HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Agenda Packet 04.01.2021PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Thursday, April 1, 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.: CREZ21-0001
Location: 4809 Rapid Creek Road NE
An application for a rezoning from County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R) for
approximately 13.07 acres of land in unincorporated Johnson County, Fringe Area A –
Outside of the City’s Growth Area.
5. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: March 18, 2021
Electronic Meeting
(Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.8)
An electronic meeting is being held because a meeting in person is
impossible or impractical due to concerns for the health and safety of
Commission members, staff and the public presented by COVID-19.
You can participate in the meeting and can comment on an agenda item by
going to:
https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJ0sdOurpjsjGt1D06GKvxMUVmj6Wc982m
_l 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 991 3238 0909 when prompted.
Providing comment in person is not an option.
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
April 1, 2021
6. Planning & Zoning Information
7. 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 15 / May 6 / May 20
Informal: Scheduled as needed.
Date: April 1, 2021
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Ray Heitner, Associate Planner
Re: CREZ21-0001 – 4809 Rapid Creek Road NE Rezoning
Background Information
The applicant, MMS Consultants applying on behalf of Evan Evans, is requesting a
rezoning from County Agricultural (A) to County Residential (R) for approximately 13.07
acres of land located in Johnson County at 4809 Rapid Creek Road NE. The subject
property is located in Fringe Area A – Outside of Iowa City’s Growth Area. Because the
property is within Iowa City’s two-mile Fringe Area, the Fringe Area Agreement specifies
that the City will make a recommendation to the County Planning and Zoning Commission
before the County Commission considers the application. The final decision on the
rezoning falls within the County’s jurisdiction.
If this rezoning is approved, the applicant intends divide the land into approximately 2
single-family residential lots.
Analysis
Existing Land Use and Zoning
The subject area is zoned County Agricultural (A) and contains one single-family home.
A combination of grasslands and woodlands cover the remainder of the property. The
property does not contain any flood hazard area s.
Proposed Zoning & Surrounding Area
The applicant is requesting a rezoning to County Residential (R) which allows single-
family homes on lots with a minimum area of 10,890 square feet in size (1/4 Acre) and a
maximum area of 1.99 acres. Due to the zone’s limitation in lot size, the remainder of the
existing 13.07-acre lot will need to be placed into an outlot (or into multiple outlots) once
the existing lot is subdivided. Because the existing lot is long and narrow (approximately
443’ x 1,322’), the majority of the lot does not have access onto Rapid Creek Road NE.
In addition, various portions of the existing lot contain steep or wooded terrain, leaving
only certain portions of the existing lot developable. The applicant may choose to place
any undevelopable portions of the existing property into open space or preservation
outlots. The maximum development density allowed is 1 dwelling unit per acre.
The surrounding area is largely comprised of farmland, woodlands, natural open spaces,
and rural residences. Scattered single-family residential subdivisions can be found
throughout the portion of Fringe Area A that is located outside of the City’s Growth Area.
The 3-lot, Hickory Ridge Estates subdivision is located approximately .6 miles to the east
of the subject property. One mile to the west are the 3-lot Rapid Creek Ridge subdivision
and the 7-lot Yellow Rock subdivision. Given these preexisting surroundings, staff does
not find that the requested rezoning would result in a use that would be out of character
or context with the existing zoning and surrounding area.
Compliance with the County’s Comprehensive Plan
The Future Land Use Map of the County’s Comp rehensive Plan designates this area as
Residential. The proposed zoning designation would comply with the County’s Future
Land Use Map and Comprehensive Plan.
March 25, 2021
Page 2
Compliance with the Fringe Area Agreement
In reviewing proposed rezoning in the Fringe Area, staff relies on the policies outlined in
the Fringe Area Agreement. The Fringe Area Agreement is a component of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and applies to areas not specifically planned for in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. The Fringe Area Agreement is intended to provide guidance
regarding the development of land located within two miles of Iowa City’s corporate limits.
The agreement’s slated purpose is to provide for orderly and efficient development
patterns appropriate to non-urbanized areas, protect and preserve the fringe area’s
natural resources and environmentally sensitive features, direct development to areas
with physical characteristics which can accommodate development, and effectively and
economically provide services for future growth and development.
This property is located in Fringe Area A – Outside the City’s Growth Area. For this area,
located outside of the City’s Growth Area and outside of the Fringe Area’s North Corridor,
the agreement states that agricultural uses are preferred. According to the Johnson
County Comprehensive Plan, the Agricultural land use category envisions agricultural
uses, such as row crops and animal husbandry, with “very limited residential
development.” According to the Johnson County Zoning Code, Agricultural uses are
defined as farms, nurseries and greenhouses, orchards and tree farms, with residential
uses to be restricted to two single-family dwellings on a farm 40 acres or larger.
The proposed rezoning does not align with the land use policy direction in the Fringe Area
Agreement. However, staff finds that the requested rezoning is not out of character for
the subject property and surrounding area. Staff recognizes the conflict that exists
between the County’s updated Comprehensive Plan and th e adopted Fringe Area
Agreement. Due to these conflicts, staff has been working with County planning staff on
updating the Fringe Area Agreement. For properties located outside of the City’s Growth
Area near the subject property, 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.
Staff Recommendation
Although the proposed rezoning does not directly align with the policies outlined in the
adopted Fringe Area Agreement, staff recommends approval of this rezoning for the
following reasons:
1. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the County’s Future Land Use Map and
comprehensive plan;
2. Staff is working with County planning staff to update the Fringe Area Agreement.
Attachments:
1. Aerial Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Fringe Area Map
4. Rezoning Exhibit
Approved by: __ ________________________________________________________
Danielle Sitzman, AICP, Development Services Coordinator
Department of Neighborhood and Development Services
RAPID CREEK RD NE
CREZ21-00014809 Rapid Creek Roadµ
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: March 2021
An application submitted by Evan Evansfor the rezoning of approximately 13.07acres of property located at 4809 RapidCreek Road NE from county Agriculture(A) to county Residential (R).
