Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-06-01 OrdinanceItem Number: 9.a. �r A�� CITY OE IOWA CITY www.iogov.org June 1, 2021 Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 48.75 acres of land located south of N. Scott Boulevard and west of N. 1st Avenue from Interim Development Single -Family (ID -RS) to Low Density Single -Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) zone. (REZ20-0016) /_1iETS:ILTA 121ZIII & I Description May 6 PZ Memo wAttachments March 18 PZ Memo wAttachments Feb 18 PZ Staff Report wAttachments May 6 PZ Minutes Ordinance CZA Protest of Rezoning - Hamdorf CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM CITY OF IOWA CITY Date: May 6, 2021 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner Re: REZ20-0016 — Hickory Trail Rezoning Resubmission Background Information: On February 18, 2021, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public meeting on 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). Staff recommended approval with five conditions related to approval of a Woodland Management Plan, provision of trail connections, incorporation of traffic calming devices, installation of right-of-way trees, and platting requirements. The motion to approve the rezoning failed by a vote of 0-7. On March 18, 2021, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public meeting to discuss a revised OPD Plan that was submitted by the applicant. The motion to approve the rezoning failed by a vote of 1-6. The applicant, Axiom Consultants, applying on behalf of Joseph Clark and Nelson Development 1, LLC., has submitted a further revised OPD Plan and Sensitive Areas Development Plan (Attachment #1) for the Commission's consideration. Revised Submission: The most recent OPD Plan contains the following changes to the layout from the previous plans that were reviewed by the Commission: 1. The removal of the condo -style housing in the northwest portion of the plan area. The revised Plan contains 41 lots intended for detached single-family housing. 2. A single -loaded street is proposed for approximately 71 % of the south and west sides of the proposed Hickory Trail extension. A double -loaded street is still proposed for the northern 29% of the street extension. 3. The acreage in Outlot A, that is proposed to be dedicated to the City for the expansion of Hickory Hill Park, would be increased from 11.66 acres to 14.02 acres. 4. Per staff, the applicant has added a third pedestrian crossing, which will be adjacent to the proposed traffic circle. 5. Per staff, the applicant has also added an additional sidewalk accessing the senior living facility from the public sidewalk on the east side of the facility. 6. The percent of impacted critical slopes went down from 17% to 13%. Additionally, the percent of preserved woodlands went up from 46% to 51%. RS -5 zones require a woodland retention requirement of 50%. Because the amount of woodlands preserved exceeds 50%, mitigation is no longer required. 7. The applicant has increased the stream corridor buffer to 25 feet on each side of the stream corridor. April 30, 2021 Page 2 8. The applicant has provided a buildable area analysis (Attachment #2) that illustrates the allowable buildable area within Lots 10-31. While Lots 10-31 have a total lot size ranging between approximately 15,000 and 35,000 square feet, the buildable area of these lots minus conservation easement land and setbacks, will be roughly between 4,700 and 7,600 square feet. Staff has determined that the buildable area of these lots is comparable to the buildable area of an 8,000 square foot lot, which is the minimum lot size allowed in an RS -5 zone. 9. The applicant has also submitted updated renderings (Attachment #3) and elevations (Attachment #4) for the senior living facility. The updated renderings show some additional views of the facility, while the updated elevations show the total height on each side of the facility. Figures 1 and 2 below show the change in layout from the original OPD Plan (Figure 1) that was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission on the February 18th meeting, versus the current plan (Figure 2) presented on the May 6th meeting. -figure .i — req. -ibtn hicKory i rau uru rear Comprehensive Plan: S�.HIC Fiaure 2 — April 29th Hickory Trail OPD Plan Figures 3 and 4 show a comparison between the Bluffwood Neighborhood conceptual vision from the Northeast District Plan and the current proposed OPD Plan. While the proposed OPD Plan uses a through street, as opposed to two cul-de-sacs, the current proposed OPD Plan features a � 6f 1- m Figures 3 and 4 show a comparison between the Bluffwood Neighborhood conceptual vision from the Northeast District Plan and the current proposed OPD Plan. While the proposed OPD Plan uses a through street, as opposed to two cul-de-sacs, the current proposed OPD Plan features a April 30, 2021 Page 3 similar single -loaded street frontage, with most of the central and southern portions of the development showing housing only on one side of the street. Figure 3 — Bluffwood Neighborhood Figure 4 — April 29' Hickory Trail OPD Plan NE District Plan 11;13-1 P IJ J. 4 � . } L F ■ 2P 4 -0 'j# : w� #40 AWItjIP Parks and Recreation Commission: At its April 14th meeting, staff presented the OPD Plan's proposed parkland dedication in Outlot A to the Parks and Recreation Commission. The purpose of the meeting was to obtain recommendations from the Commission to the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the dedication of land. After discussion, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended to defer any formal recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission until the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation of approval. The proposed dedication of parkland will be discussed at a future Parks and Recreation Commission meeting if the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation of approval. Landscaping: The City Forrester has reviewed the landscaping plan associated with the proposed OPD Plan and finds the landscaping plan to be satisfactory. The plan provides a mix of native and well- behaved non-native species, which is something the City strives for to create a more resilient urban forest. As many non-native species are well adapted to grow in Iowa City's growing conditions, they are also more resilient against non-native pests. This approach helps to promote diversity and tree resiliency in Iowa City's forests. m �n � � F w, i, 15 ; At its April 14th meeting, staff presented the OPD Plan's proposed parkland dedication in Outlot A to the Parks and Recreation Commission. The purpose of the meeting was to obtain recommendations from the Commission to the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the dedication of land. After discussion, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended to defer any formal recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission until the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation of approval. The proposed dedication of parkland will be discussed at a future Parks and Recreation Commission meeting if the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation of approval. Landscaping: The City Forrester has reviewed the landscaping plan associated with the proposed OPD Plan and finds the landscaping plan to be satisfactory. The plan provides a mix of native and well- behaved non-native species, which is something the City strives for to create a more resilient urban forest. As many non-native species are well adapted to grow in Iowa City's growing conditions, they are also more resilient against non-native pests. This approach helps to promote diversity and tree resiliency in Iowa City's forests. April 30, 2021 Page 4 Proposed Conditions: Staff proposes the following conditions for the rezoning. These conditions are the same conditions that were recommended for the February 18th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. 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 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 04/29/2021. 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. Revised OPD and Sensitive Areas Development Plan and Landscape Plan (04.29.2021) 2. Buildable Area Exhibit 3. May Meeting Correspondence 4. Updated Senior Living Facility Renderings 5. Updated Senior Living Facility Elevations Approved by: Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services PRELIMINARY OPD AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN HICKORY TRAIL IOWA CITY, IOWA H OUTLOTS: APPLICANT 1: APPLICANT 1'S ATTORNEY: OUTLOT SF ACRES INTENDED USE A 610,692 14.02 DEDICATED TO CITY FOR PARK SPACE B 193.577 4A4 CONSERVATION EASEMENT ROW 191,374 4.39 RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATED TO CITY FOR NELSON DEVELOPMENT I, LLC KIRTON MCCONKIE F HICKORY TRAIL EXTENSION NOTES: 1. NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES ARE PRESENT. BPROVED BY THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA APPLICANT 1: APPLICANT 1'S ATTORNEY: s O G. JOSEPH CLARK PHELAN TUCKER LAW Z 221 E. BURLINGTON ST JOHN BEASLEY CITY CLERK DATE IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 321 E. MARKETST 0 IOWA CITY, IA 52245 APPLICANT 2: APPLICANT 21 ATTORNEY: S NELSON DEVELOPMENT I, LLC KIRTON MCCONKIE F ATTN:JACCB WOLFGANG ATTN:BRYCE K. DALTON I� 218 6TH AVE., STE. 200 50 E. SOUTH TEMPLE, SUITE 400 I DES MOINES, IOWA 50309 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 > JACOB@NELSONCONSTRUCT.COM BOALTON@KMCLAW.COM LOT /IAH 4.3BAC 191,37 SF A 7 28 ` US / 27 LEGEND: SITE EXISTING PROPOSED CONTOURINDEX-1o0- ]op CONTOURINTERMEDIATE- 101 - FENCE'. BARB WIFE -----v-v-v- SFREAM CENTERLINE - - - - --- SIGN CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS c TREE REMOVAL LIMITS AT EDGE OF CONSUDEAT ON EASEMENT SENSITIVE AREAS AREA BUFFER STEP SLOPE (M2B%) IMPACTED STEEP SCOPE (1825%) CnnDnLSION GELATIN) :- IMPACTOR CRHICAL SLOPE ,I I2E mxl PROTECTED SLOPE 1, SPI) WOODLAND PRESFRVATON D IIEADRESRVOWLNPEAt N BLUE LINE STREAM CORRIDOR J— BOPOSEDTREE REFER TO LANDSCAPE PUN I y b \KC \ ll KEY NOTES: _ - HATCHED AREAIN WOODLAND eETEN1ION ULcuunorED jl��� S 1. 31 32 _ a (A) CONSERVATION ASEMENT US 5 33 A LET .� J�m4 24 e� OUToOT B - 2, - F 25 AT 23 c % y 35 22 0 3 01°fi "C-- �r �� 36 37 2III,1 T1111,�19�� - 14, - �ZO 18 - 1 14 a/% OT I IF 39 Al17 16�/ 15 14, 13 11 10 9. `,8, 7 S—i - IF, -F 38 p, -�, - 404 �� 12- 411 FILEIFFLIE ITa 711 42 I; 6 E, - - - ip < -- /i \�`'' •\ w- OUTLOTA I I L7VEN YI �, — z FEE S. IS "12 X i `\ i�< IF .o � - i �� I I i ( -� 0 \II 11 s O J Z I F�1 I 5 0 U O S J F I I� a a I I > II I } I I 1 0 Ln w s0 s O LED Z F�1 5 0 U O J F garLLl r a a ? > a } w p IF A vw u w Z �R San! o Ln Ln w s O w Z F�1 5 0 U O J F garLLl r a a ? > a } w p 2 F vw u w Z �R San! 2 a LOS l7 MEETNUMBER: C1.00 Ln w s O U F a J Q w w 3 LL San! aJ ~ LU O N N v N N MEETNUMBER: C1.00 APPLICANT 1: APPLICANT 1'S ATTORNEY: PRELIMINARYOPD AND G.JOSEPHCLARK PHELAN TUCKER LAW 221 E. BURLINGTON ST JOHN BEASLEY (" I I ! \., I �Z SENSITIVE AREAS °W^GITY,IOWA52240 321E CITY, 22 J \ a IOWA CITY, IA 52245 DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICANT 2: APPLICANT 2'S ATTORNEY: NELSON DEVELOPMENT 1, LLC KIRTON MCCONKIE IMPACTED QUANTITIES: T I A�N:BRYCE K. DALTON H I C KO RY T RA I L 2 6 6TH AVE STE. 200 50 E. SOUTH TEMPLE UITE 400 CRITICAL SLOPES STEEP SLOPES _ `\ I / \ IJ 8 IOWA CITY, IOWA LOCATION DES MOINES, IOWA 50309 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 1,466 1 40,906 2 JACOB@NELSONCONSTRUCT.COM BDALTON@KMCLAW.COM 1,058 3 NOTES: 5,036 4 3,486 L THERE ARE PROTECTED SLOPES WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT ABUFFER 1,418 5 EQUAL TO 2 TIMES THE HEIGHT OF THE SLOPE IS PROVIDED. NO PROTECTED SLOPES OR BUFFERS ARE IMPACTED WITH THIS PROJECT. 1,885 6 11188 a 2. THE TOTAL PERCENTAGE I MPACTED CRITICAL SLOPE IS LESS THAN 35% OF THE TOTAL. 1;399 CRITICAL SLOPE CALCULATION AREA ISE) PERCENTAGE 3 IMPACTED SLOPES 40,401 13% (�4 NON -IMPACTED SLOPES 237,292 73% NON IMPACTED SLOPES IN PROTECTED SLOPE BUFFER 44,026 14% 5,422 CRITICAL SLOPES PPIQfl TO DEVELOPMENT) 321,719 IDD% ?I 7 1 4,195 6,713 1,650 2,458 3,932 4,143 3. STEEP SLOPE CALCULATION AREA SO PERCENTAGE IMPACTED SLOPES 90,807 28% I >Ay I NONIMPACTEDSLOPES 235.156 R% 3,051 STEEP SLOPES IPRIOR TO DIWELOPMENTI 325,963 100% \ I 10,388 I \ 1 TOTAL 90,81C)OF >B8 V1 1 Qfl LOCATION AREA (SF) LOCATION AREA (SF) 1 1,466 1 40,906 2 3,782 1,058 3 320 5,036 4 3,486 9 1,418 5 6,863 0 1,885 6 11188 a 972 7 1;399 2,940 8 322 3 6,318 42 (�4 15,192 0 1,933 4,785 5,422 965 834 7 1 4,195 6,713 1,650 2,458 3,932 4,143 5,881 5,287 TOTAL 40,401 3,466 �\ 3,051 624 11,764 10,388 TOTAL 90,81C)OF NV -Q -� I, 1// 5 / ^ ipBp100 ai I / 5 v v 753 A 49 E Nil zz I� _ V:.{�1c I z3 _\ 1 \\ \1 \ \ io / t� s z z 1( \ z Z 29 £o 0 9 � g ^ 24 V 1 439'Ac _ t 1 31 !� V 12 � 4/ / 41 91,374 SF.9.. FI / 11 % \\ 2♦ - -. c 32 r 26"` 196„��7 AC' 9> Sr 30 5 33OVAL so SF L B V v 2477 SP 135 ZA n _a,,. -- / r/ - ) -- �e I� �,Fa °q`F )I'y H R'1 624 5F 22 21 \ �, y v\ i o 307A4e r - �/ zs !�'E62q A G I O w 5 v .� 71nSE 19 a7 - it 00 v z Q 34 37 �> 1.1`+Aun 16 - �w Y f .-� >326a1 I�� K 2 F w i 38 -r 15 ��1 ddd_ 1°x�o 39__ ���, �a�� 14 13 11 1 2 �7 �u z� LO� AC �..�6 4gsr_ a s 26 1 6 s ,r I x a u�i l7 40 41 _., "u' T� T y N 6 v 2 J vE n. 1, �✓ I Sb rKA }IIULl l0rLpOT 0 AC 61692 SF ElllfiU _-�Ir. i Z w 0 x l ul ��dIVfSL V1ai:e ��� w 4moY7�SSJ?` \� \� \ ^ �\ �� L[4nf(+lrV fndI Sn 7 -V l� r01 "V z w l GO a wZELI CD GCD C1.10 PRELIMINARY OPD AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN HICKORY TRAIL IOWA CITY, IOWA APPLICANT 1: G. JOSEPH CLARK 221 E. BURLINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 APPLICANT 2: NEL50N DEVELOPMENT 1, LLC ATTNAACOB WOLFGANG 218 6TH AVE., STE. 200 DES MOINES, IOWA 50309 JACOB@ NELSONCO N STR U CT.COM 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 HSS, A MINIMUM OF 50% GO THE EXISTING WOODlAND5 MUST BE PRESERVED. RS -s WOODLAND PRESERVATION CALCULATION AREA(SFI PERCENTAGE DISTURBEDWOODIAND 426,780 32% BUFFER(50'WIOE) 215,791 1T% '1 PRESERVEDWOODIAND 682,493 sl% WOODLAND (PRIOR TO OEVELOPME" 1,325,064 100% 'I 2. TREES ARE PROVIDED AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: LOCATION COUNT SHEET STREETTREFS 113 L1.00 LOT1 70 L3.00 TOTAL 203 1 LEGEND: AREA (SF) SITE EXISTING PROPOSED CONTOUR INDEX —IOU — 100 CONTOUR INTERMEDIATE — 101 — WO FENCE'. MMWIRE!—�— 5,892 G STREAMCENTERUNE — — SIGN 49,340 r CONSTRURION AMA OVID TOTAL 1 426,780 \ � w 0 TREE REMOVAL UMUS AT EWE z m x OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT E_ -- SENSITIVE AREAS AREA BUFFER WWDNNOPRESFAVATION IMPACTEDWOODWND PROPWEDIOME O REFER TO LANDSCAPE PIAN APPLICANT 1'S ATTORNEY: PHELAN TUCKER LAW JOHN BEASLEY 321 E. MARKET ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245 APPLICANT 2'S ATTORNEY: KIRTON MCCONKIE ATTN:BRYCE K. DALTON 50 E. SOUTH TEMPLE, SUITE 400 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 BDALTON@KMCLAW.COM IMPACTED QUANTITIES: WOODLANDS LOCATION AREA (SF) 5,031 B 61,572 C 108,575 D 2,135 E 40,474 F) 5,892 G 144,485 H 9,276 U 49,340 r TOTAL 1 426,780 Ems/ / ` ^ 581154 32'11 6)95f �Q O I I 1 i i 1 y.A \26 975IF 26 A I 25� 5 D) At 1 �All, qe OUTLOT B YS I 44 AC BP AC x'11, 2STYF 23 X35 �O,,, I 22 �; 21 _ 36 O OAF19 20 19 Z / i0 37T \17 38 11 2E' IF 39 J �D /4Q / ! ��, 41 y 42 2 IX7MSF o3C 5255F 4 I I I 1D,5195F ptn4 I 6 D33M IF I 1 ( 059AC Q 2SF =6bfi0s VALID,0.3M 2 IX7MSF o3C 5255F 4 I I I 1D,5195F ptn4 I 6 D33M IF I I 1 ( Q 1 �Zm C /�AFT W 1 OH r F F \ � w 0 IIIIIIIIIIIII�Z� z m x E_ a u Q �o IJ 'Y` C= z z I w � I 3 0 g 3 to 3 3 } ? > a c ( 1 s O Sf 2 F w N I 1 E� J V1 Q 1 0 s0 lOD e L a e y S o I RIC I O i a i i Off\� i LD LD 1 o 0 5 o y, s t', ❑ ?� ?� rc t I I 1 ( Q 1 W C /�AFT W 1 F lid w 0 z z m x E_ a u Q �o IJ z z I w g I r a a W to I } ? > a c ( 1 s O Sf 2 F w N I 1 "y Guzw J V1 Q 1 I Q 1 W C /�AFT W F 0 z m x La a u Q �o w a3 z z �O o W to I cz0 I sNEETnuMREq: C1.20 PRELIMINARYOPD AND APPLICANT I: G. JOSEPH CLARK APPLICANT I'S ATTORNEY: PHELAN TUCKER LAW 1R0 CONTOURINTERMEDIATE— 101 — 221 E. INGTON ST JOHN BEASLEY SENSITIVE AREAS IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 3221 E.M MARKET ST —� CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMrtS IOWA CITY, IA 52245 DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICANT2: APPLICANT 2'S ATTORNEY: �. -- SENSITIVE AREAS AREA NELSON DEVELOPMENT 1, LLC KIRTON MCCONKIE `n BLUE LINE 4REAM CORRI W R Q ATN:JACOB WOLFGANG ATTN:BRYCE K. DAL TONHICKODvTRAIL z = W i �aNa3 218 5TH AVE, STE. 200 50 E. SOUTH TEMPLE, SUITE 400 IOWA CITY/ IOWA DES MOINES, IOWA 50309 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 W Z lidw JACOB@NELSONCONSTRUCT.COM BOALTON@KMCLAW.COM LEGEND: I SITE EXISTING PROPOSED CONTOURINDEX — 100 — 1R0 CONTOURINTERMEDIATE— 101 — lA4 FENCE: BARDWIPE 4.44 AC STREAM a NTEPUNE ----- ---- SIGN —� CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMrtS SILT FENCE : TREERWOVALUMMAttDGE 96.6B95t OFCONSERVARON FPSEMENT �. -- SENSITIVE AREAS AREA BUFFER WETUND `n BLUE LINE 4REAM CORRI W R NOTES: 1. 1. SILT FENCE TO BE PLACED AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE GRADING LIMITS AS SHOWN PRIOR TO ANY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES. l � _ e - 1 I Lwin. ` 2�§ BS6AC /�� IA335f _ \\\ 2 a 31 b 32 2b�y 11R nsBssFv \� I%Xms 33 / \ w X34 _ 24 . 0 \ BRn 5F 35 \ W,514 SF OSIAC 1 11.6135F 37 1»�F 38 s 100' IJD BUFFER `\ 1 , \ �a ♦. I 40' manal H&m L npx I I _ / Pot / Kamm RDrL�T 40' STREAK DUFFER I I 1 I ' 40' / STREAM- lool BUFFER WETLAND BUFFER / / 4.44 AC _ �� 193StI5f —r 9A 8 7;F i : 9:R65F 96.6B95t ., i� t- a `n r Q 04132 — z = W i �aNa3 Q W Z lidw z za 1 \♦ g z_ N. A 21 9 £ 9 o E �1 ❑ Y i i j��j E a II � C1.30 1 Y] -- U AC O 3 3 J W 18,023BF .i r a a I z W 1 �, •`;,.,, 1 ..s p ~ w IES T 1 O w Z v �o 1 a sG LGD IF" SBF o s o 0 0.4 '„yi, e iwsE ego AE 42 manal H&m L npx I I _ / Pot / Kamm RDrL�T 40' STREAK DUFFER 2C I o.3 a24AC 255F 04 0 24 AZ 6 ME AC u„43Fi DO% I I 1 I ' 40' / STREAM- lool BUFFER WETLAND BUFFER / OUTLOTB / 4.44 AC _ �� 193StI5f —r 9A 2C I o.3 a24AC 255F 04 0 24 AZ 6 ME AC u„43Fi DO% I I 1 I ' � 1 w p �Zm � 9A 8 7;F K : 9:R65F 96.6B95t 2C I o.3 a24AC 255F 04 0 24 AZ 6 ME AC u„43Fi DO% I I f I I I 1 I ' � 1 w p �Zm � I I �m K > O i� t- a `n r 6 04132 — z = W i �aNa3 Q W Z lidw z za 1 \♦ g z_ U X0 Us 9 £ 9 o E �1 ❑ Y i i s E a II � C1.30 O 3 3 J W I r a a I z W x 1 ..s p ~ w I 0 1 O w Z v �o 1 a sG LGD IF" o s o 0 0 I I f I I I 1 I ' � 1 w p � I I K > O i� t- a `n x 6 a J z = W i �aNa3 Q W Z lidw z za 1 \♦ g z_ U c 9 9 £ 9 o E �1 ❑ Y i i s E a II � C1.30 O J W I I I f I I 1 I ' � 1 w p I I K > O i� t- a `n x W 0 Q a J z = W i �aNa3 Q W Z lidw z za z I i II F-�5 II I � C1.30 O J W I r a a I z W x 1 ..s p ~ w a 1 O w Z v �o 1 1 w p K > O i� t- a `n x W 0 Q a J z = W i �aNa3 Q W Z i z za i W I SXEFTNUMBEq: C1.30 CONCEPT PLAN HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES IOWA CITY, IOWA UPDATED APRIL 29, 2021 H 1 ` _ N. 182 IFNI I N.1STA ENUE v > . A IF I IF I i �i II LEGEND: PARK DEDICATION 0 CONSERVATION EASEMENT / i �j 28 1 D , K,ONSERVAT 4 7f9 If E EVEN `—_ �, 37 32 ry 1 ,� 33 ' 24 3 1 1 11 0 " \ I IF If 35 r F' \ >64 \ , \36 IF 2 AL\ 37 —_ so �o 191,374 IF Z F - OAK KNOLL J I PROJECT DATA: ENTRANCE 6 / /q TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AREA 48.75 ACRES RIGHT -OF -WAV DEDICATION 4.39 ACRES 9.0% ? PARK DEDICATION AREA 14.02 ACRES 28.8% CONSERVATION AREA 4.44 ACRES 9.1% < u w Z f O IIII cl STREET LENGTH 3,148 FEET - / SINGLE -LOADED FRONTAGE 2,234 FEET 71.0% oU J Z = LEGEND: PARK DEDICATION 0 CONSERVATION EASEMENT / i �j 28 1 D , K,ONSERVAT 4 7f9 If E EVEN `—_ �, 37 32 ry 1 ,� 33 ' 24 3 1 1 11 0 " \ I IF If 35 r F' \ >64 \ , \36 IF 2 AL\ 37 —_ so �o 1W Z F - UI 6 < Q } OC a ? > FAR IF } rIV s 2 I SFORIES�412 91 STORY I 4STORIES VI �rT�_ CONSERVATION k}0 \\ �\ EASEMENT_ \�"-^ v OUTLOT B� 13 11 lU ,\D. ,\r E 33; III 42- ilq - ,I� 7 IF / v I _ I r l , ` \, tel- � • � ? i` 2 0IFAC 61Qb925F / EXISTING _ T. TREE LINE IF F IF i T I ----_ --- --59. ,. DTA --' ` LKIfING I I J RAIL r¢t 1/ I I 1 1 A01 Nfcl TRAIL 0 so �o 1W Z F - 6 < Q } OC a ? > a } s 2 F w u w Z f O IIII cl w Z Z F - 6 < Q } OC a ? > a } s 2 F w u w Z f O IIII cl - a UIR IF V E- Z 6 W cl oU J Z = a3 �g s - O U U Z t o c=0 00 •HEFT NUMBER: 02.00 STREET TREE PLANTING SCHEDULE ID 4b. WrANIW COMMON NAME BOOT SPACING RAV 3 WUWINMhn"ft 11Be A rvn/uSHOWN VOLONCHRUI � � mB i o w MTVIA55 N l I I I 1 I 1 1 r se�E FTNOMBEB: L1.00 w Z a�5 N � � 6 o w J Q i OC g a W Z > a } W u w Z f �o _ 2 a EWiI � l7 FTNOMBEB: L1.00 Z W 6 W W _ �g a� J z W W r a s u 0 Z G v 2 :� N FTNOMBEB: L1.00 GENERAL LANDSCAPE PLANTING NOTES: 01 CONTRACTOR TO LOCATE ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OFANY WORK, CONTACT IOWA ONE CALL (1-800-292-8989) AT LEAST48 HOURS PRIOR TO DIGGING. REPAIR DAMAGE TO UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES IMMEDIATELY. G2 PRIORTO PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION, THE LANDSCAPEOR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE SHALL APPROVE PLANT LOCATIONS. FIELD ADJUSTMENTS OF PROPOSED PLANT LOCATIONS LISTED ON PLAN MAY BE REQUIRED TO MINIMIZE POTENTIAL INTERFERENCE WITH EXISTING OR RELOCATED UTILITIES OR IMPROVE MAINTENANCE CONDITIONS. 03 PRI O R TO INSTALLATION, ALL TREE PLANTING LOCATIONS SHALL BE FLAGGED AND PLANTING BEDS SHALL BE DEUNEATED FOR APPROVAL BY THE PROJ ECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. CONTACTTHE PROJECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE ONE WEEK PRIOR TO ANTICIPATED PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION DATE FOR FINAL LAYOUT APPROVAL. 04 ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL AT LEAST MEET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS SHOWN IN THE"AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK" (ANSI Z60.1 -LATEST EDITION), 05 PLANT QUANTITIES ARE FOR CONTRACTOR'S CONVENIENCE. DRAWINGS SHALL PREVAIL WHERE DISCREPANCIES OCCUR. 06 NO PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE SUBSTITUTED WITHOUT THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 07 BED PREPARATION AND MULCHING NOTES: IMPORTED TOPSOIL, IF REQUIRED, SHALL BE: FERTILE, FRIABLE, NATURAL TOPSOIL, WITH A CLAY CONTENT NOT EXCEEDING 30% AND ORGANIC MATTER CONTENT NOT LESS THAN 5% FREE FROM LUMPS, COARSE SANDS, STONES, ROOTS, STICKS, AND OTHER FOREIGN MATERIAL, WITH ACIDITY RANGE OF BETWEEN Ph 6.0 and 5.8. 08 PLANTING SOIL: PLANTING SOIL (i.e. BACKFILL AREAS AROUND ROOT BALLS AS SHOWN ON TREEISHRUB INSTALLATION DETAIL) SHALL BE AMENDED, THOROUGHLY MIX 4 PARTSTOPSOIL,1 PART COMPOST,1 PARTSAND. TOPSOIL SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED WITHIN THE NOTE ABOVE. COMPOST SHALL BE FINELY SCREENED GRADED TO PASS SIEVE AS FOLLOWS: -MINIMUM OF 85% BEING 1/4" OR SMALLER (DRY BASIS RESULT). -MINIMUM OF 70% BEING 5/32" OR SMALLER (DRY BASIS RESULT(. -WITH CLUMPS OR PARTICLES 3/4" DIAMETER OR GREATER. SAND SHALL BE C33 WASHED CONCRETE SAND, OR APPROVED EQUAL. 09 UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED, ALLGRASS/PERENNIAL MASSINGS ARETO BE EVENLYSPACED IN TRIANGULAR PATTERN ARRANGEMENT. 10 PRIORTO MULCHING ALL PLANING BED AREAS, APPLY COMMERCIALGRADE PRE -EMERGENT HERBICIDE (PREEN OR APPROVED EQUAL), PER MANUFACTURE'S DmECTIONS,TO ALL PLANTING BEDS. 11 PROVIDE A MINIMUM 3" DEPTH OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH IN ALLTREE PLANTING BEDS. 12 PROVIDE 2"DEPTH MIN. OFSHREDDED HARDWOOD AND/OR RIVER ROCK MULCH IN ALL SHRUB/ORNAMENTAL GRASS/PERENNIAL BEDS. 13 PROVIDE ALL TREES WITH A MINIMUM 3" DEPTH OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. MULCH RINGS FOR TREES SHALL BE A MINIMUM SIX FOOT IS') DIAMETER AND CONTAIN SPADE EDGING AT MULCH RING EDGE 14 PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN POSITIVE DRAINAGE THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION, DO NOTALLOW ADDITION OFTOPSOIL, PLANTING SOIL OR MULCHTO DETER POSITIVE DRAINAGE OR TO CREATE AREA OF LOCALIZED PONDING. 15 NURSERY TAGS SHALL BE LEFT ON PLANT MATERIAL UNTIL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS COMPLETED THE INITIAL ACCEPTANCE. 16 CONTAINER GROWN STOCK SHALL HAVE THE CONTAINER REMOVED AND. THE ROOT BALL CUTTHROUGH THE SURFACE IN TWO VERTICAL LOCATIONS. 17 ALL PLANTS SHALL BE BALLED AND WRAPPED OR CONTAINER GROWN AS SPECIFIED. NO CONTAINER STOCK WILL BE ACCEPTED IF IT IS ROOT BOUND. ALLROOTWRAPPING MATERIAL MADE OF SYNTHETICS OR PLASTICS SHALL BE REMOVED ATTIME OF PLANTING. 18 AS NEEDED, STAKE ALL NEWLY PLANTED TREES RELATIVE TO WIND EXPOSURE. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE SET PLUMB TO GROUND AND FACED FOR. BEST APPEARANCE. AS NECESSARY, PRUNE DEAD BRANCHES OR THOSE THAT COMPROMISE APPEARANCE AND STRUCTURE TO A MAX OF 1/3 THE PLANT. 19 CONTRACTOR SHALL WATER AND MAINTAIN ALL SODDED AREAS AS WELL AS ALL PLANTS UNTIL GROUND FREEZES. MAINTENANCE INCLUDES WEEDING, MULCHING, AND OTHER NECESSARY RELATED OPERATIONS UNTIL INITIAL ACCEPTANCE. INITIAL ACCEPTANCE 15 CONSIDERED TO BE THE DATE AT WHICH PLANTING AND MULCHING, ETC., PER LANDSCAPE PLAN, HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE 20 ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE GUARANTEED TO BE IN VIGOROUS GROWING CONDITIONS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR FROM DATE OF INITIAL ACCEPTANCE. 21 ALL PLANT MATERIALS THAT ARE DEAD OR IN AN UNHEALTHY OR UNSIGHTLY STATE ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPLACED AT NO ADDITIONAL COSTTO THE OWNER FOR UP TO ONE YEAR OF INITIAL ACCEPTANCE. 22 SURFACE RESTORATION FOR ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE TURF GRASS LAWN SOD, WITH AN ALTERNATE OPTION TO BE TURF GRASS LAWN SEED. ALL SEED& 500 APPLICATION NOTES ARE LISTED SEPARATELY. CONTRACTOR SHALL FOLLOW MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATIONS FOR PRODUCT INFORMATION& INSTALLATION. FOR ALL SURFACE RESTORATION, PLANTING PRACTICES, AND ANY OTHER LANDSCAPING WORK NOT ADDRESSED VIA MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS, CONTRACTOR SHALL FOLLOW IOWA SODAS SPECIFICATIONS DIVISION 09: SITE WORK AND LANDSCAPING OF IOWA. SOD/SEED APPLICATION NOTES: 01 IF TURF GRASS LAWN SEED ALTERNATE 15 USED IN UEU OF SOD, ALL SEEDING APPLICATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED BY UNITED SEEDS INC, OR APPROVED EQUAL 02 ALL TURF GRASS LAWN AREAS, WHETHER SODDED OR SEEDED, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ARE TO BE PLANTED AND INSTALLED AS PER THE TECHNICAL BULLETIN' FOR'SOD GROWER II KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS BLEND' PROVIDED BY UNITED SEEDS, OR APPROVED EQUAL. TECHNICAL BULLETIN FOR'SOD GROWER it KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS BLENO' CAN BE FOUND ON THE UNITED SEEDS WEBSITE: www.untedseeds.com 83 ALL TU RF GRASS SOD TO BE OF THE SAM E PERFOR MANCE QUALITY AND SPECIES TYPE OF TH E'SOD GROWER II KENTUCKY BLU EGRASS BLEND' PROVIDED BY UNITED SEEDS, OR APPROVED EQUAL. BLUEGRASS VARIETIES SHALL INCLUDE: 'CONCERTO', 'NO BLUE% rBEYON D', AND 'EVEREST'. CONTACT INFO: United Seeds Inc. 1800 Dixon Ave, Suite A Des Moines, IA 50316 Ph: 1-800.365-6674 Web: www.unitedseeds.com STAKING NOTES: TREE & SHRUB PLANTING NOTES: 00 TREE STAKING SHALL ONLY BE USED IF NOTED, IN HIGH WIND AREAS, OR AREAS OF HEAVY ADJACENT PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC. 01 STAKING WIRE THROUGH RUBBER HOSE SET LOOSE TO ALLOW FOR TRUNK TAPER AND DETRIMENTAL GROWTH. TREE SHOULD ALLOW LIMITED MOVEMENT. 02. STEEL FENCE POST STAKE DRIVEN INSIDE MULCH RING DIAMETER. DRIVE STAKES V-0" INTO UNDISTURBED SOIL BELOW ROOTBALL. 03 REMOVE WIRE BASKET AND BURLAP ONCE PLACED INTO PLANTING HOLE. REMOVE ALL SISAL AND SYNTHETIC TWINE. 04 TRUNK FLARE SHOULD BE EXPOSED BEFORE DETERMINING PLANTING HOLE DEPTH. PLANT TREE WITH TRUNK FLARE 1-2" MAXIMUM ABOVE ORIGINAL GRADE, AVOID PLANTING TREE TOO DEEPLY. 05 PLANTING HOLE TO BE AT M INIMUM 3 TIMES TH E WI DTH OF FOOTBALL AT SOIL SURFACE, SLOPING TO THE WIDTH OF R00T BALL AT BASE. PLANTING HOLE WIDTH NEAR SURFACE 15 I NCREASED TOS TIMES THE WIDTH OF ROOTBALL WHEN SOILS ARE HIGHLY COMPACTED OR HEAVY IN CLAY CONTENT. 06 .SCARIFY PLANTING HOLE TO HELP ELIMINATE THE CREATION OF A 501L INTERFACE. 07 PLACE ROOTBALL ON COMPACTED& LEVELED SO BGRADE. 08 REMOVE EXIST' NG SOI L FROM EXCAVATED PLANTING PIT AND REPLACE WITH PLANTING SOIL WHILE BACKFIW NG, WORK PLANTING SOIL AROUND ROOTBALL TO MINIMIZE LARGE AIR POCKETS AND ENSURE BETTER VERTICAL SUPPORT. 09 AVOI D MOUNDI NG MU LCH& MAKI NG CONTACT WITH TRU N C FORM 2-3" SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH RING SAUCER TO HELP HOLD WATER DURING ESTABLISHMENT. DIAMETER OF MULCH AREA SHOO LD BE KEPT CLEAR OF GRASS, WEEDS, ETC. TO REDUCE COMPETITION WITH TREE ROOTS. 10 UNDISTURBED SOIL. 11 ONLY LIGHTLY PRUNE AND REMOVE DAMAGED OR DEAD BRANCHES. 12 SPADE EDGING, TYP. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON PLAN. 13 REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR PLANT SPACING, LOCATIONS. 14 6" MINI MUM WIDER HOLE THAN CONTAINER ON ALL SIDES. w N J_ Z F- a N F � W J Q } K a Z>_ a } a 0O 2 F VW U luel LO o f 2 a uwi �l7 L1.10 N J_ a F w 0 2 a luel LO o 2 F o L) p aJ w Z z a W 3 w � F tzw w � W K CI ZG a 9 F/ ! ° N L1.10 [ I IUTLOr B 4.44 AC [ 193,577 SF 1 1 II I� II I / / � O 3 GD 0 / f 0° 0 / O , TC / 1 CR 2] PO IT t CG I O ° CTC BMXP C O / 0 3 G 0 or 0 I 0 1 IV O`IV 2pT U B8 ! 2 PA �,0 ° c t DK aTtE nom I- 5— O Ir 1 RL BL 1 AG O 1 MS O 9 WF ,MG O GR L 0 01('I <a I ] PS O I t 2CR 20M 9 MXP- - ! _ 1 WF w 1 tac I �¢ Iv O r2CR I ° 3GC I 3CG 0I ITT I (�O � 1 c I TI 1 1 2TC % POR I / 1 PA 3AG 1 Co t t 1 PA ! l II 2CR £ I PMA � II I I� V ,a st -. REFER TR ET T�111 77 0 0 _-- - - ,, \ — 218 m 9 TV y m 10, 1 1 i° 3]JH101 zoo LI FOR � i99ECIES LEGEND PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY SETBACK WATER TELECOM GAS ELECTRIC SANITARYSEWER STORM SEWER EXISTING EASEMENT TREE PROTECTION FENCING EXISTING CONTOUR TREE REMOVAL LIMITS AT EDGE OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT I /_ �� EVERGREEN TREE \ 0 ORNAMENTALTREE TALL FESCUE/ SHORT GRASS PRAIRIE MIX genus [landscape architects] 325 EAST 5TH STREET DES MOINES,IA 50309 T 515 286 1010 WWW.GENUS- .COM On T T W Z < v7 � IT IT O - 995 - m11m11m11m OSHADETREE (DooSHRUB I ¢ PERENNIAL + TURFGRASS PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY SETBACK WATER TELECOM GAS ELECTRIC SANITARYSEWER STORM SEWER EXISTING EASEMENT TREE PROTECTION FENCING EXISTING CONTOUR TREE REMOVAL LIMITS AT EDGE OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT I /_ �� EVERGREEN TREE \ 0 ORNAMENTALTREE TALL FESCUE/ SHORT GRASS PRAIRIE MIX genus [landscape architects] 325 EAST 5TH STREET DES MOINES,IA 50309 T 515 286 1010 WWW.GENUS- .COM On W Z < v7 � a O Q J z ¢ ¢ u Y Z w > 2 d z r Ej wz <O E: W l7 i L3.00 PLANTING NOTES 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. OVERSTORY TREES QTY KEY BOTANICAL COMMON SIZE ROOT NOTES 2 WF ABIES CONCOLOR WHITE FIR 6'-8' HT B&B AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY 6 CR CARPINUS CAROLINIANA AMERICAN HORNBEAM 2" CAL. B&B 2" CAL. 6 CO CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS COMMON HACKBERRY 2" CAL. B&B B&B MULTI -STEM 8 GT GLIDETSIA TRICANTHOS'SKYLINE' SKYLINE HONEY LOCUST 2" CAL. B&B 7 11 GD GYMNOCLADUS DIOCUS'ESPRESSO' ESPRESSO KENTUCKY COFFEE TREE 2" CAL. B&B SR 8 MA MACCKIA AMURENSIS AMUR MAAKIA 2" CAL. B&B VX 6' 1 NS NYSSA SYLVANTICA BLACK TUPELO 2" CAL. B&B VX 4.5' 5 PA PICEA ABIES NORWAY SPRUCE 6'-8' HT B&B 4'X 4' 3 PG PICEA CLAUCA'DENSATA' BLACK HILLS SPRICE 6'-8' HT B&B TX 3' 3 PS PINUS STROBUS WHITE PINE 6'-8' HT B&B 2' X 3' 3 QC QUERCUS COCCINEA SCARLET OAK 2" CAL. B&B 4'X 6' 4 QM QUERCUS MACROCARPA BUR OAK 2" CAL. B&B 10 TC TSUGA CANADENSIS EASTERN HEMLOCK 6'-8' HT B&B CC SHRUBS QTY ORNAMENTAL TREES BOTANICAL COMMON 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 WODIAK 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 PAN ICULATA'ILVOBO' PP#22,782 BOBO HARDY HYDRANGEA #3 CONT. ITX 4' 7 IV ITEA VIRGINICA LITTLE HENRY SWEETSPIRE #3 CONT. TX 3' 69 JH JUNIPERUS HORIZONTALIS'HUGHES' HUGHES JUNIPER #3 CONT. VX 6' 146 PO PHYSOCARPUS OPULIFOLIUS NINEBARK #1 CONT VX 4.5' 3 RL RHODODENDRON X'LANDMARK' LANDMARK RHODODENDRON #3 CONT. 4'X 4' 90 ST SPIRAEA BETULIFOLIA'TOR' TOR SPIREA #3 CONT. TX 3' 3 BZ SPIRAEA MEDIA DOUBLE PLAY BLUE KAZOO SPIREA #3 ICONT. 2' X 3' 25 TD TAXUS X MEDIA'DENSIFORMIS' DENSE SPREADING YEW 48" HT CONT. 4'X 6' genus [ landscape architects ] 325 EAST 5TH STREET DES MOINES, IA 50309 T 515 284 1010 W W W.GENUS-LA.COM w z z w a 0 zz x U LL O z 0 a UU w 0 N W a W J Q wcr_ �0 z Y GU w o— = a r) CL 0 a z J W a Z Q J CL N a W Q W U0 z W V) J ISHEETNUMBER: Uj L3.01 u PSWAX W N Lu a 0 z � w0 2 U J W W J W U L10 06 N W H Oz Z LU Ja CC U M z zH z z _ 'o W Q J ISHEETNUMBER: Uj L3.01 u PSWAX W N Lu a 0 z � w0 2 U J W EDGE OF PLANTING AREA Q SPACING \ / I a y PLANT CENTER SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH, 2" THICKNESS ROOTBALL 3116" x 4" STEEL EDGING, GALVANIZED UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE NOT TO SCALE UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE OVERSTORY 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 EVERGREEN 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 ORNAMENTAL TREE PLANTING n SHRUB 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 genus [ landscape architects ] 325 EAST 5TH STREET DES MOINES, IA 50309 T 515 284 1010 W W W.GENUS-LA.COM w Q 0 w z Z Q S u 0 0 z 0 a a V H w w N 0 to N W z ZN o6 Q J m N W to cn Y Z0 O Q of SET ROOT FLARE 2" ABOVE FINISH } 0 z z GRADE. REMOVE BURLAP AND WIRE Ur z U y CAGE FROM TOP HALF OF ROOTBALL. U O z j m SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH, J 2" THICKNESS w Q 3 FINISH GRADE ? z 3 3 z_w0LU un z O z i V% a O G U BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE OVERSTORY 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 EVERGREEN 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 ORNAMENTAL TREE PLANTING n SHRUB 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 genus [ landscape architects ] 325 EAST 5TH STREET DES MOINES, IA 50309 T 515 284 1010 W W W.GENUS-LA.COM w Q 0 w z Z Q S u 0 0 z 0 a a V H w w N W z Q o6 Q N W 0- cn Y J O Q of L } W Q Ur z Q Q U z j m } J Q } Cr Q= cI � O U V) z_w0LU un z O z i V% a O G U w z x D'W (n z d N 0 n= u J ISHEETNUMBER: LU 0- L3.02 = U J LU O1 rl 0 0 lV J < Q L Ur z W >a` ULj J Q } Cr Q= cI � O U V) z_w0LU H Z z i x J (n N � J ISHEETNUMBER: LU 0- L3.02 = U J LU O1 rl 0 0 lV .p SETBACKS FRONT 15' SIDE 7' REAR 20' 85 LOT 10 rl'eA" LOT SIZE 24,769 SF BUILDABLE AREA 5,600 SF LOT 11 LOT SIZE 23,821 SF BUILDABLE AREA 5,600 SF LOT 12 LOTSIZE 22,874$F BUILDABLE AREA 5,600 SF 88' LOT 13 LOTSIZE 17,145 SF BUILDABLE AREA 6,860 SF CONSERVATION LOT 14 EASEMENT LOT SIZE 22,063 SF 4,760 BUILDABLE AREA 4,760 SF ISOD \ 100 m \ 1� N� /Q \ m 100 \ 1 , \ � m N � � 9 \ 0.59 AC MNSULTANTS 25,716 SF BUIwDABLE AREA E%HIBIT �W29- OO96 lom 0429u21 HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES lOF4 W W W.MIOM CON.COM 1131915196220 pf am eslgn IVI- umey ee 5 - m a e fea x 1 . wg Pram esign rvi- umey ee s - UU110alae Area txnioit.awg SETBACKS - FRONT 15' 51 DE 7'REAR 20' LOT 35 f790A LOT SIZE 21,389 SF BUILDABLE AREA 4,900 SF LOT 16 LOT SIZE 20,7165F BUILDABLE AREA 5,040 SF 90' LOT 17 LOTSIZE 20,042$F BUILDABLE AREA 4,770 5F e N LOT 38 LOTSIZE 19,3685F BUILDABLE AREA 4,770 SF 90 LOT 19 -SI 90, LOT Z E 18,6945E BUILDA BUILDABLE AREA 5,040 5E LOT 20 LOTSIZE 18,020 SF ut BUILDABLE AREA 5,040 5F 90 90 CONSERVATION EASEMENT w 90 89 N _ 85 85' a 25 50 PRNEA- AREA E%HIBIT W29- OO96N 0429u21 MINSULTANTS IOMBUIwDABLE w .W IOM CON.COM 1(319) 5196220 HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES 20F4 Pram esign rvi- umey ee s - UU110alae Area txnioit.awg 0.24AC \ S SETBACKS 10,624 SF FRONT I6' / SIDE 7' REAR 20' \ / LOT 21 \/ pq LOT SIZE 17,3475E SS BUILDABLE AREA 4,901 SF / qS. LOT 22 FO—BU ILDAE 4,761 SF / BUILDABLE AREA 4,7615E LOT 23 / 9 E 1.-18,2735E BUILDA / BUILOAeLE AREA 3,3335E o/ 'p6• 5°j LOT 24 LOT 1ZZE 18,839 SF BUILDABLE AREA 7,690 SF O \ LOT 25 O \ LOT —SI 2E 20,409 SF \ BUILDABLE AREA 5,0815E 8q \ \ 8q 0 0 • o 88 86' CONSERVATION EASEMENT n n 85 r MNSULTANTS IO A. 25 50 BUIwDABLE AREA E%HIRIT �W29-2 O-O96ELCH a,v` 0429u21 HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES 30F4 w .W IOM CON.COM 11319151.e2E0 pf am esign rvi- uwey ee 5 - UU110alae Area txnioit.awg --- Awa wz4 i � 24) 4) W2 —CW2 )�C W2 95 115' w 0 25 50 w J � 92' 120 32 m 0.27 AC / CONSERVATION / \ 11,6795F / / \ 78 EASEMENT \ 78 33 \ / 0.23 AC 9,959 SF n ro 9 SETBACKS \ z• FRONT 15' C V b~ SIDE 7' REAR 20' SIDE ON SCOTT 40' / LOT 26 LOT SIZE 19,300 SF / BUILDABLE AREA 5,306 SF 56 9 m LOT 27 y LOT SIZE 26,9755F 9' BUILDABLE AREA 6,560 SF LOT 28 LOT SIZE 24,788 SF BUILDABLE AREA 6,0265F LOT 29 LOT SIZE 24,4135E BUILDABLE AREA 6,1063E LOT 30 LOT SIZE 35,9395F WELCH BUILDABLE AREA 6,112 SF XIME .�. OM BUILDABLE AREA EXHIBIT 20-0194 LOT32 0429u21 LOT SIZE 15,8115E ACONSULTANTS 1 5 19 fiEEO HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES 4OF4 BUILDABLE AREA 6,758 SF W W W.WIIOMSON.COM 11319 pf am ealgp IVI- urvey ee 5 - m a e fea x i 1 . wg Janet E. Godwin Chief Executive Officer May 4, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Planning and Zoning Commission Members: As Mr. Clark continues to work in good faith to address the concerns expressed by the Planning and Zoning Commission in the February 18th and March 18th Planning & Zoning Commission meetings, ACT is again writing to express our full support for Mr. Clark's development. As we communicated in our March 15th letter to the Planning & Zoning Commission, ACT believes the previous two plans presented by Mr. Clark met both the intent and spirit of the Comprehensive Plan and NE District Plan. Mr. Clark will be presenting a third revision to the plan at the May 6th Planning & Zoning Commission meeting that has incorporated City and community member feedback. This version of Mr. Clark's plan now has 15 fewer single-family lots that he originally proposed, and is gifting 14.02 acres of land to the City. Perhaps most importantly, this revised plan addresses 100% of the Commission's previously expressed concerns. Also, as we stated in our March 15th letter, ACT recently became aware that our land is being used as a de facto extension of Hickory Hill Park. Due to community member safety and potential liability concerns, ACT subsequently put up Private Property signs to make it clear to all that the land is, in fact, not part of Hickory Hill Park. Unfortunately, our signs and fencing continue to be regularly removed and damaged. Even more disappointing is that large numbers of people continue to use our land, completely ignoring the large posted signs indicating the land is private property. Within the past two weeks, areas of our land have been cleared by trespassers - presumably to make it even easier to access our property. ACT is a responsible landowner working with a reasonable and accommodating developer. Mr. Clark and his plan continue to have our full support notably because the plan adheres to the guidelines provided by the Comprehensive Plan and NE District Plan. We are optimistic that this third plan revision will be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and we look forward to moving forward in the approval process. Sincerely, Janet E. Godwin Chief Executive Officer cc: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Bruce Teague, Mayor Joe Clark 500 ACT Drive P.O. Box 168 Iowa City, Iowa 52243-0168 0anet.godwin jnact.orq www.act.org From: Russo, Andrew F To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Re: [External] Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 05/06/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Date: Saturday, May 1, 2021 11:41:58 AM Attachments: imaae001.ona imaae002.pnno imaae003.ona imaae004.pnno imaae005.ona Thanks Ray. I would still like to encourage the committee to explore the possibility of Outlot B being added to the park. This will ensure public access and provide a buffer for wildlife. There are some nice old trees in that ravine and it seems likely that there could be expansion into the remaining open space in the ravine to the east of Outlot B when that land comes up for development. A recommendation from Planning and Zoning on this issue would set the stage for a discussion with Parks and Rec. Thank you. Andy Russo From: Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner@iowa-city.org> Date: Friday, April 30, 2021 at 4:21 PM To: "Parker, Adam G" <adam-parker@uiowa.edu>, "Weis, Adam J" <adam+ weis@uiowa.edu>, "'allisonjaynes@gmail.com"' <allisonjaynes@gmail.com>, "Russo, Andrew F" <andrew-russo@uiowa.edu>, "Synan, Ann" <ann-synan@uiowa.edu>, "'asha.l.bhandary@gmail.com"' <asha.l.bhandary@gmail.com>, "'b3n.berger@gmail.com"' <b3n.berger@gmail.com>, "'bamcquillen@gmail.com"' <bamcquillen@gmail.com>, "'brian.lehmann@icloud.com"' <brian.lehmann@icloud.com>, "'hickoryhiker@gmail.com"' <hickoryhiker@gmail.com>, "'clbuckingham@gmail.com"' <clbuckingham@gmail.com>, "'cjkohrt@gmail.com"' <cjkohrt@gmail.com>, "'darcy128@aol.com"' <darcy128@aol.com>, `dpurdy2@gmail.com"' <dpurdy2@gmail.com>, "'liztracey@gmail.com"' <liztracey@gmail.com>, "'emilyakim05@gmail.com"' <emilyakim05@gmail.com>, "'emily.schacht@gmail.com"' <emily.schacht@gmail.com>, `eric.gidal5@gmail.com"' <eric.gidal5@gmail.com>, "'durian.erin@gmail.com"' <durian.erin@gmail.com>, "Boos, Florence" <florence-boos@uiowa.edu>, "'buengerg@gmail.com"' <buengerg@gmail.com>, "Molitor, Hannah R" <hannah-molitor@uiowa.edu>, "'Hannah.Rapson@RaymondJames.com"' <Hannah.Rapson@RaymondJames.com>, "'heather.w.mcknight@gmail.com"' <heather.w.mcknight@gmail.com>, "'hbschofield@gmail.com"' <hbschofield@gmail.com>, "'perkins.i.t@gmail.com"' <perkins.i.t@gmail.com>, "'jackiehockett@gmail.com"' <jackiehockett@gmail.com>, "'jameshirsch@gmail.com"' <jameshirsch@gmail.com>, "'j.k.brad bury@gmail.com"' <j.k.brad bury@gmail.com>, "'jasnap23@yahoo.com"' From: Carol deProsse To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Hickory Hill Development Date: Saturday, May 1, 20215:06:45 PM Please put me on your mailing list, but you need to know that I am totally opposed. This email is from an external source. From: Mark Renshaw on behalf of markrenshaw(cibme.com Cc: Raymond Heitner Subject: RE: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 05/06/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Date: Wednesday, May 5, 20212:26:35 PM I Ftl$F{ To: Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission Cc: Iowa City Council I am writing to again oppose the proposed rezoning and development of the 48.75 acres (South of Scott Blvd and West of 1st Avenue, Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park), by Axiom Consultants for completion of a Hickory Trail extension, (Case No. REZ20-0016). I have been an Iowa City resident and homeowner since 1999. My property is located within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning. The zone change proposed is not consistent with the comprehensive plan for the area. The proposed rezoning and development plan does not comply with the NE District Plan and the Comprehensive Plan set forth by the City of Iowa City, and should therefore be denied. The original plans specify low-density development in order to minimize the impact of on Hickory Hills Park. If this space is to be developed, the original plan and low-density zoning designation must be followed. The proposed zone change is not consistent with surrounding uses. Hickory Hills Park is an extraordinary and unique urban park that should be protected. A senior living/nursing home facility of this magnitude is not suitable for this location and is inconsistent with the use of the surrounding area. This proposed plan would engender severe traffic, noise, and light pollution to the surrounding park area, and is a detriment to the public good Please denv this rezonine and development plan. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Mark Renshaw 72 Hickory Heights Lane Iowa City, Iowa 52245 From: Svnan. Ann To: Raymond Heitner Cc: Anne Russett; Svnan, William J Subject: Hickory Trail Rezoning: Planning and Zoning Meeting May 6, 20021 Date: Wednesday, May 5, 20214:03:05 PM Mr. Heitner, Would you please pass along our comments to the Planning and Zoning Commissioners? Thank you. Ann Synan Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners: We were appreciative that at two public meetings on February 18, 2021 and March 18, 2021, the motion to approve the rezoning off of Hickory Trail of approximately 48.75 acres from Interim Development — Single Family (ID -RS) to Low Density Single -Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/R-S-S) -- was denied by the Planning and Zoning Commissioners by votes of 0-7 and 1-6. Now we find ourselves this week, with yet another public meeting to discuss this same proposed rezoning — and the plan looks very similar to the original one. We, like many who have been involved with the discussions of the proposed Hickory Trail Rezoning, are asking the question, "How many times do the Planning and Zoning Commissioners and the community have to discuss a developer's plan that has been rejected twice ?" A comment has been repeatedly expressed previous meetings on this proposed rezoning, that Iowa City planning staff wisely created a blueprint years ago for the NE District — a plan that did an excellent job of balancing development and buffering Hickory Hill Park. That plan wisely called for the future development of single family homes in the area off of Hickory Trail near the Park— nQLthe development of_an enormous care facility spreading over nine acres, with 90 outdoor parking spaces and jutting up three stories high (with the appearance of four stories in some parts) --ten feet taller than the neighboring Hickory Pointe Condominium) — plunked next to Hickory Hill Park and in the middle of a neighborhood of single family residential homes. How does this purposed plan balance development and provide a buffer for the Park? How does this purposed plan balance development and provide a buffer for the Park? I think of some of the comments that you as commissioners made at the last meeting: "If they have places in the community that that are sacred and valuable, they need to be proactive about taking care of that". "Once they do it, it can't be undone ... this is different from other projects... here it's not just the neighborhood, it's people all over the Iowa City area that use this park just to get away and once we take that away from them, they can't get it back". "Yes, this is private land and yes, it is going to be developed in some way, however there needs to be a better cohesion between the development and the community, the parks, and others and take a micro and macro look at this project". For the third, and what we hope will be the final time — please deny this revised proposed rezoning and allow the property to remain under low density, single family zoning -- not medium density, or low density single-family with a "planned development overlay". We entrust that you will do the right thing and take the appropriate steps to help preserve the integrity and serenity of Iowa City's Hickory Hill Park and the character of the Bluffwood and Hickory Heights neighborhoods. We appreciate your counsel and thank you for your consideration. Ann and Bill Synan 833 Cypress Court Iowa City From: Glenda Buenaer To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Re: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 05/06/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Date: Wednesday, May 5, 2021 11:12:35 PM Attachments: image001.ong image002.pno image003.rnQ image004.1ng_ image005.rng I Dear Mr. Heitner, Will you please forward my letter to the Planning and Zoning Commissioners? Thank you. I hope they have time to read it before tonight's meeting, which I cannot attend. Sincerely, Glenda Buenger 318 S. Lucas St. Dear Commissioners, I hope you receive and have time to consider these comments before tonight's meeting. This letter, of course, concerns the proposed development next to Hickory Hill Park. My concern lies with the western, or single family housing part, of the proposed project, and I will try to get straight to the point. During both of the public comment sessions held so far, Hickory Hill Park supporters (myself included) have championed a single -loaded street. The revised proposal employs a partly single -loaded street. But look at the comparison presented on p. 2 of the May meeting packet (Figs. 1 and 2). The project footprint is essentially the same, even if the condo is gone and part of the street has houses on only one side. There is not enough buffer to shield the park. It looks like about 75' between the street and the west park boundary. It looks like maybe 45' between the street and the park boundary on the south side of the proposed project. It's more buffer than we had before, but it is not enough buffer to protect the park from all the ills we've talked about at the previous two public hearings. An adequate buffer zone would measure more like 150-200 ft. There's not enough buffer in the current proposal because there are too many houses. I believe the suggestion was a single -loaded street that is single -loaded through its entirety. I don't know how many houses it takes to pay for a through street. Maybe there doesn't need to be a through street. I understand why the city doesn't like cul-de-sacs. But something different has got to give, here, than our public park! Maybe cul-de-sacs are less expensive to construct than through streets and the Northwest District Plan is not as outmoded as it seems. Maybe Mr. Clark could still realize a profit with fewer houses, albeit not as much profit as he would like to realize by crowding in 42 houses. Maybe ACT is asking too much money for the parcel. I'm not in a position to know where the squeeze is, but please encourage Mr. Clark to keep working on this problem of how to better give everyone what they want. Please don't sacrifice our park. There must be a way to develop the parcel that adequately protects the park. Let's give the developer more time to find that way. Thank you for considering my view. Sincerely, Glenda Buenger 318 S. Lucas St. Iowa City On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 4:22 PM Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitnernao iowa-city.org> wrote: All, The applicant for the Hickory Trail Estates rezoning has submitted a revised OPD Plan. This plan will be discussed at next week's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on Thursday, May 6th at 7pm. The meeting's agenda packet can be found here: https://www.icgov.org/city- aovernment/boa rds/pla n n i ng-and-zon i ng-com mission The Zoom link for the meeting can be found here: https:Hzoom.us/meeting/register/tJO12cugrrjkiG9VGc-jSUO9TYa8gybtnAT3 5y I've also attached the revised concept plan for your convenience. Please send me any correspondence you would like forwarded to the Commission. Thank you, Ray Heitner Associate Planner (he/him/his) 319.356.5238 ravmond-heitner(c�r� Iowa -city. org From: Messingham, Kelly To: Raymond Heitner Subject: RE: [External] Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 05/06/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Date: Thursday, May 6, 20212:24:40 PM Attachments: image001.ong mage002.pno image003.rng mage004.pnng_ image005.rng I Hi Ray, Thanks for sending this. I have been out of town but just looked over the plan and it seems like they did remove the small cul-de-sac on the north end and some of the western lots, but actually (inexplicably) moved the road farther west? I will try to compare at home before the meeting. Kelly Messingham From: Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner@iowa-city.org> Sent: Friday, April 30, 20214:21 PM To: Parker, Adam G <adam-parker@uiowa.edu>; Weis, Adam J <adam-j-weis@uiowa.edu>; 'allisonjaynes@gmail.com' <allisonjaynes@gmail.com>; Russo, Andrew F <andrew- russo@uiowa.edu>; Synan, Ann <ann-synan@uiowa.edu>; 'asha.l.bhandary@gmail.com' <asha.l.bhandary@gmail.com>; 'b3n.berger@gmail.com' <b3n.berger@gmail.com>; 'bamcquillen@gmail.com' <bamcquillen@gmail.com>;'brian.lehmann@icloud.com' <brian.lehmann@icloud.com>; 'hickoryhiker@gmail.com'<hickoryhiker@gmail.com>; 'clbuckingham@gmail.com' <clbuckingham@gmail.com>;'cjkohrt@gmail.com' <cjkohrt@gmail.com>; 'darcy128@aol.com' <darcy128@aol.com>; 'dpurdy2@gmail.com' <dpurdy2@gmail.com>; 'liztracey@gmail.com' <liztracey@gmail.com>; 'emilyakim05@gmail.com' <emilyakim05@gmail.com>;'emily.schacht@gmail.com' <emily.schacht@gmail.com>; 'eric.gidal5@gmail.com'<eric.gidal5@gmail.com>;'durian.erin@gmail.com' <durian.erin@gmail.com>; Boos, Florence <florence-boos@uiowa.edu>; 'buengerg@gmail.com' <buengerg@gmail.com>; Molitor, Hannah R <hannah-molitor@uiowa.edu>; 'Hannah.Rapson@RaymondJames.com' <Hannah.Rapson@RaymondJames.com>; 'heather.w.mcknight@gmail.com' <heather.w.mcknight@gmail.com>; 'hbschofield@gmail.com' <hbschofield@gmail.com>;'perkins.i.t@gmail.com' <perkins.i.t@gmail.com>; 'jackiehockett@gmail.com' <jackiehockett@gmail.com>;'jameshirsch@gmail.com' <jamesh irsch@gmail.com>; J. k. brad bury@gmail,com' <j.k.brad bury@gmail.com>; 'jasnap23@yahoo.com' <jasnap23@yahoo.com>; 'jessemacfarlane@gmail.com' <jessemacfarlane@gmail.com>; 'kjrutherford0l@gmail.com' <kjrutherford0l@gmail.com>; 'moffitt.julie@gmail.com' <moffitt.julie@gmail.com>; 'karen.nichols@protonmail.com' <karen. nichols@proton mai l.com>; 'tomkatymclaughlin@gmail.com' <tomkatymclaughlin@gmail.com>; Messingham, Kelly <kelly-messingham@uiowa.edu>; 'kelly.teeselink@gmail.com' <kelly.teeselink@gmail.com>;'kelseyturnis@gmail.com' <kelseyturnis@gmail.com>;'Khris.Vickroy@mercer.com' <Khris.Vickroy@mercer.com>; Ryther, Krisanne E <krisanne-ryther@hawkeyefootball.com>; 'krinelil@hotmail.com' From: wobtj(cbmchsi.com To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Re: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 05/06/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Date: Thursday, May 6, 20213:18:11 PM Attachments: imaae001.ona imaae002.pnna imaae003.ona imaae004.pnna imaae005.ona I Dear Ray Heitner, I still am apposed to the proposal to the construction of homes along the western side of the near Scott Blvd and vote to not allow this proposal to be accepted. Thank you! Sincerely yours, Tony Wobeter From: Raymond Heitner Sent: Friday, April 30, 20214:20 PM To: 'adam-parker@uiowa.edu' ; 'adam-j-weis@uiowa.edu' ; 'allisonjaynes@gmail.com' ; 'andrew- russo@uiowa.edu' ; 'ann-synan@uiowa.edu' ; 'asha.l.bhandary@gmail.com' ; 'b3n.berger@gmail.com' ; 'bamcquillen@gmail.com' ; 'brian.lehmann@icloud.com' ; 'hickoryhiker@gmail.com' ; 'clbuckingham@gmail.com' ; 'cjkohrt@gmail.com' ; 'darcyl28@aol.com' ; 'dpurdy2@gmail.com' ; 'liztracey@gmail.com' ; 'emilyakim05@gmail.com' ; 'emily.schacht@gmail.com' ; 'eric.gidal5@gmail.com' ; 'durian.erin@gmail.com' ; 'florence-boos@uiowa.edu' ; 'buengerg@gmail.com' ; 'hannah- molitor@uiowa.edu' ;'Hannah.Rapson@Raymondlames.com' ; 'heather. w.mcknight@gmail. com' ; 'hbschofield@gmail.com' ; 'perkins.i.t@gmail.com' ; 'jackiehockett@gmail.com' ; 'jameshirsch@gmail.com' ; 'j.k.bradbury@gmail.com' ; 'jasnap23@yahoo.com' ; 'jessemacfarlane@gmail.com' ; 'kjrutherford0l@gmail.com' ; 'moffitt.julie@gmail.com' ; 'karen.nichols@protonmail.com' ; 'tomkatymclaughlin@gmail.com' ; 'kelly-messingham@uiowa.edu' ; 'kelly.teeselink@gmail.com' ; 'kelseyturnis@gmail.com' ; 'Khris.Vickroy@mercer.com' ; 'krisanne-ryther@hawkeyefootball.com' ; 'krinelil@hotmail.com' ; 'knmorrow@gmail.com' ; 'laurajclaps@gmail.com' ; 'lauridi@hotmail.com' ; 'iheartsteakl21@gmail.com' ; 'libbysue.c@gmail.com' ; 'lilysmithjensen@gmail.com' ; 'loalbrecht@gmail.com' ; 'mms246@gmail.com' ; 'mgedlinske@gmail.com' ; 'markrenshaw@me.com' ; 'embenbear@gmail.com' ; 'hortgal@hotmail.com' ; 'mwinder73@yahoo.com' ; 'matthew.def@gmail.com' ; 'modemo403@gmail.com' ; 'maureen.russo.pt@gmail.com' ; 'nfootner@gmail.com' ; 'pholden@iastate.edu' ; 'phillip-lutgendorf@uiowa.edu' ; 'riley.gardam@gmail.com' ; 'robin.kopelman@gmail.com' ; 'roslynn-ellis-1@uiowa.edu' ; 'rukieb@gmail.com' ; 'rwestfa@yahoo.com' ; 'rsteinbron@hotmail.com' ; 'sragerl3@gmail.com' ; 'shea-jorgensen@uiowa.edu' ; 'shellycarpenterl216@gmail.com' ; 'sherrypardee@earthlink.net' ; 'stella.d.hart@gmail.com' ; 'susan- lutgendorf@uiowa.edu' ; 'susan-lehmann@uiowa.edu' ; 'susannahgkneal@gmail.com' ; 'tegallu@gmail.com' ; 'teresalmangum@gmail.com' ; 'thomaskdean@mchsi.com' ; 'wobtj@mchsi.com' ; 'veronica.bolinger@gmail.com' ; 'em253887@gmail.com' ; 'Bruce Tarwater' ; 'Carol Tyx' ; 'Karin McKeone' ; 'pat bowen' ; 'Brian Richman' ; 'Lauren Katalinich' ; 'likach92@gmail.com' ; 'davidjdeardorff@gmail.com' ; 'kwthiel@gmail.com' Cc: Anne Russett Subject: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 05/06/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda q •i^Y ,i {I� V ��. \ i I � � C , S-. `Ili r _ • pip - R. - •1 i f • s '40. , . �rdr Mo l` T. Y P y Y t RM 1' 9: WzZlEzzlor .I � W�Zz -s mom y _ t • Y� f 11yy Ao e Okla Q d K VR. � k AF a .I � W�Zz -s mom y _ t • Y� f 11yy Ao e Okla Q d K VR. � k AF a I i •� • t T• _.A JOIN, 1t It'll- r� =m• �. _ JRPW A `t 4 a OW4-.r s� - • • � ,do • 4 Ammmts�%w �4 h. 4 _ -,dft � — Ilk, !-` _� �" .saw_ � J► t K� y�:# Ile IN le tiv - " ' -'—•.. : ,� � _._"- `3- 'sem . . �'i° � I New ell lee Im - -.Nee IN Ile - It d _ lA•�e _ 'rY Neel ell let •A .�.:} •py .i. .. /aSV E,4ffi-f-__.Y.e�'�.CI�'a{V . r _ �r.'1... - . -.v. - _ ...e e � .. _ Ism p ..� X41 � v���P�rl ;a„�f y�ASO �,•- � Q rr .ar-= e t ' " 77 _• ,r,,F�Ii �r_ A Ml ...4�i.. �o'u 7 a+` . —` _ _ W, . gam. ..,.. ... .. _ vl dl r�; k 6 ff rl'r -,,rte .. _ . hlr•. .- 4no._ NN, k tOR IlIk _IN IN lV IN, mw \ - SIN, 'c_'y'Tv _ Y. _- _ Yom..., - r axl. mss•. Tt a Nelli id ary-'.`._= el lit - P F fjjdyyf 1 .ti,--- 4ikT'k.. •; �ra�x�, ,fir �_'”- -.:. - _ �•�lYa'-� '.s��,�� a.. .`.. ..�+a--" r .. l gs_�1 •, �.- r�'�f ,�,a��� 1, ���' 1 ,N-.a�d, - }� ..._t'r��-�s!-_R::r.r.'SYta.�-`.���•-�`_>aa� _ -• �• f. r� � _. _ _- _ .AWi/WJ.�1iM�� r5: 1 .a L A.Y i NO IN 4NNY,. L ,' y. Net,, r��{' Ir r I �.T 1 Y 1..'i T' .1 i 41.'�rY ''. .' % : !1 11 d /'/' 1 1 yll �'I'r' rA `,f 1�YI{ y1 l:\ ! ` Y ry j1 A q t\✓ '�tl_ (, YL rl' T e yj� ` Ir.1. -1 Np IN: L r::{ } 1 "1' r..Nr . �d., . T 111 1.. + r. f .� � f fin f ti ri AQ , , ., ,,n�, A 4 1,1 f M y., _r 1 i n' • / 'fl !, ito d 1 a Y, S t. ,4 r 't 1. l'. N 5 .M h �' r 1. 1 , , S1. 1 5i 1 u 1 I. t . r. !.r ... ! r., Ir ., .� -U, IJ�,tIA1"`�. ...4r. :t r'd,tJ.N4id11 a r�lfl�'.14i4 iwa. 4 - 1. m!%11L.x. LII ... ... .. ._ a...1'..1. Ift ,$�n.n. ,. mA _e .. .k {'M. ..11: .' rt„'�� „��r.x��e �l.. r. ' j 16 Idiom * : •',- :*f, - t - _ : . n .,... _ ♦ 'Q,/b Y .\\ar. /i A + �" \ Y 1 i'v w b �. i:.,�. Is t \': 't1'.. Y y 1 VAi, a ,,A 1 r. .w W', !' 1 t (� ,1 \ .: ;tiri�#1 ..,..,m+, _ M ttY"'•:,�ao,a. ,.W .,,. \ 7': fw. ', 1 r ~''<;11, ,'if �t, ,+d , .1 o i4'� .b.1�;a' .Yr ':NY , 9, �Vll. if�r', t£ 7'•, k' c �• 9 ",\ t.:1 1 a �2 >•'.:.a+v?.,,. j %V.,. .,J_e►r /J".uf r�' 1 a�,,�r'tyt `. 47f ,t. 4lYi I, �1n✓ 4f\ SIL r 1 " ,SIF' r1� M 11 1 .11. 'Q, `UIY;.'I r ,�`r w.. :. I int W' _., -. ... r:. �'Atir;��il? .',• L :„'.,. ,r. ,.��: ,.2'..:�'rh.. �!Y'��. Ji 4A1W'.. •.. ', .- � I \"'�r.:?• ,'4st •� , ,v r .'>... ,',. \y'l4, '„ .' '• hu..' .. :,. «ab,a-,1 .. A ,,c , .\. 6 .R r,.,a 71�F.4'_"1 • i)'C%,�41• .,a..: 11 ., i.. •� ”, : ' 1 .1. ,;; �• ,r ,.1 \'' rt: i4 bb(M �',n , t - !.,r ;Y't, \ a , F \'.?d1A1 Iw h .. It.. �l. {.ml , 1i- ,IP♦,.'.Y Y•1iti'. ,. ,,ril 1�. L �. Yak'il..ri h, ,t .� ;tv r\1N.S :J'L�a ,.. ,,,� 1. ''t ,t.\ \�': a \ • :5: . . t: ` t FF , l „R py .. , \ ♦. r,[ .. 1 {'.. \ r.. I, �1/;, r' ,`, 1'1,+.. .12 `u'. � 1.IF I{, \` WL/. �y,., �w - _.. .,: t r- ,.,. v. �� r Y.. o t e, ,.,. .... •, . . v ,: •..?,y ,, �♦ . � ,. :.0 . .. ,., .-t r. ,.i P.o ' . � ., \ ., :li s � i.., .e. _,. \ �,.. 11 .. A. �. ,., .. ,rf....., .w l.. ♦ \ e .. �. yj., ,. ,,r b> P .C.a f :,,;... �5. f .. .iH. V^ t :-s _ .. -.: ♦e ..,.,Y � \ -Y..Y ,t} _. a. "1J,1 fNbi:r� ,, � .. _..i�. ,. vv., , ... ., .r 1 I\, pp � A.'. ,. _�.... .r..<�e _-^., _ .. ., !. ..Y ..a ,.. e, ♦a•l:`' \ ,. .,. It ,. '1. ., -d.l♦ ,� V.. n. .i Y. a. \, 41 !.*. 3 .. ., ..._ �•-. .. � - w- :,,. , -.. ,. , ,., ,. � ., , ,.-. .,. .% ,. yr... ,4 ..:� "V ,„ ;{tea _: .....,.,-.. ., ., .-.: �.,. „ ,. .. \ ,, +,�. .. ,il•,Pr,,, r. 6 .:�;'' yv.. d ,� �b,S. T i•f;. ,�' �. .i -- ... s ..�'Wrla r /. .. �I .,: �. L ...... A. W v. ♦ e.,l:, r C. , . a k,1 p, .., :,. N.., � '; •Itl,:1 �I .,� q:`'.r �... �5. - _ a0 ;'. .. '. ,/ _ A , (`JY^, �,:r „ S_�_,. "e,K.. Y,, u � .,w , ,.�„-. l .`. � .., \1 .1 ,T� ,' u 1, �� , b 1•A „ i1T . .., t -: .... .., 3+..,.. .1 .' � v. n f.t � a. ,. i �'.\✓.i.�h, , o , , r v, ._ ! , �it'r ., V•I 7+. l �\�' , „ ., .Yw :\. w. '. .. .lam: � Ib ♦, _ ,�-.,o,.VYF ,,.e J 4 rh. !,l it, 1 ,,. .e P , .�� \�„ ..•Yr\,, r .�' ` `1i9j� �.. +. ,J Pd:-., ,, b 6 . '+..,. . .'k r.G', „\, 4...� .. /, 7 .. .. ,I a-. �E,t w. .,. ...1 a' 1 ,, ,.., P,•\ ,t . I � r , .� , t.,d..l, t Ot. ,,. ♦ ,� . i. �It i A \• \ Y a',, ,. ,... \.f ,_af if �.�i' r. !�yy a'�, a I .y A ::: � „F. ,�\. 4 ,� r . n ; , � Yr � 1 �, ... , '�., ,., i '1 i t' �. .,. 11, r ,•1 .\ i ,, ,. / i 1 v lY / t Yl.►�r1. , r : 't?F ,?,i: �": 'f � -. +, ,y, `y t V� ,..Ia ,N '-. •... ", y '': r.. "� ` p,14i Y9 \: ! l,�t,\ .A1 , ,Y. l•Y ',k. t. r l R 1 � . N1,, , 4ht, 1. M/. 4 i III R ,� A,4/� �,��e 1 i., , \ "r �Y� Y�'� , A: > � .. �. ,..' 1. C `� I 7:1' .fes ,. P./lr :.. .. i 1�' .S.I.i. 1:. .. ;.:. C :i .k. `,,,,.`: ",k�'... .'�,1 t `'R 1 n •�1 I�7NI'H ! '!"f t' .R. -•♦ �i �Y ,� IY , � °5'd ,Y!.n. tY sr. 11 � „� @ �'1 1�9�_ v .rC Ir'I� 'F> 1\ r 1 � ♦ R�'1 •,� `t.',, 'hl ,�'�,\1t`i., r .�'t. y}�'l 1�,,, -A 1'f� a ,a �. �' F-li p: ♦- ♦. ., 4, A:r +T' , i -i ;:A'..b,.- �P' 1'4 r a .,rYT1i �. L�`'a. y `i, ,, 'i.. �. '4�d1 `v. $ x ,��1 \ � , r \ e>. ({. ,\ t. �1 `@s �•+� � by ., � \ j yy w i g, L `„Y � .fir• )qp ,;.j� A , I. SIS ,. � _ r \' bi Q �P r CPY:, �':• •Ylr' P 1 f i♦ ,' ` , 1 1 1 y \ %( 1 ti 1 4 a. rrim�14yyiR. r\,e , \1 . i * d�i n.dM ,U i1r i. t ,1i � �'. ,y\ e lr ,1,\. 1 f4 1 \ 'II.� 1 • . f'� .f.� •\� 1 Y•1 '\� � 2 , r"'P �•�IF�': -t,', ,, ':.� � .I , ' ,"F�'i ,,. 1 '.✓ r- n:, '1, �\..;y 1M . •, 1 S , t r �'•l. ti � r.l \ e i;r1l\moi:!\rTv��� , y� ,Y�� Id 'a \ y' d` '�� v�"i(.` fir. r` ��\ �j,) 1 ,� Y '.. �''11`r 'Yt•r�. •i �t �1 Nk �,1:, yyy yy```gN nR.,1: , d!41 �' -r 1 t� �1 •� ]\ 1�1 \ � \S a:` .�y,1/y�a,] \ '�i✓;, �� , �:`' ti Yi �.YY�� 1- ,� � ; ,1 .� t!�' �a1,�t'`� I ; I '�� ♦ �� Y Y�j^aiY ,�t � ` � ' � n �i �' y`�iT,,���71h YS � At �` �' `y \ rQpR' 1\ 6, IY.`. ..Y\:. 1 � , 11{1ji•V' ,`�,,4 1 � \ �1 l ,jt ,l� 11 , ,. \ ,.� `�♦y�$ �4� ��" t .� �, �� 1 9 1°\ 4 �`'•2i.'b\' ,'� t 1� 'Sa'.1., �� t�, -> \ 2.�•. Y�B \. '\ `T`� 1+ - \ � \�� '� N `.i.l� :.�'. ,1` �p Q ,(, r�.: � l *d<�� ,', �"1r l'a. '` \ � • I � . p I • •.� '� r � ! � \' �,•,•�yfa !1+11�f14:��p {1,..�.\�t'��•-�t �1,y I ,`�`i. �1;�,�e'� ,�l'�i \ „, t� r� �. t � � �� i ��•��,.����4 �1f � + ff' �1 �\ � ,' \ � .� a l'�Y„ pt� 1 ''T�' . r� `� �M� `t"`� `, 1 \ f f�� `� 'i \\�. �. t ^,� 'IR \ d'. 3� r r I !' 1 I'� ���° ! �' Y f Y �,� � r t ��� il• '� / \ 4 \ L ti " e Mie � dy �.All. .. 16 Idiom * : •',- :*f, - t - _ : . n .,... _ ♦ 'Q,/b Y .\\ar. /i A + �" \ Y 1 i'v w b �. i:.,�. Is t \': 't1'.. Y y 1 VAi, a ,,A 1 r. .w W', !' 1 t (� ,1 \ .: ;tiri�#1 ..,..,m+, _ M ttY"'•:,�ao,a. ,.W .,,. \ 7': fw. ', 1 r ~''<;11, ,'if �t, ,+d , .1 o i4'� .b.1�;a' .Yr ':NY , 9, �Vll. if�r', t£ 7'•, k' c �• 9 ",\ t.:1 1 a �2 >•'.:.a+v?.,,. j %V.,. .,J_e►r /J".uf r�' 1 a�,,�r'tyt `. 47f ,t. 4lYi I, �1n✓ 4f\ SIL r 1 " ,SIF' r1� M 11 1 .11. 'Q, `UIY;.'I r ,�`r w.. :. I int W' _., -. ... r:. �'Atir;��il? .',• L :„'.,. ,r. ,.��: ,.2'..:�'rh.. �!Y'��. Ji 4A1W'.. •.. ', .- � I \"'�r.:?• ,'4st •� , ,v r .'>... ,',. \y'l4, '„ .' '• hu..' .. :,. «ab,a-,1 .. A ,,c , .\. 6 .R r,.,a 71�F.4'_"1 • i)'C%,�41• .,a..: 11 ., i.. •� ”, : ' 1 .1. ,;; �• ,r ,.1 \'' rt: i4 bb(M �',n , t - !.,r ;Y't, \ a , F \'.?d1A1 Iw h .. It.. �l. {.ml , 1i- ,IP♦,.'.Y Y•1iti'. ,. ,,ril 1�. L �. Yak'il..ri h, ,t .� ;tv r\1N.S :J'L�a ,.. ,,,� 1. ''t ,t.\ \�': a \ • :5: . . t: ` t FF , l „R py .. , \ ♦. r,[ .. 1 {'.. \ r.. I, �1/;, r' ,`, 1'1,+.. .12 `u'. � 1.IF I{, \` WL/. �y,., �w - _.. .,: t r- ,.,. v. �� r Y.. o t e, ,.,. .... •, . . v ,: •..?,y ,, �♦ . � ,. :.0 . .. ,., .-t r. ,.i P.o ' . � ., \ ., :li s � i.., .e. _,. \ �,.. 11 .. A. �. ,., .. ,rf....., .w l.. ♦ \ e .. �. yj., ,. ,,r b> P .C.a f :,,;... �5. f .. .iH. V^ t :-s _ .. -.: ♦e ..,.,Y � \ -Y..Y ,t} _. a. "1J,1 fNbi:r� ,, � .. _..i�. ,. vv., , ... ., .r 1 I\, pp � A.'. ,. _�.... .r..<�e _-^., _ .. ., !. ..Y ..a ,.. e, ♦a•l:`' \ ,. .,. It ,. '1. ., -d.l♦ ,� V.. n. .i Y. a. \, 41 !.*. 3 .. ., ..._ �•-. .. � - w- :,,. , -.. ,. , ,., ,. � ., , ,.-. .,. .% ,. yr... ,4 ..:� "V ,„ ;{tea _: .....,.,-.. ., ., .-.: �.,. „ ,. .. \ ,, +,�. .. ,il•,Pr,,, r. 6 .:�;'' yv.. d ,� �b,S. T i•f;. ,�' �. .i -- ... s ..�'Wrla r /. .. �I .,: �. L ...... A. W v. ♦ e.,l:, r C. , . a k,1 p, .., :,. N.., � '; •Itl,:1 �I .,� q:`'.r �... �5. - _ a0 ;'. .. '. ,/ _ A , (`JY^, �,:r „ S_�_,. "e,K.. Y,, u � .,w , ,.�„-. l .`. � .., \1 .1 ,T� ,' u 1, �� , b 1•A „ i1T . .., t -: .... .., 3+..,.. .1 .' � v. n f.t � a. ,. i �'.\✓.i.�h, , o , , r v, ._ ! , �it'r ., V•I 7+. l �\�' , „ ., .Yw :\. w. '. .. .lam: � Ib ♦, _ ,�-.,o,.VYF ,,.e J 4 rh. !,l it, 1 ,,. .e P , .�� \�„ ..•Yr\,, r .�' ` `1i9j� �.. +. ,J Pd:-., ,, b 6 . '+..,. . .'k r.G', „\, 4...