HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-07-27 OrdinanceItem Number: 11.a.
J uly 27, 2021
O rd inan ce conditional l y rezonin g ap p roximatel y 7.546 acres of lan d located
at 1103 and 1125 N. Dod g e Street from Commu n ity Commercial with a
Plan n ed Develop ment O verlay (O P D/C C-2) to Community Commercial with
a Plan n ed Develop ment O verlay (O P D/C C-2) zon e. (R E Z 21-0004)
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Staff Report with Attachments
Updated A pplicant S tatement
P&Z Minutes
Draft Ordinance
Draft C Z A
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission
Item: REZ21-0004
Prepared by: Joshua Engelbrecht, Planning
Intern and Ray Heitner, Associate Planner
Date: June 17, 2021
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: LT Leon Associates, Inc
5820 Westown Parkway
West Des Moines, IA 50266
515-267-2800
Contact Person: Luis Leon
LT Leon Associates
(515) 422-7016
lleon@ltleon.com
Owner: Hurd Iowa City, LLC
2000 Fuller Rd.
West Des Moines, IA 50265
Requested Action: Revision of conditions stated in previous
conditional zoning agreement
Purpose: To allow for construction of a permanent
kiosk, canopy, and three drive-through
grocery pickup lanes
Location: 1103 & 1125 N. Dodge Street. Iowa City, IA
Location Map:
Size: 7.546 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Community Commercial with a Planned
Development Overlay (OPD/CC-2)
2
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Low-density single-family residential
(RS-5)
Rural Residential (RR-1)
South: Community Commercial (CC-2)
Low-density multi-family residential
(RM-12)
East: Neighborhood commercial with a
Planned development overlay
(OPD/CN-1)
Mixed Use (MU)
West: Low-density single-family residential
(RS-5)
Comprehensive Plan: General Commercial
District Plan: North District Plan; Retail/Community
Commercial
Neighborhood Open Space District: N1
Public Meeting Notification: Property owners located within 300’ of the
project site received notification of the
Planning and Zoning Commission public
meeting. Rezoning signs were also posted on
the site
File Date: 5/12/2021
45 Day Limitation Period: 6/26/2021
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
In September of 2013, the City Council approved the conditional zoning (REZ12-0026) of
approximately 7.79 acres of property at the intersection of North Dodge St. and Prairie du Chien
Road to community commercial with a planned development overlay (OPD/CC-2). This property
would serve as the new location for the North Dodge Street Hy-Vee. The rezoning also helped to
facilitate development of a gas station and convenience store on the property’s west side. The
convenience store was originally planned to have a drive-through component, but the drive-through
was never built. This conditional zoning agreement laid out the following conditions:
A.A buffer area generally consistent with the attached plan shall be established along the
western property line of the parcel rezoned to CC -2. This buffer must be screened to the
S3 standard. Wherever the buffer area is less than 35 feet a masonry wall shall be provided
consistent with the attached plan.
B.No signs shall be permitted within the 35-foot buffer, or on the north and /or west sides of
the convenience store facing the residential development, except for a monument sign at
the intersection of Dodge Street and Prairie Du Chien Road. There will be no more than two
(2) free - standing signs permitted along the Dodge Street frontage. Other fascia and
monument signs are permitted as per the code.
C.Any building or structure including canopies shall be of a quality design appropriate for
3
property abutting a residential neighborhood, including features such as stone and masonry
materials, standing seam metal roofs, and muted colors. The design of any buildings as well
as associated structures and facilities must be presented to and approved by the Design
Review Committee prior to the City issuing a building permit.
D.Existing evergreen screening and mature trees will be preserved along the northwest side
of the property where possible.
E.A bus pull off, the design of which must be approved by the City Engineer, shall be
constructed by the Applicant within the Dodge Street right -of-way.
F.Development and landscaping shall be generally consistent with the attached plan.
G.A parapet wall shall be provided on the northwest wall of the grocery store to buffer roof top
equipment.
In March of this year, Hy-Vee, Inc submitted two special exception applications to the Board of
Adjustment for North Dodge Hy-Vee and Waterfront Drive Hy-Vee to allow construction of a kiosk
and drive-through lanes for the “Aisles Online” grocery pickup service. After discussions with Staff,
it was determined that a rezoning would be necessary, due to the development’s inconsistency with
condition F.
In May, Hy-Vee Inc. submitted this application (REZ21-0004) to revise the conditions of the 2013
Conditional Zoning Agreement. This revision would update condition F of the above conditions by
providing an updated development and landscaping plan with the footprint and layout of the desired
kiosk, canopy, and drive-through lanes. The zoning designation of community commercial with a
planned development overlay (OPD/CC-2) would remain unchanged, and new construction would
be required to comply with conditions associated with the approved updated OPD Plan. The original
rezoning required a Planned Development Overlay because more than 35% of critical slopes were
impacted.
The applicant has chosen not to utilize the City’s Good Neighbor Policy for this rezoning.
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning:
The current zoning designation, community commercial with a planned development overlay
(OPD/CC-2), allows most retail-type stores, restaurants, and services. The CC-2 zone is intended
to provide for major business districts to serve a significant segment of the total community. The
OPD overlay is designed to permit flexibility in the use and design of structures and land in situations
where conventional development may be inappropriate and where modification to requirements of
the underlying zone will not be contrary to the intent and purpose of the zoning code.
Proposed Zoning:
There would be no change to this property’s current zoning designation. Updated development and
landscaping plans would allow for the construction of a kiosk and canopy along the northern edge
of the property (as seen in Figure 1), but a Board of Adjustment special exception would be required
to allow the drive through lanes that service the kiosk.
4
General Planned Development Approval Criteria:
Applications for Planned Development Rezonings are reviewed for compliance with the following
standards according to Article 14-3A of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance.
1.The density and design of the Planned Development will be compatible with and/or
complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass and scale,
relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout.
Density: The proposed OPD rezoning does not contemplate any residential uses.
Land Uses Proposed: The proposed OPD rezoning would allow for the development of a
permanent kiosk for Hy-Vee’s “Aisles Online” program, along with a canopy and three traffic lanes
for grocery pickup. This configuration is similar to kiosks that are currently being constructed at
other Hy-Vee store locations in the area.
While the surrounding land uses are residential in character, a Hy-Vee store location has occupied
the subject property since 2014. The new site plan indicates that the landscaping buffer that
currently exists between the proposed kiosk will remain and be enhanced. Additionally, the kiosk
building itself serves as an additional buffer to traffic and automobiles circulating within the parking
lot.
Mass and Scale: The attached kiosk elevations show the layout and structural elevation of the
proposed kiosk and drive-through facilities. The kiosk building will be 1,150 square feet and will
be located at the northern edge of the current parking lot. The kiosk building will be 72’ long and
16’ wide, with a height of approximately 12’.
The kiosk building and canopy will be subject to the City’s Design Review process, per condition
4C of the existing conditional zoning agreement, which states that “Any building or structure,
Figure 1
5
including canopies, shall be of a quality design appropriate for property abutting a residential
neighborhood, including features such as stone and masonry materials, standing seam metal
roofs, and muted colors. The design of any buildings as well as associated structures and facilities
must be presented to and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to the City issuing a
building permit.” Additional analysis as to how the proposed kiosk and canopy will affect
neighboring residents is provided in the “Compatibility with the Existing Neighborhood” section of
this report.
Open Space: The proposed OPD rezoning does not contain a public open space requirement,
since the rezoning does not involve residential uses.
General Layout and Traffic Circulation: Three lanes of southwest bound traffic will feed into six
designated pickup parking spaces. A 752 square foot canopy will provide cover for the pickup
spaces. Seven parking spaces to the northeast of the kiosk building will remain in place. Staff
noted in its review of the OPD Plan that the presence of these seven parking spaces may cause
potential conflicts with southwest-bound traffic using the “Aisles Online” facility. Staff suggested
that the applicant consider a redesign of this area but did not feel it was necessary to require a
redesign of the “Aisles Online” traffic queue for the purpose of approving the OPD Plan.
2.The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities.
The proposed kiosk will only require electrical utilities. There will be no changes to street layout
or pedestrian access to the north of the proposed kiosk, and an additional pedestrian sidewalk
will be constructed to provide access to the new kiosk. No alterations or additions to other existing
infrastructure will be constructed. This change is not expected to increase traffic volume because
the trips generated by the grocery pickup kiosk are expected to replace traditional trips to the
larger site.
3.The development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property values and privacy
of neighboring properties any more than would a conventional development.
The additional screening from the kiosk and additional landscaping are expected to mitigate any
impacted views. The “Aisle Online” pickup service operates using incremental time slots allowing
the control of traffic volumes over the course of business hours. Additionally, the outdoor illumination
standards for properties zoned CC-2 are the same regardless of drive-through presence.
Staff did note in its review of the OPD Plan that there are a few areas outside of the subject property
where the foot candles from the development exceeds the allowable limit of 0.5. The applicant has
stated that this is an existing noncompliant condition. The proposed lighting plan exceeds the
allowed light trespass allowed by the zoning code and is noncompliant with the City’s outdoor
lighting standards. A compliant lighting plan must be submitted for review at the time of site plan
submittal.
4.The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying
zoning requirements or from City street standards will be in the public interest, in harmony
with the purposes of this Title, and with other building regulations of the City.
The Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map shows this property as appropriate for general
commercial uses. Hy-Vee has seen its online orders increase dramatically during the COVID-19
pandemic, and now processes hundreds of online orders from this store location each day.
Construction of the proposed kiosk and canopy will be in the public interest by allowing for the
provision of adequate infrastructure to meet this growing demand. The applicant has not requested
any waivers to modify the underlying zoning requirements or City street standards.
6
Staff uses the following two criteria in the review of rezonings:
1.Consistency with the comprehensive plan.
2.Compatibility with the existing neighborhood character.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan:
While the City’s North District Plan encourages a “Main Street” style of commercial development
that is compatible with the adjacent residential character, the subject property was rezoned to
Planned Development Overlay Community Commercial (OPD/CC-2) with the intention to develop
a Hy-Vee grocery store and gas station that could be designed in a manner that would make the
overall development compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. This was
originally accomplished by placing the grocery store building closer to Dodge Street to provide a
shallower side yard setback. A 35’ buffer and S3 landscaping screening between the west
property line and the convenience store building was also implemented to soften the transition
between the grocery store use and parking lot toward the residences to the west. The applicant
has taken similar steps to incorporate the proposed “Aisles Online” addition in a manner that
should not create any negative effects for adjacent residents above and beyond those that might
already result from the existing use.
Compatibility with Existing Neighborhood Character:
A mixture of single-family and multi-family residential uses can be found to the north, west, and
south of the Hy-Vee property. W hen the property was rezoned in 2013, the conditional zoning
agreement included a condition related buffering the existing commercial use from the residential
properties to the west and north by requiring a 35’ buffer along the property’s west side, and by
prohibiting signage on the convenience store property’s west and north sides. While the proposed
“Aisles Online” use adds some degree of traffic intensity to the northern portion of the parking
area, the applicant’s updated landscaping plan provides an enhanced S3 screen consisting of
shrubs and four overstory trees along the property’s northern edge. As a part of the OPD Plan
approval process, the developer will be required to install the landscaping shown in the proposed
landscaping at the time building permits are issued. In addition, a row of evergreen trees still
exists along the southern boundary of the properties to the north. These trees were originally put
in place to screen these properties from the former Roberts Dairy facility that used to occupy the
Hy-Vee property.
Furthermore, the permanent kiosk building itself will provide some degree of screening and act
as a noise barrier from the proposed traffic lanes. When factoring in St. Clement Street right-of-
way, the proposed pickup lanes will be approximately 85’ from the south property lines of the RS-
5 zone to the north. Staff finds this separation distance to be adequate, given the landscaping
enhancements that will be provided to the north, as well as the preexisting parking lot use that is
currently taking place on the subject property.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas:
The proposed new development will replace existing parking lot with no modifications to
surrounding slopes.
Storm Water Management:
The construction of the grocery kiosk, canopy, and drive-through lanes will result in a minimal
change to impervious surface on the property. Additionally, the existing drainage patterns and
stormwater sewer facilities will remain unchanged.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation from the Planning & Zoning Commission,
a public hearing will be scheduled for consideration of the application by City Council. A special
Rezoning Review Criteria:
7
exception from the Board of Adjustment will be required to allow the “Aisles Online” facility, as it is
considered a drive-through facility in an OPD/CC-2 zone. As noted earlier in the report, the proposed
kiosk building and canopy will be subject to the City’s Design Review process.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that an application submitted by Hy-Vee, Inc to amend the conditional zoning
agreement for approximately 7.546 acres of land located at 1103 & 1125 North Dodge Street, zoned
Community Commercial with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/CC-2) be approved, subject
to the following conditions to replace the previous conditions:
1.A buffer area generally consistent with the attached plan shall be established along the
western property line of the parcel rezoned to CC -2. This buffer must be screened to the
S3 standard. Wherever the buffer area is less than 35 feet a masonry wall shall be provided
consistent with the attached plan. (Same as previous CZA condition)
2.No signs shall be permitted within the 35-foot buffer, or on the north and /or west sides of
the convenience store facing the residential development, except for a monument sign at
the intersection of Dodge Street and Prairie Du Chien Road. There will be no more than two
(2) free - standing signs permitted along the Dodge Street frontage. Other fascia and
monument signs are permitted as per the code. (Same as previous CZA condition)
3.Any building or structure including canopies shall be of a quality design appropriate for
property abutting a residential neighborhood, including features such as stone and masonry
materials, standing seam metal roofs, and muted colors. The design of any buildings as well
as associated structures and facilities must be presented to and approved by the Design
Review Committee prior to the City issuing a building permit. (Same as previous CZA
condition)
4.Existing evergreen screening and mature trees will be preserved along the northwest side
of the property where possible. (Same as previous CZA condition)
5.Development and landscaping shall be generally consistent with the attached plan, dated
06/08/2021. (Condition amended to reflect updated OPD Plan from 06/08/2021)
Two conditions from the original Conditional Zoning Agreement pertaining to installation of a
dedicated bus pull off lane and construction of a parapet wall on the northwest corner of the grocery
store have been removed from staff’s list of proposed recommended conditions, since these
conditions have been satisfied.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.Location Map
2.Aerial Photograph
3.Applicant Narrative
4.Site Construction Document Package and OPD Plan
5.Kiosk and Canopy Elevations
6.Ordinance and Conditional Zoning Agreement from 2013
Approved by: _________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
CONKLIN LNST MATHIAS ALYN SUMMIT STDODGE STREET CT
ST CLEMENT STNDUBUQUERDST C L E M ENTSTKIMBALL AVE
PRAIRIE DU CHIEN RDN DOD
G
E
S
T
REZ21-00041103 & 1125 N. Dodge St.µ
0 0.04 0.080.02 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: May 2021
An application submitted by LT Leon Associateson behalf of Hy-vee, Inc for the rezoningof approximately 7.546 acres of property located at 1125 North Dodge St. and 1103 N. Dodge St. for therevision of conditions stated in previous conditional zoning agreements. .
CONKLIN LNST MATHIAS ALYN SUMMIT STDODGE STREET CT
ST CLEMENT STNDUBUQUERDST C L E M ENTSTKIMBALL AVE
PRAIRIE DU CHIEN RDN DOD
G
E
S
T
RM12
RS8
RS8
RS8
RS5
RS8
CN1
CC2
RS8
RS8
P1
RS5
RM12
RM12
CC2
RS8
CC2
MU
RS12
REZ21-00041103 & 1125 N. Dodge St.µ
0 0.04 0.080.02 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: May 2021
An application submitted by LT Leon Associateson behalf of Hy-vee, Inc for the rezoningof approximately 7.546 acres of property located at 1125 North Dodge St. and 1103 N. Dodge St. for therevision of conditions stated in previous conditional zoning agreements. .
Overlay Zones
Overlay Description
Historic District (OHD)
Planned Development (OPD)
500 E Locust Street, Suite 400 DES MOINES IA 50309 P515.422.7016 www.ltleon.com
May 4, 2021
City of Iowa City
Rezoning Application
Hy-Vee Iowa City # 3 Aisles Online Drive Through Lanes and Kiosk
1125 and 1103 North Dodge Street, Iowa City
RE: Applicant Statement and Approval Criteria (14-3A-4)
Hy-Vee, Inc (the applicant) is proposing a rezone to amend the existing Conditional Zoning Agreement on the subject
property located at 1103 N Dodge St and 1125 N Dodge St, parcels 1002336003 and 1002336001 respectively. The
subject property is owned by Hurd Iowa City, LLC (the property owner).
The subject property is 7.546 acres, comprised of two lots, and is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of
North Dodge Street and Prairie Du Chien Road. The subject property currently contains a Hy-Vee grocery store, C-Store
(convenience/gas station) with canopy and associated parking, open space, and loading facilities.
The subject property was rezoned per Ordinance 13-4547 to Planned Development Overlay – Community commercial
(OPD-CC-2). With the rezone to OPD-CC-2, the property was also subject to a conditional zoning agreement. The subject
property has been fully and successfully developed consistent with the existing agreement.
The applicant is asking for a rezone to amend the existing Conditional Zoning Agreement, Ordinance No 13-4547 to
remove language under agreement number 4, part F which states, “Development and landscaping shall be generally
consistent with the attached plan.”
As Hy-Vee anticipates a steady increase in online orders in the coming years, they are requesting approval to install a
permanent installation for pick-up service in their parking lot. This is not currently possible under the existing conditional
zoning agreement as it conflicts with the above-mentioned language and is not ‘generally consistent’ with the original
attached site plan.
The attached new proposed site plan outlines the improvements Hy-Vee is proposing that will add 3 grocery pick up
lanes, an 1150 SF permanent kiosk with 752 SF canopy, and additional landscaping.
Hy-Vee has been working on how to better serve their customers with online grocery ordering, delivery, and pickup over
the past several years. They were working with order volumes that could be easily accommodated with several dedicated
parking stalls prior to the COVID-19 disruption. In a matter of a week, they went from processing 50 to 60 online orders
each day to processing hundreds of orders per hour each day.
Hy-Vee does not anticipate that the drive through lanes will increase the amount of traffic to the store but will replace
existing in store shopping trips. Using existing access points means we will not be adding any additional curb cuts or
affecting pedestrian safety. The drive through layout allows a queue of cars rather than a pull in configuration which will
improve traffic flow and customer satisfaction.
This rezone is warranted as you will see in the following responses. This proposed new use is compatible with the
surrounding development, the public infrastructure and facilities are adequate to serve this zone change, and this is in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Since the subject property has been fully built out, there is little risk in
2 | Page
removing the language that limits development to the original site plan. Additionally, this proposed site plan will have to
go through the Special Exception process for approval and will conform to all city standards and building code.
1. The density and design of the planned development will be compatible with and/or complementary to adjacent
development in terms of land use, building mass and scale, relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and
general layout.
The surrounding neighborhood is residential in character. The existing landscape buffer between the Aisles
Online and the street will be maintained, and all trees will be protected. Additional landscaping will be added to
help buffer the uses and the kiosk is located such that it will effectively block the Aisles Online drive through
lanes. The change of use from a parking lot that is car-oriented to a drive through queue that is car-oriented is
minor and does not affect the design quality of the site.
The existing pedestrian sidewalk to the north of the Aisles Online project will remain. A new pedestrian walk will
connect that sidewalk to the new kiosk, providing a safe and accessible route that utilizes existing pedestrian
circulation.
2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities.
The Aisles Online kiosk only requires electrical utilities which is being provided. Additional access roads are not
needed as the facility uses existing parking lot access points. Impervious surface remains nearly identical to
before and the existing drainage patterns and storm sewer facilities will remain the same and will contain the
same volume of stormwater as the previous configuration.
Orders are processed in incremental time slots to control the number of trips coming to the store and has based
the car stacking on volume capabilities. Hy-Vee is seeing peak hours between 4 pm and 6 pm as customers pick
up their groceries on the way home from work. Typical hours of operation are from 8 am to 10 pm but may be
less based on demand at a location.
As a result of this information, Hy-Vee is providing 3 lanes in this location with each lane stacking 6 cars, totaling
18 stacking spots. This is more than enough stacking for the volume and Hy-Vee will easily be able to control the
number of customers through their incremental time slots.
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.
Hy-Vee does not anticipate that the drive through lanes will increase the amount of traffic to the store.
Additionally, Hy-Vee can control the volume through their incremental time slots. The development of the Aisles
Online drive through is commercial in nature and consistent with the surrounding land uses.
4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying zoning requirements or from
city street standards will be in the public interest, in harmony with the purposes of this title, and with other building
regulations of the city.
The Future Land Use Map shows this property as General Commercial. As it is already in a commercial use, a
commercial grocery drive through is compatible with that use. This project “encourages compact, efficient
development” since it is not building more pavement in addition to the parking lot but replacing existing parking
lot with a more efficient use. It is furthering commercial development in a “defined commercial node” and is
appropriate for the Land Use and “compatible and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood”.
Prepared by Rachel Harris, PLA, LT Leon Associates, Inc.
FLOOR LEVEL
+0"
T/ LOW PARAPET
+10'-8"
T/ LOW PARAPET
+10'-8"
2
B/ LOW FASCIA
+8'-0"
B/ LOW FASCIA
+8'-0"
B/ HIGH FASCIA
+9'-4"
1
1
A B
A6.0
5
1
T/ HIGH PARAPET
+12'-0"
0.A 0.C
D1
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
2
THIN BRICK BY KANSAS BRICK & TILE
COLOR: #530 FLASH
SIZE: MODULAR
BOND: 1/3 RUNNING
MORTAR: SOLOMON GRIND 10H
1
MASONRY UNITS
PHENOLIC WALL PANEL: STONEWOOD
COLOR: MATCH SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
"MAISON BLANCHE" 7526
WALL CLADDING
PHENOLIC WALL PANEL: STONEWOOD
COLOR: MATCH SHERWIN-WILLIAMS
"NANTUCKET DUNE" 7527
2
PHENOLIC WALL PANEL: STONEWOOD
COLOR: "GRANITE GREY" 7026
PREFINISHED 0.40 ALUMINUM PANELS
COLOR: ALPOLIC "NSG GREY"
METAL TRIM COLORS
3
1
3
PREFINISHED METAL TO MATCH
CLADDING COLOR
PAINT
X
FLOOR LEVEL
+0"
T/ LOW PARAPET
+10'-8"
B/ LOW FASCIA
+8'-0"
21
T/ HIGH PARAPET
+12'-0"
2
2
1
1
FLOOR LEVEL
+0"
T/ LOW PARAPET
+10'-8"
T/ LOW PARAPET
+10'-8"
B/ LOW FASCIA
+8'-0"
B/ LOW FASCIA
+8'-0"
B/ HIGH FASCIA
+9'-4"
AB
A6.0
5
T/ HIGH PARAPET
+12'-0"
2
2
1
3
3
2
1 1
2
B/ LOW FASCIA
+8'-0"
B/ HIGH FASCIA
+9'-4"
NON-LIT SIGNAGE
8 1/2"10'-3 1/2"1'-0"EQ EQ 8 5/8"1'-4"FLOOR LEVEL
+0"
T/ LOW PARAPET
+10'-8"
B/ LOW FASCIA
+8'-0"
2 1
T/ HIGH PARAPET
+12'-0"
1 1
2
0.1 0.2
2
1
3 3
DATE:DRAWN:
SCALE:JOB NUMBER:
SHEET:
TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTHEMPLOYEE OWNEDHY-VEE, INC.5820 WESTOWN PARKWAYWEST DES MOINES, IOWA 50266TELEPHONE: (515) 267-2800FAX: (515) 267-2935RLOCATION:REVISION DATE
BY
As indicated
BIM 360://00_Hy-Vee Projects - R20/20050 AOL IOWA CITY 3_A2_R20.rvtA6.0
03/05/2021
20050
MJ / KK
ELEVATIONSIOWA CITY 3AISLES ONLINE KIOSK100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - 03/05/2021
4
A6.0
SCALE:N.T.S.
KEY PLAN
3
A6.0
1
A6.0
2
A6.0
SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"
FRONT ELEVATION1
SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"
SIDE ELEVATION W/ DOOR3SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"
REAR ELEVATION2
SCALE:3/4" = 1'-0"
ENLARGED SIGNAGE ELEVATION5
SCALE:
3D VIEW
SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"
SIDE ELEVATION W/ CANOPY4
5f
Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319- 356 -5240 (REZ12- 00026)
ORDINANCE NO. 13 -4547
ORDINANCE REZONING APPROXIMATELY 7.79 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH DODGE STREET AND PRAIRIE DU
CHIEN ROAD FROM MEDIUM DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY (RS -8), NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC (P -1)
AND HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL (CH -1) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY - COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL (OPD- CC -2). (REZ12 -00026)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Hy -Vee Stores, has requested a rezoning of property located at the northeast
corner of the intersection of North Dodge Street and Prairie Du Chien Road from Medium - Density Single -
Family Residential (RS -8), Neighborhood Public (P -1), and Highway Commercial (CH -1) to Planned
Development Overlay /Community Commercial (OPD /CC2); and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan, North District Plan Map, shows this area as appropriate for
retail /community commercial use provided that it is designed to be compatible with the adjacent residential
neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a concept plan showing how commercial redevelopment of this
property can be made compatible with the adjacent neighborhood with careful building design and
placement, the use of buffer areas and landscaping; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed rezoning and has
recommended approval provided that it meets conditions addressing the need for compatibility with the
adjacent neighborhoods and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2011) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose reasonable
conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing regulations, in order to
satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the owner and applicant have agreed that the property shall be developed in accordance
with the terms and conditions of the Conditional Zoning Agreement attached hereto to ensure appropriate
development in this area of the city.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
SECTION I APPROVAL. Property described below is hereby reclassified from its current zoning
designation of RS -8, CH -1 and P -1 to OPD /CC -2:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
TRACT #1) - REZONE FROM P -1 TO CC -2
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 14, ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION, IOWA
CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, AT PAGE
583, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE S019115 "E,
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14, A DISTANCE OF 85.61 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE N64 012'45 "E, 152.25 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 44.66 FEET ALONG AN ARC OF A
175.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, WHOSE 44.54 FOOT CHORD BEARS
S48 °54'39 "W; THENCE S25 °41'52 "W, 8.25 FEET; THENCE S64 °12'45 "W, 118.43 FEET, TO A POINT ON
THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE N01 °11'15 "W, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, 22.00 FEET, TO
SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 2,572 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS, AND SUBJECT TO
EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
TRACT #1A) - REZONE FROM P -1 TO CC -2
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 14, ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION, IOWA
CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, AT PAGE
583, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE SO1 ° 11' 15 "E,
Ordinance No. 13 -4547
Page 2
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14, A DISTANCE OF 85.61 FEET; THENCE N64 012'45 "E, 184.60
FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING N64 °12'45 "E, 178.92 FEET, TO A POINT
ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE SO 1 ° 12' 11 "E, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 22.00 FEET;
THENCE S64012145 "W, 125.00 FEET; THENCE SO 1 ° 12'11 "E, 146.79 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH
LINE OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE S64 °13'01 "W, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 94.68 FEET; THENCE
N25 °58'47 "W, 43.37 FEET; THENCE NO1 °11'25 "W, 85.98 FEET; THENCE S25 °41'52 "E, 17.45 FEET; THENCE
N64 °18'08 "E, 75.30 FEET; THENCE N25 °41'52 "W, 49.49 FEET, TO SAID POINT OF BEGINNING,
CONTAINING 0.37 ACRE, MORE OR LESS, AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF
RECORD,
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (TRACT #2) - REZONE FROM RS -8 TO CC -2
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 14, ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION, IOWA
CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, AT PAGE
583, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE SO1 °11'15 "E,
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14, A DISTANCE OF 53.36 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE N88 048'45 "E, 10.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, 144.29 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A
150.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, WHOSE 138.79 FOOT CHORD BEARS
N61'15'1 8"E; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, 80.12 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A 150.00 FOOT RADIUS
CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, WHOSE 79.17 FOOT CHORD BEARS N49 °00'00 "E; THENCE
N64° 18'08 "E, 150.18 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE SO 1'12'11 "E,
ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 27.51 FEET; THENCE N64 °12'45 "E, 44.86 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST
LINE OF YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION, IOWA CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 6, AT PAGE 49, IN SAID RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY
RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE N00 °4 1'26 "W, ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION,
76.28 FEET, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT B OF SAID YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION; THENCE
N65 °07'33 "E, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT B, 158.32 FEET, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER
THEREOF; THENCE N00 036'30 "W, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF LOT C OF SAID YEGGY'S FIRST
ADDITION, AND ITS NORTHERLY PROJECTION THEREOF, 123.75 FEET; THENCE N88 125'19 "E, 158. 03
FEET, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 96064, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 44, AT PAGE 325, IN SAID
RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE N88 °48'55 "E, ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL 96064, A DISTANCE OF 12.29 FEET; THENCE SO1 °11'05 "E,
ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 157.65 FEET; THENCE S64 °53'24 "W, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT X
OF SAID YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION, AND ITS EASTERLY PROJECTION THEREOF, 188. 89 FEET, TO
THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE S65 °38'32 "W, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT Y OF
SAID YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION, AND ITS WESTERLY PROJECTION THEREOF, 201.58 FEET, TO A
POINT ON THE SAID EAST LINE OF LOT 14 OF ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION; THENCE
SO1 °12'11 "E, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 0.44 FEET; THENCE S64 °12'45 "W, 363.52 FEET, TO A POINT ON
THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE NO 1 ° 11'15"W, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, 32.25 FEET, TO
SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 1.47 ACRE, MORE OR LESS, AND SUBJECT TO
EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (TRACT #3) - REZONE FROM CH -1 TO CC -2
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 14, ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION, IOWA
CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, AT PAGE
583, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE SO1 °11'15 "E,
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14, A DISTANCE OF 107.61 FEET, TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE N64 °12'45 "E, 123.87 FEET; THENCE SO1 °11'25 "E, 99.09 FEET; THENCE
S25 °58'47 "E, 43. 37 FEET; THENCE N64° 1 TO 1 "E, 94.68 FEET; THENCE NO1 ° 12' 11 "W, 146.79 FEET;
THENCE N64 012'45 "E, 125.00 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF LOT 14 OF SAID ST.
MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION; THENCE NO 1 ° 12' 11 "W, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 22.44 FEET; THENCE
N65 °38'32 "E, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT Y, OF YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION, IOWA CITY, IOWA,
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 6, AT PAGE 49, IN SAID
RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, AND ITS WESTERLY PROJECTION
THEREOF, 201. 58 FEET, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE N64 °53'24 "E, ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF LOT X OF SAID YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION, AND ITS EASTERLY PROJECTION
THEREOF, 188.89 FEET, TO A POINT ON.THE NORTH LINE OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 96064, JOHNSON
COUNTY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 44, AT
Ordinance No. 13 -4547
Page 3
PAGE 325, IN SAID RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE SOI'l V05 "E,
ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 27.69 FEET; THENCE N88 °48'55 "E, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
AUDITOR'S PARCEL 96064, A DISTANCE OF 12.29 FEET; THENCE SO1 °11'05 "E, ALONG SAID NORTH
LINE, 185.34 FEET; THENCE N88 048'55 "E, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 12.29 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE
WEST LINE OF LOT 10 OF ST, MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION, IOWA CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, AT PAGE 583, IN SAID RECORDS OF THE
JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE N88 °53'07 "E, 193.31 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE
EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 10 OF ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION; THENCE SO 1 ° 11'05, ALONG SAID
EAST LINE, 203.80 FEET, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF NORTH
DODGE STREET; THENCE S64° 13'01 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 592.68 FEET;
THENCE S640 13' 18 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 27.03 FEET; THENCE S640 13'01 "W,
ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 180.79 FEET; THENCE S25 °46'59 "E, ALONG SAID NORTH
RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 2.00 FEET; THENCE S640 13'01 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE,
39.43 FEET; THENCE S69 °55'40 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 40.20 FEET; THENCE
S64-13'01 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 37.48 FEET; THENCE S88 048'35 "W, ALONG
SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 51.07 FEET; THENCE SO1 °56'19 "E, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -
OF -WAY LINE, 33. 08 FEET; THENCE S64° 13'01 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 9.29
FEET, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF PRAIRIE DU CHIEN ROAD;
THENCE NO l ° 11' 15 "W, ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 319.03 FEET, TO SAID POINT OF
BEGINNING, CONTAINING 5.90 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND
RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The building official 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 the ordinance as approved 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 record the same in the
Office of the County Recorder, Johnson County, Iowa, at the Owner's expense, upon the final passage,
approval and publication of this ordinance, 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 3rd day of September , 20_j L_.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
C CLERK"
A prov d by
dP - d'J —
Attorney Rep the City
Ordinance No. 13 -4547
Page 4_
It was moved by Dobyns and seconded by Payne that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
NAYS: ABSENT:
Champion
Dickens
Dobyns
Hayek
Mims
Payne
Throgmorton
First Consideration 12/18/2012
Voteforpassage: AYES: Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns,
Hayek. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Hayek. NAYS:
1/8/2013
AYES: Mims, Payne, Throgmorton, Champion, Dickens, Dobyns,
Ndne. ABSENT: None.
Date published 911212013
Prepared by: Andrew Bassman, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356 -5251 (REZ12- 00026)
CONDITIONAL ZONING AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made between the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation
hereinafter "City "), Roberts Dairy Company; L.L.C., an Illinois limited liability company
hereinafter "Owner ") and Hy -Vee, Inc., an Iowa corporation ( hereinafter "Applicant ").
WHEREAS, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 7.37 acres of property
located on the north side of North Dodge Street between Prairie Du Chien Road and North
Dubuque Road; and
WHEREAS, the City owns approximately .42 acres of adjacent property including right -
of -way of St. Clements Street, which the Applicant proposes to purchase; and
WHEREAS, the Owner and Applicant have requested the rezoning of said property from
Medium - Density Single - Family Residential (RS -8), Neighborhood Public (P -1), and Highway
Commercial (CH -1) to Planned Development Overlay /Community Commercial (OPD /CC -2); and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate
conditions regarding redevelopment of the property with a design that is compatible with the
adjacent residential neighborhood, the requested zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan; and
WHEREAS, Iowa Code §414.5 (2011) provides that the City of Iowa City may impose
reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and above existing
regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested change; and
WHEREAS, the Owner and Applicant acknowledge that certain conditions and
restrictions are reasonable to ensure the development of the property is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the need for compatibility with the North District Plan and the adjacent
residential neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the Owner and Applicant agree to develop this property in accordance with
the terms and conditions of a Conditional Zoning Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the parties
agree as follows:
1. Roberts Dairy Company is the legal title holder of the property legally described as:
LFGAL DESCRIPTION (TRACT #2) - REZONE FROM RS -8 TO CC -2
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 14, ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION, IOWA
CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, AT PAGE
583, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE SO1 °11'15 "E,
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14, A DISTANCE OF 53.36 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE N88 048'45 "E, 10.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, 144.29 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A
150.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, WHOSE 138.79 FOOT CHORD BEARS
N61 ° 15' 18 "E; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, 80.12 FEET, ALONG AN ARC OF A 150.00 FOOT RADIUS
CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, WHOSE 79.17 FOOT CHORD BEARS N49 °00'00 "E; THENCE
N64 °18'08 "E, 150.18 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE SOI °12'11 "E,
ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 27.51 FEET; THENCE N641 1245 "E, 44.86 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST
LINE OF YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION, IOWA CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 6, AT PAGE 49, IN SAID RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY
RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE N00 041'26 "W, ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION,
76.28 FEET, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT B OF SAID YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION; THENCE
N65 007'33 "E, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT B, 158.32 FEET, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER
THEREOF; THENCE N00 °36'30 "W, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF LOT C OF SAID YEGGY'S FIRST
ADDITION, AND ITS NORTHERLY PROJECTION THEREOF, 123.75 FEET; THENCE N88 °25'19 "E, 158.03
FEET, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 96064, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 44, AT PAGE 325, IN SAID
RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE N88 °48'55 "E, ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL 96064, A DISTANCE OF 12.29 FEET; THENCE SO1 °11'05 "E,
ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 157.65 FEET; THENCE S64 °53'24 "W, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT X
OF SAID YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION, AND ITS EASTERLY PROJECTION THEREOF, 188.89 FEET, TO
THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE S65 °38'32 "W, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT Y OF
SAID YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION, AND ITS WESTERLY PROJECTION THEREOF, 201.58 FEET, TO A
POINT ON THE SAID EAST LINE OF LOT 14 OF ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION; THENCE
SO °12'11 "E, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 0.44 FEET; THENCE S64 °12'45 "W, 363. 52 FEET, TO A POINT ON
THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE NOI °11'15 "W, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, 32.25 FEET, TO
SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 1.47 ACRE, MORE OR LESS, AND SUBJECT TO
EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (TRACT 431 - RFZONE FROM CH -1 TO CC-2
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 14, ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION, IOWA
CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, AT PAGE
583, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE SO1 °11'15 "E,
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14, A DISTANCE OF 107.61 FEET, TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE N64° 12'45 "E, 123.87 FEET; THENCE SO 1 ° 11'25 "E, 99.09 FEET; THENCE
S25 °58'47 "E, 43.37 FEET; THENCE N64 °13'01 "E, 94.68 FEET; THENCE N01'12'1 I "W, 146.79 FEET; THENCE
N64-12'45 "E, 125.00 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF LOT 14 OF SAID ST. MATTHIAS SECOND
ADDITION; THENCE NO1 °12'11 "W, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 22.44 FEET; THENCE N65 °38'32 "E, ALONG
THE NORTH LINE OF LOT Y, OF YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION, IOWA CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 6, AT PAGE 49, IN SAID RECORDS OF THE
JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, AND ITS WESTERLY PROJECTION THEREOF, 201.58 FEET,
TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE N64 °53'24 "E, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT X
OF SAID YEGGY'S FIRST ADDITION, AND ITS EASTERLY PROJECTION THEREOF, 188.89 FEET, TO A
POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF AUDITOR'S PARCEL 96064, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 44, AT PAGE 325, IN SAID
RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE SO1 °11'05 "E, ALONG SAID
NORTH LINE, 27.69 FEET; THENCE N88 °48'55 "E, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S
PARCEL 96064, A DISTANCE OF 12.29 FEET; THENCE S01 11 1'05"E, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 185.34
FEET; THENCE N88 °48'55 "E, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, 12.29 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE
OF LOT 10 OF ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION, IOWA CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, AT PAGE 583, IN SAID RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON
COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE N88 053'07 "E, 193.31 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF
SAID LOT 10 OF ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION; THENCE SO1 011'05, ALONG SAID EAST LINE,
203.80 FEET, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF NORTH DODGE
STREET; THENCE S64'13'0 I "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 592.68 FEET; THENCE
S64 °13' 18 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 27.03 FEET; THENCE S64 °13'01 "W, ALONG
SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 180.79 FEET; THENCE S25 °46'59 "E, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -
OF -WAY LINE, 2.00 FEET; THENCE S64 °13'01 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 39.43
FEET; THENCE S69 055'40 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 40.20 FEET; THENCE
S64 °13' 01 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 37.48 FEET; THENCE S88 °48'35 "W, ALONG
SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 51.07 FEET; THENCE SO1 °56'19 "E, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINE, 33. 08 FEET; THENCE S64'13'01 "W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 9.29
FEET, TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF PRAIRIE DU CHIEN ROAD;
THENCE NOI -I 1'15 "W, ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, 319.03 FEET, TO SAID POINT OF
BEGINNING, CONTAINING 5.90 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND
RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
2. The City is the legal title holder of the property legally described as:
2
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (TRACT #11- RF.7.0NE FROM P -1 TO CC-2
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 14, ST. MATTHIAS SECOND ADDITION, IOWA ..
CITY, IOWA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 17, AT PAGE
583, IN THE RECORDS OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE SOVI 1'15 "E,
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14, A DISTANCE OF 85.61 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE N640 12'45 "E, 363.52 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE
S01 °12'11 "E, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 22.00 FEET; THENCE S64 °12'45 "W, 125.00 FEET; THENCE
S01 °12'11 "E, 146.79 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE S64 °13' 01 "W,
ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 94.68 FEET; THENCE N25 °58'47 "W, 43.37 FEET; THENCE N019 1'25"W, 99.09
FEET; THENCE S64 °12'45 "W, 123.87 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE
N01-1 1-15"W, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, 22.00 FEET, TO SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING
0.51 ACRE, MORE OR LESS, AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
3. The Owner and Applicant acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure conformance to
the principles of the Comprehensive Plan and the North District Plan. Further, the parties
acknowledge that Iowa Code §414.5 (2011) provides that the City of Iowa City may
impose reasonable conditions on granting an applicant's rezoning request, over and
above the existing regulations, in order to satisfy public needs caused by the requested
change.
4. 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 chapter, as well as the following conditions:
A) A buffer area generally consistent with the attached plan shall be
established along the western property line of the parcel rezoned to CC -2. This
buffer must be screened to the S3 standard. Wherever the buffer area is less
than 35 feet a masonry wall shall be provided consistent with the attached plan.
B) No signs shall be permitted within the 35 foot buffer, or on the north
and /or west sides of the convenience store facing the residential development,
except for a monument sign at the intersection of Dodge Street and Prairie Du
Chien Road. There will be no more than two (2) free - standing signs permitted
along the Dodge Street frontage. Other fascia and monument signs are permitted
as per the code.
C) Any building or structure including canopies shall be of a quality design
appropriate for property abutting a residential neighborhood, including features
such as stone and masonry materials, standing seam metal roofs, and muted
colors. The design of any buildings as well as associated structures and facilities
must be presented to and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to the
City issuing a building permit.
D) Existing evergreen screening and mature trees will be preserved along
the northwest side of the property where possible.
E) A bus pull off, the design of which must be approved by the City
Engineer, shall be constructed by the Applicant within the Dodge Street right -of-
way.
F) Development and landscaping shall be generally consistent with the
attached plan.
G) A parapet wall shall be provided on the northwest wall of the
3
grocery store to buffer roof top equipment.
5. The Owner and Applicant, and City acknowledge that the conditions contained herein
are reasonable conditions to impose on the land under Iowa Code §414.5 (2011), and
that said conditions satisfy public needs that are caused by the requested zoning
change.
6. The Owner and Applicant, and City acknowledge that in the event the subject property is
transferred, sold, redeveloped, or subdivided, all redevelopment will conform with the
terms of this Conditional Zoning Agreement.
7. The parties acknowledge that 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 of record by the
City of Iowa City.
8. The parties further acknowledge that this agreement shall inure to the benefit of and bind
all successors, representatives, and assigns of the parties.
9. The Owner and Applicant acknowledge that nothing in this Conditional Zoning
Agreement shall be construed to relieve the Owner or Applicant from complying with all
other applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
10. The parties agree that 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.
11. This Agreement may be executed in two (2) or more counterparts, each of which shall
be deemed an original, but all of which taken together shall form one and the same
agreement. For purposes of executing and delivering this Agreement, a facsimile or
scanned and emailed signature shall be as effective as an original signature.
Dated this
50t
day of .=+, 20 13.
City:
CITY OF IOWA CITY
Q /1%.
Matthew Hayek, Mayor
Attest:
X
Mari K. Karr, City Clerk
4
Approved by:
Attorney Representing the City
CITY OF IOWA CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
STATE OF IOWA )
ss:
JOHNSON COUNTY )
This instrument was acknowledged before me on ' ' !' 3 , 2013by Matthew Hayek
and Marian K. Karr as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Iowa City.
eu r,Le- k /
Notary Public in and for the State of Iowa
Stamp or Seal)
Title (and Rank)
i
o 't s KELLIE K. TUTTLE
z Commission Number 221819
My Co issi n ires
IOWA
Owner:
Roberts Dairy Company, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company
By:
Its: Partner
STATE OF COUNTY OF cz: - ,
ss:
This instment was acknowledgeA.before me 09 /8 by
as-s%Gu of obe Dairy Company, LLC,
an Illinoit limitdd 40MV company.
tarry Pu lic
JOHN M. ALDREryD
r4N MISSOURI
alblld
ene County
shy iummillsion Expires Mov. 5, 2015
we';
leebn e11460004
Applicant:
Hy -Vee, Inc., an Iowa corporation
Anthony - McCann, Sr. Vice President
By:
k"-' A RfK (print name)
Its: Asi tvk -t Stec{ ar
STATE OF IOWA, COUNTY OF POLK, ss
On this 15+1- day of Peu.4 --6r , 2012, before me, the undersigned, a Notary
Public in and for the state of Iowa, personally appeared Anthony McCann and
j1,b„-t ah Wiev% , to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn did say that
they are the Sr. Vice President and AWs(x,l- 5tctA4v r , respectively, of Hy -Vee, Inc., an Iowa
corporation, that the instrument to which this is attached was signed on behalf of said corporation
by authority of its Board of Directors; and that the said Anthony McCann and
AAA- -,. A1(tK as such off,
be the voluntary act and deed of said corpo
acknowledged the execution of said instrument to
n, by it and
MAT ANA D. MASSMAN Not'a'ry P blic in and for
MISSION NO. 154M State o owar-1
7
ntarily executed.
A
D
i
0
w -
y --
Right of N;tt
a
CD (roN
0 CD
cP x m
v
O
Ql
a.
O m
n
d y U N
CD o
F a'
wc'
Rightof Way
P
T O
6
a.
O m
n
d y U N
F a'
a.
n
d y U N
F a'
wc'
wb
Right of Way
Ub
y
Right of Way
m
V)
R
C dO
n CD CD
CDo
C
is
a
wb
Right of Way
Ub
y
Building coma
m
A O R
Building coma
rs.
oar
GI
0
M.
V,
m
X
TV
I
Z r
fir, QRaS.< + .rsRYi y O V * O4a
o;°O
ma y D
F m
RR
Hill, ?
i! pp
ep¢
p9
1FM ll
N ~
0
mi
o z V
Jl —
1
O
m
NO O
z:1N
N 9
D A
F
s9r
V N D
1S 1N3W3-10 '1S s p m
lnz
O O m<
O
S FC V
m O D
o z O
yp
DA
b
mm
y
mzpz
mzg
M.
V,
m
X
TV
I
Z r
fir, QRaS.< + .rsRYi y O V * O4a
o;°O
ma y D
F m
RR
Hill, ?
i! pp
ep¢
p9
1FM ll
N ~
0
mi
o z V
Jl —
1
O
m
NO O
z:1N
N 9
D A
F O
i m
lnz
O O m< 1 1
S FC V
m O D
o z O
yp
DA
mm
y
i3W a f f f o DyD < oz
i
m ={ $$E$$ g
I mm
fir, QRaS.< + .rsRYi y O V * O4a ygyg 1I I ! m
RR
Hill, ?
i!
pp
ep¢
p9
1FM llA
g1 g! 011161r i lio 0
mir'
j
Rj
jy
N
i3W a f f f o DyD < oz
i
m ={ $$E$$ g
50 0 E L oc u s t S t r e e t , S u i t e 4 0 0 DE S M O IN E S IA 5 03 09 P 5 1 5 .4 22 .7 0 1 6 www.l t l e on .c o m
July 1, 2021
City of Iowa City
Rezoning Application
Hy-Vee Iowa City # 3 Aisles Online Drive Through Lanes and Kiosk
1125 and 1103 North Dodge Street, Iowa City
RE: Applicant Statement and Approval Criteria (14-3A-4)
Hy-Vee, Inc (the applicant) is proposing a rezone to amend the existing Conditional Zoning Agreement on the subject property
located at 1103 N Dodge St and 1125 N Dodge St, parcels 1002336003 and 1002336001 respectively. The subject property is
owned by Hurd Iowa City, LLC (the property owner).
The subject property is 7.546 acres, comprised of two lots, and is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of North
Dodge Street and Prairie Du Chien Road. The subject property currently contains a Hy-Vee grocery store, C-Store
(convenience/gas station) with canopy and associated parking, open space, and loading facilities.
The subject property was rezoned per Ordinance 13-4547 to Planned Development Overlay – Community commercial (OPD-CC-
2). With the rezone to OPD-CC-2, the property was also subject to a conditional zoning agreement. The subject property has been
fully and successfully developed consistent with the existing agreement.
The applicant is asking for a rezone to amend the existing Conditional Zoning Agreement, Ordinance No 13-4547 to remove
language under agreement number 4, part F which states, “Development and landscaping shall be generally consistent with the
attached plan.”
As Hy-Vee anticipates a steady increase in online orders in the coming years, they are requesting approval to install a permanent
installation for pick-up service in their parking lot. This is not currently possible under the existing conditional zoning agreement
as it conflicts with the above-mentioned language and is not ‘generally consistent’ with the original attached site plan.
The attached new proposed site plan outlines the improvements Hy-Vee is proposing that will add 3 grocery pick up lanes, an
1150 SF permanent kiosk with 752 SF canopy, and additional landscaping.
Hy-Vee has been working on how to better serve their customers with online grocery ordering, delivery, and pickup over the past
several years. They were working with order volumes that could be easily accommodated with several dedicated parking stalls
prior to the COVID-19 disruption. In a matter of a week, they went from processing 50 to 60 online orders each day to processing
hundreds of orders per hour each day.
Hy-Vee does not anticipate that the drive through lanes will increase the amount of traffic to the store but will replace existing in
store shopping trips. Using existing access points means we will not be adding any additional curb cuts or affecting pedestri an
safety. The drive through layout allows a queue of cars rather than a pull in configuration which will improve traffic flow and
customer satisfaction.
This rezone is warranted as you will see in the following responses. This proposed new use is compatible with the surrounding
development, the public infrastructure and facilities are adequate to serve this zone change, and this is in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan. Since the subject property has been fully built out, there is little risk in removing the language that limits
development to the original site plan. Additionally, this proposed site plan will have to go through the Special Exception process
for approval and will conform to all city standards and building code.
2 | P a g e
1. The density and design of the planned development will be compatible with and/or complementary to adjacent development
in terms of land use, building mass and scale, relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout.
