HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 03.18.2021PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, March 18, 2021
Electronic Formal Meeting – 7:00 PM
Zoom Meeting Platform
Agenda:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda
Development Items
4. Case No.: CSUB21-0001
Applicant: MMS Consultants on behalf of Allen Homes, Inc.
Location: South of Rapid Creek Road NE, approximately 3,000 feet east of Highway 1
NE
An application for a preliminary plat for Yellow Rock subdivision, a 40.62-acre, 7-lot
residential subdivision with six outlots, located in unincorporated Johnson County.
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is
impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of
Commission members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19.
You can participate in the meeting and can comment on an agenda item by
going to:
https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJMtceCrqzMjGtHRYdNFfGxUsOm1baWmr
681 to visit the Zoom meeting’s registration page and submitting the required
information. Once approved, you will receive an email message with a link to
join the meeting. If you are asked for a meeting or webinar ID, enter the ID
number found in the email. If you have no computer or smartphone, or a
computer without a microphone, you can call in by phone by dialing (312)
626-6799 and entering the meeting ID 970 6935 8905 when prompted.
Providing comment in person is not an option.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
March 18, 2021
(Revised plan submitted by applicant)
5. 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).
6. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: February 18, 2021
7. Planning & Zoning Information
8. Adjournment
If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this meeting, please
contact Anne Russett, Urban Planning, at 319-356-5251 or anne-russett@iowa-city.org.
Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs.
Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings
Formal: April 1 / April 15 / May 6
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner
Item: CSUB21-0001 Date: March 18, 2021
Yellow Rock Preliminary Plat
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Lacey Stutzman
MMS Consultants
1917 S. Gilbert Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-351-8282
l.sexton@mmsconsultants.net
Property Owner: Jesse Allen
Yellow Rock, LLC
215 N. Linn Street
Iowa City, IA 52244
319-530-8238
allenhomesinc@gmail.com
Contact Person: John Yapp
Yellow Rock, LLC
215 N. Linn Street
Iowa City, IA 52244
319-325-1228
johnyapp.allenhomes@gmail.com
Requested Action: Approval of a preliminary plat in unincorporated
Johnson County
Purpose: Yellow Rock subdivision; To create 7 residential lots
and 6 outlots
Location: South of Rapid Creek Road NE, approximately
3,000 feet east of Highway 1 NE.
Location Map:
2
Size: 40.62 acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Undeveloped, R – County Residential
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: A – County Agricultural
South: A – County Agricultural
East: A – County Agricultural
West: A – County Agricultural
R – County Residential
Comprehensive Plan: Iowa City/Johnson County Fringe Area Agreement
District Plan: NA
Neighborhood Open Space District: NA
File Date: February 11, 2021
45 Day Limitation Period: March 28, 2021
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
On behalf of the owner, Yellow Rock, LLC., MMS Consultants has submitted a preliminary plat
application for a 40.62-acre project area, located south of Rapid Creek Road NE, approximately
3,000 feet east of Highway 1 NE in unincorporated Johnson County. The request is to subdivide
the subject property into seven lots for future residential development with six outlots, intended to
accommodate stormwater infrastructure, preservation, and future development. The property was
rezoned from County A-Agricultural to R-County Residential within the past year. The City
recommended the rezoning for approval on December 15, 2020.
The proposed subdivision is located within the Iowa City/Johnson County fringe area, and therefore,
the subdivision must be approved by both the City of Iowa City and Johnson County. The subject
property is located in Fringe Area “A”, outside of the City’s growth area and is subject to the City’s
Rural Design Standards. The Rural Design Standards are included as an appendix in the Fringe
Area Agreement.
ANALYSIS:
Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: The Fringe Area agreement has designated this area as
Fringe Area “A” outside of the City’s growth area. The Fringe Area agreement calls for primarily
agricultural uses in this area. The proposed use does not align with the land use policy in the Fringe
Area Agreement. However, the Johnson County Land Use Plan calls for residential uses in the
subject area, and the subject property is zoned Residential (R) under the Johnson County zoning
ordinance. The proposed preliminary plat conforms with the Residential (R) zone district and the
Johnson County comprehensive plan. Staff is working with County Planners to update the Fringe
Area Agreement. The draft land use policy direction for the updated Fringe Area Agreement will be
consistent with the land use policy direction outlined in the County’s Comprehensive Plan and
Future Land Use Map.
Subdivision Design: The proposed subdivision would create seven single-family residential lots,
with six outlots. All lots for residential development would be located on Yellow Rock Road NE, a
long cul-de-sac street that has access to Rapid Creek Road NE. Outlots “A”, “B”, “C”, and “F” on
the preliminary plat are allocated for stormwater infrastructure. Outlot “D” is intended for
3
preservation, while Outlot “E” has been set aside for future development. As proposed, Yellow
Rock Road NE conforms to the City’s rural design standards.
Storm Water Management: Storm water management will be provided by a wet-bottomed basin
located in Outlots A, B, and C. The basin will capture projected storm water needs for the
developed portion of the property, draining from the north to the southwest. The attached storm
water report details the methodology behind the basin’s proposed storage capacity and rates of
release. The report finds that the proposed basin will satisfy the County’s storm water
management requirements pertaining to water quality volume, channel protection storage
volume, overbank flood protection, and extreme flood protection.
Floodplain: The yellow area shown below in Figure 1 indicates an area covering the southern
end of the subject property that is in an unnumbered flood zone. This means that there is a 1%
chance that this area will flood annually, but to what precise elevation is unknown. A base flood
elevation request has been submitted by the applicant to the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources to determine the 100-year flood elevation for the property. This will be used to
determine what areas of the property are located in the floodplain and what areas can be removed
with a letter of Map Amendment. Lots will be required to be filled to make sure that the buildable
area for each lot is above the minimum low opening, as noted on the attached grading plan.
Figure 1 – Base Flood Elevation Map
Sanitary Sewer and Water Service: All seven lots will use the same well for water access. Each
individual lot will have its own individual septic system. These septic sewer systems will be
required to conform to the Johnson County Board of Health Rules and Regulations Governing
On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems.
4
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the application will be forwarded
on to the City Council for review. If the application obtains approval from City Council, it will be heard
by the Johnson County Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. A decision
on the preliminary plat from the Iowa City Council must be made before the Johnson County Board
of Supervisors can take final action on the application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of CSUB21-0001, an application submitted by MMS Consultants on
behalf of Yellow Rock, LLC for a preliminary plat of the Yellow Rock subdivision, a 7-lot, 40.62-
acre residential subdivision with six outlots, located in unincorporated Johnson County south of
Rapid Creek Road NE, approximately 3,000 feet east of Highway 1 NE.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Fringe Area Map
3. Zoning Map
4. Preliminary Plat
5. Grading Plan
6. Storm Water Report
7. MLO Calculations
8. Stormwater Basin Exhibit
Approved by: __ ________________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
HIGHWAY1NELYNDEN D R N E LYNDENHEIGHTS
R
D
N
E
LY
N
D
E
N
H
EIG
H
T
S
R
D
N
ERA
PIDCREEK DR NE RAPID CREEK TRL NERA P ID CREEK RD NE
CSUB21-0001Yellow Rockµ
0 0.15 0.30.075 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: March 2021
An application submitted by MMS Consultants, on behalf ofYellow Rock, LLC for preliminary plat approval of 40.62 acres of property located south of 4680 Rapid Creek Rd NE.
HIGHWAY1NELYNDEN D R N E LYNDENHEIGHTS
R
D
N
E
LY
N
D
E
N
H
EIG
H
T
S
R
D
N
ERA
PIDCREEK DR NE RAPID CREEK TRL NERA P ID CREEK RD NE
ID-RPCO1
Johnson County PD & S
CSUB21-0001Yellow Rockµ
0 0.15 0.30.075 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: March 2021
An application submitted by MMS Consultants, on behalf ofYellow Rock, LLC for preliminary plat approval of 40.62 acres of property located south of 4680 Rapid Creek Rd NE.
HIGHWAY1NELYNDEN D R N E LYNDENHEIGHTS
R
D
N
E
LY
N
D
E
N
H
EIG
H
T
S
R
D
N
ERA
PIDCREEK DR NE RAPID CREEK TRL NERA P ID CREEK RD NE
ID-RPCO1
Johnson County PD & S
CSUB21-0001Yellow Rockµ
0 0.15 0.30.075 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: March 2021
An application submitted by MMS Consultants, on behalf ofYellow Rock, LLC for preliminary plat approval of 40.62 acres of property located south of 4680 Rapid Creek Rd NE.
P.B.S.P.B.S.P
.
S
.
S
.P.B.S.P
.
S
.
S
.P.S.S.P.S.S.P.B.S.P.S.S.P.B.S.P.B.S.P.B.S.P.S
.S
.P.S.S.NWL = 693.00NW 1\4 - NW FRAC.1\4SECTION 31-T80N-R5WNE 1\4 - NW FRAC. 1\4SECTION 31-T80N-R5WSW 1\4 - NW FRAC.1\4SECTION 31-T80N-R5WSE 1\4 - NW FRAC.1\4S
E
C
T
IO
N
3
1
-
T
8
0
N
-
R
5W
SW 1\4 - NE 1\4SECTION 31-T80N-R5WRED BARNFARM ADDITIONLOT 1HOLLOWAY SUBDIVISIONLOT 2LYN-DEN HEIGHTS PART III PHASE 1OUTLOT "A"NW 1\4 - NE 1\4SECTION 31-T80N-R5WPOINT OF BEGINNINGRAPID CREEK ROAD NERAPID CREEK ROAD NE
YELLOW ROCKROAD NEMLO=703.2MLO=703.2MLO=703.2D(319) 351-8282LAND PLANNERSLAND SURVEYORSCIVIL ENGINEERSLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSIOWA CITY, IOWA 52240MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTSwww.mmsconsultants.net1917 S. GILBERT ST.02-22-2021PER COUNTY REVIEW -JDMYELLOW ROCKSUBDIVISION JOHNSON COUNTYIOWA02-11-21RLAJDMRLA7596-118140.62 AC03-05-2021PER CITY REVIEW -JDMPRELIMINARY PLAT11"=100'MMS CONSULTANTS INC.1917 S. GILBERT STREETIOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 SUBDIVIDER'S ATTORNEY:EREK P. SITTIG123 N. LINN STREET, SUITE 300IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244OWNER/SUBDIVIDER:YELLOW ROCK, LLCP.O. BOX 3474IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244P.S.S.P.B.S.NOT TO SCALELOCATION MAPJOHNSON COUNTY, IOWAYELLOW ROCK SUBDIVISIONDRAFTJOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:PLAT APPROVED BY:GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET1"=100'010255075100PLAT PREPARED BY:TYPICAL SECTION - LOCALYELLOW ROCK ROAD NEPRELIMINARY PLATYELLOW ROCK SUBDIVISIONJOHNSON COUNTY, IOWADESCRIPTION - PRELIMINARY PLATA PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE FRACTIONAL NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP80 NORTH, RANGE 5 WEST OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:Beginning at the North Quarter Corner of Section 31, Township 80 North, Range 5 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, JohnsonCounty, Iowa; Thence S01°56'30"E, along the East Line of the Northeast Quarter of the Fractional Northwest Quarter of saidSection 31, a distance of 1338.04 feet, to the Southeast Corner thereof; Thence S89°10'03"W, along the South Line of saidNortheast Quarter of the Fractional Northwest Quarter, 1328.23 feet, to a Point on the East Line of Holloway Subdivision, inaccordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 27 at Page 40 of the Records of the Johnson County Recorder's Office;Thence N01°25'57"W, along said East Line, 105.57 feet; Thence N02°07'52"E, along said East Line, 252.43 feet; ThenceN10°01'19"W, along said East Line, 150.17 feet, to its intersection with the West Line of said Northeast Quarter of the FractionalNorthwest Quarter; Thence N01°38'32"W, along said West Line, 112.51 feet, to its intersection with the East Line of Lyn-DenHeights Part III Phase 1, in accordance with the Plat thereof Recorded in Plat Book 52 at Page 371 of the Records of the JohnsonCounty Recorder's Office; Thence Northeasterly, 112.35 feet, along said East Line on a 1061.86 foot radius curve, concaveNorthwesterly, whose 112.30 foot chord bears N05°37'16"E, to the Northeast Corner thereof; Thence S88°45'17"W, along theNorth Line of said Lyn-Den Heights Part III Phase 1, 14.20 feet, to its intersection with the West Line of said Northeast Quarter ofthe Fractional Northwest Quarter; Thence N01°38'32"W, along said West Line, 603.46 feet, to the Northwest Corner thereof;Thence N88°58'24"E, along the North Line of said Northeast Quarter of the Fractional Northwest Quarter, 1326.07 feet, to thePoint of Beginning. Said Rezoning Parcel contains 40.62 Acres, and is subject to easements and restrictions of record.G:\7596\7596-118\7596-118P.dwg, 3/5/2021 4:17:03 PM
P.B.S.P.B.S.P
.
S
.
S
.P.B.S.P
.
S
.
S
.P.S.S.P.S.S.P.B.S.P.S.S.P.B.S.P.B.S.P.B.S.P.S
.S
.P.S.S.PRDLNWL = 693.00NW 1\4 - NW FRAC.1\4SECTION 31-T80N-R5W
NE 1\4 - NW FRAC. 1\4SECTION 31-T80N-R5WSW 1\4 - NW FRAC.1\4SECTION 31-T80N-R5WS
E
1
\
4
-
NW
F
R
A
C
.
1
\
4SECTION 31-T80N-R5WSW
1
\
4
-
N
E
1
\
4SECTION 31-T80N-R5WFARM ADDITIONHOLLOWAY SUBDIVISIONLOT 2LYN-DEN HEIGHTS PART III PHASE 1OUTLOT "A"NW 1\4 - NE 1\4SECTION 31-T80N-R5WRAPID CREEK ROAD NERAPID CREEK ROAD NE
YELLOW ROCKROAD NEMLO=703.2MLO=703.2MLO=703.2(319) 351-8282LAND PLANNERSLAND SURVEYORSCIVIL ENGINEERSLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSIOWA CITY, IOWA 52240MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTSwww.mmsconsultants.net1917 S. GILBERT ST.02-22-2021PER COUNTY REVIEW -JDMYELLOW ROCKSUBDIVISION JOHNSON COUNTYIOWA02-11-21RLAJDMRLA7596-118140.62 AC03-05-2021PER CITY REVIEW -JDMGRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN AND SWPPP11"=100'MMS CONSULTANTS INC.1917 S. GILBERT STREETIOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 SUBDIVIDER'S ATTORNEY:EREK P. SITTIG123 N. LINN STREET, SUITE 300IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244OWNER/SUBDIVIDER:YELLOW ROCK, LLCP.O. BOX 3474IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244P.S.S.P.B.S.NOT TO SCALELOCATION MAPJOHNSON COUNTY, IOWAYELLOW ROCK SUBDIVISIONGRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET1"=100'010255075100PLAT PREPARED BY:CONTROL PLAN AND SWPPPYELLOW ROCK SUBDIVISIONJOHNSON COUNTY, IOWACWPRDL010203DGRADING AND EROSIONG:\7596\7596-118\7596-118P.dwg, 3/5/2021 4:17:30 PM
Yellow Rock
PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS
Johnson County, Iowa
February 11, 2021
Revisions:
February 12, 2021
March 8, 2021
I. INTRODUCTION
Yellow Rock is a 40.62-acre site that is located on the east and south side of Rapid Creek Road
NE, just to the north east of Iowa city. The site is bounded by agricultural and wooded properties
on all sides. There is a creek that flows through the middle of the property. Only the portion of
the site, north of the creek is being developed. The developed area of the site will consist of 16.70
acres that drains from the north to the south west side of the developed area. There will be a wet
bottomed storm water basin to provide stormwater management for the proposed developed area
of the subdivision. A wet bottomed storm water basin will provide for the water quality, channel
protection volume and overbank protection and is located along the south portion of the
developed area, just north of the creek. With the developed drainage area being under the
preferred 20-25 acres, the basin’s water surface will be supplemented with the well from the
development to maintain the normal water surface elevation during times of drought. The
proposed basin can be seen in the Appendix. The drainage area maps, and soils map can be seen
the Appendix.
Storm water management will be designed to meet the Johnson County Stormwater Ordinance.
The ordinance follows the guidelines established in the “Iowa Storm Water Management
Manual”. The storm water ordinance has four different criteria that must be met. These are;
1) Water Quality Volume
2) Channel Protection Storage Volume
3) Overbank Flood Protection
4) Extreme Flood Protection
II. Water Quality Volume (WQv)
The water quality volume is the storage needed to capture and treat the runoff from 90% of the
average annual rainfall. The design rainfall depth to be used for determining the WQv in Iowa is
1.25 inches. The equation used to determine the storage volume in acre-feet is.
WQv = (P*Rv*A)/12
P = rainfall depth in inches selected for area of state (1.25 inches)
Rv = 0.05 + 0.009*I where I = % impervious area
A = Area in Acres
Area to the Basin = 16.70 acres
The % impervious is 8.9%.
Rv = 0.05 + 0.009*7.7= 0.13
WQv = (P*Rv*A)/12 = (1.25*0.13*16.70)/12 = 0.22 acre-feet = 9,858 cubic feet.
The water quality volume required for the onsite drainage area of 16.70 acres is 9,858 cubic feet.
To treat the water quality volume, the 1.25-inch storm event needs to be stored and released. The
primary removal mechanism for pollutants in wet ponds is by settling of any solid materials. The
Iowa Storm Water Management Manuel has that the ratio of the permanent pool volume (VB) to
the water quality volume (VR) be greater than 4 to achieve a total suspended sediment removal
rate of 80% - 90%. The permanent pool volume of the pond is calculated to be 675,847 cubic
feet. The ratio of VB/VR for the proposed pond on site is 675,847/9,858 = 68.6, this ratio is
greater than 4, and would be sufficient to treat the water quality volume.
IV. Channel Protection Storage Volume
The channel protection storage volume is the volume required to store and release over a 24-hour
period the 1 year developed runoff volume. The maximum release rate calculations can be seen
in Appendix. The required channel protection volume for this basin is 48,398 cubic feet.
The volume at elevation 693.49 is 48,398 cubic feet. The allowable release rate for the channel
protection volume is 1.12 cfs for the 16.70 developed acre site. The release rate from the basin
during the 1-year storm event is 0.51 cfs. This is under the allowable release rate of 1.12 cfs.
IV. Overbank Flood Protection
The overbank flood protection requires that the 100 year post developed runoff rate be less than
the 5-year predeveloped runoff rate. The 5-year undeveloped runoff rate from the 16.70-acre
developed area is 17.93 cfs.
The basin outlets to Rapid Creek, the flow in the creek varies with different rainstorm events.
The flow through the creek for the 100-year event creates a tailwater and would reduce the
capacity in the pipe from the basin. Matching the time to peak for the 100-year inflow
hydrograph, the flow in the creek is approximately 1,370cfs. The depth of the flow was
calculated to be 693.10’. The 100-year release rate from the basin is 7.473 cfs at an elevation of
694.52 feet routing the storm through the 18-inch pipe with a tailwater elevation of 693.10 in
Hydraflow. This is less than the allowable release rate of 17.93 cfs and 1.48 feet below the top of
the dam at 696.00.
Below is a summary of the hydrographs. The hydrographs can be seen in Appendix.
Hydrograph #1 – This hydrograph is for the 5-year undeveloped flow from the pre-developed
drainage area of the site. This hydrograph produces a peak flow of 17.93 cfs.
Hydrograph #2A – This hydrograph is for the 1-year developed flow from the developed
drainage area of the site. This hydrograph produces a peak flow of 13.03 cfs and a hydraulic
volume of 48,398 cubic feet.
Hydrograph #2B – This hydrograph is for the 100-year developed flow from the developed
drainage area of the site. This hydrograph produces a peak flow of 80.67 cfs.
Hydrograph #3A – This hydrograph is for the 1-year developed flow routed through the pond.
This hydrograph produces a peak flow of 0.51 cfs at an elevation of 693.31.
Hydrograph #3B – This hydrograph is for the 100-year developed flow routed through the pond.
This hydrograph produces a peak flow of 7.47 cfs at an elevation of 694.95.
Hydrograph #3D – This hydrograph is for the 100-year developed flow routed through the pond
and over the emergency spillway only. This hydrograph produces a peak flow of 2.12 cfs at an
elevation of 695.12.
Hydrograph #4 – This hydrograph is for the 1.25-inch storm event from the developed drainage
area of the site. This hydrograph produces a peak flow of 1.79 cfs.
Hydrograph #6 – This hydrograph is for the 100-year storm event of Rapid Creek. This
hydrograph produces a peak flow of 2,280 cfs.
V. Extreme Flood Protection
The extreme flood protection requires that there be an emergency overflow spillway to safely
pass the extreme flood flow. A minimum of 1 foot of freeboard should be provided, measured
from the top of the water surface elevation for the extreme flood to the top of the dam
embankment, not counting the emergency spillway.
The top of the dam is 696.00, with a 20-foot-wide emergency spillway set at 695.00. Routing the
100-year storm over the spillway assuming the outlet is plugged, it results in a peak discharge of
2.12 cfs at an elevation of 695.12 or 0.88’ feet below the top of dam.
VI. Maintenance Requirements
Monthly:
o Clean and remove debris from inlet and outlet structures.
o Mow side slopes.
Annual inspection:
o Inspect for damage, paying particular attention to the control structure.
o Check for signs of eutrophic conditions.
o Note signs of hydrocarbon build-up and remove appropriate.
o Monitor for sediment accumulation in the facility.
o Examine to ensure that inlet and outlet devices are free of debris and operational.
As needed:
o Repair under cut or eroded areas.
10-20 years or after 25% of permanent pool volume has been lost:
o Monitor sediment accumulations are removed sediment when the pool volume has
become reduced significantly, or the pond becomes eutrophic.
Certification: I hereby certify that this engineering document was
prepared by me or under my direct personal supervision and that I am a
duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Iowa.
Signed: Date:
________________________________________________________
Ronald L. Amelon, P.E. Iowa Cert. No. 14201
Discipline – Civil Engineer
My bi-annual license renewal date is December 31, 2021.
Pages or sheets covered by this seal: All
Disclaimer
No legal or financial responsibility arising from the construction, operation, or maintenance of the
approved plan shall attach to the Johnson County Soil and Water Conservation District or the person(s)
approving this plan due to approval of this plan.
Signed this ___ day of _____________, 20___.
___________________________________________
(Jesse Allen)
Approved by, this ___ day of_______, 20___
____________________________________________
(Johnson County Soil and Water Conservation District)
Approved by, this ___ day of_______, 20___
____________________________________________
(Johnson County Planning and Zoning Department)
Signed before me this ___ day of_______, 20___
__________________________________________
(Witness)
APPENDIX
Hydrologic Soil Group—Johnson County, Iowa
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
1/22/2021
Page 1 of 44617180461726046173404617420461750046175804617180461726046173404617420461750046175804617660626500626580626660626740626820626900626980627060627140627220
626500 626580 626660 626740 626820 626900 626980 627060 627140 627220
41° 42' 2'' N 91° 28' 47'' W41° 42' 2'' N91° 28' 14'' W41° 41' 46'' N
91° 28' 47'' W41° 41' 46'' N
91° 28' 14'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 15N WGS84
0 150 300 600 900
Feet
0 50 100 200 300
Meters
Map Scale: 1:3,450 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
A
A/D
B
B/D
C
C/D
D
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:15,800.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Johnson County, Iowa
Survey Area Data: Version 23, Jun 10, 2020
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 1, 2020—Nov 18,
2020
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Hydrologic Soil Group—Johnson County, Iowa
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
1/22/2021
Page 2 of 4
Hydrologic Soil Group
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
65E2 Lindley loam, 14 to 18
percent slopes,
moderately eroded
C 2.7 6.8%
729B Nodaway-Arenzville silt
loams, 1 to 4 percent
slopes
B 3.5 8.8%
1220 Nodaway silt loam,
shallow loess, 0 to 2
percent slopes,
channeled, frequently
flooded
B 12.7 31.9%
M163D Fayette silt loam, till
plain, 9 to 14 percent
slopes
C 2.4 6.1%
M163D2 Fayette silt loam, till
plain, 9 to 14 percent
slopes, eroded
C 0.2 0.5%
M163D3 Fayette silty clay loam,
till plain, 9 to 14
percent slopes,
severely eroded
C 8.0 20.1%
M163E Fayette silt loam, till
plain, 14 to 18 percent
slopes
C 7.0 17.7%
M163F2 Fayette silt loam, till
plain, 18 to 25 percent
slopes, eroded
C 0.4 0.9%
M163G Fayette silt loam, till
plain, 25 to 40 percent
slopes
C 2.9 7.3%
Totals for Area of Interest 39.7 100.0%
Hydrologic Soil Group—Johnson County, Iowa
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
1/22/2021
Page 3 of 4
Description
Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are
assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the
soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive
precipitation from long-duration storms.
The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and
three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:
Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when
thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively
drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water
transmission.
Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These
consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well
drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture.
These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.
Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist
chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or
soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of
water transmission.
Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when
thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell
potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay
layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious
material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.
If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is
for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in
their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes.
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Tie-break Rule: Higher
Hydrologic Soil Group—Johnson County, Iowa
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
1/22/2021
Page 4 of 4
NE 1\4 - NW 1\4SECTIONC:\Users\bjc\Documents\dwg\7596-118\7596-118J.dwg, 2/5/2021 4:15:33 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Wednesday, 02 / 10 / 2021
Hyd. No. 1
Predeveloped Area
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 17.93 cfs
Storm frequency = 5 yrs Time to peak = 12.20 hrs
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 76,364 cuft
Drainage area = 17.160 ac Curve number = 71
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 28.10 min
Total precip. = 3.75 in Distribution = Type II
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
3.00 3.00
6.00 6.00
9.00 9.00
12.00 12.00
15.00 15.00
18.00 18.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Predeveloped Area
Hyd. No. 1 -- 5 Year
Hyd No. 1
TR55 Tc Worksheet
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2020
Hyd. No. 1
Predeveloped Area
Description A B C Totals
Sheet Flow
Manning's n-value = 0.240 0.011 0.011
Flow length (ft) = 100.0 0.0 0.0
Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.01 0.00 0.00
Land slope (%) = 1.46 0.00 0.00
Travel Time (min) = 16.69 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 16.69
Shallow Concentrated Flow
Flow length (ft) = 1709.00 0.00 0.00
Watercourse slope (%) = 2.38 0.00 0.00
Surface description = Unpaved Paved Paved
Average velocity (ft/s) =2.49 0.00 0.00
Travel Time (min) = 11.44 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 11.44
Channel Flow
X sectional flow area (sqft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00
Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00
Channel slope (%) = 0.00 0.00 0.00
Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015
Velocity (ft/s) =0.00
0.00
0.00
Flow length (ft) ({0})0.0 0.0 0.0
Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00
Total Travel Time, Tc .............................................................................. 28.13 min
P.B.S.P.B.S.P.B.S.P.B.S.P.B.S.P.B.S.P.B.S.NWL = 693.00NW 1\4 - NW FRAC.1\4SECTION 31-T80N-R5WNE 1\4 - NW FRAC. 1\4SECTION 31-T80N-R5WLYN-DEN HEIGHTS PART III PHASE 1
NW 1\4 - NE 1\4S
E
C
T
IO
N
3
1
-
T
8
0
N
-
R
5W RAPID CREEK ROAD NERAPID CREEK ROAD NE
YELLOW ROCKROAD NEMLO=703.2MLO=703.2MLO=703.2C:\Users\bjc\Documents\dwg\7596-118\7596-118J2.dwg, 3/8/2021 4:03:20 PM, DWG To PDF.pc3
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Friday, 02 / 12 / 2021
Hyd. No. 2
Developed Area
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 13.03 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 12.13 hrs
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 48,398 cuft
Drainage area = 16.700 ac Curve number = 76.6
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 22.40 min
Total precip. = 2.60 in Distribution = Type II
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
2.00 2.00
4.00 4.00
6.00 6.00
8.00 8.00
10.00 10.00
12.00 12.00
14.00 14.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Developed Area
Hyd. No. 2 -- 1 Year
Hyd No. 2
TR55 Tc Worksheet
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2020
Hyd. No. 2
Developed Area
Description A B C Totals
Sheet Flow
Manning's n-value = 0.240 0.011 0.011
Flow length (ft) = 100.0 0.0 0.0
Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.01 0.00 0.00
Land slope (%) = 1.45 0.00 0.00
Travel Time (min) = 16.73 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 16.73
Shallow Concentrated Flow
Flow length (ft) = 1039.00 0.00 0.00
Watercourse slope (%) = 3.63 0.00 0.00
Surface description = Unpaved Paved Paved
Average velocity (ft/s) =3.07 0.00 0.00
Travel Time (min) = 5.63 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 5.63
Channel Flow
X sectional flow area (sqft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00
Wetted perimeter (ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00
Channel slope (%) = 0.00 0.00 0.00
Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015
Velocity (ft/s) =0.00
0.00
0.00
Flow length (ft) ({0})0.0 0.0 0.0
Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00
Total Travel Time, Tc .............................................................................. 22.37 min
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Friday, 02 / 12 / 2021
Hyd. No. 2
Developed Area
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 80.67 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 12.10 hrs
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 278,891 cuft
Drainage area = 16.700 ac Curve number = 76.6
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 22.40 min
Total precip. = 7.22 in Distribution = Type II
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
10.00 10.00
20.00 20.00
30.00 30.00
40.00 40.00
50.00 50.00
60.00 60.00
70.00 70.00
80.00 80.00
90.00 90.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Developed Area
Hyd. No. 2 -- 100 Year
Hyd No. 2
Water Quality Volume Caluculation
WQv = Rv * P * A/12 Rv = 0.05 + 0.009 * I
where
WQv = water quality volume (ac-ft)
Rv = volumetric runoff coefficient
A = total drainage area (ac)
I = percent impervious cover (%)
P = water quality rainfall depth (in)
P=1.25 inches
A=16.70 acres
I=8.9 %
max peak discharge
Rv= 0.1301 0.228206
WQv=0.22632 ac-ft
WQv=9858.49 ft3
Calculate the adjusted CN for storms under two inches.
CN = 1000/[10+5P+10Q a-10(Qa
2+1.25QaP)1/2
where
Qa=0.162625 P= rainfall (inches)
CN= 79.49399
Qa=water quality volume in inches (R v*P)
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Thursday, 02 / 11 / 2021
Hyd. No. 4
Developed Area WQv
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 1.793 cfs
Storm frequency = 3 yrs Time to peak = 12.17 hrs
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 10,036 cuft
Drainage area = 16.700 ac Curve number = 79.5
Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft
Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 22.40 min
Total precip. = 1.25 in Distribution = Type II
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
1.00 1.00
2.00 2.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Developed Area WQv
Hyd. No. 4 -- 3 Year
Hyd No. 4
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Monday, 03 / 8 / 2021
Hyd. No. 3
Through Pond 2
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 0.507 cfs
Storm frequency = 1 yrs Time to peak = 17.87 hrs
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 43,892 cuft
Inflow hyd. No. = 2 - Developed Area Max. Elevation = 693.31 ft
Reservoir name = Pond 2 Max. Storage = 30,988 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
2.00 2.00
4.00 4.00
6.00 6.00
8.00 8.00
10.00 10.00
12.00 12.00
14.00 14.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Through Pond 2
Hyd. No. 3 -- 1 Year
Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 2 Total storage used = 30,988 cuft
Pond Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Monday, 03 / 8 / 2021
Pond No. 4 - Pond 2
Pond Data
Contours -User-defined contour areas. Average end area method used for volume calculation. Begining Elevation = 693.00 ft
Stage / Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sqft) Incr. Storage (cuft) Total storage (cuft)
0.00 693.00 93,598 0 0
1.00 694.00 105,943 99,770 99,770
2.00 695.00 118,559 112,251 212,021
3.00 696.00 131,290 124,925 336,946
Culvert / Orifice Structures Weir Structures
[A] [B] [C] [PrfRsr] [A] [B] [C] [D]
Rise (in)= 18.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Span (in)= 18.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
No. Barrels = 1 0 0 0
Invert El. (ft)= 693.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Length (ft)= 74.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Slope (%)= 2.70 0.00 0.00 n/a
N-Value = .013 .013 .013 n/a
Orifice Coeff.= 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
Multi-Stage = n/a No No No
Crest Len (ft)= 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crest El. (ft)= 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Weir Coeff.= 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33
Weir Type = --- --- --- ---
Multi-Stage = No No No No
Exfil.(in/hr)= 0.000 (by Wet area)
TW Elev. (ft)= 0.00
Note: Culvert/Orifice outflows are analyzed under inlet (ic) and outlet (oc) control. Weir risers checked for orifice conditions (ic) and submergence (s).
Stage / Storage / Discharge Table
Stage Storage Elevation Clv A Clv B Clv C PrfRsr Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil User Total
ft cuft ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs
0.00 0 693.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.000
1.00 99,770 694.00 4.26 ic --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 4.265
2.00 212,021 695.00 9.51 ic --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---9.512
3.00 336,946 696.00 12.76 ic --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 12.76
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Monday, 03 / 8 / 2021
Hyd. No. 3
Through Pond 2
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 7.473 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 13.07 hrs
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 267,986 cuft
Inflow hyd. No. = 2 - Developed Area Max. Elevation = 694.52 ft
Reservoir name = Pond 2 Max. Storage = 158,377 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
10.00 10.00
20.00 20.00
30.00 30.00
40.00 40.00
50.00 50.00
60.00 60.00
70.00 70.00
80.00 80.00
90.00 90.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Through Pond 2
Hyd. No. 3 -- 100 Year
Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 2 Total storage used = 158,377 cuft
Pond Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Monday, 03 / 8 / 2021
Pond No. 4 - Pond 2
Pond Data
Contours -User-defined contour areas. Average end area method used for volume calculation. Begining Elevation = 693.00 ft
Stage / Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sqft) Incr. Storage (cuft) Total storage (cuft)
0.00 693.00 93,598 0 0
1.00 694.00 105,943 99,770 99,770
2.00 695.00 118,559 112,251 212,021
3.00 696.00 131,290 124,925 336,946
Culvert / Orifice Structures Weir Structures
[A] [B] [C] [PrfRsr] [A] [B] [C] [D]
Rise (in)= 18.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Span (in)= 18.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
No. Barrels = 1 0 0 0
Invert El. (ft)= 693.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Length (ft)= 74.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Slope (%)= 2.70 0.00 0.00 n/a
N-Value = .013 .013 .013 n/a
Orifice Coeff.= 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
Multi-Stage = n/a No No No
Crest Len (ft)= 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crest El. (ft)= 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Weir Coeff.= 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33
Weir Type = --- --- --- ---
Multi-Stage = No No No No
Exfil.(in/hr)= 0.000 (by Wet area)
TW Elev. (ft)= 693.10
Note: Culvert/Orifice outflows are analyzed under inlet (ic) and outlet (oc) control. Weir risers checked for orifice conditions (ic) and submergence (s).
Stage / Storage / Discharge Table
Stage Storage Elevation Clv A Clv B Clv C PrfRsr Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil User Total
ft cuft ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs
0.00 0 693.00 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.000
1.00 99,770 694.00 4.26 ic --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 4.265
2.00 212,021 695.00 9.51 ic --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---9.512
3.00 336,946 696.00 12.76 ic --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 12.76
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Monday, 03 / 8 / 2021
Hyd. No. 3
Through Pond 2
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 3.325 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 15.17 hrs
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 100,526 cuft
Inflow hyd. No. = 2 - Developed Area Max. Elevation = 694.91 ft
Reservoir name = Pond 2 EMR Max. Storage = 201,796 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
10.00 10.00
20.00 20.00
30.00 30.00
40.00 40.00
50.00 50.00
60.00 60.00
70.00 70.00
80.00 80.00
90.00 90.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Through Pond 2
Hyd. No. 3 -- 100 Year
Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 2 Total storage used = 201,796 cuft
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Friday, 02 / 12 / 2021
Hyd. No. 3
Through Pond 1
Hydrograph type = Reservoir Peak discharge = 5.736 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 13.53 hrs
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 119,084 cuft
Inflow hyd. No. = 2 - Developed Area Max. Elevation = 695.43 ft
Reservoir name = POND 1 EMR Max. Storage = 179,555 cuft
Storage Indication method used.
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
10.00 10.00
20.00 20.00
30.00 30.00
40.00 40.00
50.00 50.00
60.00 60.00
70.00 70.00
80.00 80.00
90.00 90.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
Through Pond 1
Hyd. No. 3 -- 100 Year
Hyd No. 3 Hyd No. 2 Total storage used = 179,555 cuft
Pond Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Monday, 03 / 8 / 2021
Pond No. 5 - Pond 2 EMR
Pond Data
Contours -User-defined contour areas. Average end area method used for volume calculation. Begining Elevation = 693.00 ft
Stage / Storage Table
Stage (ft) Elevation (ft) Contour area (sqft) Incr. Storage (cuft) Total storage (cuft)
0.00 693.00 93,598 0 0
1.00 694.00 105,943 99,770 99,770
2.00 695.00 118,559 112,251 212,021
3.00 696.00 131,290 124,925 336,946
Culvert / Orifice Structures Weir Structures
[A] [B] [C] [PrfRsr] [A] [B] [C] [D]
Rise (in)Inactive 0.00 0.00 0.00
Span (in)= 18.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
No. Barrels = 1 0 0 0
Invert El. (ft)= 693.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Length (ft)= 74.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Slope (%)= 2.70 0.00 0.00 n/a
N-Value = .013 .013 .013 n/a
Orifice Coeff.= 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
Multi-Stage = n/a No No No
Crest Len (ft)= 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Crest El. (ft)= 695.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Weir Coeff.= 2.60 3.33 3.33 3.33
Weir Type = Broad --- --- ---
Multi-Stage = No No No No
Exfil.(in/hr)= 0.000 (by Wet area)
TW Elev. (ft)= 0.00
Note: Culvert/Orifice outflows are analyzed under inlet (ic) and outlet (oc) control. Weir risers checked for orifice conditions (ic) and submergence (s).
Stage / Storage / Discharge Table
Stage Storage Elevation Clv A Clv B Clv C PrfRsr Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Exfil User Total
ft cuft ft cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs
0.00 0 693.00 0.00 --- --- --- 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- 0.000
1.00 99,770 694.00 0.00 --- --- --- 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- 0.000
2.00 212,021 695.00 0.00 --- --- --- 0.00 --- --- --- --- --- 0.000
3.00 336,946 696.00 0.00 --- --- --- 52.00 --- --- --- --- --- 52.00
Hydrograph Report
Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. v2020 Monday, 03 / 8 / 2021
Hyd. No. 6
creek to bridge
Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 2280.74 cfs
Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 13.97 hrs
Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 37,288,780 cuft
Drainage area = 2233.600 ac Curve number = 77.4
Basin Slope = 8.5 % Hydraulic length = 36379 ft
Tc method = LAG Time of conc. (Tc) = 209.59 min
Total precip. = 7.22 in Distribution = Type II
Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
Q (cfs)
0.00 0.00
326.00 326.00
652.00 652.00
978.00 978.00
1304.00 1304.00
1630.00 1630.00
1956.00 1956.00
2282.00 2282.00
Q (cfs)
Time (hrs)
creek to bridge
Hyd. No. 6 -- 100 Year
Hyd No. 6
FLOW THROUGH TRAPEZOIDAL DRAINAGE SWALE
Q = (1.49 * A * R^(2/3) * S^(1/2)) / N
n= 0.025
s= 0.0039 ft/ft
BOTTOM= 9.5 ft
SIDE SLOPE=0.2 ft/ft
WETTED HYDRAULIC
DEPTH AREA PERIMETER RADIUS AR(2/3) Q
0.1 1.0000 10.5198 0.0951 0.2083 0.78
0.2 2.1000 11.5396 0.1820 0.6744 2.51
0.3 3.3000 12.5594 0.2628 1.3538 5.04
0.4 4.6000 13.5792 0.3388 2.2354 8.32
0.5 6.0000 14.5990 0.4110 3.3167 12.34
0.6 7.5000 15.6188 0.4802 4.5991 17.12
0.7 9.1000 16.6386 0.5469 6.0859 22.65
0.8 10.8000 17.6584 0.6116 7.7816 28.96
0.9 12.6000 18.6782 0.6746 9.6916 36.07
1.0 14.5000 19.6980 0.7361 11.8213 44.00
1.1 16.5000 20.7178 0.7964 14.1768 52.77
1.2 18.6000 21.7376 0.8557 16.7641 62.40
1.3 20.8000 22.7575 0.9140 19.5895 72.91
1.4 23.1000 23.7773 0.9715 22.6592 84.34
1.5 25.5000 24.7971 1.0283 25.9797 96.70
1.6 28.0000 25.8169 1.0846 29.5570 110.01
1.7 30.6000 26.8367 1.1402 33.3977 124.31
1.8 33.3000 27.8565 1.1954 37.5079 139.61
1.9 36.1000 28.8763 1.2502 41.8939 155.93
2.0 39.0000 29.8961 1.3045 46.5620 173.30
2.1 42.0000 30.9159 1.3585 51.5182 191.75
2.2 45.1000 31.9357 1.4122 56.7688 211.29
2.3 48.3000 32.9555 1.4656 62.3199 231.96
2.4 51.6000 33.9753 1.5188 68.1774 253.76
2.5 55.0000 34.9951 1.5716 74.3475 276.72
2.6 58.5000 36.0149 1.6243 80.8360 300.87
2.7 62.1000 37.0347 1.6768 87.6490 326.23
2.8 65.8000 38.0545 1.7291 94.7922 352.82
2.9 69.6000 39.0743 1.7812 102.2715 380.66
3.0 73.5000 40.0941 1.8332 110.0927 409.77
3.1 77.5000 41.1139 1.8850 118.2616 440.17
3.2 81.6000 42.1337 1.9367 126.7838 471.89
3.3 85.8000 43.1535 1.9882 135.6650 504.95
3.4 90.1000 44.1733 2.0397 144.9110 539.36
3.5 94.5000 45.1931 2.0910 154.5271 575.15
3.6 99.0000 46.2129 2.1423 164.5191 612.34
3.7 103.6000 47.2327 2.1934 174.8923 650.95
3.8 108.3000 48.2525 2.2444 185.6524 691.00
3.9 113.1000 49.2724 2.2954 196.8047 732.51
4.0 118.0000 50.2922 2.3463 208.3546 775.50
4.1 123.0000 51.3120 2.3971 220.3076 819.99
4.2 128.1000 52.3318 2.4478 232.6689 866.00
4.3 133.3000 53.3516 2.4985 245.4438 913.55
4.4 138.6000 54.3714 2.5491 258.6377 962.65
4.5 144.0000 55.3912 2.5997 272.2558 1013.34
4.6 149.5000 56.4110 2.6502 286.3032 1065.63
4.7 155.1000 57.4308 2.7006 300.7852 1119.53
4.8 160.8000 58.4506 2.7510 315.7070 1175.07
4.9 166.6000 59.4704 2.8014 331.0735 1232.26
5.0 172.5000 60.4902 2.8517 346.8900 1291.13
5.1 178.5000 61.5100 2.9020 363.1616 1351.69
NWL = 693.00MLO=703.2MLO=703.2(319) 351-8282LAND PLANNERSLAND SURVEYORSCIVIL ENGINEERSLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSIOWA CITY, IOWA 52240MMS CONSULTANTS, INC.ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTSwww.mmsconsultants.net1917 S. GILBERT ST.02-22-2021PER COUNTY REVIEW -JDMYELLOW ROCKSUBDIVISION JOHNSON COUNTYIOWA02-11-21RLAJDMRLA7596-118140.62 AC03-05-2021PER CITY REVIEW -JDMSTORMWATERBASIN EXHIBIT11"=30'MMS CONSULTANTS INC.1917 S. GILBERT STREETIOWA CITY, IOWA 52240 SUBDIVIDER'S ATTORNEY:EREK P. SITTIG123 N. LINN STREET, SUITE 300IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244OWNER/SUBDIVIDER:YELLOW ROCK, LLCP.O. BOX 3474IOWA CITY, IOWA 52244PLAT PREPARED BY:STORMWATER BASIN EXHIBITYELLOW ROCK SUBDIVISIONJOHNSON COUNTY, IOWADETENTION BASINSCALE: 1"=30'(H) 1"=3'(V)G:\7596\7596-118\7596-118P.dwg, 3/5/2021 4:17:50 PM
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. February 18, 2021 Staff Report
Approved by: __________________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
STAFF REPORT - UPDATED
To: Planning and Zoning Commission Prepared by: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner
Item: REZ20-0016 Date: February 18, 2021
Originally Published: February 12, 2021
Republished: February 16, 2021
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Axiom Consultants
60 E. Court Street, Unit 3
Iowa City, IA 52240
319-519-6220
MWelch@Axiom-con.com
Joseph Clark
221 E. Burlington St.
Iowa City, IA 52240
Nelson Development 1, LLC
ATTN: Jacob Wolfgang
218 6th Ave., Ste 200
Des Moines, IA 50309
Jacob@Nelsonconstruct.com
Property Owner: ACT, Inc.
ATTN: Jason Happel
500 ACT Drive
Iowa City, IA 52243-0168
Jason.Happel@act.org
Requested Action: Rezoning from Interim Development – Single
Family (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family with a
Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5).
Purpose: Development of single-family housing and a senior
living facility.
Location: South of N. Scott Blvd, West of N. 1st Ave.
Location Map:
2
Size: 48.75 Acres
Existing Land Use and Zoning: Open Space, Interim Development – Single Family
(ID-RS)
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: RM-12, Low density Multi-family Residential
RDP, Research Development Park
ODP, Office Development Park
South: P-1, Neighborhood Public
East: RS-8, Medium Density Single Family
Residential
ID-RS, Interim Development – Single
Family Residential
ID-RP, Interim Development – Research
Park
West: P-1, Neighborhood Public
RS-5, Low Density Single Family
Residential
Comprehensive Plan: 2-8 units / acres
District Plan: Northeast District
Neighborhood Open Space District: C8
Public Meeting Notification: Property owners and expanded area residents
received notification of the Planning and Zoning
Commission public meeting. This included residents
to both the west in the Hickory Heights development
and owners east of 1st Avenue. Rezoning signs were
posted on the site at both Scott Boulevard and 1st
Avenue. Staff has also worked with Friends of
Hickory Hill Park to keep those involved informed of
the application’s progress and meeting notification.
Additional signage was placed at kiosk locations at
Park entrances (as requested by FHH).
File Date: January 22, 2021
45 Day Limitation Period: March 8, 2021
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The applicant, Axiom Consultants, applying on behalf of Joseph Clark and Nelson Development
1, LLC., has requested a rezoning from Interim Development – Single Family (ID-RS) zone to
Low Density Single Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5) zone for 48.75
acres of land located south of N. Scott Boulevard and west of N. 1st Avenue. The applicant
intends to develop the property with a combination of approximately 43 detached single-family
residential homes and 10 detached single-family condominium dwelling units over 39.37 acres.
The remaining 9.38 acres would be developed with a senior living facility, which will contain
approximately 135 bedrooms for its residents.
The development proposes to extend Hickory Trail between 1st Avenue to the east, and Scott
3
Boulevard to the north to accommodate the detached single-family housing units and senior living
facility. A smaller curved private street, Hickory Commons, is proposed to house the detached
condominium dwelling units. The Hickory Trail extension would provide connectivity for
pedestrians, linking existing sidewalks along Scott Boulevard and 1st Avenue with trails within
Hickory Hill Park.
The applicant also intends to grant the entirety of Outlot A from the OPD Plan (approximately
10.86 acres) to the City as neighborhood open space. This would exceed the required open
space contribution of 1.1 acres and would increase Hickory Hill Park’s size by about 5.5%.
Because the proposed development proposes removal of portions of a woodland in excess of the
woodland retention requirements contained in section 14-5I-9, "Wooded Areas", a Level II
Sensitive Areas Review is required. A Level II Sensitive Areas Review requires submission of a
sensitive areas development plan (SADP). Furthermore, a Level II sensitive areas review is
considered a type of planned development and as such, must comply with the applicable approval
criteria set forth in chapter 3, article A, "Planned Development Overlay Zone (OPD)".
The applicant conducted a virtual Good Neighbor meeting on December 21, 2020. Staff has
received several additional emails concerning the proposed rezoning, which are attached.
ANALYSIS:
Current Zoning: The subject property is currently zoned Interim Development – Single Family
Residential (ID-RS). In ID-RS zones, only plant related agriculture is allowed by right. This zoning
designation effectively pauses development for a property until a time that the preferred use can
be developed, and the property can be rezoned.
Proposed Zoning: The applicant is requesting to rezone the entire property (48.75 acres) to Low
Density Single-Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5). The RS-5 zone is
intended to provide housing opportunities for individual households. The zone generally provides
a collection of homes with larger lot sizes and setbacks creating neighborhoods with a limited
density. While the proposed development does contain some single-family detached
condominium housing and group living in the senior living facility, the OPD process allows for a
mixture of uses, provided that additional criteria in section 14-3A-4C of the City Code are met.
General Planned Development Approval Criteria:
Applications for Planned Development Rezonings are reviewed for compliance with the following
standards according to Article 14-3A of the Iowa City Zoning Ordinance.
1. The density and design of the Planned Development will be compatible with and/or
complementary to adjacent development in terms of land use, building mass and scale,
relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout.
Density – Table 3A-1 from the City Code outlines the maximum allowable density for planned
development zones. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to an OPD/RS-5 zone, which allows for
a density of (5) dwelling units per net acre of land area (total land minus public and private streets
right-of-way). The proposed development would include 53 detached single-family dwelling units.
The senior living facility is considered a group living use, as the proposed facility most closely
resembles the following criteria for a group living use from section 14-4A-3B-1 of the City Code:
“Rooming units contain private space for living and sleeping, but not for cooking. Bathroom facilities
may be private or shared. There may also be shared kitchen and dining facilities and shared
common rooms and amenities for all residents. The rooming units are furnished with locks through
which one member of the group may prevent other members of the group from entering his/her
4
private rooming unit. The residents may or may not receive any combination of care, training, or
treatment, but those receiving such services must reside at the site.” The senior living facility is
estimated to have 135 bedrooms. These bedrooms are not included in the site’s density calculation.
The site has a net land area of 44.52 acres and 53 detached single-family dwelling units. Therefore,
the site’s proposed density is approximately 1.2 dwelling units per acre. This level of density is
allowed within an OPD/RS-5 zone.
Land Uses Proposed – The applicant is proposing two different land uses under the requested
OPD/RS-5 zoning designation. The predominant land use will be in the form of detached single-
family residential housing, which is allocated for development of 43 lots along the extension of
Hickory Trail. An additional 10 single-family condominium-style dwelling units can be found on Lot
45 of the OPD Plan.
Single-family residential land use within an RS-5 zone can be found in various locations around the
subject property. The Hickory Heights subdivision, another OPD/RS-5 zoned subdivision, can be
found to the west of the subject property. Several other RS-5 subdivisions can be found east of 1st
Avenue and south of Hickory Hill Park. The Hickory Pointe Condominiums building, located just
east of the subject property, contains an OPD/RS-8 zoning designation.