� .. /, 7 .. .. ,I a-. �E,t w. .,. ...1 a' 1 ,, ,.., P,•\ ,t . I � r , .� , t.,d..l, t Ot. ,,. ♦ ,� . i. �It i A \• \ Y a',, ,. ,... \.f ,_af if �.�i' r. !�yy a'�, a I .y A ::: � „F. ,�\. 4 ,� r . n ; , � Yr � 1 �, ... , '�., ,., i '1 i t' �. .,. 11, r ,•1 .\ i ,, ,. / i 1 v lY / t Yl.►�r1. , r : 't?F ,?,i: �": 'f � -. +, ,y, `y t V� ,..Ia ,N '-. •... ", y '': r.. "� ` p,14i Y9 \: ! l,�t,\ .A1 , ,Y. l•Y ',k. t. r l R 1 � . N1,, , 4ht, 1. M/. 4 i III R ,� A,4/� �,��e 1 i., , \ "r �Y� Y�'� , A: > � .. �. ,..' 1. C `� I 7:1' .fes ,. P./lr :.. .. i 1�' .S.I.i. 1:. .. ;.:. C :i .k. `,,,,.`: ",k�'... .'�,1 t `'R 1 n •�1 I�7NI'H ! '!"f t' .R. -•♦ �i �Y ,� IY , � °5'd ,Y!.n. tY sr. 11 � „� @ �'1 1�9�_ v .rC Ir'I� 'F> 1\ r 1 � ♦ R�'1 •,� `t.',, 'hl ,�'�,\1t`i., r .�'t. y}�'l 1�,,, -A 1'f� a ,a �. �' F-li p: ♦- ♦. ., 4, A:r +T' , i -i ;:A'..b,.- �P' 1'4 r a .,rYT1i �. L�`'a. y `i, ,, 'i.. �. '4�d1 `v. $ x ,��1 \ � , r \ e>. ({. ,\ t. �1 `@s �•+� � by ., � \ j yy w i g, L `„Y � .fir• )qp ,;.j� A , I. SIS ,. � _ r \' bi Q �P r CPY:, �':• •Ylr' P 1 f i♦ ,' ` , 1 1 1 y \ %( 1 ti 1 4 a. rrim�14yyiR. r\,e , \1 . i * d�i n.dM ,U i1r i. t ,1i � �'. ,y\ e lr ,1,\. 1 f4 1 \ 'II.� 1 • . f'� .f.� •\� 1 Y•1 '\� � 2 , r"'P �•�IF�': -t,', ,, ':.� � .I , ' ,"F�'i ,,. 1 '.✓ r- n:, '1, �\..;y 1M . •, 1 S , t r �'•l. ti � r.l \ e i;r1l\moi:!\rTv��� , y� ,Y�� Id 'a \ y' d` '�� v�"i(.` fir. r` ��\ �j,) 1 ,� Y '.. �''11`r 'Yt•r�. •i �t �1 Nk �,1:, yyy yy```gN nR.,1: , d!41 �' -r 1 t� �1 •� ]\ 1�1 \ � \S a:` .�y,1/y�a,] \ '�i✓;, �� , �:`' ti Yi �.YY�� 1- ,� � ; ,1 .� t!�' �a1,�t'`� I ; I '�� ♦ �� Y Y�j^aiY ,�t � ` � ' � n �i �' y`�iT,,���71h YS � At �` �' `y \ rQpR' 1\ 6, IY.`. ..Y\:. 1 � , 11{1ji•V' ,`�,,4 1 � \ �1 l ,jt ,l� 11 , ,. \ ,.� `�♦y�$ �4� ��" t .� �, �� 1 9 1°\ 4 �`'•2i.'b\' ,'� t 1� 'Sa'.1., �� t�, -> \ 2.�•. Y�B \. '\ `T`� 1+ - \ � \�� '� N `.i.l� :.�'. ,1` �p Q ,(, r�.: � l *d<�� ,', �"1r l'a. '` \ � • I � . p I • •.� '� r � ! � \' �,•,•�yfa !1+11�f14:��p {1,..�.\�t'��•-�t �1,y I ,`�`i. �1;�,�e'� ,�l'�i \ „, t� r� �. t � � �� i ��•��,.����4 �1f � + ff' �1 �\ � ,' \ � .� a l'�Y„ pt� 1 ''T�' . r� `� �M� `t"`� `, 1 \ f f�� `� 'i \\�. �. t ^,� 'IR \ d'. 3� r r I !' 1 I'� ���° ! �' Y f Y �,� � r t ��� il• '� / \ _t Y ILL ', �� I :.tAll ..►'r dr..raA.i.i� i Ne rwyIt It �,�,y, n , k J✓ zia nP�lYAf�►(r 'I' i n� Al r i�o 1 H _IYvly` �, vhf. sa. 'd All 41 1 `IGIIIt Y� Not 0.Yfn�4 l�J�T .y}Y �, -1n Mr16 .(f c I1xN1�I1/ pp �'°+l ' a a"' Ile icy.. s y'a�M'4�1�ruRa VY yd 5 .x je a+ 4J wig s 1� w r.�M�ApV- _.� 441 Li w 01 vi 4th,` n r {h r'. u:a vN JI rF y, .Vr 1 r rlFir; v 4 p I Alt axle � d Milo 11 N 1111 11 11 11 11 11 11 1111 1111 1111 11 111111 1111 1111 111 11 1111 II 1111 111111 1111 1111 111111 11 111111 1111 1111 11111 1111 1111 II 1111 111111 1111 1111 111111 11 111111 11_ 111111 1111 1111 11111 1111 1111 II 1111 111111 1111 1111 111111 11 ILLaIlL�l 111111 1111 1111 11111 Ir.... 16�... ill 1111 111111 111111 111111 1111 1111 11111 111111 1111II II 1111 111111 111111 111111 111111 11 B HER 111111 111111 nil 1111 I 111111 � it 11 • " 111.111111 111111 1 111111 1111 1111 111111 11111 111 111111 111111 1 n 111111 111111 1111 1111 111111 I I 111 111111 111111 1 111111 HIM 1111 1111 111111 IL,a�� 111.111111 111111 1 111111 111111 1111 1111 111111 11 111111 111111 1 111111 111111 1111 1111 111111 11� 111111 111111 1 1111111111 nil 11-11 In nil I III VIIII111111 11 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII II114-910,111,111,111111IIIII111111 1111 Illi 1111 1111 1111 1111 IIIIII -- 11 MAMfpL XW STONE EXTERIOR ELEVATION GENERAL NOTE5 wovmE caWRETf PL91e W': AT PLL �1T5voJFE Mwlcx SnLL.GNT4 t. bRME OR ROOiS. 1 tLL CONCM, 6VWTS.ETO. TO BE PMIIEO TO MATCH pA,PCFHT9LRP 3.6VlIF}Ya M'O DpWSFDJIS AGE PRGMSX® AtN�NLIM MR SiNNIN69HM MET#RAF % FPvR LEMENT5mH6-C04LR.A F2 RBERLEMBITSQ)EM-(OLLRB iPl JEAIILAL EEERf9!PT PKt9. Bhl1EH5 AT M"OL.-. C�ILRA A TXR[E fJIMENaIaVAL KANALT5N4161% M6 �STONE A ee 1111 111111 1111 161:L: Ire: 111111 111111 111111 �FLEVATON=,76'4 _ �tLLSHEMCIOs. ELEVAPOv=t2a'4' FLP/Nll =t10'A F �ELNAnGN=tl6'-0 V _ �WESHFlRRIG�. g nrAnW = tV'-0• — _ �_sEwuo rtaoM TbrcesJe.P�.� ei.EanncN=na-n B T EILNAtYTI =1]fi-0" � HEYATtlN�l7a'O" " ZZI ON ELN TtlX ,Nb64 ,��g1 �E4NAlbN ,a4.. s - ELNAMN - „z -6- M � OEss PL?� �� EIEVAMX a VO' -Il l/ 15 DEC 2020 9 Hickory Trails Estates 1/8" EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS :::::".;., 'PAX Iowa City, IowaWW,s°..:.... 11 11 11 A"iON Ii n n n 1111 11 EXTERIOR ELEVATION GENERAL NOTE5 &RA 1.VOTE5PVyrEW':.. ATPLLcOvp5ea(F WIILX SRLL GNTo bRPOE ORR ROOOOES. 2 µt COMNR, Ffc1E?3, V TD, ET O. TO M FM TO MATOHiW1IKF11T9 Am 3. 61R1E25 M'O DpU1SFOJI�FRE PR@M5X®AWIINIIM MR 5TA1NMO9HM MET#ROOF P1 FPvR LEMEXT5mH6-C04LR.A F2 RBERLEMENTSmEM-(OLLRB F% JEAIILAL EEERf9!PT Pµ9. BAT1EH5 AT M"OL.-!MCRA A TXR[E fJINENaIaVAL KANALT3N4161% M9 M VFALl1 STONE !ifillpq �ERA, Y CARE 1 n Hickory Tra 15 DEC 2020 -Iddmmmft� 9 ils Estates Arclutectute 1/8" EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSWAVWATP�A It $42124t'.111.3131 "I 114.121.111, �AX Iowa City, Iowa _1 r j CITY OF IOWA CITY CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMORANDUM Date: March 18, 2021 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner Re: REZ20-0016 — Hickory Trail Rezoning Resubmission Background Information: On February 18, 2021, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public meeting on 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). Staff recommended approval with five conditions related to approval of a Woodland Management Plan, provision of trail connections, incorporation of traffic calming devices, installation of right-of-way trees, and platting requirements. The motion to approve the rezoning failed by a vote of 0-7. The applicant, Axiom Consultants, applying on behalf of Joseph Clark and Nelson Development 1, LLC., has submitted a revised OPD Plan and Sensitive Areas Development for the Commission's consideration. Revised Submission: The revised OPD Plan contains the following changes to the layout from the plan that was previously reviewed by the Commission: 1. The removal of five lots from the west and south side of Hickory Trail (as seen in Figure 1 below). The former submission contains 19 single-family lots along the west and south side of the street. The current submission contains 14 lots along this stretch. The applicant is still proposing to make a connection to the Park trail system in the middle of this undeveloped stretch of land. 2. To offset losses along the street's west side, the applicant has reduced lot widths along lots on the east side of Hickory Trail to add two additional lots on the east side. The total number of detached single-family residential lots has been reduced from 43 to 40 lots. 3. Enhanced landscaping is proposed for several hundred feet north of the Lot 36. The proposed landscaping in this area is detailed in the attached OPD Plan. 4. The acreage in Outlot A, that is proposed to be dedicated to the City for the expansion of Hickory Hill Park, would be increased from 10.86 acres to 11.66 acres. 5. Per staff, the applicant has shifted the proposed traffic circle and the pedestrian raised crosswalk connecting to the park slightly to the south. These changes were made to more efficiently distribute the spacing between the traffic calming devices. 6. The percent of impacted critical slopes went down from 19% to 17%. However, the percent of preserved woodlands went down from 48% to 46%. March 12, 2021 Page 2 Fiqure 1 — Former Hickory Trail OPD Plan Staff Comments: -figure 1 — Kevised HICKory I rail UFU Flan The applicant has revised the OPD Plan to include initial feedback from staff pertaining to street tree spacing and some minor map symbology issues. The revised plans have been shared with Public Works and Parks staff for additional comment. Attachments: 1. Revised OPD and Sensitive Areas Development Plan and Landscape Plan (03.12.2021) 2. March Meeting Correspondence Approved by: I ') - Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services a§3E§-6tl§ - l n P, Aq JA - i47�tlHHLP%YIX \ - Staff Comments: -figure 1 — Kevised HICKory I rail UFU Flan The applicant has revised the OPD Plan to include initial feedback from staff pertaining to street tree spacing and some minor map symbology issues. The revised plans have been shared with Public Works and Parks staff for additional comment. Attachments: 1. Revised OPD and Sensitive Areas Development Plan and Landscape Plan (03.12.2021) 2. March Meeting Correspondence Approved by: I ') - Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services APPROVED BY THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA APPLICANT 1: APPLICANT 1'S ATTORNEY: PRELIMINARYOPD AND G. JOSEPH CLARK PHELAN TUCKER LAW — yN INGTON ST JOHN BEASLEY CITY CLERK DATE IOWA CITY,221 E. 2240 321 E. MARKTST I� �Z� SENSITIVEAREAS DWACITY, IA62245 __l-- jm DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICANT 2: APPLICANT 2'S ATTORNEY: _I J-- ®No NELSON DEVELOPMENT 1, LLC KIRTON MCCONKIE ATTN:JACOB WOLFGANG ATTN:BRYCE K. DALTON HICKORY' LA TRAIL 2186TH AVE., STE 200 SO E. SOUTH TEMPLE, SUITE 400 IOWA CITY, IOWA DES MOINES, IOWA 50309 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 94111 /..>� P�j4____=� \.,\ JACOB@NELSONCONSTRUCT.COM BDALTON@KMCW.COM 1 \'a z 3 NOT TO SCALE SHEET INDEX CIAO OVERALLSENSITIVEFEATURES C3.10 PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS -SENSITIVE SLOPES C1.20 PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS -WOODLAND AREAS C1.30 PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS -WETLAND AND BLUE LINE STREAM CORRIDOR E] � If I r 1W / Lf 1 _ If i \\ iE �u B J 1 \. l _ c ° ss� NOTES: 1a3.� sr 7 1 t \ gym„ - L %��� s i 1. NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES ARE PRESENT. ; e �, — , 4 � KEY NOTES QA CONSERVATION EASEMENT t AC H TCHED AREA REPRESENTS AREA INCLUDED HA _ LA.0 U B B WOODLAND RETENTION CALCULATION F" a �UTiOT 1 3 99A 0 15' LANDSCAPE EASEMENT ,, .,„,•,� V r" I C �J 4 s L- 1 29 a��, mod a 1 Z I J a Ulif x \ I w i vc. 4- 22 2 � i GG a a 10 �F _ - r IS may. r1 1% r z> x ,L oll I 15 41 17 - AID ,e. - �r - ° s v w of EO - ZO _ r T v ➢ E u °J Z �� �� �� 39 18 9 bUTLO" 38 -- AC 37 T A F �A. 1166 kc � , ��L, _ .�` ` \ \� ' 35Q LAC ` 35 343 P zL qlms� 130195F LCI _iW `O - uILILu1 � ���� v, / Q � jp,6LaEu MLLLr NAM /.l �V �I T.,. 3 > v SHEETNUMBER. C1.00 L OUTLOTS:-- ) OUTLOT SF ACRES INTENDED USE A 508,046 1166 DEDICATED TO CITY FOR PARK SPACE \ \ B 173,648 399 CONSERVATION EASEMENT ROW 183,672 422 RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATED TO CITY FOR H ICKORY TRAIL EXTENSION LOT A" Z — 3 tl•,0 ---- 4.22 .0 E] � If I r 1W / Lf 1 _ If i \\ iE �u B J 1 \. l _ c ° ss� NOTES: 1a3.� sr 7 1 t \ gym„ - L %��� s i 1. NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES ARE PRESENT. ; e �, — , 4 � KEY NOTES QA CONSERVATION EASEMENT t AC H TCHED AREA REPRESENTS AREA INCLUDED HA _ LA.0 U B B WOODLAND RETENTION CALCULATION F" a �UTiOT 1 3 99A 0 15' LANDSCAPE EASEMENT ,, .,„,•,� V r" I C �J 4 s L- 1 29 a��, mod a 1 Z I J a Ulif x \ I w i vc. 4- 22 2 � i GG a a 10 �F _ - r IS may. r1 1% r z> x ,L oll I 15 41 17 - AID ,e. - �r - ° s v w of EO - ZO _ r T v ➢ E u °J Z �� �� �� 39 18 9 bUTLO" 38 -- AC 37 T A F �A. 1166 kc � , ��L, _ .�` ` \ \� ' 35Q LAC ` 35 343 P zL qlms� 130195F LCI _iW `O - uILILu1 � ���� v, / Q � jp,6LaEu MLLLr NAM /.l �V �I T.,. 3 > v SHEETNUMBER. C1.00 APPLICANT I: APPLICANT I'S ATTORNEY: PRELIMINARYOPD AND G. JOSEPH CLARK PHELAN TUCKER LAW 221 E. BURLINGTON ST JOHN BEASLEY SENSITIVE AREAS IOWA CITY, IOWA 52246 321 E. MARKET ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245 APPLICANT 2: APPLICANT 2'S ATTORNEY: DEVELOPMENT PLAN NELSON DEVELOPMENT 1, LLC KIRTON MCCONKIE IMPACTED QUANTITII HI CKO RY TRAI L ATTN: JACOB WOLFGANG ATTN BRYCE K. DALTON NOTES: AREA (SF) ®F, 6,175 218 6TH AVE., STE. 200 50 E. SOUTH TEMPLE, SUITE 400 3O IOWA CITY, IOWA 22 DES MOINES, IOWA 50309 SALT IAKECITY, UTAH 84111 EQUAL TO 2 TIMES THE HEIGHT OF THE SLOPE 15 PROVIDED. NO PROTECTED SLOPES OR ® 1,647 ® 965 JACOB@NELSONCONSTRUCT.COM BDALTON@KMCLAW.COM �0 NOTES: AREA (SF) ®F, 6,175 V 4,286 3O 1. THERE ARE PROTECTED SLOPES WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OFTHE DEVELOPMENT. ABUTTER ® 3,783 22 4,737 © EQUAL TO 2 TIMES THE HEIGHT OF THE SLOPE 15 PROVIDED. NO PROTECTED SLOPES OR ® 1,647 ® 965 9O BUFFERS ARE IMPACTED WITH THIS PROJECT. �0 280 8 42 C 1,260 2. THE TOTAL PERCENTAGE IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPE IS LESS THAN 35%CELLE TOTAL. ® 2,488 �5 4,143 �6 CRITICAL SLOPE CALCULATION AREA LSH PERCENTAGE 5,422 TOTAL 55,081 ® 8,183 IMPACTED SLOPES 55,DB1 17% TOTAL 144,255 NON -IMPACTED SLOPES 222,612 69% NON -IMPACTED SLOPES IN PROTECTED SLOPE BUFFER 44,026 14% 1F CRITICAL SLOPES PPIDfl TO DEVELOPMENT) 321,719 10094 'I 3. STEEP SLOPE CALCULATION AREA (OF PERCENTAGE IMPACTED SLOPES 140.255 44% 1 1 NONIMPACTEDSLOPES 181.700 56% STEEP SLOPES(PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT) 325,963 100% \I f I 1 LOT "A' 4."2 L j LL 10 183,67�5F �. i -nLF 33 I 4 S SF BB 0 BB,6>F 34 � r �I /I q -� u LOCATION AREA (SF) ®F, 6,175 V 4,286 3O 5,032 ® 3,783 22 4,737 © 4,559 ® 1,647 ® 965 9O 1,616 �0 280 8 42 C 1,260 ® 6,713 ® 2,488 �5 4,143 �6 1,933 ® 5,422 TOTAL 55,081 LOCATION AREA ESE) ®F, 5,036 (J 1,418 (0 1,885 21 972 22 2,940 �3 6,318 ® 17,472 40,906 �b 1,058 © 6,260 8 1,817 �9 5,458 ® 2,322 3,884 �2 6,219 © 4,858 ® 3,910 U3 11,426 ® 8,183 © 11,913 TOTAL 144,255 �Zm I - _ l D r ®V- 'O_ -C ^ p N.15 - \ 3 g 'hhJ`10 GC'Elei 1N11STI l00 22 15 �� au m66'T, \ 23 I \ \\ \ 11 \ E7 - p¢€ E z o w f a\=' � ' I <.i OOT-LGT 8 -173,6� BE 7Msi` 8 ✓�� '� ��27 1 774,8 I I ]� 13,613 SF I 31- LOAi� - f 10S9n Is < ca 3 3011 `-� e� Il is`F I( Ln DO a Ln x J Z\ \ I o DO a )� a SF ¢ U 15 T yA A T H z w I \ > 1b 22 23 24 r 30 �o 2i � n r' 20 7-z0BEACT o P z::J�:r Y w T/t E 0 E U Z g40 3\9-. ` - \� 18 1�l. e..so4>\2e „_ '3. z:;` / 3 e = a Lwii `ED 0 26 AT 38 A 31 J�UT�OT /j � - 3 -- - Rl53bAcF j 1164 B asF s 3B I JI / SPB oa6�i� X37 5(L V �'a - --- 36 35 343 3�6T ��1 w J \ ✓-�, \ 1 ✓ dos p _FILL ! aIA / ------- EEL USCI ,.��ti i' % ELL 2 1 I. + I �\ o uMLL_u 0 o Z �zmj DO m pLZw/t o O UT IS STEM NUMBER C1.10 PRELIMINARY OPD AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN HICKORY TRAIL IOWA CITY, IOWA APPLICANT I: APPLICANT I'S ATTORNEY: G. JOSEPH CLARK PHELAN TUCKER LAW 221 E. BURLINGTON ST JOHN BEASLEY IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 321 E. MARKET ST � IOWA CITY, IA 52245 APPLICANT 2: APPLICANT 2'S ATTORNEY: NELSON DEVELOPMENT 1, LLC KIRTON MCCONKIE ATTNAACOB WOLFGANG ATTN:BRYCE K. DALTON 218 6TH AVE., STE. 200 50 E. SOUTH TEMPLE, SUITE 400 DES MOINES, IOWA 50309 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 JACOB@NELSONCONSTRUCT.COM BDALTON@KMCLAW.COM 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 R&5, A MINIMUM OF SON, OF THE EXISTING WOODLANDS MUST BE PRESERVED. RS -S WOODLAND PRESERVATION CALCULATION AREA(SFI PERCENTAGE DISTURBEDWOODLAND 480,433 36% BUFFER 150'WIOE) 231,316 SB% '1 PRESERVEDWOODIAND 613,315 46% WOODLAND (PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT( 1,325,064 100% 'I 2. THE DEVELOPMENT IS 4% SHORT OF THE REQUIRED 5M WOODLAND RETENTION THRESHOLD. REPLACEMENT TREES WILL BE PROVIDED TO OFFSET THIS DEFICIENCY. CITY CODE REQUIRES i REPLACEMENT TREES AT A RATE OF 1 TREE PER 2005E OF DISTURBED WOODLAND REQUIRED REPLACEMENT TREES= (1,321,064' ON )/2UIT=265 TREES 3. REPLACEMENT TREES ARE PROVIDED AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: ' LOCATION COUNT SHEET STIIEET TREES 109 -1.00 OAT A BETWEEN LOTS 37 44 L1.10 LOT" UD $ 4. D AC OITROTA BEHIND LOTS 29-32 18 L1.10 1R3,6R SF LOT 70 L3.O0 / LOT@ 24 L2.00 �- TOTAL 265 LEGEND: AREA ISE) 23 SITE EXISTING PROPOSED OFFICERINDEX —IC0 � CONTOUR INTERMFOUSE — 101 � 00;— ¢'BARB WIREv—,— 5,892 3 STREAM CENTERONE +3A' 9,275 TOTAL 480;433 — CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS Ile NO REMOVAL LIMITS AT ENE ;' a OF CONSERVALON EASEMENT F 11 SENSUTVE AREAS AREA BUFFER WOODLAND PRESERVIORM GO III u = 12`. = LAI I I I _ i I 1 y IMPACTED QUANTITIES: / NEtlI®C� PoUST WOODLANDS LOCATION AREA ISE) 23 119,329 © 119,455 © 36,847 hall 2,135 SF 40,474 LET�5 5,892 3 147,025 +3A' I I _ i I 1 y IMPACTED QUANTITIES: / NEtlI®C� PoUST WOODLANDS LOCATION AREA ISE) 23 119,329 © 119,455 © 36,847 hall 2,135 SF 40,474 LET�5 5,892 © 147,025 �H 9,275 TOTAL 480;433 O all 065F O IMPACUDW0001ANo `\\\\` \�\ _ 14 15 uivsF xi �F NOR TO WlUYAPE PIAN ♦ .'r V AVA A AV `(\V AVS „ �wvw vw��vwv 41 _ II 17 IT \\ \ N \\ 39 38 / OUT66Ac 37 / - =Bac h.I. O 65F rI�'��eNmQ��. 111bII�GU�a j J: �I I I ®�44P�,N41Y4 \ lam\ P'I�ISf��4Atl V0�1�0.PW� Ifi ! \ II I I I I J i i .\If IF \ \ \ I'S AN 18 19 23 —� N? A Z 9 hall 934 SF ISAMIF LET�5 26 13,0L94 _ sWN, LI.331k — io Ile r ;' a °:SAL F 11 > a o 0 GO III u �47 4 12`. 8 LAI U OUTLOT 1 a8 32i 0 IS13 399 AC Eu 2 173 49IF On „RII, 25 p2 27. FIRE O o e -I C P2 AF IF d >0 > IF 2 p N IMPACUDW0001ANo `\\\\` \�\ _ 14 15 uivsF xi �F NOR TO WlUYAPE PIAN ♦ .'r V AVA A AV `(\V AVS „ �wvw vw��vwv 41 _ II 17 IT \\ \ N \\ 39 38 / OUT66Ac 37 / - =Bac h.I. O 65F rI�'��eNmQ��. 111bII�GU�a j J: �I I I ®�44P�,N41Y4 \ lam\ P'I�ISf��4Atl V0�1�0.PW� Ifi ! \ II I I I I J i i .\If IF \ \ \ I'S AN 18 19 23 1 N? A Z 9 hall 934 SF ISAMIF LET�5 26 13,0L94 IF, LI.331k J_ Q io K r ;' a °:SAL F 11 > a o 0 GO III u �47 4 12`. F LAI U W Z a8 32i 0 IS13 Fee Eu 2 a On „RII, 25 IMPACUDW0001ANo `\\\\` \�\ _ 14 15 uivsF xi �F NOR TO WlUYAPE PIAN ♦ .'r V AVA A AV `(\V AVS „ �wvw vw��vwv 41 _ II 17 IT \\ \ N \\ 39 38 / OUT66Ac 37 / - =Bac h.I. O 65F rI�'��eNmQ��. 111bII�GU�a j J: �I I I ®�44P�,N41Y4 \ lam\ P'I�ISf��4Atl V0�1�0.PW� Ifi ! \ II I I I I J i i .\If IF \ \ \ I'S AN 18 19 23 15,955 IF N? A Z B29 AI 2122 28 23 35 Aid Z B29 AI hall 934 SF ISAMIF LET�5 0 13,0L94 IF, LI.331k J_ Q } K r n_ f :�t I 1 . 1 1 . 1 I I I 1 I I I i C/ 28 -/� 35 Aid Z 33 OA I'm soB.IW 934 ISAMIF LET�5 0 f :�t I 1 . 1 1 . 1 I I I 1 I I I i C/ 28 35 Aid Z 33 OA I'm soB.IW 0 21 ISAMIF LET�5 0 13,0L94 f :�t I 1 . 1 1 . 1 I I I 1 I I I i C/ YWK e m <BE D BE 3 3 28 W Z 2A 32 0 21 ISAMIF LET�5 0 30 IF, LI.331k YWK e m <BE D BE 3 3 31 W Z ls,iv sF 32 LET�5 0 YWK e m <BE D BE 3 3 GO W Z F- LET�5 0 W J_ Q } K r aa a F ? > a o 0 w W F LAI U W Z f 30 GO W Z F- LET�5 0 W J_ Q } K r a a F ? > a } w W F LAI U W Z f 30 Eu 2 a On OFF LUQ W F w W P U �o Q z a3 W a Z p2 DO J O o e -I C IF d >0 > IF 2 p N C1.20 PRELIMINARYOPD AND APPLICANT I: G. JOSEPH CLARK APPLICANT I'S ATTORNEY: PHELAN TUCKER LAW ]00 CONTOURINTERMEDIATE101 — 221 E. INGTON ST JOHN BEASLEY SENSITIVE AREAS IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 3221 E.M MARKET ST —� CONSTRUCTION AREA UNITS IOWA CITY, IA 52245 DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICANT2: APPLICANT 2'S ATTORNEY: SENSITIVE AREAS AREA NELSON DEVELOPMENT 1, LLC KIRTON MCCONKIE H I C KO RY T RA I L ATTN:JACOB WOLFGANG ATTN:BRYCE K. DALTON 218 6TH AVE, STE. 200 50 E. SOUTH TEMPLE, SUITE 400 IOWA CITY, IOWA DES MOINES, IOWA 50309 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 JACOB@NELSONCONSTRUCT.COM BOALTON@KMCLAW.COM LEGEND: i� SITE EXISTING PROPOSED CONTOURINDEX100— ]00 CONTOURINTERMEDIATE101 — lA4 FENCE: DARDWIREv>y— 9RC STRGMaNTERUNE -- --- SIGN —� CONSTRUCTION AREA UNITS SIR FENCE �•� 1REERWWµUMITSAtEDGE 97595E OFCONSERVAPON EPSEMEM SENSITIVE AREAS AREA BUFFER WETLAND BLUE LINE 1. SILT FENCE TO BE PLACED AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE GRADING LIMITS AS SHOWN PRIOR TO ANY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES. 1 1 i II t� LOT "A" 2 3� 422 AC o.eo AL 183,672 SF 59 AC _ 955655 It 5OOAC 278 IS 64. Go .. , e � 2 % ! •sy � loo' aW D BUFFER`\ `A C uo°iae`s \ F OUTLOT A 11.96 AC SWIMS BE / ! I I CBVICf�O�'V'. �t�0�OVVR I �yJ i m Al114 `,P 17 65F 35 635 " ES 10 u3 EOA5 AC 30' STREAM BUFFER w anal H&m Lnm ::EZm I H N OJm HF X0i us It �..� 1fG*�Wtl ffE a 3 /.. I AftMOE� U'ET I c _k I "�q II II x V Z o o w 3 C p a I I g 1 > O z o 0 &1 1 a v sIj E"q 1 I 1 +`. 301 STREAM 1= 1 y BUFFERI la y 1 OUTLOT IGO, v9nass WETLAND BUFFER / F 3 _ =7_m• / SIRE M BUFF R vi 6299 I I �� N 1 LU Z 26 28 0E2 AC I I 14JIMSP v T N p d w' 5 i O a 25 29 g 31 ,,;"F 240 SF 23 24 , 30 b 1 0 o `` i1y335F '® Z(T 33.9155E 39,A15F / 3253E SF IF 1 G U Z 18 J 3.9935E q a = a w L7 0 ..37 55E 16;935. 31 OBAC 193335E g 34 33 325 j .. �St.\i 3995E 9,135- 9.3WSF SEARS 5f .V 1 O > K F- u N IN P'Y WIISLV Iw �i�� !J, i UPI)Z W DEo o W LF) Z o / z ? 1 I LL I �gU, G�w�to � I i 1 ; I sxErirvumBER: C1.30 i� 1 :`; 147 AC 20,512Y 9RC w anal H&m Lnm ::EZm I H N OJm HF X0i us It �..� 1fG*�Wtl ffE a 3 /.. I AftMOE� U'ET I c _k I "�q II II x V Z o o w 3 C p a I I g 1 > O z o 0 &1 1 a v sIj E"q 1 I 1 +`. 301 STREAM 1= 1 y BUFFERI la y 1 OUTLOT IGO, v9nass WETLAND BUFFER / F 3 _ =7_m• / SIRE M BUFF R vi 6299 I I �� N 1 LU Z 26 28 0E2 AC I I 14JIMSP v T N p d w' 5 i O a 25 29 g 31 ,,;"F 240 SF 23 24 , 30 b 1 0 o `` i1y335F '® Z(T 33.9155E 39,A15F / 3253E SF IF 1 G U Z 18 J 3.9935E q a = a w L7 0 ..37 55E 16;935. 31 OBAC 193335E g 34 33 325 j .. �St.\i 3995E 9,135- 9.3WSF SEARS 5f .V 1 O > K F- u N IN P'Y WIISLV Iw �i�� !J, i UPI)Z W DEo o W LF) Z o / z ? 1 I LL I �gU, G�w�to � I i 1 ; I sxErirvumBER: C1.30 41 40 9RC 3 onos J 38 97595E 37 B E w anal H&m Lnm ::EZm I H N OJm HF X0i us It �..� 1fG*�Wtl ffE a 3 /.. I AftMOE� U'ET I c _k I "�q II II x V Z o o w 3 C p a I I g 1 > O z o 0 &1 1 a v sIj E"q 1 I 1 +`. 301 STREAM 1= 1 y BUFFERI la y 1 OUTLOT IGO, v9nass WETLAND BUFFER / F 3 _ =7_m• / SIRE M BUFF R vi 6299 I I �� N 1 LU Z 26 28 0E2 AC I I 14JIMSP v T N p d w' 5 i O a 25 29 g 31 ,,;"F 240 SF 23 24 , 30 b 1 0 o `` i1y335F '® Z(T 33.9155E 39,A15F / 3253E SF IF 1 G U Z 18 J 3.9935E q a = a w L7 0 ..37 55E 16;935. 31 OBAC 193335E g 34 33 325 j .. �St.\i 3995E 9,135- 9.3WSF SEARS 5f .V 1 O > K F- u N IN P'Y WIISLV Iw �i�� !J, i UPI)Z W DEo o W LF) Z o / z ? 1 I LL I �gU, G�w�to � I i 1 ; I sxErirvumBER: C1.30 CONCEPT PLAN HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES \I IOWA CITY, IOWA UPDATED MARCH 10, 2021 N. 1ST A�ENUE I �I LOT T �� A>` (� ��ITERIJ 183.67zsrjII ♦ ?� y, � CON �p��wncsr EEPSEMENT' V a ��'�� OAK KNOLL �-- '" \N� ENTRANCE \ .'5 Nl- zo bC ELET4yl IrEe L _. 1 �� Q � ,Q0 i ! Com" !� L� ete �na _ 1 e i r„ ro6,. �! hIl v Fn , PROJECT DATA:i 6 3 a CONseRvnTiOn ��1��w EASEMENT TOTAL DEVELOP M ENT AREA 48.75 ACRES PARK DEDICATION AREA 11.66 ACRESOOTgAC �TB - - \. I13' S' ]0 LEGEND: �' 4.6= a .� / PARK DEDICATION ! +� 1.ys �' so y 4u �� d �� asp. 11 ♦ r u S CONSERVATION EASEMENT �� A r Q �'"-{� ♦ ♦♦ ,ew, BE 5 1� 12 -DIET AC IU \ `. Vim'— p 1. T 3� ♦♦ $' ,m �52 BE If ♦u �� 20,ME 93 39 n,, 18 E1�J ,s 3� ;,s y - I o s _ %/ , �UTQOT� 37�ERE 4G �� / // X263 soeiwc! /'� / �\ co . �!� 3 ((( \ V I `\� >� > a� A.rV I .108' I s,'. Ef \3 % 'bss � I I. / A k a \ EXISTING / q' ! I f'L 1 V ERl /�\VAu Pui a Avn� ' TREE LINE A �j If ���✓ i- \ i TE I i T ej�yf 5< / d}5 Y�ra? Li _rte, ti—200'— w Z vM 1 W 6 N Y O W Q I 99V95��1 [[ Q u I z w = } Z / ,IA''P I < 00 H vN'i .��;� ➢ Luwz= sf /EXISTING 1 0 2 a W l7 r y I TRAIL 9 ] 6{ Q w 3 o T 1VR �orssE � m UIf o N s 656 EE u RU UMBER ` EMSfING RAIL 02.00 �l r; Y�ra? Li _rte, ti—200'— w Z vM 1 W 6 N Y O W Q I 99V95��1 [[ Q u I z w = } Z / ,IA''P I < 00 H vN'i .��;� ➢ Luwz= sf /EXISTING 1 0 2 a W l7 r y I TRAIL Q w 3 o w m UIf o N Z EE u UMBER 02.00 PLANTS: PROPOSED DECIDUOUS STREET TREE ° SPECIES AS LABELED FINAL PLANTING LOCATION OF STREET TREES TO BE DETERMINED BY LOCATION OF DRIVEWAYS AND VISION TRIANGLES. GROUND COVER: NATIVE SAVANNA PLANT MIX: ION EXCHANGE, INC. SAVANNA I WOODLAND EDGE- NATIVE SEED MIX #: SAV -WOO -MIX -LB OR EQUIVALENT NATIVE WOODLAND PLANT MIX: DPAJRIP AAnnN Al11RSFRV 1 �. l ��o\'01 FAA STREET TREE PLANTING SCHEDULE ID Ob. WrANIWfWMMON NAME ROOT SPACING a Fig rvn/M.x,ONx oa5xgwnlmW 0 am 6 Np wBe sEETYPIMPUBEEN J IANA SE 5 I{D II RM, Exwbi XX Pa'z 'Qs TANNx M"PJASSww r a a ? > SEE I`xN�,"'aaxN Be m✓MSNDNN �O 2 PMERBEEF vu � M 2 Nm mak, ANA&x as rl"AAEMN 2 a Evil � L7 aww.m w�mrvP a� ./A5N,awN a RIOUNEORMIAM EL ai E ; rv..rMSNw,x cN BRIFIRMINT EVE, >- o 0 Z a° G "PlASUrowN = ON 7 N v Leer 6_uwlphaaOJUW Be m✓Mixowx Am 10 NR Mt`. B` 91 m.rMxmrn KBWA am 6 oKeMveam" an rv.JN55xBNN HOPIANE pm 9 BE 3B�PiM�N lomool "ME ONE AM a cualmtmk� an 30 rv./MS SWANIPWHETEa, (mem'b %m.' Be m/n55,wwx NAME a'ukamx.a' IVASNwwx rvn./K 51MUN'x AMEMEANUAl UK 2 ul"'NaAhre, Be MM/ASSXONN WMENEElal met t ulaae�.BNM ED mJM w AM) Old MEN! 2 ul"ImMUMP Be M IMS N Rucc uuumN°INUMNA Be M/tl SNNNx OEM TRANEFFOAMOB xoE.USAN5aee5Make,:MEE �a a,.,�,mMx,aNxxPIS kwola qwm A f �Zen OF An m 000nsionoZ V OZ UZ BE D 3a 3 Ell Z Fig 27 0 'I{► 6 'o J w 5 I{D II r � r a a ? > a } �O 2 F vu � M _ 6 2 a Evil � L7 a� �Zen OF An m 000nsionoZ V OZ UZ BE D 3a 3 F - Ell Z Fig 0 6 'o J w 5 a r � r a a ? > a } �O 2 F vu � M _ 6 2 a Evil � L7 F - Z Ell 6 W W Z _ �g o U a� a z EL F- >- o 0 Z a° G a o = 3 N v FTNOMBEN: L1.00 LANDSCAPE LEGEND PLANTS: O PROPOSED DECIDUOUS OVERSTORY TREE PROPOSED DECIDUOUS UNDERSTORY TREE PROPOSED EVERGREEN TREE PROPOSED SHRUB GROUND COVER: NATIVE SAVANNA PLANT MIX: ION EXCHANGE, INC. SAVANNA I WOODLAND EDGE -NATIVE SEED MIX #: SAV -WOO -MIX -LB OR EQUIVALENT NATIVEWOODLAND PLANT MIX: PRAIRIE MOON NURSERY SHADY WOODLAND SEED MIX x SWD OR EQUIVALENT LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCHEDULE ID QTY BOTpNIGp1/LOMMON NAME MIN. sm AtlOT E1/EROlFEJ TREES MJ z z z lV 10 E sTEIEN RADGPDAR 31EGH! BB FM ] Rnus Rr bus 3'IEIGM BE 'o EAS NWHRE FINE J DECIOI W lIS TREES I SHRUBS ID QIY. I BOTANMALCOMMON NAME MAX. SRE ROOT B u 2"DBH BE z Z > SERGBA,HRY o,,b,, } Oma, 2 F NR Y RED K 2'DBH BB Ouercw irocr¢wya 2 OM 6 BI OAK 2"DBH BE Qrya 05 7 emET�urwDKORv ff GKs 2"DER aU R r ,kr AA 9 serve Barr 2 DDH BB =w a 8 �w 2'NBH BB a3 c0 VW(RI He2a Cal HZ 6 r 2 BEN! BB YPZaNtJT SFTp CA a FLAME THFANEE REDBUD 2•DBH BB v 31a6„nad ... FareRFamy2 FCER6T PANBV REDBUB • BBH BB pp ♦"Na14'onon plan indmatas Ere u,uimtl An ,o R,rd removel olrs,t lB treq u[Ifuld A1PV W6S s)l4tl BE NUNS ERY MATCHED; OIIPLIY S PECIMEN. �XEM NUMBER L1.10 MJ z z z a�g MJ N ZL 1 'o J w 5 a r � J z Z > a } p 2 F vu u w z f �O 2 a Bn V �XEM NUMBER L1.10 z z MJ o_ O J z u aU Jg =w a �w a3 r a s v 0 �uz Go �XEM NUMBER L1.10 GENERAL LANDSCAPE PLANTING NOTES: 01 CONTRACTOR TO LOCATE ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO EXCAVATION. BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OFANY WORK, CONTACT IOWA ONE CALL (1-800-292-8989) AT LEAST48 HOURS PRIOR TO DIGGING. REPAIR DAMAGE TO UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES IMMEDIATELY. G2 PRIORTO PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION, THE LANDSCAPEOR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE SHALL APPROVE PLANT LOCATIONS. FIELD ADJUSTMENTS OF PROPOSED PLANT LOCATIONS LISTED ON PLAN MAY BE REQUIRED TO MINIMIZE POTENTIAL INTERFERENCE WITH EXISTING OR RELOCATED UTILITIES OR IMPROVE MAINTENANCE CONDITIONS. 03 PRI O R TO INSTALLATION, ALL TREE PLANTING LOCATIONS SHALL BE FLAGGED AND PLANTING BEDS SHALL BE DEUNEATED FOR APPROVAL BY THE PROJ ECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. CONTACTTHE PROJECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE ONE WEEK PRIOR TO ANTICIPATED PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION DATE FOR FINAL LAYOUT APPROVAL. 04 ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL AT LEAST MEET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS SHOWN IN THE"AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK" (ANSI Z60.1 -LATEST EDITION), 05 PLANT QUANTITIES ARE FOR CONTRACTOR'S CONVENIENCE. DRAWINGS SHALL PREVAIL WHERE DISCREPANCIES OCCUR. 06 NO PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE SUBSTITUTED WITHOUT THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 07 BED PREPARATION AND MULCHING NOTES: IMPORTED TOPSOIL, IF REQUIRED, SHALL BE: FERTILE, FRIABLE, NATURAL TOPSOIL, WITH A CLAY CONTENT NOT EXCEEDING 30% AND ORGANIC MATTER CONTENT NOT LESS THAN 5% FREE FROM LUMPS, COARSE SANDS, STONES, ROOTS, STICKS, AND OTHER FOREIGN MATERIAL, WITH ACIDITY RANGE OF BETWEEN Ph 6.0 and 5.8. 08 PLANTING SOIL: PLANTING SOIL (i.e. BACKFILL AREAS AROUND ROOT BALLS AS SHOWN ON TREEISHRUB INSTALLATION DETAIL) SHALL BE AMENDED, THOROUGHLY MIX 4 PARTSTOPSOIL,1 PART COMPOST,1 PARTSAND. TOPSOIL SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED WITHIN THE NOTE ABOVE. COMPOST SHALL BE FINELY SCREENED GRADED TO PASS SIEVE AS FOLLOWS: -MINIMUM OF 85% BEING 1/4" OR SMALLER (DRY BASIS RESULT). -MINIMUM OF 70% BEING 5/32" OR SMALLER (DRY BASIS RESULT(. -WITH CLUMPS OR PARTICLES 3/4" DIAMETER OR GREATER. SAND SHALL BE C33 WASHED CONCRETE SAND, OR APPROVED EQUAL. 09 UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED, ALLGRASS/PERENNIAL MASSINGS ARETO BE EVENLYSPACED IN TRIANGULAR PATTERN ARRANGEMENT. 10 PRIORTO MULCHING ALL PLANING BED AREAS, APPLY COMMERCIALGRADE PRE -EMERGENT HERBICIDE (PREEN OR APPROVED EQUAL), PER MANUFACTURE'S DmECTIONS,TO ALL PLANTING BEDS. 11 PROVIDE A MINIMUM 3" DEPTH OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH IN ALLTREE PLANTING BEDS. 12 PROVIDE 2"DEPTH MIN. OFSHREDDED HARDWOOD AND/OR RIVER ROCK MULCH IN ALL SHRUB/ORNAMENTAL GRASS/PERENNIAL BEDS. 13 PROVIDE ALL TREES WITH A MINIMUM 3" DEPTH OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. MULCH RINGS FOR TREES SHALL BE A MINIMUM SIX FOOT IS') DIAMETER AND CONTAIN SPADE EDGING AT MULCH RING EDGE 14 PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN POSITIVE DRAINAGE THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION, DO NOTALLOW ADDITION OFTOPSOIL, PLANTING SOIL OR MULCHTO DETER POSITIVE DRAINAGE OR TO CREATE AREA OF LOCALIZED PONDING. 15 NURSERY TAGS SHALL BE LEFT ON PLANT MATERIAL UNTIL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS COMPLETED THE INITIAL ACCEPTANCE. 16 CONTAINER GROWN STOCK SHALL HAVE THE CONTAINER REMOVED AND. THE ROOT BALL CUTTHROUGH THE SURFACE IN TWO VERTICAL LOCATIONS. 17 ALL PLANTS SHALL BE BALLED AND WRAPPED OR CONTAINER GROWN AS SPECIFIED. NO CONTAINER STOCK WILL BE ACCEPTED IF IT IS ROOT BOUND. ALLROOTWRAPPING MATERIAL MADE OF SYNTHETICS OR PLASTICS SHALL BE REMOVED ATTIME OF PLANTING. 18 AS NEEDED, STAKE ALL NEWLY PLANTED TREES RELATIVE TO WIND EXPOSURE. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE SET PLUMB TO GROUND AND FACED FOR. BEST APPEARANCE. AS NECESSARY, PRUNE DEAD BRANCHES OR THOSE THAT COMPROMISE APPEARANCE AND STRUCTURE TO A MAX OF 1/3 THE PLANT. 19 CONTRACTOR SHALL WATER AND MAINTAIN ALL SODDED AREAS AS WELL AS ALL PLANTS UNTIL GROUND FREEZES. MAINTENANCE INCLUDES WEEDING, MULCHING, AND OTHER NECESSARY RELATED OPERATIONS UNTIL INITIAL ACCEPTANCE. INITIAL ACCEPTANCE 15 CONSIDERED TO BE THE DATE AT WHICH PLANTING AND MULCHING, ETC., PER LANDSCAPE PLAN, HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE 20 ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE GUARANTEED TO BE IN VIGOROUS GROWING CONDITIONS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE (1) YEAR FROM DATE OF INITIAL ACCEPTANCE. 21 ALL PLANT MATERIALS THAT ARE DEAD OR IN AN UNHEALTHY OR UNSIGHTLY STATE ARE REQUIRED TO BE REPLACED AT NO ADDITIONAL COSTTO THE OWNER FOR UP TO ONE YEAR OF INITIAL ACCEPTANCE. 22 SURFACE RESTORATION FOR ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE TURF GRASS LAWN SOD, WITH AN ALTERNATE OPTION TO BE TURF GRASS LAWN SEED. ALL SEED& 500 APPLICATION NOTES ARE LISTED SEPARATELY. CONTRACTOR SHALL FOLLOW MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDED SPECIFICATIONS FOR PRODUCT INFORMATION& INSTALLATION. FOR ALL SURFACE RESTORATION, PLANTING PRACTICES, AND ANY OTHER LANDSCAPING WORK NOT ADDRESSED VIA MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS, CONTRACTOR SHALL FOLLOW IOWA SODAS SPECIFICATIONS DIVISION 09: SITE WORK AND LANDSCAPING OF IOWA. SOD/SEED APPLICATION NOTES: 01 IF TURF GRASS LAWN SEED ALTERNATE 15 USED IN UEU OF SOD, ALL SEEDING APPLICATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED BY UNITED SEEDS INC, OR APPROVED EQUAL 02 ALL TURF GRASS LAWN AREAS, WHETHER SODDED OR SEEDED, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ARE TO BE PLANTED AND INSTALLED AS PER THE TECHNICAL BULLETIN' FOR'SOD GROWER II KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS BLEND' PROVIDED BY UNITED SEEDS, OR APPROVED EQUAL. TECHNICAL BULLETIN FOR'SOD GROWER it KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS BLENO' CAN BE FOUND ON THE UNITED SEEDS WEBSITE: www.untedseeds.com 83 ALL TU RF GRASS SOD TO BE OF THE SAM E PERFOR MANCE QUALITY AND SPECIES TYPE OF TH E'SOD GROWER II KENTUCKY BLU EGRASS BLEND' PROVIDED BY UNITED SEEDS, OR APPROVED EQUAL. BLUEGRASS VARIETIES SHALL INCLUDE: 'CONCERTO', 'NO BLUE% rBEYON D', AND 'EVEREST'. CONTACT INFO: United Seeds Inc. 1800 Dixon Ave, Suite A Des Moines, IA 50316 Ph: 1-800.365-6674 Web: www.unitedseeds.com STAKING NOTES: TREE & SHRUB PLANTING NOTES: DO TREE STAKING SHALL ONLY BE USED IF NOTED, IN HIGH WIND AREAS, OR AREAS OF HEAVY ADJACENT PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC. 01 STAKING WIRE THROUGH RUBBER HOSE SET LOOSE TO ALLOW FOR TRUNK TAPER AND DETRIMENTAL GROWTH. TREE SHOULD ALLOW LIMITED MOVEMENT. 02. STEEL FENCE POST STAKE DRIVEN INSIDE MULCH RING DIAMETER. DRIVE STAKES V-0" INTO UNDISTURBED SOIL BELOW ROOTBALL. 03 REMOVE WIRE BASKET AND BURLAP ONCE PLACED INTO PLANTING HOLE. REMOVE ALL SISAL AND SYNTHETIC TWINE. 04 TRUNK FLARE SHOULD BE EXPOSED BEFORE DETERMINING PLANTING HOLE DEPTH. PLANT TREE WITH TRUNK FLARE 1-2" MAXIMUM ABOVE ORIGINAL GRADE, AVOID PLANTING TREE TOO DEEPLY. 05 PLANTING HOLE TO BE AT M INIMUM 3 TIMES TH E WI DTH OF FOOTBALL AT SOIL SURFACE, SLOPING TO THE WIDTH OF R00T BALL AT BASE. PLANTING HOLE WIDTH NEAR SURFACE 15 I NCREASED TOS TIMES THE WIDTH OF ROOTBALL WHEN SOILS ARE HIGHLY COMPACTED OR HEAVY IN CLAY CONTENT. 06 .SCARIFY PLANTING HOLE TO HELP ELIMINATE THE CREATION OF A 501L INTERFACE. 07 PLACE ROOTBALL ON COMPACTED& LEVELED SO BGRADE. 08 REMOVE EXIST' NG SOI L FROM EXCAVATED PLANTING PIT AND REPLACE WITH PLANTING SOIL WHILE BACKFIW NG, WORK PLANTING SOIL AROUND ROOTBALL TO MINIMIZE LARGE AIR POCKETS AND ENSURE BETTER VERTICAL SUPPORT. 09 AVOI D MOUNDI NG MU LCH& MAKI NG CONTACT WITH TRU N C FORM 2-3" SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH RING SAUCER TO HELP HOLD WATER DURING ESTABLISHMENT. DIAMETER OF MULCH AREA SHOO LD BE KEPT CLEAR OF GRASS, WEEDS, ETC. TO REDUCE COMPETITION WITH TREE ROOTS. 10 UNDISTURBED SOIL. 11 ONLY LIGHTLY PRUNE AND REMOVE DAMAGED OR DEAD BRANCHES. 12 SPADE EDGING, TYP. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON PLAN. 13 REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR PLANT SPACING, LOCATIONS. 14 6" MINI MUM WIDER HOLE THAN CONTAINER ON ALL SIDES. w N J_ Z F- a N F 'o J � 0 w 5 Q } K a J z Z>_ O a } F a U J 0O 2 F Vw U w f IY F w � 2 a uwi �l7 L1.20 N J_ a F w N V � 0 O a J z O z F a U J aZ O a3w w IY F w � W 0 Z G C) N L1.20 LEGEND —E c0 3P5 I t PA /,q�� PROPERTY LINSET r L t OC R O PROPERTY SETBACK J m 1OM �/ 0WATER N 2 OR 20M TELECOM Z B 0� / OI .• ...._ 3 M%P O o o GAS I 92 PO ppp 1 WF I E E ELECTRIC � 10C wi s°ry ggNITMY6EWER 3 GD 41V 3 f °A .° .° STORM SEWEREXIST- 3 2TD I TREE REASEMENT w I / 2ID 1. TREE PROTECTION FENCING 1 2GT � p 2CR / 4 1 RL 3GD - 995 - EXISTING CONTOUR I / 3RZ SCG I TREE REMOVAL LIMITS AT EDGE OF CONSERVATION I / O TAG O EASEMENT O O 1 MS O I 1 CO I srvnDE TREE EVERGREEN TREE 1WF O 1rL 2THRIJBI NT 1 CR R OR 000 PERENNIAL O ORNAMENTALTREE I I t / .'� ' / .. 21 PO t PA TURFGRA55 M TALL SCUE/SHORT GRASS O a 1 OM I GRASS PRAIRIE MIX 1 CG 3TC L I iM9 Z O Z o SAG 1 co o & / I /1 MA 1 PA 23 BB I 2PA 1 / 2CR / 2 MA I I 2 1 GT G 1sR O� / - / 1 MA PO O 1 CG (Dj.\/� 3 PG 1C0 1 MA / 1 0 tOC / 9 D anO 4TC 6M%P / 4' 1 GT T 1 aT � " I w Z I I I 2ST I 1 O I Q Q YDK DK d tGT 1CO w d N Y / I 9ST QJ O Q K I / O Hv� 3MxP r Q> d' J I 21 JH3rD 3aro �I H Of Q Q w = Of 3/OI O } W N N O t BBB 8BB 1MXS z 20 I � 1Gr - 9JH I I 2 w z U D STD 1HE rOK YDK 36 sT 3z sr 01 - _3MXS 3MX5 _ 24 DK �/ 1 32GO 40 DN HV 40 OK 29 JH � a_ o \ --F- - - REFERTO L100FOR I Q W J STREET TREE SPECIES genus Z d W jI 3 \� I �� 1 ----- - landscape architects ] > Q -a � a C) of 0 0� 0 �� 325 EAST 5T6 STREET Z `= H Z Z Oi DES MOINES, IA 50309 O UDO p J 6 0 T 515 284 1010 J SHEE1NUMBER: _ I WWW GENUS TA COM � L3.00 d PLANTING NOTES 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. OVERSTORY TREES QTY KEY BOTANICAL COMMON SIZE ROOT NOTES 2 WF ABIES CONCOLOR WHITE FIR 6'-8' HT B&B AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY 6 CR CARPINUS CAROLINIANA AMERICAN HORNBEAM 2" CAL. B&B 2" CAL. 6 CO CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS COMMON HACKBERRY 2" CAL. B&B B&B MULTI -STEM 8 GT GLIDETSIA TRICANTHOS'SKYLINE' SKYLINE HONEY LOCUST 2" CAL. B&B 7 11 GD GYMNOCLADUS DIOCUS'ESPRESSO' ESPRESSO KENTUCKY COFFEE TREE 2" CAL. B&B SR 8 MA MACCKIA AMURENSIS AMUR MAAKIA 2" CAL. B&B VX 6' 1 NS NYSSA SYLVANTICA BLACK TUPELO 2" CAL. B&B VX 4.5' 5 PA PICEA ABIES NORWAY SPRUCE 6'-8' HT B&B 4'X 4' 3 PG PICEA CLAUCA'DENSATA' BLACK HILLS SPRICE 6'-8' HT B&B TX 3' 3 PS PINUS STROBUS WHITE PINE 6'-8' HT B&B 2'X 3' 3 QC QUERCUS COCCINEA SCARLET OAK 2" CAL. B&B 4'X 6' 4 QM QUERCUS MACROCARPA BUR OAK 2" CAL. B&B 10 TC TSUGA CANADENSIS EASTERN HEMLOCK 6'-8' HT B&B CC SHRUBS QTY ORNAMENTAL TREES BOTANICAL COMMON 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 WODIAK 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 PAN ICULATA'ILVOBO' PP#22,782 BOBO HARDY HYDRANGEA #3 CONT. ITX 4' 7 IV ITEA VIRGINICA LITTLE HENRY SWEETSPIRE #3 CONT. TX 3' 69 JH JUNIPERUS HORIZONTALIS'HUGHES' HUGHES JUNIPER #3 CONT. VX 6' 146 PO PHYSOCARPUS OPULIFOLIUS NINEBARK #1 CONT VX 4.5' 3 RL RHODODENDRON X'LANDMARK' LANDMARK RHODODENDRON #3 CONT. 4'X 4' 90 ST SPIRAEA BETULIFOLIA'TOR' TOR SPIREA #3 CONT. TX 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' genus [ landscape architects ] 325 EAST 5TH STREET DES MOINES, IA 50309 T 515 284 1010 W W W.GENUS-LA.COM w z z w a 0 zz x U LL O z 0 a UV w 0 N W w Z a co o w CL N W 0 w J — } U L10 Q w 06 z N > w �0�� H z Y J N G U w Z w — w 0 2 d N a J ISHEETNUMBER: Uj L3.01 w N Lu a 0 z � w0 2 U J W w J W U L10 06 N w H O Z LU J Q CC U M Z z HZ Z _w0 LUQ J ISHEETNUMBER: Uj L3.01 w N Lu a 0 z � w0 2 U J W 0 m J m EDGE OF PLANTING AREA z 1/2 O.C. N OO Q SPACING Z 0 [L'o ( ) I 0 SET ROOT FLARE 2" ABOVE FINISH z PLANT CENTER 0 GRADE. REMOVE BURLAP AND WIRE (J u CAGE FROM TOP HALF OF ROOTBALL. 0 SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH, O 2" THICKNESS SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH, x 2" THICKNESS of Q ROOTBALL FINISH GRADE z Z 3/16" x 4" STEEL EDGING, GALVANIZED /\\j % BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE IROO LL 5 PERENNIAL PLANTING OVERSTORY TREE PLANTING NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE w a SET ROOT FLARE 2" ABOVE FINISH GRADE. REMOVE BURLAP AND WIRE CAGE FROM TOP HALF OF ROOTBALL. SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH, 2" THICKNESS FINISH GRADE n w BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL u zUNDISTURBED SUBGRADE Z VIII ROO LL < o O U 2 EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING NOT TO SCALE SET ROOT FLARE 2" ABOVE FINISH w GRADE. REMOVE BURLAP AND WIRE CAGE FROM TOP HALF OF ROOTBALL. SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH, 2" THICKNESS FINISH GRADE BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE N 1 1/2X ROOTBALL LU Z Q C'6 Q ORNAMENTAL TREE PLANTING N 3 NOT TO SCALE LU Q J LU Q } Q U z w = SET ROOT FLARE 2" ABOVE FINISH } Z > GRADE. REMOVE BURLAP AND WIRE w - W W CAGE FROM TOP HALF OF ROOTBALL. z J N a 0 SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH, w C> LLU Z z 2" THICKNESS _ d N (D a u FINISH GRADE BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE V III IROOI ILL III SHRUB PLANTING NOTTO SCALE J N z J o N W genus � o w z [ landscape architects ] a �� 0 o rn o � 325 EAST 5TH STREET z z H Z Z I DES MOINES, IA 50309 Q LU Q O W � W = J N J r'4 a T 515 284 1010 J SHEET NUMBER: WWW.GENUS-LA.COM W L3.02 Feb 10, 2021 - 3:27pm Z:\Projects2\20042-IC SENIOR LIVING\04 CAD\03 Current\20042-DT_SITE DETAILS.dwg ParksA7o-�n- 11mird Recrea • TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Juli Seydell Johnson, Director of Parks & Recreation Tyler Baird, Superintendent of Parks & Forestry DATE: March 17, 2021 RE: Staff Recommendation for Acquiring Outlot A of Hickory Trail Estates for Neighborhood Open Space Parks and Recreation staff recommends the acceptance of Outlot A of Hickory Trail Estates to satisfy Neighborhood Open Space requirements while increasing the size of Hickory Hill Park. This recommendation is based upon the high quality of the woodlands which the City wishes to preserve and manage. In addition, because the area is connected to Hickory Hill Park, it will add to the eco diversity of the park and provide additional area for public recreation. As proposed, Outlot A of the Hickory Trail Estates Concept Plan would add 11.66 acres of land to Hickory Hill Park. This would increase the total park acres from approximately 186 to 198 acres. Staff does not intend to use this acquired area as public active use recreation area, but rather as a passive use nature area, as is much of Hickory Hill Park. Management activities will focus on restoration and preservation of the savannah woodlands and wetland area. The parcel has ecological integrity since it has never been cleared for development or used heavily for agriculture. The addition includes areas of savannah woodlands that were prevalent in the area before development. Hickory Hill Park preserves this ecosystem while providing the public with a natural area to quietly hike and explore. Outlot A is consistent with the character and of a quality equal to or greater than other sections of the park. The wetland in Outlot A further increases the ecosystem diversity of the park. The preservation of the land could be accomplished through a conservation easement. However, staff recommends dedication to the City due to the location next to Hickory Hill Park. Public ownership will easily allow for ecological management and restoration, as has been happening in recent years throughout Hickory Hill Park. Another benefit of acquiring Outlot A is that access to Hickory Hill Park will be increased by the long stretch of park frontage planned along Hickory Trail. This access includes two trail entry points that link to the existing trail system in the park. Early in the development process, staff was also asked to consider dedication of Outlot B. Staff did not recommend acquiring this area because it did not have a connection to the larger park, has topography that would make maintenance very difficult and does not contain the remnant high value trees and wetland found in Outlot A. The acceptance of Outlot A is contingent upon 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 removal will be the responsibility of the owner and must be completed prior to transfer of Outlot A to the City. From: JOE CLARK To: Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner Cc: Mike Welch; Jacob Wolfgang Subject: Hickory Trail Estates - Comments from Development Team Date: Monday, March 15, 20218:40:49 AM Attachments: Outlook-blkfcbmu.ona RJSS'4 Anne & Ray - Please consider the following comments from our Hickory Trail Estates Development Team: 1. Claim: Project does not protect viewsheds of the park. -Those who spoke in opposition of the project provided no proof of this at the meeting but only spoke in matter of fact terms. -Architects & Engineers of the project contend that due to the steep slopes at the edge of the park, our site is not visible from the park. As an overarching theme, the Comprehensive Plan and NE District Plan state that environmental protection is a basic tenet of the plans. "Growth and development should be managed such that the environmental quality of the community is not sacrificed. Measures should be taken in all private and public projects to ensure that any impacts on regulated environmental features are minimized." Comprehensive Plan, Pg. 19. Similarly, the NE District Plan states that "protecting the environmental quality of the district is a high priority' and that preserving natural features is one of the backbones of the NE District Plan. To this end, the Conservation Neighborhood Design is recommended in the Bluffwood Neighborhood quadrant (where the subject property is located), especially in areas characterized by a topography of steep, wooded ravines. However, the standards and recommendations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and NE District Plan are merely guidelines, not legal requirements. "The land use scenarios are intended to be general guides; an indication of how development may occur neighborhood by neighborhood. It is possible that specific land uses shown on the land use scenario may not develop in the exact locations depicted, but decision regarding development should adhere generally to the planning principles set forth in this plan." NE District Plan, Pg. 11. As such, deviations from the criteria set forth in the plans can be appropriate and acceptable in certain instances. To the first contention of the Friends of Hickory Hill Park regarding the viewshed of the Park, the NE District Plan does call for some sort of buffering between Hickory Hill Park and the subject property in an attempt to minimize the visibility of residential development from the Park and to preserve the natural integrity of the park. Pgs. 8, 15, and 17. A definition of what constitutes buffering is not given in the Comprehensive Plan or the NE District Plan, leaving much room for interpretation. Nevertheless, the Commission determined (as set forth in the staff report) that the development will not adversely affect views any more than would a conventional development. Staff Report, Pg. 6. There are sufficient separation distances from the Park and the condominiums and senior living facility, with the down slope from these properties lessening the visual effect on the Park, and trees can also be used to soften this transition to the east. The proposed homes also have a 35' to 263' buffer with the existing Park boundary (this does not include the additional buffer from trees on the Hickory Hill park side of the property). While a few homes may be visible from the Park, the staff determined that the placement of these homes will not adversely affect light, air or privacy anymore than a conventional development. This buffer should allow for sufficient viewshed protection. It sounds like this was not one of the major concerns of the Commission, but if there continues to be disputes from the Commission or Friends of Hickory Hill Park regarding this point, a mixture of trees could be proposed along the rear yards to provide additional screening from the Park's view. The Developer also has offered to lose 6 single family lots (over 500 feet of frontage) on the west side of the development in efforts to accommodate this viewshed issue. Lastly, City Staff has put most emphasis on providing a buffer and extra access points into the park more than they have on the single loaded street issue. These two issues are thoroughly addressed in the current plan. 2. Claim: Project does not use cul-de-sacs - Cul-de-sacs are not mandated for all residential roads in this plan, only where necessary to protect sensitive slopes. We agree that cul-de-sacs are not warranted in this development (and it appears the Commission does as well). The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of interconnected streets. It further explicitly states (without qualification) that "Cul-de-sacs are discouraged." Pg. 39; see also Section 15-3-2A-4 of City Code ("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."). Likewise, the NE District Plan encourages streets that enhance neighborhood quality through street design that foster reasonable traffic levels, calm traffic, and provide landscape buffers along major roadways by developing interconnected street systems that disperses vehicular traffic by using multiple means of access into and out of a neighborhood. Opposite of the assertions of the Friends of Hickory Hill Park, "cul-de-sac streets [should be used only] on a limited basis, such as where topography or other sensitive features prevent practical street connections." Pg. 10. Further, "interconnected streets are proposed where feasible" in the Bluffwood Neighborhood. Pg. 13. However, the NE District Plan does state that "to preserve sensitive areas, cul-de-sac streets and single -loaded streets are proposed where appropriate." Pgs. 13 and 16-17. Based on the staff report from the Commission, it appears the Commission is comfortable with the through street proposed by the developer. "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 subdivision code allows cul-de-sacs when it is can be demonstrated that streets cannot be continued. The applicant has demonstrated that this street can continue and connect with Scott Blvd." Staff Report, Pg. 4. "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." Staff Report, Pg. 8. 3. Claim: Project does not use single loaded streets. -Single loaded streets are only required in certain circumstances. This would mean that double loaded streets can also be used in certain circumstances. In an effort to improve overall access to and awareness of parks, the Comprehensive Plan "discourages parks that are surrounded by private property, and encourages development of parks with single -loaded streets." Pg. 47. Similarly, in an effort to preserve natural features, the NE District Plan "encourages the use of single -loaded streets when necessary to protect environmentally sensitive areas and create public vistas." Pg. 8. Single -loaded streets used "to open up scenic vistas and provide public access to preserved natural areas" are also encouraged under the NE District Plan. Pg. 9. The NE District Plan further states that, in connection with the Bluffwood Neighborhood, "to preserve sensitive areas [such as areas containing wooded ravines and stream corridors], cul-de-sac streets and single -loaded streets are proposed where appropriate." Pgs. 13 and 16-17. However, as you are already aware, these are merely guidelines and not absolutes that must be adhered to for all development near parks. It is important to point out that the guideline of encouraging single -loaded streets is set forth in the plans as an effort to improve access to and awareness of parks, to protect environmentally sensitive areas, and to create public vistas. A deviation from the encouraged guidelines in the plans would be appropriate in instances where these goals can be achieved in other ways. Further, these are recommended guidelines (not requirements) only for situations "where appropriate." Based on a developer's proposed development and layout, there could be situations where a single -loaded road would not be appropriate and more detrimental than a double -loaded road. In support of the proposition that single -loaded roads are not appropriate in this instance, we make the following notes: • Access to and awareness of Hickory Hill Park will be increased in other ways by the proposed development (rather than using single -loaded roads), including Developer's dedication of open space to the Park which will result in the Park increasing in size by 11.35 acres and having street frontage along N. Scott Blvd. These are the underlying considerations in the plans, and the proposed development will not discourage or prohibit access to the Park, but will instead increase access and availability to the public. The current "unauthorized" park trails that allow a person to enter the ACT land without permission will now become two additional "legitimate" park trail entrances for patrons of the park to frequent any time. A pocket park with vehicle parking could be added near these trails if the City chooses to do so in the future. The developer's are in strong support of increasing access to Hickory Hill Park and have made that one of their focal points of the project. • The map of the Bluffwood Neighborhood (Pg. 14 of the NE District Plan) and the map of a Conservation Neighborhood Design (Pg. 12 of NE District Plan) both show some single - loaded roads in the vicinity of the Park, but also double -loaded roads as well. As such, it would be contrary to the terms of the NE District Plan to require single -loaded roads for the entirety of the proposed development. At a minimum, a partially single -loaded street on the west side of the development should be acceptable by the Commission and City staff. The Developer has given up 40% of the single family lots (6 of 15 lots in question) on the west side of the development in efforts to provide a partially single -loaded street in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and NE District Plan. • As noted above, single -loaded roads are "encouraged where appropriate." Considering the squeeze from Outlots A and B (which are necessary to preserve other environmental conditions), single -loaded streets in this area would likely make development financially unfeasible, and as such would not be appropriate in this instance. The loss of 6 additional single family lots has already put a financial strain on the project. • While "environment" is one of the key elements of the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan considers two other inter -related factors (along with environment) that create healthy and thriving communities, namely economy and society. As such, focusing on only the environmental concerns and ignoring the economic and societal impacts that the development will have is an unfair and incomplete analysis. For example, one of the main visions of the Comprehensive Plan is to create and provide attractive and affordable housing for all people (including singles, couples, families with children, and elderly people). "By allowing for a mix of housing types, moderately priced housing can be incorporated into a neighborhood, rather than segregated in one or two areas of the community." Indeed, one of the housing goals under the Comprehensive Plan encourages a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods by "ensuring a mix of housing types within each neighborhood, to provide options for households of all types (singles, families, retirees, etc.) and people of all incomes." The Comprehensive Plan also identifies that population growth indicates the need for more homes, condominiums and apartments throughout the city, including in locations "close to recreation." The NE District Plan likewise seeks to encourage reasonable levels of housing diversity by using traditional neighborhood design to locate various housing types near parks and upgrading neighborhood parks by improving or expanding existing public parks and open space areas for neighborhood use. The Bluffwood Neighborhood contemplates a variety of housing options, all adjacent to major open spaces. Additionally the project would bring employment to many in the community and increases the City's tax base by up to $1,000,000.00 annually once it is fully built -out. The proposed development satisfies all these economic and societal goals and provides significant benefit to the community as well as allowing additional access to and use of the park by new individuals. Developer is proposing to gift approximately 23.28% of the total development site (11.35 acres out of 48.75 acres), which would extend the existing boundaries of Hickory Hill Park and increase the total Park acreage by approximately 5.5%. It would also allow the Park to have street frontage along N. Scott Blvd. (which increases visibility and use of the Park, as well as increased access by the public). Developer is also taking other measures to preserve environmentally sensitive areas on the property (see Outlot B). These are significant environmental benefits that will preserve the environmental integrity of the property into the future. • Overall, the Staff Report supports the development and states that it satisfies the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and NE District Plan ("It provides an interconnected street system, incorporates a variety of housing types, limits impact to sensitive areas, and provides an additional 11.35 acres of land to Hickory Hill Park."). It would be helpful for City Staff to highlight and emphasize the many other benefits that will be created by this wonderful development, rather than focusing on the one issue that is (arguably) being partially satisfied by the development team. Please share these comments with your staff and P&Z Commission. Thank you, Joe Clark Commercial Realty Iowa City, LLC 221 E. Burlington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 Cell: (319) 631-1894 / Office: (515) 519 -LAND Licensed Real Estate Broker in Iowa C R *J COMMERCIAL REALTY TAMARACK IPI W! My RIDGE AST® Janet E. Godwin Chief Executive Officer March 15, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Iowa City 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Planning and Zoning Commission Members: We have read the reports and the notes of the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) commission meeting on February 1&. Our reaction, in a word — disappointing. ACT purchased the subject property, known as the Larson property at the time, in 2008. Jeff Larson approached ACT to gauge any interest we might have in developing the property. While we had no interest in expanding the ACT campus onto the Larson property, we purchased the property with the intention of eventually selling it to the "right' developer at the "right" time. At the time ACT purchased the property, certain senior staff of ACT met with citizens interested in Hickory Hill. They wanted to better understand ACT's intentions regarding the property. ACT communicated to that group that 1) it had no intention of ever developing the property itself, 2) the property would be sold — eventually—to a developer, and 3) ACT had no intention of donating the property to either a land trust or the City, but that concerned citizens could purchase the property if they so desired. In addition to those items, ACT stated that it would consider stop using the property for row crop purposes, and invited members to future discussions on how that would come about. Since that time ACT has, in fact, ceased using the property for row crop use and converted it to hay ground. The hay helps keep invasive species and erosion to a minimum. We've been good —and consistent— neighbors to the city, the park, and the surrounding developments. After 12 years of ownership, ACT believes it had found the "right" developer to develop the property at the "right" time. ACT is not interested in continuing to hold this property indefinitely. Mr. Clark's plan has clearly met the intent and spirit of both the Comprehensive Plan and NE District Plan. Mr. Clark has made numerous revisions to his plan and obtained the City's recommendation to approve prior to the most recent P&Z meeting. Mr. Clark has also worked in good faith with community members including the Friends of Hickory Hill Park. As we understand it, a point of contention is that Mr. Clark's plan proposes some double -sided streets as well as single -sided streets. As you know, neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the NE District Plan require new developments to exclusively have single -sided streets. In fact, double sided streets are the 500 ACT Ddve P.O.6ox 168 Iowa City, Iowa 52243-0168 ianet.codwiNilact.orc www.act.org Planning and Zoning Commission March 15, 2021 Page Two norm in the neighborhoods directly adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. Imposing a requirement for all new developments to have primarily single -sided streets would have the unintended consequence of doubling urban sprawl, devaluing the land, and making development financially unfeasible. In a continued effort to alleviate concerns, Mr. Clark's latest proposal has eliminated an additional six single family lots in efforts to increase buffers and alleviate viewshed concerns. In the spirit of preserving the character of the area, Mr. Clark's plan has considerably more buffer than required. ACT's land is currently being used as a de facto extension of Hickory Hill Park. There are walking trails worn on our land and portions of our fences have been removed... not by ACT. Should the developer not be allowed to develop the property as proposed and the property reverts back to ACT, ACT will take steps to ensure this trespassing activity stops. Additionally, we will be required to find alternative uses for this land — including potentially converting it back to crop land. I am writing to the P&Z commission at this time to express our full support for Mr. Clark's development. As neighbors and as owners of the property, we have always been concerned with how this area is developed. That's why we purchased the property in the first place — and why we are choosing to sell it to Mr. Clark now. Please proceed to approve the Clark development — it has our full support. Sincerely, V Janet E. Godwin Chief Executive Officer cc: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Bruce Teague, Mayor Joe Clark From: Jason Napoli To: Raymond Heitner Cc: Anne Russett Subject: Re: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 03/18/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Date: Friday, March 12, 20215:02:36 PM Attachments: imaae001.Dna image005.g_ng imaae004.Dna image003.g_ng imaae002.Dna ■ R4SE( Greetings Ray - Thank you for reconnecting with this. My initial thoughts about this come from many angles. The first being how the public finds out about this at the close of business on a Friday with less than a week before the meeting. A meeting being held during our community's spring break. The bias the city planners have toward this project have disadvantaged the opposed since the good neighbor meeting back in December. Initial feedback was never shared with the Commission, rezoning signage was poorly placed and now, after being shut down less than a month ago, we find ourselves with less than a week's notice before this goes before P&Z again. Have the minutes from the meeting last month when this went in front of P&Z even been published yet? The public should have more time to respond and more information about the previous meeting. Lots 28-41 remain unacceptable. The Commission endured hours of public feedback. The Commission told the developer to come back with single -loaded streets. Removing lots from the middle is a good start, but having those lots 28-36 still against the 1st Ave. Loop trail and then heading north defeats the purpose. I ask you to share these initial thoughts with the Commission and reconsider having this on next week's agenda with such short notice and one of the few weeks of the year more people in our community are on vacation than most other times of the year. Thank you again, Jason Napoli Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPh On Friday, March 12, 2021, 17:05, Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner@iowa-city.org> wrote: All, The applicant for the Hickory Trail Estates rezoning has submitted an updated OPD Plan. This plan will be discussed at next week's Planning and Zoning th Commission meeting on Thursday, March 18 at 7pm. The meeting's agenda packet can be found here: https://www.icgoy.org/city- government/boards/planning-and-zoning-commission The Zoom link for the meeting can be found here: https: //zoom. us/meeting/re,gister/tJMtceCrgzM-jGtHRYdNFfGxUsOm 1 baWmr681 Please send me any correspondence you would like forwarded to the Commission. Thank you, Ray Heitner Associate Planner (he/him/his) 319.356.5238 rUrnond-heitner&i owa-city. org 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 0 IW CITY L UIe ES[A Clic of tlr;2AT"kE 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. From: Russo, Andrew F To: Raymond Heitner Cc: Maureen Russo Subject: Re: [External] Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 03/18/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Date: Sunday, March 14, 20213:18:52 PM Attachments: imaae001.ona imaoe002.pnng imaae003.ona imaae004.pnn(i imaae005.ona RI$H Thanks Ray for the heads up. Could you please forward the following comments/requests to the commission for consideration? 1. Removal of the homes that closely abutted the park is a great change that makes the plan closer to the vision that was designed to protect the park. While ideally, some more would be removed on that side of the street, this removes the ones that would have had the most impact. Thanks. 