The surrounding neighborhood is residential in character. The existing landscape buffer will have to be replaced between
the Aisles Online and the street. We have replaced the trees with the same tree species in their original locations. The
shrubs will be replaced with plants that will grow to 4-6’ tall, providing a more effective screen than what is currently
installed. The new buffer exceeds the intent of the original landscape plan. The kiosk is located such that it will effectively
block the Aisles Online drive through lanes. The change of use from a parking lot that is car-oriented to a drive through
queue that is car-oriented is minor and does not affect the design quality of the site.
The existing pedestrian sidewalk to the north of the Aisles Online project will remain. A new pedestrian walk will connect
that sidewalk to the new kiosk, providing a safe and accessible route that utilizes existing pedestrian circulation.
2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities.
The Aisles Online kiosk only requires electrical utilities which is being provided. Additional access roads are not needed
as the facility uses existing parking lot access points. Impervious surface remains nearly identical to before and the
existing drainage patterns and storm sewer facilities will remain the same and will contain the same volume of
stormwater as the previous configuration.
Orders are processed in incremental time slots to control the number of trips coming to the store and has based the car
stacking on volume capabilities. Hy-Vee is seeing peak hours between 4 pm and 6 pm as customers pick up their groceries
on the way home from work. Typical hours of operation are from 8 am to 10 pm but may be less based on demand at a
location.
As a result of this information, Hy-Vee is providing 3 lanes in this location with each lane stacking 6 cars, totaling 18
stacking spots. This is more than enough stacking for the volume and Hy-Vee will easily be able to control the number of
customers through their incremental time slots.
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.
Hy-Vee does not anticipate that the drive through lanes will increase the amount of traffic to the store. Additionally, Hy-
Vee can control the volume through their incremental time slots. The development of the Aisles Online drive through is
commercial in nature and consistent with the surrounding land uses.
4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying zoning requirements or from city street
standards will be in the public interest, in harmony with the purposes of this title, and with other building regulations of the
city.
The Future Land Use Map shows this property as General Commercial. As it is already in a commercial use, a commercial
grocery drive through is compatible with that use. This project “encourages compact, efficient development” since it is
not building more pavement in addition to the parking lot but replacing existing parking lot with a more efficient use. It
is furthering commercial development in a “defined commercial node” and is appropriate for the Land Use and
“compatible and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood”.
Prepared by Rachel Harris, PLA, LT Leon Associates, Inc.
MINUTES FINAL
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE 17, 2021 – 7:00 PM
ELECTRONIC FORMAL MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Craig, Maggie Elliott, Mike Hensch, Phoebe Martin, Mark
Nolte, Mark Signs
MEMBERS ABSENT: Billie Townsend
STAFF PRESENT: Sara Hektoen, Ray Heitner, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: John Brehm, Louis Leon
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends that an application submitted by Hy-Vee, Inc to
amend the conditional zoning agreement for approximately 7.546 acres of land located at 1103 &
1125 North Dodge Street, zoned Community Commercial with a Planned Development Overlay
(OPD/CC-2) be approved, subject to the following conditions to replace the previous conditions:
1. A buffer area generally consistent with the attached plan shall be established along the
western property line of the parcel rezoned to CC -2. This buffer must be screened to the
S3 standard. Wherever the buffer area is less than 35 feet a masonry wall shall be
provided consistent with the attached plan. (Same as previous CZA condition)
2. No signs shall be permitted within the 35-foot buffer, or on the north and /or west sides of
the convenience store facing the residential development, except for a monument sign at
the intersection of Dodge Street and Prairie Du Chien Road. There will be no more than
two (2) free - standing signs permitted along the Dodge Street frontage. Other fascia and
monument signs are permitted as per the code. (Same as previous CZA condition)
3. Any building or structure including canopies shall be of a quality design appropriate for
property abutting a residential neighborhood, including features such as stone and
masonry materials, standing seam metal roofs, and muted colors. The design of any
buildings as well as associated structures and facilities must be presented to and
approved by the Design Review Committee prior to the City issuing a building permit.
(Same as previous CZA condition)
4. Existing evergreen screening and mature trees will be preserved along the northwest side
of the property where possible. (Same as previous CZA condition)
5. Development and landscaping shall be generally consistent with the attached plan, dated
06/08/2021. (Condition amended to reflect updated OPD Plan from 06/08/2021)
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.
CASE NO. REZ21-0004:
Applicant: LT Leon Associates, Inc
Location: 1125 N. Dodge Street
An application submitted for a rezoning to Community Commercial with a Planned Development
Overlay (OPD/CC-2) for approximately 7.5 acres of property. The request is to modify the
conditional zoning agreement for this property to allow a drive-through for Hy-Vee’s “Aisles
Online” grocery pickup service.
Heitner began the staff report showing an aerial view of the subject property and an overlay of
the zoning. The subject property is zoned OPD/CC-2 Community Commercial. The surrounding
zoning consists of a small section of P1 Public Zoning to the northwest that's for an existing radio
tower, to the north and west there is a mix of RS-8 and RS-5 zoning, particularly RS-8 across the
street from the subject area of the discussion tonight.
Regarding background, Heitner reiterated the site was rezoned to OPD/CC-2 back in 2013 to
make way for the present-day Hy-Vee store. In May 2021 the City received an application to
revise conditions to that Conditional Zoning Agreement (CZA) from 2013 to update the OPD plan
reflecting the proposed change to allow the permanent Aisles Online grocery pickup kiosk and
drive-through lanes. Heitner stated this is the first step of the greater project review process, a
subsequent step is the Board of Adjustment will have to approve a special exception because a
drive-through is being proposed in a CC-2 zone.
Heitner next showed some pictures of the current property pointing out the temporary Aisles
Online facility modular building at the north end of the parking lot. The groceries are collected
together in that location and then distributed to the parking spaces that are designated for people
to pick up the groceries. Currently a couple of parking spaces have been blocked off to prevent
any potential conflicts with the pickup location. Heitner also pointed out the current landscaping
as well.
Heitner explained this is an OPD rezoning because it is an amendment to that CZA from 2013.
The OPD was originally required in 2013 because of impact to more than 35% of critical slopes.
He also noted there are some additional criteria that needs to be reviewed in addition to the
standard rezoning review criteria with respect to consistency with Comprehensive Plan and
compatibility with the existing neighborhood. First is the density and design compatible with
adjacent development. Heitner said there is no density to speak of as far as residential density
goes as this is a commercial project but as a component of review now and also with the site
plan and design review later on is how these proposed structures will fit in with the surrounding
neighborhood in terms of scale. The proposed building will be about 1150 square feet and the
canopy will be a little bit taller than 16 feet, but if sized up against the gas station and
convenience store to the west, it is still significantly smaller. The building and canopy will be
subject to City’s design review process and that's a result of the existing condition within the CZA
that staff is recommending keeping.
Second point of criteria that the development will not overburden existing streets and utilities.
Heitner noted this facility will only require electrical utilities. There is a sidewalk connecting to the
existing sidewalk to the north. Heitner acknowledged while one could maybe argue that there
might be some increased traffic intensity in this specific area with the kiosk it's not expected that
the kiosk will generate many more trips above and beyond what the grocery store site currently
sees. The kiosk and drive-through facility would really be a substitute for preexisting trips to the
greater site.
Third point of review criteria is the development will not adversely affect views, property values,
or privacy of neighboring properties. Heitner noted there will be some additional screening that
is in the applicant’s landscape plan to screen the kiosk from the north. Hy-Vee will be about
doubling the amount of S3 shrubbed screening to the north. Heitner noted a couple other
factors, the Aisles Online facility does have certain hours under which it will operate. The
applicant statement said it will typically be between about 8am and 10pm. There might be some
variability with those hours but those are the customary working hours. Staff did note in the OPD
plan there are a couple of areas just to the north of the property where the existing lighting is not
compliant in terms of the foot candle usage. Staff made a note in the staff report that when this
project goes through site plan review staff will be requiring a compliant lighting plan.
Fourth point of criteria review is the land use and building types will be in the public interest.
Heitner stated the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map shows the site as being
appropriate for general commercial uses, which would be fitting of not just the primary use, but
also this additional kiosk and drive-through use. Heitner noted in the applicant’s statements they
note that online orders increased dramatically throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and thereby
there is need to help facilitate development of these facilities, but in a manner that is in the City's
best interests and is least impactful as possible to surrounding properties.
Heitner next transitioned to the standard rezoning review criteria in terms of consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan. When the greater site was rezoned in 2013 it was done so in a way that
would have tried to respect the direction from the Northeast District Plan that called for a “Main
Street” style development in this area, particularly with the Dodge Street frontage. Heitner
explained that is one reason there is a shallower setback from the side of grocery store building
to Dodge Street. Conditions were put in the rezoning at the time for S3 screening and a 35-foot
buffer on the west side of the property and then an additional condition for some limitations on
what signage can be placed within the west side 35-foot buffer and on the north side. Heitner
noted there are some similar steps that the applicant has taken to lessen any negative impact for
residents to the north with this proposed facility. As already mentioned, the updated landscaping
plan will probably be the biggest contributor. The actual drive-through lanes will be about 85 feet
or so from the properties to the north, which is a fairly considerable distance. From a design
review perspective, the combination of materials on the kiosk building would be appropriate as
well.
In terms of compatibility with the existing neighborhood character, the mixture of single family
and multifamily residential to the west and north, the updated landscaping to the north is
probably the biggest method to provide a sensible transition to the north, but also the kiosk itself
will act as a little bit of a visual and noise barrier to the three lanes of Aisles Online traffic.
Heitner showed some pictures of the proposed site plan and landscaping plan.
Next steps upon recommendation from the Planning & Zoning Commission will be a City Council
public hearing. There is also a requirement to go before the Board of Adjustment for the special
exception for the drive-through lanes. There will also be a design review for the kiosk building
and canopy satisfying existing conditions that staff is recommending carry over, and then there's
also a site plan review component.
Staff recommends that an application submitted by Hy-Vee, Inc to amend the conditional zoning
agreement for approximately 7.546 acres of land located at 1103 & 1125 North Dodge Street,
zoned Community Commercial with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/CC-2) be approved,
subject to the following conditions to replace the previous conditions:
1. A buffer area generally consistent with the attached plan shall be established along the
western property line of the parcel rezoned to CC -2. This buffer must be screened to the
S3 standard. Wherever the buffer area is less than 35 feet a masonry wall shall be
provided consistent with the attached plan. (Same as previous CZA condition)
2. No signs shall be permitted within the 35-foot buffer, or on the north and /or west sides of
the convenience store facing the residential development, except for a monument sign at
the intersection of Dodge Street and Prairie Du Chien Road. There will be no more than
two (2) free - standing signs permitted along the Dodge Street frontage. Other fascia and
monument signs are permitted as per the code. (Same as previous CZA condition)
3. Any building or structure including canopies shall be of a quality design appropriate for
property abutting a residential neighborhood, including features such as stone and
masonry materials, standing seam metal roofs, and muted colors. The design of any
buildings as well as associated structures and facilities must be presented to and
approved by the Design Review Committee prior to the City issuing a building permit.
(Same as previous CZA condition)
4. Existing evergreen screening and mature trees will be preserved along the northwest side
of the property where possible. (Same as previous CZA condition)
5. Development and landscaping shall be generally consistent with the attached plan, dated
06/08/2021. (Condition amended to reflect updated OPD Plan from 06/08/2021)
Hensch asked for details on the standard for S3 screening. Heitner explained S3 screening is
one of the higher screening standards and it's intended to provide a suitable degree of screening
between commercial projects like this and residential properties. The intent of the S3 screening
is to provide more coverage and would be a dense row or possibly rows of shrubbery with a
mature height of five to six feet.
Martin asked in this particular instance, which is fairly unique, does the applicant have to prove a
need to the City since there's already a drive-through there, what does the City take into
consideration. Heitner replied when the City drafts a CZA for rezoning they always have to
address how the rezoning creates a public need. In this instance, probably one of the biggest
needs is that there's a demand driven need for this kind of facility. Heitner does believe there is
a need for the additional enhanced screening, as a result of the facility to make an adequate
transition from a commercial use to the residential users to the north and west.
Martin asked if there is a public need, in the photos shown there were lots of empty parking
spaces so three lanes seem like a lot for drive-through groceries in a in a town this size, so she
is trying to understand the public need. Heitner acknowledged that is a good question and in
terms of the volume that's needed or the demand that's needed for the facility, there was not a lot
of data available to planning staff so that might be something that the applicant or the
representative from Hy-Vee can address. City staff looked at how the proposed use is
incorporated into the preexisting commercial site and then how to best incorporate that use in a
manner that provides a sensible transition to preexisting residential uses and that is why they
proposed the enhanced landscaping buffers and so on.
Russett added when they were reviewing this rezoning, staff was reviewing it based on the OPD
rezoning criteria and does the proposed rezoning meet the four criteria related to density and
infrastructure and then also consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and compatibility with the
existing neighborhood. The specifics of the drive-through in terms of stacking spaces and
driveways, those are specific criteria that will be looked at as part of the special exception
process and that information has not been provided to staff at this time.
Craig noted they want a drive-through service, but they could also just continue to do what they
are currently doing, asking if that is legal. Heitner confirmed that was correct, the drive-through
would is to gain some efficiency.
Craig asked about the plans that were shown, in the last slide it showed the three drive-through
lanes proposed and questioned the direction of the drive-through lanes as opposed to the
direction of other traffic in the lot. Heitner said the three drive-through lanes would all be going
southbound.
Craig asked if there is currently a drive up for the pharmacy at this location. Russett confirmed
there is a drive-through for the pharmacy. Craig noted then the traffic going to the pharmacy will
be going the other way as the driver has to be close to the building. Russett stated the
pharmacy is actually configured a little bit differently as one will enter it headed north and the
driver is on the left side and not against the building but against the little island there.
Signs added they use pneumatic tube like a bank teller might. He then asked about the cargo
containers that are there now, which they're using for their Aisles Online pickup. He wondered
what the Code says about those being there and did Hy-Vee have to get permission to put them
there and is it a limited term that they can leave them there. Russett doesn’t believe any permits
were pulled for those as they're meant to be temporary for all of the Hy-Vee’s. They will require
a special exception for the drive-through and they're working to get these properly permitted
through the process now.
Signs noted it seems like every time he is at this Hy-Vee the parking lot is fairly full and with this
proposal, they will be removing more spaces. He wondered is there any requirement that the
remaining spaces still meet the original parking space requirement. He noted from his
experience most commercial projects put in the absolute minimum allowed parking spaces that
they have to and assuming that was the case here, and they take out 15 or 20 of them now, they
won’t meet the minimum amount anymore. Heitner stated the facility is currently over parked by
quite a bit in terms of what the Code requires. Right now, there's 247 parking spaces and with
this proposed facility that would be reduced down to 215, but the requirement is only 189 spaces.
What effect that might have on parking during peak times of the day is to be determined but likely
Hy-Vee will monitor.
Elliott asked about the statement in the staff report noting the applicant had chosen not to utilize
the City's good neighbor policy for this rezoning and what does that mean in terms of community
input or neighborhood input. Heitner stated staff encourages applicants to utilize the good
neighbor process with every application that comes to this Commission, this applicant chose not
to. In terms of what that means for outreach, he can't say what maybe Hy-Vee has done. The
City has had their signage on this property for several weeks and sent out notification letters on
this rezoning about three weeks ago. Staff hasn’t received a whole lot of public comment or
feedback on this particular rezoning, they've received a few phone calls mostly just curious about
what the nature of the rezoning is but not really any comments for or against the rezoning.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
John Brehm (LT Leon Associates) first wanted to give a little background on how they got to this
application in hopes it will help with a lot of the questions he’s been hearing. Prior to 2020 they
were taking baby steps towards figuring out e-commerce and creating an app and allowing their
customers to order groceries online and then pick a timeslot for them to have the groceries
delivered to their vehicle. At their busiest stores they had maybe 50 or 60 orders in a day and
could easily take care of that with a few parking stalls out in front of the store. Then Covid came
along and changed everybody's plans and as soon as the lockdown orders came and the
severity of the pandemic became evident, they saw a huge spike in e-commerce orders and
those 50 or 60 orders a day became 900 to 1000 orders in a day and that stayed steady all
through the pandemic. In most of their stores, this one included, they’re seeing about 7% to 10%
of total sales as just e-commerce orders, so people wanting to pick up their groceries instead of
parking in the lot and coming into the store and shopping. Brehm acknowledged they are taking
a bit of a risk by spending as much money as they are building this facility but from all the
research that they see in industry this is a trend that's not going to go away, and they anticipate
e-commerce orders and online grocery shopping increasing since everybody's been exposed to
it now and it's discovered it's convenient. Additionally, as their application gets better, and the
ability to provide good service gets better, they anticipate, and the industry anticipates that up to
30% of the volume the store does could be e-commerce orders. Due to the pandemic, they had
to find a real quick way to get pallets and pallets of grocery orders out of the front of their building
and keep customers from stacking up along the front of the building to pick up the orders and
keep them from spilling out and blocking traffic so that’s where the containers came in. Brehm
admitted they knew that they weren't probably going to get approval to put those in a community
so after not the best neighbor move, they made an executive decision for the sake of their
customers and for the sake of the community and for the sake of their stores to put the
containers in the parking lot without asking for permission. They did have to get electrical
permits for them to make sure that they were safe to operate that way. What they're doing now
is trying to rectify that situation, and they know the need is there and they're going to have to
continue providing it, so they need to make this legal, and make it work correctly. They need to
get rid of the containers, frankly they're not the prettiest looking things, so this is the concept that
they've developed over the last year and a half. They have four that are built already and
customers loved them, it handles the rush hour traffic, which is 4pm to 6pm when people
typically place the orders in the morning and then pick their order up on the way home from work,
so they don't have to deal with the grocery store at all.
Brehm acknowledged there was a comment about the drive-through lanes. The typical layout is
four lanes but in this scenario the rendering shows three lanes, a three-lane canopy with fourth
car still sitting there, so he apologizes for the confusion on that, this particular drive-through will
be three lanes and can hold 27 vehicles. The orders are picked inside the grocery store and
depending on their temperature they're packed into insulated totes and packed with dry ice or
frozen water bottles, and then stored in refrigerated space or cooled space and then an hour
before a customer is expected to arrive and pick up an order, they are brought out on a large
electric trolley to this facility and then from there the employees can get those groceries into the
customers vehicle right away.
Brehm stated another thing they ran into during Covid was vaccinations with their pharmacies.
They had to put another set of containers in the lot at their sites in order to provide for
vaccinations. He noted it's likely that they're going to see the need for booster shots and
seasonal flu shots which are probably going to be more in demand in the future so they've
created a space at the front of this kiosk where the pharmacy team can roll out some of their
cabinets seasonally and use the area as a first line to provide Covid booster shots if that
becomes a reality.
Brehm stated the materials they’re using on this building will match the existing store. The inside
of the building is pretty sparce, it's a finished concrete floor with plywood walls, it lighting and two
small HVAC units to keep the space comfortable. There's a door in the back facing the store,
that's a standard vendor door, and is where product is brought in, and then the door where the
employees help active customers is a glass slider under the canopy.
Martin stated she was curious if they intended to use it in perpetuity, which he answered. She
does wonder however that the pandemic, which fully is nearing an end soon so and during the
pandemic the numbers were enormous, but what if the numbers Aisles Online decline drastically,
what happens with this space. Martin feels four lanes seems like a lot, so she is just curious to
know what happens with this space if they don't need it and how does that meet a public need.
Brehm acknowledged that was a fair question and admitted it's really a risk-based analysis and a
risk that they've taken but if they are not in the e-commerce business and they're not meeting
their customers’ expectations, this little kiosk building is the least of their problems, they will be
worried about keeping the lights on in the grocery store. If this doesn't work out for some reason
and they need the parking stalls back, obviously they're going to have to spend the money to
restore the site back to the way it was. However, they are investing an awful lot of money and
basically 118 locations are doing the same exact same thing in anticipation that they are going to
have to be successful.
Martin questioned that those parking spaces that the building is replacing won’t be needed.
Brehm explained that if 10% of the volume is gone, that's 10% of the parking stalls they don't
actually need anymore because those people are picking those up instead of going into the
store. He doesn’t have actual data to support that yet, but anecdotally that is what they are
seeing.
Hektoen reminded the Commission that questions about public need are not applicable, the use
doesn't have to serve a public need, the public need comes in when they are imposing
conditions on Hy-Vee.
Martin just had one more question then regarding if any, how much more concrete is being
added on this site. Brehm replied zero.
Signs noted in the demolition plan there's a note saying that pretty much all those shrubs and
trees along St Clements Street are being torn out and then later on in the landscaping plan it
shows a whole bunch of new ones being put back in. Seeing that there's a probably about an
eight-foot buffer of sod between those shrubs and where any construction is going to happen, he
is questioning the need to tear out the shrubs in the first place.
Brehm believes it is their engineer being a little bit conservative and just assuming that those
shrubs are probably going to get damaged during the construction process and so they're just
being honest and making sure that's in the budget to replace all that. If they can save them they
will save them.
Signs had another comment on if they've addressed this in the process with some of these
temporary locations in the last year the piles of empty totes sitting outside the containers at the
end of the day. He wonders if there will be some fencing or some other type of screening to
provide an area to stack a bunch of totes so that they are not in the parking lot.
Brehm agreed he personally doesn’t like that stores are stacking totes outside of the shipping
containers when they're done with them but thinks a lot of that is the function of the shipping
container itself, it's just inconvenient to put the totes back in and then drag them back to the
store. The intent here is for the empty totes to go back in the kiosk and they could be loaded
back on those racks and taken back to the store to be washed instead of stacking them outside.
Brehm also acknowledged that Louis Leon, their engineer is available to answer any technical
questions.
Having no more questions of the applicant, and no other public member present to speak,
Hensch closed the public hearing
Signs moved to recommend that an application submitted by Hy-Vee, Inc to amend the
conditional zoning agreement for approximately 7.546 acres of land located at 1103 &
1125 North Dodge Street, zoned Community Commercial with a Planned Development
Overlay (OPD/CC-2) be approved, subject to the following conditions to replace the
previous conditions:
6. A buffer area generally consistent with the attached plan shall be established along
the western property line of the parcel rezoned to CC -2. This buffer must be
screened to the S3 standard. Wherever the buffer area is less than 35 feet a
masonry wall shall be provided consistent with the attached plan. (Same as
previous CZA condition)
7. No signs shall be permitted within the 35-foot buffer, or on the north and /or west
sides of the convenience store facing the residential development, except for a
monument sign at the intersection of Dodge Street and Prairie Du Chien Road.
There will be no more than two (2) free - standing signs permitted along the Dodge
Street frontage. Other fascia and monument signs are permitted as per the code.
(Same as previous CZA condition)
8. Any building or structure including canopies shall be of a quality design
appropriate for property abutting a residential neighborhood, including features
such as stone and masonry materials, standing seam metal roofs, and muted
colors. The design of any buildings as well as associated structures and facilities
must be presented to and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to the
City issuing a building permit. (Same as previous CZA condition)
9. Existing evergreen screening and mature trees will be preserved along the
northwest side of the property where possible. (Same as previous CZA condition)
10. Development and landscaping shall be generally consistent with the attached plan,
dated 06/08/2021. (Condition amended to reflect updated OPD Plan from
06/08/2021)
Craig seconded the motion.
Hensch stated he has been thinking lately about improving community resiliency for future
pandemics or for future similar type events and finds that this rezoning would be part of that
whole community building resilience and therefore he likes that Hy-Vee is doing this. He also
thinks the demand has been created, and they’ll be ready when something happens like this in
the future. Hensch stated they need to have the ability to respond nimbly to future events and
thinks this is the shape of things to come in many areas of their lives as lessons learned from the
pandemic.
Craig agrees and thinks once people have reaped the benefit of that convenience they don’t
want to go back to previous methods. People may choose to order more items like cereal and
peanut butter from conglomerates like Amazon rather than going into their local store so that is
why she is supportive.
Signs agreed in general online shopping is not going away, many industries have had to shift
things due to the pandemic and now people expect it. For example, in the real estate industry,
the pandemic forced them to start doing video tours and now the consumer expects it. He would
also much rather have this kiosk than a bunch of temporary cargoes in the parking lot. He
understands why they did the cargo boxes, but agrees the appropriate next step is to figure out a
more permanent solution. With regards to the number of lanes, when he has gone to pick up
groceries a couple times at the Waterfront Hy-Vee, he understands the need as there are a lot of
cars coming to the pickup, especially in the evening time. Having the three lanes will keep cars
from blocking the parking lot or sitting out on the highway or on a public street.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0.
--
•
•
•
N
SCOL 'gp,,rEt�R _.
F
nz
� D
3J(/7
-< m
D
70 D m
F D
•
•
1 1
-
� 5
3
r l
0I
W
0
O
AND USE AREAS
OVERALL DEVELOPMENT
HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES
.�,Y,;,a - ..
20-0194 'WELCH
HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES
PRELIMINARY OPD &
SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN
HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES, LLC
XIOM
O T CONSULTANTS
V.T.W axi [ _[oM 11313 .0-1220
-
,.
I a
Air-
lam_
-''
�s+
,,"0,10
P
1
li ! ----------------___#
®
1 Ic.8
m1
,��°mo
-- C _;i
.w
Li; yA-
!
_
n4
nyQ�w—zDoCOOCAsm�'
z
°
m
fb
s
a p
o oo a
° H °a
m c
A O p
N E.
p
fn m
H
III
"
3 i
‘00A
I
1
N it
fie 11
fflp
I'
DUTLOT A PLMRING SCHEDULE
1 1 4, 1130 JC.L.COMMO NAME j wN K I Nau,
q +/'L
iii`v
:
.., V.
€43€tiVF
O'j
�
l
m
E
E 8
8 8
8 E
S
HICKORY HILL PARK • EvisnuG Tri4IL
e:•i a •2,n /
I /
O
-7-_,F-
'.
11‘).
It
a-0C'�
tr4II
I
k
\�C
t.I
[_-y
9 ',..
'
_/ n ��
— .�
HICKORY TRAIL` ^`
:
i
e
.. M I 1i
\ 0
\ y
1 -
..
';
0 s
OUTLOT A BUFFER AREA
PLAN
HICICURY TRAIL ESTATES
HICKORY
HFCKORY TRAIL ESTATES
PRELIMINARY OPD &
SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN
DRAWING LOG
L;
-°
I /\ , `
{�/]!N► {1
mow quoMSMULTANTS
113x91 ....
Deumm�ox 01 OA .61.
,MI.I MAX
.1171
„„m o„w„�,,,,,
V 21.1
20-0194 rWELCH
HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES, LLC
�ssnmi`o,wu. u.
ypar
iW'
nowr,,,,o,,,,,,,��
_
Prepared by: Ray Heitner,Associate Planner,410 E.Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240;(REZ21-0004)
Ordinance No.
Ordinance conditionally rezoning approximately 7.546 acres of land located
at 1103 and 1125 N. Dodge. Street from Community Commercial with a
Planned Development Overlay (OPD/CC-2) to Community Commercial with
a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/CC-2) zone. (REZ21-0004)
Whereas, Hurd Iowa City, LLC. and Hy-Vee Inc., have requested a rezoning of approximately
7.546 acres of land located at 1103 and 1125 N. Dodge Street from Community Commercial with
a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/CC-2) to Community Commercial with a Planned
Development Overlay(OPD/CC-2) zone; and
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan calls for general commercial use in this area; and
Whereas, the applicant wishes to construct permanent kiosk and canopy structures along
the property's north side; and
Whereas, the subject property abuts existing residential neighborhoods to the west and
north; and
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan further calls for appropriate transitions between
residential neighborhoods and higher intensity commercial development; and
Whereas, there is a public need to maintain previously established buffering to the west;
and
Whereas, there is a public need to maintain previously established controls limiting the
quantity and placement of signage along the west and north sides of the subject property; and
Whereas, there is a public need to ensure that buildings and structures are of a quality
design, appropriate for property abutting a residential neighborhood; and
Whereas, there is a public need to install landscaping that will provide a more aesthetically
pleasing transition between the proposed structures and the residential neighborhood to the
north; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with reasonable
conditions regarding satisfaction of public needs through provision of a 35 ft. buffer along the
property's west side, limitations to the quantity and placement of signage, heightened review of
building and structure design, and additional landscaping, 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 Community Commercial
with a Planned Development Overlay(OPD/CC-2)zone:
Ordinance No.
Page 2
LOTS 1 AND 2, ROBERTS DAIRY ADDITION, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 58, PAGE 334, PLAT
RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA.
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
Approved by:
Attest:
City Clerk City Attorney's Office—07/19/2021
Ordinance No.
Page
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 7/27/2021
Vote for passage:
AYES: Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner, Bergus, Mims.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration
Vote for passage:
Date published
Prepared by: Ray Heitner,Associate Planner,410 E.Washington, Iowa City, IA 52240(REZ21-0004)
Conditional Zoning Agreement
This agreement is made among the City of Iowa City, Iowa, a municipal corporation (hereinafter
"City"), Hurd Iowa City, LLC., Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Owner"), and Hy-Vee Inc.
(hereinafter referred to as "Applicant").
Whereas, Owner is the legal title holder of approximately 7.546 acres of property located
at 1103 and 1125 N. Dodge Street, legally described below; and
Whereas, the Applicant has requested the rezoning of said property to allow for
development of an aisles online kiosk and canopy, with enhanced landscaping as shown in the
attached plan;
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the subject area is appropriate for
general commercial development; and
Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan establishes goals to plan for appropriate transitions
between residential neighborhoods and higher intensity commercial to ensure the long-term
health of neighborhoods; and
Whereas, this rezoning creates public needs to provide a buffer between the proposed
commercial development and existing residential areas to the west, limit negative externalities
that may occur from excessive signage along the property's periphery, ensure that structures
are of a quality design, and preserve existing trees and enhance landscaping to the north; and
Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that, with appropriate
conditions regarding a buffer along the property's west side, limitations on the location of
signage, requirement of all buildings and structures, including canopies, to be approved by the
Design Review Committee, preservation of existing evergreen trees and mature screening, and
enhanced landscaping as shown in the updated OPD and Landscape Plan, the requested
zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; 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 agrees 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. Hurd Iowa City, LLC. is the legal title holder of the property legally described as:
LOTS 1 AND 2, ROBERTS DAIRY ADDITION, IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 58, PAGE 334, PLAT
RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA.
2. Owner and Applicant acknowledge that the City wishes to ensure conformance to the
1
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. A buffer area generally consistent with the attached plan shall be established
along the western property line of the parcel rezoned to CC -2. This buffer must
be screened to the S3 standard. Wherever the buffer area is less than 35 feet a
masonry wall shall be provided consistent with the attached plan.
b. No signs shall be permitted within the 35-foot buffer, or on the north and /or west
sides of the convenience store facing the residential development, except for a
monument sign at the intersection of Dodge Street and Prairie Du Chien Road.
There will be no more than two (2) free - standing signs permitted along the
Dodge Street frontage. Other fascia and monument signs are permitted as per
the code.
c. Any building or structure including canopies shall be of a quality design
appropriate for property abutting a residential neighborhood, including features
such as stone and masonry materials, standing seam metal roofs, and muted
colors. The design of any buildings as well as associated structures and facilities
must be presented to and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to the
City issuing a building permit.
d. Existing evergreen screening and mature trees will be preserved along the
northwest side of the property where possible.
e. Development and landscaping shall be generally consistent with the attached
plan, dated 06/08/2021.
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
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.
2
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 Hurd I. •a Ci , LL r.if
Bruce Teague, Mayor By:"gCcluis as, us - 1 Gi(
Attest:
Hy-Vee Inc.
Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk ///�� �,}��
Approved by: /5/ �--� Ti'2.
G i By:yzincQr� e, {.�l
CityAttorney's0 e -7/,ql2, Sy. J\Ce (e, , ,.ta -
City of Iowa City Acknowledgement:
State of Iowa )
)ss:
Johnson County )
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)
Hurd Iowa City, LLC. Acknowledgement:
State of LOW A
County of PO L)L- I G �`
Th�igg record was acknowledged before me on V LL i , 2021 by�7J t aro " "
WU✓d (name)as flee u�e- (title)of Hurd Iowa City, LLC.
1,h,ec/rte
,,", REBECCA RUPP Notary blic in and for the Stat of a
C oial CommisslonNumber159663
z My Commission Expires (Stam or Seal)
row, February21,2024
My commission expires:
3
HyVee Inc.Acknowledgement:
State of--1. .) )c-f=1County of ��)t._.
This recorf�,was acknowledged before e . ( d '7 2021 by
Ar itroa) c(�Ce, (name) as c. ,c�'CP . title)of Hy-Vee nc.
Nita. yblio in and for the Slate/of Iowa
f,TNA
to MASSMAN MISSION NO.t8/ 2 (Stamp or Seal)
OM1MISSIQN IXPINES
My commissionexpires: 1—eb.^uari is,ao .i3
4
Item Number: 11.b.
J uly 27, 2021
O rd inan ce conditional l y rezonin g ap p roximatel y 48.75 acres of lan d located
south of N. Scott Boulevard an d west of N. 1st Avenue from Interim
Develop ment Single-F amil y (ID-R S) to Low Density Sin g l e-F amily with a
Plan n ed Develop ment O verlay (O P D/R S-5) zone. (R E Z 20-0016) (Pass &
Ad opt)
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
May 6 P Z Memo w Attachments
March 18 P Z Memo w Attachments
F eb 18 P Z S taff Report w Attachments
May 6 P Z Minutes
Ordinance & C Z A
Correspondence to Council
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 1 – Feb. 18th Hickory Trail OPD Plan Figure 2 – April 29th Hickory Trail OPD Plan
Comprehensive 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
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 29th Hickory Trail OPD Plan
NE District Plan
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.
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.
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.
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
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:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
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-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'" <jameshirsch@gmail.com>,
"'j.k.bradbury@gmail.com'" <j.k.bradbury@gmail.com>, "'jasnap23@yahoo.com'"
From:Carol deProsse
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Hickory Hill Development
Date:Saturday, May 1, 2021 5:06:45 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@me.com
Cc:Raymond Heitner
Subject:RE: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 05/06/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda
Date:Wednesday, May 5, 2021 2:26:35 PM
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 deny this rezoning and development plan.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Mark Renshaw
72 Hickory Heights Lane
Iowa City, Iowa 52245
From:Synan, Ann
To:Raymond Heitner
Cc:Anne Russett; Synan, William J
Subject:Hickory Trail Rezoning: Planning and Zoning Meeting May 6, 20021
Date:Wednesday, May 5, 2021 4:03:05 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-5) -- 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– not the 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 Buenger
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.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
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-Heitner@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-
government/boards/planning-and-zoning-commission
The Zoom link for the meeting can be found here:
https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJ0pcuqrrjkiG9VGcjSUQ9TYa8gybtnAT35y
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
raymond-heitner@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, 2021 2:24:40 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
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, 2021 4:21 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'
<jameshirsch@gmail.com>; 'j.k.bradbury@gmail.com' <j.k.bradbury@gmail.com>;
'jasnap23@yahoo.com' <jasnap23@yahoo.com>; 'jessemacfarlane@gmail.com'
<jessemacfarlane@gmail.com>; 'kjrutherford01@gmail.com' <kjrutherford01@gmail.com>;
'moffitt.julie@gmail.com' <moffitt.julie@gmail.com>; 'karen.nichols@protonmail.com'
<karen.nichols@protonmail.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@mchsi.com
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Re: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 05/06/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda
Date:Thursday, May 6, 2021 3:18:11 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
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, 2021 4:20 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' ; 'darcy128@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@RaymondJames.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' ;
'kjrutherford01@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' ;
'iheartsteak121@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' ; 'srager13@gmail.com' ; 'shea-jorgensen@uiowa.edu' ;
'shellycarpenter1216@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
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
Figure 1 – Former Hickory Trail OPD Plan Figure 2 – Revised Hickory Trail OPD Plan
Staff Comments:
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: __________________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
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, 2021 8:40:49 AM
Attachments:Outlook-b1kfcbmu.png
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.
• O verall, the S taff 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 S taff 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
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, 2021 5:02:36 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image005.png
image004.png
image003.png
image002.png
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.icgov.org/city-
government/boards/planning-and-zoning-commission
The Zoom link for the meeting can be found here:
https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJMtceCrqzMjGtHRYdNFfGxUsOm1baWmr681
Please send me any correspondence you would like forwarded to the Commission.
Thank you,
Ray Heitner
Associate Planner
(he/him/his)
319.356.5238
raymond-heitner@iowa-city.org
410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240
WWW.ICGOV.ORG
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, 2021 3:18:52 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
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-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>,
From:Ben Berger
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Re: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 03/18/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda
Date:Monday, March 15, 2021 9:54:45 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
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-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: https://www.icgov.org/city-
government/boards/planning-and-zoning-commission
The Zoom link for the meeting can be found here:
https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJMtceCrqzMjGtHRYdNFfGxUsOm1baWmr681
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, 2021 9:11:03 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, 2021 8:26 AM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Comments for P&Z meeting Thursday, 3/18
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, 2021 10:21 AM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: P&Z meeting 3/18 regarding Axiom development near Hickory Hill
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
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, I 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:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
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: https://www.icgov.org/city-
government/boards/planning-and-zoning-commission
The Zoom link for the meeting can be found here:
https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJMtceCrqzMjGtHRYdNFfGxUsOm1baWmr681
From:Allison Jaynes
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:New Hickory Hill development plan
Date:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 1:53:50 PM
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:P G
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Hickory Hil development, P&Z meeting March 18th
Date:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 3:34:25 PM
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, 2021 5:27:43 PM
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, 2021 5:35:09 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
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-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: https://www.icgov.org/city-
government/boards/planning-and-zoning-commission
The Zoom link for the meeting can be found here:
https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJMtceCrqzMjGtHRYdNFfGxUsOm1baWmr681
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 purdy
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Hickory Trail Estates
Date:Monday, February 15, 2021 6:55:34 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
From:Glenda Buenger
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Re: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 03/18/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda
Date:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 5:50:24 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
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, 2021 6:54:06 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, 2021 9:00:11 AM
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.
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, 2021 9:52:51 AM
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; cjkohrt@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@mchsi.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:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
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, 2021 4:05 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' ; 'darcy128@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@RaymondJames.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' ;
'kjrutherford01@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' ;
'iheartsteak121@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 Tyx
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:development proposal
Date:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 11:51:51 AM
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 1st 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, 2021 2:07:59 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 bufferfor Hickory Hill Park, this rezoning proposal does not even come close to the visionthat was agreed to and adopted in the Northeast District Plan. The Northeast DistrictPlan’s principles are so fundamental they were also included in the ComprehensivePlan, 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. We are demanding the Commissioners stickwith the Northeast District Planthat the citizens of Iowa City negotiated in good faith.
Sincerely,
Pat Bowen
Kenn Bowen
1210 Village Rd IC 52240
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, 2021 2:42:49 PM
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 atthe meeting as will many of my friends who use and revere our park. Please tellthe 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 thegentleman 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 itdoes not adhere to the Comprehensive or Northeast District plan in which the publicparticipated 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, allowing1st Avenue to be built while also respecting the park. The Northeast DistrictPlan clearly seeks to protect HHP by transferring development away from thepark toward 1st Avenue.A guiding principle of the Northeast District Plan is the use of single-loadedstreets to preserve areas such as Hickory Hill Park, to create public vistas, andto 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 35feet of buffer between the backyards of houses and the park in a couple ofspots along the west and south boundaries of the development area.Additionally, once Outlot A is ceded to the City and becomes part of HHP, thereis no buffer between the park and the 10-unit condo proposed for the NWcorner 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 theSensitive Areas Ordinance. It is therefore no concession on the part of thedeveloper. Outlot B is likewise essentially undevelopable. Additionally, it is notclear that the open space that is being dedicated for required NeighborhoodOpen 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 thewooded ravine in the proposed Outlot B. The street connection in itself may notbe objectionable, but there appears to be little effort to preserve the amount ofopen space shown in the Northeast District Plan.The developer is seeking waivers of zoning requirements to allow a largesenior-living complex in an otherwise single-family zone. The developer is seekingzoning 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 NortheastDistrict Plan. The Northeast District Plan’s principles are so fundamental theywere also included in the Comprehensive Plan, pp. 46-47. Perhaps the mostimportant point here is that the Plan seeks to:-Discourage parks that are surrounded by private property; encouragedevelopment 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 theproposal. This means houses on only one side of the proposed Hickory Trail, on theside away from the park, with adequate buffer between the street and HHPboundaries. Commissioners need to stick with the Northeast District Plan that thecitizens of Iowa City negotiated in good faith.
Sincerely,
Bruce Tarwater2669 Hickory Trail
Iowa City, IA 52245
hickoryhiker@gmail.com
From:Tgell5
To:Raymond Heitner; Anne Russett
Subject:Hickory Hill proposal
Date:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 2:55:10 PM
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; fhhp-board@googlegroups.com
Subject:Friends of Hickory Hill comments on proposed development
Date:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 3:14:41 PM
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 rapson"
Cc:Raymond Heitner
Subject:RE: Hickory Hill development
Date:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 3:26:26 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
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
WWW.ICGOV.ORG
Anne Russett, AICP
Senior Planner
She/Her/Hersp: 319-356-5251
410 E Washington St
Iowa City, IA 52240
From: hannah rapson <hannah.letisha@gmail.com>
Sent: W ednesday, March 17 , 2021 2:56 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Hickory Hill development
Anne,
Thank you for taking the time to read my entire email, as the 27 3 page-packet took many hours to
digest and consider. B elow 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. S imply 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 Z oom
o Rotated maps – cause confusion for viewers
I am work ing on p utting together an overlay of p rop osal v. comp p lan in
aligned orientation to help viewers b etter understand
o V iew of senior living and residences – no elevations presented “ as seen from
park” perspective
o S taff – 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 aConditional 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?
· 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:darcy128@aol.com
To:Raymond Heitner; Anne Russett
Cc:darcy128@aol.com
Subject:Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning - again
Date:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 3:28:29 PM
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, 2021 4:01:42 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, 2021 4:26:41 PM
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, 2021 4:55:12 PM
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, 2021 4:58:43 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
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 thiscommittee. I've also included some questions I would love to see posed to thedeveloper and to this committee.
Question #1: What projections for long-term use of assisted livingfacilities are informing the development of the senior living facilityproposed 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 thecurrent pandemic in the development of the proposed assisted livingfacility? It seems irresponsible to consider building a facility like this with shareddining and bathroom spaces when we have recently identified assisted livingfacilities as a huge contributor to the spread and deaths related to COVID-19.
Question #1B: Will these units be affordable for average Iowa Citians?
Question #2: What have the costs associated with erosion control anddeer management in Hickory Hill Park been like for the past decade? Andcan our budget for such expenses handle the increased expenses that willlikely result from this development? (See note in the plan citing 19% of criticalslopes in the park will be impacted by this development). Our plan states anemphasis 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 hasno thought been given to creating a "woodland" or "grove", but the bare minimumfor this type of mitigation has been completely overlooked.
Question #3: Has the fact that the traffic study was conducted during apandemic when traffic through the area is at an all-time low been takeninto 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 islocated immediately adjacent to the major intersections that would be affected. Thisseems 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 livingfacility been considered reasonable? What is reasonable about building a4 story building in an area our comprehensive plan has placed a 2-storylimit 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 isno buffer between the park and the 10-unit condo proposed for the NW corner ofthe 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 isundevelopable due to steep wooded slopes, wetlands, streams, and theSensitive Areas Ordinance. It is therefore no concession on the part ofthe developer. Outlot B is likewise essentially undevelopable. Additionally, it isnot clear that the open space that is being dedicated for requiredNeighborhood 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 largesenior-living complex in an otherwise single-family zone. The developer isseeking zoning incentives from the City but is not adhering to theComprehensive Plan’s vision in exchange.
Thank you for your consideration. --
Riley Larson
Riley.Gardam@gmail.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 1st 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 Adderley
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Hickory Hill
Date:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 11:35:42 PM
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.C Adderley
From:Anne Russett
To:"Kristi Thiel"
Cc:Raymond Heitner
Subject:RE: Planning and Zoning Commission Confirmation
Date:Thursday, March 18, 2021 8:28:39 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, 2021 4:46 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Re: Planning and Zoning Commission Confirmation
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-reply@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, 2021 07:00 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, 2021 8:43:03 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, 2021 7:28 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, 2021 8:45:07 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, 2021 8:35 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, 2021 9:35:30 AM
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
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 bythis development). Our plan states an emphasis on groves and woodlands in new developments insensitive 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 thoughtbeen given to creating a "woodland" or "grove", but the bare minimum for this typeof 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, 2021 3:37:53 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, 2021 3:34 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Re: Planning and Zoning Commission Confirmation
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:
https://www.icgov.org/city-government/boards/planning-and-zoning-commission
The staff memo for this agenda item starts on page 52 of the packet.
The Zoom link is: https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJMtceCrqzMjGtHRYdNFfGxUsOm1baWmr681
Let us know if you need anything else.
Thanks, Anne
From: nancy footner <nfootner@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 7:15 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-reply@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, 2021 07:00 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
US: +16465588656,,92275977904# or +13017158592,,92275977904#
Or Telephone:
Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 646 558 8656 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 669 900 9128 or +1
253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799
Meeting ID: 922 7597 7904
International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/aeCRNowgfq
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 Kilburg
To:Raymond Heitner; Anne Russett
Subject:FW: Preserve the park!
Date:Thursday, March 18, 2021 3:50:35 PM
Sent to City Council today.
From: susan oliver <susan.oliver@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 3:08 PM
To: *City Council <-43dfb@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Preserve the park!
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, 2021 4:52:20 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
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 City, IA 52240
Nelson Development 1, LLC
ATTN: Jacob Wolfgang
218 6th Ave., Ste 200
Des Moines, IA 50309
Jacob@Nelsonconstruct.com
Property Owner: ACT, Inc.
ATTN: Jason Happel
500 ACT Drive
Iowa City, IA 52243-0168
Jason.Happel@act.org
Requested Action: Rezoning from Interim Development – Single
Family (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family with a
Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5).
Purpose: Development of single-family housing and a senior
living facility.
Location: South of N. Scott Blvd, West of N. 1st Ave.
Location Map:
2
Size: 48.75 Acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Open Space, Interim Development – Single Family
(ID-RS)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: RM-12, Low density Multi-family Residential
RDP, Research Development Park
ODP, Office Development Park
South: P-1, Neighborhood Public
East: RS-8, Medium Density Single Family
Residential
ID-RS, Interim Development – Single
Family Residential
ID-RP, Interim Development – Research
Park
West: P-1, Neighborhood Public
RS-5, Low Density Single Family
Residential
Comprehensive Plan: 2-8 units / acres
District Plan: Northeast District
Neighborhood Open Space District: C8
Public Meeting Notification: Property owners and expanded area residents
received notification of the Planning and Zoning
Commission public meeting. This included residents
to both the west in the Hickory Heights development
and owners east of 1st Avenue. Rezoning signs were
posted on the site at both Scott Boulevard and 1st
Avenue. Staff has also worked with Friends of
Hickory Hill Park to keep those involved informed of
the application’s progress and meeting notification.
Additional signage was placed at kiosk locations at
Park entrances (as requested by FHH).
File Date: January 22, 2021
45 Day Limitation Period: March 8, 2021
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Axiom Consultants, applying on behalf of Joseph Clark and Nelson Development
1, LLC., has requested a rezoning from Interim Development – Single Family (ID-RS) zone to
Low Density Single Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) zone for 48.75
acres of land located south of N. Scott Boulevard and west of N. 1st Avenue. The applicant
intends to develop the property with a combination of approximately 43 detached single-family
residential homes and 10 detached single-family condominium dwelling units over 39.37 acres.
The remaining 9.38 acres would be developed with a senior living facility, which will contain
approximately 135 bedrooms for its residents.
The development proposes to extend Hickory Trail between 1st Avenue to the east, and Scott
3
Boulevard to the north to accommodate the detached single-family housing units and senior living
facility. A smaller curved private street, Hickory Commons, is proposed to house the detached
condominium dwelling units. The Hickory Trail extension would provide connectivity for
pedestrians, linking existing sidewalks along Scott Boulevard and 1st Avenue with trails within
Hickory Hill Park.
The applicant also intends to grant the entirety of Outlot A from the OPD Plan (approximately
10.86 acres) to the City as neighborhood open space. This would exceed the required open
space contribution of 1.1 acres and would increase Hickory Hill Park’s size by about 5.5%.
Because the proposed development proposes removal of portions of a woodland in excess of the
woodland retention requirements contained in section 14-5I-9, "Wooded Areas", a Level II
Sensitive Areas Review is required. A Level II Sensitive Areas Review requires submission of a
sensitive areas development plan (SADP). Furthermore, a Level II sensitive areas review is
considered a type of planned development and as such, must comply with the applicable approval
criteria set forth in chapter 3, article A, "Planned Development Overlay Zone (OPD)".
The applicant conducted a virtual Good Neighbor meeting on December 21, 2020. Staff has
received several additional emails concerning the proposed rezoning, which are attached.
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning: The subject property is currently zoned Interim Development – Single Family
Residential (ID-RS). In ID-RS zones, only plant related agriculture is allowed by right. This zoning
designation effectively pauses development for a property until a time that the preferred use can
be developed, and the property can be rezoned.
Proposed Zoning: The applicant is requesting to rezone the entire property (48.75 acres) to Low
Density Single-Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5). The RS-5 zone is
intended to provide housing opportunities for individual households. The zone generally provides
a collection of homes with larger lot sizes and setbacks creating neighborhoods with a limited
density. While the proposed development does contain some single-family detached
condominium housing and group living in the senior living facility, the OPD process allows for a
mixture of uses, provided that additional criteria in section 14-3A-4C of the City Code are met.
General Planned Development Approval Criteria:
Applications for Planned Development Rezonings are reviewed for compliance with the following
standards according to Article 14-3A of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance.
1. The density and design of the Planned Development will be compatible with and/or
complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass and scale,
relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout.
Density – Table 3A-1 from the City Code outlines the maximum allowable density for planned
development zones. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to an OPD/RS-5 zone, which allows for
a density of (5) dwelling units per net acre of land area (total land minus public and private streets
right-of-way). The proposed development would include 53 detached single-family dwelling units.
