural Open Space/Buffer Areas)
The Plan does call for buffering between Hickory Hill Park and the subject property, in an
attempt to minimize the visibility of residential development from the Park. The Plan directs to
accomplish this by shifting density away from the Park to the north, where small apartments and
townhouses can take advantage of slightly higher prescribed densities. Buffer distance
dimensions are not provided in the Plan. The applicant is showing a range of buffer distances
between the rear yards of the OPD Plan and the existing eastern Park boundary. Still, it is the
applicant’s intent to grant the “buffer area” of Outlot A to the City for future use as an enlarged
Hickory Hill Park. The Plan also calls for only trail linkages from the subject area to the Park,
which the applicant intends to provide.
Summary
Staff recognizes that the proposed development does not perfectly match with the conceptual
vision presented in the Northeast District Plan, particularly related to the single-loaded streets
(i.e. streets with housing only one side). The plan shows housing on both side of the street near
N. Scott Blvd and the remainder of the area with housing only on one side. The preliminary OPD
plan also shows housing on both sides of the street near N. Scott Blvd and a single-loaded
street east of the stream corridor. The proposed lots that do not perfectly match with the vision
are the 15 lots between the two proposed trail connections on the east and south side of the
Hickory Trail extension. The plan also encourages a buffer between any new development and
the Park. The applicant has attempted to incorporate a buffer by showing a separation between
the existing park boundary and the new lots. This buffer ranges between 202’ and 35’. At the
narrowest sections, the applicant has incorporated landscaping that includes deciduous trees.
In summary, although the proposal does not perfectly match with the land use vision for this
area, it does meet other comprehensive plan goals. It provides an interconnected street system,
incorporates a variety of housing types, limits impact to sensitive areas, and provides an
additional 10 acres of land to Hickory Hill Park.
Sensitive Areas Review:
The applicant has applied for approval of a Sensitive Areas Development, a type of planned
development. The purpose of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is to permit and define the reasonable
use of properties that contain sensitive environmental features and natural resources and allowing
reasonable development while protecting these resources from damage.
Outlots A and B contain the vast majority of the site’s sensitive features. Outlot A will be protected
through the dedication to the City as an extension of Hickory Hill Park. Outlot B will be protected
by a conservation easement. The single-family lots along the east side of Hickory Trail include a
portion of the Outlot B conservation easement area. Staff has recommended that the lot boundaries
conform with the conservation easement boundary, to avoid having a conservation easement area
on a private lot.
The following paragraphs describe the impact this development will have on the sensitive features
of this site.
Jurisdictional Wetlands- The purpose of regulating development in and around wetlands is to:
1. Preserve the unique and valuable attributes of wetlands as areas where storm water is naturally
retained, thereby controlling the rate of runoff, improving water quality, recharging ground water
resources, providing erosion control and lessening the effects of flooding;
2. Promote the preservation of habitat for plants, fish, reptiles, amphibians or other wildlife;
3. Minimize the impact of development activity on wetland areas;
10
4. Provide a greater degree of protection for many wetland areas above and beyond that provided
by the federal and state government; and
5. Minimize the long-term environmental impact associated with the loss of wetlands.
For this application, the subject property contains two wetlands, which are shown below in Figure
#3. The City’s Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires a 100 ft. buffer to be maintained between a
regulated wetland and any development activity (14-5I-6E-1). The Ordinance does allow for buffer
averaging to be permitted where an increased buffer is deemed necessary or desirable to provide
additional protection to one area of a wetland for aesthetic or environmental reasons. The applicant
has not chosen to request buffer averaging for either wetland, as each wetland and wetland buffer
will remain unimpacted.
Figure #3 – Wetland Delineation
Stream Corridors - The purpose of regulating development in and around stream corridors is to:
1. Preserve the value of stream corridors in providing floodwater conveyance and storage;
2. Promote filtration of storm water runoff;
3. Reduce stream bank erosion; and
4. Protect and enhance wildlife habitat.
The City’s Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires the delineation of any stream corridor and its
required natural buffer (14-5I-7). The subject property contains two drainageways, neither of which
have a delineated floodway, thereby requiring a 15’ natural buffer between the stream corridor limits
and any development activity. Both stream corridors are situated far enough away from the
proposed construction limits that neither corridor will be impacted. Additionally, section 14-5I-2D-2
of the City Code allows for Stream crossings, such as bridges, roads and culverts, or stream bank
stabilization measures, provided they are designed to minimize any reduction of the flood carrying
capacity of the stream caused by such structures and are in compliance with all federal and state
regulations.
Steep, Critical, and Protected Slopes – The purpose of regulating development on and near steep
slopes is to:
1. Promote safety in the design and construction of developments;
2. Minimize flooding, landslides and mudslides;
3. Minimize soil instability, erosion and downstream siltation; and
4. Preserve the scenic character of hillside areas, particularly wooded hillsides.
The City’s Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires a 2 ft. buffer for each foot of vertical rise of the
11
protected slope, up to a maximum buffer of fifty feet (50') (14-5I-8D-1). The buffer area is to be
measured from the top, toe and sides of the protected slope. No development activity, including
removal of trees and other vegetation, will be allowed within the buffer. The SADP contains 321,719
square feet of protected slopes, but no disturbance to protected slopes. Approximately 19%, or
roughly 62,125 square feet of critical slopes will be impacted by the development. Table 1 below
breaks out the proposed impact to critical slopes. The City Code defines critical slopes as having a
slope greater than 25% but less than 40%. Section 14-5I-8E-4 states that a Level II sensitive areas
review is required if more than 35% of critical slopes are disturbed. The applicant is proposing to
only to disturb 19% of critical slopes, which is within the allowable threshold.
Table #1 – Critical Slope Summary
Existing Critical Slopes Impacted Slopes Non-Impacted Slopes
321,719 sq ft 61,279 sq ft
(19%)
216,414 sq ft
(67%)
Woodlands – The purpose of regulating development in and around wooded areas is to:
1. Reduce damage to wooded areas, particularly wetlands, steep slopes and stream corridors;
2. Reduce erosion and siltation;
3. Minimize destruction of wildlife habitat; and
4. Encourage subdivision and site plan design which incorporate groves and woodlands as
amenities within a development.
The subject property has approximately 30.4 acres of woodlands. The SADP plan (Attachment #5)
shows that the development will preserve approximately 48% of woodlands. Table 5I-1 from the
City Code shows that the woodland retention requirement for an RS-5 zone is 50%. To offset the
woodland retention requirement deficiency, the applicant must plant replacement trees at a rate of
1 tree per 200 square feet of disturbed woodland. This results in a tree replacement requirement of
132 trees. The preliminary SADP currently only shows 115 replacements trees. Staff has requested
that the plan be updated to reflect the correct amount needed.
Archaeological Sites – Attachment #9 shows an archaeological report that the applicant obtained
from the Office of the State Archaeologist. The report shows that no previously recorded
archaeological sites were recorded, and no newly recorded archaeological sites were identified.
The report recommends no further archaeological work within the subject property.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be
scheduled for consideration by the City Council. Staff plans to have this application on the
March 16, 2021 City Council agenda, with public hearings set at the Council’s March 2, 2021
meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of REZ20-0016, a proposal to rezone approximately 48.75 acres of
land located south of N. Scott Blvd. and west of N. 1st Ave. from Interim Development – Single
Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Low Density Single Family with a Planned Development
Overlay (OPD/RS-5) zone subject to the following conditions:
1. In accordance with the subdivider’s agreement at final platting, approval of a Woodland
Management Plan that shall consist of a plan to remove any invasive species within the
Outlot A area, as well as removal of any hazardous trees or limbs. The plan shall be
prepared by a woodland specialist and approved by the City Forrester. Invasive species
12
removal will be the responsibility of the owner and must be completed prior to transfer of
Outlot A to the City.
2. Provision of trail connections, as shown on the concept plan dated 01/18/2021. The trail
connections should be provided in the same location as shown on the concept plan and
must be constructed before public improvements to the corresponding subdivision are
approved.
3. The final plat shall incorporate traffic calming devices, including but not limited to raised
crosswalks at park entrances, in locations approved by and designed to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
4. Where trees are shown on the landscaping plan, installation of right-of-way trees, to be
planted by Owner or its successor, along the proposed Hickory Trial right -of-way. Said
trees shall be planted prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each lot, or, if said
certificate of occupancy is issued during a poor planting season, by May 31 following
issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Right-of-way trees shall be consistent with the
approved landscaping plan that has been reviewed by the City Forrester. Trees shall be
planted generally 30’ apart, though the City recognizes that exact locations may vary
depending on driveway locations, signage, and other utility conflicts. Final location and
species of the trees shall be approved on a lot-by-lot basis prior to issuance of a building
permit for each lot.
5. No building permit shall be issued for any of the subject property until the City Council
approves a final plat subdividing the subject property to confirm to the zoning boundaries
established by the zoning ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Rezoning Exhibit
4. Applicant Statement
5. Preliminary OPD and Sensitive Areas Development Plan and Landscape Plan
6. Senior Living Facility Elevations
7. Lot 45 OPD Plan and Elevations
8. Traffic Study
9. Archaeological Study
10. Public Correspondence
Approved by: __________________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
DODGE STREET CT
BLUFFWOODDRTAMARA
C
K
TRL
LARCHLNCONKLIN LNSTUARTCTBRI
S
T
OLDR
HICKORY TRL
HICK
O
RY
PL
N SCOT T B L V D
B L UF F W O OD CIRCYPRESSCT EVERGREENCTSTTHOMASCTBLUFFW
O
ODLNN1STAVEACT PLNDUBUQUERDHICKORYHEIGH T S LN
N DODGE STREZ20-0016Hickory Trail Estatesµ
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: February 2021
An application submitted by Axiom Consultants, on behalf of G. Joseph Clark & Nelson Development 1, LLC, for the rezoningof 48.75 acres of property located South of N. Scott Blvd, and West of N. 1st Ave. from Interim Development - Single-Family (ID-RS) to Low-density Single Family Residential with a PlannedDevelopment Overlay (OPD/RS-5)
DODGE STREETC
TBLUFFWOODDRTAMARA
C
K
TRL
LARCHLNCONKLIN LNSTUA
RT
CTBRI
S
T
OLDR
HICKORY TRL
HICK
O
RY
PL
N SCO T T B L V D
B L UF F W O O DCIRCYPRESSCT EVERGREENCTSTTHOMASCTBLUFFW
O
O
DLNN1STAVEACTPLNDUBUQUERDHICKORYHEIGH TS LN
N DODGE STRS8
P1
ORP
ID-RP
ID-RS
RS5
CO1
RM12
RDP
CN1
RS12
REZ20-0016Hickory Trail Estatesµ
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: February 2021
An application submitted by Axiom Consultants, on behalf of G. Joseph Clark & Nelson Development 1, LLC, for the rezoningof 48.75 acres of property located South of N. Scott Blvd, and West of N. 1st Ave. from Interim Development - Single-Family (ID-RS) to Low-density Single Family Residential with a PlannedDevelopment Overlay (OPD/RS-5)
N01° 07' 52"W 656.03'N01° 41' 17"W 1094.66'N01° 38' 34"W 210.49'N01° 20' 33"W 538.67'S27° 14' 33"W 924.73'N77° 55' 52
"
E
6
4
9
.
6
3
'S01° 15' 42"E 868.85'S87° 54' 07"W 1302.79'
R=1018.50'
L=1332.94'
C
B=S65°18'23"E
CL=1239.83'
S01° 14' 34"E 378.49'
0 150 300
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
ZONING INFORMATION:
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
CURRENT ZONING: ID-RS
PROPOSED ZONING: OPD/RS-5
APPLICANT 1:
G. JOSEPH CLARK
221 E. BURLINGTON ST
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
APPLICANT INFORMATION:
PREPARED BY:
AXIOM CONSULTANTS, LLC
C/O MICHAEL WELCH
60 E. COURT STREET, UNIT 3
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
319-519-6220
MWELCH@AXIOM-CON.COM
NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT
LOCATION
HICKORY HILL PARK
1439 E BLOOMINGTON ST
ZONING: P1HICKORY HEIGHTS LNPARCEL ID:
1002401005
ZONING: ID-RS
2640 N SCOTT BLVD
ZONING: OPD/RM12
800 CONKLIN LN
ZONING: P1
PARCEL ID:
1002426001
ZONING: P1
PARCEL ID: 1002476002
ZONING: ID-RS
831 N 1ST AVEZONING: OPD/RS8PARCEL ID:1001328001ZONING: ID-RPN 1ST AVEN SCOTT
B
L
V
D
2041 N DUBUQUE RD
ZONING: RDP
PARCEL ID: 1001327004
ZONING: ID-RP
PARCEL ID: 1001326004
ZONING: ID-RP
PARCEL ID: 1001351002
ZONING: ID-RS
643 N 1ST AVEZONING: P1HICKORY HEIGHTS
ZONING: OPD/RS5
EVAN HEIGHTS
ZONING: RS5
2601 HICKORY TRLZONING: RM121725 N DODGE ST
ZONING: P1
PARCEL ID:
1002153001
ZONING: CO1
PARCEL ID: 1001351003
ZONING: ID-RS
CYPRESS CTBLUFFWOOD DRBLUFFWOOD CIR
640 STUART CT
ZONING: RM12
2510 BLUFFWOOD CIR
ZONING: RM12
2530 BLUFFWOOD CIR
ZONING: RM12
HICKORY TRL
TAMARACK TRAIL
SUBDIVISION
ZONING: OPD/RS5EVERGREEN CTTAMARACK TRL
H
I
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
HICKORY TRAIL SUBDIVISION
ZONING: RS5
2545 BLUFFWOOD DR
ZONING: ID-RS
500-YEAR
FLOOD LINE
BEING PART OF AMENDED AUDITOR'S PARCEL #2005110 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 52, PAGE 143 OF
THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP
79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., IN IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS;
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL, THENCE N01°07'52”W,
656.03 FEET; THENCE N01°41'17”W, 1094.66 FEET; THENCE N01°38'34”W, 210.49 FEET; THENCE
N01°20'33”W, 538.67 FEET; THENCE TO THE NW CORNER OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL; THENCE
1332.94 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SCOTT BOULEVARD ON A 1018.50 FOOT
RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY (CHORD BEARING S65°18'23”E, 1239.83 FEET); THENCE
S27°14'33”W, 924.73 FEET; THENCE S01°14'34”E, 378.49 FEET; THENCE N77°55'52”E, 649.63 FEET;
THENCE S01°15'42”E, 868.85 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL; THENCE ALONG
SAID SOUTH LINE S87°54'07”W, 1302.79 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 48.75 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS
OF RECORD.
48.75 ACRES
PROPOSED ZONING:
OPD/RS-5
APPLICANT 1'S ATTORNEY:
PHELAN TUCKER LAW
JOHN BEASLEY
321 E. MARKET ST
IOWA CITY, IA 52245
TAMARACK RIDGE
SUBDIVISION
ZONING: RS5
APPLICANT 2:
NELSON DEVELOPMENT 1, LLC
ATTN: JACOB WOLFGANG
218 6TH AVE., STE. 200
DES MOINES, IOWA 50309
JACOB@NELSONCONSTRUCT.COM
APPLICANT 2'S ATTORNEY:
KIRTON MCCONKIE
ATTN: BRYCE K. DALTON
50 E. SOUTH TEMPLE, SUITE 400
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
BDALTON@KMCLAW.COM
STUART CT
BL
U
F
F
W
O
O
D
L
N
ST THOMAS CTZONING:
RM12
ZONING:
OPD/
RM12
ZONING:
OPD/
RM12 A12-17-2020REZONING APPLICATIONSHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Jan 19, 2021 - 4:43pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Sheets\200194 - Rezoning Exhibit - OPD.RS-5.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:1 OF 1 G. JOSEPH CLARKREZONING EXHIBITHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESIOWA CITY, IOWA, 5224520-0194WELCHREZONING EXHIBIT
HICKORY TRAIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
CIVIL STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL SURVEY SPECIALTY
Project Number 200194 Page | 1
December 17, 2020
APPLICANT’S STATEMENT FOR REZONING
The proposed development area consists of a portion of Parcel 1002476002. The area being rezoned is approximately 48
acres of private property located west of N. 1st Avenue and south of N. Scott Boulevard. It is bounded on the south and
west by Hickory Hill Park. The current zoning classification is ID-RS – Interim Development Single-Family Residential. The
Applicant is seeking to rezone 36.60 acres of the property to RS-5 – Low Density Single-Family Residential and 12.21 acres
of the property to RM-20 – Medium-Density Multi-Family Residential. The total area being re-zoned is 48.81 acres with
1,332.95 feet of frontage on North Scott Boulevard. There are approximately 14 acres between the proposed development
and N. Scott Boulevard and N. 1st Avenue that are not included in this development and are not included in the rezoning
application. Refer to the Rezoning Exhibit included with the Rezoning Application for additional information, including the
legal description.
Comprehensive Plan & District Plan
The Future Land Use Map within the Comprehensive
Plan shows this area as Conservation Design. The
Conservation Design designation indicates the
presence of sensitive features on the property. These
features include wetlands, a waterway, steep slopes,
and woodlands. The Northeast District Plan includes
the property within the “Bluffwood Neighborhood”
(Figure 1). The Bluffwood concept plan shows single-
family housing and two cul de sacs on the south and
west portion of the property. There is Neighborhood
Commercial depicted on the southeast portion of the
property (four red buildings on Figure 1) and Small
Apartment Buildings shown on the northeast portion
(five pink buildings on Figure 1). The plan shows
wooded areas remaining along the waterway at the
center of the property. Hickory Hill Park can be seen
along the west and south of the property. The cul de
sacs allow for a connection from Hickory Hill Park to the
drainageway at the center of the property.
Figure 1: Bluffwood Neighborhood from Northeast District Plan with
Approximate Project Boundary
Project Number 200194 Page | 2
Previous Projects
A previous rezoning application for the property located at
831 N. 1st Avenue (immediately east of this project) was
approved as a Planned Development Overlay Medium-
Density Single-Family (OPD RS-8) and a twelve-unit, 3-
story building was constructed (Figure 2) in place of the
Neighborhood Commercial shown on the Bluffwood plan.
Project Overview
The Applicant proposes to develop low-density single-
family residential lots west of the waterway and a Senior
Living Facility with Assisted Living and Memory Care east
of the waterway. The south end of the Senior Facility
building will be a single-story structure memory care, the
center of the building will be a two-story structure
containing the main entry, dining, common areas, and
administrative areas, and the north end of the north end of
the building will consist of three stories of assisted living
apartments. Refer to Figure 3 for a rendering). Hickory
Trail, which currently dead ends at the east property line,
is being extended to the west and turn north to connect to
N. Scott Boulevard.
Figure 2: 831 N. 1st Avenue
Proposed Project Area Shown in Red
Figure 3:Conceptual Rendering of the Proposed Senior Facility (looking northeast)
Project Number 200194 Page | 3
Low-Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5)
The Low-Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) zoning proposed is consistent with the Bluffwood plan. The applicant is
not seeking adjustments to minimum area regulations or setbacks. Instead, the applicant will enforce a larger front yard
setback of twenty-five feet within the Restrictive Covenants of the subdivision. The proposed single-family development will
avoid protected slopes, provide the required 50% woodland preservation, and meet s other regulations of the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance as required by City Code. Conservation Easements will be utilized to set aside and protect sensitive areas. A
buffer will be provided between the rear of the single-family lots that are adjacent to Hickory Hill Park.
Medium-Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-20)
The Applicant is seeking Medium-Density Multi-Family Residential zoning at the southeast corner of the development to
support a Senior Living Facility. The project incorporates specific features to ensure it is compatible with the surrounding
area and the vision for this portion of Iowa City.
The proposed building and site have been designed to take advantage of the existing topography to prevent the building
from dominating the view. The existing topography rises from the southwest to the north east corner of the RM -20 portion
of the site. The building has a single-story on the south and three-stories on the north (refer to Figure 3). This prevents the
mass of the building from dominating views from the park. The building is set into the existing site with a first-floor elevation
of 735 and the eave on the tallest portion of the building is at an elevation of approximately 768 . The elevation of the
northeast corner of the property 768 and N. 1st Avenue is at an elevation of 760 in this area. This allows the natural grade
along N. 1st Avenue to block the building from view as pedestrians and vehicles travel along N. 1st Avenue. Refer to the Site
Plan included in the rezoning submittal.
The proposed building and site achieve the density desired by the Applicant without a large footprint or excessive amounts
of impervious area. The zoning suggested on the District Plan would allow for a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of up to 1.0. The
proposed site has a FAR of 0.3. Another measure of building density on a property is the amount of impervious surfaces
(pavement, sidewalks, roof top). Impervious areas averaging eighty -five percent are common in commercial areas. This
building and site combine for an impervious area of 40%. This relatively low amount of imperviousness is by design. The
building features an interior courtyard within the memory care wing and a community garden space east of the dining and
kitchen facility. Parking is located along the loop road, where possible, to minimize the pavement associated drive aisles in
traditional parking lots. There is ample green space along the west and east sides of the loop road to help provide buffers
to adjacent properties. Each of these features combine to reduce the imperviousness of the site.
The Applicant is committed to planting replacement trees to achieve the 20% woodland retention requirement of this zoning
designation. These trees will be planted along the west, east, and south portions of the Senior Living facility. These plantings
will enhance the view from inside the building, provide unique spaces on the property for outdoor activities, and protect the
views from those looking at the property from either the park or the single-family portion of the development.
Project Number 200194 Page | 4
City Utilities
There is city water along the north side of N. Scott Boulevard and water at the end of Hickory Trail. These will be connected
to create a loop. There is sanitary sewer at the dead-end of Hickory Trail and along the waterway south of the project.
These have been designed to be extended to serve this property. Private utilities such as gas, electric, and communications
are also available. Storm water management is provided by an existing basin downstream of the project.
Sensitive Areas
Detailed Analyses have been undertaken and, in addition to the woodlands and the waterway, have documented the
presence of wetlands and protected slopes. The Offi ce of the State Archaeologist has completed a field investigation and
determined that no further archaeologic investigation is required. A Preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan
accompanies this application. The development has been designed to avoid the sensitive features and minimize impacts.
Protected slopes have been avoided completely and less than 20% of critical slopes are impacted.
Hickory Hill Park
The development team has met with the Friends of Hickory Hills Park (FHHP) to gain their insight to the development. The
two groups are seeking areas where the goals of the development and FHHP align and are discussing how each can benefit
from this relationship. The Applicant will also be utilizing the Good Neighbor Meeting process to seek additional community
input.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Welch, PE
Project Engineer
OUTLOT A
473,268 SF
45
152,271 SF
1
408,543 SF
OUTLOT B
180,396 SF
26
10,055 SF
31
10,935 SF
8
18,249 SF
2
38,362 SF
4
24,692 SF
3
23,849 SF
10
16,187 SF
5
29,154 SF
6
21,846 SF
28
14,514 SF
33
8,505 SF
19
28,143 SF17
11,818 SF
"A"
184,197 SF
27
10,822 SF
29
16,365 SF
30
14,169 SF32
8,575 SF35
8,204 SF37
8,540 SF
38
9,621 SF
40
9,375 SF
36
8,127 SF
34
8,200 SF
39
9,116 SF
14
23,014 SF
23
15,470 SF
24
14,962 SF
25
15,388 SF
44
12,329 SF
7
18,571 SF
9
19,405 SF
22
23,866 SF21
27,448 SF20
27,505 SF
11
19,207 SF
16
19,661 SF
15
20,818 SF
13
23,682 SF
12
18,886 SF
18
27,173 SF43
10,612 SF 41
9,907 SF
42
9,617 SF
PROJECT
LOCATION
Ralston Creek
NOT TO SCALE
OUTLOTS:
OUTLOT SF ACRES INTENDED USE
A 473,268 10.86 DEDICATED TO CITY FOR PARK SPACE
B 180,396 4.14 CONSERVATION EASEMENT
ROW 184,197 4.23 RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATED TO CITY FOR HICKORY TRAIL EXTENSION
APPLICANT 1'S ATTORNEY:
PHELAN TUCKER LAW
JOHN BEASLEY
321 E. MARKET ST
IOWA CITY, IA 52245
APPROVED BY THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
CITY CLERK DATE
KEY NOTES:
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
HATCHED AREA REPRESENTS AREA INCLUDED
IN WOODLAND RETENTION CALCULATION
10' LANDSCAPE EASEMENT
A
LEGEND:
SITE
FENCE: BARB WIRE
CONTOUR - INTERMEDIATE
CONTOUR - INDEX
SIGN
STREAM CENTERLINE
100
EXISTING PROPOSED
100
PROTECTED SLOPE (> 40%)
CRITICAL SLOPE (25-40%)
IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPE
(25-40%)
WOODLAND PRESERVATION
IMPACTED WOODLAND
STEEP SLOPE (18-25%)
CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS
TREE REMOVAL LIMITS AT EDGE
OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
SENSITIVE AREAS AREA BUFFER
WETLAND PRESERVATION
BLUE LINE STREAM CORRIDOR N. SCOTT BOULEVARDN. 1ST
A
V
E
N
U
E
HICKORYTERRY FAMILY
REVOCABLE TRUS
T
HICKORY HEIGHTS
BK 44, PG 144
HICKORY HILL PAR
K
HICKORY HILL PAR
K HICKORY HILL PARKHICKORY HILL PARK1213141516
0 50 100
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 11, 2021 - 4:51pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Plats\200194-PP.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:C1.00 G. JOSEPH CLARKOVERALLSENSITIVE FEATURESHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN20-0194WELCHPRELIMINARY OPD AND
SENSITIVE AREAS
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
HICKORY TRAIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
1
TRAILHICKORY HILL PARKAPPLICANT 1:
G. JOSEPH CLARK
221 E. BURLINGTON ST
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
.
.
.
A
A
A
APPLICANT 2'S ATTORNEY:
KIRTON MCCONKIE
ATTN:BRYCE K. DALTON
50 E. SOUTH TEMPLE, SUITE 400
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
BDALTON@KMCLAW.COM
APPLICANT 2:
NELSON DEVELOPMENT 1, LLC
ATTN:JACOB WOLFGANG
218 6TH AVE., STE. 200
DES MOINES, IOWA 50309
JACOB@NELSONCONSTRUCT.COM
AB12-17-202002-11-2021REZONING APPLICATIONRESPOND TO CITY REVIEW COMMENTS.A
PROPOSED TREE
REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN
B
.B
OVERALL SENSITIVE FEATURESC1.00
C1.30
PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS-SENSITIVE SLOPESC1.10
C1.20 PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS-WOODLAND AREAS
PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS-WETLAND AND BLUE LINE STREAM CORRIDOR
IMPACTED STEEP SLOPE
(18-25%)
SHEET INDEX
NOTES:
1.NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES ARE PRESENT.