A group living land use (shown more closely in Attachment #6), which is intended to accommodate
a senior living facility, is proposed in the southeast portion of the subject property. There are
currently two different multi-family developments adjacent to the subject property. The first of which,
Oaknoll East, can be found north of the subject property, along Scott Boulevard. The second of
which, the Hickory Pointe Condominiums, can be found directly east of the proposed senior living
facility. The addition of the senior living facility will help to satisfy an ongoing need for elder housing
within the City, while increasing the diversity of housing that is offered in the Northeast District. The
proposed senior living facility will be reviewed against the Multi-Family Site Development Standards
during Design Review.
Mass, Scale and General Layout– The applicant intends to develop 43 detached single-family
residential homes. A waiver has not been requested for these homes through the OPD process,
therefore, the homes will be required to conform to the dimensional requirements for detached
single-family homes, as detailed in section 14-2A-4 of the City Code. All 43 detached single-family
homes will be situated within the western portion of the subject property, all on the proposed
extension of Hickory Trail to the west and north. Staff encourages connectivity within this
neighborhood and supports the idea of having a continuous street extension in this area instead of
two separate cul-de-sacs. The City’s subdivision code allows cul-de-sacs when it can be
demonstrated that a street cannot be continued. The applicant has demonstrated that this street
can continue and connect with Scott Blvd.
The applicant also intends to develop 10 detached condominium dwelling units, shown in
Attachment #7 as Lot 45. These homes would be developed on a new private street, Hickory
Commons. Staff requested the applicant to show imaginary lot lines on the OPD plan for comparison
to the RS-5 zoning standards as required per 14-3A-4K. The proposal meets the standards of the
RS-5 zone and the applicant is not requesting any waivers from development standards.
Lastly, the senior living facility will be reviewed against the Multi-Family Site Development Standards
during the project’s Design Review phase. At a ground-floor area of 69,060 square feet, the footprint
of the senior living facility will be considerably larger than that of the Hickory Pointe Condominiums
building, which has a footprint of only 1,499 square feet. The applicant has requested a waiver for
the maximum height requirement of 35’, requesting an allowable height of 40’. The senior living
facility would be a 3-story structure, compared to the Hickory Pointe Condominiums building, which
is only 2 stories.
5
Open Space – The proposed development will need to comply with private open space standards,
outlined in section 14-2A-4 of the City Code. The senior living facility will be required to
accommodate 10 square feet of private open space per bedroom, for a total of 1,350 square feet of
private open space. All single-family dwelling units will be required to accommodate 500 square
feet of rear yard private open space. The open space proposed for the single-family uses on Lot 45
include a shared open space area along the private street.
A neighborhood open space requirement of approximately 1.1 acres accompanies the proposed
OPD rezoning. The applicant intends to eventually dedicate the entirety of Outlot A for future Hickory
Hill Park, which is approximately 10.86 acres.
City Code requires that at least 90% of the land required to be dedicated be located outside of
floodways, lakes or other water bodies, areas with slopes greater than 15%, wetlands subject to
federal or state regulatory jurisdiction and other areas the city reasonably deems unsuitable for
neighborhood open space due to topography, flooding or other appropriate considerations.
However, the Code allows land in addition to the required dedication amount to include lakes,
ponds, creeks, other water bodies, wetlands falling under the jurisdiction of state or federal agencies
and other sensitive areas including woodland areas. City Staff views the proposed 10.86 acres of
dedication from Outlot A as sufficient abutting land that would be usable and extend the existing
Hickory Hill Park. This addition would increase the Park’s acreage by approximately 5.5% and result
in Hickory Hill Park having street frontage along N. Scott Blvd.
Prior to the City acquiring the land in Outlot A for Hickory Hill Park, Staff recommends that the
applicant submit a Woodland Management Plan that shall consist of a plan to remove any invasive
species within the Outlot A area, as well as removal of any hazardous trees or limbs. The plan shall
be prepared by a woodland specialist and approved by the City Forrester. Invasive species removal
will be the responsibility of the owner and must be completed prior to transfer of Outlot A to the City.
In addition to the dedication of land from Outlot A, Staff recommends that the applicant provide the
trail connections that are shown on the OPD Plan (Attachment #5).
Traffic Circulation – The proposed development will be situated along an extension of Hickory Trail,
from the existing stub at the western limits of the Hickory Pointe Condominiums site, west and north
to Scott Boulevard. As this extension will result in a street with a block length longer than desired,
Staff recommends that the applicant incorporate traffic calming devices to help reduce speeds and
break up the long block length. Specifically, the OPD plan shows raised crosswalks at two locations
that provide trail connection and access to the park. One location is between lots 40 and 41 and the
other is near the senior living facility next to Lot 26. Staff also recommends that the applicant install
trees within the right-of-way, as shown on the landscape plan (Attachment #5). The applicant’s
OPD Plan, shows a traffic circle on Hickory Trail, between Lot 8 to the east and Lot 45 to the west.
During the final plat process, all traffic calming devices must be in locations approved by and
designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
2. The development will not overburden existing streets and utilities.
The subject property can be serviced by both sanitary sewer and water. Public Works has indicated
that both sanitary sewer and water mains have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed
development.
Transportation Planning Staff requested that the applicant submit a traffic study which examined
how the proposed development would impact traffic at the intersection of 1st Avenue and Hickory
Trail. The traffic study (Attachment #8) submitted by Axiom Consultants (performed by Gibson
Traffic Consultants, Inc.) indicates that the total average daily trips generated by the proposed
development is 808 (404 entering / 404 exiting) split between the accesses to Scott Boulevard and
6
1st Avenue at full build-out. During peak hours this breaks down to a total of 58 AM peak hour trips
and 74 PM peak hour trips split between the two accesses – or less than one additional car per
minute, on average, utilizing each access. The study shows that all movements at the 1st Avenue /
Hickory Trail access currently operate at a Level-of-Service D (or better) and remain at a LOS D (or
better) with the proposed development. The study further shows the same is true at the proposed
access at Scott Boulevard. As none of the individual movements at either intersection are
anticipated to reach a failing Level-of-Service, Staff is not recommending any off-site improvements
at this time as a result of the proposed development.
Furthermore, 2018 Iowa DOT Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts show an ADT of 7,500 on 1st
Avenue near Hickory Trail and 13,100 on Scott Boulevard near the proposed access. Given that
the theoretical capacity of a two-lane arterial street is conservatively more than 14,000-16,000 trips
per day at a LOS E, the additional traffic generated by the development alone will not over-burden
Scott Boulevard or 1st Avenue as currently constructed. Iowa DOT collision data indicates there
have only been (3) total collisions from 2015-2020 ((1) involving an animal) at the 1st Avenue /
Hickory Trail intersection, which indicates there is not a concerning collision trend associated with
the current traffic volumes or roadway geometry.
3. The development will not adversely affect views, light and air, property values and privacy
of neighboring properties any more than would a conventional development.
The subject property is bordered by two existing residential developments. The Hickory Heights
Lane subdivision borders the northwestern portion of the property, while the Hickory Pointe
Condominiums border the southeast portion of the property. The applicant’s SADP plan is showing
a minimum separation distance of 263’ between the rear property line of the condominium dwelling
unit lot (Lot 45) and the rear property line of the eastern Hickory Heig hts Lane properties.
Furthermore, the condominium dwelling units will be down slope from the properties on Hickory
Heights Lane, which should help to lessen their visual effect.
Attachment #6 shows the proposed elevations for the senior living facility. The facility will be roughly
four stories in height, which is about twice as tall as the Hickory Pointe Condominiums building to
the east, but similar in height to the Oaknoll East buildings off Scott Boulevard. Additionally, the
OPD plan is showing a separation distance of approximately 185’ between the senior living facility
and the Hickory Point Condominiums property. A combination of shade and evergreen trees are
proposed to soften this transition to the east.
The majority of the property borders Hickory Hill Park to the west and south. The applicant’s OPD
plan is showing a range of separation distances between the rear yards of the homes along the
western and southern sides of the proposed Hickory Trail extension, and the current eastern
boundary of Hickory Hill Park. The closest distance between the proposed home and the existing
park boundary is approximately 35’. Each lot would have a 20’ rear yard setback, which would put
a minimum buffer distance of 55’ between any house structure and the existing park boundary. The
parcels within the southwest portion of the subject property would also be situated anywhere from
10’ to 24’ above the elevations within the Park’s east side area. Staff understands that the proposed
proximity to the Park will allow for some of the proposed homes to be viewable from within the
existing Park limits. However, Staff does not believe that the placement of these homes will
adversely affect light and air, property values or privacy of neighboring properties any more than
would a conventional development. Staff acknowledges that the homes along the west side of
Hickory Trail will likely be viewable from the eastern portions of the Park. The City Forrester has
discussed putting in additional landscaping with a mixture of evergreen and shade trees along the
rear yards of the western properties to provide additional screening from the west.
7
4. The combination of land uses and building types and any variation from the underlying
zoning requirements or from City street standards will be in the public interest, in harmony
with the purposes of this Title, and with other building regulations of the City.
Staff finds that the combination of land uses and building types meets the public interest. Staff
finds the requested height waiver of 40’ versus the allowable 35’ in an RS-5 zone to be
reasonable. Lastly, Staff recommends that no building permit shall be issued for any of the
subject property until the City Council approves a final plat subdividing the subject property to
confirm to the zoning boundaries established by the zoning ordinance.
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan:
With respect to compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Staff looks to the IC2030
Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast District Plan for direction. The Northeast District Plan
features several areas of focus for the subject property’s neighborhood (the Bluffwood
Neighborhood) that are discussed in more detail below.
Preserve Natural Features – The Plan emphasizes the use of cul-de-sac streets and single
loaded streets (i.e. homes only on one side), where appropriate, to preserve sensitive areas.
The Plan’s intent is to preserve areas with ravines and potential wetland areas as a buffer along
the eastern and northern edges of Hickory Hill Park. Additionally, the City’s comprehensive plan
encourages the development of single-loaded street along parks.
The Bluffwood Neighborhood map (Figure #2 below) shows two cul-de-sac streets within the
subject property. One cul-de-sac is stemming southward from Scott Boulevard, while the other
is a westward continuation of an extension to Hickory Trail. Housing is shown mostly on both
sides of the street on the northern cul-de-sac, with an exception for the southwestern portion of
the cul-de-sac. The southern cul-de-sac shows housing only on one side of the street. A
woodland buffer is shown on the map, but dimensions for how wide the buffer are not provided.
Figure #2 - Bluffwood Neighborhood Map
8
Rather than constructing two separate cul-de-sacs, as is shown in the Plan, the applicant is
intending to build one continuous through street between 1st Avenue and Scott Boulevard.
However, section 15-3-2A-4 of the City Code states the following “Use of cul-de-sacs and other
roadways with a single point of access should be avoided. Cul-de-sacs will be considered where
it can be clearly demonstrated that environmental constraints, existing development, access
limitations along arterial streets, or other unusual features prevent the extension of the street to
the property line or to interconnect with other streets within or abutting the subdivision.” In this
instance, the applicant has demonstrated that a through street can be provided in this location
without impacting the protected slopes to the east of the proposed street extension, or the
wetlands that exist on the property.
The preliminary OPD shows housing on both sides of Hickory Trail, which departs from the
Bluffwood Neighborhood Map. The applicant is proposing at least 35’ of separation distance
between the rear yards of the western properties along Hickory Trail, and the existing eastern
park boundary.
Additionally, pending completion of a woodland mitigation plan, the applicant intends to grant
the entire 10.86 acres of Outlot A to the City as neighborhood open space. This will technically
remove the buffer distance on paper, but in practice, will keep a woodland buffer in this area, as
it is absorbed into Hickory Hill Park.
Provide Pedestrian/Bicyclist Connections – The Plan calls for an interconnected sidewalk
system that is augmented by a trail system that will provide opportunities for people to walk,
bike, or jog to various destinations. The applicant is showing 5’ wide sidewalks along both sides
of the Hickory Trail extension, which will connect with existing sidewalks along Scott Boulevard
and 1St Avenue. The OPD Plan also shows connections to the trail network in Hickory Hill Park
at two different locations. One connection will be made about halfway through the street
extension, between Lots 40 and 41 on the OPD Plan. The other connection will be made toward
the southern end of the development, between the senior living facility and Lot 26 of the OPD
Plan. Both trail connections will feature raised crosswalks to help slow down vehicular traffic on
Hickory Trail and provide a more apparent connection from the crosswalk area to the Park’s
internal trail network.
Build Streets that Enhance Neighborhood Quality – With respect to the subject property, this
section of the Northeast District Plan focuses on providing traffic calming for local streets within
the Bluffwood Neighborhood. As was stated earlier in the report, the applicant will be required to
work with City Engineering Staff on providing the appropriate amount of traffic calming for this
development as it moves to platting.
Encourage a Reasonable Level of Housing Diversity – The Plan acknowledges that detached
single-family residential housing will be the predominant land use in the Bluffwood
Neighborhood. This matches what the applicant is proposing, as the majority of the Hickory Trail
extension would be occupied by single-family housing. This section of the Plan reemphasizes
the need for cul-de-sac street design and single-loaded streets, where appropriate. The design
of a through street will provide the connectivity that is emphasized within the City’s subdivision
code, while providing limited impact to the property’s existing sensitive areas. The City’s
Comprehensive Plan also encourages the development of interconnected streets as a means of
reducing vehicle miles traveled each day within a neighborhood, providing more direct walking
and biking routes to neighborhood destinations, and reducing the cost of providing City services.
The Plan also calls for townhouses or small apartment houses at the edges of neighborhoods,
where the increased density can take advantage of the being located near major arterial streets.
In-lieu of small apartment buildings, the applicant is proposing condominium-style single-family
9
residential dwelling units, as shown in Attachment #7. The 10-unit condo unit along with the
proposed senior living facility, help to increase the types of housing available in this area.
Create and Enhance Neighborhood Parks within the District (Natural Open Space/Buffer Areas)
The Plan does call for buffering between Hickory Hill Park and the subject property, in an
attempt to minimize the visibility of residential development from the Park. The Plan directs to
accomplish this by shifting density away from the Park to the north, where small apartments and
townhouses can take advantage of slightly higher prescribed densities. Buffer distance
dimensions are not provided in the Plan. The applicant is showing a range of buffer distances
between the rear yards of the OPD Plan and the existing eastern Park boundary. Still, it is the
applicant’s intent to grant the “buffer area” of Outlot A to the City for future use as an enlarged
Hickory Hill Park. The Plan also calls for only trail linkages from the subject area to the Park,
which the applicant intends to provide.
Summary
Staff recognizes that the proposed development does not perfectly match with the conceptual
vision presented in the Northeast District Plan, particularly related to the single-loaded streets
(i.e. streets with housing only one side). The plan shows housing on both side of the street near
N. Scott Blvd and the remainder of the area with housing only on one side. The preliminary OPD
plan also shows housing on both sides of the street near N. Scott Blvd and a single-loaded
street east of the stream corridor. The proposed lots that do not perfectly match with the vision
are the 15 lots between the two proposed trail connections on the east and south side of the
Hickory Trail extension. The plan also encourages a buffer between any new development and
the Park. The applicant has attempted to incorporate a buffer by showing a separation between
the existing park boundary and the new lots. This buffer ranges between 202’ and 35’. At the
narrowest sections, the applicant has incorporated landscaping that includes deciduous trees.
In summary, although the proposal does not perfectly match with the land use vision for this
area, it does meet other comprehensive plan goals. It provides an interconnected street system,
incorporates a variety of housing types, limits impact to sensitive areas, and provides an
additional 10 acres of land to Hickory Hill Park.
Sensitive Areas Review:
The applicant has applied for approval of a Sensitive Areas Development, a type of planned
development. The purpose of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance is to permit and define the reasonable
use of properties that contain sensitive environmental features and natural resources and allowing
reasonable development while protecting these resources from damage.
Outlots A and B contain the vast majority of the site’s sensitive features. Outlot A will be protected
through the dedication to the City as an extension of Hickory Hill Park. Outlot B will be protected
by a conservation easement. The single-family lots along the east side of Hickory Trail include a
portion of the Outlot B conservation easement area. Staff has recommended that the lot boundaries
conform with the conservation easement boundary, to avoid having a conservation easement area
on a private lot.
The following paragraphs describe the impact this development will have on the sensitive features
of this site.
Jurisdictional Wetlands- The purpose of regulating development in and around wetlands is to:
1. Preserve the unique and valuable attributes of wetlands as areas where storm water is naturally
retained, thereby controlling the rate of runoff, improving water quality, recharging ground water
resources, providing erosion control and lessening the effects of flooding;
2. Promote the preservation of habitat for plants, fish, reptiles, amphibians or other wildlife;
3. Minimize the impact of development activity on wetland areas;
10
4. Provide a greater degree of protection for many wetland areas above and beyond that provided
by the federal and state government; and
5. Minimize the long-term environmental impact associated with the loss of wetlands.
For this application, the subject property contains two wetlands, which are shown below in Figure
#3. The City’s Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires a 100 ft. buffer to be maintained between a
regulated wetland and any development activity (14-5I-6E-1). The Ordinance does allow for buffer
averaging to be permitted where an increased buffer is deemed necessary or desirable to provide
additional protection to one area of a wetland for aesthetic or environmental reasons. The applicant
has not chosen to request buffer averaging for either wetland, as each wetland and wetland buffer
will remain unimpacted.
Figure #3 – Wetland Delineation
Stream Corridors - The purpose of regulating development in and around stream corridors is to:
1. Preserve the value of stream corridors in providing floodwater conveyance and storage;
2. Promote filtration of storm water runoff;
3. Reduce stream bank erosion; and
4. Protect and enhance wildlife habitat.
The City’s Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires the delineation of any stream corridor and its
required natural buffer (14-5I-7). The subject property contains two drainageways, neither of which
have a delineated floodway, thereby requiring a 15’ natural buffer between the stream corridor limits
and any development activity. Both stream corridors are situated far enough away from the
proposed construction limits that neither corridor will be impacted. Additionally, section 14-5I-2D-2
of the City Code allows for Stream crossings, such as bridges, roads and culverts, or stream bank
stabilization measures, provided they are designed to minimize any reduction of the flood carrying
capacity of the stream caused by such structures and are in compliance with all federal and state
regulations.
Steep, Critical, and Protected Slopes – The purpose of regulating development on and near steep
slopes is to:
1. Promote safety in the design and construction of developments;
2. Minimize flooding, landslides and mudslides;
3. Minimize soil instability, erosion and downstream siltation; and
4. Preserve the scenic character of hillside areas, particularly wooded hillsides.
The City’s Sensitive Areas Ordinance requires a 2 ft. buffer for each foot of vertical rise of the
11
protected slope, up to a maximum buffer of fifty feet (50') (14-5I-8D-1). The buffer area is to be
measured from the top, toe and sides of the protected slope. No development activity, including
removal of trees and other vegetation, will be allowed within the buffer. The SADP contains 321,719
square feet of protected slopes, but no disturbance to protected slopes. Approximately 19%, or
roughly 62,125 square feet of critical slopes will be impacted by the development. Table 1 below
breaks out the proposed impact to critical slopes. The City Code defines critical slopes as having a
slope greater than 25% but less than 40%. Section 14-5I-8E-4 states that a Level II sensitive areas
review is required if more than 35% of critical slopes are disturbed. The applicant is proposing to
only to disturb 19% of critical slopes, which is within the allowable threshold.
Table #1 – Critical Slope Summary
Existing Critical Slopes Impacted Slopes Non-Impacted Slopes
321,719 sq ft 61,279 sq ft
(19%)
216,414 sq ft
(67%)
Woodlands – The purpose of regulating development in and around wooded areas is to:
1. Reduce damage to wooded areas, particularly wetlands, steep slopes and stream corridors;
2. Reduce erosion and siltation;
3. Minimize destruction of wildlife habitat; and
4. Encourage subdivision and site plan design which incorporate groves and woodlands as
amenities within a development.
The subject property has approximately 30.4 acres of woodlands. The SADP plan (Attachment #5)
shows that the development will preserve approximately 48% of woodlands. Table 5I-1 from the
City Code shows that the woodland retention requirement for an RS-5 zone is 50%. To offset the
woodland retention requirement deficiency, the applicant must plant replacement trees at a rate of
1 tree per 200 square feet of disturbed woodland. This results in a tree replacement requirement of
132 trees. The preliminary SADP currently only shows 115 replacements trees. Staff has requested
that the plan be updated to reflect the correct amount needed.
Archaeological Sites – Attachment #9 shows an archaeological report that the applicant obtained
from the Office of the State Archaeologist. The report shows that no previously recorded
archaeological sites were recorded, and no newly recorded archaeological sites were identified.
The report recommends no further archaeological work within the subject property.
NEXT STEPS:
Upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing will be
scheduled for consideration by the City Council. Staff plans to have this application on the
March 16, 2021 City Council agenda, with public hearings set at the Council’s March 2, 2021
meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of REZ20-0016, a proposal to rezone approximately 48.75 acres of
land located south of N. Scott Blvd. and west of N. 1st Ave. from Interim Development – Single
Family Residential (ID-RS) zone to Low Density Single Family with a Planned Development
Overlay (OPD/RS-5) zone subject to the following conditions:
1. In accordance with the subdivider’s agreement at final platting, approval of a Woodland
Management Plan that shall consist of a plan to remove any invasive species within the
Outlot A area, as well as removal of any hazardous trees or limbs. The plan shall be
prepared by a woodland specialist and approved by the City Forrester. Invasive species
12
removal will be the responsibility of the owner and must be completed prior to transfer of
Outlot A to the City.
2. Provision of trail connections, as shown on the concept plan dated 01/18/2021. The trail
connections should be provided in the same location as shown on the concept plan and
must be constructed before public improvements to the corresponding subdivision are
approved.
3. The final plat shall incorporate traffic calming devices, including but not limited to raised
crosswalks at park entrances, in locations approved by and designed to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
4. Where trees are shown on the landscaping plan, installation of right-of-way trees, to be
planted by Owner or its successor, along the proposed Hickory Trial right -of-way. Said
trees shall be planted prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each lot, or, if said
certificate of occupancy is issued during a poor planting season, by May 31 following
issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Right-of-way trees shall be consistent with the
approved landscaping plan that has been reviewed by the City Forrester. Trees shall be
planted generally 30’ apart, though the City recognizes that exact locations may vary
depending on driveway locations, signage, and other utility conflicts. Final location and
species of the trees shall be approved on a lot-by-lot basis prior to issuance of a building
permit for each lot.
5. No building permit shall be issued for any of the subject property until the City Council
approves a final plat subdividing the subject property to confirm to the zoning boundaries
established by the zoning ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Rezoning Exhibit
4. Applicant Statement
5. Preliminary OPD and Sensitive Areas Development Plan and Landscape Plan
6. Senior Living Facility Elevations
7. Lot 45 OPD Plan and Elevations
8. Traffic Study
9. Archaeological Study
10. Public Correspondence
Approved by: __________________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
DODGE STREET CT
BLUFFWOODDRTAMARA
C
K
TRL
LARCHLNCONKLIN LNSTUARTCTBRI
S
T
OLDR
HICKORY TRL
HICK
O
RY
PL
N SCOT T B L V D
B L UF F W O OD CIRCYPRESSCT EVERGREENCTSTTHOMASCTBLUFFW
O
ODLNN1STAVEACT PLNDUBUQUERDHICKORYHEIGH T S LN
N DODGE STREZ20-0016Hickory Trail Estatesµ
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: February 2021
An application submitted by Axiom Consultants, on behalf of G. Joseph Clark & Nelson Development 1, LLC, for the rezoningof 48.75 acres of property located South of N. Scott Blvd, and West of N. 1st Ave. from Interim Development - Single-Family (ID-RS) to Low-density Single Family Residential with a PlannedDevelopment Overlay (OPD/RS-5)
DODGE STREETC
TBLUFFWOODDRTAMARA
C
K
TRL
LARCHLNCONKLIN LNSTUA
RT
CTBRI
S
T
OLDR
HICKORY TRL
HICK
O
RY
PL
N SCO T T B L V D
B L UF F W O O DCIRCYPRESSCT EVERGREENCTSTTHOMASCTBLUFFW
O
O
DLNN1STAVEACTPLNDUBUQUERDHICKORYHEIGH TS LN
N DODGE STRS8
P1
ORP
ID-RP
ID-RS
RS5
CO1
RM12
RDP
CN1
RS12
REZ20-0016Hickory Trail Estatesµ
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: February 2021
An application submitted by Axiom Consultants, on behalf of G. Joseph Clark & Nelson Development 1, LLC, for the rezoningof 48.75 acres of property located South of N. Scott Blvd, and West of N. 1st Ave. from Interim Development - Single-Family (ID-RS) to Low-density Single Family Residential with a PlannedDevelopment Overlay (OPD/RS-5)
N01° 07' 52"W 656.03'N01° 41' 17"W 1094.66'N01° 38' 34"W 210.49'N01° 20' 33"W 538.67'S27° 14' 33"W 924.73'N77° 55' 52
"
E
6
4
9
.
6
3
'S01° 15' 42"E 868.85'S87° 54' 07"W 1302.79'
R=1018.50'
L=1332.94'
C
B=S65°18'23"E
CL=1239.83'
S01° 14' 34"E 378.49'
0 150 300
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
ZONING INFORMATION:
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
CURRENT ZONING: ID-RS
PROPOSED ZONING: OPD/RS-5
APPLICANT 1:
G. JOSEPH CLARK
221 E. BURLINGTON ST
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
APPLICANT INFORMATION:
PREPARED BY:
AXIOM CONSULTANTS, LLC
C/O MICHAEL WELCH
60 E. COURT STREET, UNIT 3
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
319-519-6220
MWELCH@AXIOM-CON.COM
NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT
LOCATION
HICKORY HILL PARK
1439 E BLOOMINGTON ST
ZONING: P1HICKORY HEIGHTS LNPARCEL ID:
1002401005
ZONING: ID-RS
2640 N SCOTT BLVD
ZONING: OPD/RM12
800 CONKLIN LN
ZONING: P1
PARCEL ID:
1002426001
ZONING: P1
PARCEL ID: 1002476002
ZONING: ID-RS
831 N 1ST AVEZONING: OPD/RS8PARCEL ID:1001328001ZONING: ID-RPN 1ST AVEN SCOTT
B
L
V
D
2041 N DUBUQUE RD
ZONING: RDP
PARCEL ID: 1001327004
ZONING: ID-RP
PARCEL ID: 1001326004
ZONING: ID-RP
PARCEL ID: 1001351002
ZONING: ID-RS
643 N 1ST AVEZONING: P1HICKORY HEIGHTS
ZONING: OPD/RS5
EVAN HEIGHTS
ZONING: RS5
2601 HICKORY TRLZONING: RM121725 N DODGE ST
ZONING: P1
PARCEL ID:
1002153001
ZONING: CO1
PARCEL ID: 1001351003
ZONING: ID-RS
CYPRESS CTBLUFFWOOD DRBLUFFWOOD CIR
640 STUART CT
ZONING: RM12
2510 BLUFFWOOD CIR
ZONING: RM12
2530 BLUFFWOOD CIR
ZONING: RM12
HICKORY TRL
TAMARACK TRAIL
SUBDIVISION
ZONING: OPD/RS5EVERGREEN CTTAMARACK TRL
H
I
C
K
O
R
Y
P
L
HICKORY TRAIL SUBDIVISION
ZONING: RS5
2545 BLUFFWOOD DR
ZONING: ID-RS
500-YEAR
FLOOD LINE
BEING PART OF AMENDED AUDITOR'S PARCEL #2005110 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 52, PAGE 143 OF
THE JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE, IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP
79 NORTH, RANGE 6 WEST OF THE 5TH P.M., IN IOWA CITY, JOHNSON COUNTY, IOWA DESCRIBED AS;
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL, THENCE N01°07'52”W,
656.03 FEET; THENCE N01°41'17”W, 1094.66 FEET; THENCE N01°38'34”W, 210.49 FEET; THENCE
N01°20'33”W, 538.67 FEET; THENCE TO THE NW CORNER OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL; THENCE
1332.94 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SCOTT BOULEVARD ON A 1018.50 FOOT
RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY (CHORD BEARING S65°18'23”E, 1239.83 FEET); THENCE
S27°14'33”W, 924.73 FEET; THENCE S01°14'34”E, 378.49 FEET; THENCE N77°55'52”E, 649.63 FEET;
THENCE S01°15'42”E, 868.85 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID AUDITOR'S PARCEL; THENCE ALONG
SAID SOUTH LINE S87°54'07”W, 1302.79 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
DESCRIBED AREA CONTAINS 48.75 ACRES AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS
OF RECORD.
48.75 ACRES
PROPOSED ZONING:
OPD/RS-5
APPLICANT 1'S ATTORNEY:
PHELAN TUCKER LAW
JOHN BEASLEY
321 E. MARKET ST
IOWA CITY, IA 52245
TAMARACK RIDGE
SUBDIVISION
ZONING: RS5
APPLICANT 2:
NELSON DEVELOPMENT 1, LLC
ATTN: JACOB WOLFGANG
218 6TH AVE., STE. 200
DES MOINES, IOWA 50309
JACOB@NELSONCONSTRUCT.COM
APPLICANT 2'S ATTORNEY:
KIRTON MCCONKIE
ATTN: BRYCE K. DALTON
50 E. SOUTH TEMPLE, SUITE 400
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
BDALTON@KMCLAW.COM
STUART CT
BL
U
F
F
W
O
O
D
L
N
ST THOMAS CTZONING:
RM12
ZONING:
OPD/
RM12
ZONING:
OPD/
RM12 A12-17-2020REZONING APPLICATIONSHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Jan 19, 2021 - 4:43pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Sheets\200194 - Rezoning Exhibit - OPD.RS-5.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:1 OF 1 G. JOSEPH CLARKREZONING EXHIBITHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESIOWA CITY, IOWA, 5224520-0194WELCHREZONING EXHIBIT
HICKORY TRAIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
CIVIL STRUCTURAL MECHANICAL ELECTRICAL SURVEY SPECIALTY
Project Number 200194 Page | 1
December 17, 2020
APPLICANT’S STATEMENT FOR REZONING
The proposed development area consists of a portion of Parcel 1002476002. The area being rezoned is approximately 48
acres of private property located west of N. 1st Avenue and south of N. Scott Boulevard. It is bounded on the south and
west by Hickory Hill Park. The current zoning classification is ID-RS – Interim Development Single-Family Residential. The
Applicant is seeking to rezone 36.60 acres of the property to RS-5 – Low Density Single-Family Residential and 12.21 acres
of the property to RM-20 – Medium-Density Multi-Family Residential. The total area being re-zoned is 48.81 acres with
1,332.95 feet of frontage on North Scott Boulevard. There are approximately 14 acres between the proposed development
and N. Scott Boulevard and N. 1st Avenue that are not included in this development and are not included in the rezoning
application. Refer to the Rezoning Exhibit included with the Rezoning Application for additional information, including the
legal description.
Comprehensive Plan & District Plan
The Future Land Use Map within the Comprehensive
Plan shows this area as Conservation Design. The
Conservation Design designation indicates the
presence of sensitive features on the property. These
features include wetlands, a waterway, steep slopes,
and woodlands. The Northeast District Plan includes
the property within the “Bluffwood Neighborhood”
(Figure 1). The Bluffwood concept plan shows single-
family housing and two cul de sacs on the south and
west portion of the property. There is Neighborhood
Commercial depicted on the southeast portion of the
property (four red buildings on Figure 1) and Small
Apartment Buildings shown on the northeast portion
(five pink buildings on Figure 1). The plan shows
wooded areas remaining along the waterway at the
center of the property. Hickory Hill Park can be seen
along the west and south of the property. The cul de
sacs allow for a connection from Hickory Hill Park to the
drainageway at the center of the property.
Figure 1: Bluffwood Neighborhood from Northeast District Plan with
Approximate Project Boundary
Project Number 200194 Page | 2
Previous Projects
A previous rezoning application for the property located at
831 N. 1st Avenue (immediately east of this project) was
approved as a Planned Development Overlay Medium-
Density Single-Family (OPD RS-8) and a twelve-unit, 3-
story building was constructed (Figure 2) in place of the
Neighborhood Commercial shown on the Bluffwood plan.
Project Overview
The Applicant proposes to develop low-density single-
family residential lots west of the waterway and a Senior
Living Facility with Assisted Living and Memory Care east
of the waterway. The south end of the Senior Facility
building will be a single-story structure memory care, the
center of the building will be a two-story structure
containing the main entry, dining, common areas, and
administrative areas, and the north end of the north end of
the building will consist of three stories of assisted living
apartments. Refer to Figure 3 for a rendering). Hickory
Trail, which currently dead ends at the east property line,
is being extended to the west and turn north to connect to
N. Scott Boulevard.
Figure 2: 831 N. 1st Avenue
Proposed Project Area Shown in Red
Figure 3:Conceptual Rendering of the Proposed Senior Facility (looking northeast)
Project Number 200194 Page | 3
Low-Density Single-Family Residential (RS-5)
The Low-Density Single Family Residential (RS-5) zoning proposed is consistent with the Bluffwood plan. The applicant is
not seeking adjustments to minimum area regulations or setbacks. Instead, the applicant will enforce a larger front yard
setback of twenty-five feet within the Restrictive Covenants of the subdivision. The proposed single-family development will
avoid protected slopes, provide the required 50% woodland preservation, and meet s other regulations of the Sensitive Areas
Ordinance as required by City Code. Conservation Easements will be utilized to set aside and protect sensitive areas. A
buffer will be provided between the rear of the single-family lots that are adjacent to Hickory Hill Park.
Medium-Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-20)
The Applicant is seeking Medium-Density Multi-Family Residential zoning at the southeast corner of the development to
support a Senior Living Facility. The project incorporates specific features to ensure it is compatible with the surrounding
area and the vision for this portion of Iowa City.
The proposed building and site have been designed to take advantage of the existing topography to prevent the building
from dominating the view. The existing topography rises from the southwest to the north east corner of the RM -20 portion
of the site. The building has a single-story on the south and three-stories on the north (refer to Figure 3). This prevents the
mass of the building from dominating views from the park. The building is set into the existing site with a first-floor elevation
of 735 and the eave on the tallest portion of the building is at an elevation of approximately 768 . The elevation of the
northeast corner of the property 768 and N. 1st Avenue is at an elevation of 760 in this area. This allows the natural grade
along N. 1st Avenue to block the building from view as pedestrians and vehicles travel along N. 1st Avenue. Refer to the Site
Plan included in the rezoning submittal.
The proposed building and site achieve the density desired by the Applicant without a large footprint or excessive amounts
of impervious area. The zoning suggested on the District Plan would allow for a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of up to 1.0. The
proposed site has a FAR of 0.3. Another measure of building density on a property is the amount of impervious surfaces
(pavement, sidewalks, roof top). Impervious areas averaging eighty -five percent are common in commercial areas. This
building and site combine for an impervious area of 40%. This relatively low amount of imperviousness is by design. The
building features an interior courtyard within the memory care wing and a community garden space east of the dining and
kitchen facility. Parking is located along the loop road, where possible, to minimize the pavement associated drive aisles in
traditional parking lots. There is ample green space along the west and east sides of the loop road to help provide buffers
to adjacent properties. Each of these features combine to reduce the imperviousness of the site.
The Applicant is committed to planting replacement trees to achieve the 20% woodland retention requirement of this zoning
designation. These trees will be planted along the west, east, and south portions of the Senior Living facility. These plantings
will enhance the view from inside the building, provide unique spaces on the property for outdoor activities, and protect the
views from those looking at the property from either the park or the single-family portion of the development.
Project Number 200194 Page | 4
City Utilities
There is city water along the north side of N. Scott Boulevard and water at the end of Hickory Trail. These will be connected
to create a loop. There is sanitary sewer at the dead-end of Hickory Trail and along the waterway south of the project.
These have been designed to be extended to serve this property. Private utilities such as gas, electric, and communications
are also available. Storm water management is provided by an existing basin downstream of the project.
Sensitive Areas
Detailed Analyses have been undertaken and, in addition to the woodlands and the waterway, have documented the
presence of wetlands and protected slopes. The Offi ce of the State Archaeologist has completed a field investigation and
determined that no further archaeologic investigation is required. A Preliminary Sensitive Areas Development Plan
accompanies this application. The development has been designed to avoid the sensitive features and minimize impacts.
Protected slopes have been avoided completely and less than 20% of critical slopes are impacted.
Hickory Hill Park
The development team has met with the Friends of Hickory Hills Park (FHHP) to gain their insight to the development. The
two groups are seeking areas where the goals of the development and FHHP align and are discussing how each can benefit
from this relationship. The Applicant will also be utilizing the Good Neighbor Meeting process to seek additional community
input.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Welch, PE
Project Engineer
OUTLOT A
473,268 SF
45
152,271 SF
1
408,543 SF
OUTLOT B
180,396 SF
26
10,055 SF
31
10,935 SF
8
18,249 SF
2
38,362 SF
4
24,692 SF
3
23,849 SF
10
16,187 SF
5
29,154 SF
6
21,846 SF
28
14,514 SF
33
8,505 SF
19
28,143 SF17
11,818 SF
"A"
184,197 SF
27
10,822 SF
29
16,365 SF
30
14,169 SF32
8,575 SF35
8,204 SF37
8,540 SF
38
9,621 SF
40
9,375 SF
36
8,127 SF
34
8,200 SF
39
9,116 SF
14
23,014 SF
23
15,470 SF
24
14,962 SF
25
15,388 SF
44
12,329 SF
7
18,571 SF
9
19,405 SF
22
23,866 SF21
27,448 SF20
27,505 SF
11
19,207 SF
16
19,661 SF
15
20,818 SF
13
23,682 SF
12
18,886 SF
18
27,173 SF43
10,612 SF 41
9,907 SF
42
9,617 SF
PROJECT
LOCATION
Ralston Creek
NOT TO SCALE
OUTLOTS:
OUTLOT SF ACRES INTENDED USE
A 473,268 10.86 DEDICATED TO CITY FOR PARK SPACE
B 180,396 4.14 CONSERVATION EASEMENT
ROW 184,197 4.23 RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATED TO CITY FOR HICKORY TRAIL EXTENSION
APPLICANT 1'S ATTORNEY:
PHELAN TUCKER LAW
JOHN BEASLEY
321 E. MARKET ST
IOWA CITY, IA 52245
APPROVED BY THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA
CITY CLERK DATE
KEY NOTES:
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
HATCHED AREA REPRESENTS AREA INCLUDED
IN WOODLAND RETENTION CALCULATION
10' LANDSCAPE EASEMENT
A
LEGEND:
SITE
FENCE: BARB WIRE
CONTOUR - INTERMEDIATE
CONTOUR - INDEX
SIGN
STREAM CENTERLINE
100
EXISTING PROPOSED
100
PROTECTED SLOPE (> 40%)
CRITICAL SLOPE (25-40%)
IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPE
(25-40%)
WOODLAND PRESERVATION
IMPACTED WOODLAND
STEEP SLOPE (18-25%)
CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS
TREE REMOVAL LIMITS AT EDGE
OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
SENSITIVE AREAS AREA BUFFER
WETLAND PRESERVATION
BLUE LINE STREAM CORRIDOR N. SCOTT BOULEVARDN. 1ST
A
V
E
N
U
E
HICKORYTERRY FAMILY
REVOCABLE TRUS
T
HICKORY HEIGHTS
BK 44, PG 144
HICKORY HILL PAR
K
HICKORY HILL PAR
K HICKORY HILL PARKHICKORY HILL PARK1213141516
0 50 100
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 11, 2021 - 4:51pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Plats\200194-PP.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:C1.00 G. JOSEPH CLARKOVERALLSENSITIVE FEATURESHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN20-0194WELCHPRELIMINARY OPD AND
SENSITIVE AREAS
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
HICKORY TRAIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
1
TRAILHICKORY HILL PARKAPPLICANT 1:
G. JOSEPH CLARK
221 E. BURLINGTON ST
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
.
.
.
A
A
A
APPLICANT 2'S ATTORNEY:
KIRTON MCCONKIE
ATTN:BRYCE K. DALTON
50 E. SOUTH TEMPLE, SUITE 400
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
BDALTON@KMCLAW.COM
APPLICANT 2:
NELSON DEVELOPMENT 1, LLC
ATTN:JACOB WOLFGANG
218 6TH AVE., STE. 200
DES MOINES, IOWA 50309
JACOB@NELSONCONSTRUCT.COM
AB12-17-202002-11-2021REZONING APPLICATIONRESPOND TO CITY REVIEW COMMENTS.A
PROPOSED TREE
REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN
B
.B
OVERALL SENSITIVE FEATURESC1.00
C1.30
PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS-SENSITIVE SLOPESC1.10
C1.20 PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS-WOODLAND AREAS
PRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREAS-WETLAND AND BLUE LINE STREAM CORRIDOR
IMPACTED STEEP SLOPE
(18-25%)
SHEET INDEX
NOTES:
1.NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES ARE PRESENT.
OUTLOT A
473,268 SF
45
152,271 SF
1
408,543 SF
OUTLOT B
180,396 SF
26
10,055 SF
31
10,935 SF
8
18,249 SF
2
38,362 SF
4
24,692 SF
3
23,849 SF
10
16,187 SF
5
29,154 SF
6
21,846 SF
28
14,514 SF
33
8,505 SF
19
28,143 SF17
11,818 SF
"A"
184,197 SF
27
10,822 SF
29
16,365 SF
30
14,169 SF32
8,575 SF35
8,204 SF37
8,540 SF
38
9,621 SF
40
9,375 SF
36
8,127 SF
34
8,200 SF
39
9,116 SF
14
23,014 SF
23
15,470 SF
24
14,962 SF
25
15,388 SF
44
12,329 SF
7
18,571 SF
9
19,405 SF
22
23,866 SF21
27,448 SF20
27,505 SF
11
19,207 SF
16
19,661 SF
15
20,818 SF
13
23,682 SF
12
18,886 SF
18
27,173 SF43
10,612 SF 41
9,907 SF
42
9,617 SF
0 50 100
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 11, 2021 - 4:55pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Plats\200194-PP.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:C1.10 G. JOSEPH CLARKPRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREASSENSITIVE SLOPESHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN20-0194WELCHAPPLICANT 1'S ATTORNEY:
PHELAN TUCKER LAW
JOHN BEASLEY
321 E. MARKET ST
IOWA CITY, IA 52245
N. SCOTT BOULEVARDN. 1ST
A
V
E
N
U
E
HICKORYTERRY FAMILY
REVOCABLE TRUS
T
HICKORY HEIGHTS
BK 44, PG 144
HICKORY HILL PAR
K
HICKORY HILL PAR
K HICKORY HILL PARKHICKORY HILL PARK1213141516 TRAILHICKORY HILL PARK1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
9
LEGEND:
SITE
FENCE: BARB WIRE
CONTOUR - INTERMEDIATE
CONTOUR - INDEX
SIGN
STREAM CENTERLINE
100
EXISTING PROPOSED
100
PROTECTED SLOPE (> 40%)
CRITICAL SLOPE (25-40%)
IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPE
(25-40%)
STEEP SLOPE (18-25%)
CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS
TREE REMOVAL LIMITS AT EDGE
OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
SENSITIVE AREAS AREA BUFFER
17
16
15
14
13
12
APPLICANT 1:
G. JOSEPH CLARK
221 E. BURLINGTON ST
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
APPLICANT 2'S ATTORNEY:
KIRTON MCCONKIE
ATTN:BRYCE K. DALTON
50 E. SOUTH TEMPLE, SUITE 400
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
BDALTON@KMCLAW.COM
APPLICANT 2:
NELSON DEVELOPMENT 1, LLC
ATTN:JACOB WOLFGANG
218 6TH AVE., STE. 200
DES MOINES, IOWA 50309
JACOB@NELSONCONSTRUCT.COM
AB12-17-202002-11-2021REZONING APPLICATIONRESPOND TO CITY REVIEW COMMENTS5
.B
PRELIMINARY OPD AND
SENSITIVE AREAS
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
HICKORY TRAIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
IMPACTED QUANTITIES:
CRITICAL SLOPES STEEP SLOPES
NOTES:
1.THERE ARE PROTECTED SLOPES WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT. A BUFFER
EQUAL TO 2 TIMES THE HEIGHT OF THE SLOPE IS PROVIDED. NO PROTECTED SLOPES OR
BUFFERS ARE IMPACTED WITH THIS PROJECT.
2.THE TOTAL PERCENTAGE IMPACTED CRITICAL SLOPE IS LESS THAN 35% OF THE TOTAL.
CRITICAL SLOPE CALCULATION AREA (SF)PERCENTAGE
IMPACTED SLOPES 61,279 19%
NON-IMPACTED SLOPES 216,414 67%
NON-IMPACTED SLOPES IN PROTECTED SLOPE BUFFER 44,026 14%
CRITICAL SLOPES (PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT)321,719 100%
3. STEEP SLOPE CALCULATION AREA (SF)PERCENTAGE
IMPACTED SLOPES 145,153 44%
NON-IMPACTED SLOPES 180,810 56%
STEEP SLOPES (PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT)325,963 100%
IMPACTED STEEP SLOPE
(18-25%)
18
19
2021
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37 38
39
5
OUTLOT A
473,268 SF
45
152,271 SF
1
408,543 SF
OUTLOT B
180,396 SF
26
10,055 SF
31
10,935 SF
8
18,249 SF
2
38,362 SF
4
24,692 SF
3
23,849 SF
10
16,187 SF
5
29,154 SF
6
21,846 SF
28
14,514 SF
33
8,505 SF
19
28,143 SF17
11,818 SF
"A"
184,197 SF
27
10,822 SF
29
16,365 SF
30
14,169 SF32
8,575 SF35
8,204 SF37
8,540 SF
38
9,621 SF
40
9,375 SF
36
8,127 SF
34
8,200 SF
39
9,116 SF
14
23,014 SF
23
15,470 SF
24
14,962 SF
25
15,388 SF
44
12,329 SF
7
18,571 SF
9
19,405 SF
22
23,866 SF21
27,448 SF20
27,505 SF
11
19,207 SF
16
19,661 SF
15
20,818 SF
13
23,682 SF
12
18,886 SF
18
27,173 SF43
10,612 SF 41
9,907 SF
42
9,617 SF
0 50 100
APPLICANT 1'S ATTORNEY:
PHELAN TUCKER LAW
JOHN BEASLEY
321 E. MARKET ST
IOWA CITY, IA 52245
N. SCOTT BOULEVARDN. 1ST
A
V
E
N
U
E
HICKORYTERRY FAMILY
REVOCABLE TRUS
T
HICKORY HEIGHTS
BK 44, PG 144
HICKORY HILL PAR
K
HICKORY HILL PAR
K HICKORY HILL PARKHICKORY HILL PARK1213141516 TRAILHICKORY HILL PARKA
C
B
D
LEGEND:
SITE
FENCE: BARB WIRE
CONTOUR - INTERMEDIATE
CONTOUR - INDEX
SIGN
STREAM CENTERLINE
100
EXISTING PROPOSED
100
WOODLAND PRESERVATION
IMPACTED WOODLAND
CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS
TREE REMOVAL LIMITS AT EDGE
OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
SENSITIVE AREAS AREA BUFFER
F
G
E
H
APPLICANT 1:
G. JOSEPH CLARK
221 E. BURLINGTON ST
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
.
.
.
A
A
A
APPLICANT 2'S ATTORNEY:
KIRTON MCCONKIE
ATTN:BRYCE K. DALTON
50 E. SOUTH TEMPLE, SUITE 400
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
BDALTON@KMCLAW.COM
APPLICANT 2:
NELSON DEVELOPMENT 1, LLC
ATTN:JACOB WOLFGANG
218 6TH AVE., STE. 200
DES MOINES, IOWA 50309
JACOB@NELSONCONSTRUCT.COM
AB12-17-202002-11-2021REZONING APPLICATIONRESPOND TO CITY REVIEW COMMENTS.A
PROPOSED TREE
REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN .B
PRELIMINARY OPD AND
SENSITIVE AREAS
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
HICKORY TRAIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
IMPACTED QUANTITIES:
WOODLANDS
NOTES:
1.THERE ARE WOODED AREAS WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE DEVELOPMENT. CONSERVATION
EASEMENTS ARE PROPOSED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESERVING PORTIONS OF THE WOODED
AREAS. PER IOWA CITY CODE FOR RS-5, A MINIMUM OF 50% OF THE EXISTING WOODLANDS
MUST BE PRESERVED.
RS-5 WOODLAND PRESERVATION CALCULATION AREA (SF)PERCENTAGE
DISTURBED WOODLAND 497,053 37%
BUFFER (50' WIDE)200,516 15%
PRESERVED WOODLAND 627,495 48%
WOODLAND (PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT)1,325,064 100%
2.THE DEVELOPMENT IS 2% SHORT OF THE REQUIRED 50% WOODLAND RETENTION THRESHOLD.
REPLACEMENT TREES WILL BE PROVIDED TO OFFSET THIS DEFICIENCY. CITY CODE REQUIRES
REPLACEMENT TREES AT A RATE OF 1 TREE PER 200 SF OF DISTURBED WOODLAND
REQUIRED REPLACEMENT TREES = ( 1,325,064 * 0.02 )/ 200 = 132 TREES
3.STREET TREES AND OTHER TREES SHOWN COUNT TOWARD REPLACEMENT TREE NUMBER.