The senior living facility is considered a group living use, as the proposed facility most closely
resembles the following criteria for a group living use from section 14-4A-3B-1 of the City Code:
“Rooming units contain private space for living and sleeping, but not for cooking. Bathroom facilities
may be private or shared. There may also be shared kitchen and dining facilities and shared
common rooms and amenities for all residents. The rooming units are furnished with locks through
which one member of the group may prevent other members of the group from entering his/her
4
private rooming unit. The residents may or may not receive any combination of care, training, or
treatment, but those receiving such services must reside at the site.” The senior living facility is
estimated to have 135 bedrooms. These bedrooms are not included in the site’s density calculation.
The site has a net land area of 44.52 acres and 53 detached single-family dwelling units. Therefore,
the site’s proposed density is approximately 1.2 dwelling units per acre. This level of density is
allowed within an OPD/RS-5 zone.
Land Uses Proposed – The applicant is proposing two different land uses under the requested
OPD/RS-5 zoning designation. The predominant land use will be in the form of detached single-
family residential housing, which is allocated for development of 43 lots along the extension of
Hickory Trail. An additional 10 single-family condominium-style dwelling units can be found on Lot
45 of the OPD Plan.
Single-family residential land use within an RS-5 zone can be found in various locations around the
subject property. The Hickory Heights subdivision, another OPD/RS-5 zoned subdivision, can be
found to the west of the subject property. Several other RS-5 subdivisions can be found east of 1st
Avenue and south of Hickory Hill Park. The Hickory Pointe Condominiums building, located just
east of the subject property, contains an OPD/RS-8 zoning designation.
A group living land use (shown more closely in Attachment #6), which is intended to accommodate
a senior living facility, is proposed in the southeast portion of the subject property. There are
currently two different multi-family developments adjacent to the subject property. The first of which,
Oaknoll East, can be found north of the subject property, along Scott Boulevard. The second of
which, the Hickory Pointe Condominiums, can be found directly east of the proposed senior living
facility. The addition of the senior living facility will help to satisfy an ongoing need for elder housing
within the City, while increasing the diversity of housing that is offered in the Northeast District. The
proposed senior living facility will be reviewed against the Multi-Family Site Development Standards
during Design Review.
Mass, Scale and General Layout– The applicant intends to develop 43 detached single-family
residential homes. A waiver has not been requested for these homes through the OPD process,
therefore, the homes will be required to conform to the dimensional requirements for detached
single-family homes, as detailed in section 14-2A-4 of the City Code. All 43 detached single-family
homes will be situated within the western portion of the subject property, all on the proposed
extension of Hickory Trail to the west and north. Staff encourages connectivity within this
neighborhood and supports the idea of having a continuous street extension in this area instead of
two separate cul-de-sacs. The City’s subdivision code allows cul-de-sacs when it can be
demonstrated that a street cannot be continued. The applicant has demonstrated that this street
can continue and connect with Scott Blvd.
The applicant also intends to develop 10 detached condominium dwelling units, shown in
Attachment #7 as Lot 45. These homes would be developed on a new private street, Hickory
Commons. Staff requested the applicant to show imaginary lot lines on the OPD plan for comparison
to the RS-5 zoning standards as required per 14-3A-4K. The proposal meets the standards of the
RS-5 zone and the applicant is not requesting any waivers from development standards.
Lastly, the senior living facility will be reviewed against the Multi-Family Site Development Standards
during the project’s Design Review phase. At a ground-floor area of 69,060 square feet, the footprint
of the senior living facility will be considerably larger than that of the Hickory Pointe Condominiums
building, which has a footprint of only 1,499 square feet. The applicant has requested a waiver for
the maximum height requirement of 35’, requesting an allowable height of 40’. The senior living
facility would be a 3-story structure, compared to the Hickory Pointe Condominiums building, which
is only 2 stories.
5
Open Space – The proposed development will need to comply with private open space standards,
outlined in section 14-2A-4 of the City Code. The senior living facility will be required to
accommodate 10 square feet of private open space per bedroom, for a total of 1,350 square feet of
private open space. All single-family dwelling units will be required to accommodate 500 square
feet of rear yard private open space. The open space proposed for the single-family uses on Lot 45
include a shared open space area along the private street.
A neighborhood open space requirement of approximately 1.1 acres accompanies the proposed
OPD rezoning. The applicant intends to eventually dedicate the entirety of Outlot A for future Hickory
Hill Park, which is approximately 10.86 acres.
City Code requires that at least 90% of the land required to be dedicated be located outside of
floodways, lakes or other water bodies, areas with slopes greater than 15%, wetlands subject to
federal or state regulatory jurisdiction and other areas the city reasonably deems unsuitable for
neighborhood open space due to topography, flooding or other appropriate considerations.
However, the Code allows land in addition to the required dedication amount to include lakes,
ponds, creeks, other water bodies, wetlands falling under the jurisdiction of state or federal agencies
and other sensitive areas including woodland areas. City Staff views the proposed 10.86 acres of
dedication from Outlot A as sufficient abutting land that would be usable and extend the existing
Hickory Hill Park. This addition would increase the Park’s acreage by approximately 5.5% and result
in Hickory Hill Park having street frontage along N. Scott Blvd.
Prior to the City acquiring the land in Outlot A for Hickory Hill Park, Staff recommends that the
applicant submit a Woodland Management Plan that shall consist of a plan to remove any invasive
species within the Outlot A area, as well as removal of any hazardous trees or limbs. The plan shall
be prepared by a woodland specialist and approved by the City Forrester. Invasive species removal
will be the responsibility of the owner and must be completed prior to transfer of Outlot A to the City.
In addition to the dedication of land from Outlot A, Staff recommends that the applicant provide the
trail connections that are shown on the OPD Plan (Attachment #5).
Traffic Circulation – The proposed development will be situated along an extension of Hickory Trail,
from the existing stub at the western limits of the Hickory Pointe Condominiums site, west and north
to Scott Boulevard. As this extension will result in a street with a block length longer than desired,
Staff recommends that the applicant incorporate traffic calming devices to help reduce speeds and
break up the long block length. Specifically, the OPD plan shows raised crosswalks at two locations
that provide trail connection and access to the park. One location is between lots 40 and 41 and the
other is near the senior living facility next to Lot 26. Staff also recommends that the applicant install
trees within the right-of-way, as shown on the landscape plan (Attachment #5). The applicant’s
OPD Plan, shows a traffic circle on Hickory Trail, between Lot 8 to the east and Lot 45 to the west.
During the final plat process, all traffic calming devices must be in locations approved by and
designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities.
The subject property can be serviced by both sanitary sewer and water. Public Works has indicated
that both sanitary sewer and water mains have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed
development.
Transportation Planning Staff requested that the applicant submit a traffic study which examined
how the proposed development would impact traffic at the intersection of 1st Avenue and Hickory
Trail. The traffic study (Attachment #8) submitted by Axiom Consultants (performed by Gibson
Traffic Consultants, Inc.) indicates that the total average daily trips generated by the proposed
development is 808 (404 entering / 404 exiting) split between the accesses to Scott Boulevard and
6
1st Avenue at full build-out. During peak hours this breaks down to a total of 58 AM peak hour trips
and 74 PM peak hour trips split between the two accesses – or less than one additional car per
minute, on average, utilizing each access. The study shows that all movements at the 1st Avenue /
Hickory Trail access currently operate at a Level-of-Service D (or better) and remain at a LOS D (or
better) with the proposed development. The study further shows the same is true at the proposed
access at Scott Boulevard. As none of the individual movements at either intersection are
anticipated to reach a failing Level-of-Service, Staff is not recommending any off-site improvements
at this time as a result of the proposed development.
Furthermore, 2018 Iowa DOT Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts show an ADT of 7,500 on 1st
Avenue near Hickory Trail and 13,100 on Scott Boulevard near the proposed access. Given that
the theoretical capacity of a two-lane arterial street is conservatively more than 14,000-16,000 trips
per day at a LOS E, the additional traffic generated by the development alone will not over-burden
Scott Boulevard or 1st Avenue as currently constructed. Iowa DOT collision data indicates there
have only been (3) total collisions from 2015-2020 ((1) involving an animal) at the 1st Avenue /
Hickory Trail intersection, which indicates there is not a concerning collision trend associated with
the current traffic volumes or roadway geometry.
3. The development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property values and privacy
of neighboring properties any more than would a conventional development.
The subject property is bordered by two existing residential developments. The Hickory Heights
Lane subdivision borders the northwestern portion of the property, while the Hickory Pointe
Condominiums border the southeast portion of the property. The applicant’s SADP plan is showing
a minimum separation distance of 263’ between the rear property line of the condominium dwelling
unit lot (Lot 45) and the rear property line of the eastern Hickory Heig hts Lane properties.
Furthermore, the condominium dwelling units will be down slope from the properties on Hickory
Heights Lane, which should help to lessen their visual effect.
Attachment #6 shows the proposed elevations for the senior living facility. The facility will be roughly
four stories in height, which is about twice as tall as the Hickory Pointe Condominiums building to
the east, but similar in height to the Oaknoll East buildings off Scott Boulevard. Additionally, the
OPD plan is showing a separation distance of approximately 185’ between the senior living facility
and the Hickory Point Condominiums property. A combination of shade and evergreen trees are
proposed to soften this transition to the east.
The majority of the property borders Hickory Hill Park to the west and south. The applicant’s OPD
plan is showing a range of separation distances between the rear yards of the homes along the
western and southern sides of the proposed Hickory Trail extension, and the current eastern
boundary of Hickory Hill Park. The closest distance between the proposed home and the existing
park boundary is approximately 35’. Each lot would have a 20’ rear yard setback, which would put
a minimum buffer distance of 55’ between any house structure and the existing park boundary. The
parcels within the southwest portion of the subject property would also be situated anywhere from
10’ to 24’ above the elevations within the Park’s east side area. Staff understands that the proposed
proximity to the Park will allow for some of the proposed homes to be viewable from within the
existing Park limits. However, Staff does not believe that the placement of these homes will
adversely affect light and air, property values or privacy of neighboring properties any more than
would a conventional development. Staff acknowledges that the homes along the west side of
Hickory Trail will likely be viewable from the eastern portions of the Park. The City Forrester has
discussed putting in additional landscaping with a mixture of evergreen and shade trees along the
rear yards of the western properties to provide additional screening from the west.
7
4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying
zoning requirements or from City street standards will be in the public interest, in harmony
with the purposes of this Title, and with other building regulations of the City.
Staff finds that the combination of land uses and building types meets the public interest. Staff
finds the requested height waiver of 40’ versus the allowable 35’ in an RS-5 zone to be
reasonable. Lastly, Staff recommends that no building permit shall be issued for any of the
subject property until the City Council approves a final plat subdividing the subject property to
confirm to the zoning boundaries established by the zoning ordinance.
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan:
With respect to compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Staff looks to the IC2030
Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast District Plan for direction. The Northeast District Plan
features several areas of focus for the subject property’s neighborhood (the Bluffwood
Neighborhood) that are discussed in more detail below.
Preserve Natural Features – The Plan emphasizes the use of cul-de-sac streets and single
loaded streets (i.e. homes only on one side), where appropriate, to preserve sensitive areas.
The Plan’s intent is to preserve areas with ravines and potential wetland areas as a buffer along
the eastern and northern edges of Hickory Hill Park. Additionally, the City’s comprehensive plan
encourages the development of single-loaded street along parks.
The Bluffwood Neighborhood map (Figure #2 below) shows two cul-de-sac streets within the
subject property. One cul-de-sac is stemming southward from Scott Boulevard, while the other
is a westward continuation of an extension to Hickory Trail. Housing is shown mostly on both
sides of the street on the northern cul-de-sac, with an exception for the southwestern portion of
the cul-de-sac. The southern cul-de-sac shows housing only on one side of the street. A
woodland buffer is shown on the map, but dimensions for how wide the buffer are not provided.
Figure #2 - Bluffwood Neighborhood Map
8
Rather than constructing two separate cul-de-sacs, as is shown in the Plan, the applicant is
intending to build one continuous through street between 1st Avenue and Scott Boulevard.
However, section 15-3-2A-4 of the City Code states the following “Use of cul-de-sacs and other
roadways with a single point of access should be avoided. Cul-de-sacs will be considered where
it can be clearly demonstrated that environmental constraints, existing development, access
limitations along arterial streets, or other unusual features prevent the extension of the street to
the property line or to interconnect with other streets within or abutting the subdivision.” In this
instance, the applicant has demonstrated that a through street can be provided in this location
without impacting the protected slopes to the east of the proposed street extension, or the
wetlands that exist on the property.
The preliminary OPD shows housing on both sides of Hickory Trail, which departs from the
Bluffwood Neighborhood Map. The applicant is proposing at least 35’ of separation distance
between the rear yards of the western properties along Hickory Trail, and the existing eastern
park boundary.
Additionally, pending completion of a woodland mitigation plan, the applicant intends to grant
the entire 10.86 acres of Outlot A to the City as neighborhood open space. This will technically
remove the buffer distance on paper, but in practice, will keep a woodland buffer in this area, as
it is absorbed into Hickory Hill Park.
Provide Pedestrian/Bicyclist Connections – The Plan calls for an interconnected sidewalk
system that is augmented by a trail system that will provide opportunities for people to walk,
bike, or jog to various destinations. The applicant is showing 5’ wide sidewalks along both sides
of the Hickory Trail extension, which will connect with existing sidewalks along Scott Boulevard
and 1St Avenue. The OPD Plan also shows connections to the trail network in Hickory Hill Park
at two different locations. One connection will be made about halfway through the street
extension, between Lots 40 and 41 on the OPD Plan. The other connection will be made toward
the southern end of the development, between the senior living facility and Lot 26 of the OPD
Plan. Both trail connections will feature raised crosswalks to help slow down vehicular traffic on
Hickory Trail and provide a more apparent connection from the crosswalk area to the Park’s
internal trail network.
Build Streets that Enhance Neighborhood Quality – With respect to the subject property, this
section of the Northeast District Plan focuses on providing traffic calming for local streets within
the Bluffwood Neighborhood. As was stated earlier in the report, the applicant will be required to
work with City Engineering Staff on providing the appropriate amount of traffic calming for this
development as it moves to platting.
Encourage a Reasonable Level of Housing Diversity – The Plan acknowledges that detached
single-family residential housing will be the predominant land use in the Bluffwood
Neighborhood. This matches what the applicant is proposing, as the majority of the Hickory Trail
extension would be occupied by single-family housing. This section of the Plan reemphasizes
the need for cul-de-sac street design and single-loaded streets, where appropriate. The design
of a through street will provide the connectivity that is emphasized within the City’s subdivision
code, while providing limited impact to the property’s existing sensitive areas. The City’s
Comprehensive Plan also encourages the development of interconnected streets as a means of
reducing vehicle miles traveled each day within a neighborhood, providing more direct walking
and biking routes to neighborhood destinations, and reducing the cost of providing City services.
The Plan also calls for townhouses or small apartment houses at the edges of neighborhoods,
where the increased density can take advantage of the being located near major arterial streets.
In-lieu of small apartment buildings, the applicant is proposing condominium-style single-family
9
residential dwelling units, as shown in Attachment #7. The 10-unit condo unit along with the
proposed senior living facility, help to increase the types of housing available in this area.
Create and Enhance Neighborhood Parks within the District (Natural Open Space/Buffer Areas)
The Plan does call for buffering between Hickory Hill Park and the subject property, in an
attempt to minimize the visibility of residential development from the Park. The Plan directs to
accomplish this by shifting density away from the Park to the north, where small apartments and
townhouses can take advantage of slightly higher prescribed densities. Buffer distance
dimensions are not provided in the Plan. The applicant is showing a range of buffer distances
between the rear yards of the OPD Plan and the existing eastern Park boundary. Still, it is the
applicant’s intent to grant the “buffer area” of Outlot A to the City for future use as an enlarged
Hickory Hill Park. The Plan also calls for only trail linkages from the subject area to the Park,
which the applicant intends to provide.
Summary
Staff recognizes that the proposed development does not perfectly match with the conceptual
vision presented in the Northeast District Plan, particularly related to the single-loaded streets
(i.e. streets with housing only one side). The plan shows housing on both side of the street near
N. Scott Blvd and the remainder of the area with housing only on one side. The preliminary OPD
plan also shows housing on both sides of the street near N. Scott Blvd and a single-loaded
street east of the stream corridor. The proposed lots that do not perfectly match with the vision
are the 15 lots between the two proposed trail connections on the east and south side of the
Hickory Trail extension. The plan also encourages a buffer between any new development and
the Park. The applicant has attempted to incorporate a buffer by showing a separation between
the existing park boundary and the new lots. This buffer ranges between 202’ and 35’. At the
narrowest sections, the applicant has incorporated landscaping that includes deciduous trees.
In summary, although the proposal does not perfectly match with the land use vision for this
area, it does meet other comprehensive plan goals. It provides an interconnected street system,
incorporates a variety of housing types, limits impact to sensitive areas, and provides an
additional 10 acres of land to Hickory Hill Park.
Sensitive Areas Review:
The applicant has applied for approval of a Sensitive Areas Development, a type of planned
development. The purpose of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is to permit and define the reasonable
use of properties that contain sensitive environmental features and natural resources and allowing
reasonable development while protecting these resources from damage.
Outlots A and B contain the vast majority of the site’s sensitive features. Outlot A will be protected
through the dedication to the City as an extension of Hickory Hill Park. Outlot B will be protected
by a conservation easement. The single-family lots along the east side of Hickory Trail include a
portion of the Outlot B conservation easement area. Staff has recommended that the lot boundaries
conform with the conservation easement boundary, to avoid having a conservation easement area
on a private lot.
The following paragraphs describe the impact this development will have on the sensitive features
of this site.
Jurisdictional Wetlands- The purpose of regulating development in and around wetlands is to:
1. Preserve the unique and valuable attributes of wetlands as areas where storm water is naturally
retained, thereby controlling the rate of runoff, improving water quality, recharging ground water
resources, providing erosion control and lessening the effects of flooding;
2. Promote the preservation of habitat for plants, fish, reptiles, amphibians or other wildlife;
3. Minimize the impact of development activity on wetland areas;
10
4. Provide a greater degree of protection for many wetland areas above and beyond that provided
by the federal and state government; and
5. Minimize the long-term environmental impact associated with the loss of wetlands.
For this application, the subject property contains two wetlands, which are shown below in Figure
#3. The City’s Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires a 100 ft. buffer to be maintained between a
regulated wetland and any development activity (14-5I-6E-1). The Ordinance does allow for buffer
averaging to be permitted where an increased buffer is deemed necessary or desirable to provide
additional protection to one area of a wetland for aesthetic or environmental reasons. The applicant
has not chosen to request buffer averaging for either wetland, as each wetland and wetland buffer
will remain unimpacted.
Figure #3 – Wetland Delineation
Stream Corridors - The purpose of regulating development in and around stream corridors is to:
1. Preserve the value of stream corridors in providing floodwater conveyance and storage;
2. Promote filtration of storm water runoff;
3. Reduce stream bank erosion; and
4. Protect and enhance wildlife habitat.
The City’s Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires the delineation of any stream corridor and its
required natural buffer (14-5I-7). The subject property contains two drainageways, neither of which
have a delineated floodway, thereby requiring a 15’ natural buffer between the stream corridor limits
and any development activity. Both stream corridors are situated far enough away from the
proposed construction limits that neither corridor will be impacted. Additionally, section 14-5I-2D-2
of the City Code allows for Stream crossings, such as bridges, roads and culverts, or stream bank
stabilization measures, provided they are designed to minimize any reduction of the flood carrying
capacity of the stream caused by such structures and are in compliance with all federal and state
regulations.
Steep, Critical, and Protected Slopes – The purpose of regulating development on and near steep
slopes is to:
1. Promote safety in the design and construction of developments;
2. Minimize flooding, landslides and mudslides;
3. Minimize soil instability, erosion and downstream siltation; and
4. Preserve the scenic character of hillside areas, particularly wooded hillsides.
The City’s Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires a 2 ft. buffer for each foot of vertical rise of the
11
protected slope, up to a maximum buffer of fifty feet (50') (14-5I-8D-1). The buffer area is to be
measured from the top, toe and sides of the protected slope. No development activity, including
removal of trees and other vegetation, will be allowed within the buffer. The SADP contains 321,719
square feet of protected slopes, but no disturbance to protected slopes. Approximately 19%, or
roughly 62,125 square feet of critical slopes will be impacted by the development. Table 1 below
breaks out the proposed impact to critical slopes. The City Code defines critical slopes as having a
slope greater than 25% but less than 40%. Section 14-5I-8E-4 states that a Level II sensitive areas
review is required if more than 35% of critical slopes are disturbed. The applicant is proposing to
only to disturb 19% of critical slopes, which is within the allowable threshold.
Table #1 – Critical Slope Summary
Existing Critical Slopes Impacted Slopes Non-Impacted Slopes
321,719 sq ft 61,279 sq ft
(19%)
216,414 sq ft
(67%)
Woodlands – The purpose of regulating development in and around wooded areas is to:
1. Reduce damage to wooded areas, particularly wetlands, steep slopes and stream corridors;
2. Reduce erosion and siltation;
3. Minimize destruction of wildlife habitat; and
4. Encourage subdivision and site plan design which incorporate groves and woodlands as
amenities within a development.
The subject property has approximately 30.4 acres of woodlands. The SADP plan (Attachment #5)
shows that the development will preserve approximately 48% of woodlands. Table 5I-1 from the
City Code shows that the woodland retention requirement for an RS-5 zone is 50%. To offset the
woodland retention requirement deficiency, the applicant must plant replacement trees at a rate of
1 tree per 200 square feet of disturbed woodland. This results in a tree replacement requirement of
132 trees. The preliminary SADP currently only shows 115 replacements trees. Staff has requested
that the plan be updated to reflect the correct amount needed.
Archaeological Sites – Attachment #9 shows an archaeological report that the applicant obtained
from the Office of the State Archaeologist. The report shows that no previously recorded
archaeological sites were recorded, and no newly recorded archaeological sites were identified.
The report recommends no further archaeological work within the subject property.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be
scheduled for consideration by the City Council. Staff plans to have this application on the
March 16, 2021 City Council agenda, with public hearings set at the Council’s March 2, 2021
meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of REZ20-0016, a proposal to rezone approximately 48.75 acres of
land located south of N. Scott Blvd. and west of N. 1st Ave. from Interim Development – Single
Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Low Density Single Family with a Planned Development
Overlay (OPD/RS-5) zone subject to the following conditions:
1. In accordance with the subdivider’s agreement at final platting, approval of a Woodland
Management Plan that shall consist of a plan to remove any invasive species within the
Outlot A area, as well as removal of any hazardous trees or limbs. The plan shall be
prepared by a woodland specialist and approved by the City Forrester. Invasive species
12
removal will be the responsibility of the owner and must be completed prior to transfer of
Outlot A to the City.
2. Provision of trail connections, as shown on the concept plan dated 01/18/2021. The trail
connections should be provided in the same location as shown on the concept plan and
must be constructed before public improvements to the corresponding subdivision are
approved.
3. The final plat shall incorporate traffic calming devices, including but not limited to raised
crosswalks at park entrances, in locations approved by and designed to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
4. Where trees are shown on the landscaping plan, installation of right-of-way trees, to be
planted by Owner or its successor, along the proposed Hickory Trial right -of-way. Said
trees shall be planted prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each lot, or, if said
certificate of occupancy is issued during a poor planting season, by May 31 following
issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Right-of-way trees shall be consistent with the
approved landscaping plan that has been reviewed by the City Forrester. Trees shall be
planted generally 30’ apart, though the City recognizes that exact locations may vary
depending on driveway locations, signage, and other utility conflicts. Final location and
species of the trees shall be approved on a lot-by-lot basis prior to issuance of a building
permit for each lot.
5. No building permit shall be issued for any of the subject property until the City Council
approves a final plat subdividing the subject property to confirm to the zoning boundaries
established by the zoning ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Rezoning Exhibit
4. Applicant Statement
5. Preliminary OPD and Sensitive Areas Development Plan and Landscape Plan
6. Senior Living Facility Elevations
7. Lot 45 OPD Plan and Elevations
8. Traffic Study
9. Archaeological Study
10. Public Correspondence
Approved by: __________________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
DODGE STREET CT
BLUFFWOODDRTAMARACKT
R
L
LARCHLNCONKLIN LNSTUARTC
TBRISTOLDR HICKORY TRL
HIC
K
O
R
Y
P
L
N SCOTT B L V D
B L UFF W OOD CIRCYPRESSCT EVERGREENCTSTTHOMASCTBLUFF
W
O
ODLNN1STAVEACT PLNDUBUQUERDHICKORYHEIG HT S L N
N DO
D
G
E
ST
REZ20-0016Hickory Trail Estatesµ
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: February 2021
An application submitted by Axiom Consultants, on behalf of G. Joseph Clark & Nelson Development 1, LLC, for the rezoningof 48.75 acres of property located South of N. Scott Blvd, and West of N. 1st Ave. from Interim Development - Single-Family (ID-RS) to Low-density Single Family Residential with a PlannedDevelopment Overlay (OPD/RS-5)
DODGE STREETC
TBLUFFWOODDRTAMARACKT
R
L
LARCHLNCONKLIN LNST
U
A
RTCTBRI
STOLDRHICKORY TRL
HIC
K
O
R
Y
P
L
N SCO T T B L V D
B LUF F W O OD
CIRCYPRESSCT EVERGREENCTSTTHOMASCTBLUFF
W
O
O
DLNN1STAVEACTPLNDUBUQUERDHICKORYHEIGH T S L N
N DO
D
G
E
ST
RS8
P1
ORP
ID-RP
ID-RS
RS5
CO1
RM12
RDP
CN1
RS12
REZ20-0016Hickory Trail Estatesµ
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: February 2021
An application submitted by Axiom Consultants, on behalf of G. Joseph Clark & Nelson Development 1, LLC, for the rezoningof 48.75 acres of property located South of N. Scott Blvd, and West of N. 1st Ave. from Interim Development - Single-Family (ID-RS) to Low-density Single Family Residential with a PlannedDevelopment Overlay (OPD/RS-5)
N01° 07' 52"W 656.03'N01° 41' 17"W 1094.66'N01° 38' 34"W 210.49'N01° 20' 33"W 538.67'S27° 14' 33"W 924.73'N77° 55' 52"E
6
4
9
.
6
3
'S01° 15' 42"E 868.85'S87° 54' 07"W 1302.79'
R=1018.50'
L=1332.94'
CB=S65°18'23"E
CL=1239.83'
S01° 14' 34"E 378.49'
0 150 300
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
ZONING INFORMATION:
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
CURRENT ZONING: ID-RS
PROPOSED ZONING: OPD/RS-5
APPLICANT 1:
G. JOSEPH CLARK
221 E. BURLINGTON ST
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
APPLICANT INFORMATION:
PREPARED BY:
AXIOM CONSULTANTS, LLC
C/O MICHAEL WELCH
60 E. COURT STREET, UNIT 3
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
319-519-6220
MWELCH@AXIOM-CON.COM
NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT
LOCATION
HICKORY HILL PARK
1439 E BLOOMINGTON STZONING: P1HICKORY HEIGHTS LNPARCEL ID:1002401005
ZONING: ID-RS
2640 N SCOTT BLVD
ZONING: OPD/RM12
800 CONKLIN LN
ZONING: P1
PARCEL ID:
1002426001
ZONING: P1
PARCEL ID: 1002476002
ZONING: ID-RS
831 N 1ST AVEZONING: OPD/RS8PARCEL ID:1001328001ZONING: ID-RPN 1ST AVEN SCOTT B
L
V
D
2041 N DUBUQUE RD
ZONING: RDP
PARCEL ID: 1001327004
ZONING: ID-RP
PARCEL ID: 1001326004
ZONING: ID-RP
PARCEL ID: 1001351002
ZONING: ID-RS
643 N 1ST AVEZONING: P1HICKORY HEIGHTS
ZONING: OPD/RS5
EVAN HEIGHTS
ZONING: RS5
2601 HICKORY TRLZONING: RM121725 N DODGE ST
ZONING: P1
PARCEL ID:
1002153001ZONING: CO1
PARCEL ID: 1001351003
ZONING: ID-RS
CYPRESS CTBLUFFWOOD DRBLUFFWOOD CIR
640 STUART CT
ZONING: RM12
2510 BLUFFWOOD CIR
ZONING: RM12
2530 BLUFFWOOD CIR
ZONING: RM12
HICKORY TRL
TAMARACK TRAIL
SUBDIVISION
ZONING: OPD/RS5EVERGREEN CTTAMARACK TR
L
HI
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
HICKORY TRAIL SUBDIVISION
ZONING: RS5
2545 BLUFFWOOD DR
ZONING: ID-RS
500-YEARFLOOD LINE
BEING PART OF AMENDED AUDITOR'S PARCEL #2005110 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 52, PAGE 143 OF
THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP
79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., IN IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS;
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL, THENCE N01°07'52”W,
656.03 FEET; THENCE N01°41'17”W, 1094.66 FEET; THENCE N01°38'34”W, 210.49 FEET; THENCE
N01°20'33”W, 538.67 FEET; THENCE TO THE NW CORNER OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL; THENCE
1332.94 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SCOTT BOULEVARD ON A 1018.50 FOOT
RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY (CHORD BEARING S65°18'23”E, 1239.83 FEET); THENCE
S27°14'33”W, 924.73 FEET; THENCE S01°14'34”E, 378.49 FEET; THENCE N77°55'52”E, 649.63 FEET;
THENCE S01°15'42”E, 868.85 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL; THENCE ALONG
SAID SOUTH LINE S87°54'07”W, 1302.79 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 48.75 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS
OF RECORD.
48.75 ACRES
PROPOSED ZONING:
OPD/RS-5
APPLICANT 1'S ATTORNEY:
PHELAN TUCKER LAW
JOHN BEASLEY
321 E. MARKET ST
IOWA CITY, IA 52245
TAMARACK RIDGE
SUBDIVISION
ZONING: RS5
APPLICANT 2:
NELSON DEVELOPMENT 1, LLC
ATTN: JACOB WOLFGANG
218 6TH AVE., STE. 200
DES MOINES, IOWA 50309
JACOB@NELSONCONSTRUCT.COM
APPLICANT 2'S ATTORNEY:
KIRTON MCCONKIE
ATTN: BRYCE K. DALTON
50 E. SOUTH TEMPLE, SUITE 400
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
BDALTON@KMCLAW.COM
STUART CT
BL
U
F
F
W
O
O
D
L
N
ST THOMAS
CT
ZONING:
RM12
ZONING:
OPD/
RM12
ZONING:
OPD/
RM12 A12-17-2020REZONING APPLICATIONSHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME: Jan 19, 2021 - 4:43pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Sheets\200194 - Rezoning Exhibit - OPD.RS-5.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:1 OF 1 G. JOSEPH CLARKREZONING EXHIBITHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESIOWA CITY, IOWA, 5224520-0194 WELCH
REZONING EXHIBIT
HICKORY TRAILIOWA CITY, IOWA
CIVIL STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL SURVEY SPECIALTY
Project Number 200194 Page | 1
December 17, 2020
APPLICANT’S STATEMENT FOR REZONING
The proposed development area consists of a portion of Parcel 1002476002. The area being rezoned is approximately 48
acres of private property located west of N. 1st Avenue and south of N. Scott Boulevard. It is bounded on the south and
west by Hickory Hill Park. The current zoning classification is ID -RS – Interim Development Single-Family Residential. The
Applicant is seeking to rezone 36.60 acres of the property to RS-5 – Low Density Single-Family Residential and 12.21 acres
of the property to RM-20 – Medium-Density Multi-Family Residential. The total area being re-zoned is 48.81 acres with
1,332.95 feet of frontage on North Scott Boulevard. There are approximately 14 acres between the proposed development
and N. Scott Boulevard and N. 1st Avenue that are not included in this development and are not included in the rezoning
application. Refer to the Rezoning Exhibit included with the Rezoning Application for additional information, including the
legal description.
Comprehensive Plan & District Plan
The Future Land Use Map within the Comprehensive
Plan shows this area as Conservation Design. The
Conservation Design designation indicates the
presence of sensitive features on the property. These
features include wetlands, a waterway, steep slopes,
and woodlands. The Northeast District Plan includes
the property within the “Bluffwood Neighborhood”
(Figure 1). The Bluffwood concept plan shows single-
family housing and two cul de sacs on the south and
west portion of the property. There is Neighborhood
Commercial depicted on the southeast portion of the
property (four red buildings on Figure 1) and Small
Apartment Buildings shown on the northeast portion
(five pink buildings on Figure 1). The plan shows
wooded areas remaining along the waterway at the
center of the property. Hickory Hill Park can be seen
along the west and south of the property. The cul de
sacs allow for a connection from Hickory Hill Park to the
drainageway at the center of the property.
Figure 1: Bluffwood Neighborhood from Northeast District Plan with
Approximate Project Boundary
Project Number 200194 Page | 2
Previous Projects
A previous rezoning application for the property located at
831 N. 1st Avenue (immediately east of this project) was
approved as a Planned Development Overlay Medium-
Density Single-Family (OPD RS-8) and a twelve-unit, 3-
story building was constructed (Figure 2) in place of the
Neighborhood Commercial shown on the Bluffwood plan.
Project Overview
The Applicant proposes to develop low-density single-
family residential lots west of the waterway and a Senior
Living Facility with Assisted Living and Memory Care east
of the waterway. The south end of the Senior Facility
building will be a single-story structure memory care, the
center of the building will be a two-story structure
containing the main entry, dining, common areas, and
administrative areas, and the north end of the north end of
the building will consist of three stories of assisted living
apartments. Refer to Figure 3 for a rendering). Hickory
Trail, which currently dead ends at the east property line,
is being extended to the west and turn north to connect to
N. Scott Boulevard.
Figure 2: 831 N. 1st Avenue
Proposed Project Area Shown in Red
Figure 3:Conceptual Rendering of the Proposed Senior Facility (looking northeast)
Project Number 200194 Page | 3
Low-Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5)
The Low-Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) zoning proposed is consistent with the Bluffwood plan. The applicant is
not seeking adjustments to minimum area regulations or setbacks. Instead, the applicant will enforce a larger front yard
setback of twenty-five feet within the Restrictive Covenants of the subdivision. The proposed single-family development will
avoid protected slopes, provide the required 50% woodland preservation, and meet s other regulations of the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance as required by City Code. Conservation Easements will be utilized to set aside and protect sensitive areas. A
buffer will be provided between the rear of the single-family lots that are adjacent to Hickory Hill Park.
Medium-Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-20)
The Applicant is seeking Medium-Density Multi-Family Residential zoning at the southeast corner of the development to
support a Senior Living Facility. The project incorporates specific features to ensure it is compatible with the surrounding
area and the vision for this portion of Iowa City.
The proposed building and site have been designed to take advantage of the existing topography to prevent the building
from dominating the view. The existing topography rises from the southwest to the north east corner of the RM -20 portion
of the site. The building has a single-story on the south and three-stories on the north (refer to Figure 3). This prevents the
mass of the building from dominating views from the park. The building is set into the existing site with a first-floor elevation
of 735 and the eave on the tallest portion of the building is at an elevation of approximately 768. The elevation of the
northeast corner of the property 768 and N. 1st Avenue is at an elevation of 760 in this area. This allows the natural grade
along N. 1st Avenue to block the building from view as pedestrians and vehicles travel along N. 1st Avenue. Refer to the Site
Plan included in the rezoning submittal.
The proposed building and site achieve the density desired by the Applicant without a large footprint or excessive amounts
of impervious area. The zoning suggested on the District Plan would allow for a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of up to 1.0. The
proposed site has a FAR of 0.3. Another measure of building density on a property is the amount of impervious surfaces
(pavement, sidewalks, roof top). Impervious areas averaging eighty -five percent are common in commercial areas. This
building and site combine for an impervious area of 40%. This relatively low amount of imperviousness is by design. The
building features an interior courtyard within the memory care wing and a community garden space east of the dining and
kitchen facility. Parking is located along the loop road, where possible, to minimize the pavement associated drive aisles in
traditional parking lots. There is ample green space along the west and east sides of the loop road to help provide buffers
to adjacent properties. Each of these features combine to reduce the imperviousness of the site.
The Applicant is committed to planting replacement trees to achieve the 20% woodland retention requirement of this zoning
designation. These trees will be planted along the west, east, and south portions of the Senior Living facility. These plantings
will enhance the view from inside the building, provide unique spaces on the property for outdoor activities, and protect the
views from those looking at the property from either the park or the single-family portion of the development.
Project Number 200194 Page | 4
City Utilities
There is city water along the north side of N. Scott Boulevard and water at the end of Hickory Trail. These will be connected
to create a loop. There is sanitary sewer at the dead-end of Hickory Trail and along the waterway south of the project.
These have been designed to be extended to serve this property. Private utilities such as gas, electric, and communications
are also available. Storm water management is provided by an existing basin downstream of the project.
Sensitive Areas
Detailed Analyses have been undertaken and, in addition to the woodlands and the waterway, have documented the
presence of wetlands and protected slopes. The 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
OUTLOT A473,268 SF
45152,271 SF
1408,543 SF
OUTLOT B180,396 SF
2610,055 SF
3110,935 SF
818,249 SF
238,362 SF
424,692 SF
323,849 SF
10
16,187 SF
529,154 SF
621,846 SF
28
14,514 SF
33
8,505 SF
19
28,143 SF1711,818 SF
"A"184,197 SF
2710,822 SF
29
16,365 SF
30
14,169 SF328,575 SF358,204 SF378,540 SF
38
9,621 SF
40
9,375 SF
36
8,127 SF
34
8,200 SF
39
9,116 SF
1423,014 SF 2315,470 SF
2414,962 SF
2515,388 SF
4412,329 SF
718,571 SF
919,405 SF
2223,866 SF2127,448 SF20
27,505 SF
1119,207 SF
1619,661 SF
1520,818 SF
1323,682 SF
1218,886 SF
1827,173 SF43
10,612 SF 419,907 SF
429,617 SF
PROJECT
LOCATION
Ralston Creek
NOT TO SCALE
OUTLOTS:
OUTLOT SF ACRES INTENDED USE
A 473,268 10.86 DEDICATED TO CITY FOR PARK SPACE
B 180,396 4.14 CONSERVATION EASEMENT
ROW 184,197 4.23 RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATED TO CITY FOR HICKORY TRAIL EXTENSION
APPLICANT 1'S ATTORNEY:
PHELAN TUCKER LAW
JOHN BEASLEY
321 E. MARKET ST
IOWA CITY, IA 52245
APPROVED BY THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
CITY CLERK DATE
KEY NOTES:
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
HATCHED AREA REPRESENTS AREA INCLUDED
IN WOODLAND RETENTION CALCULATION
10' LANDSCAPE EASEMENT
A
LEGEND:
SITE
FENCE: BARB WIRE
CONTOUR - INTERMEDIATE
CONTOUR - INDEX
SIGN
STREAM CENTERLINE
100
EXISTING PROPOSED
100
PROTECTED SLOPE (> 40%)
CRITICAL SLOPE (25-40%)
IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPE
(25-40%)
WOODLAND PRESERVATION
IMPACTED WOODLAND
STEEP SLOPE (18-25%)
CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS
TREE REMOVAL LIMITS AT EDGEOF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
SENSITIVE AREAS AREA BUFFER
WETLAND PRESERVATION
BLUE LINE STREAM CORRIDOR N. SCOTT BOULEVARDN. 1ST A
V
E
N
U
E
HICKORYTERRY FAMILY
REVOCABLE TRUS
T
HICKORY HEIGHTS
BK 44, PG 144
HICKORY HILL PAR
K
HICKORY HILL PAR
K HICKORY HILL PARKHICKORY HILL PARK1213141516
0 50 100
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 11, 2021 - 4:51pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Plats\200194-PP.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:C1.00 G. JOSEPH CLARKOVERALLSENSITIVE FEATURESHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN20-0194 WELCH
PRELIMINARY OPD AND
SENSITIVE AREAS
DEVELOPMENT PLANHICKORY TRAILIOWA CITY, IOWA
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
1
TRAILHICKORY HILL PARKAPPLICANT 1:
G. JOSEPH CLARK
221 E. BURLINGTON ST
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
.
.
.
A
A
A
APPLICANT 2'S ATTORNEY:
KIRTON MCCONKIE
ATTN:BRYCE K. DALTON
50 E. SOUTH TEMPLE, SUITE 400
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
BDALTON@KMCLAW.COM
APPLICANT 2:
NELSON DEVELOPMENT 1, LLC
ATTN:JACOB WOLFGANG
218 6TH AVE., STE. 200
DES MOINES, IOWA 50309
JACOB@NELSONCONSTRUCT.COM
AB12-17-202002-11-2021REZONING APPLICATIONRESPOND TO CITY REVIEW COMMENTS.A
PROPOSED TREEREFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN
B
.B
OVERALL SENSITIVE FEATURESC1.00
C1.30
PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS-SENSITIVE SLOPESC1.10
C1.20 PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS-WOODLAND AREAS
PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS-WETLAND AND BLUE LINE STREAM CORRIDOR
IMPACTED STEEP SLOPE
(18-25%)
SHEET INDEX
NOTES:
1. NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES ARE PRESENT.
OUTLOT A473,268 SF
45152,271 SF
1408,543 SF
OUTLOT B180,396 SF
2610,055 SF
3110,935 SF
818,249 SF
238,362 SF
424,692 SF
323,849 SF
10
16,187 SF
529,154 SF
621,846 SF
28
14,514 SF
33
8,505 SF
19
28,143 SF1711,818 SF
"A"184,197 SF
2710,822 SF
29
16,365 SF
30
14,169 SF328,575 SF358,204 SF378,540 SF
38
9,621 SF
40
9,375 SF
36
8,127 SF
34
8,200 SF
39
9,116 SF
1423,014 SF 2315,470 SF
2414,962 SF
2515,388 SF
4412,329 SF
718,571 SF
919,405 SF
2223,866 SF2127,448 SF20
27,505 SF
1119,207 SF
1619,661 SF
1520,818 SF
1323,682 SF
1218,886 SF
1827,173 SF43
10,612 SF 419,907 SF
429,617 SF
0 50 100
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 11, 2021 - 4:55pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Plats\200194-PP.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:C1.10 G. JOSEPH CLARKPRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREASSENSITIVE SLOPESHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN20-0194 WELCH
APPLICANT 1'S ATTORNEY:
PHELAN TUCKER LAW
JOHN BEASLEY
321 E. MARKET ST
IOWA CITY, IA 52245
N. SCOTT BOULEVARDN. 1ST A
V
E
N
U
E
HICKORYTERRY FAMILY
REVOCABLE TRUS
T
HICKORY HEIGHTS
BK 44, PG 144
HICKORY HILL PAR
K
HICKORY HILL PAR
K HICKORY HILL PARKHICKORY HILL PARK1213141516 TRAILHICKORY HILL PARK1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
9
LEGEND:
SITE
FENCE: BARB WIRE
CONTOUR - INTERMEDIATE
CONTOUR - INDEX
SIGN
STREAM CENTERLINE
100
EXISTING PROPOSED
100
PROTECTED SLOPE (> 40%)
CRITICAL SLOPE (25-40%)
IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPE
(25-40%)
STEEP SLOPE (18-25%)
CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS
TREE REMOVAL LIMITS AT EDGEOF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
SENSITIVE AREAS AREA BUFFER
17
16
15
14
13
12
APPLICANT 1:
G. JOSEPH CLARK
221 E. BURLINGTON ST
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
APPLICANT 2'S ATTORNEY:
KIRTON MCCONKIE
ATTN:BRYCE K. DALTON
50 E. SOUTH TEMPLE, SUITE 400
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
BDALTON@KMCLAW.COM
APPLICANT 2:
NELSON DEVELOPMENT 1, LLC
ATTN:JACOB WOLFGANG
218 6TH AVE., STE. 200
DES MOINES, IOWA 50309
JACOB@NELSONCONSTRUCT.COM
AB12-17-202002-11-2021REZONING APPLICATIONRESPOND TO CITY REVIEW COMMENTS5
.B
PRELIMINARY OPD AND
SENSITIVE AREAS
DEVELOPMENT PLANHICKORY TRAILIOWA CITY, IOWA
IMPACTED QUANTITIES:
CRITICAL SLOPES STEEP SLOPES
NOTES:
1. THERE ARE PROTECTED SLOPES WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT. A BUFFER
EQUAL TO 2 TIMES THE HEIGHT OF THE SLOPE IS PROVIDED. NO PROTECTED SLOPES OR
BUFFERS ARE IMPACTED WITH THIS PROJECT.
2. THE TOTAL PERCENTAGE IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPE IS LESS THAN 35% OF THE TOTAL.
CRITICAL SLOPE CALCULATION AREA (SF)PERCENTAGE
IMPACTED SLOPES 61,279 19%
NON-IMPACTED SLOPES 216,414 67%
NON-IMPACTED SLOPES IN PROTECTED SLOPE BUFFER 44,026 14%
CRITICAL SLOPES (PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT) 321,719 100%
3. STEEP SLOPE CALCULATION AREA (SF)PERCENTAGE
IMPACTED SLOPES 145,153 44%
NON-IMPACTED SLOPES 180,810 56%
STEEP SLOPES (PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT)325,963 100%
IMPACTED STEEP SLOPE
(18-25%)
18
192021
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37 38
39
5
OUTLOT A473,268 SF
45152,271 SF
1408,543 SF
OUTLOT B180,396 SF
2610,055 SF
3110,935 SF
818,249 SF
238,362 SF
424,692 SF
323,849 SF
10
16,187 SF
529,154 SF
621,846 SF
28
14,514 SF
33
8,505 SF
19
28,143 SF1711,818 SF
"A"184,197 SF
2710,822 SF
29
16,365 SF
30
14,169 SF328,575 SF358,204 SF378,540 SF
38
9,621 SF
40
9,375 SF
36
8,127 SF
34
8,200 SF
39
9,116 SF
1423,014 SF 2315,470 SF
2414,962 SF
2515,388 SF
4412,329 SF
718,571 SF
919,405 SF
2223,866 SF2127,448 SF20
27,505 SF
1119,207 SF
1619,661 SF
1520,818 SF
1323,682 SF
1218,886 SF
1827,173 SF43
10,612 SF 419,907 SF
429,617 SF
0 50 100
APPLICANT 1'S ATTORNEY:
PHELAN TUCKER LAW
JOHN BEASLEY
321 E. MARKET ST
IOWA CITY, IA 52245
N. SCOTT BOULEVARDN. 1ST A
V
E
N
U
E
HICKORYTERRY FAMILY
REVOCABLE TRUS
T
HICKORY HEIGHTS
BK 44, PG 144
HICKORY HILL PAR
K
HICKORY HILL PAR
K HICKORY HILL PARKHICKORY HILL PARK1213141516 TRAILHICKORY HILL PARKA
C
B
D
LEGEND:
SITE
FENCE: BARB WIRE
CONTOUR - INTERMEDIATE
CONTOUR - INDEX
SIGN
STREAM CENTERLINE
100
EXISTING PROPOSED
100
WOODLAND PRESERVATION
IMPACTED WOODLAND
CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS
TREE REMOVAL LIMITS AT EDGEOF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
SENSITIVE AREAS AREA BUFFER
F
G
E
H
APPLICANT 1:
G. JOSEPH CLARK
221 E. BURLINGTON ST
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
.
.
.
A
A
A
APPLICANT 2'S ATTORNEY:
KIRTON MCCONKIE
ATTN:BRYCE K. DALTON
50 E. SOUTH TEMPLE, SUITE 400
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
BDALTON@KMCLAW.COM
APPLICANT 2:
NELSON DEVELOPMENT 1, LLC
ATTN:JACOB WOLFGANG
218 6TH AVE., STE. 200
DES MOINES, IOWA 50309
JACOB@NELSONCONSTRUCT.COM
AB12-17-202002-11-2021REZONING APPLICATIONRESPOND TO CITY REVIEW COMMENTS.A
PROPOSED TREEREFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN .B
PRELIMINARY OPD AND
SENSITIVE AREAS
DEVELOPMENT PLANHICKORY TRAILIOWA CITY, IOWA IMPACTED QUANTITIES:
WOODLANDS
NOTES:
1. THERE ARE WOODED AREAS WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT. CONSERVATION
EASEMENTS ARE PROPOSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESERVING PORTIONS OF THE WOODED
AREAS. PER IOWA CITY CODE FOR RS-5, A MINIMUM OF 50% OF THE EXISTING WOODLANDS
MUST BE PRESERVED.