RAPID CREEK RD NE
Johnson County PD & S
CREZ21-00014809 Rapid Creek Roadµ
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: March 2021
An application submitted by Evan Evansfor the rezoning of approximately 13.07acres of property located at 4809 RapidCreek Road NE from county Agriculture(A) to county Residential (R).
RAPID CREEK RD NE
Johnson County PD & S
CREZ21-00014809 Rapid Creek Roadµ
0 0.1 0.20.05 Miles Prepared By: Joshua EngelbrechtDate Prepared: March 2021
An application submitted by Evan Evansfor the rezoning of approximately 13.07acres of property located at 4809 RapidCreek Road NE from county Agriculture(A) to county Residential (R).
MINUTES PRELIMINARY
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 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: Michael Welch, Casey Kohrt, Ken Gayley, Hannah Rapson, Ann
Synan, Glenda Buenger, Asha Bhandary, Jane Bradbury, Allison
Jaynes, Adam Parker, William Synan, Jeff Falk, Mary Winder,
Elizabeth Loeb, Derek Perez, Julie Gros-Louis, Jason Napoli, Riley
Larson, Adam Weis, Katherine Beydler, Eva Adderley, Tanner
King, David Deardorff, Arturs Kalnins, Laura Goddard, Mei-Ling
Shaw, Phil Lutgendorf, Nathaniel Hart, Florence Boos, Kumar
Narayanan, Carol Adderley, Sue Forde, Elizabeth Hill, Mohamed
Traore, Anne Stanfield, Chris Coretsopoulos
RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL:
By a vote of 7-0 the Commission 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.
By a vote of 1-6 (Craig, Elliott, Martin, Nolte, Signs and Townsend dissenting) the Commission
denied approval of REZ20-0016, an application for a rezoning of approximately 48.75 acres of
land from Interim Development Single-Family (ID-RS) to Low Density Single-Family with a
Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5).
CALL TO ORDER:
Hensch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
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
March 18, 2021
Page 2 of 29
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA:
None.
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.
Heitner began the staff report with an aerial image of the subject property which is located south
of Rapid Creek Road NE, and about 3000 feet east of Highway 1 NW. He explained the
surrounding zoning is mostly County Agricultural, there is some County Residential to the west.
This application would be a linkage to the preexisting County Residential and the property itself
was rezoned to County Residential within the past few months. Heitner showed where the
subject property falls within the fringe area, it is Fringe Area A, outside of the growth area. The
subject property and most of the property around there is within that part of the fringe area.
Heitner reminded the Commission that the Fringe Area Agreement is a component of the City's
Comprehensive Plan and applies to area outside of the City's jurisdiction that are not planned for
in the City Comprehensive Plan and provides guidance for land within two miles of the corporate
limits of Iowa City. The current Fringe Area Agreement does designate this land primarily for
agricultural uses right now however the City and County are working together to update the
Fringe Area Agreement and the Johnson County Land Use Plan does call for residential
development in this area and as was stated before the property is zoned County Residential.
Regarding background on the application, Heitner reiterated the rezoning for the subject property
from County Agricultural to County Residential was approved in December of 2020.
The applicant intends to subdivide the land into seven single family residential lots and six outlots
intended for stormwater infrastructure, preservation, and future development. In terms of
subdivision design the applicant is proposing seven residential lots stemming off of a new road,
Yellow Rock Road NE which is stemming off Rapid Creek Road NE. The lots are generally
around one acre in size, with the exception of lot one which is going to be a little bit under an
acre. Outlots F, C, B and A are slated for infrastructure with outlots B and C slated for
stormwater retention. Outlot F is to accommodate a septic field for lot one since lot one is less
than one acre and County health regulations require a septic field. Outlot D is slated for
preservation per County ordinance requirements and outlot E is slated for future development,
but right now it is unknown if any future development would take place on that outlot, but the
applicant wanted to keep it slated for future development just in case that land could be
developable with a larger assemblage someday.
Heitner stated there's quite a bit of write up in the staff report about stormwater and flooding
concerns so to touch on that briefly he noted County staff has assured him that they don't have
any concerns about flooding or stormwater issues with this proposed subdivision. Heitner
pointed out the three lots that would really be subject to any mishap as far as flooding goes will
be five, six and seven along the south end of Yellow Rock Road NE. Those lots will have to be
designed in a manner with minimum low opening and that is being worked out right now between
the applicant and the County.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2021
Page 3 of 29
The role of the Commission tonight on this application is determine if the preliminary plat should
be recommended for approval to the City Council.
Staff is recommending 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.
Martin asked about outlot H and if there are sensitive slopes on that area. Heitner replied they
don't have that information right now, but it is likely there is a floodplain over outlot H right now
which would make any development of that outlot a bit more challenging and it would have to be
built to the County's floodplain ordinance.
Russett added that with this preliminary plat no development would be allowed on outlot H,
another subdivision would have to occur before development could occur there.
Hektoen clarified this is just the preliminary plat up for approval, not a rezoning.
Hensch opened the public hearing. Russett noted the applicant was not present for this item.
Seeing no one else on this item, Hensch closed the public hearing.
Nolte moved to recommend 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.
Townsend seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion was approved 7-0.
CASE NO. REZ20-0016 (revised plan submitted by applicant):
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).
Hektoen stated before they proceed to staff report, pursuant to the bylaws if anyone's had any
ex-parte communications about this application they need to disclose that now, the party that
they were speaking to and the nature of the comments and whether they consider themselves to
be impartial, as they consider this application.
Martin stated she did not have any conversations but emails, Facebook messages and
voicemails were sent to her and she forwarded them onto Hektoen. Martin stated she did not
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2021
Page 4 of 29
participate in any conversation and considers herself impartial.
Nolte stated the morning after the last meeting he had a short phone call with the developer and
then several members of the Friends of Hickory Hill Park as a debriefing from the last meeting,
was just information sharing and a debrief and he can still remain impartial.