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 11, 2021 - 4:52pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Plats\200194-PP.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:C1.20 G. JOSEPH CLARKPRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREASWOODLAND AREASHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLANPRELIMINARY20-0194WELCH
OUTLOT A
473,268 SF
45
152,271 SF
1
408,543 SF
OUTLOT B
180,396 SF
26
10,055 SF
31
10,935 SF
8
18,249 SF
2
38,362 SF
4
24,692 SF
3
23,849 SF
10
16,187 SF
5
29,154 SF
6
21,846 SF
28
14,514 SF
33
8,505 SF
19
28,143 SF17
11,818 SF
"A"
184,197 SF
27
10,822 SF
29
16,365 SF
30
14,169 SF32
8,575 SF35
8,204 SF37
8,540 SF
38
9,621 SF
40
9,375 SF
36
8,127 SF
34
8,200 SF
39
9,116 SF
14
23,014 SF
23
15,470 SF
24
14,962 SF
25
15,388 SF
44
12,329 SF
7
18,571 SF
9
19,405 SF
22
23,866 SF21
27,448 SF20
27,505 SF
11
19,207 SF
16
19,661 SF
15
20,818 SF
13
23,682 SF
12
18,886 SF
18
27,173 SF43
10,612 SF 41
9,907 SF
42
9,617 SF
0 50 100
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 11, 2021 - 4:52pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Plats\200194-PP.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:C1.30 G. JOSEPH CLARKPRELIMINARY SENSITIVE AREASWETLANDS ANDBLUE LINE STREAM CORRIDORHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN20-0194WELCHAPPLICANT 1'S ATTORNEY:
PHELAN TUCKER LAW
JOHN BEASLEY
321 E. MARKET ST
IOWA CITY, IA 52245
N. SCOTT BOULEVARDN. 1ST
A
V
E
N
U
E
HICKORYTERRY FAMILY
REVOCABLE TRUS
T
HICKORY HEIGHTS
BK 44, PG 144
HICKORY HILL PAR
K
HICKORY HILL PAR
K HICKORY HILL PARKHICKORY HILL PARK1213141516 TRAILHICKORY HILL PARKLEGEND:
SITE
FENCE: BARB WIRE
CONTOUR - INTERMEDIATE
CONTOUR - INDEX
SIGN
STREAM CENTERLINE
100
EXISTING PROPOSED
100
CONSTRUCTION AREA LIMITS
TREE REMOVAL LIMITS AT EDGE
OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT
SENSITIVE AREAS AREA BUFFER
WETLAND PRESERVATION
BLUE LINE STREAM CORRIDOR
APPLICANT 1:
G. JOSEPH CLARK
221 E. BURLINGTON ST
IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240
APPLICANT 2'S ATTORNEY:
KIRTON MCCONKIE
ATTN:BRYCE K. DALTON
50 E. SOUTH TEMPLE, SUITE 400
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111
BDALTON@KMCLAW.COM
APPLICANT 2:
NELSON DEVELOPMENT 1, LLC
ATTN:JACOB WOLFGANG
218 6TH AVE., STE. 200
DES MOINES, IOWA 50309
JACOB@NELSONCONSTRUCT.COM
AB12-17-202002-11-2021REZONING APPLICATIONRESPOND TO CITY REVIEW COMMENTSPRELIMINARY OPD AND
SENSITIVE AREAS
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
HICKORY TRAIL
IOWA CITY, IOWA
100'
WETLAND BUFFER
100'
WETLAND BUFFER
30'
STREAM
BUFFER
30'
STREAM
BUFFER
OUTLOT A
473,268 SF 241'23'
87'318'226'69'
6
9
'64'254'13'
5
8
'75'289'75'40'
294'275'29
'
4
1
'23'41'285'2
3
'41'29'41'32'274'91
'
1
8
'23'258'104'
75'254'75'250'75'
75'251'62'13'
116'270'35'
40'
116'286'75'
104'207'75'
77'98'213'91'
22'
90'
77'296'91'
91'325'46'
91'318'29'
91'303'23'57'80'
95'81'34'293'18
5
'157'88'187'41'179'81'81'80'105'92'116'91'102'136'45'30'127'16
5
'75'128'1
6
5
'75'127'130'
75'
109'115'13'62'
75'114'75'53'27'
72'110'110'50'27'
72'75'109'75'
75'108'75'
96'97'48'27'75'
112'118'125'75'
75'
75'125'75'130'129'62'18'128'75'130'49'26'152'75'
23
5
'122'225'87'
161'105'47'9
6
'
41'
4
1
'
10
7
'276'108'195'114'77'1,303'N01° 07' 52"W 656.03'N01° 41' 17"W 1,094.66'N01° 38' 34"W 210.49'N01° 20' 33"W 538.67'730'67'
57'99'26'318'90'472'
155'26'118'S2
7
°
1
4
'
3
3
"
W
9
2
4
.
7
3
'
S01° 14' 34"E 378.49'N77° 55' 52"E 649.63'560'S01° 15' 42"E 868.85'S87° 54' 07"W 1,302.79'C160'311'12'237'108'218'105'61'731'
45
152,271 SF
1
408,543 SF
OUTLOT B
180,396 SF
26
10,055 SF
31
10,935 SF
8
18,249 SF
2
38,362 SF
4
24,692 SF
3
23,849 SF
10
16,187 SF
5
29,154 SF
6
21,846 SF
28
14,514 SF
33
8,505 SF
19
28,143 SF17
11,818 SF
"A"
184,197 SF
27
10,822 SF
29
16,365 SF
30
14,169 SF32
8,575 SF35
8,204 SF37
8,540 SF
38
9,621 SF
40
9,375 SF
36
8,127 SF
34
8,200 SF
39
9,116 SF
14
23,014 SF
23
15,470 SF
24
14,962 SF
25
15,388 SF
44
12,329 SF
7
18,571 SF
9
19,405 SF
22
23,866 SF21
27,448 SF20
27,505 SF
11
19,207 SF
16
19,661 SF
15
20,818 SF
13
23,682 SF
12
18,886 SF
18
27,173 SF43
10,612 SF 41
9,907 SF
42
9,617 SF
PROJECT
LOCATION
Ralston Creek
NOT TO SCALE
N. SCOTT BOULEVARDN. 1ST AVENUE HICKORYTERRY FAMILY
REVOCABLE TRUS
T
HICKORY HEIGHTS
BK 44, PG 144
HICKORY HILL PAR
K
HICKORY HILL PAR
K HICKORY HILL PARK1213141516
0 50 100
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 11, 2021 - 2:36pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Plats\200194-PP.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:C2.00 G. JOSEPH CLARKCONCEPT PLANHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLANPRELIMINARY20-0194WELCHCONCEPT PLAN
HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES
IOWA CITY, IOWA
UPDATED FEBRUARY 11, 2021
PROJECT VICINITY MAP
1
35'
48'TRAILHICKORY HILL PARKHICKORY HILL PARK60'
67'
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
EXISTING
TRAILS
263'
132'
188'
83'
OAK KNOLL
ENTRANCE
35'
35'
LEGEND:
PARK DEDICATION
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
ACT, INC
PROJECT DATA:
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AREA 48.75 ACRES
PARK DEDICATION AREA 10.86 ACRES
WWWWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
S
S
S
S
S
S
SSSSSSSSS SSSSSSW
WW 23'87'69'69'64'
13'
58'289'
75'294'
2
7
5
'29'41'23'
2
8
5
'23'41'
29'91'18'152
'75'235'122'225'87'161'105'
47'96'41'41'107'C1
60'WWWWWW
W
W
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
W
WST
ST
ST
STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTLOT AREA
10,992 SF
LOT AREA
14,811 SF
LOT AREA
14,705 SF
LOT AREA
9,513 SF
LOT AREA
8,751 SF
LOT AREA
8,539 SF
LOT AREA
11,421 SF
LOT AREA
12,435 SF
LOT AREA
10,355 SF
LOT AREA
8,352 SF 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
45
OUTLOT A
44 9
770
772
774
776
770770
760752754756758764766768760770758762764766768760
770
762
764
766
768770766768 78'
60'
30'
20'45'30'16'60'60'34'16'45'1
5
'
4
2
'
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 11, 2021 - 4:47pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Sheets\Condos\200194 - Condo.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:C2.10 G. JOSEPH CLARKLOT 45CONDOMINIUM:CONCEPT PLANHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLANPRELIMINARY20-0194WELCH0 20 40
N. SC
O
T
T
B
L
V
D
HICKO
R
Y
T
R
AI
L
UNIT 1
STYLE "A"
UNIT 2
STYLE "A"
UNIT 3
STYLE "B"
UNIT 4
STYLE "A"
UNIT 5
STYLE "B"
UNIT 6
STYLE "B"
UNIT 7
STYLE "A"
UNIT 8
STYLE "B"
UNIT 9
STYLE "A"
UNIT 10
STYLE "B"
SITE INFORMATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT 45 HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES (PLAT PENDING APPROVAL)
TOTAL LOT AREA: 152,271 SF (3.50 AC)
PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT
DETACHED, SINGLE-FAMILY CONDOMINIUM
10 UNITS - 2,863 SF FOOTPRINT (EACH)
ZONING INFORMATION
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE - LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (OPD/RS-5)
SETBACKS AND YARDS
FRONT YARD 15 FEET
SIDE YARD 5 FEET
REAR YARD 20 FEET
N. SCOTT BLVD 40 FEET
MINIMUM LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS
MIN. LOT AREA 8,000 SF
MIN. LOT WIDTH 60 FEET
MIN. LOT FRONTAGE 40 FEET
MAX. LOT COVERAGE 45 %
FLOOD ELEVATION
N/A
HICKORY COMMONS(PRIVATE DRIVE)25'
26'℄ PAVEMENTTYPICAL 26' PRIVATE DRIVE SECTION
NOT TO SCALE 1
7" PCC PAVEMENT
26'
13'13'12'
5'
6" SUBBASE
6" SUBDRAIN
2.50%2.50%
4" PCC SIDEWALK
1.50%
BUILDING INFORMATION
EXTERIOR FINISHES:
ROOFING:CERTAINTEED LANDMARK WEATHERED WOOD SINGLES
MASONRY:ELDORADO STONE - MONTICETO CLIFFSTON
WINDOWS:ANDERSON 200-SERIES
SIDING:DIAMOND KOTE LP SMART SIDE
COLOR OPTION 1
SIDING FRENCH GRAY (LP SMART SIDE)
SOFFIT & FASCIA WHITE (ROLEX)
TRIM WHITE (DIAMOND KOTE)
GARAGE DOORS WHITE
FRONT DOOR SW ROYCROFT COPPER RED (SW#2839)
COLOR OPTION 2
SIDING FRENCH GRAY (LP SMART SIDE)
SOFFIT & FASCIA CLAY (ROLEX)
TRIM CLAY (DIAMOND KOTE)
GARAGE DOORS SANDSTONE
FRONT DOOR SW ROYCROFT BRONZE GREEN (SW#2846)
COLOR OPTION 3
SIDING CLAY (LP SMART SIDE)
SOFFIT & FASCIA WHITE (ROLEX)
TRIM CLAY (DIAMOND KOTE)
GARAGE DOORS SANDSTONE
FRONT DOOR SW ROYCROFT PEWTER (SW#2848)AB12-17-202002-11-2021REZONING APPLICATIONRESPOND TO CITY REVIEW COMMENTS
95'
276'108'
195'
114'
1,303'
26'
90'472'155'26'
N77° 55' 52"E 649.63'
560'S01° 15' 42"E 868.85'S87° 54' 07"W 1,
3
0
2
.
7
9
'
237'
108'
218'
105'61'731'ST
ST
ST
ST
ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST740 750760740750760730730
710720730720
70
0
71
0 720730
0 20 40
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 11, 2021 - 4:35pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Sheets\Senior\200194 - Senior - Site Plan.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:C2.20 G. JOSEPH CLARKLOT 1SENIOR LIVING:CONCEPT PLANHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLANPRELIMINARY20-0194WELCH16.58'
15.93'
15.65'21'
21'21'
15.34'
17.9'
6'
19'
26'
12'
R101'
R75'
R50'
R76'
17'19'26'
19'
24'
19'26'19'
19'
24'
19'
6'
19'26'19'
23
A
R100'R126'
R40'R66'
R10'
R30'
R15'R20'
R25'
R15'
R250'
R174'
R200'
SITE INFORMATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT 1 HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES (PLAT PENDING APPROVAL)
TOTAL LOT AREA: 408,543 SF (9.38 AC)
PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT
SENIOR LIVING FACILITY
ASSISTED LIVING
1 GUEST SUITE 1 BED
74 ONE BEDROOM 74 BEDS
14 TWO BEDROOMS 28 BEDS
TOTAL 135 BEDS
MEMORY CARE 32 BEDS
GROSS BUILDING FOOTPRINT 69,060 SF
ZONING INFORMATION
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE - LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (OPD/RS-5)
SETBACKS AND YARDS (MULTI-FAMILY)
FRONT YARD 20 FEET
SIDE YARD 10 FEET
REAR YARD 20 FEET
HEIGHT 40 FEET REQUESTING VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT GREATER THAN 35'
MINIMUM LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS
MIN. LOT AREA 8,000 SF
MIN. LOT WIDTH 60 FEET
MIN. LOT FRONTAGE 40 FEET
MAX LOT COVERAGE 45 %
MAX. SETBACK COVERAGE 50 %
BUILDING WIDTH ALONG FRONTAGE 212.33 FEET
LOT FRONTAGE WIDTH 668 FEET
SETBACK COVERAGE 32 %
LOT COVERAGE 69,060 / 408,543 = 17 %
FLOOD ELEVATION
N/A
PARKING CALCULATIONS:
USE REQUIREMENT # OF STALLS
MEMORY CARE 1 STALL PER 3 BEDS 32 BEDS 11
ASSISTED LIVING 1 STALL PER 3 BEDS 103 BEDS 34
STAFF 1 STALL PER EMPLOYEE 40 EMPLOYEES*40
TOTAL REQUIRED = 85
* NUMBER OF PERSONS EMPLOYED AT THE FACILITY
PARKING PROVIDED =86
ACCESSIBLE PARKING PROVIDED =4
TOTAL PROVIDED =9021
12
6
8
20
100.4'
184.9'
46.6'
102.6'
A
A
A
A
PROPOSED BUILDING
HICKORY TRAIL
A RETAINING WALL
KEYNOTES:
212.33'AB12-17-202002-11-2021REZONING APPLICATIONRESPOND TO CITY REVIEW COMMENTS
OUTLOT A
444,957 SF
45
174,338 SF
1
408,543 SF
OUTLOT B
268,843 SF
26
10,055 SF
31
10,935 SF
13
19,662 SF
12
15,228 SF
11
14,759 SF
8
15,273 SF
42
10,875 SF
2
21,495 SF
41
11,019 SF
4
17,320 SF
3
16,893 SF
10
14,534 SF
5
16,855 SF
6
15,250 SF
28
14,514 SF
33
8,505 SF
19
26,135 SF17
11,818 SF
15
20,234 SF
14
20,903 SF
"A"
184,197 SF
27
10,822 SF
29
16,365 SF
30
14,169 SF32
8,575 SF35
8,204 SF37
8,540 SF
38
9,621 SF
40
9,375 SF
36
8,127 SF
34
8,200 SF
39
9,116 SF
18
27,249 SF
23
15,470 SF
24
14,962 SF
25
15,388 SF
44
14,501 SF 43
12,313 SF
7
15,131 SF
9
17,145 SF
16
19,657 SF
22
22,091 SF21
23,528 SF20
21,929 SF STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST ST
ST ST
ST STST
ST
STSTSTSTST
ST
STSTSTST
ST
STSTST
ST
01-CCT
01-QBS
01-CCT
01-CKY
01-OVE
01-RPC
01-OVE
01-RPC
01-ZSM
01-ZSM
01-CCT
01-CCT
01-QBS
01-RPC 01-NSB
01-UAA 01-CSN
01-CSN
01-BNR
01-QBS
01-CBF
01-CCA 01-CCA
01-QRL 01-CCA
01-CSN
01-BAY
01-OVE
01-QRL 01-ZSM 01-ZSM 01-NSB
01-RPC
01-LTT
01-RPC
01-PTH
01-ZSM
01-BPP
01-PXA
01-CKY
01-NSB
01-CSN
01-BPF
01-UTR
01-URR
01-ZSM
01-UPC
01-LTT
01-CKY
01-LTT
01-PTH
01-UPC
01-LTT
01-CKY
01-URR
01-UTR
01-PTH
01-BPF
01-CSN
01-CSN
01-CKY
01-CKY
01-NSB
01-PXA
01-PXA
01-ZSM
01-PTH
01-RPC
01-RPC
01-PXA
01-LTT
01-NSB01-ZSM01-LTT01-OVE01-BAY
01-QRL01-CSN01-CCA01-CCA
01-QBS
01-BNR
01-CBF
01-CBF
01-PXA
01-CCT01-QBS
01-CSN
01-NSB
01-RPC
01-NSB
01-RPC
01-CCT
01-PXA
01-CCT
01-QBS
01-PXA
01-OVE
01-CKY01-CCT
N. SCOTT BOULEVARDSHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 10, 2021 - 1:29pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Sheets\Subdivision\200194 - L Sheets.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:L1.00 G. JOSEPH CLARKLANDSCAPE PLANHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLAN20-0194WELCHHICKORY TRA
I
L HICKORY TRAIL0 40 80
LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCHEDULE
LANDSCAPE LEGEND
PLANTS:
PROPOSED DECIDUOUS STREET TREE
-SPECIES AS LABELED; PLANTING LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED BY DRIVES
AND SIGHT TRIANGLES
ID QTY.BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME ROOT SPACING
STREET TREE PLANTING
BAY 2 Betula alleghaniensis
YELLOW BIRCH BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
BNR 2 Betula nigra
RIVER BIRCH BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
BPF 2 Betula platyphylla 'Fargo' DAKOTA PINNACLE
DAKOTA PINNACLE BIRCH BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
BPP 1 Betula papyrifera
PAPER BIRCH BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
CBF 3 Carpinus betulus 'Fastigiata'
COMMON HORNBEAM BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
CCA 5 Carpinus caroliniana
AMERICAN HORNBEAM BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
CCT 8 Corylus colurna
TURKISH FILBERT BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
CKY 7 Cladrastis kentuckea
YELLOW WOOD BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
CSN 8 Catalpa speciosa
NORTHERN CATALPA BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
LTT 6 Liriodendron tulipifera
TULIP TREE BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
NSB 7 Nyssa sylvatica
BLACK GUM BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
OVE 5 Ostrya virginiana
EASTERN HOP HORNBEAM BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
PTH 4 Ptelea trifoliata
HOP TREE BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
PXA 7 Platanus x acerifolia
LONDON PLANE TREE BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
QBS 6 Quercus bicolor
SWAMP WHITE OAK BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
QRL 3 Quercus rubra 'Long'
RED OAK BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
RPC 9 Robinia psuedoacacia 'Chicago Blues'
BLACK LOCUST BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
UAA 1 Ulmus americana
AMERICAN ELM BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
UPC 2 Ulmus parvifolia
CHINESE ELM BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
URR 2 Ulmus rubra
RED ELM BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
UTR 2 Ulmus thomasii
ROCK ELM BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
ZSM 8 Zelkova serrata 'Musashino'
ZELKOVA BB 30' TYP./AS
SHOWN
100 TREES PROVIDED*
* 10% GENUS AND 5% MAX. SPECIES DISTRIBUTION INCLUDED.
NURSERY MATCHED, QUALITY SPECIMEN; MIN. OF 1.5" TRUNK DIAMETER AT 6" ABOVE GRADE
OUTLOT A
473,268 SF
45
152,271 SF
8
18,249 SF
4
24,692 SF
5
29,154 SF
6
21,846 SF
"A"
184,197 SF
44
12,329 SF
7
18,571 SF
9
19,405 SF
ST
ST
ST
STSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTSTST02-SR
01-RP
03-PX
03-CC
01-PX
02-QR
02-QM
02-QB
01-QM
02-PA
01-PA
03-PC
03-BP
01-RP
03-CA
01-BF
01-RP
03-PX
03-CC
01-PX
03-CC
01-RP
01-BF
03-CA
01-RP
01-BF
01-RP
03-BP
03-PC
01-SR
02-PA
01-QM
03-PC
SEED/SOD ALL
DISTURBED AREAS
SEED/SOD ALL
DISTURBED AREAS
SEED/SOD ALL
DISTURBED AREAS
04-QM
03-QB
03-QR
03-QM
03-QB
LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCHEDULE
0 20 40
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 11, 2021 - 4:31pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Sheets\Subdivision\200194 - L Sheets.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:L2.00 G. JOSEPH CLARKLOT 45CONDOMINIUM:LANDSCAPE PLANHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLANPRELIMINARY20-0194WELCHLANDSCAPE PLANTING REQUIREMENTS
STREET TREES:
1 TREE / 60 LF (DOUBLE FRONTAGE)
941 LF FRONTAGE / 60 = 15.68
23 LARGE AND SMALL TREES PROVIDED
RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS:
01 TREE PER UNIT PROVIDED
LANDSCAPE LEGEND
PLANTS:
PROPOSED DECIDUOUS LARGE TREE
PROPOSED DECIDUOUS SMALL TREE
PROPOSED EVERGREEN TREE
DECIDUOUS SHRUB
EVERGREEN SHRUB
ORNAMENTAL GRASSES/FLOWERS
GROUND COVER:
SOD/SEED TURF IN ALL DISTURBED AREAS
N. SC
O
T
T
B
L
V
D
HICKO
R
Y
T
R
AI
L
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY SETBACK
WATER
TELECOM
GAS
ELECTRIC
SANITARY SEWER
STORM SEWER
EXISTING EASEMENT
TREE PROTECTION FENCING
EXISTING CONTOUR
TREE REMOVAL LIMITS AT EDGE OF CONSERVATION
EASEMENT
LEGEND
EVERGREEN TREE
ORNAMENTAL TREE
TALL FESCUE/ SHORT
GRASS PRAIRIE MIX
SHADE TREE
SHRUB /
PERENNIAL
TURFGRASS
WWW
W
W
W
W
W W W W W W
WWWWWWWWWW W
SS SS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSWWWWW
W
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW2 GD
REFER TO L1.00 FOR
STREET TREE SPECIES
1 CO
1 QC
1 MA
3 MXP
3 PG
1 PA
1 CG
2 CR
1 QM
1 PA
2 TC
2 CR
1 CO
3 GD
2 CR
1 QC
2 QM
2 CR
1 WF
3 MXP
3 PS1 CO
1 PA
1 CR1 QC
1 QM
3 GD
1 TC
2 GT
1 AG
1 WF
1 MS
3 CG
1 MS
3 AG
1 CR
1 CG
3 TC
2 PA
1 CG
1 MA
1 CO
4 TC 6 MXP
3 GD
1 GT
1 NS
1 GT
2 SR
1 GT
1 MA
1 GT
2 MA
1 CO
1 GT
1 GT
3 MXS 3 MXS
1 MA
40 DK
29 JH
3 HV
24 DK
9 JH
1 MXS
32 ST
7 DK
5 TD
8 BB
8 TD
9 DK
20 ST
40 DK
30 ST
7 DK
5 TD
8 BB
3 TD
9 ST
7 DK
21 JH
3 HV
41 DK
10 JH
1 SR
27 PO
23 BB
27 PO
92 PO
3 IV
2 TD
1 RL
3 BZ
2 RL
2 TD
4 IV
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 10, 2021 - 3:25pm Z:\Projects2\20042-IC SENIOR LIVING\04 CAD\03 Current\20042-PP_PLANTING PLAN.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:L3.00 G. JOSEPH CLARKLOT 1SENIOR LIVINGLANDSCAPE PLANHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLANPRELIMINARY20-0194WELCH[ landscape architects ]
genus
T 515 284 1010
WWW.GENUS-LA.COM
325 EAST 5 STREET
DES MOINES, IA 50309
TH
0 20 40
1.CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE AND VERIFY ALL EXISTING UTILITY
LINES PRIOR TO PLANTING AND SHALL REPORT ANY CONFLICTS TO
THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
2.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES
(LINES, DUCTS, CONDUITS, SLEEVES, FOOTINGS, ETC.) WITH
LOCATIONS OF PROPOSED LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS (FENCE,
FOOTINGS, TREE ROOTBALLS, ETC.). CONTRACTOR SHALL REPORT
ANY DISCREPANCIES TO ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONTINUING WORK.
3.ALL WORK SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE WORK OF OTHER
TRADES.
4.IF DISCREPANCIES EXIST BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF PLANTS
DRAWN ON THE PLANTING PLAN AND THE NUMBER OF PLANTS IN
THE SCHEDULE, THE NUMBER OF PLANTS ON PLAN SHALL GOVERN.
5.ALL PLANT MATERIALS MUST CONFORM TO AMERICAN STANDARDS
FOR NURSERY STOCK ANSI Z 60.1, OR LATEST EDITION PUBLISHED
BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN, WASHINGTON
D.C. LARGER SIZED PLANT MATERIALS OF THE SPECIES LISTED
MAY BE USED IF THE STOCK CONFORMS TO THE A.S.N.S.
6.ANY PROPOSED SUBSTITUTIONS OF PLANT SPECIES SHALL BE
MADE WITH PLANTS OF EQUIVALENT OVERALL FORM, HEIGHT,
BRANCHING HABIT, FLOWER, LEAF, COLOR, FRUIT AND CULTURE,
AND ONLY AFTER WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT.
7.OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO SUBSTITUTE PLANT MATERIAL
TYPE, SIZE, AND/OR QUANTITY.
8.STAKE LOCATION OF ALL PROPOSED PLANTING FOR APPROVAL BY
THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT A MINIMUM OF 48 HOURS PRIOR TO
THE COMMENCEMENT OF PLANTING.
9.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DAMAGE DUE TO
OPERATIONS INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
PER PLAN. ANY AREAS OUTSIDE THE LIMIT OF WORK THAT ARE
DISTURBED SHALL BE RESTORED TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION AT
NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER.
10.THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND MATERIALS INJURIOUS TO PLANT
GROWTH FROM PLANTING PITS AND BEDS PRIOR TO BACKFILLING
WITH PLANTING SOIL.
11.UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, TREES TO BE CENTERED IN PLANTING
AREAS.
12.TO AVOID DISRUPTION TO EXISTING TREES, HAND DIGGING
REQUIRED WITHIN DRIP LINE OF TREES. NO TREE ROOTS OVER 1"
IN DIAMETER ARE TO BE CUT.
13.PROVIDE SHREDDED HARDWOOD BARK MULCH, NATURAL COLOR,
IN ALL PLANT SAUCERS AND PLANTING BEDS TO A 3-INCH MAXIMUM
DEPTH. APPLY PRE-EMERGENT TO ALL PLANTING BEDS PRIOR TO
MULCHING.
14.NEW TREES LOCATED OUTSIDE OF PLANT BEDS, SHALL BE
PLANTED A MINIMUM OF SIX FEET AWAY FROM PLANT BED.
15.NO TREES OR SHRUBS SHALL BE PLANTED CLOSER THAN 5' FROM
ANY UTILITY SERVICE VALVE, BASED ON ANTICIPATED TRUNK SIZE.
PLANTING NOTES
OVERSTORY TREES
QTY KEY BOTANICAL COMMON SIZE ROOT NOTES
2 WF ABIES CONCOLOR WHITE FIR 6'-8' HT B&B
6 CR CARPINUS CAROLINIANA AMERICAN HORNBEAM 2" CAL.B&B
6 CO CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS COMMON HACKBERRY 2" CAL.B&B
8 GT GLIDETSIA TRICANTHOS 'SKYLINE'SKYLINE HONEY LOCUST 2" CAL.B&B
11 GD GYMNOCLADUS DIOCUS 'ESPRESSO'ESPRESSO KENTUCKY COFFEE TREE 2" CAL.B&B
8 MA MACCKIA AMURENSIS AMUR MAAKIA 2" CAL.B&B
1 NS NYSSA SYLVANTICA BLACK TUPELO 2" CAL.B&B
5 PA PICEA ABIES NORWAY SPRUCE 6'-8' HT B&B
3 PG PICEA CLAUCA 'DENSATA'BLACK HILLS SPRICE 6'-8' HT B&B
3 PS PINUS STROBUS WHITE PINE 6'-8' HT B&B
3 QC QUERCUS COCCINEA SCARLET OAK 2" CAL.B&B
4 QM QUERCUS MACROCARPA BUR OAK 2" CAL.B&B
10 TC TSUGA CANADENSIS EASTERN HEMLOCK 6'-8' HT B&B
ORNAMENTAL TREES
QTY KEY BOTANICAL COMMON SIZE ROOT NOTES
5 AG AMELANCHIER X GRANDIFLORA 'AUTUMN BRILLIANCE'AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY 8' HT B&B MULTI-STEM
6 CG CRATEGUS CRUS-GALLI VAR. INERMIS THORNLESS COCKSPIR HAWTHRON 2" CAL.B&B
2 MS MAGNOLIA X SOULANGEANA SAUCER MAGNOLIA 8' HT B&B MULTI-STEM
12 MXP MALUS 'PRAIRIE FIRE'PRAIRIE FIRE CRABAPPLE 1.5" CAL.B&B
7 MXS MALUS 'SPRING SNOW'SPRING SNOW CRABAPPLE 1.5" CAL.B&B
3 SR SYRINGA RETICULATA SSP. RETICULATA 'IVORY SILK'IVORY SILK JAPANESE TREE LILAC 2" CAL.B&B
SHRUBS
QTY KEY BOTANICAL COMMON SIZE ROOT MATURE SIZE (HT. X WIDTH)
23 BB CEPHALANTHUS OCCIDENTALIS BUTTONBUSH #1 CONT.6' X 5'
175 DK DIERVILLA 'KODIAK ORANGE'KODIAK ORANGE DIERVILLA 18" HT CONT.4' X 4'
6 HV HAMAMELIS VIRGINIANA WITCH HAZEL 6' HT CONT 10' X 8'
16 BB HYDRANGEA PANICULATA 'ILVOBO' PP#22,782 BOBO HARDY HYDRANGEA #3 CONT.3' X 4'
7 IV ITEA VIRGINICA LITTLE HENRY SWEETSPIRE #3 CONT.3' X 3'
69 JH JUNIPERUS HORIZONTALIS 'HUGHES'HUGHES JUNIPER #3 CONT.1' X 6'
146 PO PHYSOCARPUS OPULIFOLIUS NINEBARK #1 CONT 5' X 4.5'
3 RL RHODODENDRON X 'LANDMARK'LANDMARK RHODODENDRON #3 CONT.4' X 4'
90 ST SPIRAEA BETULIFOLIA 'TOR'TOR SPIREA #3 CONT.3' X 3'
3 BZ SPIRAEA MEDIA DOUBLE PLAY BLUE KAZOO SPIREA #3 CONT.2' X 3'
25 TD TAXUS X MEDIA 'DENSIFORMIS'DENSE SPREADING YEW 48" HT CONT.4' X 6'
[ landscape architects ]
genus
T 515 284 1010
WWW.GENUS-LA.COM
325 EAST 5 STREET
DES MOINES, IA 50309
TH
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 10, 2021 - 3:26pm Z:\Projects2\20042-IC SENIOR LIVING\04 CAD\03 Current\20042-PP_PLANTING PLAN.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:L3.01 G. JOSEPH CLARKLOT 1SENIOR LIVINGLANDSCAPE NOTES & SCHEDULEHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLANPRELIMINARY20-0194WELCH
SET ROOT FLARE 2" ABOVE FINISH
GRADE. REMOVE BURLAP AND WIRE
CAGE FROM TOP HALF OF ROOTBALL.
SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH,
2" THICKNESS
FINISH GRADE
BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE
2X ROOTBALL
1 1/2X ROOTBALL
NOT TO SCALE1OVERSTORY TREE PLANTING
NOT TO SCALE3ORNAMENTAL TREE PLANTING
2X ROOTBALL
NOT TO SCALE4SHRUB PLANTING
2X ROOTBALL
NOT TO SCALE2EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING
SET ROOT FLARE 2" ABOVE FINISH
GRADE. REMOVE BURLAP AND WIRE
CAGE FROM TOP HALF OF ROOTBALL.
SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH,
2" THICKNESS
FINISH GRADE
BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE
SET ROOT FLARE 2" ABOVE FINISH
GRADE. REMOVE BURLAP AND WIRE
CAGE FROM TOP HALF OF ROOTBALL.
SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH,
2" THICKNESS
FINISH GRADE
BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE
SET ROOT FLARE 2" ABOVE FINISH
GRADE. REMOVE BURLAP AND WIRE
CAGE FROM TOP HALF OF ROOTBALL.
SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH,
2" THICKNESS
FINISH GRADE
BACKFILL WITH PLANTING SOIL
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE
EDGE OF PLANTING AREA
O.C.SPACING1/2 O.C.
SPACING
PLANT CENTER
NOT TO SCALE5PERENNIAL PLANTING
ROOTBALL
3/16" x 4" STEEL EDGING,
GALVANIZED
SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH,
2" THICKNESS
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE
[ landscape architects ]
genus
T 515 284 1010
WWW.GENUS-LA.COM
325 EAST 5 STREET
DES MOINES, IA 50309
TH
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Feb 10, 2021 - 3:27pm Z:\Projects2\20042-IC SENIOR LIVING\04 CAD\03 Current\20042-DT_SITE DETAILS.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:L3.02 G. JOSEPH CLARKLOT 1SENIOR LIVINGLANDSCAPE DETAILSHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESPRELIMINARY OPD &SENSITIVE AREAS PLANPRELIMINARY20-0194WELCH
23'87'69'69'1
7
5
'
13'
58'117'193'
75'78'214'
2
0
5
'29'41'23'53'2
2
3
'23'41'
29'91'18'110'174
'75'182'395'352'87'161'105'
47'96'41'41'107'C1
60'
45
OUTLOT A
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
944
770
775
765770770750755760755760765
765770770
775
7
7
5
7757707750 20 40
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Jan 22, 2021 - 4:45pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Sheets\Condos\200194 - Condo - Site Plan.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:C2.00 G. JOSEPH CLARKSITE PLANHICKORY TRAIL COMMONSLOT 45 - HICKORY TRAIL ESTATESNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION20-0194WELCHN. SC
O
T
T
B
L
V
D
HICKO
R
Y
T
R
AI
L
UNIT 1
STYLE "A"
UNIT 2
STYLE "A"
UNIT 3
STYLE "B"
UNIT 4
STYLE "A"
UNIT 5
STYLE "B"
UNIT 6
STYLE "B"
UNIT 7
STYLE "A"
UNIT 8
STYLE "B"
UNIT 9
STYLE "A"
UNIT 10
STYLE "B"
SITE INFORMATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
LOT 45 HICKORY TRAIL ESTATES (PLAT PENDING APPROVAL)
TOTAL LOT AREA: 174,338 SF (4.00 AC)
PURPOSE OF DEVELOPMENT
DETACHED, SINGLE-FAMILY CONDOMINIUM
10 UNITS
ZONING INFORMATION
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE - LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (OPD/RS-5)
SETBACKS AND YARDS
FRONT YARD 15 FEET
SIDE YARD 5 FEET
REAR YARD 20 FEET
N. SCOTT BLVD 40 FEET
MINIMUM LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS
MIN. LOT AREA 8,000 SF
MIN. LOT WIDTH 60 FEET
MIN. LOT FRONTAGE 40 FEET
FLOOD ELEVATION
N/A
HICKORY COMMONS(PRIVATE DRIVE)25'
26'
75.51'℄ PAVEMENTTYPICAL 26' PRIVATE DRIVE SECTION
NOT TO SCALE 1
7" PCC PAVEMENT
26'
13'13'12'
5'
6" SUBBASE
6" SUBDRAIN
2.50%2.50%
4" PCC SIDEWALK
1.50%
BUILDING INFORMATION
EXTERIOR FINISHES:
ROOFING:CERTAINTEED LANDMARK WEATHERED WOOD SINGLES
MASONRY:ELDORADO STONE - MONTICETO CLIFFSTON
WINDOWS:ANDERSON 200-SERIES
SIDING:DIAMOND KOTE LP SMART SIDE
COLOR OPTION 1
SIDING FRENCH GRAY (LP SMART SIDE)
SOFFIT & FASCIA WHITE (ROLEX)
TRIM WHITE (DIAMOND KOTE)
GARAGE DOORS WHITE
FRONT DOOR SW ROYCROFT COPPER RED (SW#2839)
COLOR OPTION 2
SIDING FRENCH GRAY (LP SMART SIDE)
SOFFIT & FASCIA CLAY (ROLEX)
TRIM CLAY (DIAMOND KOTE)
GARAGE DOORS SANDSTONE
FRONT DOOR SW ROYCROFT BRONZE GREEN (SW#2846)
COLOR OPTION 3
SIDING CLAY (LP SMART SIDE)
SOFFIT & FASCIA WHITE (ROLEX)
TRIM CLAY (DIAMOND KOTE)
GARAGE DOORS SANDSTONE
FRONT DOOR SW ROYCROFT PEWTER (SW#2848)
45
174,338 SF
8
15,273 SF
OUTLOT A
444,957 SF
2
21,495 SF
4
17,320 SF
3
16,893 SF
5
16,855 SF
6
15,250 SF
"A"
184,197 SF
44
14,501 SF
7
15,131 SF
9
17,145 SF
02-SR
01-RP
03-PX
03-CC
01-PX
02-QR
02-QM
02-QB
01-QM
02-PA
01-PA
03-PC
03-BP
01-RP
03-CA
01-BF
01-RP
03-PX
03-CC
01-PX
03-CC
01-RP
01-BF
03-CA
01-RP
01-BF
01-RP
03-BP
03-PC
01-SR
02-PA
01-QM
03-PC
SEED/SOD ALL
DISTURBED AREAS
SEED/SOD ALL
DISTURBED AREAS
SEED/SOD ALL
DISTURBED AREAS
04-QM
03-QB
03-QR
03-QM
03-QB
LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCHEDULE
0 20 40
SHEET NUMBER:SHEET NAME:DRAWING LOGENGINEER:REVDATEDESCRIPTION OF CHANGESPROJECT NAME:CLIENT NAME:WWW.AXIOM-CON.COM | (319) 519-6220 Jan 22, 2021 - 4:19pm S:\PROJECTS\2020\200194\05 Design\Civil-Survey\Sheets\Subdivision\200194 - L Sheets.dwg PROJECT NO.:DESIGN PROFESSIONAL:L2.00 G. JOSEPH CLARKLOT 45LANDSCAPING PLANHICKORY TRAIL ESTATESIOWA CITY, IOWA 52245NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION20-0194WELCHLANDSCAPE PLANTING REQUIREMENTS
STREET TREES:
1 TREE / 60 LF (DOUBLE FRONTAGE)
941 LF FRONTAGE / 60 = 15.68
23 LARGE AND SMALL TREES PROVIDED
RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS:
01 TREE PER UNIT PROVIDED
LANDSCAPE LEGEND
PLANTS:
PROPOSED DECIDUOUS LARGE TREE
PROPOSED DECIDUOUS SMALL TREE
PROPOSED EVERGREEN TREE
DECIDUOUS SHRUB
EVERGREEN SHRUB
ORNAMENTAL GRASSES/FLOWERS
GROUND COVER:
SOD/SEED TURF IN ALL DISTURBED AREAS
N. SC
O
T
T
B
L
V
D
HICKO
R
Y
T
R
AI
L
2813 Rockefeller Avenue Suite B Everett WA, 98201
Tel: 425-339-8266 Fax: 425-258-2922 E-mail: info@gibsontraffic.com
Introduction
The Hickory Trail Estates development will consist of 120 continuing care retirement community
(CCRC) units and 55 single-family residences. The development is located south of Scott Boulevard
and west of N 1st Avenue. The development will construct a connection through the development that
will connect Scott Boulevard to N 1st Avenue through Hickory Trail. The development will be
constructed and fully occupied by 2025.
Methodology
The trip generation for the Hickory Trail Estates and the Oaknoll East Retirement Community is
calculated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 10th Edition (2017).
The average trip generation rates for the ITE Land Use Code (LUC) 255, continuing care retirement
community (CCRC) and LUC 210, single-family detached residential, have been used.
The intersection of N 1st Avenue at Scott Boulevard is not being analyzed as part of this report as it
is planned to be upgraded with a City project to a roundabout. The following intersections are being
analyzed as part of this report:
1. N 1st Avenue at Hickory Trail – Two-way Stop Controlled
2. Oaknoll East/Site Access at Scott Blvd – Two-way Stop Controlled
The development is expected to be fully built out and occupied by the year 2025; therefore, the year
2025 was used for future analysis. The analysis has been performed for the existing conditions, 2025
baseline conditions, and 2025 future with development conditions during the AM and PM peak-hours.
Existing counts were collected by AXIOM, on Thursday, January 7, 2021 for the AM and Tuesday,
January 12, 2021 for the PM at the intersection of N 1st Avenue at Hickory Trail.
Traffic volumes are impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the traffic volumes have been increased
by a 35% during the AM peak-hour and 30% during the PM peak-hour. This was determined based
on non-COVID-19 counts at the intersection of N 1st Avenue at Scott Boulevard and comparing link
volumes between the intersections. The 2025 baseline turning movements were calculated by
applying an annually compounding growth rate of 1% to the normalized existing turning volumes.
The 1% growth rate is based on conversations with Iowa City staff. The 2025 future with development
turning movements have been calculated by adding the development’s trips to the 2025 baseline
turning movements.
Hickory Trail Estates Traffic Impact Analysis
Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. January 2021
info@gibsontraffic.com 2 GTC #21-005
The peak-hour level of service (LOS) analysis calculations were completed using the Synchro 10
software. This software applies the operational analysis methodology of the current Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM). Traffic congestion is generally measured in terms of level of service. In
accordance with the HCM 6th Edition, road facilities and intersections are rated between LOS A and
LOS F, with LOS A being free flow and LOS F being forced flow or over-capacity conditions. The
level of service criteria is summarized in Table 1. The level of service at two-way stop-controlled
intersections is based on the average delay of the worst approach. The level of service at signalized
and all-way stop-controlled intersections is based on the average delay for all approaches. Geometric
characteristics and conflicting traffic movements are taken into consideration when determining level
of service values.
Table 1: Level of Service Criteria for Intersections
Level of 1
Service
Expected
Delay
Intersection Control Delay
(Seconds per Vehicle)
Unsignalized
Intersections
Signalized
Intersections
A Little/No Delay <10 <10
B Short Delays >10 and <15 >10 and <20
C Average Delays >15 and <25 >20 and <35
D Long Delays >25 and <35 >35 and <55
E Very Long Delays >35 and <50 >55 and <80
F Extreme Delays2 >50 >80
The acceptable level of service for intersections within Iowa City is LOS C/D and the significance of
impacts on intersections operating at LOS E or LOS F is taken on a case-by-case basis.
1 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition.
LOS A: Free-flow traffic conditions, with minimal delay to stopped vehicles (no vehicle is delayed longer than
one cycle at signalized intersection).
LOS B: Generally stable traffic flow conditions.
LOS C: Occasional back-ups may develop, but delay to vehicles is short term and still tolerable.
LOS D: During short periods of the peak hour, delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial but are
tolerable during times of less demand (i.e. vehicles delayed one cycle or less at signal).
LOS E: Intersections operate at or near capacity, with long queues developing on all approaches and long delays.
LOS F: Jammed conditions on all approaches with excessively long delays and vehicles unable to move at
times.
2 When demand volume exceeds the capacity of the lane, extreme delays will be encountered with queuing which may
cause severe congestion affecting other traffic movements in the intersection.
Hickory Trail Estates Traffic Impact Analysis
Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. January 2021
info@gibsontraffic.com 3 GTC #21-005
TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION
Trip generation calculations for the Hickory Trail Estates are based on national statistics contained in
the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation, 10th Edition (2017). The average
trip generation rates for the ITE Land Use Code (LUC) 255, continuing care retirement community
(CCRC) and LUC 210, single-family detached residential, have been used. There are total of 120
CCRC units and 55 single-family residences.
The Hickory Trail Estates is anticipated to generate 808 new daily trips, 58 new AM peak-hour trips
and 74 new PM peak-hour trips. The trip generation is summarized in Table 2.
Table 2: Trip Generation Summary
Land Uses Average Daily Trips AM Peak-Hour Trips PM Peak-Hour Trips
Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total
LUC 255,
CCRC
120 Units
Generation
Rate 2.40 Trips per Unit 0.14 Trips per Unit 0.16 Trips per Unit
Splits 50% 50% 100% 65% 35% 100% 39% 61% 100
%
Trips 144 144 288 11 6 17 7 12 19
LUC 210,
Single
Family
Dwelling,
55 Units
Generation
Rate 9.44 Trips per Unit 0.75 Trips per Unit 0.99 Trips per Unit
Splits 50% 50% 100% 25% 75% 100% 63% 37% 100
%
Trips 260 260 520 10 31 41 35 20 55
TOTAL 404 404 808 21 37 58 42 32 74
The trip generation calculations are included in the attachments.
The Oaknoll East development on the north side of Scott Boulevard is not occupied so the trip
generation was estimated for the access opposite the proposed site access by using LUC 255 for 56
units. This generated 8 AM peak-hour trips (5 Inbound/3 Outbound) and 9 PM peak-hour trips (4
Inbound/5 Outbound). These trips were distributed on Scott Boulevard based on the roadway traffic
split of 55% to/from the west and 45% to/from the east.
Trip distribution and traffic assignments for the development are based on the existing turning
movement counts and the splits between Scott Boulevard and N 1st Avenue. It is anticipated that 45%
of the development traffic would travel to and from the west on Scott Boulevard and 15% to and from
the east of N 1st Avenue on Scott Boulevard. The remaining 40% would travel to and from the south
on N 1st Avenue from Hickory Trail. The development trips are included in the turning movement
sheets for the AM and PM peak-hours.
Hickory Trail Estates Traffic Impact Analysis
Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. January 2021
info@gibsontraffic.com 4 GTC #21-005
Level of Service Analysis
The existing channelization at the study intersections as well as the existing peak-hour factors were
utilized in determining the level of service analysis. The turning movements are included in the
attachments. The level of service analysis for the normalized existing, 2025 baseline, and 2025 future
with development conditions is summarized in Table 3.
Table 3: Intersection Level of Service Summary
Intersection Time
Period
Normalized
Existing
Conditions
2025 Baseline
Conditions
2025 Future
with Development
Conditions
LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay
1.
N 1st Avenue at
Hickory Trail
AM D 25.4 sec D 26.4 sec D 29.3 sec
PM C 18.5 sec C 19.5 sec C 21.3 sec
1.
Oaknoll East/Site Access at
Scott Boulevard
AM C 18.6 sec C 20.3 sec D 33.9 sec
PM C 20.1 sec C 22.0 sec D 34.1 sec
The study intersection is expected to operate at an acceptable LOS D or better in the normalized
existing, 2025 baseline and 2025 future with development conditions during both the AM and PM
peak-hours.
Collision Data
Collision Data was compiled for the years 2018 through 2020 from the Iowa DOT Iowa Crash
Analysis Tool for the intersection of N 1st Avenue at Hickory Trail and along Scott Boulevard in the
vicinity of the Site access. There were two collisions (one rear-end and one sideswipe) at the
intersection of N 1st Avenue and Hickory Trail. The collisions resulted in property damage and
possible injury. In the approximate location of the access to Scott Boulevard there was one rear-end
collision that resulted in a suspected minor injury. At both locations there was no collision trend or
significant collision history associated with the geometry of the road network. The detailed crash
reports are included in the attachments.
Channelization Warrant
Channelization analysis was performed determine if left-turn channelization is warranted on Scott
Boulevard. The left-turn channelization requirements at the intersection have been evaluated using
the WSDOT Design Manual. The left-turn channelization has been evaluated using Exhibit 1310-
7a Left-Turn Storage Guidelines: Two-Lane Unsignalized. The analysis shows that the small number
of left-turns does not reach the percentage threshold for requiring a dedicated pocket. It should be
noted that there is sufficient roadway width to restripe the roadway to provide a left-turn pocket if it
becomes warranted in the future.