RS-5 WOODLAND PRESERVATION CALCULATION AREA (SF)PERCENTAGE
DISTURBED WOODLAND 497,053 37%
BUFFER (50' WIDE)200,516 15%
PRESERVED WOODLAND 627,495 48%
WOODLAND (PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT)1,325,064 100%
2. THE DEVELOPMENT IS 2% SHORT OF THE REQUIRED 50% WOODLAND RETENTION THRESHOLD.
REPLACEMENT TREES WILL BE PROVIDED TO OFFSET THIS DEFICIENCY. CITY CODE REQUIRES
REPLACEMENT TREES AT A RATE OF 1 TREE PER 200 SF OF DISTURBED WOODLAND
REQUIRED REPLACEMENT TREES = ( 1,325,064 * 0.02 )/ 200 = 132 TREES
3. STREET TREES AND OTHER TREES SHOWN COUNT TOWARD REPLACEMENT TREE NUMBER.
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 11, 2021 - 4:52pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Plats\200194-PP.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:C1.20 G. JOSEPH CLARKPRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREASWOODLAND AREASHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLANPRELIMINARY20-0194 WELCH
OUTLOT A473,268 SF
45152,271 SF
1408,543 SF
OUTLOT B180,396 SF
2610,055 SF
3110,935 SF
818,249 SF
238,362 SF
424,692 SF
323,849 SF
10
16,187 SF
529,154 SF
621,846 SF
28
14,514 SF
33
8,505 SF
19
28,143 SF1711,818 SF
"A"184,197 SF
2710,822 SF
29
16,365 SF
30
14,169 SF328,575 SF358,204 SF378,540 SF
38
9,621 SF
40
9,375 SF
36
8,127 SF
34
8,200 SF
39
9,116 SF
1423,014 SF 2315,470 SF
2414,962 SF
2515,388 SF
4412,329 SF
718,571 SF
919,405 SF
2223,866 SF2127,448 SF20
27,505 SF
1119,207 SF
1619,661 SF
1520,818 SF
1323,682 SF
1218,886 SF
1827,173 SF43
10,612 SF 419,907 SF
429,617 SF
0 50 100
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 11, 2021 - 4:52pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Plats\200194-PP.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:C1.30 G. JOSEPH CLARKPRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREASWETLANDS ANDBLUE LINE STREAM CORRIDORHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN20-0194 WELCH
APPLICANT 1'S ATTORNEY:
PHELAN TUCKER LAW
JOHN BEASLEY
321 E. MARKET ST
IOWA CITY, IA 52245
N. SCOTT BOULEVARDN. 1ST A
V
E
N
U
E
HICKORYTERRY FAMILY
REVOCABLE TRUS
T
HICKORY HEIGHTS
BK 44, PG 144
HICKORY HILL PAR
K
HICKORY HILL PAR
K HICKORY HILL PARKHICKORY HILL PARK1213141516 TRAILHICKORY HILL PARKLEGEND:
SITE
FENCE: BARB WIRE
CONTOUR - INTERMEDIATE
CONTOUR - INDEX
SIGN
STREAM CENTERLINE
100
EXISTING PROPOSED
100
CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS
TREE REMOVAL LIMITS AT EDGEOF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
SENSITIVE AREAS AREA BUFFER
WETLAND PRESERVATION
BLUE LINE STREAM CORRIDOR
APPLICANT 1:
G. JOSEPH CLARK
221 E. BURLINGTON ST
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
APPLICANT 2'S ATTORNEY:
KIRTON MCCONKIE
ATTN:BRYCE K. DALTON
50 E. SOUTH TEMPLE, SUITE 400
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
BDALTON@KMCLAW.COM
APPLICANT 2:
NELSON DEVELOPMENT 1, LLC
ATTN:JACOB WOLFGANG
218 6TH AVE., STE. 200
DES MOINES, IOWA 50309
JACOB@NELSONCONSTRUCT.COM
AB12-17-202002-11-2021REZONING APPLICATIONRESPOND TO CITY REVIEW COMMENTSPRELIMINARY OPD AND
SENSITIVE AREAS
DEVELOPMENT PLANHICKORY TRAILIOWA CITY, IOWA
100'WETLAND BUFFER
100'
WETLAND BUFFER
30'
STREAM
BUFFER
30'
STREAM
BUFFER
OUTLOT A473,268 SF 241'23'87'318'226'69'
69'
6
4
'254'1
3
'
5
8
'
7
5
'289'7
5
'
4
0
'294'275'29'
41
'
2
3
'
4
1
'285'23
'
4
1
'29'
4
1
'
3
2
'274'91'
18
'
2
3
'258'104'
75'254'75'250'75'
75'251'62'13'
116'270'35'
40'
116'286'75'
104'207'75'
77'98'213'91'
22'
90'
77'296'91'
91'325'46'
91'318'29'
91'303'23'57'80'
95'81'34'293'18
5
'157'88'187'41'179'81'81'80'105'92'116'91'102'136'45'30'127'16
5
'75'128'1
6
5
'75'127'130'
75'
109'115'13'62'
75'114'75'53'27'
72'110'110'50'27'
72'75'109'75'
75'108'75'
96'97'48'27'75'
112'118'125'75'
75'
75'125'75'130'129'62'18'128'75'130'49'26'152'75'
23
5
'122'225'87'
161'
1
0
5
'47'9
6
'
41'
41
'
107
'276'108'195'114'77'1,303'N01° 07' 52"W 656.03'N01° 41' 17"W 1,094.66'N01° 38' 34"W 210.49'N01° 20' 33"W 538.67'730'67'
57'99'26'318'90'472'
155'26'118'S27°
1
4
'
3
3
"
W
9
2
4
.
7
3
'
S01° 14' 34"E 378.49'N77° 55' 52"E 649.63'560'S01° 15' 42"E 868.85'S87° 54' 07"W 1,302.79'C160'311'12'237'108'218'105'61'731'
45152,271 SF
1408,543 SF
OUTLOT B180,396 SF
2610,055 SF
3110,935 SF
818,249 SF
238,362 SF
424,692 SF
3
23,849 SF
1016,187 SF
529,154 SF
621,846 SF
2814,514 SF
338,505 SF
1928,143 SF1711,818 SF
"A"184,197 SF
2710,822 SF
29
16,365 SF
3014,169 SF328,575 SF358,204 SF378,540 SF
389,621 SF
409,375 SF
368,127 SF
348,200 SF
399,116 SF
1423,014 SF 2315,470 SF
2414,962 SF
2515,388 SF
4412,329 SF
718,571 SF
919,405 SF
2223,866 SF2127,448 SF2027,505 SF
1119,207 SF
1619,661 SF
1520,818 SF
1323,682 SF
1218,886 SF
1827,173 SF43
10,612 SF 419,907 SF
429,617 SF
PROJECT
LOCATION
Ralston Creek
NOT TO SCALE
N. SCOTT BOULEVARDN. 1ST AVENUE HICKORYTERRY FAMILY
REVOCABLE TRUS
T
HICKORY HEIGHTS
BK 44, PG 144
HICKORY HILL PAR
K
HICKORY HILL PAR
K HICKORY HILL PARK1213141516
0 50 100
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 11, 2021 - 2:36pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Plats\200194-PP.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:C2.00 G. JOSEPH CLARKCONCEPT PLANHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLANPRELIMINARY20-0194 WELCH
CONCEPT PLAN
HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES
IOWA CITY, IOWA
UPDATED FEBRUARY 11, 2021
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
1
35'
48'TRAILHICKORY HILL PARKHICKORY HILL PARK60'
67'
CONSERVATIONEASEMENT
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
EXISTING
TRAILS
263'
132'
188'
83'
OAK KNOLL
ENTRANCE
35'
35'
LEGEND:
PARK DEDICATION
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
ACT, INC
PROJECT DATA:
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AREA 48.75 ACRES
PARK DEDICATION AREA 10.86 ACRES
WWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
S
S
S
S
S
S
SSSSSSSSS SSSSSSW
WW 23'87'69'69'64'13'58'2
8
9
'75'2
9
4
'
2
7
5
'29'41'23'28
5
'23'41'29'91'18'152'75'235'122'225'87'161'105'47'96'41'41'107'C1
60'WWWWWW
W
W
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
W
WST ST ST
STSTS
T
S
T
S
T STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTLOT AREA
10,992 SF
LOT AREA14,811 SF
LOT AREA14,705 SF
LOT AREA
9,513 SF
LOT AREA
8,751 SF
LOT AREA8,539 SF
LOT AREA11,421 SF
LOT AREA12,435 SF
LOT AREA10,355 SF
LOT AREA8,352 SF 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
45
OUTLOT A
44 9
770
772
774
776
7
7
0
770
760752754756758764766768760770758762764766768760770
762
764
766
768770766768 78'
60'
30'
20'45'30'16'60'60'34'16'45'1
5
'
42
'
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 11, 2021 - 4:47pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Sheets\Condos\200194 - Condo.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:C2.10 G. JOSEPH CLARKLOT 45CONDOMINIUM:CONCEPT PLANHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLANPRELIMINARY20-0194 WELCH
0 20 40
N. SCOT
T
B
L
V
D
HICKORY T
R
AIL
UNIT 1
STYLE "A"
UNIT 2
STYLE "A"
UNIT 3
STYLE "B"
UNIT 4
STYLE "A"
UNIT 5
STYLE "B"
UNIT 6
STYLE "B"
UNIT 7
STYLE "A"
UNIT 8
STYLE "B"
UNIT 9
STYLE "A"
UNIT 10
STYLE "B"
SITE INFORMATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT 45 HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES (PLAT PENDING APPROVAL)
TOTAL LOT AREA: 152,271 SF (3.50 AC)
PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT
DETACHED, SINGLE-FAMILY CONDOMINIUM
10 UNITS - 2,863 SF FOOTPRINT (EACH)
ZONING INFORMATION
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE - LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (OPD/RS-5)
SETBACKS AND YARDS
FRONT YARD 15 FEET
SIDE YARD 5 FEET
REAR YARD 20 FEET
N. SCOTT BLVD 40 FEET
MINIMUM LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS
MIN. LOT AREA 8,000 SF
MIN. LOT WIDTH 60 FEET
MIN. LOT FRONTAGE 40 FEET
MAX. LOT COVERAGE 45 %
FLOOD ELEVATION
N/A
HICKORY COMMONS(PRIVATE DRIVE)25'
26'℄ PAVEMENTTYPICAL 26' PRIVATE DRIVE SECTION
NOT TO SCALE 1
7" PCC PAVEMENT
26'
13'13'12'
5'
6" SUBBASE
6" SUBDRAIN
2.50%2.50%
4" PCC SIDEWALK
1.50%
BUILDING INFORMATION
EXTERIOR FINISHES:
ROOFING: CERTAINTEED LANDMARK WEATHERED WOOD SINGLES
MASONRY: ELDORADO STONE - MONTICETO CLIFFSTON
WINDOWS: ANDERSON 200-SERIES
SIDING: DIAMOND KOTE LP SMART SIDE
COLOR OPTION 1
SIDING FRENCH GRAY (LP SMART SIDE)
SOFFIT & FASCIA WHITE (ROLEX)
TRIM WHITE (DIAMOND KOTE)
GARAGE DOORS WHITE
FRONT DOOR SW ROYCROFT COPPER RED (SW#2839)
COLOR OPTION 2
SIDING FRENCH GRAY (LP SMART SIDE)
SOFFIT & FASCIA CLAY (ROLEX)
TRIM CLAY (DIAMOND KOTE)
GARAGE DOORS SANDSTONE
FRONT DOOR SW ROYCROFT BRONZE GREEN (SW#2846)
COLOR OPTION 3
SIDING CLAY (LP SMART SIDE)
SOFFIT & FASCIA WHITE (ROLEX)
TRIM CLAY (DIAMOND KOTE)
GARAGE DOORS SANDSTONE
FRONT DOOR SW ROYCROFT PEWTER (SW#2848)AB12-17-202002-11-2021REZONING APPLICATIONRESPOND TO CITY REVIEW COMMENTS
95'
276'108'
195'
114'
1,303'
26'
90'472'155'26'
N77° 55' 52"E 649.63'
560'S01° 15' 42"E 868.85'S87° 54' 07"W 1,302.79'
237'
108'
218'
105'61'731'ST
ST
ST
ST
ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST740 750760740750760730730
710720730720
700
710 720730
0 20 40
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 11, 2021 - 4:35pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Sheets\Senior\200194 - Senior - Site Plan.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:C2.20 G. JOSEPH CLARKLOT 1SENIOR LIVING:CONCEPT PLANHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLANPRELIMINARY20-0194 WELCH
16.58'
15.93'
15.65'21'
21'21'
15.34'
17.9'
6'
19'
26'
12'R101'
R75'
R50'
R76'
17'19'26'
19'
24'
19'26'19'
19'
24'
19'
6'
19'26'19'
23
A
R100'R126'
R40'R66'
R10'
R30'
R15'R20'
R25'
R15'
R250'
R174'
R200'
SITE INFORMATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT 1 HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES (PLAT PENDING APPROVAL)
TOTAL LOT AREA: 408,543 SF (9.38 AC)
PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT
SENIOR LIVING FACILITY
ASSISTED LIVING
1 GUEST SUITE 1 BED
74 ONE BEDROOM 74 BEDS
14 TWO BEDROOMS 28 BEDS
TOTAL 135 BEDS
MEMORY CARE 32 BEDS
GROSS BUILDING FOOTPRINT 69,060 SF
ZONING INFORMATION
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE - LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (OPD/RS-5)
SETBACKS AND YARDS (MULTI-FAMILY)
FRONT YARD 20 FEET
SIDE YARD 10 FEET
REAR YARD 20 FEET
HEIGHT 40 FEET REQUESTING VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT GREATER THAN 35'
MINIMUM LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS
MIN. LOT AREA 8,000 SF
MIN. LOT WIDTH 60 FEET
MIN. LOT FRONTAGE 40 FEET
MAX LOT COVERAGE 45 %
MAX. SETBACK COVERAGE 50 %
BUILDING WIDTH ALONG FRONTAGE 212.33 FEET
LOT FRONTAGE WIDTH 668 FEET
SETBACK COVERAGE 32 %
LOT COVERAGE 69,060 / 408,543 = 17 %
FLOOD ELEVATION
N/A
PARKING CALCULATIONS:
USE REQUIREMENT # OF STALLS
MEMORY CARE 1 STALL PER 3 BEDS 32 BEDS 11
ASSISTED LIVING 1 STALL PER 3 BEDS 103 BEDS 34
STAFF 1 STALL PER EMPLOYEE 40 EMPLOYEES*40
TOTAL REQUIRED = 85
* NUMBER OF PERSONS EMPLOYED AT THE FACILITY
PARKING PROVIDED =86
ACCESSIBLE PARKING PROVIDED =4
TOTAL PROVIDED =9021
12
6
8
20
100.4'
184.9'
46.6'
102.6'
A
A
A
A
PROPOSED BUILDING
HICKORY TRAIL
A RETAINING WALL
KEYNOTES:
212.33'AB12-17-202002-11-2021REZONING APPLICATIONRESPOND TO CITY REVIEW COMMENTS
OUTLOT A444,957 SF
45174,338 SF
1408,543 SF
OUTLOT B268,843 SF
2610,055 SF
31
10,935 SF
1319,662 SF
1215,228 SF
1114,759 SF
815,273 SF
4210,875 SF
221,495 SF
4111,019 SF
417,320 SF
316,893 SF
10
14,534 SF
516,855 SF
615,250 SF
2814,514 SF
33
8,505 SF
1926,135 SF1711,818 SF
1520,234 SF
1420,903 SF
"A"184,197 SF
2710,822 SF
29
16,365 SF
3014,169 SF328,575 SF35
8,204 SF37
8,540 SF
38
9,621 SF
40
9,375 SF
368,127 SF
34
8,200 SF
39
9,116 SF
18
27,249 SF
23
15,470 SF
2414,962 SF
25
15,388 SF
4414,501 SF 43
12,313 SF
715,131 SF
917,145 SF
1619,657 SF
2222,091 SF2123,528 SF2021,929 SF STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST ST ST ST ST STST ST
STSTSTSTST
ST
STSTSTSTST
S
T
S
T
ST
ST
01-CCT
01-QBS
01-CCT
01-CKY
01-OVE
01-RPC
01-OVE
01-RPC
01-ZSM
01-ZSM
01-CCT
01-CCT
01-QBS
01-RPC 01-NSB
01-UAA 01-CSN
01-CSN
01-BNR
01-QBS
01-CBF
01-CCA 01-CCA
01-QRL 01-CCA
01-CSN
01-BAY
01-OVE
01-QRL 01-ZSM 01-ZSM 01-NSB
01-RPC
01-LTT
01-RPC
01-PTH
01-ZSM
01-BPP
01-PXA
01-CKY
01-NSB
01-CSN
01-BPF
01-UTR
01-URR
01-ZSM
01-UPC
01-LTT
01-CKY
01-LTT
01-PTH
01-UPC
01-LTT
01-CKY
01-URR
01-UTR
01-PTH
01-BPF
01-CSN
01-CSN
01-CKY
01-CKY
01-NSB
01-PXA
01-PXA
01-ZSM
01-PTH
01-RPC
01-RPC
01-PXA
01-LTT
01-NSB01-ZSM01-LTT01-OVE01-BAY01-QRL01-CSN01-CCA01-CCA
01-QBS
01-BNR
01-CBF
01-CBF
01-PXA
01-CCT01-QBS
01-CSN
01-NSB
01-RPC
01-NSB
01-RPC
01-CCT
01-PXA
01-CCT
01-QBS
01-PXA
01-OVE
01-CKY01-CCT
N. SCOTT BOULEVARDSHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 10, 2021 - 1:29pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Sheets\Subdivision\200194 - L Sheets.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:L1.00 G. JOSEPH CLARKLANDSCAPE PLANHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN20-0194 WELCH
HICKORY TRAIL HICKORY TRAIL0 40 80
LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCHEDULE
LANDSCAPE LEGEND
PLANTS:
PROPOSED DECIDUOUS STREET TREE
-SPECIES AS LABELED; PLANTING LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED BY DRIVES
AND SIGHT TRIANGLES
ID QTY.BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME ROOT SPACING
STREET TREE PLANTING
BAY 2 Betula alleghaniensisYELLOW BIRCH BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
BNR 2 Betula nigraRIVER BIRCH BB 30' TYP./ASSHOWN
BPF 2 Betula platyphylla 'Fargo' DAKOTA PINNACLEDAKOTA PINNACLE BIRCH BB 30' TYP./ASSHOWN
BPP 1 Betula papyriferaPAPER BIRCH BB 30' TYP./ASSHOWN
CBF 3 Carpinus betulus 'Fastigiata'COMMON HORNBEAM BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
CCA 5 Carpinus carolinianaAMERICAN HORNBEAM BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
CCT 8 Corylus colurnaTURKISH FILBERT BB 30' TYP./ASSHOWN
CKY 7 Cladrastis kentuckeaYELLOW WOOD BB 30' TYP./ASSHOWN
CSN 8 Catalpa speciosaNORTHERN CATALPA BB 30' TYP./ASSHOWN
LTT 6 Liriodendron tulipiferaTULIP TREE BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
NSB 7 Nyssa sylvaticaBLACK GUM BB 30' TYP./ASSHOWN
OVE 5 Ostrya virginianaEASTERN HOP HORNBEAM BB 30' TYP./ASSHOWN
PTH 4 Ptelea trifoliataHOP TREE BB 30' TYP./ASSHOWN
PXA 7 Platanus x acerifoliaLONDON PLANE TREE BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
QBS 6 Quercus bicolorSWAMP WHITE OAK BB 30' TYP./ASSHOWN
QRL 3 Quercus rubra 'Long'RED OAK BB 30' TYP./ASSHOWN
RPC 9 Robinia psuedoacacia 'Chicago Blues'BLACK LOCUST BB 30' TYP./ASSHOWN
UAA 1 Ulmus americanaAMERICAN ELM BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
UPC 2 Ulmus parvifoliaCHINESE ELM BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
URR 2 Ulmus rubraRED ELM BB 30' TYP./ASSHOWN
UTR 2 Ulmus thomasiiROCK ELM BB 30' TYP./ASSHOWN
ZSM 8 Zelkova serrata 'Musashino'ZELKOVA BB 30' TYP./ASSHOWN
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 A473,268 SF
45152,271 SF
818,249 SF
424,692 SF
529,154 SF
621,846 SF
"A"184,197 SF
4412,329 SF
718,571 SF
919,405 SF
ST ST ST
STSTS
T
S
T
S
T STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST02-SR
01-RP
03-PX
03-CC
01-PX
02-QR
02-QM
02-QB
01-QM
02-PA
01-PA
03-PC
03-BP
01-RP
03-CA
01-BF
01-RP
03-PX
03-CC
01-PX
03-CC
01-RP
01-BF
03-CA
01-RP
01-BF
01-RP
03-BP
03-PC
01-SR
02-PA
01-QM
03-PC
SEED/SOD ALL
DISTURBED AREAS
SEED/SOD ALL
DISTURBED AREAS
SEED/SOD ALL
DISTURBED AREAS
04-QM
03-QB
03-QR
03-QM
03-QB
LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCHEDULE
0 20 40
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 11, 2021 - 4:31pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Sheets\Subdivision\200194 - L Sheets.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:L2.00 G. JOSEPH CLARKLOT 45CONDOMINIUM:LANDSCAPE PLANHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLANPRELIMINARY20-0194 WELCH
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
LANDSCAPE LEGEND
PLANTS:
PROPOSED DECIDUOUS LARGE TREE
PROPOSED DECIDUOUS SMALL TREE
PROPOSED EVERGREEN TREE
DECIDUOUS SHRUB
EVERGREEN SHRUB
ORNAMENTAL GRASSES/FLOWERS
GROUND COVER:
SOD/SEED TURF IN ALL DISTURBED AREAS
N. SCOT
T
B
L
V
D
HICKORY T
R
AIL
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY SETBACK
WATER
TELECOM
GAS
ELECTRIC
SANITARY SEWER
STORM SEWER
EXISTING EASEMENT
TREE PROTECTION FENCING
EXISTING CONTOUR
TREE REMOVAL LIMITS AT EDGE OF CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
LEGEND
EVERGREEN TREE
ORNAMENTAL TREE
TALL FESCUE/ SHORT
GRASS PRAIRIE MIX
SHADE TREE
SHRUB /
PERENNIAL
TURFGRASS
WWW
W
W
W
W
W W W W W W
WWWWWWWWWW W
SS SS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSWWWWW
W
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
2 GD
REFER TO L1.00 FOR
STREET TREE SPECIES
1 CO
1 QC
1 MA
3 MXP
3 PG
1 PA
1 CG
2 CR
1 QM
1 PA
2 TC
2 CR
1 CO
3 GD
2 CR
1 QC
2 QM2 CR
1 WF
3 MXP
3 PS1 CO
1 PA
1 CR1 QC
1 QM
3 GD
1 TC
2 GT
1 AG
1 WF
1 MS
3 CG
1 MS
3 AG
1 CR
1 CG
3 TC
2 PA
1 CG
1 MA
1 CO
4 TC 6 MXP
3 GD
1 GT
1 NS
1 GT
2 SR
1 GT
1 MA
1 GT
2 MA
1 CO
1 GT
1 GT
3 MXS 3 MXS
1 MA
40 DK
29 JH
3 HV
24 DK
9 JH
1 MXS
32 ST
7 DK
5 TD
8 BB
8 TD
9 DK
20 ST
40 DK
30 ST
7 DK
5 TD
8 BB
3 TD
9 ST
7 DK
21 JH
3 HV
41 DK
10 JH
1 SR
27 PO
23 BB
27 PO
92 PO
3 IV
2 TD
1 RL
3 BZ
2 RL
2 TD
4 IV
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME: Feb 10, 2021 - 3:25pm Z:\Projects2\20042-IC SENIOR LIVING\04 CAD\03 Current\20042-PP_PLANTING PLAN.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:L3.00 G. JOSEPH CLARKLOT 1SENIOR LIVINGLANDSCAPE PLANHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLANPRELIMINARY20-0194 WELCH
[ landscape architects ]
T 515 284 1010
WWW.GENUS-LA.COM
325 EAST 5 STREET
DES MOINES, IA 50309
TH
0 20 40
1.CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE AND VERIFY ALL EXISTING UTILITY
LINES PRIOR TO PLANTING AND SHALL REPORT ANY CONFLICTS TO
THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES
(LINES, DUCTS, CONDUITS, SLEEVES, FOOTINGS, ETC.) WITH
LOCATIONS OF PROPOSED LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS (FENCE,
FOOTINGS, TREE ROOTBALLS, ETC.). CONTRACTOR SHALL REPORT
ANY DISCREPANCIES TO ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONTINUING WORK.
3. ALL WORK SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE WORK OF OTHER
TRADES.
4. IF DISCREPANCIES EXIST BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF PLANTS
DRAWN ON THE PLANTING PLAN AND THE NUMBER OF PLANTS IN
THE SCHEDULE, THE NUMBER OF PLANTS ON PLAN SHALL GOVERN.
5. ALL PLANT MATERIALS MUST CONFORM TO AMERICAN STANDARDS
FOR NURSERY STOCK ANSI Z 60.1, OR LATEST EDITION PUBLISHED
BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN, WASHINGTON
D.C. LARGER SIZED PLANT MATERIALS OF THE SPECIES LISTED
MAY BE USED IF THE STOCK CONFORMS TO THE A.S.N.S.
6. ANY PROPOSED SUBSTITUTIONS OF PLANT SPECIES SHALL BE
MADE WITH PLANTS OF EQUIVALENT OVERALL FORM, HEIGHT,
BRANCHING HABIT, FLOWER, LEAF, COLOR, FRUIT AND CULTURE,
AND ONLY AFTER WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT.
7. OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO SUBSTITUTE PLANT MATERIAL
TYPE, SIZE, AND/OR QUANTITY.
8. STAKE LOCATION OF ALL PROPOSED PLANTING FOR APPROVAL BY
THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT A MINIMUM OF 48 HOURS PRIOR TO
THE COMMENCEMENT OF PLANTING.
9. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DAMAGE DUE TO
OPERATIONS INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
PER PLAN. ANY AREAS OUTSIDE THE LIMIT OF WORK THAT ARE
DISTURBED SHALL BE RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION AT
NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER.
10. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND MATERIALS INJURIOUS TO PLANT
GROWTH FROM PLANTING PITS AND BEDS PRIOR TO BACKFILLING
WITH PLANTING SOIL.
11. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, TREES TO BE CENTERED IN PLANTING
AREAS.
12. TO AVOID DISRUPTION TO EXISTING TREES, HAND DIGGING
REQUIRED WITHIN DRIP LINE OF TREES. NO TREE ROOTS OVER 1"
IN DIAMETER ARE TO BE CUT.
13. PROVIDE SHREDDED HARDWOOD BARK MULCH, NATURAL COLOR,
IN ALL PLANT SAUCERS AND PLANTING BEDS TO A 3-INCH MAXIMUM
DEPTH. APPLY PRE-EMERGENT TO ALL PLANTING BEDS PRIOR TO
MULCHING.
14. NEW TREES LOCATED OUTSIDE OF PLANT BEDS, SHALL BE
PLANTED A MINIMUM OF SIX FEET AWAY FROM PLANT BED.
15. NO TREES OR SHRUBS SHALL BE PLANTED CLOSER THAN 5' FROM
ANY UTILITY SERVICE VALVE, BASED ON ANTICIPATED TRUNK SIZE.
PLANTING NOTES
OVERSTORY TREES
QTY KEY BOTANICAL COMMON SIZE ROOT NOTES
2 WF ABIES CONCOLOR WHITE FIR 6'-8' HT B&B
6 CR CARPINUS CAROLINIANA AMERICAN HORNBEAM 2" CAL. B&B
6 CO CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS COMMON HACKBERRY 2" CAL. B&B
8 GT GLIDETSIA TRICANTHOS 'SKYLINE'SKYLINE HONEY LOCUST 2" CAL.B&B
11 GD GYMNOCLADUS DIOCUS 'ESPRESSO'ESPRESSO KENTUCKY COFFEE TREE 2" CAL. B&B
8 MA MACCKIA AMURENSIS AMUR MAAKIA 2" CAL. B&B
1 NS NYSSA SYLVANTICA BLACK TUPELO 2" CAL. B&B
5 PA PICEA ABIES NORWAY SPRUCE 6'-8' HT B&B
3 PG PICEA CLAUCA 'DENSATA'BLACK HILLS SPRICE 6'-8' HT B&B
3 PS PINUS STROBUS WHITE PINE 6'-8' HT B&B
3 QC QUERCUS COCCINEA SCARLET OAK 2" CAL. B&B
4 QM QUERCUS MACROCARPA BUR OAK 2" CAL. B&B
10 TC TSUGA CANADENSIS EASTERN HEMLOCK 6'-8' HT B&B
ORNAMENTAL TREES
QTY KEY BOTANICAL COMMON SIZE ROOT NOTES
5 AG AMELANCHIER X GRANDIFLORA 'AUTUMN BRILLIANCE' AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY 8' HT B&B MULTI-STEM
6 CG CRATEGUS CRUS-GALLI VAR. INERMIS THORNLESS COCKSPIR HAWTHRON 2" CAL. B&B
2 MS MAGNOLIA X SOULANGEANA SAUCER MAGNOLIA 8' HT B&B MULTI-STEM
12 MXP MALUS 'PRAIRIE FIRE'PRAIRIE FIRE CRABAPPLE 1.5" CAL. B&B
7 MXS MALUS 'SPRING SNOW'SPRING SNOW CRABAPPLE 1.5" CAL. B&B
3 SR SYRINGA RETICULATA SSP. RETICULATA 'IVORY SILK' IVORY SILK JAPANESE TREE LILAC 2" CAL. B&B
SHRUBS
QTY KEY BOTANICAL COMMON SIZE ROOT
MATURE SIZE (HT. X WIDTH)
23 BB CEPHALANTHUS OCCIDENTALIS BUTTONBUSH #1 CONT. 6' X 5'
175 DK DIERVILLA 'KODIAK ORANGE'KODIAK ORANGE DIERVILLA 18" HT CONT. 4' X 4'
6 HV HAMAMELIS VIRGINIANA WITCH HAZEL 6' HT CONT 10' X 8'
16 BB HYDRANGEA PANICULATA 'ILVOBO' PP#22,782 BOBO HARDY HYDRANGEA #3 CONT.3' X 4'
7 IV ITEA VIRGINICA LITTLE HENRY SWEETSPIRE #3 CONT. 3' X 3'
69 JH JUNIPERUS HORIZONTALIS 'HUGHES'HUGHES JUNIPER #3 CONT. 1' X 6'
146 PO PHYSOCARPUS OPULIFOLIUS NINEBARK #1 CONT 5' X 4.5'
3 RL RHODODENDRON X 'LANDMARK'LANDMARK RHODODENDRON #3 CONT. 4' X 4'
90 ST SPIRAEA BETULIFOLIA 'TOR'TOR SPIREA #3 CONT. 3' X 3'
3 BZ SPIRAEA MEDIA DOUBLE PLAY BLUE KAZOO SPIREA #3 CONT.2' X 3'
25 TD TAXUS X MEDIA 'DENSIFORMIS'DENSE SPREADING YEW 48" HT CONT. 4' X 6'
[ landscape architects ]
genus
T 515 284 1010
WWW.GENUS-LA.COM
325 EAST 5 STREET
DES MOINES, IA 50309
TH
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 10, 2021 - 3:26pm Z:\Projects2\20042-IC SENIOR LIVING\04 CAD\03 Current\20042-PP_PLANTING PLAN.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:L3.01 G. JOSEPH CLARKLOT 1SENIOR LIVINGLANDSCAPE NOTES & SCHEDULEHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLANPRELIMINARY20-0194 WELCH
SET ROOT FLARE 2" ABOVE FINISH
GRADE. REMOVE BURLAP AND WIRE
CAGE FROM TOP HALF OF ROOTBALL.
SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH,
2" THICKNESS
FINISH GRADE
BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE
2X ROOTBALL
1 1/2X ROOTBALL
NOT TO SCALE1OVERSTORY TREE PLANTING
NOT TO SCALE3ORNAMENTAL TREE PLANTING
2X ROOTBALL
NOT TO SCALE4SHRUB PLANTING
2X ROOTBALL
NOT TO SCALE2EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING
SET ROOT FLARE 2" ABOVE FINISH
GRADE. REMOVE BURLAP AND WIRE
CAGE FROM TOP HALF OF ROOTBALL.
SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH,
2" THICKNESS
FINISH GRADE
BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE
SET ROOT FLARE 2" ABOVE FINISH
GRADE. REMOVE BURLAP AND WIRE
CAGE FROM TOP HALF OF ROOTBALL.
SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH,
2" THICKNESS
FINISH GRADE
BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE
SET ROOT FLARE 2" ABOVE FINISH
GRADE. REMOVE BURLAP AND WIRE
CAGE FROM TOP HALF OF ROOTBALL.
SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH,
2" THICKNESS
FINISH GRADE
BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE
EDGE OF PLANTING AREA
O.C.SPACING1/2 O.C.
SPACING
PLANT CENTER
NOT TO SCALE5PERENNIAL PLANTING
ROOTBALL
3/16" x 4" STEEL EDGING,
GALVANIZED
SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH,
2" THICKNESS
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE
[ landscape architects ]
genus
T 515 284 1010
WWW.GENUS-LA.COM
325 EAST 5 STREET
DES MOINES, IA 50309
TH
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 10, 2021 - 3:27pm Z:\Projects2\20042-IC SENIOR LIVING\04 CAD\03 Current\20042-DT_SITE DETAILS.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:L3.02 G. JOSEPH CLARKLOT 1SENIOR LIVINGLANDSCAPE DETAILSHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLANPRELIMINARY20-0194 WELCH
23'87'69'69'1
7
5
'13'58'117'1
9
3
'75'78'2
1
4
'
2
0
5
'29'41'23'53'22
3
'23'41'29'91'18'110'174'75'182'395'352'87'161'105'47'96'41'41'107'C1
60'
45
OUTLOT A
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
944
770
775
765770770750755760755760765
765770770
7757
7
5
7757707750 20 40
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Jan 22, 2021 - 4:45pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Sheets\Condos\200194 - Condo - Site Plan.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:C2.00 G. JOSEPH CLARKSITE PLANHICKORY TRAIL COMMONSLOT 45 - HICKORY TRAIL ESTATESNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION20-0194 WELCH
N. SCOT
T
B
L
V
D
HICKORY T
R
AIL
UNIT 1
STYLE "A"
UNIT 2
STYLE "A"
UNIT 3
STYLE "B"
UNIT 4
STYLE "A"
UNIT 5
STYLE "B"
UNIT 6
STYLE "B"
UNIT 7
STYLE "A"
UNIT 8
STYLE "B"
UNIT 9
STYLE "A"
UNIT 10
STYLE "B"
SITE INFORMATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT 45 HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES (PLAT PENDING APPROVAL)
TOTAL LOT AREA: 174,338 SF (4.00 AC)
PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT
DETACHED, SINGLE-FAMILY CONDOMINIUM
10 UNITS
ZONING INFORMATION
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE - LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (OPD/RS-5)
SETBACKS AND YARDS
FRONT YARD 15 FEET
SIDE YARD 5 FEET
REAR YARD 20 FEET
N. SCOTT BLVD 40 FEET
MINIMUM LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS
MIN. LOT AREA 8,000 SF
MIN. LOT WIDTH 60 FEET
MIN. LOT FRONTAGE 40 FEET
FLOOD ELEVATION
N/A
HICKORY COMMONS(PRIVATE DRIVE)25'
26'
75.51'℄ PAVEMENTTYPICAL 26' PRIVATE DRIVE SECTION
NOT TO SCALE 1
7" PCC PAVEMENT
26'
13'13'12'
5'
6" SUBBASE
6" SUBDRAIN
2.50%2.50%
4" PCC SIDEWALK
1.50%
BUILDING INFORMATION
EXTERIOR FINISHES:
ROOFING: CERTAINTEED LANDMARK WEATHERED WOOD SINGLES
MASONRY: ELDORADO STONE - MONTICETO CLIFFSTON
WINDOWS: ANDERSON 200-SERIES
SIDING: DIAMOND KOTE LP SMART SIDE
COLOR OPTION 1
SIDING FRENCH GRAY (LP SMART SIDE)
SOFFIT & FASCIA WHITE (ROLEX)
TRIM WHITE (DIAMOND KOTE)
GARAGE DOORS WHITE
FRONT DOOR SW ROYCROFT COPPER RED (SW#2839)
COLOR OPTION 2
SIDING FRENCH GRAY (LP SMART SIDE)
SOFFIT & FASCIA CLAY (ROLEX)
TRIM CLAY (DIAMOND KOTE)
GARAGE DOORS SANDSTONE
FRONT DOOR SW ROYCROFT BRONZE GREEN (SW#2846)
COLOR OPTION 3
SIDING CLAY (LP SMART SIDE)
SOFFIT & FASCIA WHITE (ROLEX)
TRIM CLAY (DIAMOND KOTE)
GARAGE DOORS SANDSTONE
FRONT DOOR SW ROYCROFT PEWTER (SW#2848)
45174,338 SF
815,273 SF
OUTLOT A444,957 SF
221,495 SF
417,320 SF
3
16,893 SF
516,855 SF
615,250 SF
"A"184,197 SF
4414,501 SF
715,131 SF
917,145 SF
02-SR
01-RP
03-PX
03-CC
01-PX
02-QR
02-QM
02-QB
01-QM
02-PA
01-PA
03-PC
03-BP
01-RP
03-CA
01-BF
01-RP
03-PX
03-CC
01-PX
03-CC
01-RP
01-BF
03-CA
01-RP
01-BF
01-RP
03-BP
03-PC
01-SR
02-PA
01-QM
03-PC
SEED/SOD ALL
DISTURBED AREAS
SEED/SOD ALLDISTURBED AREAS
SEED/SOD ALL
DISTURBED AREAS
04-QM
03-QB
03-QR
03-QM
03-QB
LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCHEDULE
0 20 40
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Jan 22, 2021 - 4:19pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Sheets\Subdivision\200194 - L Sheets.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:L2.00 G. JOSEPH CLARKLOT 45LANDSCAPING PLANHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESIOWA CITY, IOWA 52245NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION20-0194 WELCH
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
LANDSCAPE LEGEND
PLANTS:
PROPOSED DECIDUOUS LARGE TREE
PROPOSED DECIDUOUS SMALL TREE
PROPOSED EVERGREEN TREE
DECIDUOUS SHRUB
EVERGREEN SHRUB
ORNAMENTAL GRASSES/FLOWERS
GROUND COVER:
SOD/SEED TURF IN ALL DISTURBED AREAS
N. SCOT
T
B
L
V
D
HICKORY T
R
AIL
2813 Rockefeller Avenue Suite B Everett WA, 98201
Tel: 425-339-8266 Fax: 425-258-2922 E-mail: info@gibsontraffic.com
Introduction
The Hickory Trail Estates development will consist of 120 continuing care retirement community
(CCRC) units and 55 single-family residences. The development is located south of Scott Boulevard
and west of N 1st Avenue. The development will construct a connection through the development that
will connect Scott Boulevard to N 1st Avenue through Hickory Trail. The development will be
constructed and fully occupied by 2025.
Methodology
The trip generation for the Hickory Trail Estates and the Oaknoll East Retirement Community is
calculated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 10th Edition (2017).
The average trip generation rates for the ITE Land Use Code (LUC) 255, continuing care retirement
community (CCRC) and LUC 210, single-family detached residential, have been used.
The intersection of N 1st Avenue at Scott Boulevard is not being analyzed as part of this report as it
is planned to be upgraded with a City project to a roundabout. The following intersections are being
analyzed as part of this report:
1. N 1st Avenue at Hickory Trail – Two-way Stop Controlled
2. Oaknoll East/Site Access at Scott Blvd – Two-way Stop Controlled
The development is expected to be fully built out and occupied by the year 2025; therefore, the year
2025 was used for future analysis. The analysis has been performed for the existing conditions, 2025
baseline conditions, and 2025 future with development conditions during the AM and PM peak-hours.
Existing counts were collected by AXIOM, on Thursday, January 7, 2021 for the AM and Tuesday,
January 12, 2021 for the PM at the intersection of N 1st Avenue at Hickory Trail.
Traffic volumes are impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the traffic volumes have been increased
by a 35% during the AM peak-hour and 30% during the PM peak-hour. This was determined based
on non-COVID-19 counts at the intersection of N 1st Avenue at Scott Boulevard and comparing link
volumes between the intersections. The 2025 baseline turning movements were calculated by
applying an annually compounding growth rate of 1% to the normalized existing turning volumes.
The 1% growth rate is based on conversations with Iowa City staff. The 2025 future with development
turning movements have been calculated by adding the development’s trips to the 2025 baseline
turning movements.
Hickory Trail Estates Traffic Impact Analysis
Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. January 2021
info@gibsontraffic.com 2 GTC #21-005
The peak-hour level of service (LOS) analysis calculations were completed using the Synchro 10
software. This software applies the operational analysis methodology of the current Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM). Traffic congestion is generally measured in terms of level of service. In
accordance with the HCM 6th Edition, road facilities and intersections are rated between LOS A and
LOS F, with LOS A being free flow and LOS F being forced flow or over-capacity conditions. The
level of service criteria is summarized in Table 1. The level of service at two-way stop-controlled
intersections is based on the average delay of the worst approach. The level of service at signalized
and all-way stop-controlled intersections is based on the average delay for all approaches. Geometric
characteristics and conflicting traffic movements are taken into consideration when determining level
of service values.
Table 1: Level of Service Criteria for Intersections
Level of 1
Service
Expected
Delay
Intersection Control Delay
(Seconds per Vehicle)
Unsignalized
Intersections
Signalized
Intersections
A Little/No Delay <10 <10
B Short Delays >10 and <15 >10 and <20
C Average Delays >15 and <25 >20 and <35
D Long Delays >25 and <35 >35 and <55
E Very Long Delays >35 and <50 >55 and <80
F Extreme Delays2 >50 >80
The acceptable level of service for intersections within Iowa City is LOS C/D and the significance of
impacts on intersections operating at LOS E or LOS F is taken on a case-by-case basis.
1 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition.
LOS A: Free-flow traffic conditions, with minimal delay to stopped vehicles (no vehicle is delayed longer than
one cycle at signalized intersection).
LOS B: Generally stable traffic flow conditions.
LOS C: Occasional back-ups may develop, but delay to vehicles is short term and still tolerable.
LOS D: During short periods of the peak hour, delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial but are
tolerable during times of less demand (i.e. vehicles delayed one cycle or less at signal).
LOS E: Intersections operate at or near capacity, with long queues developing on all approaches and long delays.
LOS F: Jammed conditions on all approaches with excessively long delays and vehicles unable to move at
times.
2 When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered with queuing which may
cause severe congestion affecting other traffic movements in the intersection.
Hickory Trail Estates Traffic Impact Analysis
Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. January 2021
info@gibsontraffic.com 3 GTC #21-005
TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION
Trip generation calculations for the Hickory Trail Estates are based on national statistics contained in
the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation, 10th Edition (2017). The average
trip generation rates for the ITE Land Use Code (LUC) 255, continuing care retirement community
(CCRC) and LUC 210, single-family detached residential, have been used. There are total of 120
CCRC units and 55 single-family residences.
The Hickory Trail Estates is anticipated to generate 808 new daily trips, 58 new AM peak-hour trips
and 74 new PM peak-hour trips. The trip generation is summarized in Table 2.
Table 2: Trip Generation Summary
Land Uses Average Daily Trips AM Peak-Hour Trips PM Peak-Hour Trips
Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total
LUC 255,
CCRC
120 Units
Generation
Rate 2.40 Trips per Unit 0.14 Trips per Unit 0.16 Trips per Unit
Splits 50% 50% 100% 65% 35% 100% 39% 61% 100
%
Trips 144 144 288 11 6 17 7 12 19
LUC 210,
Single
Family
Dwelling,
55 Units
Generation
Rate 9.44 Trips per Unit 0.75 Trips per Unit 0.99 Trips per Unit
Splits 50% 50% 100% 25% 75% 100% 63% 37% 100
%
Trips 260 260 520 10 31 41 35 20 55
TOTAL 404 404 808 21 37 58 42 32 74
The trip generation calculations are included in the attachments.
The Oaknoll East development on the north side of Scott Boulevard is not occupied so the trip
generation was estimated for the access opposite the proposed site access by using LUC 255 for 56
units. This generated 8 AM peak-hour trips (5 Inbound/3 Outbound) and 9 PM peak-hour trips (4
Inbound/5 Outbound). These trips were distributed on Scott Boulevard based on the roadway traffic
split of 55% to/from the west and 45% to/from the east.
Trip distribution and traffic assignments for the development are based on the existing turning
movement counts and the splits between Scott Boulevard and N 1st Avenue. It is anticipated that 45%
of the development traffic would travel to and from the west on Scott Boulevard and 15% to and from
the east of N 1st Avenue on Scott Boulevard. The remaining 40% would travel to and from the south
on N 1st Avenue from Hickory Trail. The development trips are included in the turning movement
sheets for the AM and PM peak-hours.
Hickory Trail Estates Traffic Impact Analysis
Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. January 2021
info@gibsontraffic.com 4 GTC #21-005
Level of Service Analysis
The existing channelization at the study intersections as well as the existing peak-hour factors were
utilized in determining the level of service analysis. The turning movements are included in the
attachments. The level of service analysis for the normalized existing, 2025 baseline, and 2025 future
with development conditions is summarized in Table 3.
Table 3: Intersection Level of Service Summary
Intersection Time
Period
Normalized
Existing
Conditions
2025 Baseline
Conditions
2025 Future
with Development
Conditions
LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay
1.
N 1st Avenue at
Hickory Trail
AM D 25.4 sec D 26.4 sec D 29.3 sec
PM C 18.5 sec C 19.5 sec C 21.3 sec
1.
Oaknoll East/Site Access at
Scott Boulevard
AM C 18.6 sec C 20.3 sec D 33.9 sec
PM C 20.1 sec C 22.0 sec D 34.1 sec
The study intersection is expected to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better in the normalized
existing, 2025 baseline and 2025 future with development conditions during both the AM and PM
peak-hours.
Collision Data
Collision Data was compiled for the years 2018 through 2020 from the Iowa DOT Iowa Crash
Analysis Tool for the intersection of N 1st Avenue at Hickory Trail and along Scott Boulevard in the
vicinity of the Site access. There were two collisions (one rear-end and one sideswipe) at the
intersection of N 1st Avenue and Hickory Trail. The collisions resulted in property damage and
possible injury. In the approximate location of the access to Scott Boulevard there was one rear-end
collision that resulted in a suspected minor injury. At both locations there was no collision trend or
significant collision history associated with the geometry of the road network. The detailed crash
reports are included in the attachments.
Channelization Warrant
Channelization analysis was performed determine if left-turn channelization is warranted on Scott
Boulevard. The left-turn channelization requirements at the intersection have been evaluated using
the WSDOT Design Manual. The left-turn channelization has been evaluated using Exhibit 1310-
7a Left-Turn Storage Guidelines: Two-Lane Unsignalized. The analysis shows that the small number
of left-turns does not reach the percentage threshold for requiring a dedicated pocket. It should be
noted that there is sufficient roadway width to restripe the roadway to provide a left-turn pocket if it
becomes warranted in the future.