OUTLOT A
473,268 SF
45
152,271 SF
1
408,543 SF
OUTLOT B
180,396 SF
26
10,055 SF
31
10,935 SF
8
18,249 SF
2
38,362 SF
4
24,692 SF
3
23,849 SF
10
16,187 SF
5
29,154 SF
6
21,846 SF
28
14,514 SF
33
8,505 SF
19
28,143 SF17
11,818 SF
"A"
184,197 SF
27
10,822 SF
29
16,365 SF
30
14,169 SF32
8,575 SF35
8,204 SF37
8,540 SF
38
9,621 SF
40
9,375 SF
36
8,127 SF
34
8,200 SF
39
9,116 SF
14
23,014 SF
23
15,470 SF
24
14,962 SF
25
15,388 SF
44
12,329 SF
7
18,571 SF
9
19,405 SF
22
23,866 SF21
27,448 SF20
27,505 SF
11
19,207 SF
16
19,661 SF
15
20,818 SF
13
23,682 SF
12
18,886 SF
18
27,173 SF43
10,612 SF 41
9,907 SF
42
9,617 SF
0 50 100
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 11, 2021 - 4:55pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Plats\200194-PP.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:C1.10 G. JOSEPH CLARKPRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREASSENSITIVE SLOPESHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN20-0194WELCHAPPLICANT 1'S ATTORNEY:
PHELAN TUCKER LAW
JOHN BEASLEY
321 E. MARKET ST
IOWA CITY, IA 52245
N. SCOTT BOULEVARDN. 1ST
A
V
E
N
U
E
HICKORYTERRY FAMILY
REVOCABLE TRUS
T
HICKORY HEIGHTS
BK 44, PG 144
HICKORY HILL PAR
K
HICKORY HILL PAR
K HICKORY HILL PARKHICKORY HILL PARK1213141516 TRAILHICKORY HILL PARK1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
9
LEGEND:
SITE
FENCE: BARB WIRE
CONTOUR - INTERMEDIATE
CONTOUR - INDEX
SIGN
STREAM CENTERLINE
100
EXISTING PROPOSED
100
PROTECTED SLOPE (> 40%)
CRITICAL SLOPE (25-40%)
IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPE
(25-40%)
STEEP SLOPE (18-25%)
CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS
TREE REMOVAL LIMITS AT EDGE
OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
SENSITIVE AREAS AREA BUFFER
17
16
15
14
13
12
APPLICANT 1:
G. JOSEPH CLARK
221 E. BURLINGTON ST
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
APPLICANT 2'S ATTORNEY:
KIRTON MCCONKIE
ATTN:BRYCE K. DALTON
50 E. SOUTH TEMPLE, SUITE 400
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
BDALTON@KMCLAW.COM
APPLICANT 2:
NELSON DEVELOPMENT 1, LLC
ATTN:JACOB WOLFGANG
218 6TH AVE., STE. 200
DES MOINES, IOWA 50309
JACOB@NELSONCONSTRUCT.COM
AB12-17-202002-11-2021REZONING APPLICATIONRESPOND TO CITY REVIEW COMMENTS5
.B
PRELIMINARY OPD AND
SENSITIVE AREAS
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
HICKORY TRAIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
IMPACTED QUANTITIES:
CRITICAL SLOPES STEEP SLOPES
NOTES:
1.THERE ARE PROTECTED SLOPES WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT. A BUFFER
EQUAL TO 2 TIMES THE HEIGHT OF THE SLOPE IS PROVIDED. NO PROTECTED SLOPES OR
BUFFERS ARE IMPACTED WITH THIS PROJECT.
2.THE TOTAL PERCENTAGE IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPE IS LESS THAN 35% OF THE TOTAL.
CRITICAL SLOPE CALCULATION AREA (SF)PERCENTAGE
IMPACTED SLOPES 61,279 19%
NON-IMPACTED SLOPES 216,414 67%
NON-IMPACTED SLOPES IN PROTECTED SLOPE BUFFER 44,026 14%
CRITICAL SLOPES (PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT)321,719 100%
3. STEEP SLOPE CALCULATION AREA (SF)PERCENTAGE
IMPACTED SLOPES 145,153 44%
NON-IMPACTED SLOPES 180,810 56%
STEEP SLOPES (PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT)325,963 100%
IMPACTED STEEP SLOPE
(18-25%)
18
19
2021
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37 38
39
5
OUTLOT A
473,268 SF
45
152,271 SF
1
408,543 SF
OUTLOT B
180,396 SF
26
10,055 SF
31
10,935 SF
8
18,249 SF
2
38,362 SF
4
24,692 SF
3
23,849 SF
10
16,187 SF
5
29,154 SF
6
21,846 SF
28
14,514 SF
33
8,505 SF
19
28,143 SF17
11,818 SF
"A"
184,197 SF
27
10,822 SF
29
16,365 SF
30
14,169 SF32
8,575 SF35
8,204 SF37
8,540 SF
38
9,621 SF
40
9,375 SF
36
8,127 SF
34
8,200 SF
39
9,116 SF
14
23,014 SF
23
15,470 SF
24
14,962 SF
25
15,388 SF
44
12,329 SF
7
18,571 SF
9
19,405 SF
22
23,866 SF21
27,448 SF20
27,505 SF
11
19,207 SF
16
19,661 SF
15
20,818 SF
13
23,682 SF
12
18,886 SF
18
27,173 SF43
10,612 SF 41
9,907 SF
42
9,617 SF
0 50 100
APPLICANT 1'S ATTORNEY:
PHELAN TUCKER LAW
JOHN BEASLEY
321 E. MARKET ST
IOWA CITY, IA 52245
N. SCOTT BOULEVARDN. 1ST
A
V
E
N
U
E
HICKORYTERRY FAMILY
REVOCABLE TRUS
T
HICKORY HEIGHTS
BK 44, PG 144
HICKORY HILL PAR
K
HICKORY HILL PAR
K HICKORY HILL PARKHICKORY HILL PARK1213141516 TRAILHICKORY HILL PARKA
C
B
D
LEGEND:
SITE
FENCE: BARB WIRE
CONTOUR - INTERMEDIATE
CONTOUR - INDEX
SIGN
STREAM CENTERLINE
100
EXISTING PROPOSED
100
WOODLAND PRESERVATION
IMPACTED WOODLAND
CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS
TREE REMOVAL LIMITS AT EDGE
OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
SENSITIVE AREAS AREA BUFFER
F
G
E
H
APPLICANT 1:
G. JOSEPH CLARK
221 E. BURLINGTON ST
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
.
.
.
A
A
A
APPLICANT 2'S ATTORNEY:
KIRTON MCCONKIE
ATTN:BRYCE K. DALTON
50 E. SOUTH TEMPLE, SUITE 400
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
BDALTON@KMCLAW.COM
APPLICANT 2:
NELSON DEVELOPMENT 1, LLC
ATTN:JACOB WOLFGANG
218 6TH AVE., STE. 200
DES MOINES, IOWA 50309
JACOB@NELSONCONSTRUCT.COM
AB12-17-202002-11-2021REZONING APPLICATIONRESPOND TO CITY REVIEW COMMENTS.A
PROPOSED TREE
REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN .B
PRELIMINARY OPD AND
SENSITIVE AREAS
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
HICKORY TRAIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
IMPACTED QUANTITIES:
WOODLANDS
NOTES:
1.THERE ARE WOODED AREAS WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT. CONSERVATION
EASEMENTS ARE PROPOSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESERVING PORTIONS OF THE WOODED
AREAS. PER IOWA CITY CODE FOR RS-5, A MINIMUM OF 50% OF THE EXISTING WOODLANDS
MUST BE PRESERVED.
RS-5 WOODLAND PRESERVATION CALCULATION AREA (SF)PERCENTAGE
DISTURBED WOODLAND 497,053 37%
BUFFER (50' WIDE)200,516 15%
PRESERVED WOODLAND 627,495 48%
WOODLAND (PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT)1,325,064 100%
2.THE DEVELOPMENT IS 2% SHORT OF THE REQUIRED 50% WOODLAND RETENTION THRESHOLD.
REPLACEMENT TREES WILL BE PROVIDED TO OFFSET THIS DEFICIENCY. CITY CODE REQUIRES
REPLACEMENT TREES AT A RATE OF 1 TREE PER 200 SF OF DISTURBED WOODLAND
REQUIRED REPLACEMENT TREES = ( 1,325,064 * 0.02 )/ 200 = 132 TREES
3.STREET TREES AND OTHER TREES SHOWN COUNT TOWARD REPLACEMENT TREE NUMBER.
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 11, 2021 - 4:52pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Plats\200194-PP.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:C1.20 G. JOSEPH CLARKPRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREASWOODLAND AREASHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLANPRELIMINARY20-0194WELCH
OUTLOT A
473,268 SF
45
152,271 SF
1
408,543 SF
OUTLOT B
180,396 SF
26
10,055 SF
31
10,935 SF
8
18,249 SF
2
38,362 SF
4
24,692 SF
3
23,849 SF
10
16,187 SF
5
29,154 SF
6
21,846 SF
28
14,514 SF
33
8,505 SF
19
28,143 SF17
11,818 SF
"A"
184,197 SF
27
10,822 SF
29
16,365 SF
30
14,169 SF32
8,575 SF35
8,204 SF37
8,540 SF
38
9,621 SF
40
9,375 SF
36
8,127 SF
34
8,200 SF
39
9,116 SF
14
23,014 SF
23
15,470 SF
24
14,962 SF
25
15,388 SF
44
12,329 SF
7
18,571 SF
9
19,405 SF
22
23,866 SF21
27,448 SF20
27,505 SF
11
19,207 SF
16
19,661 SF
15
20,818 SF
13
23,682 SF
12
18,886 SF
18
27,173 SF43
10,612 SF 41
9,907 SF
42
9,617 SF
0 50 100
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 11, 2021 - 4:52pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Plats\200194-PP.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:C1.30 G. JOSEPH CLARKPRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREASWETLANDS ANDBLUE LINE STREAM CORRIDORHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN20-0194WELCHAPPLICANT 1'S ATTORNEY:
PHELAN TUCKER LAW
JOHN BEASLEY
321 E. MARKET ST
IOWA CITY, IA 52245
N. SCOTT BOULEVARDN. 1ST
A
V
E
N
U
E
HICKORYTERRY FAMILY
REVOCABLE TRUS
T
HICKORY HEIGHTS
BK 44, PG 144
HICKORY HILL PAR
K
HICKORY HILL PAR
K HICKORY HILL PARKHICKORY HILL PARK1213141516 TRAILHICKORY HILL PARKLEGEND:
SITE
FENCE: BARB WIRE
CONTOUR - INTERMEDIATE
CONTOUR - INDEX
SIGN
STREAM CENTERLINE
100
EXISTING PROPOSED
100
CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS
TREE REMOVAL LIMITS AT EDGE
OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
SENSITIVE AREAS AREA BUFFER
WETLAND PRESERVATION
BLUE LINE STREAM CORRIDOR
APPLICANT 1:
G. JOSEPH CLARK
221 E. BURLINGTON ST
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
APPLICANT 2'S ATTORNEY:
KIRTON MCCONKIE
ATTN:BRYCE K. DALTON
50 E. SOUTH TEMPLE, SUITE 400
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
BDALTON@KMCLAW.COM
APPLICANT 2:
NELSON DEVELOPMENT 1, LLC
ATTN:JACOB WOLFGANG
218 6TH AVE., STE. 200
DES MOINES, IOWA 50309
JACOB@NELSONCONSTRUCT.COM
AB12-17-202002-11-2021REZONING APPLICATIONRESPOND TO CITY REVIEW COMMENTSPRELIMINARY OPD AND
SENSITIVE AREAS
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
HICKORY TRAIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
100'
WETLAND BUFFER
100'
WETLAND BUFFER
30'
STREAM
BUFFER
30'
STREAM
BUFFER
OUTLOT A
473,268 SF 241'23'
87'318'226'69'
6
9
'64'254'13'
5
8
'75'289'75'40'
294'275'29
'
4
1
'23'41'285'2
3
'41'29'41'32'274'91
'
1
8
'23'258'104'
75'254'75'250'75'
75'251'62'13'
116'270'35'
40'
116'286'75'
104'207'75'
77'98'213'91'
22'
90'
77'296'91'
91'325'46'
91'318'29'
91'303'23'57'80'
95'81'34'293'18
5
'157'88'187'41'179'81'81'80'105'92'116'91'102'136'45'30'127'16
5
'75'128'1
6
5
'75'127'130'
75'
109'115'13'62'
75'114'75'53'27'
72'110'110'50'27'
72'75'109'75'
75'108'75'
96'97'48'27'75'
112'118'125'75'
75'
75'125'75'130'129'62'18'128'75'130'49'26'152'75'
23
5
'122'225'87'
161'105'47'9
6
'
41'
4
1
'
10
7
'276'108'195'114'77'1,303'N01° 07' 52"W 656.03'N01° 41' 17"W 1,094.66'N01° 38' 34"W 210.49'N01° 20' 33"W 538.67'730'67'
57'99'26'318'90'472'
155'26'118'S2
7
°
1
4
'
3
3
"
W
9
2
4
.
7
3
'
S01° 14' 34"E 378.49'N77° 55' 52"E 649.63'560'S01° 15' 42"E 868.85'S87° 54' 07"W 1,302.79'C160'311'12'237'108'218'105'61'731'
45
152,271 SF
1
408,543 SF
OUTLOT B
180,396 SF
26
10,055 SF
31
10,935 SF
8
18,249 SF
2
38,362 SF
4
24,692 SF
3
23,849 SF
10
16,187 SF
5
29,154 SF
6
21,846 SF
28
14,514 SF
33
8,505 SF
19
28,143 SF17
11,818 SF
"A"
184,197 SF
27
10,822 SF
29
16,365 SF
30
14,169 SF32
8,575 SF35
8,204 SF37
8,540 SF
38
9,621 SF
40
9,375 SF
36
8,127 SF
34
8,200 SF
39
9,116 SF
14
23,014 SF
23
15,470 SF
24
14,962 SF
25
15,388 SF
44
12,329 SF
7
18,571 SF
9
19,405 SF
22
23,866 SF21
27,448 SF20
27,505 SF
11
19,207 SF
16
19,661 SF
15
20,818 SF
13
23,682 SF
12
18,886 SF
18
27,173 SF43
10,612 SF 41
9,907 SF
42
9,617 SF
PROJECT
LOCATION
Ralston Creek
NOT TO SCALE
N. SCOTT BOULEVARDN. 1ST AVENUE HICKORYTERRY FAMILY
REVOCABLE TRUS
T
HICKORY HEIGHTS
BK 44, PG 144
HICKORY HILL PAR
K
HICKORY HILL PAR
K HICKORY HILL PARK1213141516
0 50 100
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 11, 2021 - 2:36pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Plats\200194-PP.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:C2.00 G. JOSEPH CLARKCONCEPT PLANHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLANPRELIMINARY20-0194WELCHCONCEPT PLAN
HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES
IOWA CITY, IOWA
UPDATED FEBRUARY 11, 2021
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
1
35'
48'TRAILHICKORY HILL PARKHICKORY HILL PARK60'
67'
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
EXISTING
TRAILS
263'
132'
188'
83'
OAK KNOLL
ENTRANCE
35'
35'
LEGEND:
PARK DEDICATION
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
ACT, INC
PROJECT DATA:
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AREA 48.75 ACRES
PARK DEDICATION AREA 10.86 ACRES
WWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
S
S
S
S
S
S
SSSSSSSSS SSSSSSW
WW 23'87'69'69'64'
13'
58'289'
75'294'
2
7
5
'29'41'23'
2
8
5
'23'41'
29'91'18'152
'75'235'122'225'87'161'105'
47'96'41'41'107'C1
60'WWWWWW
W
W
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
W
WST
ST
ST
STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTLOT AREA
10,992 SF
LOT AREA
14,811 SF
LOT AREA
14,705 SF
LOT AREA
9,513 SF
LOT AREA
8,751 SF
LOT AREA
8,539 SF
LOT AREA
11,421 SF
LOT AREA
12,435 SF
LOT AREA
10,355 SF
LOT AREA
8,352 SF 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
45
OUTLOT A
44 9
770
772
774
776
770770
760752754756758764766768760770758762764766768760
770
762
764
766
768770766768 78'
60'
30'
20'45'30'16'60'60'34'16'45'1
5
'
4
2
'
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 11, 2021 - 4:47pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Sheets\Condos\200194 - Condo.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:C2.10 G. JOSEPH CLARKLOT 45CONDOMINIUM:CONCEPT PLANHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLANPRELIMINARY20-0194WELCH0 20 40
N. SC
O
T
T
B
L
V
D
HICKO
R
Y
T
R
AI
L
UNIT 1
STYLE "A"
UNIT 2
STYLE "A"
UNIT 3
STYLE "B"
UNIT 4
STYLE "A"
UNIT 5
STYLE "B"
UNIT 6
STYLE "B"
UNIT 7
STYLE "A"
UNIT 8
STYLE "B"
UNIT 9
STYLE "A"
UNIT 10
STYLE "B"
SITE INFORMATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT 45 HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES (PLAT PENDING APPROVAL)
TOTAL LOT AREA: 152,271 SF (3.50 AC)
PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT
DETACHED, SINGLE-FAMILY CONDOMINIUM
10 UNITS - 2,863 SF FOOTPRINT (EACH)
ZONING INFORMATION
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE - LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (OPD/RS-5)
SETBACKS AND YARDS
FRONT YARD 15 FEET
SIDE YARD 5 FEET
REAR YARD 20 FEET
N. SCOTT BLVD 40 FEET
MINIMUM LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS
MIN. LOT AREA 8,000 SF
MIN. LOT WIDTH 60 FEET
MIN. LOT FRONTAGE 40 FEET
MAX. LOT COVERAGE 45 %
FLOOD ELEVATION
N/A
HICKORY COMMONS(PRIVATE DRIVE)25'
26'℄ PAVEMENTTYPICAL 26' PRIVATE DRIVE SECTION
NOT TO SCALE 1
7" PCC PAVEMENT
26'
13'13'12'
5'
6" SUBBASE
6" SUBDRAIN
2.50%2.50%
4" PCC SIDEWALK
1.50%
BUILDING INFORMATION
EXTERIOR FINISHES:
ROOFING:CERTAINTEED LANDMARK WEATHERED WOOD SINGLES
MASONRY:ELDORADO STONE - MONTICETO CLIFFSTON
WINDOWS:ANDERSON 200-SERIES
SIDING:DIAMOND KOTE LP SMART SIDE
COLOR OPTION 1
SIDING FRENCH GRAY (LP SMART SIDE)
SOFFIT & FASCIA WHITE (ROLEX)
TRIM WHITE (DIAMOND KOTE)
GARAGE DOORS WHITE
FRONT DOOR SW ROYCROFT COPPER RED (SW#2839)
COLOR OPTION 2
SIDING FRENCH GRAY (LP SMART SIDE)
SOFFIT & FASCIA CLAY (ROLEX)
TRIM CLAY (DIAMOND KOTE)
GARAGE DOORS SANDSTONE
FRONT DOOR SW ROYCROFT BRONZE GREEN (SW#2846)
COLOR OPTION 3
SIDING CLAY (LP SMART SIDE)
SOFFIT & FASCIA WHITE (ROLEX)
TRIM CLAY (DIAMOND KOTE)
GARAGE DOORS SANDSTONE
FRONT DOOR SW ROYCROFT PEWTER (SW#2848)AB12-17-202002-11-2021REZONING APPLICATIONRESPOND TO CITY REVIEW COMMENTS
95'
276'108'
195'
114'
1,303'
26'
90'472'155'26'
N77° 55' 52"E 649.63'
560'S01° 15' 42"E 868.85'S87° 54' 07"W 1,
3
0
2
.
7
9
'
237'
108'
218'
105'61'731'ST
ST
ST
ST
ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST740 750760740750760730730
710720730720
70
0
71
0 720730
0 20 40
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 11, 2021 - 4:35pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Sheets\Senior\200194 - Senior - Site Plan.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:C2.20 G. JOSEPH CLARKLOT 1SENIOR LIVING:CONCEPT PLANHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLANPRELIMINARY20-0194WELCH16.58'
15.93'
15.65'21'
21'21'
15.34'
17.9'
6'
19'
26'
12'
R101'
R75'
R50'
R76'
17'19'26'
19'
24'
19'26'19'
19'
24'
19'
6'
19'26'19'
23
A
R100'R126'
R40'R66'
R10'
R30'
R15'R20'
R25'
R15'
R250'
R174'
R200'
SITE INFORMATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT 1 HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES (PLAT PENDING APPROVAL)
TOTAL LOT AREA: 408,543 SF (9.38 AC)
PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT
SENIOR LIVING FACILITY
ASSISTED LIVING
1 GUEST SUITE 1 BED
74 ONE BEDROOM 74 BEDS
14 TWO BEDROOMS 28 BEDS
TOTAL 135 BEDS
MEMORY CARE 32 BEDS
GROSS BUILDING FOOTPRINT 69,060 SF
ZONING INFORMATION
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE - LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (OPD/RS-5)
SETBACKS AND YARDS (MULTI-FAMILY)
FRONT YARD 20 FEET
SIDE YARD 10 FEET
REAR YARD 20 FEET
HEIGHT 40 FEET REQUESTING VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT GREATER THAN 35'
MINIMUM LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS
MIN. LOT AREA 8,000 SF
MIN. LOT WIDTH 60 FEET
MIN. LOT FRONTAGE 40 FEET
MAX LOT COVERAGE 45 %
MAX. SETBACK COVERAGE 50 %
BUILDING WIDTH ALONG FRONTAGE 212.33 FEET
LOT FRONTAGE WIDTH 668 FEET
SETBACK COVERAGE 32 %
LOT COVERAGE 69,060 / 408,543 = 17 %
FLOOD ELEVATION
N/A
PARKING CALCULATIONS:
USE REQUIREMENT # OF STALLS
MEMORY CARE 1 STALL PER 3 BEDS 32 BEDS 11
ASSISTED LIVING 1 STALL PER 3 BEDS 103 BEDS 34
STAFF 1 STALL PER EMPLOYEE 40 EMPLOYEES*40
TOTAL REQUIRED = 85
* NUMBER OF PERSONS EMPLOYED AT THE FACILITY
PARKING PROVIDED =86
ACCESSIBLE PARKING PROVIDED =4
TOTAL PROVIDED =9021
12
6
8
20
100.4'
184.9'
46.6'
102.6'
A
A
A
A
PROPOSED BUILDING
HICKORY TRAIL
A RETAINING WALL
KEYNOTES:
212.33'AB12-17-202002-11-2021REZONING APPLICATIONRESPOND TO CITY REVIEW COMMENTS
OUTLOT A
444,957 SF
45
174,338 SF
1
408,543 SF
OUTLOT B
268,843 SF
26
10,055 SF
31
10,935 SF
13
19,662 SF
12
15,228 SF
11
14,759 SF
8
15,273 SF
42
10,875 SF
2
21,495 SF
41
11,019 SF
4
17,320 SF
3
16,893 SF
10
14,534 SF
5
16,855 SF
6
15,250 SF
28
14,514 SF
33
8,505 SF
19
26,135 SF17
11,818 SF
15
20,234 SF
14
20,903 SF
"A"
184,197 SF
27
10,822 SF
29
16,365 SF
30
14,169 SF32
8,575 SF35
8,204 SF37
8,540 SF
38
9,621 SF
40
9,375 SF
36
8,127 SF
34
8,200 SF
39
9,116 SF
18
27,249 SF
23
15,470 SF
24
14,962 SF
25
15,388 SF
44
14,501 SF 43
12,313 SF
7
15,131 SF
9
17,145 SF
16
19,657 SF
22
22,091 SF21
23,528 SF20
21,929 SF STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST ST
ST ST
ST STST
ST
STSTSTSTST
ST
STSTSTST
ST
STSTST
ST
01-CCT
01-QBS
01-CCT
01-CKY
01-OVE
01-RPC
01-OVE
01-RPC
01-ZSM
01-ZSM
01-CCT
01-CCT
01-QBS
01-RPC 01-NSB
01-UAA 01-CSN
01-CSN
01-BNR
01-QBS
01-CBF
01-CCA 01-CCA
01-QRL 01-CCA
01-CSN
01-BAY
01-OVE
01-QRL 01-ZSM 01-ZSM 01-NSB
01-RPC
01-LTT
01-RPC
01-PTH
01-ZSM
01-BPP
01-PXA
01-CKY
01-NSB
01-CSN
01-BPF
01-UTR
01-URR
01-ZSM
01-UPC
01-LTT
01-CKY
01-LTT
01-PTH
01-UPC
01-LTT
01-CKY
01-URR
01-UTR
01-PTH
01-BPF
01-CSN
01-CSN
01-CKY
01-CKY
01-NSB
01-PXA
01-PXA
01-ZSM
01-PTH
01-RPC
01-RPC
01-PXA
01-LTT
01-NSB01-ZSM01-LTT01-OVE01-BAY
01-QRL01-CSN01-CCA01-CCA
01-QBS
01-BNR
01-CBF
01-CBF
01-PXA
01-CCT01-QBS
01-CSN
01-NSB
01-RPC
01-NSB
01-RPC
01-CCT
01-PXA
01-CCT
01-QBS
01-PXA
01-OVE
01-CKY01-CCT
N. SCOTT BOULEVARDSHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 10, 2021 - 1:29pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Sheets\Subdivision\200194 - L Sheets.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:L1.00 G. JOSEPH CLARKLANDSCAPE PLANHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN20-0194WELCHHICKORY TRA
I
L HICKORY TRAIL0 40 80
LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCHEDULE
LANDSCAPE LEGEND
PLANTS:
PROPOSED DECIDUOUS STREET TREE
-SPECIES AS LABELED; PLANTING LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED BY DRIVES
AND SIGHT TRIANGLES
ID QTY.BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME ROOT SPACING
STREET TREE PLANTING
BAY 2 Betula alleghaniensis
YELLOW BIRCH BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
BNR 2 Betula nigra
RIVER BIRCH BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
BPF 2 Betula platyphylla 'Fargo' DAKOTA PINNACLE
DAKOTA PINNACLE BIRCH BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
BPP 1 Betula papyrifera
PAPER BIRCH BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
CBF 3 Carpinus betulus 'Fastigiata'
COMMON HORNBEAM BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
CCA 5 Carpinus caroliniana
AMERICAN HORNBEAM BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
CCT 8 Corylus colurna
TURKISH FILBERT BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
CKY 7 Cladrastis kentuckea
YELLOW WOOD BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
CSN 8 Catalpa speciosa
NORTHERN CATALPA BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
LTT 6 Liriodendron tulipifera
TULIP TREE BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
NSB 7 Nyssa sylvatica
BLACK GUM BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
OVE 5 Ostrya virginiana
EASTERN HOP HORNBEAM BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
PTH 4 Ptelea trifoliata
HOP TREE BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
PXA 7 Platanus x acerifolia
LONDON PLANE TREE BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
QBS 6 Quercus bicolor
SWAMP WHITE OAK BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
QRL 3 Quercus rubra 'Long'
RED OAK BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
RPC 9 Robinia psuedoacacia 'Chicago Blues'
BLACK LOCUST BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
UAA 1 Ulmus americana
AMERICAN ELM BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
UPC 2 Ulmus parvifolia
CHINESE ELM BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
URR 2 Ulmus rubra
RED ELM BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
UTR 2 Ulmus thomasii
ROCK ELM BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
ZSM 8 Zelkova serrata 'Musashino'
ZELKOVA BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
100 TREES PROVIDED*
* 10% GENUS AND 5% MAX. SPECIES DISTRIBUTION INCLUDED.