Heitner began the staff report reminding everyone that an earlier iteration of this application was
brought before this Commission last month for the rezoning just east of Hickory Hill Park, south
of Scott Boulevard and west of First Avenue. Heitner showed an aerial view of the subject
property along with the existing zoning within the parcel and the surrounding zoning. The
property is currently zoned Interim Development Single Family Residential (ID-RS) and the
applicant is seeking an OPD/RS-5 (Low Density Single-Family with a Planned Development
Overlay) zoning. The revised OPD plan contains 40 detached single-family homes, 10
condominium style single family homes and a senior living facility with 135 bedrooms. The
development for all of those properties would primarily take place off of the Hickory Trail
extension which will go between First Avenue and Scott Boulevard.
Heitner noted the development does avoid protective slopes and direct impact of wetlands,
however there is some mitigation to woodland impacts that would be necessary as the revised
OPD plan does have slightly less woodland preserve then the former plan.
Regarding background on the application, Heitner reiterated the initial application was presented
on February 18 and staff did recommend approval of that application subject to five conditions,
those being approval of a woodland management plan, the provision of two trail connections,
installation of right-a-way trees throughout Hickory Trail, and then a requirement for final platting.
Heitner stated at the February 18 meeting the motion to approve the rezoning failed by a vote of
zero to seven and the Commission provided some general direction to the applicant on how to
revise the OPD plan. Staff received the revised OPD plan which the applicant requested be
presented to the Commission for reconsideration.
Heitner highlighted the major changes noted in the staff report. The biggest change is the
removal of five lots from the west side of Hickory Trail and the addition of two lots added on the
east side of Hickory Trail for a net reduction of three lots. Also t here is some generous
landscaping proposed just north of lot 36 and outlot A is increased from 10.86 acres to 11.66
acres. Heitner noted there was a slight shift in the traffic circle from the former plan to the
existing plan, as well as the northern pedestrian raised crosswalk both were shifted to the south
to help them even out traffic calming elements. The percent of impacted critical slopes was
reduced from 19% to 17% but, as mentioned before the percent of preserve woodlands was also
reduced from 48% to 46% as this plan requires more mitigation. Heitner showed the two plans
side by side so the differences could be seen. Heitner also showed a concept drawing
associated with the OPD plan to show the separation distances that the revised plan has
between the rear lots and the park and it showed there is some additional buffering with this
rendition of the OPD plan. If outlot A is incorporated into the existing park, technically the buffer
would go away in terms of distance between the development and the park but the expectation
would be that the majority of trees and foliage within this lot A would be preserved.
Heitner noted the landscaping area that's proposed north of lot 36 has a pretty good variety of
species shown and the trail connection.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2021
Page 5 of 29
In terms of correspondence Heitner stated three separate entities of correspondence were
received within the last week or so. One is a letter from the City Parks and Recreation staff
supporting acceptance of outlot A. They’ve also received some correspondence in support of
the rezoning and property owner, as well as correspondence opposing the rezoning. At last
count they had received 44 new emails and letters. Heitner noted the general points of
opposition centered around lack of compliance to the Comprehensive Plan, lack of a buffer
between the development and the park, and just not enough done to follow Commission direction
toward providing a single loading street.
Hensch asked in those buffers that are everywhere from 35 feet to 70 feet, does that land
become Hickory Hill parkland or what will be the disposition of that buffer land. Heitner stated it
is a separation distance between the rear yard and Park, but if outlot A is incorporated into the
existing Hickory Hill Park technically that buffer goes away but functionally speaking there would
still be that density between the rear yards and the eastern point of the park.
Elliott asked about the land that has the meandering trail to the park that was extended by the
four houses taken off and with that big wide trail with trees to the park who's responsible for that
part. Heitner replied it is his understanding is that would be incorporated into the park and would
be the City’s responsibility.
Martin asked why the City recommends this proposal, can he elaborate to help everyone
understand why the City wants to say yes to this. Heitner stated the revised proposal gets closer
to the direction stated in the Northeast District Plan with respect to having a single loaded street
and important portions of any future development. From a land use perspective, the
Comprehensive Plan envisions residential development in this area, so if there was a way to
accommodate residential development within this area that's sensitive to the existing sensitive
features and can provide the access standards in terms of having a through street, staff saw
those as positives and as reflecting what's prescribed in the Comprehensive Plan now. He
admitted this rendition of plan isn't a perfect synchronization between what is shown in the Plan
in terms of having single loaded streets but from staff perspective it is in that direction. The
Plan’s guidance states there would be residential development in this area and for the most part
this plan avoids those sensitive areas and would provide enhanced access throughout this area,
so they saw those as positive aspects. Heitner noted however the onus is on the Commission to
decide if they agree that the proposed rezoning meets the approval criteria for the OPD plan.
Townsend noted once the construction is done and those units built that close to the park there's
no way to undo that so she thinks they need to think about how this is going to affect that area,
not only the residents around the area, but others that use that space as it's a secluded place in
the center of the city and it can't be undone it once it's done.
Nolte asked what the estimation or what is the property tax implication to the City when these
lots are fully developed. Hensch said that was in the developer’s memo and they figure a million
dollars. Nolte asked what the annual impact to the City tax roll would be, Hensch is unsure.
Martin believes the Planning and Zoning Commission should not take property tax implications
into consideration. Hektoen confirmed that's not one of the factors that the Planning and Zoning
Commission takes into account, Council may take that into account, but the Planning and Zoning
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2021
Page 6 of 29
Commission's job is to decide whether this plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which
is not about tax policy but about land use policy.
Hensch opened the public hearing.
Michael Welch (Axiom Consultants) noted with him tonight are the developers Joe Clark and
Jacob Wolfgang. Clark is responsible for the single family portion of the development and
Wolfgang is with Nelson Development and responsible for the senior housing portion. Welch
acknowledged there is a lot of public interest in this project, especially from people who use and
frequent Hickory Hill Park and the plan brought before the Planning and Zoning Commission last
month did have the full support of City staff. The plan complies with all the Code requirements, it
did then and it still does now, and that includes all applicable sensitive areas Code sections.
