HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdditional Correspondence
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Juli Seydell Johnson, Director of Parks & Recreation
Tyler Baird, Superintendent of Parks & Forestry
DATE: March 17, 2021
RE: Staff Recommendation for Acquiring Outlot A of Hickory Trail Estates for Neighborhood
Open Space
Parks and Recreation staff recommends the acceptance of Outlot A of Hickory Trail Estates to satisfy
Neighborhood Open Space requirements while increasing the size of Hickory Hill Park. This
recommendation is based upon the high quality of the woodlands which the City wishes to preserve and
manage. In addition, because the area is connected to Hickory Hill Park, it will add to the eco diversity
of the park and provide additional area for public recreation.
As proposed, Outlot A of the Hickory Trail Estates Concept Plan would add 11.66 acres of land to Hickory
Hill Park. This would increase the total park acres from approximately 186 to 198 acres. Staff does not
intend to use this acquired area as public active use recreation area, but rather as a passive use nature
area, as is much of Hickory Hill Park. Management activities will focus on restoration and preservation
of the savannah woodlands and wetland area.
The parcel has ecological integrity since it has never been cleared for development or used heavily for
agriculture. The addition includes areas of savannah woodlands that were prevalent in the area before
development. Hickory Hill Park preserves this ecosystem while providing the public with a natural area
to quietly hike and explore. Outlot A is consistent with the character and of a quality equal to or greater
than other sections of the park. The wetland in Outlot A further increases the ecosystem diversity of the
park.
The preservation of the land could be accomplished through a conservation easement. However, staff
recommends dedication to the City due to the location next to Hickory Hill Park. Public ownership will
easily allow for ecological management and restoration, as has been happening in recent years
throughout Hickory Hill Park.
Another benefit of acquiring Outlot A is that access to Hickory Hill Park will be increased by the long
stretch of park frontage planned along Hickory Trail. This access includes two trail entry points that link
to the existing trail system in the park.
Early in the development process, staff was also asked to consider dedication of Outlot B. Staff did not
recommend acquiring this area because it did not have a connection to the larger park, has topography
that would make maintenance very difficult and does not contain the remnant high value trees and
wetland found in Outlot A.
The acceptance of Outlot A is contingent upon approval of a Woodland Management Plan that shall
consist of a plan to remove any invasive species within the Outlot A area, as well as removal of any
hazardous trees or limbs. The plan shall be prepared by a woodland specialist and approved by the City
Forrester. Invasive species removal will be the responsibility of the owner and must be completed prior
to transfer of Outlot A to the City.
From:JOE CLARK
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Cc:Mike Welch; Jacob Wolfgang
Subject:Hickory Trail Estates - Comments from Development Team
Date:Monday, March 15, 2021 8:40:49 AM
Attachments:Outlook-b1kfcbmu.png
Anne & Ray-
Please consider the following comments from our Hickory Trail Estates Development Team:
1. Claim: Project does not protect viewsheds of the park.
-Those who spoke in opposition of the project provided no proof of this at the meeting but
only spoke in matter of fact terms.
-Architects & Engineers of the project contend that due to the steep slopes at the edge of the
park, our site is not visible from the park.
As an overarching theme, the Comprehensive Plan and NE District Plan state that
environmental protection is a basic tenet of the plans. “Growth and development should be
managed such that the environmental quality of the community is not sacrificed. Measures
should be taken in all private and public projects to ensure that any impacts on regulated
environmental features are minimized.” Comprehensive Plan, Pg. 19. Similarly, the NE
District Plan states that “protecting the environmental quality of the district is a high
priority” and that preserving natural features is one of the backbones of the NE District Plan.
To this end, the Conservation Neighborhood Design is recommended in the Bluffwood
Neighborhood quadrant (where the subject property is located), especially in areas
characterized by a topography of steep, wooded ravines.
However, the standards and recommendations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and NE
District Plan are merely guidelines, not legal requirements. “The land use scenarios are
intended to be general guides; an indication of how development may occur neighborhood
by neighborhood. It is possible that specific land uses shown on the land use scenario may
not develop in the exact locations depicted, but decision regarding development should
adhere generally to the planning principles set forth in this plan.” NE District Plan, Pg. 11. As
such, deviations from the criteria set forth in the plans can be appropriate and acceptable in
certain instances.
To the first contention of the Friends of Hickory Hill Park regarding the viewshed of the Park,
the NE District Plan does call for some sort of buffering between Hickory Hill Park and the
subject property in an attempt to minimize the visibility of residential development from the
Park and to preserve the natural integrity of the park. Pgs. 8, 15, and 17. A definition of
what constitutes buffering is not given in the Comprehensive Plan or the NE District Plan,
leaving much room for interpretation. Nevertheless, the Commission determined (as set
forth in the staff report) that the development will not adversely affect views any more than
would a conventional development. Staff Report, Pg. 6. There are sufficient separation
distances from the Park and the condominiums and senior living facility, with the down slope
from these properties lessening the visual effect on the Park, and trees can also be used to
soften this transition to the east. The proposed homes also have a 35' to 263’ buffer with the
existing Park boundary (this does not include the additional buffer from trees on the Hickory
Hill park side of the property). While a few homes may be visible from the Park, the staff
determined that the placement of these homes will not adversely affect light, air or privacy
anymore than a conventional development. This buffer should allow for sufficient viewshed
protection. It sounds like this was not one of the major concerns of the Commission, but if
there continues to be disputes from the Commission or Friends of Hickory Hill Park regarding
this point, a mixture of trees could be proposed along the rear yards to provide additional
screening from the Park’s view. The Developer also has offered to lose 6 single family lots
(over 500 feet of frontage) on the west side of the development in efforts to accommodate
this viewshed issue. Lastly, City Staff has put most emphasis on providing a buffer and extra
access points into the park more than they have on the single loaded street issue. These two
issues are thoroughly addressed in the current plan.
2. Claim: Project does not use cul-de-sacs
- Cul-de-sacs are not mandated for all residential roads in this plan, only where necessary to
protect sensitive slopes.
We agree that cul-de-sacs are not warranted in this development (and it appears the
Commission does as well). The Comprehensive Plan encourages the development of
interconnected streets. It further explicitly states (without qualification) that “Cul-de-sacs
are discouraged.” Pg. 39; see also Section 15-3-2A-4 of City Code (“Use of cul-de-sacs and
other roadways with a single point of access should be avoided. Cul-de-sacs will be
considered where it can be clearly demonstrated that environmental constraints, existing
development, access limitations along arterial streets or other unusual features prevent the
extension of the street to the property line or to interconnect with other streets within or
abutting the subdivision.”).
Likewise, the NE District Plan encourages streets that enhance neighborhood quality through
street design that foster reasonable traffic levels, calm traffic, and provide landscape buffers
along major roadways by developing interconnected street systems that disperses vehicular
traffic by using multiple means of access into and out of a neighborhood. Opposite of the
assertions of the Friends of Hickory Hill Park, “cul-de-sac streets [should be used only] on a
limited basis, such as where topography or other sensitive features prevent practical street
connections.” Pg. 10. Further, “interconnected streets are proposed where feasible” in the
Bluffwood Neighborhood. Pg. 13. However, the NE District Plan does state that “to preserve
sensitive areas, cul-de-sac streets and single-loaded streets are proposed where
appropriate.” Pgs. 13 and 16-17.
Based on the staff report from the Commission, it appears the Commission is comfortable
with the through street proposed by the developer. “Staff encourages connectivity within
this neighborhood and supports the idea of having a continuous street extension in this area
instead of two separate cul-de-sacs. The City subdivision code allows cul-de-sacs when it is
can be demonstrated that streets cannot be continued. The applicant has demonstrated that
this street can continue and connect with Scott Blvd.” Staff Report, Pg. 4. “The applicant has
demonstrated that a through street can be provided in this location without impacting the
protected slopes to the east of the proposed street extension, or the wetlands that exist on
the property.” Staff Report, Pg. 8.
3. Claim: Project does not use single loaded streets.
-Single loaded streets are only required in certain circumstances. This would mean that
double loaded streets can also be used in certain circumstances.
In an effort to improve overall access to and awareness of parks, the Comprehensive Plan
“discourages parks that are surrounded by private property, and encourages development of
parks with single-loaded streets.” Pg. 47. Similarly, in an effort to preserve natural features,
the NE District Plan “encourages the use of single-loaded streets when necessary to protect
environmentally sensitive areas and create public vistas.” Pg. 8. Single-loaded streets used
“to open up scenic vistas and provide public access to preserved natural areas” are also
encouraged under the NE District Plan. Pg. 9. The NE District Plan further states that, in
connection with the Bluffwood Neighborhood, “to preserve sensitive areas [such as areas
containing wooded ravines and stream corridors], cul-de-sac streets and single-loaded
streets are proposed where appropriate.” Pgs. 13 and 16-17.