NURSERY MATCHED, QUALITY SPECIMEN; MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE
OUTLOT A
473,268 SF
45
152,271 SF
8
18,249 SF
4
24,692 SF
5
29,154 SF
6
21,846 SF
"A"
184,197 SF
44
12,329 SF
7
18,571 SF
9
19,405 SF
ST
ST
ST
STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST02-SR
01-RP
03-PX
03-CC
01-PX
02-QR
02-QM
02-QB
01-QM
02-PA
01-PA
03-PC
03-BP
01-RP
03-CA
01-BF
01-RP
03-PX
03-CC
01-PX
03-CC
01-RP
01-BF
03-CA
01-RP
01-BF
01-RP
03-BP
03-PC
01-SR
02-PA
01-QM
03-PC
SEED/SOD ALL
DISTURBED AREAS
SEED/SOD ALL
DISTURBED AREAS
SEED/SOD ALL
DISTURBED AREAS
04-QM
03-QB
03-QR
03-QM
03-QB
LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCHEDULE
0 20 40
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 11, 2021 - 4:31pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Sheets\Subdivision\200194 - L Sheets.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:L2.00 G. JOSEPH CLARKLOT 45CONDOMINIUM:LANDSCAPE PLANHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLANPRELIMINARY20-0194WELCHLANDSCAPE PLANTING REQUIREMENTS
STREET TREES:
1 TREE / 60 LF (DOUBLE FRONTAGE)
941 LF FRONTAGE / 60 = 15.68
23 LARGE AND SMALL TREES PROVIDED
RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS:
01 TREE PER UNIT PROVIDED
LANDSCAPE LEGEND
PLANTS:
PROPOSED DECIDUOUS LARGE TREE
PROPOSED DECIDUOUS SMALL TREE
PROPOSED EVERGREEN TREE
DECIDUOUS SHRUB
EVERGREEN SHRUB
ORNAMENTAL GRASSES/FLOWERS
GROUND COVER:
SOD/SEED TURF IN ALL DISTURBED AREAS
N. SC
O
T
T
B
L
V
D
HICKO
R
Y
T
R
AI
L
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY SETBACK
WATER
TELECOM
GAS
ELECTRIC
SANITARY SEWER
STORM SEWER
EXISTING EASEMENT
TREE PROTECTION FENCING
EXISTING CONTOUR
TREE REMOVAL LIMITS AT EDGE OF CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
LEGEND
EVERGREEN TREE
ORNAMENTAL TREE
TALL FESCUE/ SHORT
GRASS PRAIRIE MIX
SHADE TREE
SHRUB /
PERENNIAL
TURFGRASS
WWW
W
W
W
W
W W W W W W
WWWWWWWWWW W
SS SS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSWWWWW
W
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW2 GD
REFER TO L1.00 FOR
STREET TREE SPECIES
1 CO
1 QC
1 MA
3 MXP
3 PG
1 PA
1 CG
2 CR
1 QM
1 PA
2 TC
2 CR
1 CO
3 GD
2 CR
1 QC
2 QM
2 CR
1 WF
3 MXP
3 PS1 CO
1 PA
1 CR1 QC
1 QM
3 GD
1 TC
2 GT
1 AG
1 WF
1 MS
3 CG
1 MS
3 AG
1 CR
1 CG
3 TC
2 PA
1 CG
1 MA
1 CO
4 TC 6 MXP
3 GD
1 GT
1 NS
1 GT
2 SR
1 GT
1 MA
1 GT
2 MA
1 CO
1 GT
1 GT
3 MXS 3 MXS
1 MA
40 DK
29 JH
3 HV
24 DK
9 JH
1 MXS
32 ST
7 DK
5 TD
8 BB
8 TD
9 DK
20 ST
40 DK
30 ST
7 DK
5 TD
8 BB
3 TD
9 ST
7 DK
21 JH
3 HV
41 DK
10 JH
1 SR
27 PO
23 BB
27 PO
92 PO
3 IV
2 TD
1 RL
3 BZ
2 RL
2 TD
4 IV
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 10, 2021 - 3:25pm Z:\Projects2\20042-IC SENIOR LIVING\04 CAD\03 Current\20042-PP_PLANTING PLAN.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:L3.00 G. JOSEPH CLARKLOT 1SENIOR LIVINGLANDSCAPE PLANHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLANPRELIMINARY20-0194WELCH[ landscape architects ]
genus
T 515 284 1010
WWW.GENUS-LA.COM
325 EAST 5 STREET
DES MOINES, IA 50309
TH
0 20 40
1.CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE AND VERIFY ALL EXISTING UTILITY
LINES PRIOR TO PLANTING AND SHALL REPORT ANY CONFLICTS TO
THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
2.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES
(LINES, DUCTS, CONDUITS, SLEEVES, FOOTINGS, ETC.) WITH
LOCATIONS OF PROPOSED LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS (FENCE,
FOOTINGS, TREE ROOTBALLS, ETC.). CONTRACTOR SHALL REPORT
ANY DISCREPANCIES TO ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONTINUING WORK.
3.ALL WORK SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE WORK OF OTHER
TRADES.
4.IF DISCREPANCIES EXIST BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF PLANTS
DRAWN ON THE PLANTING PLAN AND THE NUMBER OF PLANTS IN
THE SCHEDULE, THE NUMBER OF PLANTS ON PLAN SHALL GOVERN.
5.ALL PLANT MATERIALS MUST CONFORM TO AMERICAN STANDARDS
FOR NURSERY STOCK ANSI Z 60.1, OR LATEST EDITION PUBLISHED
BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN, WASHINGTON
D.C. LARGER SIZED PLANT MATERIALS OF THE SPECIES LISTED
MAY BE USED IF THE STOCK CONFORMS TO THE A.S.N.S.
6.ANY PROPOSED SUBSTITUTIONS OF PLANT SPECIES SHALL BE
MADE WITH PLANTS OF EQUIVALENT OVERALL FORM, HEIGHT,
BRANCHING HABIT, FLOWER, LEAF, COLOR, FRUIT AND CULTURE,
AND ONLY AFTER WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT.
7.OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO SUBSTITUTE PLANT MATERIAL
TYPE, SIZE, AND/OR QUANTITY.
8.STAKE LOCATION OF ALL PROPOSED PLANTING FOR APPROVAL BY
THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT A MINIMUM OF 48 HOURS PRIOR TO
THE COMMENCEMENT OF PLANTING.
9.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DAMAGE DUE TO
OPERATIONS INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
PER PLAN. ANY AREAS OUTSIDE THE LIMIT OF WORK THAT ARE
DISTURBED SHALL BE RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION AT
NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER.
10.THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND MATERIALS INJURIOUS TO PLANT
GROWTH FROM PLANTING PITS AND BEDS PRIOR TO BACKFILLING
WITH PLANTING SOIL.
11.UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, TREES TO BE CENTERED IN PLANTING
AREAS.
12.TO AVOID DISRUPTION TO EXISTING TREES, HAND DIGGING
REQUIRED WITHIN DRIP LINE OF TREES. NO TREE ROOTS OVER 1"
IN DIAMETER ARE TO BE CUT.
13.PROVIDE SHREDDED HARDWOOD BARK MULCH, NATURAL COLOR,
IN ALL PLANT SAUCERS AND PLANTING BEDS TO A 3-INCH MAXIMUM
DEPTH. APPLY PRE-EMERGENT TO ALL PLANTING BEDS PRIOR TO
MULCHING.
14.NEW TREES LOCATED OUTSIDE OF PLANT BEDS, SHALL BE
PLANTED A MINIMUM OF SIX FEET AWAY FROM PLANT BED.
15.NO TREES OR SHRUBS SHALL BE PLANTED CLOSER THAN 5' FROM
ANY UTILITY SERVICE VALVE, BASED ON ANTICIPATED TRUNK SIZE.
PLANTING NOTES
OVERSTORY TREES
QTY KEY BOTANICAL COMMON SIZE ROOT NOTES
2 WF ABIES CONCOLOR WHITE FIR 6'-8' HT B&B
6 CR CARPINUS CAROLINIANA AMERICAN HORNBEAM 2" CAL.B&B
6 CO CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS COMMON HACKBERRY 2" CAL.B&B
8 GT GLIDETSIA TRICANTHOS 'SKYLINE'SKYLINE HONEY LOCUST 2" CAL.B&B
11 GD GYMNOCLADUS DIOCUS 'ESPRESSO'ESPRESSO KENTUCKY COFFEE TREE 2" CAL.B&B
8 MA MACCKIA AMURENSIS AMUR MAAKIA 2" CAL.B&B
1 NS NYSSA SYLVANTICA BLACK TUPELO 2" CAL.B&B
5 PA PICEA ABIES NORWAY SPRUCE 6'-8' HT B&B
3 PG PICEA CLAUCA 'DENSATA'BLACK HILLS SPRICE 6'-8' HT B&B
3 PS PINUS STROBUS WHITE PINE 6'-8' HT B&B
3 QC QUERCUS COCCINEA SCARLET OAK 2" CAL.B&B
4 QM QUERCUS MACROCARPA BUR OAK 2" CAL.B&B
10 TC TSUGA CANADENSIS EASTERN HEMLOCK 6'-8' HT B&B
ORNAMENTAL TREES
QTY KEY BOTANICAL COMMON SIZE ROOT NOTES
5 AG AMELANCHIER X GRANDIFLORA 'AUTUMN BRILLIANCE'AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY 8' HT B&B MULTI-STEM
6 CG CRATEGUS CRUS-GALLI VAR. INERMIS THORNLESS COCKSPIR HAWTHRON 2" CAL.B&B
2 MS MAGNOLIA X SOULANGEANA SAUCER MAGNOLIA 8' HT B&B MULTI-STEM
12 MXP MALUS 'PRAIRIE FIRE'PRAIRIE FIRE CRABAPPLE 1.5" CAL.B&B
7 MXS MALUS 'SPRING SNOW'SPRING SNOW CRABAPPLE 1.5" CAL.B&B
3 SR SYRINGA RETICULATA SSP. RETICULATA 'IVORY SILK'IVORY SILK JAPANESE TREE LILAC 2" CAL.B&B
SHRUBS
QTY KEY BOTANICAL COMMON SIZE ROOT MATURE SIZE (HT. X WIDTH)
23 BB CEPHALANTHUS OCCIDENTALIS BUTTONBUSH #1 CONT.6' X 5'
175 DK DIERVILLA 'KODIAK ORANGE'KODIAK ORANGE DIERVILLA 18" HT CONT.4' X 4'
6 HV HAMAMELIS VIRGINIANA WITCH HAZEL 6' HT CONT 10' X 8'
16 BB HYDRANGEA PANICULATA 'ILVOBO' PP#22,782 BOBO HARDY HYDRANGEA #3 CONT.3' X 4'
7 IV ITEA VIRGINICA LITTLE HENRY SWEETSPIRE #3 CONT.3' X 3'
69 JH JUNIPERUS HORIZONTALIS 'HUGHES'HUGHES JUNIPER #3 CONT.1' X 6'
146 PO PHYSOCARPUS OPULIFOLIUS NINEBARK #1 CONT 5' X 4.5'
3 RL RHODODENDRON X 'LANDMARK'LANDMARK RHODODENDRON #3 CONT.4' X 4'
90 ST SPIRAEA BETULIFOLIA 'TOR'TOR SPIREA #3 CONT.3' X 3'
3 BZ SPIRAEA MEDIA DOUBLE PLAY BLUE KAZOO SPIREA #3 CONT.2' X 3'
25 TD TAXUS X MEDIA 'DENSIFORMIS'DENSE SPREADING YEW 48" HT CONT.4' X 6'
[ landscape architects ]
genus
T 515 284 1010
WWW.GENUS-LA.COM
325 EAST 5 STREET
DES MOINES, IA 50309
TH
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 10, 2021 - 3:26pm Z:\Projects2\20042-IC SENIOR LIVING\04 CAD\03 Current\20042-PP_PLANTING PLAN.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:L3.01 G. JOSEPH CLARKLOT 1SENIOR LIVINGLANDSCAPE NOTES & SCHEDULEHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLANPRELIMINARY20-0194WELCH
SET ROOT FLARE 2" ABOVE FINISH
GRADE. REMOVE BURLAP AND WIRE
CAGE FROM TOP HALF OF ROOTBALL.
SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH,
2" THICKNESS
FINISH GRADE
BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE
2X ROOTBALL
1 1/2X ROOTBALL
NOT TO SCALE1OVERSTORY TREE PLANTING
NOT TO SCALE3ORNAMENTAL TREE PLANTING
2X ROOTBALL
NOT TO SCALE4SHRUB PLANTING
2X ROOTBALL
NOT TO SCALE2EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING
SET ROOT FLARE 2" ABOVE FINISH
GRADE. REMOVE BURLAP AND WIRE
CAGE FROM TOP HALF OF ROOTBALL.
SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH,
2" THICKNESS
FINISH GRADE
BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE
SET ROOT FLARE 2" ABOVE FINISH
GRADE. REMOVE BURLAP AND WIRE
CAGE FROM TOP HALF OF ROOTBALL.
SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH,
2" THICKNESS
FINISH GRADE
BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE
SET ROOT FLARE 2" ABOVE FINISH
GRADE. REMOVE BURLAP AND WIRE
CAGE FROM TOP HALF OF ROOTBALL.
SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH,
2" THICKNESS
FINISH GRADE
BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE
EDGE OF PLANTING AREA
O.C.SPACING1/2 O.C.
SPACING
PLANT CENTER
NOT TO SCALE5PERENNIAL PLANTING
ROOTBALL
3/16" x 4" STEEL EDGING,
GALVANIZED
SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH,
2" THICKNESS
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE
[ landscape architects ]
genus
T 515 284 1010
WWW.GENUS-LA.COM
325 EAST 5 STREET
DES MOINES, IA 50309
TH
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 10, 2021 - 3:27pm Z:\Projects2\20042-IC SENIOR LIVING\04 CAD\03 Current\20042-DT_SITE DETAILS.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:L3.02 G. JOSEPH CLARKLOT 1SENIOR LIVINGLANDSCAPE DETAILSHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLANPRELIMINARY20-0194WELCH
23'87'69'69'1
7
5
'
13'
58'117'193'
75'78'214'
2
0
5
'29'41'23'53'2
2
3
'23'41'
29'91'18'110'174
'75'182'395'352'87'161'105'
47'96'41'41'107'C1
60'
45
OUTLOT A
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
944
770
775
765770770750755760755760765
765770770
775
7
7
5
7757707750 20 40
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Jan 22, 2021 - 4:45pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Sheets\Condos\200194 - Condo - Site Plan.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:C2.00 G. JOSEPH CLARKSITE PLANHICKORY TRAIL COMMONSLOT 45 - HICKORY TRAIL ESTATESNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION20-0194WELCHN. SC
O
T
T
B
L
V
D
HICKO
R
Y
T
R
AI
L
UNIT 1
STYLE "A"
UNIT 2
STYLE "A"
UNIT 3
STYLE "B"
UNIT 4
STYLE "A"
UNIT 5
STYLE "B"
UNIT 6
STYLE "B"
UNIT 7
STYLE "A"
UNIT 8
STYLE "B"
UNIT 9
STYLE "A"
UNIT 10
STYLE "B"
SITE INFORMATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT 45 HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES (PLAT PENDING APPROVAL)
TOTAL LOT AREA: 174,338 SF (4.00 AC)
PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT
DETACHED, SINGLE-FAMILY CONDOMINIUM
10 UNITS
ZONING INFORMATION
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE - LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (OPD/RS-5)
SETBACKS AND YARDS
FRONT YARD 15 FEET
SIDE YARD 5 FEET
REAR YARD 20 FEET
N. SCOTT BLVD 40 FEET
MINIMUM LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS
MIN. LOT AREA 8,000 SF
MIN. LOT WIDTH 60 FEET
MIN. LOT FRONTAGE 40 FEET
FLOOD ELEVATION
N/A
HICKORY COMMONS(PRIVATE DRIVE)25'
26'
75.51'℄ PAVEMENTTYPICAL 26' PRIVATE DRIVE SECTION
NOT TO SCALE 1
7" PCC PAVEMENT
26'
13'13'12'
5'
6" SUBBASE
6" SUBDRAIN
2.50%2.50%
4" PCC SIDEWALK
1.50%
BUILDING INFORMATION
EXTERIOR FINISHES:
ROOFING:CERTAINTEED LANDMARK WEATHERED WOOD SINGLES
MASONRY:ELDORADO STONE - MONTICETO CLIFFSTON
WINDOWS:ANDERSON 200-SERIES
SIDING:DIAMOND KOTE LP SMART SIDE
COLOR OPTION 1
SIDING FRENCH GRAY (LP SMART SIDE)
SOFFIT & FASCIA WHITE (ROLEX)
TRIM WHITE (DIAMOND KOTE)
GARAGE DOORS WHITE
FRONT DOOR SW ROYCROFT COPPER RED (SW#2839)
COLOR OPTION 2
SIDING FRENCH GRAY (LP SMART SIDE)
SOFFIT & FASCIA CLAY (ROLEX)
TRIM CLAY (DIAMOND KOTE)
GARAGE DOORS SANDSTONE
FRONT DOOR SW ROYCROFT BRONZE GREEN (SW#2846)
COLOR OPTION 3
SIDING CLAY (LP SMART SIDE)
SOFFIT & FASCIA WHITE (ROLEX)
TRIM CLAY (DIAMOND KOTE)
GARAGE DOORS SANDSTONE
FRONT DOOR SW ROYCROFT PEWTER (SW#2848)
45
174,338 SF
8
15,273 SF
OUTLOT A
444,957 SF
2
21,495 SF
4
17,320 SF
3
16,893 SF
5
16,855 SF
6
15,250 SF
"A"
184,197 SF
44
14,501 SF
7
15,131 SF
9
17,145 SF
02-SR
01-RP
03-PX
03-CC
01-PX
02-QR
02-QM
02-QB
01-QM
02-PA
01-PA
03-PC
03-BP
01-RP
03-CA
01-BF
01-RP
03-PX
03-CC
01-PX
03-CC
01-RP
01-BF
03-CA
01-RP
01-BF
01-RP
03-BP
03-PC
01-SR
02-PA
01-QM
03-PC
SEED/SOD ALL
DISTURBED AREAS
SEED/SOD ALL
DISTURBED AREAS
SEED/SOD ALL
DISTURBED AREAS
04-QM
03-QB
03-QR
03-QM
03-QB
LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCHEDULE
0 20 40
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Jan 22, 2021 - 4:19pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Sheets\Subdivision\200194 - L Sheets.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:L2.00 G. JOSEPH CLARKLOT 45LANDSCAPING PLANHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESIOWA CITY, IOWA 52245NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION20-0194WELCHLANDSCAPE PLANTING REQUIREMENTS
STREET TREES:
1 TREE / 60 LF (DOUBLE FRONTAGE)
941 LF FRONTAGE / 60 = 15.68
23 LARGE AND SMALL TREES PROVIDED
RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS:
01 TREE PER UNIT PROVIDED
LANDSCAPE LEGEND
PLANTS:
PROPOSED DECIDUOUS LARGE TREE
PROPOSED DECIDUOUS SMALL TREE
PROPOSED EVERGREEN TREE
DECIDUOUS SHRUB
EVERGREEN SHRUB
ORNAMENTAL GRASSES/FLOWERS
GROUND COVER:
SOD/SEED TURF IN ALL DISTURBED AREAS
N. SC
O
T
T
B
L
V
D
HICKO
R
Y
T
R
AI
L
2813 Rockefeller Avenue Suite B Everett WA, 98201
Tel: 425-339-8266 Fax: 425-258-2922 E-mail: info@gibsontraffic.com
Introduction
The Hickory Trail Estates development will consist of 120 continuing care retirement community
(CCRC) units and 55 single-family residences. The development is located south of Scott Boulevard
and west of N 1st Avenue. The development will construct a connection through the development that
will connect Scott Boulevard to N 1st Avenue through Hickory Trail. The development will be
constructed and fully occupied by 2025.
Methodology
The trip generation for the Hickory Trail Estates and the Oaknoll East Retirement Community is
calculated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 10th Edition (2017).
The average trip generation rates for the ITE Land Use Code (LUC) 255, continuing care retirement
community (CCRC) and LUC 210, single-family detached residential, have been used.
The intersection of N 1st Avenue at Scott Boulevard is not being analyzed as part of this report as it
is planned to be upgraded with a City project to a roundabout. The following intersections are being
analyzed as part of this report:
1. N 1st Avenue at Hickory Trail – Two-way Stop Controlled
2. Oaknoll East/Site Access at Scott Blvd – Two-way Stop Controlled
The development is expected to be fully built out and occupied by the year 2025; therefore, the year
2025 was used for future analysis. The analysis has been performed for the existing conditions, 2025
baseline conditions, and 2025 future with development conditions during the AM and PM peak-hours.
Existing counts were collected by AXIOM, on Thursday, January 7, 2021 for the AM and Tuesday,
January 12, 2021 for the PM at the intersection of N 1st Avenue at Hickory Trail.
Traffic volumes are impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the traffic volumes have been increased
by a 35% during the AM peak-hour and 30% during the PM peak-hour. This was determined based
on non-COVID-19 counts at the intersection of N 1st Avenue at Scott Boulevard and comparing link
volumes between the intersections. The 2025 baseline turning movements were calculated by
applying an annually compounding growth rate of 1% to the normalized existing turning volumes.
The 1% growth rate is based on conversations with Iowa City staff. The 2025 future with development
turning movements have been calculated by adding the development’s trips to the 2025 baseline
turning movements.
Hickory Trail Estates Traffic Impact Analysis
Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. January 2021
info@gibsontraffic.com 2 GTC #21-005
The peak-hour level of service (LOS) analysis calculations were completed using the Synchro 10
software. This software applies the operational analysis methodology of the current Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM). Traffic congestion is generally measured in terms of level of service. In
accordance with the HCM 6th Edition, road facilities and intersections are rated between LOS A and
LOS F, with LOS A being free flow and LOS F being forced flow or over-capacity conditions. The
level of service criteria is summarized in Table 1. The level of service at two-way stop-controlled
intersections is based on the average delay of the worst approach. The level of service at signalized
and all-way stop-controlled intersections is based on the average delay for all approaches. Geometric
characteristics and conflicting traffic movements are taken into consideration when determining level
of service values.
Table 1: Level of Service Criteria for Intersections
Level of 1
Service
Expected
Delay
Intersection Control Delay
(Seconds per Vehicle)
Unsignalized
Intersections
Signalized
Intersections
A Little/No Delay <10 <10
B Short Delays >10 and <15 >10 and <20
C Average Delays >15 and <25 >20 and <35
D Long Delays >25 and <35 >35 and <55
E Very Long Delays >35 and <50 >55 and <80
F Extreme Delays2 >50 >80
The acceptable level of service for intersections within Iowa City is LOS C/D and the significance of
impacts on intersections operating at LOS E or LOS F is taken on a case-by-case basis.
1 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition.
LOS A: Free-flow traffic conditions, with minimal delay to stopped vehicles (no vehicle is delayed longer than
one cycle at signalized intersection).
LOS B: Generally stable traffic flow conditions.
LOS C: Occasional back-ups may develop, but delay to vehicles is short term and still tolerable.
LOS D: During short periods of the peak hour, delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial but are
tolerable during times of less demand (i.e. vehicles delayed one cycle or less at signal).
LOS E: Intersections operate at or near capacity, with long queues developing on all approaches and long delays.
LOS F: Jammed conditions on all approaches with excessively long delays and vehicles unable to move at
times.
2 When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered with queuing which may
cause severe congestion affecting other traffic movements in the intersection.
Hickory Trail Estates Traffic Impact Analysis
Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. January 2021
info@gibsontraffic.com 3 GTC #21-005
TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION
Trip generation calculations for the Hickory Trail Estates are based on national statistics contained in
the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation, 10th Edition (2017). The average
trip generation rates for the ITE Land Use Code (LUC) 255, continuing care retirement community
(CCRC) and LUC 210, single-family detached residential, have been used. There are total of 120
CCRC units and 55 single-family residences.
The Hickory Trail Estates is anticipated to generate 808 new daily trips, 58 new AM peak-hour trips
and 74 new PM peak-hour trips. The trip generation is summarized in Table 2.
Table 2: Trip Generation Summary
Land Uses Average Daily Trips AM Peak-Hour Trips PM Peak-Hour Trips
Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total
LUC 255,
CCRC
120 Units
Generation
Rate 2.40 Trips per Unit 0.14 Trips per Unit 0.16 Trips per Unit
Splits 50% 50% 100% 65% 35% 100% 39% 61% 100
%
Trips 144 144 288 11 6 17 7 12 19
LUC 210,
Single
Family
Dwelling,
55 Units
Generation
Rate 9.44 Trips per Unit 0.75 Trips per Unit 0.99 Trips per Unit
Splits 50% 50% 100% 25% 75% 100% 63% 37% 100
%
Trips 260 260 520 10 31 41 35 20 55
TOTAL 404 404 808 21 37 58 42 32 74
The trip generation calculations are included in the attachments.
The Oaknoll East development on the north side of Scott Boulevard is not occupied so the trip
generation was estimated for the access opposite the proposed site access by using LUC 255 for 56
units. This generated 8 AM peak-hour trips (5 Inbound/3 Outbound) and 9 PM peak-hour trips (4
Inbound/5 Outbound). These trips were distributed on Scott Boulevard based on the roadway traffic
split of 55% to/from the west and 45% to/from the east.
Trip distribution and traffic assignments for the development are based on the existing turning
movement counts and the splits between Scott Boulevard and N 1st Avenue. It is anticipated that 45%
of the development traffic would travel to and from the west on Scott Boulevard and 15% to and from
the east of N 1st Avenue on Scott Boulevard. The remaining 40% would travel to and from the south
on N 1st Avenue from Hickory Trail. The development trips are included in the turning movement
sheets for the AM and PM peak-hours.
Hickory Trail Estates Traffic Impact Analysis
Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. January 2021
info@gibsontraffic.com 4 GTC #21-005
Level of Service Analysis
The existing channelization at the study intersections as well as the existing peak-hour factors were
utilized in determining the level of service analysis. The turning movements are included in the
attachments. The level of service analysis for the normalized existing, 2025 baseline, and 2025 future
with development conditions is summarized in Table 3.
Table 3: Intersection Level of Service Summary
Intersection Time
Period
Normalized
Existing
Conditions
2025 Baseline
Conditions
2025 Future
with Development
Conditions
LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay
1.
N 1st Avenue at
Hickory Trail
AM D 25.4 sec D 26.4 sec D 29.3 sec
PM C 18.5 sec C 19.5 sec C 21.3 sec
1.
Oaknoll East/Site Access at
Scott Boulevard
AM C 18.6 sec C 20.3 sec D 33.9 sec
PM C 20.1 sec C 22.0 sec D 34.1 sec
The study intersection is expected to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better in the normalized
existing, 2025 baseline and 2025 future with development conditions during both the AM and PM
peak-hours.
Collision Data
Collision Data was compiled for the years 2018 through 2020 from the Iowa DOT Iowa Crash
Analysis Tool for the intersection of N 1st Avenue at Hickory Trail and along Scott Boulevard in the
vicinity of the Site access. There were two collisions (one rear-end and one sideswipe) at the
intersection of N 1st Avenue and Hickory Trail. The collisions resulted in property damage and
possible injury. In the approximate location of the access to Scott Boulevard there was one rear-end
collision that resulted in a suspected minor injury. At both locations there was no collision trend or
significant collision history associated with the geometry of the road network. The detailed crash
reports are included in the attachments.
Channelization Warrant
Channelization analysis was performed determine if left-turn channelization is warranted on Scott
Boulevard. The left-turn channelization requirements at the intersection have been evaluated using
the WSDOT Design Manual. The left-turn channelization has been evaluated using Exhibit 1310-
7a Left-Turn Storage Guidelines: Two-Lane Unsignalized. The analysis shows that the small number
of left-turns does not reach the percentage threshold for requiring a dedicated pocket. It should be
noted that there is sufficient roadway width to restripe the roadway to provide a left-turn pocket if it
becomes warranted in the future.