Hickory Trail Estates Traffic Impact Analysis
Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. January 2021
info@gibsontraffic.com 5 GTC #21-005
Attachments
Trip Generation A-1 to A-10
Counts B-1 to B-3
Turning Movements C-1 to C-6
Level of Service Calculations D-1 to D-12
Collision Data E-1 to E-2
Channelization Warrant F-1
Hickory Trail EstatesGTC #21-005Trip Generation for: Weekday(a.k.a.): Average Weekday Daily Trips (AWDT)NET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPEIN BOTH DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTSGross TripsInternalCrossoverTOTAL PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEW PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEWLAND USES VARIABLEITE LU codeTripRate%IN%OUTIn+Out(Total)% ofGrossTripsTripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)In Out In Out In OutContinuing Care Retirement 120 units 255 2.40 50%50% 288.000%0 288.000%0.000%0 288.000000144144Single-Family (removed)55 units 210 9.44 50%50% 519.200%0 519.200%0.000%0 519.200000260260Totals807.200 807.200.000 807.200000404404A - 1
Hickory Trail EstatesGTC #21-005Trip Generation for: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour between 7 and 9 AM(a.k.a.): Weekday AM Peak HourNET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPEIN BOTH DIRECTIONSDIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTSGross TripsInternalCrossoverTOTAL PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEW PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEWLAND USESVARIABLEITE LU codeTripRate%IN%OUTIn+Out(Total)% ofGrossTripsTripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)In Out In Out In OutContinuing Care Retirement 120 units 2550.14 65%35% 170%0170%0 0% 0 16.80000010.925.88Single-Family (removed)55 units 2100.74 25%75% 410%0410%0 0% 0 40.70000010.1830.52Totals580 58 0 0 57.50000021.1036.40
A - 2
Hickory Trail EstatesGTC #21-005Trip Generation for: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour between 4 and 6 PM(a.k.a.): Weekday PM Peak HourNET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPEIN BOTH DIRECTIONSDIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTSGross TripsInternalCrossoverTOTAL PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEW PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEWLAND USESVARIABLEITE LU codeTripRate%IN%OUTIn+Out(Total)% ofGrossTripsTripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)In Out In Out In OutContinuing Care Retirement 120 units 2550.16 39%61% 190%0190%00%0 19.2000007.4911.71Single-Family (removed)55 units 2100.99 63%37% 540%0540%00%0 54.45000034.3020.15Totals740 74 0 0 73.65000041.7931.86
A - 3
Hickory Trail Estates
GTC #21-005
New New AM Peak Hour Trips New New AM Peak Hour Trips
ADT In Out Total ADT In Out Total
100% 807.20 21.10 36.40 57.50 100% 807.20 21.10 36.40 57.50
1% 8.07 0.21 0.36 0.58 51% 411.67 10.76 18.56 29.33
2% 16.14 0.42 0.73 1.15 52% 419.74 10.97 18.93 29.90
3% 24.22 0.63 1.09 1.73 53% 427.82 11.18 19.29 30.48
4% 32.29 0.84 1.46 2.30 54% 435.89 11.39 19.66 31.05
5% 40.36 1.06 1.82 2.88 55% 443.96 11.61 20.02 31.63
6% 48.43 1.27 2.18 3.45 56% 452.03 11.82 20.38 32.20
7% 56.50 1.48 2.55 4.03 57% 460.10 12.03 20.75 32.78
8% 64.58 1.69 2.91 4.60 58% 468.18 12.24 21.11 33.35
9% 72.65 1.90 3.28 5.18 59% 476.25 12.45 21.48 33.93
10% 80.72 2.11 3.64 5.75 60% 484.32 12.66 21.84 34.50
11% 88.79 2.32 4.00 6.33 61% 492.39 12.87 22.20 35.08
12% 96.86 2.53 4.37 6.90 62% 500.46 13.08 22.57 35.65
13% 104.94 2.74 4.73 7.48 63% 508.54 13.29 22.93 36.23
14% 113.01 2.95 5.10 8.05 64% 516.61 13.50 23.30 36.80
15% 121.08 3.17 5.46 8.63 65% 524.68 13.72 23.66 37.38
16% 129.15 3.38 5.82 9.20 66% 532.75 13.93 24.02 37.95
17% 137.22 3.59 6.19 9.78 67% 540.82 14.14 24.39 38.53
18% 145.30 3.80 6.55 10.35 68% 548.90 14.35 24.75 39.10
19% 153.37 4.01 6.92 10.93 69% 556.97 14.56 25.12 39.68
20% 161.44 4.22 7.28 11.50 70% 565.04 14.77 25.48 40.25
21% 169.51 4.43 7.64 12.08 71% 573.11 14.98 25.84 40.83
22% 177.58 4.64 8.01 12.65 72% 581.18 15.19 26.21 41.40
23% 185.66 4.85 8.37 13.23 73% 589.26 15.40 26.57 41.98
24% 193.73 5.06 8.74 13.80 74% 597.33 15.61 26.94 42.55
25% 201.80 5.28 9.10 14.38 75% 605.40 15.83 27.30 43.13
26% 209.87 5.49 9.46 14.95 76% 613.47 16.04 27.66 43.70
27% 217.94 5.70 9.83 15.53 77% 621.54 16.25 28.03 44.28
28% 226.02 5.91 10.19 16.10 78% 629.62 16.46 28.39 44.85
29% 234.09 6.12 10.56 16.68 79% 637.69 16.67 28.76 45.43
30% 242.16 6.33 10.92 17.25 80% 645.76 16.88 29.12 46.00
31% 250.23 6.54 11.28 17.83 81% 653.83 17.09 29.48 46.58
32% 258.30 6.75 11.65 18.40 82% 661.90 17.30 29.85 47.15
33% 266.38 6.96 12.01 18.98 83% 669.98 17.51 30.21 47.73
34% 274.45 7.17 12.38 19.55 84% 678.05 17.72 30.58 48.30
35% 282.52 7.39 12.74 20.13 85% 686.12 17.94 30.94 48.88
36% 290.59 7.60 13.10 20.70 86% 694.19 18.15 31.30 49.45
37% 298.66 7.81 13.47 21.28 87% 702.26 18.36 31.67 50.03
38% 306.74 8.02 13.83 21.85 88% 710.34 18.57 32.03 50.60
39% 314.81 8.23 14.20 22.43 89% 718.41 18.78 32.40 51.18
40% 322.88 8.44 14.56 23.00 90% 726.48 18.99 32.76 51.75
41% 330.95 8.65 14.92 23.58 91% 734.55 19.20 33.12 52.33
42% 339.02 8.86 15.29 24.15 92% 742.62 19.41 33.49 52.90
43% 347.10 9.07 15.65 24.73 93% 750.70 19.62 33.85 53.48
44% 355.17 9.28 16.02 25.30 94% 758.77 19.83 34.22 54.05
45% 363.24 9.50 16.38 25.88 95% 766.84 20.05 34.58 54.63
46% 371.31 9.71 16.74 26.45 96% 774.91 20.26 34.94 55.20
47% 379.38 9.92 17.11 27.03 97% 782.98 20.47 35.31 55.78
48% 387.46 10.13 17.47 27.60 98% 791.06 20.68 35.67 56.35
49% 395.53 10.34 17.84 28.18 99% 799.13 20.89 36.04 56.93
50% 403.60 10.55 18.20 28.75 100% 807.20 21.10 36.40 57.50
%%
AM Peak-Hour
A - 4
Hickory Trail Estates
GTC #21-005
New New PM Peak Hour Trips New New PM Peak Hour Trips
ADT In Out Total ADT In Out Total
100% 807.20 41.79 31.86 73.65 100% 807.20 41.79 31.86 73.65
1% 8.07 0.42 0.32 0.74 51% 411.67 21.31 16.25 37.56
2% 16.14 0.84 0.64 1.47 52% 419.74 21.73 16.57 38.30
3% 24.22 1.25 0.96 2.21 53% 427.82 22.15 16.89 39.03
4% 32.29 1.67 1.27 2.95 54% 435.89 22.57 17.20 39.77
5% 40.36 2.09 1.59 3.68 55% 443.96 22.98 17.52 40.51
6% 48.43 2.51 1.91 4.42 56% 452.03 23.40 17.84 41.24
7% 56.50 2.93 2.23 5.16 57% 460.10 23.82 18.16 41.98
8% 64.58 3.34 2.55 5.89 58% 468.18 24.24 18.48 42.72
9% 72.65 3.76 2.87 6.63 59% 476.25 24.66 18.80 43.45
10% 80.72 4.18 3.19 7.37 60% 484.32 25.07 19.12 44.19
11% 88.79 4.60 3.50 8.10 61% 492.39 25.49 19.43 44.93
12% 96.86 5.01 3.82 8.84 62% 500.46 25.91 19.75 45.66
13% 104.94 5.43 4.14 9.57 63% 508.54 26.33 20.07 46.40
14% 113.01 5.85 4.46 10.31 64% 516.61 26.75 20.39 47.14
15% 121.08 6.27 4.78 11.05 65% 524.68 27.16 20.71 47.87
16% 129.15 6.69 5.10 11.78 66% 532.75 27.58 21.03 48.61
17% 137.22 7.10 5.42 12.52 67% 540.82 28.00 21.35 49.35
18% 145.30 7.52 5.73 13.26 68% 548.90 28.42 21.66 50.08
19% 153.37 7.94 6.05 13.99 69% 556.97 28.84 21.98 50.82
20% 161.44 8.36 6.37 14.73 70% 565.04 29.25 22.30 51.56
21% 169.51 8.78 6.69 15.47 71% 573.11 29.67 22.62 52.29
22% 177.58 9.19 7.01 16.20 72% 581.18 30.09 22.94 53.03
23% 185.66 9.61 7.33 16.94 73% 589.26 30.51 23.26 53.76
24% 193.73 10.03 7.65 17.68 74% 597.33 30.92 23.58 54.50
25% 201.80 10.45 7.97 18.41 75% 605.40 31.34 23.90 55.24
26% 209.87 10.87 8.28 19.15 76% 613.47 31.76 24.21 55.97
27% 217.94 11.28 8.60 19.89 77% 621.54 32.18 24.53 56.71
28% 226.02 11.70 8.92 20.62 78% 629.62 32.60 24.85 57.45
29% 234.09 12.12 9.24 21.36 79% 637.69 33.01 25.17 58.18
30% 242.16 12.54 9.56 22.10 80% 645.76 33.43 25.49 58.92
31% 250.23 12.95 9.88 22.83 81% 653.83 33.85 25.81 59.66
32% 258.30 13.37 10.20 23.57 82% 661.90 34.27 26.13 60.39
33% 266.38 13.79 10.51 24.30 83% 669.98 34.69 26.44 61.13
34% 274.45 14.21 10.83 25.04 84% 678.05 35.10 26.76 61.87
35% 282.52 14.63 11.15 25.78 85% 686.12 35.52 27.08 62.60
36% 290.59 15.04 11.47 26.51 86% 694.19 35.94 27.40 63.34
37% 298.66 15.46 11.79 27.25 87% 702.26 36.36 27.72 64.08
38% 306.74 15.88 12.11 27.99 88% 710.34 36.78 28.04 64.81
39% 314.81 16.30 12.43 28.72 89% 718.41 37.19 28.36 65.55
40% 322.88 16.72 12.74 29.46 90% 726.48 37.61 28.67 66.29
41% 330.95 17.13 13.06 30.20 91% 734.55 38.03 28.99 67.02
42% 339.02 17.55 13.38 30.93 92% 742.62 38.45 29.31 67.76
43% 347.10 17.97 13.70 31.67 93% 750.70 38.86 29.63 68.49
44% 355.17 18.39 14.02 32.41 94% 758.77 39.28 29.95 69.23
45% 363.24 18.81 14.34 33.14 95% 766.84 39.70 30.27 69.97
46% 371.31 19.22 14.66 33.88 96% 774.91 40.12 30.59 70.70
47% 379.38 19.64 14.97 34.62 97% 782.98 40.54 30.90 71.44
48% 387.46 20.06 15.29 35.35 98% 791.06 40.95 31.22 72.18
49% 395.53 20.48 15.61 36.09 99% 799.13 41.37 31.54 72.91
50% 403.60 20.90 15.93 36.83 100% 807.20 41.79 31.86 73.65
%%
PM Peak-Hour
A - 5
Hickory Trail EstatesGTC #21-005Oaknoll East/Hampstead WoodsTrip Generation for: Weekday(a.k.a.): Average Weekday Daily Trips (AWDT)NET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPEIN BOTH DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTSGross TripsInternalCrossoverTOTAL PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEW PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEWLAND USES VARIABLEITE LU codeTripRate%IN%OUTIn+Out(Total)% ofGrossTripsTripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)In Out In Out In OutContinuing Care Retirement 56 units 255 2.40 50%50% 134.400%0 134.400%0.000%0 134.4000006767Totals134.40 0 134.40 0.00 0 134.4000006767A - 6
Hickory Trail EstatesGTC #21-005Oaknoll East/Hampstead WoodsTrip Generation for: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour between 7 and 9 AM(a.k.a.): Weekday AM Peak HourNET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPEIN BOTH DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTSGross TripsInternalCrossoverTOTAL PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEW PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEWLAND USES VARIABLEITE LU codeTripRate%IN%OUTIn+Out(Total)% ofGrossTripsTripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)In Out In Out In OutContinuing Care Retirement 56 units 2550.14 65%35% 80%080%0 0% 0 7.8400005.10 2.74Totals8 0 8 0 0 7.8400005.10 2.74
A - 7
Hickory Trail EstatesGTC #21-005Oaknoll East/Hampstead WoodsTrip Generation for: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour between 4 and 6 PM(a.k.a.): Weekday PM Peak HourNET EXTERNAL TRIPS BY TYPEIN BOTH DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONAL ASSIGNMENTSGross TripsInternalCrossoverTOTAL PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEW PASS-BYDIVERTED LINKNEWLAND USES VARIABLEITE LU codeTripRate%IN%OUTIn+Out(Total)% ofGrossTripsTripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)% ofExt.TripsIn+Out(Total)In+Out(Total)In Out In Out In OutContinuing Care Retirement 56 units 2550.16 39%61% 90%090%00%0 8.9600003.49 5.47Totals9 0 9 0 0 8.9600003.49 5.47
A - 8
Hickory Trail Estates
GTC #21-005
Oaknoll East/Hampstead Woods
New New AM Peak Hour Trips New New AM Peak Hour Trips
ADT In Out Total ADT In Out Total
100% 134.40 5.10 2.74 7.84 100% 134.40 5.10 2.74 7.84
1% 1.34 0.05 0.03 0.08 51% 68.54 2.60 1.40 4.00
2% 2.69 0.10 0.05 0.16 52% 69.89 2.65 1.42 4.08
3% 4.03 0.15 0.08 0.24 53% 71.23 2.70 1.45 4.16
4% 5.38 0.20 0.11 0.31 54% 72.58 2.75 1.48 4.23
5% 6.72 0.26 0.14 0.39 55% 73.92 2.81 1.51 4.31
6% 8.06 0.31 0.16 0.47 56% 75.26 2.86 1.53 4.39
7% 9.41 0.36 0.19 0.55 57% 76.61 2.91 1.56 4.47
8% 10.75 0.41 0.22 0.63 58% 77.95 2.96 1.59 4.55
9% 12.10 0.46 0.25 0.71 59% 79.30 3.01 1.62 4.63
10% 13.44 0.51 0.27 0.78 60% 80.64 3.06 1.64 4.70
11% 14.78 0.56 0.30 0.86 61% 81.98 3.11 1.67 4.78
12% 16.13 0.61 0.33 0.94 62% 83.33 3.16 1.70 4.86
13% 17.47 0.66 0.36 1.02 63% 84.67 3.21 1.73 4.94
14% 18.82 0.71 0.38 1.10 64% 86.02 3.26 1.75 5.02
15% 20.16 0.77 0.41 1.18 65% 87.36 3.32 1.78 5.10
16% 21.50 0.82 0.44 1.25 66% 88.70 3.37 1.81 5.17
17% 22.85 0.87 0.47 1.33 67% 90.05 3.42 1.84 5.25
18% 24.19 0.92 0.49 1.41 68% 91.39 3.47 1.86 5.33
19% 25.54 0.97 0.52 1.49 69% 92.74 3.52 1.89 5.41
20% 26.88 1.02 0.55 1.57 70% 94.08 3.57 1.92 5.49
21% 28.22 1.07 0.58 1.65 71% 95.42 3.62 1.95 5.57
22% 29.57 1.12 0.60 1.72 72% 96.77 3.67 1.97 5.64
23% 30.91 1.17 0.63 1.80 73% 98.11 3.72 2.00 5.72
24% 32.26 1.22 0.66 1.88 74% 99.46 3.77 2.03 5.80
25% 33.60 1.28 0.69 1.96 75% 100.80 3.83 2.06 5.88
26% 34.94 1.33 0.71 2.04 76% 102.14 3.88 2.08 5.96
27% 36.29 1.38 0.74 2.12 77% 103.49 3.93 2.11 6.04
28% 37.63 1.43 0.77 2.20 78% 104.83 3.98 2.14 6.12
29% 38.98 1.48 0.79 2.27 79% 106.18 4.03 2.16 6.19
30% 40.32 1.53 0.82 2.35 80% 107.52 4.08 2.19 6.27
31% 41.66 1.58 0.85 2.43 81% 108.86 4.13 2.22 6.35
32% 43.01 1.63 0.88 2.51 82% 110.21 4.18 2.25 6.43
33% 44.35 1.68 0.90 2.59 83% 111.55 4.23 2.27 6.51
34% 45.70 1.73 0.93 2.67 84% 112.90 4.28 2.30 6.59
35% 47.04 1.79 0.96 2.74 85% 114.24 4.34 2.33 6.66
36% 48.38 1.84 0.99 2.82 86% 115.58 4.39 2.36 6.74
37% 49.73 1.89 1.01 2.90 87% 116.93 4.44 2.38 6.82
38% 51.07 1.94 1.04 2.98 88% 118.27 4.49 2.41 6.90
39% 52.42 1.99 1.07 3.06 89% 119.62 4.54 2.44 6.98
40% 53.76 2.04 1.10 3.14 90% 120.96 4.59 2.47 7.06
41% 55.10 2.09 1.12 3.21 91% 122.30 4.64 2.49 7.13
42% 56.45 2.14 1.15 3.29 92% 123.65 4.69 2.52 7.21
43% 57.79 2.19 1.18 3.37 93% 124.99 4.74 2.55 7.29
44% 59.14 2.24 1.21 3.45 94% 126.34 4.79 2.58 7.37
45% 60.48 2.30 1.23 3.53 95% 127.68 4.85 2.60 7.45
46% 61.82 2.35 1.26 3.61 96% 129.02 4.90 2.63 7.53
47% 63.17 2.40 1.29 3.68 97% 130.37 4.95 2.66 7.60
48% 64.51 2.45 1.32 3.76 98% 131.71 5.00 2.69 7.68
49% 65.86 2.50 1.34 3.84 99% 133.06 5.05 2.71 7.76
50% 67.20 2.55 1.37 3.92 100% 134.40 5.10 2.74 7.84
%%
AM Peak-Hour
A - 9
Hickory Trail Estates
GTC #21-005
Oaknoll East/Hampstead Woods
New New PM Peak Hour Trips New New PM Peak Hour Trips
ADT In Out Total ADT In Out Total
100% 134.40 3.49 5.47 8.96 100% 134.40 3.49 5.47 8.96
1% 1.34 0.03 0.05 0.09 51% 68.54 1.78 2.79 4.57
2% 2.69 0.07 0.11 0.18 52% 69.89 1.81 2.84 4.66
3% 4.03 0.10 0.16 0.27 53% 71.23 1.85 2.90 4.75
4% 5.38 0.14 0.22 0.36 54% 72.58 1.88 2.95 4.84
5% 6.72 0.17 0.27 0.45 55% 73.92 1.92 3.01 4.93
6% 8.06 0.21 0.33 0.54 56% 75.26 1.95 3.06 5.02
7% 9.41 0.24 0.38 0.63 57% 76.61 1.99 3.12 5.11
8% 10.75 0.28 0.44 0.72 58% 77.95 2.02 3.17 5.20
9% 12.10 0.31 0.49 0.81 59% 79.30 2.06 3.23 5.29
10% 13.44 0.35 0.55 0.90 60% 80.64 2.09 3.28 5.38
11% 14.78 0.38 0.60 0.99 61% 81.98 2.13 3.34 5.47
12% 16.13 0.42 0.66 1.08 62% 83.33 2.16 3.39 5.56
13% 17.47 0.45 0.71 1.16 63% 84.67 2.20 3.45 5.64
14% 18.82 0.49 0.77 1.25 64% 86.02 2.23 3.50 5.73
15% 20.16 0.52 0.82 1.34 65% 87.36 2.27 3.56 5.82
16% 21.50 0.56 0.88 1.43 66% 88.70 2.30 3.61 5.91
17% 22.85 0.59 0.93 1.52 67% 90.05 2.34 3.66 6.00
18% 24.19 0.63 0.98 1.61 68% 91.39 2.37 3.72 6.09
19% 25.54 0.66 1.04 1.70 69% 92.74 2.41 3.77 6.18
20% 26.88 0.70 1.09 1.79 70% 94.08 2.44 3.83 6.27
21% 28.22 0.73 1.15 1.88 71% 95.42 2.48 3.88 6.36
22% 29.57 0.77 1.20 1.97 72% 96.77 2.51 3.94 6.45
23% 30.91 0.80 1.26 2.06 73% 98.11 2.55 3.99 6.54
24% 32.26 0.84 1.31 2.15 74% 99.46 2.58 4.05 6.63
25% 33.60 0.87 1.37 2.24 75% 100.80 2.62 4.10 6.72
26% 34.94 0.91 1.42 2.33 76% 102.14 2.65 4.16 6.81
27% 36.29 0.94 1.48 2.42 77% 103.49 2.69 4.21 6.90
28% 37.63 0.98 1.53 2.51 78% 104.83 2.72 4.27 6.99
29% 38.98 1.01 1.59 2.60 79% 106.18 2.76 4.32 7.08
30% 40.32 1.05 1.64 2.69 80% 107.52 2.79 4.38 7.17
31% 41.66 1.08 1.70 2.78 81% 108.86 2.83 4.43 7.26
32% 43.01 1.12 1.75 2.87 82% 110.21 2.86 4.49 7.35
33% 44.35 1.15 1.81 2.96 83% 111.55 2.90 4.54 7.44
34% 45.70 1.19 1.86 3.05 84% 112.90 2.93 4.59 7.53
35% 47.04 1.22 1.91 3.14 85% 114.24 2.97 4.65 7.62
36% 48.38 1.26 1.97 3.23 86% 115.58 3.00 4.70 7.71
37% 49.73 1.29 2.02 3.32 87% 116.93 3.04 4.76 7.80
38% 51.07 1.33 2.08 3.40 88% 118.27 3.07 4.81 7.88
39% 52.42 1.36 2.13 3.49 89% 119.62 3.11 4.87 7.97
40% 53.76 1.40 2.19 3.58 90% 120.96 3.14 4.92 8.06
41% 55.10 1.43 2.24 3.67 91% 122.30 3.18 4.98 8.15
42% 56.45 1.47 2.30 3.76 92% 123.65 3.21 5.03 8.24
43% 57.79 1.50 2.35 3.85 93% 124.99 3.25 5.09 8.33
44% 59.14 1.54 2.41 3.94 94% 126.34 3.28 5.14 8.42
45% 60.48 1.57 2.46 4.03 95% 127.68 3.32 5.20 8.51
46% 61.82 1.61 2.52 4.12 96% 129.02 3.35 5.25 8.60
47% 63.17 1.64 2.57 4.21 97% 130.37 3.39 5.31 8.69
48% 64.51 1.68 2.63 4.30 98% 131.71 3.42 5.36 8.78
49% 65.86 1.71 2.68 4.39 99% 133.06 3.46 5.42 8.87
50% 67.20 1.75 2.74 4.48 100% 134.40 3.49 5.47 8.96
%%
PM Peak-Hour
A - 10
Counted by AXIOM on Thursday, January 7, 2021.AM Peak‐HourInt PHF 0.76290 553 263StartPeak0 285 51 254 8TimeHour 07:00 AM02501031350000654460N 1st Avenue807:15 AM045020614701001025800003807:30 AM0522208251010111960803007:45 AM0791105106202001605856 Hickory Trail 608 Hickory Trail 63North08:00 AM0100140967801001995381508:15 AM054110826301001306002508:30 AM04322064380100965N 1st Avenue2008:45 AM04604044550000113PH Sum0285580302025405016085 285 300 254 20320 594 274Counted by AXIOM on Tuesday, January 12, 2021.PM Peak‐HourInt PHF 0.91302 594 292StartPeak0 289 130 287 5TimeHour 03:00 PM061030786010001405670N 1st Avenue503:15 PM143540549810011625811002403:30 PM0520007678010014456911903:45 PM158020255300001215872 Hickory Trail 639 Hickory Trail 61North04:00 PM06722041168000015461701304:15 PM061530576900001506391003704:30 PM060210478800001626341N 1st Avenue2404:45 PM0803106457000015162305:00 PM088300467311001765571 289 191 287 2405:15 PM066340312561000145309 621 31205:30 PM1686306562000015105:45 PM0473003427010085PH Sum0289135019242871100639TotalsPeakRight Thru Left Right Thru LeftLeft Right Thru LeftHickory TrailFrom WestRight Thru Left Right Thru LeftFrom EastN. 1st AvenueFrom SouthFrom North From East From SouthN. 1st Avenue Hickory Trail N. 1st AvenueHickory TrailFrom WestRight Thru Left Right Thru Left Right ThruN. 1st AvenueFrom NorthHickory TrailB - 1
Start Time Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left Peds Right Thru Left PedsTotals Peak Hr?LEG 1 LEG 2 LEG 3 LEG 4 INTERSECT07:15 AM110066400097606429112511226 2 70 85 94 25107:30 AM010095800059608640002951226 1 67 101 126 29507:45 AM001016780111210408449003451153 1 94 117 133 34508:00 AM00301164101108811074550335 3769915733508:15 AM1410224310018710652320251 666899025108:30 AM003093220012800632100222 3439284222Pk hr total155058243212453591342157701226 % of mvmt9% 45% 45%19% 80% 1%0% 11% 88%68% 31% 1%% of ttl traffic 0% 0% 0%5% 20% 0%0% 4% 29%28% 13% 1%movement %1%25%33%41%PHFBy Movem#DIV/0! #DIV/0! 1.250.91 0.78 #DIV/0!0.50 0.94 0.861.02 0.80 #DIV/0!Approach2.750.810.870.95Intersection0.89Trucks# Trucks000 000 000 000# All vehic1 5 558 243 22 45 359342 157 7% Trucks0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%Bikes# Bikes000 000 000 000# All vehicl1 5 558 243 22 45 359342 157 7% Bikes0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%15 min Vehicle Approach Totals N 1ST AVENUE N SCOTT BOULEVARD N 1ST AVENUE N SCOTT BOULEVARD N 1ST AVENUE N SCOTT BOULEVARD N 1ST AVENUE N SCOTT BOULEVARD Comment 3: Select File/Preference in the Main ScreeComment 4: Then Click the Comments TabN 1ST AVENUE From NorthN SCOTT BOULEVARD From EastN 1ST AVENUE From SouthN SCOTT BOULEVARD From WestSite Code: 00000000Comment 1: Default CommentsComment 2: Change These in The Preferences WindowFile Name: S:\JCCOG\TRANS\Traffic Counts\Peak Hr\Iowa City\N 1st Ave & N Scott Blvd - AM - Aug18.ppdStart Date: 8/29/2018Start Time: 7:15:00 AM
B - 2
Intersection Peak Hour
Location: 1st Ave at Scott Blvd ,
GPS Coordinates:
Date: 2018-09-06
Day of week: Thursday
Weather:
Analyst: NB
SB: 1st Ave
EB: Scott BlvdWB: Scott BlvdNB: 1st Ave
6
224
336
9
200
0
27 45 35
378 7 2
Intersection Peak Hour
16:15 - 17:15
SouthBound Westbound Northbound Eastbound
Total
Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right
Vehicle Total 35 45 27 0 200 9 378 7 2 6 224 336 1269
Factor 0.51 0.62 0.48 0.00 0.93 0.56 0.92 0.88 0.50 0.50 0.85 0.92 0.97
Approach Factor 0.55 0.92 0.93 0.91
B - 3
1 N 1st Ave @ Hickory Trail Page 1 of 3
Synchro ID: 1
Existing 290 553 263
Average Weekday 0 285 5 1 254 8
AM Peak Hour
0 N 1st Avenue 8
Year: 1/7/21 0 0 0 38
0 30
Data Source:AXIOM 6 Hickory Trail 608 Hickory Trail 63
North
1 5
6 0 0 25
5 N 1st Avenue 20
5 285 30 0 254 20
320 594 274
392 747 355
0 385 7 1 343 11
Average Weekday
AM Peak Hour 0 N 1st Avenue 11
0 0 051
Percent Change:35.0%0 41
8 Hickory Trail 821 Hickory Trail 85 North
1 7
800 34
7 N 1st Avenue 27
7 385 41 0 343 27
432 802 370
Future without Project 407 776 369
Average Weekday 0 400 7 1 357 11
AM Peak Hour
0 N 1st Avenue 11
Year:2025 0 0 053
Growth Rate =1.0%0 42
Years of Growth = 4 8 Hickory Trail 853 Hickory Trail 88 North
Total Growth = 1.0406 1 7
800 35
7 N 1st Avenue 28
7 400 42 0 357 28
449 834 385
Total Project Trips 000
Average Weekday 000 000
AM Peak Hour
0 N 1st Avenue 0
8 0 0 0
8 0
23 Hickory Trail 23 Hickory Trail 0 North
0 0
15 0 0 0
15 N 1st Avenue 0
15 0 0 800
15 23 8
Future with Project 407 776 369
Average Weekday 0 400 7 1 357 11
AM Peak Hour
0 N 1st Avenue 11
8 0 053
8 42
31 Hickory Trail 876 Hickory Trail 88
North
1 7
23 0 0 35
22 N 1st Avenue 28
22 400 42 8 357 28
464 857 393
Normalized Existing (COVID-
19 Factor)
Based on balancing volumes
from the intersection of N 1st
Avenue at Scott Blvd.
C - 1
2 Access @ Scott Blvd Page 2 of 3
Synchro ID: 2
Existing 385
Average Weekday 201 302
AM Peak Hour
2 Oaknoll East 2
Year: 8/29/18 605 603 603 605
0 0
Data Source:Iowa City 1,114 Scott Blvd 1,117 Scott Blvd 1,112
North
3 1
509 506 506 507
0 Site Access 0
000 000
000
385
201 302
Average Weekday
AM Peak Hour 2 Oaknoll East 2
605 603 603 605
Percent Change:0.0%0 0
1,114 Scott Blvd 1,117 Scott Blvd 1,112
North
3 1
509 506 506 507
0 Site Access 0
000 000
000
Future without Project 385
Average Weekday 2 0 1 302
AM Peak Hour
2 Oaknoll East 2
Year:2025 648 646 646 648
Growth Rate =1.0%0 0
Years of Growth = 7 1,194 Scott Blvd 1,197 Scott Blvd 1,192
North
Total Growth = 1.0721 3 1
546 543 543 544
0 Site Access 0
000 000
000
Total Project Trips 000
Average Weekday 000 000
AM Peak Hour
0 Oaknoll East 0
17 0 0 3
17 3
27 Scott Blvd 35 Scott Blvd 8
North
0 0
10 0 0 5
10 Site Access 5
10 0 3 17 0 5
13 35 22
Future with Project 385
Average Weekday 2 0 1 302
AM Peak Hour
2 Oaknoll East 2
665 646 646 651
17 3
1,221 Scott Blvd 1,232 Scott Blvd 1,200
North
3 1
556 543 543 549
10 Site Access 5
10 0 3 17 0 5
13 35 22
Normalized Existing (COVID-
19 Factor)
C - 2
3 N 1st Ave @ Scott Blvd Page 3 of 3
Synchro ID: 3
Existing 11 121 110
Average Weekday 155 74558
AM Peak Hour
1 N 1st Avenue 58
Year: 8/29/18 603 243 243 303
359 2
Data Source:Iowa City 1,109 Scott Blvd 1,226 Scott Blvd 467
North
7 5
506 157 157 164
342 N 1st Avenue 2
342 5 2 359 45 2
349 755 406
11 121 110
155 74558
Average Weekday
AM Peak Hour 1 N 1st Avenue 58
603 243 243 303
Percent Change:0.0%359 2
1,109 Scott Blvd 1,226 Scott Blvd 467
North
7 5
506 157 157 164
342 N 1st Avenue 2
342 5 2 359 45 2
349 755 406
Future without Project 11 129 118
Average Weekday 1 5 5 84862
AM Peak Hour
1 N 1st Avenue 62
Year:2025 647 261 261 325
Growth Rate =1.0%385 2
Years of Growth = 7 1,190 Scott Blvd 1,314 Scott Blvd 500
North
Total Growth = 1.0721 8 5
543 168 168 175
367 N 1st Avenue 2
367 5 2 385 48 2
374 809 435
Total Project Trips 000
Average Weekday 000 000
AM Peak Hour
0 N 1st Avenue 0
3 3 3 3
0 0
8 Scott Blvd 8 Scott Blvd 8
North
0 0
5 5 5 5
0 N 1st Avenue 0
000 000
000
Future with Project 11 129 118
Average Weekday 1 5 5 84862
AM Peak Hour
1 N 1st Avenue 62
650 264 264 328
385 2
1,198 Scott Blvd 1,322 Scott Blvd 508
North
8 5
548 173 173 180
367 N 1st Avenue 2
367 5 2 385 48 2
374 809 435
Normalized Existing (COVID-
19 Factor)
C - 3
1 N 1st Ave @ Hickory Trail Page 1 of 3
Synchro ID: 1
Existing 302 594 292
Average Weekday 0 289 13 0 287 5
PM Peak Hour
0 N 1st Avenue 5
Year: 1/12/21 1 0 0 24
1 19
Data Source:AXIOM 2 Hickory Trail 639 Hickory Trail 61
North
0 13
1 0 0 37
1 N 1st Avenue 24
1 289 19 1 287 24
309 621 312
393 772 380
0 376 17 0 373 7
Average Weekday
PM Peak Hour 0 N 1st Avenue 7
1 0 031
Percent Change:30.0%1 25
3 Hickory Trail 831 Hickory Trail 79 North
0 17
100 48
1 N 1st Avenue 31
1 376 25 1 373 31
402 807 406
Future without Project 409 804 395
Average Weekday 0 391 18 0 388 7
PM Peak Hour
0 N 1st Avenue 7
Year:2025 1 0 033
Growth Rate =1.0%1 26
Years of Growth = 4 2 Hickory Trail 864 Hickory Trail 83 North
Total Growth = 1.0406 0 18
100 50
1 N 1st Avenue 32
1 391 26 1 388 32
418 839 421
Total Project Trips 000
Average Weekday 000 000
PM Peak Hour
0 N 1st Avenue 0
17 0 0 0
17 0
30 Hickory Trail 30 Hickory Trail 0 North
0 0
13 0 0 0
13 N 1st Avenue 0
13 0 0 17 0 0
13 30 17
Future with Project 409 804 395
Average Weekday 0 391 18 0 388 7
PM Peak Hour
0 N 1st Avenue 7
18 0 033
18 26
32 Hickory Trail 894 Hickory Trail 83
North
0 18
14 0 0 50
14 N 1st Avenue 32
14 391 26 18 388 32
431 869 438
Normalized Existing (COVID-
19 Factor)
Based on balancing volumes
from the intersection of N 1st
Avenue at Scott Blvd.
C - 4
2 Access @ Scott Blvd Page 2 of 3
Synchro ID: 2
Existing 594
Average Weekday 302 202
PM Peak Hour
3 Oaknoll East 2
Year: 9/6/18 608 605 605 607
0 0
Data Source:Iowa City 1,176 Scott Blvd 1,180 Scott Blvd 1,175
North
2 2
568 566 566 568
0 Site Access 0
000 000
000
594
302 202
Average Weekday
PM Peak Hour 3 Oaknoll East 2
608 605 605 607
Percent Change:0.0%0 0
1,176 Scott Blvd 1,180 Scott Blvd 1,175
North
2 2
568 566 566 568
0 Site Access 0
000 000
000
Future without Project 594
Average Weekday 3 0 2 202
PM Peak Hour
3 Oaknoll East 2
Year:2025 652 649 649 651
Growth Rate =1.0%0 0
Years of Growth = 7 1,261 Scott Blvd 1,265 Scott Blvd 1,260
North
Total Growth = 1.0721 2 2
609 607 607 609
0 Site Access 0
000 000
000
Total Project Trips 000
Average Weekday 000 000
PM Peak Hour
0 Oaknoll East 0
14 0 0 6
14 6
33 Scott Blvd 44 Scott Blvd 11
North
0 0
19 0 0 5
19 Site Access 5
19 0 6 14 0 5
25 44 19
Future with Project 594
Average Weekday 3 0 2 202
PM Peak Hour
3 Oaknoll East 2
666 649 649 657
14 6
1,294 Scott Blvd 1,309 Scott Blvd 1,271
North
2 2
628 607 607 614
19 Site Access 5
19 0 6 14 0 5
25 44 19
Normalized Existing (COVID-
19 Factor)
C - 5
3 N 1st Ave @ Scott Blvd Page 3 of 3
Synchro ID: 3
Existing 107 129 22
Average Weekday 27 45 35 679
PM Peak Hour
27 N 1st Avenue 9
Year: 9/6/18 605 200 200 209
378 0
Data Source:Iowa City 1,171 Scott Blvd 1,269 Scott Blvd 470
North
6 35
566 224 224 261
336 N 1st Avenue 2
336 45 0 378 7 2
381 768 387
107 129 22
27 45 35 679
Average Weekday
PM Peak Hour 27 N 1st Avenue 9
605 200 200 209
Percent Change:0.0%378 0
1,171 Scott Blvd 1,269 Scott Blvd 470
North
6 35
566 224 224 261
336 N 1st Avenue 2
336 45 0 378 7 2
381 768 387
Future without Project 115 139 24
Average Weekday 29 48 38 6810
PM Peak Hour
29 N 1st Avenue 10
Year:2025 648 214 214 224
Growth Rate =1.0%405 0
Years of Growth = 7 1,254 Scott Blvd 1,360 Scott Blvd 504
North
Total Growth = 1.0721 6 38
606 240 240 280
360 N 1st Avenue 2
360 48 0 405 8 2
408 823 415
Total Project Trips 000
Average Weekday 000 000
PM Peak Hour
0 N 1st Avenue 0
6 6 6 6
0 0
11 Scott Blvd 11 Scott Blvd 11
North
0 0
5 5 5 5
0 N 1st Avenue 0
000 000
000
Future with Project 115 139 24
Average Weekday 29 48 38 6810
PM Peak Hour
29 N 1st Avenue 10
654 220 220 230
405 0
1,265 Scott Blvd 1,371 Scott Blvd 515
North
6 38
611 245 245 285
360 N 1st Avenue 2
360 48 0 405 8 2
408 823 415
Normalized Existing (COVID-
19 Factor)
C - 6
Existing Conditions AM.syn
1: N 1st Ave & Hickory Trail Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Existing Conditions AM
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 0 7 41 0 7 0 343 27 7 385 0
Future Vol, veh/h 1 0 7 41 0 7 0 343 27 7 385 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11111111111
Mvmt Flow 1 0 9 54 0 9 0 451 36 9 507 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 999 1012 507 999 994 469 507 0 0 487 0 0
Stage 1 525 525 - 469 469 -------
Stage 2 474 487 - 530 525 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 4.11 - - 4.11 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.309 2.209 - - 2.209 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 223 240 568 223 246 596 1063 - - 1081 - -
Stage 1 538 531 - 577 562 -------
Stage 2 573 552 - 534 531 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 218 237 568 217 243 596 1063 - - 1081 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 218 237 - 217 243 -------
Stage 1 538 525 - 577 562 -------
Stage 2 564 552 - 519 525 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 12.8 25.4 0 0.1
HCM LOS B D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1063 - - 473 239 1081 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.022 0.264 0.009 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 12.8 25.4 8.4 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A - - B D A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 1 0 - -
D - 1
Existing Conditions AM.syn
2: Site Access/Oaknoll East & Scott Blvd Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Existing Conditions AM
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 506 0 0 603 2000102
Future Vol, veh/h 3 506 0 0 603 2000102
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 3 569 0 0 678 2000102
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 680 0 0 569 0 0 1255 1255 569 1254 1254 679
Stage 1 ------575575-679679-
Stage 2 ------680680-575575-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 912 - - 1003 - - 148 172 522 149 172 452
Stage 1 ------503503-441451-
Stage 2 ------441451-503503-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 912 - - 1003 - - 147 171 522 148 171 452
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------147171-148171-
Stage 1 ------500500-439451-
Stage 2 ------439451-500500-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 0 18.6
HCM LOS A C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)- 912 - - 1003 - - 268
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.004 -----0.013
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 9 0 - 0 - - 18.6
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 - - 0 - - 0
D - 2
Existing Conditions PM.syn
1: N 1st Ave & Hickory Trail Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Existing Conditions PM
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 1 25 0 7 1 373 31 17 376 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 1 25 0 7 1 373 31 17 376 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11111111111
Mvmt Flow 0 0 1 27 0 8 1 410 34 19 413 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 884 897 413 881 880 427 413 0 0 444 0 0
Stage 1 451 451 - 429 429 -------
Stage 2 433 446 - 452 451 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 4.11 - - 4.11 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.309 2.209 - - 2.209 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 267 280 641 268 287 630 1151 - - 1121 - -
Stage 1 590 573 - 606 586 -------
Stage 2 603 576 - 589 573 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 259 274 641 263 280 630 1151 - - 1121 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 259 274 - 263 280 -------
Stage 1 589 560 - 605 585 -------
Stage 2 595 575 - 575 560 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10.6 18.5 0 0.4
HCM LOS B C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1151 - - 641 301 1121 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - 0.002 0.117 0.017 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.1 0 - 10.6 18.5 8.3 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - B C A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 0.4 0.1 - -
D - 3
Existing Conditions PM.syn
2: Site Access/Oaknoll East & Scott Blvd Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Existing Conditions PM
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 566 0 0 605 2000203
Future Vol, veh/h 2 566 0 0 605 2000203
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 2 615 0 0 658 2000203
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 660 0 0 615 0 0 1280 1279 615 1278 1278 659
Stage 1 ------619619-659659-
Stage 2 ------661660-619619-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 928 - - 965 - - 143 166 491 143 166 464
Stage 1 ------476480-453461-
Stage 2 ------452460-476480-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 928 - - 965 - - 142 166 491 143 166 464
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------142166-143166-
Stage 1 ------475479-452461-
Stage 2 ------449460-475479-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 20.1
HCM LOS A C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)- 928 - - 965 - - 244
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.002 -----0.022
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 8.9 0 - 0 - - 20.1
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 - - 0 - - 0.1
D - 4
Baseline Conditions AM.syn
1: N 1st Ave & Hickory Trail Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Baseline 2025 Conditions AM
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 0 7 42 0 11 0 357 28 7 400 0
Future Vol, veh/h 1 0 7 42 0 11 0 357 28 7 400 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11111111111
Mvmt Flow 1 0 9 55 0 14 0 470 37 9 526 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1040 1051 526 1038 1033 489 526 0 0 507 0 0
Stage 1 544 544 - 489 489 -------
Stage 2 496 507 - 549 544 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 4.11 - - 4.11 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.309 2.209 - - 2.209 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 209 228 554 210 233 581 1046 - - 1063 - -
Stage 1 525 521 - 562 551 -------
Stage 2 558 541 - 522 521 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 202 225 554 205 230 581 1046 - - 1063 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 202 225 - 205 230 -------
Stage 1 525 515 - 562 551 -------
Stage 2 544 541 - 507 515 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13.1 26.4 0 0.1
HCM LOS B D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1046 - - 455 237 1063 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - - - 0.023 0.294 0.009 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 - - 13.1 26.4 8.4 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A - - B D A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.1 1.2 0 - -
D - 5
Baseline Conditions AM.syn
2: Site Access/Oaknoll East & Scott Blvd Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Baseline 2025 Conditions AM
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 543 0 0 646 2000102
Future Vol, veh/h 3 543 0 0 646 2000102
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 3 610 0 0 726 2000102
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 728 0 0 610 0 0 1344 1344 610 1343 1343 727
Stage 1 ------616616-727727-
Stage 2 ------728728-616616-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 876 - - 969 - - 129 152 494 129 152 424
Stage 1 ------478482-415429-
Stage 2 ------415429-478482-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 876 - - 969 - - 128 151 494 128 151 424
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------128151-128151-
Stage 1 ------476480-413429-
Stage 2 ------413429-476480-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.1 0 0 20.3
HCM LOS A C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)- 876 - - 969 - - 239
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.004 -----0.014
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 9.1 0 - 0 - - 20.3
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 - - 0 - - 0
D - 6
Baseline Conditions PM.syn
1: N 1st Ave & Hickory Trail Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Baseline 2025 Conditions PM
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.9
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 1 26 0 7 1 388 32 18 391 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 1 26 0 7 1 388 32 18 391 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11111111111
Mvmt Flow 0 0 1 29 0 8 1 426 35 20 430 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 920 933 430 917 916 444 430 0 0 461 0 0
Stage 1 470 470 - 446 446 -------
Stage 2 450 463 - 471 470 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 4.11 - - 4.11 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.309 2.209 - - 2.209 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 253 267 627 254 273 616 1135 - - 1105 - -
Stage 1 576 562 - 593 576 -------
Stage 2 590 566 - 575 562 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 245 260 627 249 266 616 1135 - - 1105 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 245 260 - 249 266 -------
Stage 1 575 549 - 592 575 -------
Stage 2 582 565 - 560 549 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10.8 19.5 0 0.4
HCM LOS B C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1135 - - 627 285 1105 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.001 - - 0.002 0.127 0.018 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 0 - 10.8 19.5 8.3 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - B C A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 0.4 0.1 - -
D - 7
Baseline Conditions PM.syn
2: Site Access/Oaknoll East & Scott Blvd Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Baseline 2025 Conditions PM
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 607 0 0 649 2000203
Future Vol, veh/h 2 607 0 0 649 2000203
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 2 660 0 0 705 2000203
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 707 0 0 660 0 0 1372 1371 660 1370 1370 706
Stage 1 ------664664-706706-
Stage 2 ------708707-664664-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 891 - - 928 - - 123 146 463 124 146 436
Stage 1 ------450458-427439-
Stage 2 ------426438-450458-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 891 - - 928 - - 122 145 463 124 145 436
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------122145-124145-
Stage 1 ------448456-425439-
Stage 2 ------423438-448456-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 0 22
HCM LOS A C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)- 891 - - 928 - - 217
HCM Lane V/C Ratio - 0.002 -----0.025
HCM Control Delay (s) 0 9.1 0 - 0 - - 22
HCM Lane LOS A A A - A - - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) - 0 - - 0 - - 0.1
D - 8
Future With Conditions AM.syn
1: N 1st Ave & Hickory Trail Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Future 2025 With Conditions AM
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 2.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 1 0 22 42 0 11 8 357 28 7 400 0
Future Vol, veh/h 1 0 22 42 0 11 8 357 28 7 400 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11111111111
Mvmt Flow 1 0 29 55 0 14 11 470 37 9 526 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 1062 1073 526 1070 1055 489 526 0 0 507 0 0
Stage 1 544 544 - 511 511 -------
Stage 2 518 529 - 559 544 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 4.11 - - 4.11 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.309 2.209 - - 2.209 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 202 221 554 200 227 581 1046 - - 1063 - -
Stage 1 525 521 - 547 539 -------
Stage 2 542 529 - 515 521 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 193 215 554 186 221 581 1046 - - 1063 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 193 215 - 186 221 -------
Stage 1 517 515 - 539 531 -------
Stage 2 521 521 - 482 515 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 12.5 29.3 0.2 0.1
HCM LOS B D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1046 - - 512 217 1063 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.01 - - 0.059 0.321 0.009 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.5 0 - 12.5 29.3 8.4 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - B D A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0.2 1.3 0 - -
D - 9
Future With Conditions AM.syn
2: Site Access/Oaknoll East & Scott Blvd Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Future 2025 With Conditions AM
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 543 10 3 646 2 17 05102
Future Vol, veh/h 3 543 10 3 646 2 17 05102
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 3 610 11 3 726 2 19 06102
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 728 0 0 621 0 0 1356 1356 616 1358 1360 727
Stage 1 ------622622-733733-
Stage 2 ------734734-625627-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 876 - - 960 - - 126 149 491 126 148 424
Stage 1 ------474479-412426-
Stage 2 ------412426-473476-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 876 - - 960 - - 124 148 491 124 147 424
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------124148-124147-
Stage 1 ------472477-410424-
Stage 2 ------408424-465474-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 33.9 20.5
HCM LOS D C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)149 876 - - 960 - - 235
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.166 0.004 - - 0.004 - - 0.014
HCM Control Delay (s) 33.9 9.1 0 - 8.8 0 - 20.5
HCM Lane LOS D A A - A A - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 0 - - 0 - - 0
D - 10
Future With Conditions PM.syn
1: N 1st Ave & Hickory Trail Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Future 2025 With Conditions PM
Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 1.3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 14 26 0 7 18 388 32 18 391 0
Future Vol, veh/h 0 0 14 26 0 7 18 388 32 18 391 0
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Free Free Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91
Heavy Vehicles, % 1 11111111111
Mvmt Flow 0 0 15 29 0 8 20 426 35 20 430 0
Major/Minor Minor2 Minor1 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 958 971 430 962 954 444 430 0 0 461 0 0
Stage 1 470 470 - 484 484 -------
Stage 2 488 501 - 478 470 -------
Critical Hdwy 7.11 6.51 6.21 7.11 6.51 6.21 4.11 - - 4.11 - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 6.11 5.51 - 6.11 5.51 -------
Follow-up Hdwy 3.509 4.009 3.309 3.509 4.009 3.309 2.209 - - 2.209 - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 238 254 627 236 260 616 1135 - - 1105 - -
Stage 1 576 562 - 566 554 -------
Stage 2 563 544 - 570 562 -------
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 227 242 627 222 248 616 1135 - - 1105 - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 227 242 - 222 248 -------
Stage 1 562 549 - 552 541 -------
Stage 2 543 531 - 543 549 -------
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 10.9 21.3 0.3 0.4
HCM LOS B C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBT NBREBLn1WBLn1 SBL SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h)1135 - - 627 257 1105 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 - - 0.025 0.141 0.018 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.2 0 - 10.9 21.3 8.3 0 -
HCM Lane LOS A A - B C A A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0.1 0.5 0.1 - -
D - 11
Future With Conditions PM.syn
2: Site Access/Oaknoll East & Scott Blvd Hickory Trail Estates (GTC 21-005)
GTC (MJP)Future 2025 With Conditions PM
Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.6
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 2 607 19 6 649 2 14 05203
Future Vol, veh/h 2 607 19 6 649 2 14 05203
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000000000
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length ------------
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Grade, % - 0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 22222222222
Mvmt Flow 2 660 21 7 705 2 15 05203
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 707 0 0 681 0 0 1397 1396 671 1397 1405 706
Stage 1 ------675675-720720-
Stage 2 ------722721-677685-
Critical Hdwy 4.12 - - 4.12 - - 7.12 6.52 6.22 7.12 6.52 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 ------6.12 5.52 - 6.12 5.52 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.218 - - 2.218 - - 3.518 4.018 3.318 3.518 4.018 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 891 - - 912 - - 118 141 456 118 139 436
Stage 1 ------444453-419432-
Stage 2 ------418432-443448-
Platoon blocked, % - - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 891 - - 912 - - 116 139 456 115 137 436
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver ------116139-115137-
Stage 1 ------442451-417426-
Stage 2 ------409426-436446-
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 34.1 22.9
HCM LOS D C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1
Capacity (veh/h)144 891 - - 912 - - 206
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.143 0.002 - - 0.007 - - 0.026
HCM Control Delay (s) 34.1 9.1 0 - 9 0 - 22.9
HCM Lane LOS D A A - A A - C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 0 - - 0 - - 0.1
D - 12
20181073217 10/16/2018 15:24
County: Johnson City: Iowa City
HICKORY TRL AND N 1ST AVE
Major Cause:Followed too close
Roadway Type:Intersection: T-intersection
Severity::Possible/Unknown Injury
Crash
Fatalities:0
Major Injuries:0
Minor Injuries:0
Possible Injuries:2
Manner of Crash:Rear-end (front to rear)
Surface Conditions:Dry
Light Conditions:Daylight
Weather Conditions:Clear
Drug/Alc Involved:None Indicated
Severity::Possible/Unknown Injury
Crash
Property Damage:$3,000 Number of Vehicles:2
Init Trav Dir:
Veh Action:
Configuration:
Driver Age:
Driver Gender:
Driver Cond:
Driver Contr 1:
Driver Contr 2:
Fixed Object:
Unit 1
South
Movement essentially straight
Sport utility vehicle
33
F
Emotional (e.g., depressed, angry)
Followed too close
Not reported
None (no fixed object struck)
Unit 2
South
Slowing/stopping (deceleration)
Sport utility vehicle
71
F
Apparently normal
No improper action
Not reported
None (no fixed object struck)
Unit
20201157310 01/15/2020 04:30
County: Johnson City: Iowa City
HICKORY TRL AND N 1ST AVE
Major Cause:Other
Roadway Type:Feature: Non-junction/no special feature
Severity::Property Damage Only
Fatalities:0
Major Injuries:0
Minor Injuries:0
Possible Injuries:0
Manner of Crash:Sideswipe, opposite direction
Surface Conditions:Ice/frost
Light Conditions:Dark - unknown roadway lighting
Weather Conditions:Cloudy
Drug/Alc Involved:None Indicated
Severity::Property Damage Only Property Damage:$5,000 Number of Vehicles:2
Init Trav Dir:
Veh Action:
Configuration:
Driver Age:
Driver Gender:
Driver Cond:
Driver Contr 1:
Driver Contr 2:
Fixed Object:
Unit 1
South
Movement essentially straight
Four-tire light truck (pick-up)
47
F
Apparently normal
Other
Not reported
None (no fixed object struck)
Unit 2
North
Movement essentially straight
Passenger car
55
F
Apparently normal
No improper action
Not reported
None (no fixed object struck)
Unit
January 21, 2021 Page 1Iowa Crash Analysis Tool
Crash Detail Report
E - 1
20181070658 10/02/2018 16:39
County: Johnson City: Iowa City
N SCOTT BLVD
Major Cause:Followed too close
Roadway Type:Feature: Non-junction/no special feature
Severity::Suspected Minor Injury
Crash
Fatalities:0
Major Injuries:0
Minor Injuries:1
Possible Injuries:0
Manner of Crash:Rear-end (front to rear)
Surface Conditions:Dry
Light Conditions:Daylight
Weather Conditions:Cloudy
Drug/Alc Involved:None Indicated
Severity::Suspected Minor Injury
Crash
Property Damage:$8,000 Number of Vehicles:2
Init Trav Dir:
Veh Action:
Configuration:
Driver Age:
Driver Gender:
Driver Cond:
Driver Contr 1:
Driver Contr 2:
Fixed Object:
Unit 1
East
Movement essentially straight
Sport utility vehicle
25
F
Emotional (e.g., depressed, angry)
Followed too close
Not reported
None (no fixed object struck)
Unit 2
East
Stopped in traffic
Four-tire light truck (pick-up)
52
M
Apparently normal
No improper action
Not reported
None (no fixed object struck)
Unit
January 21, 2021 Page 1Iowa Crash Analysis Tool
Crash Detail Report
E - 2
Hickory Trail Estates
GTC #21‐005
Total DHV: 1,285 Posted Speed:35 mph
Left Turns: 6
% Left:0.5%
Scott Boulevard at Site Access (PM Peak-hour)
Based on WSDOT September 2019 Design Manual: Exhibit 1310-7a, Page 1310-14.
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
0%5%10%15%20%25%Total DHV*% Total DHV Turning Left (single turning movement)
Left‐Turn Storage Guidelines
Below Curve, storage not needed for capacity.