This is an infill development, meaning that it is using the existing infrastructure that is in place in
Iowa City including access to the street network up North Scott and First Avenue which are both
arterial streets and the traffic study indicates that those streets are adequate for this
development. There is an existing sanitary sewer system and water main which is available at
the property and this property is also tributary to existing and regional basin which is part of the
City infrastructure for stormwater and all of these help the project meet the goals of the City's
Climate Action Plan to encourage infill development to avoid sprawl. Regarding feedback and
comments they received in opposition to the plan, those generally fall into two categories, the
first category are those comments that are against development of any kind on this property and
includes those who believe the property should be donated to or purchased by the City and
become an expansion of Hickory Hill Park, and those commenters are opposed to any
development. It is also possible that some of these comments are as a result of misinformation,
including a belief that the property being developed is already part of Hickory Hill Park but that is
not the case, the property is owned by ACT and is private property. The City has indicated they
are not interested or willing to purchase the property. There could be a chance the property
could be purchased for the purpose of preservation but as of today no group, public or private,
has come forward to purchase the property from ACT. The second group of comments focus on
the potential impacts to the park and the experience for people using the park. These include
comments made by members of Planning and Zoning Commission during the last meeting and it
was this group of comments that they focused on when developing the revised plan. There was
an overwhelming sentiment to preserve view sheds associated with Hickory Hill Park so they
took a closer look, especially at the area of lots 35 to 38 in the original plan as they consider the
homes on those four lots would be most visible from the open area of Hickory Hill Park just west
of this location. The decision was made to remove those lots and after additional discussions
were had between the development team and City staff, they walked the property multiple times
and ultimately lots 35 to 40 in the original plan were removed from the project as those lots would
be most visible from the prairie area of Hickory Hill Park. The revisions that they made resulted
in the removal of six lots along the west side of Hickory Trail, but they add a fifth lot to the north,
and that was achieved by making those existing proposed lots on the north narrower, but the
overall reduction of lots was 40% along the southwest part of the development. Additionally, the
west portion of the single loaded street was increased from 124 feet in the original plan to 545
feet which is an increase of 340% and the total single loaded street frontage in the development
increased from 942 feet to 1360 feet which is a 43% increase. Welch quantified that's over a
quarter of a mile or four football fields of single loaded streets.
Regarding the park open space dedication, Welch stated outlot A was increased by 7% to 11.66
acres and it is still their intention to dedicate all or part of that to the City and Park staff is
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2021
Page 7 of 29
supportive of that, especially the additional landscape along that western single area frontage.
Welch next discussed the traffic circle and raised pedestrian crossing that have shifted south to
better fit with the topography and get a little bit better spacing for traffic control. He noted the
plan does still contain the second park access on the south side and by creating formal
pedestrian access points to Hickory Hill Park will eliminate paths that are used today that cut
across the private property. The west pedestrian connection point has expanded and additional
trees are to be planted in that area to provide additional buffer along the portion the single street.
The dedication of outlot A will also provide frontage along North Scott Boulevard which is
something the park does not have at this point.
Welch acknowledged it's been asked of them how does this plan comply with the
Comprehensive Plan and he’d say much has been made about the Northeast District Plan and
the Comprehensive Plan, and while these plans are valuable tools for large scale high level
planning the mandate of the Planning and Zoning Commission is to identify if this rezoning
request complies with that Comprehensive Plan, however, care needs to be taken when applying
the graphics and the plans to individual property. For example, as previously discussed,
Northeast District Plan shows two cul-de-sacs on this property and City Code does not support
the use of cul-de-sacs in this situation because a continuous street is viable. The single-family
lot shown in the south cul-de-sac on the Northeast District Plan is actually located within
protective slopes. He points this out to show that the Plan is a guidance tool, not a plan
designed to scale necessarily for an individual property. Welch also noted the text of the Plan
talks about open space and buffering, specifically the Plan calls for “buffering green space to be
provided between Hickory Hill Park and residential development on the south and west portions
of the Larson track”. Welch also pointed out the Plan narrative does not prescribe a distance for
this buffer or an amount in terms of an area. He stated the plan before the Commission is
sensitive to the view sheds and buffer areas are provided between the park boundary and
propose lots which include the additional tree plantings to enhance those buffers. Welch also
noted this project meets the need for single family lots on the east side of Iowa City.
Hensch noted this total rezoning is 48.75 acres and if he added this up correctly, the three
different elements of park dedication, conservation easement and right-of-way for Hickory Trail
extension comes up to 19.87 acres so about 41% of this land will not be developed. Welch
confirmed those numbers are close.
Martin asked for clarification to where the trail access is located. Welch noted there's two trail
access points, one would be just to the east of lot 28 on the south side of the development that is
an existing trail that comes along the waterway there today and cuts diagonally across the
property and then the other spot is across from lots 17 and 18. Martin asked if the trail access
points will be well marked because there is trail access currently that is not well known and her
concern is that with the trailhead so close to properties to make sure it doesn’t become a
problem with people (of any race or age) walking so close to these very lovely homes. Welch
understands the concern and noted that is why that trailhead will be in conjunction with the
raised pedestrian crossing. The other trailhead is a little bit east of lot 28 and that trail will come
south of the road and wind down the side of the hill so there's a decent amount of embankment
there but by doing so they avoid putting that trail between two lots and that's why it's on the east
side of lot 28 where that area continuing east is all outlot A which presumably becomes part of
Hickory Hill Park.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2021
Page 8 of 29
Russett added that if the rezoning is approved, outlot A land would be transferred to the City and
the Parks staff do want to put up some signage at these trailheads to help identify it as a public
area that is part of the park.
Martin added and public for everyone, they can say they are public, but people need to feel
welcome.
Signs stated one of the letters discussed the use of what is roughly labeled outlot B on the ravine
on the east side of all the houses and the writer indicated that's already used for traversing up
and down the ravine there and the ACT letter spoke to that issue and how outlot B then bumped
into a little triangle, or a little piece of land that doesn't come with this property and he has no
idea who owns that property, but it would seem like if people are going into the outlot B area they
would probably end up trespassing on whatever property that was.
Hensch noted in the Parks and Rec letter they preferred not to accept outlot B into the park
system so outlot B would be the property and responsibly the HOA.
Welch confirmed that outlot B would be the property and responsibility of the HOA and regarding
Sign’s question about the remaining triangle piece, that is still owned by ACT and at this time
they would retain ownership of that.