However, as you are already aware, these are merely guidelines and not absolutes that must
be adhered to for all development near parks. It is important to point out that the guideline
of encouraging single-loaded streets is set forth in the plans as an effort to improve access to
and awareness of parks, to protect environmentally sensitive areas, and to create public
vistas. A deviation from the encouraged guidelines in the plans would be appropriate in
instances where these goals can be achieved in other ways. Further, these are
recommended guidelines (not requirements) only for situations “where appropriate.” Based
on a developer’s proposed development and layout, there could be situations where a
single-loaded road would not be appropriate and more detrimental than a double-loaded
road.
In support of the proposition that single-loaded roads are not appropriate in this instance,
we make the following notes:
· Access to and awareness of Hickory Hill Park will be increased in other ways by the
proposed development (rather than using single-loaded roads), including Developer's
dedication of open space to the Park which will result in the Park increasing in size by
11.35 acres and having street frontage along N. Scott Blvd. These are the underlying
considerations in the plans, and the proposed development will not discourage or
prohibit access to the Park, but will instead increase access and availability to the public.
The current "unauthorized" park trails that allow a person to enter the ACT land without
permission will now become two additional "legitimate" park trail entrances for patrons
of the park to frequent any time. A pocket park with vehicle parking could be added
near these trails if the City chooses to do so in the future. The developer's are in strong
support of increasing access to Hickory Hill Park and have made that one of their focal
points of the project.
· The map of the Bluffwood Neighborhood (Pg. 14 of the NE District Plan) and the map of
a Conservation Neighborhood Design (Pg. 12 of NE District Plan) both show some single-
loaded roads in the vicinity of the Park, but also double-loaded roads as well. As such, it
would be contrary to the terms of the NE District Plan to require single-loaded roads for
the entirety of the proposed development. At a minimum, a partially single-loaded street
on the west side of the development should be acceptable by the Commission and City
staff. The Developer has given up 40% of the single family lots (6 of 15 lots in question)
on the west side of the development in efforts to provide a partially single-loaded street
in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and NE District Plan.
· As noted above, single-loaded roads are “encouraged where appropriate.” Considering
the squeeze from Outlots A and B (which are necessary to preserve other environmental
conditions), single-loaded streets in this area would likely make development financially
unfeasible, and as such would not be appropriate in this instance. The loss of 6
additional single family lots has already put a financial strain on the project.
· While “environment” is one of the key elements of the Comprehensive Plan, the
Comprehensive Plan considers two other inter-related factors (along with environment)
that create healthy and thriving communities, namely economy and society. As such,
focusing on only the environmental concerns and ignoring the economic and societal
impacts that the development will have is an unfair and incomplete analysis. For
example, one of the main visions of the Comprehensive Plan is to create and provide
attractive and affordable housing for all people (including singles, couples, families with
children, and elderly people). “By allowing for a mix of housing types, moderately priced
housing can be incorporated into a neighborhood, rather than segregated in one or two
areas of the community.” Indeed, one of the housing goals under the Comprehensive
Plan encourages a diversity of housing options in all neighborhoods by “ensuring a mix of
housing types within each neighborhood, to provide options for households of all types
(singles, families, retirees, etc.) and people of all incomes.” The Comprehensive Plan also
identifies that population growth indicates the need for more homes, condominiums
and apartments throughout the city, including in locations “close to recreation.” The NE
District Plan likewise seeks to encourage reasonable levels of housing diversity by using
traditional neighborhood design to locate various housing types near parks and
upgrading neighborhood parks by improving or expanding existing public parks and open
space areas for neighborhood use. The Bluffwood Neighborhood contemplates a variety
of housing options, all adjacent to major open spaces. Additionally the project would
bring employment to many in the community and increases the City's tax base by up to
$1,000,000.00 annually once it is fully built-out. The proposed development satisfies all
these economic and societal goals and provides significant benefit to the community as
well as allowing additional access to and use of the park by new individuals.
· Developer is proposing to gift approximately 23.28% of the total development site
(11.35 acres out of 48.75 acres), which would extend the existing boundaries of Hickory
Hill Park and increase the total Park acreage by approximately 5.5%. It would also allow
the Park to have street frontage along N. Scott Blvd. (which increases visibility and use of
the Park, as well as increased access by the public). Developer is also taking other
measures to preserve environmentally sensitive areas on the property (see Outlot B).
These are significant environmental benefits that will preserve the environmental
integrity of the property into the future.
· Overall, the Staff Report supports the development and states that it satisfies the
requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and NE District Plan (“It provides an
interconnected street system, incorporates a variety of housing types, limits impact to
sensitive areas, and provides an additional 11.35 acres of land to Hickory Hill Park.”). It
would be helpful for City Staff to highlight and emphasize the many other benefits that
will be created by this wonderful development, rather than focusing on the one issue
that is (arguably) being partially satisfied by the development team.
Please share these comments with your staff and P&Z Commission.
Thank you,
Joe Clark
Commercial Realty Iowa City, LLC
221 E. Burlington St., Iowa City, IA 52240
Cell: (319) 631-1894 / Office: (515) 519-LAND
Licensed Real Estate Broker in Iowa
From:Jason Napoli
To:Raymond Heitner
Cc:Anne Russett
Subject:Re: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 03/18/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda
Date:Friday, March 12, 2021 5:02:36 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image005.png
image004.png
image003.png
image002.png
Greetings Ray-
Thank you for reconnecting with this. My initial thoughts about this come from many angles.
The first being how the public finds out about this at the close of business on a Friday with
less than a week before the meeting. A meeting being held during our community’s spring
break.
The bias the city planners have toward this project have disadvantaged the opposed since the
good neighbor meeting back in December. Initial feedback was never shared with the
Commission, rezoning signage was poorly placed and now, after being shut down less than a
month ago, we find ourselves with less than a week’s notice before this goes before P&Z
again. Have the minutes from the meeting last month when this went in front of P&Z even
been published yet? The public should have more time to respond and more information about
the previous meeting.
Lots 28-41 remain unacceptable. The Commission endured hours of public feedback. The
Commission told the developer to come back with single-loaded streets. Removing lots from
the middle is a good start, but having those lots 28-36 still against the 1st Ave. Loop trail and
then heading north defeats the purpose.
I ask you to share these initial thoughts with the Commission and reconsider having this on
next week’s agenda with such short notice and one of the few weeks of the year more people
in our community are on vacation than most other times of the year.
Thank you again,
Jason Napoli
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPh
On Friday, March 12, 2021, 17:05, Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner@iowa-city.org> wrote:
All,
The applicant for the Hickory Trail Estates rezoning has submitted an updated
OPD Plan. This plan will be discussed at next week’s Planning and Zoning
th
Commission meeting on Thursday, March 18 at 7pm.
The meeting’s agenda packet can be found here: https://www.icgov.org/city-
government/boards/planning-and-zoning-commission
The Zoom link for the meeting can be found here:
https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJMtceCrqzMjGtHRYdNFfGxUsOm1baWmr681
Please send me any correspondence you would like forwarded to the Commission.
Thank you,
Ray Heitner
Associate Planner
(he/him/his)
319.356.5238
raymond-heitner@iowa-city.org
410 E Washington St, Iowa City, IA 52240
WWW.ICGOV.ORG
Disclaimer
The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended
solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient,
you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of
the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
From:Russo, Andrew F
To:Raymond Heitner
Cc:Maureen Russo
Subject:Re: [External] Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 03/18/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda
Date:Sunday, March 14, 2021 3:18:52 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Thanks Ray for the heads up. Could you please forward the following comments/requests to the
commission for consideration?
1. Removal of the homes that closely abutted the park is a great change that makes the plan
closer to the vision that was designed to protect the park. While ideally, some more would be
removed on that side of the street, this removes the ones that would have had the most
impact. Thanks.
2. It was mentioned at the last meeting that the Parks Dept did not want Outlot B. Is the
developer willing to donate that to the city? If so, that would be fantastic in my opinion and
should warrant discussion as to why Parks said no. Can the P+Z still make that
recommendation to include Outlot B for public access? As a frequent user of the park, the
ability to explore up that ravine would be an excellent addition to the park that would also
decompress pressure on the rest of the park.
3. Should we be able to set aside Outlot B, then my final request for consideration is to include a
small right of way access at the crosswalk planned at the trailhead, around lot 17, to allow
hikers to loop from the current park to Outlot B and down to the other entry point at the
bottom of the hill next to lot 28.
Thank you for forwarding these requests.
Andy Russo
From: Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner@iowa-city.org>
Date: Friday, March 12, 2021 at 4:06 PM
To: "Parker, Adam G" <adam-parker@uiowa.edu>, "Weis, Adam J" <adam-j-
weis@uiowa.edu>, "'allisonjaynes@gmail.com'" <allisonjaynes@gmail.com>, "Russo, Andrew
F" <andrew-russo@uiowa.edu>, "Synan, Ann" <ann-synan@uiowa.edu>,
"'asha.l.bhandary@gmail.com'" <asha.l.bhandary@gmail.com>, "'b3n.berger@gmail.com'"
<b3n.berger@gmail.com>, "'bamcquillen@gmail.com'" <bamcquillen@gmail.com>,
"'brian.lehmann@icloud.com'" <brian.lehmann@icloud.com>, "'hickoryhiker@gmail.com'"
<hickoryhiker@gmail.com>, "'clbuckingham@gmail.com'" <clbuckingham@gmail.com>,
"'cjkohrt@gmail.com'" <cjkohrt@gmail.com>, "'darcy128@aol.com'" <darcy128@aol.com>,
From:Ben Berger
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Re: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 03/18/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda
Date:Monday, March 15, 2021 9:54:45 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Thank you for sending this along.