Above curve, further analysis recommended.
*DHV is total volume from both directions
**Speeds are posted speeds
F - 1
17 December 2020
Mike Welch
Professional Engineer
Axiom Consultants
60 East Court Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
mwelch@axiom-con.com
RE: Phase I Archaeological Survey, Scott Boulvard Subdivision Project, Iowa City, Johnson County,
OSA Technical Report 1622
Dear Mike:
Attached please find the OSA report Phase I Intensive Archaeological Investigation of the Proposed Scott
Boulevard Subdivision Project, Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa, by Warren Davis (TR 1622). As a result
of the study no previously recorded archaeological sites were located within the project area and no newly
recorded sites were identified. No further archaeological work is recommended in the surveyed areas. The
details of our findings are provided in the attached report.
As you know, to complete your archaeological compliance obligations, copies of the enclosed report must
also be provided to the appropriate state or federal agencies involved with the project and comment
solicited; we assume you will handle this distribution. Keep in mind that agency comments must be received
prior to ground-disturbing activities being undertaken within the project area.
The University of Iowa Accounts Payable department will invoice you for this project in about 30 days. If
you have any questions, please contact me at 319-384-0937 or via e-mail at william-whittaker@uiowa.edu.
Thank you for selecting the OSA for your archaeological service needs and good luck with your project.
Sincerely,
William E. Whittaker, Ph.D., Research Director
Phase I Intensive Archaeological
Investigation of the Proposed Scott
Boulevard Subdivision Project, Iowa City,
Johnson County, Iowa
by Warren Davis
Office of the State Archaeologist
The University of Iowa
700 Clinton Street Building
Iowa City, IA 52242
Technical Report 1622
2020
Phase I Intensive Archaeological Investigation of the
Proposed Scott Boulevard Subdivision Project, Iowa City,
Johnson County, Iowa
by Warren Davis
William E. Whittaker
Principal Investigator
Prepared for
Axiom Consultants
60 East Court Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
Prepared by
Office of the State Archaeologist
The University of Iowa
700 Clinton Street Building
Iowa City, IA 52242
Technical Report 1622
December 16, 2020
Information contained in this report relating to the nature and location of archaeological sites is
considered private and confidential and not for public disclosure in accordance with Section 304
of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. § 307103); 36 CFR Part 800.6 (a)(5) of the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s rules implementing Sections 106 and 110 of the Act;
and Chapter 22.7 § 20 of the Iowa Code
Abstract
A Phase I intensive archaeological survey was conducted by the University of Iowa Office
of the State Archaeologist at the location of the proposed Scott Boulevard Subdivision,
Johnson County, Iowa. The field investigation was conducted on December 3–4, 2020. No
artifacts or archaeological features were identified in the survey of the 59.9 ac parcel. No
further archaeological investigation of the area surveyed prior to the proposed project
activities is recommended.
Introduction
The Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA) of the University of Iowa has prepared this report under
the terms of a cultural resource survey agreement between OSA and Axiom Consultants of Iowa City, Iowa.
This report records the results of a Phase I archaeological investigation of the proposed Scott Boulevard
Subdivision. This project area is situated in Sections 1 and 2, T79N-R6W, Johnson County, Iowa (Figures
1–5). The proposed project involves development of the area into a subdivision. The area surveyed 59.9 ac
(19.2 ha). This project was undertaken for compliance with the Iowa City Zoning Code: Sensitive Lands
and Features, Archaeological sites, Archaeological Study (Article I:14-5l-12-E).
The Phase I investigation was conducted on December 3–4 by Warren Davis and Stephen Valdez and
took 28 person hours in the field. Warren Davis served as report author and William Whittaker served as
project director.
The OSA is solely responsible for the interpretations and recommendations contained in this report. All
records including maps and figures are curated in the OSA Archives. The National Archeological Data
Base Form is included as Appendix I.
Information contained in this report relating to the nature and location of archaeological sites is
considered private and confidential and not for public disclosure in accordance with Section 304 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. § 307103); 36 CFR Part 800.6 (a)(5) of the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation’s rules implementing Sections 106 and 110 of the Act; and Chapter 22.7 § 20 of
the Iowa Code.
Geomorphological Context
The proposed project area is located within Iowa’s largest landform region, known as the Southern Iowa
Drift Plain. The topography of this area is one of steeply rolling hills, level upland divides, stepped erosion
surfaces, and dendritic drainage networks. Uplands are mantled by a moderate to thick cover of
Wisconsinan-age loess. Pre-Illinoian glacial drift and underlying sedimentary bedrock are exposed within
the deeper stream valleys. Southeast Iowa is dominated by broad, level upland divides that represent
undissected remnants of surfaces developed during the Yarmouth and Sangamon stages on a Pre-Illinoian
drift plain. The areal extent of undissected uplands decreases with distance westward, and stepped hillslopes
and deep valleys dominate the south-central part of the state. In southwest Iowa, flat upland divides are
nearly absent (Prior 1991:61–64).
Holocene alluvial valley fills in Iowa are subdivided on the basis of lithology and stratigraphic
relationships into the Gunder, Corrington, Roberts Creek, and Camp Creek members of the DeForest
formation (Bettis and Littke 1987). Gunder member alluvium and Corrington member alluvial fans may
contain Paleoindian through Woodland components; Roberts Creek member deposits may contain Late
OSA Technical Report 1622
2
Archaic through early historic components; and Camp Creek member alluvium may contain buried and
unburied historic archaeological components, and may bury older surfaces.
Environmental Context
The proposed project area is situated in a deeply-ravined grassy and lightly wooded area on the northern
extents of Iowa City. The area is in the E½, SE¼ of Section 2, and the SW¼, SW¼, SW¼, T79N-R6W,
Johnson County, Iowa, 0.1 km east of the intersection of First Avenue and Scott Boulevard, at an elevation
of 780 ft above mean sea level (Figures 1–5). At the time of survey, the proposed project area was in mowed
grass and light timber cover. The parcel consisted of an irregular area measuring 750 x 400 m in maximum
extent. Project area entrances, staging areas, and material storage areas will be within surveyed areas or on
nearby paved areas.
Soils of the project area are mapped as Fayette silt loam at 5–40% slope, Lindley loam at 18–25% slope,
and a complex of Nodaway and Arenzville silt loam at 1–4% slope (Figure 2; Table 1; Artz 2005;
Schemerhorn 1983; USDA 2020). Soils in upland settings, such as Fayette and Lindley, have relatively
shallow archaeological potential when the parent material predates the earliest human occupation of Iowa
and Holocene-aged surface deposition is slow or absent. Movement of artifacts within the soil column is
restricted to biologically active horizons. If there is adequate ground surface visibility, larger archaeological
sites in plowed upland soils will generally display surface artifacts. Shallow subsurface deposits may exist
in unplowed upland areas, and the bottoms of deep human-dug features may be preserved even in plowed
areas. Subsurface archaeological testing within these upland settings is usually terminated below the
biologically active zone as indicated by the presence of a pedologically formed subsoil (B horizon),
relatively unaltered parent material (C horizon), or bedrock (R horizon).
The Landscape Model for Archaeological Site Suitability (LANDMASS) is a useful tool for predicting
the suitability of a particular upland landform position for prehistoric habitation (Artz et al. 2006; Riley et
al. 2011). The ranking is divided into three suitability rankings: low, moderate, and high, based on logistic
regression statistical analysis of how often sites have been found in areas with topographically similar
terrain. Based upon the model, the project area is located on a landform with a high prehistoric suitability
ranking. It is important to note that this predictive model is limited to upland landforms and does not include
alluvial settings, such as river valleys and drainages.
Historical and Cultural Context
The Iowa Site Record at OSA, records of previous archaeological surveys nearby (OSA 2020), the
National Register Information System web site (National Park Service 2020), the Andreas atlas of Iowa
(Andreas 1875), and Johnson County plat books (Anonymous 1905; Economy Advertising 1917; Hixson
1930; Huebinger 1900; Koser Bros. 1934; Novak 1889; Thompson and Everts 1870) were reviewed for this
survey. Other consulted resources included the 1839 General Land Office survey map (ISUGISRF 2020;
U.S. Department of the Interior 2020), older U.S. Geological Survey maps (USGS 2020), the Historic
Indian Location Database (HILD), and the OSA Notable Locations database of cemeteries and poorly
located historic or archaeological locations (Whittaker 2016, 2020).
Historic documentation revealed no buildings or other improvements within the proposed project area,
and there are no standing buildings or structures located within the proposed project area (Figures 2–3).
Historic aerial photography indicates that the area has been largely under agriculture for most of the
twentieth century, though the areas currently under grass may have been graded or contoured in the 1990s.
Areas currently under timber were largely absent throughmost of the twentieth century, with most present
timber postdating the 1980s. A series of trails ran through the project area, largely along what is now the
OSA Technical Report 1622
3
timber line on the west-central portion of the project area. In addition, the trees along the drainage in the
southern portion of the proposed project area were removed in the 1980s to allow for more agricultural
land. The drainage may have also been straightened or otherwise modified at this time. A farmstead is
present on the 1870 Thompson and Everetts map just north of the proposed project area, north of what is
now Scott Boulevard. That farmstead is likely under or been impacted by modern development.
There are 17 archaeological sites recorded within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the project area. The closest site is
13JH1100, a prehistoric isolated find consisting of a single piece of Late Woodland pottery, located
immediately to the east of the project area. Site 13JH1100 was determined to be not eligible for listing in
the NRHP by SHPO on Nov. 13, 2001 SHPO NADB files). The southern portion of the project area
overlaps with a small portion of a cultural resources survey by Lensink (1978) of proposed Ralston Creek
storm water detention units. The next nearest survey was a Phase I survey by Weitzel (2001) for proposed
First Avenue expansion just east of the project area. Site 13JH1100 was found near the project area in the
2001 survey. The HILD reveals no documented historic Native American use of the project area or nearby
areas. The Notable Locations database shows the locations of St. Joseph’s Cemetery 0.7 km to the east, and
Oakland Cemetery, 0.7 km to the southeast.
Archaeological Assessment
METHODS
Ground surface visibility was inadequate for pedestrian survey, at less than 25%. The proposed project
area was investigated through 5 m interval pedestrian survey and the hand excavation of 67 20 cm diameter
auger tests, in linear transects at 15 m intervals (Figure 3). Auger test soils were removed in arbitrary 10
cm levels to examine soil stratigraphy and were screened with quarter-inch hardware cloth. Soils were
described using the conventions of Schoeneberger et al. (2012). Maximum test depth was 100 cm.
RESULTS
No artifacts were observed on the surface. No artifacts were recovered in auger tests. Subsurface tests
indicated that the proposed project area showed evidence of heavy disturbance, with topsoil (A or Ap)
horizons either truncated or missing from auger test profiles. This missing topsoil supports disturbances
seen in late twentieth century aerial photography. Typical profiles for auger tests in uplands revealed soils
comparable to eroded Fayette soil, with a very thin brown Ap horizon over a dark yellowish Bt1 and
yellowish brown Bt2 horizon (Table 2). Auger tests along the drainage in the south of the project area
revealed a brown Ap horizon over a brown and yellowish brown mixed C horizon, likely indicating past
disturbance. None of the auger tests or cores encountered buried A horizons or other buried surfaces
suitable for habitation.
Management Recommendations
The Phase I archaeological survey by the OSA of a proposed Scott Boulevard Subdivision revealed no
archaeological material or other cultural deposits. The proposed project area was surveyed through
pedestrian survey and excavation of 67 auger tests. Because of this absence of cultural resources and the
lack of potential for intact deposits, no further archaeological work for this project is recommended.
No technique is completely adequate to locate all archaeological materials, especially deeply buried
ones. Therefore, should any cultural, historical, or paleontological resources be exposed as part of proposed
project activities, the responsible agency must be notified immediately in accordance with the Protection
of Historic Properties regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation [36 CFR Part
OSA Technical Report 1622
4
800.13(b)]. If human remains are accidentally discovered, Iowa burial law [Code of Iowa, Sections 263B,
523I.316(6), and 716.5; IAC 685, Ch.11.1] requires that all work in the vicinity of the finding be halted,
the remains protected, local law enforcement officials notified, and the Bioarchaeology director at the OSA
contacted immediately (319-384-0740). Archaeologists with the OSA (319-384-0937) and the State
Historical Society of Iowa (515-281-8744) are also available to consult on issues of accidental discovery.
References Cited
Andreas, Alfred T.
1875 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the State of Iowa. State Historical Society of Iowa, Iowa City.
Anonymous
1905 [Johnson County, Iowa] No publisher listed. University of Iowa Libraries digital map collection,
digital.lib.uiowa.edu/islandora/object/ui:atlases, accessed December 16, 2020.
Artz, Joe A.
2005 Ackmore to Zwingle: Soil Series of Iowa. Iowa I-Sites, Office of the State Archaeologist, University of
Iowa, Iowa City. Electronic document, www.iowaisites.com/soil-series, accessed December 16, 2020.
Artz, Joe A., Chad Goings, and Melanie A. Riley
2006 LANDMASS: A GIS Model for Prehistoric Archaeological Site Suitability in Iowa. Paper presented at
the 64th Plains Anthropological Conference, Topeka, Kansas.
Bettis, E. Arthur III, and John P. Littke
1987 Holocene Alluvial Stratigraphy and Landscape Development in Soap Creek Watershed, Appanoose,
Davis, Monroe, and Wapello Counties, Iowa. Open File Report 87-2. Iowa Geological Survey Bureau,
Iowa City.
Economy Advertising
1917 Atlas of Johnson County, Iowa. Economy Advertising Company, Iowa City, Iowa. University of Iowa
Libraries digital map collection, digital.lib.uiowa.edu/islandora/object/ui:atlases, accessed December
16, 2020.
Hixson, W. W.
1930 Plat Book of Johnson County, Iowa. W.W. Hixson, Rockford, Illinois. University of Iowa Libraries
digital map collection, digital.lib.uiowa.edu/islandora/object/ui:atlases, accessed December 16, 2020.
Huebinger
1900 Atlas of Johnson County, Iowa. Huebinger Survey and Map, Davenport, Iowa. University of Iowa
Libraries digital map collection, digital.lib.uiowa.edu/islandora/object/ui:atlases, accessed December
16, 2020.
Iowa State University Geographic Information Systems Support and Research Facility (ISUGISSRF)
2020 Iowa Geographic Map Server. Iowa State University Geographic Information Systems Support and
Research Facility, Ames, Iowa. Electronic document, ortho.gis.iastate.edu, accessed December 16,
2020.
Koser Bros.
1934 Atlas of Johnson County, Iowa. Koser Brothers, unknown location. University of Iowa Libraries digital
map collection, digital.lib.uiowa.edu/islandora/object/ui:atlases, accessed December 16, 2020.
Lensink, Stephen C.
1978 A Cultural Resource Survey of the Proposed Ralston Creek Storm Water Detention Units, Iowa City,
Iowa. Contract Completion Report 143. Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa
City.
National Park Service
2020 National Register Information System, National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service,
Washington, DC. Electronic document, www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm,
accessed December 16, 2020.
Novak, J. J.
1889 Novak’s New Map of Johnson County. J. J. Novak, Iowa City, Iowa. University of Iowa Libraries digital
map collection, digital.lib.uiowa.edu/islandora/object/ui:atlases, accessed December 16, 2020.
OSA Technical Report 1622
5
Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA)
2020 I-Sites: An Online GIS and Database for Iowa Archaeology. Office of the State Archaeologist,
University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. Electronic document, www.iowaisites.com, accessed December
16, 2020.
Prior, Jean C.
1991 Landforms of Iowa. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.
Riley, Melanie A., Chad A. Goings, and Joe Alan Artz
2011 The Landscape Model for Archaeological Site Suitability (LANDMASS). In Archaeological Modeling
for the Iowa Portion of the Proposed Rock Island Clean Line Transmission System, by Melanie A.
Riley, Chad A. Goings, and Joe Alan Artz, pp. 5–14. Contract Completion Report 1869. Office of the
State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Schermerhorn, Edward J.
1983 Soil Survey of Johnson County, Iowa. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service.
Schoeneberger, P. J., D. A. Wysocki, and E. C. Benham
2012 Field book for Describing and Sampling Soils. Version 3.0. Natural Resources Conservation Service,
National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, Nebraska. Electronic document,
www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052523.pdf, accessed December 16,
2020.
Thompson and Everts
1870 Combination Atlas Map of Johnson County, Iowa. Thompson and Everts, Geneva, Illinois. University of
Iowa Libraries digital map collection, digital.lib.uiowa.edu/islandora/object/ui:atlases, accessed
December 16, 2020.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2020 Official Soil Series Descriptions. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of
Agriculture. Electronic document, www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/survey, accessed
December 16, 2020.
U.S. Department of the Interior
2020 The Official Federal Land Records Site. Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of the
Interior. Electronic document, livingatlas.arcgis.com/topoexplorer, accessed December 16, 2020.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
2018 US Topo: Maps for America. National Geospatial Program. Electronic document, www.usgs.gov/core-
science-systems/national-geospatial-program/us-topo-maps-america.
2020 USGS Historical Topographic Map Explorer. Electronic document, ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/,
accessed December 16, 2020.
Whittaker, William E.
2016 An Analysis of Historic-Era Indian Locations in Iowa. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 41:159–
185.
2020 Historic Indian Location Database. Electronic document on file, Office of the State Archaeologist,
University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, accessed December 16, 2020.
OSA Technical Report 1622
6
Table 1. Project Area Mapped Soils.
Soil Name ID Description I-Sites LSA1 Landform Native
Vegetation Pedon
Arenzville-
Nodaway
Complex
729B 1–4% slopes Camp Creek Drainageways Tall grass prairie Ap-C1-C2-
C3
Lindley 65F2 18–25% slopes;
moderately eroded
Shallow to pre-
Wisconsin till
Hillslopes Tall grass prairie A-E-Bt1-
Bt2-Bt3-
Bt4-C
Fayette M163 5–40% slopes Loess mantled
terrace, thick
loess
Hillslopes Tall grass prairie Ap-BE-Btt-
Bt2-BC-C
1 Landform/Sediment Assemblage (Artz 2005).
OSA Technical Report 1622
7
Table 2. Representative Soil Profiles.
Location Depth
(cm) Description
Auger Test 4 0–5 Ap horizon of brown (10YR 4/3) silt loam; fine subangular blocky structure;
friable; clear smooth boundary.
5–30 Bt1 horizon of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) silty clay loam; fine to moderate
subangular blocky structure; friable; gradual smooth boundary.
30–50 Bt2 horizon of yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) silty clay loam; moderate subangular
blocky structure; friable to firm.
Auger Test
13
0–20 AC horizon of brown (10YR 4/3) silt loam; fine subangular blocky structure;
friable; clear smooth boundary.
20–100 C horizon of mixed brown (10YR 4/3) and yellowish brown (5/4) silty clay loam;
massive grading to moderate subangular blocky structure; friable; heavy redox
present.
Auger Test
37
0–10 Ap horizon of brown (10YR 4/3) silt loam; fine subangular blocky structure;
friable; clear smooth boundary.
10–20 BE horizon of brown (10YR 4/3) silty clay loam; fine subangular blocky structure;
friable; silt coats on faces of peds; clear smooth boundary.
20–50 Bt1 horizon of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) silty clay loam; fine to moderate
moderate subangular blocky structure; friable; gradual smooth boundary.
Auger Test
41
0-15 Bt1 horizon of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) silty clay loam; fine to moderate
subangular blocky structure; friable; gradual smooth boundary.
15–40 Bt2 horizon of yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) silty clay loam; moderate subangular
blocky structure; friable to firm; silt coats present; gradual smooth boundary.
40–50 BC horizon of yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) silty clay loam; medium prismatic
structure; friable; redox features present; clay skins present.
Auger Test
64
0–10 Ap horizon of brown (10YR 4/3) silt loam; fine subangular blocky structure;
friable; clear smooth boundary.
10–35 Bt1 horizon of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) silty clay loam; fine to moderate
subangular blocky structure; friable; gradual smooth boundary.
35–50 Bt2 horizon of yellowish brown (10YR 5/4) silty clay loam; moderate subangular
blocky structure; friable to firm.
OSA Technical Report 1622
8
Figure 1. Project location in relation to surrounding topography.
Base USGS (2018), U.S. Topo 7.5’ series quadrangle map. Scale 1:24,000.
OSA Technical Report 1622
9
Figure 2. Project location in relation to mapped soil type.
From Iowa Cooperative Soil Survey digitization of Johnson County, base image is composite
2018 aerial photograph and 1 m lidar hillshade map (ISUGISRF 2020).
OSA Technical Report 1622
10
Figure 3. Detail map of project area showing subsurface test locations.
Base image is composite 2018 aerial photograph and 1 m lidar hillshade map (ISUGISRF 2020).
OSA Technical Report 1622
11
Figure 4. Project area photographs.
Upper: project area, facing north near southern portion of project area. Lower: project area,
facing east near southern portion of project area.
OSA Technical Report 1622
12
Figure 5. Project area photographs.
Upper: project area, facing south near northern portion of project area. Lower: project area,
facing east at northern extreme of project area.
OSA Technical Report 1622
13
Appendix I: National Archeological Data Base – Reports Citation Form
Complete items 3 and 5-14. The State Historic Preservation Office will record information for items 1 through 4.
1. DOCUMENT NO. ______________________________________________
2. SOURCE _________________________ AND SHPO – ID _________________
3. FILED AT
Office of the State Archaeologist
700 CLSB
University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA 52242
4. UTM COORDINATES
Zone Easting Northing
Zone Easting Northing
Zone Easting Northing
Zone Easting Northing
Zone Easting Northing
Zone Easting Northing
Continuation, see 14.
5. AUTHORS Warren Davis
6. YEAR 2020 (year published)
7. TITLE Phase I Intensive Archaeological Investigation of the Proposed Scott Boulevard Subdivision Project,
Iowa City, Johnson County, Iowa
7. PUBLICATION TYPE (circle one)
4. Report Series
9. INFORMATION ABOUT PUBLISHER/PUBLICATION
Follow the American Antiquity style guide for the type of publication circled.
Technical Report 1622 Office of the State Archaeologist, The University of Iowa, Iowa City.
10. STATE/COUNTY (Referenced by report. Enter as many states, counties, or towns, as necessary. Enter
all, if appropriate. Only enter Town if the resources considered are within the town boundaries.)
STATE 1 Iowa COUNTY Johnson TOWN T79N-R6W
11. WORKTYPE [ 32 ] PHASE I
OSA Technical Report 1622
14
12. KEYWORDS and KEYWORD CATEGORIES
Enter as many keywords (with the appropriate keyword category number) as you think will help a person (1) who
is trying to understand what the report contains or (2) who is searching the database for specific information.
Whenever appropriate, record the number of acres studied in a document.
[6 ] Project Area: 59.9 acres [ ]
[ ] [ ]
13. FEDERAL AGENCY
14. CONTINUATION/COMMENTS (include item no.)
FORM COMPLETED BY
Name Warren Davis Date December 16,
2020
Address Office of the State Archaeologist
700 CLSB
University of Iowa
City Iowa City State IA
Zip 52242
Telephone Number 318-384-0937
From:Parker, Adam G
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Proposed Residential Development Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
Date:Sunday, January 31, 2021 8:01:12 PM
Hello Anne/Raymond,
I would like to voice my opinion, that I oppose the planned rezone area next to hickory hill park.
Please forward my concerns to the planning and zoning commission, as they review the rezoning to
put a through street in the are directly adjacent to Hickory Hill Park.
I understand the land adjacent to Hickory Hill Park is private land, but know the land was discussed
in the NE district plan https://www.iowa-city.org/.../0/doc/1473770/Electronic.aspx should
preserve and buffer public lands and Hickory Hill Park. I believe the proposed development
images do not accurately buffer the park and would be short sighted to land which the general
public finds great utility. This would significantly impede on natural landscape and would
permanently alter the watershed, prairies, and sight lines of the park.
Hickory Hill Park is a treasure to this community, especially during the past year due to COVID.
It often is the only “safe” respite which one can truly escape the crowd and be one in nature. I
do not believe this land adjacent would be best utilized as single family plots. This would
further income inequality by providing lots only the upper middle class can afford and will
decrease utilization in the park as the urban sprawl approaches. I would encourage the city
parks department to consider opportunities to include biking, skiing, or more trails if the land
adjacent is for sale. This would be a bigger destination for the community long term utilized by
more community members.
If there is a better way to have my voice heard, please let me know. I look forward to
participating in the planning and zoning meeting when this project is brought up.
Best,
Adam Parker
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
From:Anne Russett
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:FW: new development next to Hickory Hill Park
Date:Monday, January 4, 2021 1:15:35 PM
Attachments:image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
FYI
From: Anne Russett
Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 1:15 PM
To: 'Teresa Galluzzo' <tegallu@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: new development next to Hickory Hill Park
Hi, Teresa –
Thanks for your message. I’ve received a few other emails regarding the proposed rezoning. City staff is
still working with the applicant on the proposed concept and we have also requested some additional
information regarding their rezoning application.
At this point, I don’t know when this will be before the Planning and Zoning Commission. You can sign-up
for e-subscriptions to keep informed of the items of upcoming Commission meetings:
https://www.icgov.org/e-subscriptions
Thanks. And let me know if you have any questions.
Anne
WWW.ICGOV.ORG
Anne Russett, AICP
Senior PlannerShe/Her/Hersp: 319-356-5251410 E Washington St
Iowa City, IA 52240
From: Teresa Galluzzo <tegallu@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 12:56 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: new development next to Hickory Hill Park
Hi Anne, I am writing because I am concerned about the plans for the houses being built next toHickory Hill Park. This park is a refuge for so many people. A place to find peace, solve lifeproblems, listen to birds, and feel like you are in the wild even in the middle of Iowa City.
It is unlike any other park in the area. I am sad to know the hay fields on the Northeast
side of the park will be developed at all, but I am particularly worried that houses are being
proposed right next to the park boundary. (On the version of the plans I saw, it is lots 14
to 28 in particular that seem intrusive to HHP.) I would like to see a buffer between HHP
and the houses to help preserve some of the feeling of being able to get lost in the park
and in your own thoughts, so after a trip to Hickory Hill folks can return to their work and
family with more energy and clearer thinking. Thanks for considering my concerns.
Sincerely, Teresa Galluzzo Iowa City resident and longtime HHP visitor
From:Anne Russett
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:FW: Zoning near Hickory Hill Park
Date:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 8:43:34 AM
Can you please follow-up with Adam?
From: Parker, Adam G <adam-parker@uiowa.edu>
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 8:36 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Zoning near Hickory Hill Park
Hello Anne,
I am looking to inquire about the rezoning of land North East of Hickory Hill Park? Is there a place I
can go to access information about what the proposed rezoning of the area is going to be?
Appreciate any insight and guidance.
Best,
Adam Parker
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the individual
or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all
copies of the original message and attachments thereto. Email sent to or from UI Health Care may
be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank you.
From:Parker, Adam G
To:Raymond Heitner
Cc:Anne Russett
Subject:Re: [External] Zoning near Hickory Hill Park
Date:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 9:19:47 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Great, thank you for following up. I am fairly new to planning and zoning, but it appears there will be
a meeting this Thursday (third Thursday of the month) Where would I find the agenda or “staff
report” for this Thursday’s meeting? Or is that accessible prior to the meeting to know what will be
discussed. Apologize for the inconvenience of walking me through a website. (I hate doing it for
clients I serve, but I genuinely do not see it, just the meeting on Jan 21 discussion) Also, assuming a
zoom link will be added to the web to attend Thursday?
Additionally, is the board considering the Iowa City district plan with the development? I understand
the land looking to be developed is private land, but hope the considerations of the community will
be taken into account by following the Iowa City district plan which had significant community input.
Lastly, when and for how long will the community be able to know and provide feedback for the new
development? I guess I am more curious, as to what will be developed there if the community has a
voice with how it is developed?
Thanks,
Adam
From: Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner@iowa-city.org>
Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 9:00 AM
To: "Parker, Adam G" <adam-parker@uiowa.edu>
Cc: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: [External] Zoning near Hickory Hill Park
Good Morning Adam,
Anne forwarded me your question about the rezoning northeast of Hickory Hill Park.
We are currently working with the applicant on a few details pertaining to their concept plan for this
rezoning application. We do not have a date for when the rezoning application will be presented to
the City’s Planning and Zoning Commission.
You can check the following website for information on when the application will be heard by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. https://www.icgov.org/city-government/boards/planning-and-
zoning-commission
The link above will also provide the City’s staff report and meeting packet by 5:00PM on the Friday
prior to each meeting (P&Z meetings occur the first and third Thursday of each month). The meeting
packet will provide information on how to participate in the Commission’s zoom meeting.
If you have any questions or comments that you would like sent to the Commission for
consideration, please feel free to email me, and I will forward your comments onto the Commission.
Ray Heitner
Associate Planner
(he/him/his)
319.356.5238
raymond-heitner@iowa-city.org
410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240
WWW.ICGOV.ORG
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use
by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete or destroy all copies of the original message and attachments thereto.
Email sent to or from UI Health Care may be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank
you.
From:Anne Russett
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:FW: ACT development
Date:Monday, January 25, 2021 5:01:50 PM
Attachments:Notice.docx
Ray – Please see the email below. I’ve created the attached for him. What do you think?
From: Casey James Kohrt <cjkohrt@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 3:59 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Re: ACT development
That would be great.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 3:36 PM Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> wrote:
Hi, Casey –
At the moment, I don’t have any extra rezoning signs to put out there. We’ve had several that were
damaged and destroyed this winter. One idea is to put some notices in the kiosks as trail heads. If
that’s something you’d like to do I could put together a PDF with some general information that you
could print to put in a kiosk.
Thanks, Anne
From: Casey James Kohrt <cjkohrt@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 2:33 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Re: ACT development
Hi Anne, It is the Friends of Hickory Hill Park's request for two additional signs to be placed in thepark to make the general public aware of the application for rezoning of the property. We feel the current single sign does not inform the general public of the full scope of the
land potentially being developed. Therefore, would it be possible for additional signage
to be placed inside the park to notify the public?
We would be happy to pick up the signage at a City office and have it placed in the park
by a member of Friends of Hickory Hill Park Board.
Best,
Casey
Chair, FHHP
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 2:52 PM Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> wrote:
Hi, Casey –
We have a received a rezoning application for this land. At this point, I don’t know when it will
be on a Planning and Zoning Commission agenda. You can sign up for e-subscriptions, though,
so you can keep track of when Commission agendas are published:
https://www.icgov.org/e-subscriptions
Let me know if you have any other questions.
Thanks, Anne
From: Casey James Kohrt <cjkohrt@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 10:03 AM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: ACT development
Hi Anne,
Has anything been filed with the City yet on the ACT-owned land by developer Joe
Clark? Do you have an estimate of when that might happen?
Casey Kohrt
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely
for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this
information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
From:Parker, Adam G
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Re: [External] RE: Proposed Residential Development Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
Date:Monday, February 1, 2021 10:26:08 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Hello Ray,
I appreciate you forwarding my concerns to the P&Z commission/City Council.
Best,
Adam
From: Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner@iowa-city.org>
Date: Monday, February 1, 2021 at 10:21 AM
To: "Parker, Adam G" <adam-parker@uiowa.edu>, Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-
city.org>
Subject: [External] RE: Proposed Residential Development Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
Good Morning Adam,
Thank you for your comments on the proposed residential development adjacent to Hickory
Hill Park. Your comments will be forwarded on to the Planning and Zoning Commission for
consideration.
The rezoning will have public hearings by both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Council, with opportunities for direct public comment at both stages. We do not have a date
set for the application to appear before the Planning and Zoning Commission.
If you want to keep track of Planning and Zoning Commission agendas, I would recommend
you sign up to receive an email notice whenever a Commission packet is published:
https://www.icgov.org/e-subscriptions. Meetings are held the first and third Thursday of each
month.
You can also email any correspondence you may have for the Planning and Zoning
Commission to my email address raymond-heitner@iowa-city.org.
Thank you,
Ray Heitner
Associate Planner
(he/him/his)
319.356.5238
raymond-heitner@iowa-city.org
410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240
WWW.ICGOV.ORG
From: Parker, Adam G <adam-parker@uiowa.edu>
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2021 8:01 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>; Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner@iowa-
city.org>
Subject: Proposed Residential Development Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
Hello Anne/Raymond,
I would like to voice my opinion, that I oppose the planned rezone area next to hickory hill park.
Please forward my concerns to the planning and zoning commission, as they review the rezoning to
put a through street in the are directly adjacent to Hickory Hill Park.
I understand the land adjacent to Hickory Hill Park is private land, but know the land was discussed
in the NE district plan https://www.iowa-city.org/.../0/doc/1473770/Electronic.aspx should
preserve and buffer public lands and Hickory Hill Park. I believe the proposed development
images do not accurately buffer the park and would be short sighted to land which the general
public finds great utility. This would significantly impede on natural landscape and would
permanently alter the watershed, prairies, and sight lines of the park.
Hickory Hill Park is a treasure to this community, especially during the past year due to COVID.
It often is the only “safe” respite which one can truly escape the crowd and be one in nature. I
do not believe this land adjacent would be best utilized as single family plots. This would
further income inequality by providing lots only the upper middle class can afford and will
decrease utilization in the park as the urban sprawl approaches. I would encourage the city
parks department to consider opportunities to include biking, skiing, or more trails if the land
adjacent is for sale. This would be a bigger destination for the community long term utilized by
more community members.
If there is a better way to have my voice heard, please let me know. I look forward to
participating in the planning and zoning meeting when this project is brought up.
Best,
Adam Parker
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the individual
or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all
copies of the original message and attachments thereto. Email sent to or from UI Health Care may
be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank you.
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use
by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete or destroy all copies of the original message and attachments thereto.
Email sent to or from UI Health Care may be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank
you.
From:Mary Winder
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:views regarding development near Hickory Hill Park
Date:Tuesday, February 2, 2021 1:36:35 PM
Feb. 2, 2021
Dear Anne Russett and Ray Heitner:
I am writing to you about the housing development being proposed for land along the
northeast border of Hickory Hill Park.
To give you a bit of background, I grew up in Iowa City and spent many, many happy times in
Hickory Hill Park through the years. I like that park so much, in fact, that I held my wedding
there! I have moved away from Iowa City, but every single time I return for a visit, taking a
walk at Hickory Hill Park is always at the top of my list of things to do.
I have often marveled at the forethought of the people who preserved this wild patch of
woods, fields, hills, and creeks for the benefit of the community and the wildlife. It is a unique
and very precious treasure in the Iowa City community.
I understand that land around the park will be developed, but I am very concerned when I
read that the proposed design that the developer is presenting for the housing development
area along the northeast border of the park does not follow the guidelines in the
Comprehensive Plan that has been established by the City. This is extremely unwise, and it is
wrong, as the guidelines were put in place for good reason. It is vital that they be followed.
I am writing to ask you to please require that the development plan be revised so that it does
follow the appropriate guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan, allowing Hickory Hill Park to
retain its “natural and wild” character as opposed to being hemmed in closely by a poorly
planned residential development that does not follow the City’s own guidelines.
Now is the time to require revision of the development plan. Once the land has been rezoned
and the development is in place, it will be too late to say to yourself, “Gosh, I wish we had
done this differently.” Jackie Joyner-Kersee said, “It’s better to look ahead and prepare, than
to look back and regret.”
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need clarification. Thank you for
taking time to read my views on this important matter.
Sincerely,
Mary Winder
785-985-2519
From:Stella Hart
To:anne-russet@iowa-city.org; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Hickory Hill Park
Date:Monday, February 8, 2021 5:51:29 PM
Hello!
I’m writing to express my strong opposition to any rezoning or development of Hickory Hill Park. It really is a very
special place in our community, and losing any part of it would be devastating.
Thank you for your consideration and all you do for the city.
Stella Hart
1331 Dodge Street Ct
Iowa City, IA 52245
This email is from an external source.
From:Anne Russett
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:FW: Proposed land development
Date:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 8:51:04 AM
Can you please follow-up with this person if you haven’t, yet.
From: Jorgensen, Shea M <shea-jorgensen@uiowa.edu>
Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2021 1:34 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>; ray-heitner@iowa-city.org
Subject: Proposed land development
Dear Ms. Russett and Mr. Heitner,
My family lives in Iowa City and we frequent Hickory Hills, as well as other natural areas in
town, at least weekly with our 2-year-old. One of our favorite aspects of Iowa City is the
nature built into the city, especially places we can easily walk to, like Hickory Hills.
I am very concerned about the encroachment of the residential development proposal adjacent
to Hickory Hills. I don't believe the developer's proposed design is an adequate buffer and it
would be a shame to lose another of the few natural places remaining in the city. I hope that
we can protect what is left of our wild areas for future generations. Once they are developed,
they will never be reclaimed. On behalf of my 2-year-old and all the kids who benefit from
natural places in the city, thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Shea Jorgensen, MD
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the individual
or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and
From:Kristen Morrow
To:Raymond Heitner; Anne Russett
Subject:Hickory Hill Land Development
Date:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 7:09:01 PM
Hello Mr. Heitner and Ms. Russett,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed rezoning and housing development on
the land directly abutting Hickory Hill. I am very concerned with the lack of buffer between
this development and the park, and I feel that this development would bring irreparable harm
to the sense of wildness one can feel while hiking Hickory Hill's more remote trails. Like
many residents in my generation, I yearn for more wild places, more trails, more public lands
and parks. This sentiment seems to be growing, especially in light of the pandemic, as more
and more people are finding refuge in the natural world. While I greatly value the Iowa City
parks that are available to me, it's hard not to feel the tug of cities that have placed greater
value on keeping wild corridors. For the sake of Iowa City's residents, wildlife, and reputation,
I think it would be a great mistake if this development were allowed to carve out some of the
remaining wild spaces we have.
Thank you for your time,
Kristen Morrow
"There can be no purpose more enspiriting than to begin the age of restoration,
reweaving the wondrous diversity of life that still surrounds us." - E. O. Wilson.
From:Lutgendorf, Philip A
To:Raymond Heitner; Anne Russett
Cc:friends.hh.park@gmail.com; Lutgendorf, Susan K
Subject:Rezoning the field adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
Date:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 8:28:07 PM
Dear Ms. Russett and Mr. Heitner,
As a nearby resident and frequent walker in Hickory Hill Park, I am deeply troubled by the
current rezoning request that would allow a developer to put fifty-four houses and a street
into the fairly narrow field adjoining the park on its northeast side. I knew something like this
was coming when I repeatedly saw an “Axiom” truck in the field just south of the new Oaknoll
East facility during the summer, with people taking measurements, but I did not guess the
extent of the development they want to build. In my experience over nearly four decades, the
City has given up several opportunities to preserve, through the acquisition of former farms, a
larger belt of greenspace that would enhance the quality of life for residents and prevent our
area becoming part of continuous semi-urban sprawl, especially to the east and north.
Approving the present request—the density of which I understand to violate the City’s own
Northeast District Plan and its mandate for “conservation residential design,” as well as its
Comprehensive Plan—would be yet another failure of vision, and loss of an opportunity to
enhance Iowa City’s livability and recreational opportunities for present and future residents.
If there is more that I can do (in our present situation of limited social interaction) to register
my concern over and opposition to this proposed rezoning, please let me know.
Thanking you,
Philip Lutgendorf
2 Glendale Court
Iowa City (52245)
319 541-5145
From:Shelly Carpenter
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:REZ20-0016 Hickory Trail Estates
Date:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 1:41:46 PM
Dear Mr. Heitner
In response to the notice we received regarding the proposal to rezone the area around Scott
Blvd. and 1st Ave. on the east side of Iowa City we would like to express our concern about
how the planned rezoning would affect Hickory Hill park and surrounding areas. We oppose
any rezoning that would have construction butting up against city preserve and park land.
Also we would request that any development approaching the park be done with single-loaded
streets to allow for a natural buffer between park grounds and housing developments.
Thank you.
Shelly & Marty Carpenter
1035 Tamarack Trail
--
Shelly Carpenter, M.S.
Certified Wellness Coach and Yoga Instructor
www.wellfinity.com
319.330.8382
From:Erin Durian
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Rezoning Message
Date:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 5:43:45 PM
Mr. Heitner,
I am writing to you about the proposed development in the area behind Hickory Hill Park. I believe
that this space is vital for the neighborhood community and should not be further developed. Please
share these comments with the Commission.
Over the years, this space has been important to me personally but I have also been
observing its importance to others. One of the reasons I love living in this neighborhood is the
proximity to nature and in the summer and spring and fall, my preferred walk when I’m feeling
stressed, overwhelmed, or sad is through Hickory Hill to the Big Field that opens up. This space
always feels magical because of its isolation and its expansive presence close to a busy street. On the
days I come up, I’ll sit at the top of the hill- sometimes for an hour or two- and appreciate the sound
of the birds and the quiet, of being surrounded by trees. I’ll observe the plants that grow and the
animals that sneak by. I’ve seen deer, owls, a fox come into the clearing and walk along known
pathways so I know they also appreciate the quiet and the trees. I’ll see families taking a walk
together with their dog leaping beside them (the dog is always particularly stupefied by the amount
of open space to run). I’ll wave hello and listen to their soft footsteps in the grass allowing my mind
to relax, observe, and appreciate what we have around us.
This space is a sanctuary for the residents of this neighborhood and their families as well as
for the wildlife that travels between the park and other wooded areas. I believe the value of this
place is greater as it is, than it would be with another street of houses. Please reconsider developing
this area as it holds a special place in my heart.
Thank you,
Erin Durian
51 Hickory Pl
From:Jason Napoli
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Re: Rezoning Near 1st Avenue and Scott Boulevard
Date:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 5:25:47 PM
Attachments:image004.png
image005.png
image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
Hi Ray-
Thank you for the follow-up regarding this matter. Would you be able to help interpret this new plat
proposal? It appears that lot 45 now contains ten separate homes. Is there a reason and/or strategy for
that?
Furthermore, it appears the numbering of the lots has changed since the original proposal, which is
concerning since my initial message to Anne identified lots 14-28 as not following the concept of a single-
loaded street development. The lots that are now of concern are 26-44. If other residents previously
expressed concern about specific lots can we be sure the numbering change will be taken into
consideration by the Commission?
Thank you again for reconnecting. As previously mentioned, it is concerning how far this proposal is from
the established NE District Plan for the Bluffwood area and I hope the Planning & Zoning Commission will
follow the established guidelines when developing against city preserve.
All the best,
Jason
On Monday, February 8, 2021, 02:39:51 PM CST, Raymond Heitner <raymond-heitner@iowa-city.org>
wrote:
All,
Please see the attached neighbor notification letter for the rezoning application near the intersection of 1st
Avenue and Scott Boulevard. The attached letter contains information pertaining to the currently
scheduled meeting date and time that the rezoning will be discussed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. The letter also contains information on how to access and participate in the meeting.
Please feel free to email me any additional comments that you might like the Commission to consider in
its evaluation of this application.
Thank you,
Ray Heitner
From:Ben Berger
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:RE: REZ20-0016 Hickory Trail Estates
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 9:28:29 AM
Hi Raymond,
I received your letter in the mail about the potential rezoning for Hickory Trail Estates. Thank
you for reaching out and allowing the public to voice their opinions.
While I do not disagree with development in our community, I do want it to be done in areas
that do not impact housing and the environment that is already present.
With the new proposed development, I am very concerned about the impact it will have on the
environment and Hickory Hill Park. I very much enjoy walking through the park and
admiring the natural haven that it provides for humans and nature. I fear that by placing a
housing development right along the border of the park, we as a community will negatively
affect the animals and their homes.
Another very real concern is the added traffic on N. 1st Ave. Traffic on this street is already
very busy and more often than not far exceeding the posted speed limits. I have 3 young
children, and I am always concerned about the traffic on this street. Adding the development
will increase traffic volumes and I believe just lead to additional issues.
The way that the development road will be placed I believe will create an avenue of least
resistance to Eastbound traffic on Scott. At night when the stop at N. 1st Ave and Scott
becomes backed up, traffic will just shoot down the neighborhood and to the intersection at
Hickory Trail and N. 1st Ave.
I have approached the city about traffic calming on N. 1st Ave before, but have not seen any
attempts to control it. What is the city planning to do with the increased traffic and speeds? I
hope they have a suggestion.
Finally, I purchased my house on N. 1st Ave because of the great views out the back of the lot
(ravine) and across the street to the open field and trees. This development will negatively
affect my view across the street and I will be forced to look at a large building development.
My suggestion is the city looks to rezone and develop elsewhere. Leave nature alone and do
not impact an area that so many people of the community love and enjoy.
Thank you.
--
Ben Berger
From:karen.nichols
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Development along Hickory Hill Park
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 11:26:33 AM
Dear Ms. Russett, Mr. Heitner, and members of the Iowa City Planning and Zoning
Commission:
I am writing in opposition to the rezoning request for a residential housing development along
the northeast border of Hickory Hill Park. I am not opposed to development near the park in
general, but do object to the proposed development as currently presented. Based on images of
the plan I have seen, it does not seem to adhere to the recommendations in the Northeast
District Plan or the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
The Northeast District Plan calls for a "conservation residential design" in the neighborhood
that provides a buffer between the residential development and the park. The City's
Comprehensive Plan, when discussing Parks and Open Space Goals and Strategies,
discourages parks that are surrounded by private property and encourages development of
parks with single loaded street access. The developer’s proposed design does not seem to
adhere to either of these plans.
Hickory Hill park is a jewel of Iowa City and one of the reasons our family stays here.
Considerable community effort has gone into protecting and maintaining the park over many
decades. Developers, planners, and other city leaders must respect the wishes of the
community as expressed in the Northeast District Plan and the City’s Comprehensive Plan,
which set forth guidelines that residents expect to be followed in developing land near the
park. Please require that the developer's plans be reworked to adhere to our city's expressed
guidelines.
Thank you.
With warmest regards,
Karen Nichols
Communications Professional
1740 F Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
641.781.8506
karen.nichols@pm.me
she/her/hers
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
From:Veronica Bolinger
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Hickory Hill Park Proposed Rezoning Concerns
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 12:26:24 PM
To Whom it may Concern,
I am concerned about the rezoning request for new development near Hickory Hill Park, this proposal does not comply with the NE District plan, or the Comprehensive Plan and needs to be reworked. These plans were put in place to protect and minimize the impact to Hickory Hill Park and they should absolutely be followed and the diverging from these stated goals shows a lack of integrity to our citizens and community. I would appreciate it if you would forward my concerns onto the Planning and Zoning team.
A concerned citizen,Veronica Bolinger
From:Jesse Thomas
To:Anne Russett
Cc:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Re: Proposed development of Hickory Hill Park
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 12:50:23 PM
Attachments:image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
Thanks for the option Anne. I would prefer to retract my first statement and just make a broad
comment based on what little I know of the project right now:
1. I'm in favor of Hickory hill park growing.
2. I'm against boxing in the park which could reduce its expansion options in the future
3. I would prefer we avoid more low-density development or road laying but if we cannot
avoid it I would insist that we take every opportunity to build dedicated and separate bicycle
infrastructure so we don't need to share the road with car users.
This is the first time in 20 years I've paid attention. I'll tune in closely so I can make more
educated comments next time.
Thank you
Jesse
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:22 PM Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> wrote:
Hi, Jesse – Would you like me to share this correspondence with the Commission? If you’d like to
revise your statement for me to share with the Commission you could do that, as well.
Thanks, Anne
From: Jesse Thomas <jessemacfarlane@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 12:14 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Re: Proposed development of Hickory Hill Park
Thanks for the clarification Anne I was confused about the facts there.
I'm reassured to hear you would grow the park... let's do it!
Jesse
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 10:44 AM Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org> wrote:
Hi, Jesse –
Thank you for your email. We will forward it to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their
consideration.
I wanted to clarify that the proposal does not turn over any of the existing parkland to development. I
would increase the size of the park by 10 acres. That said, the development is adjacent to the park.
Let us know if you have any questions.
Thanks, Anne
WWW.ICGOV.ORG
Anne Russett, AICP
Senior Planner
She/Her/Hers
p: 319-356-5251
410 E Washington St
Iowa City, IA 52240
From: Jesse Thomas <jessemacfarlane@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 9:59 AM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Proposed development of Hickory Hill Park
Hello Anne,
Would you please forward this to the Planning and Zoning Commission?
I am the owner of 625 S Governor St and I think that turning over any part of Hickory Hill
Park to development would be a huge mistake.
It goes without saying that HHP is a beloved benefit for the entire community in any year
but to think of encroaching on the park after living through Covid is shocking and hurtful
to put it mildly.
There are so many areas in our city already bulldozed, paved, and vacant that can accept
such a development. In order to lead the state in equity and human happiness, we need to
increase the density of what we have already developed, decrease our automobile
dependence, and increase the leisure spaces and our access to them with bicycle highways
and free bussing.
I use every acre of Hickory Hill park every month of the year and I would be extremely
sad to see more wasteful sprawl continue to make a mockery of our "Athens of the
Midwest" reputation.
Jesse Thomas
Resident
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for
use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this
information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
From:Hillary Schofield
To:anne-russet@iowa-city.org; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Proposed Residential Development Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 1:00:44 PM
Dear Anne and Ray,
I am writing to express my disapproval of the proposed development adjacent to Hickory Hill
Park. I explore and walk the trails of HHP frequently. It is a precious source of renewal in
Iowa City, without having to travel very far. It is so important to have this kind of refuge in
town, and not only for humans, but for all the other creatures that are trying to persist and
thrive despite the ever-encroaching spread of human settlement. A development so close and
so elaborate would undoubtedly have a negative domino effect on the ecosystem of the Park.
My strong feelings aside, this plan does not comply with the Northeast District Plan, nor the
Comprehensive Plan; these need to be followed in order to minimize the damage to this dearly
valued part of Iowa City.
I ask that you please pass along these comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Many thanks for your time,
Hillary
From:Anne Russett
To:"nancy footner"
Cc:Raymond Heitner
Subject:RE: Hickory Hill Park proposed development
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 1:04:33 PM
Thanks, Nancy. We will pass this along to the Commission.
Anne
From: nancy footner <nfootner@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 12:47 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Hickory Hill Park proposed development
Dear Ms Russett,
I am writing to protest the proposed development on the NE side of Hickory Hill Park.
This plan completely violates both terms laid out in the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan and the NE
District plan.
Please forward this email to all the members of the Planning and Zoning committee and the City
Council.
The proposal must be rejected. Hickory Hill Park is a precious natural area and must be protected
from any further encroachment by development.
Nancy Footner
Iowa City Citizen
2008 Dunlap Ct, Iowa City, IA 52245
319 3382674
From:Anne Russett
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:FW: Hickory Hill Development
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 2:24:32 PM
Please include with Commission correspondence.
From: Susannah Neal <susannahgkneal@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 2:04 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Hickory Hill Development
Dear Ms Russett
As a citizen of Iowa City I am writing to object to the proposed development that borders Hickory Hill
Park. This proposed development does not comply with the NE Plan nor does it comply to the
Comprehensive Plans. Those plans were put in place to protect HHP and by breaching these plans
this development is in violation of those plans. Please immediately reverse the course of this
egregious development plan.