Hickory Trail Estates Traffic Impact Analysis
Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. January 2021
info@gibsontraffic.com 5 GTC #21-005
Attachments
Trip Generation A-1 to A-10
Counts B-1 to B-3
Turning Movements C-1 to C-6
Level of Service Calculations D-1 to D-12
Collision Data E-1 to E-2
Channelization Warrant F-1
Hickory Trail EstatesGTC #21-005Trip Generation for: Weekday(a.k.a.): Average Weekday Daily Trips (AWDT)NET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPEIN BOTH DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTSGross TripsInternalCrossoverTOTAL PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEW PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEWLAND USES VARIABLEITE LU codeTripRate%IN%OUTIn+Out(Total)% ofGrossTripsTripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)In Out In Out In OutContinuing Care Retirement 120 units 255 2.40 50%50% 288.000%0 288.000%0.000%0 288.000000144144Single-Family (removed)55 units 210 9.44 50%50% 519.200%0 519.200%0.000%0 519.200000260260Totals807.200 807.200.000 807.200000404404A - 1
Hickory Trail EstatesGTC #21-005Trip Generation for: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour between 7 and 9 AM(a.k.a.): Weekday AM Peak HourNET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPEIN BOTH DIRECTIONSDIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTSGross TripsInternalCrossoverTOTAL PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEW PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEWLAND USESVARIABLEITE LU codeTripRate%IN%OUTIn+Out(Total)% ofGrossTripsTripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)In Out In Out In OutContinuing Care Retirement 120 units 2550.14 65%35% 170%0170%0 0% 0 16.80000010.925.88Single-Family (removed)55 units 2100.74 25%75% 410%0410%0 0% 0 40.70000010.1830.52Totals580 58 0 0 57.50000021.1036.40
A - 2
Hickory Trail EstatesGTC #21-005Trip Generation for: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour between 4 and 6 PM(a.k.a.): Weekday PM Peak HourNET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPEIN BOTH DIRECTIONSDIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTSGross TripsInternalCrossoverTOTAL PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEW PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEWLAND USESVARIABLEITE LU codeTripRate%IN%OUTIn+Out(Total)% ofGrossTripsTripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)In Out In Out In OutContinuing Care Retirement 120 units 2550.16 39%61% 190%0190%00%0 19.2000007.4911.71Single-Family (removed)55 units 2100.99 63%37% 540%0540%00%0 54.45000034.3020.15Totals740 74 0 0 73.65000041.7931.86
A - 3
Hickory Trail Estates
GTC #21-005
New New AM Peak Hour Trips New New AM Peak Hour Trips
ADT In Out Total ADT In Out Total
100% 807.20 21.10 36.40 57.50 100% 807.20 21.10 36.40 57.50
1% 8.07 0.21 0.36 0.58 51% 411.67 10.76 18.56 29.33
2% 16.14 0.42 0.73 1.15 52% 419.74 10.97 18.93 29.90
3% 24.22 0.63 1.09 1.73 53% 427.82 11.18 19.29 30.48
4% 32.29 0.84 1.46 2.30 54% 435.89 11.39 19.66 31.05
5% 40.36 1.06 1.82 2.88 55% 443.96 11.61 20.02 31.63
6% 48.43 1.27 2.18 3.45 56% 452.03 11.82 20.38 32.20
7% 56.50 1.48 2.55 4.03 57% 460.10 12.03 20.75 32.78
8% 64.58 1.69 2.91 4.60 58% 468.18 12.24 21.11 33.35
9% 72.65 1.90 3.28 5.18 59% 476.25 12.45 21.48 33.93
10% 80.72 2.11 3.64 5.75 60% 484.32 12.66 21.84 34.50
11% 88.79 2.32 4.00 6.33 61% 492.39 12.87 22.20 35.08
12% 96.86 2.53 4.37 6.90 62% 500.46 13.08 22.57 35.65
13% 104.94 2.74 4.73 7.48 63% 508.54 13.29 22.93 36.23
14% 113.01 2.95 5.10 8.05 64% 516.61 13.50 23.30 36.80
15% 121.08 3.17 5.46 8.63 65% 524.68 13.72 23.66 37.38
16% 129.15 3.38 5.82 9.20 66% 532.75 13.93 24.02 37.95
17% 137.22 3.59 6.19 9.78 67% 540.82 14.14 24.39 38.53
18% 145.30 3.80 6.55 10.35 68% 548.90 14.35 24.75 39.10
19% 153.37 4.01 6.92 10.93 69% 556.97 14.56 25.12 39.68
20% 161.44 4.22 7.28 11.50 70% 565.04 14.77 25.48 40.25
21% 169.51 4.43 7.64 12.08 71% 573.11 14.98 25.84 40.83
22% 177.58 4.64 8.01 12.65 72% 581.18 15.19 26.21 41.40
23% 185.66 4.85 8.37 13.23 73% 589.26 15.40 26.57 41.98
24% 193.73 5.06 8.74 13.80 74% 597.33 15.61 26.94 42.55
25% 201.80 5.28 9.10 14.38 75% 605.40 15.83 27.30 43.13
26% 209.87 5.49 9.46 14.95 76% 613.47 16.04 27.66 43.70
27% 217.94 5.70 9.83 15.53 77% 621.54 16.25 28.03 44.28
28% 226.02 5.91 10.19 16.10 78% 629.62 16.46 28.39 44.85
29% 234.09 6.12 10.56 16.68 79% 637.69 16.67 28.76 45.43
30% 242.16 6.33 10.92 17.25 80% 645.76 16.88 29.12 46.00
31% 250.23 6.54 11.28 17.83 81% 653.83 17.09 29.48 46.58
32% 258.30 6.75 11.65 18.40 82% 661.90 17.30 29.85 47.15
33% 266.38 6.96 12.01 18.98 83% 669.98 17.51 30.21 47.73
34% 274.45 7.17 12.38 19.55 84% 678.05 17.72 30.58 48.30
35% 282.52 7.39 12.74 20.13 85% 686.12 17.94 30.94 48.88
36% 290.59 7.60 13.10 20.70 86% 694.19 18.15 31.30 49.45
37% 298.66 7.81 13.47 21.28 87% 702.26 18.36 31.67 50.03
38% 306.74 8.02 13.83 21.85 88% 710.34 18.57 32.03 50.60
39% 314.81 8.23 14.20 22.43 89% 718.41 18.78 32.40 51.18
40% 322.88 8.44 14.56 23.00 90% 726.48 18.99 32.76 51.75
41% 330.95 8.65 14.92 23.58 91% 734.55 19.20 33.12 52.33
42% 339.02 8.86 15.29 24.15 92% 742.62 19.41 33.49 52.90
43% 347.10 9.07 15.65 24.73 93% 750.70 19.62 33.85 53.48
44% 355.17 9.28 16.02 25.30 94% 758.77 19.83 34.22 54.05
45% 363.24 9.50 16.38 25.88 95% 766.84 20.05 34.58 54.63
46% 371.31 9.71 16.74 26.45 96% 774.91 20.26 34.94 55.20
47% 379.38 9.92 17.11 27.03 97% 782.98 20.47 35.31 55.78
48% 387.46 10.13 17.47 27.60 98% 791.06 20.68 35.67 56.35
49% 395.53 10.34 17.84 28.18 99% 799.13 20.89 36.04 56.93
50% 403.60 10.55 18.20 28.75 100% 807.20 21.10 36.40 57.50
%%
AM Peak-Hour
A - 4
Hickory Trail Estates
GTC #21-005
New New PM Peak Hour Trips New New PM Peak Hour Trips
ADT In Out Total ADT In Out Total
100% 807.20 41.79 31.86 73.65 100% 807.20 41.79 31.86 73.65
1% 8.07 0.42 0.32 0.74 51% 411.67 21.31 16.25 37.56
2% 16.14 0.84 0.64 1.47 52% 419.74 21.73 16.57 38.30
3% 24.22 1.25 0.96 2.21 53% 427.82 22.15 16.89 39.03
4% 32.29 1.67 1.27 2.95 54% 435.89 22.57 17.20 39.77
5% 40.36 2.09 1.59 3.68 55% 443.96 22.98 17.52 40.51
6% 48.43 2.51 1.91 4.42 56% 452.03 23.40 17.84 41.24
7% 56.50 2.93 2.23 5.16 57% 460.10 23.82 18.16 41.98
8% 64.58 3.34 2.55 5.89 58% 468.18 24.24 18.48 42.72
9% 72.65 3.76 2.87 6.63 59% 476.25 24.66 18.80 43.45
10% 80.72 4.18 3.19 7.37 60% 484.32 25.07 19.12 44.19
11% 88.79 4.60 3.50 8.10 61% 492.39 25.49 19.43 44.93
12% 96.86 5.01 3.82 8.84 62% 500.46 25.91 19.75 45.66
13% 104.94 5.43 4.14 9.57 63% 508.54 26.33 20.07 46.40
14% 113.01 5.85 4.46 10.31 64% 516.61 26.75 20.39 47.14
15% 121.08 6.27 4.78 11.05 65% 524.68 27.16 20.71 47.87
16% 129.15 6.69 5.10 11.78 66% 532.75 27.58 21.03 48.61
17% 137.22 7.10 5.42 12.52 67% 540.82 28.00 21.35 49.35
18% 145.30 7.52 5.73 13.26 68% 548.90 28.42 21.66 50.08
19% 153.37 7.94 6.05 13.99 69% 556.97 28.84 21.98 50.82
20% 161.44 8.36 6.37 14.73 70% 565.04 29.25 22.30 51.56
21% 169.51 8.78 6.69 15.47 71% 573.11 29.67 22.62 52.29
22% 177.58 9.19 7.01 16.20 72% 581.18 30.09 22.94 53.03
23% 185.66 9.61 7.33 16.94 73% 589.26 30.51 23.26 53.76
24% 193.73 10.03 7.65 17.68 74% 597.33 30.92 23.58 54.50
25% 201.80 10.45 7.97 18.41 75% 605.40 31.34 23.90 55.24
26% 209.87 10.87 8.28 19.15 76% 613.47 31.76 24.21 55.97
27% 217.94 11.28 8.60 19.89 77% 621.54 32.18 24.53 56.71
28% 226.02 11.70 8.92 20.62 78% 629.62 32.60 24.85 57.45
29% 234.09 12.12 9.24 21.36 79% 637.69 33.01 25.17 58.18
30% 242.16 12.54 9.56 22.10 80% 645.76 33.43 25.49 58.92
31% 250.23 12.95 9.88 22.83 81% 653.83 33.85 25.81 59.66
32% 258.30 13.37 10.20 23.57 82% 661.90 34.27 26.13 60.39
33% 266.38 13.79 10.51 24.30 83% 669.98 34.69 26.44 61.13
34% 274.45 14.21 10.83 25.04 84% 678.05 35.10 26.76 61.87
35% 282.52 14.63 11.15 25.78 85% 686.12 35.52 27.08 62.60
36% 290.59 15.04 11.47 26.51 86% 694.19 35.94 27.40 63.34
37% 298.66 15.46 11.79 27.25 87% 702.26 36.36 27.72 64.08
38% 306.74 15.88 12.11 27.99 88% 710.34 36.78 28.04 64.81
39% 314.81 16.30 12.43 28.72 89% 718.41 37.19 28.36 65.55
40% 322.88 16.72 12.74 29.46 90% 726.48 37.61 28.67 66.29
41% 330.95 17.13 13.06 30.20 91% 734.55 38.03 28.99 67.02
42% 339.02 17.55 13.38 30.93 92% 742.62 38.45 29.31 67.76
43% 347.10 17.97 13.70 31.67 93% 750.70 38.86 29.63 68.49
44% 355.17 18.39 14.02 32.41 94% 758.77 39.28 29.95 69.23
45% 363.24 18.81 14.34 33.14 95% 766.84 39.70 30.27 69.97
46% 371.31 19.22 14.66 33.88 96% 774.91 40.12 30.59 70.70
47% 379.38 19.64 14.97 34.62 97% 782.98 40.54 30.90 71.44
48% 387.46 20.06 15.29 35.35 98% 791.06 40.95 31.22 72.18
49% 395.53 20.48 15.61 36.09 99% 799.13 41.37 31.54 72.91
50% 403.60 20.90 15.93 36.83 100% 807.20 41.79 31.86 73.65
%%
PM Peak-Hour
A - 5
Hickory Trail EstatesGTC #21-005Oaknoll East/Hampstead WoodsTrip Generation for: Weekday(a.k.a.): Average Weekday Daily Trips (AWDT)NET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPEIN BOTH DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTSGross TripsInternalCrossoverTOTAL PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEW PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEWLAND USES VARIABLEITE LU codeTripRate%IN%OUTIn+Out(Total)% ofGrossTripsTripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)In Out In Out In OutContinuing Care Retirement 56 units 255 2.40 50%50% 134.400%0 134.400%0.000%0 134.4000006767Totals134.40 0 134.40 0.00 0 134.4000006767A - 6
Hickory Trail EstatesGTC #21-005Oaknoll East/Hampstead WoodsTrip Generation for: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour between 7 and 9 AM(a.k.a.): Weekday AM Peak HourNET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPEIN BOTH DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTSGross TripsInternalCrossoverTOTAL PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEW PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEWLAND USES VARIABLEITE LU codeTripRate%IN%OUTIn+Out(Total)% ofGrossTripsTripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)In Out In Out In OutContinuing Care Retirement 56 units 2550.14 65%35% 80%080%0 0% 0 7.8400005.10 2.74Totals8 0 8 0 0 7.8400005.10 2.74
A - 7
Hickory Trail EstatesGTC #21-005Oaknoll East/Hampstead WoodsTrip Generation for: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour between 4 and 6 PM(a.k.a.): Weekday PM Peak HourNET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPEIN BOTH DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTSGross TripsInternalCrossoverTOTAL PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEW PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEWLAND USES VARIABLEITE LU codeTripRate%IN%OUTIn+Out(Total)% ofGrossTripsTripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)In Out In Out In OutContinuing Care Retirement 56 units 2550.16 39%61% 90%090%00%0 8.9600003.49 5.47Totals9 0 9 0 0 8.9600003.49 5.47
A - 8
Hickory Trail Estates
GTC #21-005
Oaknoll East/Hampstead Woods
New New AM Peak Hour Trips New New AM Peak Hour Trips
ADT In Out Total ADT In Out Total
100% 134.40 5.10 2.74 7.84 100% 134.40 5.10 2.74 7.84
1% 1.34 0.05 0.03 0.08 51% 68.54 2.60 1.40 4.00
2% 2.69 0.10 0.05 0.16 52% 69.89 2.65 1.42 4.08
3% 4.03 0.15 0.08 0.24 53% 71.23 2.70 1.45 4.16
4% 5.38 0.20 0.11 0.31 54% 72.58 2.75 1.48 4.23
5% 6.72 0.26 0.14 0.39 55% 73.92 2.81 1.51 4.31
6% 8.06 0.31 0.16 0.47 56% 75.26 2.86 1.53 4.39
7% 9.41 0.36 0.19 0.55 57% 76.61 2.91 1.56 4.47
8% 10.75 0.41 0.22 0.63 58% 77.95 2.96 1.59 4.55
9% 12.10 0.46 0.25 0.71 59% 79.30 3.01 1.62 4.63
10% 13.44 0.51 0.27 0.78 60% 80.64 3.06 1.64 4.70
11% 14.78 0.56 0.30 0.86 61% 81.98 3.11 1.67 4.78
12% 16.13 0.61 0.33 0.94 62% 83.33 3.16 1.70 4.86
13% 17.47 0.66 0.36 1.02 63% 84.67 3.21 1.73 4.94
14% 18.82 0.71 0.38 1.10 64% 86.02 3.26 1.75 5.02
15% 20.16 0.77 0.41 1.18 65% 87.36 3.32 1.78 5.10
16% 21.50 0.82 0.44 1.25 66% 88.70 3.37 1.81 5.17
17% 22.85 0.87 0.47 1.33 67% 90.05 3.42 1.84 5.25
18% 24.19 0.92 0.49 1.41 68% 91.39 3.47 1.86 5.33
19% 25.54 0.97 0.52 1.49 69% 92.74 3.52 1.89 5.41
20% 26.88 1.02 0.55 1.57 70% 94.08 3.57 1.92 5.49
21% 28.22 1.07 0.58 1.65 71% 95.42 3.62 1.95 5.57
22% 29.57 1.12 0.60 1.72 72% 96.77 3.67 1.97 5.64
23% 30.91 1.17 0.63 1.80 73% 98.11 3.72 2.00 5.72
24% 32.26 1.22 0.66 1.88 74% 99.46 3.77 2.03 5.80
25% 33.60 1.28 0.69 1.96 75% 100.80 3.83 2.06 5.88
26% 34.94 1.33 0.71 2.04 76% 102.14 3.88 2.08 5.96
27% 36.29 1.38 0.74 2.12 77% 103.49 3.93 2.11 6.04
28% 37.63 1.43 0.77 2.20 78% 104.83 3.98 2.14 6.12
29% 38.98 1.48 0.79 2.27 79% 106.18 4.03 2.16 6.19
30% 40.32 1.53 0.82 2.35 80% 107.52 4.08 2.19 6.27
31% 41.66 1.58 0.85 2.43 81% 108.86 4.13 2.22 6.35
32% 43.01 1.63 0.88 2.51 82% 110.21 4.18 2.25 6.43
33% 44.35 1.68 0.90 2.59 83% 111.55 4.23 2.27 6.51
34% 45.70 1.73 0.93 2.67 84% 112.90 4.28 2.30 6.59
35% 47.04 1.79 0.96 2.74 85% 114.24 4.34 2.33 6.66
36% 48.38 1.84 0.99 2.82 86% 115.58 4.39 2.36 6.74
37% 49.73 1.89 1.01 2.90 87% 116.93 4.44 2.38 6.82
38% 51.07 1.94 1.04 2.98 88% 118.27 4.49 2.41 6.90
39% 52.42 1.99 1.07 3.06 89% 119.62 4.54 2.44 6.98
40% 53.76 2.04 1.10 3.14 90% 120.96 4.59 2.47 7.06
41% 55.10 2.09 1.12 3.21 91% 122.30 4.64 2.49 7.13
42% 56.45 2.14 1.15 3.29 92% 123.65 4.69 2.52 7.21
43% 57.79 2.19 1.18 3.37 93% 124.99 4.74 2.55 7.29
44% 59.14 2.24 1.21 3.45 94% 126.34 4.79 2.58 7.37
45% 60.48 2.30 1.23 3.53 95% 127.68 4.85 2.60 7.45
46% 61.82 2.35 1.26 3.61 96% 129.02 4.90 2.63 7.53
47% 63.17 2.40 1.29 3.68 97% 130.37 4.95 2.66 7.60
48% 64.51 2.45 1.32 3.76 98% 131.71 5.00 2.69 7.68
49% 65.86 2.50 1.34 3.84 99% 133.06 5.05 2.71 7.76
50% 67.20 2.55 1.37 3.92 100% 134.40 5.10 2.74 7.84
%%
AM Peak-Hour
A - 9
Hickory Trail Estates
GTC #21-005
Oaknoll East/Hampstead Woods
New New PM Peak Hour Trips New New PM Peak Hour Trips
ADT In Out Total ADT In Out Total
100% 134.40 3.49 5.47 8.96 100% 134.40 3.49 5.47 8.96
1% 1.34 0.03 0.05 0.09 51% 68.54 1.78 2.79 4.57
2% 2.69 0.07 0.11 0.18 52% 69.89 1.81 2.84 4.66
3% 4.03 0.10 0.16 0.27 53% 71.23 1.85 2.90 4.75
4% 5.38 0.14 0.22 0.36 54% 72.58 1.88 2.95 4.84
5% 6.72 0.17 0.27 0.45 55% 73.92 1.92 3.01 4.93
6% 8.06 0.21 0.33 0.54 56% 75.26 1.95 3.06 5.02
7% 9.41 0.24 0.38 0.63 57% 76.61 1.99 3.12 5.11
8% 10.75 0.28 0.44 0.72 58% 77.95 2.02 3.17 5.20
9% 12.10 0.31 0.49 0.81 59% 79.30 2.06 3.23 5.29
10% 13.44 0.35 0.55 0.90 60% 80.64 2.09 3.28 5.38
11% 14.78 0.38 0.60 0.99 61% 81.98 2.13 3.34 5.47
12% 16.13 0.42 0.66 1.08 62% 83.33 2.16 3.39 5.56
13% 17.47 0.45 0.71 1.16 63% 84.67 2.20 3.45 5.64
14% 18.82 0.49 0.77 1.25 64% 86.02 2.23 3.50 5.73
15% 20.16 0.52 0.82 1.34 65% 87.36 2.27 3.56 5.82
16% 21.50 0.56 0.88 1.43 66% 88.70 2.30 3.61 5.91
17% 22.85 0.59 0.93 1.52 67% 90.05 2.34 3.66 6.00
18% 24.19 0.63 0.98 1.61 68% 91.39 2.37 3.72 6.09
19% 25.54 0.66 1.04 1.70 69% 92.74 2.41 3.77 6.18
20% 26.88 0.70 1.09 1.79 70% 94.08 2.44 3.83 6.27
21% 28.22 0.73 1.15 1.88 71% 95.42 2.48 3.88 6.36
22% 29.57 0.77 1.20 1.97 72% 96.77 2.51 3.94 6.45
23% 30.91 0.80 1.26 2.06 73% 98.11 2.55 3.99 6.54
24% 32.26 0.84 1.31 2.15 74% 99.46 2.58 4.05 6.63
25% 33.60 0.87 1.37 2.24 75% 100.80 2.62 4.10 6.72
26% 34.94 0.91 1.42 2.33 76% 102.14 2.65 4.16 6.81
27% 36.29 0.94 1.48 2.42 77% 103.49 2.69 4.21 6.90
28% 37.63 0.98 1.53 2.51 78% 104.83 2.72 4.27 6.99
29% 38.98 1.01 1.59 2.60 79% 106.18 2.76 4.32 7.08
30% 40.32 1.05 1.64 2.69 80% 107.52 2.79 4.38 7.17
31% 41.66 1.08 1.70 2.78 81% 108.86 2.83 4.43 7.26
32% 43.01 1.12 1.75 2.87 82% 110.21 2.86 4.49 7.35
33% 44.35 1.15 1.81 2.96 83% 111.55 2.90 4.54 7.44
34% 45.70 1.19 1.86 3.05 84% 112.90 2.93 4.59 7.53
35% 47.04 1.22 1.91 3.14 85% 114.24 2.97 4.65 7.62
36% 48.38 1.26 1.97 3.23 86% 115.58 3.00 4.70 7.71
37% 49.73 1.29 2.02 3.32 87% 116.93 3.04 4.76 7.80
38% 51.07 1.33 2.08 3.40 88% 118.27 3.07 4.81 7.88
39% 52.42 1.36 2.13 3.49 89% 119.62 3.11 4.87 7.97
40% 53.76 1.40 2.19 3.58 90% 120.96 3.14 4.92 8.06
41% 55.10 1.43 2.24 3.67 91% 122.30 3.18 4.98 8.15
42% 56.45 1.47 2.30 3.76 92% 123.65 3.21 5.03 8.24
43% 57.79 1.50 2.35 3.85 93% 124.99 3.25 5.09 8.33
44% 59.14 1.54 2.41 3.94 94% 126.34 3.28 5.14 8.42
45% 60.48 1.57 2.46 4.03 95% 127.68 3.32 5.20 8.51
46% 61.82 1.61 2.52 4.12 96% 129.02 3.35 5.25 8.60
47% 63.17 1.64 2.57 4.21 97% 130.37 3.39 5.31 8.69
48% 64.51 1.68 2.63 4.30 98% 131.71 3.42 5.36 8.78
49% 65.86 1.71 2.68 4.39 99% 133.06 3.46 5.42 8.87
50% 67.20 1.75 2.74 4.48 100% 134.40 3.49 5.47 8.96
%%
PM Peak-Hour
A - 10
Counted by AXIOM on Thursday, January 7, 2021.AM Peak‐HourInt PHF 0.76290 553 263StartPeak0 285 51 254 8TimeHour 07:00 AM02501031350000654460N 1st Avenue807:15 AM045020614701001025800003807:30 AM0522208251010111960803007:45 AM0791105106202001605856 Hickory Trail 608 Hickory Trail 63North08:00 AM0100140967801001995381508:15 AM054110826301001306002508:30 AM04322064380100965N 1st Avenue2008:45 AM04604044550000113PH Sum0285580302025405016085 285 300 254 20320 594 274Counted by AXIOM on Tuesday, January 12, 2021.PM Peak‐HourInt PHF 0.91302 594 292StartPeak0 289 130 287 5TimeHour 03:00 PM061030786010001405670N 1st Avenue503:15 PM143540549810011625811002403:30 PM0520007678010014456911903:45 PM158020255300001215872 Hickory Trail 639 Hickory Trail 61North04:00 PM06722041168000015461701304:15 PM061530576900001506391003704:30 PM060210478800001626341N 1st Avenue2404:45 PM0803106457000015162305:00 PM088300467311001765571 289 191 287 2405:15 PM066340312561000145309 621 31205:30 PM1686306562000015105:45 PM0473003427010085PH Sum0289135019242871100639TotalsPeakRight Thru Left Right Thru LeftLeft Right Thru LeftHickory TrailFrom WestRight Thru Left Right Thru LeftFrom EastN. 1st AvenueFrom SouthFrom North From East From SouthN. 1st Avenue Hickory Trail N. 1st AvenueHickory TrailFrom WestRight Thru Left Right Thru Left Right ThruN. 1st AvenueFrom NorthHickory TrailB - 1
Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left PedsTotals Peak Hr?LEG 1 LEG 2 LEG 3 LEG 4 INTERSECT07:15 AM110066400097606429112511226 2 70 85 94 25107:30 AM010095800059608640002951226 1 67 101 126 29507:45 AM001016780111210408449003451153 1 94 117 133 34508:00 AM00301164101108811074550335 3769915733508:15 AM1410224310018710652320251 666899025108:30 AM003093220012800632100222 3439284222Pk hr total155058243212453591342157701226 % of mvmt9% 45% 45%19% 80% 1%0% 11% 88%68% 31% 1%% of ttl traffic 0% 0% 0%5% 20% 0%0% 4% 29%28% 13% 1%movement %1%25%33%41%PHFBy Movem#DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1.250.91 0.78 #DIV/0!0.50 0.94 0.861.02 0.80 #DIV/0!Approach2.750.810.870.95Intersection0.89Trucks# Trucks000 000 000 000# All vehic1 5 558 243 22 45 359342 157 7% Trucks0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%Bikes# Bikes000 000 000 000# All vehicl1 5 558 243 22 45 359342 157 7% Bikes0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%15 min Vehicle Approach Totals N 1ST AVENUE N SCOTT BOULEVARD N 1ST AVENUE N SCOTT BOULEVARD N 1ST AVENUE N SCOTT BOULEVARD N 1ST AVENUE N SCOTT BOULEVARD Comment 3: Select File/Preference in the Main ScreeComment 4: Then Click the Comments TabN 1ST AVENUE From NorthN SCOTT BOULEVARD From EastN 1ST AVENUE From SouthN SCOTT BOULEVARD From WestSite Code: 00000000Comment 1: Default CommentsComment 2: Change These in The Preferences WindowFile Name: S:\JCCOG\TRANS\Traffic Counts\Peak Hr\Iowa City\N 1st Ave & N Scott Blvd - AM - Aug18.ppdStart Date: 8/29/2018Start Time: 7:15:00 AM
B - 2
Intersection Peak Hour
Location: 1st Ave at Scott Blvd ,
GPS Coordinates:
Date: 2018-09-06
Day of week: Thursday
Weather:
Analyst: NB
SB: 1st Ave
EB: Scott BlvdWB: Scott BlvdNB: 1st Ave
6
224
336
9
200
0
27 45 35
378 7 2
Intersection Peak Hour
16:15 - 17:15
SouthBound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Total
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
Vehicle Total 35 45 27 0 200 9 378 7 2 6 224 336 1269
Factor 0.51 0.62 0.48 0.00 0.93 0.56 0.92 0.88 0.50 0.50 0.85 0.92 0.97
Approach Factor 0.55 0.92 0.93 0.91
B - 3
1 N 1st Ave @ Hickory Trail Page 1 of 3
Synchro ID: 1
Existing 290 553 263
Average Weekday 0 285 5 1 254 8
AM Peak Hour
0 N 1st Avenue 8
Year: 1/7/21 0 0 0 38
0 30
Data Source:AXIOM 6 Hickory Trail 608 Hickory Trail 63
North
1 5
6 0 0 25
5 N 1st Avenue 20
5 285 30 0 254 20
320 594 274
392 747 355
0 385 7 1 343 11
Average Weekday
AM Peak Hour 0 N 1st Avenue 11
0 0 051
Percent Change:35.0%0 41
8 Hickory Trail 821 Hickory Trail 85 North
1 7
800 34
7 N 1st Avenue 27
7 385 41 0 343 27
432 802 370
Future without Project 407 776 369
Average Weekday 0 400 7 1 357 11
AM Peak Hour
0 N 1st Avenue 11
Year:2025 0 0 053
Growth Rate =1.0%0 42
Years of Growth = 4 8 Hickory Trail 853 Hickory Trail 88 North
Total Growth = 1.0406 1 7
800 35
7 N 1st Avenue 28
7 400 42 0 357 28
449 834 385
Total Project Trips 000
Average Weekday 000 000
AM Peak Hour
0 N 1st Avenue 0
8 0 0 0
8 0
23 Hickory Trail 23 Hickory Trail 0 North
0 0
15 0 0 0
15 N 1st Avenue 0
15 0 0 800
15 23 8
Future with Project 407 776 369
Average Weekday 0 400 7 1 357 11
AM Peak Hour
0 N 1st Avenue 11
8 0 053
8 42
31 Hickory Trail 876 Hickory Trail 88
North
1 7
23 0 0 35
22 N 1st Avenue 28
22 400 42 8 357 28
464 857 393
Normalized Existing (COVID-
19 Factor)
Based on balancing volumes
from the intersection of N 1st
Avenue at Scott Blvd.