I still feel that there is too much disruption to the environment with the amended plan. If I
remember correctly it was asked that the developers recommend a plan with housing along
one side of the road only.
However, unless I am reading it incorrectly, this plan is still proposing houses on both sides. I
would suggest that the developers return to the plan and amend it to match what was requested
of them to move forward.
Thank you.
Ben
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 4:06 PM Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner@iowa-city.org>
wrote:
All,
The applicant for the Hickory Trail Estates rezoning has submitted an updated OPD Plan.
This plan will be discussed at next week’s Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on
Thursday, March 18th at 7pm.
The meeting’s agenda packet can be found here: https://www.icgov.org/city-
government/boards/planning-and-zoning-commission
The Zoom link for the meeting can be found here:
https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJMtceCrqzMjGtHRYdNFfGxUsOm1baWmr681
Please send me any correspondence you would like forwarded to the Commission.
From:Anne Russett
To:"Katherine Beydler"
Cc:Raymond Heitner
Subject:RE: Comments for P&Z meeting Thursday, 3/18
Date:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 9:11:03 AM
Hi, Katherine –
Thank you for your comments. We will share them with the Commission.
Anne
From: Katherine Beydler <kbeyds@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 8:26 AM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Comments for P&Z meeting Thursday, 3/18
Hi Anne,
I'm writing with comments regarding the development by Axiom near Hickory Hill Park. I would
appreciate it if these concerns could be passed to the Planning and Zoning commission.
I was under the impression that the developer was going to comply with the Comprehensive and NE
District Plan requirement for single-loaded streets facing parks, as requested by P&Z in the last
meeting. I am very disappointed to see that their new plan removes only six homes, leaving lots 36-
28 in particular as double-loaded streets very close to the park. The developer should remedy this by
redesigning for single-loading, and also promise never to attempt to add new homes to make that
space double-loaded in the future-- perhaps it should also be added to the park.
I am also disappointed that to try and retain a maximum profit (rather than maximizing what is best
for residents of Iowa City) the addition of other lots has reduced the preservation of wooded area on
the development further to only 46%. If the developer is not able to comply with district plans and
requirements for the preservation of sensitive areas while making what they see as a large enough
profit, maybe they should reconsider this purchase entirely.
Lastly, it was not clear how expanding Outlot A very slightly addressed the concerns from the public
that that addition of land would not significantly expand the area in the park usable by the public,
and rather represents an attempt by the developer to offload land they don't want to manage.
Furthermore, the new figure of 11.66 acres was used inconsistently throughout the revised
document, making it unclear how committed the developer is to this promise.
Many thanks,
Katherine Beydler
From:Anne Russett
To:"David Deardorff"
Cc:Raymond Heitner
Subject:RE: P&Z meeting 3/18 regarding Axiom development near Hickory Hill
Date:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 11:50:03 AM
Hi, David – Thank you for your comments. We will forward them to the Commission.
Anne
From: David Deardorff <davidjdeardorff@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 10:21 AM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: P&Z meeting 3/18 regarding Axiom development near Hickory Hill
Hello Anne,
I'm writing with comments regarding the development by Axiom near Hickory Hill Park. Please pass
my comments along to the zoning commission.
At the termination of last meeting, the zoning commission made an explicit request for single-loaded
streets as a condition which would be an acceptable change to the plan making it something they
could potentially pass. The single loaded streets is one of the major requirements of NE District Plan,
and something that is vital to maintaining reasonable density and minimizing disruption of important
natural areas. However, the developer instead removed only 6 homes, and then left everything else
as double loaded streets. It is important that the city hold developers to the stipulation of the NE
District plan, because no one else but the city government can do that. I understand the city wants
revenue and the developers want profit, but the needs of the developer to turn a profit should not
supersede the needs of the city, previous agreements, or the concerns of the constituents.
I am also disappointed that to try and retain a maximum profit (rather than maximizing what is best
for residents of Iowa City) the addition of other lots has reduced the preservation of wooded areas
on the development further to only 46%, which violates another city requirement. If the developer is
not able to comply with district plans and requirements for the preservation of sensitive areas while
making what they see as a large enough profit, they should reconsider their plans and goals relative
to the sites available and perhaps choose a different location. Natural parks are an important
component of a city, and cities which can protect them will ultimately draw in desirable residents as
cities continue to become more dense and lacking in substantial nature areas.
Lastly, it was not clear how expanding Outlot A minimally addressed the concerns from the public
that that addition of land would not significantly expand the area in the park usable by the public,
and rather represents an attempt by the developer to offload land they don't want to manage.
Furthermore, the new figure of 11.66 acres was used inconsistently throughout the revised
document, making it unclear how committed the developer is to this promise.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
David Deardorff
From:Mary Winder
To:Raymond Heitner; Anne Russett
Subject:letter about Hickory Trail Estates rezoning
Date:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 12:10:40 PM
Ray or Anne,
I would appreciate it very much if you would please forward the following letter to the
members of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Thank you.
Mary W.
March 16, 2021
Dear Anne, Ray, and Planning and Zoning Commission Members:
I am writing to you about the proposed zoning change for the land near Hickory Hill Park for
the Hickory Trail Estates development.
On the evening of Feb. 18, I attended the entire Zoom meeting of the commissioners that
addressed this topic. I was quite impressed with the commissioners’ patience and care in
discussing this issue and in listening to all of those who had concerns about the issue.
At the very end of that long meeting, I was very excited and very pleased when the
commissioners voted against recommending the proposed zoning change for this
development and invited the developers to revise the plan so that it would follow the
recommendations listed in the City’s Northeast District Plan for the Bluffwood area and the
City’s Comprehensive Plan. I understand that these recommendations support using single-
loaded streets to provide a buffer between residential development and a park, such as
Hickory Hill Park, which is a concept that makes perfect sense.
However, when I recently viewed the amended plan for this development, I was utterly
dismayed. Yes, the old plan has been somewhat tweaked, but there are no substantial
changes from the first plan and there are still many houses planned for both sides of the
street closest to the park, with some very short distances (35 to 55 feet) between the
residential property and the park boundary along quite a stretch in two directions.
I respectively implore you to also vote against this revised version of the development plan
and to request that the developers revise this plan again the way you asked them to do in the
first place—so that the guidelines are followed, which means that the street closest to the
park be changed to a single-loaded street (resulting in no home lots labeled 29 through 41 on
the most recent plan).
Perhaps the third version of the development plan for Hickory Trail Estates will be the charm.
I hope so. If this development is going to take place, it needs to be planned carefully and by
following the City’s own guidelines.
I consider Hickory Hill Park to be a treasure for Iowa City, and I hope you will make certain that
any development taking place around the park be done in a way that causes the smallest
negative impact on the park as possible. This can be accomplished, I believe, by following the
City’s wise guidelines.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mary Winder
785-985-2519
From:Kristen Morrow
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Re: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 03/18/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda
Date:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 12:32:39 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Greetings Mr. Heitner,
My comments for the commission regarding the updated proposal are that the developers
made very little attempt to account for the encroachment of the houses to the park. The entire
development should utilize single loaded streets (at the very least), and as is, the new proposal
would not eliminate the harm posed by the housing to the viewshed (not to mention the
soundscape) currently found in this section of the park. The developers (many not from this
area) have made only negligible updates in response to the overwhelming public outcry to
their plans, leaving me with little faith that they have a vested interest in this community or in
the concerns of the park users. The commission should not approve the updated proposal, as it
does not comply with the recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commision, nor the
IC Comprehensive and NE District Plans.
Thank you for sharing my comments.
Sincerely,
Kristen Morrow
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 4:06 PM Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner@iowa-city.org>
wrote:
All,
The applicant for the Hickory Trail Estates rezoning has submitted an updated OPD Plan.
This plan will be discussed at next week’s Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on
Thursday, March 18th at 7pm.
The meeting’s agenda packet can be found here: https://www.icgov.org/city-
government/boards/planning-and-zoning-commission
The Zoom link for the meeting can be found here:
https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJMtceCrqzMjGtHRYdNFfGxUsOm1baWmr681
From:Allison Jaynes
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:New Hickory Hill development plan
Date:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 1:53:50 PM
Dear Ms. Russett and Mr. Heitner,
It appears that the board is poised to approve the development of land adjacent to Hickory
Hill without listening to the concern of the many citizens who benefit from this land daily and
weekly. I suppose that should not be too surprising, but I had hoped for a different outcome.
(You have 69 pages of objections in the current packet alone!) I think of our city as unique
when compared to other areas, and one that has the foresight to see into the future and
preserve the aspects that are really worth fighting for; but it seems not.