Signs stated then there is that trailhead and raised walkway across the road at a spot which
leads directly to this private property and it seems like there's potential for future conflict or
frustration with that area.
Nolte asked if there is any anticipation of parking for that trailhead so visitors to that
neighborhood feel like they can access the park from there. Russett stated there will be on-street
parking allowed.
Craig noted she lived near a pedestrian trailhead into Hickory Hill Park, the one on North
Seventh Avenue and it's very well used by pedestrians and a few people choose to park there to
get into the park but there's a sign on North Seventh Avenue that says parking lots are available
at both the north and the south end of Hickory Hill Park and now there's a smaller one off of First
Avenue. She added the parking people in the City have done a good job of saying there's all
these legitimate ways to get into the park and it's visible how to get in but she doesn’t see any
problem with that trailhead there and think it's nice for the staff and the residents of the senior
living facility as it would be a nice little walk for them to get into the park very easily with that
trailhead.
Casey Kohrt (Friends of Hickory Hill Park, Chair) is making comments on behalf of the Hickory
Hill Park group and stated there is no reason for the City to settle for less than what the
Comprehensive Plan calls for and it clearly lays out a vision for what property owners and
developers can expect to achieve when the property is rezoned. At the time the Northeast
District Plan was adopted the current owner ACT and the developer were aware of the officially
adopted plan when they purchased the property and the price they paid or will pay for the
property should be based on what the City told the public and potential developers what can be
expected in terms of development. Yes, the developer should recoup costs but by adhering to
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2021
Page 9 of 29
the Plan and increasing density at the north end of the project, which would also adhere to City
objectives of increase housing diversity and affordable housing. Kohrt stated the Northeast
District Plan was developed in public, the City, including the Planning and Zoning Commission
and City Council invited the public, as well as property owners and real estate developers to
participate in the planning process and the Plan was thoroughly discussed and well vetted when
it was adopted in 1999. Kohrt reiterated as part of the 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 and proponents for constructing the street used the Northeast District Plan to
ensure voters that Hickory Hill Park would be protected, and the public voted to build the street.
Kohrt now questions what has changed since the adoption of the Northeast District Plan in 1999.
A contentious debate regarding the construction of First Avenue has been settled, City and great
public expense was used to build the street, along with Scott Boulevard, providing street access
to the Larson property which is now proposed to be developed. Prior to this public investment
the Larson property was only suitable for agricultural use, but the City invested public funds and
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 to the east and west sides
of the park. Therefore, why is it ACT and the developer will now reap the benefits of the public
investment when they are not going to adhere to the Plan. Kohrt stated Friends of Hickory Hill
Park founders had significant input into the Northeast District Plan it was intended to protect the
northeast part of the park. Since 2004 Friends of Hickory Hill Park have spent 14,882 hours or
7.15 years of time and service in the park restoring habitat, building trails and improving the park.
That is a $320,000 value to the City, in addition to thousands of dollars they shared with the City
on other management projects. In total, they have engaged almost 5000 persons at hundreds of
events, we have also raised significant funds to purchase the property protecting the Northwest
corner of the park now held by Burr Oak Land Trust. They never pursued the purchase of the
Larson track because they thought it would be developed in accordance with the Northeast
District Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. Kohrt stated they’ve done their part as active
engaged citizens and ask the City to step up and not approved a plan that do not conform to the
City's own Plans. Kohrt agrees there will probably not be cul-de-sacs, but to quote the
Comprehensive Plan on single loaded streets “parks that are surrounded by private property
encourage the development with single loaded street access”.
Ken Gayley (316 Dartmouth Street) stated it sounds like what's happening here is pretty clear,
the developers are trying to get as much profit off this property as they can, which is natural and
they have every right to develop and reap a profit, but the plan was to protect the Hickory Hill
Park as a public good and to use single loaded streets. He stated although the new plan is
compromising to some degree, it still has a lot of double loaded streets. Gayley noted it seems to
him that they bought the property knowing that they were supposed to be using single loaded
streets and they should have made their plans based on that profit model. The key point here is
that the park is a public good that all benefit from. It is a unique park and a natural setting that's
irreplaceable and if a development encroaches upon that it will never be the same, the splendor
of the park will be compromised forever. Gayley questioned isn't that the goal of the Zoning
Commission to protect the public good and the park and not just allowing the developers to make
profit. Gayley also stated it's important to recognize that one of the reasons they can make such
a profit is they have very high-end properties here because of its proximity to the park, so if
they're in some sense cashing in on their proximity to the park shouldn't they do so in a way
that's responsible and respectful of the public good that's for everyone, not just people who can
afford high end properties.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2021
Page 10 of 29
Hannah Rapson (1415 East Davenport Street) raised a concerned about the recent Ralston
Creek reconstruction and noted many trees were cut down in order to repair the banks of Ralston
Creek over the last year and she is concerned about this development being at the top of the hill
and all the additional concrete. She noted there isn't any discussion of underground parking or
permeable pavers with regard to the scope of the senior living facility which she feels has been
largely ignored. It's very important to consider the water runoff with regard to Ralston Creek and
it would be in the best interest of the park and the neighbors downstream for that erosion project
to be continued to fortify the banks as there is downhill flooding and with the extra concrete
runoff, she’d encourage the City to ask questions about watershed in this area, because that is a
concern. Not only would impact the creek and the park but also potentially neighbors
downstream. Rapson also wanted to address the senior living facility, because she feels like that
needs to be discussed. The senior living facility concerns are size and scope, according to the
City Assessor site the large house currently at the end of Hickory Hills Trail, which is adjacent to
the park and many complained about during last month’s meeting, is roughly 6800 square feet
and two stories high, sharing similar proximity to the park, as this development, the senior Center
and the houses along the street that should be listed as single loaded in the plan. For
comparison, the senior living facility that is proposed is 10 times the square footage at 69,000
square feet and will be built on a similar fall away slope where there is a four-story side exposure
of the building phase toward the park along the current trail wall that's near Regina and the
creek. In effect if she is reading the plans correctly, if approved in its current state, this building
would appear twice as high and 10 times as large as the current home, which is being
complained about by residents that borders the park. Rapson stated this is a high concern, in
her opinion, and she does not believe that there should be a variance given on the 35-foot
standard, which is currently in the plan, and suggests a two-story intention on the building versus
the four-story type that has been proposed. Rapson also believes there's a significant amount of
non-permeable surfaces that should be considered with regard to the watershed, as mentioned
earlier. She also noted the building usage is also concerning, she actually works with seniors and
believes they need senior housing so is not opposed to that but did want to comment that the
purpose of assisted living and memory care is a usage that means residents of this facility will
largely not be utilizing the park. She also notes she is not anti-development but does believe that
there is traffic concern, noise etc. and view sheds so they should consider a reorientation of the
senior facility toward First Avenue so that the traffic and emergency vehicles needed to meet the
needs of this facility would be directed toward an already busy street instead of increasing traffic
flow along the park. With regard to the woodland buffer and the earlier comments about the
Hickory Trail entrance, it is the public's feeling that this trailhead is not well marked and, in
essence, that the trail that was promised as part of this development has never been really
implemented. There have been complaints from Hickory Trail residents of people walking
through their backyards when they're actually utilizing the park and Rapson seconds this
concern. She believes there is the ability, through a conditional zoning agreement, for the P& Z
Commission to require that the trail is a priority and be met as a first priority in building this
development so that they are sure that public access is granted. She also believes that tree lined
streets are not enough to buffer the housing of the view sheds and that even though a through
street should be permitted, a single loaded street should be mandated according to the
Comprehensive Plans otherwise these houses will be in Hickory Hill Park and that is not
acceptable.