C - 1
2 Access @ Scott Blvd Page 2 of 3
Synchro ID: 2
Existing 385
Average Weekday 201 302
AM Peak Hour
2 Oaknoll East 2
Year: 8/29/18 605 603 603 605
0 0
Data Source:Iowa City 1,114 Scott Blvd 1,117 Scott Blvd 1,112
North
3 1
509 506 506 507
0 Site Access 0
000 000
000
385
201 302
Average Weekday
AM Peak Hour 2 Oaknoll East 2
605 603 603 605
Percent Change:0.0%0 0
1,114 Scott Blvd 1,117 Scott Blvd 1,112
North
3 1
509 506 506 507
0 Site Access 0
000 000
000
Future without Project 385
Average Weekday 2 0 1 302
AM Peak Hour
2 Oaknoll East 2
Year:2025 648 646 646 648
Growth Rate =1.0%0 0
Years of Growth = 7 1,194 Scott Blvd 1,197 Scott Blvd 1,192
North
Total Growth = 1.0721 3 1
546 543 543 544
0 Site Access 0
000 000
000
Total Project Trips 000
Average Weekday 000 000
AM Peak Hour
0 Oaknoll East 0
17 0 0 3
17 3
27 Scott Blvd 35 Scott Blvd 8
North
0 0
10 0 0 5
10 Site Access 5
10 0 3 17 0 5
13 35 22
Future with Project 385
Average Weekday 2 0 1 302
AM Peak Hour
2 Oaknoll East 2
665 646 646 651
17 3
1,221 Scott Blvd 1,232 Scott Blvd 1,200
North
3 1
556 543 543 549
10 Site Access 5
10 0 3 17 0 5
13 35 22
Normalized Existing (COVID-
19 Factor)
C - 2
3 N 1st Ave @ Scott Blvd Page 3 of 3
Synchro ID: 3
Existing 11 121 110
Average Weekday 155 74558
AM Peak Hour
1 N 1st Avenue 58
Year: 8/29/18 603 243 243 303
359 2
Data Source:Iowa City 1,109 Scott Blvd 1,226 Scott Blvd 467
North
7 5
506 157 157 164
342 N 1st Avenue 2
342 5 2 359 45 2
349 755 406
11 121 110
155 74558
Average Weekday
AM Peak Hour 1 N 1st Avenue 58
603 243 243 303
Percent Change:0.0%359 2
1,109 Scott Blvd 1,226 Scott Blvd 467
North
7 5
506 157 157 164
342 N 1st Avenue 2
342 5 2 359 45 2
349 755 406
Future without Project 11 129 118
Average Weekday 1 5 5 84862
AM Peak Hour
1 N 1st Avenue 62
Year:2025 647 261 261 325
Growth Rate =1.0%385 2
Years of Growth = 7 1,190 Scott Blvd 1,314 Scott Blvd 500
North
Total Growth = 1.0721 8 5
543 168 168 175
367 N 1st Avenue 2
367 5 2 385 48 2
374 809 435
Total Project Trips 000
Average Weekday 000 000
AM Peak Hour
0 N 1st Avenue 0
3 3 3 3
0 0
8 Scott Blvd 8 Scott Blvd 8
North
0 0
5 5 5 5
0 N 1st Avenue 0
000 000
000
Future with Project 11 129 118
Average Weekday 1 5 5 84862
AM Peak Hour
1 N 1st Avenue 62
650 264 264 328
385 2
1,198 Scott Blvd 1,322 Scott Blvd 508
North
8 5
548 173 173 180
367 N 1st Avenue 2
367 5 2 385 48 2
374 809 435
Normalized Existing (COVID-
19 Factor)
C - 3
1 N 1st Ave @ Hickory Trail Page 1 of 3
Synchro ID: 1
Existing 302 594 292
Average Weekday 0 289 13 0 287 5
PM Peak Hour
0 N 1st Avenue 5
Year: 1/12/21 1 0 0 24
1 19
Data Source:AXIOM 2 Hickory Trail 639 Hickory Trail 61
North
0 13
1 0 0 37
1 N 1st Avenue 24
1 289 19 1 287 24
309 621 312
393 772 380
0 376 17 0 373 7
Average Weekday
PM Peak Hour 0 N 1st Avenue 7
1 0 031
Percent Change:30.0%1 25
3 Hickory Trail 831 Hickory Trail 79 North
0 17
100 48
1 N 1st Avenue 31
1 376 25 1 373 31
402 807 406
Future without Project 409 804 395
Average Weekday 0 391 18 0 388 7
PM Peak Hour
0 N 1st Avenue 7
Year:2025 1 0 033
Growth Rate =1.0%1 26
Years of Growth = 4 2 Hickory Trail 864 Hickory Trail 83 North
Total Growth = 1.0406 0 18
100 50
1 N 1st Avenue 32
1 391 26 1 388 32
418 839 421
Total Project Trips 000
Average Weekday 000 000
PM Peak Hour
0 N 1st Avenue 0
17 0 0 0
17 0
30 Hickory Trail 30 Hickory Trail 0 North
0 0
13 0 0 0
13 N 1st Avenue 0
13 0 0 17 0 0
13 30 17
Future with Project 409 804 395
Average Weekday 0 391 18 0 388 7
PM Peak Hour
0 N 1st Avenue 7
18 0 033
18 26
32 Hickory Trail 894 Hickory Trail 83
North
0 18
14 0 0 50
14 N 1st Avenue 32
14 391 26 18 388 32
431 869 438
Normalized Existing (COVID-
19 Factor)
Based on balancing volumes
from the intersection of N 1st
Avenue at Scott Blvd.
C - 4
2 Access @ Scott Blvd Page 2 of 3
Synchro ID: 2
Existing 594
Average Weekday 302 202
PM Peak Hour
3 Oaknoll East 2
Year: 9/6/18 608 605 605 607
0 0
Data Source:Iowa City 1,176 Scott Blvd 1,180 Scott Blvd 1,175
North
2 2
568 566 566 568
0 Site Access 0
000 000
000
594
302 202
Average Weekday
PM Peak Hour 3 Oaknoll East 2
608 605 605 607
Percent Change:0.0%0 0
1,176 Scott Blvd 1,180 Scott Blvd 1,175
North
2 2
568 566 566 568
0 Site Access 0
000 000
000
Future without Project 594
Average Weekday 3 0 2 202
PM Peak Hour
3 Oaknoll East 2
Year:2025 652 649 649 651
Growth Rate =1.0%0 0
Years of Growth = 7 1,261 Scott Blvd 1,265 Scott Blvd 1,260
North
Total Growth = 1.0721 2 2
609 607 607 609
0 Site Access 0
000 000
000
Total Project Trips 000
Average Weekday 000 000
PM Peak Hour
0 Oaknoll East 0
14 0 0 6
14 6
33 Scott Blvd 44 Scott Blvd 11
North
0 0
19 0 0 5
19 Site Access 5
19 0 6 14 0 5
25 44 19
Future with Project 594
Average Weekday 3 0 2 202
PM Peak Hour
3 Oaknoll East 2
666 649 649 657
14 6
1,294 Scott Blvd 1,309 Scott Blvd 1,271
North
2 2
628 607 607 614
19 Site Access 5
19 0 6 14 0 5
25 44 19
Normalized Existing (COVID-
19 Factor)
C - 5
3 N 1st Ave @ Scott Blvd Page 3 of 3
Synchro ID: 3
Existing 107 129 22
Average Weekday 27 45 35 679
PM Peak Hour
27 N 1st Avenue 9
Year: 9/6/18 605 200 200 209
378 0
Data Source:Iowa City 1,171 Scott Blvd 1,269 Scott Blvd 470
North
6 35
566 224 224 261
336 N 1st Avenue 2
336 45 0 378 7 2
381 768 387
107 129 22
27 45 35 679
Average Weekday
PM Peak Hour 27 N 1st Avenue 9
605 200 200 209
Percent Change:0.0%378 0
1,171 Scott Blvd 1,269 Scott Blvd 470
North
6 35
566 224 224 261
336 N 1st Avenue 2
336 45 0 378 7 2
381 768 387
Future without Project 115 139 24
Average Weekday 29 48 38 6810
PM Peak Hour
29 N 1st Avenue 10
Year:2025 648 214 214 224
Growth Rate =1.0%405 0
Years of Growth = 7 1,254 Scott Blvd 1,360 Scott Blvd 504
North
Total Growth = 1.0721 6 38
606 240 240 280
360 N 1st Avenue 2
360 48 0 405 8 2
408 823 415
Total Project Trips 000
Average Weekday 000 000
PM Peak Hour
0 N 1st Avenue 0
6 6 6 6
0 0
11 Scott Blvd 11 Scott Blvd 11
North
0 0
5 5 5 5
0 N 1st Avenue 0
000 000
000
Future with Project 115 139 24
Average Weekday 29 48 38 6810
PM Peak Hour
29 N 1st Avenue 10
654 220 220 230
405 0
1,265 Scott Blvd 1,371 Scott Blvd 515
North
6 38
611 245 245 285
360 N 1st Avenue 2
360 48 0 405 8 2
408 823 415
Normalized Existing (COVID-
19 Factor)
C - 6
Existing Conditions AM.syn
1: N 1st Ave & Hickory Trail Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Existing Conditions AM
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 0 7 41 0 7 0 343 27 7 385 0
Future Vol, veh/h 1 0 7 41 0 7 0 343 27 7 385 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11111111111
Mvmt Flow 1 0 9 54 0 9 0 451 36 9 507 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 999 1012 507 999 994 469 507 0 0 487 0 0
Stage 1 525 525 - 469 469 -------
Stage 2 474 487 - 530 525 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 4.11 - - 4.11 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.309 2.209 - - 2.209 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 223 240 568 223 246 596 1063 - - 1081 - -
Stage 1 538 531 - 577 562 -------
Stage 2 573 552 - 534 531 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 218 237 568 217 243 596 1063 - - 1081 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 218 237 - 217 243 -------
Stage 1 538 525 - 577 562 -------
Stage 2 564 552 - 519 525 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 12.8 25.4 0 0.1
HCM LOS B D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1063 - - 473 239 1081 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.022 0.264 0.009 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 12.8 25.4 8.4 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A - - B D A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 1 0 - -
D - 1
Existing Conditions AM.syn
2: Site Access/Oaknoll East & Scott Blvd Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Existing Conditions AM
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 506 0 0 603 2000102
Future Vol, veh/h 3 506 0 0 603 2000102
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 3 569 0 0 678 2000102
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 680 0 0 569 0 0 1255 1255 569 1254 1254 679
Stage 1 ------575575-679679-
Stage 2 ------680680-575575-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 912 - - 1003 - - 148 172 522 149 172 452
Stage 1 ------503503-441451-
Stage 2 ------441451-503503-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 912 - - 1003 - - 147 171 522 148 171 452
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------147171-148171-
Stage 1 ------500500-439451-
Stage 2 ------439451-500500-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 0 18.6
HCM LOS A C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)- 912 - - 1003 - - 268
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.004 -----0.013
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 9 0 - 0 - - 18.6
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 - - 0 - - 0
D - 2
Existing Conditions PM.syn
1: N 1st Ave & Hickory Trail Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Existing Conditions PM
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 1 25 0 7 1 373 31 17 376 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 1 25 0 7 1 373 31 17 376 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11111111111
Mvmt Flow 0 0 1 27 0 8 1 410 34 19 413 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 884 897 413 881 880 427 413 0 0 444 0 0
Stage 1 451 451 - 429 429 -------
Stage 2 433 446 - 452 451 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 4.11 - - 4.11 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.309 2.209 - - 2.209 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 267 280 641 268 287 630 1151 - - 1121 - -
Stage 1 590 573 - 606 586 -------
Stage 2 603 576 - 589 573 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 259 274 641 263 280 630 1151 - - 1121 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 259 274 - 263 280 -------
Stage 1 589 560 - 605 585 -------
Stage 2 595 575 - 575 560 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10.6 18.5 0 0.4
HCM LOS B C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1151 - - 641 301 1121 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - 0.002 0.117 0.017 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.1 0 - 10.6 18.5 8.3 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - B C A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 0.4 0.1 - -
D - 3
Existing Conditions PM.syn
2: Site Access/Oaknoll East & Scott Blvd Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Existing Conditions PM
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 566 0 0 605 2000203
Future Vol, veh/h 2 566 0 0 605 2000203
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 2 615 0 0 658 2000203
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 660 0 0 615 0 0 1280 1279 615 1278 1278 659
Stage 1 ------619619-659659-
Stage 2 ------661660-619619-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 928 - - 965 - - 143 166 491 143 166 464
Stage 1 ------476480-453461-
Stage 2 ------452460-476480-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 928 - - 965 - - 142 166 491 143 166 464
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------142166-143166-
Stage 1 ------475479-452461-
Stage 2 ------449460-475479-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 20.1
HCM LOS A C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)- 928 - - 965 - - 244
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.002 -----0.022
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 8.9 0 - 0 - - 20.1
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 - - 0 - - 0.1
D - 4
Baseline Conditions AM.syn
1: N 1st Ave & Hickory Trail Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Baseline 2025 Conditions AM
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 0 7 42 0 11 0 357 28 7 400 0
Future Vol, veh/h 1 0 7 42 0 11 0 357 28 7 400 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11111111111
Mvmt Flow 1 0 9 55 0 14 0 470 37 9 526 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1040 1051 526 1038 1033 489 526 0 0 507 0 0
Stage 1 544 544 - 489 489 -------
Stage 2 496 507 - 549 544 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 4.11 - - 4.11 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.309 2.209 - - 2.209 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 209 228 554 210 233 581 1046 - - 1063 - -
Stage 1 525 521 - 562 551 -------
Stage 2 558 541 - 522 521 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 202 225 554 205 230 581 1046 - - 1063 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 202 225 - 205 230 -------
Stage 1 525 515 - 562 551 -------
Stage 2 544 541 - 507 515 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13.1 26.4 0 0.1
HCM LOS B D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1046 - - 455 237 1063 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.023 0.294 0.009 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 13.1 26.4 8.4 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A - - B D A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 1.2 0 - -
D - 5
Baseline Conditions AM.syn
2: Site Access/Oaknoll East & Scott Blvd Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Baseline 2025 Conditions AM
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 543 0 0 646 2000102
Future Vol, veh/h 3 543 0 0 646 2000102
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 3 610 0 0 726 2000102
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 728 0 0 610 0 0 1344 1344 610 1343 1343 727
Stage 1 ------616616-727727-
Stage 2 ------728728-616616-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 876 - - 969 - - 129 152 494 129 152 424
Stage 1 ------478482-415429-
Stage 2 ------415429-478482-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 876 - - 969 - - 128 151 494 128 151 424
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------128151-128151-
Stage 1 ------476480-413429-
Stage 2 ------413429-476480-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 0 20.3
HCM LOS A C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)- 876 - - 969 - - 239
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.004 -----0.014
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 9.1 0 - 0 - - 20.3
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 - - 0 - - 0
D - 6
Baseline Conditions PM.syn
1: N 1st Ave & Hickory Trail Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Baseline 2025 Conditions PM
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 1 26 0 7 1 388 32 18 391 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 1 26 0 7 1 388 32 18 391 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11111111111
Mvmt Flow 0 0 1 29 0 8 1 426 35 20 430 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 920 933 430 917 916 444 430 0 0 461 0 0
Stage 1 470 470 - 446 446 -------
Stage 2 450 463 - 471 470 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 4.11 - - 4.11 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.309 2.209 - - 2.209 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 253 267 627 254 273 616 1135 - - 1105 - -
Stage 1 576 562 - 593 576 -------
Stage 2 590 566 - 575 562 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 245 260 627 249 266 616 1135 - - 1105 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 245 260 - 249 266 -------
Stage 1 575 549 - 592 575 -------
Stage 2 582 565 - 560 549 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10.8 19.5 0 0.4
HCM LOS B C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1135 - - 627 285 1105 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - 0.002 0.127 0.018 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 0 - 10.8 19.5 8.3 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - B C A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 0.4 0.1 - -
D - 7
Baseline Conditions PM.syn
2: Site Access/Oaknoll East & Scott Blvd Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Baseline 2025 Conditions PM
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 607 0 0 649 2000203
Future Vol, veh/h 2 607 0 0 649 2000203
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 2 660 0 0 705 2000203
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 707 0 0 660 0 0 1372 1371 660 1370 1370 706
Stage 1 ------664664-706706-
Stage 2 ------708707-664664-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 891 - - 928 - - 123 146 463 124 146 436
Stage 1 ------450458-427439-
Stage 2 ------426438-450458-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 891 - - 928 - - 122 145 463 124 145 436
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------122145-124145-
Stage 1 ------448456-425439-
Stage 2 ------423438-448456-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 22
HCM LOS A C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)- 891 - - 928 - - 217
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.002 -----0.025
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 9.1 0 - 0 - - 22
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 - - 0 - - 0.1
D - 8
Future With Conditions AM.syn
1: N 1st Ave & Hickory Trail Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Future 2025 With Conditions AM
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 0 22 42 0 11 8 357 28 7 400 0
Future Vol, veh/h 1 0 22 42 0 11 8 357 28 7 400 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11111111111
Mvmt Flow 1 0 29 55 0 14 11 470 37 9 526 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1062 1073 526 1070 1055 489 526 0 0 507 0 0
Stage 1 544 544 - 511 511 -------
Stage 2 518 529 - 559 544 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 4.11 - - 4.11 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.309 2.209 - - 2.209 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 202 221 554 200 227 581 1046 - - 1063 - -
Stage 1 525 521 - 547 539 -------
Stage 2 542 529 - 515 521 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 193 215 554 186 221 581 1046 - - 1063 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 193 215 - 186 221 -------
Stage 1 517 515 - 539 531 -------
Stage 2 521 521 - 482 515 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 12.5 29.3 0.2 0.1
HCM LOS B D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1046 - - 512 217 1063 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.01 - - 0.059 0.321 0.009 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 0 - 12.5 29.3 8.4 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - B D A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.2 1.3 0 - -
D - 9
Future With Conditions AM.syn
2: Site Access/Oaknoll East & Scott Blvd Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Future 2025 With Conditions AM
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 543 10 3 646 2 17 05102
Future Vol, veh/h 3 543 10 3 646 2 17 05102
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 3 610 11 3 726 2 19 06102
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 728 0 0 621 0 0 1356 1356 616 1358 1360 727
Stage 1 ------622622-733733-
Stage 2 ------734734-625627-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 876 - - 960 - - 126 149 491 126 148 424
Stage 1 ------474479-412426-
Stage 2 ------412426-473476-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 876 - - 960 - - 124 148 491 124 147 424
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------124148-124147-
Stage 1 ------472477-410424-
Stage 2 ------408424-465474-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 33.9 20.5
HCM LOS D C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)149 876 - - 960 - - 235
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.166 0.004 - - 0.004 - - 0.014
HCM Control Delay (s) 33.9 9.1 0 - 8.8 0 - 20.5
HCM Lane LOS D A A - A A - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 0 - - 0 - - 0
D - 10
Future With Conditions PM.syn
1: N 1st Ave & Hickory Trail Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Future 2025 With Conditions PM
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 14 26 0 7 18 388 32 18 391 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 14 26 0 7 18 388 32 18 391 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11111111111
Mvmt Flow 0 0 15 29 0 8 20 426 35 20 430 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 958 971 430 962 954 444 430 0 0 461 0 0
Stage 1 470 470 - 484 484 -------
Stage 2 488 501 - 478 470 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 4.11 - - 4.11 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.309 2.209 - - 2.209 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 238 254 627 236 260 616 1135 - - 1105 - -
Stage 1 576 562 - 566 554 -------
Stage 2 563 544 - 570 562 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 227 242 627 222 248 616 1135 - - 1105 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 227 242 - 222 248 -------
Stage 1 562 549 - 552 541 -------
Stage 2 543 531 - 543 549 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10.9 21.3 0.3 0.4
HCM LOS B C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1135 - - 627 257 1105 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 - - 0.025 0.141 0.018 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 0 - 10.9 21.3 8.3 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - B C A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.1 0.5 0.1 - -
D - 11
Future With Conditions PM.syn
2: Site Access/Oaknoll East & Scott Blvd Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Future 2025 With Conditions PM
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 607 19 6 649 2 14 05203
Future Vol, veh/h 2 607 19 6 649 2 14 05203
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 2 660 21 7 705 2 15 05203
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 707 0 0 681 0 0 1397 1396 671 1397 1405 706
Stage 1 ------675675-720720-
Stage 2 ------722721-677685-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 891 - - 912 - - 118 141 456 118 139 436
Stage 1 ------444453-419432-
Stage 2 ------418432-443448-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 891 - - 912 - - 116 139 456 115 137 436
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------116139-115137-
Stage 1 ------442451-417426-
Stage 2 ------409426-436446-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 34.1 22.9
HCM LOS D C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)144 891 - - 912 - - 206
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.143 0.002 - - 0.007 - - 0.026
HCM Control Delay (s) 34.1 9.1 0 - 9 0 - 22.9
HCM Lane LOS D A A - A A - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 0 - - 0 - - 0.1
D - 12
20181073217 10/16/2018 15:24
County: Johnson City: Iowa City
HICKORY TRL AND N 1ST AVE
Major Cause:Followed too close
Roadway Type:Intersection: T-intersection
Severity::Possible/Unknown Injury
Crash
Fatalities:0
Major Injuries:0
Minor Injuries:0
Possible Injuries:2
Manner of Crash:Rear-end (front to rear)
Surface Conditions:Dry
Light Conditions:Daylight
Weather Conditions:Clear
Drug/Alc Involved:None Indicated
Severity::Possible/Unknown Injury
Crash
Property Damage:$3,000 Number of Vehicles:2
Init Trav Dir:
Veh Action:
Configuration:
Driver Age:
Driver Gender:
Driver Cond:
Driver Contr 1:
Driver Contr 2:
Fixed Object:
Unit 1
South
Movement essentially straight
Sport utility vehicle
33
F
Emotional (e.g., depressed, angry)
Followed too close
Not reported
None (no fixed object struck)
Unit 2
South
Slowing/stopping (deceleration)
Sport utility vehicle
71
F
Apparently normal
No improper action
Not reported
None (no fixed object struck)
Unit
20201157310 01/15/2020 04:30
County: Johnson City: Iowa City
HICKORY TRL AND N 1ST AVE
Major Cause:Other
Roadway Type:Feature: Non-junction/no special feature
Severity::Property Damage Only
Fatalities:0
Major Injuries:0
Minor Injuries:0
Possible Injuries:0
Manner of Crash:Sideswipe, opposite direction
Surface Conditions:Ice/frost
Light Conditions:Dark - unknown roadway lighting
Weather Conditions:Cloudy
Drug/Alc Involved:None Indicated
Severity::Property Damage Only Property Damage:$5,000 Number of Vehicles:2
Init Trav Dir:
Veh Action:
Configuration:
Driver Age:
Driver Gender:
Driver Cond:
Driver Contr 1:
Driver Contr 2:
Fixed Object:
Unit 1
South
Movement essentially straight
Four-tire light truck (pick-up)
47
F
Apparently normal
Other
Not reported
None (no fixed object struck)
Unit 2
North
Movement essentially straight
Passenger car
55
F
Apparently normal
No improper action
Not reported
None (no fixed object struck)
Unit
January 21, 2021 Page 1Iowa Crash Analysis Tool
Crash Detail Report
E - 1
20181070658 10/02/2018 16:39
County: Johnson City: Iowa City
N SCOTT BLVD
Major Cause:Followed too close
Roadway Type:Feature: Non-junction/no special feature
Severity::Suspected Minor Injury
Crash
Fatalities:0
Major Injuries:0
Minor Injuries:1
Possible Injuries:0
Manner of Crash:Rear-end (front to rear)
Surface Conditions:Dry
Light Conditions:Daylight
Weather Conditions:Cloudy
Drug/Alc Involved:None Indicated
Severity::Suspected Minor Injury
Crash
Property Damage:$8,000 Number of Vehicles:2
Init Trav Dir:
Veh Action:
Configuration:
Driver Age:
Driver Gender:
Driver Cond:
Driver Contr 1:
Driver Contr 2:
Fixed Object:
Unit 1
East
Movement essentially straight
Sport utility vehicle
25
F
Emotional (e.g., depressed, angry)
Followed too close
Not reported
None (no fixed object struck)
Unit 2
East
Stopped in traffic
Four-tire light truck (pick-up)
52
M
Apparently normal
No improper action
Not reported
None (no fixed object struck)
Unit
January 21, 2021 Page 1Iowa Crash Analysis Tool
Crash Detail Report
E - 2
Hickory Trail Estates
GTC #21‐005
Total DHV: 1,285 Posted Speed:35 mph
Left Turns: 6
% Left:0.5%
Scott Boulevard at Site Access (PM Peak-hour)
Based on WSDOT September 2019 Design Manual: Exhibit 1310-7a, Page 1310-14.
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
0%5%10%15%20%25%Total DHV*% Total DHV Turning Left (single turning movement)
Left‐Turn Storage Guidelines
Below Curve, storage not needed for capacity.
Above curve, further analysis recommended.
*DHV is total volume from both directions
**Speeds are posted speeds
F - 1
17 December 2020
Mike Welch
Professional Engineer
Axiom Consultants
60 East Court Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
mwelch@axiom-con.com
RE: Phase I Archaeological Survey, Scott Boulvard Subdivision Project, Iowa City, Johnson County,
OSA Technical Report 1622
Dear Mike:
Attached please find the OSA report Phase I Intensive Archaeological Investigation of the Proposed Scott
Boulevard Subdivision Project, Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, by Warren Davis (TR 1622). As a result
of the study no previously recorded archaeological sites were located within the project area and no newly
recorded sites were identified. No further archaeological work is recommended in the surveyed areas. The
details of our findings are provided in the attached report.
As you know, to complete your archaeological compliance obligations, copies of the enclosed report must
also be provided to the appropriate state or federal agencies involved with the project and comment
solicited; we assume you will handle this distribution. Keep in mind that agency comments must be received
prior to ground-disturbing activities being undertaken within the project area.