I make one final plea to this board. The development of this land will not only ruin the park
aesthetically, but it will contribute to the overall decline of the abutting land and
watersheds. I noticed that the development company did not provide a conceptual
rendering of the rows of houses that will be visible on the ridge across from the West Prairie
at the lookout point some call Sunrise Bench. I submit a very amateur rendering at the end
of this letter, although it would be ideal to receive this from the developers since I’m not
sure on the orientation and size of the houses to be built. Notice how the houses, visible
from the lookout point for sure, all have yards that angle into the newly restored prairie on
the slope below. A small list of detrimental activities that will occur at these locations:
(1) Drainage of lawn chemicals directly into the watershed and prairie landscapes.
Chemically-treated lawns are known hazards for native, beneficial insects and small
animals - and the runoff is no exception.
(2) Absolutely no buffer exists between deer and fox habitat and the newly-developed
houses - this will only increase animal-human conflicts. New homeowners will complain
about deer browsing their landscape. (No mention was made that these new developments
will provide deer-resistant plantings.) Cat owners will stress about the number of foxes in
their yards. And the negative impacts on the wildlife of Hickory Hill will continue to
compound.
(3) Near constant lawn mower sounds in the summer months on the weekend - with no
buffer between the adjacent backyards and the valley between the prairie areas where
residents go for peace and quiet.
(4) Finally, the aesthetic effects of having the valley ringed with houses on the ridge above
while trying to enjoy a respite from city life.
Please reconsider the approval of this development based on the arguments above.
Perhaps there could be an agreement made with Friends of Hickory Hill or Bur Oak to
purchase this land, or for the City to purchase with a lease to these groups. At the very
least, please consider rejecting the plots labeled 28 through 41, as those yards will
have the most direct impact on the park.
Sincerely,
Allison Jaynes
Hotz Ave, Iowa City
ORIGINAL PICTURE:
CONCEPTUAL RENDERING:
From:P G
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Hickory Hil development, P&Z meeting March 18th
Date:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 3:34:25 PM
I am emailing you to voice my opinion on the upcoming development adjacent to hickory hill
park.
I advocate for no development at all. I hope you will ignore the plan. One of the buildings is
too tall for zoning code, they only removed five units from the rejected proposal.
At least, approve exceptions that must be met regarding the zoning standards.
Letting this go forward will effectively ruin the only preserved piece of nature in Iowa City.
Hickory hill wont be the same. When you're walking through nature you're not supposed to
see residences, driveways, garages, more people, more cars.
You are opening up a doorway for the elimination of our cities most blissful, quiet parks.
Do you feel content with this? I for one, would have a hard time sleeping at night.
From:Tanner King
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Hickory Hill
Date:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 5:27:43 PM
Hello, Mr. Heitner! I hope you are enjoying yourself despite the weather.
I'm just sending you this email in regards to the "new" proposed plan for the development
adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. I hope it doesn't need pointing out that this new plan does
nothing to address any of the problems that we sat for 4 hours discussing last time. This is still
a plan that cashes in on a taxpayer-funded park to increase property value for a select few
people at the expense of the park itself.
See you (virtually) Thursday!
Tanner King
From:david purdy
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Re: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 03/18/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda
Date:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 5:35:09 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Thanks for alerting me to the meeting. Did you include my correspondence to the P and Z
Commission for the February 18th meeting? I don't see that in this week's packet. It was in an
email I sent to you on February 15th and you responded to on February 16th.
If it was not, can it be included with this email?
If it wasn't sent to the P and Z Commission then please include it with this email. Either way I
would like to provide just have a couple of thoughts for this meeting:
"After reading the meeting minutes from the February 18th meeting, I want to thank the
commission for listening to all the input concerning the development.
I agree the P and Z should not keep changing the goal posts for the developer. However,
several commission members clearly said they would approve the development if lots 26-44
were removed from the plan. I would agree with this suggestion as it clearly matches the intent
of the Northeast District Plan. Yes, the plan is over 20 years old but it was designed with many
people involved and many different viewpoints represented. City planning staff creating a
blueprint for the NE District Plan did an excellent job of balancing development and buffering
the park. It can still weather the test of time.
I would also agree that the view on cul-de-sacs has changed and that they should not be
required in this development. I would like to thank the developer for having a higher density
near Scott Boulevard and for removing a couple of lots to protect the view from the open area
in the field.
However, as several commissioners have indicated being 100 feet from the closest trail means
the houses backed up to the park are still visible. Having lots 28-41 removed from the plan
will most closely resemble the intent of the Northeast District Plan and provide a buffer. This
change will definitely make a big difference. Yes, a person can see the houses on the other
side of the street but there is a much bigger buffer and more closely resembles the area on
Bloomington and Cedar Streets.
I would urge the commissioners to reiterate to the developer their ideas from the February
18th meeting so that they know what the commission will accept. Having served on city
commissions before I know that the process might take several meetings but the end result
usually comes out the better. Agreeing to the current development and sending it to the City
Council for their review is not what the P and Z Commission is supposed to be doing. Getting
a solution that meets the Northeast District Plan and the expectations of most people on P and
Z and then sending it to the City Council is a much better process.
Thanks!
David Purdy
1434 E. Bloomington Street"
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 4:06 PM Raymond Heitner <Raymond-Heitner@iowa-city.org>
wrote:
All,
The applicant for the Hickory Trail Estates rezoning has submitted an updated OPD Plan.
This plan will be discussed at next week’s Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on
Thursday, March 18th at 7pm.
The meeting’s agenda packet can be found here: https://www.icgov.org/city-
government/boards/planning-and-zoning-commission
The Zoom link for the meeting can be found here:
https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJMtceCrqzMjGtHRYdNFfGxUsOm1baWmr681
Please send me any correspondence you would like forwarded to the Commission.
Thank you,
Ray Heitner
Associate Planner
(he/him/his)
319.356.5238
From:david purdy
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner
Subject:Hickory Trail Estates
Date:Monday, February 15, 2021 6:55:34 PM
Attachments:We sent you safe versions of your files.msg
Hickory Trail Estates proposal letter.pdf
Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.
Greetings-
I have attached a letter regarding the Hickory Trail Estates development to be discussed with
the Planning and Zoning Commission this Thursday.
Could you please make sure the P and Z Commission members receive the letter?
If it is too late to include in their packet, I would be happy to send it to them directly.
Thanks!
David Purdy
From:Glenda Buenger
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Re: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 03/18/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda
Date:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 5:50:24 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Dear Mr. Heitner,
Would you please send my letter concerning the rezoning request for Hickory Trail Estates to
the Commissioners? Thank you.
Sincerely,
Glenda Buenger
RE: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning
The Hickory Trail Estates proposal complies with the City’s Comprehensive Plan in several
respects. It does not offer the affordable housing the City so desperately needs, but it adds to
the City’s housing diversity by offering elder housing which the City does seem to need. It
offers connectivity for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers. However, it does not comply with
the Northeast District Plan of the City’s Comprehensive Plan in regards to protection for
Hickory Hill Park. As discussed on pp. 7-8 of the updated Staff Report, the Northeast District
Plan clearly aimed at protecting Hickory Hill Park by keeping development away from park
perimeters.
In an attempt to give credit, during the 2-18-21 PZ meeting Michael Welch of Axiom
Consultants described how Axiom Consultants, in response to public concern, had sought to
increase buffer between the project and Hickory Hill Park. At the same time, isn’t it a little
misleading to focus on the distance between houses and existing park trails rather than houses
and the park itself? Hickory Hill Park is more than trails.
Similarly, the updated Staff Report seems to make much of the 11.66 acres of Outlot A to be
donated to the City as mitigation for other project impacts. Outlot A may in fact be desirable,
but as the updated Staff Report acknowledges on p. 8, it no longer counts as buffer if it is to
become part of the park. The re-submitted proposal still shows a double-loaded street and
buffer zones of only 35 feet along parts of the west and south project borders that abut
Hickory Hill Park. This is unacceptable.
I reviewed the commissioners’ discussion prior to the 0-7 vote on 2-18-21. A couple of the
Commissioners expressed a desire to provide direction to the developer to create a more
acceptable proposal. As I see it, Commissioners clearly told the developer what could be done
to make the application more acceptable, but it appears the developer chose to not heed their
advice.
Hensch stated it was reasonable to ask that the landscape buffer be extended or to just go to a
front-loaded street in the area adjacent to Hickory Hill Park. He stated a front-loaded street
design is a legitimate issue from the Northeast District Plan.
Craig clearly stated adherence to the Northeast District Plan. “Build houses facing the park not
backing up to the park with a street in between,” she said. If the developer removed Lots 26-
44, she stated, the large single-family houses would be on the far side of a street, creating a
buffer she could live with.
Elliot stated that even if park users could still see the houses, a single-loaded street would
make a big psychological difference.
Nolte plainly stated adherence to the Northeast District Plan and that if the proposal just had
the single-loaded street, he could support it.
A single-loaded street with houses on the far side of the street, away from Hickory Hill Park,
would permit development while adhering to the Northeast District Plan's intent to protect the
park.