Hickory Trail Estates Traffic Impact Analysis
Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. January 2021
info@gibsontraffic.com 5 GTC #21-005
Attachments
Trip Generation A-1 to A-10
Counts B-1 to B-3
Turning Movements C-1 to C-6
Level of Service Calculations D-1 to D-12
Collision Data E-1 to E-2
Channelization Warrant F-1
Hickory Trail EstatesGTC #21-005Trip Generation for: Weekday(a.k.a.): Average Weekday Daily Trips (AWDT)NET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPEIN BOTH DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTSGross TripsInternalCrossoverTOTAL PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEW PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEWLAND USESVARIABLEITE LU codeTripRate%IN%OUTIn+Out(Total)% ofGrossTripsTripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)In Out In Out In OutContinuing Care Retirement 120 units 255 2.40 50%50% 288.000%0 288.000%0.000%0 288.000000144144Single-Family (removed)55 units 210 9.44 50%50% 519.200%0 519.200%0.000%0 519.200000260260Totals807.200 807.200.000 807.200000404404A - 1
Hickory Trail EstatesGTC #21-005Trip Generation for: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour between 7 and 9 AM(a.k.a.): Weekday AM Peak HourNET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPEIN BOTH DIRECTIONSDIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTSGross TripsInternalCrossoverTOTAL PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEW PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEWLAND USESVARIABLEITE LU codeTripRate%IN%OUTIn+Out(Total)% ofGrossTripsTripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)In Out In Out In OutContinuing Care Retirement 120 units 2550.14 65%35% 170%0170%0 0% 0 16.80000010.925.88Single-Family (removed)55 units 2100.74 25%75% 410%0410%0 0% 0 40.70000010.1830.52Totals580 58 0 0 57.50000021.1036.40
A - 2
Hickory Trail EstatesGTC #21-005Trip Generation for: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour between 4 and 6 PM(a.k.a.): Weekday PM Peak HourNET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPEIN BOTH DIRECTIONSDIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTSGross TripsInternalCrossoverTOTAL PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEW PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEWLAND USESVARIABLEITE LU codeTripRate%IN%OUTIn+Out(Total)% ofGrossTripsTripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)In Out In Out In OutContinuing Care Retirement 120 units 2550.16 39%61% 190%0190%00%0 19.2000007.4911.71Single-Family (removed)55 units 2100.99 63%37% 540%0540%00%0 54.45000034.3020.15Totals740 74 0 0 73.65000041.7931.86
A - 3
Hickory Trail Estates
GTC #21-005
New New AM Peak Hour Trips New New AM Peak Hour Trips
ADT In Out Total ADT In Out Total
100% 807.20 21.10 36.40 57.50 100% 807.20 21.10 36.40 57.50
1% 8.07 0.21 0.36 0.58 51% 411.67 10.76 18.56 29.33
2% 16.14 0.42 0.73 1.15 52% 419.74 10.97 18.93 29.90
3% 24.22 0.63 1.09 1.73 53% 427.82 11.18 19.29 30.48
4% 32.29 0.84 1.46 2.30 54% 435.89 11.39 19.66 31.05
5% 40.36 1.06 1.82 2.88 55% 443.96 11.61 20.02 31.63
6% 48.43 1.27 2.18 3.45 56% 452.03 11.82 20.38 32.20
7% 56.50 1.48 2.55 4.03 57% 460.10 12.03 20.75 32.78
8% 64.58 1.69 2.91 4.60 58% 468.18 12.24 21.11 33.35
9% 72.65 1.90 3.28 5.18 59% 476.25 12.45 21.48 33.93
10% 80.72 2.11 3.64 5.75 60% 484.32 12.66 21.84 34.50
11% 88.79 2.32 4.00 6.33 61% 492.39 12.87 22.20 35.08
12% 96.86 2.53 4.37 6.90 62% 500.46 13.08 22.57 35.65
13% 104.94 2.74 4.73 7.48 63% 508.54 13.29 22.93 36.23
14% 113.01 2.95 5.10 8.05 64% 516.61 13.50 23.30 36.80
15% 121.08 3.17 5.46 8.63 65% 524.68 13.72 23.66 37.38
16% 129.15 3.38 5.82 9.20 66% 532.75 13.93 24.02 37.95
17% 137.22 3.59 6.19 9.78 67% 540.82 14.14 24.39 38.53
18% 145.30 3.80 6.55 10.35 68% 548.90 14.35 24.75 39.10
19% 153.37 4.01 6.92 10.93 69% 556.97 14.56 25.12 39.68
20% 161.44 4.22 7.28 11.50 70% 565.04 14.77 25.48 40.25
21% 169.51 4.43 7.64 12.08 71% 573.11 14.98 25.84 40.83
22% 177.58 4.64 8.01 12.65 72% 581.18 15.19 26.21 41.40
23% 185.66 4.85 8.37 13.23 73% 589.26 15.40 26.57 41.98
24% 193.73 5.06 8.74 13.80 74% 597.33 15.61 26.94 42.55
25% 201.80 5.28 9.10 14.38 75% 605.40 15.83 27.30 43.13
26% 209.87 5.49 9.46 14.95 76% 613.47 16.04 27.66 43.70
27% 217.94 5.70 9.83 15.53 77% 621.54 16.25 28.03 44.28
28% 226.02 5.91 10.19 16.10 78% 629.62 16.46 28.39 44.85
29% 234.09 6.12 10.56 16.68 79% 637.69 16.67 28.76 45.43
30% 242.16 6.33 10.92 17.25 80% 645.76 16.88 29.12 46.00
31% 250.23 6.54 11.28 17.83 81% 653.83 17.09 29.48 46.58
32% 258.30 6.75 11.65 18.40 82% 661.90 17.30 29.85 47.15
33% 266.38 6.96 12.01 18.98 83% 669.98 17.51 30.21 47.73
34% 274.45 7.17 12.38 19.55 84% 678.05 17.72 30.58 48.30
35% 282.52 7.39 12.74 20.13 85% 686.12 17.94 30.94 48.88
36% 290.59 7.60 13.10 20.70 86% 694.19 18.15 31.30 49.45
37% 298.66 7.81 13.47 21.28 87% 702.26 18.36 31.67 50.03
38% 306.74 8.02 13.83 21.85 88% 710.34 18.57 32.03 50.60
39% 314.81 8.23 14.20 22.43 89% 718.41 18.78 32.40 51.18
40% 322.88 8.44 14.56 23.00 90% 726.48 18.99 32.76 51.75
41% 330.95 8.65 14.92 23.58 91% 734.55 19.20 33.12 52.33
42% 339.02 8.86 15.29 24.15 92% 742.62 19.41 33.49 52.90
43% 347.10 9.07 15.65 24.73 93% 750.70 19.62 33.85 53.48
44% 355.17 9.28 16.02 25.30 94% 758.77 19.83 34.22 54.05
45% 363.24 9.50 16.38 25.88 95% 766.84 20.05 34.58 54.63
46% 371.31 9.71 16.74 26.45 96% 774.91 20.26 34.94 55.20
47% 379.38 9.92 17.11 27.03 97% 782.98 20.47 35.31 55.78
48% 387.46 10.13 17.47 27.60 98% 791.06 20.68 35.67 56.35
49% 395.53 10.34 17.84 28.18 99% 799.13 20.89 36.04 56.93
50% 403.60 10.55 18.20 28.75 100% 807.20 21.10 36.40 57.50
%%
AM Peak-Hour
A - 4
Hickory Trail Estates
GTC #21-005
New New PM Peak Hour Trips New New PM Peak Hour Trips
ADT In Out Total ADT In Out Total
100% 807.20 41.79 31.86 73.65 100% 807.20 41.79 31.86 73.65
1% 8.07 0.42 0.32 0.74 51% 411.67 21.31 16.25 37.56
2% 16.14 0.84 0.64 1.47 52% 419.74 21.73 16.57 38.30
3% 24.22 1.25 0.96 2.21 53% 427.82 22.15 16.89 39.03
4% 32.29 1.67 1.27 2.95 54% 435.89 22.57 17.20 39.77
5% 40.36 2.09 1.59 3.68 55% 443.96 22.98 17.52 40.51
6% 48.43 2.51 1.91 4.42 56% 452.03 23.40 17.84 41.24
7% 56.50 2.93 2.23 5.16 57% 460.10 23.82 18.16 41.98
8% 64.58 3.34 2.55 5.89 58% 468.18 24.24 18.48 42.72
9% 72.65 3.76 2.87 6.63 59% 476.25 24.66 18.80 43.45
10% 80.72 4.18 3.19 7.37 60% 484.32 25.07 19.12 44.19
11% 88.79 4.60 3.50 8.10 61% 492.39 25.49 19.43 44.93
12% 96.86 5.01 3.82 8.84 62% 500.46 25.91 19.75 45.66
13% 104.94 5.43 4.14 9.57 63% 508.54 26.33 20.07 46.40
14% 113.01 5.85 4.46 10.31 64% 516.61 26.75 20.39 47.14
15% 121.08 6.27 4.78 11.05 65% 524.68 27.16 20.71 47.87
16% 129.15 6.69 5.10 11.78 66% 532.75 27.58 21.03 48.61
17% 137.22 7.10 5.42 12.52 67% 540.82 28.00 21.35 49.35
18% 145.30 7.52 5.73 13.26 68% 548.90 28.42 21.66 50.08
19% 153.37 7.94 6.05 13.99 69% 556.97 28.84 21.98 50.82
20% 161.44 8.36 6.37 14.73 70% 565.04 29.25 22.30 51.56
21% 169.51 8.78 6.69 15.47 71% 573.11 29.67 22.62 52.29
22% 177.58 9.19 7.01 16.20 72% 581.18 30.09 22.94 53.03
23% 185.66 9.61 7.33 16.94 73% 589.26 30.51 23.26 53.76
24% 193.73 10.03 7.65 17.68 74% 597.33 30.92 23.58 54.50
25% 201.80 10.45 7.97 18.41 75% 605.40 31.34 23.90 55.24
26% 209.87 10.87 8.28 19.15 76% 613.47 31.76 24.21 55.97
27% 217.94 11.28 8.60 19.89 77% 621.54 32.18 24.53 56.71
28% 226.02 11.70 8.92 20.62 78% 629.62 32.60 24.85 57.45
29% 234.09 12.12 9.24 21.36 79% 637.69 33.01 25.17 58.18
30% 242.16 12.54 9.56 22.10 80% 645.76 33.43 25.49 58.92
31% 250.23 12.95 9.88 22.83 81% 653.83 33.85 25.81 59.66
32% 258.30 13.37 10.20 23.57 82% 661.90 34.27 26.13 60.39
33% 266.38 13.79 10.51 24.30 83% 669.98 34.69 26.44 61.13
34% 274.45 14.21 10.83 25.04 84% 678.05 35.10 26.76 61.87
35% 282.52 14.63 11.15 25.78 85% 686.12 35.52 27.08 62.60
36% 290.59 15.04 11.47 26.51 86% 694.19 35.94 27.40 63.34
37% 298.66 15.46 11.79 27.25 87% 702.26 36.36 27.72 64.08
38% 306.74 15.88 12.11 27.99 88% 710.34 36.78 28.04 64.81
39% 314.81 16.30 12.43 28.72 89% 718.41 37.19 28.36 65.55
40% 322.88 16.72 12.74 29.46 90% 726.48 37.61 28.67 66.29
41% 330.95 17.13 13.06 30.20 91% 734.55 38.03 28.99 67.02
42% 339.02 17.55 13.38 30.93 92% 742.62 38.45 29.31 67.76
43% 347.10 17.97 13.70 31.67 93% 750.70 38.86 29.63 68.49
44% 355.17 18.39 14.02 32.41 94% 758.77 39.28 29.95 69.23
45% 363.24 18.81 14.34 33.14 95% 766.84 39.70 30.27 69.97
46% 371.31 19.22 14.66 33.88 96% 774.91 40.12 30.59 70.70
47% 379.38 19.64 14.97 34.62 97% 782.98 40.54 30.90 71.44
48% 387.46 20.06 15.29 35.35 98% 791.06 40.95 31.22 72.18
49% 395.53 20.48 15.61 36.09 99% 799.13 41.37 31.54 72.91
50% 403.60 20.90 15.93 36.83 100% 807.20 41.79 31.86 73.65
%%
PM Peak-Hour
A - 5
Hickory Trail EstatesGTC #21-005Oaknoll East/Hampstead WoodsTrip Generation for: Weekday(a.k.a.): Average Weekday Daily Trips (AWDT)NET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPEIN BOTH DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTSGross TripsInternalCrossoverTOTAL PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEW PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEWLAND USESVARIABLEITE LU codeTripRate%IN%OUTIn+Out(Total)% ofGrossTripsTripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)In Out In Out In OutContinuing Care Retirement 56 units 255 2.40 50%50% 134.400%0 134.400%0.000%0 134.4000006767Totals134.400 134.400.000 134.4000006767A - 6
Hickory Trail EstatesGTC #21-005Oaknoll East/Hampstead WoodsTrip Generation for: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour between 7 and 9 AM(a.k.a.): Weekday AM Peak HourNET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPEIN BOTH DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTSGross TripsInternalCrossoverTOTAL PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEW PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEWLAND USESVARIABLEITE LU codeTripRate%IN%OUTIn+Out(Total)% ofGrossTripsTripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)In Out In Out In OutContinuing Care Retirement 56 units 2550.14 65%35% 80%080%0 0% 0 7.8400005.10 2.74Totals80 800 7.8400005.10 2.74
A - 7
Hickory Trail EstatesGTC #21-005Oaknoll East/Hampstead WoodsTrip Generation for: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour between 4 and 6 PM(a.k.a.): Weekday PM Peak HourNET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPEIN BOTH DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTSGross TripsInternalCrossoverTOTAL PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEW PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEWLAND USESVARIABLEITE LU codeTripRate%IN%OUTIn+Out(Total)% ofGrossTripsTripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)In Out In Out In OutContinuing Care Retirement 56 units 2550.16 39%61% 90%090%00%0 8.9600003.49 5.47Totals90 900 8.9600003.49 5.47
A - 8
Hickory Trail Estates
GTC #21-005
Oaknoll East/Hampstead Woods
New New AM Peak Hour Trips New New AM Peak Hour Trips
ADT In Out Total ADT In Out Total
100% 134.40 5.10 2.74 7.84 100% 134.40 5.10 2.74 7.84
1% 1.34 0.05 0.03 0.08 51% 68.54 2.60 1.40 4.00
2% 2.69 0.10 0.05 0.16 52% 69.89 2.65 1.42 4.08
3% 4.03 0.15 0.08 0.24 53% 71.23 2.70 1.45 4.16
4% 5.38 0.20 0.11 0.31 54% 72.58 2.75 1.48 4.23
5% 6.72 0.26 0.14 0.39 55% 73.92 2.81 1.51 4.31
6% 8.06 0.31 0.16 0.47 56% 75.26 2.86 1.53 4.39
7% 9.41 0.36 0.19 0.55 57% 76.61 2.91 1.56 4.47
8% 10.75 0.41 0.22 0.63 58% 77.95 2.96 1.59 4.55
9% 12.10 0.46 0.25 0.71 59% 79.30 3.01 1.62 4.63
10% 13.44 0.51 0.27 0.78 60% 80.64 3.06 1.64 4.70
11% 14.78 0.56 0.30 0.86 61% 81.98 3.11 1.67 4.78
12% 16.13 0.61 0.33 0.94 62% 83.33 3.16 1.70 4.86
13% 17.47 0.66 0.36 1.02 63% 84.67 3.21 1.73 4.94
14% 18.82 0.71 0.38 1.10 64% 86.02 3.26 1.75 5.02
15% 20.16 0.77 0.41 1.18 65% 87.36 3.32 1.78 5.10
16% 21.50 0.82 0.44 1.25 66% 88.70 3.37 1.81 5.17
17% 22.85 0.87 0.47 1.33 67% 90.05 3.42 1.84 5.25
18% 24.19 0.92 0.49 1.41 68% 91.39 3.47 1.86 5.33
19% 25.54 0.97 0.52 1.49 69% 92.74 3.52 1.89 5.41
20% 26.88 1.02 0.55 1.57 70% 94.08 3.57 1.92 5.49
21% 28.22 1.07 0.58 1.65 71% 95.42 3.62 1.95 5.57
22% 29.57 1.12 0.60 1.72 72% 96.77 3.67 1.97 5.64
23% 30.91 1.17 0.63 1.80 73% 98.11 3.72 2.00 5.72
24% 32.26 1.22 0.66 1.88 74% 99.46 3.77 2.03 5.80
25% 33.60 1.28 0.69 1.96 75% 100.80 3.83 2.06 5.88
26% 34.94 1.33 0.71 2.04 76% 102.14 3.88 2.08 5.96
27% 36.29 1.38 0.74 2.12 77% 103.49 3.93 2.11 6.04
28% 37.63 1.43 0.77 2.20 78% 104.83 3.98 2.14 6.12
29% 38.98 1.48 0.79 2.27 79% 106.18 4.03 2.16 6.19
30% 40.32 1.53 0.82 2.35 80% 107.52 4.08 2.19 6.27
31% 41.66 1.58 0.85 2.43 81% 108.86 4.13 2.22 6.35
32% 43.01 1.63 0.88 2.51 82% 110.21 4.18 2.25 6.43
33% 44.35 1.68 0.90 2.59 83% 111.55 4.23 2.27 6.51
34% 45.70 1.73 0.93 2.67 84% 112.90 4.28 2.30 6.59
35% 47.04 1.79 0.96 2.74 85% 114.24 4.34 2.33 6.66
36% 48.38 1.84 0.99 2.82 86% 115.58 4.39 2.36 6.74
37% 49.73 1.89 1.01 2.90 87% 116.93 4.44 2.38 6.82
38% 51.07 1.94 1.04 2.98 88% 118.27 4.49 2.41 6.90
39% 52.42 1.99 1.07 3.06 89% 119.62 4.54 2.44 6.98
40% 53.76 2.04 1.10 3.14 90% 120.96 4.59 2.47 7.06
41% 55.10 2.09 1.12 3.21 91% 122.30 4.64 2.49 7.13
42% 56.45 2.14 1.15 3.29 92% 123.65 4.69 2.52 7.21
43% 57.79 2.19 1.18 3.37 93% 124.99 4.74 2.55 7.29
44% 59.14 2.24 1.21 3.45 94% 126.34 4.79 2.58 7.37
45% 60.48 2.30 1.23 3.53 95% 127.68 4.85 2.60 7.45
46% 61.82 2.35 1.26 3.61 96% 129.02 4.90 2.63 7.53
47% 63.17 2.40 1.29 3.68 97% 130.37 4.95 2.66 7.60
48% 64.51 2.45 1.32 3.76 98% 131.71 5.00 2.69 7.68
49% 65.86 2.50 1.34 3.84 99% 133.06 5.05 2.71 7.76
50% 67.20 2.55 1.37 3.92 100% 134.40 5.10 2.74 7.84
%%
AM Peak-Hour
A - 9
Hickory Trail Estates
GTC #21-005
Oaknoll East/Hampstead Woods
New New PM Peak Hour Trips New New PM Peak Hour Trips
ADT In Out Total ADT In Out Total
100% 134.40 3.49 5.47 8.96 100% 134.40 3.49 5.47 8.96
1% 1.34 0.03 0.05 0.09 51% 68.54 1.78 2.79 4.57
2% 2.69 0.07 0.11 0.18 52% 69.89 1.81 2.84 4.66
3% 4.03 0.10 0.16 0.27 53% 71.23 1.85 2.90 4.75
4% 5.38 0.14 0.22 0.36 54% 72.58 1.88 2.95 4.84
5% 6.72 0.17 0.27 0.45 55% 73.92 1.92 3.01 4.93
6% 8.06 0.21 0.33 0.54 56% 75.26 1.95 3.06 5.02
7% 9.41 0.24 0.38 0.63 57% 76.61 1.99 3.12 5.11
8% 10.75 0.28 0.44 0.72 58% 77.95 2.02 3.17 5.20
9% 12.10 0.31 0.49 0.81 59% 79.30 2.06 3.23 5.29
10% 13.44 0.35 0.55 0.90 60% 80.64 2.09 3.28 5.38
11% 14.78 0.38 0.60 0.99 61% 81.98 2.13 3.34 5.47
12% 16.13 0.42 0.66 1.08 62% 83.33 2.16 3.39 5.56
13% 17.47 0.45 0.71 1.16 63% 84.67 2.20 3.45 5.64
14% 18.82 0.49 0.77 1.25 64% 86.02 2.23 3.50 5.73
15% 20.16 0.52 0.82 1.34 65% 87.36 2.27 3.56 5.82
16% 21.50 0.56 0.88 1.43 66% 88.70 2.30 3.61 5.91
17% 22.85 0.59 0.93 1.52 67% 90.05 2.34 3.66 6.00
18% 24.19 0.63 0.98 1.61 68% 91.39 2.37 3.72 6.09
19% 25.54 0.66 1.04 1.70 69% 92.74 2.41 3.77 6.18
20% 26.88 0.70 1.09 1.79 70% 94.08 2.44 3.83 6.27
21% 28.22 0.73 1.15 1.88 71% 95.42 2.48 3.88 6.36
22% 29.57 0.77 1.20 1.97 72% 96.77 2.51 3.94 6.45
23% 30.91 0.80 1.26 2.06 73% 98.11 2.55 3.99 6.54
24% 32.26 0.84 1.31 2.15 74% 99.46 2.58 4.05 6.63
25% 33.60 0.87 1.37 2.24 75% 100.80 2.62 4.10 6.72
26% 34.94 0.91 1.42 2.33 76% 102.14 2.65 4.16 6.81
27% 36.29 0.94 1.48 2.42 77% 103.49 2.69 4.21 6.90
28% 37.63 0.98 1.53 2.51 78% 104.83 2.72 4.27 6.99
29% 38.98 1.01 1.59 2.60 79% 106.18 2.76 4.32 7.08
30% 40.32 1.05 1.64 2.69 80% 107.52 2.79 4.38 7.17
31% 41.66 1.08 1.70 2.78 81% 108.86 2.83 4.43 7.26
32% 43.01 1.12 1.75 2.87 82% 110.21 2.86 4.49 7.35
33% 44.35 1.15 1.81 2.96 83% 111.55 2.90 4.54 7.44
34% 45.70 1.19 1.86 3.05 84% 112.90 2.93 4.59 7.53
35% 47.04 1.22 1.91 3.14 85% 114.24 2.97 4.65 7.62
36% 48.38 1.26 1.97 3.23 86% 115.58 3.00 4.70 7.71
37% 49.73 1.29 2.02 3.32 87% 116.93 3.04 4.76 7.80
38% 51.07 1.33 2.08 3.40 88% 118.27 3.07 4.81 7.88
39% 52.42 1.36 2.13 3.49 89% 119.62 3.11 4.87 7.97
40% 53.76 1.40 2.19 3.58 90% 120.96 3.14 4.92 8.06
41% 55.10 1.43 2.24 3.67 91% 122.30 3.18 4.98 8.15
42% 56.45 1.47 2.30 3.76 92% 123.65 3.21 5.03 8.24
43% 57.79 1.50 2.35 3.85 93% 124.99 3.25 5.09 8.33
44% 59.14 1.54 2.41 3.94 94% 126.34 3.28 5.14 8.42
45% 60.48 1.57 2.46 4.03 95% 127.68 3.32 5.20 8.51
46% 61.82 1.61 2.52 4.12 96% 129.02 3.35 5.25 8.60
47% 63.17 1.64 2.57 4.21 97% 130.37 3.39 5.31 8.69
48% 64.51 1.68 2.63 4.30 98% 131.71 3.42 5.36 8.78
49% 65.86 1.71 2.68 4.39 99% 133.06 3.46 5.42 8.87
50% 67.20 1.75 2.74 4.48 100% 134.40 3.49 5.47 8.96
%%
PM Peak-Hour
A - 10
Counted by AXIOM on Thursday, January 7, 2021.AM Peak‐HourInt PHF0.76290 553 263StartPeak0 285 51 254 8TimeHour 07:00 AM02501031350000654460N 1st Avenue807:15 AM045020614701001025800003807:30 AM0522208251010111960803007:45 AM0791105106202001605856 Hickory Trail 608 Hickory Trail 63North08:00 AM0100140967801001995381508:15 AM054110826301001306002508:30 AM04322064380100965N 1st Avenue2008:45 AM04604044550000113PH Sum0285580302025405016085 285 300 254 20320 594 274Counted by AXIOM on Tuesday, January 12, 2021.PM Peak‐HourInt PHF0.91302 594 292StartPeak0 289 130 287 5TimeHour 03:00 PM061030786010001405670N 1st Avenue503:15 PM143540549810011625811002403:30 PM0520007678010014456911903:45 PM158020255300001215872 Hickory Trail 639 Hickory Trail 61North04:00 PM06722041168000015461701304:15 PM061530576900001506391003704:30 PM060210478800001626341N 1st Avenue2404:45 PM0803106457000015162305:00 PM088300467311001765571 289 191 287 2405:15 PM066340312561000145309 621 31205:30 PM1686306562000015105:45 PM0473003427010085PH Sum0289135019242871100639TotalsPeakRight Thru Left Right Thru LeftLeft Right Thru LeftHickory TrailFrom WestRight Thru Left Right Thru LeftFrom EastN. 1st AvenueFrom SouthFrom North From East From SouthN. 1st Avenue Hickory Trail N. 1st AvenueHickory TrailFrom WestRight Thru Left Right Thru Left Right ThruN. 1st AvenueFrom NorthHickory TrailB - 1
Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left PedsTotals Peak Hr?LEG 1 LEG 2 LEG 3 LEG 4 INTERSECT07:15 AM110066400097606429112511226 2 70 85 94 25107:30 AM010095800059608640002951226 1 67 101 126 29507:45 AM001016780111210408449003451153 1 94 117 133 34508:00 AM00301164101108811074550335 3769915733508:15 AM1410224310018710652320251 666899025108:30 AM003093220012800632100222 3439284222Pk hr total155058243212453591342157701226 % of mvmt9% 45% 45%19% 80% 1%0% 11% 88%68% 31% 1%% of ttl traffic 0% 0% 0%5% 20% 0%0% 4% 29%28% 13% 1%movement %1%25%33%41%PHFBy Movem#DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1.250.91 0.78 #DIV/0!0.50 0.94 0.861.02 0.80 #DIV/0!Approach2.750.810.870.95Intersection0.89Trucks# Trucks000 000 000 000# All vehic1 5 558 243 22 45 359342 157 7% Trucks0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%Bikes# Bikes000 000 000 000# All vehicl1 5 558 243 22 45 359342 157 7% Bikes0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%15 min Vehicle Approach Totals N 1ST AVENUE N SCOTT BOULEVARD N 1ST AVENUE N SCOTT BOULEVARD N 1ST AVENUE N SCOTT BOULEVARD N 1ST AVENUE N SCOTT BOULEVARD Comment 3: Select File/Preference in the Main ScreeComment 4: Then Click the Comments TabN 1ST AVENUE From NorthN SCOTT BOULEVARD From EastN 1ST AVENUE From SouthN SCOTT BOULEVARD From WestSite Code: 00000000Comment 1: Default CommentsComment 2: Change These in The Preferences WindowFile Name: S:\JCCOG\TRANS\Traffic Counts\Peak Hr\Iowa City\N 1st Ave & N Scott Blvd - AM - Aug18.ppdStart Date: 8/29/2018Start Time: 7:15:00 AM
B - 2
Intersection Peak Hour
Location: 1st Ave at Scott Blvd ,
GPS Coordinates:
Date: 2018-09-06
Day of week: Thursday
Weather:
Analyst: NB
SB: 1st Ave
EB: Scott BlvdWB: Scott BlvdNB: 1st Ave
6
224
336
9
200
0
27 45 35
378 7 2
Intersection Peak Hour
16:15 - 17:15
SouthBound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Total
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
Vehicle Total 35 45 27 0 200 9 378 7 2 6 224 336 1269
Factor 0.51 0.62 0.48 0.00 0.93 0.56 0.92 0.88 0.50 0.50 0.85 0.92 0.97
Approach Factor 0.55 0.92 0.93 0.91
B - 3
1 N 1st Ave @ Hickory Trail Page 1 of 3
Synchro ID: 1
Existing 290 553 263
Average Weekday 0 285 5 1 254 8
AM Peak Hour
0 N 1st Avenue 8
Year: 1/7/21 0 0 0 38
0 30
Data Source:AXIOM 6 Hickory Trail 608 Hickory Trail 63
North
1 5
6 0 0 25
5 N 1st Avenue 20
5 285 30 0 254 20
320 594 274
392 747 355
0 385 7 1 343 11
Average Weekday
AM Peak Hour 0 N 1st Avenue 11
0 0 051
Percent Change:35.0%0 41
8 Hickory Trail 821 Hickory Trail 85 North
1 7
800 34
7 N 1st Avenue 27
7 385 41 0 343 27
432 802 370
Future without Project 407 776 369
Average Weekday 0 400 7 1 357 11
AM Peak Hour
0 N 1st Avenue 11
Year:2025 0 0 053
Growth Rate =1.0%0 42
Years of Growth = 4 8 Hickory Trail 853 Hickory Trail 88 North
Total Growth = 1.0406 1 7
800 35
7 N 1st Avenue 28
7 400 42 0 357 28
449 834 385
Total Project Trips 000
Average Weekday 000 000
AM Peak Hour
0 N 1st Avenue 0
8 0 0 0
8 0
23 Hickory Trail 23 Hickory Trail 0 North
0 0
15 0 0 0
15 N 1st Avenue 0
15 0 0 800
15 23 8
Future with Project 407 776 369
Average Weekday 0 400 7 1 357 11
AM Peak Hour
0 N 1st Avenue 11
8 0 053
8 42
31 Hickory Trail 876 Hickory Trail 88
North
1 7
23 0 0 35
22 N 1st Avenue 28
22 400 42 8 357 28
464 857 393
Normalized Existing (COVID-
19 Factor)
Based on balancing volumes
from the intersection of N 1st
Avenue at Scott Blvd.
C - 1
2 Access @ Scott Blvd Page 2 of 3
Synchro ID: 2
Existing 385
Average Weekday 201 302
AM Peak Hour
2 Oaknoll East 2
Year: 8/29/18 605 603 603 605
0 0
Data Source:Iowa City 1,114 Scott Blvd 1,117 Scott Blvd 1,112
North
3 1
509 506 506 507
0 Site Access 0
000 000
000
385
201 302
Average Weekday
AM Peak Hour 2 Oaknoll East 2
605 603 603 605
Percent Change:0.0%0 0
1,114 Scott Blvd 1,117 Scott Blvd 1,112
North
3 1
509 506 506 507
0 Site Access 0
000 000
000
Future without Project 385
Average Weekday 2 0 1 302
AM Peak Hour
2 Oaknoll East 2
Year:2025 648 646 646 648
Growth Rate =1.0%0 0
Years of Growth = 7 1,194 Scott Blvd 1,197 Scott Blvd 1,192
North
Total Growth = 1.0721 3 1
546 543 543 544
0 Site Access 0
000 000
000
Total Project Trips 000
Average Weekday 000 000
AM Peak Hour
0 Oaknoll East 0
17 0 0 3
17 3
27 Scott Blvd 35 Scott Blvd 8 North
0 0
10 0 0 5
10 Site Access 5
10 0 3 17 0 5
13 35 22
Future with Project 385
Average Weekday 2 0 1 302
AM Peak Hour
2 Oaknoll East 2
665 646 646 651
17 3
1,221 Scott Blvd 1,232 Scott Blvd 1,200
North
3 1
556 543 543 549
10 Site Access 5
10 0 3 17 0 5
13 35 22
Normalized Existing (COVID-
19 Factor)
C - 2
3 N 1st Ave @ Scott Blvd Page 3 of 3
Synchro ID: 3
Existing 11 121 110
Average Weekday 155 74558
AM Peak Hour
1 N 1st Avenue 58
Year: 8/29/18 603 243 243 303
359 2
Data Source:Iowa City 1,109 Scott Blvd 1,226 Scott Blvd 467
North
7 5
506 157 157 164
342 N 1st Avenue 2
342 5 2 359 45 2
349 755 406
11 121 110
155 74558
Average Weekday
AM Peak Hour 1 N 1st Avenue 58
603 243 243 303
Percent Change:0.0%359 2
1,109 Scott Blvd 1,226 Scott Blvd 467
North
7 5
506 157 157 164
342 N 1st Avenue 2
342 5 2 359 45 2
349 755 406
Future without Project 11 129 118
Average Weekday 1 5 5 84862
AM Peak Hour
1 N 1st Avenue 62
Year:2025 647 261 261 325
Growth Rate =1.0%385 2
Years of Growth = 7 1,190 Scott Blvd 1,314 Scott Blvd 500
North
Total Growth = 1.0721 8 5
543 168 168 175
367 N 1st Avenue 2
367 5 2 385 48 2
374 809 435
Total Project Trips 000
Average Weekday 000 000
AM Peak Hour
0 N 1st Avenue 0
3 3 3 3
0 0
8 Scott Blvd 8 Scott Blvd 8
North
0 0
5 5 5 5
0 N 1st Avenue 0
000 000
000
Future with Project 11 129 118
Average Weekday 1 5 5 84862
AM Peak Hour
1 N 1st Avenue 62
650 264 264 328
385 2
1,198 Scott Blvd 1,322 Scott Blvd 508
North
8 5
548 173 173 180
367 N 1st Avenue 2
367 5 2 385 48 2
374 809 435
Normalized Existing (COVID-
19 Factor)
C - 3
1 N 1st Ave @ Hickory Trail Page 1 of 3
Synchro ID: 1
Existing 302 594 292
Average Weekday 0 289 13 0 287 5
PM Peak Hour
0 N 1st Avenue 5
Year: 1/12/21 1 0 0 24
1 19
Data Source:AXIOM 2 Hickory Trail 639 Hickory Trail 61
North
0 13
1 0 0 37
1 N 1st Avenue 24
1 289 19 1 287 24
309 621 312
393 772 380
0 376 17 0 373 7
Average Weekday
PM Peak Hour 0 N 1st Avenue 7
1 0 031
Percent Change:30.0%1 25
3 Hickory Trail 831 Hickory Trail 79 North
0 17
100 48
1 N 1st Avenue 31
1 376 25 1 373 31
402 807 406
Future without Project 409 804 395
Average Weekday 0 391 18 0 388 7
PM Peak Hour
0 N 1st Avenue 7
Year:2025 1 0 033
Growth Rate =1.0%1 26
Years of Growth = 4 2 Hickory Trail 864 Hickory Trail 83 North
Total Growth = 1.0406 0 18
100 50
1 N 1st Avenue 32
1 391 26 1 388 32
418 839 421
Total Project Trips 000
Average Weekday 000 000
PM Peak Hour
0 N 1st Avenue 0
17 0 0 0
17 0
30 Hickory Trail 30 Hickory Trail 0 North
0 0
13 0 0 0
13 N 1st Avenue 0
13 0 0 17 0 0
13 30 17
Future with Project 409 804 395
Average Weekday 0 391 18 0 388 7
PM Peak Hour
0 N 1st Avenue 7
18 0 033
18 26
32 Hickory Trail 894 Hickory Trail 83
North
0 18
14 0 0 50
14 N 1st Avenue 32
14 391 26 18 388 32
431 869 438
Normalized Existing (COVID-
19 Factor)
Based on balancing volumes
from the intersection of N 1st
Avenue at Scott Blvd.
C - 4
2 Access @ Scott Blvd Page 2 of 3
Synchro ID: 2
Existing 594
Average Weekday 302 202
PM Peak Hour
3 Oaknoll East 2
Year: 9/6/18 608 605 605 607
0 0
Data Source:Iowa City 1,176 Scott Blvd 1,180 Scott Blvd 1,175
North
2 2
568 566 566 568
0 Site Access 0
000 000
000
594
302 202
Average Weekday
PM Peak Hour 3 Oaknoll East 2
608 605 605 607
Percent Change:0.0%0 0
1,176 Scott Blvd 1,180 Scott Blvd 1,175
North
2 2
568 566 566 568
0 Site Access 0
000 000
000
Future without Project 594
Average Weekday 3 0 2 202
PM Peak Hour
3 Oaknoll East 2
Year:2025 652 649 649 651
Growth Rate =1.0%0 0
Years of Growth = 7 1,261 Scott Blvd 1,265 Scott Blvd 1,260
North
Total Growth = 1.0721 2 2
609 607 607 609
0 Site Access 0
000 000
000
Total Project Trips 000
Average Weekday 000 000
PM Peak Hour
0 Oaknoll East 0
14 0 0 6
14 6
33 Scott Blvd 44 Scott Blvd 11 North
0 0
19 0 0 5
19 Site Access 5
19 0 6 14 0 5
25 44 19
Future with Project 594
Average Weekday 3 0 2 202
PM Peak Hour
3 Oaknoll East 2
666 649 649 657
14 6
1,294 Scott Blvd 1,309 Scott Blvd 1,271
North
2 2
628 607 607 614
19 Site Access 5
19 0 6 14 0 5
25 44 19
Normalized Existing (COVID-
19 Factor)
C - 5
3 N 1st Ave @ Scott Blvd Page 3 of 3
Synchro ID: 3
Existing 107 129 22
Average Weekday 27 45 35 679
PM Peak Hour
27 N 1st Avenue 9
Year: 9/6/18 605 200 200 209
378 0
Data Source:Iowa City 1,171 Scott Blvd 1,269 Scott Blvd 470
North
6 35
566 224 224 261
336 N 1st Avenue 2
336 45 0 378 7 2
381 768 387
107 129 22
27 45 35 679
Average Weekday
PM Peak Hour 27 N 1st Avenue 9
605 200 200 209
Percent Change:0.0%378 0
1,171 Scott Blvd 1,269 Scott Blvd 470
North
6 35
566 224 224 261
336 N 1st Avenue 2
336 45 0 378 7 2
381 768 387
Future without Project 115 139 24
Average Weekday 29 48 38 6810
PM Peak Hour
29 N 1st Avenue 10
Year:2025 648 214 214 224
Growth Rate =1.0%405 0
Years of Growth = 7 1,254 Scott Blvd 1,360 Scott Blvd 504
North
Total Growth = 1.0721 6 38
606 240 240 280
360 N 1st Avenue 2
360 48 0 405 8 2
408 823 415
Total Project Trips 000
Average Weekday 000 000
PM Peak Hour
0 N 1st Avenue 0
6 6 6 6
0 0
11 Scott Blvd 11 Scott Blvd 11
North
0 0
5 5 5 5
0 N 1st Avenue 0
000 000
000
Future with Project 115 139 24
Average Weekday 29 48 38 6810
PM Peak Hour
29 N 1st Avenue 10
654 220 220 230
405 0
1,265 Scott Blvd 1,371 Scott Blvd 515
North
6 38
611 245 245 285
360 N 1st Avenue 2
360 48 0 405 8 2
408 823 415
Normalized Existing (COVID-
19 Factor)
C - 6
Existing Conditions AM.syn
1: N 1st Ave & Hickory Trail Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Existing Conditions AM
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 0 7 41 0 7 0 343 27 7 385 0
Future Vol, veh/h 1 0 7 41 0 7 0 343 27 7 385 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11111111111
Mvmt Flow 1 0 9 54 0 9 0 451 36 9 507 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 999 1012 507 999 994 469 507 0 0 487 0 0
Stage 1 525 525 - 469 469 -------
Stage 2 474 487 - 530 525 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 4.11 - - 4.11 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.309 2.209 - - 2.209 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 223 240 568 223 246 596 1063 - - 1081 - -
Stage 1 538 531 - 577 562 -------
Stage 2 573 552 - 534 531 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 218 237 568 217 243 596 1063 - - 1081 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 218 237 - 217 243 -------
Stage 1 538 525 - 577 562 -------
Stage 2 564 552 - 519 525 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 12.8 25.4 0 0.1
HCM LOS B D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1063 - - 473 239 1081 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.022 0.264 0.009 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 12.8 25.4 8.4 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A - - B D A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 1 0 - -
D - 1
Existing Conditions AM.syn
2: Site Access/Oaknoll East & Scott Blvd Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Existing Conditions AM
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 506 0 0 603 2000102
Future Vol, veh/h 3 506 0 0 603 2000102
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 3 569 0 0 678 2000102
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 680 0 0 569 0 0 1255 1255 569 1254 1254 679
Stage 1 ------575575-679679-
Stage 2 ------680680-575575-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 912 - - 1003 - - 148 172 522 149 172 452
Stage 1 ------503503-441451-
Stage 2 ------441451-503503-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 912 - - 1003 - - 147 171 522 148 171 452
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------147171-148171-
Stage 1 ------500500-439451-
Stage 2 ------439451-500500-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 0 18.6
HCM LOS A C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)- 912 - - 1003 - - 268
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.004 -----0.013
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 9 0 - 0 - - 18.6
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 - - 0 - - 0
D - 2
Existing Conditions PM.syn
1: N 1st Ave & Hickory Trail Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Existing Conditions PM
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 1 25 0 7 1 373 31 17 376 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 1 25 0 7 1 373 31 17 376 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11111111111
Mvmt Flow 0 0 1 27 0 8 1 410 34 19 413 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 884 897 413 881 880 427 413 0 0 444 0 0
Stage 1 451 451 - 429 429 -------
Stage 2 433 446 - 452 451 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 4.11 - - 4.11 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.309 2.209 - - 2.209 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 267 280 641 268 287 630 1151 - - 1121 - -
Stage 1 590 573 - 606 586 -------
Stage 2 603 576 - 589 573 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 259 274 641 263 280 630 1151 - - 1121 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 259 274 - 263 280 -------
Stage 1 589 560 - 605 585 -------
Stage 2 595 575 - 575 560 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10.6 18.5 0 0.4
HCM LOS B C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1151 - - 641 301 1121 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - 0.002 0.117 0.017 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.1 0 - 10.6 18.5 8.3 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - B C A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 0.4 0.1 - -
D - 3
Existing Conditions PM.syn
2: Site Access/Oaknoll East & Scott Blvd Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Existing Conditions PM
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 566 0 0 605 2000203
Future Vol, veh/h 2 566 0 0 605 2000203
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 2 615 0 0 658 2000203
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 660 0 0 615 0 0 1280 1279 615 1278 1278 659
Stage 1 ------619619-659659-
Stage 2 ------661660-619619-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 928 - - 965 - - 143 166 491 143 166 464
Stage 1 ------476480-453461-
Stage 2 ------452460-476480-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 928 - - 965 - - 142 166 491 143 166 464
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------142166-143166-
Stage 1 ------475479-452461-
Stage 2 ------449460-475479-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 20.1
HCM LOS A C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)- 928 - - 965 - - 244
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.002 -----0.022
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 8.9 0 - 0 - - 20.1
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 - - 0 - - 0.1
D - 4
Baseline Conditions AM.syn
1: N 1st Ave & Hickory Trail Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Baseline 2025 Conditions AM
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 0 7 42 0 11 0 357 28 7 400 0
Future Vol, veh/h 1 0 7 42 0 11 0 357 28 7 400 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11111111111
Mvmt Flow 1 0 9 55 0 14 0 470 37 9 526 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1040 1051 526 1038 1033 489 526 0 0 507 0 0
Stage 1 544 544 - 489 489 -------
Stage 2 496 507 - 549 544 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 4.11 - - 4.11 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.309 2.209 - - 2.209 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 209 228 554 210 233 581 1046 - - 1063 - -
Stage 1 525 521 - 562 551 -------
Stage 2 558 541 - 522 521 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 202 225 554 205 230 581 1046 - - 1063 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 202 225 - 205 230 -------
Stage 1 525 515 - 562 551 -------
Stage 2 544 541 - 507 515 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13.1 26.4 0 0.1
HCM LOS B D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1046 - - 455 237 1063 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.023 0.294 0.009 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 13.1 26.4 8.4 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A - - B D A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 1.2 0 - -
D - 5
Baseline Conditions AM.syn
2: Site Access/Oaknoll East & Scott Blvd Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Baseline 2025 Conditions AM
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 543 0 0 646 2000102
Future Vol, veh/h 3 543 0 0 646 2000102
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 3 610 0 0 726 2000102
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 728 0 0 610 0 0 1344 1344 610 1343 1343 727
Stage 1 ------616616-727727-
Stage 2 ------728728-616616-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 876 - - 969 - - 129 152 494 129 152 424
Stage 1 ------478482-415429-
Stage 2 ------415429-478482-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 876 - - 969 - - 128 151 494 128 151 424
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------128151-128151-
Stage 1 ------476480-413429-
Stage 2 ------413429-476480-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 0 20.3
HCM LOS A C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)- 876 - - 969 - - 239
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.004 -----0.014
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 9.1 0 - 0 - - 20.3
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 - - 0 - - 0
D - 6
Baseline Conditions PM.syn
1: N 1st Ave & Hickory Trail Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Baseline 2025 Conditions PM
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 1 26 0 7 1 388 32 18 391 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 1 26 0 7 1 388 32 18 391 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11111111111
Mvmt Flow 0 0 1 29 0 8 1 426 35 20 430 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 920 933 430 917 916 444 430 0 0 461 0 0
Stage 1 470 470 - 446 446 -------
Stage 2 450 463 - 471 470 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 4.11 - - 4.11 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.309 2.209 - - 2.209 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 253 267 627 254 273 616 1135 - - 1105 - -
Stage 1 576 562 - 593 576 -------
Stage 2 590 566 - 575 562 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 245 260 627 249 266 616 1135 - - 1105 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 245 260 - 249 266 -------
Stage 1 575 549 - 592 575 -------
Stage 2 582 565 - 560 549 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10.8 19.5 0 0.4
HCM LOS B C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1135 - - 627 285 1105 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - 0.002 0.127 0.018 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 0 - 10.8 19.5 8.3 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - B C A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 0.4 0.1 - -
D - 7
Baseline Conditions PM.syn
2: Site Access/Oaknoll East & Scott Blvd Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Baseline 2025 Conditions PM
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 607 0 0 649 2000203
Future Vol, veh/h 2 607 0 0 649 2000203
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 2 660 0 0 705 2000203
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 707 0 0 660 0 0 1372 1371 660 1370 1370 706
Stage 1 ------664664-706706-
Stage 2 ------708707-664664-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 891 - - 928 - - 123 146 463 124 146 436
Stage 1 ------450458-427439-
Stage 2 ------426438-450458-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 891 - - 928 - - 122 145 463 124 145 436
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------122145-124145-
Stage 1 ------448456-425439-
Stage 2 ------423438-448456-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 22
HCM LOS A C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)- 891 - - 928 - - 217
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.002 -----0.025
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 9.1 0 - 0 - - 22
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 - - 0 - - 0.1
D - 8
Future With Conditions AM.syn
1: N 1st Ave & Hickory Trail Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Future 2025 With Conditions AM
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 0 22 42 0 11 8 357 28 7 400 0
Future Vol, veh/h 1 0 22 42 0 11 8 357 28 7 400 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11111111111
Mvmt Flow 1 0 29 55 0 14 11 470 37 9 526 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1062 1073 526 1070 1055 489 526 0 0 507 0 0
Stage 1 544 544 - 511 511 -------
Stage 2 518 529 - 559 544 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 4.11 - - 4.11 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.309 2.209 - - 2.209 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 202 221 554 200 227 581 1046 - - 1063 - -
Stage 1 525 521 - 547 539 -------
Stage 2 542 529 - 515 521 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 193 215 554 186 221 581 1046 - - 1063 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 193 215 - 186 221 -------
Stage 1 517 515 - 539 531 -------
Stage 2 521 521 - 482 515 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 12.5 29.3 0.2 0.1
HCM LOS B D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1046 - - 512 217 1063 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.01 - - 0.059 0.321 0.009 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 0 - 12.5 29.3 8.4 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - B D A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.2 1.3 0 - -
D - 9
Future With Conditions AM.syn
2: Site Access/Oaknoll East & Scott Blvd Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Future 2025 With Conditions AM
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 543 10 3 646 2 17 05102
Future Vol, veh/h 3 543 10 3 646 2 17 05102
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 3 610 11 3 726 2 19 06102
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 728 0 0 621 0 0 1356 1356 616 1358 1360 727
Stage 1 ------622622-733733-
Stage 2 ------734734-625627-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 876 - - 960 - - 126 149 491 126 148 424
Stage 1 ------474479-412426-
Stage 2 ------412426-473476-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 876 - - 960 - - 124 148 491 124 147 424
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------124148-124147-
Stage 1 ------472477-410424-
Stage 2 ------408424-465474-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 33.9 20.5
HCM LOS D C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)149 876 - - 960 - - 235
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.166 0.004 - - 0.004 - - 0.014
HCM Control Delay (s) 33.9 9.1 0 - 8.8 0 - 20.5
HCM Lane LOS D A A - A A - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 0 - - 0 - - 0
D - 10
Future With Conditions PM.syn
1: N 1st Ave & Hickory Trail Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Future 2025 With Conditions PM
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 14 26 0 7 18 388 32 18 391 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 14 26 0 7 18 388 32 18 391 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11111111111
Mvmt Flow 0 0 15 29 0 8 20 426 35 20 430 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 958 971 430 962 954 444 430 0 0 461 0 0
Stage 1 470 470 - 484 484 -------
Stage 2 488 501 - 478 470 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 4.11 - - 4.11 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.309 2.209 - - 2.209 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 238 254 627 236 260 616 1135 - - 1105 - -
Stage 1 576 562 - 566 554 -------
Stage 2 563 544 - 570 562 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 227 242 627 222 248 616 1135 - - 1105 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 227 242 - 222 248 -------
Stage 1 562 549 - 552 541 -------
Stage 2 543 531 - 543 549 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10.9 21.3 0.3 0.4
HCM LOS B C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1135 - - 627 257 1105 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 - - 0.025 0.141 0.018 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 0 - 10.9 21.3 8.3 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - B C A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.1 0.5 0.1 - -
D - 11
Future With Conditions PM.syn
2: Site Access/Oaknoll East & Scott Blvd Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Future 2025 With Conditions PM
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 607 19 6 649 2 14 05203
Future Vol, veh/h 2 607 19 6 649 2 14 05203
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 2 660 21 7 705 2 15 05203
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 707 0 0 681 0 0 1397 1396 671 1397 1405 706
Stage 1 ------675675-720720-
Stage 2 ------722721-677685-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 891 - - 912 - - 118 141 456 118 139 436
Stage 1 ------444453-419432-
Stage 2 ------418432-443448-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 891 - - 912 - - 116 139 456 115 137 436
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------116139-115137-
Stage 1 ------442451-417426-
Stage 2 ------409426-436446-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 34.1 22.9
HCM LOS D C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)144 891 - - 912 - - 206
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.143 0.002 - - 0.007 - - 0.026
HCM Control Delay (s) 34.1 9.1 0 - 9 0 - 22.9
HCM Lane LOS D A A - A A - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 0 - - 0 - - 0.1
D - 12
20181073217 10/16/2018 15:24
County: Johnson City: Iowa City
HICKORY TRL AND N 1ST AVE
Major Cause:Followed too close
Roadway Type:Intersection: T-intersection
Severity::Possible/Unknown Injury
Crash
Fatalities:0
Major Injuries:0
Minor Injuries:0
Possible Injuries:2
Manner of Crash:Rear-end (front to rear)
Surface Conditions:Dry
Light Conditions:Daylight
Weather Conditions:Clear
Drug/Alc Involved:None Indicated
Severity::Possible/Unknown Injury
Crash
Property Damage:$3,000 Number of Vehicles:2
Init Trav Dir:
Veh Action:
Configuration:
Driver Age:
Driver Gender:
Driver Cond:
Driver Contr 1:
Driver Contr 2:
Fixed Object:
Unit 1
South
Movement essentially straight
Sport utility vehicle
33
F
Emotional (e.g., depressed, angry)
Followed too close
Not reported
None (no fixed object struck)
Unit 2
South
Slowing/stopping (deceleration)
Sport utility vehicle
71
F
Apparently normal
No improper action
Not reported
None (no fixed object struck)
Unit
20201157310 01/15/2020 04:30
County: Johnson City: Iowa City
HICKORY TRL AND N 1ST AVE
Major Cause:Other
Roadway Type:Feature: Non-junction/no special feature
Severity::Property Damage Only
Fatalities:0
Major Injuries:0
Minor Injuries:0
Possible Injuries:0
Manner of Crash:Sideswipe, opposite direction
Surface Conditions:Ice/frost
Light Conditions:Dark - unknown roadway lighting
Weather Conditions:Cloudy
Drug/Alc Involved:None Indicated
Severity::Property Damage Only Property Damage:$5,000 Number of Vehicles:2
Init Trav Dir:
Veh Action:
Configuration:
Driver Age:
Driver Gender:
Driver Cond:
Driver Contr 1:
Driver Contr 2:
Fixed Object:
Unit 1
South
Movement essentially straight
Four-tire light truck (pick-up)
47
F
Apparently normal
Other
Not reported
None (no fixed object struck)
Unit 2
North
Movement essentially straight
Passenger car
55
F
Apparently normal
No improper action
Not reported
None (no fixed object struck)
Unit
January 21, 2021 Page 1Iowa Crash Analysis Tool
Crash Detail Report
E - 1
20181070658 10/02/2018 16:39
County: Johnson City: Iowa City
N SCOTT BLVD
Major Cause:Followed too close
Roadway Type:Feature: Non-junction/no special feature
Severity::Suspected Minor Injury
Crash
Fatalities:0
Major Injuries:0
Minor Injuries:1
Possible Injuries:0
Manner of Crash:Rear-end (front to rear)
Surface Conditions:Dry
Light Conditions:Daylight
Weather Conditions:Cloudy
Drug/Alc Involved:None Indicated
Severity::Suspected Minor Injury
Crash
Property Damage:$8,000 Number of Vehicles:2
Init Trav Dir:
Veh Action:
Configuration:
Driver Age:
Driver Gender:
Driver Cond:
Driver Contr 1:
Driver Contr 2:
Fixed Object:
Unit 1
East
Movement essentially straight
Sport utility vehicle
25
F
Emotional (e.g., depressed, angry)
Followed too close
Not reported
None (no fixed object struck)
Unit 2
East
Stopped in traffic
Four-tire light truck (pick-up)
52
M
Apparently normal
No improper action
Not reported
None (no fixed object struck)
Unit
January 21, 2021 Page 1Iowa Crash Analysis Tool
Crash Detail Report
E - 2
Hickory Trail Estates
GTC #21‐005
Total DHV: 1,285 Posted Speed:35 mph
Left Turns: 6
% Left:0.5%
Scott Boulevard at Site Access (PM Peak-hour)
Based on WSDOT September 2019 Design Manual: Exhibit 1310-7a, Page 1310-14.
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
0%5%10%15%20%25%Total DHV*% Total DHV Turning Left (single turning movement)
Left‐Turn Storage Guidelines
Below Curve, storage not needed for capacity.
Above curve, further analysis recommended.