Ann Synan wanted to emphasize the question posed to staff made by Commissioner Martin and
that was the question why the City endorses this proposed rezoning. Synan does not
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2021
Page 11 of 29
understand why the planning and zoning staff is endorsing this, what she does understand is
why the first item on the agenda tonight was voted through by the Commissioners as it does
follow the Comprehensive Plan for single family housing so there was no discussion by the
public on that agenda item, in fact, there was no participation by the developer, because the
developer knew it would probably get through, as that developer is following the Comprehensive
Plan for single family homes. However, for this agenda item there are over 130 people from the
community who are voicing their opposition to the proposed rezoning. Synan doesn’t think this
plan is a good use of the space in the neighborhood or for the character and integrity of Hickory
Hill Park. She also wanted to comment on the fact that she does not think that this proposed
rezoning with the overlay is a good idea, nor to have a huge three-story building complex with 90
parking spots right in the middle of a residential area that's adjacent to establish neighborhoods
of Hickory Heights and the Bluffwood area, as well as Hickory Hill Park. Synan is asking the
Commissioners tonight to please deny this rezoning request in hope that there will be a better
plan for this area in the future.
Glenda Buenger (318 South Lucas Street) stated she has hiked Hickory Hills Park many times
since she moved back to Iowa City in 2014. She stated the newly submitted proposal isn't much
different from the proposal that the Commissioners rejected last month, the developer made
some adjustments and Mr. Welch's comments quantify those changes in an attempt make them
significant but it is still a design that is not in compliance with the vision set forth in the City’s
Northeast District Plan that is still in force and states that when the ACT parcel comes up for
development the vision advocated cul-de-sacs to limit adverse effects to the park. Buenger
acknowledged the City has moved away from cul-de-sacs but that doesn't preclude them from
having a single loaded street with houses away from the park and a generous buffer zone
between the street and the park. By generous she means a 175 to 200 feet buffer zone to help
protect the view shed from the park. It would provide a physical and psychological boundary
between human habitation and the park and help protect the park from possible contamination
chemical treatments. The park provides habitat for birds and insects and a lack of attention to an
adequate buffer irritates that. Buenger noted with the new proposal the buildings get more of a
buffer from existing development, as discussed in the updated staff report on page six it says if
the park is expected to be its own buffer instead of being respected as a separate entity, a living
ecosystem in its own right. Buenger feels any developer should recognize that the ACT parcel
comes freighted with an understanding that was negotiated in good faith, publicly vetted,
approved and written into the City's Northeast District Plan in 1999. Her understanding is that the
people of Iowa City essentially agreed to the expanse of First Avenue and Scott Boulevard
accepting all the ensuing development on those streets would mean Hickory Hill Park was
protected from future development when the time came. So the ACT parcel can be developed,
but only in a way that protects the park if they are to honor the good faith of the citizens of Iowa
City and the good intentions of the City itself as written into the Northeast District and
Comprehensive Plans. Buenger asked the Commissioners to please deny rezoning until the
developer presents a design that is in alignment with the Plans.
Asha Bhandary (304 Brown Street) stated she was at the last meeting where the Commissioners
were pretty clear that if the plan came back that involved just a single loaded street, there would
be a burden on them to have a reason to reject it, but that's not what came back. It sounds like
there's one quarter of a mile of a single loaded street but not a full single loaded street so it is
very clear that the condition that was established at the last meeting has not been met and so it
shouldn’t be approved. Additionally, Bhandary wanted to highlight to some of the percentages
she noted during the presentation, preserved woodlands have gone from 48% to 46% and she
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2021
Page 12 of 29
believes that the preserve ones are being infringed upon, maybe she’s not understanding it
correctly, but that's still not a good percentage to have 46% of the preserve woodlands being
harmed. Also, the impact of critical slopes were reduced from 19% to 17% and that also seems
really nominal and a change that is not going to be significant enough to make a big difference
even if it's in the right direction and taking one step in the right direction doesn’t satisfied all the
criteria. Bhandary also thought it was a little bit puzzling, the math about how many lots are being
removed and added and she’d like some clarification about that. The staff presentation showed
five lots being removed, but two lots are being added and then the developer’s presentation said
that six lots are being removed and there's that outlot, so based on the presentation it sounded
like a total of five minus two is three so three lots total are being removed and they're from
different areas. Bhandary also wanted to add to the points that have been raised about the
senior living facility, it is her understanding from the last meeting the facility is designed for
people who need memory care and are going to have very substantial caregivers and are really
going to be in their homes most of the time so access to the park is not an immediate benefit to
them.