2. It was mentioned at the last meeting that the Parks Dept did not want Outlot B. Is the developer willing to donate that to the city? If so, that would be fantastic in my opinion and should warrant discussion as to why Parks said no. Can the P+Z still make that recommendation to include Outlot B for public access? As a frequent user of the park, the ability to explore up that ravine would be an excellent addition to the park that would also decompress pressure on the rest of the park. 3. Should we be able to set aside Outlot B, then my final request for consideration is to include a small right of way access at the crosswalk planned at the trailhead, around lot 17, to allow hikers to loop from the current park to Outlot B and down to the other entry point at the bottom of the hill next to lot 28. Thank you for forwarding these requests. Andy Russo From: Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner@iowa-city.org> Date: Friday, March 12, 2021 at 4:06 PM To: "Parker, Adam G" <adam-parker@uiowa.edu>, "Weis, Adam J" <adam+ weis@uiowa.edu>, "'allisonjaynes@gmail.com"' <allisonjaynes@gmail.com>, "Russo, Andrew F" <andrew-russo@uiowa.edu>, "Synan, Ann" <ann-synan@uiowa.edu>, "'asha.l.bhandary@gmail.com"' <asha.l.bhandary@gmail.com>, "'b3n.berger@gmail.com"' <b3n.berger@gmail.com>, "'bamcquillen@gmail.com"' <bamcquillen@gmail.com>, "'brian.lehmann@icloud.com"' <brian.lehmann@icloud.com>, "'hickoryhiker@gmail.com"' <hickoryhiker@gmail.com>, "'clbuckingham@gmail.com"' <clbuckingham@gmail.com>, `cjkohrt@gmail.com"' <cjkohrt@gmail.com>, "'darcy128@aol.com"' <darcy128@aol.com>, From: Ben Beraer To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Re: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 03/18/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Date: Monday, March 15, 20219:54:45 AM Attachments: imaae001.g_ng image002.g_ng imacje003.pnng image004.g_ng imacje005.pnng I Thank you for sending this along. I still feel that there is too much disruption to the environment with the amended plan. If I remember correctly it was asked that the developers recommend a plan with housing along one side of the road only. However, unless I am reading it incorrectly, this plan is still proposing houses on both sides. I would suggest that the developers return to the plan and amend it to match what was requested of them to move forward. Thank you. Ben On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 4:06 PM Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitnern.iowa-city.org> wrote: All, The applicant for the Hickory Trail Estates rezoning has submitted an updated OPD Plan. This plan will be discussed at next week's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on Thursday, March 18th at 7pm. The meeting's agenda packet can be found here: htips://www.icgov.org/cit - government/boards/ lap ening-and-zoning-commission The Zoom link for the meeting can be found here: htips://zoom. us/meeting/register/tJMtceCrgzM-jGtHRYdNFfGxUsOm I baWmr681 Please send me any correspondence you would like forwarded to the Commission. From: Anne Russett To: "Katherine Beydler" Cc: Raymond Heitner Subject: RE: Comments for P&Z meeting Thursday, 3/18 Date: Tuesday, March 16, 20219:11:03 AM Hi, Katherine — Thank you for your comments. We will share them with the Commission. Anne From: Katherine Beydler <kbeyds@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 20218:26 AM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Comments for P&Z meeting Thursday, 3/18 R3S� Hi Anne, I'm writing with comments regarding the development by Axiom near Hickory Hill Park. I would appreciate it if these concerns could be passed to the Planning and Zoning commission. I was under the impression that the developer was going to comply with the Comprehensive and NE District Plan requirement for single -loaded streets facing parks, as requested by P&Z in the last meeting. I am very disappointed to see that their new plan removes only six homes, leaving lots 36- 28 in particular as double -loaded streets very close to the park. The developer should remedy this by redesigning for single -loading, and also promise never to attempt to add new homes to make that space double -loaded in the future-- perhaps it should also be added to the park. I am also disappointed that to try and retain a maximum profit (rather than maximizing what is best for residents of Iowa City) the addition of other lots has reduced the preservation of wooded area on the development further to only 46%. If the developer is not able to comply with district plans and requirements for the preservation of sensitive areas while making what they see as a large enough profit, maybe they should reconsider this purchase entirely. Lastly, it was not clear how expanding Outlot A very slightly addressed the concerns from the public that that addition of land would not significantly expand the area in the park usable by the public, and rather represents an attempt by the developer to offload land they don't want to manage. Furthermore, the new figure of 11.66 acres was used inconsistently throughout the revised document, making it unclear how committed the developer is to this promise. Many thanks, Katherine Beydler From: Anne Russett To: "David Deardorff' Cc: Raymond Heitner Subject: RE: P&Z meeting 3/18 regarding Axiom development near Hickory Hill Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 11:50:03 AM Hi, David — Thank you for your comments. We will forward them to the Commission. Anne From: David Deardorff <davidjdeardorff@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 202110:21 AM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> Subject: P&Z meeting 3/18 regarding Axiom development near Hickory Hill R]Sk{ Hello Anne, I'm writing with comments regarding the development by Axiom near Hickory Hill Park. Please pass my comments along to the zoning commission. At the termination of last meeting, the zoning commission made an explicit request for single -loaded streets as a condition which would be an acceptable change to the plan making it something they could potentially pass. The single loaded streets is one of the major requirements of NE District Plan, and something that is vital to maintaining reasonable density and minimizing disruption of important natural areas. However, the developer instead removed only 6 homes, and then left everything else as double loaded streets. It is important that the city hold developers to the stipulation of the NE District plan, because no one else but the city government can do that. I understand the city wants revenue and the developers want profit, but the needs of the developer to turn a profit should not supersede the needs of the city, previous agreements, or the concerns of the constituents. I am also disappointed that to try and retain a maximum profit (rather than maximizing what is best for residents of Iowa City) the addition of other lots has reduced the preservation of wooded areas on the development further to only 46%, which violates another city requirement. If the developer is not able to comply with district plans and requirements for the preservation of sensitive areas while making what they see as a large enough profit, they should reconsider their plans and goals relative to the sites available and perhaps choose a different location. Natural parks are an important component of a city, and cities which can protect them will ultimately draw in desirable residents as cities continue to become more dense and lacking in substantial nature areas. Lastly, it was not clear how expanding Outlot A minimally addressed the concerns from the public that that addition of land would not significantly expand the area in the park usable by the public, and rather represents an attempt by the developer to offload land they don't want to manage. Furthermore, the new figure of 11.66 acres was used inconsistently throughout the revised document, making it unclear how committed the developer is to this promise. Thank you for your time and consideration, David Deardorff From: Mary Winder To: Raymond Heitner; Anne Russett Subject: letter about Hickory Trail Estates rezoning Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 12:10:40 PM RI$F{ Ray or Anne, I would appreciate it very much if you would please forward the following letter to the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Thank you. Mary W. March 16, 2021 Dear Anne, Ray, and Planning and Zoning Commission Members: I am writing to you about the proposed zoning change for the land near Hickory Hill Park for the Hickory Trail Estates development. On the evening of Feb. 18, 1 attended the entire Zoom meeting of the commissioners that addressed this topic. I was quite impressed with the commissioners' patience and care in discussing this issue and in listening to all of those who had concerns about the issue. At the very end of that long meeting, I was very excited and very pleased when the commissioners voted against recommending the proposed zoning change for this development and invited the developers to revise the plan so that it would follow the recommendations listed in the City's Northeast District Plan for the Bluffwood area and the City's Comprehensive Plan. I understand that these recommendations support using single - loaded streets to provide a buffer between residential development and a park, such as Hickory Hill Park, which is a concept that makes perfect sense. However, when I recently viewed the amended plan for this development, I was utterly dismayed. Yes, the old plan has been somewhat tweaked, but there are no substantial changes from the first plan and there are still many houses planned for both sides of the street closest to the park, with some very short distances (35 to 55 feet) between the residential property and the park boundary along quite a stretch in two directions. I respectively implore you to also vote against this revised version of the development plan and to request that the developers revise this plan again the way you asked them to do in the first place—so that the guidelines are followed, which means that the street closest to the park be changed to a single -loaded street (resulting in no home lots labeled 29 through 41 on the most recent plan). Perhaps the third version of the development plan for Hickory Trail Estates will be the charm. I hope so. If this development is going to take place, it needs to be planned carefully and by following the City's own guidelines. I consider Hickory Hill Park to be a treasure for Iowa City, and I hope you will make certain that any development taking place around the park be done in a way that causes the smallest negative impact on the park as possible. This can be accomplished, I believe, by following the City's wise guidelines. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Mary Winder 785-985-2519 From: Kristen Morrow To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Re: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 03/18/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 12:32:39 PM Attachments: imaae001.ong image002.png image003.)ng image004.1ng_ image005.rng I Greetings Mr. Heitner, My comments for the commission regarding the updated proposal are that the developers made very little attempt to account for the encroachment of the houses to the park. The entire development should utilize single loaded streets (at the very least), and as is, the new proposal would not eliminate the harm posed by the housing to the viewshed (not to mention the soundscape) currently found in this section of the park. The developers (many not from this area) have made only negligible updates in response to the overwhelming public outcry to their plans, leaving me with little faith that they have a vested interest in this community or in the concerns of the park users. The commission should not approve the updated proposal, as it does not comply with the recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commision, nor the IC Comprehensive and NE District Plans. Thank you for sharing my comments. Sincerely, Kristen Morrow On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 4:06 PM Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner&iowa-city.org> wrote: All, The applicant for the Hickory Trail Estates rezoning has submitted an updated OPD Plan. This plan will be discussed at next week's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on Thursday, March 18th at 7pm. The meeting's agenda packet can be found here: htWs://www.icgoy.org/city- govemment/boards/planning-and-zoning-commission The Zoom link for the meeting can be found here: httns: //zoom.us/meeting/register/tJMtceCrgzM-jGtHRYdNFfGxUsOm 1 baWmr681 From: Allison Jaynes To: Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner Subject: New Hickory Hill development plan Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 1:53:50 PM RI$F{ Dear Ms. Russett and Mr. Heitner, It appears that the board is poised to approve the development of land adjacent to Hickory Hill without listening to the concern of the many citizens who benefit from this land daily and weekly. I suppose that should not be too surprising, but I had hoped for a different outcome. (You have 69 pages of objections in the current packet alone!) I think of our city as unique when compared to other areas, and one that has the foresight to see into the future and preserve the aspects that are really worth fighting for; but it seems not. I make one final plea to this board. The development of this land will not only ruin the park aesthetically, but it will contribute to the overall decline of the abutting land and watersheds. I noticed that the development company did not provide a conceptual rendering of the rows of houses that will be visible on the ridge across from the West Prairie at the lookout point some call Sunrise Bench. I submit a very amateur rendering at the end of this letter, although it would be ideal to receive this from the developers since I'm not sure on the orientation and size of the houses to be built. Notice how the houses, visible from the lookout point for sure, all have yards that angle into the newly restored prairie on the slope below. A small list of detrimental activities that will occur at these locations: (1) Drainage of lawn chemicals directly into the watershed and prairie landscapes. Chemically -treated lawns are known hazards for native, beneficial insects and small animals - and the runoff is no exception. (2) Absolutely no buffer exists between deer and fox habitat and the newly -developed houses - this will only increase animal -human conflicts. New homeowners will complain about deer browsing their landscape. (No mention was made that these new developments will provide deer -resistant plantings.) Cat owners will stress about the number of foxes in their yards. And the negative impacts on the wildlife of Hickory Hill will continue to compound. (3) Near constant lawn mower sounds in the summer months on the weekend - with no buffer between the adjacent backyards and the valley between the prairie areas where residents go for peace and quiet. (4) Finally, the aesthetic effects of having the valley ringed with houses on the ridge above while trying to enjoy a respite from city life. Please reconsider the approval of this development based on the arguments above. Perhaps there could be an agreement made with Friends of Hickory Hill or Bur Oak to purchase this land, or for the City to purchase with a lease to these groups. At the very least, please consider rejecting the plots labeled 28 through 41, as those yards will have the most direct impact on the park. Sincerely, Allison Jaynes Hotz Ave, Iowa City ORIGINAL PICTURE: ®❑ CONCEPTUAL RENDERING: From: PG To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Hickory Hil development, P&Z meeting March 18th Date: Tuesday, March 16, 20213:34:25 PM i pp i I am emailing you to voice my opinion on the upcoming development adjacent to hickory hill park. I advocate for no development at all. I hope you will ignore the plan. One of the buildings is too tall for zoning code, they only removed five units from the rejected proposal. At least, approve exceptions that must be met regarding the zoning standards. Letting this go forward will effectively ruin the only preserved piece of nature in Iowa City. Hickory hill wont be the same. When you're walking through nature you're not supposed to see residences, driveways, garages, more people, more cars. You are opening up a doorway for the elimination of our cities most blissful, quiet parks. Do you feel content with this? I for one, would have a hard time sleeping at night. From: Tanner King To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Hickory Hill Date: Tuesday, March 16, 20215:27:43 PM RI$H Hello, Mr. Heitner! I hope you are enjoying yourself despite the weather. I'm just sending you this email in regards to the "new" proposed plan for the development adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. I hope it doesn't need pointing out that this new plan does nothing to address any of the problems that we sat for 4 hours discussing last time. This is still a plan that cashes in on a taxpayer -funded park to increase property value for a select few people at the expense of the park itself. See you (virtually) Thursday! Tanner King From: david purdy To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Re: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 03/18/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesday, March 16, 20215:35:09 PM Attachments: image001.ong image002.pno image003.)nQ image004.1ng_ image005.rng I Thanks for alerting me to the meeting. Did you include my correspondence to the P and Z Commission for the February 18th meeting? I don't see that in this week's packet. It was in an email I sent to you on February 15th and you responded to on February 16th. If it was not, can it be included with this email? If it wasn't sent to the P and Z Commission then please include it with this email. Either way I would like to provide just have a couple of thoughts for this meeting: "After reading the meeting minutes from the February 18th meeting, I want to thank the commission for listening to all the input concerning the development. I agree the P and Z should not keep changing the goal posts for the developer. However, several commission members clearly said they would approve the development if lots 26-44 were removed from the plan. I would agree with this suggestion as it clearly matches the intent of the Northeast District Plan. Yes, the plan is over 20 years old but it was designed with many people involved and many different viewpoints represented. City planning staff creating a blueprint for the NE District Plan did an excellent job of balancing development and buffering the park. It can still weather the test of time. I would also agree that the view on cul-de-sacs has changed and that they should not be required in this development. I would like to thank the developer for having a higher density near Scott Boulevard and for removing a couple of lots to protect the view from the open area in the field. However, as several commissioners have indicated being 100 feet from the closest trail means the houses backed up to the park are still visible. Having lots 28-41 removed from the plan will most closely resemble the intent of the Northeast District Plan and provide a buffer. This change will definitely make a big difference. Yes, a person can see the houses on the other side of the street but there is a much bigger buffer and more closely resembles the area on Bloomington and Cedar Streets. I would urge the commissioners to reiterate to the developer their ideas from the February 18th meeting so that they know what the commission will accept. Having served on city commissions before I know that the process might take several meetings but the end result usually comes out the better. Agreeing to the current development and sending it to the City Council for their review is not what the P and Z Commission is supposed to be doing. Getting a solution that meets the Northeast District Plan and the expectations of most people on P and Z and then sending it to the City Council is a much better process. Thanks! David Purdy 1434 E. Bloomington Street" On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 4:06 PM Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitnerniowa-city.org> wrote: All, The applicant for the Hickory Trail Estates rezoning has submitted an updated OPD Plan. This plan will be discussed at next week's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on Thursday, March 18th at 7pm. The meeting's agenda packet can be found here: haps://www.icgoy.org cites government/boards/planning-and-zoning-commission The Zoom link for the meeting can be found here: https://zoom. us/meeting/register/tJMtceCrq,zM-jGtHRYdNFfGxUsOm I baWmr681 Please send me any correspondence you would like forwarded to the Commission. Thank you, Ray Heitner Associate Planner (he/him/his) 319.356.5238 From: david ourdy To: Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner Subject: Hickory Trail Estates Date: Monday, February 15, 20216:55:34 PM Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files.msg Hickory Trail Estates proposal letter.pdf Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files. Greetings - I have attached a letter regarding the Hickory Trail Estates development to be discussed with the Planning and Zoning Commission this Thursday. Could you please make sure the P and Z Commission members receive the letter? If it is too late to include in their packet, I would be happy to send it to them directly. Thanks! David Purdy February 15, 2021 Greetings - I would like to comment on the proposed development Hickory Trails Estates. I was actively involved with the Northeast District Plan Development and can provide some insight to the discussion between city planning staff and participants in the workshops. There was approximately 50-60 very involved participants. Many were there because of their concern about development surrounding Hickory Hill Park. This was an exhaustive planning process involving many compromises by all participants. Reviewing the Northeast District Plan I would like to emphasize several key points: • Incorporating and maintaining a green open space buffer between Hickory Hill Park and urban development to preserve the natural integrity of the park (page 8) • Encouraging the use of single -loaded streets (development on only one side of a street) when necessary to protect environmentally sensitive areas and create public vistas (page 9) • The future land use scenario for the Bluffwood Neighborhood reflects the planning principles developed at the citizen workshops (page 13) • Encouraging the use of single -loaded streets (development on only one side of a street) when necessary to protect environmentally sensitive areas and create public vistas (page 9) • A conservation residential design is proposed on the property between First Avenue and Hickory Hill Park to provide a buffer between the residential development and the park (page 15) • In the Bluffwood Neighborhood, the plan calls for buffering green space to be provided between Hickory Hill Park and residential development on the south and west portions of the Larson tract. One goal of this buffer is to minimize the visibility of residential development from the park. This can be accomplished by shifting density on the Larson property away from the park and aligning it in slightly higher densities (townhouses and small apartment houses) along the adjacent arterial streets. (page 17) • No direct vehicular access to the park or through streets adjacent to the park are proposed. Instead, the residential development nearest the park is shown on cul-de-sac streets and pedestrian access to Hickory Hill Park is encouraged (page 17) I believe the staff report for Hickory Trail Estates minimizes the citizen participation and compromises developed during the planning process and outlined in the report. 1) "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. 2) Staff indicates that no definition of a buffer is outlined in the Northeast District Plan. "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." 3) 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. 4) 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. 5) 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. 6) The Northeast District 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. Reviewing the NE District Plan and the proposed development, I would agree the proposed development does not perfectly match the NE District Plan. I would say some parts of it are not close. It is true that there was not written in the plan a specific buffer amount. However, from reviewing the items mentioned earlier in my letter it is obvious that the goal of the plan was create public vistas, protect the natural integrity of the park, and minimize the visibility of residential development from the park. Reviewing the materials presented to the City Council at their 3/30/1999 meeting where they approved the plan can give us some insight it what was discussed at the workshops. In a memo from Senior Planner Bob Miklo written on December 29, 1998 to the Planning and Zoning Commission it mentions buffers of up to 200 feet (page 2) and 'dwellings would face the park rather than have private backyards abutting the park." (also on page 2). Further, in the 1/13/99 Parks and Recreation Commission minutes Mr. Miklo says 'the plan calls for up to a 150 to 600 foot buffer between the park and where development would occur." Granting 10.86 acres to the park does create a buffer for a small section of the park but the buffer is in an area where most people cannot walk. In addition, a good part of the buffer would actually benefit the Hickory Height Development -where if a person did go in the wooded ravine and turned around- the first thing they would see would be the houses in Hickory Heights. Creating a 141 unit senior housing building along the stretch of the park probably most viewed by casual walkers in the park is not protecting the integrity of the park nor minimalizing the visibility from the park. I am not opposed to development in this area. As mentioned at the start of the letter I worked diligently to compromise on the NE District Plan. However, I do not believe the proposed development is what was envisioned by the Northeast District Plan, its planning participants, or the City Council that passed the plan. I would encourage the developer to create another concept plan that allows for development of the parcel but more closely follows the NE District Plan. This would include larger buffers between houses and the park, development on just one side of the street, 2 cul-de-sacs, more density towards Scott Boulevard, etc. I would be happy to assist. Sincerely, David Purdy From: Glenda Buenaer To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Re: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 03/18/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesday, March 16, 20215:50:24 PM Attachments: imaoe001.Dng image002.pno image003.rnQ image004.1ng_ image005.rng I Dear Mr. Heitner, Would you please send my letter concerning the rezoning request for Hickory Trail Estates to the Commissioners? Thank you. Sincerely, Glenda Buenger RE: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning The Hickory Trail Estates proposal complies with the City's Comprehensive Plan in several respects. It does not offer the affordable housing the City so desperately needs, but it adds to the City's housing diversity by offering elder housing which the City does seem to need. It offers connectivity for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers. However, it does not comply with the Northeast District Plan of the City's Comprehensive Plan in regards to protection for Hickory Hill Park. As discussed on pp. 7-8 of the updated Staff Report, the Northeast District Plan clearly aimed at protecting Hickory Hill Park by keeping development away from park perimeters. In an attempt to give credit, during the 2-18-21 PZ meeting Michael Welch of Axiom Consultants described how Axiom Consultants, in response to public concern, had sought to increase buffer between the project and Hickory Hill Park. At the same time, isn't it a little misleading to focus on the distance between houses and existing park trails rather than houses and the park itself? Hickory Hill Park is more than trails. Similarly, the updated Staff Report seems to make much of the 11.66 acres of Outlot A to be donated to the City as mitigation for other project impacts. Outlot A may in fact be desirable, but as the updated Staff Report acknowledges on p. 8, it no longer counts as buffer if it is to become part of the park. The re -submitted proposal still shows a double -loaded street and buffer zones of only 35 feet along parts of the west and south project borders that abut Hickory Hill Park. This is unacceptable. I reviewed the commissioners' discussion prior to the 0-7 vote on 2-18-21. A couple of the Commissioners expressed a desire to provide direction to the developer to create a more acceptable proposal. As I see it, Commissioners clearly told the developer what could be done to make the application more acceptable, but it appears the developer chose to not heed their advice. Hensch stated it was reasonable to ask that the landscape buffer be extended or to just go to a front -loaded street in the area adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. He stated a front -loaded street design is a legitimate issue from the Northeast District Plan. Craig clearly stated adherence to the Northeast District Plan. "Build houses facing the park not backing up to the park with a street in between," she said. If the developer removed Lots 26- 44, she stated, the large single-family houses would be on the far side of a street, creating a buffer she could live with. Elliot stated that even if park users could still see the houses, a single -loaded street would make a big psychological difference. Nolte plainly stated adherence to the Northeast District Plan and that if the proposal just had the single -loaded street, he could support it. A single -loaded street with houses on the far side of the street, away from Hickory Hill Park, would permit development while adhering to the Northeast District Plan's intent to protect the park. The current design makes the park vulnerable to possible runoff from chemical lawn treatments. It puts houses too close to the park. People have parties and cars and dogs and kids and operate noisy gasoline -powered yard tools such as mowers and leaf and snow blowers, and they cook animal flesh on outdoor grills. A design that allows back yards to abut the park allows all these to invade the park, degrading the public's enjoyment of the park. In contrast, a single -loaded street with houses on the far side of the street would abate park users' perception of human habitation next to the park. As Craig pointed out, a single -loaded street with houses placed on the far side of the street would impose a physical and psychological boundary between HHP and human development. Additionally, a buffer zone between the street and HHP would screen the street from HHP, helping to protect the view shed. This project needs to replace trees, and many of those trees could do double duty as both street trees and buffer trees in a zone between the street and park boundaries. Once it was more mature, this buffer zone would also help mitigate noise. It could be designed to provide some wildlife habitat, especially for birds and insects. Thank you, Commissioners, for your public service and all of the time-consuming work you do. I appreciate your patience and receptivity to my concerns for HHP. I hope you will consider that citizens participate to create a plan in the expectation that city officials adhere to the plan. I trust you recognize you are making a momentous decision for decades and generations of Hickory Hill Park users and visitors. This rezoning request places you as stewards of our beloved park. Please be good stewards and protect our park by insisting on a single -loaded street. This would allow development while minimizing harmful effects to the park and degrading users' experience of the park. It would allow private gain while protecting the public good. It would stick to the Plan. Could we please stick to the Plan? Sincerely, Glenda Buenger 318 S. Lucas St. Iowa City From: Leiana Arcenas To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Opposed to the revised rezoning plan for the area by Hickory Hill Park Date: Wednesday, March 17, 20216:54:06 AM Hi Raymond, The revised proposal to rezone the area by Hickory Hill Park is insufficient because it still does not comply with the Northeast District plan. Among several points of non-compliance, the buffer between the park and the residential area ranges from being too narrow to non-existent. This proposal should be denied, as well as any future versions that do not FULLY comply with the Northeast District plan. Thank you, Leiana Arcenas This email is from an external source. From: Parker, Adam G To: Raymond Heitner Subject: REZ20-0016—Hickory Trail Rezoning Resubmission Date: Wednesday, March 17, 20219:00:11 AM I FigS� Hello Ray, Thanks for passing along meeting information. Once again I am opposed to the recommendation to rezone REZ20-0016—Hickory Trail. Based off the feedback and discussion of the previous rezoning meeting held February 18th, I do not believe the developer made adequate concessions to adhere to the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan and NE District Plan as single -loaded street adjacent the park were proposed. The Iowa City Comprehensive plan discourages parks that are surrounded by private property. The plat as currently presented does not adhere to this principle. Double -loaded streets as currently presented, would allow few property owners to benefit from the rest of Iowa City residents by allowing their private property to abut a wooded public park. These homeowners then have financial arbitrage of having property directly on public land which can never be developed. Leaving residents to feel as if they are trespassing while walking on public trails in what feels like their "back yard. A single -loaded street would create the appropriate separation between the park and private property creating greater access to the park and not allowing private citizens to benefit from a public good. T NE District Plan Concept Drawing 1st Ave Hickory Hill Park JL The NE District Plan drafters were even so diligent to create a drawing of how the land could be appropriately developed buffering the park with single -loaded streets and offering adequate buffering from a public good and private property. The drawing also shifts higher density buildings closer to First Ave and Scott BLVD. allowing more socioeconomic statuses the opportunity to benefit from the proximity of the park. The current proposal does not adequately accomplish this goal. By passing the plat as currently designed the city would be once again rewarding the wealthy and well- connected over the diverse diaspora Iowa City needs to cater additional housing opportunities to. A year of political and social upheaval revealing the vast inequities communities face, we have seen these communities need opportunities to be closer to expansive green space higher densities closer to 1st and Scott BLVD would accomplish this goal is the drawing above demonstrates. This rushed development is especially troublesome in a year where Hickory Hill Park has been a refuge for those seeking safer solace outside their own four walls. The pandemic has created an economic crisis for many including current property owners and low-interest rate incentive for the developers. As we are approaching the tail end of a chaotic year, I would hate for the city to concede a short-term wind fall to the detriment of long term vibrancy of the community and its most expansive, wild park. We are currently shaping what the Iowa City community will look like 50,100, 250 years from now. We have seen access to public green space not only increases property values but continues to attract community members to new areas. I encourage the planning and zoning commission to take a long term approach in their thought process. Reject this proposal as currently presented and demand the developers follow the vision of the Iowa City Comprehensive plan and NE district plan. As it is the groundwork for long-term development. Thanks for all you do, I appreciate your participation in moving the community forward! Adam Parker 1302 E. Bloomington St. 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: The Rutherfords To: Raymond Heitner Subject: please continue to protect Hickory Hill Park Date: Wednesday, March 17, 20219:52:51 AM RI$H Dear Planning and Zoning Commission. I was so grateful for your 0-7 vote against the Hickory Trail Estates rezoning proposal. I've seen the most current submission and do not feel they've done enough to address the concerns raised in the first meeting. More needs to be done to protect this absolute treasure of a park. I live where I do on the east side of IC because of the proximity to the park. Thank you! John Rutherford 1717 E. College St Iowa City, IA From: Lutgendorf, Philip A To: Raymond Heitner Cc: Lutgendorf, Susan K; cikohrt(@gmail.com Subject: Planning and Zoning Commission and Hickory Hill Park Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 10:24:52 AM Dear Mr. Heitner, I commend the Commissioners for their vote against approving the developer's rezoning request for 48.75 acres adjacent to Hickory Hill Park at last month's meeting. However, the slightly revised request now before the Commission continues to ignore both the spirit and letter of the Comprehensive or Northeast District Plan with regard to the Park, that was developed with much input from the community. My wife and I will try to attend the virtual meeting tomorrow night, though we will be traveling. However, in case we are unable to "show up" (virtually), we would like to be on record as urging the Commissioners to continue to reject the developer's plan, until it is further scaled down to incorporate only single - loaded streets and the stipulated 175-200 feet buffer between house sites and the parkland that so many of us cherish. Thanking you for your attention, Philip and Susan Lutgendorf 2 Glendale Court Iowa City, IA 52245 From: wobtj(cbmchsi.com To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Re: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 03/18/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 10:36:10 AM Attachments: imaae001.pna imaae002.pnno imaae003.i)na imaae004.pnno imaae005.i)na I Good Morning, Ray, My Wife Gaylen and I appose the second proposal by the developer for the area near Hickory Hill Park in Iowa City for there was little change to his proposal and it does not provide a sufficient "Buffer" between this proposed development plan and our Iowa City Hickory Hill Park. We would at a minimum support a plan which discourages Parks surrounded by private property and allow only single loaded street access!!! Sincerely yours, Tony and Gaylen Wobeter 2605 Bluffwood Circle Iowa City From: Raymond Heitner Sent: Friday, March 12, 20214:05 PM To: 'adam-parker@uiowa.edu' ; 'adam-j-weis@uiowa.edu' ; 'allisonjaynes@gmail.com' ; 'andrew- russo@uiowa.edu' ; 'ann-synan@uiowa.edu' ; 'asha.l.bhandary@gmail.com' ; 'b3n.berger@gmail.com' ; 'bamcquillen@gmail.com' ; 'brian.lehmann@icloud.com' ; 'hickoryhiker@gmail.com' ; 'clbuckingham@gmail.com' ; 'cjkohrt@gmail.com' ; 'darcyl28@aol.com' ; 'dpurdy2@gmail.com' ; 'liztracey@gmail.com' ; 'emilyakim05@gmail.com' ; 'emily.schacht@gmail.com' ; 'eric.gidal5@gmail.com' ; 'durian.erin@gmail.com' ; 'florence-boos@uiowa.edu' ; 'buengerg@gmail.com' ; 'hannah- molitor@uiowa.edu' ; 'Hannah. Rapson@Raymondlames.com' ; 'heather. w.mcknight@gmail. com' ; 'hbschofield@gmail.com' ; 'perkins.i.t@gmail.com' ; 'jackiehockett@gmail.com' ; 'jameshirsch@gmail.com' ; 'j.k.bradbury@gmail.com' ; 'jasnap23@yahoo.com' ; 'jessemacfarlane@gmail.com' ; 'kjrutherford0l@gmail.com' ; 'moffitt.julie@gmail.com' ; 'karen.nichols@protonmail.com' ; 'tomkatymclaughlin@gmail.com' ; 'kelly-messingham@uiowa.edu' ; 'kelly.teeselink@gmail.com' ; 'kelseyturnis@gmail.com' ; 'Khris.Vickroy@mercer.com' ; 'krisanne-ryther@hawkeyefootball.com' ; 'krinelil@hotmail.com' ; 'knmorrow@gmail.com' ; 'laurajclaps@gmail.com' ; 'lauridi@hotmail.com' ; 'iheartsteakl21@gmail.com' ; 'libbysue.c@gmail.com' ; 'lilysmithjensen@gmail.com' ; 'loalbrecht@gmail.com' ; 'mms246@gmail.com' ; 'mgedlinske@gmail.com' ; 'markrenshaw@me.com' ; 'embenbear@gmail.com' ; 'hortgal@hotmail.com' ; 'mwinder73@yahoo.com' ; 'matthew.def@gmail.com' ; 'modemo403@gmail.com' ; 'maureen.russo.pt@gmail.com' ; 'nfootner@gmail.com' ; 'pholden@iastate.edu' ; 'phillip-lutgendorf@uiowa.edu' ; 'riley.gardam@gmail.com' ; 'robin.kopelman@gmail.com' ; 'roslynn-ellis-1@uiowa.edu' ; 'rukieb@gmail.com' ; 'rwestfa@yahoo.com' ; From: Shellie Miller To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Hickory hill Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 11:45:14 AM Dear Mr Heitner, Please do not rezone. Hickory Hill park is an important stop for migrating warblers and other amazing birds. We'd love to take you birding this spring before the leaves pop out to show you all the wonders. Shellie Miller Kettelkamp East Side, Washington st Sent from my iPhone This email is from an external source. From: Carol Tvx To: Raymond Heitner Subject: development proposal Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 11:51:51 AM RI$H Hello Mr. Heitner, I would like to voice my opposition to the proposed development near Hickory Hill. The plan does not provide enough of a buffer between the park and the proposed development. In order to preserve the wild aspect of Hickory Hill, which is so precious to many of us, any development should adhere to the buffer guidelines set up in previous plans for this area. Sincerely, Carol Tyx 1128 4th Ave Iowa City, Ia 52240 From: Ruth Westfall To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Hickory Hill and the rezoning question Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 1:32:57 PM Dear Mr. Heitner, Hickory Hill is near and dear to my heart, as it is to so many in Iowa City. The Planning and Zoning Commissioners need to follow the Northeast District Plan and to deny the rezoning request of the developer. Here's why: • Considerable public input went into the Northeast District Plan. It represents a consensus. • The Northeast District Plan clearly seeks to protect HHP by transferring development away from the park toward 1 st Avenue. • The proposed project ignores and does not comply with the guiding principle of the Northeast District Plan is the use of single -loaded streets to preserve areas such as Hickory Hill Park, to create public vistas, and to provide public access to natural areas. • The Northeast District Plan's principles are so fundamental they were also included in the Comprehensive Plan, pp. 46-47. Perhaps the most important point here is that the Plan seeks to: -Discourage parks that are surrounded by private property; encourage development of parks with single -loaded street access. Please deny the rezoning request because it does not adhere to the Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast District Plan. The citizens of Iowa City expect the Commission to follow the plans that were approved and to do what they said they would do in 1999. Reject this rezoning request. Sincerely, Ruth Westfall 418 5th Ave Iowa City From: Karin McKeone To: Raymond Heitner Subject: HHP Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 1:52:16 PM Dear Mr. Heitner, I could write endless stories and state so many reasons why it is important to protect Hickory Hill Park. Development continues to squeeze and encroach upon one of the city's great assets. Especially during this time of COVID, nature's offerings have been a source of comfort to many. Hopefully, you have heard many people provide personal accounts of the importance of protecting Hickory Hill Park. I have spent endless hours of volunteer work in Hickory Hill Park to enhance, maintain and protect this natural setting. Tree mulching, fencing and watering were my speciality. In years of draught, I know that I personally saved a number of then wilted oak trees from their demise. Having spent those many hours there, in addition to taking school groups to the park for work sessions and to learn the beauty of the park's offerings, I now plead with the city (again!). Please, please be mindful of the original district plan and why it was developed. Also keep in mind that many citizens were encouraged to give their input to that plan. There are reasons that District Plan provided some restrictions to the encroachment of development around this natural area. One reason is about the senses; what we see, hear, smell, and sometimes taste and touch in the park is restorative; this is a place away from everyday hustle. This natural space is a gem, beloved by many. For those of us who have tried to protect the park in the past, we learned that the city spends years in anticipation of projects, getting public input, and putting those plans into writing. While we lost in our past efforts to protect HHP, many citizens found some satisfaction in knowing we had contributed to the DISTRICT PLAN that would effect future development. This plan was designed to help protect future encroachment. And now, here we are with a possible rezoning which negates all the past efforts in making that plan in the first place. Please place citizen interests at a high priority when you consider double loading streets in the area. Citizens worked in collaboration with the City to assure the HHP area would be enjoyed by many. Please honor that work and limit the huge impact that will occur with the building of large, multi -story homes along nearby park borders. Please consider that as natural areas shrink with the pressures of development, Hickory Hill Park is worth protecting for future generations to enjoy. Please do not allow requests that impact the solice offered by our beautiful Hickory Hill Park. Sincerely, Karin McKeone 4703 Inverness Ct, Iowa City, IA 52245 From: pat bowen To: Raymond Heitner Cc: *City Council; Anne Russett Subject: CaseNo.REZ20-0016 Date: Wednesday, March 17, 20212:07:59 PM To the Planning and Zoning Commission: We are writing today to share our opposition to the rezoning near Hickory Hills Park. The development does not appear to adhere to the Comprehensive Northeast District plan in which the public participated in good faith. We would like to believe that public officials would adhere to those plans. Considerable public input went into the Northeast District Plan. The proposed project appears to ignore the principal of single loaded streets to preserve the area as a beautiful public access that provides access to the natural areas. By ignoring the City's agreement with the community to provide a meaningful buffer for Hickory Hill Park, this rezoning proposal does not even come close to the vision that was agreed to and adopted in the Northeast District Plan. The Northeast District Plan's principles are so fundamental they were also included in the Comprehensive Plan, pp. 46-47. Final question for the P&Z Commission and all decision makers, are you working for the developers or are you working for the citizens of Iowa City? Pandering to the public by allow public meetings for discussion of future projects then ignoring them is not what citizens want or deserve. The rezoning request should be denied. with the Northeast District Plan that the citizens of Iowa City negotiated Sincerely, Pat Bowen Kenn Bowen 1210 Village Rd IC 52240 We are demanding the Commissioners stick in good faith. From: Bruce Tarwater To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Re: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 03/18/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Date: Wednesday, March 17, 20212:42:49 PM a Mr. Heitner- I live in Iowa City next to Hickory Hill Park. The rezoning request should be denied. The developer and PZ Commissioners and staff should consider a plan that adheres to the Comprehensive Plan including the Northeast District Plan. I will be at the meeting as will many of my friends who use and revere our park. Please tell the commissioners that I am one more citizen requesting the request be denied. Below is another letter which I support and have copied and pasted because the gentleman speaks more eloquently than I. But these things I also believe. Do the right thing. Do not turn your back on the will of the people. Herein are my reasons for wishing this zoning request be denied: I am not opposed to development per se. I am opposed to this rezoning because it does not adhere to the Comprehensive or Northeast District plan in which the public participated in good faith that public officials would adhere to these plans. Considerable public input went into the Northeast District Plan. The proposal to construct 1st Avenue east of Hickory Hill Park was very controversial and the planning process was used as a way to reach community consensus, allowing 1st Avenue to be built while also respecting the park. The Northeast District Plan clearly seeks to protect HHP by transferring development away from the park toward 1st Avenue. A guiding principle of the Northeast District Plan is the use of single -loaded streets to preserve areas such as Hickory Hill Park, to create public vistas, and to provide public access to natural areas. The proposed project ignores this guiding principle. The proposed project still includes a double -loaded street (houses on both sides of the street) with inadequate buffer zones between development and the park. The buffer shown in the Comprehensive Plan is at least 175 to 200 feet wide (based on using existing lot lines for scale). The proposed plan offers only 35 feet of buffer between the backyards of houses and the park in a couple of spots along the west and south boundaries of the development area. Additionally, once Outlot A is ceded to the City and becomes part of HHP, there is no buffer between the park and the 10 -unit condo proposed for the NW corner of the development area. One goal of the buffer is to minimize the visibility of residential development from the park. The few trees that the developer offers to plant instead of a wide buffer will not achieve this goal. Concerning the developer's conveyance of Outlot A to the City, Outlet A is undevelopable due to steep wooded slopes, wetlands, streams, and the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. It is therefore no concession on the part of the developer. Outlot 8 is likewise essentially undevelopable. Additionally, it is not clear that the open space that is being dedicated for required Neighborhood Open Space meets the criteria for being usable as required by the zoning code. The staff recommendation for a through street ignores the Northeast District Plan's vision of keeping an open connection between Hickory Hill Park and the wooded ravine in the proposed Outlot B. The street connection in itself may not be objectionable, but there appears to be little effort to preserve the amount of open space shown in the Northeast District Plan. The developer is seeking waivers of zoning requirements to allow a large senior-living complex in an otherwise single -family zone. The developer is seeking zoning incentives from the City but is not adhering to the Comprehensive Plan's vision in exchange. By ignoring the City's agreement with the community to provide a meaningful buffer for Hickory Hill Park, this rezoning proposal does not even come close to the vision that was agreed to and adopted in the Northeast District Plan. The Northeast District Plan's principles are so fundamental they were also included in the Comprehensive Plan, pp. 46-47. Perhaps the most important point here is that the Plan seeks to: -Discourage parks that are surrounded by private property; encourage development of parks with single-loaded street access. The rezoning request should be denied. The developer and PZ Commissioners and staff should consider a plan that adheres to the Comprehensive Plan including the Northeast District Plan. To this end, I am advocating a single-loaded street design for the proposal. This means houses on only one side of the proposed Hickory Trail, on the side away from the park, with adequate buffer between the street and HHP boundaries. Commissioners need to stick with the Northeast District Plan that the citizens of Iowa City negotiated in good faith. Sincerely, Bruce Tarwater 2669 Hickory Trail Iowa City, IA 52245 hickoryhiker(cbgmail.com From: TaellS To: Raymond Heitner; Anne Russett Subject: Hickory Hill proposal Date: Wednesday, March 17, 20212:55:10 PM RI$F{ Dear Mr. Heitner, I am very concerned about the traffic in and out of the development, not because of the homeowners, but because of the large number of employees at the proposed assisted living/memory care business. A building that size with that capacity will require a HUGE number of employees working around the clock shifts. This will add considerably to the traffic in the area, especially during the usual busy times of the day and when kids are walking to school. In addition, this traffic will depart not only via First Avenue but also on to Scott Boulevard via the development where I would expect a lot of children will live and play. I am certain the traffic study did not take into account the volume of traffic from this business. Also the new design still goes solidly against the NE District and Comprehensive Plans!! I am also very concerned that this meeting was scheduled with less than a weeks notice and during the communities spring break. It smells a little fishy! Please share these comments with the P&Z Commission. Thomas and Melanie Gellhaus 906 Tamarack Trail Iowa City, IA From: Casey James Kohrt To: Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner; fhhD-board Ca aooalearouos.com Subject: Friends of Hickory Hill comments on proposed development Date: Wednesday, March 17, 20213:14:41 PM a Anne and Ray, please pass these comments on to the commission Commissioners, There is no reason for the City to settle for less than what the Comprehensive Plan calls for on the proposed Hickory Hill Estates. The Comprehensive Plan clearly lays out a vision for what a property owner/developer can expect to achieve when the property is rezoned. At the time the Northeast District Plan was adopted, the Larson estate owned the property. Both the current owner, ACT, and the developer were aware of the officially adopted plan when they purchased the property, or offered to purchase the property. The price that they paid, or will pay for the property, should be based on what the City has told the public and potential developers what can be expected in terms of development. The developer could recoup costs of adhering to the plan by increasing density at the north end of the project. This would also adhere to City objectives of increased housing diversity and affordable housing. The Northeast District Plan was developed in public: the City— including the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council—invited us, the public, as well as property owners and real estate developers to participate in the planning process. The Plan was thoroughly discussed and well vetted when it was adopted in 1999. Again, as part of that process the City made a commitment to preserve a significant buffer for Hickory Hill Park to get community buy in for the construction of First Avenue. After the plan was adopted there was a referendum on whether the City should build First Avenue. Proponents for constructing the street used the Northeast District Plan to assure voters that Hickory Hill Park would be protected if the First Avenue was built. The public voted to build the street. What has changed since the adoption of the Northeast District Plan in 1999? The contentious debate regarding the construction of First Avenue has been settled. The City at great public expense built the street along with Scott Boulevard providing street access to the Larson property which is now proposed to be developed as Hickory Hill Estates. Prior to this public investment, the Larson property was only suitable for agricultural uses. It was us, the public of Iowa City, that invested public funds in the infrastructure to make the Larson property developable today. But that public investment was based on the plan to protect Hickory Hill Park with a significant buffer on the east side of the park. Why should ACT and the developer reap the benefits of our public investment if they are not going to adhere to the Plan? Friends of Hickory Hill Park founders had significant input into the NE District Plan. It was intended to protect the NE part of the park. Since 2004, FHHP has spent 14,882 hours, or 7.15 years of time service in the park restoring habitat, building trails and improving the park. This is a $320,000 value, in addition to thousands of dollars we cost -shared with the City on other management projects. In total, we have engaged almost 5000 persons in over 1000 events. We have also raised funds to purchase the Pappy Dickens Property, protecting the Northwest corner of the park, now held by Bur Oak Land Trust. We never pursued the purchase of the NE tract because we thought it would be developed in accordance with the NE district plan and the Comprehensive Plan. We now ask the City to step up and not approve plats that do not conform to the City's own plans. Casey Kohrt, Chair, Friends of Hickory Hill Park From: Anne Russett To: "hannah raoson" Cc: Raymond Heitner Subject: RE: Hickory Hill development Date: Wednesday, March 17, 20213:26:26 PM Attachments: imaae001.Dna image002.pnng imaae003.Dna image004.pnng imaae005.Dna Hi, Hannah — Thanks for your comments. We will forward them onto the Commission. If you'd like to discuss any of these questions with Ray or I, please feel free to give us a call. Thanks, Anne CITY OF IOWA CITY iJN6CO CITY OF LITERATURE WWW.ICGOV.ORG 0000 Anne Russett, AICP Senior Planner She/Her/Hers p:319-356-5251 1410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 From: hannah rapson <hannah.letisha@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 20212:56 PM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Hickory Hill development R]S3{ Anne, Thank you for taking the time to read my entire email, as the 273 page -packet took many hours to digest and consider. Below are my concerns as I can best convey them, based on the plan, which I had limited time to review and respond to. I sincerely hope we can work together as a community to build a thoughtful development that adheres to the city's comprehensive plan. Simply put, the plan should make sense given the location and the environmental impacts of this development, which neighbors such a unique asset to our city, Hickory Hill Park. I start by sharing my concern in the presentation of materials at the last meeting. • Presentation of Application o No slide images presented during presentation — do not allow for a point of reference while on Zoom o Rotated maps — cause confusion for viewers ■ / am working on putting together an overlay of proposal v. comp plan in aligned orientation to help viewers better understand o View of senior living and residences — no elevations presented "as seen from park" perspective o Staff — lack or awareness of wetlands on property shows dismissal of sensitive lands, which is very concerning o Wetland/Environment Survey — lack of research on watershed impact does not consider developments overall impact on other neighborhoods along the Ralston creek, ie. other city residents o The comment made by a commissioner "Why does the community care only when in their backyard?" Because we are experts on where we live. We rely on the city to put together thoughtful consideration and to listen to the people who actually live in these spaces and consider their experiences and valuable point of view. In case I have missed something in my three points, I have included a list of questions that I believe are unanswered at this point and should be considered as part of figuring out how to carefully develop this land, taking into account the potential impact of this development on many community residents near and far to the park. • Stick to the Comprehensive Plan o Obligated by law to do so, unless a good reason not to ■ Thru Street Concession —there is a good reason (while opposed I remain opposed) to consider continuation of the street, given the proposed senior living facility. Another solution would be to preserve a cul-de-sac for residential and orient the Senior Living Facility toward 1st Ave, where service needs and additional vehicle traffic would not flow along the park. ■ Increased Population Density Concession — the senior living facility increasing the allotted density. This is already a concession and there is no reason not to uphold the comprehensive plan for single loaded streets along the park. ■ Single -loaded streets • There is no good argument for eliminating single -loaded streets • Lots 28-41 are too close to the park and should not be approved per the comprehensive plan • Due to the nature of this development being built on a sensitive area, the environmental impact of a thru-street should be considered. • Raised crosswalks do not slow traffic and they are bad for plowing. What other measures can be taken to slow traffic if a thru- street is approved? • Senior Living Facility ■ Per the city assessor's site, the house currently at the end of Hickory Trail adjacent to the meadow, which many complained about during last month's meeting is roughly 6800 sq ft and two stories high. The proposed senior center is 10 times that size at 69,000 sq ft and will be built on a similar fall - away slope where the 4 -story side of the building faces the park, in effect appearing twice as high as the current residence bordering the park. The 35' variance request should not be granted. This building is too big. ■ Non -permeable surfaces. The added roadway and parking lots in addition to the massive roof line of this building create a significant amount of non - permeable surfaces at the top of the hill. The Ralston Creek went under major erosion restoration just this past year (I will bring images to the meeting). The Commission should consider the potential impact of watershed from this portion of the development in considering approval of the size and scope, including parking lots. Considerations of permeable pavers or underground parking lots should be explored as part of reducing watershed to the creek and neighbors down -stream. ■ Assisted Living and Memory Care usage means that these residents will not use or access the park, therefore an orientation otherwise, that does not negatively impact traffic around the park should be considered. The current senior living facility does not benefit from this location and the services and high traffic will negatively impact park patrons. This should be noted when considering the orientation of this facility to the park and the traffic flow. ■ Is this the best location for this type of senior facility — it is furthest from the hospital system. • Woodland Buffer to park o Tree -lined with streets are not enough o Woodland hillside should be planted at developers' expense to protect viewsheds based on concession or through street and housing visibility. o Trails should be included in the development plan and mandated via a Conditional Zoning Agreement, so that it is sure to happen. Intention is not enough. Note that the trail agreement made with Hickory Trail development was never implemented. This should be mandated via a conditional agreement. o 10.86 -acre buffer between developments does more to protect the developments from each other than it does to protect viewshed from the park. A similar green screen should be included in the developer plan and at developer cost due, given the thru-street, which not only improves city service access, but also allows for more houses to be built than the comp plan lays out and impacts park viewsheds. This buffer is required through Open Land mandates — how does this impact the park's ability to use this space? o Noise pollution should be considered as part of protecting this natural park. It will impact the experience of park patrons, as well as wildlife. Questions • Why is the retirement facility not counted in the density limit? • What is the city getting for the height variance? • Has the city considered a watershed study given the number of sensitive slopes? • What will the impact be on Ralston Creek, which has had significant erosion issues, recently repaired? • How will the wetlands on the property be impacted by a significant increase in concrete runoff? 