Respectfully,
Susannah Neal
1133 Chamberlain Drive
Iowa City, IA 52240
From:Heather McKnight
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Hickory Hill
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 3:56:07 PM
Anne and Raymond,
I am writing to you to express my dismay at the proposed rezoning of land adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. Hickory
Hill is an oasis within the city. A sprawling park where I and my kids wander aimlessly and discover new delights.
We have seen foxes, deer and numerous other wildlife. It is a special retreat and I fear a rezoning would be very
disruptive to the rugged and wild landscape and wildlife. This proposal does not comply with the NE District plan,
nor the Comprehensive Plan and I strongly encourage the proposal not be accepted. Please share my feedback with
planning and zoning.
Thank you,
Heather
Sent from my iPhone
This email is from an external source.
From:Messingham, Kelly
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Hickory Trail rezoning project by Axiom consultants
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 4:19:03 PM
To: Iowa City Planning and Rezoning Commission and City Council
c/o Anne Russett and Raymond-Heitner
We are writing to convey our objection to the proposed rezoning and development of the 48.75
acres on the SW corner of Scott Blvd and N 1st Ave by Axiom Consultants for completion of a Hickory
Trail extension. The proposed development, with up to 50 single family lots and a senior living
facility with 120 units, does not comply with the NE District plan and the Comprehensive plan set
forth by the City. The original plan specified development of a short cul-de-sac-no longer than 900
feet. These original plans were put into place to minimize the impact of development on HHP, and
should be followed. HHP is a unique urban park that should be protected. A larger buffer is
necessary to diminish city noise within the park and elimination of the buffer zone to the proposed
35-48 feet (in some areas) will have a direct impact on wildlife that travel between the park and
surrounding areas on a daily basis.
Additionally, we live immediately adjacent to the site to be developed and this extensive increase in
housing density will dramatically increase noise and traffic in the area, with a negative impact on
both HHP and the traffic on Scott Blvd.
Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions. Thank you.
Kelly Messingham
Michael Messingham
64 Hickory Heights Lane
Iowa City, IA 52245
Ph. 319.594.6611
kelly-messingham@uiowa.edu
michaelmessingham@gmail.com
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete or destroy all copies of the original message and attachments thereto.
Email sent to or from UI Health Care may be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank
you.
From:Emily Schacht
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 4:31:59 PM
To: Iowa City Planning and Rezoning Commission and City Council
I'd like to express my objection to the proposed rezoning and development of the 48.75 acres on the SW corner of Scott Blvd and N 1st Ave by Axiom Consultants for completion of a Hickory Trail extension. The proposed development, with up to 50 single family lots and a senior living facility with 120 units does not comply with the NE District plan and the Comprehensive plan set forth by the City. These original plans were put into place to minimize the impact of development on Hickory Hill Park, and should be followed. Hickory HIll Park is a unique urban park that should be protected. A larger buffer is necessary to diminish city noise within the park and elimination of the buffer zone to the proposed 35-48 feet (in some areas) will have a direct impact on wildlife that travel between the park and surrounding areas on a daily basis.
I am not opposed to development in general, and believe development is necessary for our town to continue to retain its current residents and attract new ones. However, development needs to be done thoughtfully, which is what the NE District plan and Comprehensive City plan accomplish. These plans should be followed.
Please forward my comment to the Planning and Rezoning Commission and City Council.
Sincerely,Emily Campbell328 N 7th Ave, Iowa City, IA
From:kristen Nelson-Boutros
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Proposed Rezoning and Development
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 4:45:17 PM
Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org and Raymond-heitner@iowa-city.org
To: Iowa City Planning and Rezoning Commission and City Council
We are writing to convey our objection to the proposed rezoning and development of the
48.75 acres on the SW corner of Scott Blvd and N 1st Ave by Axiom Consultants for
completion of a Hickory Trail extension. The proposed development, with up to 50 single
family lots and a senior living facility with 120 units, does not comply with the the NE District
plan and the Comprehensive plan set forth by the City. The original plan specified
development of a short cul-de-sac-no longer than 900 feet. These original plans were put into
place to minimize the impact of development on Hickory Hills Park (HHP), and should be
followed. HHP is a unique urban park that should be protected. A larger buffer is necessary to
diminish city noise within the park and elimination of the buffer zone to the proposed 35-48
feet (in some areas) will have a direct impact on wildlife that travel between the park and
surrounding areas on a daily basis.
Additionally, we live immediately adjacent to the site to be developed and this extensive
increase in housing density will dramatically increase noise and traffic in the area, with a
negative impact on both HHP and the traffic on Scott Blvd.
Sincerely,
Kristen Nelson-Boutros
Rami Boutros
Get Outlook for iOS
From:Robin Kopelman
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Hickory Hill Park area rezoning
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 4:59:11 PM
To: Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council:
We are writing to convey our objection to the proposed rezoning and
development of the 48.75 acres on the SW corner of Scott Blvd and N
1st Ave by Axiom Consultants for completion of a Hickory Trail
extension. The proposed development, with up to 50 single family lots
and a senior living facility with 120 units, does not comply with the
NE District plan and the Comprehensive plan set forth by the City. The
original plan specified development of a short cul-de-sac-no longer
than 900 feet. These original plans were put into place to minimize
the impact of development on HHP, and should be followed. HHP is a
unique urban park that should be protected. A larger buffer is
necessary to diminish city noise within the park and elimination of
the buffer zone to the proposed 35-48 feet (in some areas) will have a
direct impact on wildlife that travel between the park and surrounding
areas on a daily basis.
Additionally, we speak as a family who lives adjacent to Hickory Hill
Park. We share concerns with other adjacent neighborhoods that the
extensive increase in housing density will dramatically increase noise
and traffic in the area, with a negative impact on both HHP and the
traffic on Scott Blvd. and 1st Ave..
Our six family members are daily users of the park, whether as
recreational hikers, XC skiers, responsible dog walkers, sledders, and
trail runners. I (Robin) also co-lead the Iowa City Trail Sisters, an
all-women's trail running group who regularly runs in and loves this
wild area deeply. For these reasons, we are concerned it will
severely impact the wildlife habitat, negatively impact the quality of
the park experience, and be detrimental to the already poor water
quality of Ralston Creek.
Please forward our comments.
Sincerely,
Robin and Todd Kopelman
523 Woodridge Avenue
Iowa City
Sent from my iPhone
This email is from an external source.
From:Mark Renshaw
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner; Bruce Teague
Subject:Rezoning
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 8:00:22 PM
To: Iowa City Planning and Rezoning Commission and City Council
I am writing to contest and oppose the proposed rezoning and development of the 48.75 acres on the SW corner of
Scott Boulevard and N 1st Avenue by Axiom Consultants for completion of a Hickory Trail extension.
The proposed rezoning and development, with up to 50 single family lots and a senior living facility with 120 units,
does not comply with the the NE District Plan and the Comprehensive Plan set forth by the City of Iowa City. The
original plans specified development of a short cul-de-sac-no longer than 900 feet, and were developed to minimize
the impact of on Hickory Hills Park. If this space is to be developed, these original plans must be followed. Our
Hickory Hills Park is a unique urban park that should be protected. A larger buffer is necessary to diminish city
noise within the park and elimination of the buffer zone to the proposed 35-48 feet (in some areas) will have a direct
impact on wildlife that travel between the park and surrounding areas.
Additionally, my property is immediately adjacent to the site to be developed and this extensive increase in housing
density will dramatically increase noise and traffic in the area, with a negative impact on both Hickory Hills Park
and traffic on Scott Boulevard.
Sincerely,
Mark Renshaw
72 Hickory Heights Lane
Iowa City, Iowa
This email is from an external source.
From:Bruce Teague
To:Mark Renshaw; Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Re: Rezoning
Date:Thursday, February 11, 2021 8:22:31 PM
Attachments:OutlookEmoji-1554175382453692d126f-b36d-4eda-babd-0f3060f207ce.png
OutlookEmoji-1554175382453074ba4ce-9234-4274-9637-aa0aebc05576.png
OutlookEmoji-15541753824534c39b404-ae1f-45ae-b633-343d56495d4a.png
OutlookEmoji-1554175382453b45f3b08-f30a-4ebe-897f-9445fc8ace4f.png
OutlookEmoji-1554175382453a0398783-e4e2-4f62-99a9-06452c02d067.png
OutlookEmoji-1554175382453e323ed16-9e35-4f52-aa06-361cf68c4e59.png
OutlookEmoji-1554175382453dde46e65-eb31-45e1-a249-f58094e1c0d6.png
OutlookEmoji-155417538245367aed794-3e7c-4608-9056-2a5589e5e6b3.png
OutlookEmoji-1554175382453a419b920-12c8-4663-ab60-853ac4c91599.png
OutlookEmoji-15541753824533aa0bf07-2022-4c92-a736-5452034d69fd.png
OutlookEmoji-1554175382453fae27209-c22b-4b3d-bcc1-0361b217bcde.png
OutlookEmoji-155417538245319745814-5f90-4f63-aadf-8a0d3471bb86.png
OutlookEmoji-15541753824535b9a9ec7-b9a4-445a-b58a-7a5cecd0f68d.png
Thanks for reaching out and sharing your concerns. I hear you!
This project will first be at our Planning and Zoning Commission and must pass there before it
comes to council. I would encourage you to share your concerns with Commissioners through
email, calls, and/or when this item is on their agenda.
Sincerely,
Mayor Bruce Teague
(He/Him/His)
Iowa City City Council Member - At Large
1-319-536-1200
410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240
WWW.ICGOV.ORG
Notice: Please be advised this email communication may be public information.
From: Mark Renshaw <markrenshaw@me.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 8:00:00 PM
To: Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner; Bruce Teague
Subject: Rezoning
To: Iowa City Planning and Rezoning Commission and City Council
I am writing to contest and oppose the proposed rezoning and development of the 48.75 acres on the SW corner of
Scott Boulevard and N 1st Avenue by Axiom Consultants for completion of a Hickory Trail extension.
The proposed rezoning and development, with up to 50 single family lots and a senior living facility with 120 units,
does not comply with the the NE District Plan and the Comprehensive Plan set forth by the City of Iowa City. The
original plans specified development of a short cul-de-sac-no longer than 900 feet, and were developed to minimize
the impact of on Hickory Hills Park. If this space is to be developed, these original plans must be followed. Our
Hickory Hills Park is a unique urban park that should be protected. A larger buffer is necessary to diminish city
noise within the park and elimination of the buffer zone to the proposed 35-48 feet (in some areas) will have a direct
impact on wildlife that travel between the park and surrounding areas.
Additionally, my property is immediately adjacent to the site to be developed and this extensive increase in housing
density will dramatically increase noise and traffic in the area, with a negative impact on both Hickory Hills Park
and traffic on Scott Boulevard.
Sincerely,
Mark Renshaw
72 Hickory Heights Lane
Iowa City, Iowa
This email is from an external source.
From:Elizabeth Tracey
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Re: Development by Axiom Consultants bordering Hickory Hill Park
Date:Friday, February 12, 2021 1:17:38 AM
We are writing to convey our objection to the proposed rezoning and development of the 48.75 acres on the SW
corner of Scott Blvd and N 1st Ave by Axiom Consultants for completion of a Hickory Trail extension. The
proposed development, with up to 50 single family lots and a senior living facility, does not comply with the NE
District plan and the Comprehensive plan set forth by the city. The original plan specified development of a short
cul-de-sac no longer than 900 feet. These original plans were put into place to minimize the impact of development
on Hickory Hill Park (HHP), and should be followed. HHP is a unique urban park that should be protected. A larger
buffer is necessary to diminish city noise within the park and elimination of the buffer zone to the proposed 35-48
feet (in some areas) will have a direct impact on wildlife that travel between the park and surrounding areas on a
daily basis.
Additionally, we live immediately adjacent to the site to be developed and this extensive increase in housing density
will dramatically increase noise and traffic in the area, with a negative impact on both Hickory Hill Park and the
traffic on Scott Blvd.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Tracey and Robert Beck
40 Hickory Heights Lane
Iowa City, Iowa 52245
This email is from an external source.
From:Julie Moffitt
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Rezoning adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
Date:Friday, February 12, 2021 7:50:17 AM
Dear Mr Heitner,
I am writing regarding rezoning of land adjacent to Hickory Hill park. I have lived in Iowa
City since 1999 and have run and hiked 1000’s of miles in that park. I took my dog for the
last cross country ski of his life in that park, I took my young daughter for her first trail run in
that park, and I have run many miles with cherished friends there as well. Every time I wander
the trails there, it never ceases to amaze me at the natural beauty and wildlife I see. This park
is a crowing jewel in Iowa City. Rezoning this land adjacent - and I know this section well -
will effective remove a buffer from that side of the park and negatively impact habitat and the
experience. If Central Park in NYC can exist as it does, surely Iowa City, IA can be as
thoughtful and protective of its urban parks and natural habitat. I would request that you deny
this request for rezoning. There is plenty of other land to develop.
Please share my comments at the rezoning meeting.
Sincerely,
Julia A. Moffitt, PhD
302 W Park Rd, Iowa City, IA 52246
From:Kelly Teeselink
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Comments on the proposed residential development adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
Date:Friday, February 12, 2021 8:02:37 AM
Good morning,
This email is in regards to the proposed residential development adjacent to Hickory Hill Park.
I was (and am) very heartbroken and frustrated to hear of this potential
residential development that I believe would negatively impact the best park in Iowa City.
But to take the emotion out of it, one of the biggest issues I see is this proposal does not
comply with the NE District plan, nor the Comprehensive Plan. This plan calls for a
"conservation residential design" and myself and others do not believe the developer's
proposed design follows the City's established comprehensive plan and needs to be reworked.
Furthermore, the City's Comprehensive Plan, when discussing Parks and Open Space Goals
and Strategies, "discourages parks that are surrounded by private property; encourage
development of parks with single loaded street access." This residential development would be
doing the opposite of the comprehensive plan.
On another note, I can't claim to know much about deer population and control but I am going
on the assumption that the more deer habitat that is removed, the more deer will end up in
residential areas. With the city spending lots of resources on deer population control, it's
frustrating to see that there is a proposed plan that would destroy this animal friendly habitat.
And finally, I must admit I am no longer an Iowa City resident as of one month ago. I lived in
Iowa City for 16 years and consider it my home. I moved to Flagstaff, Arizona because I
wanted more access to nature and wild spaces. While IC and the surrounding area provides
lovely trails and parks, I wanted to live in a place that actively conserved outdoor spaces and
made them more abundant and accessible. This proposed plan near HHP reaffirmed my
decision to leave Iowa City, which wasn't an easy one. I know I'm not the only who places
significant weight on access to and conservation of outdoor spaces when deciding where to
live.
Thank you for listening!
Kelly Teeselink
From:Carolyn L. Buckingham
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Re: Proposed Development Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
Date:Friday, February 12, 2021 8:41:58 AM
Dear Ms. Russett and Mr. Heitner,
I am writing on behalf of myself and my husband, Mike Biderman, to express our opposition to the proposed
development along the easternmost border of Hickory Hill Park. The proposed development does not adhere to the
recommendations listed in Iowa City’s Northeast District Plan for the Bluffwood Area, or the City's Comprehensive
Plan and does not provide for an adequate buffer between the residential development and the park. Moreover,
Hickory Hill Park is such a unique and special place in our City and a new development built directly adjacent to the
Park will severely impact wildlife habitat and be detrimental to the water quality of Ralston Creek.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Buckingham & Mike Biderman
This email is from an external source.
From:Jorgensen, Shea M
To:Raymond Heitner
Cc:Anne Russett
Subject:Re: [External] RE: Proposed land development
Date:Friday, February 12, 2021 11:20:40 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Yes, if you could forward this to City Staff that would be much appreciated. I have since heard
from the Friends of Hickory Hill group and would also like to add that this development
proposal does not comply with the NE District plan, nor the Comprehensive Plan. Thank you
for listening to the families and individuals of our city who care about our natural spaces.
Shea Jorgensen, MD
From: Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner@iowa-city.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2021 9:09 AM
To: Jorgensen, Shea M
Cc: Anne Russett
Subject: [External] RE: Proposed land development
Shea,
Thank you for your comments. Attached is a letter that we sent out to nearby residents last week.
The letter contains information on how to access the upcoming Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting where we intend to discuss the rezoning application for this property.
Please let me know if you would like City staff to forward any correspondence to the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
Thank you,
Ray Heitner, AICP
Associate Planner
(he/him/his)
319.356.5238
raymond-heitner@iowa-city.org
410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240
WWW.ICGOV.ORG
From: Jorgensen, Shea M <shea-jorgensen@uiowa.edu>
Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2021 1:34 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>; ray-heitner@iowa-city.org
Subject: Proposed land development
Dear Ms. Russett and Mr. Heitner,
My family lives in Iowa City and we frequent Hickory Hills, as well as other natural areas in
town, at least weekly with our 2-year-old. One of our favorite aspects of Iowa City is the
nature built into the city, especially places we can easily walk to, like Hickory Hills.
I am very concerned about the encroachment of the residential development proposal
adjacent to Hickory Hills. I don't believe the developer's proposed design is an adequate buffer
and it would be a shame to lose another of the few natural places remaining in the city. I hope
that we can protect what is left of our wild areas for future generations. Once they are
developed, they will never be reclaimed. On behalf of my 2-year-old and all the kids who
benefit from natural places in the city, thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Shea Jorgensen, MD
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the individual
or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy all
copies of the original message and attachments thereto. Email sent to or from UI Health Care may
be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank you.
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use
by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete or destroy all copies of the original message and attachments thereto.
Email sent to or from UI Health Care may be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank
you.
From:Weis, Adam J
To:Anne Russett
Cc:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Re: [External] RE: Hickory Hill Park/NE District
Date:Friday, February 12, 2021 2:43:34 PM
Hi Anne,
Thank you for replying and forwarding my message on. It is nice to know that our voices are
heard, and I value your time.
The 10-acre addition is a small consolation in what is a betrayal of the NE District Plan, of Iowa
City, and of nature. Please forward my comments to P&Z. I know Iowa City will make the right
decision in the end.
Thanks again,
Adam
From: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 10:41 AM
To: Weis, Adam J <adam-j-weis@uiowa.edu>
Cc: Ray Heitner <raymond-heitner@iowa-city.org>
Subject: [External] RE: Hickory Hill Park/NE District
Hi, Adam –
Thank you for your email. We will forward it to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their
consideration.
I did want to let you know that with the proposal the park would be expanded by 10 acres.
Let us know if you have any questions.
Thanks, Anne
From: Weis, Adam J <adam-j-weis@uiowa.edu>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 9:39 AM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Hickory Hill Park/NE District
Dear Ms. Russett,
I'm writing to express my concern about development plans near Hickory Hill Park. I'm a
graduate student at the University and have lived in Iowa City since I was four years old. In my
twenty years here, I've explored nearly every corner of our city, particularly its natural areas.
I'm really proud that the IC area has so many beautiful parks and trail systems, and I think it's
one of the strongest aspects of our community. I've spent hundreds of hours with friends and
acquaintances running and hiking in our parks, especially Hickory Hill. When I heard about
plans to develop northeast of the park, it immediately struck me as poor planning.
In a time when Iowa City is trying to embrace sustainability and the fight against climate
change (for instance, the prairie plantings in the parks which I think is absolutely amazing), it
seems antithetical and backwards to develop along park boundaries. If anything, Hickory Hill
should be expanded, so that more land area can be restored to native landscape which helps
reduce flooding through increased infiltration, clean our water and air, provide habitat for
wildlife, and offer more recreational opportunities for our neighbors. It's especially imperative
that existing natural areas are bolstered since it's much easier to expand an existing park than
create a new one. And wildlife corridors become more effective with size and inter-
connection, rather than being dispersed across the city.
I'm also concerned that the developers will not follow the NE District Plan and maintain a
proper buffer or follow "conservation design." Due to its proximity to Ralston Creek,
developing any additional land in this part of town cannot embrace conservation. The increase
in impermeable surfaces will only increase the flashiness of Ralston Creek, and additional
contaminants will runoff into the stream.
Iowa City should be seeking every single opportunity it can to strengthen the size and health
of its natural areas. We're lucky to have a community that cares about nature and recreation
and prioritizes those aspects in a state which does not. Please at least consider these things,
and I appreciate you spending the time to read this. I would be happy to help in any way I can.
I love Iowa City and would hate to see it become a haven for developers seeking short-term
gains.
Thank you,
Adam Weis
Graduate Research Assistant
Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Iowa
From:darcy128@aol.com
To:Raymond Heitner; Anne Russett
Cc:darcy128@aol.com
Subject:REZ20-0016 Hickory Trail Estates
Date:Friday, February 12, 2021 3:21:26 PM
Dear Mr. Heitner and Ms. Russett,
I'm writing to you with regard to the rezoning of the land proposed as Hickory Trail Estates REZ20-0016.
In the rezoning exhibit submitted by Mr. Clark, lots numbered 26-44 clearly ignore the "buffer zone" that
the overall city plans for development near parks contain. This proposal does not comply with the NE
District Plan nor the Comprehensive Plan for development. Why did the city go to the trouble of
developing these plans if not to follow them?
Lots numbered 26 through 44 are clearly encroaching on the area designed to protect the park. Those
additional nineteen lots are far too close to the park. People within the park will be subjected to so much
more noise from people not to mention car traffic. This road could easily become a cut through for people
coming from Scott Boulevard. The plan clearly shows that one remedy for the congestion was
contemplated and that is the use of a cul-de-sac. Why was that abandoned? Additionally, removal of lots
26-44 would create a single-loaded street, both of which are to be used in city development close to
parks.
This development is already going to severely impinge upon the enjoyment of the park. This park is a City
of Iowa City treasure and should be kept that way. I have been a user of this park for at least fifty of my
sixty-plus years and I have seen the many changes that have come, some of them very good but this
one, as proposed, will be among the worst. I am a wheelchair user now and we often go to the end of
Hickory Trail on a nightly walk. The beautiful prairie grasses and abundant animal life is a joy. Make no
mistake. First Avenue traffic behind us is still plenty loud but if this were a street with houses on two
sides, the north side of the park will never be the same. Please do the right thing and minimize this
development by keeping within the NE District Plan and the Comprehensive Plan, already in place.
Please forward this comment to the Planning and Zoning commission.
Darcy Lipsius
2639 Hickory Trail
From:Anne Russett
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:FW: Hickory Hill Park Proposed Development Plan
Date:Friday, February 12, 2021 3:32:19 PM
From: Emily Kim <emilyakim05@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 3:32 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Hickory Hill Park Proposed Development Plan
Hello Anne,
My name is Emily Kim and I have thoroughly enjoyed many hikes through Hickory Hill Park over the
years. I also am a teacher in Iowa City, and many of my students enjoy the park - especially the
sledding! They tell me, "it's one of the best sledding hills in IC." I don't have any kids yet (I am
actually due with our first baby in a few days), but I imagine we'll be frequenting HHP for many sled
trips in the future, per the recommendation of MANY Iowa City fourth graders.
After seeing the newest proposed development plan, I am concerned because the plan does not
comply with the NE District Plan or Comprehensive Plan. These plans were put in place to minimize
the impact on Hickory Hill Park. They should be followed with integrity and fidelity.
I know Iowa City prides itself on its commitment to nature, to sustainability, and to providing the
best park areas for its residents. Hickory Hill Park is a crucial part of the city and we ask that any
negative impact on the park be avoided at all costs.
Thank you for your time and commitment to Iowa City!
Emily Kim
From:Anne Russett
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:FW: Concerns about proposed development near Hickory Hill Park
Date:Friday, February 12, 2021 3:31:09 PM
From: Molitor, Hannah R <hannah-molitor@uiowa.edu>
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 3:18 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Concerns about proposed development near Hickory Hill Park
Hello Ms. Russett,
As a resident and taxpayer in Iowa City for 5 years now, and someone who appreciates natural
spaces in Iowa City, I'm writing to you to express my concerns for the proposed development
near Hickory Hill Park. As I'm sure you know, the proposed plan does not comply with the
Comprehensive Plan nor does it comply with the Northeast District Plan. I'm asking that the
proposed development not be pursued, and that the city adhere to its previous agreements to
better protect Hickory Hill Park. While I realize that all development will not be stopped, I
advocate for responsible planning around the park and establishing a buffer zone. Please
forward my thoughts to the planning and zoning committee.
All the best,
Hannah Molitor
Hannah Molitor
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Iowa
hannah-molitor@uiowa.edu
From:Ryther, Krisanne E
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:No Re-Zoning :: Hickory Hill Park
Date:Wednesday, February 17, 2021 4:33:38 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Hello, I am writing to you as a concerned citizen of Iowa City and a regular visitor to Hickory Hill Park.
I am concerned that the zoning plan does not meet requirements that were negotiated with Hickory
Hill park previously, and am concerned about habitat loss, loss of public trail heads, and increased
pesticide use that would come with residential development.
We would like to see plans put in place to preserve wildlife habitat, protect water quality in the park,
create cul-de-sacs and single loaded streets, as well as creating a buffer zone between any new
development and Hickory Hill Park.
Natural woodland areas are few and far between in the Iowa City area and with the ever present
threat of climate change and habitat destruction we would like to remind you that it is far easier to
tear down habitat and destroy natural areas than it is to rebuild them in the future. These areas are
critically important to pollinators and bird species that are under threat of extinction. Please take the
public's concerns into consideration on these issues.
Park and Land conservation is IMPORTANT!
Krisanne Ryther | Recruiting Operations & Special Events Coordinator
The University of Iowa
992 Evashevski Drive | Hansen Football Performance Center
Iowa City, IA 52242 | 319.335.8944 | fax 319.335.8915
From:Anne Russett
To:"Beth McQuillen"
Cc:Raymond Heitner
Subject:RE: Hickory Hill Park
Date:Thursday, February 18, 2021 8:28:58 AM
Hi, Beth – Thank you for your comments. We will share them with the Commission.
Anne
From: Beth McQuillen <bamcquillen@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 6:59 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Hickory Hill Park
Good evening, I am writing to urge the Commission to honor the 2007 development plan for the
area adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. My foremost concerns are protecting site lines, using cul-de-sac
roadways, and avoid homes facing toward the park.
The park is the only natural greenscape that is readily accessible to all of the town center, including
those who don't drive. It is a unique treasure and refuge away from our busy streets and lives, even
from this pandemic. It is irreplaceable.
Sincerely,
Beth McQuillen
1802 Morningside Dr, Iowa City, IA 52245
From:Anne Russett
To:"Eric Gidal"
Cc:Raymond Heitner
Subject:RE: Case No. REZ20-0016
Date:Thursday, February 18, 2021 8:30:30 AM
Thank you for your comments. We will share them with the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Anne
From: Eric Gidal <eric.gidal5@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 7:39 AM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Case No. REZ20-0016
Dear Anne Russett,
Please forward this email to the Planning and Zoning Committee for this evening (2/18) meeting.
I write regarding Case No. REZ20-0016, which will give the go ahead for developing two fields
adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. Others will speak to the details of the City Plan for this area of town
and for the pros and cons of different development designations. I wish to write regarding the
profound loss to our community of this gorgeous hillside overlooking Hickory HIll Park and Regina
High School.
I have occasion to walk through these fields two or three times a week. They have long been a
magnificent unofficial extension of the park and during this past year of wretched isolation have
provided solace through their unassuming beauty.
I have long understood that this hillside was not part of the official parkland, but to any walker in the
park it forms a clear part of the park experience and environment. Regardless of questions of
density and buffers, its development will be one further diminishment of what's left of one of our
community's vital recreational resources.
Over the 25 years I have lived in Iowa City I have witnessed Hickory Hill Park dying by a thousand
cuts, a little bit here, a little bit there. I've no doubt that, once this new section is "improved" and
"developed" I will continue to walk through the park. But I and many others will cast rueful gazes
upon what used to be one of the park's true gems.
Regardless of what decision each of you come to regarding this proposal, I ask that some attention
be granted to the deep sorrow and irretrievable loss (at least in our lifetimes) this plan will
occasion.
Yours sincerely,
Eric Gidal
328 Brown Street
From:Ellis, Roslynn A
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Hickory Hill Park
Date:Thursday, February 18, 2021 10:00:05 AM
Good Morning Ray –
I was very upset to learn at the potential re-zoning of Hickory Hill Park. I have recently purchased a
house on the East side of Iowa City to be closer to the park. BUT closer is all you need for anyone
who desires to live on the East side near HHP. I am so concerned about the habitat loss, loss of
public trail heads, and increased pesticide use that will come with additional residential
development. This park needs to be protected without infringing on it, we all are VERY aware…I
hope we all are of how few natural woodland areas there are in Iowa City limits. As well, what has
kept me as a resident in Iowa City is our progressive protection of habitat destruction and awareness
of climate change.
I have no doubt there are plenty of additional areas within Iowa City limits that can accommodate
this project. Regardless of how small Axiom Consultants believe they are encroaching on this
beloved park land, if this passes it would be a HUGE signal that no matter what land we have and
agreements made in prior years as soon as money is thrown around we buckle.
Protecting Park and Lan conservation is IMPORTANT.
Thank you -
Roz EllisAssistant CoachIowa Field Hockey
University of Iowa | N328 Carver-Hawkeye Arena | Iowa City, IA 52242 Mobile: 319.471.3415 | Office: 319.335.9252The University of Iowa | Iowa AthleticsInstagram: Iowafieldhockey | Twitter @IowafieldhockeyTake our Recruitment Questionnaire | Camp and Clinic Information
From:Synan, Ann
To:Raymond Heitner; Anne Russett
Cc:Synan, William J
Subject:Proposed Rezoning Near Hickory Hill Park
Date:Thursday, February 18, 2021 10:36:38 AM
Importance:High
Dear Mr. Heitner and Ms. Russett,
We received your letter in the mail about the potential rezoning for Hickory Trail Estates. Thank you
for reaching out to the community to voice their opinions regarding the proposed rezoning. We
participated in the Good Neighbor meeting and we will join the Planning and Zoning meeting on
February 18th for the discussion of this proposal.
We have lived in the Bluffwood neighborhood for over 26 years and we do not disagree with
development in our area, however we believe that developers, planners, and city leaders need to
respect the wishes of the community, as expressed in the Northeast District Plan for the Bluffwood
neighborhood and in Iowa City’s Comprehensive Plan. These plans set forth the guidelines that Iowa
City residents expected and still expect to be followed in developing land near Hickory Hill Park.
We are opposed to development adjacent to Hickory Hill Park that does not meet the guidelines
established in the City of Iowa City’s Comprehensive Development Plan and Northeast district plan)
created by the city. We understand that those plans were put in place to minimize the impact to
Hickory Hill Park and they should be followed. We believe that the proposed rezoning and
development does not meet these guidelines and we are voicing our opposition. Our concerns have
increased after learning that the developer has requested an increased height allowance to 40 feet
on the senior living village and the number of beds has increased as well. We are also concerned
about the safety issues related to increased four-way traffic at the intersection of Hickory Trail and
North First Avenue.
We are aware that there are multiple plats of land along the north side of Scott Blvd. owned by the
same owner of the land that is being considered for development. We believe that the land along
the north side of Scott Blvd would be more appropriate for the medium density development.
Please forward our vote of opposition to the proposed plan and our comments to the members of
the Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission
Thank you.
Ann and Bill Synan
833 Cypress Court
Iowa City
From:Lois Albrecht
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Proposed development adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
Date:Thursday, February 18, 2021 11:50:08 AM
I am writing to you to express my serious concern about and opposition to the proposed development near Hickory Hill Park.
I am a long-time resident of the neighborhood (over 20 years). I have hiked at Hickory Hill Park usually regularly at least 3 times/week during these years. If you follow the Friends of Hickory Hill Park, you can see my posts there - I have posted nearly all of the photos and nature information posts there for the past approximately 4 years. If you are not following these posts on Facebook, I encourage you to go back and look at past years photo and nature information posts to remind yourself of the beauty and natural resources of this park.
HHP is unique because it exists in the center of an urban area and offers ALL IC residents a place to enjoy the beauty and peace of nature. This has been especially important during the pandemic, and the increased usage shows how important this park is to residents.
I realize there will eventually be some kind of development on this property. However the current proposal does not offer the best development of this land. Not by a long shot!
It does not comply with the established plans for the area, neither in the City of IC's Comprehensive Plan, nor in the NE District Plan for development. It does not protect HHP adequately. Further: - it does not protect viewsheds of the park- it does not use cul-de-sacs- it does not use single-loaded streets (i.e. houses "back up to" the park)
Once again, a development plan seems to be for the benefit of the wealthy who can afford the proposed lots. There is nothing offered for affordable housing, which is greatly needed in this area. And it leaves HHP vulnerable. Park adjacent space should not be for the wealthy who can afford adjacent lots.
Please forward my comments to members of Planning and Zoning.
Thank You. Lois Albrecht413 Upland Ave.Iowa City, 52245
From:Anne Russett
To:"mary stevenson"
Cc:Raymond Heitner
Subject:RE: Hickory Hill
Date:Thursday, February 18, 2021 2:03:24 PM
Thank you for your comments. We will share them with the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Anne
From: mary stevenson <hortgal@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 12:15 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Hickory Hill
Ms.Russett,
I'm writing to encourage you to oppose the proposed housing development near Hickory Hill Park.
When l worked for the Iowa City Park Dept way back in the late 70's l and another staff person
designed a Nature Guide meant for the general public to be able to explore the park on their own.
We also held walking tours for school children in the hopes they would learn about the native plant
and animal species specific to Hickory Hill. It was a wonderful park then & remains a true gem today
for all citizens of our city. We need to keep the park as intact as possible and not be taken over by
unsustainable growth.
Thanks for consideration regarding the development near Hickory Hill .
Sincerely
Mary Stevenson
Sent on a Boost Samsung Galaxy S® III
From:Anne Russett
To:"Vickroy, Khris"
Cc:Raymond Heitner
Subject:RE: Hickory Hill Park concerns
Date:Thursday, February 18, 2021 2:08:29 PM
Hi, Khris – Thank you for your comments. We will share them with the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Anne
From: Vickroy, Khris <Khris.Vickroy@mercer.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 1:58 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Hickory Hill Park concerns
Anne,
I live on the North end of Hickory Hill and use the trails daily. They are the only ones like this we have
in Iowa City and they are heavily used. The city doesn’t do a great job of preserving the trails and
there are sections that have eroded and gotten overgrown. Myself and other residents take it upon
themselves to trim and maintain the trails to try and preserve the trails as best we can. Having a
subdivision built so close to the trails will only cause more harm to the park and more extensive
erosion and wear and tear on the trail system. Kids have vandalized the park, there are frequent
after hours illegal use, and nothing is really enforced in the park. Such as leash law, littering, and
after hours loitering. I know the city will side with the developer, but I hope at the very least the city
will require the development to be adjusted to protect the park.
Hopefully this subdivision can be moved or adjusted and the park can be maintained. It would be
great to see the city invest more in the park and be committed to its history and how loved it is by
the community.
Thank you,
Khris Vickroy
1130 Conklin Ln
Iowa City IA 52245
This email and any attachments may be confidential or proprietary. Any review, use, disclosure,
distribution or copying of this email is prohibited except by or on behalf of the intended recipient. If you
received this message in error or are not the intended recipient, please delete or destroy the email
message and any attachments or copies and notify the sender of the erroneous delivery by return email.
To the extent that this message or its attachments were sent without encryption, we cannot guarantee
that the contents have not been changed or tampered with. Any advice expressed in this message is
being delivered to you solely for your use in connection with the matters addressed herein and may not
be used for any other purpose without our prior written consent.
From:Anne Russett
To:"Ian Perkins"
Cc:Raymond Heitner
Subject:RE: Hickory Hill NE border rezoning
Date:Thursday, February 18, 2021 2:09:25 PM
Hi, Ian – Thank you for your comments. We will pass them along to the Commission.
Anne
From: Ian Perkins <perkins.i.t@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 1:39 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Hickory Hill NE border rezoning
Please pass this along to the Planning and Zoning Commission
Hello,
I am a resident of Iowa City, live in the neighborhood of and regularly utilize/enjoy Hickory Hill Park.
While not opposed to development in this area, I feel that the rezoning request for development,
along the NE corner of Hickory Hill Park does not comply with Iowa City's Comprehensive Plan and
the city's NE District Plan. For example the proposed development does not protect viewsheds, does
not include cul-du-sacs, does not include streets with development on only one side, and includes
houses that back onto park property. These issues are not in keeping with the current development
plan.
It is not good enough to say, "This proposal doesn't match perfectly, but does meet some of the
plans," when said proposal would significantly detract from a popular and essential public park.
Please insist development follow the city's Comprehensive Plan and the NE District Plan, specifically
the residential conservation design, and do not rezone to Low Density Single Family!
In short, we can do better for the residents and for Hickory Hill Park than the current proposal.
Thank you,
Ian Perkins
From:Anne Russett
To:"Hannah Rapson"
Cc:Raymond Heitner
Subject:RE: HH Development Proposal
Date:Thursday, February 18, 2021 3:16:22 PM
Hi, Hannah – Thank you for your comments. We will forward them to the Commission.
Anne
From: Hannah Rapson <Hannah.Rapson@RaymondJames.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 2:43 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: HH Development Proposal
Anne,
Thanks for the work you are doing on behalf of the city and its residents – and for inviting our voices
to be heard. I am new to learning about city planning, however I wanted to share some concerns I
have as a resident living near the park (Irish Goetz Tract Home/Rose Hill) and the reasons I have
these concerns prior to tonight’s PZ meeting. I am not anti-development, however I believe there
are careful considerations that should be made with the new development and I strongly encourage
the city to carefully consider the parameters intended in the master plan during the rezoning
discussion of this sensitive area.
TOP CONCERNS
· Preservation of Natural Areas & Park Use
o As a neighboring park resident, I have never seen cars parked up the street the
way they have been during the pandemic. If there was ever a time to consider the
value of the park and the elements that are worth preserving, it is now. They are not
making more land. And therefore, the considerations for building near this unique
inner-city natural park and preservation area should be carefully considered and not
rushed along, as there is no going back.
· Single Loaded Streets
o The planned development loads houses on both sides of the street, eliminating
the intended protection of the park thru reduced housing density at its borders in
the master plan which includes single loaded streets, specifically in the section of the
development that is nearest to the park and most likely to impact its viewsheds.o The city’s Master Plan was created with preservation of HH park in mind. Their
original intent and foresight to preserve this area should be considered with careful
awareness and attention to detail. The details matter. Double loaded streets were
not intended in this area and should not be considered.
· Thru street instead of cul-de-sac
o Cal-de-sacs should be retained as intended by the master plan to reduce heavy
traffic that would cause noise pollution within the park and heavier buildings along
the park.o The interstate noise is already heard from the park - eliminating large swaths of
trees and increasing traffic flow in a thru-street proposal will interfere with the
secluded feel of the park
· Preservation of trees
o
Trees are good for water remediation. In a state with some of the worst water
contamination in the country, where farm fields already produce water run-off
comparable to concrete, removing trees that provide water remediation should not
be considered, wherever they can be protected, including in this development.o Trees are good for maintaining cooler temperatures and provide more desirable
neighborhoods. Estimates that over 1,000 trees already lost in derecho – actively
removing trees that the city has established plans to protect should not be
considered (waiver requested to remove trees in sensitive areas – how many will be
lost? As many as the derecho itself?). Centurion trees and the shade they provide
are not simply replaceable by new planting, as evidenced by the wide-open skies in
new developments we see across our county.o Water run-off, erosion and contamination of Ralston Creek is already a problem
and extensive work is being done to repair erosion of this water way. The trees
should be preserved to aid in natural land and run-off protection and to help avoid
or mitigate flooding potential downstream to other residents. Large parking lots,
roofing footprints and additional concrete due to thru streets will increase storm
drain run-off that has potential to contribute to the already-existing issues of
waterway health and flooding concerns.o Large tree preservation should be a priority. It will take 100 years to replace these
trees and large specimens were by far the heaviest hit type of tree loss during the
derecho storm last summer. A waiver to eliminate more trees, which were intended
to be preserved in the city’s master plan, should not be considered.o Tree planting that is required to protect view sheds should be part of the
developer’s cost, as they will be removing large old growth as part of the
development and this cost is not one the city should have primary responsibility for
repairing.o Removal of large portions of woodlands will crowd wildlife, reduce habitat and
lead to greater amounts of the city budget that need to be spent on issues such as
culling deer.
· Senior Living
o The plan states two contradictory facts regarding the size and scope of the senior
living facility. It claims to be only 3 stories high, where 2 stories is allotted
(application for waiver should not be granted here). In another section, it states that
the actual elevation of the building will reach a more typical 4 story building height,
which is visible and apparent in the drawings. This is double the intended height
allotment in the master plan. The justification for this type of build is Oaknoll East.
This should not be considered as a comparable property for the following reasons:
§ Oaknoll East does not border a nature preserve/park.
§ Oaknoll East is nearby, therefore suggesting there is already a high density
of senior housing available in this area of the city, and such a need therefore
should not be prioritized over other concerns. We do not have other large
wooded acreage like this in other areas of Iowa City, therefore the same
considerations for larger building structures should not be considered based
upon the same standards that have been used for building in other areas of
the city. This is a special piece of land and we should protect it.
§ Senior living, while in high demand, is being established all over the city.
There are many proposed and existing sites where large-scale senior living
facilities do not impact the view sheds of natural land preserves and are
more appropriate. Height restrictions for buildings near the park should be
preserved.
· Buffered Area
o The buffered area does more to protect the existing residential neighborhood
from the new development, than it does to protect the viewsheds and buffer the
park. The buffering zones and street construction in the master plan are clearly
intended to protect the park, not neighboring developments. This intention should
not be overlooked and recommendation of 10 acres intended for park use should
not be seen as a measure to protect the park or the original intentions of the master
plan.
o 10 acres of donated land should be clearly stated and legally given to the city/park
and not left up for “intention” – we have already seen the cost of not protecting land
sooner.o 10 acres, that is difficult to develop and will be donated has benefit to the
property owner, as they will not have to pay taxes on the land. It appears to be a
way to cut costs and not a measure to preserve and protect the park.
Thank you for hearing out my concerns.
Best,
Hannah Rapson
Hannah Rapson | Financial Advisor
James Investment Group, Inc.
hannah.rapson@raymondjames.com
Talk:
Tel: 319-354-7113
Fax: 319-354-0534
Visit:
673 Westbury Drive, Suite 101
Iowa City, Iowa 52245-2731
More:
jamesinvestmentgroupinc.com
James Investment Group, Inc. is not a registered broker/dealer and is independent of Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. Investment
Advisory Services are offered through Raymond James Financial Services Advisors, Inc.
Securities offered through Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. member FINRA/SIPC.
Please visit https://www.raymondjames.com/legal-disclosures/social-media-disclaimer-icd for Additional Risk and
Disclosure Information. Raymond James does not accept private client orders or account instructions by email.
This email: (a) is not an official transaction confirmation or account statement; (b) is not an offer, solicitation, or
recommendation to transact in any security; (c) is intended only for the addressee; and (d) may not be
retransmitted to, or used by, any other party. This email may contain confidential or privileged information; please
delete immediately if you are not the intended recipient. Raymond James monitors emails and may be required by
law or regulation to disclose emails to third parties.
Investment products are: Not deposits. Not FDIC or NCUA insured. Not guaranteed by the financial institution.
Subject to risk. May lose value.
This may constitute a commercial email message under the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. If you do not wish to
receive marketing or advertising related email messages from us, please reply to this message with
“unsubscribe” in your response. You will continue to receive emails from us related to servicing your
account(s).
From:Anne Russett
To:"Sherry Pardee"
Cc:Raymond Heitner
Subject:RE: Hickory Hill Park - development opposed
Date:Thursday, February 18, 2021 3:17:16 PM
Hi, Sherry - Thank you for your comments. We will share them with the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Anne
-----Original Message-----
From: Sherry Pardee <sherrypardee@earthlink.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 9:16 AM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Hickory Hill Park - development opposed
Hello Anne,
I have just become aware of this proposed development adjacent to
Hickory Hill Park. I hike daily in Hickory Hill and it is a special refuge
for me.
This will have a big impact on the magical feel of the park and
sense of escape into nature. Having views of a housing complex
will take away from the beauty and sense of being in the wild and relaxing in nature.
Also it will impact the wildlife by shrinking even more their habitat.
There are environmental studies that show how shrinking habitat for wildlife increases lyme disease and is even
related to the rise of infectious diseases like Corona virus where the borders of human and wildlife habitat are
continuously reduced. This isn’t a wild conspiracy theory, notable scientists are talking about the
danger of this.
Real estate developers will continue to push the boundaries of
public space and nature.
I hope that there will be consideration of the impact this will have on many levels and that the city can put a halt to
this proposal.
Thank you for your consideration to this matter.
Sherry Pardee
19 Montrose Avenue
This email is from an external source.
From:Anne Russett
To:"Leiana Arcenas"
Cc:Raymond Heitner
Subject:RE: Re-zoning proposal along Hickory Hill Park does not comply with city plan
Date:Thursday, February 18, 2021 3:52:02 PM
Hi, Leiana - Thank you for your comments. We will share them with the Commission.
Anne
-----Original Message-----
From: Leiana Arcenas <iheartsteak121@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 3:41 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Re-zoning proposal along Hickory Hill Park does not comply with city plan
To whom it may concern,
I live on Rochester Avenue and visit Hickory Hill Park almost every day. I am opposed to the rezoning request
along Hickory Hill Park. Development in this area should follow a residential conservation design, which is called
for in the city's Comprehensive Plan and NE District Plan. The current proposal does not and should follow the
plans. Please do not rezone to Low Density Single Family, for a proposal that does not follow city plans and would
negatively impact Hickory Hill Park.
Thank you, and please forward my email to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Leiana Arcenas
This email is from an external source.
From:Anne Russett
To:"Riley Gardam"
Cc:Raymond Heitner
Subject:RE: Regarding the Re-Zoning Proposal for the Hickory Hill Park Area
Date:Thursday, February 18, 2021 4:00:30 PM
Hi, Riley – Thank you for your comments. We will share them with the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Anne
From: Riley Gardam <riley.gardam@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 3:57 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Regarding the Re-Zoning Proposal for the Hickory Hill Park Area
Hello -
I'm writing as a citizen of Iowa City and frequent visitor to Hickory Hill Park to express my concerns
about the proposed Hickory Trail Estates development for the land immediately adjacent to the
park. I understand growth and development are necessary for our town to evolve and thrive, but
there are other locations more suitable for this type of development.
My hope in contacting you today is to encourage closer adherence to the protections for natural
areas laid out in the city's master plan by denying the applications for waivers for through streets
rather than culs-de-sac, double-load streets rather than single-load streets, the height of the
proposed assisted living facility, and the removal of trees in sensitive areas.
I've laid out three main points regarding the development below:
1. The proposed development does not meet regulations set by the city's master plan that are
intended to mitigate the negative impacts of development on wildlife areas (cul de sacs, street loads
limits, buffer areas, view sheds, etc.). The proposal I read detailed several waivers for adherence to
the master plan, most of which benefit developers, businesses and property owners, and very few
that serve the interests of our natural areas, the animals who call them home, and the people who
rely on them for their mental and physical health.
2. Failure to act in the interest of our natural areas now will make the Iowa City area an undesirable
place for individuals and businesses who may consider settling here in the future. As a UI graduate
who settled here permanently after college, I've seen many of my peers move away as part of the
"brain drain", in search of opportunities in different parts of the world. When I talk to them about
what keeps them from returning to Iowa, they usually say that they left for a job but they fell in love
with a place - mountains and forests in Washington and Oregon, oceans and beaches along our
coasts, or clean water and all the opportunities for recreation it provides in the lakes and streams in
Minnesota.
The natural areas that other communities have chosen to protect are drawing Iowans away from
home, and keeping them there. This development may seem like a small concession, but it directly
impacts the health of our watershed, our biodiversity, and our collective mental health.
3. The proposed development does not support the recommendations the city has made regarding
our Deer Management plan for the area. The report I read from the City of Iowa City's Deer
Management plan explicitly states a recommendation to protect and/or expand the boundaries of
Hickory Hill Park. I am concerned failure to factor those recommendations into the consideration of
this proposal will result in more safety concerns for drivers (due to traffic accidents involving deer)
and visitors to our natural areas and as well as increased costs related to professional culls.
Thank you for your consideration and for all that you do for our town. I know this committee
understands its role as a steward of our natural areas - I hope this can translate into stronger
protections for our beloved Hickory Hill Park.
R
PS - I've attached photos of my family taken this past fall in the exact spot where my husband
proposed to me in 2015 in Hickory Hill Park - consequently, this area is included in the proposed
development area.
--
Riley Larson
Riley.Gardam@gmail.com
cell: 515.249.2545
Iowa City, Iowa
From:Anne Russett
To:"Asha Bhandary"
Cc:Raymond Heitner
Subject:RE: Objection to rezoning near Hickory Hill Park
Date:Thursday, February 18, 2021 4:26:03 PM
Hello – Thank you for your comments. We will share them with the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Anne
From: Asha Bhandary <asha.l.bhandary@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2021 4:12 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Objection to rezoning near Hickory Hill Park
Dear Anne,
I'm writing to state the deep value to our community of Hickory Hill park, and to object to rezoning
to allow a proposed housing development along the eastern border of Hickory Hill park. Adding a
development in this location would dramatically alter the landscape for the wildlife who find it a
refuge.
At a time when we need to protect the climate, preserving natural reservoirs should be a priority.
Moreover, the pandemic has made park use surge, so now is the time to protect our parks and their
adjacent lands, not cede them.
A longtime trail runner in the park, the upper hill against the border of the proposed development is
one of my most cherished places in the park. It is extremely peaceful and wild, allowing people to
watch the changing prairie landscape through the seasons. On my runs, I saw an elderly couple
sitting in a kind of meditation or vigil last month as they looked at the wooden teepee. I have also
recently encountered groups of snow boarders there, enjoying the freedom and outdoor space.
Visitors from other states who I take running in the park comment on how lucky we are to have such
a wild park within our city limits. It is a big piece of what makes Iowa City so special. Please act to
protect the park and prevent the housing development there.
best,
Dr. Asha Bhandary
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 18, 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: Ray Heitner, Sara Hektoen, Anne Russett
OTHERS PRESENT: David Kieft, Ben Logsdon, Jon Marner, Brent Schipper, Jennifer
Ross, Alan Gunderson, Jerry Zimmermann, Hannah Rapson, Edie
Thomas, Michael Welch, Jacob Wolfgang, Andrew Alden, Asha
Bhandary, Casey Kohrt, Adam Parker, Ken Gayley, Jason Napoli,
Edie Thomas, Katherine Beydler, Sue Forde, Jane Bradbury, Laura
Routh, Nick Bowman, Adam Weis, David Deardorff, Kristen
Morrow, Arturs Kalnins, Kumar Narayanan, William Synan, Eric
Miller, Paige Hall, Hannah Rapson, Mary Winder, Mary Murphy,
Veronica Tessler, Glenda Buenger, Beth Rapson, Jesse Thomas
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends approval of ANN20-0002 and REZ20-0012, a
voluntary annexation of approximately 3.61 acres of property located at 1360 Melrose Avenue in
University Heights and rezoning of approximately 6.12 acres from University Heights commercial
(C) & institutional public (P2) to medium density multi-family residential with a planned
development overlay (OPD/RM-20/P-2) subject to the following conditions:
1. No building permit shall be issued for any of the subject property until the City Council
approves a final plat subdividing the subject property to conform to the zoning boundaries
established by the zoning ordinance.
2. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, installation of an eastbound left turn lane on
Melrose Avenue at the proposed access subject to review and approval of specifications by the
City Engineer.
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission recommends City Council consider affordable housing in the
context of the height bonus and also look at the signalization of Finkbine/Melrose.
By a vote of 0-7 the motion to approve REZ20-0016 failed, 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.
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is impossible or impractical
due to concerns for the health and safety of Commission members, staff and the public
presented by COVID-19.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 2 of 40
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
CASE NO. ANN20-0002 AND REZ20-0012:
Applicant: MMS Consultants on behalf of the University of Iowa
Location: 1360 Melrose Avenue
An application submitted for an annexation of 3.61 acres of land currently in the City of University
Heights and a rezoning of 6.12 acres of land from University Heights Commercial (C) and
Institutional Public (P-2) to Institutional Public (P-2) and Medium Density Multi-Family Residential
(RM-20) with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RM-20/P-2).
Russett began the staff report with a couple aerial images that showed the location of the
property and the different boundaries of the proposed annexation versus the rezoning. The
proposed annexation is for the 3.61 acre area that is currently within the City of University
Heights the rezoning extends into the City of Iowa City about six acres. Russett next showed the
zoning map, this property is currently zoned commercial within the City of University Heights and
its zoned public within the City of Iowa City to the south where there’s a fire station, with some
single-family zoning designations to the southwest and some multifamily further to the southwest.
In terms of background this property is owned by the University of Iowa and the University plans
to maintain ownership of the land but will be entering into a long-term lease with a private
developer. The proposal is to shift the boundary lines of Iowa City and University Heights to
avoid a development that straddles two jurisdictions. Russett also noted concurrent with the
annexation and rezoning the City of University Heights is reviewing a severance application.
Russett stated the applicant did hold virtual good neighbor meeting in September. Russett next
showed some photographs of the subject property, pointing out some of the sensitive areas and
then what the site looks like with the proposed development. It will have frontage off Finkbine
Commuter Drive and Melrose Avenue and is a proposed block-scale building with the vast
majority of the parking provided in the rear and access from Melrose Avenue.
First Russett discussed the annexation and the criteria used when looking at annexations. The
first criteria is that the area falls within the long range planning boundary. Russett noted most of
the applications that they review are located in the fringe area in unincorporated Johnson County
but this proposed annexation is located within the core of the community and is a request to
transfer a portion of University Heights to the City of Iowa City. The second criteria is that
development in the area proposed for annexation will fulfill an identified need without imposing
an undue burden on the City. Russett noted currently this property is bordered by Iowa City to
the north, west and southwest and it's contiguous with current development. The property has
access to public sanitary sewer and water which will not need to be upgraded for this project and
the site is also served by public transit. Russett noted Melrose Avenue does have traffic
congestion in the am peak hours so they did ask that the applicant to prepare a traffic study and
she will share information on that during the rezoning conversation, but for the proposed
development the additional congestion from the proposed development will be contained on site.
Lastly, staff finds that the affordable housing annexation policy, which was adopted by Council
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 3 of 40
does not apply for this annexation. That policy was meant for greenfield annexations and this
annexation here is to avoid a development which straddles two jurisdictions and the way that is
accomplished is through an annexation and a severance. Russett stated the final criteria is that
control of the development is in the City's best interest and she explained again this is adjacent
to the City’s existing boundaries and the City already provides public services in this area.
Russett next moved on to the rezoning, again the current zoning for the property is University
Heights Commercial and then P2 which is the City's zoning designation for land that is owned by
state and federal governments and in this case it's considered a State entity since it's the
University of Iowa. The proposed zoning is to a medium density - multifamily zone with the plan
development overlay and the P2 zoning designation will also stay since the University will
maintain ownership. Russett also noted this is a multi-family zoning designation that allows up to
24 dwelling units per acre. Staff is recommending that the area be re-platted to create a lot that
conforms with the proposed zoning boundaries. Russett stated there are several criteria they
look at for planned development overlay rezoning, the first is related to compatibility with
adjacent development in terms of land use, mass and scale, open space and traffic. In terms of
density, the proposed density for this development is 18 dwelling units per acre, which is below
the 24 dwelling units per acre allowed in the proposed zone. The proposal is for 116 multifamily
units and is targeted to seniors for an active adult type development. In terms of mass and
scale, this is a block scale building around 700 feet in length, it is four stories, which is 63 feet in
height, and the applicant is requesting a waiver from the 35 foot height maximum designated for
this zoning district. There is single family to the east, and the applicant has proposed to minimize
the impact of a new building on the existing residential by providing a landscaped buffer and also
separating the building from the existing property line by over 100 feet. In terms of general
layout, open space and traffic circulation the proposed building fronts Finkbine Commuter Drive,
which is a private street, and Melrose Avenue and there are 228 parking spaces with potential for
up to 263 parking spaces shown on the plans, which is more than the required 211 parking
spaces required and again the vast majority of the parking is behind the building. The applicant
had submitted a minor modification to allow seven parking spaces in front of the building and that
was approved by staff earlier this week. In terms of open space, the applicant is proposing patio
space seating and some gathering areas of around 7300 square feet of open space which is
much larger than the required 2500 square feet of open space. Russett reiterated the access is
from Melrose Avenue so the parking lot in the back is not connected to Finkbine Commuter Drive
and the only traffic that will access Finkbine Commuter Drive are deliveries and visitors to the to
the building.
The next criteria is related to the development not overburdening existing streets and utilities. As
Russett previously mentioned in the discussion of the annexation this property is already served
by sanitary sewer and water and city transit. Russett reiterated the City did request that the
applicant prepare a traffic study as part of this rezoning and some of the key findings in that
traffic study are that the current southbound movements at Finkbine Commuter Drive and
Melrose Avenue operate at a level of service F (failing) during the peak hours, and that is also
true for eastbound left turn movements at Finkbine Commuter Drive and Melrose Avenue so a
signal is currently warranted at Finkbine Commuter Drive and Melrose Avenue, however staff is
not recommending signalization at this location as part of this rezoning but would likely require it
as part of any future rezonings. The rationale behind that is the intersection is already failing and
the access to the site is from Melrose Avenue and the proposed development will not increase
traffic on Finkbine Commuter Drive. The future southbound movements out of the site are
anticipated to operate a level of service F on opening day during am peak hours but all of the
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 4 of 40
queuing from those vehicles will be maintained onsite on the private property. Staff is
recommending a condition that requires installation of an eastbound left turn lane on Melrose
Avenue at the proposed access to the site.
The next criteria is that the development will not adversely affect views, light, air and property
values. Russett stated the proposed development is larger in scale then surrounding properties
but light and air will be maintained through buffering and distance separation. Additionally,
typical University development does not require City review, it is only required in this case
because of the long term lease with the private developer, so the rezoning would not have any
more impact than a conventional University development would that is not subject to City zoning
regulations.
The next criteria is that the combination of land uses and building types in any variation from
underlining zoning requirements will be in the public interest. Russett explained the applicant is
requesting waiver from the 35-foot height maximum and requesting a building that 63 feet in
height. Height maximums may be modified through the OPD rezoning process as long it results
in sufficient light and air circulation for each building and adequate accessible open space.
Russett acknowledged the plans do show shared open space, as well as private within the
building.
In terms of compliance with a Comprehensive Plan, Russett noted there is not an adopted
Northwest District Plan but the proposal does meet several of the goals of the IC 2030
Comprehensive Plan relating to compact and efficient development that's connected to existing
neighborhoods, a diversity of housing options, and supporting infill development and
redevelopment in areas where there are services and infrastructure.
Russett noted there are some sensitive areas on the site as well as a grove of trees but since the
grove is less than two acres in size it is not considered a woodland and is not subject to the
woodland retention requirements of the sensitive areas ordinance. There are some protected
slopes but none of which would be impacted by the proposed development. The proposal does
show that 62% of critical slopes would be impacted which exceeds the 35% allowable and will
require review by the Commission and Council. Russett showed a map outlining the sensitive
areas which are concentrated in the northeast corner of the property, she also showed the
protected slopes which are outside of the construction limits.
Regarding next steps, following the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation there
are several steps that need to take place for both the annexation and the rezoning and the
applicants and staff has been coordinating closely with the City of University Heights on that.
Eventually when the annexation and the severance are approved by both jurisdictions the
annexation will need to go to the State Development Review Board for final approval prior to the
City Council adopting the rezoning.
Staff recommends approval of ANN20-0002 and REZ20-0012, a voluntary annexation of
approximately 3.61 acres of property located at 1360 Melrose Avenue in University Heights and
rezoning of approximately 6.12 acres from University Heights commercial (C) & institutional
public (P2) to medium density multi-family residential with a planned development overlay
(OPD/RM-20/P-2) subject to the following conditions:
1. No building permit shall be issued for any of the subject property until the City Council
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 5 of 40
approves a final plat subdividing the subject property to conform to the zoning boundaries
established by the zoning ordinance.
2. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, installation of an eastbound left turn lane on
Melrose Avenue at the proposed access subject to review and approval of specifications by
the City Engineer.
Hensch stated he had four questions for staff, first did University Heights comment on this
development item. Russet replied there hasn't been. Hensch next noted on the elevations it
looks like on the proposed buildings the fourth fours have a step back. Russett stated she
believes a portion of it might be, especially where the balconies are located, and perhaps the
architect on the call can address that when the applicant presents. Russett did bring up on
screen an aerial view of the proposed building and where the balconies are there are some
variations and the facade.
Hensch next asked about stormwater or detention areas on the property as it looks like there's a
lot of impervious surfaces there. Russett acknowledged there is a lot of impervious surfaces but
the proposal probably will reduce the amount of impervious service on the site. Hensch’s final
question is regarding signalization at the intersection. If that intersection is failing is that under
the purview of University Heights or Iowa City and either way is it on one of the City's capital
improvement plans. Russett stated within the City of Iowa City it's not in the capital improvement
plans since Finkbine Commuter Drive is a private drive owned by the University, the University is
well aware of the issues and she believes they are looking at ways to address some of those
issues.
Craig asked about property taxes and how does that work when the University still owns the
land, are they just taxed on the buildings. Russett is unsure of the answer on that, she did
mention the City is working on a 28E agreement with the City of University Heights related to tax
sharing. Hench stated there have been examples of taxing the structures, even though is on
leased public zoned land, so he believes that's how it should be done here as well.
Townsend asked if the University owns the land and the contractor owns the building, at the end
of the lease what happens to the structure. Hektoen explained that would be a matter of private
negotiations between those parties.
Signs asked regarding the traffic signalization issue, did the traffic study indicate that there was a
need at Finkbine or a need at the driveway to the all the parking for this project or both for a
signal. Russett said it would be at Finkbine and Melrose. Signs asked if they are not
recommending that as a requirement for this development due to the fact that it is only failing for
one hour per day. Russett explained because this intersection is already failing, regardless of
the development and also the proposed development is accessed from Melrose and the parking
lot does not connect with Finkbine so the amount of traffic that the development is going to put
onto Finkbine is very limited.
Signs also has some concern about the request for the extra height. Generally when they have
such requests there is a kind of a quid pro quo, it having the senior living that in this situation.
Russett explained that unlike in Riverfront Crossings where a bonus height does require some
sort of public benefit, it is not required in this area for the OPD rezoning process. The
opportunity to request a waiver and certain conditions are met for this zone.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 6 of 40
Martin asked if there were any other iterations of this project, for instance with underground
parking or development of a building keeping the sensitive slopes in mind or is this the only
iteration that's been talked about. Russett said there's been some minor changes but nothing
major like underground parking and such.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
David Kieft (University of Iowa Business Manager and Director of University Real Estate
Planning and Development) noted he has some brief prepared remarks and then is happy to
answer questions regarding the tax issues and what happens at the end of the ground lease and
all of those sorts of questions. He noted adjacent to this subject property is the University owned
golf course and new clubhouse that just opened so this is a unique and special project for the
University that started several years ago. The University razed the old University Athletic Club
and pool facility and in the University's long term master plans it does not show a need for this
land for a University or hospital use, but still views this site as it is adjacent to the neighboring
University Finkbine golf course as an important gateway into campus, including the healthcare
campus. A few years ago, the University issued an RFP to select a third party developer to
design and construct a development on University land through a long term 40 plus year ground
lease that would be a unique and attractive neighbor to the golf course and the community. This
process led to the selection of Built to Suit and Focus Development and Newbury Living as the
development team. Kieft stated the University has been very active working with the developers
on the site layout, architecture massing and connectivity of the development to the golf course
and the newly constructed clubhouse and restaurant. They also stressed upon the developers to
need to be sensitive to the surrounding residential neighborhood. Kieft stated the team has done
a great job in meeting with the neighbors in groups and one-on-one settings to listen to and
address any concerns. With regards to the taxes, this property is currently fully off the tax rolls
and a tax-exempt University/State property. This development will be similar to what they did a
few years ago on Mormon Trek where they had a third party developer construct what is now
known as Aspire, the graduate student housing, where the tax statements show the assessed
value of both the land and the improvements (the building), as separate line items and in this
case the University will own the underlying ground and that part portion will be tax exempt but
the value of the improvement will become taxable. Kieft went on to say they’ve had great
discussions and similar meetings with University Heights, their mayor and Council, and their
legal counsel about the severance and annexation and they have agreed to allow all this
property to be annexed into Iowa City, so someone's bedroom isn’t in one jurisdiction and their
living room or kitchen being in another jurisdiction. Kieft stated the 28-year agreement will
proportionally divide and share in that those taxes that are collected on the value of the
improvements. As far as what happens at the end of the ground lease, usually these ground
leases are written for the average lifespan or age of a typical building and then the property at
the end of the 40 years would revert back to the University.
Ben Logsdon (Built to Suit & Focus Development) stated they’ve been working with the
University on site design and architecture design for the last 18 months. They started with
University Heights and that then became discussions into moving the property line so that the
site is fully in Iowa City. Logsdon noted it has been a lot of collaboration, the building sitting on
the site and the architecture has really been shaped with a lot of discussion with the University
team with the goal to create a building and a site design that really complements the clubhouse
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 7 of 40
and has some pedestrian connectivity to the clubhouse across the street, while trying to not
impact the neighbors to the east. The building will sit towards the western side of the site and
extending north along Finkbine Commuter Drive. The plan was really done through a series of
meetings and to meet the goals of the University and trying to be a good neighbor to those
around. Logsdon acknowledged the step back that Hensch asked about in the building, they do
have a step back in the building. Regarding the sensitive slopes Jon Marner from MMS can talk
a little more about the slopes on the north side of the site, but they did actually make adjustments
to the orientation to building where the most of the sensitive slopes on the site lie, and actually
shorten the building and make the building a little bit smaller by lowering the finished floor at that
end of the building to try to minimize the impact to some of those sensitive slopes. Additionally
they do have parking under the building as that was another question, about half of it is under the
building. Once they build there will be less impervious surface on the site then there is now.
Logsdon also mentioned they held a good neighbor meeting in September and did meet with
several of the neighbors. Some of the concerns were regarding the slope and stormwater, and
the development as it stands now, that parking lot all slopes towards Melrose and some of that
water during heavy rains ends up on Melrose creating some flooding issues. They’ve designed
the site so that it actually slopes more to the north and it's contained in the parking lot. The net
result will be less flooding issues out on Melrose.
Jon Marner (MMS Consultants) discussed the aspects of the site, particularly the issues with the
different grades. On the west side of the site, the building the way it's oriented will fit in the
existing grades and will allow for the west side of the parking lot, where the visitor parking is, to
be elevated. On the east side, where there are those critical or the steeper slopes the entire site
drops down to a lower elevation, about a 12-foot elevation change between that front and the
garage entry parking lot. As they continue to move to the north and northeast, the site continues
to drop an additional 8 to 10 feet by the rear parking entrance at the back of the site. Regarding
the sensitive slopes and impact to those critical slopes and steep slopes in those areas, they’ve
avoided the protected slopes with this design and given the site constraints they’ve tried to
design it such that they're limiting as much as possible the impact of those sensitive areas in the
northeast corner. Additionally the ground that the University owns to the north and east are
heavily wooded areas and heavily steep, critical, and protected slopes. So while this
development is impacting a higher amount within this specific boundary for this OPD there's a
large amount of wooded areas and sensitive slopes to the north and the east that are not going
to be impacted so in the broader context it's a minimal impact over the entire region. Marner also
wanted to reiterate that the parking and the impervious area will actually be less with this
development than on the existing site. They have also reduced the parking count a little bit more
in an effort to add additional green space to the site.
Hensch stated he understands that there's going to actually be a reduction in impervious
surfaces but is a little concerned that there's not a storm water plan. The Commission frequently
hears about those water issues from neighbors and he wants to make sure they don't create any
issues. Marner stated the stormwater will be handled onsite and the western portion the building
will drain into the storm sewer and then get collected and conveyed to the north where there's a
box culvert that goes underneath Finkbine Commuter Drive. All the drainage generally is going
to that same location and ties into an intake system and then would outlet into an existing storm
center that's already in place for the west side of the building. The east side of the building
currently that entire parking lot drains to the south and the east towards Melrose so they would
be taking that drainage and capturing within the parking lot within a storm sewer system and
taking all that stormwater runoff back towards the north again into that same ravine. All the water
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 8 of 40
is going away from any neighbors and that will be shown on the final site plan.
Signs asked if these will be rental units and not ownership occupied. Logsdon confirmed that the
target audience for these rentals are for 55 plus so it's an active adult age-oriented apartment
complex, but he added it will not be age restricted. Newbury Living operates Melrose Meadows
down the street and so they're going to share some services and some activities.
Signs asked for an estimate of the total rentable square footage.
Brent Schipper (ASK Studio Architecture) stated he does not have the total square footage but
estimates approximately 1000 square feet per unit, so a ballpark would be 116,000 square feet
of rentable space.
Martin noted Marner mentioned that the wooded areas to the north and to the east would not be
impacted and how do they know that will that those won't be impacted. Marner stated further
north there's a lot more protected slopes and those are specifically regulated by the sensitive
areas ordinance and they cannot impact them, so it would greatly inhibit the ability to do as much
development.
Martin asked with this space they are talking about four stories and is that four stories
continuously flat or are they utilizing the other slopes to go down further. What will the line of
sight look like? Logsdon replied in their initial layout the building was sitting further north and
then they had all the first floor parking essentially at one level but as part of the design process,
they took that level of parking about halfway down the building and lowered the north part of the
building, which creates some issues vertically in the building and the building code, but they did
that so that they could lessen the impact to those slopes to the north. So they have taken some
steps to try to minimize the impact to the slopes to the north and hopefully minimize the visual
impact of the building and try to keep the contour of the natural ground as much as they could
and avoid the slopes.
Martin noted looking at the area that's covered, not just with hard surface but with building as
well, what's the percentage of the current space that will be built upon whether it's building or
parking lot. Marner replied the impervious area, which includes the building and all of the paved
areas post construction will be a reduction of almost 30,000 square feet.
Townsend asked if the land is currently located mostly in University Heights but will all be
annexed into Iowa City what does University Heights get out of this. Kieft said Iowa City and
University Heights will be sharing the tax revenue, that's what the 28E agreement is for. Kieft
noted the University has another agreement where they're going to be doing this. There is land
to the north that is university property with a ravine and further to the north there's what's called
the Swisher Track and it was owned by a family for generations that no one could get their hands
on and it became available about two years ago and the City of University Heights bid on it but
one of the issues they have is that there's no easy pedestrian connection to that area but the
University has a triangle piece of wooded lands to the north along Finkbine Commuter Drive that
they will be gifting to University Heights to be kept in a conservation easement so that they will
actually have access to the other property for construction of a trail and allows them to apply for
some state grants that are specific for creating trails.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 9 of 40
Jennifer Ross asked where one could find a map of what land the University owns currently
within the Iowa City area. Hensch stated she could contact City Development Staff and they
would be able to guide her in the right direction.
Alan Gunderson wanted to comment on car traffic in the area and noted it's also a pretty thriving
area for pedestrian and even cycling traffic and right now it's a pretty dangerous place for
bicycles to go by. He uses Melrose to go back and forth from work and with his family to places
in the area and with the drive there being shielded it seems like that is likely to get worse over
time, so what are the plans to deal with those changes as it relates to cycling and pedestrian
traffic in an important area in the community. Russett stated there aren't any plans to change the
bicycle and sidewalk infrastructure in that area now but right now there are two access points
onto the property from Melrose and with the proposed development it will be reduced down to
one access so fewer conflict points for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Jerry Zimmermann asked what the price points for the apartments will be. Logsdon said he does
not have the specific information but the rents will be pretty close to market Iowa City rents.
Zimmerman asked what the demographic they’re targeting other than 55 and over. Hensch
noted these specific questions can be addressed with the developer, this meeting is an
opportunity to address the Commission.
Hannah Rapson asked how the Commission makes decisions about modifications requested for
height, it was zoned for 35 feet and 63 feet seems quite a bit higher, there was some discussion
about a step back, but not really any firm information there, it seems like just the balconies are
being considered for step back, so she wonders how the City makes decisions when there's
something like a 30 feet additional elevation requests. Russett replied there's a specific criteria
that's part of the OPD rezoning process that in order to get a waiver for height the development
needs to demonstrate that they are still providing adequate accessible light and air circulation
and open space for the future residents of the building.
Edie Thomas stated it was mentioned that the target is for 55 and older and in her experiences
1000 square feet for a couple is not very large and wonders if the Commission has any
requirements on square footage per person and how this project would compare to what would
be expected for two or more people. Craig stated she doesn’t know about requirements, but in
the documentation it states the average is 1000, there were many units that were in the 1200 to
1500 square feet size and then there were others that were in the 800 square foot size, so there
were some smaller and some bigger it's not every unit is 1000 square feet. Signs also added
from a market standpoint the bulk of the condominium units that are available in the Iowa City
market run 1000 square feet, or actually a little under, for a two bedroom - one bath apartment
type of unit, so an average size of 1000 square feet for two individuals is probably pretty
average.
Hensch closed the public hearing
Signs moved to recommend approval of ANN20-0002 and REZ20-0012, a voluntary
annexation of approximately 3.61 acres of property located at 1360 Melrose Avenue in
University Heights and rezoning of approximately 6.12 acres from University Heights
commercial (C) & institutional public (P2) to medium density multi-family residential with
a planned development overlay (OPD/RM-20/P-2) subject to the following conditions:
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 10 of 40
1. No building permit shall be issued for any of the subject property until the City Council
approves a final plat subdividing the subject property to conform to the zoning
boundaries established by the zoning ordinance.
2. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, installation of an eastbound left turn
lane on Melrose Avenue at the proposed access subject to review and approval of
specifications by the City Engineer.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Signs stated a couple of the public speakers touched on what the price point would be of these
units and in the documentation the response was around $2 a square foot. By looking at the
descriptions and looking at the actual individual floor plans, he sees units ranging from about 750
square feet to around 2000 square feet and that puts the 750 square foot unit at around $1,500 a
month and the 2000 square foot unit at around $4,000 a month with the average rent throughout
the building at about $2,000 a month, which is high, and they are targeting high end for sure.
Signs said he would expect that adjacent to the University golf course and golf club so it doesn't
surprise him that that's what they're aiming for, and he certainly thinks they can probably get it.
Having said that, he does have a little problem understanding the height bonus here because
they talked about this all the time and usually, especially for what is almost a 40% height bonus
request, in return for something else. Signs stated there is also no requirement for affordable
units in this development or fee-in-lieu to account for affordable units. He is wondering if they
can propose that as a potential trade off here for the height bonus.
Hensch noted the fee-in-lieu is for Riverfront Crossings so they don’t have the ability to insert
that here as a as part of the CZA. He did also share some concern about the affordable housing
aspect, just because of their recent experience with the larger annexation request on the west
side that seemed to have failed with Council due to affordable housing issues and that this is not
a current greenfield, and so it is a little bit different.
Signs asked if the Commission has the ability to tack on something like an affordable housing
requirement or fee-in-lieu of for this application.
Hektoen noted for this case the River Crossings affordable housing requirement does not apply,
but in the context of policy and something adopted by resolution if staff’s interpretation of the
existing policy that the affordable housing requirement does not apply. Council could disagree
and require affordable housing and impose conditions in that context.
Signs asked if the City’s current annexation policy does have a requirement for affordable
housing. Hektoen stated it does but staff’s interpretation was it doesn't apply in this jurisdictional
city to city boundary line adjustment. Signs asked if as a Commission they could propose
otherwise. Hektoen said they can make a recommendation to Council that the policy be clarified
or amended in that regard.
Hensch asked if they can make a recommendation that staff exam the application of affordable
housing requirements to this without it being part of the approval motion. Hektoen said they can
make a second subsequent motion if they'd like to but ultimately it would be Council that would
decide yay or nay to the idea.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 11 of 40
Townsend asked if they are talking about a $4,000 unit how affordable could they make that unit,
because unless they're talking a dollar amount, she thinks they are spinning their wheels with
affordable housing on high end units.
Signs guesses they would do like almost every other developer has done and pay the fee-in-lieu
as opposed to actually building affordable units.
Craig noted they can make some of those smaller units affordable as it's not a bad location for
somebody with low income with public transit right there and the hospital right there.
Townsend noted they are still talking about a $1,500 dollar unit that's not going to be affordable
to a person that can only afford a $500.
Elliott agrees getting something for the additional height through affordable housing is attractive.
Hensch proposes they vote on this motion, and second, and then they could make a motion
asking the Council to look at seeing if affordable housing requirements of annexation would
apply to this, in particular the fee-in-lieu because he agrees with Townsend.
Martin stated before they vote on this motion she wants to discuss the traffic signaling. She feels
very strongly that now is the time to deal with that, and that road and that lane is very tight for
runners and bicyclists, and yes there are two entrances onto Finkbine but even if there is a traffic
signal right there at Melrose and Finkbine it would slow it down for the traffic coming on to
Melrose. She feels this should be addressed now, it makes more sense to have it in place when
the development happens.
Hensch noted that when they did the rezoning for Sand Hill Estates on Sand Road/South Gilbert
Street they didn't include adding the signalization intersection and the first thing City Council did
was require signalization of that intersection so Martin’s point is very valid.
Nolte commented he really thinks the way they've approached the architecture and the layout of
the project is really creative, with the two entrances, with the parking on the back and then tried
to be very mindful of the neighbors, it is a thoughtful proposal.
Signs agrees it's a nice looking development, and fits perfectly in that spot, he doesn’t have any
objections to that piece he just thinks there's some disconnect between the significant height
bonus and nothing in return, which they always ask for something in return.
Signs and Hensch discussed adding a third recommendation to require signalization at Melrose
and Finkbine.
Craig asked who would be required to do the signal and pay for it. Hensch stated it is not really
any concern of his who pays for it, it just needs to be done. Russett added it would then be a
condition of the rezoning so the developer would be required to pay. Craig doesn’t feel that it's
the developer’s responsibility at this point. Hensch said it is just a recommendation to the City
Council, they can of course change any of the conditions.
Hektoen stated this conversation is a record for the Council to read but they have to keep in mind
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 12 of 40
the conditions that are imposed are to meet public needs created by the rezoning and the
conversation so far about the traffic is that it's already failing, but maybe because of all of this
conversation, it might make more sense to defer this item to have further conversations about
these issues among the parties.
Signs said he is okay with leaving that recommendation off but can it to a recommendation to
Council to consider it when they look at this proposal. Craig is supportive of that approach.
Hearing no more discussion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
Signs then moved to recommend City Council consider affordable housing in the context
of the height bonus and also look at the signalization of Finkbine/Melrose.
Motion seconded by Townsend.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
CASE NO. REZ20-0016:
Applicant: Axiom Consultants
Location: South of Scott Blvd and West of 1st Avenue, Adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
An application for a rezoning of approximately 48.75 acres of land from Interim Development
Single-Family (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family with a Planned Development Overlay
(OPD/RS-5).
Heitner began the staff report acknowledging with respect to the application, they did have an
error on the staff report and he wanted to clarify that the applicant is Axiom Consultants on
behalf of Joseph Clark and Nelson Development 1 LLC and the owner is a ACT Incorporated.
Heitner showed an aerial image of the subject property as well as the current zoning which is ID-
RS. Heitner also pointed out Hickory Hill Park on the map. Next he showed a view of the most
up-to-date concept plan that was submitted with this rezoning application and noted there's three
kinds of residential components associated with this plan, detached single family residential that
would cover most of the extended Hickory Trail Street, 10 single family dwelling condominium
units, and the third component of the development would have a senior living facility in the
southeast area closer to the First Avenue intersection with Hickory Trail near the Hickory Point
condominiums that currently exist in the northwest corner of that intersection.
Craig asked for clarification on the senior living component, it seems like everyone's building
senior living these days, all US baby boomers are ready for it, but her understanding is that this
is not independent living. Heitner confirmed there would be some assisted living and some
independent living. Craig asked if it’s 100 units or 100 rooms, will people have individual units or
just rooms. Heitner replied that's a distinction he was going to make a little bit later, but no it
wouldn't be dwelling units, as they normally characterize as multifamily living quarters, and that's
why they're careful to say bedrooms because the Code has a distinction between what is a
dwelling unit and what constitutes a bedroom. Craig noted there were many comments about
that, and many people did not understand that distinction. Heitner said it is staff’s understanding
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 13 of 40
this would be a group living use, which is comprised mostly of individual bedrooms and not
dwelling units where one would have living quarters with individual bathrooms and individual
kitchens.
Heitner reiterated the current zoning is interim development-single family (ID-RS) which is a
placeholder zoning typically seen in areas of the City that are recently incorporated or annexed
into the City and have to be assigned some zoning. Interim zoning is assigned until there's
future interest in developing that property further. In the IR-RS zone the only use that's allowed
by right is plant related agriculture to allow people to keep farming these properties until
redevelopment. Heitner stated the proposed rezoning designation is OPD/RS-5. He explained a
traditional RS-5 zone provides housing for individual households, it's a zone that is seen
throughout large swaths of the City as it's a fairly typical single family residential zoning
designation with larger lot sizes and setbacks and with limited density. Through the OPD
process it allows the developer, or the applicant, some ability to provide a mixture of uses that
wouldn't typically be allowed in the RS-5 zoning designation as long as there's additional criteria
met. Heitner stated with this case a lot of that criteria falling under the multifamily meet family site
development standards in the City Zoning Ordinance.
Heitner showed a few pictures of the subject property with the rolling typography and scattered
woodlands and some natural open spaces. He next discussed the elevations and noted it starts
out at about 780 feet and there's a few elevations higher than that to the north, then sloping
down to about 710 and even some sub 700 elevations sloping downward to the west.
Heitner stated with this being an OPD application there is specific approval criteria that the
application is supposed to meet. The first is the density and design of the planned development
will be compatible with and/or complimentary to adjacent development in terms of land use,
building mass and scale, relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout.
With respect to density it's 1.2 dwelling units per acre and the senior living facility is not included
in this calculation, because it is not technically dwelling units, so that falls well within the
allowable five dwelling units per acre allowed in an OPD/RS-5. The land uses propose are 43
detached single-family residential dwellings and 10 single family condominium style dwelling
units and 135 bedrooms within the senior living facility. Heitner showed the proposed elevations
for the condominium units and the senior living facility. With respect to mass scale and general
layout the OPD is proposing a continuous through street along Hickory Trail instead of a cul-de-
sac. Again the single family homes will dominate the western portion with the senior living facility
closer to First Avenue. Heitner noted one maybe potential bit of structural conflict is the senior
living facility is quite a bit larger than the Hickory Point condominiums building but to soften that
transition there is a considerable amount of landscaping being put in that gap distance in the way
of shade trees, evergreen trees and also a pretty considerable buffer distance with about 185
feet between the senior living facility building and the property line to Hickory Point
condominiums. With respect to open space, there is a requirement of 500 square feet of rear
yard private open space for each of the single-family lots, including the condominium dwelling
units and condo lot 45 will serve as a shared open space area along the Hickory Trail Commons
Drive, the little circular drive that those units will be situated off of. The senior living facility open
space requirement is 10 square feet per bedroom and that will be accommodated on that lot.
There is also a neighborhood open space requirement for the entire site that comes up to about
1.1 acres and the applicant is looking to satisfy that with dedication of 10.6 acres of outlot A to
the City for future use of Hickory Hill Park. Regarding traffic circulation, staff is proposing a
condition that the applicant work with City Engineers to institute any necessary traffic calming
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 14 of 40
devices to slow down traffic on Hickory Trail, this is something that can happen with longer
streets that maybe don't have a grid break up or a block cut off they typically see in more
traditional neighborhoods. Right now, the proposal for a traffic circle in the northern third of
Hickory Trail, as well as two raised crosswalks that would be placed at the trailhead entrances
for the park.
Heitner stated the second approval criteria is the development will not overburden existing
streets and utilities. Public Works has confirmed that city water and sewer are available to the
subject property. Regarding traffic volume, there was a traffic study done for this agenda item
that indicated that even with the proposed development the level of service at both the Scott
Boulevard and Hickory Trail and First Avenue intersections it would not be any worse than level
of service D, which is typically comprised of about 15 to 35 second wait times per vehicle, an
that's an acceptable level under the City's perspective. Heitner explained the level of service
review abbreviations are like a grade or report card with A being absolutely free flowing and F,
being a bit more standstill. With that said no off-site traffic related improvements are being
recommended by staff at this time.
Criteria point number three is with respect to the development not adversely affecting views, light
and air, property values and privacy of neighboring properties, any more than conventional
development. Heitner already spoke to the 185-foot buffer distance between the senior living
facility and the Hickory Point condominiums property line with a combination of shade and
evergreen trees to soften that transition. There is a range of buffer distances shown to the west
between the rear yards of the proposed single-family homes and the existing park boundary or
the western property line of the subject property. Heitner showed some images of the senior
living facility concept plan and the 185-foot buffer and the subset of the proposed landscaping on
that lot. He showed the area to the west and that the condominium lot will have a substantial
buffer from the existing property line of about 263 feet. The single-family homes will have a 20
foot setback and most will have a minimum buffer of 55 feet, however some of the middle lots it
will be down to about 35 feet at certain spots and then on the south side of Hickory Trail again
gets down to about 35 feet down there as well.
Criteria point number four is discussing variation from underlining zoning requirements. Heitner
stated there has been a requested height waiver of 40 feet versus the allowable 35 feet in the
RS-5 zone and staff views this as being a reasonable request especially given the separation
that is planned between the senior facility building to the east and as well as the planned single
family residential to the west. Staff is recommending a condition that no building permit be
issued for any subject property until Council approves the final plat, staff will require all of this to
go through platting.
With respect to the Comprehensive Plan Heitner said there's a couple components, there's the
larger Comprehensive Plan that the City uses for guidance and then drilling down on that they
have district plans throughout the City that provide a bit more detail and a bit more direction on
some of these land use decisions. For this area it is the Northeast District Plan which has
several talking points and then this map as well shows a vision for street layout in this area and
land use. The Northeast District Plan calls for two separate cul-de-sacs in this general area with
some single loading of streets and dwelling units. On the southern portion it doesn’t show
dwelling units on both sides of the street. In the northern cul-de-sac there's some signal loading
and then closer to the woodlands and a little bit closer to the park there’s some double loading
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 15 of 40
throughout the cul-de-sac as well. Heitner explained the intent of the single loading is to use
those preexisting natural areas as a bit of a buffer distance and tried to as much as possible
refrain from having development in those areas. Rather than build out the two cul-de-sacs, the
OPD plan proposes a continuous through street and there is a buffer provided to the existing
park boundary of 35 feet. Staff is recommending a condition that the applicant’s property
woodland management plan within the 10.86 acres of Outlot A for neighborhood open space with
the intention of removing any invasive species or any deteriorated limbs or trees.
Staff noted aligning with the larger Comprehensive Plan this OPD plan touched on having an
interconnected street and sidewalks system and piggybacking off of that staff is going to
recommend another condition that the pedestrian connections shown to the interior part trails be
included into the planning process. Heitner noted interconnected street and sidewalks system is
a recurring goal seen within the Comprehensive Plan and is something the Commission has
discussed quite a bit in recent years. Heitner noted another goal is the variety of housing types
between and providing a vast amount of senior housing.
Heitner next discussed sensitive areas and how this OPD plan does limit impact to sensitive
areas, definitely with respect to critical slopes and woodlands. With respect to woodlands, there
is the nice bonus of having 10 plus acres of additional parkland to the City and as well as just
another goal of having development adjacent to existing neighborhoods and not leapfrog
development as there is already a fairly substantial residential development to the east, so in
some ways this would be acting as an infill to that development. Heitner explained what triggers
the plan development process and this sensitive areas review and will go through each of the
sensitive areas that is on this subject property. The first being the wetlands, there are two
wetlands, one is mostly off the subject property, but the little bit on the property does require the
100-foot buffers. Heitner stated the wetlands and the 100-foot buffers are not being shown as
being impacted by the construction. Likewise stream corridors will not be impacted by
construction of the homes or the lots, but there would be one impact for the extension of Hickory
Trail, but that is allowed by City Code provided that bridges and roads that cross stream
corridors are designed in a manner to reduce flood carrying capacity stream. Heitner stated there
are a considerable amount of slopes on this property and there are protected slopes, defined as
having a grade of more than 40%. This plan is not showing any impact of those protected
slopes, there is a minimal impact of about 19% to the critical slopes, which is the next steepest
grade of sensitive slope and is between about 25% - 40% grade. Those impacts can be
approved by staff because it is less than 35%. Heitner stated there is some woodland mitigation
to be done with this development but the plan shows preservation of 48% of woodlands. Staff
has asked the applicant to revise this and submit another proposal that the 48% would yield a
tree replacement of 132 trees. Heitner said the plan shows that it would be mostly street trees
throughout Hickory Trail with some trees toward the back behind the southern lots and then also
along a lot 45 as well.
Heitner noted staff has received a generous amount of correspondence for this application, at
last count they had 85 emails in addition to several phone calls on this case. Most of the
correspondence speak to the following three goals that there isn't an alignment with the
Comprehensive Plan with respect to cul-de-sacs and saying the streets aren’t enough of a buffer
from the park which Heitner said staff acknowledges it's not a perfect alignment with what's
shown on the map. Correspondence also shared concerns with increased traffic on Scott
Boulevard and First Avenue, particularly during peak hours, particularly because there's already
some heavy traffic on both of those streets and then just general thoughts and concerns about
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 16 of 40
protecting the park view sheds and the tranquil nature of the park.
In terms of next steps, upon recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission a
public hearing will be scheduled by City Council. Staff plans to have this on the March 16
Council agenda with the public hearing set at the March 2 meeting.
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
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.
Hensch noted there is an apparent discrepancy of the Northeast District Plan and the cul-de-
sacs because since he’s been on the Planning & Zoning Commission they have been very
averse to cul-de-sacs because of connectivity issues, so he doesn’t regard that as a negative
that they're not there. Hensch did ask about the two streams and floodplains and if there are any
100-year or 500-year floodplains associated with those streams. Heitner did not have the answer
to that but likely the applicant can provide an answer.
Hensch next asked about the woodland management plan on that 10 plus acres and if the plan is
that those 10 acres will be turned over to the City for open space. Heitner confirmed that was
the intent if the woodland management plan is accepted by City parks and the intention is to
keep it green space and not someday be converted into an additional parkland for the existing in
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 17 of 40
Hickory Hill park. Hensch asked if it isn't the requirement that the invasive species mitigation be
instigated prior to that transfer the property, he is concerned that gets done before it's transferred
because if it goes to a HOA or something, then it will probably never happen. Heitner confirmed it
is their intention to have that completed before the City takes ownership.
Hensch then asked for Heitner to reiterate the variety of housing types would be in this proposal,
just so it's clear for everybody. Heitner responded that the senior living facility, characterized by
what they call group living, will have 135 bedrooms, and then the single-family portion to the west
and south are 43 units of detached single-family dwelling and then 10 dwelling units of condo
style housing on the lot 45 area to the north off Scott Boulevard.
Hensch commented that the report from the State Archaeologists referenced that the land has
been used for agriculture for much of the 20th century, so according to that report the topsoil has
been pretty badly disturbed found by their sampling and the trees that are present on that area
are not native trees and most of the soil has been disturbed from its natural state by agricultural
tillage and soil contouring activities. He brings this up because he knows there's concern from
people that this is a natural area and by the archaeological report that's simply not true. Heitner
confirmed that's what's in the report and noted there is some concern about some of the tree
quality and in both outlot A and B that the parks staff kind of revered in its initial reviews of this so
that is one of the reasons why the City is looking for that mitigation and woodlands management
plan with outlot A to make sure that what the City would eventually take over would be of a
higher quality tree species.
Hensch noted in the Northeast District Plan it is pretty clear that the intent was for a buffering
requirement for the views from Hickory Hills towards any future development regarding
structures or homes, he asked if there was a particular reason made this for applicant to not
require a concept of burning the back of those properties or using trees or shrubs to help break
up or protect the view from Hickory Hills towards those homes that are abutting. Heitner replied
he is not sure about burning, that might be something that the applicant can address, he did
mention one thing they discussed with the applicant and the City Forester was planting a
combination of evergreen and shade trees within the rear of a lot of those lots that have a
narrower buffer distance at the existing property line. Heitner commented that would be
something he thinks the City would be interested in reviewing at site plan stage, some additional
landscaping in those areas.
Martin asked if they know who is doing the senior living, are the developers going to run. Heitner
stated that is probably a question for the developer but it is his understanding it would be done
through Nelson Development.
Martin also commented on the archaeological survey and is curious to know if when they’re
looking at swaths of land like this that are not natural areas, although she would argue because
it's not built on that it is still a natural area, why do they only do archaeological studies and never
an environmental study that looks at the impact of loss of habitat or a decline of biodiversity.
Heitner acknowledged that is a good question, it could be something they itemize under the
sensitive areas ordinance if that's something that the Commission would want to investigate, in
terms of biodiversity loss, it could be something that they looked into on future applications.
Nolte asked about outlot A and when the Parks Department look at that is there value in that
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 18 of 40
parcel because looking at the topography it looked like maybe that's just storm water and a little
wetland area, does it have actual value as a park. Heitner believes it has value, some
recreational value in terms of an ability to incorporate some trails or maybe trail segments. Also
from a preservation aspect, it has some value as well. He does not know specifically what Parks
would have in mind for that outlot, but he knows they have expressed interest.
Elliott asked for clarification on the pros and cons of cul-de-sacs. Heitner replied with speaking
to this plan a pro would be to separate development from existing sensitive areas and having
more development pavement put it down then that is necessary. With this development staff felt
that with respect to woodlands those sensitive areas were very much avoided with this plan with
a through street, so staff felt comfortable giving that recommendation for approval. Heitner noted
with respect to through streets and why those are good, it just gives more point s of access for
everyone traveling those streets it reduces vehicle miles traveled by not having duplicative trips.
He added there's benefits to not only vehicular connectivity but pedestrian connectivity as well.
Also in most instances, maybe not in this instance, through streets would also give flexibility to
have connectivity to other streets so there's a lot of pros when it comes to through streets and
promoting connectivity. Again, the pros for a cul-de-sac in this area would be mostly just to try to
avoid having development on top of or maybe even adjacent to sensitive areas, but again, in this
instance staff felt the OPD plan accomplished minimal impact to those sensitive areas and
having a through street was a win-win.
Signs stated it was his understanding that back around the time that the Northeast District Plan
was originally developed cul-de-sacs were the hot thing but over time it seems communities have
discovered that the cons definitely outweigh the pros with access for fire vehicles, street
maintenance vehicles and trash/dump trucks and having access and connectivity without having
to turn around in circles and go back is why cul-de-sacs have gone out of favor. Heitner agreed
the connectivity aspect is important and when the City is setting the foundation for future
neighborhoods it is pretty important to establish a basis for that ability to have numerous points
of access and connectivity for everyone, and there definitely is some truth to there being
challenges with snow removal and fire truck mobility and for the most part, the City likes to
design streets so that they're adaptable to those services. Heitner added in echoing the larger
goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the City prefers to advocate for the ability to have through
streets where possible.
Signs asked if this property has never been a part of Hickory Hill Park and its property that has
never been owned by the City. Heitner believes so but can’t say it with 100% certainty that that's
the case.
Hektoen stated that on the City's website there's the complete streets policy and it says the City
of Iowa City intends and expects to realize long term cost savings and improved public health,
reduced fuel consumption, better environmental stewardship and reduce demand for motor
vehicle infrastructure through the implementation of the complete streets policy. Complete
streets contribute to walkable neighborhoods, make the community attractive to new business
and employment, create a sense of community pride and improved quality of life.
Townsend asked for clarification on the applicant requesting a height waiver and there is a
maximum height requirement of 35 feet and the applicant is requesting an allowable height of 40
feet, so the senior living facility would be a three-story structure, compared to the Hickory Point
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 19 of 40
condominium building, which is only two, but then later in the packet is states the proposed
elevation of a senior living facility will be roughly four stories in height, so will it be three or four
stories. Heitner explained the 40-foot height distance is taken from grade to the mean point of
the roof pitch so effectively it looks like a four-story building, but the actual levels will be three
stories. The applicant can also speak to the mass of the senior living facility.
Craig asked about outlot B, which is a conservation easement, who is responsible for the care of
that area. Heitner stated a conservation easement would be an agreement with the City that no
future development could take place within that area. Hektoen added when the final plat goes
through those kinds of details are ironed out, generally speaking the outlot would be owned and
maintained by an HOA and to the extent that the conservation easement is on private lots, it
would be owned and maintained by those private landowners. The City would have an easement
right to go on there if needed but the expectation would be that the homeowners and the
homeowner’s association would maintain that area. Craig recalled a few meetings ago they had
this conversation about the upkeep of wooded areas related to developments and that after the
development, an HOA is responsible only they tend not to take any responsibility, and she
believes that concern was passed along to City Council that they should look at that. She is
concerned here because this is a significant swath of land. Regarding outlot A it between two
housing developments, it's this skinny little piece of land between two housing developments that
are going to have half a million-dollar homes in them and while she is not opposed to
development, she is a little concerned that the staff report has not lent enough weight to the
requirement in the plan to think about the view shed
Nolte asked what year was the Northeast Plan developed as part of the Comprehensive Plan.
Heitner replied 1999. Signs added the City-wide Comprehensive Plan was done in May 2013.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Michael Welch (Axiom Consultants) is representing the applicant but also here tonight are
architects group for the senior living, Jacob Wolfgang representing Nelson Development and
Construction, Joe Clark representing the single family side of the development. Welch will begin
with a brief kind of run through of how they got to this point and answer a couple of the questions
that were brought up and then will let Wolfgang and his architecture team describe the senior
living in a bit more detail and cover questions on that. Welch stated he started working on this
back in the spring of last year and met with City staff in June and presented a concept in July.
They then went through multiple iterations investigating the site, looking at the slope of sensitive
areas and just working through that process. They then came up with the concept that they felt
really comfortable with that met the development needs and balance those Code requirements
and sensitive areas. In December, they held a good neighbor meeting, obviously virtual, and
instead of just doing the surrounding 300 feet, they extended it further, all the way through the
Hickory Trail development up to Tamarack Ridge to the east, they really expanded that circle
because they knew there would be a lot of concerns surrounding Hickory Hill Park and the
neighborhood in general. Additionally, based on their previous developments in the last year or
two they knew that traffic on First Avenue would be a concern as well. Welch stated from the
good neighbor meeting they got some good honest feedback from the residents in the area and
people that use Hickory Hill Park and a lot of that feedback probably was reflected in the
comments that were submitted to the City that are in the packet tonight. From comments they
received at the good neighbor meeting they did increase the buffers between the park and
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 20 of 40
development, they looked at lot sizes and looked at how they were interfacing with the park.
Welch wanted to highlight a couple of those things. One is the traffic calming aspects, they know
that is a concern when they have these long stretches of road without intermediate blocks, so
they put in the traffic circle which will be similar to what's in Tamarack Court. Then they looked
at some other ways to get that those traffic calming measures in there and because they knew
they wanted some connections to Hickory Hill Park, they incorporated those raised pedestrian
crossings at the two locations shown on a concept plan between lots 41 and 26. Regarding the
buffers they originally had a 35-foot buffer between the back of the lots and the park boundary.
Again, from comments from neighbors they were concerned about the buffer with Hickory Hill
Park so it quickly became apparent that there were areas where they could increase that buffer
just by following the existing tree line. So now looking at the concept plan lots 26 through 38 the
lot lines now stop at the existing tree line. The Parks and Forestry folks said they wanted to
preserve those trees as there are times during the year when those trees really protect those
views from in the park. Welch noted they also look at those buffers at the existing trails in the
park and the distance between where the trails are and where their development would
essentially start. On the south side of the development they have about 200 feet from the rear of
their lots to the existing trail, at the southwest corner the trail cuts close to the corner of the
development, so they pulled that buffer out a little farther and lots 28 and 29 are at about 165
feet from the trail to the back of the lots. On the west side of the development on lots 32-38 they
are about 100 feet off the existing trail that's in Hickory Hill Park today. Adding to these buffers
allows people in the park to enjoy the park and protect those views.
Welch continued with the features of the development, they worked closely with the topography
that's there and the significant changes in elevation. They worked really hard to situate the
senior living in particular to see where that would fit in and again not obstruct views from the
park. The building is three stories, but only three stories on the northern third of the building, the
southern portion of the building as a single-story building and where that sits on the lot eave of
that three-story building will be about the same elevation of the east property line on lot 1. So
when they talk about a three story building and ask for an additional five feet of height for that
building, it's really important to recognize that the building sits at the same elevation as the east
property line and the building essentially sits down in a hole. As one drives down First Avenue, or
on the new Hickory Trail extension, they won't have a massive three story building right at the
street, it's set back and sits down in that hole.
Welch noted regarding other comments and people's concerns he wanted to reiterate that this
property is not part of the park, it’s never been part of the park and it's always been private
property. As they looked at how to handle that original outlot A staff and Parks came to them
expressing an interest in outlot A as a buffer and conservation easement. Welch also noted the
very northwest corner or wetland located on outlot A is the one portion of the property that has
had trees on it as they went back and looked at aerial photography from the 1930s. That very
Northwest corner did have trees on it and has been wooden. However, review the photography
does show what the archaeologists found which indicated that the majority of the site was farmed
and disturbed over the years until relatively recently. So when they looked at what to do with
outlot A, there's a wetland complex, and they need to include a 100 foot buffer around the
wetlands, and preserve the woodlands along the stream quarter that goes through there, it is not
land that can be developed or used.
Welch next discussed the senior living building that will be constructed by Nelson Development
and managed by Axiom. It will 135 beds, 32 of those will be memory care and the remaining will
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 21 of 40
be assisted living.
Welch next discussed the plant and tree species and in looking at species and diversity. He
noted a big part of that woodland would have been retention as in a RS-5 zone they have a
requirement for 50% woodland retention and that really does set aside a lot of those areas that
help protect and manage some of that preservation and they do achieve some of that with that
woodland retention. He also mentioned with their woodland retention, to get to the 50% retention
requirement in the Code they will disturb some woodland they’re only disturbing 37% of the
woodlands on site and Code requires a 50-foot buffer their disturbances are really long and
linear along the edges and 15% of the woodlands actually will not be disturbed, so actually more
than 50% of woodlands will be preserved.