*DHV is total volume from both directions
**Speeds are posted speeds
F - 1
17 December 2020
Mike Welch
Professional Engineer
Axiom Consultants
60 East Court Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
mwelch@ axiom-con.com
RE: Phase I Archaeological Survey, Scott Boulvard Subdivision Project, Iowa City, Johnson County,
OSA Technical Report 1622
Dear Mike:
Attached please find the OSA report Phase I Intensive Archaeological Investigation of the Proposed Scott
Boulevard Subdivision Project, Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, by Warren Davis (TR 1622). As a result
of the study no previously recorded archaeological sites were located within the project area and no newly
recorded sites were identified. No further archaeological work is recommended in the surveyed areas. The
details of our findings are provided in the attached report.
As you know, to complete your archaeological compliance obligations, copies of the enclosed report must
also be provided to the appropriate state or federal agencies involved with the project and comment
solicited; we assume you will handle this distribution. Keep in mind that agency comments must be received
prior to ground-disturbing activities being undertaken within the project area.
The University of Iowa Accounts Payable department will invoice you for this project in about 30 days. If
you have any questions, please contact me at 319-384-0937 or via e-mail at william-whittaker@uiowa.edu.
Thank you for selecting the OSA for your archaeological service needs and good luck with your project.
Sincerely,
William E. Whittaker, Ph.D., Research Director
Phase I Intensive Archaeological
Investigation of the Proposed Scott
Boulevard Subdivision Project, Iowa City,
Johnson County, Iowa
by Warren Davis
Office of the State Archaeologist
The University of Iowa
700 Clinton Street Building
Iowa City, IA 52242
Technical Report 1622
2020
Phase I Intensive Archaeological Investigation of the
Proposed Scott Boulevard Subdivision Project, Iowa City,
Johnson County, Iowa
by Warren Davis
William E. Whittaker
Principal Investigator
Prepared for
Axiom Consultants
60 East Court Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Prepared by
Office of the State Archaeologist
The University of Iowa
700 Clinton Street Building
Iowa City, IA 52242
Technical Report 1622
December 16, 2020
Information contained in this report relating to the nature and location of archaeological sites is
considered private and confidential and not for public disclosure in accordance with Section 304
of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. § 307103); 36 CFR Part 800.6 (a)(5) of the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s rules implementing Sections 106 and 110 of the Act;
and Chapter 22.7 § 20 of the Iowa Code
Abstract
A Phase I intensive archaeological survey was conducted by the University of Iowa Office
of the State Archaeologist at the location of the proposed Scott Boulevard Subdivision,
Johnson County, Iowa. The field investigation was conducted on December 3–4, 2020. No
artifacts or archaeological features were identified in the survey of the 59.9 ac parcel. No
further archaeological investigation of the area surveyed prior to the proposed project
activities is recommended.
Introduction
The Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA) of the University of Iowa has prepared this report under
the terms of a cultural resource survey agreement between OSA and Axiom Consultants of Iowa City, Iowa.
This report records the results of a Phase I archaeological investigation of the proposed Scott Boulevard
Subdivision. This project area is situated in Sections 1 and 2, T79N-R6W, Johnson County, Iowa (Figures
1–5). The proposed project involves development of the area into a subdivision. The area surveyed 59.9 ac
(19.2 ha). This project was undertaken for compliance with the Iowa City Zoning Code: Sensitive Lands
and Features, Archaeological sites, Archaeological Study (Article I:14-5l-12-E).
The Phase I investigation was conducted on December 3–4 by Warren Davis and Stephen Valdez and
took 28 person hours in the field. Warren Davis served as report author and William Whittaker served as
project director.
The OSA is solely responsible for the interpretations and recommendations contained in this report. All
records including maps and figures are curated in the OSA Archives. The National Archeological Data
Base Form is included as Appendix I.
Information contained in this report relating to the nature and location of archaeological sites is
considered private and confidential and not for public disclosure in accordance with Section 304 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. § 307103); 36 CFR Part 800.6 (a)(5) of the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation’s rules implementing Sections 106 and 110 of the Act; and Chapter 22.7 § 20 of
the Iowa Code.
Geomorphological Context
The proposed project area is located within Iowa’s largest landform region, known as the Southern Iowa
Drift Plain. The topography of this area is one of steeply rolling hills, level upland divides, stepped erosion
surfaces, and dendritic drainage networks. Uplands are mantled by a moderate to thick cover of
Wisconsinan-age loess. Pre-Illinoian glacial drift and underlying sedimentary bedrock are exposed within
the deeper stream valleys. Southeast Iowa is dominated by broad, level upland divides that represent
undissected remnants of surfaces developed during the Yarmouth and Sangamon stages on a Pre-Illinoian
drift plain. The areal extent of undissected uplands decreases with distance westward, and stepped hillslopes
and deep valleys dominate the south-central part of the state. In southwest Iowa, flat upland divides are
nearly absent (Prior 1991:61–64).
Holocene alluvial valley fills in Iowa are subdivided on the basis of lithology and stratigraphic
relationships into the Gunder, Corrington, Roberts Creek, and Camp Creek members of the DeForest
formation (Bettis and Littke 1987). Gunder member alluvium and Corrington member alluvial fans may
contain Paleoindian through Woodland components; Roberts Creek member deposits may contain Late
OSA Technical Report 1622
2
Archaic through early historic components; and Camp Creek member alluvium may contain buried and
unburied historic archaeological components, and may bury older surfaces.
Environmental Context
The proposed project area is situated in a deeply-ravined grassy and lightly wooded area on the northern
extents of Iowa City. The area is in the E½, SE¼ of Section 2, and the SW¼, SW¼, SW¼, T79N-R6W,
Johnson County, Iowa, 0.1 km east of the intersection of First Avenue and Scott Boulevard, at an elevation
of 780 ft above mean sea level (Figures 1–5). At the time of survey, the proposed project area was in mowed
grass and light timber cover. The parcel consisted of an irregular area measuring 750 x 400 m in maximum
extent. Project area entrances, staging areas, and material storage areas will be within surveyed areas or on
nearby paved areas.
Soils of the project area are mapped as Fayette silt loam at 5–40% slope, Lindley loam at 18–25% slope,
and a complex of Nodaway and Arenzville silt loam at 1–4% slope (Figure 2; Table 1; Artz 2005;
Schemerhorn 1983; USDA 2020). Soils in upland settings, such as Fayette and Lindley, have relatively
shallow archaeological potential when the parent material predates the earliest human occupation of Iowa
and Holocene-aged surface deposition is slow or absent. Movement of artifacts within the soil column is
restricted to biologically active horizons. If there is adequate ground surface visibility, larger archaeological
sites in plowed upland soils will generally display surface artifacts. Shallow subsurface deposits may exist
in unplowed upland areas, and the bottoms of deep human-dug features may be preserved even in plowed
areas. Subsurface archaeological testing within these upland settings is usually terminated below the
biologically active zone as indicated by the presence of a pedologically formed subsoil (B horizon),
relatively unaltered parent material (C horizon), or bedrock (R horizon).
The Landscape Model for Archaeological Site Suitability (LANDMASS) is a useful tool for predicting
the suitability of a particular upland landform position for prehistoric habitation (Artz et al. 2006; Riley et
al. 2011). The ranking is divided into three suitability rankings: low, moderate, and high, based on logistic
regression statistical analysis of how often sites have been found in areas with topographically similar
terrain. Based upon the model, the project area is located on a landform with a high prehistoric suitability
ranking. It is important to note that this predictive model is limited to upland landforms and does not include
alluvial settings, such as river valleys and drainages.
Historical and Cultural Context
The Iowa Site Record at OSA, records of previous archaeological surveys nearby (OSA 2020), the
National Register Information System web site (National Park Service 2020), the Andreas atlas of Iowa
(Andreas 1875), and Johnson County plat books (Anonymous 1905; Economy Advertising 1917; Hixson
1930; Huebinger 1900; Koser Bros. 1934; Novak 1889; Thompson and Everts 1870) were reviewed for this
survey. Other consulted resources included the 1839 General Land Office survey map (ISUGISRF 2020;
U.S. Department of the Interior 2020), older U.S. Geological Survey maps (USGS 2020), the Historic
Indian Location Database (HILD), and the OSA Notable Locations database of cemeteries and poorly
located historic or archaeological locations (Whittaker 2016, 2020).
Historic documentation revealed no buildings or other improvements within the proposed project area,
and there are no standing buildings or structures located within the proposed project area (Figures 2–3).
Historic aerial photography indicates that the area has been largely under agriculture for most of the
twentieth century, though the areas currently under grass may have been graded or contoured in the 1990s.
Areas currently under timber were largely absent throughmost of the twentieth century, with most present
timber postdating the 1980s. A series of trails ran through the project area, largely along what is now the
OSA Technical Report 1622
3
timber line on the west-central portion of the project area. In addition, the trees along the drainage in the
southern portion of the proposed project area were removed in the 1980s to allow for more agricultural
land. The drainage may have also been straightened or otherwise modified at this time. A farmstead is
present on the 1870 Thompson and Everetts map just north of the proposed project area, north of what is
now Scott Boulevard. That farmstead is likely under or been impacted by modern development.
There are 17 archaeological sites recorded within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the project area. The closest site is
13JH1100, a prehistoric isolated find consisting of a single piece of Late Woodland pottery, located
immediately to the east of the project area. Site 13JH1100 was determined to be not eligible for listing in
the NRHP by SHPO on Nov. 13, 2001 SHPO NADB files). The southern portion of the project area
overlaps with a small portion of a cultural resources survey by Lensink (1978) of proposed Ralston Creek
storm water detention units. The next nearest survey was a Phase I survey by Weitzel (2001) for proposed
First Avenue expansion just east of the project area. Site 13JH1100 was found near the project area in the
2001 survey. The HILD reveals no documented historic Native American use of the project area or nearby
areas. The Notable Locations database shows the locations of St. Joseph’s Cemetery 0.7 km to the east, and
Oakland Cemetery, 0.7 km to the southeast.
Archaeological Assessment
METHODS
Ground surface visibility was inadequate for pedestrian survey, at less than 25%. The proposed project
area was investigated through 5 m interval pedestrian survey and the hand excavation of 67 20 cm diameter
auger tests, in linear transects at 15 m intervals (Figure 3). Auger test soils were removed in arbitrary 10
cm levels to examine soil stratigraphy and were screened with quarter-inch hardware cloth. Soils were
described using the conventions of Schoeneberger et al. (2012). Maximum test depth was 100 cm.
RESULTS
No artifacts were observed on the surface. No artifacts were recovered in auger tests. Subsurface tests
indicated that the proposed project area showed evidence of heavy disturbance, with topsoil (A or Ap)
horizons either truncated or missing from auger test profiles. This missing topsoil supports disturbances
seen in late twentieth century aerial photography. Typical profiles for auger tests in uplands revealed soils
comparable to eroded Fayette soil, with a very thin brown Ap horizon over a dark yellowish Bt1 and
yellowish brown Bt2 horizon (Table 2). Auger tests along the drainage in the south of the project area
revealed a brown Ap horizon over a brown and yellowish brown mixed C horizon, likely indicating past
disturbance. None of the auger tests or cores encountered buried A horizons or other buried surfaces
suitable for habitation.
Management Recommendations
The Phase I archaeological survey by the OSA of a proposed Scott Boulevard Subdivision revealed no
archaeological material or other cultural deposits. The proposed project area was surveyed through
pedestrian survey and excavation of 67 auger tests. Because of this absence of cultural resources and the
lack of potential for intact deposits, no further archaeological work for this project is recommended.
No technique is completely adequate to locate all archaeological materials, especially deeply buried
ones. Therefore, should any cultural, historical, or paleontological resources be exposed as part of proposed
project activities, the responsible agency must be notified immediately in accordance with the Protection
of Historic Properties regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation [36 CFR Part
OSA Technical Report 1622
4
800.13(b)]. If human remains are accidentally discovered, Iowa burial law [Code of Iowa, Sections 263B,
523I.316(6), and 716.5; IAC 685, Ch.11.1] requires that all work in the vicinity of the finding be halted,
the remains protected, local law enforcement officials notified, and the Bioarchaeology director at the OSA
contacted immediately (319-384-0740). Archaeologists with the OSA (319-384-0937) and the State
Historical Society of Iowa (515-281-8744) are also available to consult on issues of accidental discovery.
References Cited
Andreas, Alfred T.
1875 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the State of Iowa. State Historical Society of Iowa, Iowa City.
Anonymous
1905 [Johnson County, Iowa] No publisher listed. University of Iowa Libraries digital map collection,
digital.lib.uiowa.edu/islandora/object/ui:atlases, accessed December 16, 2020.
Artz, Joe A.
2005 Ackmore to Zwingle: Soil Series of Iowa. Iowa I-Sites, Office of the State Archaeologist, University of
Iowa, Iowa City. Electronic document, www.iowaisites.com/soil-series, accessed December 16, 2020.
Artz, Joe A., Chad Goings, and Melanie A. Riley
2006 LANDMASS: A GIS Model for Prehistoric Archaeological Site Suitability in Iowa. Paper presented at
the 64th Plains Anthropological Conference, Topeka, Kansas.
Bettis, E. Arthur III, and John P. Littke
1987 Holocene Alluvial Stratigraphy and Landscape Development in Soap Creek Watershed, Appanoose,
Davis, Monroe, and Wapello Counties, Iowa. Open File Report 87-2. Iowa Geological Survey Bureau,
Iowa City.
Economy Advertising
1917 Atlas of Johnson County, Iowa. Economy Advertising Company, Iowa City, Iowa. University of Iowa
Libraries digital map collection, digital.lib.uiowa.edu/islandora/object/ui:atlases, accessed December
16, 2020.
Hixson, W. W.
1930 Plat Book of Johnson County, Iowa. W.W. Hixson, Rockford, Illinois. University of Iowa Libraries
digital map collection, digital.lib.uiowa.edu/islandora/object/ui:atlases, accessed December 16, 2020.
Huebinger
1900 Atlas of Johnson County, Iowa. Huebinger Survey and Map, Davenport, Iowa. University of Iowa
Libraries digital map collection, digital.lib.uiowa.edu/islandora/object/ui:atlases, accessed December
16, 2020.
Iowa State University Geographic Information Systems Support and Research Facility (ISUGISSRF)
2020 Iowa Geographic Map Server. Iowa State University Geographic Information Systems Support and
Research Facility, Ames, Iowa. Electronic document, ortho.gis.iastate.edu, accessed December 16,
2020.
Koser Bros.
1934 Atlas of Johnson County, Iowa. Koser Brothers, unknown location. University of Iowa Libraries digital
map collection, digital.lib.uiowa.edu/islandora/object/ui:atlases, accessed December 16, 2020.
Lensink, Stephen C.
1978 A Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Ralston Creek Storm Water Detention Units, Iowa City,
Iowa. Contract Completion Report 143. Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa
City.
National Park Service
2020 National Register Information System, National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service,
Washington, DC. Electronic document, www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm,
accessed December 16, 2020.
Novak, J. J.
1889 Novak’s New Map of Johnson County. J. J. Novak, Iowa City, Iowa. University of Iowa Libraries digital
map collection, digital.lib.uiowa.edu/islandora/object/ui:atlases, accessed December 16, 2020.
OSA Technical Report 1622
5
Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA)
2020 I-Sites: An Online GIS and Database for Iowa Archaeology. Office of the State Archaeologist,
University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. Electronic document, www.iowaisites.com, accessed December
16, 2020.
Prior, Jean C.
1991 Landforms of Iowa. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.
Riley, Melanie A., Chad A. Goings, and Joe Alan Artz
2011 The Landscape Model for Archaeological Site Suitability (LANDMASS). In Archaeological Modeling
for the Iowa Portion of the Proposed Rock Island Clean Line Transmission System, by Melanie A.
Riley, Chad A. Goings, and Joe Alan Artz, pp. 5–14. Contract Completion Report 1869. Office of the
State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Schermerhorn, Edward J.
1983 Soil Survey of Johnson County, Iowa. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service.
Schoeneberger, P. J., D. A. Wysocki, and E. C. Benham
2012 Field book for Describing and Sampling Soils. Version 3.0. Natural Resources Conservation Service,
National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, Nebraska. Electronic document,
www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052523.pdf, accessed December 16,
2020.
Thompson and Everts
1870 Combination Atlas Map of Johnson County, Iowa. Thompson and Everts, Geneva, Illinois. University of
Iowa Libraries digital map collection, digital.lib.uiowa.edu/islandora/object/ui:atlases, accessed
December 16, 2020.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2020 Official Soil Series Descriptions. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of
Agriculture. Electronic document, www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/survey, accessed
December 16, 2020.
U.S. Department of the Interior
2020 The Official Federal Land Records Site. Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of the
Interior. Electronic document, livingatlas.arcgis.com/topoexplorer, accessed December 16, 2020.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
2018 US Topo: Maps for America. National Geospatial Program. Electronic document, www.usgs.gov/core-
science-systems/national-geospatial-program/us-topo-maps-america.
2020 USGS Historical Topographic Map Explorer. Electronic document, ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/,
accessed December 16, 2020.
Whittaker, William E.
2016 An Analysis of Historic-Era Indian Locations in Iowa. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 41:159–
185.
2020 Historic Indian Location Database. Electronic document on file, Office of the State Archaeologist,
University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, accessed December 16, 2020.
OSA Technical Report 1622
6
Table 1. Project Area Mapped Soils.
Soil Name ID Description I-Sites LSA1 Landform Native
Vegetation Pedon
Arenzville-
Nodaway
Complex
729B 1–4% slopes Camp Creek Drainageways Tall grass prairie Ap-C1-C2-
C3
Lindley 65F2 18–25% slopes;
moderately eroded
Shallow to pre-
Wisconsin till
Hillslopes Tall grass prairie A-E-Bt1-
Bt2-Bt3-
Bt4-C
Fayette M163 5–40% slopes Loess mantled
terrace, thick
loess
Hillslopes Tall grass prairie Ap-BE-Btt-
Bt2-BC-C
1 Landform/Sediment Assemblage (Artz 2005).
OSA Technical Report 1622
7
Table 2. Representative Soil Profiles.
Location Depth
(cm) Description
Auger Test 4 0–5 Ap horizon of brown (10YR 4/3) silt loam; fine subangular blocky structure;
friable; clear smooth boundary.
5–30 Bt1 horizon of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) silty clay loam; fine to moderate
subangular blocky structure; friable; gradual smooth boundary.
30–50 Bt2 horizon of yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) silty clay loam; moderate subangular
blocky structure; friable to firm.
Auger Test
13
0–20 AC horizon of brown (10YR 4/3) silt loam; fine subangular blocky structure;
friable; clear smooth boundary.
20–100 C horizon of mixed brown (10YR 4/3) and yellowish brown (5/4) silty clay loam;
massive grading to moderate subangular blocky structure; friable; heavy redox
present.
Auger Test
37
0–10 Ap horizon of brown (10YR 4/3) silt loam; fine subangular blocky structure;
friable; clear smooth boundary.
10–20 BE horizon of brown (10YR 4/3) silty clay loam; fine subangular blocky structure;
friable; silt coats on faces of peds; clear smooth boundary.
20–50 Bt1 horizon of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) silty clay loam; fine to moderate
moderate subangular blocky structure; friable; gradual smooth boundary.
Auger Test
41
0-15 Bt1 horizon of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) silty clay loam; fine to moderate
subangular blocky structure; friable; gradual smooth boundary.
15–40 Bt2 horizon of yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) silty clay loam; moderate subangular
blocky structure; friable to firm; silt coats present; gradual smooth boundary.
40–50 BC horizon of yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) silty clay loam; medium prismatic
structure; friable; redox features present; clay skins present.
Auger Test
64
0–10 Ap horizon of brown (10YR 4/3) silt loam; fine subangular blocky structure;
friable; clear smooth boundary.
10–35 Bt1 horizon of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) silty clay loam; fine to moderate
subangular blocky structure; friable; gradual smooth boundary.
35–50 Bt2 horizon of yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) silty clay loam; moderate subangular
blocky structure; friable to firm.
OSA Technical Report 1622
8
Figure 1. Project location in relation to surrounding topography.
Base USGS (2018), U.S. Topo 7.5’ series quadrangle map. Scale 1:24,000.
OSA Technical Report 1622
9
Figure 2. Project location in relation to mapped soil type.
From Iowa Cooperative Soil Survey digitization of Johnson County, base image is composite
2018 aerial photograph and 1 m lidar hillshade map (ISUGISRF 2020).
OSA Technical Report 1622
10
Figure 3. Detail map of project area showing subsurface test locations.
Base image is composite 2018 aerial photograph and 1 m lidar hillshade map (ISUGISRF 2020).
OSA Technical Report 1622
11
Figure 4. Project area photographs.
Upper: project area, facing north near southern portion of project area. Lower: project area,
facing east near southern portion of project area.
OSA Technical Report 1622
12
Figure 5. Project area photographs.
Upper: project area, facing south near northern portion of project area. Lower: project area,
facing east at northern extreme of project area.
OSA Technical Report 1622
13
Appendix I: National Archeological Data Base – Reports Citation Form
Complete items 3 and 5-14. The State Historic Preservation Office will record information for items 1 through 4.
1. DOCUMENT NO. ______________________________________________
2. SOURCE _________________________ AND SHPO – ID _________________
3. FILED AT
Office of the State Archaeologist
700 CLSB
University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA 52242
4. UTM COORDINATES
Zone Easting Northing
Zone Easting Northing
Zone Easting Northing
Zone Easting Northing
Zone Easting Northing
Zone Easting Northing
Continuation, see 14.
5. AUTHORS Warren Davis
6. YEAR 2020 (year published)
7. TITLE Phase I Intensive Archaeological Investigation of the Proposed Scott Boulevard Subdivision Project,
Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
7. PUBLICATION TYPE (circle one)
4. Report Series
9. INFORMATION ABOUT PUBLISHER/PUBLICATION
Follow the American Antiquity style guide for the type of publication circled.
Technical Report 1622 Office of the State Archaeologist, The University of Iowa, Iowa City.
10. STATE/COUNTY (Referenced by report. Enter as many states, counties, or towns, as necessary. Enter
all, if appropriate. Only enter Town if the resources considered are within the town boundaries.)
STATE 1 Iowa COUNTY Johnson TOWN T79N-R6W
11. WORKTYPE [ 32 ] PHASE I
OSA Technical Report 1622
14
12. KEYWORDS and KEYWORD CATEGORIES
Enter as many keywords (with the appropriate keyword category number) as you think will help a person (1) who
is trying to understand what the report contains or (2) who is searching the database for specific information.
Whenever appropriate, record the number of acres studied in a document.
[6 ] Project Area: 59.9 acres [ ]
[ ] [ ]
13. FEDERAL AGENCY
14. CONTINUATION/COMMENTS (include item no.)
FORM COMPLETED BY
Name Warren Davis Date December 16,
2020
Address Office of the State Archaeologist
700 CLSB
University of Iowa
City Iowa City State IA
Zip 52242
Telephone Number 318-384-0937
From:Parker, Adam G
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Proposed Residential Development Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
Date:Sunday, January 31, 2021 8:01:12 PM
Hello Anne/Raymond,
I would like to voice my opinion, that I oppose the planned rezone area next to hickory hill park.
Please forward my concerns to the planning and zoning commission, as they review the rezoning to
put a through street in the are directly adjacent to Hickory Hill Park.
I understand the land adjacent to Hickory Hill Park is private land, but know the land was discussed
in the NE district plan https://www.iowa-city.org/.../0/doc/1473770/Electronic.aspx should
preserve and buffer public lands and Hickory Hill Park. I believe the proposed development
images do not accurately buffer the park and would be short sighted to land which the general
public finds great utility. This would significantly impede on natural landscape and would
permanently alter the watershed, prairies, and sight lines of the park.
Hickory Hill Park is a treasure to this community, especially during the past year due to COVID.
It often is the only “safe” respite which one can truly escape the crowd and be one in nature. I
do not believe this land adjacent would be best utilized as single family plots. This would
further income inequality by providing lots only the upper middle class can afford and will
decrease utilization in the park as the urban sprawl approaches. I would encourage the city
parks department to consider opportunities to include biking, skiing, or more trails if the land
adjacent is for sale. This would be a bigger destination for the community long term utilized by
more community members.
If there is a better way to have my voice heard, please let me know. I look forward to
participating in the planning and zoning meeting when this project is brought up.
Best,
Adam Parker
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
From:Anne Russett
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:FW: new development next to Hickory Hill Park
Date:Monday, January 4, 2021 1:15:35 PM
Attachments:image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
FYI
From: Anne Russett
Sent: Monday, J anuary 4 , 2021 1:15 PM
To: 'Teresa G alluzzo' <tegallu@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: new development nex t to Hickory Hill Park
Hi, Teresa –
Thanks for your message. I’ve received a few other emails regarding the proposed rezoning. City staff is
still working with the applicant on the proposed concept and we have also requested some additional
information regarding their rezoning application.
At this point, I don’t know when this will be before the Planning and Zoning Commission. You can sign-up
for e-subscriptions to keep informed of the items of upcoming Commission meetings:
https://www.icgov.org/e-subscriptions
Thanks. And let me know if you have any questions.
Anne
WWW.ICGOV.ORG
Anne Russett, AICP
Senior PlannerShe/Her/Hersp: 319-356-5251410 E Washington St
Iowa City, IA 52240
From: Teresa G alluzzo <tegallu@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, J anuary 4 , 2021 12:56 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: new development nex t to Hickory Hill Park
Hi Anne,I am writing because I am concerned about the plans for the houses being built next toHickory Hill Park. This park is a refuge for so many people. A place to find peace, solve lifeproblems, listen to birds, and feel like you are in the wild even in the middle of Iowa City.
It is unlike any other park in the area. I am sad to know the hay fields on the Northeast
side of the park will be developed at all, but I am particularly worried that houses are being
proposed right next to the park boundary. (On the version of the plans I saw, it is lots 14
to 28 in particular that seem intrusive to HHP.) I would like to see a buffer between HHP
and the houses to help preserve some of the feeling of being able to get lost in the park
and in your own thoughts, so after a trip to Hickory Hill folks can return to their work and
family with more energy and clearer thinking. Thanks for considering my concerns.
Sincerely, Teresa Galluzzo Iowa City resident and longtime HHP visitor
From:Anne Russett
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:FW: Zoning near Hickory Hill Park
Date:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 8:43:34 AM
Can you please follow-up with Adam?
From: Parker, Adam G <adam-parker@uiowa.edu>
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 8:36 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Zoning near Hickory Hill Park
Hello Anne,
I am looking to inquire about the rezoning of land North East of Hickory Hill Park? Is there a place I
can go to access information about what the proposed rezoning of the area is going to be?
Appreciate any insight and guidance.
Best,
Adam Parker
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the individual
or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all
copies of the original message and attachments thereto. Email sent to or from UI Health Care may
be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank you.
From:Parker, Adam G
To:Raymond Heitner
Cc:Anne Russett
Subject:Re: [External] Zoning near Hickory Hill Park
Date:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 9:19:47 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Great, thank you for following up. I am fairly new to planning and zoning, but it appears there will be
a meeting this Thursday (third Thursday of the month) Where would I find the agenda or “staff
report” for this Thursday’s meeting? Or is that accessible prior to the meeting to know what will be
discussed. Apologize for the inconvenience of walking me through a website. (I hate doing it for
clients I serve, but I genuinely do not see it, just the meeting on Jan 21 discussion) Also, assuming a
zoom link will be added to the web to attend Thursday?
Additionally, is the board considering the Iowa City district plan with the development? I understand
the land looking to be developed is private land, but hope the considerations of the community will
be taken into account by following the Iowa City district plan which had significant community input.
Lastly, when and for how long will the community be able to know and provide feedback for the new
development? I guess I am more curious, as to what will be developed there if the community has a
voice with how it is developed?
Thanks,
Adam
From: Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner@iowa-city.org>
Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 9:00 AM
To: "Parker, Adam G" <adam-parker@uiowa.edu>
Cc: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: [External] Zoning near Hickory Hill Park
Good Morning Adam,
Anne forwarded me your question about the rezoning northeast of Hickory Hill Park.
We are currently working with the applicant on a few details pertaining to their concept plan for this
rezoning application. We do not have a date for when the rezoning application will be presented to
the City’s Planning and Zoning Commission.
You can check the following website for information on when the application will be heard by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. https://www.icgov.org/city-government/boards/planning-and-
zoning-commission
The link above will also provide the City’ s staff report and meeting packet by 5:00PM on the Friday
prior to each meeting (P& Z meetings occur the first and third Thursday of each month). The meeting
packet will provide information on how to participate in the Commission’ s zoom meeting.
If you have any questions or comments that you would like sent to the Commission for
consideration, please feel free to email me, and I will forward your comments onto the Commission.
Ray He tner
Associate Planner
(he/ him/ his)
319 .356 .5238
raymond-heitner@iowa-city.org
4 10 E W ashington S t, Iowa City, IA 5224 0
WWW.ICGOV.ORG
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use
by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete or destroy all copies of the original message and attachments thereto.
Email sent to or from UI Health Care may be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank
you.
From:Anne Russett
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:FW: ACT development
Date:Monday, January 25, 2021 5:01:50 PM
Attachments:Notice.docx
Ray – Please see the email below. I’ve created the attached for him. What do you think?
From: Casey James Kohrt <cjkohrt@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 3:59 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Re: ACT development
That would be great.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 3:36 PM Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> wrote:
Hi, Casey –
At the moment, I don’t have any extra rezoning signs to put out there. We’ve had several that were
damaged and destroyed this winter. One idea is to put some notices in the kiosks as trail heads. If
that’s something you’d like to do I could put together a PDF with some general information that you
could print to put in a kiosk.
Thanks, Anne
From: Casey James Kohrt <cjkohrt@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 2:33 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Re: ACT development
Hi Anne, It is the Friends of Hickory Hill Park's request for two additional signs to be placed in thepark to make the general public aware of the application for rezoning of the property. We feel the current single sign does not inform the general public of the full scope of the
land potentially being developed. Therefore, would it be possible for additional signage
to be placed inside the park to notify the public?
We would be happy to pick up the signage at a City office and have it placed in the park
by a member of Friends of Hickory Hill Park Board.
Best,
Casey
Chair, FHHP
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 2:52 PM Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> wrote:
Hi, Casey –
We have a received a rezoning application for this land. At this point, I don’t know when it will
be on a Planning and Zoning Commission agenda. You can sign up for e-subscriptions, though,
so you can keep track of when Commission agendas are published:
https://www.icgov.org/e-subscriptions
Let me know if you have any other questions.
Thanks, Anne
From: Casey James Kohrt <cjkohrt@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 10:03 AM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: ACT development
Hi Anne,
Has anything been filed with the City yet on the ACT-owned land by developer Joe
Clark? Do you have an estimate of when that might happen?
Casey Kohrt
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely
for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this
information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
From:Parker, Adam G
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Re: [External] RE: Proposed Residential Development Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
Date:Monday, February 1, 2021 10:26:08 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Hello Ray,
I appreciate you forwarding my concerns to the P&Z commission/City Council.
Best,
Adam
From: Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner@iowa-city.org>
Date: Monday, February 1, 2021 at 10:21 AM
To: "Parker, Adam G" <adam-parker@uiowa.edu>, Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-
city.org>
Subject: [External] RE: Proposed Residential Development Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
Good Morning Adam,
Thank you for your comments on the proposed residential development adjacent to Hickory
Hill Park. Your comments will be forwarded on to the Planning and Zoning Commission for
consideration.
The rezoning will have public hearings by both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council, with opportunities for direct public comment at both stages. We do not have a date
set for the application to appear before the Planning and Zoning Commission.
If you want to keep track of Planning and Zoning Commission agendas, I would recommend
you sign up to receive an email notice whenever a Commission packet is published:
https://www.icgov.org/e-subscriptions. Meetings are held the first and third Thursday of each
month.
You can also email any correspondence you may have for the Planning and Zoning
Commission to my email address raymond-heitner@iowa-city.org.
Thank you,
Ray He tner
Associate Planner
(he/ him/ his)
319 .356 .5238
raymond-heitner@iowa-city.org
4 10 E W ashington S t, Iowa City, IA 5224 0
WWW.ICGOV.ORG
From: Parker, Adam G <adam-parker@uiowa.edu>
Sent: S unday, J anuary 31, 2021 8 :01 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>; Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner@iowa-
city.org>
Subject: Proposed Residential Development Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
Hello Anne/ Raymond,
I would like to voice my opinion, that I oppose the planned rezone area nex t 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/ 14 7 37 7 0/ 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 CO V ID.
It often is the only “ safe” respite which one can truly escape the crowd and be one in nature. I
do not believe this land adjacent would be best utilized as single family plots. This would
further income inequality by providing lots only the upper middle class can afford and will
decrease utilization in the park as the urban sprawl approaches. I would encourage the city
parks department to consider opportunities to include biking, skiing, or more trails if the land
adjacent is for sale. This would be a bigger destination for the community long term utilized by
more community members.
If there is a better way to have my voice heard, please let me know. I look forward to
participating in the planning and zoning meeting when this project is brought up.
Best,
Adam Parker
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the individual
or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all
copies of the original message and attachments thereto. Email sent to or from UI Health Care may
be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank you.
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use
by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete or destroy all copies of the original message and attachments thereto.
Email sent to or from UI Health Care may be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank
you.
From:Mary Winder
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:views regarding development near Hickory Hill Park
Date:Tuesday, February 2, 2021 1:36:35 PM
Feb. 2, 2021
Dear Anne Russett and Ray Heitner:
I am writing to you about the housing development being proposed for land along the
northeast border of Hickory Hill Park.
To give you a bit of background, I grew up in Iowa City and spent many, many happy times in
Hickory Hill Park through the years. I like that park so much, in fact, that I held my wedding
there! I have moved away from Iowa City, but every single time I return for a visit, taking a
walk at Hickory Hill Park is always at the top of my list of things to do.
I have often marveled at the forethought of the people who preserved this wild patch of
woods, fields, hills, and creeks for the benefit of the community and the wildlife. It is a unique
and very precious treasure in the Iowa City community.
I understand that land around the park will be developed, but I am very concerned when I
read that the proposed design that the developer is presenting for the housing development
area along the northeast border of the park does not follow the guidelines in the
Comprehensive Plan that has been established by the City. This is extremely unwise, and it is
wrong, as the guidelines were put in place for good reason. It is vital that they be followed.
I am writing to ask you to please require that the development plan be revised so that it does
follow the appropriate guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan, allowing Hickory Hill Park to
retain its “natural and wild” character as opposed to being hemmed in closely by a poorly
planned residential development that does not follow the City’s own guidelines.
Now is the time to require revision of the development plan. Once the land has been rezoned
and the development is in place, it will be too late to say to yourself, “Gosh, I wish we had
done this differently.” Jackie Joyner-Kersee said, “It’s better to look ahead and prepare, than
to look back and regret.”
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need clarification. Thank you for
taking time to read my views on this important matter.
Sincerely,
Mary Winder
785-985-2519
From:Stella Hart
To:anne-russet@iowa-city.org; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Hickory Hill Park
Date:Monday, February 8, 2021 5:51:29 PM
Hello!
I’m writing to express my strong opposition to any rezoning or development of Hickory Hill Park. It really is a very
special place in our community, and losing any part of it would be devastating.
Thank you for your consideration and all you do for the city.
Stella Hart
1331 Dodge Street Ct
Iowa City, IA 52245
This email is from an external source.
From:Anne Russett
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:FW: Proposed land development
Date:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 8:51:04 AM
Can you please follow-up with this person if you haven’t, yet.
From: Jorgensen, Shea M <shea-jorgensen@uiowa.edu>
Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2021 1:34 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>; ray-heitner@iowa-city.org
Subject: Proposed land development
Dear Ms. Russett and Mr. Heitner,
My family lives in Iowa City and we frequent Hickory Hills, as well as other natural areas in
town, at least weekly with our 2-year-old. One of our favorite aspects of Iowa City is the
nature built into the city, especially places we can easily walk to, like Hickory Hills.
I am very concerned about the encroachment of the residential development proposal adjacent
to Hickory Hills. I don't believe the developer's proposed design is an adequate buffer and it
would be a shame to lose another of the few natural places remaining in the city. I hope that
we can protect what is left of our wild areas for future generations. Once they are developed,
they will never be reclaimed. On behalf of my 2-year-old and all the kids who benefit from
natural places in the city, thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Shea Jorgensen, MD
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the individual
or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and
From:Kristen Morrow
To:Raymond Heitner; Anne Russett
Subject:Hickory Hill Land Development
Date:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 7:09:01 PM
Hello Mr. Heitner and Ms. Russett,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed rezoning and housing development on
the land directly abutting Hickory Hill. I am very concerned with the lack of buffer between
this development and the park, and I feel that this development would bring irreparable harm
to the sense of wildness one can feel while hiking Hickory Hill's more remote trails. Like
many residents in my generation, I yearn for more wild places, more trails, more public lands
and parks. This sentiment seems to be growing, especially in light of the pandemic, as more
and more people are finding refuge in the natural world. While I greatly value the Iowa City
parks that are available to me, it's hard not to feel the tug of cities that have placed greater
value on keeping wild corridors. For the sake of Iowa City's residents, wildlife, and reputation,
I think it would be a great mistake if this development were allowed to carve out some of the
remaining wild spaces we have.
Thank you for your time,
Kristen Morrow
"There can be no purpose more enspiriting than to begin the age of restoration,
reweaving the wondrous diversity of life that still surrounds us." - E. O. Wilson.
From:Lutgendorf, Philip A
To:Raymond Heitner; Anne Russett
Cc:friends.hh.park@gmail.com; Lutgendorf, Susan K
Subject:Rezoning the field adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
Date:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 8:28:07 PM
Dear Ms. Russett and Mr. Heitner,
As a nearby resident and frequent walker in Hickory Hill Park, I am deeply troubled by the
current rezoning request that would allow a developer to put fifty-four houses and a street
into the fairly narrow field adjoining the park on its northeast side. I knew something like this
was coming when I repeatedly saw an “Axiom” truck in the field just south of the new Oaknoll
East facility during the summer, with people taking measurements, but I did not guess the
extent of the development they want to build. In my experience over nearly four decades, the
City has given up several opportunities to preserve, through the acquisition of former farms, a
larger belt of greenspace that would enhance the quality of life for residents and prevent our
area becoming part of continuous semi-urban sprawl, especially to the east and north.
Approving the present request—the density of which I understand to violate the City’s own
Northeast District Plan and its mandate for “conservation residential design,” as well as its
Comprehensive Plan—would be yet another failure of vision, and loss of an opportunity to
enhance Iowa City’s livability and recreational opportunities for present and future residents.
If there is more that I can do (in our present situation of limited social interaction) to register
my concern over and opposition to this proposed rezoning, please let me know.
Thanking you,
Philip Lutgendorf
2 Glendale Court
Iowa City (52245)
319 541-5145
From:Shelly Carpenter
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:REZ20-0016 Hickory Trail Estates
Date:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 1:41:46 PM
Dear Mr. Heitner
In response to the notice we received regarding the proposal to rezone the area around Scott
Blvd. and 1st Ave. on the east side of Iowa City we would like to express our concern about
how the planned rezoning would affect Hickory Hill park and surrounding areas. We oppose
any rezoning that would have construction butting up against city preserve and park land.
Also we would request that any development approaching the park be done with single-loaded
streets to allow for a natural buffer between park grounds and housing developments.
Thank you.
Shelly & Marty Carpenter
1035 Tamarack Trail
--
Shelly Carpenter, M.S.
Certified Wellness Coach and Yoga Instructor
www.wellfinity.com
319.330.8382
From:Erin Durian
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Rezoning Message
Date:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 5:43:45 PM
Mr. Heitner,
I am writing to you about the proposed development in the area behind Hickory Hill Park. I believe
that this space is vital for the neighborhood community and should not be further developed. Please
share these comments with the Commission.
Over the years, this space has been important to me personally but I have also been
observing its importance to others. One of the reasons I love living in this neighborhood is the
proximity to nature and in the summer and spring and fall, my preferred walk when I’m feeling
stressed, overwhelmed, or sad is through Hickory Hill to the Big Field that opens up. This space
always feels magical because of its isolation and its expansive presence close to a busy street. On the
days I come up, I’ll sit at the top of the hill- sometimes for an hour or two- and appreciate the sound
of the birds and the quiet, of being surrounded by trees. I’ll observe the plants that grow and the
animals that sneak by. I’ve seen deer, owls, a fox come into the clearing and walk along known
pathways so I know they also appreciate the quiet and the trees. I’ll see families taking a walk
together with their dog leaping beside them (the dog is always particularly stupefied by the amount
of open space to run). I’ll wave hello and listen to their soft footsteps in the grass allowing my mind
to relax, observe, and appreciate what we have around us.
This space is a sanctuary for the residents of this neighborhood and their families as well as
for the wildlife that travels between the park and other wooded areas. I believe the value of this
place is greater as it is, than it would be with another street of houses. Please reconsider developing
this area as it holds a special place in my heart.
Thank you,
Erin Durian
51 Hickory Pl
From:Jason Napoli
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Re: Rezoning Near 1st Avenue and Scott Boulevard
Date:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 5:25:47 PM
Attachments:image004.png
image005.png
image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
Hi Ray-
Thank you for the follow-up regarding this matter. Would you be able to help interpret this new plat
proposal? It appears that lot 45 now contains ten separate homes. Is there a reason and/or strategy for
that?
Furthermore, it appears the numbering of the lots has changed since the original proposal, which is
concerning since my initial message to Anne identified lots 14-28 as not following the concept of a single-
loaded street development. The lots that are now of concern are 26-44. If other residents previously
expressed concern about specific lots can we be sure the numbering change will be taken into
consideration by the Commission?
Thank you again for reconnecting. As previously mentioned, it is concerning how far this proposal is from
the established NE District Plan for the Bluffwood area and I hope the Planning & Zoning Commission will
follow the established guidelines when developing against city preserve.
All the best,
Jason
On Monday, February 8, 2021, 02:39:51 PM CST, Raymond Heitner <raymond-heitner@iowa-city.org>
wrote:
All,
Please see the attached neighbor notification letter for the rezoning application near the intersection of 1st
Avenue and Scott Boulevard. The attached letter contains information pertaining to the currently
scheduled meeting date and time that the rezoning will be discussed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. The letter also contains information on how to access and participate in the meeting.
Please feel free to email me any additional comments that you might like the Commission to consider in
its evaluation of this application.
Thank you,
Ray Heitner
From:Ben Berger
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:RE: REZ20-0016 Hickory Trail Estates
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 9:28:29 AM
Hi Raymond,
I received your letter in the mail about the potential rezoning for Hickory Trail Estates. Thank
you for reaching out and allowing the public to voice their opinions.
While I do not disagree with development in our community, I do want it to be done in areas
that do not impact housing and the environment that is already present.
With the new proposed development, I am very concerned about the impact it will have on the
environment and Hickory Hill Park. I very much enjoy walking through the park and
admiring the natural haven that it provides for humans and nature. I fear that by placing a
housing development right along the border of the park, we as a community will negatively
affect the animals and their homes.
Another very real concern is the added traffic on N. 1st Ave. Traffic on this street is already
very busy and more often than not far exceeding the posted speed limits. I have 3 young
children, and I am always concerned about the traffic on this street. Adding the development
will increase traffic volumes and I believe just lead to additional issues.
The way that the development road will be placed I believe will create an avenue of least
resistance to Eastbound traffic on Scott. At night when the stop at N. 1st Ave and Scott
becomes backed up, traffic will just shoot down the neighborhood and to the intersection at
Hickory Trail and N. 1st Ave.
I have approached the city about traffic calming on N. 1st Ave before, but have not seen any
attempts to control it. What is the city planning to do with the increased traffic and speeds? I
hope they have a suggestion.
Finally, I purchased my house on N. 1st Ave because of the great views out the back of the lot
(ravine) and across the street to the open field and trees. This development will negatively
affect my view across the street and I will be forced to look at a large building development.
My suggestion is the city looks to rezone and develop elsewhere. Leave nature alone and do
not impact an area that so many people of the community love and enjoy.
Thank you.
--
Ben Berger
From:karen.nichols
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Development along Hickory Hill Park
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 11:26:33 AM
Dear Ms. Russett, Mr. Heitner, and members of the Iowa City Planning and Zoning
Commission:
I am writing in opposition to the rezoning request for a residential housing development along
the northeast border of Hickory Hill Park. I am not opposed to development near the park in
general, but do object to the proposed development as currently presented. Based on images of
the plan I have seen, it does not seem to adhere to the recommendations in the Northeast
District Plan or the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
The Northeast District Plan calls for a "conservation residential design" in the neighborhood
that provides a buffer between the residential development and the park. The City's
Comprehensive Plan, when discussing Parks and Open Space Goals and Strategies,
discourages parks that are surrounded by private property and encourages development of
parks with single loaded street access. The developer’s proposed design does not seem to
adhere to either of these plans.
Hickory Hill park is a jewel of Iowa City and one of the reasons our family stays here.
Considerable community effort has gone into protecting and maintaining the park over many
decades. Developers, planners, and other city leaders must respect the wishes of the
community as expressed in the Northeast District Plan and the City’s Comprehensive Plan,
which set forth guidelines that residents expect to be followed in developing land near the
park. Please require that the developer's plans be reworked to adhere to our city's expressed
guidelines.
Thank you.
With warmest regards,
Karen Nichols
Communications Professional
1740 F Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
641.781.8506
karen.nichols@pm.me
she/her/hers
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
From:Veronica Bolinger
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Hickory Hill Park Proposed Rezoning Concerns
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 12:26:24 PM
To Whom it may Concern,
I am concerned about the rezoning request for new development near Hickory Hill Park, this proposal does not comply with the NE District plan, or the Comprehensive Plan and needs to be reworked. These plans were put in place to protect and minimize the impact to Hickory Hill Park and they should absolutely be followed and the diverging from these stated goals shows a lack of integrity to our citizens and community. I would appreciate it if you would forward my concerns onto the Planning and Zoning team.
A concerned citizen,Veronica Bolinger
From:Jesse Thomas
To:Anne Russett
Cc:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Re: Proposed development of Hickory Hill Park
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 12:50:23 PM
Attachments:image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
Thanks for the option Anne. I would prefer to retract my first statement and just make a broad
comment based on what little I know of the project right now:
1. I'm in favor of Hickory hill park growing.
2. I'm against boxing in the park which could reduce its expansion options in the future
3. I would prefer we avoid more low-density development or road laying but if we cannot
avoid it I would insist that we take every opportunity to build dedicated and separate bicycle
infrastructure so we don't need to share the road with car users.
This is the first time in 20 years I've paid attention. I'll tune in closely so I can make more
educated comments next time.
Thank you
Jesse
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:22 PM Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> wrote:
Hi, Jesse – Would you like me to share this correspondence with the Commission? If you’d like to
revise your statement for me to share with the Commission you could do that, as well.
Thanks, Anne
From: Jesse Thomas <jessemacfarlane@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 12:14 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Re: Proposed development of Hickory Hill Park
Thanks for the clarification Anne I was confused about the facts there.
I'm reassured to hear you would grow the park... let's do it!
Jesse
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 10:44 AM Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> wrote:
Hi, Jesse –
Thank you for your email. We will forward it to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their
consideration.
I wanted to clarify that the proposal does not turn over any of the existing parkland to development. I
would increase the size of the park by 10 acres. That said, the development is adjacent to the park.
Let us know if you have any questions.
Thanks, Anne
WWW.ICGOV.ORG
Anne Russett, AICP
Senior Planner
She/Her/Hers
p: 319-356-5251
410 E Washington St
Iowa City, IA 52240
From: Jesse Thomas <jessemacfarlane@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 9:59 AM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Proposed development of Hickory Hill Park
Hello Anne,
Would you please forward this to the Planning and Zoning Commission?
I am the owner of 625 S Governor St and I think that turning over any part of Hickory Hill
Park to development would be a huge mistake.
It goes without saying that HHP is a beloved benefit for the entire community in any year
but to think of encroaching on the park after living through Covid is shocking and hurtful
to put it mildly.
There are so many areas in our city already bulldozed, paved, and vacant that can accept
such a development. In order to lead the state in equity and human happiness, we need to
increase the density of what we have already developed, decrease our automobile
dependence, and increase the leisure spaces and our access to them with bicycle highways
and free bussing.
I use every acre of Hickory Hill park every month of the year and I would be extremely
sad to see more wasteful sprawl continue to make a mockery of our "Athens of the
Midwest" reputation.
Jesse Thomas
Resident
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for
use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this
information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
From:Hillary Schofield
To:anne-russet@iowa-city.org; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Proposed Residential Development Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 1:00:44 PM
Dear Anne and Ray,
I am writing to express my disapproval of the proposed development adjacent to Hickory Hill
Park. I explore and walk the trails of HHP frequently. It is a precious source of renewal in
Iowa City, without having to travel very far. It is so important to have this kind of refuge in
town, and not only for humans, but for all the other creatures that are trying to persist and
thrive despite the ever-encroaching spread of human settlement. A development so close and
so elaborate would undoubtedly have a negative domino effect on the ecosystem of the Park.
My strong feelings aside, this plan does not comply with the Northeast District Plan, nor the
Comprehensive Plan; these need to be followed in order to minimize the damage to this dearly
valued part of Iowa City.
I ask that you please pass along these comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Many thanks for your time,
Hillary
From:Anne Russett
To:"nancy footner"
Cc:Raymond Heitner
Subject:RE: Hickory Hill Park proposed development
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 1:04:33 PM
Thanks, Nancy. We will pass this along to the Commission.
Anne
From: nancy footner <nfootner@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 12:47 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Hickory Hill Park proposed development
Dear Ms Russett,
I am writing to protest the proposed development on the NE side of Hickory Hill Park.
This plan completely violates both terms laid out in the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan and the NE
District plan.
Please forward this email to all the members of the Planning and Zoning committee and the City
Council.
The proposal must be rejected. Hickory Hill Park is a precious natural area and must be protected
from any further encroachment by development.
Nancy Footner
Iowa City Citizen
2008 Dunlap Ct, Iowa City, IA 52245
319 3382674
From:Anne Russett
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:FW: Hickory Hill Development
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 2:24:32 PM
Please include with Commission correspondence.