0 How will the watershed increase without trees to soak up run off? • Why would the city leave the northside/woodbluff plan (aka, proposed development site) in place in 2013, if they revisited the entire master plan? • What other natural areas are there in Iowa City that are comparable to Hickory Hill? • Is Hickory Hill an asset to our community? If so, why wouldn't we want to protect it as part of considering a thoughtful development plan? • Could the city or a private donor still buy the land instead of the developer? • Why didn't the city parks system identify this as a concern sooner and recommend a buy out plan that would protect the park? • Why can't cul-de-sacs be considered in this area, even if not elsewhere — there is no other area in town like this area, which should be considered a "special feature" per comp plan language? • Can a true environmental study be done to understand the impact of this development? • This is not a Natural Area — the comment is unnecessary and meant to degrade the quality of the land. These areas would not be called woodlands and sensitive areas, if they did not have value as natural land. Beyond that, the argument is not necessarily even about not developing the land, as much as it is about preserving the park adjacent to the land with regard to tree covering, watershed and viewsheds. The argument that this is not natural land is irrelevant to the conversation of how to preserve and protect the park, which is natural land. Thank you, Hannah Rapson 1415 E Davenport Irish Tract Home From: darcy128Cabaol.com To: Raymond Heitner; Anne Russett Cc: darcy128Cabaol.com Subject: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning - again Date: Wednesday, March 17, 20213:28:29 PM I RI$H Dear Mr. Heitner and Ms. Russett, I'm am very dismayed to be writing to you again so soon with regard to the rezoning of the land proposed as Hickory Trail Estates. I find it impossible to believe that there was ample time to thoughtfully consider all the issues raised at the last meeting and to draw up a proposal that would in any way justify overturning a 7-0 vote against. Lots 28-41 still violate the single -load street requirement for development adjoining parks. They still impinge on the buffer zone. The removal of five lots from the park -side of the development only to jam them into the north side hardly addresses the concerns of the attendees at the last meeting nor does it follow the NE District Plan or the Comprehensive Plan, already in place. Much time was spent discussing the nursing home size, including height violations at the last meeting, and it isn't even mentioned. Why does the city have these plans in place if they are not to be followed? 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. With that in mind, the removal of lots 28-41 would create a single -loaded street, which is to be used in city development close to parks. An aside, why am I having to write this under such a time constraint? I've only been notified five days ago if you count last Friday night, and the meeting will take place within a week of notification. If you have any fewer participants or emails than last time, it might be accounted for by the fact that this meeting was scheduled during a major school break for this area. Hmmm... might this have waited one more week? This development is already going to severely impact 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: Cherie Haury-Artz To: Raymond Heitner Subject: rezoning the ACT parcel Date: Wednesday, March 17, 20214:01:42 PM I would encourage the Planning and Zoning Commissioners to deny rezoning the ACT parcel until Joe Clark, the developer, presents a development design that respects the City's Northeast District Plan and Comprehensive Plan to protect Hickory Hill Park. Hickory Hill Park is an important natural resource for Iowa City and Johnson County and the City has spent time and energy developing a comprehensive plan for good management. This plan needs to be respected and followed by ALL developers to protect our valuable resources. Sincerely, Cherie Haury-Artz 1104 Yewell Street Iowa City, IA 52240 From: Robin Kopelman To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Hickory Trail rezoning Date: Wednesday, March 17, 20214:26:41 PM a Dear Mr. Heitner, I am writing to you again as a resident of a neighborhood adjacent to Hickory Hill Park, daily user of the park, and co -leader of the Iowa City Trail Sisters. Our family of six remains opposed to the rezoning proposal, with its (clearly) minimal revisions. Our concerns remain its incongruence with the Comprehensive Plan and Northeast District Plan. Lots 28-41 in particular would negatively impact the park experience, with an objectionable buffer adjacent to well -traveled and highly beloved trail paths. Developing single loaded streets near the park is the only appropriate proposal. Sincerely, Robin Kopelman Todd Kopelman Robin Kopelman From: Synan. Ann To: Raymond Heitner Cc: Anne Russett; Synan, William J Subject: Comments for Meeting of Planning and Zoning Commission March 18, 2021-- Hickory Trail Estates Planned Rezoning Date: Wednesday, March 17, 20214:55:12 PM r Dear Anne and Ray, Please forward our comments below to the Planning and Zoning Commissioners for the March 18th Meeting. Thank you. Ann Synan Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners: We were encouraged by your 7-0 vote at last month's meeting to deny the developers' request to rezone the 48.75 acres adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. We are thoroughly disappointed with the miniscule revision to the revised plan that the developers and the Planning and Zoning staff are presenting to you at tomorrow night's meeting. The revised plan to build single-family homes along the west side of the parcel next to the park and an assisted living/memory care facility in the East part of the parcel, continues to ignore the Comprehensive and Northeast District Plan, disregarding single -loaded streets aimed at preserving areas such as Hickory Hill Park, and featuring a massive three-story building and complex that would take up almost nine acres (1/5) of this proposed residential community and which would abut on Hickory Hill Park and the adjacent Bluffwood and Hickory Heights Neighborhood. It appears to us that the developers and the Planning and Zoning staff are trying every way that they can to make a square peg fit into a round hole. Again, we ask that you deny this proposed request and allow the property to remain under low density, single family zoning -- not medium density, or low density single-family with a "planned development overlay". We entrust that you will do the right thing and take the appropriate steps to help preserve the integrity and serenity of Iowa City's Hickory Hill Park and the character of the Bluffwood and Hickory Heights neighborhoods. Thank you for your consideration. Ann and Bill Synan 833 Cypress Court Iowa City From: Jane Bradbury To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Rezoning land adjacent to Hickory Hill Park Date: Wednesday, March 17, 20214:58:43 PM Hello Ray, I am writing to ask that you please vote against the proposed development by Hickory Hill Park as it currently stands. The resubmitted proposal does not satisfy the criteria outlined in the NE District Plan, which was created to protect Iowa City from development that is not in the best interest of the entire community of Iowa City. I would like to be clear and state that I am speaking about the entire community, not just those who live by the park. It is currently used by Iowa City residents from all over the city as well as many other Iowans who visit the park to enjoy birding opportunities that exist in the park. I am one such visitor. I do not live by Hickory Hill Park, and I must drive there to walk there daily. But it is worth it, because it is the only natural place in Iowa CIty of its kind, a place that gives visitors a real feeling of wilderness. Thank you for your time. Jane Bradbury 316 Dartmouth From: Riley Gardam To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Regarding Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 5:30:17 PM I a RdS� Hello - I'm contacting you as a resident of Iowa City and a lover of Hickory Hill Park to express my concern regarding the development of the land adjacent to the park by Axiom. I've highlighted some points below that I believe need further consideration by this committee. I've also included some questions I would love to see posed to the developer and to this committee. Question #1: What projections for long-term use of assisted living facilities are informing the development of the senior living facility proposed for this area? I am concerned that the Baby Boomer generation is much larger than the following generations and that we, the residents of Iowa City, will be left with derelict buildings in sensitive natural areas that will no longer serve their intended purpose in just a few decades. Question #1A: What considerations, if any, have been made regarding the current pandemic in the development of the proposed assisted living facility? It seems irresponsible to consider building a facility like this with shared dining and bathroom spaces when we have recently identified assisted living facilities as a huge contributor to the spread and deaths related to COVID-19. Question #1113: Will these units be affordable for average Iowa Citians? Question #2: What have the costs associated with erosion control and deer management in Hickory Hill Park been like for the past decade? And can our budget for such expenses handle the increased expenses that will likely result from this development? (See note in the plan citing 19% of critical slopes in the park will be impacted by this development). Our plan states an emphasis on groves and woodlands in new developments in sensitive areas should be considered. I have not seen any grove or woodland included in the plan, other than Outcrop A which is not viable for development anyway and therefore does not represent any concession on the part of the developer. The new proposal only sites that 115 of the required 132 trees will be planted by the developer - not only has no thought been given to creating a "woodland" or "grove", but the bare minimum for this type of mitigation has been completely overlooked. Question #3: Has the fact that the traffic study was conducted during a pandemic when traffic through the area is at an all-time low been taken into consideration? I know several major employers located immediately within this area are not requiring employees to work from the office at the time the study was conducted. It seems completely inappropriate to cite any traffic study conducted during this period, especially considering the fact that the fire station is located immediately adjacent to the major intersections that would be affected. This seems to pose an immediate threat to safety and response times in our area. Question #4: Why has the waiver for the height of the assisted living facility been considered reasonable? What is reasonable about building a 4 story building in an area our comprehensive plan has placed a 2 -story limit on? Other points of note: The buffer shown in the Comprehensive Plan is at least 175 to 200 feet wide (based on using existing lot lines for scale). The proposed plan offers only 35 feet of buffer between the backyards of houses and the park in a couple of spots along the west and south boundaries of the development area. Additionally, once Outlot A is ceded to the City and becomes part of HHP, there is no buffer between the park and the 10 -unit condo proposed for the NW corner of the development area. One goal of the buffer is to minimize the visibility of residential development from the park. The few trees that the developer offers to plant instead of a wide buffer will not achieve this goal. Concerning the developer's conveyance of Outlot A to the City, Outlet A is undevelopable due to steep wooded slopes, wetlands, streams, and the Sensitive Areas Ordinance. It is therefore no concession on the part of the developer. Outlot B is likewise essentially undevelopable. Additionally, it is not clear that the open space that is being dedicated for required Neighborhood Open Space meets the criteria for being usable as required by the zoning code. The developer is seeking waivers of zoning requirements to allow a large senior -living complex in an otherwise single-family zone. The developer is seeking zoning incentives from the City but is not adhering to the Comprehensive Plan's vision in exchange. Thank you for your consideration. Riley Larson Riley. Gardam ft_gmai1.com cell: 515.249.2545 Iowa City, Iowa From: Lauren Katalinich To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Hickory Hill Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 5:41:13 PM Dear Mr. Heitner, Hickory Hill is near and dear to my heart, as it is to so many in Iowa City. The Planning and Zoning Commissioners need to follow the Northeast District Plan and to deny the rezoning request of the developer. Here's why: • Considerable public input went into the Northeast District Plan. It represents a consensus. • The Northeast District Plan clearly seeks to protect HHP by transferring development away from the park toward 1 st Avenue. • The proposed project ignores and does not comply with the guiding principle of the Northeast District Plan is the use of single -loaded streets to preserve areas such as Hickory Hill Park, to create public vistas, and to provide public access to natural areas. • The Northeast District Plan's principles are so fundamental they were also included in the Comprehensive Plan, pp. 46-47. Perhaps the most important point here is that the Plan seeks to: -Discourage parks that are surrounded by private property; encourage development of parks with single -loaded street access. Please deny the rezoning request because it does not adhere to the Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast District Plan. The citizens of Iowa City expect the Commission to follow the plans that were approved and to do what they said they would do in 1999. Please reject this rezoning request. Sincerely, Lauren Katalinich 418 5th Ave Iowa City From: Eva Adderlev To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Hickory Hill Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 11:35:42 PM a Dear Raymond Heitner, I am writing to express my concerns about the new development proposal for some acreage of Hickory Hill park. The first proposal was denied because it failed to demonstrate a plan to develop thoughtfully, with minimal harm to the park. The new proposal protects fewer acres of Hickory Hill, and includes double -access roads that would greatly expand damage to sensitive natural habitat, one of the very things that was decided against after the first proposal. Hickory Hill is deeply important to our community and our ecosystem. It is one of very few forested parks within the city limit, and it provides vital natural habitat for our animal neighbors. Nature is precious, and it is finite. When it is gone, it is gone. Iowa is one of the most developed states in the entire country, due to sprawling farmland that has eradicated a horrifying percentage of natural prairie and forests. The effects of human impacts on the environment are becoming more and more keenly felt every day. Climate change rears its head each year with record-breaking polar vortexes. Destruction of natural habitat may even have contributed to the coronavirus outbreak, as animals lose their habitat, move into the cities, and bring their diseases with them. Never has there been a more prescient time to talk about --and work towards-- healing our planet than now. Never has there been a worse time to recklessly develop sensitive natural habitat that we will never get back. But it's not too late to protect the natural bounty and wonder that still remains. This starts small. It starts local. It starts with us. I hope that you will join myself and everyone else who seeks solace in the sunlight filtered through the snow -dusted branches, or strength in the green shadows dancing through the leaves, as we work to nurture this irreplaceable part of our planet. Sincerely, Eva L.0 Adderley From: Anne Russett To: Xristi Thiel" Cc: Raymond Heitner Subject: RE: Planning and Zoning Commission Confirmation Date: Thursday, March 18, 20218:28:39 AM Hi, Kristi — Thank you for your comments. We will forward them to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Anne From: Kristi Thiel <kwthiel@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 20214:46 PM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Re: Planning and Zoning Commission Confirmation R]Sk{ Dear P&z Committee, I would like to respectfully request that you strongly consider denying the updated plan to develop the Hickory Trail extension. This development does not appear to follow the city's master plan. Specifically, the street along the park is not single loaded and includes 14 lots that directly back into Hickory Hill Park. This park is a resource that is widely used by the community, with precipitous growth of use due to the pandemic. Please preserve this natural resource and deny the developers revised proposal. Thank you for your attention to this email, Kristina & William Thiel Residents - 2755 Hickory Trail On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 1:43 PM Anne Russett <no-replyl@zoom.us> wrote: Hi Kristi Thiel, Thank you for registering for "Planning and Zoning Commission". Please submit any questions to: Anne-Russett(@iowa-city.org Date Time: Mar 18, 202107:00 PM Central Time (US and Canada) Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: Click Here to Join Note: This link should not be shared with others; it is unique to you. Add to Calendar Add to Google Calendar Add to Yahoo Calendar Or iPhone one -tap From: Anne Russett To: "Nancy Smith" Cc: Raymond Heitner Subject: RE: Hickory Hill Park Date: Thursday, March 18, 20218:43:03 AM Hi, Nancy - Thank you for your comments. We will share them with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Anne -----Original Message ----- From: Nancy Smith <nancyjsmith2@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 20217:28 AM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Hickory Hill Park To the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Committee: I understand that the Committee will meet tonight to consider a development close to the Hickory Hill Park on the present ACT land. I beg of you to consider what unchangeable damage approval of this would do. No longer would the park be the magical escape from city life that it is, with views on every hand being natural ones. It would become just another trail through the woods. The esthetics would be badly damaged. Please consider the quality of life we enjoy here, and save one of the few places that there is in town to go where one can get away from development. Thank you. Nancy Smith 609 Larch Lane Iowa City, IA 52245 319-338-3332 This email is from an external source. From: Anne Russett To: 'Rachel Garms" Cc: Raymond Heitner Subject: RE: Hickory Trail Rezoning Date: Thursday, March 18, 20218:45:07 AM Hi, Rachel — Thank you for your comments. We will share them with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Anne From: Rachel Garms <rgarms@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 20218:35 AM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Hickory Trail Rezoning As a former resident of Iowa City (now Solon resident) and a frequent user of Hickory Hill Park both past and present, I am writing regarding the proposal of a development near the park. Hickory Hill park to me is the crown jewel of Iowa City. Once this land is developed, there will be no other options for future expansion of the park. I hope that the city has considered purchasing this land as an extension of the park. If that is not an option, I hope that you really consider what this development will look like. The reason our family uses the park is to experience nature, utilize the nature trails, and get away from urban life. If this development goes in as it is currently proposed, we will be looking at exactly what we are trying to get away from (urban sprawl) and the reason people come to enjoy the park in the first place. Thank you, Adam and Rachel Garms From: Brian Richman To: Raymond Heitner; Anne Russett Subject: Proposed residential development abutting Hickory Hill Park Date: Thursday, March 18, 20219:35:30 AM Ftl$H Mr. Heitner, Ms. Russett and Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, I am writing to register my opposition to the proposed development in its current form of land abutting Hickory Hill Park. Hickory Hill Park is an exceptional natural resource for the people of Iowa City. When I moved here in 2001, it quickly became one of my favorite destinations—a spot where I could explore trails, see wildlife, meet friends, walk my dog and simply get lost in an area that felt wholly apart from the city around it. The current proposal threatens that sense of separateness. The overly dense and improperly buffered residential development represents nothing less than a transfer of a valuable asset from the people of Iowa City to the developer. That transfer is also inconsistent with guidance the City has previously provided in its Comprehensive Plan and its Northeast District Plan. I encourage you to reject development proposals for this parcel until the landowner can come up with a plan that meets the City's established guidelines—one that does not deprive the citizenry of Iowa City of its enjoyment of this irreplaceable public natural resource. Very sincerely, Brian Richman 20 Ashwood Dr. Iowa City From: Marybeth Gardam To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Hickory Hill Park Date: Thursday, March 18, 2021 1:58:00 PM a Dear Mr. Heitner I am writing as a citizen of Iowa City to express my concern over the development plans for the Hickory Hill Park area. For one thing, it concerns me that the planning and traffic pattern study for this development was conducted during a pandemic when many people are NOT driving who will ordinarily be on that part of the roads. And there is a firehouse near there, which means that it could endanger drivers and citizens needing fire protection if the traffic from a new development is added. Secondly I'm not convinced that long term the city will need more senior living facilities. The baby boomers are a much larger part of the local demographic than younger aging populations. We won't always need so many of these facilities, and they will become derelict and hard to care for. Third, what have the costs associated with erosion control and deer management in Hickory Hill Park been like for the past decade? And can our budget for such expenses handle the increased expenses that will likely result from this development? (See note in the plan citing 19% of critical slopes in the park will be impacted by this development). Our plan states an emphasis on groves and woodlands in new developments in sensitive areas should be considered. I have not seen any grove or woodland included in the plan, other than Outcrop A which is not viable for development anyway and therefore does not represent any concession on the part of the developer. The new proposal only sites that 115 of the required 132 trees will be planted by the developer - not only has no thought been given to creating a "woodland" or "grove", but the bare minimum for this type of mitigation has been completely overlooked. In summary I urge the city planners to reconsider this development. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Marybeth Gardam 68 Eversull Lane, Iowa City IA 863-651-4888 From: Anne Russett To: "nancy footner" Cc: Raymond Heitner Subject: RE: Planning and Zoning Commission Confirmation Date: Thursday, March 18, 20213:37:53 PM Hi, Nancy — Thank you for your comments. We will share them with the Commission. Anne From: nancy footner <nfootner@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 20213:34 PM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Re: Planning and Zoning Commission Confirmation fi F?I$H Dear Ms Russett, and P&Z commission members. I am writing to express my opposition to the "revised " plan presented by the developer for the property adjacent to the N/E border of Hickory Hill park. I do not see that the developer has altered his plan sufficiently to stay with the guidelines of the Northeast District Plan, and I do not believe the plan, which came as a result of a great deal of citizen input should be adjusted to suit this (not local) developer's goal which is clearly to take advantage of proximity to a public, tax supported resource, Hickory Hill Park, to maximize their profits. Hickory Hill Park is a rare and precious resource, an urban park, and the commission must protect it, for the benefit of the citizens. Nancy Footner 2008 Dunlap Ct Iowa City, IA 52245 On Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 8:30 AM Anne Russett <Anne-Russett(@iowa-city.org> wrote: Hi, Nancy — No problem. Their new proposal is included in the Commission's agenda packet, which can be downloaded here httDs://www. icaov.ora/citv-aovernment/boards/Dlann i na-and-zonina-commission The staff memo for this agenda item starts on page 52 of the packet. The Zoom link is: https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJMtceCrgzMiGtHRYdNFfGxUsOmlbaWmr681 Let us know if you need anything else. Thanks, Anne From: nancy footner <nfootner(@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 20217:15 PM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett(@iowa-city.org> Subject: Re: Planning and Zoning Commission Confirmation Anne Your colleague sent me notice that the developers will be presenting a new plan for the HH project Thursday. I deleted his email by mistake. Please send me the link and also a way to see their new proposal prior to the meeting. Thank you. Nancy Footner On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 8:57 PM Anne Russett <no-replly(@zoom. us> wrote: Hi Nancy Footner, Thank you for registering for "Planning and Zoning Commission". Please submit any questions to: Anne-Russett(@iowa-city.org Date Time: Feb 18, 202107:00 PM Central Time (US and Canada) Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: Click Here to Join Note: This link should not be shared with others; it is unique to you. Add to Calendar Add to Google Calendar Add to Yahoo Calendar Or Whone one -tap US: +16465588656„92275977904# or +13017158592„92275977904# Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1646 558 8656 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1312 626 6799 or +1669 900 9128 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1346 248 7799 Meeting ID: 922 7597 7904 International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/aeCRNowgfg You can cancel your registration at any time. 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: Rachel Kilbura To: Raymond Heitner; Anne Russett Subject: FW: Preserve the park! Date: Thursday, March 18, 20213:50:35 PM Sent to City Council today. From: Susan oliver <susan.oliver@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 18, 20213:08 PM To: *City Council <-43dfb@iowa-city.org> Subject: Preserve the park! fi RI$ki Hello. I am an Iowa City resident I am writing in regards to the proposed development alongside Hickory Hill park. This should be an easy decision, no more buildings. HHP is a very special natural oasis inside an ever enlarging city. We need to protect the park. There is so little natural land left in the entire state of Iowa, and here in the middle of Iowa City we have a beautiful gem. Think of Hickory Hill as our version of NYC Central Park. Can you imagine how sad it would be if we permitted builders to start nibbling away at the edges of Central Park? In short order, there would be no park. I plead with you to do the right thing, say no to big money, say no to destroying something that can't be replaced. There's lots of places to put new houses without encroaching on Hickory Hill. Thank you for your service to our city. Sincerely Dr Susan Oliver, DVM From: Hillary Schofield To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Re: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 03/18/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda Date: Thursday, March 18, 20214:52:20 PM Attachments: imaae001.ona image002.a_na image003.a_na image004.1)_ng_ image005.a_ng I Hello Raymond, I am writing to express my objection with this (barely) revised OPD plan. This is honestly insulting considering the community discussion that went into the last meeting and the expressed reasons for the Commission denying the developer's original plan. It was made clear that single -loaded streets are the point of possible compromise between those of us advocating for HHP and the developers. I imagine the developers are hoping that the public has lost interest. In this time of ecological and climate instability, every last effort should be made to preserve and restore wild areas. We cannot keep going this way, developing every last piece of land that someone gets their hands on and can make a dollar (or millions) off of. It is not working, we are in dire straits. Honestly, this land does not belong to ACT or the developers, nor the City, despite what papers say. If any humans have the true rights to it, that would be the Indigenous peoples who thrived here prior to colonization. They are the rightful stewards of this land. I am not an expert on these matters, but as I understand it, these are primarily the Ioway, Sauk, and Meswaki peoples. Is this development thoughtful of long-term effects? Largely, no, not at all. And it largely plays into systemic power privileges that are already dominating (and, might I add, harming) everything. Please try and open your lens very wide. There is no reason to indulge these developers, the City could say no to the whole thing. That would be the truly smart move: thinking ecologically long-term. In order for humans to thrive we need other creatures thriving as well. If we keep putting humans front and center we will no longer exist. Thanks, Hillary Schofield Iowa City resident On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 4:06 PM Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner&iowa-city.org> wrote: All, The applicant for the Hickory Trail Estates rezoning has submitted an updated OPD Plan. This plan will be discussed at next week's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on Thursday, March 18th at 7pm. 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 Citv. IA 52240 Nelson Develoament 1. LLC ATTN: Jacob Wolfgang 2186 th Ave., Ste 200 Des Moines, IA 50309 JacoNaMelsonconstruct.com Property Owner: ACT, Inc. ATTN: Jason Happel 500 ACT Drive Iowa City, IA 52243-0168 Jason. Happel(d)-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: t K 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 1 st Avenue. Rezoning signs were posted on the site at both Scott Boulevard and 1 St 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 1 st 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 14-51-9, "Wooded Areas", a Level II Sensitive Areas Review is required. A Level 11 Sensitive Areas Review requires submission of a sensitive areas development plan (SADP). Furthermore, a Level 11 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. 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 C! 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 1 It 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 M 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 1 St 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 Heights 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. VA 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 n 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 1 I 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 (14-51-6E-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. 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 (14-51-7). 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 14-51-2D-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') (14-51-8D-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 14-51-8E-4 states that a Level 11 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 Sloae Summa r-xisiing %.niicai dopes irnpaciea dopes rovn-irnpactea 010pes 321,719 • ft 61,279 sq ft 216,414• 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 51-1 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 STFPS- 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 f'� .6 Approved by: _ delle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services REZONING EXHIBIT HICKORY TRAIL IOWA CITY, IOWA PARCEL ID: / 11002153001 ZONING: CO \ 2041 N DUBUQUE RD I ZONING: RDP I I I 1725 N DODGE ST ZONING: P1 Jan 19, 2021 - 4:43pm M Ln J - f— M M c 0 0 U _ o HICKOk HEIGHTS I ZONIq: OPD/RS 5." m O PARCELID: 1002426001 ZONING: P1 r. L 800 CONKLIN LN ZONING: P1 r L r c O JVV-1 L -m N FLOOD LINE HICKORY HILL PARK 1439 E BLOOMINGTON ST ZONING: P1 2530 BLUFFWOOD CIR ZONING: RM12 640 STUART CT ZONING: RM12 lU bLUrrwUUU \ �0o-q ZONING: RM12 —------- ---- — —� - ZONIN ;OPD/ Whi To �W& -6 vow- —� ." ZONING: I I I yn I• / OPD/ �" RM 12A- gn\Civil-Survev\Sheets\200194 i I I - Rezoning Exhibit - -- PROJECT VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE APPLICANT INFORMATION: Ln M APPLICANT 1: APPLICANT 2: PREPARED BY: G. JOSEPH CLARK NELSON DEVELOPMENT 1, LLC AXIOM CONSULTANTS, LLC DR ATTN: JACOB WOLFGANG C/O MICHAEL WELCH IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 218 6TH AVE., STE. 200 60 E. COURT STREET, UNIT 3 W DES MOINES, IOWA 50309 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 1�o J 319-519-6220 NDUBUQUE RD Lu DC MWELCH@AXIOM-CON.COM APPLICANT 1'S ATTORNEY: APPLICANT 2'S ATTORNEY: j a o N JOHN BEASLEY ATTN: BRYCE K. DALTON � 321 E. MARKET ST 50 E. SOUTH TEMPLE, SUITE 400 Q a m BDALTON@KMCLAW.COM U UNE s L: 2 U w O Q 6i QOQGF 2 z O V U � O SJ , d i J 6 r = J � a z Z Y V r Z n r PROJECT o LOCATION 0 EVERCRE q% a ) OOD G\R G °o w OONRC�RR a A R D � � CEDAR ST T w z a Tu 0R DR GF DSC OOLUMBIA ORES 12 Lp,K p,VE < `" WINDSOR CT z o� cF Dov i� TOGA DR HASTINGS�V ROCHESTE AVE NOT TO SCALE APPLICANT INFORMATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: BEING PART OF AMENDED AUDITOR'S PARCEL #2005110 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 521 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 N01007'52"W, 656.03 FEET; THENCE N01°41'17"W, 1094.66 FEET; THENCE N01038'34"W, 210.49 FEET; THENCE N01020'33"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 S65018'23"E, 1239.83 FEET); THENCE S27014'33"W, 924.73 FEET; THENCE S01014'34"E, 378.49 FEET; THENCE N77055'52"E, 649.63 FEET; THENCE S01015'42"E, 868.85 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE S87054'07"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. ZONING INFORMATION: Ln M APPLICANT 1: APPLICANT 2: PREPARED BY: G. JOSEPH CLARK NELSON DEVELOPMENT 1, LLC AXIOM CONSULTANTS, LLC 221 E. BURLINGTON ST ATTN: JACOB WOLFGANG C/O MICHAEL WELCH IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 218 6TH AVE., STE. 200 60 E. COURT STREET, UNIT 3 W DES MOINES, IOWA 50309 IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 JACOB@NELSONCONSTRUCT.COM 319-519-6220 o °� z w O Lu DC MWELCH@AXIOM-CON.COM APPLICANT 1'S ATTORNEY: APPLICANT 2'S ATTORNEY: PHELAN TUCKER LAW KIRTON MCCONKIE JOHN BEASLEY ATTN: BRYCE K. DALTON � 321 E. MARKET ST 50 E. SOUTH TEMPLE, SUITE 400 Q IOWA CITY, IA 52245 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 BDALTON@KMCLAW.COM U LEGAL DESCRIPTION: BEING PART OF AMENDED AUDITOR'S PARCEL #2005110 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 521 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 N01007'52"W, 656.03 FEET; THENCE N01°41'17"W, 1094.66 FEET; THENCE N01038'34"W, 210.49 FEET; THENCE N01020'33"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 S65018'23"E, 1239.83 FEET); THENCE S27014'33"W, 924.73 FEET; THENCE S01014'34"E, 378.49 FEET; THENCE N77055'52"E, 649.63 FEET; THENCE S01015'42"E, 868.85 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE S87054'07"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. ZONING INFORMATION: O N N Zcn e --I 0 M �7O ` U X0Z 0 U 2 0 X Q L Lu Lu Z 34 3: Z w �J 1611J 111( Ln M CURRENT ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: ID -RS OPD/RS-5 c::I- O W O N N Zcn e --I 0 M �7O ` U X0Z 0 U 2 0 X Q L Lu Lu Z 34 3: Z w �J 1611J 111( U) Lu 00 Z O Q J = Q U u LL J z ocl- Q Z(D Z Q O o N 0 Lu Ln M w Ln c::I- O W CV X N Q L W O Ln w z O Z IN w w o °� z w O Lu DC ° CV Ln Q LU o � Q r4 O U) Lu 00 Z O Q J = Q U u LL J z ocl- Q Z(D Z Q O o N 0 Lu SHEET NUMBER: 1 OF 1 Ln M w Ln c::I- W CV X ( w Q L 0 Ln w z O Z IN w w o °� z w O Lu DC ° CV Ln a LU � Q O paC U DC U w O Q 6i L/)u z O V U � O , d i J 6 a V SHEET NUMBER: 1 OF 1 Lu M w J C X ( w W L 0 w z O Z IN w w o °� z w O Lu DC ° CV c� d SHEET NUMBER: 1 OF 1 AXIOMCONSULTANTS CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • MECHANICAL • ELECTRICAL • SURVEY • SPECIALTY 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. Bluffwood Figure 1: Bluffwood Neighborhood from Northeast District Plan with Approximate Project Boundary Project Number 200194 Page 11 AxIOMCONSULTANTS 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 s AIL..- Figure 3:Conceptual Rendering of the Proposed Senior Facility (looking northeast) Project Number 200194 Page 12 AxIOMCONSULTANTS 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 meets 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 13 AxIOMCONSULTANTS 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 Office 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 Project Number 200194 Page 14 PRELIMINARY OPD AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN HICKORY TRAIL IOWA CITY, IOWA NOT TO SCALE 1 NDUBUQUE RD 5\ QG� �O �N N 50051 8 Jo n o � Y D v o D Z r D PROJECT o LOCATION o EVERORE Nm y/C U u o A� HICKORY TRAIL PWCrton Creek V.I OOD �U4 0\R PROJECT VICINITY MAP ninTPq- 1. NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES ARE PRESENT. KEY NOTES: i \\ \\ `1111 /\ \ \ \\I\\\I/ \\ `� \ `\ CONSERVATION EASEMENT HATCHED AREA REPRESENTS AREA INCLUDED \ \ \ \ I IN WOODLAND RETENTION CALCULATION \\ \\\I \\I III 11 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 © 10' LANDSCAPE EASEMENT i184,1p7jSF/ OUTLOTS: OUTLOT SF ACRES A 473,268 10.86 B 180,396 4.14 ROW 184,197 4.23 I LEGEND: INTENDED USE DEDICATED TO CITY FOR PARK SPACE O CONSERVATION EASEMENT RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATED TO CITY FOR HICKORY TRAIL EXTENSION SITE EXISTING PROPOSED CONTOUR - INDEX — 100 — 100 CONTOUR - INTERMEDIATE — 101 — 100 FENCE: BARB WIRE —x—x—x— —x—x—x— STREAM CENTERLINE - - - — - - - SIGN o 0 CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS � TREE REMOVAL LIMITS AT EDGE � OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT - - SENSITIVE AREAS AREA BUFFER STEEP SLOPE (18-25%) IMPACTED STEEP SLOPE (18-25%) CRITICAL SLOPE (25-40%) IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPE — (25-40%) PROTECTED SLOPE (> 40%) WOODLAND PRESERVATION ++++++++++ IMPACTED WOODLAND WETLAND PRESERVATION BLUE LINE STREAM CORRIDOR --- `771 L I PROPOSED TREE REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN ° eb 11, 2021 - 4:51pm '' c) �K Q' C1.00 OVERALL SENSITIVE FEATURES o PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS -SENSITIVE SLOPES C1.20 PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS -WOODLAND AREAS C1.30 PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS -WETLAND AND BLUE LINE STREAM CORRIDOR Q C,6 a SHEET INDEX C1.00 OVERALL SENSITIVE FEATURES C1.10 PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS -SENSITIVE SLOPES C1.20 PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS -WOODLAND AREAS C1.30 PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS -WETLAND AND BLUE LINE STREAM CORRIDOR APPROVED BY THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA CITY CLERK DATE APPLICANT 1: G. JOSEPH CLARK 221 E. BURLINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 APPLICANT 2: APPLICANT 1'S ATTORNEY: PHELAN TUCKER LAW JOHN BEASLEY 321 E. MARKET ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245 APPLICANT 2'S ATTORNEY: NELSON DEVELOPMENT 1, LLC KIRTON MCCONKIE ATTN:JACOB WOLFGANG ATTN:BRYCE K. DALTON 218 6TH AVE., STE. 200 50 E. SOUTH TEMPLE, SUITE 400 DES MOINES, IOWA 50309 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 JACOB@NELSONCONSTRUCT.COM BDALTON@KMCLAW.COM / \ I 121 -------� JAI � �, � • �� � \\ `\ \ \ \ S • T , • J_ CID ---- . �\f / I Q 6' rSJ - - - _ _ \ \ �\ \ \ \ I \ \ \ / \ O 0 \\ \ \ I \ Ao `\ I I \ --- __ ) / � � / \ 11 1 I � I I I I I I 1 /�//• + + 1 I \ \ I\ 11 11 I * y + y I+ +/ /+ / 1 I I I 1\ od Om lo I ' `�♦ �\ >\` --162 i/ // // / , , I I I / /,00 � / \�\ \\\� \\ \\ \\------ g `\`\\\\\ \\\�\1\\\\\\\. I \_ \. + / 1 I I I I 11, l I , ; \'� \. \>�\• > �• \ \ - / . ix- \\\\\ / / / 1\ \\\\\ \• \ \>\�\� �5 \\\��\\ \\ y '� \• \\\\ \\�\\\ \ • 1}14 1 I t 152 \ 1\� \\ \ �� \\\• / 1. WI1*+I{ \\\ \•, r 1 1 \ \ \\\\\��' \\ \\`\\ l \�\ \\\\\� >\\ / / "r''� ' n I I I \ SII I+I 1+1�+I p �+ t I #V v v v A A I I t \_�_+ +N.` \\ \ k \\ \\\ \\\\\ \ 408,54F \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \\ \ \ \\ \ \ I 1 I \ \ �' f -r + I + +\ /r/ J+I I}I 1 } + >\ \ \\ \\ i\\ \ \ \ 1� / �\ \h \` \ � /T It \ +� + _ / \ \• `� \ \• ` 1 \ I 1 NN +\ +\+#%�+`+�i�\+\\r\O�\1\\,•'\ \+ \>\ \\\ \\ `-=- - - - - - - - - - - - - \ \,. t - # + +5+14 1 \ \ ] �`.?c\\ \'1 \��\ \\\ \\. ++/ +/+, +/ +J +l I \ t\+ \ + + +I i4 +\ \ t_ _ i��------_- // 11 \I �• � 1 --- \ +t+I+4+I +I ++ +\` + — l ,'—/ —/ fl ''` _ \\ —1�\� —soon —f- •. \\�� _—_� 1 / + \ Ir I+< ++ \ �►. /��� — r�— I r + + _' + — — — 1—• —+ �+ — _--------1` 71 1 +I I 4 + +, /+, /+�r�`+�\ +�' -rt-��� + \++\ '+ + a . - -� t \+ + + +, + +-+ +\ + \••�- \--- ly/ ♦ \ \ I I / '�/\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \. \:/ i \ _--++ +��++++ +$+ +II + \+ ++, .r/+/,.+\�+�4�-�_f-+ +\ +\ +\ + + .tai} + + �-+\�/+ + +\ l + >\ >\ >\ y \ t +++++ fi / ++�+ �, \ \ 1 \ \\ \o \ / �\' \'`� - +1 +\ + / /+ #/,¢ / ,+/ \ , j't-r + + + Irl t 1+ I+ + + / �\+\+ + +v ,} +,+ + +�+ + + !r + + + + } \- �+ . - - \ ISI I \ \ \ \ / 4 + \ + +, / �� i + / ¢ l + + +\ + + t i+ +- +- + \+\ + + / + + / + 4 + + + + + + T } + t7 1- +T+ I \' j'i t b + + / + \ , r \ \ \ \� T �/ /45 \ \ .i / + V + /+ +/ !r\+ + _ + +1 + +l /r /t + -+- F_t + �- v + \ \ , / t + ♦k 1+ + > + + + +-+ r + +�+/+ /+ + \\/ •? �/ 1\ ! 1 \ \ / \ ++ r+++ + : /� 4 { +\+ �'+ + t+gyp / '/+� /+/+++++ i+/+_ + �; r + +\ \ *,+/ Vi+++++1' l + + + + J+ + \+\ +� �\ + /+ SFI > \ 8 71 F \\ \ �. / ! \'r �� / \ / \ t +_� + + # I+ + r +'+rte + �\ \\ F + + + + + \+ \\8,249 MJF � y -+ �� + + 1 _ + +/ 4 / / \ \ + + �. i \ \ " � s +� +% \+ .1 ,+/4/ */ i -+ \+ +\+\ / + + +l +l + + +i + \ \ If \ \ \ \ \ _ _ �1 \ �x / + / + + +\ \+ \ / \ + + + \ \ �� \ \ \\ � y� \ \ \ \ { �\• ` - --- � 1 \ \ � `'k + + + +�+ + \+ �+ .r 4. +`++ � ' %,'--_-- -� `\ \5;388-�__ ���\ \ � I� � \\� + \+ \\\ O /\ N N Z rn JEll o(n ` o U Oz V° U 2 O X Q Lu L z ,3 <�j Z w H Nz Lu Lu Q Q o C J m ~ u UL.u LJ W z o a w z Q z V a IZ o O u U N ~ Lu � z Ln O Lu D N Lu Q / / / / �` �+ /+ \ \ \����� \ �\\> \� \- >>.� -��8 _ •\ \ \� �\ - - i,+ # \ � -- f --- \ -1-4,q62SF 822 JF-_ Q9_ S �,+, t I -- "_�\ �\ \\\ >\ - \ \ ° a_-\ \,, \s \�\ \\ `•�.\\�` -- \' 23,8665 \ \\ \\15,�470S1=\ S /� ��+� �,+, ♦ X11#1 1 v A \ -� v A /� v - v v + I \ i+\�oca\ \ \ \\ — — \�� > \ \. r.\ \ \ \\ a \✓ 1 14,514 SF i 1 1 I + ++fid+/ ++ /+/+ (+/ 4 /+/ ♦♦t + / i� . _ _ \� \ \ - - l / l l $ � f +( I f \ i (+l l (+ \�r`r ♦ \ \ \ > \ _^� \\ o �\ ` \� \ \ o \\ e \ \ \ \ o I I I I I l + + J Lu 0 l 1 ,\ t \+ \+♦�`� a ♦ ♦ +�+ �++( /+/ \ / - - �li \ \ \ \ , \ \, ' \\` �- ° > > \ ` \ \ \ \ 1 1 1 1 I Z l J I / /• +I +` �4 ��+`\+\tea•\ter\� \+\`}\ # +\+ �.E�♦r \+\,�4 ♦ J +�'+ �\a°'f /if/�\+ + \ \\ / / / / / \ \\ 1 �---� \\\\\ \ �` � \ \g' / � \ �• ° - `oma \ � \\�\ \ \ \\ \ 1 I /1 I �� I I � / + / /J / l 1+ �\ �\+ \+ \+\4\\+\4\ +\ ♦ \, \ /Jr /+ter + \+ 1 / ,--- \\ \\\\ \ ��. \ \\ i \ \\ \ \ 0 \ 1 I \+ \+ +\ * ♦r \\ ''� \ \ \ , \ \� \ \ \ I I 16 36q SF' I I 7 O 1/ / +-I+ I+I +1 \ 0+¢f/ /\. 1 ✓// / / \\ \ \\\ + \`. \'\`. \� \ ° I o / T >- %—-I �T I I I I I I I V 1 + I - \ \ _ - _ + \ \ 1 I a J +/ + -c \+ \+ +/ + �\ \+\+\\� G,+/+ 1 I / /. / \ _ - - i \ i , / I- i i / I (� + \ \ ( ` �\VI / + + to \ z W l +/ / j' �' i •K ♦♦\fi*++l ,F l \'t\� ij4/+/' /\, 'II +1 I+I -i- / \ \ \ _ �/' / \.A T. �(� / T i % 21 a O +r++i++i i✓y+ f++++++++ w\ `\\♦ \ �,+ �\ + + i/+/ + I#1rl I 11+ + + +/ \ _- _/ 1 \\�-- ��I / X34, ,/'3 / '�.IJ l JI11 114,1169�F 1 I I I o / \I 11 lu \ /+ + + / / +/ 4 +\ + + + /+ + ♦ ♦ \♦ / /r/ I+ +\ + + + / / / +I Vrl I-{ + + + + + --- - / / / I _i / / / , I 1 1 I / +\ + I / W n / / /. + + + �/ � I + 4 /+/ +/ /+,/�/+/ y +j +' + + +` ♦ \♦ `\+ y +l + a` +` +\ +' / ,r� + / ' f~I I � + + + j/ // +\ - - 0 1 J -� /i/ _ \\ '` \ 1�-5� /' 5 8 BOO Sb 8, 5 SF/ /8,57 SF J/ / 10,1635 �F I I O i i W o + +i+ + ,r + + +.4 -+-t /+ #J +/i 4/+'/ t + ♦ \ / +/+ + A/ +/// 8, �4SF , / / / / / I I + + + + cA + -+ �r + +' 4 /+ /+/ /+i /+/ + ++}+++ + + b + + + ♦ ♦ +i+�\\ \+\\� } 4/* /�+'I� A 4 //! +++++t It \ I ''" 9,621�E- 8,540�b-' '8,127,Sf /� ,' /' , /' ,/ / / / ^ I I I 1 I 4 + + /+ / l jo \ W + 1% +i r/ /+/ */'+/+ + _+_t + 4 + + + v \ ♦ 1 /+l4 # +\\\� / /}/ I#I� + +,ii + +-+\ Iii +JT4,,!— � * '+ + +¢�+ + / I \\ / / / /,/ // // / I +I� o ++++1++(}+/+j+ / w \ +++i%' #fes ±*�i//��A/+++'s---r-r-� + +#+\ +++++ +I ++ t�+ ♦y +/±\�\\\ i/j++firllN} J~II/* +i++/+�+ + +\ 1i1+IST} + +���+ + ±_+ // I \\ - B - o�� / / /+moi+ + ���� �+ I + + I + + +l+ +l / I /1 / i'+ + r'+ + /j */+ +�-�� *-F - _ t + +\ + + + (�+ + ♦\+ + \\ �/j/ filtlit4ji\+ fi i +//fi�/+ +��+j+/+Ittl�t + + �r + -t \� + +i� +-� + l� I -_ _ '' / _ sem+ ! / +' \+ t +\ + \+ +\+t+ +\+ ++( \+ + F + +� + x + + _ + +�� +' \ I+ + + + + + + + +\ + y' +, +i� �/+ }-+ �`t + + + + + \ , }I + + +/ + / +'+ + + + + / / / yam+ �/ + + + r + + + + �- fi + + +-+ + + + + + + a +� + %�+,+ ,+//+++\ v_ a-+-+ t + \+ r +-� + r \ + + + ♦ ♦ ♦\ �� / + / y/+/+ + \+I l+ll+l + \+tel + + + + +"+ f 4i++++ + Ir /+/ I + i + �+ �+ + �+ + + + i + + + +\+ + + + +I + + + + + + \+ # +I + 1+++ 1 }\ + I +//+ i+ \+ I I \ * +� +#+4+/ +% +t +I + �+ +//+,/' \+ + a��+±+� ��++-+-+ + +\\ \ \\ ♦ l%� + +/ +/+/+\+\ +\\ ♦+ + + j f' t \ + l++ + I + +j+ + +. + F 1 + + s + + + I+ +,'+ I+ + + /+ +�+ ++}i\+ + + +I l+ �+ + + } + + +� +K*} + + + + , tf / + + + + + + I+ + + + # +/ + + F + + + # } \ +1 I + + + // + + + (+ + +/ / t l I O \ Jr + + + + +s �r \t-� + + /+j p \ + + + +\ +\ + 4 + /+ +¢+ /+++ + } / % /+/ �/ +/ \ ++++I+++++++++++ + + �.s + + + + + t + + + + + + + / / / + +/ + \+ + + /+ /+ I , + + + /+ + + I I W --- + + + +/ + +/+1 +\ +\ +1+ \+ +\t + + ice'+ + \r%� +_+--+ �y+�+\ +`�+�+++++++ + y♦♦ ♦` ♦ �� \t y +/ / �t+1I� \ +\/ \+ +\+h¢� F/� 1 7 + + /+,+l + + \ +\ +\ + 1r q +\f_ +_+rr � �, -+ + +--��\��\�\ \\ \\ t' +/ +j/+ / /+/} + I�11�11t#+ + } / +\ + + /+ /+ ' // /% +/�/+ + + +\ + + +-f + + + + + + + + + 4 + /` + + + � + + + +J + + +/+ + +\ +/+ 1 +f\ ++++� + fi t \+��` + +I + + h }I \ \ Z Z V + + + + + s f-+ + + \+\ fi+\�+� \+\ + + +, + + i �♦ i + t /+ 4 +/ + I+ Ilrll* + `_#� �+ + / r + + +J+/+ + / /+ \+\ + +\ + + j i'i-�-}-+-+--r'+ �r-+_tom + - - t + _ r + + + + + + + + r / \ I _ r + + + + + ` H w _�----------' 1 ( 1 1 I • �_� \\\` `- I I l \ I\ �- _�/// ,' . \ O\ � ��^� / / / , / III \�� \ \---__ -\ \� I \ I �-���`__-_'/ / III II I I \ i/ / / � \ - / \ \ \ \ __/ / / / / / / --- � �� I / // /' �' __� i p � / / / / � / / I I /\ 1 I I /\ J SHEET NUMBER: //,/ \\ \��\-_-\�\• \ � 111\�\\\\\ �__�� ii'�__-���� \\'� D l � �/ / / l: (\ 1\_--� ��`_-- - _-��� � I\ l \ ����___�/''\ III//I I \\\ // / _ �\\\ _�'/ / ' \ 1 1\ \\ \ \ \ / / �� / f ( 00 D� \ �} \ \ __-__- \ -_/ -��\ \ \ \ \ \ -��\ \ 1 I I 1 1 \\`�_ \ _-\ . 1 'lJ \° C \ \ \ \.+_� �-�,\� ��--��\\� \ \ \ �\ \ \ \` \�\\ l\I \I \ / / / /� \ \-'VTNhJuu\Il l I I 1 \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \`_--/ / / / / / / / / /' `\\ �\ \\\` /� / / /I �� , , // / I / 1 I I , III I I I /l 1 • :ivil-Survey\Plats\200194-PP.dwg W z Q C,6 a � 0 � W ° Q J W a Q Q u ILu— z > o�c Lu 2 Qo Y ¢ o ? V V W z z w Ir W z , O= m '' ^^ V / w V / / / / �` �+ /+ \ \ \����� \ �\\> \� \- >>.� -��8 _ •\ \ \� �\ - - i,+ # \ � -- f --- \ -1-4,q62SF 822 JF-_ Q9_ S �,+, t I -- "_�\ �\ \\\ >\ - \ \ ° a_-\ \,, \s \�\ \\ `•�.\\�` -- \' 23,8665 \ \\ \\15,�470S1=\ S /� ��+� �,+, ♦ X11#1 1 v A \ -� v A /� v - v v + I \ i+\�oca\ \ \ \\ — — \�� > \ \. r.\ \ \ \\ a \✓ 1 14,514 SF i 1 1 I + ++fid+/ ++ /+/+ (+/ 4 /+/ ♦♦t + / i� . _ _ \� \ \ - - l / l l $ � f +( I f \ i (+l l (+ \�r`r ♦ \ \ \ > \ _^� \\ o �\ ` \� \ \ o \\ e \ \ \ \ o I I I I I l + + J Lu 0 l 1 ,\ t \+ \+♦�`� a ♦ ♦ +�+ �++( /+/ \ / - - �li \ \ \ \ , \ \, ' \\` �- ° > > \ ` \ \ \ \ 1 1 1 1 I Z l J I / /• +I +` �4 ��+`\+\tea•\ter\� \+\`}\ # +\+ �.E�♦r \+\,�4 ♦ J +�'+ �\a°'f /if/�\+ + \ \\ / / / / / \ \\ 1 �---� \\\\\ \ �` � \ \g' / � \ �• ° - `oma \ � \\�\ \ \ \\ \ 1 I /1 I �� I I � / + / /J / l 1+ �\ �\+ \+ \+\4\\+\4\ +\ ♦ \, \ /Jr /+ter + \+ 1 / ,--- \\ \\\\ \ ��. \ \\ i \ \\ \ \ 0 \ 1 I \+ \+ +\ * ♦r \\ ''� \ \ \ , \ \� \ \ \ I I 16 36q SF' I I 7 O 1/ / +-I+ I+I +1 \ 0+¢f/ /\. 1 ✓// / / \\ \ \\\ + \`. \'\`. \� \ ° I o / T >- %—-I �T I I I I I I I V 1 + I - \ \ _ - _ + \ \ 1 I a J +/ + -c \+ \+ +/ + �\ \+\+\\� G,+/+ 1 I / /. / \ _ - - i \ i , / I- i i / I (� + \ \ ( ` �\VI / + + to \ z W l +/ / j' �' i •K ♦♦\fi*++l ,F l \'t\� ij4/+/' /\, 'II +1 I+I -i- / \ \ \ _ �/' / \.A T. �(� / T i % 21 a O +r++i++i i✓y+ f++++++++ w\ `\\♦ \ �,+ �\ + + i/+/ + I#1rl I 11+ + + +/ \ _- _/ 1 \\�-- ��I / X34, ,/'3 / '�.IJ l JI11 114,1169�F 1 I I I o / \I 11 lu \ /+ + + / / +/ 4 +\ + + + /+ + ♦ ♦ \♦ / /r/ I+ +\ + + + / / / +I Vrl I-{ + + + + + --- - / / / I _i / / / , I 1 1 I / +\ + I / W n / / /. + + + �/ � I + 4 /+/ +/ /+,/�/+/ y +j +' + + +` ♦ \♦ `\+ y +l + a` +` +\ +' / ,r� + / ' f~I I � + + + j/ // +\ - - 0 1 J -� /i/ _ \\ '` \ 1�-5� /' 5 8 BOO Sb 8, 5 SF/ /8,57 SF J/ / 10,1635 �F I I O i i W o + +i+ + ,r + + +.4 -+-t /+ #J +/i 4/+'/ t + ♦ \ / +/+ + A/ +/// 8, �4SF , / / / / / I I + + + + cA + -+ �r + +' 4 /+ /+/ /+i /+/ + ++}+++ + + b + + + ♦ ♦ +i+�\\ \+\\� } 4/* /�+'I� A 4 //! +++++t It \ I ''" 9,621�E- 8,540�b-' '8,127,Sf /� ,' /' , /' ,/ / / / ^ I I I 1 I 4 + + /+ / l jo \ W + 1% +i r/ /+/ */'+/+ + _+_t + 4 + + + v \ ♦ 1 /+l4 # +\\\� / /}/ I#I� + +,ii + +-+\ Iii +JT4,,!— � * '+ + +¢�+ + / I \\ / / / /,/ // // / I +I� o ++++1++(}+/+j+ / w \ +++i%' #fes ±*�i//��A/+++'s---r-r-� + +#+\ +++++ +I ++ t�+ ♦y +/±\�\\\ i/j++firllN} J~II/* +i++/+�+ + +\ 1i1+IST} + +���+ + ±_+ // I \\ - B - o�� / / /+moi+ + ���� �+ I + + I + + +l+ +l / I /1 / i'+ + r'+ + /j */+ +�-�� *-F - _ t + +\ + + + (�+ + ♦\+ + \\ �/j/ filtlit4ji\+ fi i +//fi�/+ +��+j+/+Ittl�t + + �r + -t \� + +i� +-� + l� I -_ _ '' / _ sem+ ! / +' \+ t +\ + \+ +\+t+ +\+ ++( \+ + F + +� + x + + _ + +�� +' \ I+ + + + + + + + +\ + y' +, +i� �/+ }-+ �`t + + + + + \ , }I + + +/ + / +'+ + + + + / / / yam+ �/ + + + r + + + + �- fi + + +-+ + + + + + + a +� + %�+,+ ,+//+++\ v_ a-+-+ t + \+ r +-� + r \ + + + ♦ ♦ ♦\ �� / + / y/+/+ + \+I l+ll+l + \+tel + + + + +"+ f 4i++++ + Ir /+/ I + i + �+ �+ + �+ + + + i + + + +\+ + + + +I + + + + + + \+ # +I + 1+++ 1 }\ + I +//+ i+ \+ I I \ * +� +#+4+/ +% +t +I + �+ +//+,/' \+ + a��+±+� ��++-+-+ + +\\ \ \\ ♦ l%� + +/ +/+/+\+\ +\\ ♦+ + + j f' t \ + l++ + I + +j+ + +. + F 1 + + s + + + I+ +,'+ I+ + + /+ +�+ ++}i\+ + + +I l+ �+ + + } + + +� +K*} + + + + , tf / + + + + + + I+ + + + # +/ + + F + + + # } \ +1 I + + + // + + + (+ + +/ / t l I O \ Jr + + + + +s �r \t-� + + /+j p \ + + + +\ +\ + 4 + /+ +¢+ /+++ + } / % /+/ �/ +/ \ ++++I+++++++++++ + + �.s + + + + + t + + + + + + + / / / + +/ + \+ + + /+ /+ I , + + + /+ + + I I W --- + + + +/ + +/+1 +\ +\ +1+ \+ +\t + + ice'+ + \r%� +_+--+ �y+�+\ +`�+�+++++++ + y♦♦ ♦` ♦ �� \t y +/ / �t+1I� \ +\/ \+ +\+h¢� F/� 1 7 + + /+,+l + + \ +\ +\ + 1r q +\f_ +_+rr � �, -+ + +--��\��\�\ \\ \\ t' +/ +j/+ / /+/} + I�11�11t#+ + } / +\ + + /+ /+ ' // /% +/�/+ + + +\ + + +-f + + + + + + + + + 4 + /` + + + � + + + +J + + +/+ + +\ +/+ 1 +f\ ++++� + fi t \+��` + +I + + h }I \ \ Z Z V + + + + + s f-+ + + \+\ fi+\�+� \+\ + + +, + + i �♦ i + t /+ 4 +/ + I+ Ilrll* + `_#� �+ + / r + + +J+/+ + / /+ \+\ + +\ + + j i'i-�-}-+-+--r'+ �r-+_tom + - - t + _ r + + + + + + + + r / \ I _ r + + + + + ` H w _�----------' 1 ( 1 1 I • �_� \\\` `- I I l \ I\ �- _�/// ,' . \ O\ � ��^� / / / , / III \�� \ \---__ -\ \� I \ I �-���`__-_'/ / III II I I \ i/ / / � \ - / \ \ \ \ __/ / / / / / / --- � �� I / // /' �' __� i p � / / / / � / / I I /\ 1 I I /\ J SHEET NUMBER: //,/ \\ \��\-_-\�\• \ � 111\�\\\\\ �__�� ii'�__-���� \\'� D l � �/ / / l: (\ 1\_--� ��`_-- - _-��� � I\ l \ ����___�/''\ III//I I \\\ // / _ �\\\ _�'/ / ' \ 1 1\ \\ \ \ \ / / �� / f ( 00 D� \ �} \ \ __-__- \ -_/ -��\ \ \ \ \ \ -��\ \ 1 I I 1 1 \\`�_ \ _-\ . 1 'lJ \° C \ \ \ \.+_� �-�,\� ��--��\\� \ \ \ �\ \ \ \` \�\\ l\I \I \ / / / /� \ \-'VTNhJuu\Il l I I 1 \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \`_--/ / / / / / / / / /' `\\ �\ \\\` /� / / /I �� , , // / I / 1 I I , III I I I /l 1 • :ivil-Survey\Plats\200194-PP.dwg PRELIMINARY OPD AND SENSITIVE AREAS IMPACTED QUANTITIES: APPLICANT 1: G. JOSEPH CLARK 221 E. BURLINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 APPLICANT 1'S ATTORNEY: PHELAN TUCKER LAW JOHN BEASLEY 321 E. MARKET ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245 DEVELOPMENTPLANCRITICAL SLOPES STEEP SLOPES APPLICANT 2: APPLICANT 2'S ATTORNEY: NELSON DEVELOPMENT 1, LLC KIRTON MCCONKIE HICKORY TRAIL LOCATION AREA (SF) LOCATION AREA (SF) ATTN:JACOB WOLFGANG ATTN:BRYCE K. DALTON 10 6,175 ® 5,036 218 6TH AVE., STE. 200 50 E. SOUTH TEMPLE, SUITE 400 IOWA CITY, IOWA 0 4,186 11418 DES MOINES, IOWA 50309 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 30 6,268 1,885 JACOB@NELSONCONSTRUCT.COM BDALTON@KMCLAW.COM ® 5,464 972 �T / 50 7,131 2,940 6 4,559 3 6,318 ----- U (JI N. NOTES: 70 2,526 ® 171472co N ® 917 �5 40,906 ___________ J- -� \\_-\ =`\ �'��\ 11 \� 1. THERE ARE PROTECTED SLOPES WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT. A BUFFER _ _ ______ y \ � _ \ \ \ EQUAL TO 2 TIMES THE HEIGHT OF THE SLOPE IS PROVIDED. NO PROTECTED SLOPES OR O 1,774 © 1,058 _- ____-- T_ ` \ \\ \ = ____ , \\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ r \11 \� \ \ \ \ \ \ `\\\ II \ \\1\\ BUFFERS ARE IMPACTED WITH THIS PROJECT. --- G _---___ _ ` \\ \ �0 280 �7 6,948 ''__--'- ^ - _-- \\\\\ \\\ \\ I �\ ! \\ II \\ \�\`\\\ o 2. THE TOTAL PERCENTAGE IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPE IS LESS THAN 35% OF THE TOTAL. _---_____- / __ ___________\\ 0 \\\ \) \ O 40 ® 21125 --__ I ^ --- ---- ----- -�` \ \\ \N� CRITICAL SLOPE CALCULATION AREA (SF) PERCENTAGE - i r,3591260 IN IMPACTED SLOPES 61,279 19%N. ` f6,713 5,737 nQRUST, NON -IMPACTED SLOPES 216,414 67% 2,488 1,820 if INON-IMPACTED SLOPES IN PROTECTED SLOPE BUFFER 44,026 14/ ----- 4,143 II 1 \\I \ I 3,904-- ---- > + CRITICAL SLOPES (PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT) 321,719 100% + + ++ �_ + + . y y + + + + / + I+ *� /+ �6 1,933 6,351 * /' �7 5,422 ® 5,063 + _-- - `_ X66 ,,'/ //' /' ,' / �' ;/ /` ; ', ', I 3. STEEP SLOPE CALCULATION AREA (SF) PERCENTAGE , CD +/- IMPACTED SLOPES 145 153 44% 3,910 ' ,'' + '' -- ------ '62'x/ //'� /'/ /'//' / /' i NON -IMPACTED SLOPES 180,810 56% TOTAL 61,279 © 111426 0 ' / / / , l I i' i i iii il' - ' / / / / / ,' ,' / / / / l / / 1 I I / 1 I 1 I I 1 / / / STEEP SLOPES (PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT) 325,963 100% 7 8,183 , ___� I I 1 \\,I 8 252 ' f ' \ __`I III \ , / 1 i \\' \ \a •\ 3,070 / ; /: 19 �/ / / \\ --- 21r ' 20 \\ \ '/c\ �\ \\ \\\ \" I� II I/ }\,\ \c\Q17 ----_/ // �� ',I' /' /// , ( /' /+ \\\1111 _ '\\ \✓��/'Ir-\\- \\\\\\ \\ I j I I \ \\,\ \ - �-�_�' ��'I' / / i' ' ,/ , ✓I / /f TOTAL 145,153 r \\\ // \\II 11 // IIl1'1 1 II II I I T\\t \ \I, j1, f II 1 i I I II i \y I _ 13 '\\\-, \\ \ - / /II,\\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \� ` \\\\ I I I \ \ \ / , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ . \ \ 1 \ I 1 I 1 I I I \ \ \ \ - 1 \ _ \_ f/ I \ \ \ \\�\ \ \\ \\ \\ \ \ \ \\\ \\ \ \\ - I j 1j I I \ \\\ \\ \i/ \ \ 1 1 / \` J/ J 1 15 \ \ \ \�\ \ ( \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ ` \ \ 1 \ \ 1 II 1 1 22 ; 1 l\ \/\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \ 408 \ \ \ ,54�F \ \ 1 \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\23 Ti \\\ \ \ \ i 1 1 / 1 I = \ \ \ 1 1 \\ �\ I \\ \\ I\ I I 1 1 \_'��-_1� � \ ��� \ \ `�\3836§ ;--- \I 1 1111\\ \\\ \ \ I \ \ \1611 11 + \ 1111 / 1 \ \ ♦ _ _ \ \ \\ \/' -_ , 17\ \\ \ I 1 I 1 1 \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ ��-----'- -'�' /' / i N d 1N I I I ^ f \\ \ \ _ i \ _ -------- 1 I _ 10 10 l �,1 7/SF \�♦>\12 _ _---- _ r \ \ \` ------------- � i / l 1 � \ I / !� \ \-____�------__--- i' I / /, I // / o \r I 0 /\ N N Zo D rn m `- t70 � `U oz >< V° U 0 X Q L Lu Lu z ,3 <z w o N N W O O N N o N N -1 o N z Lu Lu p Q 0 0 U u LL J W z o a w z ¢ ° Z Z V Q a o 0 N ~ U Lj � 0 0 0 LuLu w ¢ m �\\ \\ \ \\\\\ \\ \ V 29154 SF ♦ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 \ \ \ _\\\\\_� / // / I\ \\ \ --- _ \ \ \\ \ \ , I o 1 I \ /---------- \ \ / / / / - �\ I + 1 L \` --------- '--------- ------ \\ \ \ \ I / // / / \ \\ \ \ ' 1 \ I 1 \ �_�/ \\ `� -_i ,i / / �� �1/�11 ,I \ ,---- ------------------/-II _ i� + i \\ \\ \\ / // / //� /----------- // / // i�\� \\`meq ! \ _ -------- ------ ---_L- - // t i / / I 1 1 \ \ / - SII - - / __ - SII + W \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / /, / / / / / ///i / I I 1 / I \\ \ \-%20-_ //��� � -� � / �' � � � SII �¢ / y ---- -- -- -,� - - / / 26 --- _\�' / z ! \\ \ \ \\ 1 'I % 33 \'�/ I/ ,✓ I/1 \ 1 \ \ I I \� �------- ���1 �---_ ------ '." � _.�'- wx Q i / - / ! \ \- /' \ \ \ 3 \ \ I I / I F /45 1 \ \ \ \\ \ ♦ ' \/ -\ / / / \ // ^\ 1 ) / / / % / % J \ L // _ `\ \ \ /i'/ �'--�� \ \\ \ \ ' / 180'39 SF \\I \\: _ \ ��- _\ 0� W I SFiA871,S Ftx''� /j > ♦ ♦\ //'\ -� \�---_' � ♦ / 1 I \ I 1/ /\_ \ t � � Q V \\� 1 J ' \ \ \ \ \ 1 V \ /' /�\ ' \ ' _ -- �\ \ ♦ / / \ �- \ I I * \ 0s ` \ Lu c,,' 1 \ \� \ �8,F49 -\\ �` \ 1 I X \%i' \\ ♦ /' /'/ \\ i \ + +� s /_ \� �/� � \ \ \\ \ \� \\ 8 � ♦ \ \ ♦ ♦ � ���___�' �_\ \\ \\ �\ \ ♦ / I I l♦ `' // - \N \_ "' � G � W Ln 0\ i \ A _ 32 - 11 \\\ --__ - \ \ \ \ \ ! ♦ \ \ I\ / \\ \♦ / / \ \,/ -- �\ \ 53$8 �F__ II \ ¢ ----� Q2. \ \\\ + �I \ \ P \ ' / \` \�--- �- _ \ \yam \ \-- z \\ 9 \ / _T +� 11 II \ �♦ \ \\ 1 / / \ ' ---' ♦ 1' /- -_ \ ----- I' \\� \ 30 05� SF \ O w \\ \ \ , / ti / _ \ 36 \ \ --< \ \ `\\\ 05 SF / \ \ �j+ / ,� ♦ ♦ \ ♦\ ` \ \\ ♦ I /� ♦ _'/ii730--- ` /A ! � ----- _ \ \\ ----- \ \ \`\` ■ _-_ a V LEGEND. ` , \ , _ , 1 SITE EXISTING PROPOSED / " / / \ - -<_ - : \ \ \ 9,207 SP, \ n y _ ' / / / \ \\\` r' \ ------ /* --- - ---'c- L f \ _�\\ \\18,880�F\_ �_� /__-`�� \ \ _ CONTOUR INDEX _100- 100 /,// //i // I %//// i \\\\\ \\___ - \ 1 \\ \ \-_/ __� \�`_ \ --- - �3,6825� �+ rel -\\ \ ♦ ♦ -' ♦ ` < ' -. - \ \���- \`� \� + \ \I 770__x__ +�\+ ♦ x + \ \ CONTOUR INTERMEDIATE 101 �-- \ x\ ♦\ --- \ I �\ _ * \ �\ \ \ __----- 0- \ \\ \ � 23,014 SF \ \>>, - \��\` ♦ // �� \ / r �\ \\ \ \ \ \ + \\ / t(, -q FENCE: BARB WIRE-x-x-x--x-x-x- / ,�! ) /„ _ 1 11 \_% -----Z---_ \ \ \ \ r- �-\ _ / �-------_ 7 \ \ �\ \ ♦♦ _ \ \ � � \ \\ \\ \\ \ \\ \ 1 I I / / / I III \ \ \ �� • STREAM CENTERLINE - - - - - - - - / / / �\ / / / \ 1 I I I _//-- f-------------�__ \ \ \ \ > > > x , \ x \ \ \ \ 1�9 ' / / �✓ \ / / / / O 1 I I - 60 \ 8� - 20,818 SF _ ♦ xN,15,470!\ \ \ \ ILu SIGN o o ' i' ,S ' / / // i �� i I 1 1 1 I I %' �\_-_ \ \ `\ ___-_ {G \ O\S / '' / / / / ♦ ` 1 \ -- '---- \ - ---___ \ \ \_ --/ * �\\ 29 - V ,� 44$SF \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ / \ I rJ / \ // \ /\ I / / / / / ♦ � 1 11 1 \ 1 ,��_-- �\-'--��-----� ��\ -\ \ \ \ \ \�� �\ �- \ 7 \ �23,8�65� \\\ \/\ \ \ Q I 2 \ \ / \ \ \ L \� 9,66'1 SF- 7 * _ �]/ 5U53Fc \ \\ \ / \ \ \ \ 2 Q + I l , Q CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS _ / / / /^; \ --- -�- fin\ \ \ -- / \ \\.7 28 1'�. `� \ r I f _ _ / / /\ \ \ - \�� \ / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 4,51} SF / 1 -' ` //'O ♦ 7 111 / // \ �37)---- \ _� �\�� _ -� \ \ ✓ I / / \ �_ / // , „\�/ �♦ ♦ v �L. -- \/ /� /' -_ 38 \ \ -�- \ F \ 27,173 S�\ 2 X43 S� \ \ \ \ \ 1 I 1 / I \ \ \_ \ / \ \ \ \ \ \ I /+ 1 / l I W TREE REMOVAL LIMITS AT EDGE \ \ /// ///�//\\ ♦ I I / / .\ _ \ \ ' I OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT - - 1 \ ` �S2 / / / / /, / // / / l \ ♦\ ♦ ♦� /___\\/ , // \ \ 1 O� " --- ---_ \\t 12,3225��`\ \ �- `\\ _ _ - - - \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ I I ) / /� \\\� \\ \\I\\ \ \`\ `♦♦♦\ `♦ ♦ \ \ ///'//�'\1 \1\11/ //" / ---- _ \l\0)\h SF _--- -� ---'\ \ \ \\ \\\ \_ �� \\ \ \\ \ \ \ 1 1 \\ \I 1� I I / /, /' I / K ¢ I ) l• 1 \ \ \ \ \\\\ \ \ ♦ ♦ > \ r, // l� \\\\\ '/ / f / �I/ 4 \ 9��17$F �� j��)\ \ \ \ \\ \\ \ 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 1 \ \ \ \ \ ♦ ♦-\ / - \ / / / \ \ \ _ \ \ 13,90 -7 -SF V \ SENSITIVE AREAS AREA BUFFER i / J / i / / \ \ .`\\ \` \`\ \ ` �♦ `' ' ` ' -- `" o \ ♦ _ \ / // \\ \ / / / \_ N. \ ♦ ♦ ♦♦ V _ 1/ / \\ ✓ / / //\ \ \ \ \ 1 \\\\\\ \\\\ �� \--------' ` \ \A\ \\ \\\�\\ \\ 1 I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I / / 7� v T ,'/ // // / ,"` \ \\ \ I I / \ 1 \\ I \ \ \ \ \ ♦\ ♦ ♦ �` �-•\\�'' // //-__ \\ \\ // , / / /\ \ \ \ I \/ / � \ ` \ \\.� \ --- ---- 39 � � \ \ \ \ \ � 1 \ \ \ _ I i I 16 367 SF 1 I / b w o\�_ ' ♦ k \\\ \ \ I \ \ \ \ I I I I I C I I I % w STEEP SLOPE (18-25%) //,//'/// % / 1 ' \\ �// %,/ / / j / 1 \I \\ \\ ♦```♦�\ ` '_\ \ \ / / I I 1 \ \ / CO/ // / „\ \ \ \ \ / / / \\ \\ \ \\ \ \ ---' \ \\ \\ \\ \ \ > \ 1 ' -I 1 J I II I I I I C-qO I I , / W W O U \ \ I I /"/' / ' I �` --- i-- /' / / / ♦ ♦ ` - \ \ ` n l I I I 1 / / , / / /� \\ I 1 1 1 1 / / / / \ \ \ i \ \\ 9i375,$� �j \ ) / , I - / / l 1 1 I I I I I I I I I F I / I \ \ I /I (/7 a- a J IMPACTED STEEP SLOPE / / /, / / /'///// '/ // / / / / \ -c \\\ / \ \\ \ \\\/ / //� / \111111 / / --- \\\\\ \\ -- '' \\ 1 I ,/ /_ /-� / / / I I I I 1 Q 1 \ \ I / cS / / / i � / i / / / / / / / f ♦ ♦ \ \ / \ \ N.\ \_/ ' / / O / /\ I I 11 / / /, \ \ \ \\�' -----' / / � _ \ I , - �_ - T / , '1 % l 1 1 I k 1 s z W (18-25%) /, / / / i / / / / / \ \ ♦ ` \ / \ / J / / I I I \ \\ \\ \ ,�\ _ l \ \ � � / / 34. }r L.I 3 1 I P I I / \ I's \ > p C7 6� /l /r / /' /,�,//, �/, ii/ \\ // \`` �♦� -'/ // / I�y\\\ \'i" /� i''II111I II1•--- /// - \ \\\\ \\\ -- _ ' , // ` l I I 14,1169 F 1 1 I I I l J l \ ) I I / J n / , , . / / l I I I / / / / / / / \ / ♦ ♦ \\\ \ / / / -\\N\\ / / / III 111 ' /'- \ \ \\ \ \-- 0 1- ' �// \--- \ \� ' �SSF// 8,57 SF / / \ / / I II \ \ I / / / O 1 I I / / r rCRITICAL SLOPE(25-40%) / / / / /1 I - / / •\ \ \ \ \\ \ __ < - r / , / / \ 1fi3� 4 8 X00 Sb / 10,35 9F I I I 1 I / / CA /- _ �/ //J/�' // /''// i� �'' \ \ ♦♦♦\ ♦ ♦�; �' l l /'\\��\\/ // / iiij� 1111011 I I I I _ \--- r / _ ___ 7 $ ' / / / \ _ �/ 8, 0 F / I I / / Q \♦ / //t / _ 1 I I i ---- �� 8,127,SF /� / / / / I I I I I I I x I / / / '/ i// _------- \\\\ a\ ` L / / \\ \\ \ / / I II I I IIII , / / / /. ^- -\ I III -- \ �' / / _� --�) 1 \ 1 \ ' 9,621�E' 8,5405f- -yr / ' ,/ / ' ,' ' / ^ I I I I 1 I / l o I \ W IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPE / - / / / /, / /--------- \ ♦ z / / / / I I _ / / / / I I/- \ . \ 1 / I + 1 / / b \ \\ / 6 / / / / / // / //------- \ \ \ ♦ / / \ \ \\ / / 1 I I I i I I I �: / /, \ 1 1 I 1 I -i_ \ ' '/� ' 1 1 J I 1 / �' _/ / l / I + 1 I I / ( %) ' I / // /' ��/,'// // _- -----� \-_� ` `\ \\ \ //\ \\\\\_y'i%'/i 11111 I / ��' / / 1111//J �''- \\_ ;--i/ / l 111 I J+�\ B _ o� 25 40% / O / / / // / /' \\ IIII \\-��\� \ I_ �6 '+ + +�- - / \ \l \\ ( ° + + + * + + �\ / / /' 1 �\ \\ 1 I 11 / \\ 1 // \) II PROTECTED SLOPE >40%) \ --- ) / \ \ 1 f �,\ \_ '�/---.� �- \\\\\\\\\\� \ \\ ` �\\\\\ \ ♦ ♦ /" /,'// / �\ \ \\111 I1 \\ / // /� \ \ \ /'/-_ \ j %/l//� / /� / I \ I ��1 \ I /,y / // /'��\/1 I % /'���//' ' ' / /// ' ''' / / z -`\ ( I l l\1� `\ \\ \\\--'-_----_- \� \ \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ \ ! J \ / / f / // 1 III \ \ / / / \ \ I / / , J , / / / ! / \ ( I l \ 1 , / / / ,' ,/ ) f / ( 1 , I \ \ \ Y �� I / 1 I I Z W z \ I // �! �/ /--\ \ - \ I 1 1 I / l I 1 1 I 1 \ \\ I \ \�1�\_�_ \��\\\ ^ / _ \ \ i / ♦ I I I I \ \\ \\ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \\ \ �O // / ,/ _-------- '---- / /-- ,' i' - / / \ / / / / - ! - N O O \_' i / -� : / 1 / 1 I \ l �\ I \ \\� \ ��_ ' ' j j ' I I I \ �/ / �\ \\ i /,/ \I i 1 l \ \ \ \\ \ / rcJ _ \�--------'''/ / / i / - / -/ / O / // l \ 1 / / A l l 1 I \ \ \\\\��\\ / / 1 I \�' / \ / I / / 1 O I 1 1 N a � \ ` O� /\ 1 I I \ J SHEET NUMBER: \ 1 I \ \ \ \ \ \ �\ \ \ 1 1 \ \ \ \ \ 1 • 1 Feb 11, 2021 - 4:55pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Des ign\Civil-Su rvey\Plats\200194-PP.dwg NOTES: 1. 