Jane Bradbury (316 Dartmouth Street) stated it's hard to speak articulately when trying not to
repeat comments, because a lot of her comments are intertwined with other comments. She
believes that the City is sort of betraying itself by going through this proposal in such a quick way
and they’re rushing it. Bradbury stated it seems like there's no reason to not just vote no and
have time to reevaluate and make sure that decisions are being made that benefit everybody.
For example, having a single loaded street addresses some of the issues that Commissioner
Martin mentioned, for example, one wouldn't feel like they're in someone's backyard when
they're in the park and the people that live there won't feel like people are in their backyard or
looking in their windows, like the house on Hickory Heights when she is taking photographs of
the sunset or following a trail and meandering along trying to escape the politics or the
pandemic. She doesn’t want to feel like she’s in someone's backyard and the people living there
probably would appreciate that as well. Bradbury noted she does not live near the park, she is
actually two miles from the park so she has to drive there or walk there and then doesn’t get as
much time in the park. If people come to the park from the Bloomington entrance it’s because
there's a street and a sliver of official park there, and then they go into the trails and feel like
they're actually entering a park that's for everybody, for the whole City, for people from out of
town like birders or people that come from classrooms on trips, they feel like they're going to the
park not into the backyard of somebody’s house. Bradbury reiterated if they can just do that
single loading it really does help a lot with that feeling of wilderness that one can get pretty much
only get in Hickory Hill Park, the City has many, many parks but they're all very paved and lit with
streetlights so it isn’t the same escape as the feeling of going off for the weekend drive out of
town and went hiking in the woods which one can get in Hickory Hill Park and just wander for
three hours. Bradbury noted that whole aspect will be taken away if they don't do something like
pushing back that row of houses. She also stated that building that is over 35 feet will be a huge
eyesore and completely take away from the feeling of just being in the park and sort of like going
to the mountains and the feeling of somewhere remote. One can walk around and see a creek
and then go around a corner and see a prairie and then go around another corner and see a
huge housing unit! One can be listening to a bird, watching a bee pollinate the beautiful flowers
and then suddenly a lawn mower starts, and there are so many things other than even the view
shed but there's something called the noise shed and there will also be light pollution. Bradbury
gave the example of by the Bloomington entrance there's actually a basketball court that
someone has built in their backyard and it is visible from Hickory Hill Park so one hears a
basketball dribbling rather than the birds and it is also well lit, but she is actually happy to say
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2021
Page 13 of 29
that she hasn’t seen them playing basketball there too often. Bradbury noted if where these
houses are going to be built on that strip above the park will be given restrictions on what they
can build in their backyards but a lot of really expensive homeowners put huge floodlights up.
Allison Jaynes (1181 Hotz Avenue) asked to have permission to share her screen so she could
show a couple of images. The first was a photograph she took a few weeks ago taken from the
west prairie area looking across that ravine to the newly restored prairie and she pointed out up
to the ridge where the development lot is located. The next image was a photoshopped version
of what the ridge would look like with the development houses in place. She did note with the
amendment maybe about five or six lots in the middle will be removed but even with taking out
the five or six in the middle, they can still see there are a bunch of houses up on the ridge.
Jaynes made this photoshopped image because she hasn’t actually seen a similar visualization
provided by the developers. The image shows how this development will completely ruin the
view, but they shouldn't just worry about the view shed, there's other things at play, there's the
concern of drainage of lawn chemicals into the prairie and watershed and she noted those
backyards will in fact drain right into the newly restored prairie and the watershed below. Jaynes
also acknowledged the idea of the noise shed that the last speaker brought up and everything
that happens in the backyards such as lawn mowers going all weekend will just drain into the
valley and be experienced by park goers. Additionally, there will be light pollution and there's the
fact that there's just no buffer between the backyards and the wildlife which currently inhabits
Hickory Hill Park. Jaynes stated the implications for this are many, one would be an increase of
deer/human conflicts and they've already seen Iowa City has been dealing with that quite
extensively recently. She didn’t see any mention of deer resistant landscaping or plantings as
part of this development and so people will think they want to live next to a park, but then when
they move, and the deer start entering their backyards they get really upset. Overall Jaynes
doesn’t believe this property should be allowed to be developed in the manner that has been
proposed, they need to revisit single loaded streets and removing some of these lots here. She
understands to get the City an extra million dollars per year is a lot of money, but some things
are really more valuable and just can't be restored.
Adam Parker (1302 Bloomington Street) stated he appreciates the community and Commissions
time hearing the concerns to advocate for a great natural space in the community. He noted the
Iowa City Comprehensive Plan discourages parks that are surrounded by private property, and
double loaded streets as currently presented would allow higher income property owners to
benefit from the rest of Iowa City residents by allowing their private property to abut the wooded
public park or allowing private owners long term financial arbitrage on a property partly paid for
by the community members for generations to come. As previously mentioned, it is important for
the City to follow the Climate Action Plan as infill is better than outward expansion, however
density is also important to this concept, as indicated in the Northeast District Plan concept
drawings where higher density buildings should be shifted closer to First Avenue and Scott
Boulevard. Parker added higher density buildings can meet climate action goals initially by
allowing more socio-economic statuses the opportunity to benefit from proximity to the park, but
the current proposal does not adequately accomplish this goal in its current form. Parker
believed the Commission should reject the plan in its current form, the developers have
numerous opportunities to provide revised drafts of its plan but the Commission only has one
chance to approve a plan that meets the needs of the sensitive area for generations to come.