The University of Iowa Accounts Payable department will invoice you for this project in about 30 days. If
you have any questions, please contact me at 319-384-0937 or via e-mail at william-whittaker@uiowa.edu.
Thank you for selecting the OSA for your archaeological service needs and good luck with your project.
Sincerely,
William E. Whittaker, Ph.D., Research Director
Phase I Intensive Archaeological
Investigation of the Proposed Scott
Boulevard Subdivision Project, Iowa City,
Johnson County, Iowa
by Warren Davis
Office of the State Archaeologist
The University of Iowa
700 Clinton Street Building
Iowa City, IA 52242
Technical Report 1622
2020
Phase I Intensive Archaeological Investigation of the
Proposed Scott Boulevard Subdivision Project, Iowa City,
Johnson County, Iowa
by Warren Davis
William E. Whittaker
Principal Investigator
Prepared for
Axiom Consultants
60 East Court Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Prepared by
Office of the State Archaeologist
The University of Iowa
700 Clinton Street Building
Iowa City, IA 52242
Technical Report 1622
December 16, 2020
Information contained in this report relating to the nature and location of archaeological sites is
considered private and confidential and not for public disclosure in accordance with Section 304
of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. § 307103); 36 CFR Part 800.6 (a)(5) of the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s rules implementing Sections 106 and 110 of the Act;
and Chapter 22.7 § 20 of the Iowa Code
Abstract
A Phase I intensive archaeological survey was conducted by the University of Iowa Office
of the State Archaeologist at the location of the proposed Scott Boulevard Subdivision,
Johnson County, Iowa. The field investigation was conducted on December 3–4, 2020. No
artifacts or archaeological features were identified in the survey of the 59.9 ac parcel. No
further archaeological investigation of the area surveyed prior to the proposed project
activities is recommended.
Introduction
The Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA) of the University of Iowa has prepared this report under
the terms of a cultural resource survey agreement between OSA and Axiom Consultants of Iowa City, Iowa.
This report records the results of a Phase I archaeological investigation of the proposed Scott Boulevard
Subdivision. This project area is situated in Sections 1 and 2, T79N-R6W, Johnson County, Iowa (Figures
1–5). The proposed project involves development of the area into a subdivision. The area surveyed 59.9 ac
(19.2 ha). This project was undertaken for compliance with the Iowa City Zoning Code: Sensitive Lands
and Features, Archaeological sites, Archaeological Study (Article I:14-5l-12-E).
The Phase I investigation was conducted on December 3–4 by Warren Davis and Stephen Valdez and
took 28 person hours in the field. Warren Davis served as report author and William Whittaker served as
project director.
The OSA is solely responsible for the interpretations and recommendations contained in this report. All
records including maps and figures are curated in the OSA Archives. The National Archeological Data
Base Form is included as Appendix I.
Information contained in this report relating to the nature and location of archaeological sites is
considered private and confidential and not for public disclosure in accordance with Section 304 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. § 307103); 36 CFR Part 800.6 (a)(5) of the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation’s rules implementing Sections 106 and 110 of the Act; and Chapter 22.7 § 20 of
the Iowa Code.
Geomorphological Context
The proposed project area is located within Iowa’s largest landform region, known as the Southern Iowa
Drift Plain. The topography of this area is one of steeply rolling hills, level upland divides, stepped erosion
surfaces, and dendritic drainage networks. Uplands are mantled by a moderate to thick cover of
Wisconsinan-age loess. Pre-Illinoian glacial drift and underlying sedimentary bedrock are exposed within
the deeper stream valleys. Southeast Iowa is dominated by broad, level upland divides that represent
undissected remnants of surfaces developed during the Yarmouth and Sangamon stages on a Pre-Illinoian
drift plain. The areal extent of undissected uplands decreases with distance westward, and stepped hillslopes
and deep valleys dominate the south-central part of the state. In southwest Iowa, flat upland divides are
nearly absent (Prior 1991:61–64).
Holocene alluvial valley fills in Iowa are subdivided on the basis of lithology and stratigraphic
relationships into the Gunder, Corrington, Roberts Creek, and Camp Creek members of the DeForest
formation (Bettis and Littke 1987). Gunder member alluvium and Corrington member alluvial fans may
contain Paleoindian through Woodland components; Roberts Creek member deposits may contain Late
OSA Technical Report 1622
2
Archaic through early historic components; and Camp Creek member alluvium may contain buried and
unburied historic archaeological components, and may bury older surfaces.
Environmental Context
The proposed project area is situated in a deeply-ravined grassy and lightly wooded area on the northern
extents of Iowa City. The area is in the E½, SE¼ of Section 2, and the SW¼, SW¼, SW¼, T79N-R6W,
Johnson County, Iowa, 0.1 km east of the intersection of First Avenue and Scott Boulevard, at an elevation
of 780 ft above mean sea level (Figures 1–5). At the time of survey, the proposed project area was in mowed
grass and light timber cover. The parcel consisted of an irregular area measuring 750 x 400 m in maximum
extent. Project area entrances, staging areas, and material storage areas will be within surveyed areas or on
nearby paved areas.
Soils of the project area are mapped as Fayette silt loam at 5–40% slope, Lindley loam at 18–25% slope,
and a complex of Nodaway and Arenzville silt loam at 1–4% slope (Figure 2; Table 1; Artz 2005;
Schemerhorn 1983; USDA 2020). Soils in upland settings, such as Fayette and Lindley, have relatively
shallow archaeological potential when the parent material predates the earliest human occupation of Iowa
and Holocene-aged surface deposition is slow or absent. Movement of artifacts within the soil column is
restricted to biologically active horizons. If there is adequate ground surface visibility, larger archaeological
sites in plowed upland soils will generally display surface artifacts. Shallow subsurface deposits may exist
in unplowed upland areas, and the bottoms of deep human-dug features may be preserved even in plowed
areas. Subsurface archaeological testing within these upland settings is usually terminated below the
biologically active zone as indicated by the presence of a pedologically formed subsoil (B horizon),
relatively unaltered parent material (C horizon), or bedrock (R horizon).
The Landscape Model for Archaeological Site Suitability (LANDMASS) is a useful tool for predicting
the suitability of a particular upland landform position for prehistoric habitation (Artz et al. 2006; Riley et
al. 2011). The ranking is divided into three suitability rankings: low, moderate, and high, based on logistic
regression statistical analysis of how often sites have been found in areas with topographically similar
terrain. Based upon the model, the project area is located on a landform with a high prehistoric suitability
ranking. It is important to note that this predictive model is limited to upland landforms and does not include
alluvial settings, such as river valleys and drainages.
Historical and Cultural Context
The Iowa Site Record at OSA, records of previous archaeological surveys nearby (OSA 2020), the
National Register Information System web site (National Park Service 2020), the Andreas atlas of Iowa
(Andreas 1875), and Johnson County plat books (Anonymous 1905; Economy Advertising 1917; Hixson
1930; Huebinger 1900; Koser Bros. 1934; Novak 1889; Thompson and Everts 1870) were reviewed for this
survey. Other consulted resources included the 1839 General Land Office survey map (ISUGISRF 2020;
U.S. Department of the Interior 2020), older U.S. Geological Survey maps (USGS 2020), the Historic
Indian Location Database (HILD), and the OSA Notable Locations database of cemeteries and poorly
located historic or archaeological locations (Whittaker 2016, 2020).
Historic documentation revealed no buildings or other improvements within the proposed project area,
and there are no standing buildings or structures located within the proposed project area (Figures 2–3).
Historic aerial photography indicates that the area has been largely under agriculture for most of the
twentieth century, though the areas currently under grass may have been graded or contoured in the 1990s.
Areas currently under timber were largely absent throughmost of the twentieth century, with most present
timber postdating the 1980s. A series of trails ran through the project area, largely along what is now the
OSA Technical Report 1622
3
timber line on the west-central portion of the project area. In addition, the trees along the drainage in the
southern portion of the proposed project area were removed in the 1980s to allow for more agricultural
land. The drainage may have also been straightened or otherwise modified at this time. A farmstead is
present on the 1870 Thompson and Everetts map just north of the proposed project area, north of what is
now Scott Boulevard. That farmstead is likely under or been impacted by modern development.
There are 17 archaeological sites recorded within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the project area. The closest site is
13JH1100, a prehistoric isolated find consisting of a single piece of Late Woodland pottery, located
immediately to the east of the project area. Site 13JH1100 was determined to be not eligible for listing in
the NRHP by SHPO on Nov. 13, 2001 SHPO NADB files). The southern portion of the project area
overlaps with a small portion of a cultural resources survey by Lensink (1978) of proposed Ralston Creek
storm water detention units. The next nearest survey was a Phase I survey by Weitzel (2001) for proposed
First Avenue expansion just east of the project area. Site 13JH1100 was found near the project area in the
2001 survey. The HILD reveals no documented historic Native American use of the project area or nearby
areas. The Notable Locations database shows the locations of St. Joseph’s Cemetery 0.7 km to the east, and
Oakland Cemetery, 0.7 km to the southeast.
Archaeological Assessment
METHODS
Ground surface visibility was inadequate for pedestrian survey, at less than 25%. The proposed project
area was investigated through 5 m interval pedestrian survey and the hand excavation of 67 20 cm diameter
auger tests, in linear transects at 15 m intervals (Figure 3). Auger test soils were removed in arbitrary 10
cm levels to examine soil stratigraphy and were screened with quarter-inch hardware cloth. Soils were
described using the conventions of Schoeneberger et al. (2012). Maximum test depth was 100 cm.
RESULTS
No artifacts were observed on the surface. No artifacts were recovered in auger tests. Subsurface tests
indicated that the proposed project area showed evidence of heavy disturbance, with topsoil (A or Ap)
horizons either truncated or missing from auger test profiles. This missing topsoil supports disturbances
seen in late twentieth century aerial photography. Typical profiles for auger tests in uplands revealed soils
comparable to eroded Fayette soil, with a very thin brown Ap horizon over a dark yellowish Bt1 and
yellowish brown Bt2 horizon (Table 2). Auger tests along the drainage in the south of the project area
revealed a brown Ap horizon over a brown and yellowish brown mixed C horizon, likely indicating past
disturbance. None of the auger tests or cores encountered buried A horizons or other buried surfaces
suitable for habitation.
Management Recommendations
The Phase I archaeological survey by the OSA of a proposed Scott Boulevard Subdivision revealed no
archaeological material or other cultural deposits. The proposed project area was surveyed through
pedestrian survey and excavation of 67 auger tests. Because of this absence of cultural resources and the
lack of potential for intact deposits, no further archaeological work for this project is recommended.
No technique is completely adequate to locate all archaeological materials, especially deeply buried
ones. Therefore, should any cultural, historical, or paleontological resources be exposed as part of proposed
project activities, the responsible agency must be notified immediately in accordance with the Protection
of Historic Properties regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation [36 CFR Part
OSA Technical Report 1622
4
800.13(b)]. If human remains are accidentally discovered, Iowa burial law [Code of Iowa, Sections 263B,
523I.316(6), and 716.5; IAC 685, Ch.11.1] requires that all work in the vicinity of the finding be halted,
the remains protected, local law enforcement officials notified, and the Bioarchaeology director at the OSA
contacted immediately (319-384-0740). Archaeologists with the OSA (319-384-0937) and the State
Historical Society of Iowa (515-281-8744) are also available to consult on issues of accidental discovery.
References Cited
Andreas, Alfred T.
1875 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the State of Iowa. State Historical Society of Iowa, Iowa City.
Anonymous
1905 [Johnson County, Iowa] No publisher listed. University of Iowa Libraries digital map collection,
digital.lib.uiowa.edu/islandora/object/ui:atlases, accessed December 16, 2020.
Artz, Joe A.
2005 Ackmore to Zwingle: Soil Series of Iowa. Iowa I-Sites, Office of the State Archaeologist, University of
Iowa, Iowa City. Electronic document, www.iowaisites.com/soil-series, accessed December 16, 2020.
Artz, Joe A., Chad Goings, and Melanie A. Riley
2006 LANDMASS: A GIS Model for Prehistoric Archaeological Site Suitability in Iowa. Paper presented at
the 64th Plains Anthropological Conference, Topeka, Kansas.
Bettis, E. Arthur III, and John P. Littke
1987 Holocene Alluvial Stratigraphy and Landscape Development in Soap Creek Watershed, Appanoose,
Davis, Monroe, and Wapello Counties, Iowa. Open File Report 87-2. Iowa Geological Survey Bureau,
Iowa City.
Economy Advertising
1917 Atlas of Johnson County, Iowa. Economy Advertising Company, Iowa City, Iowa. University of Iowa
Libraries digital map collection, digital.lib.uiowa.edu/islandora/object/ui:atlases, accessed December
16, 2020.
Hixson, W. W.
1930 Plat Book of Johnson County, Iowa. W.W. Hixson, Rockford, Illinois. University of Iowa Libraries
digital map collection, digital.lib.uiowa.edu/islandora/object/ui:atlases, accessed December 16, 2020.
Huebinger
1900 Atlas of Johnson County, Iowa. Huebinger Survey and Map, Davenport, Iowa. University of Iowa
Libraries digital map collection, digital.lib.uiowa.edu/islandora/object/ui:atlases, accessed December
16, 2020.
Iowa State University Geographic Information Systems Support and Research Facility (ISUGISSRF)
2020 Iowa Geographic Map Server. Iowa State University Geographic Information Systems Support and
Research Facility, Ames, Iowa. Electronic document, ortho.gis.iastate.edu, accessed December 16,
2020.
Koser Bros.
1934 Atlas of Johnson County, Iowa. Koser Brothers, unknown location. University of Iowa Libraries digital
map collection, digital.lib.uiowa.edu/islandora/object/ui:atlases, accessed December 16, 2020.
Lensink, Stephen C.
1978 A Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Ralston Creek Storm Water Detention Units, Iowa City,
Iowa. Contract Completion Report 143. Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa
City.
National Park Service
2020 National Register Information System, National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service,
Washington, DC. Electronic document, www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm,
accessed December 16, 2020.
Novak, J. J.
1889 Novak’s New Map of Johnson County. J. J. Novak, Iowa City, Iowa. University of Iowa Libraries digital
map collection, digital.lib.uiowa.edu/islandora/object/ui:atlases, accessed December 16, 2020.
OSA Technical Report 1622
5
Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA)
2020 I-Sites: An Online GIS and Database for Iowa Archaeology. Office of the State Archaeologist,
University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. Electronic document, www.iowaisites.com, accessed December
16, 2020.
Prior, Jean C.
1991 Landforms of Iowa. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.
Riley, Melanie A., Chad A. Goings, and Joe Alan Artz
2011 The Landscape Model for Archaeological Site Suitability (LANDMASS). In Archaeological Modeling
for the Iowa Portion of the Proposed Rock Island Clean Line Transmission System, by Melanie A.
Riley, Chad A. Goings, and Joe Alan Artz, pp. 5–14. Contract Completion Report 1869. Office of the
State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Schermerhorn, Edward J.
1983 Soil Survey of Johnson County, Iowa. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service.
Schoeneberger, P. J., D. A. Wysocki, and E. C. Benham
2012 Field book for Describing and Sampling Soils. Version 3.0. Natural Resources Conservation Service,
National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, Nebraska. Electronic document,
www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052523.pdf, accessed December 16,
2020.
Thompson and Everts
1870 Combination Atlas Map of Johnson County, Iowa. Thompson and Everts, Geneva, Illinois. University of
Iowa Libraries digital map collection, digital.lib.uiowa.edu/islandora/object/ui:atlases, accessed
December 16, 2020.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2020 Official Soil Series Descriptions. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of
Agriculture. Electronic document, www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/survey, accessed
December 16, 2020.
U.S. Department of the Interior
2020 The Official Federal Land Records Site. Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of the
Interior. Electronic document, livingatlas.arcgis.com/topoexplorer, accessed December 16, 2020.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
2018 US Topo: Maps for America. National Geospatial Program. Electronic document, www.usgs.gov/core-
science-systems/national-geospatial-program/us-topo-maps-america.
2020 USGS Historical Topographic Map Explorer. Electronic document, ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/,
accessed December 16, 2020.
Whittaker, William E.
2016 An Analysis of Historic-Era Indian Locations in Iowa. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 41:159–
185.
2020 Historic Indian Location Database. Electronic document on file, Office of the State Archaeologist,
University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, accessed December 16, 2020.
OSA Technical Report 1622
6
Table 1. Project Area Mapped Soils.
Soil Name ID Description I-Sites LSA1 Landform Native
Vegetation Pedon
Arenzville-
Nodaway
Complex
729B 1–4% slopes Camp Creek Drainageways Tall grass prairie Ap-C1-C2-
C3
Lindley 65F2 18–25% slopes;
moderately eroded
Shallow to pre-
Wisconsin till
Hillslopes Tall grass prairie A-E-Bt1-
Bt2-Bt3-
Bt4-C
Fayette M163 5–40% slopes Loess mantled
terrace, thick
loess
Hillslopes Tall grass prairie Ap-BE-Btt-
Bt2-BC-C
1 Landform/Sediment Assemblage (Artz 2005).
OSA Technical Report 1622
7
Table 2. Representative Soil Profiles.
Location Depth
(cm) Description
Auger Test 4 0–5 Ap horizon of brown (10YR 4/3) silt loam; fine subangular blocky structure;
friable; clear smooth boundary.
5–30 Bt1 horizon of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) silty clay loam; fine to moderate
subangular blocky structure; friable; gradual smooth boundary.
30–50 Bt2 horizon of yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) silty clay loam; moderate subangular
blocky structure; friable to firm.
Auger Test
13
0–20 AC horizon of brown (10YR 4/3) silt loam; fine subangular blocky structure;
friable; clear smooth boundary.
20–100 C horizon of mixed brown (10YR 4/3) and yellowish brown (5/4) silty clay loam;
massive grading to moderate subangular blocky structure; friable; heavy redox
present.
Auger Test
37
0–10 Ap horizon of brown (10YR 4/3) silt loam; fine subangular blocky structure;
friable; clear smooth boundary.
10–20 BE horizon of brown (10YR 4/3) silty clay loam; fine subangular blocky structure;
friable; silt coats on faces of peds; clear smooth boundary.
20–50 Bt1 horizon of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) silty clay loam; fine to moderate
moderate subangular blocky structure; friable; gradual smooth boundary.
Auger Test
41
0-15 Bt1 horizon of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) silty clay loam; fine to moderate
subangular blocky structure; friable; gradual smooth boundary.
15–40 Bt2 horizon of yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) silty clay loam; moderate subangular
blocky structure; friable to firm; silt coats present; gradual smooth boundary.
40–50 BC horizon of yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) silty clay loam; medium prismatic
structure; friable; redox features present; clay skins present.
Auger Test
64
0–10 Ap horizon of brown (10YR 4/3) silt loam; fine subangular blocky structure;
friable; clear smooth boundary.
10–35 Bt1 horizon of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) silty clay loam; fine to moderate
subangular blocky structure; friable; gradual smooth boundary.
35–50 Bt2 horizon of yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) silty clay loam; moderate subangular
blocky structure; friable to firm.
OSA Technical Report 1622
8
Figure 1. Project location in relation to surrounding topography.
Base USGS (2018), U.S. Topo 7.5’ series quadrangle map. Scale 1:24,000.
OSA Technical Report 1622
9
Figure 2. Project location in relation to mapped soil type.
From Iowa Cooperative Soil Survey digitization of Johnson County, base image is composite
2018 aerial photograph and 1 m lidar hillshade map (ISUGISRF 2020).
OSA Technical Report 1622
10
Figure 3. Detail map of project area showing subsurface test locations.
Base image is composite 2018 aerial photograph and 1 m lidar hillshade map (ISUGISRF 2020).
OSA Technical Report 1622
11
Figure 4. Project area photographs.
Upper: project area, facing north near southern portion of project area. Lower: project area,
facing east near southern portion of project area.
OSA Technical Report 1622
12
Figure 5. Project area photographs.
Upper: project area, facing south near northern portion of project area. Lower: project area,
facing east at northern extreme of project area.
OSA Technical Report 1622
13
Appendix I: National Archeological Data Base – Reports Citation Form
Complete items 3 and 5-14. The State Historic Preservation Office will record information for items 1 through 4.
1. DOCUMENT NO. ______________________________________________
2. SOURCE _________________________ AND SHPO – ID _________________
3. FILED AT
Office of the State Archaeologist
700 CLSB
University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA 52242
4. UTM COORDINATES
Zone Easting Northing
Zone Easting Northing
Zone Easting Northing
Zone Easting Northing
Zone Easting Northing
Zone Easting Northing
Continuation, see 14.
5. AUTHORS Warren Davis
6. YEAR 2020 (year published)
7. TITLE Phase I Intensive Archaeological Investigation of the Proposed Scott Boulevard Subdivision Project,
Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
7. PUBLICATION TYPE (circle one)
4. Report Series
9. INFORMATION ABOUT PUBLISHER/PUBLICATION
Follow the American Antiquity style guide for the type of publication circled.
Technical Report 1622 Office of the State Archaeologist, The University of Iowa, Iowa City.
10. STATE/COUNTY (Referenced by report. Enter as many states, counties, or towns, as necessary. Enter
all, if appropriate. Only enter Town if the resources considered are within the town boundaries.)
STATE 1 Iowa COUNTY Johnson TOWN T79N-R6W
11. WORKTYPE [ 32 ] PHASE I
OSA Technical Report 1622
14
12. KEYWORDS and KEYWORD CATEGORIES
Enter as many keywords (with the appropriate keyword category number) as you think will help a person (1) who
is trying to understand what the report contains or (2) who is searching the database for specific information.
Whenever appropriate, record the number of acres studied in a document.
[6 ] Project Area: 59.9 acres [ ]
[ ] [ ]
13. FEDERAL AGENCY
14. CONTINUATION/COMMENTS (include item no.)
FORM COMPLETED BY
Name Warren Davis Date December 16,
2020
Address Office of the State Archaeologist
700 CLSB
University of Iowa
City Iowa City State IA
Zip 52242
Telephone Number 318-384-0937
From:Parker, Adam G
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Proposed Residential Development Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
Date:Sunday, January 31, 2021 8:01:12 PM
Hello Anne/Raymond,
I would like to voice my opinion, that I oppose the planned rezone area next to hickory hill park.
Please forward my concerns to the planning and zoning commission, as they review the rezoning to
put a through street in the are directly adjacent to Hickory Hill Park.
I understand the land adjacent to Hickory Hill Park is private land, but know the land was discussed
in the NE district plan https://www.iowa-city.org/.../0/doc/1473770/Electronic.aspx should
preserve and buffer public lands and Hickory Hill Park. I believe the proposed development
images do not accurately buffer the park and would be short sighted to land which the general
public finds great utility. This would significantly impede on natural landscape and would
permanently alter the watershed, prairies, and sight lines of the park.
Hickory Hill Park is a treasure to this community, especially during the past year due to COVID.
It often is the only “safe” respite which one can truly escape the crowd and be one in nature. I
do not believe this land adjacent would be best utilized as single family plots. This would
further income inequality by providing lots only the upper middle class can afford and will
decrease utilization in the park as the urban sprawl approaches. I would encourage the city
parks department to consider opportunities to include biking, skiing, or more trails if the land
adjacent is for sale. This would be a bigger destination for the community long term utilized by
more community members.
If there is a better way to have my voice heard, please let me know. I look forward to
participating in the planning and zoning meeting when this project is brought up.
Best,
Adam Parker
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
From:Anne Russett
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:FW: new development next to Hickory Hill Park
Date:Monday, January 4, 2021 1:15:35 PM
Attachments:image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
FYI
From: Anne Russett
Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 1:15 PM
To: 'Teresa Galluzzo' <tegallu@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: new development next to Hickory Hill Park
Hi, Teresa –
Thanks for your message. I’ve received a few other emails regarding the proposed rezoning. City staff is
still working with the applicant on the proposed concept and we have also requested some additional
information regarding their rezoning application.
At this point, I don’t know when this will be before the Planning and Zoning Commission. You can sign-up
for e-subscriptions to keep informed of the items of upcoming Commission meetings:
https://www.icgov.org/e-subscriptions
Thanks. And let me know if you have any questions.
Anne
WWW.ICGOV.ORG
Anne Russett, AICP
Senior PlannerShe/Her/Hersp: 319-356-5251410 E Washington St
Iowa City, IA 52240
From: Teresa Galluzzo <tegallu@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 12:56 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: new development next to Hickory Hill Park
Hi Anne, I am writing because I am concerned about the plans for the houses being built next toHickory Hill Park. This park is a refuge for so many people. A place to find peace, solve lifeproblems, listen to birds, and feel like you are in the wild even in the middle of Iowa City.
It is unlike any other park in the area. I am sad to know the hay fields on the Northeast
side of the park will be developed at all, but I am particularly worried that houses are being
proposed right next to the park boundary. (On the version of the plans I saw, it is lots 14
to 28 in particular that seem intrusive to HHP.) I would like to see a buffer between HHP
and the houses to help preserve some of the feeling of being able to get lost in the park
and in your own thoughts, so after a trip to Hickory Hill folks can return to their work and
family with more energy and clearer thinking. Thanks for considering my concerns.
Sincerely, Teresa Galluzzo Iowa City resident and longtime HHP visitor
From:Anne Russett
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:FW: Zoning near Hickory Hill Park
Date:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 8:43:34 AM
Can you please follow-up with Adam?
From: Parker, Adam G <adam-parker@uiowa.edu>
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 8:36 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Zoning near Hickory Hill Park
Hello Anne,
I am looking to inquire about the rezoning of land North East of Hickory Hill Park? Is there a place I
can go to access information about what the proposed rezoning of the area is going to be?
Appreciate any insight and guidance.
Best,
Adam Parker
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the individual
or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all
copies of the original message and attachments thereto. Email sent to or from UI Health Care may
be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank you.
From:Parker, Adam G
To:Raymond Heitner
Cc:Anne Russett
Subject:Re: [External] Zoning near Hickory Hill Park
Date:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 9:19:47 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Great, thank you for following up. I am fairly new to planning and zoning, but it appears there will be
a meeting this Thursday (third Thursday of the month) Where would I find the agenda or “staff
report” for this Thursday’s meeting? Or is that accessible prior to the meeting to know what will be
discussed. Apologize for the inconvenience of walking me through a website. (I hate doing it for
clients I serve, but I genuinely do not see it, just the meeting on Jan 21 discussion) Also, assuming a
zoom link will be added to the web to attend Thursday?
Additionally, is the board considering the Iowa City district plan with the development? I understand
the land looking to be developed is private land, but hope the considerations of the community will
be taken into account by following the Iowa City district plan which had significant community input.
Lastly, when and for how long will the community be able to know and provide feedback for the new
development? I guess I am more curious, as to what will be developed there if the community has a
voice with how it is developed?
Thanks,
Adam
From: Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner@iowa-city.org>
Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 9:00 AM
To: "Parker, Adam G" <adam-parker@uiowa.edu>
Cc: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: [External] Zoning near Hickory Hill Park
Good Morning Adam,
Anne forwarded me your question about the rezoning northeast of Hickory Hill Park.
We are currently working with the applicant on a few details pertaining to their concept plan for this
rezoning application. We do not have a date for when the rezoning application will be presented to
the City’s Planning and Zoning Commission.
You can check the following website for information on when the application will be heard by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. https://www.icgov.org/city-government/boards/planning-and-
zoning-commission
The link above will also provide the City’s staff report and meeting packet by 5:00PM on the Friday
prior to each meeting (P&Z meetings occur the first and third Thursday of each month). The meeting
packet will provide information on how to participate in the Commission’s zoom meeting.
If you have any questions or comments that you would like sent to the Commission for
consideration, please feel free to email me, and I will forward your comments onto the Commission.
Ray Heitner
Associate Planner
(he/him/his)
319.356.5238
raymond-heitner@iowa-city.org
410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240
WWW.ICGOV.ORG
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use
by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete or destroy all copies of the original message and attachments thereto.