14 PRELIMINARY OPD AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN HICKORY TRAIL IOWA CITY, IOWA 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. R5-5 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% 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. I LEGEND: SITE EXISTING PROPOSED CONTOUR - INDEX — 100 — 100 CONTOUR - INTERMEDIATE — 101 — 100 FENCE: BARB WIRE-x-x-x--x-x-x- STREAM CENTERLINE — - - - — SIGN 0 0 CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS TREE REMOVAL LIMITS AT EDGE miimiimiim OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT SENSITIVE AREAS AREA BUFFER WOODLAND PRESERVATION ++++++++++ IMPACTED WOODLAND PROPOSED TREE REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN eb 11, 2021 - 4:52pm O i vil-Survey Plat -P� IMPACTED QUANTITIES: WOODLANDS LOCATION 0 0 0 0 0 4rms i. K 449 pp `il 44 AREA (SF) 130,177 125,227 36,847 2,135 40,474 5,892 147,025 %276 APPLICANT 1: G. JOSEPH CLARK 221 E. BURLINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 APPLICANT 2: NELSON DEVELOPMENT 1, LLC ATTN:JACOB WOLFGANG 218 6TH AVE., STE. 200 DES MOINES, IOWA 50309 JACOB@ N ELSONCONSTRUCT.COM H�c,CRY HALL FRRK APPLICANT 1'S ATTORNEY: PHELAN TUCKER LAW JOHN BEASLEY 321 E. MARKET ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245 APPLICANT 2'S ATTORNEY: KIRTON MCCONKIE ATTN:BRYCE K. DALTON 50 E. SOUTH TEMPLE, SUITE 400 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 BDALTON@KMCLAW.COM 01. O /\ N N Z rn JEll o(n ` o U Oz V° U 0 X Q L Lu Lu z 3 z w N z Lu Lu o Q o 0 J = u U u LLJ w z o a w zQ o z z V Q o O u Lu N ~ 0 N= Lu o Lu o N Lu Q m L/) () Lu Q z Q c a Q u 0 W Lu z W v1 Q LU Q ° Q w z a Q � Q w QJ cz_ G Q Q z u 0 w oc z LU N > o�c w Lu V) z v) z�w V V zQo z w u z T_ 0 a /� �L V I J V (I�, V C1.20 r -I 0 0 () Q W Q W z W v1 Q LU Q Q z Q � Q w QJ cz_ G o z z LU 0 w oc Lu N C1.20 r -I 0 0 PRELIMINARY OPD AND SENSITIVE AREAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN HICKORY TRAIL IOWA CITY, IOWA LEGEND: I ' 1 SITE EXISTING PROPOSED CONTOUR - INDEX -100- 100 -CONTOUR I ` CONTOUR - INTERMEDIATE - 101 - 100 FENCE: BARB WIRE -x-x-x- -x-x-x- STREAM CENTERLINE - - - - - - - SIGN 0 0 CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS 510Y TREE REMOVAL LIMITS AT EDGE =iimiimiim OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT - - SENSITIVE AREAS AREA BUFFER WETLAND PRESERVATION F-vL-1 0 0 0 0 BLUE LINE STREAM CORRIDOR ----- 1711 J Feb 11, 2021- 4:52p7 p j :ivil-Survey Plats 200194-PP.dwg _ \ S �I 2 38,362 SF I 3 ,849 SF APPLICANT 1: G. JOSEPH CLARK 221 E. BURLINGTON ST IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 APPLICANT 1'S ATTORNEY: PHELAN TUCKER LAW JOHN BEASLEY 321 E. MARKET ST IOWA CITY, IA 52245 APPLICANT 2: APPLICANT 2'S ATTORNEY: NELSON DEVELOPMENT 1, LLC KIRTON MCCONKIE ATTN:JACOB WOLFGANG ATTN:BRYCE K. DALTON 218 6TH AVE., STE. 200 50 E. SOUTH TEMPLE, SUITE 400 DES MOINES, IOWA 50309 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 JACOB@NELSONCONSTRUCT.COM BDALTON@KMCLAW.COM I' � PSE In � J "All IAII � 1<4%,, 4 + 184,197 SF , I \, 24,692 SF D + � D 29,154 SF DpD°D°D°D°D \ \ °pp°pDpD pD pD pD + \ DDDDDD°D°D°D°D°D° _ pJ°J°i°v°�D �► O / 1 I \ \ 6 / / pDp Dp Dp DpD DD DDDDDDDDD DD DD ° D°D°° D DDD D D D D D D D D D D p p p �° p D DDDD D 21,846 SF D ° ° D ° ° D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D� ° DDDD D DDDDDDD •-\• / / / DDDDDDDDDDDDDD°D°D°D°D°D°D °D DD DD DD DD DD DD DD pD pDpDDD� D -p D D°D°D / \-• � \ \� / ° ° D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D p p� D D D D� p D°D°D°DDDDp D°D°Dp Dp Dp Dp Dp Dp Dppp D°D°D°D°p°p°pDpD pD pD pD pD°D°D°D D°� v 15� °pDp�Dp�Dp�pp�pp IDD°D°D°D DD DD DD DD DD DD DD pD DDpDppppD pD pDpDpDp Dp D°p°p°°°D°p°p°pDpD pD pD pD pD°D°D°D DD DD DDDDDDDDD DDp � / O / / % \ / /\, DDD DD DD DDDDDDDDDDDD p DDDD pDpD°DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD°D°D°D°DDDD DDD DD DD DD DD DD DpD Dp Dp D°pDp°p°p°°°°°p°pDp°pDpDpD°D°D°D°D°D° °D°D°D°D°D°D°DDDD \_- / °D°p°D°pDDDDDDDD DD DD DD DD DD DDDDDDDDD D°D°DD DD DDDDDDDDD DpD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD \ /45 \ / p°pDpDpDpDpD°D°D°D°D°D°D°D°p°p°p°pDpDpDpDpD°p°p°p°1�"°p°p°p DpDpDpD°D O D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D \ \ � D D D D D D D D D D p p D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DpD D D D DDD DD DD DD DDDD DD DD �D�Dp�D,/�y v / 2,271 SF \ \571 SF °D°D°D57b>w�� F°Co1RDDD'' O/ .-------- 18,249 SF \ OUTLOT A 473,268 SF % D 1D lf'\ °DDDDDD DpDD •\ �1S pDDDD° 100' p p D D D \ WETLAND BUFFERS°DD DDDD .>DDD D D°D°D°C �.' "DpDDDD D D D D D D DSD DDDD 'D°D°D°pDpDD°D°D pD D D D D D°p°p°p °p DD Dp DD DD DD DD DD C. D D D D D D D D D D D D D pD D D pD pDpDpD°D°D D°D°D °D DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DDDDpD. DDDD°DDDDDDDDDDDDD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D O�DDDDDD DD DD DD DD pD pDp D°D°D°D°D°D°D°D°D°D°D°D°DDf >`> >`> Dp Dp D D D D DD DD DD DD DDp r ..'DDDDDDDDD DD DD DD DD DD DD D°D°D°D°D°D°D°D°D°D°D°DDDDDD °°° D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D p°°°°°°°° D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DpDpD°D°D°D°D°D°D°D°D°D°D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DDD°D°D°D°D°D°D°D°D°D°D°D°D DpD°D°D°D°D°D°D°D°D°D°D° D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D °D°DDDDDDDDDDDDDD pD DDD DDDDDDDDDDDDDD°D°D°D°D°D°DDDD DDDDDDD DD DD DD DDD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D p p p p DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD D D D D D D D D D D D D D D pDpDpDpD pD pD°D°D°D°D°D°D°D°D D D°D°D°D°D°D°D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DpD°D°D°D°D°D°D°D°D°D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D p p D p p p p p p°° D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D p p p pp°°D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D pDp Dp D l>'>'>'>>> D D ° DD °D °° ° D °pDpD D D D D D D D D D pDp DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DD DDDDDDDDD DD DDDDDDD DD D D° D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D p D D D r r D D D D D D D D D D D p p D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D DDDDDDDD°D°D°D°D°D°D°D -°D°D°D°D°D°D°D°p°p°p°pDDDD DD DD DD DDD�D� DD D D DDDDDDD D D D D D D MCKGRY �Mos j : oK449pp`il44 � 9 05 SF 0 \ 16,18 91.207 SF 12 13 18,886 SF - - 23,682 SF D D DDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDD°f..pi. �..- D DpD DD DD DD DD D. DD DD Dp D=p TERRY FA I,� REVOCA:LF TRU 1 408,543 SF 30' STREAM BUFFER 14 23,014 SF 15 20,818 SF 16 ��,,.%'' \ 20 - \ \ 9,661 SF 1 �" / 18 19 27,505 SF 2 44 -- -- _ 12,329 SF 43 \ \ \ \ F 27,173 SF 28,143 SF - - - 10,612 SF 42 9,617 SF 41 ,. \ 9,907 SF HO0BY H&L PARK I I I I I I I II II 1 11 1 I I I I OOH / 5 � + + I •, I ' 1 , I x + I , + I ` 15,388 SF I I + � I I 10,055 SF I + II 1 + 11 1 �I I I I "°°$ 14,962 SF I //I I / 510Y W0 "' 10,822 SF PEI � 23 p� < a 100Y 28 N Q W r'g' bl TOU OT-fo 18 ,396 W' +°0r / X x BUFFER T°S x 1 22 448 SF 23,866 SF 9,375 SF \\ --- --- --- 39- - - - 35 34 33 32 16 SF 3 8 3 7 3 6 8,204 SF 8,200 SF 8,505 SF 8,575 SF 9,621 SF 8,540 SF 8,127 SF + O N Z O) J r-1 m o(n o ` U Oz V° U 0 x a Lu Z z Lu 0 50 100 x 25 + x 15,388 SF I I 126 � I I 10,055 SF 0 � cif O I 24� I "°°$ 14,962 SF I V) I / 27 W0 "' 10,822 SF PEI � 23 p� < a 15,470 SF / 28 N Q W 14,514 SF ci O W m J N 29 a 16,365 SF b _ ,x paC 30 Q I 31 I- 0 14,169 SF 10,935 SF z / + = + + + - + O N Z O) J r-1 m o(n o ` U Oz V° U 0 x a Lu Z z Lu 0 50 100 Ln H N z W Lu o Q 0 o U v J z o a w z a LD (D z V a a p O IJP U c 0 0 0 Lu Lu Q L i Ill O z Lu < N 0 � cif O W O O V) Q CL W0 "' Q pw[ LL u z Ill L p� < V) C) a 0 N N Q W J ci O W m Ln H N z W Lu o Q 0 o U v J z o a w z a LD (D z V a a p O IJP U c 0 0 0 Lu Lu Q L i Ill cif z Lu < DC a W 0 � cif O z co < V) Q CL W0 "' z aLu pw[ LL u z Ill L p� < V) C) a W CL 0-) Q W J o r1 z w O O Q W m J N Lu a paC Q Q U I- z LU > �_ w O w N a J Cn o V U wzQZ w w/� z , T� 0 i 0- L J J V L/) cif Lu 0 DC a W 0 � cif O z V) �V_ W0 "' z aLu pw[ LL u z Ill L p� < V) C) a W J 0-) Q W J o r1 z w O O _ W m 0 N C1.30 CONCEPT PLAN HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES - - - - - - - - - - IOWA CITY, IOWA -- - --- +____ / �_-{ .__UPDATED FEBRUARY 11, 2021 \, N N \ {i ----------- 0 41 \\ \ \ \ X cp Lu Lu \\�-----------` ---- } fy� - \ \ //\ - Q � V A V A V A I I w -ao�I -_ ------ ----__ \ \ \___--_------_ ------------------- \ \\\ • �\ \ ,,� ,_ _ \ \\ \ r / \N. 1ST AVEN U E'1 -v A 1 I ► I I I I I 111 � I I V I I I I _..-: -.. _\ _ \ ___ S01°J15'14 "E 8 ' '� o so 100 \\\\\\\\\\\\ �\ // \\ \\ - .. /•-- - --------------__-_-- ^- -- - \` ------ ' / / /731 �C� C�L1J EVtK�"-c!r AAA V AVAA V A / / -�v--------- 0vv_ /--_ _ _ - r _-__-- \------- VAA\vvv v vvv �/ % _ _ -v V I I I v o q P vVAAVA\vvA v / / A / / HICKORY TRAIL 1\ \ \ \; \ w Pwiston Creek r �tkf`I'I I I 1 \ \\� \ \\ / I I I ► _ _ \ „___ _ \ \\ \ W((��9 ��wp� \ \I I i I _ 'I OOD I \ � AA v / � I r._- __- ♦ v v v A / v A v v _ v `l�J °" A AV 1 / / � / � / / / / l l I I I t'+ � I ) I / / H A \ V - vv v vv \v / I ► / / / 1 /v / / / / PROJECT VICINITY MAP � \`\\� \\\\\\ \ ,' �\ I I 1 I I , , I 1 1 /-,; �\\,;; ', //, \\\\\� ,I \ _ --_-_, � \\\ '\,, �� , \\ \\ \\ -__ I I ► / I I , , -- -- ' ,, _ - I I I , I\\,, I I I _ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \ I ..\ 1 1 1 1 1 , I I I I \ � _ / //^�\ \\\\\\\----\ / �' \ \ - \\\\ \\ `\ \\ -\•--/ / l I I I / I / //' / W �_ ���-1 \\\\ 1 1 ' \ I' 1 I I III I I I \\\�\\ - �\\ \\\\\\\\�\\\\__ / / / -\ \ \\\ \- �--___ \ \ \\\\ \\ \\-_- `----' // / I I, II I I '/ / \ / �. \ + / ✓ / l\ 1 \ \ \---_--------// I I I I I I I I 1 I \ \ \ �\ \ I \ \ \ � \ I \ \\ �r 1n� U \ \1\ \\ \ \ LL - _ / \ \ \ \\ V - \\ \III \ 11\ \✓ 1 -I I I I I II I i \\ \ \\ \ \ \ - \ \\\\\\\\\\\ _ ////' /' -\\\\ \� - _- \ /----\\\ \\ \ \\ \\----------' / / \ 1 I I I \ Q 1 \ \ / // I \ ♦\ \ \ \ \ \\\ \ \ z O ► \- I I J I I I 1 I \ \ \ \ \\\ �\ \\ \ \-- // /iv \ \ ----\ \\ / / �� \\ \\\ \\ - --/ J I 1 / \ \ \ - / / �/ \ \ \ \ � \ — Z -- ---- __/ \\ \ \ \ \ \\ 1 \ 1 \ I I 1 1 I \ \\ \ \ \-_--_ � _ ___- vv vv vv v\v\ vv l V A A� 3`8,36- /) / 1 1 I A V Av - - �= -vv� - vv/// / VA �VAAl1 1 A 1 1 1 v _ -i// - / /-/�� / ) V \ �� v v� v A A I \ ww � _ \ \\ \ \ \• / \\I_-_ ) / / / ///(/ /, / \-- ,'� �\\\ � __ - _ _ \ \\\_ __/ \IIII VIII II l / /IIS/\\�\ \_--- /// \III //l /^ j / �' ' \ \ \ \ I \ \ ' / I I1 I ► \ \� f I � --�\\ \ _--- - � -- \ /VIII - \\\All \\\ \\\ \\ \_-/ / /IIII / \\\\\\\ \ \✓ j/// ��`__ - i / /' \ \ \ \ \ \ - _ \ \ \ -_ \ \\ \ \\ \ --// / 1111 /-\ \� \ -\\ \ / / \ I \ \ // w // \,/\29,154SF \� A EST} 1 b�l��� \D \ \ \\ \ _ -\\\ \ \` / / // N/ \\\\ \_-- \ \ _-- _ - - OAK K�OL/L/ / / vv v v A \\ \ �/� �\ \ A �"r�p nl ) ApW�b �)o�o�o� //v-------- --. /' I C/1 Vy Ip pq, ' ' \ \ D��`D D Db DPD �D ENTRANGE / / // / / // V 1 1 �L 1 v v V l\ � J / / / / � I d � � d ��� � � -' - _ v � / j _ -__ �-' �// _ � II v ---._._- _-- - - - _ - +� ✓I �l , //�'`/ / �lJ o d o e v O \ \ V A V A A oPp\D��pW > I> �D�NA P�W�> Dz > a c� i A Ef ' / � / / / — I I I \ \ \ \ 1 I \ �\\ \ I � oDODIy d /o9'9 0 .p P�n'��a-•+���i�,epp��\\�A 7D,D,>D�pDp / \ / /' / I/ \ I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ / `__—_—_\ \ \ I eD D Dlf✓D�DD�D�D� %��D �� D D D� W� Q D D D D D D D p_p % 1 -- '\ \ \00 / /\ � � I I I I 1 \ \ \ \ \ _- \ \\ / /J , / +W c-_ / / / \ eD DDDD�-e�D$D���� \p4 ol�bd�d� DDb DDDD ��/��DSDDD✓Z D�D\D D D�D���P-� � -R D p \ \ � _ Lu ppD.. D D �I F•.2 D D — D'P \ -tr —D \ \ _ S �b �-0 �'A D U p p o DeD D D \ \ \ D�P�_G�/���pDAD D�isDD�i'D f�A�\��q� /D�D��DQyD�q�'9D� \ \.L�iJC,I�I N1\ I //�10111396SF \\ o / - _' � / / � \ \ \I I I I � 1 \ \ , \ \ \ \ I /// /////j�/ /_— / � \\\////�///\ " 1 L� /��� ► b �DD��D�D�/�6 �p �o-p�o� � DpD D��Rb`Cd�/o �/D�.4p�>��d�na�� C\ J \ \\ \ \ \ �S ry J�IVJ>g-0� x \ Lu I \ W — \\�� �� � Ix J / v A - v _v ♦ / / / v - -- \////I— \ SF `--\ W Z ��A !r A V vv v v / vv N / v A A A I �� i� /' v v ► i/ ^vv __ //' /v /�, // -- A v v Lu I l I V v v _- 1 \ Vv� 1 \-/_ r. v A VA VAvim/� v v-✓ / ---- ///// _ _-- -- - v �-1 _ _� nn�� — �w z Z Ln 0 23,682 Sr \ W w � V 0 8 SF's. Z_ 60 v'v (i-7-S� � V\ vv 1_' v 1 I � I I I ► I / / // / S A�\ \ 116 3 SF 1 I �'//,// /// I > I, .♦ Av vv v v v v vA v --- --'.- v v v vv v �� I v> � 50' 1 27 i 3� / l �— I I I I ./ , I I o I I I 3/ I I I I I \ 1 to \ Ln 1 I a\ \ \ \ \ \ \ I ,57 SF / 1 i / a PROJECT DATA: . - 8 0•SF o MM- 8_540 $F / // / / / , b// w � v 6�� 72' S` �/ / 69' v I / 0 TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AREA 48.75 ACRES \ \ _ - _ _ _ _ ,'' �� -- , �V YV i / o J PARK DEDICATION AREA 10.86 ACRES- - \ --- \ v la ao z Lu (D \ \ \ \ I \ \\ \ \ \ w CL �67I -�) I__ NOV - / / � F -i 1' t - - \ \\\ �/ // II►I II ` / \ 0 /� / \ �/� �� \ \ \ o / / / I i - / IV01 ��+i / D�( V / / ( I I I— ' / -V A \ I 1 l �/ / y! - v � / / - \ \ / S Lu \ O 1 �, l ' _ _ �� /------- \ .��`— _ ' __ VJ-�J/ / // / / ^ /c\ I i ,\O / LEGEND: I l h_ \__ \\\_ =1 \ \ \ \. \ \ . `_ \_�/ „1 Q _ \ - ' • - _ \ \ \ \\ I I I / /'\ \ \ �� I\_ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \\ \\ \\ - // 7 Lu UZ \\\\ \\ \ / l \ \ \ / ` I / II/ /i QL F O _\ \ \ \ \ \ - / / \ �: \ _ / \ \ \ 1 \ \ \ _ \ \\ \\ ) \ �• \ \ \„\ \ \\ \\ST / / 1 1 CJ PARK DEDICATION I -----� �\ ���� \ \ �, ; - \ _ \ \ - \ \ \ \ \ \ / , __— LU O w O _ �,I,, \ - \, \ 4 4 \ - ► I\ \ \\ \ \ / /' / I I l \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ J // / / \\ \ \ \\ / / / / I r TRAILS / /I /l I / / /o / / I I III( = /Y \ \ \ \ � 1 \ \\ \ � 1 \ \ \ \ / / / � \ \ \ \ // / ' - // / I / / / / III � /c/ / \--_ \\\\\ \ \ \\ \\ / I l \ \ \ \\\\ \ \ \ \\ ��-' i l l l // \ \ �� ' I \\ ' _ /--/- I � NEENUMBER:� N \ -, \� - \ \ \\ \\ \\ \\\ \ -- \\` \ 1 \ I \ I \\< // \ \ \ \ -� // / / / / / / / / ' - •\ \ \ \\ \\\ / -`\�/ /' / , / ► I / / it SHEET CONSERVATION EASEMENT ��������I��I� / __-'\\ , \ \ _ -- \ \ \ 1 \\ \ \ \ \ / / /' \\ \ \ /� ► I \ \ ( 1 1 I , / 02.00 I Feb 11, 2021 - 2:36pm vil-Survey Plats 200194-PP.dwg o� < -- 1 / X770— - / / \772— UNIT 4 It UNIT 3 \ STYLE "A"I STYLE "B" // I LOT AREA LOT AREA / ; UNIT 2 12,435 SF ;� 10,355 SF STYLE "A" LOT AREA UNIT 1 8,352 SF /� STYLE "A�� i _ _ UNITS �� � ��. LOT AREA / 10,992 SF STYLE ..B.. / � LOT AREA�5' 3 / 11,421 SF SS 6 60,�� 25,J I \ �` UNIT 6 � STYLE B•• Q 0)LOT AREA �� W 26' / 8,539 SF I\� --784— — 176 W \ I UNIT 7 I\/ w�� Feb 11, 2021 - 4:47pm U STLoLAREAIt:A^� �P I — _ — —fig 8,751 SF sic. UNIT v1� 4 STYLE ..B.. co LOT AREA 9,513 SF 5 � I II II UNIT N ET�A" �I �� o II I O LOT AREA / ti / — I / 14,705 SF Y UNIT 10 7 STYLE "B" 6'�/ // 14,811 SF�IV lbou � 62 00 rN vil-Survey Sheets Condos 200194 - Condo.dwg 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 BUILDING INFORMATION 26' 13' 13' 12' 5' 7" PCC PAVEMENT 2.50% 2.50% 1.50% 74/1"C SIDEWALK 6"SUBBASE z Lu o al a 6" SUBDRAIN TYPICAL 26' PRIVATE DRIVE SECTION NOT TO SCALE O /\ N N lD z Jl D `- o(n AZO Ou > z V° U O X Q w Lu z z z w 1141=21 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 O O SIDING FRENCH GRAY (LP SMART SIDE) N SOFFIT & FASCIA WHITE (ROLEX) TRIM WHITE (DIAMOND KOTE) W GARAGE DOORS WHITE o FRONT DOOR SW ROYCROFT COPPER RED (SW#2839) COLOR OPTION 2 c1 SIDING FRENCH GRAY (LP SMART SIDE) SOFFIT & FASCIA CLAY (ROLEX) Lu TRIM CLAY (DIAMOND KOTE) z GARAGE DOORS SANDSTONE FRONT DOOR SW ROYCROFT BRONZE GREEN (SW#2846) COLOR OPTION 3 Q U SIDING CLAY (LP SMART SIDE) wo SOFFIT & FASCIA WHITE (ROLEX) Lu V O TRIM CLAY (DIAMOND KOTE) GARAGE DOORS SANDSTONE U FRONT DOOR SW ROYCROFT PEWTER (SW#2848) N o�c N 26' 13' 13' 12' 5' 7" PCC PAVEMENT 2.50% 2.50% 1.50% 74/1"C SIDEWALK 6"SUBBASE z Lu o al a 6" SUBDRAIN TYPICAL 26' PRIVATE DRIVE SECTION NOT TO SCALE O /\ N N lD z Jl D `- o(n AZO Ou > z V° U O X Q w Lu z z z w 1141=21 H Nz Lu w 0 Q o 0 J m~ u U u L.Lu L J W z o a w z Q Z V Q m 0 0 U 0 0 0 LuLu Lu L/) Lu O -1 Q N N w O O ° J N N a W o J N c1 O H Nz Lu w 0 Q o 0 J m~ u U u L.Lu L J W z o a w z Q Z V Q m 0 0 U 0 0 0 LuLu Lu L/) Lu z Q c a ° J 0 c~ W Lu J N Q Lu a z o C Q Q U Q zz�zZzo wo Lr)O I- C) O Lu V O z Lu Lu J U > ° N o�c N w d Lu V) z � v) QO zVz V w z w w z , 0 = m '' ^^ V / w V C2.10 w ° J QCL W J N z o Q zz�zZzo wo Lr)O I- C) O Lu V O o w rn rl o Lu J U U ° N N d C2.10 oQ ° o°°� o \ / I I \ I �o i °� i %0'�� 1 I \� \I ° IIS+I- �� 10 + I+ + r \ \ \\ II I 751, + �� A o I'�II�II�II IIS + �+-� +�--� $� °° °°°A°� 4/00 °V°�°° ° ° ° 9 _° lei°°I°°� o °�°° °° N7 X7,71 ,�� / / K�)RI � I \ \ \ I + °°°°° �°d°°r17 ° °°°°° °�°/° / / / // / / � --- 12' _- ���%2!6'/) I , I 77 \ I I ° ° ° o° ° °% /° � ° % ° ° ° ° ° ° % l° 9 ° / / �° ' I l \ R75' V — ° T°°/ °°°° °l ° °�°°o°� l+// 1 1 — 20 ' �� ��.5�' �> I + I I °o °°/ °° G °% ° R I (° °° ° 0 4 \ __ --- — ��/// // / / / // I+ —.93'— ll+ 20 i 26 71 / / I A 15.65' \+ /R 15' i� R2Lu 0' �� / / °� v \ + 00 16 / — — ° —0 ; z + N R15' i R25' _-- \ \ \ \ o \ o 24' \ 1 \\ \\ \ \ ° o- 760- 12 \'' — 1 1 1 1 \ �\ +\ %i + R1 0' I 1 I \ \ 1 9 i RIO' \ I I I I fR66' R40' I 1 I \ — — — I \ \\ \ — —750, I I \ 26' — \ \19' 26� 1�' i \\ A 7-1 I I I \ \ — _ I \ + 200' -740_ oil + 10' \ v -_-- \ \ 26 N11 \ i 1 A I� Feb 11, 2021 - 4:35pm Design Civil -Survey She zzzzz - Senior - Site Plan.dwg H KORY TRAIL SITE INFORMATION lig—� LEGAL DESCRIPTION: w LOT 1 HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES (PLAT PENDING APPROVAL) W TOTAL LOT AREA: 408,543 SF (9.38 AC) -1 PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT ( , J W SENIOR LIVING FACILITY N ASSISTED LIVING 2 N Lu 1 GUEST SUITE 1 BED W 74 ONE BEDROOM 74 BEDS Design Civil -Survey She zzzzz - Senior - Site Plan.dwg H KORY TRAIL SITE INFORMATION KEYNOTES: ORETAINING WALL 0 /\ N N Z rn m 0(n2 `U Oz >< V° U 0 x L Lu Lu z 3 < z w 1141=21 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: w LOT 1 HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES (PLAT PENDING APPROVAL) W TOTAL LOT AREA: 408,543 SF (9.38 AC) -1 PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT ( , J W SENIOR LIVING FACILITY N ASSISTED LIVING 2 N Lu 1 GUEST SUITE 1 BED W 74 ONE BEDROOM 74 BEDS O 14 TWO BEDROOMS 28 BEDS TOTAL 135 BEDS N MEMORY CARE 32 BEDS GROSS BUILDING FOOTPRINT 69,060 SF Q ZONING INFORMATION z PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE - LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (OPD/RS-5) 0 SETBACKS AND YARDS (MULTI -FAMILY) ti FRONT YARD 20 FEET w SIDE YARD 10 FEET REAR YARD 20 FEET 0 HEIGHT 40 FEET REQUESTING VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT GREATER THAN 35' MINIMUM LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS J MIN. LOT AREA 8,000 SF W MIN. LOT WIDTH 60 FEET MIN. LOT FRONTAGE 40 FEET C2.20 MAX LOT COVERAGE 45 MAX. SETBACK COVERAGE 50 paC BUILDING WIDTH ALONG FRONTAGE 212.33 FEET < a LOT FRONTAGE WIDTH 668 FEET U SETBACK COVERAGE 32 a LOT COVERAGE 69,060 / 408,543 = 17 FLOOD ELEVATION N/A Lu 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 = 90 QO KEYNOTES: ORETAINING WALL 0 /\ N N Z rn m 0(n2 `U Oz >< V° U 0 x L Lu Lu z 3 < z w 1141=21 Nz Lu Lu O Q c J = U u Li-- w z o d w z Q o z V a ~ o O N U L 0 0 0 LuLu Lu Q cn w W O -1 w O ( , J W Q N N 2 N Lu W O O N N Q� Q r z o z 0 0 ti N w � c1 0 ° N Nz Lu Lu O Q c J = U u Li-- w z o d w z Q o z V a ~ o O N U L 0 0 0 LuLu Lu Q cn w W z w O ( , J W Q Z a J 2 N Lu c a J IZ W Q� a Q� O z� z z o z 0 W a- O w � 0 Q ° N J SHEET NUMBER: W C2.20 paC < a U a z Lu > o�c w Lu V) Q J v)z� QO V U W z z w W z , a v, V w w O ( , J W Z a J 2 N Lu J IZ W Q� a Q� O z� z z o z 0 z w w O O w o = J cn Ln U ° N SHEET NUMBER: C2.20 Feb 10, 2021 - 1:29pm LANDSCAPE LI PLANTS: PROPOSI -SPECIE AND SIG[ vil-Survey Sheets Subdivision 200194 - L Sheets LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCHEDULE ID QTY. BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME ROOT SPACING LU Betula alleghaniensis Q 30' TYP./AS BAY 2 YELLOW BIRCH BB SHOWN " c Betula nigra 30' TYP./AS BNR 2 RIVER BIRCH BB SHOWN V)Cn Betula platyphylla 'Fargo' DAKOTA PINNACLE 30' TYP./AS BPF 2 DAKOTA PINNACLE BIRCH BB SHOWN i ° Betula papyrifera 30' TYP./AS BPP 1 PAPER BIRCH BB SHOWN Carpinus betulus'Fastigiata' 30' TYP./AS CBF 3 COMMON HORNBEAM BB SHOWN CCA 5 Carpinus caroliniana BB 30' TYP./AS z AMERICAN HORNBEAM SHOWN CCT 8 Corylus colurna BB 30' TYP./AS o�c TURKISH FILBERT SHOWN CKY 7 Cladrastis kentuckea BB 30' TYP./AS z YELLOW WOOD SHOWN z�w V U Catalpa speciosa z 30' TYP./AS CSN 8 NORTHERN CATALPA BB SHOWN T_ 0 a /� Liriodendron tulipifera J V 30' TYP./AS LTT 6 TULIP TREE BB SHOWN Nyssa sylvatica 30' TYP./AS NSB 7 BLACK GUM BB SHOWN Ostrya virginiana 30' TYP./AS OVE 5 EASTERN HOP HORNBEAM BB SHOWN Ptelea trifoliata 30' TYP./AS PTH 4 HOP TREE BB SHOWN Platanus x acerifolia 30' TYP./AS PXA 7 LONDON PLANE TREE BB SHOWN QBS 6 Quercus bicolor BB 30' TYP./AS SWAMP WHITE OAK SHOWN QRL 3 Quercus rubra 'Long' BB 30' TYP./AS RED OAK SHOWN Robinia psuedoacacia 'Chicago Blues' 30' TYP./AS RPC 9 BLACK LOCUST BB SHOWN Ulmus americana 30' TYP./AS UAA 1 AMERICAN ELM BB SHOWN Ulmus parvifolia 30' TYP./AS UPC 2 BB CHINESE ELM SHOWN Ulmus rubra 30' TYP./AS URR 2 RED ELM BB SHOWN Ulmus thomasii 30' TYP./AS UTR 2 ROCK ELM BB SHOWN Zelkova serrata 'Musashino' 30' TYP./AS ZSM 8 ZELKOVA BB 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 444,957 SF 38 37 9,621 SF 8,540 SF 35-j 0S 8,505 SF 8,575 SF 3 6 I 8,204 SF 8,127 F 8,200 SF J 1 10,935 SF 0 N F— z HCY) M 0(ni D= AZO xzOU UU U O_ X Q L LU z ,3 <z w V) LU U 0Q J = U LL z0 z O Q ~ a CC � 0 N LU 0 LU L/) z LU w LU z Q Q CL LU z " c a o U 0 V)Cn r -I LU a- ¢z z0 � i ° Q J fV w d a Q Q U z LU > o�c w LU V) z v) z�w V U zQo z w z T_ 0 a /� un V I J V (I�, V SHEET NUMBER: L1.00 z LU w °_j Q J CL LU z " LU o V)Cn r -I O ¢z z0 z i wQ w 0 J fV " d SHEET NUMBER: L1.00 Feb 11, 2021 - 4:31pm 44 12,329 SF 184,1 \ 000 \ I \ \ I \ \ \ \ UTL T A -- 473,268 SF -QR \ 02-Q — 02 -PA ® 02 -QB SEED/SOD ALL 01 QM \ DISTURBED AREAS \ _ 03 -QM \ 03 -QB \ SEED/SOD ALL DISTURBED AREAS D4 -QM 01 -BF 01 -RP 03 -PX 03 -CC 01 -PX 03 -CA 01 -BF 01 -RP 01 -RP 03 -BP 0 1 01 -DSR — 03 -PC � 01 -PA 03 -PC r\ o / / I 03 -BP 01 -RP i 03 -CA 02 -SR 01 -RP SEED/SOD ALL f�DISTURBED AREAS 45 152,271 SF / 01 -PX 03 -CC 11 ,fie V o / g / 19,405 SF vil-Survey Sheets Subdivision 200194 - L Sheets 18,249 SF SF 01 -BF 01 -RP 03 -PX 03 -CC yS C�] LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCHEDULE LANDSCAPE LEGEND PLANTS: o 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 LANDSCAPE 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 ID CITY. BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME MIN. SIZE ROOT SPACING NOTES EVERGREEN TREES z" Picea abies'Cupressina' z PC 9 3' HEIGHT BB SEE PLAN NURSERY MATCHED, QUALITY SPECIMEN a CUPRESSINA NORWAYSPRUCE Q JLU L Ln UO) Picea abies zw o LU PA 5 — 3' HEIGHT BB SEE PLAN NURSERY MATCHED, QUALITY SPECIMEN Ln 0 z NORWAY SPRUCE ° o w o LU a DECIDUOUS TREES J ° N Platanus x acerifolia " Q PX 8 2 1/2" DBH BB SEE PLAN NURSERY MATCHED, QUALITY SPECIMEN z LONDON PLANE TREE > Quercus bicolor o�c ~ QB 8 `_ 2 1/2" DBH BB SEE PLAN NURSERY MATCHED, QUALITY SPECIMEN SWAMP WHITE OAK ZYw V U z z� Quercus rubra 'Clemons' z QR 5 Ln V I 2 1/2" DBH BB SEE PLAN NURSERY MATCHED, QUALITY SPECIMEN RED OAK Quercus macrocarpa QM 10 2 1/2" DBH BB SEE PLAN NURSERY MATCHED, QUALITY SPECIMEN BUR OAK Robinia psuedoacacia'Chicago Blues' RP 6 2 1/2" DBH BB SEE PLAN NURSERY MATCHED, QUALITY SPECIMEN BLACK LOCUST Betula platyphylla'Fargo' DAKOTA PINNACLE BF 3 2 1/2" DBH BB SEE PLAN NURSERY MATCHED, QUALITY SPECIMEN DAKOTA PINNACLE BIRCH Cercis cnadensis'NC2016-2' PPAF CA 6 2 1/2" DBH BB SEE PLAN NURSERY MATCHED, QUALITY SPECIMEN T FLAME THROWER REDBUD Cercis nsis' Pansy' CC 9 2 1/2" DBH BB SEE PLAN NURSERY MATCHED, QUALITY SPECIMEN DBU FORESTTPANPANSY REDBUD reticulata SR 3 2 1/2" DBH BB SEE PLAN NURSERY MATCHED, QUALITY SPECIMEN JAPAa JAPANESE TREE LILAC Betula papyrifera BP 6 2 1/2" DBH BB SEE PLAN NURSERY MATCHED, QUALITY SPECIMEN PAPER BIRCH " + " Notation on plan indicates tree required for woodland removal offset. 23 of 66 trees utilized in Lot 45. " * " Notation on plan indicates street tree requirement. 0 JEll 0 N o ` U Oz UU U O_ X Q U w w Z Z w LU Q D LU U 0Q J = U Z 0 Z O 0 w D > LU L2.00 z" LU z Q � a Q JLU L Ln UO) zw o LU — 0 - Q < z Q Ln 0 z U Q ° o w o LU a U J ° N " Q d U Q z LU > o�c ~ w 2 `_ w () Q0 ZYw V U z z� w z T— d' i a ^� I..L Ln V I J V (I�, V L2.00 z" LU Q J JLU L Ln zw o — 0 - Q < z 2E w00O Ln 0 z U Q ° o w o J U J ° N " d L2.00 1 CO 4 TC IImIImoIIrmlim�T�%%i, 1 CO 3 PS ��'��wo ojr I' 'mm Niompo 0 vdo" dor,��.,Oo�� 6 m duo. 01 wo Oro ��QIIIII Upll��llll II � . ppp.�©�� i% ' 01 of, � � -- 00- W -E wavo.0.0,00 .,� 9 / ,• •' aON ♦.O O©p� -,,A INS �/ 00 �Iiy� Opp �m.��./ /' �/ 1 MA 6 MXP 11 1, o 11 „ ll „ _ _ _ �II�II�II�II�II�II�II�II�II� Feb 10, 2021 - 3:25pm Z:\Projects2\20042-IC SENIOR LIVING\04 CAD\03 Current\, 3 GD 2 CR 0 PV-O,O/llo.o: � Mr, ,0101000, �e foo VI.010,® ®. o/ HIM ►�� �b��^gig o o \►�'' / e / od `�► i�A , , pr � •za�r� p�♦p`�� r � �i� � P� I1 mo. wg ow 2 CR 1 CO 1 MA 0 2 CR 1 QC 1 QM 1 PA 3 PG 1 QC 1 CO 2 GD 2 QM 2 TC 1 PA LEGEND PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY SETBACK WATER TELECOM GAS ELECTRIC SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER EXISTING EASEMENT TP TREE PROTECTION FENCING 995 EXISTING CONTOUR TREE REMOVAL LIMITS AT EDGE OF CONSERVATION SII EASEMENT SHADE TREE SHRUB / O D0 PERENNIAL + + TURFGRASS EVERGREEN TREE ++ ORNAMENTAL TREE TALL FESCUE/ SHORT GRASS PRAIRIE MIX genus [ landscape architects ] 325 EAST 5TH STREET DES MOINES, IA 50309 T 515 284 1010 WWW.GENUS-LA.COM C N N Z rn Q� rn V Z° U >< Oz VO U O x Q LU LU z LU w a 0 V) z Q U 0 z 0 U cn L_1 0 I V) w z Q co a a C) Ln W i2L � J 0 Q o= w paC Q Q < U � z LU > Q Cr J w 20 (D z LD , � z �C J v7 a 0 U w_ wLU z z� Ln z a�0oo�l z z� w 0 J SHEET NUMBER: LU L3.00 a z o= Q Cr J (D z LD , � > 0 a�0oo�l z z� w 0 z w U z0 Q w 0 J SHEET NUMBER: LU L3.00 Pm urren wg PLANTING NOTES 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. OVERSTORY TREES QTY KEY BOTANICAL COMMON SIZE ROOT NOTES 2 WF ABIES CONCOLOR WHITE FIR 6'-8' HT B&B AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY 6 CR CARPINUS CAROLINIANA AMERICAN HORNBEAM 2" CAL. B&B 2" CAL. 6 CO CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS COMMON HACKBERRY 2" CAL. B&B B&B MULTI -STEM 8 GT GLIDETSIA TRICANTHOS 'SKYLINE' SKYLINE HONEY LOCUST 2" CAL. B&B 7 11 GD GYMNOCLADUS DIOCUS 'ESPRESSO' ESPRESSO KENTUCKY COFFEE TREE 2" CAL. B&B SR 8 MA MACCKIA AMURENSIS AMUR MAAKIA 2" CAL. B&B VX 6' 1 NS NYSSA SYLVANTICA BLACK TUPELO 2" CAL. B&B 5'X 4.5' 5 PA PICEA ABIES NORWAY SPRUCE 6'-8' HT B&B 4'X 4' 3 PG PICEA CLAUCA'DENSATA' BLACK HILLS SPRICE 6'-8' HT B&B 13'X 3' 3 PS PINUS STROBUS WHITE PINE 6'-8' HT B&B 2'X 3' 3 QC QUERCUS COCCINEA SCARLET OAK 2" CAL. B&B 4'X 6' 4 QM QUERCUS MACROCARPA BUR OAK 2" CAL. B&B 10 TC TSUGA CANADENSIS EASTERN HEMLOCK 6'-8' HT B&B SHRUBS QTY ORNAMENTAL TREES BOTANICAL COMMON QTY KEY BOTANICAL COMMON SIZE ROOT NOTES 5 AG AMELANCHIER X GRAN DIFLORA'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 PAN ICU LATA'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. VX 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. 13'X 3' 3 BZ SPIRAEA MEDIA DOUBLE PLAY BLUE KAZOO SPIREA #3 CONT. 2'X 3' 25 TD TAXUS X MEDIA'DENSIFORM IS' DENSE SPREADING YEW 48" HT CONT. 4'X 6' genus [ landscape architects ] 325 EAST 5TH STREET DES MOINES, IA 50309 T 515 284 1010 WWW.GENUS-LA.COM 0 N N r � Z °' CY) J m Zo O� z U O U O x a w z D z LU LU a 0 V) w CD z a U LL O z O a U w 0 I N LU z Q Co Q o LU CL � J O Q w Q paC Q Q U LU LLJ LU cn z O J L a O w Uw oc Z z� ../ T_ 0 i � Ln J (/ d U J SHEET NUMBER: LU L3.01 w J Z) n w _ U cn 0 Q z Lu 2 o U zLD OcrJ z z w V) Lj.j0 Q z z� w 0 O z w U p z Q o rl U o w o = J Ln J = N V) a J SHEET NUMBER: LU L3.01 eb 10, 2021 - 3:27pm Z:\Projects2\20042- rrent\20042- O EDGE OF PLANTING AREA z 01120. C. 2 O a SPACING U) PLANT CENTER I SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH, 2" THICKNESS PERENNIAL PLANTING NOT TO SCALE ROOTBALL 3/16" x 4" STEEL EDGING, GALVANIZED UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE 2X ROOTBALL oil 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 OVERSTORY TREE PLANTING NOT TO SCALE 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 EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING NOT TO SCALE 01�1� 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 ORNAMENTAL TREE PLANTING NOT TO SCALE SHRUB PLANTING NOT TO SCALE 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 genus [ landscape architects ] 325 EAST 5TH STREET DES MOINES, IA 50309 T 515 284 1010 WWW.GENUS-LA.COM 0 N N _z� Q � -I m V) 2i -Zou U pz VO / U 2 O_ X Q LU z z z LU LU Q 0 LU C7 O Q J 2 U LL z0 z o_ Q ~ a DC � 0 N LU 0 LU Cn Cn LU z Q o Co a o ~ = UO J LU 0- (D z � LU ° Q > J LU 0 w a Q zz�zZzo paC Q Q U pow Q U J Ln -17 (V z LU a > w O LU V) Q J 2 QO F� U U w z z� w z , T� 0= i ALU V / J m U J SHEET NUMBER: w L3.02 Cn z J o QV) N LU ~ = J (D z LU > a- DC LU 0 Q zz�zZzo Irl LU O w U pow Q o J Ln J (V x a J SHEET NUMBER: w L3.02 COMMONS FRONT i Y IZI u EXTERIOR ELEVATION GENERAL NOTES 1. PROVIDE CONCRETE 5PLA5H BLOGK5 AT ALL DOWNSPOUTS WHIGH SFILL ONTO GRADE OR ROOF5. 2. ALL CONDO . METER5. VENTS, ETC. TO BE PANTED TO MATCH ADJAGENT 5URFAGE. 5. 6UI'TER5 AND DOWN5P0UT5 ARE FREFH15HED ALUMINUM. EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEY NOTES - MR 5TANDING SEAM METAL ROOF Ft FIBER GEMENT 5VNG- COLOR A F2 FIBER GEMENT 51DN6 - COLOR B FPi VERTIGAL FIBER GEMENT PANEL BATTEN5 AT ib" O.L. - COLOR A A THREE DIMEN51ONAL A5PHALT 5HIN&LE5 M5 MANUFACTURED 5TONE W WOOD LOOK GLADDIN& ELEVATION = 126'-0" ELEVATION = 124'-0" TRU55EE,4RINr A. ELEVATION = iib' -0" _ TRIl55EEARINC4$� �ELEVATON = 114'-0" AEEARNG—� ELEVATION = 112-b" �SEGGWD FLOOR OP TION =FL�� ELEVATION = i10'-07 FIRST FLOOR TOP OF CONCRETE ELEVATION = 100'-0" TR F -G SEARNG ELEVATION = 126'-0" _ — — -TRLE"EARN6- Idd ELEVATION = 124'-0" TRIlS5-15FARN6 V ELEVATION - 11b'-0" TRJFFjBEARNC� ELEVATION = 114'-0" EARNCz — ELLEVATIEvA-n ON = 172'-b" 5EGOND FLOOR TOP QESUBFl Q ELEVATION = 110'-11 7/ FIK5T FLOOR SOP OF CZbGRETF ELEVATION = 100'-0" Hickory Trails Estates 1/8" EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Iowa City, Iowa 15 DEC 2020 9 Architecture 111. U.....000 PVF. WAUWATOSA, W1 53313 OI 4.931.3131 TEL A14.431.0531 FAX Ar a h i l F a lu F g i n e F n g P l a n n i n g EXTERIOR ELEVATION GENERAL NOTES 1, PROVIDE CONCRETE 5PLA514 BLOGK5 AT ALL DOWN51FOUT5 WHICH 5PILL ONTO GRADE OR ROOF5. 2. ALL CONDUIT, METER5, VENTS, ETC. TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT 5URFAGE. 5, 6UTTER5 AND DOWN5P0VT5 ARE PREFINII ALUMINUM. EXTERIOR ELEVATION KEY NOTE5 MR 5TANDING 5EAM METAL ROOF Fl FIBER CEMENT 51DING - COLOR A F2 FIBER GEMENT 5IDIN6 - COLOR B FP1 VERTICAL FIBER GEMENT PANEL BATTEN5 AT 16" O.G. - COLOR A A THREE DIMEN51ONAL A5PHALT 5HII LE5 M5 MANUFAGTUI 5TONE W WOOD LOOK CLADDING 2 MEMORY CARE 1 n vl TRU55 BEARING /—ELh EVATION = 111-0' V TRU55 BEARINGh ELEVATION = 104 _-6" Y FIRST FLOOR TOP OF CONCRETE ELEVATION = 100'-0" TRV55 BEARINGh ELEVATION = 115-0" R TRU55 BEARING ELEVA7ION=104-6" FIR5T FLOOR TOP OF CONCRETE ELEVATION - 100-0" Hickory Trails Estates 1/8" EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Iowa City, Iowa 15 DEC 2020 9 Architecture 1414 WOOD . WAUWATOSA, 1 53213 A. E Ii I.E c ra E D g i A E n g P l a n. t. g E Y nn ■■■ ■ ■ nn nnu ■■■ ■ ■ nn n■■ ■ ■ nn A5515TED LIVING 4 12" FIBER 10" FIBER 6" FIBER MANUFAG URED ME MANUFACTURED STONE SILL VIII III III IIN11 1111 ARI AI II I ui ii ui Niui unn ■ o iui iu w i VIII III IIII I@ 111111 1111 VIII tll II I 1111111111 IIII 111111111111 1111 VIII III II I Hili ii m nnn n n um ui iu i ni n � Miu nnn u u Hid III iu ui i INC 1 F2 – 1111 1�...1 16_.. 1111 11 11 11 11 11 1 STONE N A 4 ' II 1111 111111 111111 111111 111111 111111 TRU55 BEARN6 TRU55BEARIN6 _ ELEVATION = 131'-0 T/6" THIRD FLOOR TOP OF 5UBFLOOR ELEVATION .. SECOND FLOOR TOP OF 51BFLOOR –M5 – – – – ELEVATION = 110'-01 1/8" 9 1111 � 111111 1111 1111 1111 1111111 1111 1111 1111 111111 1111 1111 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 1'111 11 11 11 11 I 11 11 11 11 11 11 STONE FIRST FLOOR TOP OF CONCRETE _ I� ELEVATION = 100•-0" V F2 SILL n O MS 6" FIBER CEMENT TRIM M5 TRUx BEARINS -ELEVATION= ' AL ,2-b V5' _ _ _ _ 7RJ55BEFRIN ELEVATION = 131'-0 T/5" SECOND FLOOR TOP OF 5UBFLOOR ELEVATION = 121'-11 3/4" —6" FIBER CEMENT TRIM —10" FIBER CEMENT TRIM —MANUFACTURED STONE BAND SECOND FLOOR TOP OF EUBFLOOR It, ELEVATION = 110'-I T/S' CTURED STONE ELL FIRST FLOOR TOP OF CONCRETE AILL ELEVATION = 100'-0" EXTERIOR ELEVATION GENERAL NOTES 1, PROVIDE CONCRETE 5PL H BLOCKS AT ALL DON1,15POUT5 nHICH 5PILL ONTO GRADE OR ROOFS. 2. ALL CONDUIT, METERS, VENT5, ETC. TO BE PANTED TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE. 3, GUTTERS AND DONN5POL75 ARE PREPH15HED ALUMINUM. FPCMRIOR ELEVATION KEY NOTE5� MR STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF F7 FIBER GEMENT 5V N6 - COLOR A F2 FIBER GEMENT 51DN& - COLOR B FP1 VERTICAL FIBER CEMENT PANEL BATTENS AT 16" O C. - COLOR A A THREE DIMEN51ONAL ASPHALT 5HIN6LE5 M5 MANUFACTURED STONE N WOOD LOOK CLADDIN6 A N I® 10" FIBER GEMENT TRIM –,MANUFACTURED 5TONE BAND STONE ELEVATION = 132- _ TRUE BEARN6 �y ELEVATION; 131'- O V6" Y .. THIRD FLOOR TOP OF S BFLOOR ELEVATION = 121'-11 3/4" SECOND FLOOR TOP OF SUB ELEVATION =110'-00 110'-10 V5" a I 4 – _ – TRUSS BENiIN& ELEVATION - 132$ "1/8" _TRUSS BEARIN6 _ ELEVATION = 131'-0 T/8" THIRD FLOOR _TOP OF WBFLOOR _ h ELEVATION= 121'-11 3/4" V SECOND FLOOR _TOP OF WBFLOOR ELEVATION = 110'-11 FIRST FLOOR _TOP OF CONCRETE _ I� ELEVATION=100'-0" Y Eel FIRST FLOOR ETI , Hi ckoI Trails Estates ELEVATION = 100'-0" __,,Hickory 1/8" EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Iowa City, Iowa 15 DEC 2020 L Architecture 1414 wOOn AVE. WAUWATOSA, MIT 53313 031.3131 <.:4.43::31 <. 031.0531 FAX WWW.AGARCH.COM A.,b ecru e g n g P l a n n i n g ` moi' / ' �' --- ` ` \ \` \ \` \\ \ \\ \ ` `\ \ \ \ \ `�`� ♦ \ \ \\ � \ _� / \ \ \ \ \\ \� �\ � � � \ �\ � ��` �__- _--_ CG6)--- r/�G65,IV 7 _ -- ' / / r r 1 i i I ' // / ' r' r' i \\\\ \ \\ \ \\ \\ \\ \ \ \ II \ 1 \\ \ G6) \ rt - d /� r7 V/�7 Di �i 0 �7 A� I I / r r r \ \ V A \ 1 ' '� / - I sc ��� F� C -6 9 V/ V/ V/ IV 17i IV I7 I r , r r r - \ ' ---- I I I I, r r , / A, A 1 1 A\ \ 1 1 \, 1 1 , 1 / - I AI �L �( _ �_(G � 1 �I I l �1 I I I r r , , _ _S7-1' 0 �7 P �/ 0/ 0 I U \ \ l0 V I I I r r , / r - _ _ / / 1 I / / 1 1 1 1 I 1 �c ' - _ - - ' / I I \\ \\I \ I I r i' r' r' \ '—FFG) iso, V- 7_7_ 7'0 V, 5717/ 0 ® Ik71 DI V\�\ T l / / l // �� \ / 17 7 0 0 0 V 0 1'� DNx - \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \MIN / r - ' - /1\\ 0 V V V 0 7 \7 '7/V/ 7�-8 yJ �1i A� AA V \ V A ` V-- 0 V 0 0 0 7 7 ri .l ��STS7- �_�'����'----------- i i�%i�� - _ -- I 1111, 1 11111111 I 1 I 1 II 1 II I� f✓I I II i I i i i l'/'�� - - __ '4-775---���-- -i��' /-=�_�-- -1 1 I I I 1 1 , I I III ► 11 I _ _ --- �__���_ ------- '- --- _ '- ----1 - A _ - --- =8- - ' - - /rr-� ��7 ------ �� ---------- - --_ ---- -- / I I I UI I V A \V - - - - � 1 / \ / 'iYr� Q �7 Qom- -- - - -i I II I L I I /I�f�l I \V A A V 1 r T �F�'� - U�T------- - v -- - V I - n'n -- E-nw_- r//-�-�-0--------------- J I I I 1111 I \ \ \ \ - --- _ - / , 1 Wt -E A TYL --� S� , I I I I I I I v v v v 1 v v 1 v v i 1 // r ------------ ____U --- / ------------ ---- �'�/�,'�/ 6 -o -o ---- --- ----- -- ---- IT/� �N ' - _-------- --_ - /�/I I t \\ 11 \\ \\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \I\\\ \\ II 1 / / / /� / ---- j - --- q I LE I All 78 \ \\ \\�0 -------- _--_ > --' \U N�`F 1 \ k/� j�l X71 D ---------- ---- _ ' // - ---- _ - - -----_ ------------ _ _ �' / / / / / // / r \�\ V\ v ---- VI 17 \ G�y� i N/1 1 V A A 1 1 I k \ /\ r�i 25 26' 785------- 71 A�,f ` ` 45 /1 I 47' G) - \\_- \ I ----- �_- \ TYL v`� \♦ � 1 I I I I I I \ \ \ \ r-- r�/ r I I I I I I //- J I 1 1 1 1 I ',lllllllll l u1NIT 1 r STl� / ���'`; �\ \ ; I Iii l' � / ,' i / / ' ' � '� / ✓ �� / , ____ l / , \ \\� an 22, 2021 - 4:45pm gn Civil -Survey Sheets Condos 200194 - Condo - an / I � I / / / I / / a 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 BUILDING INFORMATION 26' 13' 13' 12' 5' 7" PCC PAVEMENT 2.50% 2.50% 1.50% T1. 4" PCC SIDEWALK 6" SUBBASELu z Lu a a 6" SUBDRAIN TYPICAL 26' PRIVATE DRIVE SECTION NOT TO SCALE O /\ N N lD zr -I J M M D 0(n 2 O ` U 0 z V° U O x L Lu Lu z - w w H Q 0 N Lu V (.0 O Q J = U z0 z O Q ~ 0- 0 Lu ow 0 Lu Lu 1..x..1 Q V) z 1w 50 J SG Q G 0� J � O Q UDC OAC � w � z � � w U a= O a z u 0 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 0 LL w C c/) c N Ic SIDING FRENCH GRAY (LP SMART SIDE) C2.00 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) 26' 13' 13' 12' 5' 7" PCC PAVEMENT 2.50% 2.50% 1.50% T1. 4" PCC SIDEWALK 6" SUBBASELu z Lu a a 6" SUBDRAIN TYPICAL 26' PRIVATE DRIVE SECTION NOT TO SCALE O /\ N N lD zr -I J M M D 0(n 2 O ` U 0 z V° U O x L Lu Lu z - w w H Q 0 N Lu V (.0 O Q J = U z0 z O Q ~ 0- 0 Lu ow 0 Lu Lu 1..x..1 Q V) z 1w 50 J SG Q G 0� J � O Q UDC OAC � w � z � � w U a= O a z u 0 V u UL L V z Z 0 Q w� U Q Lu L z wu 0 LL w C c/) c N Ic SHEET NUMBER: C2.00 z 2 U W rn r-1 O I O fV // / \ \ V A \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ — /// `— - /� 0OT A 2 -OR r95�7 S F R --- ,-- 1 \ \\\\ \\ \ \ / / / 02-Q _ 02 -PA / 0 -- J SEED/SOD ALL \ \ 01 -QM �DISTURBE� S / � � _ ZZ \ �, /21,4 5 03- P \ 03- / 01- P I / 1 I / OCA 02 -SR ° O / I 01 -RP 01 -RP I � 03 PX� \ \ 03 -CC \ \ \ S OD ALL _ 16, 3 S \ DISTURBED \/ / 01 -PX \ // / I I 03 -CC / r / / ° � 03 -PX 03 -CC ° \ I \ \ Q3-Q�\ 01 -PX O i / \ O ° SEE "D/SOD ALL \ �DITU'�B� A7EAS V I I 01 -BF / / 16,8 \ 01 -RP \ I I I I I 01 -RP \ \ I I I 03 -BP >> J I I 7 LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCHEDULE 15 SF 15 31 04/ / O 01 -SR / \ / / 03 -PC / / 5,2 F / \ \ \ 01- O I I02 PCI \ 1 s 1 I � 17,/ II � Jan 22, 2021 - 4:19pm gn Civil -Survey Sheets Subdivision 200194 - L Sheets LANDSCAPE LEGEND PLANTS: o 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 LANDSCAPE PLANTING REQUIREMENTS STREET-TREES- 1 TREETTREES: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 ID QTY. BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME MIN. SIZE ROOT SPACING NOTES EVERGREEN TREES z �= L, Picea abies'Cupressina' N LU = CL J PC 9 3' HEIGHT BB SEE PLAN NURSERY MATCHED, QUALITY SPECIMEN CUPRESSINA NORWAYSPRUCE Lr) ern Ln U U-) Picea abies O Lr) Cn Q C) LU PA 5 Z l— z 0 Q 3' HEIGHT BB SEE PLAN NURSERY MATCHED, QUALITY SPECIMEN = J J N a NORWAY SPRUCE O SHEET NUMBER: DECIDUOUS TREES ° Platanus x acerlfolla U PX 8 2 1/2" DBH BB SEE PLAN NURSERY MATCHED, QUALITY SPECIMEN oC U LONDON PLANE TREE w Q0 Q Quercus bicolor Z QO QB 8 2 1/2" DBH BB SEE PLAN NURSERY MATCHED, QUALITY SPECIMEN SWAMP WHITE OAK a = V Quercus rubra'Clemons' V QR 5 2 1/2" DBH BB SEE PLAN NURSERY MATCHED, QUALITY SPECIMEN RED OAK Quercus macrocarpa QM 10 2 1/2" DBH BB SEE PLAN NURSERY MATCHED, QUALITY SPECIMEN BUR OAK Robinia psuedoacacia'Chicago Blues' RP 6 2 1/2" DBH BB SEE PLAN NURSERY MATCHED, QUALITY SPECIMEN BLACK LOCUST Betula platyphylla'Fargo' DAKOTA PINNACLE BF 3 2 1/2" DBH BB SEE PLAN NURSERY MATCHED, QUALITY SPECIMEN DAKOTA PINNACLE BIRCH Cercis canadensis'NC2016-2' PPAF CA 6 2 1/2" DBH BB SEE PLAN NURSERY MATCHED, QUALITY SPECIMEN FLAME THROWER REDBUD Cercis canadensi s 'Forest Pansy' CC 9 2 1/2" DBH BB SEE PLAN NURSERY MATCHED, QUALITY SPECIMEN FOREST PANSY REDBUD Syringa reticulata SR 3 2 1/2" DBH BB SEE PLAN NURSERY MATCHED, QUALITY SPECIMEN JAPANESE TREE LILAC Betula papyrifera BP 6 2 1/2" DBH BB SEE PLAN NURSERY MATCHED, QUALITY SPECIMEN PAPER BIRCH " + " Notation on plan indicates tree required for woodland removal offset. 23 of 66 trees utilized in Lot 45. " * " Notation on plan indicates street tree requirement. O N N lD Z J M M 0(n72 ` U Oz V° U O X Q w LU Z ,3 <Z W V) LU U O Q J = U z0 Z Q O a tY � 0 w 0 LU Z z Q z �= L, W N LU = CL J U = ( z z w� w f r,4 Lr) ern Ln U U-) Q O Lr) Cn Q C) LU 01 O Z l— z 0 Q J 0 Q LL = J J N a d O SHEET NUMBER: paC ° L2.00 U oC U w Q0 Q Z QO V U z � zrn a = V V Z z Q z �= L, O H LU = CL J U = ( z z w� w CL Ln U O Lr) Cn Q C) o 01 O Z l— z 0 Q o 0 Q LL = J J N d C..4 SHEET NUMBER: ° L2.00 MATERIALS NOTES: I. IT IS THE OWNER OR CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE THE NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS TO PREVENT AGAINST THE BUILD-UP OF MOISTURE OR MOLD. 2, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS REFERENCED HEREIN ARE FOR SCHEMATIC PURPOSES ONLY AND MAY NOT COMPLY WITH YOUR LOCAL ZONING OR SAFETY REG=ULATIONS. OWNER OR CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINAL CHOICE AND SELECTION OF ALL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS. FLASHING TO BE INSTALLED: 1, AT WALL AND ROOF INTERSECTIONS 2. WHEREVER THERE'S A CHANGE IN ROOF SLOPE OR DIRECTION, 3. AROUND ROOF OPENINGS ICE PROTECTION: I. 2 LAYERS OF UNDERLAYMENT CEMENTED TOGETHER OR OF A SELF -ADHERING POLYMER MODIFIED BITUMEN SHEET EXTENDED FROM THE EAVES EDGE TO A POINT AT LEAST 24" INSIDE THE EXTERIOR WALL LINE OF THE BUILDING. ROOF DRAINAGE: 1, COLLECT AND DISCHARGE ALL ROOF DRAINAGE TO THE GROUND SURFACE AT LEAST 5 FEET FROM FOUNDATION WALLS OR TO AN APPROVED DRAINAGE SYSTEM. ROOF DESIGN: 1. VERIFY HEEL HGTS. ON TRUSSES. ALL HEEL HGTS. MAY NOT BE THE SAME. 2, WALL HGTS, m RAFTERED AREAS MAY NEED TO BE ADJUSTED UP OR DOWN TO MATCH HEELS a TRUSSED AREAS SO FASCIA LINES MATCH UP. VERIFY HGTS. W/ TRUSS MFR. ROOF VENTILATION - 1, PROVIDE RIDGE VENTS AND SOFFIT VENTS AS REQ'D BY CODE. TOP OF PLATE _S'-10" SOFFIT NGT, TOP OF PLATE TOP OF WINDOW 10" FRIEZE BOARD 01 � HORIZONTAL SIDIN( STONE SILL MAIN FLOOR MANUFACTURED STONE VENEER ASPHALT SHINGLES /0:12 PITCH VERTICAL SIDING 11�11 1111 FRONT ELEVATION 'A' SCALE: 1/4 1'-0" 12 4ALT SHIN( ro:12 PITCH NOTE: PROVIDE FUTURE RAMP AS REQ'D TOP OF PLATE TOP OF WINDOW MAIN FLOOR t'I TAPERED DECD SUPPORT COLUMN W/ 16" BASE ON 24" MANUFACTURED STONE VENEER WRAPPED BASE REAR ELEVATION 'AI SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-O" 9 (CAPE WALL L1�D-VERIFY ,RADE 3'-10" _(�- FIT HIGT. FRIEZE BOARD TOP OF PLATE TOP OF WINDOW_ MAIN FLOOR ACCORDING TO IRC WINDOW FALL PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS, SOME WINDOWS MAY NEED TO BE ADJUSTED, OR BE REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED W/ A WINDOW FALL PREVENTION DEVICE, VERIFY W/ LOCAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT. 8:12 PITCH V-10" TOP OF PLATE 50FFIT ZT, 10" FRIEZE BOARD TOP OP WINDOW_ Ad t s MAIN FLOOR SCREEN PORCH TOP OF PLATE TOP OP WINDOW O s TOP OF SLAB 10" ".4 riry I ) c AHMANN DESIGN INC. (319) 395-7900 0. ~ W �zNN d� z�N� pLL z4)wN W wq�3 V tl1= 0 (k�wa3 O�QpW�cO U WN zN wpN�=ate= aW0}HOwN cp J pawgZ0. �WE-j W LL LL pQ LL wWzIII m m a w p z zui 30w-Iz9.4 9.n o zQo�—z waam w-IT_F 03 w`�WwppoaO w Oq Ao ,p(U= �-a HU WW 00-40 oz � W'z(K3-u0)0 U W N U N o fIL a Q o - LLOOLLU=W ILO 0C1gLLff ~a0.~azmgr llzzli~a�p�3n zoozz=R�d) �p a0rna 0 =3n.3 LL O OzZ�Nzmpcq zpOz�paHz QUUQq~ a i 0 LL i Q Q z V aaoa�aa�o DRAWN 5Y: MF CHECKED 51': FINAL RELEASE: REVISIONS: C, 0 JOB NO, 21-01100 1*44 0 0 2 IN THE EVENT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN PLANS, ELEVATIONS, AND/OR DETAILS. THE CONTRACTOR / SUB -CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT AHMANN DESIGN, INC,0 (319) 395-1900 BEFORE CONSTRUCTION FOR CLARIFICATION, IF AHMANN DESIGN IS NOT CONTACTED, THE CONTRACTOR/ SUB -CONTRACTOR WILL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY. © COPYRIGHT 2021AHMANN HOME PLANS INC. PROTECTED UNDER ARCHITECTURAL WORKS COPYRIGHT PROTECTION ACT OF 1990 TOP OP WINDOW 10" a� Q MAIN FLOOR TOP OF PLATE TOP OF WINDOW m O TOP OF BLAB _S'-10" SOFFIT NGT, TOP OF PLATE TOP OF WINDOW 10" FRIEZE BOARD 01 � HORIZONTAL SIDIN( STONE SILL MAIN FLOOR MANUFACTURED STONE VENEER ASPHALT SHINGLES /0:12 PITCH VERTICAL SIDING 11�11 1111 FRONT ELEVATION 'A' SCALE: 1/4 1'-0" 12 4ALT SHIN( ro:12 PITCH NOTE: PROVIDE FUTURE RAMP AS REQ'D TOP OF PLATE TOP OF WINDOW MAIN FLOOR t'I TAPERED DECD SUPPORT COLUMN W/ 16" BASE ON 24" MANUFACTURED STONE VENEER WRAPPED BASE REAR ELEVATION 'AI SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-O" 9 (CAPE WALL L1�D-VERIFY ,RADE 3'-10" _(�- FIT HIGT. FRIEZE BOARD TOP OF PLATE TOP OF WINDOW_ MAIN FLOOR ACCORDING TO IRC WINDOW FALL PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS, SOME WINDOWS MAY NEED TO BE ADJUSTED, OR BE REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED W/ A WINDOW FALL PREVENTION DEVICE, VERIFY W/ LOCAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT. 8:12 PITCH V-10" TOP OF PLATE 50FFIT ZT, 10" FRIEZE BOARD TOP OP WINDOW_ Ad t s MAIN FLOOR SCREEN PORCH TOP OF PLATE TOP OP WINDOW O s TOP OF SLAB 10" ".4 riry I ) c AHMANN DESIGN INC. (319) 395-7900 0. ~ W �zNN d� z�N� pLL z4)wN W wq�3 V tl1= 0 (k�wa3 O�QpW�cO U WN zN wpN�=ate= aW0}HOwN cp J pawgZ0. �WE-j W LL LL pQ LL wWzIII m m a w p z zui 30w-Iz9.4 9.n o zQo�—z waam w-IT_F 03 w`�WwppoaO w Oq Ao ,p(U= �-a HU WW 00-40 oz � W'z(K3-u0)0 U W N U N o fIL a Q o - LLOOLLU=W ILO 0C1gLLff ~a0.~azmgr llzzli~a�p�3n zoozz=R�d) �p a0rna 0 =3n.3 LL O OzZ�Nzmpcq zpOz�paHz QUUQq~ a i 0 LL i Q Q z V aaoa�aa�o DRAWN 5Y: MF CHECKED 51': FINAL RELEASE: REVISIONS: C, 0 JOB NO, 21-01100 1*44 0 0 2 IN THE EVENT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN PLANS, ELEVATIONS, AND/OR DETAILS. THE CONTRACTOR / SUB -CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT AHMANN DESIGN, INC,0 (319) 395-1900 BEFORE CONSTRUCTION FOR CLARIFICATION, IF AHMANN DESIGN IS NOT CONTACTED, THE CONTRACTOR/ SUB -CONTRACTOR WILL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY. © COPYRIGHT 2021AHMANN HOME PLANS INC. PROTECTED UNDER ARCHITECTURAL WORKS COPYRIGHT PROTECTION ACT OF 1990 MATERIALS NOTES: 1, IT IS THE OWNER OR CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE THE NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS TO PREVENT AGAINST THE BUILD-UP OF MOISTURE OR MOLD, 2. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS REFERENCED HEREIN ARE FOR SCHEMATIC PURPOSES ONLY AND MAY NOT COMPLY WITH YOUR LOCAL ZONING OR SAFETY REGULATIONS, OWNER OR CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINAL CHOICE AND SELECTION OF ALL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, FLASHING TO BE INSTALLED: I, AT WALL AND ROOF INTERSECTIONS 2, WHEREVER THERE'S A CHANGE IN ROOF SLOPE OR DIRECTION, 3, AROUND ROOF OPENINGS ICE PROTECTION: 1, 2 LAYERS OF UNDERLAYMENT CEMENTED TOGETHER OR OF A SELF -ADHERING POLYMER MODIFIED BITUMEN SHEET EXTENDED FROM THE EAVE'S EDGE TO A POINT AT LEAST 24" INSIDE THE EXTERIOR WALL LINE OF THE BUILDING. ROOF DRAINAGE: 1, COLLECT AND DISCHARGE ALL ROOF DRAINAGE TO THE GROUND SURFACE AT LEAST 5 FEET FROM FOUNDATION WALLS OR TO AN APPROVED DRAINAGE SYSTEM, ROOF DESIGN: 1, VERIFY HEEL HGTS, ON TRUSSES, ALL HEEL HGTS. MAY NOT BE THE SAME. 2. WALL HGTB, m RAFTERED AREAS MAY NEED TO BE ADJUSTED UP OR DOWN TO MATCH HEELS ID TRUSSED AREAS SO FASCIA LINES MATCH UP. VERIFY HGTS, W/ TRUSS MFR, ROOF VENTILATION: I, PROVIDE RIDGE VENTS AND SOFFIT VENTS AS REQ'D BY CODE, 6p _8'-1011 SOFFIT HGT, TOP OF PLATE GALT SHIN( 6:12 PITCH SIDING 4ALT SHIN( 3:12 PITCH TOP OF WINDOW 1011 FRIEZE 5CAfRr->-/ HORIZONTAL SIDING STONE SILL MAIN FLOOR --------------- c:) a - - ---Ocl o S ONE VENEER L-11 �O ' -- - - FRONT ELEVATION 'B1 SCALE: 1/411= 1'-0" NOTE: PROVIDE FUTURE RAMP AS REQ'D 15'-4" >OFFIT PGT TOP OF PLATE TOP OF WINDOW_ �0 MAIN FLOOR t'' TAPERED DEC - SUPPORT COLUMN W/ 1ro11 BASE ON 24" MANUFACTURED STONE VENEER WRAPPED BASE LANDSCAPE WALL AS RE&D-VERIFY WITH GRADE TOP OF PLATE TOP OF WINDOW_ BOARD MAIN FLOOR , ACCORDING TO IRC WINDOW FALL PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS, SOME WINDOWS MAY NEED TO BE ADJUSTED, OR BE REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED W/ A WINDOW FALL PREVENTION DEVICE, VERIFY W/ LOCAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT. TOP OF PLATE — 501 1IT HGT. 10" FRIEZE BOARD ?OP OF WINDOW- MAIN FLOOR SCREEN PORCH TOP OF PLATE TOP OF WINDOW 4 O a+ TOP OF $LAB REAR ELEVATION 1B1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-O" pT vF�Rg1� ,I THE EVENT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN PLANS, ELEVATIONS, SND/OR DETAILS, THE CONTRACTOR / SUB -CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT ,HMANN DESIGN, INC.6 (319) 395- 9OO BEFORE CONSTRUCTION FOR :LARIFICATION, IF AHMANN DESIGN IS NOT CONTACTED, THE CONTRACTOR UB -CONTRACTOR WILL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY. AHMANN DESIGN INC. (319) 395-7900 w LLIW Lu z S) Q F- F -w z LU wff w4 wz�) n= -1z 0 Lu f - Z LL z 'q:3 p ww Ute() zN ww - q 37 �3LL Fu_ww0-Z q W O ~ N O Q w Q z Q i 4 LuW 10 W1-- Lu Qomao"Oo z N> z wWQw�WLu aq �mqlu �uzwzi O�w--I 4 F O g F i NR w w wOuwNwLL -a F- 0 LL w w` 0-wpOpQ' w OQ~El 00~00w u NQ-gNUz>-Q) ff w z w n- U z z uw°u�z�-o l'LL H w, Z r o 0 Q g W wQ' zw� Z q U� zoozzMWF- �i> q0 J) �nff z to �c) w (Y4 ozzoDzmo0 zooz(KOq-jz 4 1q��MD q izzLLiQQziff WN BY: MF ECKED BY: FINAL RELEASE: REVISIONS: NO, 21-01-100 2BI © COPYRIGHT 2021 AHMANN HOME PLANS INC. PROTECTED UNDER ARCHITECTURAL WORKS COPYRIGHT PROTECTION ACT OF 1990 TOP OF PLATE — SOI TOP OF WINDOW 10" FRIEZI S MAIN FLOOR — TOP OF PLATE TOP OF WINDOW T O m p TOP OF SLAB _8'-1011 SOFFIT HGT, TOP OF PLATE GALT SHIN( 6:12 PITCH SIDING 4ALT SHIN( 3:12 PITCH TOP OF WINDOW 1011 FRIEZE 5CAfRr->-/ HORIZONTAL SIDING STONE SILL MAIN FLOOR --------------- c:) a - - ---Ocl o S ONE VENEER L-11 �O ' -- - - FRONT ELEVATION 'B1 SCALE: 1/411= 1'-0" NOTE: PROVIDE FUTURE RAMP AS REQ'D 15'-4" >OFFIT PGT TOP OF PLATE TOP OF WINDOW_ �0 MAIN FLOOR t'' TAPERED DEC - SUPPORT COLUMN W/ 1ro11 BASE ON 24" MANUFACTURED STONE VENEER WRAPPED BASE LANDSCAPE WALL AS RE&D-VERIFY WITH GRADE TOP OF PLATE TOP OF WINDOW_ BOARD MAIN FLOOR , ACCORDING TO IRC WINDOW FALL PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS, SOME WINDOWS MAY NEED TO BE ADJUSTED, OR BE REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED W/ A WINDOW FALL PREVENTION DEVICE, VERIFY W/ LOCAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT. TOP OF PLATE — 501 1IT HGT. 10" FRIEZE BOARD ?OP OF WINDOW- MAIN FLOOR SCREEN PORCH TOP OF PLATE TOP OF WINDOW 4 O a+ TOP OF $LAB REAR ELEVATION 1B1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-O" pT vF�Rg1� ,I THE EVENT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN PLANS, ELEVATIONS, SND/OR DETAILS, THE CONTRACTOR / SUB -CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT ,HMANN DESIGN, INC.6 (319) 395- 9OO BEFORE CONSTRUCTION FOR :LARIFICATION, IF AHMANN DESIGN IS NOT CONTACTED, THE CONTRACTOR UB -CONTRACTOR WILL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY. AHMANN DESIGN INC. (319) 395-7900 w LLIW Lu z S) Q F- F -w z LU wff w4 wz�) n= -1z 0 Lu f - Z LL z 'q:3 p ww Ute() zN ww - q 37 �3LL Fu_ww0-Z q W O ~ N O Q w Q z Q i 4 LuW 10 W1-- Lu Qomao"Oo z N> z wWQw�WLu aq �mqlu �uzwzi O�w--I 4 F O g F i NR w w wOuwNwLL -a F- 0 LL w w` 0-wpOpQ' w OQ~El 00~00w u NQ-gNUz>-Q) ff w z w n- U z z uw°u�z�-o l'LL H w, Z r o 0 Q g W wQ' zw� Z q U� zoozzMWF- �i> q0 J) �nff z to �c) w (Y4 ozzoDzmo0 zooz(KOq-jz 4 1q��MD q izzLLiQQziff WN BY: MF ECKED BY: FINAL RELEASE: REVISIONS: NO, 21-01-100 2BI © COPYRIGHT 2021 AHMANN HOME PLANS INC. PROTECTED UNDER ARCHITECTURAL WORKS COPYRIGHT PROTECTION ACT OF 1990 FRAMING NOTES: I. 9'-I 1/8" WALL HEIGHT/UNLESS NOTED 2, WINDOW R.O. DO NOT INCLUDE TRANSOMS OR ARCH TOPS, 3, ROOF TRUSSES TO BE DESIGNED 3 CERTIFIED BY AN ENGINEER, LICENSED IN THE STATE OR REGION OF CONSTRUCTION, FOR ALL DEAD 8 LIVE LOADS. 4, ALL EXTERIOR WALLS 2X6's a 16" OX ALL INTERIOR WALLS 2X4's 'w 16" O.C. GARAGE WALLS 2X4's a 16" O.C. 5, MICROLAM BEAM E EXTERIOR HEAL SIZES TO BE VERIFIED BY SUPPLIER. 6, 2X6 PLUMBING WALLS AS REQ, MAIN FLOO ACCORDING TO IRC WINDOW FALL PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS, SOME WINDOWS MAY NEED TO BE ADJUSTED, OR BE REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED W/ A WINDOW FALL PREVENTION DEVICE. VERIFY W/ LOCAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT. MAIN FLOOR: 192 SQ. FT, SCREEN PORCH: 218 SQ, FT, NOTE: PROVIDE HEADERS FOR 3'-0" DOORS AS REQ'D VERIFY W/ CONTRACTOR FIXTURE MOUNTING HEIGHTS IN INCHES RESTROOMS: ACCESSIBLE STANDARD WATER CLOSET: TO TOP OF SEAT 18 15 44 URINAL: MAXIMUM TO BASIN OPENING 11 24 GRAB BARS: TO CENTER 33 - LAVATORIES: MINIMUM KNEE CLEARANCE: 2g - MAXIMUM TO TOP 34 - MIRRORS: MAXIMUM TO BOTTOM OF VIEWING SURFACE 40 - MINIMUM TO TOP 14 - SHELVES AND DISPENSERS: MAX, HT, TO CONTROL DEVICE 48 DRINKING FOUNTAINS - MAXIMUM TO SPOUT 3(0 40 SWITCHES AND CONTROLS - MAXIMUM TO CENTER 4& - ELECTRICAL AND COMMUNICATION RECEP. MIN. FROM BOTTOM OF DEVICE TO FLOOR 15 15 MOUNT ANY TOILET ROOM PAPER DISPENSERS 36" MAX. FROM REAR WALL. -LOCATE ELECT. PANEL BETWEEN 15" AND 54" ABOVE THE FLOOR -PROVIDE POWER AS REQUIRED FOR FURNACE,WATER HEATER, SUMP PUMP,ETC. -PROVIDE ELECTRICAL OUTLETS AS REQUIRED BY CODE ENERGY L,45ELS: WINDOW U -FACTOR VALUE: 0.25 HEATING SYSTEM EFFICIENCY: 93% SEER' OF THE COOLING SYSTEM: 14.5 WATER HEATER EFFICIENCY: .ZO (ENERGY FACTOR) AHMANN DESIGN INC. (319) 395-7900 W W Z N 4 (K N d O L W I'W Q W W _ O WT -4L ,o,a�Q=N H J O W W U W zN Wp��zQ�W LL U W W ? 4 w 0} W N 'vffz)--w0 p 4 W 4 z E= Q wW5pv'WoQ �olnLl LLo Wz 'zQ W zz w WN0 omw}v3wzi I(ILuo'wCoQ 0-1 Fp�Fw fYJW W W 0 U W N W J y m LL w W`��Wopoa'L W N �z��z�IK�� oa�00 oW� Lm WWoWffz4zz U w N U zU 0 LL H w LLLL z U) U J% °F0 00OWff ~ 0~ = Z W ly T LL z H Q u z 0 o Z Z= N F Q O N Q 4) to 0 IY a ozZoDzm0 zpOzfyp4�z QUU44~x[(13 Q iQLLa 0z=ff aaod�aa�o cj) CIL !L (2 !L AOR Cp1�STR��r v oR$ID GENERAL NOTES: 1, DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS / UNLESS NOTED TEMP, GLASS AS REQ. BY CODE, 2, IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO INSURE THAT ALL PRODUCTS ARE INSTALLED PER MFR. RECOMMENDATIONS. 3, IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL AND HVAC SUB -CONTRACTORS TO DESIGN/ BUILD THEIR SYSTEMS AND TO INSURE THAT THESE SYSTEMS ARE INSTALLED AND OPERATING PROPERLY. 4, IT IS THE OWNER OR CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE THE NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS TO PREVENT AGAINST THE BUILD-UP OF MOISTURE OR MOLD, 5, CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS REFERENCED HEREIN ARE FOR SCHEMATIC PURPOSES ONLY AND MAY NOT COMPLY WITH YOUR LOCAL ZONING OR SAFETY REGULATIONS. OWNER OR CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINAL CHOICE AND SELECTION OF ALL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, 6, SMOKE DETECTOR OS -1. VENT FAN 8, SMOKE/CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR CO 9, INTERIOR WALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO CENTER OF STUDS, 10. EXTERIOR WALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO OUTSIDE OF STUDS. IN THE EVENT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN PLANS, ELEVATIONS, AND/OR DETAILS. THE CONTRACTOR / SUB -CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT AHMANN DESIGN, INC.,@ (319) 395-1900 BEFORE CONSTRUCTION FOR CLARIFICATION. IF AHMANN DESIGN IS NOT CONTACTED, THE CONTRACTOR/ SUB -CONTRACTOR WILL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY. DRAWN BY: MF CHECKED BY: FINAL RELEASE: REVISIONS: JOB NO, 21-01-100 © COPYRIGHT 2021 AHMANN HOME PLANS INC. PROTECTED UNDER ARCHITECTURAL WORKS COPYRIGHT PROTECTION ACT OF 1990 FOUNDATION NOTES: I, 2,000 P.S,F. SOIL BEARING PRESSURE ASSUMED FOR FOOTING DESIGN. IF DIFFERENT CONDITIONS ARE ENCOUNTERED NOTIFY DESIGNER, 2. DO NOT BACKFILL BASEMENT WALLS UNTIL FIRST FLOOR IS IN PLACE, 3, 3,000 P,S,I, CONCRETE (TYPICAL) 4. DO NOT PLACE ANY FOOTINGS ON DISTURBED OR UNSTABLE SOIL - OVER EXCAVATE AND EXTEND FOOTING DEPTH, 5, CONCRETE WALL, FOOTING 8 PAD SIZES TO BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR. REINFORCING SIZE 6 SPACING - BY OTHERS, 6, VERIFY DEPTH OF FROST FOOTINGS W/ LOCAL CODES, REGION AND SOIL BEARING, -1, PROVIDE TERMITE PROTECTION AS REQUIRED PER LOCAL CODE, 8, ACTUAL FLOOR JOIST LAYOUT 8 SPACING BY MFG, FRAMING NOTES: I, ALL INTERIOR WALLS 2X4's w 16" O,C, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE 2, "MICROLAM" BEAM E EXTERIOR HEADER SIZES TO BE VERIFIED BY SUPPLIER, FSR C� DSS l�p� FpR g1 FOUNDATION FLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-O" m Q LANDSCAPE WALL AS REQ'D-VERIFY WITH GRADE DROP TOP OF' CONC, WALL 3'-8" Nt NOTE: r WIN. WELL B DRAINAGE AS REQ'D, BLOCK OUT CONC, FOR WINDOW O �Y tX xQ O d) 'Y 8'-4" 15'-84" -11-4 /411 2'-6" 5'-4\211 49� 2'-3/4" 2,-211 15'4 15'-0' �_ TREATED WOGD BEA _ —_--------__--_- -- 42" DEEP POST HOLE FT3, - FLAIR OUT BO TOM. VERIFY SIZE W/ ONTRACTOR 24'-0' 21'-1011 42" DEEP POST HOLE FTG, - FLAIR OUT BOTTOM, VERIFY SIZE W/ CONTRACTOR O ND LANDSCAPE WALL AS REQ'D-VERIFY WITH GRADE DROP TOP OF CONC, WALL 3'-8" ------------------------------- ------------------• ; ----------, I I I I RAISE GARAGE W44LLS 8 I I STOOP SLAB AS REQ'D FOR MIN, FRAMING SET 4" AGK ; STEP ENTRY I I I I I , FROM FACE OFCONCRETE NOTE: I I I I A Z I I I I O CONC, SLA5 W/ 6X6 - 10/10 W `— 4O W,M, OVER I 4" COMPACTED WIN, WELL 8 DRAINAGE I I ti} , 1 I I •� Y 1 Lu I ' N I I I I AS REQ'D, BLOCK O J� ' I I I I I I I I I - O SL I PE CONC, TOW RD O,H, DOOR 0 I N I OUT CONC. FOR WINDOW J,nY, ; O O 8"X48" GONG. WA L W/ 8"X48" CONC, WALL W/ U 16"XS" CONIC, FO c' (� LING 4'-0" 4'-0" I DRAWN BY: MF - $L-0CK OUT -FOR- ETH, DOOR-------- DOOR- - - - -1 1 I SLIDER I 3 O" 2X6 STUD WALL OVER i 32"X6 "8" CONC, WALL W/B/SHO ET ER LINEN 16" X 8" ONC, FTG, ; 2X6 STUD WALL OVER -1 8" CONC, WALL W/ \\\ 16" X 8" CONIC. FTG, ,, EDROOM #� _ 1 a �� •— ••— W O Q o 2x6 LU GING I < 21; j, -1,--15/411 24'-0" ~ IL > Q `V ® REC, ROOM tu z 0 mt�r N STU B IN FOR m�v 4" CONC. SLAB 4 1 2x4 B ARING LL O R FIX AS REQ'D (L 16"x ' CONC, F TIN 111121 "1 `v m�•r — •— • • / VAPOR BARRIER OVER `n •— ••— --•— �\\\� O ��\�\\�\\ r " COMPACTED GRAN, FILL, ' N • • 5111!21417 IPA � r �+j = z 2'-6" 4 0. 14-31/2" 1 V -6�/2° I 9'-9/4° 14'-23/411 - - S/ p I 2x4 BEARING W LL OVER 36°x 3(o°x 12" C(')I I 16"x 8" CONIC, F 0 ING CONC, FOOTING � N3 II la F_O S - M=L BEAM OR STEEL BEAM - _ co i (VffRIFY SIZE W% OTHERS) r � = z 4 ; HEAD HEADER m�`► GAME ROOM AS REQ'D AS REQ' t 9/411/1 11 elL, -5" �'-4" 13 -1" \!) 14'-23/411 Lu mA O ND LANDSCAPE WALL AS REQ'D-VERIFY WITH GRADE DROP TOP OF CONC, WALL 3'-8" ------------ ------- 1 a 4 v i D' 4 4 � v O O' 4 4 � v o a ID 4 ----------------------- I I I I NOTE: ------------------------------- ------------------• ; ----------, I I I I RAISE GARAGE W44LLS 8 I I STOOP SLAB AS REQ'D FOR MIN, FRAMING SET 4" AGK ; STEP ENTRY I I I I I , FROM FACE OFCONCRETE WAIS I I I I I I I I I UNEXCAVATED Z I I I I O CONC, SLA5 W/ 6X6 - 10/10 W I W,M, OVER I 4" COMPACTED aRAN. FILL, I I ti} , 1 I I •� Y 1 I � I ' N I I I I O J� ' I I I I I I I I I - O I I I I I SL I PE CONC, TOW RD O,H, DOOR 0 I I I 14 O J,nY, ; O O 8"X48" GONG. WA L W/ 8"X48" CONC, WALL W/ U 16"XS" CONIC, FO c' (� LING 16"XS" CONIC, OOTING I DRAWN BY: MF - $L-0CK OUT -FOR- ETH, DOOR-------- 6GCK ESI �T- FOR- O:H, DOOR- - - - -1 \\\ ,, , a �� •— ••— 111121 "1 — •— • • `�� lel •— ••— --•— �\\\� \\\� ��\�\\�\\ • • 5111!21417 IPA F14, ------------ ------- 1 a 4 v i D' 4 4 � v O O' 4 4 � v o a ID 4 ----------------------- I I I I NOTE: ------------------------------- ------------------• ; ----------, I I I I RAISE GARAGE W44LLS 8 I I STOOP SLAB AS REQ'D FOR MIN, FRAMING SET 4" AGK ; STEP ENTRY I I I I I , FROM FACE OFCONCRETE WAIS I I I I I I I I I UNEXCAVATED Z I I I I O CONC, SLA5 W/ 6X6 - 10/10 W I W,M, OVER I 4" COMPACTED aRAN. FILL, I I ti} , 1 I I •� Y 1 I � I ' N I I I I O J� ' I I I I I I I I I - O I I I I I SL I PE CONC, TOW RD O,H, DOOR 0 I I I 14 O J,nY, ; O O 8"X48" GONG. WA L W/ 8"X48" CONC, WALL W/ U 16"XS" CONIC, FO c' (� LING 16"XS" CONIC, OOTING I DRAWN BY: MF - $L-0CK OUT -FOR- ETH, DOOR-------- 6GCK ESI �T- FOR- O:H, DOOR- - - - -1 -8 2 9'-4/2" 1' -loll g,-4/2.1 24'-O" 49'-10" -------- ---------------- INTERIOR LEDGE ------------------• ; I FOR FLOOR SUPP RT ; I I I STOOP I I I I I I I I ------- COMPACTED F11 ------------------ L I I I I I I ----------------- o � ' - O v I 1 , ; ff o , D ' I Z v a v 4 v v a v . 4 v v a v . 4 v o NOTE: D -------- -------------------- --------------------- STRUCTURE TO BE PROVIDED FOR COLUMN 4 SUPPORT -s STOOP. VERIFY METHOD W/ CONTRACTOR, 0 I v O I I o ; 0 D 6'-11/4'1 �1-3,211 LOUJER LEVEL FINISH: 1505 SQ, fit, (NOT INCLUDING STORAGE) GENERAL NOTES: I, 9'-0 1/2" CEILING HGT, 2, IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO INSURE THAT ALL PRODUCTS ARE INSTALLED PER MFR. RECOMMENDATIONS, 3, IT IS THE OWNER OR CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE THE NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS TO PREVENT AGAINST THE BUILD-UP OF MOISTURE OR MOLD, 4, IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL AND HVAC SUB -CONTRACTORS TO DESIGN/ BUILD THEIR SYSTEMS AND TO INSURE THAT THESE SYSTEMS ARE INSTALLED AND OPERATING PROPERLY. 5. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS REFERENCED HEREIN ARE FOR SCHEMATIC PURPOSES ONLY AND MAY NOT O COMPLY WITH YOUR LOCAL ZONING OR SAFETY 4[1 REGULATIONS, OWNER OR CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINAL CHOICE AND SELECTION OF ALL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS. 6. SMOKE DETECTOR O Z, VENT FAN ® S/ 8, SMOKE/CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR CO 9, INTERIOR DIMENSIONS ARE TO CENTER OF STUDS, 10, BASEMENT SASH WINDOWS AS REQ'D BY LOCAL CODE - VERIFY SIZE 6 LOCATION W/ CONTRACTOR, 11, FURR OUT AND INSULATE BASEMENT WALLS AS REQ'D BY LOCAL CODES, 12, Z' -O" MIN, CEILING HGT, / 6'-8" MIN, TO UNDERSIDE OF BEAMS, DUCTS, ETC, IN THE EVENT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN PLANS, ELEVATIONS, AND/OR DETAILS. THE CONTRACTOR / SUB -CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT AHMANN DESIGN, ING.6 (319) 395-1900 BEFORE CONSTRUCTION FOR CLARIFICATION. IF AHMANN DESIGN IS NOT CONTACTED, THE CONTRACTOR/ SUB -CONTRACTOR WILL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY, AHMANN DESIGN INC. (319) 395-7900 W WN 4IK T N d 0 N W ff W 4 W . m _ O W R W ~ cpH4�4�cN _joWWoW _-mi4= ,L U W W C) F Qo}�ow WN �u ff 7)_ ° 4W Q z If= Q WW_j°�Wo° Qomu-0 o z N> z wWZWVWE4 F p 4 F N ff J W W W03:W N W J y m O 3:LLWow W`�ulWo°oaf W N Z F- 0400oW- �(LQNUZ_�Nm U w N U p ILLiHwI�LZNU�ID 4 Z0Zz Q Z O Z= f N f) Z4LL n O N 4 4) ff F—Wa �zZ0Nzm0N zpOz�4Hz z U U 4 4 9 � W 3 4 izz_i4pz=ff 4404�44�� 00 REVISIONS: JOB NO, 21-01 X00 © GOPI'RICxHT 2021 AI-IMANN I-IOME PL�4NS INC. PROTECTED UNDER ARGI-41TEGTURAL WORKS GOPYRICsHT PROTECTION AGT OF 1990 _O U ff Z O U 1J— n OvJ �0 O vJ O J� Q J,nY, V Q DRAWN BY: MF CHECKED BY: FINAL RELEASE: REVISIONS: JOB NO, 21-01 X00 © GOPI'RICxHT 2021 AI-IMANN I-IOME PL�4NS INC. PROTECTED UNDER ARGI-41TEGTURAL WORKS GOPYRICsHT PROTECTION AGT OF 1990 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 1 st Avenue. The development will construct a connection through the development that will connect Scott Boulevard to N 1 St 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, 10`h 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 1 St 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 Pt 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 1 st 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 I% 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. 2813 Rockefeller Avenue • Suite B • Everett WA, 98201 Tel: 425-339-8266 • Fax: 425-258-2922 • E-mail: info@gibsontraffic.com Hickory Trail Estates Traffic Impact Analysis 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 er 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, 0 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. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. January 2021 infoggibsontraffic.com 2 GTC #21-005 Hickory Trail Estates Traffic Impact Analysis 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 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. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. January 2021 infoggibsontraffic.com 3 GTC #21-005 Average Daily Trips AM Peak -Hour Trips PM Peak -Hour Trips Land Uses Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Generation 2.40 Trips per Unit 0.14 Trips per Unit 0.16 Trips per Unit LUC 255, Rate CCRC Splits 50% 50% 100% 65% 35% 100% 39% 61% 1�0 120 Units Trips 144 144 288 11 6 17 7 12 19 LUC 210, Generation 9.44 Trips per Unit 0.75 Trips per Unit 0.99 Trips per Unit Single Rate Family Splits 50% 50% 100% 25% 75% 100% 63% 37% 100 Dwelling,%55 Units 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. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. January 2021 infoggibsontraffic.com 3 GTC #21-005 Hickory Trail Estates Level of Service Analysis Traffic Impact 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 I Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay 1. N 1st Avenue at 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 Hickory Trail 1. Oaknoll East/Site Access at 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 Scott Boulevard 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. Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. January 2021 infoggibsontraffic.com 4 GTC #21-005 Hickory Trail Estates Traffic Impact Analysis 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 Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. January 2021 infoggibsontraffic.com 5 GTC #21-005 w - l k \ \ U) Z LU LU Z \ 0 $ o 0 \ §z_ § 0 0 0 Z g ° ® ( LU § P CL a 0 0 0 m § k '6 \ / § LU w ® } @ E G k §2 ®mP�e f/ o 0 0 £P w § � § 2 _ LU§ ° « z 2 0 F- k(D m k 0 \ \ § i L m CL2 J « R a ,0 Lu " k k \ \ § o } ° @ E G 2-k/ooc \ ) f F- U) �J20 CL - 2 §F- = y \ \ 2 \ \ \ F ®§ \\ 0 D ®� \\ w - l \ 7 CD ± o A �J G 5 @ \ o a\R 2 § LU Z £- z / / \ k§z % k = 0 0 0 g ° LU LU co k � \ o § k / \ E S ® z + ° } \ a z0 x m § § / 0 0 z w z § k / LL L ® 7 )0 ° b = Q 2x 22�co ) ƒ % 7 @ / + �\k/cc ) § f k § / y �o00 - , 2�F- / 7 @ + ®§ \\ _ \|��° E o ° %-2 w -a 9 a G \ § o c \ Q LU Z £ //f z r §§z q z o 0 0 g a LU co k o o c � 0 2 0 0 0 /k/@\G LU z f F- (:6 � / / k zLLJ a xU) 00 }� 0 0 z w z o Lu / � . �j\� LU r- [ °0 0 2 ca U,�$ } 2 %«Raa 2 WF - k+ 0 ° / J _ 0 7F k U) % a \ F f c 22 � �k0U)rLIN w § C c c k ® k/=�� f/ r» U) iw a R \ § �o Cl) \ ®� \\ « � o �2 c CD o LU LO 52 �2 qa E-j§64� a� CL m � m - - \\ \ �� 0 - (D § } > } 2 � e # ƒ S § f 2 § \ƒ� w -a Hickory Trail Estates GTC #21-005 AM Peak -Hour A-4 New ADT New AM Peak Hour Trips In IOut Total 100% 807.201 21.101 36.4011 57.50 1% 8.07 0.21 0.36 0.58 2% 16.14 0.42 0.73 1.15 3% 24.22 0.63 1.09 1.73 4% 32.29 0.84 1.46 2.30 5% 40.36 1.06 1.82 2.88 6% 48.431 1.27 2.18 3.45 7% 56.50 1.48 2.55 4.03 8% 64.58 1.69 2.91 4.60 9% 72.65 1.90 3.28 5.18 10% 80.72 2.11 3.64 5.75 11% 88.79 2.32 4.00 6.33 12% 96.861 2.53 4.37 6.90 13% 104.94 2.74 4.73 7.48 14% 113.01 2.95 5.10 8.05 15% 121.08 3.17 5.46 8.63 16% 129.15 3.38 5.82 9.20 17% 137.22 3.59 6.19 9.78 18%1 145.30 3.80 6.55 10.35 19% 153.37 4.01 6.92 10.93 20% 161.44 4.22 7.28 11.50 21% 169.51 4.43 7.64 12.08 22% 177.58 4.64 8.01 12.65 23% 185.66 4.85 8.37 13.23 24% 193.73 5.06 8.74 13.80 25% 201.80 5.28 9.10 14.38 26% 209.87 5.49 9.46 14.95 27% 217.94 5.70 9.83 15.53 28% 226.02 5.91 10.19 16.10 29% 234.09 6.12 10.56 16.68 30% 242.16 6.33 10.92 17.25 31% 250.23 6.54 11.28 17.83 32% 258.30 6.75 11.65 18.40 33% 266.38 6.96 12.01 18.98 34% 274.45 7.17 12.38 19.55 35% 282.52 7.39 12.74 20.13 36% 290.59 7.60 13.10 20.70 37% 298.66 7.81 13.47 21.28 38% 306.74 8.02 13.83 21.85 39% 314.81 8.23 14.20 22.43 40% 322.88 8.44 14.56 23.00 41% 330.95 8.65 14.92 23.58 42% 339.02 8.86 15.29 24.15 43% 347.10 9.07 15.65 24.73 44% 355.17 9.28 16.02 25.30 45% 363.24 9.50 16.38 25.88 46% 371.31 9.71 16.74 26.45 47% 379.38 9.92 17.11 27.03 48% 387.461 10.13 17.47 27.60 49%1 395.531 10.34 17.84 28.18 500/ 403.601 10.55 18.20 28.75 A-4 New ADT New AM In I Peak Hour Trips Out 11 Total 100% 807.20 21.101 36.4011 57.50 51% 411.67 10.76 18.56 29.33 52% 419.74 10.97 18.93 29.90 53% 427.82 11.18 19.29 30.48 54% 435.89 11.39 19.66 31.05 55% 443.96 11.61 20.02 31.63 56%1 452.03 11.821 20.38 32.20 57% 460.10 12.03 20.75 32.78 58% 468.18 12.24 21.11 33.35 59% 476.25 12.45 21.48 33.93 60% 484.32 12.66 21.84 34.50 61% 492.39 12.87 22.20 35.08 62%1 500.46 13.081 22.57 35.65 63% 508.54 13.29 22.93 36.23 64% 516.61 13.50 23.30 36.80 65% 524.68 13.72 23.66 37.38 66% 532.75 13.93 24.02 37.95 67% 540.82 14.14 24.39 38.53 68%1 548.90 14.351 24.75 39.10 69% 556.97 14.56 25.12 39.68 70% 565.04 14.77 25.48 40.25 71% 573.11 14.98 25.84 40.83 72% 581.18 15.19 26.21 41.40 73% 589.26 15.40 26.57 41.98 74%1 597.33 15.611 26.94 42.55 75% 605.40 15.83 27.30 43.13 76% 613.47 16.04 27.66 43.70 77% 621.54 16.25 28.03 44.28 78% 629.62 16.46 28.39 44.85 79% 637.69 16.67 28.76 45.43 800/ 645.76 16.881 29.12 46.00 81% 653.83 17.09 29.481 46.58 82% 661.90 17.30 29.85 47.15 83% 669.98 17.51 30.21 47.73 84% 678.05 17.72 30.58 48.30 85% 686.12 17.94 30.94 48.88 86% 694.19 18.15 31.30 49.45 87% 702.26 18.36 31.671 50.03 88% 710.34 18.57 32.03 50.60 89% 718.41 18.78 32.40 51.18 90% 726.48 18.99 32.76 51.75 91% 734.55 19.20 33.12 52.33 92% 742.62 19.41 33.49 52.90 93% 750.70 19.62 33.851 53.48 94% 758.77 19.83 34.22 54.05 95% 766.84 20.05 34.58 54.63 96% 774.91 20.26 34.94 55.20 97% 782.98 20.47 35.31 55.78 98% 791.06 20.68 35.67 56.35 99% 799.13 20.89 36.0456.93 100°/ 807.20 21.10 36.40 57.50 A-4 Hickory Trail Estates GTC #21-005 PM Peak -Hour A-5 New ADT New PM Peak Hour Trips In IOut Total 100% 807.201 41.791 31.8611 73.65 1% 8.07 0.42 0.32 0.74 2% 16.14 0.84 0.64 1.47 3% 24.22 1.25 0.96 2.21 4% 32.29 1.67 1.27 2.95 5% 40.36 2.09 1.59 3.68 6% 48.431 2.51 1.91 4.42 7% 56.50 2.93 2.23 5.16 8% 64.58 3.34 2.55 5.89 9% 72.65 3.76 2.87 6.63 10% 80.72 4.18 3.19 7.37 11% 88.79 4.60 3.50 8.10 12% 96.861 5.01 3.82 8.84 13% 104.94 5.43 4.14 9.57 14% 113.01 5.85 4.46 10.31 15% 121.08 6.27 4.78 11.05 16% 129.15 6.69 5.10 11.78 17% 137.22 7.10 5.42 12.52 18%1 145.30 7.52 5.73 13.26 19% 153.37 7.94 6.05 13.99 20% 161.44 8.36 6.37 14.73 21% 169.51 8.78 6.69 15.47 22% 177.58 9.19 7.01 16.20 23% 185.66 9.61 7.33 16.94 24% 193.73 10.03 7.65 17.68 25% 201.80 10.45 7.97 18.41 26% 209.87 10.87 8.28 19.15 27% 217.94 11.28 8.60 19.89 28% 226.02 11.70 8.92 20.62 29% 234.09 12.12 9.24 21.36 30% 242.16 12.54 9.56 22.10 31% 250.23 12.95 9.88 22.83 32% 258.30 13.37 10.20 23.57 33% 266.38 13.79 10.51 24.30 34% 274.45 14.21 10.83 25.04 35% 282.52 14.63 11.15 25.78 36% 290.59 15.04 11.47 26.51 37% 298.66 15.46 11.79 27.25 38% 306.74 15.88 12.11 27.99 39% 314.81 16.30 12.43 28.72 40% 322.88 16.72 12.74 29.46 41% 330.95 17.13 13.06 30.20 42% 339.02 17.55 13.38 30.93 43% 347.10 17.97 13.70 31.67 44% 355.17 18.39 14.02 32.41 45% 363.24 18.81 14.34 33.14 46% 371.31 19.22 14.66 33.88 47% 379.38 19.64 14.97 34.62 48% 387.461 20.06 15.29 35.35 49%1 395.531 20.48 15.61 36.09 500/ 403.601 20.90 15.93 36.83 A-5 New ADT New PM In I Peak Hour Trips Out 11 Total 100% 807.20 41.791 31.8611 73.65 51% 411.67 21.31 16.25 37.56 52% 419.74 21.73 16.57 38.30 53% 427.82 22.15 16.89 39.03 54% 435.89 22.57 17.20 39.77 55% 443.96 22.98 17.52 40.51 56%1 452.03 23.401 17.84 41.24 57% 460.10 23.82 18.16 41.98 58% 468.18 24.24 18.48 42.72 59% 476.25 24.66 18.80 43.45 60% 484.32 25.07 19.12 44.19 61% 492.39 25.49 19.43 44.93 62%1 500.46 25.911 19.75 45.66 63% 508.54 26.33 20.07 46.40 64% 516.61 26.75 20.39 47.14 65% 524.68 27.16 20.71 47.87 66% 532.75 27.58 21.03 48.61 67% 540.82 28.00 21.35 49.35 68%1 548.90 28.421 21.66 50.08 69% 556.97 28.84 21.98 50.82 70% 565.04 29.25 22.30 51.56 71% 573.11 29.67 22.62 52.29 72% 581.18 30.09 22.94 53.03 73% 589.26 30.51 23.26 53.76 74%1 597.33 30.921 23.58 54.50 75% 605.40 31.34 23.90 55.24 76% 613.47 31.76 24.21 55.97 77% 621.54 32.18 24.53 56.71 78% 629.62 32.60 24.85 57.45 79% 637.69 33.01 25.17 58.18 800/ 645.76 33.431 25.49 58.92 81% 653.83 33.85 25.811 59.66 82% 661.90 34.27 26.13 60.39 83% 669.98 34.69 26.44 61.13 84% 678.05 35.10 26.76 61.87 85% 686.12 35.52 27.08 62.60 86% 694.19 35.94 27.40 63.34 87% 702.26 36.36 27.721 64.08 88% 710.34 36.78 28.04 64.81 89% 718.41 37.19 28.36 65.55 90% 726.48 37.61 28.67 66.29 91% 734.55 38.03 28.99 67.02 92% 742.62 38.45 29.31 67.76 93% 750.70 38.86 29.631 68.49 94% 758.77 39.28 29.95 69.23 95% 766.84 39.70 30.27 69.97 96% 774.91 40.12 30.59 70.70 97% 782.98 40.54 30.90 71.44 98% 791.06 40.95 31.22 72.18 99% 799.13 41.37 31.54 72.91 100°/ 807.20 41.79 31.86 73.65 A-5 I 0 \ M A-6 02 °1.0 2 2 w 2 2 LU Z § k§§_ k k 0 0 g ° 0 L0 ( � = 0 0 F- IL m / § o 0 \ \ + £L� F- �= 0 0 0 LLI U) § \ X § LU § _ 77 F -g LLI§2 z °fa « w 22FcO j 0 \ § Ink ƒ L m § z 2 \�\\ 0 + - \ \ e � 77 E k / o c ) 0 f k / £�o§fy ® 7 �F- k/\\ f / 7 F- ( ®o \ F- { \ ®z \ � CL o 21 . o f ^ $ ��]\ LU§ \ $ A % ■ � ¢ @ \k > 0 E § m [ k D 2 D \� / \ - \ 0 A-6 U) 0 0 U Co U) o wo � Q N E ~ � 2 O ~ U) U W M CD �� 0 3: 3: A-7 U) 0 UCo 4 U) \ /cm) E / / 2 I 0 \ ±� w M 0 = 0 0 _ § q a I a ca m 2 £ / / 0 § 0m k 2 � x 0.2 \ LU ) G | E § C'4 w - S 5 \ \ k 2 r r Z LU m a Id: k k n r $ §( J o 0 z�M _ 2 0. § J o 0 F- 0 2 a.£ c o § k f 2 7 7 \ z �L 0000 « & x U)LU 0 a z Lu P g� w z Z U 2 ° « \ 21.071, @ Lu F- § +F- m cn /x. 2 4 F- F- CD 7- 0 0") io<-N+-- =L t M o — 0 0 ) \ } k k / _ ®® o § / ®oma f/mc �L % e w ®q \ F - d@ CD z \ m 0.2 \ LU ) G | E § C'4 w - S Hickory Trail Estates GTC #21-005 Oaknoll East/Hampstead Woods AM Peak -Hour A-9 New ADT New AM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total 100% 134.401 5.101 2.7411 2.7411 7.84 1 % 1.34 0.05 0.03 1.40 0.08 2% 2.69 0.10 0.05 1.42 0.16 3% 4.03 0.15 0.08 1.45 0.24 4% 5.38 0.20 0.11 1.48 0.31 5% 6.72 0.26 0.14 1.51 0.39 6% 8.061 0.31 0.16 1.53 0.47 7% 9.41 0.36 0.19 1.56 0.55 8% 10.75 0.41 0.22 1.59 0.63 9% 12.10 0.46 0.25 1.62 0.71 10% 13.44 0.51 0.27 1.64 0.78 11% 14.78 0.56 0.30 1.67 0.86 12% 16.131 0.61 0.33 1.70 0.94 13% 17.47 0.66 0.36 1.73 1.02 14% 18.82 0.71 0.38 1.75 1.10 15% 20.16 0.77 0.41 1.78 1.18 16% 21.50 0.82 0.44 1.81 1.25 17% 22.85 0.87 0.47 1.84 1.33 18% 24.191 0.92 0.49 1.86 1.41 19% 25.54 0.97 0.52 1.89 1.49 20% 26.88 1.02 0.55 1.92 1.57 21% 28.22 1.07 0.58 1.95 1.65 22% 29.57 1.12 0.60 1.97 1.72 23% 30.91 1.17 0.63 2.00 1.80 24% 32.261 1.22 0.66 2.03 1.88 25% 33.60 1.28 0.69 2.06 1.96 26% 34.94 1.33 0.71 2.08 2.04 27% 36.29 1.38 0.74 2.11 2.12 28% 37.63 1.43 0.77 2.14 2.20 29% 38.98 1.48 0.79 2.16 2.27 30% 40.321 1.53 0.82 2.19 2.35 31% 41.66 1.58 0.85 2.22 2.43 32% 43.01 1.63 0.88 2.25 2.51 33% 44.35 1.68 0.90 2.27 2.59 34% 45.70 1.73 0.93 2.30 2.67 35% 47.04 1.79 0.96 2.33 2.74 36%1 48.38 1.841 0.99 2.361 2.82 37% 49.73 1.89 1.01 2.38 2.90 38% 51.07 1.94 1.04 2.41 2.98 39% 52.42 1.99 1.07 2.44 3.06 40% 53.76 2.04 1.10 2.47 3.14 41% 55.10 2.09 1.12 2.49 3.21 42% 56.45 2.14 1.15 2.52 3.29 43% 57.79 2.19 1.18 2.55 3.37 44% 59.14 2.24 1.21 2.58 3.45 45% 60.48 2.30 1.23 2.60 3.53 46% 61.82 2.35 1.26 2.63 3.61 47% 63.17 2.40 1.29 2.66 3.68 48% 64.51 2.45 1.32 2.69 3.76 49% 65.86 2.50 1.34 2.71 3.84 50% 67.20 2.55 1.37 2.74 3.92 A-9 New ADT New AM In I Peak Hour Trips Out 11 Total 100% 134.40 5.101 2.7411 7.84 51% 68.54 2.60 1.40 4.00 52% 69.89 2.65 1.42 4.08 53% 71.23 2.70 1.45 4.16 54% 72.58 2.75 1.48 4.23 55% 73.92 2.81 1.51 4.31 56%1 75.26 2.861 1.53 4.39 57% 76.61 2.91 1.56 4.47 58% 77.95 2.96 1.59 4.55 59% 79.30 3.01 1.62 4.63 60% 80.64 3.06 1.64 4.70 61% 81.98 3.11 1.67 4.78 62%1 83.33 3.161 1.70 4.86 63% 84.67 3.21 1.73 4.94 64% 86.02 3.26 1.75 5.02 65% 87.36 3.32 1.78 5.10 66% 88.70 3.37 1.81 5.17 67% 90.05 3.42 1.84 5.25 68%1 91.39 3.47 1.86 5.33 69% 92.74 3.52 1.89 5.41 70% 94.08 3.57 1.92 5.49 71% 95.42 3.62 1.95 5.57 72% 96.77 3.67 1.97 5.64 73% 98.11 3.72 2.00 5.72 74%1 99.46 3.77 2.03 5.80 75% 100.80 3.83 2.06 5.88 76% 102.14 3.88 2.08 5.96 77% 103.49 3.93 2.11 6.04 78% 104.83 3.98 2.14 6.12 79% 106.18 4.03 2.16 6.19 80% 107.52 4.08 2.19 6.27 81% 108.86 4.131 2.22 6.35 82% 110.21 4.18 2.25 6.43 83% 111.55 4.23 2.27 6.51 84% 112.90 4.28 2.30 6.59 85%1 114.24 4.34 2.33 6.66 86% 115.58 4.39 2.361 6.74 87% 116.93 4.44 2.38 6.82 88% 118.27 4.49 2.41 6.90 89% 119.62 4.54 2.44 6.98 90% 120.96 4.59 2.47 7.06 91% 122.30 4.641 2.49 7.13 92% 123.65 4.69 2.52 7.21 93% 124.99 4.74 2.55 7.29 94% 126.34 4.79 2.58 7.37 95% 127.68 4.85 2.60 7.45 96% 129.02 4.90 2.63 7.53 97% 130.37 4.95 2.66 7.60 98% 131.71 5.00 2.69 7.68 99% 133.06 5.05 2.71 7.76 100% 134.40 5.10 2.74 7.84 A-9 Hickory Trail Estates GTC #21-005 Oaknoll East/Hampstead Woods PM Peak -Hour A-10 New ADT New PM Peak Hour Trips In IOut Total 100% 134.401 3.491 5.4711 8.96 1% 1.34 0.03 0.05 0.09 2% 2.69 0.07 0.11 0.18 3% 4.03 0.10 0.16 0.27 4% 5.38 0.14 0.22 0.36 5% 6.72 0.17 0.27 0.45 6% 8.061 0.21 0.33 0.54 7% 9.41 0.24 0.38 0.63 8% 10.75 0.28 0.44 0.72 9% 12.10 0.31 0.49 0.81 10% 13.44 0.35 0.55 0.90 11% 14.78 0.38 0.60 0.99 12% 16.131 0.42 0.66 1.08 13% 17.47 0.45 0.71 1.16 14% 18.82 0.49 0.77 1.25 15% 20.16 0.52 0.82 1.34 16% 21.50 0.56 0.88 1.43 17% 22.85 0.59 0.93 1.52 18% 24.191 0.63 0.98 1.61 19% 25.54 0.66 1.04 1.70 20% 26.88 0.70 1.09 1.79 21% 28.22 0.73 1.15 1.88 22% 29.57 0.77 1.20 1.97 23% 30.91 0.80 1.26 2.06 24% 32.261 0.84 1.31 2.15 25% 33.60 0.87 1.37 2.24 26% 34.94 0.91 1.42 2.33 27% 36.29 0.94 1.48 2.42 28% 37.63 0.98 1.53 2.51 29% 38.98 1.01 1.59 2.60 30% 40.321 1.05 1.64 2.69 31% 41.66 1.081 1.70 2.78 32% 43.01 1.12 1.75 2.87 33% 44.35 1.15 1.81 2.96 34% 45.70 1.19 1.86 3.05 35% 47.04 1.22 1.91 3.14 36% 48.381 1.26 1.97 3.23 37% 49.73 1.29 2.02 3.32 38% 51.07 1.33 2.08 3.40 39% 52.42 1.36 2.13 3.49 40% 53.76 1.40 2.19 3.58 41% 55.10 1.43 2.24 3.67 42%1 56.45 1.471 2.30 3.76 43% 57.79 1.50 2.35 3.85 44% 59.14 1.54 2.41 3.94 45% 60.48 1.57 2.46 4.03 46% 61.82 1.61 2.52 4.12 47% 63.171 1.64 2.57 4.21 48% 64.51 1.68 2.63 4.30 49% 65.86 1.71 2.68 4.39 50°/ 67.20 1.75 2.74 4.48 A-10 New ADT New PM Peak Hour Trips In I Out 11 Total 100% 134.40 3.491 5.4711 8.96 51% 68.54 1.78 2.79 4.57 52% 69.89 1.81 2.84 4.66 53% 71.23 1.85 2.90 4.75 54% 72.58 1.88 2.95 4.84 55% 73.92 1.92 3.01 4.93 56%1 75.26 1.951 3.06 5.02 57% 76.61 1.99 3.12 5.11 58% 77.95 2.02 3.17 5.20 59% 79.30 2.06 3.23 5.29 60% 80.64 2.09 3.28 5.38 61% 81.98 2.13 3.34 5.47 62%1 83.33 2.161 3.39 5.56 63% 84.67 2.20 3.45 5.64 64% 86.02 2.23 3.50 5.73 65% 87.36 2.27 3.56 5.82 66% 88.70 2.30 3.61 5.91 67% 90.05 2.34 3.66 6.00 68%1 91.39 2.371 3.72 6.09 69% 92.74 2.41 3.77 6.18 70% 94.08 2.44 3.83 6.27 71% 95.42 2.48 3.88 6.36 72% 96.77 2.51 3.94 6.45 73% 98.11 2.55 3.99 6.54 74%1 99.46 2.58 4.05 6.63 75% 100.80 2.62 4.10 6.72 76% 102.14 2.65 4.16 6.81 77% 103.49 2.69 4.21 6.90 78% 104.83 2.72 4.27 6.99 79% 106.181 2.76 4.32 7.08 80% 107.52 2.79 4.38 7.17 81% 108.86 2.83 4.43 7.26 82% 110.21 2.86 4.49 7.35 83% 111.55 2.90 4.54 7.44 84% 112.90 2.93 4.59 7.53 85% 114.24 2.97 4.65 7.62 86% 115.58 3.00 4.70 7.71 87% 116.93 3.04 4.76 7.80 88% 118.27 3.07 4.81 7.88 89% 119.62 3.11 4.87 7.97 90% 120.96 3.14 4.92 8.06 91% 122.30 3.18 4.98 8.15 92% 123.65 3.21 5.03 8.24 93% 124.99 3.25 5.09 8.33 94%1 126.34 3.281 5.14 8.42 95% 127.68 3.321 5.20 8.51 96% 129.02 3.35 5.25 8.60 97% 130.37 3.39 5.31 8.69 98% 131.71 3.42 5.36 8.78 99% 133.06 3.46 5.42 8.87 1000/ 134.401 3.49 5.47 8.96 A-10 �M NL N ML H H a 4 0 4 2 P 2 P a a d y 6 6 Q ~ 6 ~ o q x o q x OEM O o0 O c0 M iD o0 iD c0 M M N vt � 3 O vt �D vl vt � 3 vt vt vt vt iD �O iD iD vt 0 6 1= 6 1 t C �f1 N 01 O Ol O lD M W O N O N O O N N l0 V1 rl � C A � O A N a r a v F v F v T3 T3 LL = LL L OG L OG OC CL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ti ti 0 0 0 0 0 0 ti ti 0 0 e d d 3 L � �f1 f` N N 00 M 00 �f1 M O �f1 lD n lD M �f1 V V1 3 L � O 00 00 M 00 01 00 n M lD N f` f lD Ol n V1 lD lD 00 �f1 n �f1 lD N C � � Z LL Z LL ti ti N O lD N O 0 N 0 o0 O iD vt ti n n O iD N vt O N N L OG L OG CL CL m in oo vi m oo m o o m r �n n ry a �n v� v m� m c T W O T W O Y O ~ Y O ~ 2 LL 2 LL ti N N ti O ti N a W M O O ry ry M a M 0 � s m s m 'z oe O O N N H N N O V1 O �f1 O O N V1 N M M M lD M c J J N N d O d 3 i �/1 V1 N 01 O a M lD N N 3 i M N CO f` O O W lD 00 n C N O N O vt n O vt O O CO � � C iD O vt vt iD iD iD o0 00 iD iD O C 7 3 7 3 C N O 3 N O Z LL Z LL N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ti O ti 0 0 0 0 0 0 ti O C eu -o ar p O f`p O of O vl O of O of O 1p £ O of O vl O of O of O N O of O ¢ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o = a ¢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n v n v v 0 0 OEM W 0 01 V th 10 N N N M M N N _N _ O L W U m 0 QI � i JI � ona�o IoM > n mrnr�ov c �? ELu� a d a p Q d a a � J e � `°oron ro p w � o y o m W � O V) Q y m E opo s o rn n M r Ho N LL N V O V N N 0 M V O LL U 2 � N m U>Z p oU mLL. Q E Z O M O O 001 N O O � od N o o. o o o Z ou1� o d a a � o r e � `°oron ro N w � o y o m W � O V) Q y Q opo 0 Q N LL m m U m U>Z p oU mLL. Q E Z O M O O 001 N O O � od N o o. o o o Z ou1� o > w a a Q = p Q N O N L N L Z ~ U m C w O J m N�c�OO M O 0 t�O 3 F LL o F N N N N- N <") V O E O C C C O y � c o0 0� m o anm Z Opo Z Opo Z F U N N N 0 a, r E E E E K U � w d c a E E E E U_inU)io0000 F L U E CIL a c E > K o r e o r e N Z K o y o m W o Q y Q opo 0 Cl) m m H U>Z p oU mLL. Q E O M O M O O 001 N O O � Z oma o Z ou1� o o W Mo w Mo N Z o y o y o m W o Q y Q opo 0 Cl) G > p K 7 G 0 ED O N e O p O O m O N e O N N O K 0 10 O W EO�JaJ� m°o N 0 o y ouio opo z z Z N V O O M M 0 c N 0 10 O 0 10 O W EO�JaJ� m i EOC-O C�aDQO OF U>Z p oU mLL. Q E �ooaou; o p z W oma o 7 z W ou1� o U NO p1 ,..0 o O U n 10 OO w C N C w Q = Q Q N O N L N L Z ~ N N N N- N <") V O E O C C C O o0 0� m o anm Z Opo Z Opo Z F U N N N 0 a, r E E E E K p E E E E U_inU)io0000 tno 00000a e e E 100�Q� #' co 01. w Intersection Peak Hour Location: 1 st Ave at Scott Blvd , GPS Coordinates: Date: 2018-09-06 Day of week: Thursday Weather: Analyst: NB i Intersection Peak Hour 16:15-17:15 SouthBound Left Thru Right Westbound Left Thru Right Northbound Left Thru Right Eastbound Total 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 pproach Factor 0.55 0.92 0.93 0.91 IC 1 N 1 st Ave @ Hickory Trail Page 1 of 3 SynchrolD: 1 Existing AverageW eekday 0 285 5 553 263 AM Peak Hour a b N 1 st Avenue a8 Year: 117121 0 a 0 38 r1 30 T Data Source: AXIOM 6 Hickory Trail 608 Hickory Trail 63 North �—± �'6 b 25 5 b N 1 st Avenue 0 254 20 320 594 274 Normalized19 Factor) (COVID- 747 0 1 385 7 355 Average Weekday a b AM Peak Hour N 1st Avenue a 11 0 a 0 51 Percent Change: 35.0% 1 41 T 8 Hickory Trail 821 Hickory Trail 85 North Based on balancing volumes 1 from the intersection of N 1 st 8 0 b 34 Avenue at Scott Blvd. 7 b N 1 st Avenue 0 343 1 27 432 802 370 Future without Project 407 776 369 Average Weekday 0 1 400 7 AM Peak Hour 1 a b N 1st Avenue a 11 Year: 2025 0 a 0 53 Growth Rate = 1.0% 42 T Years of Growth = 4 8 Hickory Trail 853 Hickory Trail 88 North Total Growth = 1.0406 1 80 b 35 7 b N 1 st Avenue 0 357 28 449 834 385 Total Project Trips 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 1 0 0 AM Peak Hour 1 a b N 1 st Avenue: 0 8 a 0 0 �z 0 T 23 Hickory Trail 23 Hickory Trail 0 North o 15 �&5 b 0 b N 1 st Avenue 8 0 0 15 23 8 Future with Project 407 776 369 Average Weekday 0 400 7 AM Peak Hour r1 a b N 1 st Avenue a 11 8 a 0 53 r1 42 T 31 Hickory Trail 876 Hickory Trail 88 North 1 23 0 b 35 22 b N 1 st Avenue 8 357 28 464 857 1 393 C-1 2 Access @ Scott Blvd Page 2 of 3 SynchrolD: 2 Existing 8 5 AverageW Weekday 2 0 1 AM Peak Hour 1 a b Oaknoll East a 2 Year: 8129118 605 a 603 605 l 0 T Data Source: Iowa City 1,114 Scott Blvd 1,117 Scott Blvd 1,112 North M5]06 509b 507 b Site Access 0 0 0 0 6 0 Normalized Existing (COVID- 3 8 ==5 19 Factor) 2 1 0 1 Average Weekday r1 a b AM Peak Hour Oaknoll Easta 2 605 t2 603 605 Percent Change: 0.0% r1 0 T 1,114 Scott Blvd 1,117 Scott Blvd 1,112 North 3 �' I 509 506 b 507 0 b Site Access 0 0 0 0 6 0 Future without Project 3 8 ==5 Average Weekday 2 1 0 1 AM Peak Hour 2 a b Oaknoll East a 2 Year: 2025 648 a 646 648 Growth Rate = 1.0% 0 T Years of Growth = 7 1,194 Scott Blvd 1,197 Scott Blvd 1,192 North Total Growth = 1.0721 3 546 543 b 544 0 b Site Access 0 0 0 0 6 0 Total Project Trips 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 1 0 0 AM Peak Hour 1 a b Oaknoll Easta 0 17 t2 0 3 t2 3 T 27 Scott Blvd 35 Scott Blvd 8 North o � I 10 0 b 5 10 b Site Access 17 0 5 13 35 22 Future with Project 3 8 5 Average Weekday 2 1 0 1 AM Peak Hour r1 a b Oaknoll East a 2 665 a 646 651 �z 3 T 1,221 Scott Blvd 1,232 Scott Blvd 1,200 North 3 "' I 556 543 b 549 10 b Site Access 17 0 5 13 35 1 22 C-2 3 N 1 st Ave @ Scott Blvd Page 3 of 3 SynchrolD: 3 Existing Average Weekday 1 15 5 121 110 AM Peak Hour a b N 1st Avenue a 58 Year: 8129118 603 a 243 303 r� 2 T Data Source: Iowa City 1,109 Scott Blvd 1,226 Scott Blvd 467 North 7 506 157 b 164 342 b N 1st Avenue 359 45 2 349 755 406 Normalized Existing (COVID- 11 121 110 19 Factor) 1 1 5 5 Average Weekday r2 a b AM Peak Hour N 1 st Avenue a58 603 a 243 303 Percent Change: 0.0% r1 2 T 1,109 Scott Blvd 1,226 Scott Blvd 467 North H7 �' I 506 157 b 164 342 b N 1 st Avenue 359 45 2 349 755 406 Future Project 1 129 verage Weekday � 1 5 5 A 118 AM Peak Hour a b N 1 st Avenue a 62 Year: 2025 647 a 261 325 Growth Rate = 1.0°% 2 T Years of Growth = 7 1,190 Scott Blvd 1,314 Scott Blvd 500 North Total Growth = 1.0721 8 543 168 b 175 367 b N 1 st Avenue 385 48 2 374 809 435 Total Project Trips 0 0 Average Weekday0 0 0 AM Peak Hour 1 a b N 1 st Avenue a 0 3 a 3 3 �z 0 T 8 Scott Blvd ® Scott Blvd 8 North o - I 5 5 b 5 0 b N 1st Avenue 0 0 0 0 6 0 Future with Project129 118 Average Weekday 1 5 5 5 AM Peak Hour 1 a b N 1 st Avenue a 62 650 a 264 328 �z 2 T 1,198 Scott Blvd 1,322 Scott Blvd 508 North 88 548 173 b 180 367 b N 1 st Avenue 385 48 2 374 809 1 435 C-3 1 N 1 st Ave @ Hickory Trail Page 1 of 3 SynchrolD: 1 Existing W Weekday 0 289 13 594 292 Average PM Peak Hour a b N 1 st Avenue a5 Year: 1112121 1 a 0 24 r? 19 T Data Source: AXIOM 2 Hickory Trail 639 Hickory Trail 61 North o � I 1 0 b 37 1 b N 1 st Avenue 1 287 24 309 621 312 Normalized19 Factor) (COVID- 0 37 772 6 17 380 Average Weekday a b PM Peak Hour N 1 st Avenuea 7 1 a 0 31 Percent Change: 30.0% t225 T 3 Hickory Trail 831 Hickory Trail 79 North Based on balancing volumes 0 from the intersection of N 1 st 1 0 b 48 Avenue at Scott Blvd. 1 b N 1 st Avenue 1 373 31 402 807 406 Fu Average Weekday re without Project 0 3911 18 409 804 395 PM Peak Hour 1 a b N 1 st Avenuea 7 Year: 2025 1 a 0 33 Growth Rate = 1.0% t2 26 T Years of Growth = 4 2 Hickory Trail 864 Hickory Trail 83 North Total Growth = 1.0406 0 1 0 b 50 1 b N 1 st Avenue 1 388 32 418 839 421 Total Project Trips 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 1 0 0 PM Peak Hour 1 a b N 1 st Avenue a 0 17 a 0 0 l 0 T 30 Hickory Trail 30 Hickory Trail 0 North 0 13 0 b 0 13 b N 1 st Avenue 17 0 0 13 30 17 Future with Project 409 804 Average W Weekday 0 3911 18 395 PM Peak Hour r2 a b N 1 st Avenue a 7 18 a 0 33 r1 26 T 32 Hickory Trail 894 Hickory Trail 83 North 0 140 b 50 14 b N 1 st Avenue 18 388 32 431 869 1 438 C-4 2 Access @ Scott Blvd Page 2 of 3 SynchrolD: 2 Existing 9 AverageW Weekday 3 0 2 4 PM Peak Hour 1 a b Oaknoll East a 2 Year: 916118 608 a 605 607 l 0 T Data Source: Iowa City 1,176 Scott Blvd 1,180 Scott Blvd 1,175 North 568kdq6b 568 b Site Access 0 0 0 0 6 0 Normalized Existing (COVID- 5 9 4 19 Factor) 3 1 0 2 Average Weekday r2 a b PM Peak Hour Oaknoll Easta 2 608 t2 605 607 Percent Change: 0.0% r1 0 T 1,176 Scott Blvd 1,180 Scott Blvd 1,175 North 2 �' I 568 566 b 568 0 b Site Access 0 0 0 0 6 0 Future without verage Weekday Project � 3 0 2 9 4 A PM Peak Hour r1 a b Oaknoll East a 2 Year: 2025 652 a 649 651 Growth Rate = 1.0% 0 T Years of Growth = 7 1,261 Scott Blvd 1,265 Scott Blvd 1,260 North Total Growth = 1.0721 2 609 607 b 609 0 b Site Access 0 0 0 0 6 0 Total Project Trips 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 1 0 0 PM Peak Hour 1 a b Oaknoll Easta 0 14 t2 0 6 t2 6 T 33 Scott Blvd 44 Scott Blvd 11 North 491200 19 b 5 b Site Access 14 0 5 25 44 19 Future with Project 5 9 4 Average Weekday 3 1 0 2 PM Peak Hour r2 a b Oaknoll East a 2 666 a 649 657 �z 6 T 1,294 Scott Blvd 1,309 Scott Blvd 1,271 North 2 �' I 628 607 b 614 19 b Site Access 14 0 5 25 44 1 19 C-5 3 N 1 st Ave @ Scott Blvd Page 3 of 3 SynchroID: 3 Existing Weekday 27 45 35 129 22 Average PM Peak Hour r1 a b N 1 st Avenue a 9 Year: 9/6/18 605 a 200 209 rl 0 T Data Source: Iowa City 1,171 Scott Blvd 1,269 Scott Blvd 470 North 6 566 224 b 261 336 b N 1st Avenue 378 7 2 381 768 387 Normalized19 Factor) (COVID- 107 27 45 35 129 22 Average Weekday a b PM Peak Hour N 1st Avenue a 9 605 a 200 209 Percent Change: 0.0% 0 T 1,171 Scott Blvd 1,269 Scott Blvd 470 North H6 566224 b 261 336 b N 1 st Avenue 378 7 2 381 768 387 Future Project verage Weekday � 29 48 139 38 Ae24 PM Peak Hour 1 a b N 1st Avenue a 10 Year: 2025 648 a 214 224 Growth Rate = 1.0% 0 T Years of Growth = 7 1,254 Scott Blvd 1,360 Scott Blvd 504 North Total Growth = 1.0721 6 606 240 b 280 360 b N 1 st Avenue 405 8 2 408 823 415 Total Project Trips 0 0 0 Average Weekday 0 1 0 0 PM Peak Hour 1 a b N 1st Avenuea 0 6 a 6 6 �z 0 T 11 Scott Blvd 11 Scott Blvd 11 North o - I 5 5 b 5 0 b N 1 st Avenue 0 0 0 0 0 0 Future with Project 115 139 Average Weekday 29 48 38 24 PM Peak Hour 1 a b N 1st Avenue a 10 654 a 220 230 �z 0 T 1,265 Scott Blvd 1,371 Scott Blvd 515 North 611k265 b 285 60 b N 1st Avenue 405 8 2 408 823 1 415 C-6 Existing Conditions AM.syn 1: N 1 st Ave & Hickory Trail Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 999 1012 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized 5.51 None 6.11 - None - None Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 - None Storage Length 4.009 - 2.209 - - 2.209 - - 223 - 568 - 246 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 1081 - 0 538 - 0 - 562 0 - Grade, % 0 - 573 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - - Peak Hour Factor 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 Heavy Vehicles, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 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 NBR EBLn1WBLn1 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 - - GTC (MJP) Existing Conditions AM Page 1 D-1 Existing Conditions AM.syn 2: Site Access/Oaknoll East & Scott Blvd Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Major1 Major2 Minor1 Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 506 0 Future Vol, veh/h 3 506 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free RT Channelized 0 0 None Storage Length 0 2 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - Grade, % 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 3 569 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 Minor2 0.013 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 603 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 603 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - None - 5.52 None 6.12 - None Critical Hdwy Stg 2 0 - - - 0 - 6.12 0 - Follow-up Hdwy 0 - 2.218 - 0 - 3.518 0 3.318 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 678 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 Minor2 0.013 HCM Control Delay (s) Conflicting Flow All 680 0 0 569 0 0 1255 1255 569 1254 1254 679 Stage 1 - - - - - - 575 575 - 679 679 - Stage 2 - - - - 680 680 - 575 575 - 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 - - - - 503 503 - 441 451 - Stage 2 - - - - 441 451 - 503 503 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 912 - 1003 - 147 171 522 148 171 452 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - 147 171 - 148 171 - Stage 1 - - 500 500 - 439 451 Stage 2 - - 439 451 - 500 500 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 WBR SBLn1 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 GTC (MJP) Existing Conditions AM Page 2 D-2 Existing Conditions PM.syn 1: N 1 st Ave & Hickory Trail Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 884 897 413 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 - None - 4.009 None 2.209 - None Storage Length 267 280 - 268 - 630 - - Stage 1 - 573 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 - - - - 0 - - 0 573 Grade, % - 0 - Platoon blocked, % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 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 NBR EBLn1WBLn1 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 - - GTC (MJP) Existing Conditions PM Page 1 D-3 Existing Conditions PM.syn 2: Site Access/Oaknoll East & Scott Blvd Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Major1 Major2 Minor1 Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 566 0 Future Vol, veh/h 2 566 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free RT Channelized 0 0 None Storage Length 0 3 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - Grade, % 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 615 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 Minor2 0.022 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 605 2 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 605 2 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - None - 5.52 None 6.12 - None Critical Hdwy Stg 2 0 - - - 0 - 6.12 0 - Follow-up Hdwy 0 - 2.218 - 0 - 3.518 0 3.318 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 658 2 0 0 0 2 0 3 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 Minor2 0.022 HCM Control Delay (s) Conflicting Flow All 660 0 0 615 0 0 1280 1279 615 1278 1278 659 Stage 1 - - - - - - 619 619 - 659 659 - Stage 2 - - - - 661 660 - 619 619 - 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 - - - - 476 480 - 453 461 - Stage 2 - - - - 452 460 - 476 480 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 928 - 965 - 142 166 491 143 166 464 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - 142 166 - 143 166 - Stage 1 - - 475 479 - 452 461 Stage 2 - - 449 460 - 475 479 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 WBR SBLn1 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 GTC (MJP) Existing Conditions PM Page 2 D-4 Baseline Conditions AM.syn 1: N 1 st Ave & Hickory Trail Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.8 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1040 1051 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized 5.51 None 6.11 - None - None Follow-up Hdwy - None Storage Length 3.509 - 3.309 - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver - 228 - 210 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 Stage 1 - 0 - 562 0 - Grade, % 0 - Stage 2 0 541 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 Heavy Vehicles, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 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 NBR EBLn1WBLn1 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 - - GTC (MJP) Baseline 2025 Conditions AM Page 1 D-5 Baseline Conditions AM.syn 2: Site Access/Oaknoll East & Scott Blvd Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Major1 Major2 Minor1 Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 543 0 Future Vol, veh/h 3 543 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free RT Channelized 0 0 None Storage Length 0 2 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - Grade, % 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 3 610 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 Minor2 0.014 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 646 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 646 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - None - 5.52 None 6.12 - None Critical Hdwy Stg 2 0 - - - 0 - 6.12 0 - Follow-up Hdwy 0 - 2.218 - 0 - 3.518 0 3.318 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 726 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.004 Minor2 0.014 HCM Control Delay (s) Conflicting Flow All 728 0 0 610 0 0 1344 1344 610 1343 1343 727 Stage 1 - - - - - - 616 616 - 727 727 - Stage 2 - - - - 728 728 - 616 616 - 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 - - - - 478 482 - 415 429 - Stage 2 - - - - 415 429 - 478 482 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 876 - 969 - 128 151 494 128 151 424 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - 128 151 - 128 151 - Stage 1 - - 476 480 - 413 429 Stage 2 - - 413 429 - 476 480 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 WBR SBLn1 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 GTC (MJP) Baseline 2025 Conditions AM Page 2 D-6 Baseline Conditions PM.syn 1: N 1 st Ave & Hickory Trail Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.9 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 920 933 430 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 - None - 4.009 None 2.209 - None Storage Length 253 267 - 254 - 616 - - Stage 1 - 562 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 - - - - 0 - - 0 562 Grade, % - 0 - Platoon blocked, % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 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 NBR EBLn1WBLn1 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 - - GTC (MJP) Baseline 2025 Conditions PM Page 1 D-7 Baseline Conditions PM.syn 2: Site Access/Oaknoll East & Scott Blvd Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.1 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Major1 Major2 Minor1 Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 607 0 Future Vol, veh/h 2 607 0 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free RT Channelized 0 0 None Storage Length 0 3 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - Grade, % 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 660 0 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 Minor2 0.025 HCM Control Delay (s) 0 649 2 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 649 2 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - None - 5.52 None 6.12 - None Critical Hdwy Stg 2 0 - - - 0 - 6.12 0 - Follow-up Hdwy 0 - 2.218 - 0 - 3.518 0 3.318 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 705 2 0 0 0 2 0 3 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 Minor2 0.025 HCM Control Delay (s) Conflicting Flow All 707 0 0 660 0 0 1372 1371 660 1370 1370 706 Stage 1 - - - - - - 664 664 - 706 706 - Stage 2 - - - - 708 707 - 664 664 - 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 - - - - 450 458 - 427 439 - Stage 2 - - - - 426 438 - 450 458 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 891 - 928 - 122 145 463 124 145 436 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - 122 145 - 124 145 - Stage 1 - - 448 456 - 425 439 Stage 2 - - 423 438 - 448 456 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 WBR SBLn1 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 GTC (MJP) Baseline 2025 Conditions PM Page 2 Future With Conditions AM.syn 1: N 1 st Ave & Hickory Trail Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 2.2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 1062 1073 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized 5.51 None 6.11 - None - None Follow-up Hdwy - None Storage Length 3.509 - 3.309 - - Pot Cap -1 Maneuver - 221 - 200 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - 0 Stage 1 - 0 - 547 0 - Grade, % 0 - Stage 2 0 529 - 0 - - 0 Peak Hour Factor 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 Heavy Vehicles, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 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 NBR EBLn1WBLn1 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 - - GTC (MJP) Future 2025 With Conditions AM Page 1 Future With Conditions AM.syn 2: Site Access/Oaknoll East & Scott Blvd Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.7 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Major1 Major2 Minor1 Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 543 10 Future Vol, veh/h 3 543 10 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free RT Channelized 17 0 None Storage Length 0 2 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - Grade, % 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 3 610 11 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 235 HCM Lane V/C Ratio Minor2 0.004 - 0.004 - 3 646 2 17 0 5 1 0 2 3 646 2 17 0 5 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - None - 5.52 None 6.12 - None Critical Hdwy Stg 2 0 - - - 0 - 6.12 0 - Follow-up Hdwy 0 - 2.218 - 0 - 3.518 0 3.318 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 726 2 19 0 6 1 0 2 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 235 HCM Lane V/C Ratio Minor2 0.004 - 0.004 - Conflicting Flow All 728 0 0 621 0 0 1356 1356 616 1358 1360 727 Stage 1 - - - - - - 622 622 - 733 733 - Stage 2 - - - - 734 734 - 625 627 - 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 - - - - 474 479 - 412 426 - Stage 2 - - - - 412 426 - 473 476 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 876 - 960 - 124 148 491 124 147 424 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - 124 148 - 124 147 - Stage 1 - - 472 477 - 410 424 Stage 2 - - 408 424 - 465 474 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 WBR SBLn1 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 GTC (MJP) Future 2025 With Conditions AM Page 2 D-10 Future With Conditions PM.syn 1: N 1 st Ave & Hickory Trail Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 1.3 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Minor1 Major1 Major2 Conflicting Flow All 958 971 430 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free RT Channelized - None Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 - None - 4.009 None 2.209 - None Storage Length 238 254 - 236 - 616 - - Stage 1 - 562 Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 - - - - 0 - - 0 562 Grade, % - 0 - Platoon blocked, % 0 - 0 - 0 Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 Heavy Vehicles, % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 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 NBR EBLn1WBLn1 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 - - GTC (MJP) Future 2025 With Conditions PM Page 1 D-11 Future With Conditions PM.syn 2: Site Access/Oaknoll East & Scott Blvd Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005) Intersection Int Delay, s/veh 0.6 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Major1 Major2 Minor1 Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 607 19 Future Vol, veh/h 2 607 19 Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 Sign Control Free Free Free RT Channelized 14 0 None Storage Length 0 3 - Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - Grade, % 0 0 - Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 Mvmt Flow 2 660 21 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 206 HCM Lane V/C Ratio Minor2 0.002 - 0.007 - 6 649 2 14 0 5 2 0 3 6 649 2 14 0 5 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - None - 5.52 None 6.12 - None Critical Hdwy Stg 2 0 - - - 0 - 6.12 0 - Follow-up Hdwy 0 - 2.218 - 0 - 3.518 0 3.318 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 705 2 15 0 5 2 0 3 Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 206 HCM Lane V/C Ratio Minor2 0.002 - 0.007 - Conflicting Flow All 707 0 0 681 0 0 1397 1396 671 1397 1405 706 Stage 1 - - - - - - 675 675 - 720 720 - Stage 2 - - - - 722 721 - 677 685 - 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 - - - - 444 453 - 419 432 - Stage 2 - - - - 418 432 - 443 448 - Platoon blocked, % - - Mov Cap -1 Maneuver 891 - 912 - 116 139 456 115 137 436 Mov Cap -2 Maneuver - - - - 116 139 - 115 137 - Stage 1 - - 442 451 - 417 426 Stage 2 - - 409 426 - 436 446 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 WBR SBLn1 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 GTC (MJP) Future 2025 With Conditions PM Page 2 D-12 jDOT Crash Detail Report 20181073217 10/16/2018 15:24 1 HICKORY TRL AND N 1ST AVE County: Johnson City: Iowa City Major Cause: Followed too close Roadway Type: Intersection: T -intersection Severity:: Possible/Unknown Injury Fatalities: 0 Major Injuries: 0 Minor Injuries: 0 Possible Injuries: 2 Severity:: Possible/Unknown Injury Unit 1 Manner of Crash: Rear -end (front to rear) Surface Conditions: Dry Light Conditions: Daylight Weather Conditions: Clear Drug/Alc Involved: None Indicated Property Damage: $3,000 Unit 2 Init Trav Dir: South Veh Action: Movement essentially straight Configuration: Sport utility vehicle Driver Age: 33 Driver Gender: F Driver Cond: Emotional (e.g., depressed, angry) Driver Contr 1: Followed too close Driver Contr 2: Not reported Fixed Object: None (no fixed object struck) 20201157310 01/15/2020 04:30 County: Johnson City: Iowa City Major Cause: Other Roadway Type: Feature: Non-junction/no special feature Slowing/stopping (deceleration) Sport utility vehicle 71 F Apparently normal No improper action Not reported None (no fixed object struck) HICKORY TRL AND N 1 STAVE Number of Vehicles: 2 Unit Severity:: Property Damage Only Manner of Crash: Sideswipe, opposite direction Fatalities: 0 Surface Conditions: Ice/frost Major Injuries: 0 Minor Injuries: 0 Possible Injuries: 0 Severity:: Property Damage Only Unit 1 Light Conditions: Dark - unknown roadway lighting Weather Conditions: Cloudy Drug/Alc Involved: None Indicated Property Damage: $5,000 Number of Vehicles: 2 Unit 2 JUnit Init Trav Dir: South North Veh Action: Movement essentially straight Configuration: Four -tire light truck (pick-up) Driver Age: 47 Driver Gender: F Driver Cond: Apparently normal Driver Contr 1: Other Driver Contr 2: Not reported Fixed Object: None (no fixed object struck) January 21, 2021 Movement essentially straight Passengercar F Apparently normal No improper action Not reported None (no fixed object struck) Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Page 1 E-1 jDOT Crash Detail Report 20181070658 10/02/2018 16:39 N SCOTT BLVD County: Johnson City: Iowa City Major Cause: Followed too close Roadway Type: Feature: Non-junction/no special feature Severity:: Suspected Minor Injury Manner of Crash: Rear -end (front to rear) Fatalities: 0 Surface Conditions: Dry Major Injuries: 0 Light Conditions: Daylight Minor Injuries: 1 Weather Conditions: Cloudy Possible Injuries: 0 Drug/Alc Involved: None Indicated Severity:: Suspected Minor Injury Property Damage: $8,000 Number of Vehicles: 2 Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit Init Trav Dir: East East Veh Action: Movement essentially straight Stopped in traffic Configuration: Sport utility vehicle Four -tire light truck (pick-up) Driver Age: 25 52 Driver Gender: F M Driver Cond: Emotional (e.g., depressed, angry) Apparently normal Driver Contr 1: Followed too close No improper action Driver Contr 2: Not reported Not reported Fixed Object: None (no fixed object struck) None (no fixed object struck) January 21, 2021 Iowa Crash Analysis Tool Page 1 E-2 Hickory Trail Estates GTC #21-005 Scott Boulevard at Site Access (PM Peak -hour) Left -Turn Storage Guidelines 1300 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Below eurve, storage not needed -for rapacity- - - Above curve, further analysis recommended. ' *DHV is total volume from both directions **Speeds are posted speeds 1200 1100 1000 900 ' > ' 2 � 800 ' O H i 700 i i i 600 i i , ' 4 500 ' SOmah* 400 60 mph** 300 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% % Total DHV Turning Left (single turning movement) Total DHV: 1,285 Posted Speed: 35 mph Left Turns: 6 % Left: 0.5% Based on WSDOT September 2019 Design Manual: Exhibit 1310-7a, Page 1310-14. F - l il THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA 17 December 2020 Mike Welch Professional Engineer Axiom Consultants 60 East Court Street Iowa City, IA 52240 mwelch@axiom-con.com OFFICE OF THE STATE ARCHAEOLOGIST 700 Clinton Street Building Iowa City, Iowa 52242 319-384-0732 osa@uiowa.edu archaeology.uiowa.edu 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 IIntensive 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 cHp,Edi0C,1,,r 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)(S) 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 1:14-51-12-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 1. 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 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 E'/2, SE'/4 of Section 2, and the SW'/4, SW'/4, SW'/4, 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 2 OSA Technical Report 1622 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 Schoenberger 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 Btl 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 3 OSA Technical Report 1622 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 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.nres.usda.gov/lntemet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nresl42p2_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.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/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. 5 OSA Technical Report 1622 Table 1. Project Area Mapped Soils. Soil Name ID Description I -Sites LSA' Landform Native Pedon Vegetation Arenzville- 729B 1-4% slopes Camp Creek Drainageways Tall grass prairie Ap-C1-C2- Nodaway C3 Complex Lindley 65F2 18-25% slopes; moderately eroded Fayette M163 5-40% slopes Shallow to pre- Hillslopes Wisconsin till Loess mantled Hillslopes terrace, thick loess 'Landform/Sediment Assemblage (Artz 2005). 2 Tall grass prairie A-E-Btl- Bt2-Bt3- Bt4-C Tall grass prairie Ap-BE-Btt- Bt2-BC-C OSA Technical Report 1622 Table 2. Representative Soil Profiles. Location Dem) epth Description Auger Test 4 0-5 Ap horizon of brown (I OYR 4/3) silt loam; fine subangular blocky structure; friable; clear smooth boundary. 5-30 Bt horizon of dark yellowish brown (1 OYR 4/4) silty clay loam; fine to moderate subangular blocky structure; friable; gradual smooth boundary. 30-50 Bt2 horizon of yellowish brown (I OYR 5/4) silty clay loam; moderate subangular blocky structure; friable to firm. Auger Test 0-20 AC horizon of brown (I OYR 4/3) silt loam; fine subangular blocky structure; 13 friable; clear smooth boundary. 20-100 C horizon of mixed brown (1 OYR 4/3) and yellowish brown (5/4) silty clay loam; massive grading to moderate subangular blocky structure; friable; heavy redox present. Auger Test 0-10 Ap horizon of brown (I OYR 4/3) silt loam; fine subangular blocky structure; 37 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 Bt horizon of dark yellowish brown (1 OYR 4/4) silty clay loam; fine to moderate moderate subangular blocky structure; friable; gradual smooth boundary. Auger Test 0-15 Bt horizon of dark yellowish brown (1 OYR 4/4) silty clay loam; fine to moderate 41 subangular blocky structure; friable; gradual smooth boundary. 15-40 Bt2 horizon of yellowish brown (1 OYR 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 (1 OYR 5/4) silty clay loam; medium prismatic structure; friable; redox features present; clay skins present. Auger Test 0-10 Ap horizon of brown (I OYR 4/3) silt loam; fine subangular blocky structure; 64 friable; clear smooth boundary. 10-35 Bt horizon of dark yellowish brown (1 OYR 4/4) silty clay loam; fine to moderate subangular blocky structure; friable; gradual smooth boundary. 35-50 Bt2 horizon of yellowish brown (I OYR 5/4) silty clay loam; moderate subangular blocky structure; friable to firm. 7 OSA Technical Report 1622 y _ " T80NR06W - 35 a�. sa `-P36 ■ Kilometers 0 0.4 0.8 1.6 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Project Area Figure 1. Project location in relation to surrounding topography. Base USGS (2018), U.S. Topo 7.5'series quadrangle map. Scale 1:24,000. •' Project Area ."' . _ AW y�� Ste• - j T ■ � ! ■ _ creek . sa�'^:.;■ o T79NR06W +`,� ' ].49�ii FI¢Yn'4 �; ter¢°' i r � `-' 1.1 "• ��, $ �.■: : _ � ., .." ' h: _ . arAi.iwll:. .a:• ,.'. •-.. ... • - F4;'r =^,-B �n� 1 - '♦: �♦ I +e• + _ ..... ... .-.. a _ �„ r•r,, i � � i •: �, '� femme , Eleni Sch i �-+:� Kilometers 0 0.4 0.8 1.6 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Project Area 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 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 I m lidar hillshade map (ISUGISRF 2020). 0 OSA Technical Report 1622 0 0 0 0 0 Meters 0 65 130 260 0 225 450 900 Feet �GNAEOLocIgT P cOil n N Project Area Woe 10 000 11; o m O 0 0 018: s�oz-c By�o 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). 10 OSA Technical Report 1622 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. 11 OSA Technical Report 1622 Figure S. 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. 12 OSA Technical Report 1622 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 3. FILED AT Office of the State Archaeologist 700 CLSB University of Iowa Iowa City, IA 52242 4. UTM COORDINATES Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Zone Continuation, see 14. 5. AUTHORS Warren Davis 6. YEAR 2020 (year published) AND SHPO — ID orthing orthing orthing orthing orthing orthing 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 f 321 PHASE I 13 OSA Technical Report 1622 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 14 From: Parker, Adam G To: Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner Subject: Proposed Residential Development Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park Date: Sunday, January 31, 20218:01:12 PM a 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 httls::,//www.iowa-city.org/.../0/doc/1473770/Electronic.aspxx 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: imaae002.pno image003.pnng imaae004.pno image005.pnng imaae006.pno FYI From: Anne Russett Sent: Monday, January 4, 20211:15 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: httDs://www.icaov.ora/e-subscriDtions Thanks. And let me know if you have any questions. Anne QTY OF IOWA CITy Anne Russett, AICP Senior Planner UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE She/Her/Hers WWW.ICGOV.ORG p:319-356-5251 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 From: Teresa Galluzzo <tegallu(@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 4, 202112:56 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 to Hickory Hill Park. This park is a refuge for so many people. A place to find peace, solve life problems, 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, 20218:43:34 AM Can you please follow-up with Adam? From: Parker, Adam G <adam-parker@uiowa.edu> Sent: Monday, January 18, 20218:36 PM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Zoning near Hickory Hill Park t R4�K 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, 20219:19:47 AM Attachments: imaae001.ona image002.png imaae003.Dna image004.png imaae005.Dna 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:OOPM 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 He tner Associate Planner (he/him/his) 319.356.5238 raymond-heitner(@iowa-city.org 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 d "HZ3Cb [11Y bF t i r r RA 7"DE WWW.ICGOV.ORG f 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, 20215:01:50 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, 20213:59 PM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Re: ACT development fi i That would be great. On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 3:36 PM Anne Russett <Anne-RussettPiowa-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, 20212:33 PM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett(@iowa-cit)1.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 the park 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: H i, 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 <cikohrt(cDgmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 202110:03 AM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett(@iowa-cit)1.org> Subject: ACT development AI 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: imaae001.p_na imaae002.pnna imaae003.p_na imaae004.pnna imaae005.p_na I 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-heitneri Thank you, Ray He tner Associate Planner (he/him/his) 319.356.5238 ravmond-heitner(@iowa-city.org 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 _=10 A CITY A LI HZ i CCI {r ?7 CI LITE RA 7LRE WWW.ICGOV.ORG From: Parker, Adam G <adam-parker@uiowa.edu> Sent: Sunday, January 31, 20218:01 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 fi i l�l$ki 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 RI$H 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-russetCa)iowa-city.org; Raymond Heitner Subject: Hickory Hill Park Date: Monday, February 8, 20215:51:29 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, 20218:51:04 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, 20211:34 PM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>; ray-heitner@iowa-city.org Subject: Proposed land development i RE'&ii 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, 20217:09:01 PM a 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: Lutaendorf, Philip A To: Raymond Heitner; Anne Russett Cc: friends. hh.parKbgmaiLcom; Lutgendorf, Susan K Subject: Rezoning the field adjacent to Hickory Hill Park Date: Tuesday, February 9, 20218:28:07 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 a Dear Mr. Heitner In response to the notice we received regarding the proposal to rezone the area around Scott Blvd. and 1 st 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.wellfinii 319.330.8382 0 From: Erin Durian To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Rezoning Message Date: Wednesday, February 10, 20215:43:45 PM I RdS� 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 PI From: Jason Naooli To: Raymond Heitner Subject: Re: Rezoning Near 1st Avenue and Scott Boulevard Date: Tuesday, February 9, 20215:25:47 PM Attachments: imaae004.pna image005.pno imaae001.pna image002.pno imaae003.pna 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 1 st 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 Anne Russett From: Casey James Kohrt <cjkohrt@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 6:53 PM To: Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner Cc: fhhp-board@googlegroups.com Subject: Friends of Hickory Hill Park Response to Proposed Rezoning Ar R]SK Anne and Ray, Please include this letter among items being provided to P&Z commission. I hope all responses to this proposal are being provided to the commission, are they? Friends of Hickory Hill Park is opposed to the planned rezoning of the land South of Scott Boulevard and West of 1st avenue. This current proposed plat for "Hickory Trail Estates" is in opposition to the NE District Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. It has been opined that these plans are dated, and should be ignored. If this is the case, we will ask City officials to re -open the NE District Plan and Comprehensive Plan before this goes through, as we feel this still reflects the view of most citizens in how City development takes place. Protecting the viewshed of the park was central to the plan. The NE District Plan calls for (image from plan): Preserve natural features. Conservation design of residential developments is a key feature of the future land use scenario for the Bluf-Nvood Neighborhood. To preserve sensitive areas, cul-de-sac streets and single -loaded streets are proposed where appropriate. Open spaces are shown in areas containing wooded ravines and boggy, potential wetland areas; as a buffer along the east and north edges of Hickory Hill Park where it abuts the Larson tract; and encompassing the 100 year floodplain along Ralston Creek and its tributaries. The pond on the Kral I farm is featured as a focal point within a allowed on First Avenue in the vicinity of the park. A conservation residential design is proposed on the property between First Avenue and Hickory Hill Park to provide a buffer between the residential development and the park. Create and enhance neighborhood partes within the district. Natural open SpacelBufferAreas. In the Bluffwood Neighborhood, the plan calls forbuffering green space to be provided between Hickory Hill Park and residential development on the south and west portions of the Larson tract. One goal of this buffer is to minimize the visibility of residential develop- ment from the park. This can be accomplished by shifting density on the Larson property away from the park and aligning it in slightly higher densities (townhouses and small apartment houses) along the adjacent arterial streets. A larger buffer area for the park on the Larson tract may be possible if the property owner consents to a greater transfer in density or there is private and/or public purchase of a portion of the property. No direct vehicular access to the park or through streets adjacent to the park are proposed. Instead, the residential development nearest the park is shown on cul-de-sac streets and pedestrian access to Hickory Hill Park is encouraged. Environmentally sensitive areas, such as flood- plain and wetlands along Ralston Creek and wooded ravines, are preserved as open space. Conserva- 6b tr , The comprehensive plan calls for: Comprehensive Plan htt s://wwwS.iowa- cit .or /Web Lin k/01edoc/19321601Section%2010%20Parks%20and%200 en%20S ace%2012.2019. df Parks and Open Space Goals and Strategies: Improve overall access to and awareness of parks. - Discourage parks that are surrounded by private property; encourage development of parks with single -loaded street access It has been suggested by City Staff that more current code regarding cul-de-sacs would negate these plans. We disagree. There is language that addresses environmental concerns: 15-3-2: STREETS AND CIRCULATION: A. Connectivity Of Streets, Sidewalks, And Trails: Subdivisions shall provide for continuation and extension of arterial, collector and local streets, sidewalks and trails in accordance with the following standards: 4. 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 denlonstrated 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. We therefore 'feel that environmental constraints described, along with non-compliance with NE District Plan and Comprehensive Plan ideals, we firmly reject this proposal. If this rezoning is to be approved, we first ask the City P&Z Commission and City Council to re -open the plan concepts before any consideration is made, to affirm how the citizens of Iowa City would like to see development happen. We are not anti -development, but ask that development be done in accordance with the NE District and Comprehensive Plans. CaseyJames Kohrt, for Friends of Hickory Hill Park. From: Ben Berger To: Raymond Heitner Subject: RE: REZ20-0016 Hickory Trail Estates Date: Thursday, February 11, 20219:28:29 AM RI$H 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. 1 st 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. 1 st Ave and Scott becomes backed up, traffic will just shoot down the neighborhood and to the intersection at Hickory Trail and N. 1 st Ave. I have approached the city about traffic calming on N. 1 st 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. 1 st 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 RI$H 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: imaae002.Dna image003.pnng imaae004.Dna image005.pnng imaae006.Dno 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-Russettna.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. 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 CITY OF IOWA CiTy Anne Russett, AICP UNESCO CITY OF LITERATURE Senior Planner WWW.ICGOV.ORG She/Her/Hers 00*0 p:319-356-5251 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 From: Jesse Thomas <� semacfarlane&gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 20219:59 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 areos in 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.ora; Raymond Heitner Subject: Proposed Residential Development Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park Date: Thursday, February 11, 2021 1:00:44 PM RI$H 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, 202112:47 PM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Hickory Hill Park proposed development R]Sk{ 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, 20212:24:32 PM Please include with Commission correspondence. From: Susannah Neal <susannahgkneal@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 20212:04 PM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Hickory Hill Development fi R�S�[ 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, 20213:56:07 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, 20214:19:03 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 keliv-messinaham(@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, 20214:31:59 PM i 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 HIII 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 Campbell 328 N 7th Ave, Iowa City, IA From: kristen Nelson -Boutros To: Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner Subject: Proposed Rezoning and Development Date: Thursday, February 11, 20214:45:17 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, 20214:59:11 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 1 st 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 1 st 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, 20218:00:22 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, 20218:22:31 PM Attachments: OutlookEmoi i -1554175382453692d 126f-b36d-4eda-ba bd-Of306Of207ce. ong OutlookEmoji-1554175382453074ba4ce-9234-4274-9637-aa0aebcO5576. png OutlookEmoii-15541753824534c39b404-ae lf-45ae-b633-343d56495d4a. ong OutlookEmoji-1554175382453b45f3bO8-f3Oa-4ebe-897f-9445fc8ace4f. [ng OutlookEmoii-1554175382453aO398783-e4e2-4f62-99a9-06452cO2dO67.ong OutlookEmoji-1554175382453e323ed 16-9e35-4f52-aaO6-361cf68c4e59. png OutlookEmoii-1554175382453dde46e65-eb31-45el-a249-f58094elcOd6.ong OutlookEmoji-155417538245367aed794-3e7c-4608-9056-2a5589e5e6b3. png OutlookEmoii-1554175382453a419b920-12c8-4663-ab60-853ac4c91599.ong OutlookEmoii-15541753824533aaObfO7-2022-4c92-a736-5452034d69fd.png OutlookEmoii-1554175382453fae27209-c22b-4b3d-bccl-0361 b217bcde. ong OutlookEmoi i-155417538245319745814-5f90-4f63-aadf-8aOd 3471 bb86. Ing OutlookEmoii-15541753824535b9a9ec7-b9a4-445a-b58a-7a5cecdOf68d.Dng 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 =10W CITY A UN[SC10 trFY of LIrEItAF.UA[ Notice: Please be advised this email communication may be public information. From: Mark Renshaw <markrenshaw@me.com> Sent: Thursday, February 11, 20218:00:00 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 1 st 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 1 st 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, 20217:50:17 AM RI$H 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, 20218:02:37 AM RI$H 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, 20218:41:58 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: imaae001.Dna image002.pnno imaae003.Dna image004.pnno imaae005.Dna 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, 20219:09 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 He tner AICP Associate Planner (he/him/his) 319.356.5238 ravmond-heitner(@iowa-citv.ore 410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240 ®IIIA CITY A U R E S C O C F F Y OF LITERATURE WWW.ICGOV.ORG 0 00 From: Jorgensen, Shea M <shea-Jorgensen(@uiowa.edu> Sent: Saturday, February 6, 20211:34 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, 20212:43:34 PM I 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, 202110:41 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, 20219:39 AM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Hickory Hill Park/NE District t�l�ki 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: darcy128Cabaol.com To: Raymond Heitner; Anne Russett Cc: darcy128Cabaol.com Subject: REZ20-0016 Hickory Trail Estates Date: Friday, February 12, 20213:21:26 PM I RI$H 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, 20213:32:19 PM From: Emily Kim <emilyakim05@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 12, 20213:32 PM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Hickory Hill Park Proposed Development Plan fi i 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, 20213:31:09 PM From: Molitor, Hannah R <hannah-molitor@uiowa.edu> Sent: Friday, February 12, 20213:18 PM To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> Subject: Concerns about proposed development near Hickory Hill Park fi RI$ki 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 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 6, 2021 —7:00 PM ELECTRONIC FORMAL MEETING PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Mark Nolte, Mark Signs. Billie Townsend MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Ray Heitner, Anne Russett OTHERS PRESENT: Michael Welch, Adam Tarr, Jo Dickens, Tom Goedken, Laura Routh, Ann Synan, William Synan, Casey Kohrt, Mitch Meis, Glenda Buenger, Hannah Rapson, Riley Larson, Allison Jaynes, Arturs Kalnins, Matthew Deforest, Jason Napoli, Ken Gayley 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. RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 6-0 (Martin dissenting) the Commission recommends approval of REZ20-0016, 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) with 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 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 04/29/2021. 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. CASE NO. REZ20-0016: Applicant: Axiom Consultants on behalf of Joseph Clark and Nelson Development 1, LLC 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). Heitner began the staff report with an aerial overview of the subject property and noted previous iterations of this rezoning application have come to this Commission in February and in March. He next showed the current zoning of the subject area and stated the application is applying for an OPD/RS-5 single family residential zoning. The present OPD plan contains 41 detached single-family homes and a senior living facility with 135 bedrooms. All of the development would stem off of an extension of Hickory Trail that would extend to the west and north. With the OPD plan the protected slopes and sensitive areas are avoided completely and with the current plan mitigation wasn't required because it is preserved at a rate of 51 % and mitigation is only required for preservation less than 50% with this zone. Heitner reiterated earlier iterations of this application were presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission in February and March. At the February meeting staff did recommend approval, with five conditions related to approval of a woodland management plan for outlot A, provision to trail connections as shown in the OPD plan, incorporation of traffic calming devices per staff direction, installation of right-of-way trees and requirements to have the plan go through the final platting process. Heitner stated at those two earlier meetings the motion to approve failed and at both meetings the Commission provided general direction to the applicant in how to revise the OPD plan. Therefore, staff has received a further revised plan to be presented the Commission for consideration. Heitner highlighted the major changes in this third version of the plan. This version removed the condo style housing that was in the previous versions, so it's all detached single family residential throughout Hickory Trail, except for the senior living facility to the east. He noted there is a single loaded street for approximately 71 % of the Hickory Trail extension and with that the increased acreage from outlot A has increased from 11.6 acres in the previous plan to 14.02 acres in the current plan. A third pedestrian crossing was added just south of the traffic circle, it's not projected to be a raised traffic crossing but is another dedicated space for pedestrian crossing. Within the street extension as well, a sidewalk to the senior living facility on the east side was also added with this plan. Impacted critical slopes were reduced once again with this plan from 17% to 13% and the preserved woodlands are up at 51 %, the applicant also increased the stream corridor buffer to 25 feet on each side of the stream corridor. Heitner showed a side-by-side comparison of the original plan that was presented to this Commission in February and the current proposal. He noted the biggest difference is the single loaded street that takes place throughout the south-central portion of Hickory Trail to the midpoint of the street and again noted about 71% of the street extension would be single loaded. Heitner also noted the street is also shifted slightly to the west. Heitner showed another view of the current OPD plan and noted while the Northeast District Plan does show the use of cul-de- sacs, the applicant is preferring to do through street with this proposal. However, in the Northeast District Plan with the cul-de-sacs it shows potential homes on both sides of the streets and so terms of proportionality to what shown in the Plan versus the proposed OPD, staff feels it's a fairly close match. In previous versions there was housing on the southern corner and almost up to the midpoint of the street but that's been removed for a single loaded layout. Heitner stated staff did present the OPD plan to the Parks and Recreation Commission on April 14 for recommendations on the open space dedication as required by Code. That Commission recommended deferral of a formal recommendation on the open space dedication until the Planning and Zoning Commission approves this rezoning. Heitner noted with respect to correspondence, staff did receive a letter of support of the rezoning from the current property owner and also received eight new emails and letters this week opposing the rezoning. The principal points for the opposition include wanting outlot B included as an addition to Hickory Hill Park, lack of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, lack of compatibility with surrounding uses, the scale of the senior living facility and lack of buffer to the park. Heitner reiterated the conditions staff is proposing with approval of this zoning. 