From: Susannah Neal <susannahgkneal@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 2:04 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Hickory Hill Development
Dear Ms Russett
As a citizen of Iowa City I am writing to object to the proposed development that borders Hickory Hill
Park. This proposed development does not comply with the NE Plan nor does it comply to the
Comprehensive Plans. Those plans were put in place to protect HHP and by breaching these plans
this development is in violation of those plans. Please immediately reverse the course of this
egregious development plan.
Respectfully,
Susannah Neal
1133 Chamberlain Drive
Iowa City, IA 52240
From:Heather McKnight
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Hickory Hill
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 3:56:07 PM
Anne and Raymond,
I am writing to you to express my dismay at the proposed rezoning of land adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. Hickory
Hill is an oasis within the city. A sprawling park where I and my kids wander aimlessly and discover new delights.
We have seen foxes, deer and numerous other wildlife. It is a special retreat and I fear a rezoning would be very
disruptive to the rugged and wild landscape and wildlife. This proposal does not comply with the NE District plan,
nor the Comprehensive Plan and I strongly encourage the proposal not be accepted. Please share my feedback with
planning and zoning.
Thank you,
Heather
Sent from my iPhone
This email is from an external source.
From:Messingham, Kelly
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Hickory Trail rezoning project by Axiom consultants
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 4:19:03 PM
To: Iowa City Planning and Rezoning Commission and City Council
c/o Anne Russett and Raymond-Heitner
We are writing to convey our objection to the proposed rezoning and development of the 48.75
acres on the SW corner of Scott Blvd and N 1st Ave by Axiom Consultants for completion of a Hickory
Trail extension. The proposed development, with up to 50 single family lots and a senior living
facility with 120 units, does not comply with the NE District plan and the Comprehensive plan set
forth by the City. The original plan specified development of a short cul-de-sac-no longer than 900
feet. These original plans were put into place to minimize the impact of development on HHP, and
should be followed. HHP is a unique urban park that should be protected. A larger buffer is
necessary to diminish city noise within the park and elimination of the buffer zone to the proposed
35-48 feet (in some areas) will have a direct impact on wildlife that travel between the park and
surrounding areas on a daily basis.
Additionally, we live immediately adjacent to the site to be developed and this extensive increase in
housing density will dramatically increase noise and traffic in the area, with a negative impact on
both HHP and the traffic on Scott Blvd.
Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions. Thank you.
Kelly Messingham
Michael Messingham
64 Hickory Heights Lane
Iowa City, IA 52245
Ph. 319.594.6611
kelly-messingham@uiowa.edu
michaelmessingham@gmail.com
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete or destroy all copies of the original message and attachments thereto.
Email sent to or from UI Health Care may be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank
you.
From:Emily Schacht
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 4:31:59 PM
To: Iowa City Planning and Rezoning Commission and City Council
I'd like to express my objection to the proposed rezoning and development of the 48.75 acres on the SW corner of Scott Blvd and N 1st Ave by Axiom Consultants for completion of a Hickory Trail extension. The proposed development, with up to 50 single family lots and a senior living facility with 120 units does not comply with the NE District plan and the Comprehensive plan set forth by the City. These original plans were put into place to minimize the impact of development on Hickory Hill Park, and should be followed. Hickory HIll Park is a unique urban park that should be protected. A larger buffer is necessary to diminish city noise within the park and elimination of the buffer zone to the proposed 35-48 feet (in some areas) will have a direct impact on wildlife that travel between the park and surrounding areas on a daily basis.
I am not opposed to development in general, and believe development is necessary for our town to continue to retain its current residents and attract new ones. However, development needs to be done thoughtfully, which is what the NE District plan and Comprehensive City plan accomplish. These plans should be followed.
Please forward my comment to the Planning and Rezoning Commission and City Council.
Sincerely,Emily Campbell328 N 7th Ave, Iowa City, IA
From:kristen Nelson-Boutros
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Proposed Rezoning and Development
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 4:45:17 PM
Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org and Raymond-heitner@iowa-city.org
To: Iowa City Planning and Rezoning Commission and City Council
We are writing to convey our objection to the proposed rezoning and development of the
48.75 acres on the SW corner of Scott Blvd and N 1st Ave by Axiom Consultants for
completion of a Hickory Trail extension. The proposed development, with up to 50 single
family lots and a senior living facility with 120 units, does not comply with the the NE District
plan and the Comprehensive plan set forth by the City. The original plan specified
development of a short cul-de-sac-no longer than 900 feet. These original plans were put into
place to minimize the impact of development on Hickory Hills Park (HHP), and should be
followed. HHP is a unique urban park that should be protected. A larger buffer is necessary to
diminish city noise within the park and elimination of the buffer zone to the proposed 35-48
feet (in some areas) will have a direct impact on wildlife that travel between the park and
surrounding areas on a daily basis.
Additionally, we live immediately adjacent to the site to be developed and this extensive
increase in housing density will dramatically increase noise and traffic in the area, with a
negative impact on both HHP and the traffic on Scott Blvd.
Sincerely,
Kristen Nelson-Boutros
Rami Boutros
Get Outlook for iOS
From:Robin Kopelman
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Hickory Hill Park area rezoning
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 4:59:11 PM
To: Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council:
We are writing to convey our objection to the proposed rezoning and
development of the 48.75 acres on the SW corner of Scott Blvd and N
1st Ave by Axiom Consultants for completion of a Hickory Trail
extension. The proposed development, with up to 50 single family lots
and a senior living facility with 120 units, does not comply with the
NE District plan and the Comprehensive plan set forth by the City. The
original plan specified development of a short cul-de-sac-no longer
than 900 feet. These original plans were put into place to minimize
the impact of development on HHP, and should be followed. HHP is a
unique urban park that should be protected. A larger buffer is
necessary to diminish city noise within the park and elimination of
the buffer zone to the proposed 35-48 feet (in some areas) will have a
direct impact on wildlife that travel between the park and surrounding
areas on a daily basis.
Additionally, we speak as a family who lives adjacent to Hickory Hill
Park. We share concerns with other adjacent neighborhoods that the
extensive increase in housing density will dramatically increase noise
and traffic in the area, with a negative impact on both HHP and the
traffic on Scott Blvd. and 1st Ave..
Our six family members are daily users of the park, whether as
recreational hikers, XC skiers, responsible dog walkers, sledders, and
trail runners. I (Robin) also co-lead the Iowa City Trail Sisters, an
all-women's trail running group who regularly runs in and loves this
wild area deeply. For these reasons, we are concerned it will
severely impact the wildlife habitat, negatively impact the quality of
the park experience, and be detrimental to the already poor water
quality of Ralston Creek.
Please forward our comments.
Sincerely,
Robin and Todd Kopelman
523 Woodridge Avenue
Iowa City
Sent from my iPhone
This email is from an external source.
From:Mark Renshaw
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner; Bruce Teague
Subject:Rezoning
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 8:00:22 PM
To: Iowa City Planning and Rezoning Commission and City Council
I am writing to contest and oppose the proposed rezoning and development of the 48.75 acres on the SW corner of
Scott Boulevard and N 1st Avenue by Axiom Consultants for completion of a Hickory Trail extension.
The proposed rezoning and development, with up to 50 single family lots and a senior living facility with 120 units,
does not comply with the the NE District Plan and the Comprehensive Plan set forth by the City of Iowa City. The
original plans specified development of a short cul-de-sac-no longer than 900 feet, and were developed to minimize
the impact of on Hickory Hills Park. If this space is to be developed, these original plans must be followed. Our
Hickory Hills Park is a unique urban park that should be protected. A larger buffer is necessary to diminish city
noise within the park and elimination of the buffer zone to the proposed 35-48 feet (in some areas) will have a direct
impact on wildlife that travel between the park and surrounding areas.
Additionally, my property is immediately adjacent to the site to be developed and this extensive increase in housing
density will dramatically increase noise and traffic in the area, with a negative impact on both Hickory Hills Park
and traffic on Scott Boulevard.
Sincerely,
Mark Renshaw
72 Hickory Heights Lane
Iowa City, Iowa
This email is from an external source.
From:Bruce Teague
To:Mark Renshaw;Anne Russett;Raymond Heitner
Subject:Re: Rezoning
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 8:22:31 PM
Attachments:OutlookEmoji-1554175382453692d126f-b36d-4eda-babd-0f3060f207ce.png
OutlookEmoji-1554175382453074ba4ce-9234-4274-9637-aa0aebc05576.png
OutlookEmoji-15541753824534c39b404-ae1f-45ae-b633-343d56495d4a.png
OutlookEmoji-1554175382453b45f3b08-f30a-4ebe-897f-9445fc8ace4f.png
OutlookEmoji-1554175382453a0398783-e4e2-4f62-99a9-06452c02d067.png
OutlookEmoji-1554175382453e323ed16-9e35-4f52-aa06-361cf68c4e59.png
OutlookEmoji-1554175382453dde46e65-eb31-45e1-a249-f58094e1c0d6.png
OutlookEmoji-155417538245367aed794-3e7c-4608-9056-2a5589e5e6b3.png
OutlookEmoji-1554175382453a419b920-12c8-4663-ab60-853ac4c91599.png
OutlookEmoji-15541753824533aa0bf07-2022-4c92-a736-5452034d69fd.png
OutlookEmoji-1554175382453fae27209-c22b-4b3d-bcc1-0361b217bcde.png
OutlookEmoji-155417538245319745814-5f90-4f63-aadf-8a0d3471bb86.png
OutlookEmoji-15541753824535b9a9ec7-b9a4-445a-b58a-7a5cecd0f68d.png
Thanks for reaching out and sharing your concerns. I hear you!
This project will first be at our Planning and Z oning 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.
S incerely,
Mayor B ruce Teague
( H e/ H im/ H is)
Iowa City City Council Member - At L arge
1-319 -536 -1200
4 10 E. W ashington S t. Iowa City, Iowa 5224 0
W W W .ICG O V .O RG
Notice:Please be advised this email communication may be public information.
From: Mark Renshaw <markrenshaw@me.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 8 :00:00 PM
To: Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner; B ruce Teague
Subject: Rezoning
To: Iowa City Planning and Rezoning Commission and City Council
I am writing to contest and oppose the proposed rezoning and development of the 48.75 acres on the SW corner of
Scott Boulevard and N 1st Avenue by Axiom Consultants for completion of a Hickory Trail extension.
The proposed rezoning and development, with up to 50 single family lots and a senior living facility with 120 units,
does not comply with the the NE District Plan and the Comprehensive Plan set forth by the City of Iowa City. The
original plans specified development of a short cul-de-sac-no longer than 900 feet, and were developed to minimize
the impact of on Hickory Hills Park. If this space is to be developed, these original plans must be followed. Our
Hickory Hills Park is a unique urban park that should be protected. A larger buffer is necessary to diminish city
noise within the park and elimination of the buffer zone to the proposed 35-48 feet (in some areas) will have a direct
impact on wildlife that travel between the park and surrounding areas.
Additionally, my property is immediately adjacent to the site to be developed and this extensive increase in housing
density will dramatically increase noise and traffic in the area, with a negative impact on both Hickory Hills Park
and traffic on Scott Boulevard.
Sincerely,
Mark Renshaw
72 Hickory Heights Lane
Iowa City, Iowa
This email is from an external source.
From:Elizabeth Tracey
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Re: Development by Axiom Consultants bordering Hickory Hill Park
Date:Friday, February 12, 2021 1:17:38 AM
We are writing to convey our objection to the proposed rezoning and development of the 48.75 acres on the SW
corner of Scott Blvd and N 1st Ave by Axiom Consultants for completion of a Hickory Trail extension. The
proposed development, with up to 50 single family lots and a senior living facility, does not comply with the NE
District plan and the Comprehensive plan set forth by the city. The original plan specified development of a short
cul-de-sac no longer than 900 feet. These original plans were put into place to minimize the impact of development
on Hickory Hill Park (HHP), and should be followed. HHP is a unique urban park that should be protected. A larger
buffer is necessary to diminish city noise within the park and elimination of the buffer zone to the proposed 35-48
feet (in some areas) will have a direct impact on wildlife that travel between the park and surrounding areas on a
daily basis.
Additionally, we live immediately adjacent to the site to be developed and this extensive increase in housing density
will dramatically increase noise and traffic in the area, with a negative impact on both Hickory Hill Park and the
traffic on Scott Blvd.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Tracey and Robert Beck
40 Hickory Heights Lane
Iowa City, Iowa 52245
This email is from an external source.
From:Julie Moffitt
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Rezoning adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
Date:Friday, February 12, 2021 7:50:17 AM
Dear Mr Heitner,
I am writing regarding rezoning of land adjacent to Hickory Hill park. I have lived in Iowa
City since 1999 and have run and hiked 1000’s of miles in that park. I took my dog for the
last cross country ski of his life in that park, I took my young daughter for her first trail run in
that park, and I have run many miles with cherished friends there as well. Every time I wander
the trails there, it never ceases to amaze me at the natural beauty and wildlife I see. This park
is a crowing jewel in Iowa City. Rezoning this land adjacent - and I know this section well -
will effective remove a buffer from that side of the park and negatively impact habitat and the
experience. If Central Park in NYC can exist as it does, surely Iowa City, IA can be as
thoughtful and protective of its urban parks and natural habitat. I would request that you deny
this request for rezoning. There is plenty of other land to develop.
Please share my comments at the rezoning meeting.
Sincerely,
Julia A. Moffitt, PhD
302 W Park Rd, Iowa City, IA 52246
From:Kelly Teeselink
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Comments on the proposed residential development adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
Date:Friday, February 12, 2021 8:02:37 AM
Good morning,
This email is in regards to the proposed residential development adjacent to Hickory Hill Park.
I was (and am) very heartbroken and frustrated to hear of this potential
residential development that I believe would negatively impact the best park in Iowa City.
But to take the emotion out of it, one of the biggest issues I see is this proposal does not
comply with the NE District plan, nor the Comprehensive Plan. This plan calls for a
"conservation residential design" and myself and others do not believe the developer's
proposed design follows the City's established comprehensive plan and needs to be reworked.
Furthermore, the City's Comprehensive Plan, when discussing Parks and Open Space Goals
and Strategies, "discourages parks that are surrounded by private property; encourage
development of parks with single loaded street access." This residential development would be
doing the opposite of the comprehensive plan.
On another note, I can't claim to know much about deer population and control but I am going
on the assumption that the more deer habitat that is removed, the more deer will end up in
residential areas. With the city spending lots of resources on deer population control, it's
frustrating to see that there is a proposed plan that would destroy this animal friendly habitat.
And finally, I must admit I am no longer an Iowa City resident as of one month ago. I lived in
Iowa City for 16 years and consider it my home. I moved to Flagstaff, Arizona because I
wanted more access to nature and wild spaces. While IC and the surrounding area provides
lovely trails and parks, I wanted to live in a place that actively conserved outdoor spaces and
made them more abundant and accessible. This proposed plan near HHP reaffirmed my
decision to leave Iowa City, which wasn't an easy one. I know I'm not the only who places
significant weight on access to and conservation of outdoor spaces when deciding where to
live.
Thank you for listening!
Kelly Teeselink
From:Carolyn L. Buckingham
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Re: Proposed Development Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
Date:Friday, February 12, 2021 8:41:58 AM
Dear Ms. Russett and Mr. Heitner,
I am writing on behalf of myself and my husband, Mike Biderman, to express our opposition to the proposed
development along the easternmost border of Hickory Hill Park. The proposed development does not adhere to the
recommendations listed in Iowa City’s Northeast District Plan for the Bluffwood Area, or the City's Comprehensive
Plan and does not provide for an adequate buffer between the residential development and the park. Moreover,
Hickory Hill Park is such a unique and special place in our City and a new development built directly adjacent to the
Park will severely impact wildlife habitat and be detrimental to the water quality of Ralston Creek.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Buckingham & Mike Biderman
This email is from an external source.
From:Jorgensen, Shea M
To:Raymond Heitner
Cc:Anne Russett
Subject:Re: [External] RE: Proposed land development
Date:Friday, February 12, 2021 11:20:40 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Yes, if you could forward this to City S taff 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.
S hea J orgensen, MD
From: Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner@iowa-city.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 9 , 2021 9 :09 AM
To: J orgensen, S hea M
Cc: Anne Russett
Subject: [ Ex ternal] RE: Proposed land development
S hea,
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 Z oning 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
Z oning Commission.
Thank you,
Ray He tner AICP
Associate Planner
(he/ him/ his)
319 .356 .5238
raymond-heitner@iowa-city.org
4 10 E W ashington S t, Iowa City, IA 5224 0
WWW.ICGOV.ORG
From: J orgensen, S hea M <shea-jorgensen@uiowa.edu>
Sent: S aturday, February 6 , 2021 1:34 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>; ray-heitner@iowa-city.org
Subject: Proposed land development
Dear Ms. Russett and Mr. Heitner,
My family lives in Iowa City and we frequent Hickory Hills, as well as other natural areas in
town, at least weekly with our 2-year-old. O ne 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. O nce they are
developed, they will never be reclaimed. O n behalf of my 2-year-old and all the kids who
benefit from natural places in the city, thank you for your consideration.
S incerely,
S hea J orgensen, MD
Notice: This U I 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
ex empt 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 U I Health Care may
be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank you.
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use
by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete or destroy all copies of the original message and attachments thereto.
Email sent to or from UI Health Care may be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank
you.
From:Weis, Adam J
To:Anne Russett
Cc:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Re: [External] RE: Hickory Hill Park/NE District
Date:Friday, February 12, 2021 2:43:34 PM
Hi Anne,
Thank you for replying and forwarding my message on. It is nice to know that our voices are
heard, and I value your time.
The 10-acre addition is a small consolation in what is a betrayal of the NE District Plan, of Iowa
City, and of nature. Please forward my comments to P&Z. I know Iowa City will make the right
decision in the end.
Thanks again,
Adam
From: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 10:41 AM
To: Weis, Adam J <adam-j-weis@uiowa.edu>
Cc: Ray Heitner <raymond-heitner@iowa-city.org>
Subject: [External] RE: Hickory Hill Park/NE District
Hi, Adam –
Thank you for your email. We will forward it to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their
consideration.
I did want to let you know that with the proposal the park would be expanded by 10 acres.
Let us know if you have any questions.
Thanks, Anne
From: Weis, Adam J <adam-j-weis@uiowa.edu>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 9:39 AM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Hickory Hill Park/NE District
Dear Ms. Russett,
I'm writing to express my concern about development plans near Hickory Hill Park. I'm a
graduate student at the University and have lived in Iowa City since I was four years old. In my
twenty years here, I've explored nearly every corner of our city, particularly its natural areas.
I'm really proud that the IC area has so many beautiful parks and trail systems, and I think it's
one of the strongest aspects of our community. I've spent hundreds of hours with friends and
acquaintances running and hiking in our parks, especially Hickory Hill. When I heard about
plans to develop northeast of the park, it immediately struck me as poor planning.
In a time when Iowa City is trying to embrace sustainability and the fight against climate
change (for instance, the prairie plantings in the parks which I think is absolutely amazing), it
seems antithetical and backwards to develop along park boundaries. If anything, Hickory Hill
should be expanded, so that more land area can be restored to native landscape which helps
reduce flooding through increased infiltration, clean our water and air, provide habitat for
wildlife, and offer more recreational opportunities for our neighbors. It's especially imperative
that existing natural areas are bolstered since it's much easier to expand an existing park than
create a new one. And wildlife corridors become more effective with size and inter-
connection, rather than being dispersed across the city.
I'm also concerned that the developers will not follow the NE District Plan and maintain a
proper buffer or follow "conservation design." Due to its proximity to Ralston Creek,
developing any additional land in this part of town cannot embrace conservation. The increase
in impermeable surfaces will only increase the flashiness of Ralston Creek, and additional
contaminants will runoff into the stream.
Iowa City should be seeking every single opportunity it can to strengthen the size and health
of its natural areas. We're lucky to have a community that cares about nature and recreation
and prioritizes those aspects in a state which does not. Please at least consider these things,
and I appreciate you spending the time to read this. I would be happy to help in any way I can.
I love Iowa City and would hate to see it become a haven for developers seeking short-term
gains.
Thank you,
Adam Weis
Graduate Research Assistant
Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Iowa
From:darcy128@aol.com
To:Raymond Heitner; Anne Russett
Cc:darcy128@aol.com
Subject:REZ20-0016 Hickory Trail Estates
Date:Friday, February 12, 2021 3:21:26 PM
Dear Mr. Heitner and Ms. Russett,
I'm writing to you with regard to the rezoning of the land proposed as Hickory Trail Estates REZ20-0016.
In the rezoning exhibit submitted by Mr. Clark, lots numbered 26-44 clearly ignore the "buffer zone" that
the overall city plans for development near parks contain. This proposal does not comply with the NE
District Plan nor the Comprehensive Plan for development. Why did the city go to the trouble of
developing these plans if not to follow them?
Lots numbered 26 through 44 are clearly encroaching on the area designed to protect the park. Those
additional nineteen lots are far too close to the park. People within the park will be subjected to so much
more noise from people not to mention car traffic. This road could easily become a cut through for people
coming from Scott Boulevard. The plan clearly shows that one remedy for the congestion was
contemplated and that is the use of a cul-de-sac. Why was that abandoned? Additionally, removal of lots
26-44 would create a single-loaded street, both of which are to be used in city development close to
parks.
This development is already going to severely impinge upon the enjoyment of the park. This park is a City
of Iowa City treasure and should be kept that way. I have been a user of this park for at least fifty of my
sixty-plus years and I have seen the many changes that have come, some of them very good but this
one, as proposed, will be among the worst. I am a wheelchair user now and we often go to the end of
Hickory Trail on a nightly walk. The beautiful prairie grasses and abundant animal life is a joy. Make no
mistake. First Avenue traffic behind us is still plenty loud but if this were a street with houses on two
sides, the north side of the park will never be the same. Please do the right thing and minimize this
development by keeping within the NE District Plan and the Comprehensive Plan, already in place.
Please forward this comment to the Planning and Zoning commission.
Darcy Lipsius
2639 Hickory Trail
From:Anne Russett
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:FW: Hickory Hill Park Proposed Development Plan
Date:Friday, February 12, 2021 3:32:19 PM
From: Emily Kim <emilyakim05@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 3:32 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Hickory Hill Park Proposed Development Plan
Hello Anne,
My name is Emily Kim and I have thoroughly enjoyed many hikes through Hickory Hill Park over the
years. I also am a teacher in Iowa City, and many of my students enjoy the park - especially the
sledding! They tell me, "it's one of the best sledding hills in IC." I don't have any kids yet (I am
actually due with our first baby in a few days), but I imagine we'll be frequenting HHP for many sled
trips in the future, per the recommendation of MANY Iowa City fourth graders.
After seeing the newest proposed development plan, I am concerned because the plan does not
comply with the NE District Plan or Comprehensive Plan. These plans were put in place to minimize
the impact on Hickory Hill Park. They should be followed with integrity and fidelity.
I know Iowa City prides itself on its commitment to nature, to sustainability, and to providing the
best park areas for its residents. Hickory Hill Park is a crucial part of the city and we ask that any
negative impact on the park be avoided at all costs.
Thank you for your time and commitment to Iowa City!
Emily Kim
From:Anne Russett
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:FW: Concerns about proposed development near Hickory Hill Park
Date:Friday, February 12, 2021 3:31:09 PM
From: Molitor, Hannah R <hannah-molitor@uiowa.edu>
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 3:18 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Concerns about proposed development near Hickory Hill Park
Hello Ms. Russett,
As a resident and taxpayer in Iowa City for 5 years now, and someone who appreciates natural
spaces in Iowa City, I'm writing to you to express my concerns for the proposed development
near Hickory Hill Park. As I'm sure you know, the proposed plan does not comply with the
Comprehensive Plan nor does it comply with the Northeast District Plan. I'm asking that the
proposed development not be pursued, and that the city adhere to its previous agreements to
better protect Hickory Hill Park. While I realize that all development will not be stopped, I
advocate for responsible planning around the park and establishing a buffer zone. Please
forward my thoughts to the planning and zoning committee.
All the best,
Hannah Molitor
Hannah Molitor
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Iowa
hannah-molitor@uiowa.edu
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MAY 6, 2021 – 7:00 PM
ELECTRONIC FORMAL MEETING
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
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
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.
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 Buenger 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, it
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).
XIOMCONSULTANTS
CIVIL • STRUCTURAL • MECHANICAL • ELECTRICAL • SURVEY • SPECALTY
July 22, 2021
City Council
City of Iowa City
410 E Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Late Handouts Distributed
7- , - Z1
(Date)
Dear Mayor Teague & City Council Members:
I am writing to you on behalf of my clients -- Nelson Development and Hickory Trail, LLC — to
provide additional information and supporting documentation for your use and consideration for
the third and final reading of the proposed ordinance to rezone the 48.75 acres of land that
comprise the Hickory Trail development. There have been questions asked at previous
meetings regarding the amount and nature of the buffer to Hickory Hill Park provided by Outlot
A and the omission of cul de sacs within the development. Unfortunately, I will not be able to
attend the Council Meeting on Tuesday, July 27`h but it is my intent with this letter to provide a
clearer picture of the land use within the development, the nature of the buffer provided
between the development and Hickory Hill Park, and the reasons why cul de sacs are not
included in the proposed design.
LAND USE AND BUFFERS
The attached "Land Use Areas" plan more clearly shows the individual areas within the
development — single-family, senior living, conservation easement, public right-of-way, and park
dedication. As we have discussed previously, 14.02 acres, or 28.8% of the development, is
being gifted to the city to create a buffer between the development and Hickory Hill Park. This
dedication is shown in green on the "Land Use Areas" map. The distance from the boundary of
Hickory Hill Park to the street right-of-way is also more clearly labeled on this map. At its
narrowest, the buffer is 90 -feet wide. This location is directly south of lots 2 and 3 along the
southern boundary of the development. Along the western development boundary, the buffer is
nearly 100' wide. Please note that there is also a 60 -foot wide public right-of-way (shown in
blue) and mandatory 25 -foot setback to the garages on the single-family lots. Therefore, the
proposed homes will be no closer than 175' to the current park boundary.
Project Number 200194 Page l 1
AXIOMCONSULTANTS
The buffer area includes the ravines and wooded areas along the eastern park boundary.
Because portions of the buffer area are undesirable for development, some have attempted to
imply that credit should not be given for their dedication. The opposite is true. The steeply
sloped and wooded nature of much of the land within Outlot A is the exact reason why it should
be dedicated to the city and used to buffer the park from the proposed development.
Preserving natural areas is a specific goal of the Comprehensive Plan, the Northeast District
Plan, and the City Code. A condition of the dedication is the implementation of a woodland
management plan to reduce the number of invasive plants within the dedicated area. Further,
have included a plan for the establishment of additional native plantings in the areas of the buffer
where there are not currently trees. Generally, this is the in area west of Lot 6 through Lot 16.
Refer to the attached sheet L1.05 — Outlot A Buffer Area Landscape Plan. This plan was
developed with close interaction with the Parks Department and City Forester.
WHY NO CUL DE SACS?
The other topic of much discussion through this process has been the cul de sacs shown on the
Bluffwood Neighborhood Concept Plan in the Northeast District Plan. First, we must all
understand that the picture shown in the Northeast District Plan is only a picture and nothing
more. It is not a well-developed or detailed plan that considers the topography, existing
vegetation, current city code requirements, and current policies of city departments. For that, you
need to look to the plans included in your packet for this rezoning request. The plans in your
packet are the result of more than a year of study, presentations and listening sessions,
discussions with staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission, revising and refining, and finally,
consideration by yourselves.
The City Code (15-3-2:A.4) is very clear that the use of cul de sacs is limited to specific situations:
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 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
Project Number 200194
C-
Pagefl 2
rjl
AXIOMCONSULTANTS
The proposed roadway alignment generally follows the natural ridge through the property and can
currently be accessed and driven with a sedan. Clearly not the conditions outlined in the code.
Throughout the entire process the message from staff has been clear: cul de sacs are not
warranted by the provisions outlined within the current city code. The staff report from the
February 18, 2021 Planning and Zoning meetings states on page 4:
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,
and on page 8 of the same report:
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 1s' 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.
and:
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.
So you see, the exclusion of cul de sacs is not because of a lack of design effort or unwgness
- rU
to consider another option. It is the result of a good -faith effort of the development tearrLfLo follow
the direction from staff, the text of the Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast i istrictr5Ian,
City Code, and the reality of the conditions on the property. The use of cul de sacs:is simply riot
appropriate or warranted for this development.
CO
Project Number 200194 Page 13
AXIOMCONSULTANTS
hope the information I provided helps to clarify the application before you. As always, I
appreciate your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Welch, PE
Project Engineer
rm s a
CO
Project Number 200194 Page 14
l : h
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Council,
Martha Norbeck <martha norbeck@hotmail,com>
Thursday, July 22, 2021 11:21 AM
*City Council
Hickory Trail Rezoning Resubmission
Late Handouts Distributed
(Date)
Review of correspondence has strengthened my conclusion that the intent of the comprehensive plan is not being
fulfilled with the current configuration of the proposed development.
The value of the buffer in the comprehensive plan:
You may not be personally knowledgeable about the mechanics of habitat preservation. Therefore, when you see an
area without houses, you may think — there's a buffer. We can plant some trees and we're good. I see the ribbon of
concrete bisecting the ridge as direct conflict to the ecological value of the buffer as shown on the NE District plan.
A watershed is the drainage area that flows to a waterway. The land within this development includes a waterway
which is one of the headwaters of Ralston Creek. While the land immediately adjacent to the waterway will be
protected, the proposed roadway and lawn areas will bisect the natural area between the park and the waterway
because they are located uphill from the waterway, thereby compromising the ecological benefit of the buffer.
Protecting headwaters is especially important to water quality because pollutants introduced here get carried all the
way through the water system. Pollutants may be chemicals from lawn treatment, oils from vehicles, and even hot
water. Water that falls on pavement gets heated as it crosses pavement. That warmed water compromises the ability of
aquatic insects and microorganisms to survive. These creatures provide the eco -system service of cleaning our water. Kill
them and you compromise water quality.
The comprehensive plan preserved the watershed from ridge to waterway. These natural areas provide a buffer and
natural pre-treatment of water from adjacent development. The proposed plan bisects this watershed and introduces a
completely impervious concrete ribbon.
The value of the buffer as proposed in the NE District plan is ecological as well as visual.
Casey Korht, Chair of Friends of Hickory Hill Park, wrote on March 17, 2021: "Friends of Hickory Hill Park founders had
significant input into the NE District Plan." Explains the investment in the park. "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."
Iowa City City Council 2020-2021 Strategic Plan Objectives include:
"Invest in Public Infrastructure, Facilities and Fiscal Reserves. 1. Consider establishing a cost of
development framework that can help guide decisions on how best to accommodate future growth."
Had this been done, this would be an excellent case study to demonstrate its value to city planning. I have not seen any
document that suggests a staff study of the long-term infrastructure cost/benefit of this development. Developments
i
with large lots typically have a higher cost burden to the city when compared to smaller lots. This is particularly
concerning here because of the length of road that will only be supported by tax dollars from one side of the street.
Street repair, snow clearing, street cleaning, sewar and water lines, trash/recycling/yard waste pick up — what is the 30-
50 year cost to city to deliver these services? Will tax dollars from this single loaded street be sufficient to carry those
costs, or will other neighborhoods be subsidizing?
I anticipate that if a long-term study were conducted, as encouraged by the strategic plan, you would find it
advantageous to cluster development along Scott Blvd. and 1st Ave. as supported by the NE District Plan.
I ask you to slow down and study this. This choice isn't a moment in time. It is a 50+ year commitment. Take the time
warranted by the gravity of the decision.
Sincerely,
Martha Norbeck
906 s. 7th Ave.
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
2
b
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear City Council Members,
Kelly Gallagher Terrill <kellygallagherl@gmail.com>
Friday, July 23, 2021 7:33 AM
*City Council
Support Rezoning for Hickory Trail Estates
I urge you to approve rezoning for the Hickory Trail Estates subdivision.
Late Handouts Distributed
-7— -Zt
(D'te)
My family and I have live in the Bluffwood neighborhood, off the existing Hickory Trail, for over 10 years. We are avid
hikers who use Hickory Hill Park multiple times a week, year round. We believe that the proposed development will not
negatively impact the park. On the contrary, the proposed addition to the park that will accompany development of the
neighborhood will enhance the park.
Some have raised concerns that if the development proceeds, park users may be able to see houses from the park.
However, one may already see houses from inside the park and that does not seem to negatively affect a user's
experience.
Some have also proposed that the new neighborhood should contain two cul-de-sacs rather than a through street.
Based on my experience living in the Bluffwood neighborhood, which only recently gained a through street, I believe
that would be a mistake. A through -street allows more egress options during weather events (such as snowstorms or
the flooding of Ralston Creek), provides more ingress options for first responders, and allows for better traffic flow.
Thank you for your consideration.
With best regards,
Kelly G. Terrill
1
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Greetings,
Kristen Morrow <knmorrow@gmail.com>
Friday, July 23, 2021 4:03 PM
*City Council
Hickory Hill Development - Please vote no!
Late Handouts Distributed
7— -74, 21
(Date)
am writing to express my deep opposition to the proposed development of the land adjacent to Hickory Hill Park.
In the planning and zoning meetings I attended this spring and summer, the voices of opposition were unanimous. Over
100 people at each meeting joined to beg the city not to do this. There was not one single voice aside from the
developer who was in favor of this project. We are asking you now, please, listen to the people. Especially the
millennial and gen-Z citizens who are begging you to vote no - we want to live in cities with better park land and wild
spaces, not endless developments? In the six years that I've lived in Iowa City, I've been extremely discouraged and
disheartened to see the constant march of development moving into some of the last forested areas in all corners of
Iowa City. It is relentless. It leaves no space for wildlife. It degrades the city's ability to fight climate change, and heats
the city up by continuing to remove natural spaces in place for asphalt and buildings. Please. Have a vision. Think longer
term. Protect this space that is so clearly so very important to so many people. This development would mar the
feeling one can have of solitude and "wilderness." The bird song that fills this part of the park currently would be
cluttered with the sounds of lawn mowers and car doors and all of the endless sounds of humans and our machines. Is
there no place where we can escape from that??
When I travel through Hickory Hill today, I see all the places that the city has allowed it to be scraped away over the
years. Most egregious are the mansions along Hickory Trail. When I pass them, I think, what a shame that the city ever
allowed that to happen. What short-sighted "leaders" there must have been. Please let this be different this time. We
don't need to greenlight every development. There are places too special to mar with developments, and this is one. Be
a leader. Be a visionary. Think farther into the future. Protect this space.
I am praying to any power that the right decision will be made. But as politicians have continuously let me down, and
especially, let the planet down, the very least you can do is make sure there is one hell of a buffer, both visual and
sound. It would be extremely disappointing if this development were to happen at all, but if it should, there absolutely
must be a robust buffer.
Please make the right decision.
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. 0. Wilson,
1
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mila Grady <mmwgrady@gmail.com>
Saturday, July 24, 2021 1:37 PM
*City Council
Hickory Hill Estates Rezoning Comments
Dear Mayor Teague, Mayor Pro Tem Salih, and Iowa City City Councilors:
Late Handouts Distributed
(Date)
We would like to express our concerns about the proposed rezoning application of Hickory Hill Estates. Hickory Hill Park
is a unique area within the Iowa City city limits that should be protected and treasured for its ability to promote and
enhance the physical and emotional health and well-being of the local community. It is a highly valued, quiet sanctuary
that provides a respite from the increasing stresses of our daily lives.
We believe that the Council should require strict compliance with the development recommendations set forth in the
NE District Plan. The current proposed plan deviates from the recommendations, presenting a negative impact upon
Hickory Hill Park as well as posing a threat to public safety.
First, the NE District Plan recommends the use of cul-de-sacs in developments adjacent to parks. The current application
contains a street extending from Scott Blvd to First Ave. This street can and will be used by motorists wishing to avoid
the regulated intersection at Scott Blvd and First Ave, promoting increased traffic and noise, and negatively impacting
the serenity of the park. This increased traffic will be in close proximity to a high school, where there are novice drivers
combined with pedestrian traffic. We are concerned for the safety of motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists at the
intersection of Hickory Trail and First Ave. Many bicyclists use the wide sidewalk on First Ave due to the nature of First
Ave, being a two lane street with a very steep gradient. Added traffic in this area will pose significant safety hazards for
all.
Second, the NE District Plan recommends single -loaded streets in developments adjacent to parks in order to create a
buffer between the development and the park. Although the developers have decreased the volume of double- loaded
lots, the current plan still has areas of double -loaded lots, thereby impacting the buffer between the development and
Hickory Hill Park.
Finally, at a previous City Council Meeting, city staff indicated that facilities such as the Assisted Living Facility being
proposed for this development should have direct access to a primary street as opposed to a secondary street like
Hickory Trail. Care for the 100 plus residents residing in this proposed facility will result in traffic from 24/7 staff,
visitors, emergency vehicles, food and supply trucks, and residents traveling to and from the building for appointments.
Added traffic will escalate the noise and safety concerns mentioned above.
In summary, we respectfully request that the City Council deny the current development application and require future
applications to comply with the recommendations set forth in the NE District Plan and by the city staff. This will
preserve public safety and protect the unique nature of Hickory Hill Park, benefitting current and future generations to
come.
Thank you.
Tim and Mila Grady
125 Post Rd.
Iowa City
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear City Council Members,
I implore you to vote no on this Tuesday, July 27, 2021, on the third reading of the ordinance to rezone Hickory Hill Park.
Iowa City should use eminent domain, purchase the land at a reasonable price, and extend Hickory Hill Park. The reasons
are simple:
1. This is possibly the last chance Iowa City will have to enhance our only "natural" park.
2. The proposed new plan does not comply with Iowa City's comprehensive plan which was adopted in 1997.
3. Allowing only upper income housing to abut on Hickory Hill Park is disgusting. Hickory Heights Lane, for example,
does not even have a sign on Scott Blvd or at the actual entrance to the park. It looks like one is walking across personal
property to enter the park.
Feather Lacy (Personal) <flacy@pobox.com>
Sunday, July 25, 2021 10:48 AM
Bruce Teague; Janice Weiner; John Thomas; Laura Bergus; Mazahir Salih; *City Council;
Pauline Taylor; Susan Mims
Please vote NO July 27th Hickory Hill Park 3rd Rete Handouts Distributed
z_l
(Date)
Thank you for your time,
Feather Lacy
Iowa City Resident
1
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear City Council Members,
I implore you to vote no on this Tuesday, July 27, 2021, on the third reading of the ordinance to rezone about 43.75 -
acres adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. Iowa City should use eminent domain, purchase the land at a reasonable price, and
extend Hickory Hill Park. The reasons are simple:
1. This is possibly the last chance Iowa City will have to enhance our only "natural" park.
2. The proposed new plan does not comply with lowa City's comprehensive plan which was adopted in 1997.
3. Allowing only upper income housing to abut on Hickory Hill Park is disgusting. Hickory Heights Lane, for example,
does not even have a sign on Scott Blvd or at the actual entrance to the park. It looks like one is walking across personal
property to enter the park.
Feather Lacy (Personal) <flacy@pobox.com>
Sunday, July 25, 2021 1:57 PM
flacy@pobox.com; Bruce Teague; Janice Weiner; John Thomas; Laura Bergus; Mazahir
Salih; *City Council; Pauline Taylor; Susan Mims
Corrected: Please vote "IVO" July 27th Hickory Hill Flute Distributed
-7— 2 --z1
(Date)
Thank you for your time,
Feather Lacy
Iowa City Resident
1
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jay Minton <jaymichaelminton@gmail.com>
Sunday, July 25, 2021 3:15 PM
*City Council
Hickory Hill Development - Please Vote No!
Late Handouts Distributed
(Date)
Dear Councilors,
I am writing today to ask you to vote no on the Hickory Hill development.
Like hundreds of other city residents who unanimously made their voices heard through the planning and zoning meetings
earlier this year, I am passionately opposed to this project. My opposition is two -fold:
1.) This part of the park is such an important part of the park to so many people. It is by far the most wild part of the park - and
very likely the most wild part of all of Iowa City that is left. This area is the place that park visitors intentionally hike to as the
'peak' of the hike. Sure, all of the park is lovely, but this part is the highlight. When you are there, there is nothing but the sound
of nature. Birds and wind and insects prevail. You can barely even hear the cars on the nearby roads! Think about that. Where
else do you find that in Iowa City today? For many, this spot has great spiritual value for this very reason. To fill all of the land
directly next to it with houses and a road would be a tragic degradation of what makes this part of the park so incredibly special.
The city residents realize that, and we are all crying out for you all to realize that too.
2.) This part of the park provides incredible habitat! I cannot tell you the number of foxes that I see in this area, both in the park,
and especially, darting into the private land that is slated to be developed. I have even seen a bobcat here! While there is
wildlife throughout the park, the undeveloped private land that abuts this part of the park serves as a crucial wildlife corridor. The
connection this corridor provides allows wildlife to move to other small pockets of of natural land that still exists today in Iowa
City. Though these parcels are small, their value is strengthened by corridors like this. Please, consider the innate rights of
wildlife in your decision. Iowa is the most biologically altered state in the entire nation, and it is a state utterly impoverished on
natural spaces. Please, let us be different. Let us act with intentionality and foresight, and let this space be.
My dreams are for the city to buy this land and extend the park. Hickory Hill is already an extremely well -used park, and will
surely only grow more popular. An extension of the park would mean more space for hikers and park -users to spread out, along
with more habitat for wildlife common, rare, and even endangered (the rusty -patched bumble bee!). Such a decision would be of
tremendous value to the city and all of its future residents.
I am positive that there will be nothing but regret if this land should be developed. Please. Vote no on this development. Treat
this land, and the citizens who are passionately asking you to value it as much as we do, with the respect it deserves. And
imagine what all this land could be if we voted no on a development, just once.
Jay Minton
1
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
katya boltanova <altaikak@hotmail.com>
Sunday, July 25, 2021 4:54 PM
*City Council
Please, do not allow any more development of HickQ ititgatiouts Distributed
(Date)
Hickory Hill park serves as a habitat for a diverse number of birds and other species, and it's essential for many
people who seek solitude and nature right here in Iowa City.
Please, do not allow any more development of the park land.
Iowa City resident of 20 years.
Yekaterina Boltanova
1145 Duck Creek Drive, Iowa City, IA 52246
1
Kellie Fruehling
From: Jim Kettelkamp <kettelkampjim@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2021 5:03 PM
To: *City Council
Subject: Hickory Hill development
Late Handouts Distributed
z --ZI
(Date)
Dear council -persons,
Please vote no on the commercial and residential development of land adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. This is a
gem of wonderful riparian, meadow and upland habitat that would be difficult to replace. The area is large
enough in its present state (with intact wild lands adjacent to the north and east) to support Broad -winged
Hawks, Pileated Woodpeckers, Wild Turkeys and Red Fox. I fear that losing these expansive tracts of upland
forest will adversely affect these species. In addition, the park is probably the single best locations I've
encountered in Iowa for migrating Wood Warblers. It would be a tragedy to lose these birds from the area.
Iowa City is the state's leader in conservation, let's continue to lead by example and protect this precious parcel
of land. I've attached the eBird hotspot list demonstrating the importance of this location in protecting
biodiversity.
Respectfully,
James E Kettelkamp MD
Sent from my iPhone
This email is from an external source.
i
Kellie Fruehling
From: Katherine Carolan <kkcarolan@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2021 5:05 PM
To: *City Council
Subject: Hickory Hill development - please vote no
Late Handouts Distributed
(Date)
Dear Council members: I understand you will be voting Tuesday night regarding the development of land
adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. I urge you in the strongest terms to please vote no. Development of this land
will have a severe negative impact on the park and the wildlife therein. There are few if any other big parcels in
Iowa City so conducive to migrating birds (especially given the diverse habitats that Hickory Hill encompasses)
and other wildlife. Surely there are other areas that can be developed that would not have this negative effect.
I've lived in Iowa City for almost 40 years. I'm not against development per se (though I frequently wonder
who is buying/living in all the new houses I see going up); downtown looks vastly different than it did when I
arrived as a graduate student from the East Coast, bewildered by the farm report on the to o'clock news. Iowa
City has, should, and will continue to evolve, but please don't damage one of its wonderful parks in the process.
Respectfully,
Katherine Carolan
This email is from an external source.
i
T hLb
Kellie Fruehling
From: Kristy Hartsgrove Mooers <kristy_hartsgrove@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2021 6:08 PM Late Handouts Distributed
To: *City Council
Subject: Hickory Hill development
Dear Council members,
(Date)
Thank you for your hard work and for everything you do to make Iowa City a beautiful place to live. I am
writing to encourage you to curtail development close to Hickory Hill preserve. I feel like it is currently
enduring death by a thousand cuts. It is a treasure, and we need to treat it as such. Please vote against
development close to the preserve.
Thank you for your time,
Kristy Hartsgrove Mooers
Sent from my iPhone
This email is from an external source.
1
Keliie Fruehling
From: Blake Rupe <blake.rupe@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2021 6:15 PM
To: *City Council
Subject: Hickory hill vote
Late Handouts Distributed
(Date)
Please do not vote to destroy hickory hill by developing more residential or commercial space at hickory hill. As
a resident I visit the space often and will be very sad to see any of it developed. Please vote no.
Best,
Blake Rupe
This email is from an external source.
t
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Greetings Iowa City City Council -
Jason Napoli <jasnap23@yahoo.com>
Sunday, July 25, 2021 6:16 PM
*City Council
Hickory Hills Estate: a flawed process...please follow the NE District Plan
Late Handouts Distributed
(Date)
I hope this message finds you and your families healthy and having a pleasant summer. Thank you in advance for
your time and thoughts as Council approaches the third consideration for the Hickory Hill Estates development. As a
neighbor of the development and Vice -chair of the Friends of Hickory Hill Park, I have been involved in
many conversations regarding the development since the "Good Neighbor" meeting in December and the three P&Z
meetings. It's been quite the process.
From what I've witnessed during this experience, it's clear the process has been flawed with a rubber-stamped approach
from city staff and threats of legal action from the developers legal representation, along with threats and false
accusations directed at park users from from the current landowner/seller's leadership at ACT. is this how our local
government/resident input process is supposed to work?
These threats only came after unprecedented opposition of the proposed development from the public. With over 125
participants attending the first P&Z meeting and more than 140 at the second, the public has spoken...please represent
the voters of our community, not a developer's legal team. Members of the public who choose to engage in this process
deserve better or what's the point of public comment?
As for the development itself, it couldn't be any clearer that the proposed thru-street from 1st Ave to Scott Blvd does
not follow the established NE District Plan. A plan created in good faith to protect the park from infringing traffic and
development. I ask again, what's the point? What's the point of having the NE District Plan if it's not followed? To give
false assurances to the public? A public that's come out in record numbers to oppose the proposed development, only
to become irrelevant due to the threat of lawsuit against the city.
Thank you again for your time and attention toward this important vote. The city staff's time and attention to these
concerns have also been appreciated throughout the process and none of this criticism is a personal attack on any of
them. Let's just get this right.
Kind regards,
Jason Napoli
di -
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
emily matson <crysalis56@hotmail.com>
Sunday, July 25, 2021 6:40 PM
*City Council
Hickory hill Development
Late Handouts Distributed
(Date)
Please do not vote yes on the new property development next to our favorite park. I grew up here
and have spent all my life here playing in and enjoying the park. I just visited Denver and was able to
hike lookout mountain for free, a gorgeous spot above the city. Denver was forward thinking enough
to plan a network of free city parks in the foothills and mountains as an attraction for people thinking
about moving there or visiting. I know that we have some new more urban parks and that we are
improving on existing urban parks but let's please keep this gem of wilderness within our city as what
it was meant to be, not just a patch but a true wild spot where people can escape and remember how
beautiful this state is when you let the wilderness in!
1
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear City Council Members:
Susan Frye <susanjanefrye@gmail.com>
Sunday, July 25, 2021 729 PM
*City Council
Vote no July 27 on the third reading of an ordinance to create housing on land adjacent
to Hickory Hill Park.
Late Handouts Distributed
-2 2 I
(Date)
Please, all of you, vote NO on the above -referenced issue. We are in the midst of a climate crisis and need to
conserve existing natural resources and expand our public park areas. Who wants this development?
Developers, builders, contractors and your staff. The project isn't needed nor is it wanted by the constituents
who voted you into office, people like me.
Do something that is beneficial to your citizens and to the environment. Take a stand and do something
honorable and something we can be proud of. The seller doesn't care who buys its property. Work with the
seller to create a healthy and sustainable legacy. And more development and housing aren't it.
Thank you for reading this correspondence.
Susan J Frye RN Esq
small frye farm
11150 New Liberty Rd Maysville IA 52773
563.285.5570 319.936.1216 www.smallfryefarm.com
1
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello,
Gina Morgan <ginammorgan@gmail.com>
Sunday, July 25, 2021 8:02 PM
*City Council
Vote No on the Hickory Hill Development
Late Handouts Distributed
Z62 -Z!
(Date)
I am an Iowa City resident, born here and then returned to the area, and I'm against any development in the Hickory
Hills area. This park is a gem in our community and for our wildlife that we share space with. Even with the added
acreage promised by the developers, this development is bound to affect the park.
Even with the added acreage: there will be more noise, more traffic, more yard treatments (fertilizer and pesticides)
draining into the watershed, and more gorgeous views in Hickory Hill that are interrupted by housing.
To further expound on the traffic point: as someone who commutes through this area, I can vouch that already car
traffic at Scott Boulevard and 1st Avenue, is backed up nearly to Dodge street at rush hour: more housing development
will necessitate traffic solutions beyond a four-way stop. This area also doesn't have existing public transportation so
driving will be essential and will add to traffic and pollution.
Iowa City is a forward -thinking, educated city. The decline in important pollinator populations (as well as the creatures
upwards through the food chain) is largely in part due to loss of essential habitat is a huge cause for concern for
our world. An educated city like Iowa City should be forward -thinking enough to set an example of how to grow and
increase housing,without urban sprawl that destroys what little natural areas we have left. Prairie in particular, which
Hickory Hill has, is only less than 0.1% of what Iowa had before European settlement.