Email sent to or from UI Health Care may be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank
you.
From:Anne Russett
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:FW: ACT development
Date:Monday, January 25, 2021 5:01:50 PM
Attachments:Notice.docx
Ray – Please see the email below. I’ve created the attached for him. What do you think?
From: Casey James Kohrt <cjkohrt@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 3:59 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Re: ACT development
That would be great.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 3:36 PM Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> wrote:
Hi, Casey –
At the moment, I don’t have any extra rezoning signs to put out there. We’ve had several that were
damaged and destroyed this winter. One idea is to put some notices in the kiosks as trail heads. If
that’s something you’d like to do I could put together a PDF with some general information that you
could print to put in a kiosk.
Thanks, Anne
From: Casey James Kohrt <cjkohrt@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 2:33 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Re: ACT development
Hi Anne, It is the Friends of Hickory Hill Park's request for two additional signs to be placed in thepark to make the general public aware of the application for rezoning of the property. We feel the current single sign does not inform the general public of the full scope of the
land potentially being developed. Therefore, would it be possible for additional signage
to be placed inside the park to notify the public?
We would be happy to pick up the signage at a City office and have it placed in the park
by a member of Friends of Hickory Hill Park Board.
Best,
Casey
Chair, FHHP
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 2:52 PM Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> wrote:
Hi, Casey –
We have a received a rezoning application for this land. At this point, I don’t know when it will
be on a Planning and Zoning Commission agenda. You can sign up for e-subscriptions, though,
so you can keep track of when Commission agendas are published:
https://www.icgov.org/e-subscriptions
Let me know if you have any other questions.
Thanks, Anne
From: Casey James Kohrt <cjkohrt@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 10:03 AM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: ACT development
Hi Anne,
Has anything been filed with the City yet on the ACT-owned land by developer Joe
Clark? Do you have an estimate of when that might happen?
Casey Kohrt
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely
for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this
information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
From:Parker, Adam G
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Re: [External] RE: Proposed Residential Development Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
Date:Monday, February 1, 2021 10:26:08 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Hello Ray,
I appreciate you forwarding my concerns to the P&Z commission/City Council.
Best,
Adam
From: Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner@iowa-city.org>
Date: Monday, February 1, 2021 at 10:21 AM
To: "Parker, Adam G" <adam-parker@uiowa.edu>, Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-
city.org>
Subject: [External] RE: Proposed Residential Development Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
Good Morning Adam,
Thank you for your comments on the proposed residential development adjacent to Hickory
Hill Park. Your comments will be forwarded on to the Planning and Zoning Commission for
consideration.
The rezoning will have public hearings by both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council, with opportunities for direct public comment at both stages. We do not have a date
set for the application to appear before the Planning and Zoning Commission.
If you want to keep track of Planning and Zoning Commission agendas, I would recommend
you sign up to receive an email notice whenever a Commission packet is published:
https://www.icgov.org/e-subscriptions. Meetings are held the first and third Thursday of each
month.
You can also email any correspondence you may have for the Planning and Zoning
Commission to my email address raymond-heitner@iowa-city.org.
Thank you,
Ray Heitner
Associate Planner
(he/him/his)
319.356.5238
raymond-heitner@iowa-city.org
410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240
WWW.ICGOV.ORG
From: Parker, Adam G <adam-parker@uiowa.edu>
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2021 8:01 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>; Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner@iowa-
city.org>
Subject: Proposed Residential Development Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
Hello Anne/Raymond,
I would like to voice my opinion, that I oppose the planned rezone area next to hickory hill park.
Please forward my concerns to the planning and zoning commission, as they review the rezoning to
put a through street in the are directly adjacent to Hickory Hill Park.
I understand the land adjacent to Hickory Hill Park is private land, but know the land was discussed
in the NE district plan https://www.iowa-city.org/.../0/doc/1473770/Electronic.aspx should
preserve and buffer public lands and Hickory Hill Park. I believe the proposed development
images do not accurately buffer the park and would be short sighted to land which the general
public finds great utility. This would significantly impede on natural landscape and would
permanently alter the watershed, prairies, and sight lines of the park.
Hickory Hill Park is a treasure to this community, especially during the past year due to COVID.
It often is the only “safe” respite which one can truly escape the crowd and be one in nature. I
do not believe this land adjacent would be best utilized as single family plots. This would
further income inequality by providing lots only the upper middle class can afford and will
decrease utilization in the park as the urban sprawl approaches. I would encourage the city
parks department to consider opportunities to include biking, skiing, or more trails if the land
adjacent is for sale. This would be a bigger destination for the community long term utilized by
more community members.
If there is a better way to have my voice heard, please let me know. I look forward to
participating in the planning and zoning meeting when this project is brought up.
Best,
Adam Parker
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the individual
or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all
copies of the original message and attachments thereto. Email sent to or from UI Health Care may
be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank you.
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use
by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete or destroy all copies of the original message and attachments thereto.
Email sent to or from UI Health Care may be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank
you.
From:Mary Winder
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:views regarding development near Hickory Hill Park
Date:Tuesday, February 2, 2021 1:36:35 PM
Feb. 2, 2021
Dear Anne Russett and Ray Heitner:
I am writing to you about the housing development being proposed for land along the
northeast border of Hickory Hill Park.
To give you a bit of background, I grew up in Iowa City and spent many, many happy times in
Hickory Hill Park through the years. I like that park so much, in fact, that I held my wedding
there! I have moved away from Iowa City, but every single time I return for a visit, taking a
walk at Hickory Hill Park is always at the top of my list of things to do.
I have often marveled at the forethought of the people who preserved this wild patch of
woods, fields, hills, and creeks for the benefit of the community and the wildlife. It is a unique
and very precious treasure in the Iowa City community.
I understand that land around the park will be developed, but I am very concerned when I
read that the proposed design that the developer is presenting for the housing development
area along the northeast border of the park does not follow the guidelines in the
Comprehensive Plan that has been established by the City. This is extremely unwise, and it is
wrong, as the guidelines were put in place for good reason. It is vital that they be followed.
I am writing to ask you to please require that the development plan be revised so that it does
follow the appropriate guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan, allowing Hickory Hill Park to
retain its “natural and wild” character as opposed to being hemmed in closely by a poorly
planned residential development that does not follow the City’s own guidelines.
Now is the time to require revision of the development plan. Once the land has been rezoned
and the development is in place, it will be too late to say to yourself, “Gosh, I wish we had
done this differently.” Jackie Joyner-Kersee said, “It’s better to look ahead and prepare, than
to look back and regret.”
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need clarification. Thank you for
taking time to read my views on this important matter.
Sincerely,
Mary Winder
785-985-2519
From:Stella Hart
To:anne-russet@iowa-city.org; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Hickory Hill Park
Date:Monday, February 8, 2021 5:51:29 PM
Hello!
I’m writing to express my strong opposition to any rezoning or development of Hickory Hill Park. It really is a very
special place in our community, and losing any part of it would be devastating.
Thank you for your consideration and all you do for the city.
Stella Hart
1331 Dodge Street Ct
Iowa City, IA 52245
This email is from an external source.
From:Anne Russett
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:FW: Proposed land development
Date:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 8:51:04 AM
Can you please follow-up with this person if you haven’t, yet.
From: Jorgensen, Shea M <shea-jorgensen@uiowa.edu>
Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2021 1:34 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>; ray-heitner@iowa-city.org
Subject: Proposed land development
Dear Ms. Russett and Mr. Heitner,
My family lives in Iowa City and we frequent Hickory Hills, as well as other natural areas in
town, at least weekly with our 2-year-old. One of our favorite aspects of Iowa City is the
nature built into the city, especially places we can easily walk to, like Hickory Hills.
I am very concerned about the encroachment of the residential development proposal adjacent
to Hickory Hills. I don't believe the developer's proposed design is an adequate buffer and it
would be a shame to lose another of the few natural places remaining in the city. I hope that
we can protect what is left of our wild areas for future generations. Once they are developed,
they will never be reclaimed. On behalf of my 2-year-old and all the kids who benefit from
natural places in the city, thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Shea Jorgensen, MD
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the individual
or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and
From:Kristen Morrow
To:Raymond Heitner; Anne Russett
Subject:Hickory Hill Land Development
Date:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 7:09:01 PM
Hello Mr. Heitner and Ms. Russett,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed rezoning and housing development on
the land directly abutting Hickory Hill. I am very concerned with the lack of buffer between
this development and the park, and I feel that this development would bring irreparable harm
to the sense of wildness one can feel while hiking Hickory Hill's more remote trails. Like
many residents in my generation, I yearn for more wild places, more trails, more public lands
and parks. This sentiment seems to be growing, especially in light of the pandemic, as more
and more people are finding refuge in the natural world. While I greatly value the Iowa City
parks that are available to me, it's hard not to feel the tug of cities that have placed greater
value on keeping wild corridors. For the sake of Iowa City's residents, wildlife, and reputation,
I think it would be a great mistake if this development were allowed to carve out some of the
remaining wild spaces we have.
Thank you for your time,
Kristen Morrow
"There can be no purpose more enspiriting than to begin the age of restoration,
reweaving the wondrous diversity of life that still surrounds us." - E. O. Wilson.
From:Lutgendorf, Philip A
To:Raymond Heitner; Anne Russett
Cc:friends.hh.park@gmail.com; Lutgendorf, Susan K
Subject:Rezoning the field adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
Date:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 8:28:07 PM
Dear Ms. Russett and Mr. Heitner,
As a nearby resident and frequent walker in Hickory Hill Park, I am deeply troubled by the
current rezoning request that would allow a developer to put fifty-four houses and a street
into the fairly narrow field adjoining the park on its northeast side. I knew something like this
was coming when I repeatedly saw an “Axiom” truck in the field just south of the new Oaknoll
East facility during the summer, with people taking measurements, but I did not guess the
extent of the development they want to build. In my experience over nearly four decades, the
City has given up several opportunities to preserve, through the acquisition of former farms, a
larger belt of greenspace that would enhance the quality of life for residents and prevent our
area becoming part of continuous semi-urban sprawl, especially to the east and north.
Approving the present request—the density of which I understand to violate the City’s own
Northeast District Plan and its mandate for “conservation residential design,” as well as its
Comprehensive Plan—would be yet another failure of vision, and loss of an opportunity to
enhance Iowa City’s livability and recreational opportunities for present and future residents.
If there is more that I can do (in our present situation of limited social interaction) to register
my concern over and opposition to this proposed rezoning, please let me know.
Thanking you,
Philip Lutgendorf
2 Glendale Court
Iowa City (52245)
319 541-5145
From:Shelly Carpenter
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:REZ20-0016 Hickory Trail Estates
Date:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 1:41:46 PM
Dear Mr. Heitner
In response to the notice we received regarding the proposal to rezone the area around Scott
Blvd. and 1st Ave. on the east side of Iowa City we would like to express our concern about
how the planned rezoning would affect Hickory Hill park and surrounding areas. We oppose
any rezoning that would have construction butting up against city preserve and park land.
Also we would request that any development approaching the park be done with single-loaded
streets to allow for a natural buffer between park grounds and housing developments.
Thank you.
Shelly & Marty Carpenter
1035 Tamarack Trail
--
Shelly Carpenter, M.S.
Certified Wellness Coach and Yoga Instructor
www.wellfinity.com
319.330.8382
From:Erin Durian
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Rezoning Message
Date:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 5:43:45 PM
Mr. Heitner,
I am writing to you about the proposed development in the area behind Hickory Hill Park. I believe
that this space is vital for the neighborhood community and should not be further developed. Please
share these comments with the Commission.
Over the years, this space has been important to me personally but I have also been
observing its importance to others. One of the reasons I love living in this neighborhood is the
proximity to nature and in the summer and spring and fall, my preferred walk when I’m feeling
stressed, overwhelmed, or sad is through Hickory Hill to the Big Field that opens up. This space
always feels magical because of its isolation and its expansive presence close to a busy street. On the
days I come up, I’ll sit at the top of the hill- sometimes for an hour or two- and appreciate the sound
of the birds and the quiet, of being surrounded by trees. I’ll observe the plants that grow and the
animals that sneak by. I’ve seen deer, owls, a fox come into the clearing and walk along known
pathways so I know they also appreciate the quiet and the trees. I’ll see families taking a walk
together with their dog leaping beside them (the dog is always particularly stupefied by the amount
of open space to run). I’ll wave hello and listen to their soft footsteps in the grass allowing my mind
to relax, observe, and appreciate what we have around us.
This space is a sanctuary for the residents of this neighborhood and their families as well as
for the wildlife that travels between the park and other wooded areas. I believe the value of this
place is greater as it is, than it would be with another street of houses. Please reconsider developing
this area as it holds a special place in my heart.
Thank you,
Erin Durian
51 Hickory Pl
From:Jason Napoli
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Re: Rezoning Near 1st Avenue and Scott Boulevard
Date:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 5:25:47 PM
Attachments:image004.png
image005.png
image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
Hi Ray-
Thank you for the follow-up regarding this matter. Would you be able to help interpret this new plat
proposal? It appears that lot 45 now contains ten separate homes. Is there a reason and/or strategy for
that?
Furthermore, it appears the numbering of the lots has changed since the original proposal, which is
concerning since my initial message to Anne identified lots 14-28 as not following the concept of a single-
loaded street development. The lots that are now of concern are 26-44. If other residents previously
expressed concern about specific lots can we be sure the numbering change will be taken into
consideration by the Commission?
Thank you again for reconnecting. As previously mentioned, it is concerning how far this proposal is from
the established NE District Plan for the Bluffwood area and I hope the Planning & Zoning Commission will
follow the established guidelines when developing against city preserve.
All the best,
Jason
On Monday, February 8, 2021, 02:39:51 PM CST, Raymond Heitner <raymond-heitner@iowa-city.org>
wrote:
All,
Please see the attached neighbor notification letter for the rezoning application near the intersection of 1st
Avenue and Scott Boulevard. The attached letter contains information pertaining to the currently
scheduled meeting date and time that the rezoning will be discussed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. The letter also contains information on how to access and participate in the meeting.
Please feel free to email me any additional comments that you might like the Commission to consider in
its evaluation of this application.
Thank you,
Ray Heitner
From:Ben Berger
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:RE: REZ20-0016 Hickory Trail Estates
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 9:28:29 AM
Hi Raymond,
I received your letter in the mail about the potential rezoning for Hickory Trail Estates. Thank
you for reaching out and allowing the public to voice their opinions.
While I do not disagree with development in our community, I do want it to be done in areas
that do not impact housing and the environment that is already present.
With the new proposed development, I am very concerned about the impact it will have on the
environment and Hickory Hill Park. I very much enjoy walking through the park and
admiring the natural haven that it provides for humans and nature. I fear that by placing a
housing development right along the border of the park, we as a community will negatively
affect the animals and their homes.
Another very real concern is the added traffic on N. 1st Ave. Traffic on this street is already
very busy and more often than not far exceeding the posted speed limits. I have 3 young
children, and I am always concerned about the traffic on this street. Adding the development
will increase traffic volumes and I believe just lead to additional issues.
The way that the development road will be placed I believe will create an avenue of least
resistance to Eastbound traffic on Scott. At night when the stop at N. 1st Ave and Scott
becomes backed up, traffic will just shoot down the neighborhood and to the intersection at
Hickory Trail and N. 1st Ave.
I have approached the city about traffic calming on N. 1st Ave before, but have not seen any
attempts to control it. What is the city planning to do with the increased traffic and speeds? I
hope they have a suggestion.
Finally, I purchased my house on N. 1st Ave because of the great views out the back of the lot
(ravine) and across the street to the open field and trees. This development will negatively
affect my view across the street and I will be forced to look at a large building development.
My suggestion is the city looks to rezone and develop elsewhere. Leave nature alone and do
not impact an area that so many people of the community love and enjoy.
Thank you.
--
Ben Berger
From:karen.nichols
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Development along Hickory Hill Park
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 11:26:33 AM
Dear Ms. Russett, Mr. Heitner, and members of the Iowa City Planning and Zoning
Commission:
I am writing in opposition to the rezoning request for a residential housing development along
the northeast border of Hickory Hill Park. I am not opposed to development near the park in
general, but do object to the proposed development as currently presented. Based on images of
the plan I have seen, it does not seem to adhere to the recommendations in the Northeast
District Plan or the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
The Northeast District Plan calls for a "conservation residential design" in the neighborhood
that provides a buffer between the residential development and the park. The City's
Comprehensive Plan, when discussing Parks and Open Space Goals and Strategies,
discourages parks that are surrounded by private property and encourages development of
parks with single loaded street access. The developer’s proposed design does not seem to
adhere to either of these plans.
Hickory Hill park is a jewel of Iowa City and one of the reasons our family stays here.
Considerable community effort has gone into protecting and maintaining the park over many
decades. Developers, planners, and other city leaders must respect the wishes of the
community as expressed in the Northeast District Plan and the City’s Comprehensive Plan,
which set forth guidelines that residents expect to be followed in developing land near the
park. Please require that the developer's plans be reworked to adhere to our city's expressed
guidelines.
Thank you.
With warmest regards,
Karen Nichols
Communications Professional
1740 F Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
641.781.8506
karen.nichols@pm.me
she/her/hers
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
From:Veronica Bolinger
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Hickory Hill Park Proposed Rezoning Concerns
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 12:26:24 PM
To Whom it may Concern,
I am concerned about the rezoning request for new development near Hickory Hill Park, this proposal does not comply with the NE District plan, or the Comprehensive Plan and needs to be reworked. These plans were put in place to protect and minimize the impact to Hickory Hill Park and they should absolutely be followed and the diverging from these stated goals shows a lack of integrity to our citizens and community. I would appreciate it if you would forward my concerns onto the Planning and Zoning team.
A concerned citizen,Veronica Bolinger
From:Jesse Thomas
To:Anne Russett
Cc:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Re: Proposed development of Hickory Hill Park
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 12:50:23 PM
Attachments:image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
Thanks for the option Anne. I would prefer to retract my first statement and just make a broad
comment based on what little I know of the project right now:
1. I'm in favor of Hickory hill park growing.
2. I'm against boxing in the park which could reduce its expansion options in the future
3. I would prefer we avoid more low-density development or road laying but if we cannot
avoid it I would insist that we take every opportunity to build dedicated and separate bicycle
infrastructure so we don't need to share the road with car users.
This is the first time in 20 years I've paid attention. I'll tune in closely so I can make more
educated comments next time.
Thank you
Jesse
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:22 PM Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> wrote:
Hi, Jesse – Would you like me to share this correspondence with the Commission? If you’d like to
revise your statement for me to share with the Commission you could do that, as well.
Thanks, Anne
From: Jesse Thomas <jessemacfarlane@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 12:14 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Re: Proposed development of Hickory Hill Park
Thanks for the clarification Anne I was confused about the facts there.
I'm reassured to hear you would grow the park... let's do it!
Jesse
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 10:44 AM Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> wrote:
Hi, Jesse –
Thank you for your email. We will forward it to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their
consideration.
I wanted to clarify that the proposal does not turn over any of the existing parkland to development. I
would increase the size of the park by 10 acres. That said, the development is adjacent to the park.
Let us know if you have any questions.
Thanks, Anne
WWW.ICGOV.ORG
Anne Russett, AICP
Senior Planner
She/Her/Hers
p: 319-356-5251
410 E Washington St
Iowa City, IA 52240
From: Jesse Thomas <jessemacfarlane@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 9:59 AM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Proposed development of Hickory Hill Park
Hello Anne,
Would you please forward this to the Planning and Zoning Commission?
I am the owner of 625 S Governor St and I think that turning over any part of Hickory Hill
Park to development would be a huge mistake.
It goes without saying that HHP is a beloved benefit for the entire community in any year
but to think of encroaching on the park after living through Covid is shocking and hurtful
to put it mildly.
There are so many areas in our city already bulldozed, paved, and vacant that can accept
such a development. In order to lead the state in equity and human happiness, we need to
increase the density of what we have already developed, decrease our automobile
dependence, and increase the leisure spaces and our access to them with bicycle highways
and free bussing.
I use every acre of Hickory Hill park every month of the year and I would be extremely
sad to see more wasteful sprawl continue to make a mockery of our "Athens of the
Midwest" reputation.
Jesse Thomas
Resident
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for
use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this
information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
From:Hillary Schofield
To:anne-russet@iowa-city.org; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Proposed Residential Development Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 1:00:44 PM
Dear Anne and Ray,
I am writing to express my disapproval of the proposed development adjacent to Hickory Hill
Park. I explore and walk the trails of HHP frequently. It is a precious source of renewal in
Iowa City, without having to travel very far. It is so important to have this kind of refuge in
town, and not only for humans, but for all the other creatures that are trying to persist and
thrive despite the ever-encroaching spread of human settlement. A development so close and
so elaborate would undoubtedly have a negative domino effect on the ecosystem of the Park.
My strong feelings aside, this plan does not comply with the Northeast District Plan, nor the
Comprehensive Plan; these need to be followed in order to minimize the damage to this dearly
valued part of Iowa City.
I ask that you please pass along these comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Many thanks for your time,
Hillary
From:Anne Russett
To:"nancy footner"
Cc:Raymond Heitner
Subject:RE: Hickory Hill Park proposed development
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 1:04:33 PM
Thanks, Nancy. We will pass this along to the Commission.
Anne
From: nancy footner <nfootner@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 12:47 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Hickory Hill Park proposed development
Dear Ms Russett,
I am writing to protest the proposed development on the NE side of Hickory Hill Park.
This plan completely violates both terms laid out in the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan and the NE
District plan.
Please forward this email to all the members of the Planning and Zoning committee and the City
Council.
The proposal must be rejected. Hickory Hill Park is a precious natural area and must be protected
from any further encroachment by development.
Nancy Footner
Iowa City Citizen
2008 Dunlap Ct, Iowa City, IA 52245
319 3382674
From:Anne Russett
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:FW: Hickory Hill Development
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 2:24:32 PM
Please include with Commission correspondence.
From: Susannah Neal <susannahgkneal@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 2:04 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Hickory Hill Development
Dear Ms Russett
As a citizen of Iowa City I am writing to object to the proposed development that borders Hickory Hill
Park. This proposed development does not comply with the NE Plan nor does it comply to the
Comprehensive Plans. Those plans were put in place to protect HHP and by breaching these plans
this development is in violation of those plans. Please immediately reverse the course of this
egregious development plan.
Respectfully,
Susannah Neal
1133 Chamberlain Drive
Iowa City, IA 52240
From:Heather McKnight
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Hickory Hill
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 3:56:07 PM
Anne and Raymond,
I am writing to you to express my dismay at the proposed rezoning of land adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. Hickory
Hill is an oasis within the city. A sprawling park where I and my kids wander aimlessly and discover new delights.
We have seen foxes, deer and numerous other wildlife. It is a special retreat and I fear a rezoning would be very
disruptive to the rugged and wild landscape and wildlife. This proposal does not comply with the NE District plan,
nor the Comprehensive Plan and I strongly encourage the proposal not be accepted. Please share my feedback with
planning and zoning.
Thank you,
Heather
Sent from my iPhone
This email is from an external source.
From:Messingham, Kelly
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Hickory Trail rezoning project by Axiom consultants
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 4:19:03 PM
To: Iowa City Planning and Rezoning Commission and City Council
c/o Anne Russett and Raymond-Heitner
We are writing to convey our objection to the proposed rezoning and development of the 48.75
acres on the SW corner of Scott Blvd and N 1st Ave by Axiom Consultants for completion of a Hickory
Trail extension. The proposed development, with up to 50 single family lots and a senior living
facility with 120 units, does not comply with the NE District plan and the Comprehensive plan set
forth by the City. The original plan specified development of a short cul-de-sac-no longer than 900
feet. These original plans were put into place to minimize the impact of development on HHP, and
should be followed. HHP is a unique urban park that should be protected. A larger buffer is
necessary to diminish city noise within the park and elimination of the buffer zone to the proposed
35-48 feet (in some areas) will have a direct impact on wildlife that travel between the park and
surrounding areas on a daily basis.
Additionally, we live immediately adjacent to the site to be developed and this extensive increase in
housing density will dramatically increase noise and traffic in the area, with a negative impact on
both HHP and the traffic on Scott Blvd.
Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions. Thank you.
Kelly Messingham
Michael Messingham
64 Hickory Heights Lane
Iowa City, IA 52245
Ph. 319.594.6611
kelly-messingham@uiowa.edu
michaelmessingham@gmail.com
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete or destroy all copies of the original message and attachments thereto.
Email sent to or from UI Health Care may be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank
you.
From:Emily Schacht
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 4:31:59 PM
To: Iowa City Planning and Rezoning Commission and City Council
I'd like to express my objection to the proposed rezoning and development of the 48.75 acres on the SW corner of Scott Blvd and N 1st Ave by Axiom Consultants for completion of a Hickory Trail extension. The proposed development, with up to 50 single family lots and a senior living facility with 120 units does not comply with the NE District plan and the Comprehensive plan set forth by the City. These original plans were put into place to minimize the impact of development on Hickory Hill Park, and should be followed. Hickory HIll Park is a unique urban park that should be protected. A larger buffer is necessary to diminish city noise within the park and elimination of the buffer zone to the proposed 35-48 feet (in some areas) will have a direct impact on wildlife that travel between the park and surrounding areas on a daily basis.
I am not opposed to development in general, and believe development is necessary for our town to continue to retain its current residents and attract new ones. However, development needs to be done thoughtfully, which is what the NE District plan and Comprehensive City plan accomplish. These plans should be followed.
Please forward my comment to the Planning and Rezoning Commission and City Council.
Sincerely,Emily Campbell328 N 7th Ave, Iowa City, IA
From:kristen Nelson-Boutros
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Proposed Rezoning and Development
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 4:45:17 PM
Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org and Raymond-heitner@iowa-city.org
To: Iowa City Planning and Rezoning Commission and City Council
We are writing to convey our objection to the proposed rezoning and development of the
48.75 acres on the SW corner of Scott Blvd and N 1st Ave by Axiom Consultants for
completion of a Hickory Trail extension. The proposed development, with up to 50 single
family lots and a senior living facility with 120 units, does not comply with the the NE District
plan and the Comprehensive plan set forth by the City. The original plan specified
development of a short cul-de-sac-no longer than 900 feet. These original plans were put into
place to minimize the impact of development on Hickory Hills Park (HHP), and should be
followed. HHP is a unique urban park that should be protected. A larger buffer is necessary to
diminish city noise within the park and elimination of the buffer zone to the proposed 35-48
feet (in some areas) will have a direct impact on wildlife that travel between the park and
surrounding areas on a daily basis.
Additionally, we live immediately adjacent to the site to be developed and this extensive
increase in housing density will dramatically increase noise and traffic in the area, with a
negative impact on both HHP and the traffic on Scott Blvd.
Sincerely,
Kristen Nelson-Boutros
Rami Boutros
Get Outlook for iOS
From:Robin Kopelman
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Hickory Hill Park area rezoning
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 4:59:11 PM
To: Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council:
We are writing to convey our objection to the proposed rezoning and
development of the 48.75 acres on the SW corner of Scott Blvd and N
1st Ave by Axiom Consultants for completion of a Hickory Trail
extension. The proposed development, with up to 50 single family lots
and a senior living facility with 120 units, does not comply with the
NE District plan and the Comprehensive plan set forth by the City. The
original plan specified development of a short cul-de-sac-no longer
than 900 feet. These original plans were put into place to minimize
the impact of development on HHP, and should be followed. HHP is a
unique urban park that should be protected. A larger buffer is
necessary to diminish city noise within the park and elimination of
the buffer zone to the proposed 35-48 feet (in some areas) will have a
direct impact on wildlife that travel between the park and surrounding
areas on a daily basis.