The current design makes the park vulnerable to possible runoff from chemical lawn
treatments. It puts houses too close to the park. People have parties and cars and dogs and kids
and operate noisy gasoline-powered yard tools such as mowers and leaf and snow blowers,
and they cook animal flesh on outdoor grills. A design that allows back yards to abut the park
allows all these to invade the park, degrading the public’s enjoyment of the park.
In contrast, a single-loaded street with houses on the far side of the street would abate park
users’ perception of human habitation next to the park. As Craig pointed out, a single-loaded
street with houses placed on the far side of the street would impose a physical and
psychological boundary between HHP and human development. Additionally, a buffer zone
between the street and HHP would screen the street from HHP, helping to protect the view
shed. This project needs to replace trees, and many of those trees could do double duty as both
street trees and buffer trees in a zone between the street and park boundaries. Once it was
more mature, this buffer zone would also help mitigate noise. It could be designed to provide
some wildlife habitat, especially for birds and insects.
Thank you, Commissioners, for your public service and all of the time-consuming work you
do. I appreciate your patience and receptivity to my concerns for HHP. I hope you will
consider that citizens participate to create a plan in the expectation that city officials adhere to
the plan. I trust you recognize you are making a momentous decision for decades and
generations of Hickory Hill Park users and visitors. This rezoning request places you as
stewards of our beloved park. Please be good stewards and protect our park by insisting on a
single-loaded street. This would allow development while minimizing harmful effects to the
park and degrading users’ experience of the park. It would allow private gain while protecting
the public good. It would stick to the Plan. Could we please stick to the Plan?
Sincerely,
Glenda Buenger
318 S. Lucas St.
Iowa City
From:Leiana Arcenas
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Opposed to the revised rezoning plan for the area by Hickory Hill Park
Date:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 6:54:06 AM
Hi Raymond,
The revised proposal to rezone the area by Hickory Hill Park is insufficient because it still does not comply with the
Northeast District plan. Among several points of non-compliance, the buffer between the park and the residential
area ranges from being too narrow to non-existent. This proposal should be denied, as well as any future versions
that do not FULLY comply with the Northeast District plan.
Thank you,
Leiana Arcenas
This email is from an external source.
From:Parker, Adam G
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:REZ20-0016–Hickory Trail Rezoning Resubmission
Date:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 9:00:11 AM
Hello Ray,
Thanks for passing along meeting information.
Once again I am opposed to the recommendation to rezone REZ20-0016–Hickory Trail. Based off the
feedback and discussion of the previous rezoning meeting held February 18th, I do not believe the
developer made adequate concessions to adhere to the Iowa City Comprehensive Plan and NE
District Plan as single-loaded street adjacent the park were proposed.
The Iowa City Comprehensive plan discourages parks that are surrounded by private property. The
plat as currently presented does not adhere to this principle. Double-loaded streets as currently
presented, would allow few property owners to benefit from the rest of Iowa City residents by
allowing their private property to abut a wooded public park. These homeowners then have financial
arbitrage of having property directly on public land which can never be developed. Leaving residents
to feel as if they are trespassing while walking on public trails in what feels like their “back yard. A
single-loaded street would create the appropriate separation between the park and private property
creating greater access to the park and not allowing private citizens to benefit from a public good.
The NE District Plan drafters were even so diligent to create a drawing of how the land could be
appropriately developed buffering the park with single-loaded streets and offering adequate
buffering from a public good and private property. The drawing also shifts higher density buildings
closer to First Ave and Scott BLVD. allowing more socioeconomic statuses the opportunity to benefit
from the proximity of the park. The current proposal does not adequately accomplish this goal. By
passing the plat as currently designed the city would be once again rewarding the wealthy and well-
connected over the diverse diaspora Iowa City needs to cater additional housing opportunities to. A
year of political and social upheaval revealing the vast inequities communities face, we have seen
these communities need opportunities to be closer to expansive green space higher densities closer
to 1st and Scott BLVD would accomplish this goal is the drawing above demonstrates.
This rushed development is especially troublesome in a year where Hickory Hill Park has been a
refuge for those seeking safer solace outside their own four walls. The pandemic has created an
economic crisis for many including current property owners and low-interest rate incentive for the
developers. As we are approaching the tail end of a chaotic year, I would hate for the city to concede
a short-term wind fall to the detriment of long term vibrancy of the community and its most
expansive, wild park. We are currently shaping what the Iowa City community will look like 50,100,
250 years from now. We have seen access to public green space not only increases property values
but continues to attract community members to new areas. I encourage the planning and zoning
commission to take a long term approach in their thought process. Reject this proposal as currently
presented and demand the developers follow the vision of the Iowa City Comprehensive plan and NE
district plan. As it is the groundwork for long-term development.
Thanks for all you do, I appreciate your participation in moving the community forward!
Adam Parker
1302 E. Bloomington St.
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is intended only for the use of the
individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete or destroy all copies of the original message and attachments thereto.
Email sent to or from UI Health Care may be retained as required by law or regulation. Thank
you.
From:The Rutherfords
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:please continue to protect Hickory Hill Park
Date:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 9:52:51 AM
Dear Planning and Zoning Commission.
I was so grateful for your 0-7 vote against the Hickory Trail Estates rezoning proposal. I've
seen the most current submission and do not feel they've done enough to address the concerns
raised in the first meeting. More needs to be done to protect this absolute treasure of a park. I
live where I do on the east side of IC because of the proximity to the park.
Thank you!
John Rutherford
1717 E. College St
Iowa City, IA
From:Lutgendorf, Philip A
To:Raymond Heitner
Cc:Lutgendorf, Susan K; cjkohrt@gmail.com
Subject:Planning and Zoning Commission and Hickory Hill Park
Date:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 10:24:52 AM
Dear Mr. Heitner,
I commend the Commissioners for their vote against approving the developer’s
rezoning request for 48.75 acres adjacent to Hickory Hill Park at last month’s
meeting. However, the slightly revised request now before the Commission
continues to ignore both the spirit and letter of the Comprehensive or
Northeast District Plan with regard to the Park, that was developed with much
input from the community.
My wife and I will try to attend the virtual meeting tomorrow night, though we
will be traveling. However, in case we are unable to “show up” (virtually), we
would like to be on record as urging the Commissioners to continue to reject
the developer’s plan, until it is further scaled down to incorporate only single-
loaded streets and the stipulated 175-200 feet buffer between house sites and
the parkland that so many of us cherish.
Thanking you for your attention,
Philip and Susan Lutgendorf
2 Glendale Court
Iowa City, IA 52245
From:wobtj@mchsi.com
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Re: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 03/18/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda
Date:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 10:36:10 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Good Morning, Ray,
My Wife Gaylen and I appose the second proposal by the
developer for the area near Hickory Hill Park in Iowa City for there
was little change to his proposal and it does not provide a
sufficient “Buffer” between this proposed development plan and
our Iowa City Hickory Hill Park.
We would at a minimum support a plan which discourages Parks
surrounded by private property and allow only single loaded street
access!!!
Sincerely yours,
Tony and Gaylen Wobeter
2605 Bluffwood Circle
Iowa City
From: Raymond Heitner
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 4:05 PM
To: 'adam-parker@uiowa.edu' ; 'adam-j-weis@uiowa.edu' ; 'allisonjaynes@gmail.com' ; 'andrew-
russo@uiowa.edu' ; 'ann-synan@uiowa.edu' ; 'asha.l.bhandary@gmail.com' ; 'b3n.berger@gmail.com' ;
'bamcquillen@gmail.com' ; 'brian.lehmann@icloud.com' ; 'hickoryhiker@gmail.com' ;
'clbuckingham@gmail.com' ; 'cjkohrt@gmail.com' ; 'darcy128@aol.com' ; 'dpurdy2@gmail.com' ;
'liztracey@gmail.com' ; 'emilyakim05@gmail.com' ; 'emily.schacht@gmail.com' ; 'eric.gidal5@gmail.com' ;
'durian.erin@gmail.com' ; 'florence-boos@uiowa.edu' ; 'buengerg@gmail.com' ; 'hannah-
molitor@uiowa.edu' ; 'Hannah.Rapson@RaymondJames.com' ; 'heather.w.mcknight@gmail.com' ;
'hbschofield@gmail.com' ; 'perkins.i.t@gmail.com' ; 'jackiehockett@gmail.com' ; 'jameshirsch@gmail.com'
; 'j.k.bradbury@gmail.com' ; 'jasnap23@yahoo.com' ; 'jessemacfarlane@gmail.com' ;
'kjrutherford01@gmail.com' ; 'moffitt.julie@gmail.com' ; 'karen.nichols@protonmail.com' ;
'tomkatymclaughlin@gmail.com' ; 'kelly-messingham@uiowa.edu' ; 'kelly.teeselink@gmail.com' ;
'kelseyturnis@gmail.com' ; 'Khris.Vickroy@mercer.com' ; 'krisanne-ryther@hawkeyefootball.com' ;
'krinelil@hotmail.com' ; 'knmorrow@gmail.com' ; 'laurajclaps@gmail.com' ; 'lauridi@hotmail.com' ;
'iheartsteak121@gmail.com' ; 'libbysue.c@gmail.com' ; 'lilysmithjensen@gmail.com' ;
'loalbrecht@gmail.com' ; 'mms246@gmail.com' ; 'mgedlinske@gmail.com' ; 'markrenshaw@me.com' ;
'embenbear@gmail.com' ; 'hortgal@hotmail.com' ; 'mwinder73@yahoo.com' ; 'matthew.def@gmail.com' ;
'modemo403@gmail.com' ; 'maureen.russo.pt@gmail.com' ; 'nfootner@gmail.com' ;
'pholden@iastate.edu' ; 'phillip-lutgendorf@uiowa.edu' ; 'riley.gardam@gmail.com' ;
'robin.kopelman@gmail.com' ; 'roslynn-ellis-1@uiowa.edu' ; 'rukieb@gmail.com' ; 'rwestfa@yahoo.com' ;
From:Shellie Miller
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Hickory hill
Date:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 11:45:14 AM
Dear Mr Heitner,
Please do not rezone. Hickory Hill park is an important stop for migrating warblers and other amazing birds. We’d
love to take you birding this spring before the leaves pop out to show you all the wonders.