I urge the council to vote "No" on this development and I propose Iowa City takes this a step further: buy this land from
ACT, protect it and expand Hickory Hill with more access points for citizens to enjoy this beautiful park. I also ask the
council to drive along Scott Blvd. around 5pm during the weekday to a) see how busy the area already is by the 1st
Avenue intersection and b) to see how beautiful the north part of Scott Blvd is as you travel east towards Herbert
Hoover highway with the prairie and forest remnants (and the beautiful aspen trees!) and I ask the council to consider
saving this place as well.
Thank you for your time and your hard work,
Gina Bartleson
1
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Noctovet <noctovet@aol.com>
Sunday, July 25, 2021 8:26 PM
*City Council
Hickory Hill Park
Dear City Council members:
Late Handouts Distributed
(Date)
I just learned of plans to develop land adjacent to Hickory Hill Park, and that you
plan on voting this Tuesday, July 27 on whether or not to approve this.
I am not currently a resident of Iowa City, but I frequently visit, spend my dollars in
your community, and often hike in this park. I have always appreciated Iowa City's
support of the environment and its eco -friendly approach. I would urge you to
reconsider developing this beautiful area. Developing adjacent to this park would
drastically reduce wildlife access and the peacefulness within this space.
As more natural land is diverted away from nature, communities lose their unique
appeal and their soul. Right now more than ever, we need to preserve our natural
world; we cannot get back what we destroy, and we have so little left! Please vote to
keep this area intact and as beautiful as it currently is!
Sincerely,
Dr. Lisa Kulemin
1331 W. 54th St.
Davenport, IA 52806
(563) 508-3082
n.�
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mark Conway <mfconway@gmail.com>
Sunday, July 25, 2021 9:10 PM
*City Council
Development adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
Late Handouts Distributed
- 2--
(Date)
(Date)
1 recently heard the city council will be voting on a development on wilderness near Hickory Hill Park. I hope the city
council does not vote in favor of development, as the park and nearby wilderness are critical to the regions flora and
fauna. Plenty of upscale housing already sits empty in Iowa City, so there isn't a need for the housing anyway. If
anything, the council ought to consider taking action to protect the area concerned to prevent any future discussion of
development and help to protect our crucial ecosystems.
Thank,
Mark Conway
204 Haywood Dr, Iowa City, IA 52245
1
-)=t-)(
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello Councilors,
Adam Parker <aglparker@gmail.com>
Sunday, July 25, 2021 9:41 PM
*City Council
Hickory Hill Estates Proposed Development
Late Handouts Distributed
(Date)
Once again, 1 am opposed to the recommendation to rezone REZ20-0016—Hickory Trail. I am proposed to this
plan in its current form because it does not comply with the NE district plan nor the climate action plan laid forth
by the community.
First, as it relates to climate action -infill is better than outward expansion. However, density is important to this
concept. This final plan as presented removed zero -lot & less expensive housing as drafts 1 and 2 were
presented. Higher density buildings could meet climate action goals. Additionally, allowing more
socioeconomic statuses the opportunity to benefit from the proximity of the park. The current proposal does not
adequately accomplish this goal in its current form.
Additionally, the approval of a single -loaded street vs two cul-de-sacs as called for in the NE district plan will
create significant traffic hazards for potential homeowners and residents. The use of cul-de-sacs will promote
quiet neighborhoods to ensure the rustic nature of NHP is preserved, and traffic accidents be kept to a
minimum. Cul-de-sacs may not be in fashion in modern suburban design, but exceptions should be made to
preserve the public space which adds significant value to Iowa City citizens regardless of income level.
I appreciate the council listening to the hours of community input. 1 believe the council should reject the plan in
its current form. Developers have numerous opportunities to revise drafts of this plan, but the council only has
one chance to approve a plan to meet the needs of this sensitive area.
"Preserve Natural Features
Conservation design of residential developments is a ley feature of the future land use scenario for the
Bluffwood Neighborhood. To preserve sensitive areas, Cul -De -Sac streets and single loaded streets are
proposed where appropriate."
"A conservation residential design is proposed on the property between First avenue and HHP to provide a
buffer between the residential development and the parr„
"In the Bluffwood Neighborhood, the plan calls for the buffering green space to be provided between HHP and
residential development on the south and west portions of the Larson (sic) tract. One goal of this buffer is to
minimize the visibility of residential development from the park."
Best,
Adam Parker
1302 E Bloomington St
aglparker@gmail.com
712.210.6301 1
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Joellen Megan <meganjoellen@yahoo.com>
Monday, July 26, 2021 2:02 AM
City Council
Hickory Hill Development
Dear Honorable Members of the Iowa City Council;
Late Handouts Distributed
(Date)
Please vote against the development for the Hickory Hill area!
It is one of the only areas left that is pristine and beautiful within the parameter of Iowa City.
We need to give due respect to nature and preserve this for generations to come.
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Sincerely,
Joellen Megan
Sent from Yahoo Mail for 'Phone
1
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Iowa City Council Members;
Joellen Megan <meganjoellen@yahoo.com>
Monday, July 26, 2021 9:35 AM
*City Council
Joellen Megan
Hickory Hill Development
Please do not support the Hickory Hill Development plan:
Late Handouts Distributed
(Date)
• the plan does not comply with what has been set forth in the NE District Plan, and that there are
public safety issues involved.
• There is a planned street connecting Scott Blvd with First Ave, posing potential hazards at the
intersection of First Ave and Hickory Trail. This area is heavily used by pedestrians, motorists and
bicyclists. The developer of the neighborhood has made some good changes to decrease the number
of houses that will be adjacent to the park, but there are still some lots that are adjacent to the
park. The street will be adjacent to the park, thus increasing noise within the park. There are few
places in Iowa City to escape traffic noise, especially with 1-80 traversing the community. The
development should include cul-de-sacs and NOT a through street.
• The proposed assisted living facility will have over 100 residents, and will add to the increased traffic
in the area due to the added presence of around- the- clock staff, emergency vehicles, visitors, food
and supply trucks, and transportation back and forth between appointments. First Ave is already a
busy street that is flanked by homes, has a steep grade in places, and abuts a highschool (Regina). To
my knowledge, the traffic study was conducted during the pandemic when there was very little traffic
in town,
• Hickory Hill Park is one of the unique gems of lowa City and provides a sanctuary which is important
to the physical, emotional and spiritual health of our community. Please encourage the council to be
visionary and to preserve this beautiful area for generations to come.
Thank you for attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Joellen Megan
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Kellie Fruehling
From: Virginia Brust <brustvirginia20@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 7:41 AM
To: *City Council
Subject: Do Not Support Anymore Hickory Hill Development
To Whom This May Concern,
Late Handouts Distributed
(Date)
Hickory Hill is a little piece of paradise where a whole community can come to experience and enjoy the beauty
of our native habitat. If you continue to allow properties to be developed more and more onto Hickory Hill, not
only are you taking away thousands of peoples favorite, you are also taking away the home of a whole
ecosystem that needs to be preserved.
I hope you chose the right decision,
Virginia Brust
This email is from an external source.
Kellie Freehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jacque McClure <jacmcclure50@gmail.com>
Monday, July 26, 2021 9:04 AM
*City Council
Please spare Hickory Hill Park
Late Handouts Distributed
(Date)
So so so much development everywhere one goes in / around Iowa City. Everywhere. Please allow us to
continue to enjoy the peace of this beautiful park. Do not allow greed to overcome good.
Vote NO on Tuesday.
Jacque McClure
1
Kellie Fruehling
From: Deb Cobb <deborah.cobb@icloud.com>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 10:10 AM
To: *City Council
Subject: Hickory Hill 7-25-21.doc
Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; Hickory Hill 7-25-21.doc
Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.
This email is from an external source.
Sent from my iPhone
1
Late Handouts Distributed
-2-P--.Z1
(Date)
Comments Regarding the Third Consideration of the Proposed Rezoning: Hickory Hill Estates July
27, 2021 Meeting
Importance: High
Dear Mayor Teague, Mayor Pro tem Salih, and Iowa City Councilors:
As Iowa City natives and multiple decade residents of Iowa City, my husband, Stu Cobb and I are
writing to express our concerns about the proposed rezoning application of Hickory Hill Estates.
As frequent hikers in Hickory Hill Park, we feel the urgency to protect this unique natural habitat
within the City limits, not just for the physical and mental well being of those that enjoy the park
now, but as stewards of the environment for future generations.
We strongly urge every councilor to vote "no" to the proposed rezoning application until it is
amended to comply with the Northeast District Plan and Comprehensive Plan and in accordance
with the concerns and recommendations expressed by Councilor John Thomas, Councilor Taylor
and Mayor Pro tem Salih.
As Councilor Thomas noted the NE District Plan called for two separate cul-de-sacs for the
purpose of maintaining the integrity and natural serenity of Hickory Hill Park. The cul-de-sacs
would also help minimize traffic liabilities and address safety concerns at the intersection of
Hickory Trail and First Ave. The plan further states, "trail connections between cul-de-sac streets
and across natural areas will be important design elements in areas that rely on conservative
development to preserve environmental features."
We believe that there should not be a continuous through street from Scott Blvd to First Ave.,
traversing along the edge of Hickory Hill Park. We are convinced that a through street would
negatively impact the integrity of Hickory Hill Park, contribute to unacceptable noise levels and
pose serious safety concerns at the intersection of Hickory Trail and First Ave to drivers,
pedestrians and wildlife.
The NE District Plan recommends single -loaded streets in developments adjacent to parks. The
current plan still has areas of double -loaded lots. In addition the proposed Assisted Living
Facility should have direct access to a primary street as opposed to a secondary street like
Hickory Trail. This facility, with 100 plus residents, will result in a major increase of traffic on
streets that aren't designed to accommodate this overload. In addition it will escalate the
congestion, noise and safety concerns in the residential area and park.
Please show your support for the hundreds of the Iowa City residents who have voiced their
concerns and disapproval of the rezoning proposal and please uphold the directives of the
Northeast District Plan. This is a critical vote to insure that any development preserves the
natural habitat of Hickory Hill Park and promotes the health and well-being of those that find a
sanctuary in this unique natural treasure of our beloved city.
Deb and Stu Cobb
2517 Mayfield Rd
Iowa City
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Council Members,
Hillary Schofield <hbschofield@gmail.com>
Monday, July 26, 2021 11:21 AM
*City Council
Hickory Hill Development
Late Handouts Distributed
7-2 - 2_I
(Date)
I am writing to urge you to vote "No" on the proposed development adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. This is an important
moment, one that cannot be reversed. We have the opportunity here to preserve and strengthen a beloved and unique
element of Iowa City. The proposed development will drastically alter the experience of HHP, both for us humans and
for the myriad wild critters that rely on the Park, I go to HHP frequently and knowing that that whole section might
become houses is so hard to stomach. Iowa has the most altered ecosystem in the union, we have lost so much
wilderness here; we need to protect and expand wildlife areas every chance we get, full stop.
The developers and some City officials have emphasized that this development will be increasing the size of HHP. This is
a misleading statement. The area where the development will go has long had the effect of being part of HHP in the
vista and ambience. Moreover, the area supports the wildlife of the Park, they certainly do not acknowledge the legal
property boundary. Local conservationists have noted the presence of rare and endangered pollinators and bird nestings
in that plot of land. There is no ambiguity here; this development would be harmful to HHP, not only in the effective size
and viewshed, but also through the noise pollution and chemical run-off from yards..
My personal wish would be for the City to purchase this land and incorporate it into HHP. Or, what if the land were
bought by the City and offered back to the Indigenous people of this area, such as the loway or Sauk and Meswaki? How
incredible of a "development" that would be. Barring those possibilities, there is so much more (or perhaps more
accurately, so much less) a developer could do to make the development Hickory Hill Park- and Iowa City -friendly. If the
housing were going to be more decisively "green" and eco -minded, smaller in scope, sized and priced for low -to -mid
income it would be an entirely different story; it would be something worth celebrating, and the compromise would not
be so stark. Instead, this is more of the same privilege and dominance encroaching on something that is so very near and
dear to the hearts of Iowa Citians, and so important for the health of our ecosystem.
Again, I urge you to vote "No" on this housing development. Let us move slowly here and really sift through our options.
Sincerely,
Hillary Schofield
720 S 7th Ave.
1
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear City Council,
Kalnins, Arturs <arturs-kalnins@uiowa.edu>
Monday, July 26, 2021 11:44 AM
*City Council
Email note against Proposed Hickory Hill Development
Late Handouts Distributed
-7 - zip - 2- )
(Date)
would urge the council to vote against the Hickory Hill Development project because it is not an appropriate
spot for an institutional care facility. My father passed away from Alzheimer's last year after suffering for
several years and thus I am very aware and knowledgeable about what a "memory care" business entails. A
facility that offers "memory care" is a labor- and administrative -intensive institutional business that:
(1) Will require a large number of employees working around the clock shifts, commuting in and out of the
property at all hours.
(2) Will require routine loading dock deliveries and waste removal, with trucks backing in and out and
frequent "backing up" warning noises.
(3) Will require routine comings and goings of ambulances 24/7.
(4) Will flood this natural area with artificial light 24/7 that will be detrimental to the wildlife of the park.
(5) Will have many residents who are far too ill to ever "enjoy" the proximity to Hickory Hill park as
suggested by the developer. Most residents will never leave the facility.
While I recognize the need for such facilities, it is inappropriate to place such a facility in the middle of a
residential area and particularly in such close proximity to Hickory Hill park.
Sincerely,
Arturs Kalnins
(he/him/his)
Professor of Management and Entrepreneurship
Tippie College of Business
University of Iowa
1
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mary Wilson <mpwilson1313@gmail.com>
Monday, July 26, 2021 1:19 PM
*City Council
Save Hickory Hill Park
Late Handouts Distributed
1- 2-(p - 2-1
(Date)
Please vote NO and do not sell any part of this beautiful, tiny park to developers. Iowa city needs to keep this park as it
is. The park is a historic and wonderful place to visit. I am urging you, do not sell. I'm am born and raised in iowa city and
it would be a great loss to have anymore of the park taken away.
Sincerely,
Mary Wilson
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
jason wilson <wilsonja073@gmail.com>
Monday, July 26, 2021 2:00 PM
*City Council
Hickory hill park
Please vote against sale of this land.
Thank you,
Jason
Late Handouts Distributed
(Date)
frig.)
Kellie Fruehling
From: Judy Buddenbaum <jandjbuddenbaum@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 2:51 PM
To: *City Council
Subject: City Council Meeting July 27, 2021
Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; Untitled.docx
Late Handouts Distributed
—24,_2--1
(Date)
Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening
files.
This email is from an external source.
1
July 26, 2021
Dear Iowa City Council Members,
I want to add my name to the hundreds of Iowa City citizens who oppose the plan to allow more
buildings nearby and adjacent to the only natural area of all our city parks. The 14 acres added to
the park for buffering and shielding is a not enough. The park is a home to a variety of wildlife
and prairies. It is a wonderful place to spend tranquil time with nature or with friends. Every
opportunity should be made to make it larger, not hem it in.
The builders are rarely impacted by their desire to fill every open space with construction that
removes trees, levels inclines, and adds traffic where none had ever been. Please take into count
that every one of those single-family homes may have the potential of adding two cars to, the
very heavily traveled, Scott Blvd. and First Avenue; both are two lanes.
Is there a need or shortage of single-family homes, condos, and apartments?
As elected council members, when you cast your vote, be reminded of who you represent, who
you are serving. It's not just us now who call Iowa City home, your vote has the capacity to
make a difference to the city's Climate Change Plan for future Iowa City citizens. Our opposition
must carry weight; revisit the city's planning documents for inconsistencies you can get behind
and reassure us of why we voted for you. A park is a public use. Eminent domain is a tool.
Efforts should be made to conserve existing land for the wisest uses; and the idea of more park
land is a nearly universal desire among people living in urban areas.
Thank you for reading this.
Sincerely,
Judy L. Buddenbaum
557 N 1st Avenue
847-220-0847
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Tracy Kimber <Itkimber2011@yahoo.com>
Monday, July 26, 2021 2:57 PM
*City Council
Hickory Hill
Please don't sell this land to the developers .
Tracy Kimber
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
1
Late Handouts Distributed
(Date)
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
ann zerkel <annzerkel@gmail.com>
Monday, July 26, 2021 3:46 PM
*City Council
Please Save Our Land Community!
Late Handouts Distributed
(Date)
Dear Respected Councilors,
Please vote NO on developing the land parcel adjacent to Hickory Hill Park.
The benefits to humans of spending time outdoors in a natural habitat are increasingly well documented.
The land near Hickory Hill park is a habitat for precious plant and animal species, including pollinators. No amount of
money can buy the services that pollinators provide; our lives depend on them.
Iowa's pioneer ecologist Aldo Leopold wrote in the 1940's:
Land is nota commodity to be used, but a community to be loved and respected.
We are part of the land community. Please help us to treat our fellow community members with respect.
Thank you!
Ann Zerkel
Iowa City resident since 1969
1
Kellie Fruehling
From: Jess Fopez <ajlgstone@icloud.com>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 4:19 PM
To: *City Council
Subject: Land Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
Late Handouts Distributed
We are writing to you today to voice our opposition to the proposed developmeoi)the ACT tract adjacent to
Hickory Hill Park.
Why?
We recently retired and moved back to IC after being away for 17 years. One of the changes we noticed right
away is all of the residential property that had been built and that is currently being built, especially on the east
side where we currently reside.
We walk every morning and one of the first routes we started was Scott Blvd. from Rochester north to Dodge
St. we enjoyed this walk because there are beautiful vistas to the west and cattle grazing meadows and trees to
the east. We have seen deer, turkey and the occasional mink on our walks. Aside from the traffic, my Wife and I
both commented that it was nice to see areas such as this still existing in IC. Unfortunately this area is starting
to change as urban crawl is knocking on the door with the land clearing for the Tamarack Ridge Subdivision
and Oaknoll East. And now, we have this land clearing proposal next to Hickory Hill Park. Please conserve
what green space we have left on this side of town for the wisest of uses- say for more park land.
Thanks for your time
Jess & Renae Lopez
Sent from my iPhone
This email is from an external source.
1
tl
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Teri Bekeris <tezzcali@yahoo.com>
Monday, July 26, 2021 1:31 PM
*City Council
Hickory Hill Park
Late Handouts Distributed
(Date)
Hickory Hill Park is beloved site for many Eastern Iowa residents. Please take into consideration the wants and needs of
the Iowa residents that would truly miss this park. Please do not sell any part of this park.
Thank you for your attention,
Teri Bekeris
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
1
Kellie Fruehling
From: Eric Goers
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 11:32 AM
To: *City Council
Cc: Geoff Fruin; Kellie Fruehling
Subject: Hickory Hill Condemnation
Council,
Late Handouts Distributed
�— -7
(Date)
You have probably seen recent correspondence in local media and your packet proposing condemnation of the
Hickory Trail Estates parcel as an alternative to allowing development to move forward there. Because misstatements
of law have been put forth, I thought it might be helpful to briefly address the legal framework of condemnation ahead
of your meeting tonight.
There was at least one letter sent from a member of the public that indicated the parcel could be purchased
through eminent domain for the assessed value. This is not true. Iowa Code Chapters 6A and 6B govern condemnation
in Iowa. Because of state law governing property tax assessments of agricultural property, this parcel is currently
assessed at $44,010. However, the price the acquiring agency must pay is fair market value based on highest and best
use. "An acquiring agency shall not make an offer to purchase the property or property interest that is less than the fair
market value the acquiring agency has established for the property or property interest pursuant to the appraisal
required in section 6B.45..." Iowa Code section 6B.2B. "In determining fair market value of property, the commissioners
shall not consider only the assessed value assigned to such property for purposes of property taxation." Iowa Code
section 66.14(3). lam not certain of the contract price in the purchase agreement, but will note that ACT paid $2.3
million for the land in 2008. The purchase agreement price would be powerful evidence of the fair market value of the
property.
Before the City can commence condemnation procedures, we (the acquiring agency) "shall make a good faith
effort to negotiate with the owner to purchase the private property or property interest before filing an application for
condemnation or otherwise proceeding with the condemnation process." Iowa Code section 6B.2B. To date we have
not done so. It is my understanding that this parcel had been marketed for sale for several years before the
development team signed a purchase agreement. That sale, and the intended development use, is not unexpected. I
am also concerned that refusing to rezone a property subject to a purchase agreement so that we can purchase it
instead might subject us to litigation under a tortious interference with a contractual relationship cause of action. The
State of Iowa has immunity from such claims (see Iowa Code section 669.14(4)), but it does not appear that
municipalities enjoy the same protection (see generally, Iowa Code section 670.4.) To be clear, I am not saying that any
such litigation would be ultimately successful - only that it could be filed and proceed.
As always, feel free to reach out to me individually if you have questions or concerns. So as to avoid any
potential open meeting violations, please do not "reply all".
Eric Goers
City Attorney
410 East Washington Street
lowa City, IA 52240
319-356-5030
eric-goers@ iowa-citv.org
I r 1
AkTigitt:44,4;
"..."--1.11Z441.11.11-1k,
CITY or IowA CITY
UNESCO CI l Y OF U I ERM URE
Notice:
1
Since e-mail messages sent between you and the City Attorney's Office and its employees are transmitted over the
internet, the City Attorney's Office cannot assure that such messages are secure. You should be careful in transmitting
information to the City Attorney's Office that you consider confidential. If you are uncomfortable with such risks, you
may decide not to use e-mail to communicate with the City Attorney's Office. Without written notification that you do
not wish to communicate with the City Attorney's Office via e-mail communication, the City Attorney's Office will
assume you assent to such communication. This message is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18
U.S.C. Sections 2510-2515, is intended only for the use of the person to whom it is addressed and may contain
information that is confidential and subject to the attorney-client privilege. It should not be forwarded to anyone else
without consultation with the originating attorney. If you received this message and are not the addressee, you have
received this message in error. Please notify the person sending the message and destroy your copy. Thank you.
2
)1.b
Kellie Fruehlin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Molly Arndt <mollymaureenarndt@gmail.com>
Monday, July 26, 2021 4:37 PM
*City Council
Save Hickory Hill
Late Handouts Distributed
_�1
(Date)
Dear Iowa City Councilors,
I'm writing you today to urge you to vote to protect Hickory Hill park and not allow any development and destruction of
our beautiful, crucial, natural space.
Hickory Hill is one of my favorite places in the entire world. The cool, dense forest, the deer and foxes and birds, the
mulberry trees and raspberry bushes --all have nourished my body and mind. I credit my love of nature and my career in
environmental preservation to the many, many days of my life I have found refuge in Hickory Hill's sanctuary.
I've even dreamed of getting married there, in the spot by the picnic table at the top of the prairie. I've seen mountains,
oceans, great lakes --and to me, that little spot is still the most beautiful place in the world.
I urge you not to allow any more development there. Iowa ranks 47 on the list of states with the least public land. We
can't go swimming at Lake MacBride or paddle boarding on the Iowa River anymore because of factory farms, and any
other places to hike in the area require a car --something I didn't have as a poor college student. Hickory Hill was the only
place I could go to feel at peace in nature.
You have the power to preserve a little bit of heaven here in Iowa. Please, please, consider that when you vote
tomorrow.
Sincerely,
Molly Arndt
1
Kellie Fruehling
From: Suzanne Bradley <suzannecbradley@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 5:06 PM
To: *City Council
Subject: Love Hickory Hills
Hello City Council,
Late Handouts Distributed
— 2_7 — 21
(Date)
I am writing to beg you to show pride in our towns natural areas, which have dwindled over the years.
The area proposed to be developed is the most peaceful in town you can find.
I have seen all sorts of wildlife from Hickey there.
Foxes play there in the early morning! It's so lovely.
PLEASE be the progressive town we say we are and stop this development!
Suzanne Bradley
1017 Bowery St
Iowa City, Iowa 5224o
319-512-2950
Sent from my iPhone
This email is from an external source.
1
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Council Members:
Eliza Willis <elizawillis@earthlink.net>
Monday, July 26, 2021 5:04 PM
*City Council
Development adjacent Hickory Hill Park
Late Handouts Distiibuteu
-7_Z1-2_
(Date)
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed development adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. I am
a longtime resident of Iowa City and a frequent visitor to the park. I'm very concerned about the negative
effects this development project will have on wildlife in the park and on the user experience walking through
this spot of serenity in the midst of our busy city.
I am particularly concerned that no consideration has been given by the developers to the effect construction
and new structures will have on bird Life in the park. Given the centrality of Hickory Hill's habitat for migratory
birds, it is unconscionable to proceed with the planned development in the absence of an environmental study
focusing on birds in the park.
I have tried to follow the arguments suggesting the city is obligated to allow this development to go forward
despite widespread opposition from the community. I don't find them persuasive and wonder why some
council members are so far unresponsive to the reasonable objections expressed by so many community
members.
There is no question the park will be changed in undesirable ways by the proposed development. I hope those
council members planning to vote in favor of the project will show the courage to change their votes to no on
Tuesday.
Respectfully,
Eliza Willis
821 S. 7th Avenue
Iowa City
This email is from an external source.
1
11.6
Kellie Fruehling
From: Betty Shea <gdbetty@me.com>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2021 8:48 PM
To: *City Council
Subject:Hickory Hill Park
Please do not sell developers land from hickory hill!
Sent from my iPhone
This email is from an external source.
1
Late Handouts Distributed
-7— —77 —2—I
(Date)
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear City Council,
Daniel Livorsi <danlivorsi@yahoo.com>
Tuesday, July 27, 2021 6:12 AM
*City Council
Hickory Hill development
Late Handouts Distributed
(Date)
I am writing to express my strong concerns about the proposed development adjacent to Hickory Hill Park.
The planned assisted living facility will increase traffic along an already busy street. To my knowledge, the traffic study
was done during the pandemic when there was less traffic in town, and I question whether it's appropriate to use the
study's findings to inform future development.
The planned street connecting Scott and First will be adjacent to the park, thereby increasing noise within the park. There
are few places in Iowa City where you can escape traffic noise, and Hickory Hill Park is one of them. By saying "no" to
further land development, the council will help preserve this beautiful area for the future.
Thank you for your consideration,
Daniel Livorsi
330 Post Road, Iowa City, IA
1
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Councillors,
lisa heineman <lisa.heineman.1945@gmail.com>
Tuesday, July 27, 2021 7:18 AM
*City Council
Proposed development
Late Handouts Distributed
-— —2I
(Date)
I'm writing to express my hope that you block the proposed development that backs up directly onto Hickory Hill park.
Having that kind of oasis - a *big* one! - in easy walking distance was one of the things that attracted me to Iowa City -
not just because I wanted to use it, but because I felt it reflected well on the values and priorities of the city as a whole.
The park needs a healthy buffer zone to developed land. Building so dose to the park will diminish the park not only for
people, but also for the wildlife that needs space away from traffic noise. There are many ways to develop new housing
in Iowa City, but this is a bad one.
Thanks for considering,
Lisa Heineman
1
Kellie Fruehling
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jill Humston <jlhumston@gmail.com>
Tuesday, July 27, 2021 11:39 AM
*City Council
Please do not support development near Hickory Hills
Late Handouts Distributed
-2-7 -Zt
(Date)
I grew up in Iowa City and moved back here in 2016 to raise my sons. Hickory Hills Park is where my parents got married
in the 1970s, where 1 spent a lot of time as a child in the 80s and 90s, and where my sons now spend a lot of time.
The proposal of a development infringing on the atmosphere of Hickory Hills is upsetting to me. Iowa City needs to offer
its residents a nature area within the city limits, not more housing that is unaffordable to many residents. The park is
free for all to use.
Please vote NO on the proposed development near Hickory Hills.
1
Pugh
Frahm1,
ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS
July 27, 2021
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Iowa City City Council
410 E. Washington St
Iowa City, IA 52240
council@iowa-city.org
Eric Goers, City Attorney
eric-goers@iowa-city.org
Geoff Fruin, City Manager
geoff-fruin@iowa-city.org
d;fri(vb
425 E. OAKDALE BLVD.
SUITE 201
CORALVILLE, IOWA 52241
PHONE 319-351-2028
FAX 319-351-1102
PUGH HAGAN.COM
ATARR@PUGHHAGAN.COM
�w
n.)
CD
RE: Prepared Remarks for 7/27/21 City Council Meeting: Axiom Consultants, Nelson
Development and Hickory Trail Rezoning Application
Thank you for your time, Mr. Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and City Council members. It's a pleasure
to be before you tonight.
I'd Iike to say it's the highlight of my day, but I'm afraid that would make a liar of me. In all truth,
the highlight of my day was taking our family dog, Willa, for a hike through Hickory Hill this
morning. And I think I can speak for her when I say that it was the highlight of her day as well.
As a long-time East Side resident within walking distance of the park, I can say without hesitation
that Hickory Hill is one of the best, if not the best thing about the East Side, if not the entire city.
It's a little bit of paradise. A meditative, restorative natural gem tucked between our
neighborhoods, nearby and accessible to all. It's one of the first things l point to when asked about
why I'm a proud East Sider. Along with our socioeconomic diversity, our blend of well-maintained
old and new housing stock, and our sense of community, the park is emblematic of our pride of
place.
As a proud East Sider and park lover, I come before you on behalf of Applicant Nelson
Development to urge you to approve this third and final reading of the proposal before the council
tonight.
Many of you campaigned on improving the livability of Iowa City, on good environmental
stewardship and on doing something to address the geriatric crisis facing our aging state
population. Approving this application advances all of those promises.
003921491
PUGH HAGAN PRAHM PLC
July 27, 2021
Page 2 -
-_ rte- , ,
Each of you also took an oath to uphold the laws of the state of Iowa. Those laws set'.tiut th@ riter—
by which you are to evaluate the application. Iowa City Code Title 14, 14-047(C) governs_
approval of planned development/OPD. It directs you to "review the application for;coRpliance' I
with the applicable approval criteria as set forth in chapter 3, article A... The report'shalLinclud.e
findings with regard to the applicable approval criteria as set forth in chapter 3, article A2Sld., 14-
3A-3 and 4. co
Planning and Zoning staff, Parks staff, the Planning and Zoning commission, and City staff have
repeatedly recommended approval. By all accounts, the applicants have, in good faith, addressed
each request or concern on their way to final approval tonight.
They have replaced cul-de-sacs with a through street to satisfy staff's objection to cul-de-sacs. See
City Code 15-3-2A-4: "Use of cul-de-sacs and other roadways with a single point of access should
be avoided." That provision was cited by the Staff Report to Planning and Zoning, February 18,
2021. The Applicants have reduced density and single loaded the street, creating a larger buffer
with the park, such that, with setbacks, no houses will be closer than 175' from the park boundary,
as provided in the most recent Axiom renderings forwarded to you on July 22. They have provided
streamside buffer zones, protected slopes and preserved the majority of the tree cover. They have
provided for a lower roof on the Parkside of the senior home to protect sight lines.
They have dedicated over 14 acres in Outlot A to buffer and expand the park, complete with trail
heads, finally extending Hickory Hill to Scott Boulevard. They have also committed to eliminating
invasive species from the addition. To achieve this, the applicants have worked tirelessly and
closely with the City Forester and Parks staff, who have opined that the application offers to add
valuable biodiversity to the park.
As a result of all these efforts, as many of you observed yourself over the last two meetings, the
proposal meets the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan and Northeast District Plan. It satisfies
the criteria set out in Title 14 of the City Ordinances. As staff reports have observed, the proposal
"incorporates a variety of housing types, limits impact to sensitive areas, and provides an
additional [now over 141 acres of land to Hickory Hill Park."
While some community members would be displeased by anything less than the full 48 acres being
added to the park, that's been offered by ACT and rejected. But it may be that the decision by the
city not to buy the parcel for the purpose of park expansion was a good thing, because the overlay
proposal now before you offers the best of all worlds. It protects, expands and improves the
diversity of the park. It also addresses a vital need for senior housing, including memory units. It
also adds quality single family housing stock to the east side. The synergy in these results is
apparent, as new neighbors can be counted on to become dedicated stewards of the park.
You have the opportunity and duty to be the city council that historically expands Hickory Hill
Park and simultaneously addresses the community's dire need for compassionate senior housing.
The criteria set forth in the district and comprehensive plans, combined under the flexible approach
provided by the overlay ordinance, permit the proposal's combination of single-family low-density
homes and the senior housing, while protecting and expanding the park. Because the plan meets
(003921491
PUGH HAGAN PRAHM PLC
July 27, 2021
Page 3
the criteria for each as set out in the Comprehensive and District Plans, your sworn obligation is
to approve the application in good faith.
Some Council members have instead advanced a very expansive and novel interpretation of the
overlay ordinance, seizing on the use of the word "flexibility" in 14-3A-1 as a basis for demanding
additional consideration and limitless accommodations from the applicants, or to reject the
application outright, despite the application being compliant with the Comprehensive and District
Plans and the Ordinance. This flies in the face of the express Language of 14-3A-1.
Other Council members have suggested that they wish that a revised Comprehensive Plan and
District Plan was in place that would permit the City to make other demands and apply other
criteria, and suggested immediate action to revise the Plans.
But as the majority of the Council has correctly concluded in prior work sessions and public
meetings over this application, you must apply the law you have, not the Law you wish you had.
Indeed, the Iowa Supreme Court has made clear that the discretion granted to a city council in
zoning matters is not unbounded, and that it is bad faith for a council to reject a compliant
application out of a motive to alter the zoning ordinance or extract concessions unsupported by the
law. "[Al reviewing court will not apply a new ordinance if officials acted in bad faith by denying
or delaying approval of a properly submitted and conforming site plan in order to alter a zoning
ordinance." Geisler v. City Council of Cedar Falls, 769 N.W.2d 162, 167 (Iowa 2009) (district
court erred in failing to consider evidence of bad faith in city council's delay and rejection of
multifamily housing application in overlay district (citing U.S. Cellular Corp. v. Board of
Adjustment, 589 N.W.2d 712, 717 (Iowa 1999) (bad faith for Board to deny application where
denial was "not based on any deficiencies in the application under the applicable ordinance, but
instead was based on the failure of the proposed structure to comply with an ordinance then being
drafted", and where Board offered pretextual justification of substantial opposition from
neighborhood association)).
The Council can approve this compliant application with the confidence that its objectives will be
met. Planning and Zoning and the Council have enumerated several conditions for approval of the
proposal, and the city will retain active oversight and approval powers in the final plat approval
process to see that those conditions are met. The applicants have agreed to all conditions and
offered additional accommodations on their own, in good faith. It is now the Council's sworn duty
tonight to act in good faith and apply the law it has, accept the overwhelming recommendation of
staff, and approve the final reading of this application.
Sincerely,
PUGH HAGAN PRAHM PLC
Adam S. Tarr
AST/ecr
(00392149]
100
Failed 7/27/21
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.
1st 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
N01°07'52"W, 656.03 FEET; THENCE N01°41'17"W, 1094.66 FEET; THENCE N01°38'34"W, 210.49
FEET; THENCE N01°20'33"W, 538.67 FEET; THENCE TO THE NW CORNER OF SAID AUDITOR'S
PARCEL; THENCE 1332.94 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SCOTT
BOULEVARD ON A 1018.50 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY (CHORD BEARING
S65°18'23"E, 1239.83 FEET); THENCE S27°14'33"W, 924.73 FEET; THENCE S01°14'34"E, 378.49
FEET;THENCE N77°55'52"E, 649.63 FEET; THENCE S01°15'42"E, 868.85 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE
OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE S87°54'07"W, 1302.79 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 48.75 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER
RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
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: 71:
City Clerk City Attorney's •ffice
(Sara Greenwood Hektoen—05/25/2021)
It was moved by Mims and seconded by Bergus that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT:
X Bergus
X Mims
x Salih
x Taylor
X Teague
x Thomas
X Weiner
First Consideration 06/15/2021
Vote for passage: AYES: Salih, Taylor, Teague, Weiner, Bergus, Mims.
NAYS: Thomas. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 07/06/2021
Vote for passage: AYES: Mims, Teague, Weiner, Bergus.
NAYS: Salih, Taylor, Thomas. ABSENT: None.
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. 1st 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
N01°07'52"W, 656.03 FEET; THENCE N01°41'17"W, 1094.66 FEET; THENCE N01°38'34"W,
210.49 FEET; THENCE N01°20'33"W, 538.67 FEET; THENCE TO THE NW CORNER OF
SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL; THENCE 1332.94 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY
LINE OF SCOTT BOULEVARD ON A 1018.50 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE
NORTHERLY (CHORD BEARING S65°18'23"E, 1239.83 FEET); THENCE S27°14'33"W,
924.73 FEET; THENCE S01°14'34"E, 378.49 FEET; THENCE N77°55'52"E, 649.63 FEET;
THENCE S01°15'42"E, 868.85 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL;
1
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE S87°54'07"W, 1302.79 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 48.75 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND
OTHER RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
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:
i. 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 By:
Attest:
Hickory Trail Estates, LLC.
Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk
Approved • •
By:
City Attorney's 0'ice — H2/e. en
&/.25/a.-/
Nelson Development 1, LLC.
By:
City of Iowa City Acknowledgement:
State of Iowa
)ss:
Johnson County
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
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 By:
Attest:
Hickory Trail Estates, LLC.
Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk
Approved by:
By:
City Attorney's Office
Nelson Development 1, LLC.
By: i\ p Nelson
City of Iowa City Acknowledgement:
State of Iowa )
)ss:
Johnson County
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)
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 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 (f%
County of Palk
This record was acknowledged before me on May 2' ". , 2021 by
MiK2 N1✓ig0Y\ (name)as Mokv\c4_,3 J (title)of Nelson Development 1, LLC.
Notary Public
and for the Stateofi wa
. 1,4 SIERRA SICILY ANDREAS (Stamp or Seal)
Commission Number 827127
I My Commission Expires
October 27, 2023 My commission expires: 10/27/2-023
4
•
•
deemed satisfied ••and no further release will be provided. The parties further
acknowledge that this agreement shall inute 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 witfi-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. By:
•
Attest: •
• ' Hickory Trail Estat=-, LLC.
Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk 41P.PY .
Approved by:
•
. City Attorney's Office
• Nelson Development 1; LLC.
•
• By:
•
•
City of Iowa City Acknowledgement: •
State of Iowa )
) ss:
Johnson County ) °
•
•
This instrument was acknowledged before me on , 20 by Bruce Teague
and Kellie Fruehling as Mayor and City Cterk, 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 of-r`441
County of SUH N fj°1-i
This record was acknowledged before me ons GINE , 2021 by
:Yoe- Clam (name) as Mo,tAcuer (title)of Hickory .it Estates, LLC.
Ntary Public in and for t e State � Iowa
Commission Number 8127755
*tivi.* My Commission Wee (Stamp or Seal)
September 20,2021
My commission expires: . I a 0
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.
22("GI
Dated this day of —3-0(\F_ , 2011.
City of Iowa City ACT, Inc.
U4
C41OAt
Bruce Teague, Mayor By: Cit 1 IS [ FO
Attest:
Hickory Trail Estates, LLC.
Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk
Approved by:
By:
City Attorney's Office
Nelson Development 1, LLC.
By:
City of Iowa City Acknowledgement:
State of Iowa
) as:
Johnson County
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 0 .bars
vn` `~)
This record was acknowledged before me on �� , 2021 by
C';;c' )" i1 I r K (name)as (_'F'(;• (title)of ACT, Inc.
.--....--..---......---............% Lthdrla:-: 4(81(--___
tf,y M,lLoDI 103, r Notary Public in and for the Stof Iowa
I os Comm, ,,,,.Numbor 796330
e.1 ,.. .jrrres
iow* _D tot (Stamp or Seal)
My commission expires: D.612,0o 2 2—
Hickory
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 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
CONCEPT PLAN
1 1 N
HICKORY TRAIL _ _ _._. _ — 1 _ -T
ESTATES24• a------- � l/ "8
IOWA CITY,IOWA 8 I
,, i — �� '_. , � Nut...!
e �1 ! ``` • — ^
1 I -",.1604 \ 1<I
UPDATED APRIL Z9,2021 i" Y� \, J
rs,
MIME
- I 1 41kaK. 1.,
i
Oe ,. \L _.�..__ N.157A ENUE —'— — .._._.
9
fill .
%
\\ _ — li
f C"� ti, 1 ... jl r`ir��� i � / I. .I ,I rl �" ,17 ii i t
f— L� r` \�\� wr JJJ a
....
,\.„ .,.!.,,., ,,
. ,•.._.
„,!),
-.. -..,.:_,........_k_:_._______-
..
t, ,
•
vaaecrRNc112rrv1Aw LN Il , ''
'`• 1, y } E g!
\ _ I 1 ' ....... `� ,_71). �rl 111,�,j \�� e K 6
Ni. p Q
w7fA• !r 1 30_ \ �\���//^^`�� `, liiil
1.�'.of
1111/411171;-5,1 11 ..`t ii 1'11, I 11 6
OAK KNCJII J1 I -1:-.."--:-.--.-7.-'--'.., •• .7-'1.
` �'�------=7^.-,--:---:-L7
�. __ J V. ' 1
PROJECT DATA: ENTRANCE E.,,r � �,..� 4Fa -.,...77 :---'-------'`---/ � rte_ -.� i f�; / I
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AREA 18,75 ACRES � ! .,_....-..r.—...,. _-_
1
RIGNT4NWAY DEDICATOR 4.39 ACRES 90% 32•`\., \ �. r — • -�` ca awTION '1 f '•:'•
PARK DEDICATION AREA 14.02 ACRES 24.4% jr, l ,�i�Nv� ��. I1{� v y� i- .N.\-.,1 `��.... ''"'.� ` \ IAWkMI �" '" �
CONSERVATION AREA 3.13 ACRES 9.f% /fil f _ �;Si /� _ ��, i._ _`. V� I, I^ F
STREET LENGTH 3.134 FEET C 33 �j' `-� I __ 1N
SINGLE-LOADED FRONTAGE 2.234 FEET 71.0% y . J \`.>, I{ t� `\ \ ,1•• J' --•` //
�: Y , a } _7 � -1 / ..1 oU MOTs I •�,, Yll- 1 . �'iI�ll! ,"� v .1
LEGEND: i_ v \N...< 22 lioloiri ,,"sit aI1 '� a
PARK DEINCATTON I I 2 36 '' `� .r. 1� \l` E
CONSERVATION EASEMENT =.�..-,� /� \_ , .. �� � f { \�7, I4 1 OG
] 2 J 7r - _ _ F G WEA ,1�1 h 04,( 1 .1- — x
ib
1- -- <,... - • owns._ 6 ,if‘ -,- a igi!‘ •;;;;. ---1°T I, .- i x62 0.1t4...n'T. 1 c.i
bit-
C. _ r Z� i
1 -. .titf f/ �
p >
7 1 F__..1, f \\. FalmxG `r�-� ��J� .✓ '� 1 / 1 Z
i i / ,-, 5 i',L'
.' 4.. i ! 1 I1*_:t ! ' • ', •t \ >4 / / / I /
if i 7 -� N. r f • .tNK ,/ I m
f i �.. . 1
\\„/ 1 i t l ' o °o
# Thi 1--- -r.4",—. , ---\ -'\ \. .' - / /N... I.N i ) \ ----
C2.00
n„,,.Ior..f moo..s:a+�nL�s,2om7wl?ay.N o.g.,u�•..s�...rw�,�w:w na„F
Item Number: 12.
J uly 27, 2021
O rd inan ce amen d ing Titl e 3, en titled “F in ances, Taxation & F ees”, Ch apter 4,
“Sched u l e of F ess, Rates, Charg es, Bonds, F in es, an d Penal ties”, Section
5, “Solid Waste Disposal”.
Prepared B y:Ron K noche, P ublic Works Director
Reviewed By:Geoff Fruin, City Manager
F iscal I mpact:Approximately $3,500 revenue annually
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:Ordinance
Executive S ummary:
T he R esource Management D ivision requests the C ity Council hold a public hearing for J uly 23,
2021, to consider amending Title 3, Chapter 4 of the City Code.
Title 3, Chapter 4 amendments include the addition of a $2 monthly charge per additional yard
waste carts supplied to curbside customers after the first cart. The first cart is included in the base
$2 monthly fee; additional carts are optional.
T his amendment also includes the the removal of the $10 per ton fee for wood chip mulch.
Background / Analysis:
Title 3, C hapter 4 of the City Code is the ‘S chedule of Fees, R ates, Changes, Bonds, F ines and
Penalties.
T he City has transitioned to carts for trash and recycling, and now organics; carts improve
operational efficiencies and staf f safety f or all curbside collections. Carts are lifted by a
mechanical arm on the truck and significantly reduce shoulder injuries caused by lif ting containers
manually. Starting J uly 1, 2021, curbside crews will no longer pick up containers provided by
residents; yard waste must be in a City-provided cart or a paper yard waste bag, or bundled to
collection specifications.
W ith this transition, the City is offering optional additional yard waste carts to curbside customers.
Two carts sizes are offered, 25 gallons and 95 gallons. T he cost to purchase costs carts are
approximately $30 and $48.50, respectively. T he $2 monthly f ee cover carts costs after 15
months and 24 months; after that point the fee will of f set operational costs including labor,
equipment and fuel.
Several years ago the L andfill ceased charging the stated $10 per ton rate f or wood chip mulch.
T here was a very large supply and it was not selling; removing the f ee has helped move the
supply. This amendment updates the code to reflect the reality of not charging the fee.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
Ordinance
112-
Prepared
aPrepared by: Ronald Knoche,Public Works Director,410 E.Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240(319)356-5138
Ordinance number
Ordinance amending Title 3, entitled "Finances, Taxation & Fees", Chapter 4,
"Schedule of Fees, Rates, Charges, Bonds, Fines, and Penalties", Section 5,
"Solid Waste Disposal"
Whereas, the Resource Management Division has transitioned to carts for trash and recycling,
and now yard waste to improve operational efficiencies and staff safety; and
Whereas, beginning July 1, 2021, curbside crews will no longer pick up containers provided by
residents; and
Whereas, the City will offer additional optional yard waste collection carts for customers'
convenience; and
Whereas, the additional carts will incur additional costs for the City to keep a supply available;
and
Whereas, the City will provide additional yard waste carts to customers for additional fees; and
Whereas, the Landfill no longer charges customers for wood chip mulch in order to keep the
supply moving.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa:
Section I.Amendment. Title 3, Chapter 4, Section 5 entitled"Solid Waste Disposal"is amended
by adding the underlined text as follows:
Description Of Fee, Charge, Bond, Fine Or Penalty Charge
Yard waste collection fees:
Per dwelling unit,per month $2.00
Low income discount h 75 percent of monthly charge
Untreated wood waste Tree
Additional yard waste carts over 1,per month $2.00
Section II.Amendment. Title 3, Chapter 4, Section 5 entitled"Solid Waste Disposal"is amended
by removing the $10.00 per ton and $2.00 minimum charge for Wood chip Mulch and adding
the underlined text as follows:
Description Of Fee, Charge, Bond, Fine Or Penalty Charge
Wood chip mulch No charge
Section III. Repealer. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of
this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
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.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
Section V. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in effect upon publication.
Passed and approved this day of , 2021.
Mayor
Approved by
Attest:
City Clerk City Atto ey's Office—07/19/2021
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
Saleh
Taylor
Teague
Thomas
Weiner
First Consideration 7/27/2021
Vote for passage:
AYES: Teague, Thomas, Weiner, Bergus, Mims, Salih, Taylor.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration
Vote for passage:
Date published
Item Number: 16.
J uly 27, 2021
O rd inan ce Amen d ing Titl e 5, En titled "Busin ess and Licen se Regulations,"
Ch apter 2, En titled “Taxicabs,” to allow for fl exibil ity in th e requiremen ts for
p edicab l ettering. (F irst Consid eration)
Prepared B y:Susan Dulek, A ss't. City A ttorney
Reviewed By:Geoff Fruin, City Manager
Kellie Fruehling, City Clerk
F iscal I mpact:none
Recommendations:Staff: Approval
Commission: N/A
Attachments:ordinance
Executive S ummary:
Pedicabs have some of the same Code requirements as taxicabs that are motor vehicles. A
recent applicant f or a pedicab license raised a question with the lettering requirement, which is the
same as for motor vehicles.
Background / Analysis:
T here have been issues historically with taxicabs not having lettering that was professional in
appearance and helpful to the public. Council then adopted specific requirements f or lettering,
which apply equally to pedicabs. B ecause pedicabs are smaller than motor vehicles and vary in
design, the lettering requirements for pedicabs should be flexible. T his ordinance allows C ity staff
to set the lettering requirements for pedicabs by administrative rule.
AT TAC HM E NT S :
Description
ordinance
16 '
Prepared by: Susan Dulek,Asst.City Attorney,410 E.Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240;319-356-5030
ORDINANCE NO.
Ordinance Amending Title 5, Entitled "Business and License
Regulations," Chapter 2, Entitled "Taxicabs," to allow for flexibility in
the requirements for pedicab lettering.
Whereas, pedicabs and taxicabs that are motor vehicles have some of the same Code
requirements; and
Whereas, the lettering requirements are the same for both, but because pedicabs are
smaller than motor vehicles and vary in design, the lettering requirements for pedicabs should
be flexible; and
Whereas, it is in the best interest of the city to adopt this ordinance.
Now, therefore, be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Iowa City, Iowa:
Section I. Amendments.
1. Title 5, entitled "Business and License Regulations," Chapter 2, entitled "Taxicabs,"
Section 5, entitled "Vehicle Requirements," Subsection C2 is amended by adding the underlined
text as follows:
Lettering Required: Each taxicab shall have the name of the taxicab business on each side
of the vehicle in letters at least four and one-half inches (41/2") in height. Removable signs
and peel off letters shall not be allowed. If a phone number is provided, the number shall be
the same number that appears on the taxicab business application and rate card. All other
letters and numbers shall not be greater than three inches (3") in height. Lettering may be
allowed on a window, if approved by the City Equipment Superintendent or designee.
Notwithstanding any provision herein, the lettering requirements for pedicabs shall be set by
administrative rule.
Section II. 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 not 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 day of , 2021.
Mayor Attest:
City Clerk
Approved by
City Attorney's ffice—07/22/2021
Ordinance No.
Page
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 7/27/2021
Vote for passage:
AYES: Bergus, Mims, Salih, Taylor, Teague, Thomas, Weiner.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration
Vote for passage:
Date published