Additionally, we speak as a family who lives adjacent to Hickory Hill
Park. We share concerns with other adjacent neighborhoods that the
extensive increase in housing density will dramatically increase noise
and traffic in the area, with a negative impact on both HHP and the
traffic on Scott Blvd. and 1st Ave..
Our six family members are daily users of the park, whether as
recreational hikers, XC skiers, responsible dog walkers, sledders, and
trail runners. I (Robin) also co-lead the Iowa City Trail Sisters, an
all-women's trail running group who regularly runs in and loves this
wild area deeply. For these reasons, we are concerned it will
severely impact the wildlife habitat, negatively impact the quality of
the park experience, and be detrimental to the already poor water
quality of Ralston Creek.
Please forward our comments.
Sincerely,
Robin and Todd Kopelman
523 Woodridge Avenue
Iowa City
Sent from my iPhone
This email is from an external source.
From:Mark Renshaw
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner; Bruce Teague
Subject:Rezoning
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 8:00:22 PM
To: Iowa City Planning and Rezoning Commission and City Council
I am writing to contest and oppose the proposed rezoning and development of the 48.75 acres on the SW corner of
Scott Boulevard and N 1st Avenue by Axiom Consultants for completion of a Hickory Trail extension.
The proposed rezoning and development, with up to 50 single family lots and a senior living facility with 120 units,
does not comply with the the NE District Plan and the Comprehensive Plan set forth by the City of Iowa City. The
original plans specified development of a short cul-de-sac-no longer than 900 feet, and were developed to minimize
the impact of on Hickory Hills Park. If this space is to be developed, these original plans must be followed. Our
Hickory Hills Park is a unique urban park that should be protected. A larger buffer is necessary to diminish city
noise within the park and elimination of the buffer zone to the proposed 35-48 feet (in some areas) will have a direct
impact on wildlife that travel between the park and surrounding areas.
Additionally, my property is immediately adjacent to the site to be developed and this extensive increase in housing
density will dramatically increase noise and traffic in the area, with a negative impact on both Hickory Hills Park
and traffic on Scott Boulevard.
Sincerely,
Mark Renshaw
72 Hickory Heights Lane
Iowa City, Iowa
This email is from an external source.
From:Bruce Teague
To:Mark Renshaw; Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Re: Rezoning
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 8:22:31 PM
Attachments:OutlookEmoji-1554175382453692d126f-b36d-4eda-babd-0f3060f207ce.png
OutlookEmoji-1554175382453074ba4ce-9234-4274-9637-aa0aebc05576.png
OutlookEmoji-15541753824534c39b404-ae1f-45ae-b633-343d56495d4a.png
OutlookEmoji-1554175382453b45f3b08-f30a-4ebe-897f-9445fc8ace4f.png
OutlookEmoji-1554175382453a0398783-e4e2-4f62-99a9-06452c02d067.png
OutlookEmoji-1554175382453e323ed16-9e35-4f52-aa06-361cf68c4e59.png
OutlookEmoji-1554175382453dde46e65-eb31-45e1-a249-f58094e1c0d6.png
OutlookEmoji-155417538245367aed794-3e7c-4608-9056-2a5589e5e6b3.png
OutlookEmoji-1554175382453a419b920-12c8-4663-ab60-853ac4c91599.png
OutlookEmoji-15541753824533aa0bf07-2022-4c92-a736-5452034d69fd.png
OutlookEmoji-1554175382453fae27209-c22b-4b3d-bcc1-0361b217bcde.png
OutlookEmoji-155417538245319745814-5f90-4f63-aadf-8a0d3471bb86.png
OutlookEmoji-15541753824535b9a9ec7-b9a4-445a-b58a-7a5cecd0f68d.png
Thanks for reaching out and sharing your concerns. I hear you!
This project will first be at our Planning and Zoning Commission and must pass there before it
comes to council. I would encourage you to share your concerns with Commissioners through
email, calls, and/or when this item is on their agenda.
Sincerely,
Mayor Bruce Teague
(He/Him/His)
Iowa City City Council Member - At Large
1-319-536-1200
410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240
WWW.ICGOV.ORG
Notice: Please be advised this email communication may be public information.
From: Mark Renshaw <markrenshaw@me.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 8:00:00 PM
To: Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner; Bruce Teague
Subject: Rezoning
To: Iowa City Planning and Rezoning Commission and City Council
I am writing to contest and oppose the proposed rezoning and development of the 48.75 acres on the SW corner of
Scott Boulevard and N 1st Avenue by Axiom Consultants for completion of a Hickory Trail extension.
The proposed rezoning and development, with up to 50 single family lots and a senior living facility with 120 units,
does not comply with the the NE District Plan and the Comprehensive Plan set forth by the City of Iowa City. The
original plans specified development of a short cul-de-sac-no longer than 900 feet, and were developed to minimize
the impact of on Hickory Hills Park. If this space is to be developed, these original plans must be followed. Our
Hickory Hills Park is a unique urban park that should be protected. A larger buffer is necessary to diminish city
noise within the park and elimination of the buffer zone to the proposed 35-48 feet (in some areas) will have a direct
impact on wildlife that travel between the park and surrounding areas.
Additionally, my property is immediately adjacent to the site to be developed and this extensive increase in housing
density will dramatically increase noise and traffic in the area, with a negative impact on both Hickory Hills Park
and traffic on Scott Boulevard.
Sincerely,
Mark Renshaw
72 Hickory Heights Lane
Iowa City, Iowa
This email is from an external source.
From:Elizabeth Tracey
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Re: Development by Axiom Consultants bordering Hickory Hill Park
Date:Friday, February 12, 2021 1:17:38 AM
We are writing to convey our objection to the proposed rezoning and development of the 48.75 acres on the SW
corner of Scott Blvd and N 1st Ave by Axiom Consultants for completion of a Hickory Trail extension. The
proposed development, with up to 50 single family lots and a senior living facility, does not comply with the NE
District plan and the Comprehensive plan set forth by the city. The original plan specified development of a short
cul-de-sac no longer than 900 feet. These original plans were put into place to minimize the impact of development
on Hickory Hill Park (HHP), and should be followed. HHP is a unique urban park that should be protected. A larger
buffer is necessary to diminish city noise within the park and elimination of the buffer zone to the proposed 35-48
feet (in some areas) will have a direct impact on wildlife that travel between the park and surrounding areas on a
daily basis.
Additionally, we live immediately adjacent to the site to be developed and this extensive increase in housing density
will dramatically increase noise and traffic in the area, with a negative impact on both Hickory Hill Park and the
traffic on Scott Blvd.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Tracey and Robert Beck
40 Hickory Heights Lane
Iowa City, Iowa 52245
This email is from an external source.
From:Julie Moffitt
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Rezoning adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
Date:Friday, February 12, 2021 7:50:17 AM
Dear Mr Heitner,
I am writing regarding rezoning of land adjacent to Hickory Hill park. I have lived in Iowa
City since 1999 and have run and hiked 1000’s of miles in that park. I took my dog for the
last cross country ski of his life in that park, I took my young daughter for her first trail run in
that park, and I have run many miles with cherished friends there as well. Every time I wander
the trails there, it never ceases to amaze me at the natural beauty and wildlife I see. This park
is a crowing jewel in Iowa City. Rezoning this land adjacent - and I know this section well -
will effective remove a buffer from that side of the park and negatively impact habitat and the
experience. If Central Park in NYC can exist as it does, surely Iowa City, IA can be as
thoughtful and protective of its urban parks and natural habitat. I would request that you deny
this request for rezoning. There is plenty of other land to develop.
Please share my comments at the rezoning meeting.
Sincerely,
Julia A. Moffitt, PhD
302 W Park Rd, Iowa City, IA 52246
From:Kelly Teeselink
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Comments on the proposed residential development adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
Date:Friday, February 12, 2021 8:02:37 AM
Good morning,
This email is in regards to the proposed residential development adjacent to Hickory Hill Park.
I was (and am) very heartbroken and frustrated to hear of this potential
residential development that I believe would negatively impact the best park in Iowa City.
But to take the emotion out of it, one of the biggest issues I see is this proposal does not
comply with the NE District plan, nor the Comprehensive Plan. This plan calls for a
"conservation residential design" and myself and others do not believe the developer's
proposed design follows the City's established comprehensive plan and needs to be reworked.
Furthermore, the City's Comprehensive Plan, when discussing Parks and Open Space Goals
and Strategies, "discourages parks that are surrounded by private property; encourage
development of parks with single loaded street access." This residential development would be
doing the opposite of the comprehensive plan.
On another note, I can't claim to know much about deer population and control but I am going
on the assumption that the more deer habitat that is removed, the more deer will end up in
residential areas. With the city spending lots of resources on deer population control, it's
frustrating to see that there is a proposed plan that would destroy this animal friendly habitat.
And finally, I must admit I am no longer an Iowa City resident as of one month ago. I lived in
Iowa City for 16 years and consider it my home. I moved to Flagstaff, Arizona because I
wanted more access to nature and wild spaces. While IC and the surrounding area provides
lovely trails and parks, I wanted to live in a place that actively conserved outdoor spaces and
made them more abundant and accessible. This proposed plan near HHP reaffirmed my
decision to leave Iowa City, which wasn't an easy one. I know I'm not the only who places
significant weight on access to and conservation of outdoor spaces when deciding where to
live.
Thank you for listening!
Kelly Teeselink
From:Carolyn L. Buckingham
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Re: Proposed Development Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
Date:Friday, February 12, 2021 8:41:58 AM
Dear Ms. Russett and Mr. Heitner,
I am writing on behalf of myself and my husband, Mike Biderman, to express our opposition to the proposed
development along the easternmost border of Hickory Hill Park. The proposed development does not adhere to the
recommendations listed in Iowa City’s Northeast District Plan for the Bluffwood Area, or the City's Comprehensive
Plan and does not provide for an adequate buffer between the residential development and the park. Moreover,
Hickory Hill Park is such a unique and special place in our City and a new development built directly adjacent to the
Park will severely impact wildlife habitat and be detrimental to the water quality of Ralston Creek.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Buckingham & Mike Biderman
This email is from an external source.
From:Jorgensen, Shea M
To:Raymond Heitner
Cc:Anne Russett
Subject:Re: [External] RE: Proposed land development
Date:Friday, February 12, 2021 11:20:40 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Yes, if you could forward this to City Staff that would be much appreciated. I have since heard
from the Friends of Hickory Hill group and would also like to add that this development
proposal does not comply with the NE District plan, nor the Comprehensive Plan. Thank you
for listening to the families and individuals of our city who care about our natural spaces.
Shea Jorgensen, MD
From: Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner@iowa-city.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 9:09 AM
To: Jorgensen, Shea M
Cc: Anne Russett
Subject: [External] RE: Proposed land development
Shea,
Thank you for your comments. Attached is a letter that we sent out to nearby residents last week.
The letter contains information on how to access the upcoming Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting where we intend to discuss the rezoning application for this property.
Please let me know if you would like City staff to forward any correspondence to the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
Thank you,
Ray Heitner, AICP
Associate Planner
(he/him/his)
319.356.5238
raymond-heitner@iowa-city.org
410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240
WWW.ICGOV.ORG
From: Jorgensen, Shea M <shea-jorgensen@uiowa.edu>
Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2021 1:34 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>; ray-heitner@iowa-city.org
Subject: Proposed land development
Dear Ms. Russett and Mr. Heitner,
My family lives in Iowa City and we frequent Hickory Hills, as well as other natural areas in
town, at least weekly with our 2-year-old. One of our favorite aspects of Iowa City is the
nature built into the city, especially places we can easily walk to, like Hickory Hills.
I am very concerned about the encroachment of the residential development proposal
adjacent to Hickory Hills. I don't believe the developer's proposed design is an adequate buffer
and it would be a shame to lose another of the few natural places remaining in the city. I hope
that we can protect what is left of our wild areas for future generations. Once they are
developed, they will never be reclaimed. On behalf of my 2-year-old and all the kids who
benefit from natural places in the city, thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Shea Jorgensen, MD
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the individual
or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all
copies of the original message and attachments thereto. Email sent to or from UI Health Care may
be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank you.
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use
by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete or destroy all copies of the original message and attachments thereto.
Email sent to or from UI Health Care may be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank
you.
From:Weis, Adam J
To:Anne Russett
Cc:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Re: [External] RE: Hickory Hill Park/NE District
Date:Friday, February 12, 2021 2:43:34 PM
Hi Anne,
Thank you for replying and forwarding my message on. It is nice to know that our voices are
heard, and I value your time.
The 10-acre addition is a small consolation in what is a betrayal of the NE District Plan, of Iowa
City, and of nature. Please forward my comments to P&Z. I know Iowa City will make the right
decision in the end.
Thanks again,
Adam
From: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 10:41 AM
To: Weis, Adam J <adam-j-weis@uiowa.edu>
Cc: Ray Heitner <raymond-heitner@iowa-city.org>
Subject: [External] RE: Hickory Hill Park/NE District
Hi, Adam –
Thank you for your email. We will forward it to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their
consideration.
I did want to let you know that with the proposal the park would be expanded by 10 acres.
Let us know if you have any questions.
Thanks, Anne
From: Weis, Adam J <adam-j-weis@uiowa.edu>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 9:39 AM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Hickory Hill Park/NE District
Dear Ms. Russett,
I'm writing to express my concern about development plans near Hickory Hill Park. I'm a
graduate student at the University and have lived in Iowa City since I was four years old. In my
twenty years here, I've explored nearly every corner of our city, particularly its natural areas.
I'm really proud that the IC area has so many beautiful parks and trail systems, and I think it's
one of the strongest aspects of our community. I've spent hundreds of hours with friends and
acquaintances running and hiking in our parks, especially Hickory Hill. When I heard about
plans to develop northeast of the park, it immediately struck me as poor planning.
In a time when Iowa City is trying to embrace sustainability and the fight against climate
change (for instance, the prairie plantings in the parks which I think is absolutely amazing), it
seems antithetical and backwards to develop along park boundaries. If anything, Hickory Hill
should be expanded, so that more land area can be restored to native landscape which helps
reduce flooding through increased infiltration, clean our water and air, provide habitat for
wildlife, and offer more recreational opportunities for our neighbors. It's especially imperative
that existing natural areas are bolstered since it's much easier to expand an existing park than
create a new one. And wildlife corridors become more effective with size and inter-
connection, rather than being dispersed across the city.
I'm also concerned that the developers will not follow the NE District Plan and maintain a
proper buffer or follow "conservation design." Due to its proximity to Ralston Creek,
developing any additional land in this part of town cannot embrace conservation. The increase
in impermeable surfaces will only increase the flashiness of Ralston Creek, and additional
contaminants will runoff into the stream.
Iowa City should be seeking every single opportunity it can to strengthen the size and health
of its natural areas. We're lucky to have a community that cares about nature and recreation
and prioritizes those aspects in a state which does not. Please at least consider these things,
and I appreciate you spending the time to read this. I would be happy to help in any way I can.
I love Iowa City and would hate to see it become a haven for developers seeking short-term
gains.
Thank you,
Adam Weis
Graduate Research Assistant
Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Iowa
From:darcy128@aol.com
To:Raymond Heitner; Anne Russett
Cc:darcy128@aol.com
Subject:REZ20-0016 Hickory Trail Estates
Date:Friday, February 12, 2021 3:21:26 PM
Dear Mr. Heitner and Ms. Russett,
I'm writing to you with regard to the rezoning of the land proposed as Hickory Trail Estates REZ20-0016.
In the rezoning exhibit submitted by Mr. Clark, lots numbered 26-44 clearly ignore the "buffer zone" that
the overall city plans for development near parks contain. This proposal does not comply with the NE
District Plan nor the Comprehensive Plan for development. Why did the city go to the trouble of
developing these plans if not to follow them?
Lots numbered 26 through 44 are clearly encroaching on the area designed to protect the park. Those
additional nineteen lots are far too close to the park. People within the park will be subjected to so much
more noise from people not to mention car traffic. This road could easily become a cut through for people
coming from Scott Boulevard. The plan clearly shows that one remedy for the congestion was
contemplated and that is the use of a cul-de-sac. Why was that abandoned? Additionally, removal of lots
26-44 would create a single-loaded street, both of which are to be used in city development close to
parks.
This development is already going to severely impinge upon the enjoyment of the park. This park is a City
of Iowa City treasure and should be kept that way. I have been a user of this park for at least fifty of my
sixty-plus years and I have seen the many changes that have come, some of them very good but this
one, as proposed, will be among the worst. I am a wheelchair user now and we often go to the end of
Hickory Trail on a nightly walk. The beautiful prairie grasses and abundant animal life is a joy. Make no
mistake. First Avenue traffic behind us is still plenty loud but if this were a street with houses on two
sides, the north side of the park will never be the same. Please do the right thing and minimize this
development by keeping within the NE District Plan and the Comprehensive Plan, already in place.
Please forward this comment to the Planning and Zoning commission.
Darcy Lipsius
2639 Hickory Trail
From:Anne Russett
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:FW: Hickory Hill Park Proposed Development Plan
Date:Friday, February 12, 2021 3:32:19 PM
From: Emily Kim <emilyakim05@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 3:32 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Hickory Hill Park Proposed Development Plan
Hello Anne,
My name is Emily Kim and I have thoroughly enjoyed many hikes through Hickory Hill Park over the
years. I also am a teacher in Iowa City, and many of my students enjoy the park - especially the
sledding! They tell me, "it's one of the best sledding hills in IC." I don't have any kids yet (I am
actually due with our first baby in a few days), but I imagine we'll be frequenting HHP for many sled
trips in the future, per the recommendation of MANY Iowa City fourth graders.
After seeing the newest proposed development plan, I am concerned because the plan does not
comply with the NE District Plan or Comprehensive Plan. These plans were put in place to minimize
the impact on Hickory Hill Park. They should be followed with integrity and fidelity.
I know Iowa City prides itself on its commitment to nature, to sustainability, and to providing the
best park areas for its residents. Hickory Hill Park is a crucial part of the city and we ask that any
negative impact on the park be avoided at all costs.
Thank you for your time and commitment to Iowa City!
Emily Kim
From:Anne Russett
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:FW: Concerns about proposed development near Hickory Hill Park
Date:Friday, February 12, 2021 3:31:09 PM
From: Molitor, Hannah R <hannah-molitor@uiowa.edu>
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 3:18 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Concerns about proposed development near Hickory Hill Park
Hello Ms. Russett,
As a resident and taxpayer in Iowa City for 5 years now, and someone who appreciates natural
spaces in Iowa City, I'm writing to you to express my concerns for the proposed development
near Hickory Hill Park. As I'm sure you know, the proposed plan does not comply with the
Comprehensive Plan nor does it comply with the Northeast District Plan. I'm asking that the
proposed development not be pursued, and that the city adhere to its previous agreements to
better protect Hickory Hill Park. While I realize that all development will not be stopped, I
advocate for responsible planning around the park and establishing a buffer zone. Please
forward my thoughts to the planning and zoning committee.
All the best,
Hannah Molitor
Hannah Molitor
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Iowa
hannah-molitor@uiowa.edu
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JANUARY 21, 2021 – 7:00 PM
ELECTRONIC FORMAL MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Mark
Signs, Billie Townsend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Nolte
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: Kevin Boyd
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of REZ20-0014, an application to
designate 2525 Highlander Place as an Iowa City Historic Landmark and rezone from Highway
Commercial (CH-1) to CH-1 with a Historic District Overlay (OHD/CH-1).
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CASE NO. REZ20-0014:
Applicant: Highland Hotel, LLC
Location: 2525 Highlander Place
An application for a rezoning from Highway Commercial (CH-1) to CH-1 with a Historic District
Overlay (OHD/CH-1) to designate the property as an Iowa City Historic Landmark.
Russett began the staff report showing a map of an area of the property noting it’s located at the
northeast corner North Dodge Street or Highway 1 and off I-80. The property is currently zoned
Highway Commercial, and the overlay proposed would maintain that Highway Commercial
designation with a Historic Overlay.
Regarding background for this property, The Highlander Supper Club was built in 1967 and the
convention center was added a few years later in 1973, although it was built later it was still built
to the original design that was developed in the late 60s. The City recently received an
application from the property owner to designate this property as a landmark. Russett showed a
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is impossible or impractical
due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission members, staff and the public
presented by COVID-19.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 21, 2021
Page 2 of 6
few pictures of how the property looks today noting the main entrance, the entrance to the
supper club, the west entry with some of the remaining columns that still exist there, the hotel
rooms, and the courtyard and pool area. Russett showed an aerial photo from 1975 and a
photograph of the pool area in 1975 along with a brochure from 1975 that shows the thin
columns and the entry with the heavy canopy which is the original part of the design.
Russett stated again the property is zoned Highway Commercial and the request is to designate
this as a Historic District Overlay and with that designation any exterior modifications have to be
reviewed by either the City Historic Preservation Planner or the Historic Preservation
Commission. She noted when the Commission is reviewing these Historic Overlays the main
criteria to note is whether or not the request is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. This
property is in the North Corridor District, which currently does not have an adopted district plan.
However, Russett noted the Comprehensive Plan includes several goals related to economic
development and business retention and retaining and expanding existing businesses and to
also encouraging the efficient use of resources. In this case, this is a business that has been in
existence for several years and there's a new owner who wishes to improve the property.
There's already City services at the site and in addition to that, there are Historic Preservation
goals related to identifying and preserving historic resources in the community.
Russett noted the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed this application last Thursday
(January 14) and unanimously recommended approval of the landmark designation. Next steps
are after the P & Z Commission's discussion and recommendation tonight, this will go to
City Council in February for consideration.
Staff recommends approval of REZ20-0014, an application to designate 2525 Highlander Place
as an Iowa City Historic Landmark and rezone from Highway Commercial (CH-1) to CH-1 with a
Historic District Overlay (OHD/CH-1).
Hensch asked if the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission was unanimous
and Russett confirmed it was.
Craig asked if this is approved, does the owner have any obligation to return some of those
original features or is it just the way it is in time right now. Russett explained the owner wouldn't
be obligated to make any changes, but if they do make any changes to the exterior, it will be
subject to historic review.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Kevin Boyd (Historic Preservation Commission) explained he is now the chair of Historic
Preservation Commission but generally someone from the Commission likes to speak on behalf
of applicants who are pursuing landmark status or other status that the Commissioner has
approved. Boyd was asked to speak tonight as Bob McGurk was his grandfather and he and
Boyd’s grandmother were among the original owners of the Highlander. His parents met there,
and his uncle managed the Highlander with Boyd’s grandmother after his grandfather died 1984.
Boyd assured he has no financial ties to this property, nor does anyone in his family, at this point.
Boyd noted he has heard the stories for years from folks, how they waited tables there in college,
parents got married there, had our first date there, got engaged there, met Hayden Fry at the
supper club, etc. Boyd stated just this winter he got a text from an acquaintance he went to high
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 21, 2021
Page 3 of 6
school with who was excited to take his kids swimming there just like he had as a kid. For his
entire life people would discover the familial relationship and tell him what the Highlander meant
to them. For Boyd it is where he learned what it meant to own a business. He remembers asking
his grandma if she got a parking spot right up front since she owned the place and she replied in
a way that a grandmother can firmly, but with love, that she parks in the back so the customers
can have the best spots. Boyd noted owning the Highlander meant home football weekends
were work weekends for his parents, meaning his folks will leave before he would wake up and
come home after he’d gone to sleep. He did note many dignitaries came through and he
remembers his parents telling them what it was like to meet President Ford or the other folks who
came through. Boyd recalled so many memories there, a special lunch with his grandma, pizza
making in the kitchen for his Cub Scouts, birthday parties poolside and the pool bar menu even
had a grilled cheese named after him, the Kevin Special.
Boyd was not entirely surprised this application came along, but it did require him to shift his
thinking just as other nominations have required them to shift their sense of history to more
recent times. He does believe it meets the minimum qualifications that are needed to be a
landmark, and it also preserves a place that feels like part of the community's history. While the
history of the Highlander is a little closer to home for him it also preserves that sense for others
who may have had their first job there, or those special dates, weddings, football clubs, proms,
etc. Boyd stated he sees that same entrepreneurial spirit in Angela Harrington and her family
that he saw in his grandparents and his family. Boyd showed a paperweight, a glass dome of a
bunch of pennies for 1973 the year the hotel and convention center was complete, that
paperweight sat on his grandfather’s desk and he looks at it and encourages the Planning &
Zoning Commission to support this local landmark status, the history this place represents and
the owner’s desire to use preservation as part of the economic success of this property.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Craig moved to recommend approval of REZ20-0014, an application to designate 2525
Highlander Place as an Iowa City Historic Landmark and rezone from Highway
Commercial (CH-1) to CH-1 with a Historic District Overlay (OHD/CH-1).
Signs seconded the motion.
Hensch noted the unanimous recommendation of Historic Preservation Commission is pretty
powerful to him. He also remembers what a big deal it was to go to events at the Highlander on
New Year's Eve and other things so he certainly does believe it's a landmark in the Iowa City
area. He knows the supper club days are gone, but that was pretty neat time, and he is
supporting this application.
Signs agreed and stated he is in support of the application, it is an icon in the Iowa City area, and
he is anxious to see that they're bringing it back to life. He is also glad they changed the name
back to the Highlander, because it does have a lot of history and they can leverage that quite
well.
Craig noted she came to Iowa City in 1970 as a freshman in college and had no money so never
went out to eat or did anything fancy but in her sophomore year she went to the Highlander for
some event and after that it was like for all special events, you got to go to the Highlander. So
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 21, 2021
Page 4 of 6
there are lots of memories for many, many people there and she is really pleased that they're
doing this and it’s not just the building that's preserved, it's the history and the stories that go
along with it so she is totally supportive of this application.
Signs thanked Boyd for sharing his personal story.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JANUARY 7, 2021:
Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of January 21, 2021.
Signs seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett noted the City Council met on Tuesday during their work session to discuss the
affordable housing annexation policy, which was mentioned during the Carson Farms annexation
discussion and caused some Council members to not support that the annexation. There was no
direction given by Council for staff to make any changes to the affordable housing annexation
policy and there were many that wanted it to remain as is. They requested that as the City moves
forward with developing an affordable housing plan that the committee discuss changes.
Hensch stated he noticed there is no district plan for the North Corridor and there's a couple
other districts that are have no plans or are quite aged so is there a plan in place to create those
plans or update those plans. Russett replied right now they are working on an update to the
Southwest District Plan and their next goal after that is to reevaluate the Comprehensive Plan in
its entirety and at that time they’ll come back to the Districts and evaluate if that is the structure
that they want to maintain or not. Hensch noted as part of that discussion, in the Riverfront
Crossings there are so many subdistricts and maybe part of the discussion can be to maybe
condense the number of subdistricts. Russett started that actually might come a little bit sooner,
they are actually working on some changes to that Riverfront Crossings Code, most of the
changes are not substantive but more structural to make the Code easier to use.
Signs noted he has been asked to serve on the steering committee as the City prepares the next
five-year Affordable Housing Action Plan representing both realtors, and the P&Z Commission.
Craig stated she signed up for one of the sessions on information about affordable housing but
hasn’t receive a zoom link. Russett said that she should receive one, but that it is not a City
event. It’s put on by the Johnson County Affordable Housing Coalition.
ADJOURNMENT:
Townsend moved to adjourn.
Planning and Zoning Commission
January 21, 2021
Page 5 of 6
Martin seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2020-2021
7/16 8/6 8/20 10/1 10/15 11/5 12/3 12/17 1/7 1/21
CRAIG, SUSAN X X X X X X O X X X
DYER, CAROLYN O/E O/E -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
ELLIOTT, MAGGIE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X
HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X X X X
MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X X X X X X X
NOLTE, MARK -- -- -- -- X X X X X X X O
SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X O/E X X
TOWNSEND, BILLIE O/E X X X X X X X X X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member