Shellie Miller Kettelkamp
East Side, Washington st
Sent from my iPhone
This email is from an external source.
From:Carol Tyx
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:development proposal
Date:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 11:51:51 AM
Hello Mr. Heitner,
I would like to voice my opposition to the proposed development near Hickory Hill. The plan
does not provide enough of a buffer between the park and the proposed development. In order
to preserve the wild aspect of Hickory Hill, which is so precious to many of us, any
development should adhere to the buffer guidelines set up in previous plans for this area.
Sincerely,
Carol Tyx
1128 4th Ave
Iowa City, Ia 52240
From:Ruth Westfall
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Hickory Hill and the rezoning question
Date:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 1:32:57 PM
Dear Mr. Heitner,
Hickory Hill is near and dear to my heart, as it is to so many in Iowa City. The
Planning and Zoning Commissioners need to follow the Northeast District Plan
and to deny the rezoning request of the developer. Here’s why:
· Considerable public input went into the Northeast District Plan. It represents a
consensus.
· The Northeast District Plan clearly seeks to protect HHP by transferring
development away from the
park toward 1st Avenue.
· The proposed project ignores and does not comply with the guiding principle of
the Northeast District Plan is the use of single-loaded streets to preserve areas such
as Hickory Hill Park, to create public vistas, and to provide public access to natural
areas.
· The Northeast District Plan’s principles are so fundamental they were also
included in the Comprehensive Plan, pp. 46-47. Perhaps the most important point
here is that the Plan seeks to:
-Discourage parks that are surrounded by private property; encourage development
of parks with single-loaded street access.
Please deny the rezoning request because it does not adhere to the
Comprehensive Plan and the Northeast District Plan. The citizens of Iowa City
expect the Commission to follow the plans that were approved and to do what they
said they would do in 1999. Reject this rezoning request.
Sincerely,
Ruth Westfall
418 5th Ave
Iowa City
From:Karin McKeone
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:HHP
Date:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 1:52:16 PM
Dear Mr. Heitner,
I could write endless stories and state so many reasons why it is important to protect Hickory
Hill Park. Development continues to squeeze and encroach upon one of the city's great assets.
Especially during this time of COVID, nature's offerings have been a source of comfort to
many. Hopefully, you have heard many people provide personal accounts of the importance of
protecting Hickory Hill Park.
I have spent endless hours of volunteer work in Hickory Hill Park to enhance, maintain and
protect this natural setting. Tree mulching, fencing and watering were my speciality. In years
of draught, I know that I personally saved a number of then wilted oak trees from their demise.
Having spent those many hours there, in addition to taking school groups to the park for work
sessions and to learn the beauty of the park's offerings, I now plead with the city (again!).
Please, please be mindful of the original district plan and why it was developed. Also keep in
mind that many citizens were encouraged to give their input to that plan. There are reasons
that District Plan provided some restrictions to the encroachment of development around this
natural area. One reason is about the senses; what we see, hear, smell, and sometimes taste
and touch in the park is restorative; this is a place away from everyday hustle. This natural
space is a gem, beloved by many.
For those of us who have tried to protect the park in the past, we learned that the city spends
years in anticipation of projects, getting public input, and putting those plans into writing.
While we lost in our past efforts to protect HHP, many citizens found some satisfaction in
knowing we had contributed to the DISTRICT PLAN that would effect future development.
This plan was designed to help protect future encroachment. And now, here we are with a
possible rezoning which negates all the past efforts in making that plan in the first place.
Please place citizen interests at a high priority when you consider double loading streets in the
area. Citizens worked in collaboration with the City to assure the HHP area would be enjoyed
by many. Please honor that work and limit the huge impact that will occur with
the building of large, multi-story homes along nearby park borders.
Please consider that as natural areas shrink with the pressures of development, Hickory Hill
Park is worth protecting for future generations to enjoy. Please do not allow requests that
impact the solice offered by our beautiful Hickory Hill Park.
Sincerely,
Karin McKeone
4703 Inverness Ct, Iowa City, IA 52245
From:pat bowen
To:Raymond Heitner
Cc:*City Council; Anne Russett
Subject:CaseNo.REZ20-0016
Date:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 2:07:59 PM
To the Planning and Zoning Commission:
We are writing today to share our opposition to the rezoning near Hickory Hills Park. The
development does not appear to adhere to the Comprehensive Northeast District plan in which
the public participated in good faith. We would like to believe that public officials would
adhere to those plans.
Considerable public input went into the Northeast District Plan. The proposed project
appears to ignore the principal of single loaded streets to preserve the area as a beautiful public
access that provides access to the natural areas.
By ignoring the City’s agreement with the community to provide a meaningful bufferfor Hickory Hill Park, this rezoning proposal does not even come close to the visionthat was agreed to and adopted in the Northeast District Plan. The Northeast DistrictPlan’s principles are so fundamental they were also included in the ComprehensivePlan, pp. 46-47.
Final question for the P&Z Commission and all decision makers, are you working for the
developers or are you working for the citizens of Iowa City? Pandering to the public by allow
public meetings for discussion of future projects then ignoring them is not what citizens want
or deserve.
The rezoning request should be denied. We are demanding the Commissioners stickwith the Northeast District Planthat the citizens of Iowa City negotiated in good faith.
Sincerely,
Pat Bowen
Kenn Bowen
1210 Village Rd IC 52240
From:Bruce Tarwater
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Re: Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning on 03/18/21 Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda
Date:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 2:42:49 PM
Mr. Heitner-
I live in Iowa City next to Hickory Hill Park. The rezoning request should be
denied. The developer and PZ Commissioners and staff should consider a plan that
adheres to the Comprehensive Plan including the Northeast District Plan. I will be atthe meeting as will many of my friends who use and revere our park. Please tellthe commissioners that I am one more citizen requesting the request be denied.
Below is another letter which I support and have copied and pasted because thegentleman speaks more eloquently than I. But these things I also believe. Do the
right thing. Do not turn your back on the will of the people. Herein are my reasons
for wishing this zoning request be denied:
I am not opposed to development per se. I am opposed to this rezoning because itdoes not adhere to the Comprehensive or Northeast District plan in which the publicparticipated in good faith that public officials would adhere to these plans.
Considerable public input went into the Northeast District Plan. The proposal to
construct 1st Avenue east of Hickory Hill Park was very controversial and the
planning process was used as a way to reach community consensus, allowing1st Avenue to be built while also respecting the park. The Northeast DistrictPlan clearly seeks to protect HHP by transferring development away from thepark toward 1st Avenue.A guiding principle of the Northeast District Plan is the use of single-loadedstreets to preserve areas such as Hickory Hill Park, to create public vistas, andto provide public access to natural areas. The proposed project ignores this
guiding principle. The proposed project still includes a double-loaded street
(houses on both sides of the street) with inadequate buffer zones between
development and the park.
The buffer shown in the Comprehensive Plan is at least 175 to 200 feet wide(based on using existing lot lines for scale). The proposed plan offers only 35feet of buffer between the backyards of houses and the park in a couple ofspots along the west and south boundaries of the development area.Additionally, once Outlot A is ceded to the City and becomes part of HHP, thereis no buffer between the park and the 10-unit condo proposed for the NWcorner of the development area. One goal of the buffer is to minimize the
visibility of residential development from the park. The few trees that the
developer offers to plant instead of a wide buffer will not achieve this goal.
Concerning the developer’s conveyance of Outlot A to the City, Outlet A is
undevelopable due to steep wooded slopes, wetlands, streams, and theSensitive Areas Ordinance. It is therefore no concession on the part of thedeveloper. Outlot B is likewise essentially undevelopable. Additionally, it is notclear that the open space that is being dedicated for required NeighborhoodOpen Space meets the criteria for being usable as required by the zoning
code.
The staff recommendation for a through street ignores the Northeast District
Plan’s vision of keeping an open connection between Hickory Hill Park and thewooded ravine in the proposed Outlot B. The street connection in itself may notbe objectionable, but there appears to be little effort to preserve the amount ofopen space shown in the Northeast District Plan.The developer is seeking waivers of zoning requirements to allow a largesenior-living complex in an otherwise single-family zone. The developer is seekingzoning incentives from the City but is not adhering to the
Comprehensive Plan’s vision in exchange.