1. Provision of a woodland management plan prepared by woodland specialists and approved by the City Forster. The removal of invasive species would be the responsibility of the owner and would have to be completed prior to transfer outlot A to the City. 2. Provision of trail connections as shown on the most recent concept plan. 3. Incorporation of traffic calming devices, as requested by staff. 4. Installation of right-of-way trees to be planted by the owner successor along the proposed Hickory Trail right-of-way. 5. No issuance of building permits until the application has gone through final platting. Hensch noted he has read this very carefully and asked Heitner in his professional opinion is everything on this OPD plan in general consistent with Comprehensive Plan and with the Northeast District Plan and also does it comply with all development ordinance requirements for this rezoning. Heitner confirmed it complies with all development ordinance requirements and that's one reason why they had an attachment of the buildable area layouts for lots as they wanted to make sure that those lots would be buildable. In terms of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, staff is supportive of this version of the plan and as he noted earlier there's a pretty close similarity between the allocation of houses that's proposed between Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast District Plan and what's on the proposed plan. He acknowledged there's differences in terms of not having a cul-de-sac and not having density to the north, but overall, the spirit of the plan, the allocation of housing, the provision of a majority single loaded street, the diversity of housing that is presented with the addition of the senior living facility are all positive attributes and staff believes that is the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. Hensch stated if he would have taken the Northeast District Plan mockup and overlaid it with what the applicant submitted it certainly looks like the layout is remarkably similar. Hensch also noted that increasing outlot A to 14 acres makes about a third of the property is to be dedicated to parkland. Heitner confirmed 14.02 acres dedicated with this iteration of the plan, if approved, is slightly less than a third of the total acreage so a substantial part of the overall property for sure. Signs noted of the things they haven't addressed a lot is the on the eastern part of the property it appears there's a significant portion dedicated in a conservation easement. Heitner confirmed 4.4 acres within outlot B would be dedicated within a conservation easement and not included in Hickory Hill Park. Park staff didn't want that area included because of the condition of the trees there but that would be another portion of this overall plan that would be undeveloped. Heitner explained a conservation easement is something that would be drafted as a condition or supplemental to legal papers with the subdivision in final platting that would essentially earmark an area that would not allow for any kind of development. He added there is some overlap with that easement onto some of the properties on the east side of Hickory Trail and that's something that staff is going to work with the applicant to address and make sure there is demarcation between where development can and cannot take place within those lots. Craig asked for an explanation of what a planned development overlay is and then also has a question pertinent in a broader sense to the Northeast District Plan and everybody referring to where the cul-de-sacs were but in that Plan it also shows some bigger buildings along First Avenue and that piece of property is yet to be developed but she assumes the concept there is maybe a continuation of the condos that go up that side of First Avenue. She acknowledged it's really not pertinent to this project, but she just wonders what conceptually the staff thinks will happen if this gets approved, to that other corner that's left now at First Avenue and Scott Boulevard. Heitner first answered the second question, and so as far as the building's shown along First Avenue in the Plan it's a mix of neighborhood commercial further south and then small apartment to the north towards Scott Boulevard so that is what they would envision taking place there. Craig asked about commercial in that area. Heitner said it would be neighborhood commercial, but they also wouldn't rule out the possibility of a small apartment development there. Heitner next explained a planned development overlay is a tool they use to provide the applicant some flexibility in terms of waivers from dimensional requirements or height obligations with buildings or certain things within the zoning code. Craig asked if that negotiated in the final platting. Heitner said it's not so much in negotiation it's more a stricter codification that the applicant has to follow within a plan development but in exchange for going through a bit more strenuous review there's some waivers from certain requirements. Russett added one thing the Commission is considering tonight in the planned development overlay and when you they look at those plans and see the location of the lots and the location of the senior living and the dedication of the open space for the expansion of Hickory Hill Park and the conservation easements, they are recommending approval or denial of those things and that will not change as it moves through the process. A zoning overlay is very specific, and it will not change without having to come back to the Commission. Signs asked if they are also dealing with conservation design or conservation development type of planning where they are clustering houses in areas that are the least impactful to the natural areas and that often is tied to a planned overlay development. Heitner confirmed that's usually one of the key attributes of a planned development, the clustering of density to avoid sensitive areas in certain spots. Signs noted under the proposed conditions on page four of the staff report, number two talks about the need for the trail connections to be constructed before the public improvements are made and wonders how if they don't have anything to connect to until after the public improvements are made. Hektoen stated they are typically constructed contemporaneous with the public improvements. Martin asked Heitner about the comparison of the Northeast District Neighborhood Pan to the current application proposal and what's the dwelling percentage difference in terms of proposed dwelling units and of disturbance. Heitner noted dwelling units are not counted on the vision. Hektoen confirmed Comprehensive Plans aren't usually that detailed, they are just the best recommend guidelines for zoning classifications and this zoning designation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in terms of density. Hensch opened the public hearing. Michael Welch (Axiom Consultants) is representing the development team and wanted to start by thanking the Commission for again having an opportunity to discuss this. He is representing Joe Clark and Jacob Wolfgang, Clark is responsible for the single family portion of the development and Wolfgang is with Nelson Development who is doing the senior housing piece. Welch also noted several other members of the development team that were on the call tonight if there are specific questions. Welch stated like the two previous plans for this development, this one does have the full support of City staff, the plan complies with zoning code requirements including the sensitive areas code section, which includes woodland retention, sensitive slopes, floodplains and wetlands. How this third version is significantly different than what they've seen before is they worked to develop a layout that provides those single loaded streets that are shown in that Bluffwood Neighborhood Northeast District Plan concept but also finding a plan that meets the needs of the development team in making a successful development. With the new plan they arrived at eliminating 15 single family lots on the south and west side of the Hickory Trial extension and also eliminated 10 of the condominium units at the northwest corner of the site. They also reduced lots sizes throughout the development to offset some of those loss of lots. So, with the removal of the 15 single family lots and the elimination of the condos the result is 41 single family lots and the one lot for the senior housing project. They are providing single loaded frontage for 71 % of the street frontage along Hickory Hill Park. Welch pointed out how far that area is and that it is definitely not typical in single family developments in Iowa City. Additionally, the park open space dedication did increase to 14 acres and still intended to be dedicated to the expansion of Hickory Hill Park. They are providing the two pedestrian access points into Hickory Hill Park and the plan provides for those connections to the existing public trails or at least to the point where those trails currently stop. One is near the southwest corner of lot one where the waterway goes south into Hickory Hill Park and the second is on the west side of development, approximately across from lots 14 and 15. Welch noted this plan addresses traffic speeds on Hickory Trail with the addition of the traffic circle and the two raised pedestrian crossings located at those trail connections. All of the street trees they're proposing and all the landscape trees on lot one that are proposed have been and will continue to be reviewed with the City Forrester with the goal to provide diverse tree populations there. Welch touched on some of the comments that Commissioners made regarding areas within the development and stated 37.9% of these 48 acres will either be conservation easement or parkland dedication and will not be developed. On the woodland retention, they are retaining 51 % of the woodlands, and there's an additional 16% of woodland that's buffer that does not count towards retention, but also will not be disturbed so close to 70% of the existing woodlands that are there today will remain after development. Welch stated this new plan is in compliance with the Northeast District Plan and the Comprehensive Plan, including the Bluffwood Neighborhood Plan. The new plan provides a buffer in the form of outlot A between the existing boundary of Hickory Hill Park and the new development which directly addresses the statement in the Comprehensive Plan calling for a "buffering green space to be provided between Hickory Hill Park and residential development on the south and west portions of the Larson track". The requested rezoning for this development is RS -5 or low-density single-family and this is the lowest density zoning designation possible within the City Code. As far as the senior housing, Welch stated the senior housing development they are proposing is a low intensity use, facilities such as this will generate fewer daily vehicle trips than a single- family house on the western portion of this development. Likewise, a typical single-family lot of comparable size to those that are in this development is between 35% and 40% imperviousness on those lots and the senior housing development in this plan impervious area is 39%. So, although the building type varies from what was envisioned 20 years ago in the Plan, the actual intensity of the land use they are proposing is very similar to what was envisioned. The Comprehensive Plan and Northeast District Plan discuss the idea of a view shed both in and out of the park and they have addressed this for the senior housing development by stepping the building height down as they move from north to south across that lot. The northern portion of the building is three stories and the three-story piece of the building is about 42% of the building footprint. There's a small section of building that is two stories, about 9% and the remaining 51 % of the building is a single -story structure. They are requesting a building height of 40 feet instead of the standard 35 feet on the three-story section and that results in the top of the windows of the third floor being at about 31 feet above the main building. For comparison the existing ridge on the east property line is about 34 feet above the elevation of the main entrance so the building is designed to sit down on the site. Welch lastly wanted to address the question of the conservation easement. It is the developer's intention to use the language from the conservation easement that the City approved and will allow for hiking, birdwatching and wildlife observation, removal of invasive trees and shrubs for species control and stormwater management as required by the City of Iowa City if needed. It does not allow for anything to be constructed in that easement, additionally, the way that they would propose to mark that easement would be to set property pins on the lot lines where that easement crosses it on so in effect it is no different than if there was a lot line there. Adam Tarr (Pugh, Hagan, Prahm Law Firm) is here on behalf of Nelson Development, one of the applicants in favor of this rezoning, and yes, he is here as a lawyer for the applicant, but is also here as a resident of the east side and a regular user of Hickory Hill Park. He wants to make sure to address the public comments that have been provided in terms of the proposal and make sure that it's clear that what they're talking about tonight is a plan that is not something that is threatening the well-being of a park that they all hold dear, but it's something that actually promises something very special here, the possibility of expanding and protecting that park. Tarr stated for 12 years his family has lived a few blocks from the park and it was a huge positive in choosing their home. Between the Commission, staff members, and the public he sees here waiting to speak, he knows that his dog and his family has cross paths literally with everyone in the park several times and will continue to do so. So, as somebody who expects to see everybody over again in the park, he has confidence to be able to say without hesitation tonight that he supports this plan, because it's a very good plan. Not just for the community, but for the park itself. This plan has been supported by P&Z staff in the beginning and it's only improved through two revisions incorporating City and public input. It's been supported by Parks and Rec staff as well as the City Forrester. So to the concerns of any of the public worried about protecting the park, it's protected. Tarr also supports the opportunity to come before the Commissioners and his own neighbors tonight to offer and ask support for a plan that significantly expands and improve Hickory Hill Park by over 14 acres which would be an 8% increase in the park size. Parks and Rec staff have found that it would also improve the eco diversity of the park to add outlot A in addition to adding trails and frontage to Scott Boulevard. As the Chair noted earlier, this would be fully 28% of the property dedicated to Hickory Hill Park if they count the conservation easement that's outlot B. With the conservation set aside there is almost 38% of the development being set aside and the majority of the wooden tree cover being preserved on the property. Tarr believes the human element here is something they also need to consider; this plan is going to introduce good neighbors to the northeast boundary of the park. These will be families and seniors who are choosing to live side-by-side because they're drawn to Hickory Hill Park and can be counted on to cherish the park and to protect it. Tarr believes they all need to welcome those new stewards into the neighborhood and can probably expect them to be swelling the ranks of the Friends of Hickory Hill Park in the future. Tarr acknowledged that development is a dirty word for a lot of people, but he wants to assure the neighbors and the Commission that this is not a development nightmare where the words development of Hickory Hill Park and people suddenly imagine bulldozers. This is in fact a very good proposal so he is asking the community to listen to what's being proposed here, because it's clear that Nelson Development has listened to the Community and listen to P&Z staff in terms of what they would like to see here. With that being said, Tarr wants to ask his fellow neighbors and Friends of Hickory Hill Park to just look inside themselves and ask are they opposed to the notion of a development, or can they look beyond that and see that this is a development that offers to actually improve and to protect the very things that they care about. Tarr had one final comment regarding Commissioner Craig's question earlier about the OPD and exactly what an overlay and a plan development is. In the Code it governs approvals of plan developments and directs the staff and the Commission to review the application for compliance with the applicable approval criteria which are set forth in Chapter 3 Article A and that the report will include findings with regard to the applicable approval criteria that are set forth there and again that's Chapter 3 Article A. Tarr noted City staff has repeatedly found this plan satisfies those criteria and therefore this plan should be approved. By accepting the positions as Commissioners each was sworn to uphold and abide by the authority that governs the decision making and so here it would be Chapter 3 Article A of the Code. Staff has review this application three times now and found it compliant and "adheres generally to the planning principles set forth in the Northeast District Plan". Again the applicants have listened to the comments by the Commission and the public heard concerns about protecting the view and having a single loaded street so these have been addressed and minimizes environmental features. Staff also noted that the homes that might be visible from the park are going to be no more adverse in terms of use, light, or privacy than any other conventional development would be. Tarr knows the Commission has gotten an earful from public comment, and can expect an earful again tonight but while they recognize that that public comment is vital and necessary for public transparency and confidence in the zoning process, he hopes that comments tonight will be informed, not by knee jerk opposition to development per se, but by the realities that have been presented here in the plan. But no matter the input from the public, Tarr just want to remind the Commissioners their mandate isn't to act as a political or a legislative body bending to the most vocal opposition about a plan, if they do that they're abdicating their authority and obligations and overstepping the bounds of what is set forth for P& Z. Instead, he is asking them to consider the staff's recommendation, whether the rezoning application meets the criteria in Chapter 3 Article A of Title 14 and then make a recommendation to the City Council based upon those criteria, let that duly elected representative body answer to its constituents and bear any political pressure as a result. In conclusion, Tarr stated this is a very good application, it provides interconnected streets as preferred in the Northeast District Plan, it incorporates a variety of housing types, it limits impact of sensitive areas and provides an additional now 14 acres of land to the park. Tarr also wanted to address the fact that the assisted living facility that has been proposed, not only would it create less density as far as traffic or traffic impacts then the rest of the residential development, but it serves a vital community need given the geriatric crisis they're facing. The variety of housing they're talking about and that they should value in any proposal for this District has got to include providing for seniors and looking ahead and this plan is well balanced and does just that. Tarr would ask the Commission to consider the plan and to recommend to the City Council it'd be approved. Jo Dickens stated she lives on North Dodge Street right around the corner from this development and just wants to reiterate everything that Tarr just said, as a neighbor she is excited about this development as it's a development that offers so much for the area on the north end of town, but also as a Hickory Hill Park user she is very excited to have two more entrances in and out of the park. She noted she lives in an area where on three sides of her house she is surrounded by Hickory Hill Park and thinks it's awesome that this development will allow other people to live in nature like she does, it's absolutely beautiful. So, she just wanted to give her support, echoing what Tarr said about the job that the Commission is to do tonight, and is excited for this development. It has her full support, thank you. Tom Goedken stated he is a longtime member of the community and encourages the members of P&Z Commission to vote yes on this development. He recognizes it's been contentious with the two subsequent votes, resulting in one vote in favor which was unfortunate. He wanted to talk about a few facts and then a few of his opinions. Facts first, the Northeast District Plan has always contemplated development of this area, known as the Larson track, it actually speaks to Hickory Hill Park as a benefit to the houses in such a development and not that a development is a detractor from Hickory Hill Park. The Northeast Plan encourages items such as single sided streets, but did not require them, as evidenced by the Hickory Heights development. The Northeast Plan considered a Hickory Hill Park as an important element of the plan, not the only element of the plan, Iowa City needs housing, as stated before, of all types, there is a shortage of houses at all price levels. Lastly, on the facts Hickory Hill Park is an urban park and by definition an urban park abuts residential and commercial property. It was specifically noted in the Northeast Plan that from vistas in Hickory Hill Park one can see residential buildings. When he is walking in Hickory Hill Park, he can see many buildings including many residential areas along Seventh Avenue and Bloomington Street in Iowa City that directly abuts the park already, as it is an urban park. Lastly, this property is private property, it's not public land. Goedken next shared some of his opinions. Development of this area will not detract from Hickory Hill Park, that's a lame argument with no facts that support it. Watersheds in the park would be enhanced by this project not detracted as the continued use of this property as a row crop pesticide and fertilize ground is not a good neighbor to the park and has never been. Iowa City needs more senior housing, his mother just moved into a facility after living for several years alone and seeking suitable elder housing in this area is a chore, so more elder housing would benefit. Lastly, Iowa City has always attracted people who will turn out to object to any development. He remembers the shadow argument a few years ago with Chauncy development and the extension of First Avenue, thankfully previous Commission members and Councils approved those developments for the benefit of all of Iowa City. Goedken stated certain groups, such as the Iowa City Chamber, has railed against this type of anti -development activism in the past, rightfully so. He considers himself a friend of Hickory Hill Park, he has enjoyed Hickory Hill Park for many years in every season. He proposed to his spouse in Hickory Hill Park over 40 years ago, it's a special place and it'll remain a special place, and he believes will be enhanced by this development. Goedken asks the members of the Commission to please have the courage to approve this development as other commissions have done for the benefit of all of Iowa City. thank you. Laura Routh asks all attendees to consider whether Adam Tarr's comments don't actually represent a veiled threat of lawsuit, it's not helpful and frankly, she finds it a little disturbing. In her opinion what is being proposed represents public harm for private profit. She hears Mr. Goedken's comments related to this, as private land, but that doesn't absolve it from the obligation of the developer to make sure that the public is protected. The park expansion as proposed is not sufficient to mitigate the overarching harm to habitat and the view scape that will occur if this rezoning is approved. As a lifelong resident of Iowa City she has been watching this park be carved out for decades, the park is being sold out, the view from its trails is being ruined, users of the park will be able to see the houses that are being developed, habitat will be reduced and diminished, stormwater will be impacted by impervious surfaces, those are facts. Routh stated the City continuously asserts a spirit of equity in much of what it does, but in truth, this is not being respected with this proposal. It appears that the City is subsidizing an affluent development at the expense of a clear public good. If you are rich, you can buy access to the park right out your back door, but everyone else will have to look at those homes from the park in perpetuity and it's a shame. The tax revenue realized from this development will not cover the cost of infrastructure and necessary building and maintenance of roads sewers etc. In her review of the City budget the development fees that are charged by the City are laughably low so if this is a continuous exercise in increasing tax revenue, they need to reevaluate whether or not they're really getting what they think they're getting. If the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to vote to approve this proposal, she feels they are going to be irreparably harming the crown jewel of the City's park system. It's going to increase costs to existing taxpayers and diminish the value of living in this town. People pay more and more and more and get less and less and less and she just doesn't think it's fair that basically access to the park is now going to increasingly be granted to only those people that can afford to buy a $400,000 house on a hill. The park and its inhabitants, and not just human but flora and fauna folks are dying a death by 1000 cuts and this cut, this project, it's a deep one and it hurts. Routh implores the City to investigate purchasing this property to preserve and expand Hickory Hill Park, use eminent domain if they must, for the public good, but at the very least she would request that this request for rezoning be rejected. Ann Synan (833 Cyprus Court) stated she and her husband have lived in the Iowa City area since 1994. They are absolutely not opposed to development of this area and have recognized that this area would be developed and welcome that, they just are imploring the Commissioners to please reject this particular plan which they have done twice before because they just do not believe this is the plan for this area. Synan doesn't have an objection to a senior living facility going into the northeast area, however as one of the Commissioners pointed out, it just looks like something that was dropped into place in the middle of two existing neighborhoods, Hickory Heights and the Bluffwood neighborhood and now a brand-new neighborhood and they just don't think this nine -acre facility in the middle of the residential area and on the edge of the park is the right thing for this area. At the at the risk of making it sound like she's making light or making a joke here she would like to say she thinks of something from many years ago, when her kids were young, that was on Sesame Street where it said, one of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong, and when she looks at the senior living facility in the plans she thinks that someone would look at this and say that does not belong in this area. Synan noted the Commissioners have been very supportive and very patient in this process and thanked them for listening and asks them to please reject this proposal hopefully for the final time. William Synan (833 Cyprus Court) just wanted to add most of them are not opposed to development, however, this area was supposed to be low density and single family residential, so the proposed plan does not mimic the Comprehensive Plan. An assisted living facility is neither residential or low density and an assisted living facility is a business enterprise, it's a commercial institution. The proposed assisted living is not low density, it has 135 units and is also much bigger and taller than the adjacent condominium building. As an institution, there will be delivery trucks coming and going, there will be 90 outdoor parking spaces, periodic ambulances coming and going, it will require exterior lighting illuminating the building at night and so these are just some of the reasons why this massive complex should not be located in the middle of two residential neighborhoods, Bluffwood and Hickory Heights, and bordering on the park. ACT owns a significant amount of the land along the north side of Scott Boulevard and that would be a more appropriate area that this commercial institutional type of complex and a way of avoiding the low-density residential property that it was meant to be and its own way of describing the Comprehensive Plan. Synan implores that the Commissioners vote no again like they did the past two times for the rezoning for not just this community, but both communities. They are not against development nor are they against an assisted living facility, it just shouldn't be in the middle of the two residential neighborhoods. Casey Kohrt stated the Friends of Hickory Hill Park board of directors operates under the rule of consensus and their board has many and varied opinions on this version of the proposed development. They have not reached consensus on this current proposed development for or against, therefore, they only offer opinions as the person for or against the development. Kohrt stated they do like that the developers finally came back with single loaded street for the existing park boundary as in alignment with City Plans. They do not like that in particular lots 12 to 17 will most likely still be in the view shed of the park, due to the proposed road being a through street and not a cul-de-sac. Kohrt gets the sense from the Commission that they do not support cul-de- sacs in this location, even though this street will be a burden to the City in the future. They would like the City to require the developer to plant, or have the City plant, more trees on the west side of the street to try to hide those houses from the view shed. They also ask that only native Iowa species be planted on that side of the street, there are currently many non-native species on the list, several which are known invasive. Kohrt noted the north end of the proposed development has houses on both sides of the street, so when outlot A is deeded to the City it will have houses backed up to the park which is not in alignment with City Plans. He noted however it does look much like the concept drawing in City Plans and they do think it's a reasonable compromise that that land will be deeded to the City with the condition of the removal of the invasive species. Kohrt also stated they do like that the condo loop was removed from the north end as it was located in old growth of white oak savannah trees that will now be preserved in City parkland. He stated they have always said they recognize the right of the owner to develop the area, they've only asked that they adhere to the City Plans. Kohrt noted they appreciate the Commission's recognition of the importance of the park to the citizens of Iowa City and the promises made in the City Plans to its citizens in the in the past two votes. Mitch Meis thanked the Commissioners for allowing him to address them this evening. He lives at the end of Hickory Trail and Hickory Place so earlier when the gentleman that talked about the length of this development it resonated with him because he's at the end of that long length of Hickory Trail. He stated it is a significant length and he has driven it thousands of times over the years. A couple things he wanted to point out, and someone kind of alluded to this earlier, but the following streets and avenues that currently border the park and have residential homes on them are Woodward Avenue, North Seventh Avenue, North First Avenue, Cedar Street, Bloomington Street, Hickory Trail, Hickory Heights, North Dodge Street and Rochester. So he thinks it would be not unreasonable to consider an additional street that would have homes facing or frontage to the park. The other thing he'd like to point out, and this is an opinion, is it seems a bit hypocritical for people who live within eyesight of the park currently to be opposed to this development. It seems to him that the more people that could be living close to the park and able to enjoy the park with families is a wonderful thing. In closing, he would just like to say that as a 13 -year resident of this part of Iowa City, who frequents the park with his family, he is fully in support of this development, and hopes the Commissioners would approve it. Glenda Buencier lives on South Lucas street in Iowa City and wanted to say is that she is not opposed to development, she is just concerned about how it will take place. She acknowledged that the current proposal is all kinds of better from the first two that were presented and does appreciate all the work that has gone into making them better. There is part of a single loaded street now and the buffer zones are a little bit better, they started out with about 15 feet on the south side and now it's 45 and if she reads it correctly 75 feet of buffer on the west boundary. However, Buenger stated that's not enough. She thinks that the park deserves and needs a larger buffer zone to shield it from development. If this plan is approved as it's currently presented, they're sacrificing public good for private gain. She thinks that the plan could be tweaked a little bit further to create better buffer for the park. Again, she stated it's gotten better in the last couple of reiterations, but with just a little more time, the developer can surely find a way to give more buffer to protect the park. Hannah Rapson (1415 East Davenport Street) also first just wanted to state she is not anti - development. She has lived close to the park for the last 10 years. Rapson has some questions about the changes that have occurred, one is that the streets been redrawn closer to the park and wanted to understand how close that street is to the trail on the south end of the park. Hensch noted perhaps at the end of the public comment the developer can address questions. Rapson also has some concerns with regard to the nature of the retirement facility. She understands they need this kind of housing, she just would like to see it done in a thoughtful way. She can see that that there have efforts made for this building to fit into the topography of the landscape and that the height is toward the back, which she thinks is positive, however this is supposed to be low density and this facility does appear to be high density, even if considered to be residential. Additionally, this type of facility that will have significant staff and is the kind of facility that is going to have more people coming and going than just residents, so she really doesn't understand the traffic study with regard to this facility, when they look at what was supposed to be here, which was low density residential. Rapson stated she suggested last time and just wanted to continue to suggest that it may be worth the consideration that this facility be oriented toward First Avenue and maybe it could be located at the north side of the property, so it could be adjacent to Scott Boulevard. She feels that orienting a facility that's high density and more similar to commercial development than to residential development away from a street that runs adjacent to the park just make sense. She feels that would be a thoughtful response to considering putting in a high-density housing that is not included in the Comprehensive Plan. Rapson stated it's obvious that the through street is going to create more traffic and more noise along the park. She reiterated everyone is here because they care about the park and these are going to be their neighbors and they're going to love the park just as much. So, for these neighbors let's consider re -orienting this building toward a busy street so that they don't have additional traffic along their street. She also believes that the road is pushing the limits and getting closer to the park, which is not necessarily better. When she looks at the new plan she really doesn't see that much has been given up, with having the through street the developer gets access to adding more houses so asking the developer to stay closer to the road layout that was initially set and giving more boundary from the park is something that she thinks the Commission should consider because the developer is not losing opportunity for houses, they have already gained opportunity for houses by creating a through street. They have also gained high density with a facility that's been added to the plan, so please consider reorienting that facility toward a street that is better suited for it, a nonresidential street, and please consider pulling the road back from the border of the park. Riley Larson (205 South Mount Vernon Drive) noted her main access point to the park is the existing First Avenue entrance and would just like to say that that it is nice live surrounded by nature but obviously she doesn't live surrounded by nature, and the way she accesses to the park is to drive into a very small parking lot and to enter that way. She hasn't seen any official entrance into the park in the plans and thinks that would be something that would make everyone feel like a nice legacy for this Commission to approve as part of this development, rather than to have the entrances to the space be an afterthought. She would also like to reiterate what she said in the last meeting that she is concerned about the traffic study that was used in this plan, it was conducted in January, which was in the middle of a pandemic. Regardless of when the study happened, she lives very close to the proposed development site and when there was a house fire in her neighborhood the response time was pretty great, but what if that had happened during rush hour under normal conditions? How is that impacted as the rush hour traffic at that intersection is intense? So, with this traffic in and out of this facility, no, the residents of this nursing home are not going to be coming and going multiple times a day, but staff members or family members will, and it would be nice to just pause and say that we have thought about this a little bit mercilessly. Larson just wanted to echo that she is not against developing this at all, but just want to encourage the members of this Commission to think about what is going to be developed here and see a forward -thinking area. Wouldn't it be great if this developer was motivated to make changes the people are communicating and actually get something that everyone is really proud of. Allison Jaynes (1181 Hotz Avenue) wanted to speak not against development on this land, but in particular against the development plan that is proposed here. She noted there's been a number of good comments made already and she agrees with almost all the concerns that had been raised. She wanted to bring up one more issue and that is one of equity and accessibility, she believes that this came up during both of the previous meetings as well. Jaynes stated when taking a look at some of the different entrances at Hickory Hill Park, for example of the difference between the Seventh Avenue entrance which does not have a parking lot or anywhere for visitors to park and the Bloomington Street entrance which is open and welcoming. She noted if someone lives close enough to walk to the park, as she does, and tries to walk through that Seventh Avenue entrance it's extremely uncomfortable and definitely gives the feeling that you do not belong in that neighborhood and that entrance is not yours to access. Additionally, she is speaking from a point of view of a white CIS woman and can't imagine that it's at all any more welcoming for a different person than herself. Jaynes also noted looking at that change from the last plan to this one, there was an excellent opportunity to take those lots and increase the buffer and create a gateway to the park where visitors could park their cars and really feel like they belong there and were able to access the park from that point. Instead, they will have people that will feel entitled to the park in their own backyard and all that comes along with that, so again it is an issue of equity and accessibility. Jaynes also want to end with the fact that Adam Tarr in his argument presented a false dilemma fallacy, he said that you should ask yourself, are you against development entirely or can you support this plan before you and Jaynes wanted to remind everyone that there is not just those two options, there's a variety of other options or a number of edits that could be required for this current plan. Therefore, she asks the Commission to continue to push for what is best for Hickory Hill Park and the citizens of the Iowa City and still allow for more reasonable development concepts to evolve. Arturs Kalnins (44 Evergreen Place) is a resident of the Bluffwood neighborhood and had several points he was going to make but most have already been discussed so he will just quickly highlight them again. First of all, he does appreciate and thinks the plan is a big improvement over what they saw last time, it's very good for the view shed from the field, he has a minor concern about a couple of the houses at the end. From that perspective he was just out there today and yesterday looking at it and trying to figure out how it lines up with the plan. Again, he thinks the builders made a concession and he does appreciate that. Kalnins noted the 14 acres is not developable land and it's probably not recreational either, but he is happy it's being preserved. His main concern is with the assisted living facility and Commissioner Craig at the beginning asked the exact question he wanted to ask in a more general sense. There is still the whole corner of land there, he assumes is also owned by ACT, at Scott Boulevard and First Avenue that's not a part of any of this proposal. Kalnins thinks that these things should be decided in tandem as opposed to being sprung one after the next, once one has approval then they immediately go and try to get the next approval. So, he doesn't know what's happening with that, but it does concern him as he is sure as soon as this proposal is approved, they'll see a proposal for that land and then once again have to think about new housing or even apartments. Kalnins feels that's a perfect place for the senior living facility, the place where the senior living facility is right now is absolutely not the perfect place. Mr. Synan made an important point about the faculty requiring 24/7 lighting, it's going to require delivery trucks, trucks that idle for hours and make beeping noises backing up. Putting all those kinds of things right next to the park is just inappropriate. Kalnins does not object to more single-family homes being built in that area, he just wants to move that senior living facility. He also noted he has elderly parents he'd love to get to move to Iowa City and that might be a great place for them, but put it on that corner where it's further away from the park so it'll be much easier to access in terms of the ambulances, all the delivery trucks, all the noise and traffic, on that corner it would have much less impact. Therefore, he would urge the Commission not to vote yes on the current proposal until substantially more work is done clarifying the nature and the role of that senior living facility that's not consistent with the overall City Plans. Matthew Deforest lives on Hotz Avenue in Iowa City and would very much echo most of the points made against the new plan and just add a few things. He first noted that the previous two plans were completely outrageous and absolutely should have been denied as they were. However, that doesn't make this one more acceptable, it is still fairly outrageous to make these small incremental changes, adding a street, now buffering the park but not a meaningful buffer to the park so it really doesn't benefit the park. Deforest stated having this kind of development on the edge of Hickory Hill Park very much benefits the developer and future homeowners, but it doesn't account for the actual neighborhood they're moving into which is everyone goes to Hickory Hill Park and so their neighbors are actually everyone and that just isn't being considered quite enough as far as the long-term effects of having a neighborhood that close and a street with traffic right along the walking trail that currently exists. Deforest also noted that it was very strange that the last meeting the Chair stated that the development was definitely going to happen and then he was the only yes vote on that absolutely outrageous plan and now the majority of the proponents of the development seem to have some connection to ACT including Tom Goedken, and whether they're representing themselves just as Iowa City residents or not it's disingenuous, and the big point is that Hickory Hill Park represents a very generous community spirit that's what started it and that's what's been sustaining it, and this is contrary to that. Deforest very much hopes that the Commission will deny this request also and put some real requirements on accommodating the park. Jason Napoli began by thanking the entire Commission for going about this again and the City staff and all the all the neighbors and people across the area for joining in today. He wanted to comment on a few things that both City staff and the legal representation of Mr. Tarr commented on. He believes City staff said the new design is a virtual snapshot of the Bufferwood rendering and it absolutely is not. Mr. Tarr went onto say this is plagiarism of that overlay but Napoli doesn't think they are all looking at the same thing here. He acknowledged the developer has definitely made progress, there's no denying and that is certainly appreciated, but to say that it's a virtual snapshot and plagiarism is misleading and quite ridiculous when looking at lots 12 and 17. The Comprehensive Plan calls for cul-de-sacs and if there were cul-de-sacs they wouldn't have lots on the other side of the street. Even though it's a through street, they definitely do not need those lots to be there and it's not a virtual snapshot nor is it plagiarism. Napoli also wanted to address some of these threats that are pretty ridiculous, the veiled threats from the legal representation that is here tonight, it's really sad. Another thing that's really sad are the threats that came from the seller around the time of the second meeting and now they have the leadership of ACT accusing park users of vandalism and trespassing. They are talking about fencing that has not been up for decades and all of a sudden, they're calling vandalism, it's a really, really long shot, and really sad to see one of the most respected leaders in this community call that out. As for the trespassing, Napoli has known for years that's ACT land but many of the people who are going to that park don't, as there was no signage. There is signage now, there are trespassing signs and the ultra -sharp barbed wire that went up immediately following the second vote. Napoli stated that's not neighborly, ACT is not being neighborly, and if they're trying to threaten people maybe it's worked, but it's not the right thing. Napoli stated he thinks there's still work to be done on the plan, they're getting close which is appreciated, but stop the threats and try to work together a bit more. Ken Gayley (316 Dartmouth Street) would like to speak in favor of the idea of continuing this process of iteration maybe one more time. He recognizes that development is going to happen on that property and this plan is much better than the previous ones, but he is disturbed a little by the fact that it took this many iterations to get here and is especially disturbed by the suggestion that the Commission members are somehow not working in good faith if they were to vote against this. If talking about working in good faith, one has to wonder why this plan is more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and why the first two plans were so inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Gayley thinks they are all trying to do the same thing here, they're trying to find a compromise measure where development does happen and it's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. So, the question is, is this proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that is the question that the Commission members will decide if that's appropriate. Gayley is bothered a little that they have this history where this is not the first plan, that they have to reiterate and improve and make it into really good plan. Why is this the third plan and why are they supposed to be so thankful that the third plan finally looks a little bit like the Comprehensive Plan? Gayley stated the key issue is a public good that is being used for private interests, and that is something that happens and it's appropriate for that to happen, but it needs to happen in a compromised way. So, the question is if this compromise is appropriate or do they maybe need to iterate it a little bit more? He feels like one more iteration is appropriate. Hensch made a last call for comments, seeing none he closed the public hearing. Nolte moved to approve REZ20-0016, 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) with 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 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 04/29/2021. 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. Elliott seconded the motion. Hensch stated he has studied this carefully and has been out to the site multiple times. He acknowledged he's been pretty open about what his role is, and his role is to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinances are followed, and that the public good is maintained. He thinks this plan is really good and couldn't even come up with a con for this. Hensch is not saying it's perfect, just saying it is good and he believes the Commission's role is to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan, the District Plan and the Zoning Ordinances are followed, and he believes they have been. Additionally, Hensch believes the public good has been met, there's been a lot of given take from the developer and he also has been very public about the need for these senior housing facilities in Iowa City. Hensch hates to use the word NIMBY because of the way people construe that, but everyone is all in favor of certain things as long as it is not in their neighborhood. But a senior housing facility is needed, and maybe the location isn't perfect but it's a public good, and in the public interest of Iowa City, so he will support this application. Signs stated he was intrigued by or maybe a little offended by the interpretation of what a senior living facility is, and the notion that it was considered commercial and not residential and he totally disagrees, it is a residential use and it's that way throughout the City. There are senior living facilities integrated in neighborhoods next to single family homes, next to apartments and condominiums because that is where senior members want to be. The senior members are considered part of a community and not to be placed on the fringe of the community or in outlying commercial areas. That is absolutely not where they should be located. Signs stated he really appreciated a lot of the comments this evening and they could go on for iteration after iteration after iteration but one of the things that he was a little fascinated by tonight is in the first meeting there was very little reference to the senior living facility and if one goes back and looks at the meeting minutes, they'll find that that's absolutely true. In the second meeting when changes were made by the developer, the Commission started hearing more and more comments about the senior living facility and its appropriate use in this in this area. Now tonight the developer has made some significant changes to single loaded streets and increase the buffer area from the park boundary, so a lot of focus was on whether or not the senior living facility is an appropriate use on the site. Signs thinks the renderings that were shared this time shows a beautiful building that quite frankly is nestled in a hollow, so to speak, of the neighborhood and it goes from one story on the street facing and rises up to the woodlands behind it. The developers have done an amazing job of nesting what is a large facility into an area in a residential area, which again is where he believes it belongs. Signs also noted again this evening there was a call for the City to purchase this land and preserve it and it's his understanding from some comments made in the first public hearing that both the City of Iowa City and the Friends of Hickory Hill Park were offered this property years ago and both of them declined to purchase it. As Signs has stated many times, this is a piece of private property, and whoever owns it has the right to do with it what they see fit as long as it meets the ordinances and the goals of the City which he thinks this does. He finished by stating this is a significant change and improvement in the plan from last time and he will be supporting it tonight. Townsend stated she thinks they have come a long way with this proposal and it's looking very good to her, so she thinks they are going in the right direction. Elliott noted one of her concerns someone brought up in a previous meeting is about the invasive species which was a trigger to her and tonight when she read the City staff report it talked about having some non-native trees because they were more resilient to some of the invasive species that are in Iowa now. When Casey Kohrt from the Friends of Hickory Hill Park mentioned that some of the trees that were in the design were not favorable. Elliott is wondering if there was some kind of a way that they could come to a meeting of minds of what was a good landscape plan for this area. Hensch stated interestingly he just had a meeting last week with an environmental engineer, and one of the topics was literally that topic. He acknowledged this is a different piece of land, but the plan was approved by the City Forester and the idea is to maintain a diversity of species so as disease comes through the trees, they don't lose them all at the same time, that's the concept. Hensch noted invasive species are a huge problem with land that's been tilled and the subspecies of things that come in and grow. Signs reclass that part of the plan was that the developer had to remove the invasive species in a as part of their dedication to the City. Elliott agreed and might have misunderstood Kohrt but she got the impression that Friends of Hickory Hill Park folks may have thought there was some invasive species still in the plan. Elliott does really appreciate the developer coming through with a significant change and the single loaded street. She would also like to say, as somebody who has spent considerable time with elderly people in the community, she wants them to have access to the park and thinks this is great that they can live so close. Older persons will want to go for walks in the park. And regarding cars, she wishes there were more cars visiting people in senior facilities, people would be surprised at how little traffic there actually is. Martin first stated she appreciates the changes that have been made but respectfully disagrees with Hensch a little bit about these iterations and there are cons. She looks at her role on Planning and Zoning as to take into consideration the Comprehensive Plan but what they're really taking into consideration is everything including their legacy, and if a vote tonight on the development happens, and the development happens, it takes a lot longer for a developer to redevelop. She does think this could be a perfect scenario maybe with one more iteration. Does she want to continue to hear this conversation over and over again, not really, but she can't be in favor of this because she feels there are tweaks that could be made. She loves that the single loaded street is 71 % but it bums her out to see the street really kind of wedged its way into the park area so that they could get those six or those five lots down there at the south end of it. Martin does think about people being able to access the park, if this is still advertised as that and people could access the park from that street or are they just parking on the street. How accommodating is it really, they talked about that last time and her concern as to the types of people that want to go to the park, which are everybody, so she wants to be mindful of that especially in the current climate and she feels like even in the public comment tonight she heard the edginess of voices. Yes the world is a year and a half into a pandemic and we are all getting squirrely, the vaccines are coming but she just feels like there's so much tension and if this gets developed will all people feel welcome parking on that street, no matter what their car looks like and no matter what they look like. That is something that speaks to her because their job as volunteers is to really think about all of those parts and pieces and understand that a lot of people are feeling like yep they can live with this and that's great but she will be the voice of dissent because nope they can make it perfect. Craig wanted to state there is no perfect plan and someone she worked with many, many years ago, used to have a saying that if there is no solution seek it lovingly and one thing she appreciates about Planning and Zoning and everyone in Iowa City is that generally speaking they do seek it lovingly and she is going to support this. In the first meeting, and one can read the minutes, she stated if they take those houses off the side of the street, she will support this plan. She does wish they would have come back the second time with what they came back with tonight, it would have given her a little more faith in them that they were listening, but she is also very influenced by the fact that the Friends of Hickory Hill Park contains people both for and against this and thinks that that shows just how far they've come. Craig acknowledged it could be a whole lot worse and could talk about the species of the trees and this and that, as Martin says the tweaking, but when people want to lose the senior housing that is not okay. Craig believes it's in a good location and when she is old, she hopes that's where her kids put her so she can look out the window and see the park. Craig confirmed she will vote yes. Signs just wanted to add a couple things, first he does wish they had the earlier plan with that Southwest corner area a little bit more. He also acknowledged a lot of people commenting on moving the street closer to the park but as he looks at the numbers, on page 11 on the packet, appears there's like around 100 feet minimum from the south to the west between the edge of the property and the street. In previous plans they had houses there where the back lot lines were within 40 to 60 feet of the park boundary so even if the street is closer it feels like they've actually gained a buffer. Martin noted those backyards wouldn't be concrete. Craig stated however when they talk about accessibility they don't have to deal with backyards or walking in somebody's yard. With that much open space it's a public street anybody can come park on and bring their kids, or bike from someplace and leave the bikes on the curb and go wander in the park, so it's way more accessible and that's the point of the single loaded street. Signs agrees but also agrees with Martin and others that there's a way to improve it and perhaps needing a sign for a visible entrance in this in this area. He also noted in the notes from the Parks and Rec Commission meeting they talked about this and there was some mention about the possibility of have a little parking lot kind of thing along the street there by lots 14 through 17 which seems a great obvious place to have a little parking lot entrance and it's right at the end of the trailhead. Signs thinks there is an opportunity here to make a bit of a more welcoming entrance to those to that trailhead. Craig agrees and notes the Parks Commission can do that as it's parkland and will belong to Iowa City. She also wanted to state that she lives very close to the North Seventh Avenue entrance and someone said that area didn't feel very welcoming and Craig just wanted to say if she had a quarter for every car in the last 34 years that backed out of her driveway to get on the right side of the road to park, she could probably buy a million -dollar house. Many, many, many people use that entrance, yes it's a pedestrian entrance, which is very different parking lot, but the parking lot is on Bloomington Street and all kinds of people come from the east side of town and walk into that entrance on North Seventh Avenue. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1 (Martin dissenting). Deferred until 6/15/21 ($, Prepared by: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; (REZ20-0016) Ordinance No. Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 48.75 acres of land located south of N. Scott Boulevard and west of N. 1St Avenue from Interim Development Single -Family (ID -RS) to Low Density Single -Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) zone. (REZ20-0016) Whereas, Hickory Trail Estates, LLC. and Nelson Development 1, LLC., have requested a rezoning of approximately 48.75 acres of land located south of N. Scott Boulevard and west of N. 15t Avenue from Interim Development Single -Family (ID -RS) to Low Density Single -Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) zone; and Whereas, this property is located within the Northeast District of the Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, protecting the environmental quality of the district is listed as a high priority in the Northeast District Plan; and Whereas, the subject property contains woodlands that border Hickory Hill Park; and Whereas, pending satisfactory completion of a woodland management plan, the City will incorporate woodlands located in Outlot "A" of the OPD Plan into Hickory Hill Park; and Whereas, there is a public need to maintain natural areas by controlling for invasive species; and Whereas, the Northeast District Plan also encourages the provision of trail connections between major destinations, such as parks; and Whereas, there is a public need to provide formal trail access to Hickory Hill Park from the subject property to match the goals outlined in the Northeast District Plan and the Transportation section of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, the Northeast District Plan further advocates for a neighborhood street design that calms traffic and incorporates green elements into the street system; and Whereas, the subject property contains an abundance of sensitive features, thereby limiting potential placement of roadway infrastructure and additional access points; and Whereas, the proposed OPD Plan contains a long street extension of Hickory Trail; and Whereas, there is a public need to implement traffic calming techniques to maximize the safety and efficiency of the City's transportation network; and Whereas, there is a public need to create pleasant spaces for walking to neighborhood destinations; and Ordinance No. Page 2 Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with reasonable conditions regarding satisfaction of public needs through provision of a woodland management plan for Outlot "A" of the proposed OPD Plan, provision of trail connections as shown in the approved OPD Plan, provision of traffic calming devices, installation of right-of-way trees, and required submission of a final plat, the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa that: Section I Approval. Subject to the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein, the property described below is hereby classified Low Density Single -Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) zone: 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 N01007'52"W, 656.03 FEET; THENCE N01041'17"W, 1094.66 FEET; THENCE N01038'34"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 S65018'23"E, 1239.83 FEET); THENCE S27014'33"W, 924.73 FEET; THENCE S01014'34"E, 378.49 FEET; THENCE N77055'52"E, 649.63 FEET; THENCE S01015'42"E, 868.85 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE S87054'07"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. Section II. Zoning Map. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval and publication of this ordinance by law. Section III. Conditional Zoning Agreement. The mayor is hereby authorized and directed to sign, and the City Clerk attest, the Conditional Zoning Agreement between the property owner(s) and the City, following passage and approval of this Ordinance. Section IV. Certification and Recording. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same, at the office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, at the owner's expense, all as provided by law. Section V. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section VI. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section VII. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this day of 20—. Mayor Ordinance No. Page 3 Approve Attest: City Clerk City Attorney's lice (Sara Greenwood Hektoen — 05/25/2021) It was moved by and seconded by that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Bergus Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Weiner First Consideration _ Vote for passage: Second Consideration Vote for passage: Date published Prepared by: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (REZ20-0016) Conditional Zoning Agreement This agreement is made among the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"), ACT, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Owner"), and Hickory Trail Estates, LLC. and Nelson Development 1, LLC. (collectively hereinafter referred to as "Applicant"). Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 48.75 acres of property located south of N. Scott Boulevard and west of N. 11 Avenue, legally described below, adjacent to Hickory Hill Park; and Whereas, the Applicant has requested the rezoning of the property legally described below from Interim Development Single -Family (ID -RS) to Low Density Single -Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) zone; and Whereas, in order to be compatible with the surrounding land uses and to mitigate traffic concerns, this rezoning creates public needs to maintain natural areas by controlling for invasive species, provide formal trail access to Hickory Hill Park, implement traffic calming techniques, and create pleasant spaces for walking to neighborhood destinations; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate conditions regarding a woodland management plan, trail connections, traffic calming, street trees, and platting, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval; and Whereas, Iowa Code §414.5 (2021) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and Whereas, the Owner and Applicant agree to develop this property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. ACT Inc. is the legal title holder of the property legally described as: 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 N01007'52"W, 656.03 FEET; THENCE N01041'17"W, 1094.66 FEET; THENCE N01038'34"W, 210.49 FEET; THENCE N01120'33"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 S27014'33"W, 924.73 FEET; THENCE S01°14'34"E, 378.49 FEET; THENCE N77155'52"E, 649.63 FEET; THENCE S01015'42"E, 868.85 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE S87054'07"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. 2. Owner and Applicant acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the principles of the Comprehensive Plan. Further, the parties acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2021) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable conditions on granting a rezoning request, over and above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change. 3. In consideration of the City's rezoning the subject property, Owner and Applicant agree that development of the subject property will conform to all other requirements of the Zoning Code, as well as the following conditions: a. Prior to issuance of any building permit for the above-described property, said property shall be subdivided by approval of a final plat in general conformance with attached concept plan, incorporated herein by this reference, but more specifically conform with the following: i. Said final plat shall include trail connections in the same location shown on the concept plan and must be constructed with any public improvements to the subdivision; and ii. Said final plat shall incorporate traffic calming devices, including but not limited to a traffic circle and raised crosswalks at park entrances, in locations approved by and designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. b. Contemporaneous with the final plat approval, Owner shall enter into a subdivider's agreement detailing: L a Woodland Management Plan requiring the owner to remove and/or manage any invasive species and hazardous trees or limbs within any outlot to be dedicated to the City. The plan shall be prepared by a woodland specialist and approved by the City Forrester, and the work described therein complete prior to City acceptance of the outlot dedication; and ii. a Landscaping Plan, which shall require Owner or its successor to install right-of-way trees within the proposed Hickory Trial in locations approved by the City Forester. Said Plan shall require trees to be planted prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each adjacent lot, or, if said certificate of occupancy is issued during a poor planting season, by May 31 following issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 4. The conditions contained herein are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2021), and that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning change. 5. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be deemed to be a covenant running with the land and with title to the land, and shall remain in full force and effect as a covenant with title to the land, unless or until released by the City of Iowa City. Once a building permit is issued or certificate of occupancy is issued, as applicable, the conditions shall be 2 deemed satisfied and no further release will be provided. The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties. In the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all development will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. 6. Nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 7. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense. Dated this day of 20 . City of Iowa City ACT, Inc. Bruce Teague, Mayor Attest: Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk Approved City Attorney's ice — f-le14=fDe/i s-/Q5/zl City of Iowa City Acknowledgement: State of Iowa ) ) ss: Johnson County ) By: Hickory Trail Estates, LLC. 0 Nelson Development 1, LLC. By: This instrument was acknowledged before me on 20_ by Bruce Teague the Cityof and Kellie Fruehling as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of Iowa City. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) ACT, Inc. Acknowledgement: 3 deemed satisfied and no further release will be provided. The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties. In the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all development will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. 6. Nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 7. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorders Office at the Applicant's expense. Dated this day of City of Iowa City Bruce Teague, Mayor Attest: Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk Approved by: City Attorney's Office City of Iowa City Acknowledgement: State of Iowa ) ) ss: Johnson County ) 20 ACT, Inc. 0 Hickory Trail Estates, LLC. LFA Nelson Development 1, LLC. By: M'IKe Nelsav� This instrument was acknowledged before me on _ 20_ by Bruce Teague and Kellie Fruehling as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) State of County of This record was acknowledged before me on , 2021 by (name) as (title) of ACT, Inc. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) My commission Hickory Trail Estates, L.I.C. Acknowledgement: State of County of This record was acknowledged before me on , 2021 by (name) as (title) of Hickory Trail Estates, LLC. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) My commission expires: Nelson Development 1, LLC. Acknowledgement: State of L County of Pot k This record was acknowledged before me on Mau Z� 2021 by MILL NGISov\ (name) as M0.vk(son Development 1, LLC. Notary Public in and for the State o owa SIERRA SICILY ANDREAS (Stamp or Seal) ComrrftBion Numbw$27727 o.. My OommWbn FMMM October 17, Zvi-- My commission expires: 1047/2-023 deemed satisfied' and no further release will be provided. The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the .benefit of and bind all successors, reptesentatives, and assigns,ol the parties. In 'the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all development will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. 6. Nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner from complying with-pll other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 7. This Conditional Zoning Agreement., shall be incorporated by reference into the . ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense. . . . Dated this day of City of Iowa City Bruce Teague, Mayor Attest: Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk Approved by: City Attorney's Office City of Iowa City Acknowledgement: State of Iowa ) )ss-. Johnson County ) 20_ ACT, Inc. By: Hickory Trail Estat , LLC. By: , Nelson Development 1; LLC. This instrument was acknowledged before me on .20 by Bruce Teague and Kellie Fruehling as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) ACT, Inc. Acknowledgement: 3 State of County of This record was acknowledged before me on , 2021 by (name) as (title) of ACT, Inc. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) My commission expires: Hickory Trail Estates, LLC. Acknowledgement: State ofia4n County of -T 1 This record was acknowledged before me ony JNJ f 2021 by 3n2 C6cy _ (name) as M&w4er (title) of Hicko"I Estates, LLC. FNtEtary Public in and for tie State Vary IQi11 I M REYNOLDS * � (Stamp or Seal) 20, 2021 My commission expires:. Nelson Development 1, LLC. Acknowledgement: State of County of This record was acknowledged before me on , 2021 by (name) as (title) of Nelson Development 1, LLC. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) My commission expires: 4 deemed satisfied and no further release will be provided. The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties. In the event the subject property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all development will conform with the terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement. 6. Nothing in this Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner from complying with all other applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 7. This Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be incorporated by reference into the ordinance rezoning the subject property, and that upon adoption and publication of the ordinance, this agreement shall be recorded in the Johnson County Recorder's Office at the Applicant's expense. Dated this �'day of �.? rle _ .2011. City of Iowa City Bruce Teague, Mayor Attest: Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk Approved by: City Attorney's Office City of Iowa City Acknowledgement: State of Iowa ) ) s.,. Johnson County ) ACT, Inc.n (',-t G'G By: 0o (-+- F-0 Hickory Trail Estates, LLC. Nelson Development 1, LLC. 0 This instrument was acknowledged before me on 20_ by Bruce Teague and Kellie Fruehling as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa CRY. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Sea[) ACT, Inc. Acknowledgement: 3 State of :V� County of 5o Sm This record was acknowledged before me on �J,ia -3� 2021 by Qy )-!ir4jI j ✓ (name) as ( ri'D, (title) of ACT, Inc. (]- J t / •w y, '^ t " °D' "" ` Notary Public in and for the S9tYj of Iowa 7� (Stamp or Seal) My commission expires: D, 2 1o2Z Hickory Trail Estates, LLC. Acknowledgement: State of _ County of This record was acknowledged before me on , 2021 by (name) as (title) of Hickory Trail Estates, LLC. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) My commission Nelson Development 1, LLC. Acknowledgement: State of County of This record was acknowledged before me on , 2021 by (name) as (title) of Nelson Development 1, LLC. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa (Stamp or Seal) My commission expires: 4 CONCEPT PLAN HICKORY TRAIL �a a± ESTATES IOWA CITY, IOWA _. �.`\\ \_I, \. Xo UPDATED APRIL 29, 2021^�� N 15fA UEMM I - IIIAT ti , fez, I. PROIECr DATA' enwu 1 R e»,.ar.w.roeornfwx a wz sw 37 _ �.. � Y � I r.smwur oxuxn •<us aw /{{{ f(wtiM.TfW.11fa a. .fMt •.IY //f , • —` �-_��f ��. �.. ,�- `�^ \_ J11L1, }' I SALR LFM.M i 14 I!fl / <amwnnmaexr .+.• i � �����A.t � � .# � � � � A _ 41 iumra-� t � , I z C2.00 deemed satisfied and no further release will be provided. The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind 1 successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties. In the event the su � ct property is transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all development wi conform with the terms of thlis Conditional Zoning Agreement. 6. Nothing in }ttis Conditional Zoning Agreement shall be con up to relieve the Owner from comply g with all other applicable local, state, and fe ral regulations. 7. This Conditioi ordinance rezc ordinance, this the Applicant's Zoning Agreement shall be I the subject property, and that eement shall be recorded in the Dated this (_ _—I— day of _ City of Iowa City Bruce Teague, Mayor Attest: Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk Approved by: City Attorney's Office J City of Iowa ty Acknowledgement: State of low ) ss: Johnson ounty ) orated by reference into the adoption and publication of the ;on County Recorders Office at ACT, Inc. -AVI,I)Jkl,(,,7:,7/�/� By: Hickory Trail Estates, LLC. 0 Nelson Development 1, LLC. ment was acknowledged before me on Fruehling as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the (Stamp or Seal) ACT, Inc. Acknowledgement: 3 —.20 - ,20_ by Bruce Teague of Iowa City. State of �-14 County of Gc This record vVas cknowledged before me on JaAA, I , 2021 by (name) as Ods AarW2k+fiitle) of ACT, Inc. Notary Public in and for a Stab MELD RKOPF CommnuonN o.. vpnaao (Stamp or Seal) fe��► MV Co m�. E� .1u My commissia expires: OS/ Hickory Trail Estates, LLC. Acle State of County of This record was acknowledged b (name) as Nelson Development 1 State of County of , 2021 by (title) of Hickory Trail Estates, LLC. Public in and for the State of Iowa or Seal) My Acknowledgement: This record was nowledged before me (name) as 2021 by (title) of elson Development 1, LLC. Notary Public in and r the State (Stamp or Seal) My commission expires: 4 PROTEST OF REZONING i �11 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA _ CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: C . Prope wner(s): rw»,a By: By: ... INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): s w` STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: E 's instrument was acknowledged before me on � / 0%/tea) (Date) by 0CLI, A�`"`doY� and S Lt S4 -nn K �m vv (name(s) of individ property owner(s)). so CYNTHIA A. SCHROCKr l _ A., .f F Commission Nu sr 712615 L o.. My Comm. Exp. Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUIJTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Orig: Subd Folder Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media File (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa 02/2013 Kellie Fruehling From: Sent: To: Maria Hope <mariahope8@gmail.com> Monday, May 31, 2021 8:56 PM *City Council "R[M Late Handouts Distributee Subject: Comment on the Hickory Hill housing development project CP-OI-ZI (Date) R SH I would like to say that special attention should be given to the intention captured in the NorthEast District Plan with respect to balancing proximity to nature and built-up development. In working out the NorthEast District Plan in the mid 1990s, the building of First Avenue and Scott Boulevard were made possible by a promise from the city to preserve a significant buffer for Hickory Hill Park. Simply because what used to be Larson Tract can now benefit from that infrastructure should not open the way to just any development that offers some attractive features. I would say that City Council's primary responsibility is to shape development in an economically and ecologically viable manner, rather than, for example, to facilitate the interests of forces seeking profitable investment. In terms of what can and can't be built, it would NOT seem that it is the City who must revise its expectations, but the developer who must provide a plan that meets the expectations of the conscientiously crafted NorthEast District Plan. As you go forward, I ask that you keep all this in mind when arriving at your best judgement. Thank -you for your consideration. Maria Hope, 1109 Yewell Street, Iowa City Kellie Frueh From: Synan, Ann <ann-synan@uiowa.edu> Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 12:37 PM To: *City Council — O (— -2— Cc: Cc: Synan, William 1 Subject: Proposal on Tonight's City Council Agenda -- 9A - Rezd ii l4)ckory Trail Estates RISK Dear Members of the Iowa City Council We are writing to ask for your careful consideration of the proposed rezoning for Hickory Trail Estates on the City Council agenda tonight. We hope that you will deny this request. We are opposed to the rezoning of the property from low-density single family homes to "low density single family with a planned development overlay". Specifically we are greatly concerned about the massive nine -acre senior care facility that is planned for this development—a complex of 135 units in three buildings, each building two to three stories in height (four stories given the pitch of the roof of 40 feet), with 90 outdoor parking spaces. We are also concerned about the traffic issues that will arise at the intersection of Hickory Trail and First Avenue. As I am sure you are aware, the rezoning plan was brought to the Planning and Zoning Commission three times between February and May 2021 and was denied twice by the commissioners, first by a 6-1 vote and then a 7-0 vote. Opposition to the plan by neighbors and the Iowa City community was strong and commissioners called the attendance at the meetings unprecedented with well over 100 people attending each of the first two meetings. We are not opposed to the development of this land, which is situated in between two established neighborhoods )Bluffwood and Hickory Heights) and adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. While a diversity of housing choices is desirable, the location of multi -unit structures, including a large senior care facility, should be carefully considered so as not to destroy existing neighborhoods of single-family homes. The Iowa City Comprehensive Plan 2030, reaffirmed in 2013 that the property should be zoned for single-family homes. We ask that you support the comprehensive plan and deny this request by the developers. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Ann and Bill Synan 833 Cypress Court Late Handouts Distributed PROTEST OF REZONING I TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL (12-01 �—TAW IOWA CITY, IOWA .i.�, CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: % 00 SA4 (0 00,:)— til. 04 ique- This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: b � q �% / � A VE 1,<,51,<,50014C77e"T 7 Pro]ECL s): 1' n/� A/ (l} L I� ►^t 0 Al By: By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: i This instrument was acknowledged before me on � 4C / /y (Date) by 1 -',SC' and _ "tr4 / 4w,n., cn o(name(s) of individual property owner(s)). This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Subd Folder 02/2013 Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media File E —n 'Wk CASSANoaA PLowmAN} ®� Commission Number 822484 ' --t C-)—< i r t iawK T,Co7issionres Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa —'� M rn a o AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): T' o STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUVrY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Subd Folder 02/2013 Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media File PROTEST OF REZONIN G TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA Late Handouts Distributeu � (Date) CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such (ezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. B 13 Prperty dd p- • -. , PrM INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by is:! -'t ay,6 1-rar 11and (name(s) of . individual property owner(s v, RACHAEL BERTOUNO CortrnSWon Number810576 W Mi c� nj = -NotEy Public in and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . VMof Alii VM01 A8313 A113 ES :'t NV , _ Nnr lal Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Subd Folder 02/2013 Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media File PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA Late Handouts Distribu 49A_ (Date) CITYOFIOWACITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: Approximately 48.75 acres South of Scott Blvd and West of I' Avenue, Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Prol Pro] By. By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was individual property owner(s)). PAIGE RENAE PICKART a2ii"Co mmission Number 81721110=59-* June 3,2022 before me on 6� )D) ) 51111 1111 1 1 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner). Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Subd Folder 02/2013 Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media File N_ a_ z r -Cr M o� = N D ca (Date) by G� (name(s) of This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner). Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Subd Folder 02/2013 Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media File Late Handouts Dishibuted'26/2211,, 12:55 PM PROTEST OF REZONING J,9—o( —oZ1 ! . TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL w IOWA CITY. IOWA (Date) ,•,_ CITY OF /O n:1 C/ I Y We, the undersigned. being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: Approximately 48.75 acres South of Scott Blvd and West of I" Avenue. Adjacent to Ifickory Hill Park This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become efTective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Sects 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. CD *n —n D --1 = Property Address: 80 HICKORY HEIGHTS LN. IOWA CITY. IA 52245 C,-< I Property O er(. %` ANDREW C & MARY C HARTWIG:<r' M l n M � = By: cnco INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY ) ss: J This instrument was acknowledged before me on_M Qd ' (Date) by 1�QuI � r�w�Q and—%yj )f,(rt,r{I,LyiO (name(s)of individual property owner(s)). F HERINE ANIS K&L8298E8C01M t Notary Pu t In and for the State of Iowa dANU4kRf 22.2024 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority (name of property owner). Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig Suhd Folder such as officer. trustee) of o2r(1I3 https://attachment.outIook.Iive.net/owa/MSA%3Amcelinehactwig%40ho...WE.&owa=outlook.live.comascriptVer=20210524004.03&animation=true Page 1 of 1 PRO'T'EST OF REZONW61andouts Distributed TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 5 — 2-9'— Z 1 IOWA CITY, IOWA a ,� (Date) CITY OF106YA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: V - rffllmm.rR This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: b -7 'D- rsS A t/ ' 1, 0 w" �j�4-1 l\► Gui c'p, d Ttpc�0.YGi y Property Owner(s): 1G�ili vt By: r INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S):Mw ,. STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: TWs instrument was acknowled ed before me on /u R k z 81/� W ? I (Date) by ACL iru i re l and Nn W—d-h- (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). N+�t WESLEY R DORSAM o k* commlasM Number 796958' My Com Expires 2 Notary ubl' m and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUWY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as Late Handouts Distributed (Date) (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Subd Folder 02/2013 Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media File H Bouts Distributed PROTEST OF REZONK6 ari i TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA --- (Date) CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: Approximately 48.75 acres South of Scott Blvd and West of Pt Avenue, Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: 56 HICKORY HEIGHTS LN, IOWA CITY, IA 52245 Property O ner( • RAMI BOUTROS By: By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me 0 - I n individual property owner(s)). in anfl for AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: _(Date) by name(s) of A, r s nrynt NIKIN z > Commission Number 789873 My Commission Expires 'awP May 7, 2024 This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner). Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Subd Folder 02/2013 Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media File PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA Late Handouts Distri ` e4-T*O IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoQtknge, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: 1jj I Av',. hj A t��Q� l TY� cicvr� 14,1//s V -f t - This protest is signed and acowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: !� , ��� ,� �-(e �' l s �-. o�� C , ' 'TA .sZ Z YS Property Owner(s): BY: By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This ins_t�r' ent cknowl get before me on 27)h 2v 2 (Date) by r i ti wa ��k _ y fa 14A%and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). oPaAAt sWESLEY R DORSAM _ Commission Number 796956 Notary Public n or the State of Iowa �. MY=� iY /owl" AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (name(s) of person(s)) as "'d , IJ i -1• $ (Date) by (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner) . S I :Z Wd Z,N'N ry Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Subd Folder 02/2013 Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media File Late Handouts Distributed -;f--cia PROTEST OF REZONING /� �,\ TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA (Date) CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: Approximately 48.75 acres South of Scott Blvd and West of I" Avenue, Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: 48 HICKORY HEIGHTS LN, IOWA CITY IA 52245 Prope Owner(s): MICHAEL D & ROSEMARY S MORRIS By:cx�► cs By: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument �j(as acknowledged before me on 27 y (Date) b /gtc',,,eI (1. N d r(-rs and s fu u- S (na Dat b individual property owner(s)). tSANTIAGO BENITEZ ti1Tir Commission Number 827451 * MyCommI8S7 Expiresow Notary Public n and for the State of Iowa AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on �5 `7�C� j (Date) by (name(s) ofperson(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner). c�'a,} SANTIAGO BENITEZ , .fi, 01 `,�, ��� �,�f i)1 Commission Number 827451 Notary Public�iand for the State o owai # A ill My Commiss n Expires�>( �L1y /�f }j(� %^j j j J �f R� �L V 4 �> f �ir ervcr� _ Orig: Subd Folder 02/2013 Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media File Late Handouts Distributed -:If '�. 0__ PROTESTOF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 2— I VV A IOWA CITY, IOWA Mate) CITY Y O OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: Approximately 48.75 acres South of Scott Blvd and West of 1St Avenue, Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: 64 HICKORY HEIGHTS LN, IOWA CITY, IA 52245 Property,gvoer(s): MICHAE L AND/OR KE LLY INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): 4P"' STATE OF IOWA "S' LISA A LAMMER z r Commission Number 743236 JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: j" My Commission Expires oW" October 5, 2021 T a ipstrument was ckn wledged before me on 4 jgie s7*� and 0 individUl property owner(s)). N ary P is in and or t e State of Iowa C AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): = N CO STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: .te) by S) of This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) ofperson(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner). Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Subd Folder 02/2013 Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media File PROTEST OF REZONING TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL IOWA CITY, IOWA Late Handouts Distributed- 9 a. �\1 S- 2-9-21 I (Date) CITY OF IOWA CITY We, the undersigned, being the owners of property included in the proposed zoning change, or the owners of property which is located within two hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the zoning change is proposed, do hereby protest the rezoning of the following property: Approximately 48.75 acres South of Scott Blvd and West of I't Avenue, Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park This protest is signed and acknowledged with the intention that such rezoning shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the council, all in accordance with Section 414.5 of the Code of Iowa. Property Address: 72 HICKORY HEIGHTS LN, IOWA CITY IA 52245-9506 Property Owner(s): MARK RENSHAW By: RIM INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER(S): 4'pIALS MICHELLE JENKS Commission Number 830810 My Commission Expires ow► March 17, 2024 STATE OF IOWA ) JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was cknowledged before me on (Date) by Ala r- Y).and (name(s) of individual property owner(s)). Notary Public in and f he State of Iowa CO AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SIGNING FOR PROPERTY OWNER(S): STATE OF IOWA _ JOHNSON COUNTY) ss: This instrument was acknowledged before me on (Date) by (name(s) of person(s)) as (type of authority, such as officer, trustee) of (name of property owner). Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa Orig: Subd Folder 02/2013 Cc: CA — PCD - Council - Media File Item Number: 9.b. CITY OIF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org June 1, 2021 Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City code related to single- family site development standards. (REZ21-0003) (Second Consideration) UNA ETa:I Lvi I N TI&V Description PZ Staff Report w Attachments Preliminary PZ Minutes Ordinance � r IT' CITY O F IOWA C1TY MEMORANDUM Date: May 6, 2021 To: Planning & Zoning Commission From: Anne Russett, Senior Planner, Neighborhood & Development Services Re: Zoning Code Amendment (REZ21-0003) to amend Single -Family Site Development Standards related to parking and paving in the front setback area Background In 2018, the City amended its code due to State laws that restricted the City from enforcing regulations limiting rental occupancy based on familial relationships. In response, the City adopted a rental permit cap restricting rental permits to 30% of single-family and duplex units in certain neighborhoods. The City also adopted zoning code amendments that discouraged inappropriate expansions, limited the number of bedrooms in single-family and duplex units, and updated private open space requirements. In April 2019, the State passed legislation prohibiting cities from adopting rental permit caps. Due to concerns related to the City's inability to regulate rental permit caps and the potential impacts to neighborhood stability, the City adopted a 10 -month rental permit moratorium in May 2019 to provide time to explore how best to mitigate the consequences of this legislation. Table 1 outlines a timeline of the State bills and associated City code amendments. TABLE 1. Timeline April, 2017 State legislature passes a bill prohibiting cities from enforcing any regulations that limits occupancy of rental property based on the existence of familial relationships April, 2018 City adopts neighborhood stabilization ordinance that made many changes to the zoning code, including, but not limited to: • Updated rear setback requirements to discourage inappropriate expansions in certain zones • Limited the number of bedrooms in attached single-family and duplexes to 4 • Updated the private open space requirements City moves to annual inspections for many rental properties and increases nuisance and property maintenance enforcement. City adopts an ordinance that capped rental permits at 30% in certain neighborhoods for single-family and duplexes April, 2019 State legislature passes a bill prohibiting cities from adopting or enforcing rental permit caps May, 2019 City adopts a ten-month rental permit cap moratorium until March 7, 2020 on the issuance of new rental permits for single-family and duplex units in areas that exceed the 30% rental cap May 6, 2021 Page 2 Ensuring that neighborhoods include a variety of housing choices and options for all residents has always been a challenge, especially in the core of the community which is dominated by student housing. While adopting the moratorium in May 2019, the City Council articulated three goals for new regulations: 1. Ensure single-family detached structures and duplexes provide healthy and safe living environments for all occupants. 2. Maintain neighborhood characteristics and housing options suitable for attracting a diverse demographic in the city's older single-family neighborhoods. 3. Prevent the overburdening of city infrastructure and operational resources. With State laws limiting local control, the City's most recent amendment to address these concerns was adopted in 2019 (Ordinance No. 19-4815). This amended the single-family site development standards and required a 9 -foot separation distance between conforming parking spaces and additional paving within the required front setback area. The proposed amendment would repeal Ordinance No. 19-4815. Provisions and Proposed Amendment: Without the ability to regulate occupancy or enforce rental permit caps, the City modified the zoning code as it related to paving in front of single-family homes and duplexes. Staff believed Ordinance No. 19-4815 would place additional restrictions on front -yard paving and help address the second and third goals of the City Council. Formerly, the code allowed parking in front setback areas with certain restrictions. However, it also allowed additional paving for patio and seating areas, basketball courts, grilling areas, and other uses to be contiguous with conforming parking spaces within the front setback area. When Council adopted Ordinance No. 19-4815, these paved areas could no longer be contiguous with conforming parking spaces. Instead, it required a 9 -foot separation distance to reduce instances where additional paved area (for a patio) was used as parking. Table 1 outlines the former and current regulations. Table 1. Former and Current Regulations for Parking and Paving in Front Setback Areas of Single-family and Duplex Uses Former Current Parking spaces allowed in front setback area, Parking spaces allowed in front setback area, as long as it leads directly to a parking space as long as it leads directly to a parking space and at least 50% of the front setback area and at least 50% of the front setback area remains open sace. remains open sace. Additional paved areas shall be separated by at least 9 feet of open space area from conforming parking spaces or aisles. Staff proposes to repeal the provision that requires the 9 -foot separation distance between the additional paved areas and parking spaces/drive aisles. Analysis The purpose of the 2019 amendment was to restrict the amount of paving contiguous with conforming parking spaces. Prior to the amendment the code allowed additional paving for patio and seating areas, basketball courts, and grilling areas contiguous with parking spaces within the front setback area. These areas would occasionally be used for parking, which was not allowed by the code, but difficult to enforce. May 6, 2021 Page 3 Since adoption of the 2019 amendment, staff has received multiple, reasonable requests from homeowners who live outside the core of the community. These requests involved adding paving within the front setback area in order to access a parking space within the side yard. All of these requests had to be denied because the 9 -foot separation was not provided between the driveway and the additional paving. As for the impact to the core of the community, code enforcement staff has determined that the number of violations related to paving in the front yard setback area are few and that they have the capacity to handle these low number of code enforcement cases. The 2019 amendment regarding parking and paving in the front yard setback area has been in place for about 1.5 years. At this point, staff has determined that it has not had the intended effects of promoting neighborhood stabilization in areas near the downtown. It also created new problems in newer neighborhoods where reasonable requests from homeowners had to be denied due to the new standards. Due to these unintended consequences and the lack of demonstrable success, staff proposes amending the code to remove the provisions related to the 9 -foot separation requirement added as part of Ordinance No. 19-4815. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan The proposed amendment aligns with the following goal from the City's comprehensive plan: "Review existing codes for consistency with the goal to provide safe housing, re-evaluating provisions that have no apparent basis in safety." On the other hand, the existing code provisions did not have the intended impact of helping to "[p]reserve the integrity of existing neighborhoods and the historic nature of older neighborhoods." For these reasons, staff is proposing to eliminate these provisions which are not achieving their goal. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the zoning code be amended as illustrated in Attachment 1 by repealing the restrictions on additional paving in the front setback area of single-family and duplex uses adopted as part of Ordinance No. 19-4815. Attachments 1. Proposed Zoning Code Text Amendments Approved by: . S% Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator Department of Neighborhood and Development Services Attachment 1 Page 1 Draft Zoning Code Text Strike -through notation indicates language to be deleted. Amend 14 -2A -6C-3 as follows: 3. Parking is not permitted in the front principal dwelling setback, except in the following situations: a. For single-family uses, one of the required parking space(s) may be provided in the front principal dwelling setback on a regularly constructed aisle that leads directly to a parking space that is not located in the front principal dwelling setback, provided not less than fifty percent (50%) of the front principal dwelling setback area remains open space, free of impervious surface. With the evnentien of pedestrian paths that nreyirde anness to a dwelling unit, additienal paved areas may net eXGeed fifty peFGent 0 setbaG!,, area and shall be separated freM GeRferming parking spaGes er aisles by at leas nine foot /Q'\ of even snene area free of imneryiei is surfene b. For two (2) -family uses and group households, two (2) of the required parking spaces may be provided in the front principal dwelling setback on a regularly constructed aisle that leads directly to a parking space that is not located in the front principal dwelling setback, provided not less than fifty percent (50%) of the front principal dwelling setback area remains open space, free of impervious surface. With the evnentien of pedestrian paths that nre„irde aGGess te a dwelling unit, additienal paved areas may not eXGeed fi#y perGent 0 ) ef the fren prinGipal dwelling setbaG!,, area and shall be separated freM Genferming parking spaGes e aisles by at least nine feet (9') ef epen spaGe area, free ef impervieus surfaGe. c. For single-family uses, two-family uses, and group households, up to three (3) nonrequired parking spaces may be provided in the front principal dwelling setback, provided any such space is located on a regularly constructed aisle that leads directly to a parking space that is not located in the front principal dwelling setback, and provided that not less than fifty percent (50%) of the front principal dwelling setback area remains open space, free of buildings and impervious surfaces. (See figure 2A.5 of this section.) With the evnentien of Si�l:T77�T{S�Y�VAT.4i�TE �:WON .l�:L11�. - Planning and Zoning Commission May 6, 2021 Page 19 of 23 Iowa City. She also wanted to state that she lives very close to the North Seventh Avenue entrance and someone said that area didn't feel very welcoming and Craig just wanted to say if she had a quarter for every car in the last 34 years that backed out of her driveway to get on the right side of the road to park, she could probably buy a million -dollar house. Many, many, many people use that entrance, yes it's a pedestrian entrance, which is very different parking lot, but the parking lot is on Bloomington Street and all kinds of people come from the east side of town and walk into that entrance on North Seventh Avenue. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1 (Martin dissenting). CASE NO. REZ21-0003: Consideration of an update to single-family site development standards, which amends Title 14 Zoning related to paving in the front setback area and partially repeals Ordinance No. 19-4815. Russett first gave some background on how they got to this point. Back in 2019 the City amended the Zoning Code to restrict paving in the front setback area for single family and duplex uses. This amendment occurred after the State passed a law that restricted the City's ability from enforcing rental permit caps and the purpose of the amendment at that time was to help with some of the City's goals related to neighborhood stabilization and ensuring that all neighborhoods within the City have a variety of housing choices and options for all residents. Russett noted that can be particularly challenging within the core of the community, which has a high student population. Since the adoption of that amendment staff has learned that the amendment was both unnecessary and harmful for some residents. In April of 2017 the State Legislature passed a bill prohibiting cities from enforcing regulations related to occupancy limits. In response to that, the City amended the Code in several places to achieve goals related to neighborhoods stabilization. These Zoning Code amendments updated rear setback requirements to discourage inappropriate expansions into rear yards, limited the number of bedrooms in attached single family and duplexes to four, and updated private open space requirements. In addition to that, the City moved to annual inspections for many rental properties and increased nuisance and property maintenance enforcement. Lastly the City adopted the rental permit cap ordinance which kept rental permits at 30% in certain neighborhoods. In April 2019 the State Legislature passed a bill prohibiting cities from enforcing rental permit caps so the City adopted a 10 -month rental permit cap moratorium and City Council asked staff to explore other possible amendments that could help achieve goals related to neighborhood stabilization. It was at that point staff proposed the amendment to the single-family site development standards related to paving in the front setback area. Since that amendment was adopted staff realized it's not doing what it needs to be doing. Russett next explained what the front setback area is. The front setback area is the distance between an object, such as a building and another point which is usually the front lot line. The setback area is the area where no structures are allowed, so a front setback area is that space between the street and the front of the home or the building. Russett showed a slide of the previous Code and the amended Code. The main change from the former Code and the current Code is that they had added the additional language which requires that any additional paved areas within the front setback area to be separated by at least nine feet of open space. The Code already states that parking spaces are allowed in the front setback area if they lead directly to a parking space and that front setback area also has to be at Planning and Zoning Commission May 6, 2021 Page 20 of 23 least 50% open space. Russett explained they are proposing to repeal a portion of that amendment and remove the additional requirement that additional paving required a nine -foot separation. Russett showed some slides to give a visualization of the current regulations versus the proposed regulation. Craig asked what the role of the sidewalk in the setback is, a sidewalk is probably down much closer to the street, but one can't park on the sidewalk. Russett didn't include sidewalks on her examples but typically that's where the property line begins. Russett stated with the amendment in 2019 a homeowner couldn't have any additional paving in the front setback area that's abutting a conforming parking space or additional paving. They could have additional paving if there's nine feet of separation between the conforming parking space and additional paving. This could be a basketball court or patio or something like that, but it couldn't be a parking space. With this proposed amendment staff is asking to allow some additional paving within that front setback area that does not need to be separated by nine feet from the existing paving. Russett explained they have received multiple requests from property owners for some additional paving within that front setback area to allow a parking space in the side yard and all of those requests had to be denied because it was not feasible on the site to provide that nine feet of separation within the front setback area. Russett noted none of those requests were within the core of the community, where the concern for the amendment was originally placed. Also, based on information from Code Enforcement staff there are few issues in the core and if there are any issues in the core, they can be addressed through Code Enforcement. Russett reiterated they are requesting that that nine feet of separation not be required so someone could have some additional paving in the front setback area to have a third parking space in the side yard. After the Commission makes a recommendation, this will move to City Council for approval. Hensch is glad to see this because he remembers when they approve that change, he found it confusing and didn't really see how it would work. Townsend thinks it'll look a lot nicer having concrete pavement there as opposed to people just parking their car on the lawn which is what they see now. Craig noted she has a triple wide driveway for a double car garage so people can park in that space over at the side and it's been there for very long time. She did ask when they talk about the core that pretty much means downtown Iowa City where most of the student rentals are, but she thought that the way this all started was a concern about neighborhoods some distance from downtown but where there are smaller houses in less expensive neighborhoods that were being turned into many rentals. Russett explained that the core is the residential neighborhoods adjacent to downtown where most of the student population lives and when they proposed this amendment in 2019, they had at least one instance where there was some additional paving in the front setback area that was being used for parking which is not allowed and wasn't allowed by the former Code but it was identified as a problem so they decided to propose the amendment to require that any additional paving next to a conforming parking space would not be used for parking. They could have Planning and Zoning Commission May 6, 2021 Page 21 of 23 additional paving for a basketball court or patio or something like that, but people were saying they were going to have a patio but then they were using it for parking which was not allowed. Craig noted in her general neighborhood and places where she walks there's a couple of homes that have pavement on the side where they park campers so is that okay. Russett said they would have to look at the exact situation, but someone can have a camper parked in their yard. Signs understands the whole thing here is in order to just logistically construct a third stall off to the side and oftentimes they have to cut across that setback area so he can see how that could be problematic in some situations. Hensch opened the public hearing. Seeing no one, Hensch closed the public hearing. Signs moved to recommend updating the single-family site development standards, which amends Title 14 Zoning related to paving in the front setback area and partially repeals Ordinance No. 19-4815. Nolte seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: APRIL 15,2021: Craig moved to approve the meeting minutes of April 15, 2021. Townsend seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION: Russett noted last Tuesday staff gave a presentation to the City Council during the work session related to the Commission's recommendations on the Good Neighbor Program which would require Good Neighbor meetings for certain land development applications and the Council agreed with the Commission's recommendation, so staff will be preparing an ordinance or a policy for the Commission's consideration in the near future. Hensch wanted it noted in the minutes that he believes pretty strongly that the folks in Russett's department needs support staff because it's a lot of work to make sure those details get taken care of with those notifications and it's really nice to have someone they can task that with. Hensch also noted he will be gone on vacation on June 3 so Mr. Signs will have to chair that meeting. He would also ask people if they know their vacation plans this summer to let him or staff know so they don't have quorum issues. Craig noted as she was reviewing the things for tonight and looking at the images of the senior Prepared by: Kirk Lehmann, Associate Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240 (REZ21-0003) ORDINANCE NO. 21-4858 Ordinance amending Title 14, Zoning of the Iowa City code related to single-family site development standards (REZ21-0003) Whereas, in April 2018, the City adopted a neighborhood stabilization ordinance and capped rental permits at 30% in certain neighborhoods for single-family and duplex uses; and Whereas, in April 2019, the State legislature adopted a law (SF 447) that prohibited municipalities from adopting or enforcing rental permit caps; and Whereas, in May 2019, the City adopted a moratorium on the issuance of new rental permits for single-family and duplex units in areas exceeding the 30% rental cap to provide time to explore strategies which ensured older homes and duplexes provide healthy and safe living environments for all occupants; maintained neighborhood characteristics and housing options suitable for attracting a diverse demographic in older single-family neighborhoods; and prevented the over -burdening of city infrastructure and operational resources; and Whereas, the zoning code allows parking spaces within the front setback area as long as it leads directly to a parking space and at least 50% of the front setback area remains open space; and Whereas, in December 2019, the City adopted an ordinance (ZCA19-04) requiring that any additional paved area within the front setback area of single-family homes and duplexes must be separated by at least 9 -feet from any conforming parking spaces or aisles to ensure these areas are not used for parking, with the exception of walkways that provide access to a dwelling unit; and Whereas, ZCA19-04 has created new issues in other newer neighborhoods of the City where the standards have prevented reasonable use and expansion of paved surfaces; and Whereas, ZCA19-04 has not had the intended effect of promoting neighborhood stabilization within established neighborhoods in Iowa City; and Whereas, the City would like to repeal portions of ZCA19-04; and Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a meeting on May 6, 2021 and recommended approval of the repealing ZCA19-04; and Whereas, it is no longer in the City's best interest to retain these provisions. Now, therefore, be in ordinance by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, that: Section 1. Section 14 -2A -6C(3) of the Iowa City Code is hereby amended by deleting the following stricken language: 3. Parking is not permitted in the front principal dwelling setback, except in the following situations: a. For single-family uses, one of the required parking space(s) may be provided in the front principal dwelling setback on a regularly constructed aisle that leads directly to a parking Ordinance No. 21-4858 Page 2 space that is not located in the front principal dwelling setback, provided not less than fifty percent (50%) of the front principal dwelling setback area remains open space, free of impervious surface. 0 ) of the fFen b. For two (2) -family uses and group households, two (2) of the required parking spaces may be provided in the front principal dwelling setback on a regularly constructed aisle that leads directly to a parking space that is not located in the front principal dwelling setback, provided not less than fifty percent (50%) of the front principal dwelling setback area remains open space, free of impervious surface. 0 parking spaGe6 9F aisles by at least Rine feet (9') of apen 6paGe aFea, Uee ef ifnpeWiews Gk1Ff2GA c. For single-family uses, two-family uses, and group households, up to three (3) nonrequired parking spaces may be provided in the front principal dwelling setback, provided any such space is located on a regularly constructed aisle that leads directly to a parking space that is not located in the front principal dwelling setback, and provided that not less than fifty percent (50%) of the front principal dwelling setback area remains open space, free of buildings and impervious surfaces. (See figure 2A.5 of this section.) With the exGeptieR -of pedestFiaR paths that PFeVide aGG866 te a dwelling uRit, additi9Ral payed areas May Ret 0 sepaFated #em G9RfGFFAiRg park ng 6paGes of aisles by at least nine feet (9') ef open spaGe Section It. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof no adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section IV. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval, and publication, as provided by law. Passed and approved this 1st day of .lune 2021 yor Approved by City Attorney's Office — 05/13/2021 Ordinance No. 21-4858 Page 3 It was moved by Mims and seconded by Bergus that the Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: Bergus Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Weiner First Consideration 05/18/2021 Voteforpassage: AYES: Mims, Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner, Bergus. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published 06/10/2021 Moved by Mims, seconded by Taylor, that the rule requiring ordinances to be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it is to be finally passed be suspended, the second consideration and vote be waived and the ordinance be voted upon for final passage at this time. AYES: Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner, Bergus, Mims. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Item Number: 13. �, CITY OF IOWA CITY -�"�'�� COUNCIL ACTION REPORT June 1, 2021 Ordinance amending Title 10, entitled "Public Ways and Property," Chapter 9, entitled "Parks and Recreation Regulations," to make park closure hours uniform. (Second Consideration) Prepared By: Juli Seydell Johnson, Director of Parks & Recreation Reviewed By: Sue Dulek, Acting City Attorney Geoff Fruin, City Manager Fiscal Impact: No Impact Recommendations: Staff: Approval Commission: The Parks & Recreation Commission recommended approval at their April 14, 2021 meeting Attachments: Minutes -Parks & Rec. Comm. 4/14/21 Ordinance Executive Summary: Park hours vary depending on the park, and the Parks & Recreation Commission recommends having uniform park hours. This ordinance closes all parks at "dusk" with the following 3 exceptions: a) Blackhawk Mini Park, Chauncey Swan Park, and College Green Park never close; b) Trails can be used as transportation; and c) The City may allow a park to remain open for an event, such as a softball tournament. Background /Analysis: Open hours at Iowa City Parks are currently: 1. Except as provided for specified parks herein, occupy any park, whether on foot or in a vehicle, or permit any vehicle to remain parked in any park between the hours of ten thirty o'clock (10:30) P.M. and six o'clock (6:00) A.M. unless granted special authorization by the City. 2. From April 15 to October 31, the hours shall be from eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. to six o'clock (6:00) A.M. in City Park and Mercer Park. 3.Occupy, whether on foot or in a vehicle, or permit any vehicle to remain parked from dusk to dawn at the following parks: Waterworks Prairie Park, Peninsula Park, Hickory Hill Park, and Ryerson's Woods Park. "Dusk" means thirty (30) minutes after the time designated each calendar day as "sunset" and "dawn" means thirty (30) minutes before the time designated each calendar day as "sunrise" by the United States Naval Observatory for Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa. Said designations can be accessed via the internet at http://aa.usno.navy.miI Staff recommends that this portion of City Ordinance be changed to have all parks, except Black Hawk Mini Park, Chauncey Swan Park and College Green Park be open to the public from dawn to dusk unless granted special authorization by the City. The three parks exempted from these hours function as a part of Iowa City's Downtown. The lights at these parks remain on all night as the parks have pedestrian traffic at all hours. This change will allow for uniformity in signage and enforcement. ATTACHMENTS: Description minutes Ordinance IOWA CITY PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES APRIL 14, 2021 ZOOM PLATFORM Electronic Meeting (Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8) EAnronic meeting was held because a meeting in person was impossible or impractical due to for the health and safety of council members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19. Members Present: Stephen Bird, Alex Hachtman, Chris Odinet, Ben Russell, Melissa Serenda, Angie Smith, Brianna Wills Members Absent: Boniface Penandjo Lemoupa Staff Present: Tyler Baird, Brad Barker, Raymond Heitner Others Present: None PARK HOURS DISCUSSION: Baird is asking the Commission to consider recommending an amendment to the City Ordinance regarding Iowa City park hours to provide more consistency and less confusion for the public. The current ordinance reads as follows: Open hours at Iowa City Parks are currently: • Except as provided for specified parks herein, occupy any park, whether on foot or in a vehicle, or permit any vehicle to remain parked in any park between the hours of ten thirty o'clock (10:30) P.M. and six o'clock (6:00) A.M. unless granted special authorization by the City. • From April 15 to October 31, the hours shall be from eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. to six o'clock (6:00) A.M. in City Park and Mercer Park. Occupy, whether on foot or in a vehicle, or permit any vehicle to remain parked from dusk to dawn at the following parks: Waterworks Prairie Park, Peninsula Park, Hickory Hill Park, and Ryerson's Woods Park. "Dusk" means thirty (30) minutes after the time designated each calendar day as "sunset" and "dawn" means thirty (30) minutes before the time designated each calendar day as "sunrise" by the United States Naval Observatory for Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa. Said designations can be accessed via the internet at hgp:Haa.usno.nM.mil Staff recommends that this portion of City Ordinance be changed to have all parks, except Black Hawk Mini Park, Chauncey Swan Park and College Green Park be open to the public from dawn to dusk unless granted special authorization by the City. The three parks exempted from these hours function as a part of Iowa City's Downtown. The lights at these parks remain on all night as the parks have pedestrian traffic at all hours. Serenda asked if staff has seen much usage of the parks between dusk and 10:30 or 11:00? Baird reported that there are people in the parks at those times whether lights are on or not. He reported that recently a basketball game took place until 2 a.m. where the participants used the headlights on their vehicles to illuminate the court. Bird referred to City Park and asked if there had ever been any thought of putting a gate up at the long drive to restrict access after-hours. Baird said that a gate is not something staff has discussed during his time as superintendent, although there are gates at the soccer park to protect the fields. Baird shared that his experience has been that gates can become a bit of a management challenge, depending on the type but may be something that staff can discuss. Moved by Odinet, seconded by Serenda that the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend to City Council an amendment to the City Ordinance regarding park hours to state that all parks, except Black Hawk Mini Park, Chauncey Swan Park and College Green Park be open to the public from dawn to dusk unless ranted special authorization by the City. Passed 6-0 (Penandio Lemoupa and Russell absent. Prepared by: Susan Dulek, Asst. City Attorney, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5030 Ordinance No. 21-4859 Ordinance amending Title 10, entitled "Public Ways and Property," Chapter 9, entitled "Parks and Recreation Regulations," to make park closure hours uniform. Whereas, park closure hours vary depending on the park; Whereas, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommends having uniform park hours; Whereas, because Blackhawk Mini Park, Chauncey Swan Park, and College Green Park are lit all night and are part of the downtown fabric, they should remain open at all times; Whereas, other exceptions to the park closure requirement are the trails if being used as transportation and if the City grants authorization to remain open for an event, such as a softball tournament; and Whereas, it is in the City's interest to adopt the ordinance. Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa: Section I. Amendments. Title 10, entitled "Public Ways and Property," Chapter 9, entitled "Parks and Recreation Regulations," Section 2, entitled "Prohibited Actions in Parks," Subsection I is amended by adding the underscore text and deleting the strike -through text as follows: 1.Except as provided for 6pesi€ied pafk6 herein, occupy any park, A-Ahori;zatieR by the City. 2. FFE)m ApFil 16 to GGtebein 31, the hours shall 198 fF9FFI B18YBR G'GIOGk (114=) P.M. tG 3. 9ssuPy, whether on foot, on a non -motorized vehicle, or in a vehicle, or permit any vehicle to remain parked from dusk to dawn at the fellewing any parks: Waferwerks "Dusk" means thirty (30) minutes after the time designated each calendar day as "sunset" and "dawn" means thirty (30) minutes before the time designated each calendar day as "sunrise" by the United States Naval Observatory for Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa. Said designations can be accessed on the City website. via the iaiefnet A h#04aa.LAGR , 2. Exceptions: a) Blackhawk Mini Park Chauncey Swan Park and College Green Park remain open at all times and are not subie_ ct to the closure hours: b) persons may Section II. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provision of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section III. Penalties for Violation. The violation of any provision of this ordinance is a municipal infraction or a simple misdemeanor. Section IV. Severability. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. Section V. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and publication, as provided by law. Ordinance No. 21-4859 Page 2 Passed and approved this 1st day of June 2021. Ma Attest: Uty Clerk App r d by City Attorney's Office - 05/11/2021 Ordinance No. 21-4859 Page 3 It was moved by Mims and seconded by Salih Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Bergus Mims Salih Taylor Teague Thomas Weiner First Consideration 05/18/2021 Voteforpassage: AYES: Mims, Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner, Bergus. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. Second Consideration _ Vote for passage: Date published 06/10/2021 that the Moved by Mims, seconded by Salih, that the rule requiring ordinances to be considered and voted on for passage at two Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it is to be finally passed be suspended. the second consideration and voted be waived and the ordinance be voted upon for final passage at this time. AYES: Bergus, Mims, Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.