Welch addressed concern about floodplains noting there is a very little bit a floodplain right now
on the crossing of the Hickory Trail extension where it crosses the waterway so they will need to
go through Core and DNR permitting for that to see if there is going to be a floodplain there.
Welch stated with regards to the conservation easement he pointed to Tamarack Ridge as an
example very similar to this where they do have conservation easement on the back of individual
lots rather than being an outlot and that conservation easement is passed to the owners on their
deed, it runs with the land, and as they get through platting and final plat they would use a very
similar conservation easement in language and put that responsibility on the homeowners
association.
Jacob Wolfgang (Nelson Development 1) stated they are acquiring the land to develop a senior
living facility and they’ve developed seven such similar buildings throughout Eastern Iowa and
Des Moines. They will act as developer, owner, general contractor, but the property is
professionally managed by Opus Group from the Twin Cities and they predominantly specialize
in caring for seniors, this will be an assisted living facility with the average age of the residents at
84-85 years old and the average length of stay is around two years. These are folks who no
longer drive, they no longer work, and require a lot of care with day-to-day needs, and there is a
health care component, which is why partnering with a professional management company that
that specializes in senior care is this so important.
Andrew Alden (AG Architecture) discussed the massing of the building and materials for the
senior living facility. He stated the building is specifically designed for this site and the north side
of the building is the three stories but is basically set lower in the site, because the grade, and
then the one-story section, the memory support area is to the south. He stated there are great
site views and good natural light coming in from the south, good views out the north into that
parkland that's going to be undisturbed for those residents in the assisted living portion. The
building itself has a very contemporary feel with lots of natural materials such as stone fiber
cement siding and other familiar residential things like a shingle roof, a pitched roof so it's a both
a little bit contemporary but also very residential in nature, and again is designed specifically for
this site.
Hensch noted Welch answered that outlot B ownership will go to the owners of the particular lots
and if there any common areas that would be the maintenance responsibility of the HOA and
would not be as part of a particular lot. Welch clarified he was referring to outlot B, the
conservation easement, would be for the entire association, but there would also be some of the
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 22 of 40
conservation easement on those other lots and that piece would be transferred via deed to those
owners, and they would each be responsible for maintaining the woodlands. However, the
amount of maintenance would be fairly low and in conversations with the State Forester on other
projects in this situation they really do encourage a limited amount of maintenance in these
woodlands such as if a tree falls over it's perfectly okay to let the tree lay and that creates
habitat. W hat a homeowner wants to have with the woodland can be discussed with the State
Forester or work with them for a woodland management plan on the individual level.
Hensch stated one part of the Northeast District Plan that stuck with him is the concern of
protecting the view from Hickory Hill Park from structures, particularly of the lots abutting Hickory
Hills. He asked if Welch could address that or if they could see an engineer drawing or
animation showing what it would look like. In the past the Commission has seen shadowing for
some buildings downtown and it is helpful. Welch replied there are probably two real important
pieces to think about when regarding the view when one is in Hickory Hill Park looking out, and
the first is time of year. He was out there a couple weeks ago on that trail just left of their
development could just about see the roof of homes to the east. From down in the south end
one can see Regina and the facilities there this time of year. So whether they have 100 foot
buffer or a 700 foot buffer one will be able to see everything going up that hill. The second piece
is when it is not winter they’re really confident that as one walks the existing trails in the park the
view of the backs of those houses that back up to the park will be very limited just because of
there is anywhere from 100 to 200 feet of existing vegetation between the back of the lots that
they're proposing and the trails in the park. Again, they talked with the Forester and Parks about
lots 34 through 38 and that spot where to the west of their development, the park kind of opens
up and is a portion of Hickory Hill Park that is not as fully wooded. There's a narrow band of trees
on the property line, and they talked about making a 15-foot landscape buffer on the back of
those lots and requiring some additional evergreens and other trees in there to enhance that
thinner spot in the existing woodlands that are there now to kind of fill that out. Hensch stated he
is very interested in extending that landscape buffer and see what that will look like. Welch also
mentioned that right there the tree line is actually right at the property line, and they have that 35-
foot buffer and are proposing to add some additional trees on that that rear lot line of those lots
to delineate where it is private lots and where the park boundary is.
Martin asked about the conservation easement and lots 2 through 21 essentially are 251 feet
deep but really their lot is only 100 feet deep because the rest of it's a conservation easement.
As a realtor she looks at that and wonders what the resale value effect as a citizen is, what if the
property owner doesn’t understand what that conservation easement was, does that devalue the
property as for the homeowner’s intents and purposes, they can't do anything with it. Welch
agreed that area becomes unusable for the homeowner for things other than their house and
their lawn. The reason they have the conservation easement where they do is primarily because
they get into steep slopes, slopes over 40%, that are protected slopes not able to be build on.
The steep slopes also make it challenging for general public recreation. Secondly the Parks
Department was not interested in outlot B, so if they would have put it in the wooded area to the
east to the Parks Department was not interested in taking that on. Therefore, the decision that
they came to is it actually adds value to those lots for individual homeowners as they might not
have a big yard, but they have a wooded area that they can use for their own recreation for
birdwatching, for walking through there and again, the covenant that they envision going with that
easement would pretty much spell out what one can and can't do and it's a really protective
Secondly, the other thing they would do if this is approved as part of the part of the platting
process where that conservation easement is, they would set property pins there so there's a
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 23 of 40
physical marker that establishes that line. He reiterated they’ve done this throughout areas in
Johnson and Linn Counties.
Hektoen stated that at this point that's not part of what's actually being approved tonight, so this
is still all subject of further conversation.
Craig commented about the views and the 100 feet, it sounds like a lot when talking about the
size of a house but a football field is 300 feet if one were standing on the midway line and there
was a house in the end zone it could easily be seen, particularly the area that is more toward
Scott which is higher up and the park really falls down from there. She acknowledged the
houses being that close will be seen anytime of the year. To say someone won’t be able to see
this long row houses that are backing up to the park isn’t true, she believes they will be seen
even in the summer. Craig stated she would not have problems with this development if those
lots 26 to 44 weren't there. Welch responded with a house 100 feet or 200 feet or 300 feet it is
still going to be seen from that distance so if that's the case the buffer they can provide and the
enhancements they can make at the edge of that woodland will create a buffer to maintain
vegetation that's getting dedicated to the City to be parkland to expand Hickory Hill Park and
make the park larger and from a practical purpose the view of what is seen will be the back of a
house rather than the front of house if they just did single loaded rather than double loaded
streets. Also if they don't put those lots here they will go somewhere else, and from a
development standpoint and the City's Climate Action Plan and those are the types of things
they’re encouraging, the city infrastructures are there, they’re making a road connection that
makes sense, so there's a lot of benefits. Also having a house with a backyard that faces the
park and is adjacent to the park is a really nice amenity this development will have a housing mix
giving different opportunities to different peoples in different areas.
Signs acknowledged there were quite a few elevations included in the packet of the senior living
facility which was helpful, he wondered if they anticipate what they're showing there is close to
what the final look of the building is going to be realizing the details might change, but the overall
look of the building. Alden stated one of the things they pride themselves in is what they show is
pretty darn close to what is built. He did add as they continue to develop the design and get into
the details, there might be some changes from a constructor ability point of view but overall, this
is the design they are moving forward with and will take through the architectural review board
and the design review board. Signs commented it looks very sharp so if it looks anywhere near
that when it's done it will be a nice building.
Townsend asked in the senior living units, what’s with the bathroom facilities, why would they all
have independent bathrooms. Alden state in the memory support area it's a bedroom and
bathroom, perhaps the implication was that they wouldn't have kitchens. Heitner added the
language from the City Code regarding group living quarters does not require private baths.
Asha Bhandary wanted to echo a question Phoebe Martin made in that there really needs to be
an environmental impact study, so they know part of what's so valuable about Hickory Hill Park is
the broader ecosystem that exists there that's supported by this land. Developing that land is
likely going to have a significant impact on the wildlife that is there, people who frequent the park
see a lot of really interesting wildlife and that contribute something to Iowa City that is pretty rare
allows a sense of awe and wonder that one experiences when you encounter the wild such as a
bobcat or some sort of wild raptor. Bhandary feels they would be losing a gem and would be
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 24 of 40
diminishing the value of one of the gems of Iowa City. She has friends that visit from Cambridge
Massachusetts and they run through the park and remark on how very special this is in Iowa City
to have this special internal city park that's so wild and has the biodiversity. So at a minimum, for
an assessment of its value, they need to identify the environment environmental impact, but even
if the environmental impact is found to be permissible, she still thinks it goes against the public
interest to have such a robust development abutting the park because of the spiritual value the
park provides and the prairie area that abuts the proposed development. Bhandary also thinks
it's not clear that the proposal meets several of the general approval criteria, one, three and four
are not thoroughly met when and asks that the public interest be evaluated, both in terms of the
aesthetic value of the park and the usability of the trails but also the spiritual value of the park
and the distinctive value that it contributes to Iowa City, as opposed to other towns. She believes
this development will diminish some of that value and then the value of the ecosystem and the
wildlife that are present there as well. Finally in terms of the question about views there's
probably a conflict between what commercial developers will want in terms of a view for people
living there in this development, of course they want a nice view of the park, but, for people who
are using the park they really don't want to see the development. Even with a barrier with robust
growth she believes they would still lose some of the biodiversity, and in light of climate change
they should really be thinking about how to extend natural spaces. Additionally, this park has
been heavily used during the pandemic, so this is a time when they should be thinking about how
to increase the parks and as a city maybe gain some more property around them, or at least find
ways to use in ways that don't involve roads and development.
Casey Kohrt (Friends of Hickory Hill Park Chair, 435 Randall Street) stated as Chair of the Board
of Friends of Hickory Hill Park the friends are opposed to the rezoning because it does not
adhere to the Comprehensive or Northeast District Plans considering the Northeast District Plan
and Hickory Hill Park had considerable public input during the Northeast District Plan proposal
stage. First avenue, east of Hickory Hill Park, was very controversial and the planning process
was used in a way to reach community consensus, allowing First Avenue to be built while
respecting the park. The Northeast District Plan calls for transferring development away from the
park towards First Avenue and the use of cul-de-sacs and leaving the ravines located on the
Larson tract which is now the ACT tract connected to the park, this was essentially a concession
on the part of the City to facilitate the construction of First Avenue. Kohrt stated the buffer
illustrated in the Northeast District Plan is considerably wider than the rezoning plan proposal
with adjacent lots 26 through 44. The staff report says, the buffer is not dimension in the
Northeast District Plan as a rationale to except what is proposed, the buffer shown in the
Comprehensive Plan is clearly at least 175 to 200 feet wide based on using existing lot lines for
scale. If outlot A ceded to the City, it reduces the buffer and the 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 suffice to achieve this goal. Kohrt stated a guiding principle
of the Northeast District Plan is the use of single loaded streets to reserve areas such as Hickory
Hill Park to create buffers and to provide public access to natural areas. Kohrt stated this
proposed rezoning plan would ignore this guiding principle by cutting the park off from public
view, except in one small area between lots 40 and 41 where steep slopes prevented
development anyway. The land being dedicated to the City in outlot A is undevelopable too with
steep slopes, wetland streams and sensitive areas ordinance and, therefore, is not a concession
on the part of the developer. Outlot B is likewise essentially undevelopable and it's not clear that
the open space that has been dedicated for required neighborhood open space meets the
criteria for being usable as required by the zoning code. Kohrt also noted the staff
recommendation for through streets rather than two cul-de-sacs ignores the Northeast District
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 25 of 40
Plan vision of keeping an open connection between Hickory Hills Park and the proposed outlot B.
The street connection in itself may not be objectionable but there appears to be little effort to
preserve the amount of open space shown in the Northeast District Plan, especially since the
street is double loaded and not single loaded street as called for in the Comprehensive Plan.
Kohrt stated the developer is seeking waivers of zoning requirements to allow a larger senior
living complex in another single-family zone and the Northeast District Plan notes that such
zoning incentives may be necessary to achieve the open space buffer envisioned for Hickory Hill
Park but the developers are seeking zoning incentives from the City but not adhering to the
Comprehensive Plan’s vision in exchange. Kohrt continued that the staff reports concedes that
the proposed zoning rezoning request does not comply with Comprehensive Plan stating staff
recognizes that the proposed development is not perfectly matched with the conceptual vision
presented in the northeast district pl Northeast District Plan particularly related to the single
loaded streets. Therefore by ignoring the City's agreement with the community to provide a
meaningful buffer for Hickory Hill Park this rezoning proposal does not even come close to the
vision that was agreed to and adopted in the Northeast District Plan. The Northeast District
Plan’s principles are so fundamental, they were also included in the Comprehensive Plan that
was updated in 2013 on pages 46 and 47 stating it will allow transfer of development rights and
plan developments in order to preserve sensitive features or apply development around
desirable parks and open space, to improve overall access and awareness to parks to ensure
that future parks have visibility and access from the street, and to discourage parks that are
surrounded by private property and encourage development of parks with single loaded street
access. Kohrt stated the rezoning request should be denied and the developer and staff should
consider a plan that adheres to the Comprehensive Plan, including the Northeast District Plan.
Adam Parker (Member of Friends of Hickory Hill Park) first encouraged the committee in future
meetings to use closed captioning for those hearing impaired. Parker stated we're in a world
where the world literally stop this year, citizens didn't quite know if they're going to make it to the
next day month or year and one refuge was the wild expanses of a public park called Hickory Hill
Park as it was thought to be the only place safe. Parker noted we are not even out of the woods
yet and here we are chipping away at the essence of a place offering harbor at a time of
tremendous uncertainty past, present and hopefully future. It is said never waste a good crisis,
and who is to advantage from this crisis will be proposed lots 26 or 44 and, which would
dominate the area and have unimpeded access to a public good Hickory Hill Park. Parker stated
these lots are in direct conflict with the City’s Comprehensive Plan as it mentions discouraging
parks that are surrounded by private property. Six homeowners will benefit from a public utility,
Hickory Hill Park, and if it doesn't matter whether it’s the front or back of the house he
discourages this plan from being proposed. Further community insight should be a guiding
principle in this area, for example Hickory Heights the development adjacent to this proposed
development has that was developed a number of years ago has an access point to Hickory Hill
Park that he guarantees the public doesn't know about, because if one were to enter at the
Hickory Heights entrance they would feel like they're trespassing on private property, and this
current proposal would feel the same as the current area designated for public access is a deep
ravine in between two private lots. Parker noted the Northeast District Plan had considerable
public input when drafted as it should, and it even included a picture of how the land could be
appropriately developed to buffer the park by encouraging higher density properties close to First
Avenue and Scott Boulevard and discouraging parks that are surrounded by private property.
Parker stressed the City should be following this plan and encourage the development of parks
with single loaded streets and he advocates for the use of single loaded streets for this
development as it is adjacent to a public good. He advocates to protect Hickory Hill Park and the
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 26 of 40
current plat indicates a 10-yard buffer which is literally a first and goal going into the end zone
overlooking a large open expanse and residential homeowners being the beneficiary. Parker
reiterated that since the world's dropped one year ago he encourages the Commission to stop
this plan as proposed as it benefits the few at the expense of the many, this rezoning request
should be denied.
Ken Gayley pointed out that behind him is the Hickory Heights development and so would echo
the points just heard that there is a bit of a conflict where, if one wants to build a house that has a
nice view of the park then someone in the park will have a nice view of the house, and
sometimes you might feel like you're walking through someone's backyard when you're just on a
trail. Gayley is interested in a point that was made about the transition between the buildings to
the senior center where there was a large distance with maybe some ideas about the
landscaping, but they didn’t really hear a lot about the choices made for the transition from the
senior center to the park and making it a place where the park viewers don't feel like they're in
the backyard of other people’s homes. Also Gayley asked if there is any thought about having
affordability as just a few people who are quite wealthy will be getting the nice features of the
park and everyone in Iowa City having to see these houses every time they go to the park.
Jason Napoli (2659 Hickory Trail) lives just right down the street from the park and also serves
as the vice chair for the Friends of Hickory Hill Park and just want to reiterate some of the points
his board colleague made as it relates to the single loaded streets and specifically that lots 26 to
44 goes very much against anything related to single loaded streets. Napoli reiterated in the
words of Mr. Heitner they are going to see single family homes dominate the western portion and
they should try and avoid that at all possible means.
Edie Thomas first wanted to say that she totally agrees with what was said at the beginning that
the park is a gem for Iowa City, it is a spiritual requirement for all of us and to disturb that would
be a very sad day for this community. Thomas stated the traffic on First Avenue is a problem
and not just at peak periods, it's often very difficult to cross that street into the park because of
the traffic and the staff person said earlier that there needs upgrading to the traffic plan there and
if this were to go forward, she would hope that something would happen so that traffic would be
better controlled on First Avenue. She is also a cyclist and on First Avenue there is a large
condo complex with a large retaining wall and it's difficult to see when cars are coming and
going, and that could be problematic. Thomas also noted she is concerned that this violates the
height requirements and that doesn't seem to be a concern for staff and she wonders why have
requirements if any developer can easily get waivers for these things all the time. If this plan was
approved in 1999 then maybe it's time to revisit the plan and actually open that up to the public
for comment and redo the plan but right now they need to stick with the plan. Thomas opposes
this proposal, it's bad for the community, it's bad for the park, it's bad for the wildlife, and just not
a lot of benefit especially when they're just violating their own plan. Thomas noted it was also
brought up about climate and she thinks it's really important and she thought the City had a
Climate Change Plan but no one really talked about how this proposal fits into that. She is very
concerned because that green space that is to be developed was farmed in the summer and it's
in the winter people sled there, people ski there, and people snowshoe there. It may not be part
of the park but it's a vital part of the community and to approve this plan would be in the wrong
direction.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 27 of 40
Katherine Beydler (1910 Winston Drive) stated her and her husband live very near to Hickory Hill
Park, so first just want to echo all the comments that were made beforehand, and then want to
address a rather flippant question, that was likely meant to be rhetorical but that the developer
offered, is it really different looking at the front or the backs of houses. Beydler stated when the
backs of houses are hundred and more feet further away from where you're standing in the park,
she would say it's actually pretty different. She is also wondering about the range of housing and
would really like to see more information on that before she could support this development. It is
important to discuss what is affordable and what is a range of access for different individuals. Are
homes that backup to the park with 8000 square foot lots actually going to be affordable for
anybody from a middle or lower income. Does Iowa City need more luxury housing, isn’t there
already enough high-income housing, and furthermore, how much money is a developer stand to
make because these properties are in direct proximity to a taxpayer funded public resource.
These are all important questions she thinks should be considered before this rezoning can be
approved. Beydler would also hope that the Commission will consider asking the City and
developer to come into a more favorable agreement with adding some park space to Hickory Hill
Park from this developed land that isn't an outlot that seems to be mostly deeply sloped
unusable land. Mr. Heitner was very vague when he said parks, what are they going to do with
it, how many trails would support and what is more usable a buffer between the park and the
development and not a buffer between two developments that could be added to the to this park.
Beydler stated the buffer of 35 feet is ludicrously small and makes no attempt to preserve the
view shed of the park whatsoever and outlot A only helps to buffer the developer’s property from
other existing property to make the lots more valuable. Those are all issues that she has with
this development, and hopes that this rezoning will be opposed until the developer can return
with a plan that complies with the Comprehensive and Northeast District Plans.
Sue Forde (3129 Wintergreen Drive) said she used to live across the street from Hickory Hill
Park and agrees with Mr Welch somewhat in that any development in that part near the park is
going to be seen from the park but she any time of the year, winter summer, rooftops can be
seen and it saddens her to think that there'll be more. Forde understands that will continue to be
because it seems like the Scott Boulevard corridor seems to have a lot of private land that
people are willing to sell for development. On another topic, she is unclear about the traffic
calming items that were mentioned, and there doesn’t seem to be any addressing the traffic on
First Avenue and every single development that has gone in over the last 20 years on First
Avenue the traffic was always dismissed as trivial and not that bad. Forde stated for those that
live on First Avenue, to try and turn on to or off First Avenue is difficult so dismissing the
increased traffic as not being a factor is insulting to be perfectly honest.
Jane Bradbury wanted to point out if they considered the pesticide use coming from the property
abutting the park and it would be going straight into Ralston Creek. She also wanted to know
why it has to be right there, why with so much other land around Iowa City does this
development have to be right by Hickory Hill Park unless it's just because they want to sell the
houses to people that can afford a million dollar homes, like the house that blocks the view at
Hickory Heights which is assessed at $1,100,000 and obviously would be sold for a lot more than
that if it were on the market and that person who owns it actually owns four lots up there, so it
just seems like it doesn't serve the City of Iowa City and the goal should not be serving the
needs of a few at the expense of many. Bradbury wanted to point out again the view will be
huge houses looming over park and that big house in Hickory Heights overshadows and
dominates the whole view. Bradbury states she goes to that park every day and many people
come to this town, as faculty to interview for jobs, and they try and find special things about Iowa
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 28 of 40
City because it's a cold climate and kind of isolated from a lot but there are exciting places and
Hickory Hill Park is one of the things that draws people here and it's a beautiful resource and it's
irreversible if that land is developed. It will never be a place again where one can wander out in
wilderness and escape the pandemic and the news and politics ever again, one won't have a
place to go to just walk and be at one with the world and grieve and think and imagine and it's
really something that they can never get back, so she hopes the Commission will consider all of
these things.
Laura Routh (828 Dearborn Street) stated she like to push back a little bit on some of the
comments she’s heard regarding this particular area as not being natural land and thinks that's a
pretty subjective reading of the report that was included in the staff packet. This land has pretty
extraordinary slopes, it's woodland, it's wetland and she is frustrated and frankly a little alarmed
that staff wasn't able to answer the question about whether or not there was a wetland on the
property, it seems that's a question that should be known before they even consider doing the
level of development that's being proposed. Routh is just not comfortable that they've given real
thought to the impacts of this development proposal on the watershed and the habitat that exists
in the park. She pretty firmly believes that there should be a stormwater plan articulated by the
developer before this is even considered as they have had extraordinary problems with flooding
in this community, and the idea that they're going to just proceed without even talking about that
is madness. She is also pretty concerned about the idea of the pedestrian connections to the
park, it's lovely if one can afford a million-dollar house and then have direct access to the
beautiful park. Routh also noted seems that this would create parking issues in the area and she
wonders if or how that will be addressed. Another point that hasn't been raised is that deer
damage that should be assumed if this development goes forward and the City should certainly
be held accountable because as a taxpayer she is tired of paying for damage caused by
encroaching development. The City had to bring in sharpshooters to kill a whole bunch of deer
and that's great because meat went to the food bank but at the end of the day, they know that
this is going to harm the habitat for animals and cause problems for the development and the
idea that they're going to be able to replace woodland that exists in the area with manicured
trees and have them not be damaged by deer seems ridiculous, The deer are going to have an
impact and that tells something about whether or not this is “natural land”. Routh also noted that
one of the slides that staff provided indicated a criterion point that there would be no effect to the
view or the light and air impact of the park and that just seems patently false and staff didn’t
really do the developer any favors with what was presented because it's just not complete
enough to address a lot of the questions that have been raised tonight. 35 foot is clearly not an
adequate buffer to protect the park and the through street is really going to create a lot of
pedestrian issues if folks are trying to get across the street or certainly across First Avenue. If
one can cut through between Scott Boulevard and First Avenue she can guarantee people are
going to take it at 40 miles an hour and that's going to create issues. For all the reasons that
have been articulated she thinks that this proposal needs to be sent back to the developer, it
should be rejected by the Planning and Zoning Commission tonight as it's not ready for prime
time and there are a lot of problems.
Nick Bowman began by noting there are still 79 folks on this zoom and at 10:24pm it seems like
it's really showing how many people really care about what's going on and have concerns about
what's going on. He noted a couple people mentioned the traffic and he wanted to talk
specifically about that traffic study because he saw that person out there on their support and
thinks there are at least three reasons why that traffic study led to a substantial under count. The
first is we're in a pandemic and many people just aren't even leaving their houses, so in and of
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 29 of 40
itself that's going to massively reduce the amount of traffic that's going on First Avenue and Scott
Boulevard. Second when that traffic study was done, when he saw that person, it was early
January during K-12 winter break and the university winter break which is when people who are
traveling might have been away or even those people who normally leave their houses were
likely not doing so during that time. The third reason has been alluded to a couple different times
on this conversation, there is a couple hundred people who are going to be living off of Hickory
Trail and there's going to be a couple hundred people moving into the new houses that are being
built on Tamarack and so it's also not accounting for all those people who are going to be coming
down Hickory Trail who are going to be coming down First Avenue, coming down Scott
Boulevard, so he imagines there's probably several times more cars that will be on those road.
He has definitely driven down there a number of times and whether it was making a left from
Hickory Trail on the First Avenue or coming south from the three way to go down Scott
Boulevard to make a right on to First Avenue those are stopped up during peak hours and he
doesn’t think that the traffic study got that. Another point is the big plan for senior care and
having 100 and something seniors living there who it’d be great if they can go Hickory Hill Park
but it would be a lot safer for them to cross the street if they were cul-de-sacs there and not a
through street with people who are zipping down a very long uninterrupted road, regardless of
whether or not that road has the traffic signal. Finally many points have been made, but he
wanted to do a different spin on some of the Comprehensive Plan, because he was at a City
Council meeting on for the Tamarack Trail Development and a lot of the Council members were
basically talking about this Northeast District Plan, and this was what the Plan says so they have
to follow it. Now he finds it a little odd that now the Plan still says something, but now they're
going to ignore key parts of the plan on and are already moving forward. He added there's
another reason for the single stack houses on one side to minimize the impact on the park, but
also to the surrounding neighborhoods.
Adam Weis (20 Lincoln) wanted to express his concern with this proposal for most of the reasons
that everyone has been saying, but also, concerning the natural lands. He added that is a tough
phrase to use in Iowa state where over 80% of the natural lands have been converted over the
course of time to agriculture or urban development, so to say that those meadows aren't natural
because they were tilled or cultivated or grazed in any way is true, but from Iowa standards
they're about as natural as they can get since they are not currently row crops. He would want
the Commission to consider that and really prioritize preserving the remaining natural lands even
if it is “natural lands”.
David Deardorff stated he lives near Hickory Hill Park and people have made a lot of really good
salient points about what's going on and he shares the same concern that there's this
Comprehensive Plan that's been in existence and the response from staff here has been
whatever comes into conflict to just wave it off, single loaded streets well, that was a nice
thought, cul-de-sacs are just not so trendy anymore, protect the view shed, well 100 or 300 feet
it doesn't matter. Deardorff don’t find these as very satisfying answers and other people that are
very passionate about this park agree. The park is a very valuable resource that is natural, and
this is a part of the park that hasn't been developed, it's the last part of the park, so if they want
to retain value in this city structure paid by the public by taxes, they need to protect it. rather than
develop land next and that is really the driving plan of this this Northeast District Plan and it's
been pointed out that outlot A can’t be developed so isn't much of a concession to give that up,
and also outlot B cannot be developed so they offloaded that bit to the rather than add to this
buffer space to actually increase the size of the park. These green spaces are so highly valued
as places where one can actually social distance and obviously that's a benefit to the seniors
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 30 of 40
whether or not there's senior housing there. So before Council considers even approving this
there needs to be fundamental changes to this plan, he understands it's private property and
very valuable private property because if its location and proximity to a natural resource and the
City is a stewardship of this land and they need to consider what’s done to it before pushing this
on to the next phase.
Kristen Morrow (1112 Second Avenue) stated first she wanted to echo Ms. Martin's comments
regarding the need for environmental assessments when considering these developments in the
future and not just archaeological surveys. Going forward, especially in light of climate change
and about diversity crisis, Morrow feels that that is extremely imperative and is shocked to hear
that that is not already a standard operating procedure. Second, she wanted to share a lot of the
same sentiments as others and say that she agrees very passionately and emotionally with
everyone's concerns about the vision, as well as the disruption to the habitat quarter. Morrow
stated she goes to Hickory Hill Park to hike and when she hiked past that very, very large house
that is right up against the prairie area on the northern part of the park she thinks what an
absolute shame that that was ever approved, and wonders if today's planners would look at that
kind of decision differently and try to place higher value on these kinds of public lands. Finally,
she wanted to say that she is heartened to see all of the participants that have stuck with this
meeting thus far and is glad to see that there is such a range of ages of people that are enjoying
the space, but as a millennial she thinks that the interest in having public lands is a central part of
a community and is only going to be increasing its desire within her generation and younger
generations.
Arturs Kalnins (44 Evergreen Place) stated he comes from Latvia where his parents were born,
he was born in Pennsylvania, and now lives just off of Hickory Trail. He has been in Iowa for
three and a half years and when he first looked into moving here to take a job at t he university
his family spent about a week here walking through all the neighborhoods and by complete
chance he came upon Hickory Hill Park and was absolutely amazed at just the splendor and the
beauty, it was really a very spirit of spiritual place and this park will withstand such a
development, but it will be degraded. Kalnins goes to the park, three, four or five times a week
and it's a very spiritual place where one can enjoy some real tranquility and this is going to ruin
that the tranquility, particularly from the eastern part of the park, the northeastern part of the
park, the prairie areas. Having these fields developed and it's clear having these homes there
will greatly change the park and not only in terms of vision but in terms of sound too. In the
summer it’s people mowing their lawns and in the winter it's the snow blowers, that's just a part
of suburbia, and that's going to be audible in the park this all those homes on lots 26 through 40.
So in addition to the visual aspects there's going to be real aspect of the noise that's going to be
generated and will degrade the tranquility of this park. He thinks back to what some of the other
folks have said and they are not doing anything positive for this park by accepting this proposal.
As Mr. Nolte and Ms. Craig said earlier nothing, and I will say just want to get back to something
you know, Mr mark novelty and Susan Craig earlier about outlot A, that part of the park that is
the prairies, he has often kind of wondered about that dense area just kind of north of those
prairies, outlot A, it can’t see how they could even get a trail through there, so from a
preservation point he’s glad it's not being destroyed, it's wetlands, but the idea that anybody
could possibly use that as a part of enjoying the park is just not credible, it is completely
unusable land. Kalnins reiterated the park will be degraded by this and the developer’s best
argument seems to be well they're not going to degrade it all that much. Kalnins believes they
should demand that something positive be done for the park and this proposal does nothing
positive for the park.
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 31 of 40
Kumar Narayanan stated he wanted to add a couple additional points, first he grew up in Seattle
and watched the entire northern part of Seattle get paved over and developments go in so they
have to ask themselves what type of city do they want 30-40 years from now and is this
development along those lines. He believes the plan that was laid out was a plan for growth, but
the proposal doesn't seem to match that plan. The second point is that the park is below much
of this development, so the things that happen in this development will end up in the park,
whether that's pesticides or water running off the pavement, that needs to be factored in and not
just an environmental review, but in a in a hydrology review, as the park floods pretty heavily and
this development will severely impact not just what happens in the park, but all throughout the
Ralston Creek watershed. Finally, regarding the traffic, the traffic plans for today don't count for
the traffic plans tomorrow and that nursing home is going to require significant deliveries, it's
going to require a lot of different infrastructure, and all that is going to be audible and visible and
present in the park.
William Synan stated he has lived here for 27 years, before the extension of First Avenue was
even done and wanted to state a couple of things. He really believes this is not following the
Comprehensive Plan at all and it is going to be a massive building and be on the most elevated
part of that property so everybody's going to see it and it's no confluent with the neighborhood.
Synan noted ACT owns plenty of land on the north side of Scott Boulevard and that building
would be more appropriate there. As far as the traffic exiting Hickory Trail from the west out to
First Avenue that is going to be a real problem, he urges the Commissioners go over there and
try to exit Hickory Trail onto First Avenue and see what it's like. First Avenue curves around the
northern edge of the condominium building and it's a blind spot and right now with three-way
traffic, because the only people who come out from there are the people in the condo building,
the traffic is very minimum, but once it is converted it to four way it's going to be a nightmare and
it’s not going to be safe. So those are his concerns, this should be a primarily low-density single-
family homes and the Comprehensive Plan has been ignored. Please do the right thing for the
people.
Eric Miller noted he really appreciates everything that's been said about the impact on a species,
both animal and plant, and just wants to reiterate the need for environmental impact statements
before projects like this go into effect. He also wanted to say that the trees at the north end of
outlot A are significantly greater quality and have greater age than trees in other parts of the area
that's going to be developed, so he appreciates them recognizing that. He also wanted to point
something out to people, he spoke with someone who's in the local environmental community
here who can't speak for themselves because of potential conflicts of interest, but this person
informed him recently that the area that's being developed is, in their words “within an
endangered species high priority zone and endangered rusty patch bumblebees have been
found within 1300 feet of this property” so Miller wanted that added to the comments. He also
noted he is part of the Friends of Hickory Hill Park Board.
Paige Hall (518 North Van Buren Street) said she has never been to one of these meetings
before but is in school studying environmental science and just listening to this is so
disheartening to see the plan not being followed as it was put in place. Her hope is that at least
the single loaded street point would be followed because as so many people said before the
houses are going to be visible from the park. Hall also noted the prairie is her favorite spot, and
is a lot of people's favorite spot, to just go and sit in the summer with all the insects and the birds
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 32 of 40
and the flowers and her concern is that they're not going to have that anymore. She already
doesn’t like to go to the other prairie that has the giant house from Hickory Heights on it and now
this other big prairie is going to be obstructed by housing. She just wanted to echo that again it's
very telling that there are still so many people on this call that are opposing the current plan.
Hannah Rapson (1415 East Davenport Street) wanted to reiterate the concerns about the lack of
consideration for cul-de-sacs and whether or not they fit the City plans they do create safer
streets and better neighborhoods for the people living in them. She also would share the
concern over the number of trees that would be removed in this plan, after the City losing 1000
trees during the derecho, trees, not only provide view sheds they also help with noise pollution in
the park, one can already hear the interstate and removing more of these trees will increase the
noise pollution in the park. She also just wants to put in a suggestion that when the City
considers through streets and sidewalks, many of the neighborhoods that border the park have
trails and natural entrances to the park and natural entrances to the park should be considered in
the plan and preserved as a greater priority over through streets or through sidewalks.
Mary Winder stated she grew up in Iowa City but now live in Kansas but agree with the woman
earlier who said that Hickory Hill Park is a gem. Winder stated when they go back and visit Iowa
City at the top of her list of things to do is take a walk at Hickory Hill Park and she feels like a 35-
foot buffer between the backyards and the park is way too short of a distance. Winder also
noted as far as cul-del-sacs go she grew up on a cul-de-sac and her adult daughter now lives
and raised her family on a cul-de-sac and it's a wonderful type of street to raise a family as
there's not very much traffic and a close neighborhood so she is a little confused about why the
City prefers a long street where people will speed through from one big street to another big
street as opposed to these more private cul-de-sacs where people can live. Winder encourages
the Commission to ask the developer to revise the plan and follow the Comprehensive Plan and
the Northeast District Plan. She understands that development has to happen, but if it has to
happen, it needs to follow the guidelines that have been set up. She emphasized they need to
think through this very carefully, because once it's developed it's too late.
Mary Murphy (890 Park Place) first wanted to say that she thinks there is far more support for
Hickory Hill Park than is showing up tonight because they required people to register to attend
the meeting and holding it late at night is probably discouraging quite a bit of the supporters and
that doesn't include those people that didn't even know about this meeting. Murphy noted from
the parks master plan, Hickory Hill Park is characterized as a Go Wild Park, which means nature
preservation is the focus of this park, so she is disappointed that there was no environmental
analysis done and agrees with most of the comments that were made tonight in support of
Hickory Hill Park. She also wanted to make a comment that Iowa City needs to take a very long-
term view of its parks, right now Iowa City has about the average number of acres per capita as
the comparable cities that Iowa City compares itself to, however, Iowa City is planning on making
itself more dense and it's planning on moving to form-based zoning from traditional zoning which
is going to only encourage density over time, so there will be fewer and fewer acres per capita of
parkland. Murphy noted this is important because children in particular have so few
opportunities to enjoy wild areas anymore, and while she wouldn't characterize Hickory Hill Park
as extremely wild by any means, it seems particularly important to preserve its character as a
wild park. Finally she would also say in taking a long-term view Iowa City is under some midterm
pressure to raise revenue because of some of the changes in the tax code over the years, but
she doesn’t think that means that a development should be approved quickly when clearly based
on the comments tonight people are asking, and almost begging, Iowa City to take a harder look
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 33 of 40
at this development.
Jane Bradbury spoke again to agree that a lot of people didn't even know about this meeting
coming up because it was sort of sudden and the weather has been really bad , so people are
talking less than usual, partly because of the pandemic and also the weather. The Friends of
Hickory Hill Park did a fabulous job putting signs up in the park, but when it's negative 14
degrees no one is out there, so it's sort of a strange time to have a meeting about a park people
use mostly in the warmer months. Bradbury noted another point they didn't mention is that it's
really the only park that one can get to with a bus in Iowa City that that is all natural and has hills.
All of the other parks in town are completely flat. Bradbury also wanted to mention monarchs and
things like that that will be impacted by a development next to the park negatively. Finally, she
mentioned the affordability before, but she knows a lot of people who've always wanted to live on
that side of town, who have never been able to afford it, and these are middle to upper class
normal working class teachers and such who've never been able to afford it, so it seems like it
could be better use of the land to put in housing that wasn't looming over the park and maybe
housing that has garden plots for the public to use or just anything that's less against the best
interest of the whole town at large, not just Hickory Hill Park users, but the whole town, is
negatively impacted by this.
Veronica Tessler (705 Sixth Avenue) stated she lives right across from Creekside Park, which
they hope will soon be renamed Pulitzer Prize winner, James Allen MacPherson. She compelled
to speak because she just learned about this tonight, a few hours ago, and she was recently at
the park with some friends for a socially distance walk, but since the weather's been really bad
for a couple of weeks there are likely many supporters who would be really interested in this
conversation who might not have heard about this. Therefore, she urges the Commissioners to
consider the impact beyond just the voices tonight and see that this really is a time where many
have been consumed by the pandemic and have turned to the park for solace so she would hope
that the Commission would look at the long-term view in making decisions about public land.
Glenda Buenger (South Lucas Street) commented they have gotten a lot of great input tonight
with many thoughtful and astute comments about hydrology and about environmental impacts
and about keeping what natural areas we have left for wildlife, and she would mostly say that she
agrees with these people, they love their park and should be protecting it, not developing next to
it.
Beth Rapson (715 North Johnson Street) has lived in Iowa City for 27 years and has been
accessing Hickory Hill Park largely through Oakland Cemetery and wants to express, as others
have, her frustration with the City when there has been a considerable amount of money and
time and thought put into a master plan and it gets so readily dismissed to raise capital for taxes.
She understands the pressure to develop more sources of tax income, but it seems like the park
is such an integral part of the value of the City and it offers something in the way that cities like
Minneapolis with so many large green spaces that the citizens can enjoy and become models for
how to build cities that are attractive to people. She feels it is important to give due time and
respect to that master plan for the promises that were made to the citizens of Iowa City when
that First Avenue was extended. She hopes the Commission will send this proposal back to the
developer.
Jesse Thomas (65 South Governor Street) stated like many he grew up here and is a huge fan of
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 34 of 40
the park. While he has decided to spend his life here, he has travel extensively and would say
the City has just barely dipping their toes into traffic calming technologies and he would just like
to see a stronger stance against having more roads and doing the things they've done in the
past. He stated it really ruins his day to come out of Hickory Hill Park and see that previous
development and if this Commission can help avoid future generations from seeing this
development come about that is what he would want.
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend 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
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.
Townsend seconded the motion.
Hensch began the Commission discussion by acknowledging he is very sympathetic to the
concerns about the view and thinks it's a reasonable thing to ask for a landscape buffer to be
extended or to just go to a front-loaded street on the area nearest adjacent to Hickory Hill Park.
Overall he thinks the development plan is pretty good but the concerns are legitimate so he’s
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 35 of 40
trying to find a middle ground between those two very contrasting needs.
Martin commented to her it's interesting that they’ve heard a couple of people bring up the First
Avenue extension, that happened when she was younger, but she is from Iowa City and when
she was approached to join Planning and Zoning that was one of the reasons she decided to join
and because she wanted to have that voice. She also found interesting people talking about the
pandemic and using the park during this time which when she’s been thinking about this project
and looking at the swath of land and how forested and she is really concerned with the decline of
biodiversity and what happens with wildlife when they are disrupted. It is interesting because in
Iowa City they have two main types of mice and the ticks that live on deer, when the deer are
disrupted and they're losing their habitat, the deer are affected by deforestation, but mice are not,
and then the white footed mouse carries the tick which carries Lyme disease. Also interesting is
we’re also in the middle of this pandemic that an aspect of diseases and whatnot coming from
animals, she knows it seems a little farfetched however she feels they really need to be taking a
very close look at the bigger picture of how important these buffers are these and the land
surrounding these parks and how very fortunate they are to have Hickory Hill Park. Martin did
acknowledge this is private land and they can do what they want to do with it, but because of this
rezoning, as stewards of this community through the Planning and Zoning Commission, it is their
responsibility to really help developers really look at this and think how are to benefit the greater
of the community. Having a senior development is great, she doesn’t know that market at all and
if the City needs another senior development, probably do, but is that need enough for this type
of development. It gives her pause and thinks they all should be pausing and really looking at
what's the best, smartest use of this particular swath of land that’s been a natural habitat for
years. Someone brought up the pesticide runoff which is a very valid thought and one of her
concerns in terms of the looking at these maps is the runoff from the creek of the waterway in
terms of another habitat being disrupted. Martin also noted there was a comment made about
flooding not affecting the houses, but they also have to be really compassionate to the protection
of the rest of the environment. Martin stated right now as this stands, she could not support this
application.
Craig stated she also can't support this as she feels that not enough consideration has been
given to the plans that are in place. Craig noted she wasn't part of the development of that
Northeast District Plan but she certainly was around in the City then and knows a lot of emotion
was involved with it, and it was hard fought principles that you can hear when people who were
part of it, talk about it and they feel quite betrayed now as they perceive why have a plan if you're
not going to stick to it and Craig feels that way too. She will not support this because it is against
the plan. Her main concern are those views and when someone stands in that prairie and looks
up on that ridge it is depression to envision a row of the backside of houses and others thought
of it before and thought to have that language put in the plan for that reason. She will not
support this, even with an amendment, they have to come back with something different.
Townsend stated she has heard several people talk about these huge multi storied houses that
are being built. Now, if the contractors came back with affordable housing units, small units,
would these same concerns be there. This is private property and someone is going to do
something with it, so if we're telling the contractors come back with something different, what is
something we are not opposed to having there.
Craig doesn’t think that there are people in the community who are opposed to having anything
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 36 of 40
there, but as she said to the developer, if he took lots 26 through 44 away which means then the
large single-family houses would be on the far side of a street and creates a buffer she can live
with. The condominiums and what's going on down at the other end of that bluff above the
prairies is fine. What's in the Northeast District Plan is to only to build houses facing the park not
backing up to the park with a street in between and that makes a natural buffer. So there are
ways to do it and if they come back with another plan that is more acceptable there will still be
people who talk against it because they don't want the land to be developed, but it will be
developed, it's a prime piece of property and it does not belong to the City.
Martin agreed and said a development needs to be done thoughtfully and thinks that it is very
important that there is more credence given to the overreaching effects of diminishing those
habitats.
Signs stated first of all the Commission can't change the rules, they must follow the guidelines
that the City Council has set forth. The next step is the City Council and they can change the
rules and so that's going to be an opportunity for those who do or don't agree with this
Commission’s vote tonight to have another voice. Signs added even if this doesn't go through
tonight these issues all still remain and you need to you need to take action on them. Signs
noted that maybe 5% of the same people here tonight were here a couple years ago when the
Commission discuss Tamarack Trail, a property right across the street on Scott Boulevard that
backs up to two natural areas, one being a conservation reserve, and it's a double loaded street
with just a long through street and 95% of the people here tonight weren't here there to complain
about that development because the reality is people don't complain about anything until it
effects them. A lot of people have referred to the 1999 Northeast Neighborhood Plan and that
was written 21-22 years ago and a lot has changed in 22 years. The Comprehensive Plan
specifically states things that are different that are in the 1999 plan, but we kind of forgot about
that in the conversation. It specifically discourages cul-de-sacs, it specifically encourages
conservation and designing and compacting homes into a narrow part of a property to preserve
as much of the land as possible, which quite frankly these developers have done a really good
job. So people can point to the 1999 plan, but he can point to something in the 2013 plan that is
contrary. Signs moved on to the bigger question of this piece of land. It is not this property
owner’s responsibility to add to or change or preserve anything with Hickory Hill Park, yes, it's a
beautiful park, no one denies that it's an absolutely beautiful park and wonderful asset, but it's
not this property owners’ responsibility. Several people made the comment, why do they have to
build here, why can't they build someplace else, well because they own the land and, quite
frankly, they may pay $2.3 million for that piece of land, which is another reason they have to
maximize what they can put on that land, because otherwise they go broke. Signs said the
bigger question is about whether an Iowa City should grow or not and to be honest he would like
to see Iowa City get some of those projects that are happening in North Liberty and Tiffin and
Coralville but, in general, Iowa City needs more housing. Iowa City has a tremendous shortage
of housing and as a realtor, he can assert that as an affordable housing advocate there is a
tremendous need. In general there is an anti-development tone in the community, which is why
the developers are moving to these other towns, because they don't they don't get this
resistance. Signs respectfully disagrees with a couple of his colleagues and questions whether
the developer came back with single loaded streets and took out some houses and stuff like that,
he is pretty sure the view shed from the park is going to be the same, whether there's a house on
the other side of the street or on this side of the street. In either scenario you're going to see
those houses from the park. Signs really questions if they turn this developer down tonight
they're going to be able to come back with something that can satisfy many people given they
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 37 of 40
paid $2.3 million for a piece of land. Signs also acknowledged some comments about not
knowing about the meeting and not thinking it was a good time and complaining about the late
time but they do that because they respect the need for public input and will sit here as long as it
takes. These Planning and Zoning meetings are the first and third Thursdays of every single
month unless there's nothing to talk about and the agendas are on the website the Friday
afternoon prior to the Thursday meeting. The City also does as good a job to make these things
public and specially reaches out to individuals and neighborhood leaders. In this case there was
a good neighborhood meeting that happened and people attended so somebody knew this was
going on. He encourages everyone to get involved with City Government and don't just get
involved in the projects that impact them.
Hensch commented they have a responsibility to ask if the applications comply with the district
plan for the particular area and is it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. They are following
the rules that have been set out to follow and then what is the public good. Hensch did want to
comment also on people questioning the need for memory care and senior assisted living in Iowa
City as there's a huge demand for that. There's people who want to stay in Iowa City and don't
want to have to go to West Branch or Solon or something for those types of services, they want
to stay here. He just wanted to acknowledge that because health care is an area he has a lot of
interest in and knowledge about. Also to follow up on something Signs said, Commission
members all remember the number of meetings we had for the Forest View development and the
standing room only for multiple meetings in the Council Chambers and he is always curious of
the people who didn't comment on things that are fairly similar like wooded areas and changes of
the landscape. He doesn’t want to use the word Nimby but that comes to mind. He is not
criticizing anyone but just wants everybody to know that the Commission members are all here
because we believe in public service, we're all working in good faith and we're doing what we
think is right and what's the public good for Iowa City and he gets slightly offended when people
insult our integrity.
Hensch stated he generally supports the application, he has concerns because he thinks the
front-loaded streets is a legitimate issue from the Northeast District Plan. He will never support
cul-de-sacs for all kinds of reasons and is concerned about the view shed as that's just very
respectful for the park. He feels this application is close, he just wouldn't support it tonight, but
doesn’t think it's fair to the developers to not tell them what they can do to improve the
application.
Elliott stated she echoes that and thinks the front-loaded streets or the single-loaded street would
be a great help to this if they can somehow figure out how to do that. She feels if that area was
front loaded even though they are still going to be able to see the houses she thinks it will make
a big psychological difference if there's a street there.
Craig stated she lives by the south part of the park, at the Bloomington and Davenport dead end
and there's a street there and there's all kinds of houses that can be seen from the park but
they're on the other side of the street and it's like okay that's where people live and this is the
park, it is a psychological difference.
Nolte agreed and said that is where he’s at today, in keeping with the plan and the front-loaded
streets and they do owe it to the developer to explain what we're looking for because if they
come back with that then we can't keep moving the goalposts all the time, so if there are other
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 38 of 40
concerns that people have other than the front-loaded street, they need to put those on the table
now. Nolte acknowledged it is their job is to keep with the plan and that may make the math hard
for the developer by taking lots away but we owe it to the community. Nolte stated in full
disclosure he was at those meetings in 1999 and didn't want any development out there. He has
been going to Hickory Hill Park since he was in college in the 90s, but he also understands the
need to grow and if this plan just had the front-loaded or the single-loaded streets, he would
support it.
Signs added one of the things they have a habit of doing is coming at these things, after the facts
are present, is if as a community we feel that that piece of land is so important to the integrity of
Hickory Hill Park, we should have bought as a community or went to City Council and said we
need to save this piece of land. He noted we tend to come at things at the tail end when
someone else's bought it, and then we want to direct what they do with the land and he has a
real problem with that from a privacy property rights standpoint. So he encourages all
environment lovers if you have areas that you think need to be preserved, then figure out a way
to buy it and preserved it because he is always the one to say if you don't own the land, you don't
control them, it's as simple as that, it’s real estate 101. So not just talking about Hickory Hill
Park, but if there are any areas you need to be thinking ahead as a community on what you want
to preserve.
Hensch wanted to also add in an earlier application that people may remember, there was a
senior facility proposed on the west side of Iowa City but the folks from Walnut Ridge was
concerned about their view and the project was defeated and they withdrew their application.
That project was then built and is operating in Coralville and it could have been in Iowa City
A vote was taken and the motion failed 0-7.
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JANUARY 21, 2021:
Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of January 21, 2021.
Martin seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett gave an update on the rezoning and preliminary plat near Camp Cardinal Boulevard and
Kennedy Parkway, it was approved at Council this week. Also the rezoning at 700 South
Dubuque Street, the student housing project was approved at Council, and the commercial plat
at Southgate and South Gilbert Street was final plated and approved this week at Council.
Hensch thanked all the members of the Commission for dedicating four and a half hours of their
life to this, it's a thankless task that people don't really appreciate the difficulty of it until they do it.
He appreciates each and every one of them, even if they don’t always agree he’s never
questioned their motivation so again thanked them all for their public service. He also
acknowledged all the public that came tonight and spoke or just listened because public
Planning and Zoning Commission
February 18, 2021
Page 39 of 40
participation is the only way to influence policy.
ADJOURNMENT:
Craig moved to adjourn.
Townsend seconded.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2020-2021
7/16 8/6 8/20 10/1 10/15 11/5 12/3 12/17 1/7 1/21 2/18
CRAIG, SUSAN X X X X X X O X X X X
DYER, CAROLYN O/E O/E -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
ELLIOTT, MAGGIE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X X
HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X X X X X
MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X X X X X X X X
NOLTE, MARK -- -- -- -- X X X X X X X O X
SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X O/E X X X
TOWNSEND, BILLIE O/E X X X X X X X X X X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member