By ignoring the City’s agreement with the community to provide a meaningful
buffer for Hickory Hill Park, this rezoning proposal does not even come
close to the vision that was agreed to and adopted in the NortheastDistrict Plan. The Northeast District Plan’s principles are so fundamental theywere also included in the Comprehensive Plan, pp. 46-47. Perhaps the mostimportant point here is that the Plan seeks to:-Discourage parks that are surrounded by private property; encouragedevelopment of parks with single-loaded street access.
The rezoning request should be denied.
The developer and PZ Commissioners and staff should consider a plan that adheres
to the Comprehensive Plan including the Northeast District Plan.
To this end, I am advocating a single-loaded street design for theproposal. This means houses on only one side of the proposed Hickory Trail, on theside away from the park, with adequate buffer between the street and HHPboundaries. Commissioners need to stick with the Northeast District Plan that thecitizens of Iowa City negotiated in good faith.
Sincerely,
Bruce Tarwater2669 Hickory Trail
Iowa City, IA 52245
hickoryhiker@gmail.com
From:Tgell5
To:Raymond Heitner; Anne Russett
Subject:Hickory Hill proposal
Date:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 2:55:10 PM
Dear Mr. Heitner,
I am very concerned about the traffic in and out of the development, not because of the homeowners, but
because of the large number of employees at the proposed assisted living/memory care business. A
building that size with that capacity will require a HUGE number of employees working around the clock
shifts. This will add considerably to the traffic in the area, especially during the usual busy times of the
day and when kids are walking to school. In addition, this traffic will depart not only via First Avenue but
also on to Scott Boulevard via the development where I would expect a lot of children will live and play. I
am certain the traffic study did not take into account the volume of traffic from this business.
Also the new design still goes solidly against the NE District and Comprehensive Plans!!
I am also very concerned that this meeting was scheduled with less than a weeks notice and during the
communities spring break. It smells a little fishy!
Please share these comments with the P&Z Commission.
Thomas and Melanie Gellhaus
906 Tamarack Trail
Iowa City, IA
From:Casey James Kohrt
To:Anne Russett; Raymond Heitner; fhhp-board@googlegroups.com
Subject:Friends of Hickory Hill comments on proposed development
Date:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 3:14:41 PM
Anne and Ray, please pass these comments on to the commission
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commissioners,
There is no reason for the City to settle for less than what the Comprehensive Plan
calls for on the proposed Hickory Hill Estates.
The Comprehensive Plan clearly lays out a vision for what a property
owner/developer can expect to achieve when the property is rezoned. At the time the
Northeast District Plan was adopted, the Larson estate owned the property. Both the
current owner, ACT, and the developer were aware of the officially adopted plan
when they purchased the property, or offered to purchase the property. The price
that they paid, or will pay for the property, should be based on what the City has told
the public and potential developers what can be expected in terms of development.
The developer could recoup costs of adhering to the plan by increasing density at the
north end of the project. This would also adhere to City objectives of increased
housing diversity and affordable housing.
The Northeast District Plan was developed in public: the City— including the Planning
and Zoning Commission and City Council—invited us, the public, as well as property
owners and real estate developers to participate in the planning process. The Plan
was thoroughly discussed and well vetted when it was adopted in 1999.
Again, as part of that process the City made a commitment to preserve a significant
buffer for Hickory Hill Park to get community buy in for the construction of First
Avenue. After the plan was adopted there was a referendum on whether the City
should build First Avenue. Proponents for constructing the street used the Northeast
District Plan to assure voters that Hickory Hill Park would be protected if the First
Avenue was built. The public voted to build the street.
What has changed since the adoption of the Northeast District Plan in 1999? The
contentious debate regarding the construction of First Avenue has been settled. The
City at great public expense built the street along with Scott Boulevard providing
street access to the Larson property which is now proposed to be developed as
Hickory Hill Estates. Prior to this public investment, the Larson property was only
suitable for agricultural uses. It was us, the public of Iowa City, that invested public
funds in the infrastructure to make the Larson property developable today.
But that public investment was based on the plan to protect Hickory Hill Park with a
significant buffer on the east side of the park. Why should ACT and the developer
reap the benefits of our public investment if they are not going to adhere to the Plan?
Friends of Hickory Hill Park founders had significant input into the NE District Plan. It
was intended to protect the NE part of the park. Since 2004, FHHP has spent 14,882
hours, or 7.15 years of time service in the park restoring habitat, building trails and
improving the park. This is a $320,000 value, in addition to thousands of dollars we
cost-shared with the City on other management projects. In total, we have engaged
almost 5000 persons in over 1000 events. We have also raised funds to purchase the
Pappy Dickens Property, protecting the Northwest corner of the park, now held by
Bur Oak Land Trust. We never pursued the purchase of the NE tract because we
thought it would be developed in accordance with the NE district plan and the
Comprehensive Plan. We now ask the City to step up and not approve plats that do
not conform to the City’s own plans.
Casey Kohrt,
Chair, Friends of Hickory Hill Park
From:Anne Russett
To:"hannah rapson"
Cc:Raymond Heitner
Subject:RE: Hickory Hill development
Date:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 3:26:26 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Hi, Hannah – Thanks for your comments. We will forward them onto the Commission. If you’d like to
discuss any of these questions with Ray or I, please feel free to give us a call.
Thanks, Anne
WWW.ICGOV.ORG
Anne Russett, AICP
Senior Planner
She/Her/Hersp: 319-356-5251
410 E Washington St
Iowa City, IA 52240
From: hannah rapson <hannah.letisha@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 2:56 PM
To: Anne Russett <Anne-Russett@iowa-city.org>
Subject: Hickory Hill development
Anne,
Thank you for taking the time to read my entire email, as the 273 page-packet took many hours to
digest and consider. Below are my concerns as I can best convey them, based on the plan, which I
had limited time to review and respond to.
I sincerely hope we can work together as a community to build a thoughtful development that
adheres to the city's comprehensive plan. Simply put, the plan should make sense given the location
and the environmental impacts of this development, which neighbors such a unique asset to our
city, Hickory Hill Park.
I start by sharing my concern in the presentation of materials at the last meeting.
· Presentation of Application
o No slide images presented during presentation – do not allow for a point of
reference while on Zoom
o Rotated maps – cause confusion for viewers
§ I am working on putting together an overlay of proposal v. comp plan in
aligned orientation to help viewers better understand
o View of senior living and residences – no elevations presented “as seen from
park” perspective
o Staff – lack or awareness of wetlands on property shows dismissal of sensitive
lands, which is very concerning
o Wetland/Environment Survey – lack of research on watershed impact does not
consider developments overall impact on other neighborhoods along the Ralston
creek, ie. other city residents
o The comment made by a commissioner "Why does the community care only when
in their backyard?” Because we are experts on where we live. We rely on the city to
put together thoughtful consideration and to listen to the people who actually live in
these spaces and consider their experiences and valuable point of view.
In case I have missed something in my three points, I have included a list of questions that I
believe are unanswered at this point and should be considered as part of figuring out how to
carefully develop this land, taking into account the potential impact of this development on many
community residents near and far to the park.
· Stick to the Comprehensive Plan
o Obligated by law to do so, unless a good reason not to
§ Thru Street Concession – there is a good reason (while opposed I remain
opposed) to consider continuation of the street, given the proposed senior
living facility. Another solution would be to preserve a cul-de-sac for
residential and orient the Senior Living Facility toward 1st Ave, where service
needs and additional vehicle traffic would not flow along the park.
§ Increased Population Density Concession – the senior living facility
increasing the allotted density. This is already a concession and there is no
reason not to uphold the comprehensive plan for single loaded streets along
the park.
§ Single-loaded streets
· There is no good argument for eliminating single-loaded streets
· Lots 28-41 are too close to the park and should not be approved
per the comprehensive plan
· Due to the nature of this development being built on a sensitive
area, the environmental impact of a thru-street should be
considered.
· Raised crosswalks do not slow traffic and they are bad for
plowing. What other measures can be taken to slow traffic if a thru-
street is approved?
· Senior Living Facility
§ Per the city assessor’s site, the house currently at the end of Hickory Trail
adjacent to the meadow, which many complained about during last month’s
meeting is roughly 6800 sq ft and two stories high. The proposed senior
center is 10 times that size at 69,000 sq ft and will be built on a similar fall-
away slope where the 4-story side of the building faces the park, in effect
appearing twice as high as the current residence bordering the park. The 35’
variance request should not be granted. This building is too big.
§ Non-permeable surfaces. The added roadway and parking lots in addition
to the massive roof line of this building create a significant amount of non-
permeable surfaces at the top of the hill. The Ralston Creek went under
major erosion restoration just this past year (I will bring images to the
meeting). The Commission should consider the potential impact of
watershed from this portion of the development in considering approval of
the size and scope, including parking lots. Considerations of permeable
pavers or underground parking lots should be explored as part of reducing
watershed to the creek and neighbors down-stream.
§ Assisted Living and Memory Care usage means that these residents will not
use or access the park, therefore an orientation otherwise, that does not
negatively impact traffic around the park should be considered. The current
senior living facility does not benefit from this location and the services and
high traffic will negatively impact park patrons. This should be noted when
considering the orientation of this facility to the park and the traffic flow.
§ Is this the best location for this type of senior facility – it is furthest from
the hospital system.
· Woodland Buffer to park
o Tree-lined with streets are not enough
o Woodland hillside should be planted at developers’ expense to protect viewsheds
based on concession or through street and housing visibility.
o Trails should be included in the development plan and mandated via aConditional Zoning Agreement, so that it is sure to happen. Intention is not enough.
Note that the trail agreement made with Hickory Trail development was never
implemented. This should be mandated via a conditional agreement.
o 10.86-acre buffer between developments does more to protect the developments
from each other than it does to protect viewshed from the park. A similar green
screen should be included in the developer plan and at developer cost due, given the
thru-street, which not only improves city service access, but also allows for more
houses to be built than the comp plan lays out and impacts park viewsheds. This
buffer is required through Open Land mandates – how does this impact the park’s
ability to use this space?
o Noise pollution should be considered as part of protecting this natural park. It will
impact the experience of park patrons, as well as wildlife.
Questions
· Why is the retirement facility not counted in the density limit?
· What is the city getting for the height variance?
· Has the city considered a watershed study given the number of sensitive slopes?
· What will the impact be on Ralston Creek, which has had significant erosion issues,
recently repaired?
· How will the wetlands on the property be impacted by a significant increase in concrete
runoff?
· How will the watershed increase without trees to soak up run off?
· Why would the city leave the northside/woodbluff plan (aka, proposed development
site) in place in 2013, if they revisited the entire master plan?
· What other natural areas are there in Iowa City that are comparable to Hickory Hill?
· Is Hickory Hill an asset to our community? If so, why wouldn’t we want to protect it as
part of considering a thoughtful development plan?
· Could the city or a private donor still buy the land instead of the developer?
· Why didn’t the city parks system identify this as a concern sooner and recommend a buy
out plan that would protect the park?
· Why can’t cul-de-sacs be considered in this area, even if not elsewhere – there is no
other area in town like this area, which should be considered a “special feature” per comp
plan language?
· Can a true environmental study be done to understand the impact of this development?
· This is not a Natural Area – the comment is unnecessary and meant to degrade the
quality of the land. These areas would not be called woodlands and sensitive areas, if they
did not have value as natural land. Beyond that, the argument is not necessarily even about
not developing the land, as much as it is about preserving the park adjacent to the land with
regard to tree covering, watershed and viewsheds. The argument that this is not natural
land is irrelevant to the conversation of how to preserve and protect the park, which is
natural land.
Thank you,
Hannah Rapson
1415 E Davenport
Irish Tract Home
From:darcy128@aol.com
To:Raymond Heitner; Anne Russett
Cc:darcy128@aol.com
Subject:Hickory Trail Estates Rezoning - again
Date:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 3:28:29 PM
Dear Mr. Heitner and Ms. Russett,
I'm am very dismayed to be writing to you again so soon with regard to the rezoning of the land proposed
as Hickory Trail Estates. I find it impossible to believe that there was ample time to thoughtfully consider
all the issues raised at the last meeting and to draw up a proposal that would in any way justify
overturning a 7-0 vote against. Lots 28-41 still violate the single-load street requirement for development
adjoining parks. They still impinge on the buffer zone. The removal of five lots from the park-side of the
development only to jam them into the north side hardly addresses the concerns of the attendees at the
last meeting nor does it follow the NE District Plan or the Comprehensive Plan, already in place. Much
time was spent discussing the nursing home size, including height violations at the last meeting, and it
isn't even mentioned. Why does the city have these plans in place if they are not to be followed?
People within the park will be subjected to so much more noise from people not to mention car traffic.
This road could easily become a cut through for people coming from Scott Boulevard. With that in mind,
the removal of lots 28-41 would create a single-loaded street, which is to be used in city development
close to parks.
An aside, why am I having to write this under such a time constraint? I've only been notified five days ago
if you count last Friday night, and the meeting will take place within a week of notification. If you have any
fewer participants or emails than last time, it might be accounted for by the fact that this meeting was
scheduled during a major school break for this area. Hmmm...might this have waited one more week?
This development is already going to severely impact the enjoyment of the park. This park is a City of
Iowa City treasure and should be kept that way. I have been a user of this park for at least fifty of my
sixty-plus years and I have seen the many changes that have come, some of them very good but this
one, as proposed, will be among the worst. I am a wheelchair user now and we often go to the end of
Hickory Trail on a nightly walk. The beautiful prairie grasses and abundant animal life is a joy. Make no
mistake. First Avenue traffic behind us is still plenty loud but if this were a street with houses on two
sides, the north side of the park will never be the same.
Please do the right thing and minimize this development by keeping within the NE District Plan and the
Comprehensive Plan, already in place.
Please forward this comment to the Planning and Zoning commission.
Darcy Lipsius
2639 Hickory Trail
From:Cherie Haury-Artz
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:rezoning the ACT parcel
Date:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 4:01:42 PM
I would encourage the Planning and Zoning Commissioners to deny rezoning the ACT parcel
until Joe Clark, the developer, presents a development design that respects the City's Northeast
District Plan and Comprehensive Plan to protect Hickory Hill Park. Hickory Hill Park is an
important natural resource for Iowa City and Johnson County and the City has spent time and
energy developing a comprehensive plan for good management. This plan needs to be
respected and followed by ALL developers to protect our valuable resources.
Sincerely,
Cherie Haury-Artz
1104 Yewell Street
Iowa City, IA 52240
From:Robin Kopelman
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Hickory Trail rezoning
Date:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 4:26:41 PM
Dear Mr. Heitner,
I am writing to you again as a resident of a neighborhood adjacent to Hickory Hill Park, daily
user of the park, and co-leader of the Iowa City Trail Sisters. Our family of six remains
opposed to the rezoning proposal, with its (clearly) minimal revisions. Our concerns remain
its incongruence with the Comprehensive Plan and Northeast District Plan. Lots 28-41 in
particular would negatively impact the park experience, with an objectionable buffer adjacent
to well-traveled and highly beloved trail paths. Developing single loaded streets near the park
is the only appropriate proposal.
Sincerely,
Robin Kopelman
Todd Kopelman
--
Robin Kopelman
From:Synan, Ann
To:Raymond Heitner
Cc:Anne Russett; Synan, William J
Subject:Comments for Meeting of Planning and Zoning Commission March 18, 2021-- Hickory Trail Estates Planned
Rezoning
Date:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 4:55:12 PM
Dear Anne and Ray,
Please forward our comments below to the Planning and Zoning Commissioners for the March 18th Meeting. Thank
you.
Ann Synan
Dear Planning and Zoning Commissioners:
We were encouraged by your 7-0 vote at last month's meeting to deny the developers' request to rezone the 48.75
acres adjacent to Hickory Hill Park.
We are thoroughly disappointed with the miniscule revision to the revised plan that the developers and the
Planning and Zoning staff are presenting to you at tomorrow night's meeting.
The revised plan to build single-family homes along the west side of the parcel next to the park and an assisted
living/memory care facility in the East part of the parcel, continues to ignore the Comprehensive and Northeast
District Plan, disregarding single-loaded streets aimed at preserving areas such as Hickory Hill Park, and featuring a
massive three-story building and complex that would take up almost nine acres (1/5) of this proposed residential
community and which would abut on Hickory Hill Park and the adjacent Bluffwood and Hickory Heights
Neighborhood.
It appears to us that the developers and the Planning and Zoning staff are trying every way that they can to make a
square peg fit into a round hole.
Again, we ask that you deny this proposed request and allow the property to remain under low density, single family
zoning -- not medium density, or low density single-family with a "planned development overlay". We entrust that
you will do the right thing and take the appropriate steps to help preserve the integrity and serenity of Iowa City's
Hickory Hill Park and the character of the Bluffwood and Hickory Heights neighborhoods.
Thank you for your consideration.
Ann and Bill Synan
833 Cypress Court
Iowa City
From:Jane Bradbury
To:Raymond Heitner
Subject:Rezoning land adjacent to Hickory Hill Park
Date:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 4:58:43 PM
Hello Ray,
I am writing to ask that you please vote against the proposed development by Hickory Hill
Park as it currently stands. The resubmitted proposal does not satisfy the criteria outlined in
the NE District Plan, which was created to protect Iowa City from development that is not in
the best interest of the entire community of Iowa City. I would like to be clear and state that I
am speaking about the entire community, not just those who live by the park. It is currently
used by Iowa City residents from all over the city as well as many other Iowans who visit the
park to enjoy birding opportunities that exist in the park.
I am one such visitor. I do not live by Hickory Hill Park, and I must drive there to walk there
daily. But it is worth it, because it is the only natural place in Iowa CIty of its kind, a place that
gives visitors a real feeling of wilderness.
Thank you for your time.
Jane Bradbury
316 Dartmouth