William Synan had a few comments at the last meeting regarding the application, a Planning and
Zoning Member reminded the Community that the owner paid $2.3 million for the land and yes
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2021
Page 14 of 29
the Iowa City Assessor site shows that 61 acres were purchased in 2008 for $2.3 million, which
is about $37,700 per acre in 2008. Synan doesn’t know if that was a good business decision or
a poor business decision, however, he does know the community is not obligated to maximize
the profit for a nonprofit organization such as ACT. ACT is in the educational service business,
but he was unaware of how much land they owned or have purchased or have swapped in the
Northeast Iowa City District. He noted they own multiple plots of land on the north side of Scott
Boulevard which he believes would be more appropriate to build this large building facility and
could be similar to the retirement community recently completed on the north side of Scott
Boulevard. He also believes that topography of the land north of Scott Boulevard would be more
appropriate for a three-story building facility of this magnitude. Synan reiterated his concern
pertaining to safety, he is not aware of any law which states cul-de-sacs can no longer be
constructed in Iowa City. He believes those cul-de-sacs in the Comprehensive Plan make sense
and the cul-de-sacs were planned with a purpose and that was to restrict the traffic exiting onto
First Avenue and hopefully minimize hazardous driving conditions at the intersection of Hickory
Trail and First Avenue and also preserve the integrity of Hickory Hill Park. Lastly, he wanted to
note to not forget who applied for the rezoning, it's not the owner of the property, it's two private
developers one based in Iowa and the other based in the state of Minnesota. Synan stated it is
frustrating for the community to come back here tonight when there's been practically no change
to the proposal and the proposal does not meet the vision put forth in the Comprehensive Plan, it
was supposed to be single family residential not medium density or an overlay. Synan believes
there's a solution to this, there's a win, win, win for everybody, since ACT owns so much land
north of Scott Boulevard, they could sell to the developer of the assisted living facility and the
developer Clark could then move some of his homes onto that piece of the property where the
assisted living facility was to be eliminating the homes on the southwest portion and everyone
wins, the community wins, both developers win, ACT wins, so it can be done. Synan would also
like to thank the speaker who showed the picture of the single-family homes up on the crescent
hill but that's going to be nothing compared to the 40-foot building of the assisted living.
Jeff Falk (7 Princeton Court) wanted to ask what's the point of a Comprehensive Plan and it's
disappointing that the city staff has such a cavalier feeling about the Comprehensive Plan, even
if it was produced over 20 years ago it shouldn't be taken as lightly as they're doing. Staff ought
to be held responsible for presenting arguments as to why they see things that conflict with a
Comprehensive Plan, but they think they're acceptable. They need to be held responsible for
doing that and not just push them out of the way. Another thing he would like to comment on is
the trailheads on the east side of the park that go through the land and go into the east prairie.
Falk asked why those are there, who made them and why did they make them. Do the City
planners pay any attention to how people currently use those trailheads and why they use them?
Falk stated having tried to walk up to the prairies from the trails within the park that go through
the woods to get to the prairie is very difficult and the reason why there are these trails that go up
the hay field and then eventually go into the prairie is because the access is an awful lot easier
except when it's raining, in which case one could wind up sliding down the whole hill that leads
up into that hayfield. Falk questioned what is to be done with these trailheads and how will they
be made more accessible, the only thing he’s heard is from the hickory trail going down to the
park and from his use of the park no one ever comes in that way. People who go into the park go
in through the parking lot on the east side of the park, he has never seen anyone make use of
that trailhead to enter the park.
Mary Winder stated she is a former Iowa City resident who lives in Kansas now and feels so
strongly about this she’s been following it and attended the entire meeting in February. She was
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2021
Page 15 of 29
heartened by the end of the meeting when the vote was against the rezoning and the developer
was asked to come back with a revised plan. Well Winder has looked at the plan that was
revised and she couldn't find a whole lot of difference between the original plan and the revised
plan so she back again tonight to communicate her concerns. She agrees wholeheartedly with all
of the presenters so far, especially Ken Gayley and Hannah Rapson, their comments resonated
with her as well as Allison Jaynes photos with the vision of what it might look like with the new
houses there. Winder appreciates that the developer made an effort to make changes that make
the plan more compatible with the with the guidelines, but she doesn’t feel like they went far
enough and didn't do near enough. She also has concerns about the landscaping in the buffer
areas, when she looks at the list of trees that they're going to plant she sees a lot of non-native
trees that aren't native to Iowa, some not even native to the United States. Winder noted they
are proposing to plant red cedar in that buffer area, which is a native tree, but it's not anything
that should be planned by a prairie because it becomes very invasive. In the prairie areas they're
also proposing to plant Chinese films which are not native in Iowa and can come invasive, they
are proposing zelkova trees which are native to Europe so rather than planting native breed buds
they are planting fancy hybrids that are probably prettier but she would encourage all to insist
that if this development goes through that they use native plants and trees so that wildlife and
insects will benefit from them, because when they plant trees that aren't native to Iowa it is not
beneficial to the wildlife or the native insects in the area. Winder also appreciated Townsend’s
comment made about how once this is developed and the houses are put in there's no undoing
it, so she would encourage the Commission to take their time and not rush into approving
something and then have regrets later when it's too late to do anything about it. Winder is
encouraging the Commission to please deny the zoning request and insist that the developer
come back with a plan that does follow the guidelines that have been set up and also insist that
they plant native trees and shrubs to benefit the wildlife and the insects and native animals that
live in the park and live in the state.
Elizabeth Loeb (864 Cypress Court) has lived in the neighborhood almost 34 years and has
certainly seen it develop and affect the watershed of the area, it definitely clogged up their
drainage system in their yard. Loeb can certainly see this development affecting the creek and
some of the wildlife as the pesticide runoff will probably run into the creek. Loeb said she enters
the park from the prairie and has walked it for 30 or 25 years. When she first started walking the
park, she couldn’t see a single house. Then First Avenue and Scott Boulevard were extended
and then came the 6800 square foot house that surely encroached on the view. The pesticides
and such have affected the natural prairie, there is a lot of milk weed in the prairie area and the
chemicals from the houses near Hickory Hill Park will probably affect the improvement of the
prairie. Loeb wants the Commission to be cognizant that this Hickory Hill Park is a very special
arboretum, unlike anything else, and this subdivision is going to certainly affect the view and the
spiritual rejuvenation that people get using the park.
Derek Perez stated he was just at Hickory Hill Park and he was informed of this meeting by a
gentleman at the park. Perez enjoys getting outside with his kids and walking around and in the
park. He said there are some moments where one can actually feel at peace, where you don't
have to see other houses. He said it is similar to Squire Point out there on the Reservoir and to
be walking with a sense of calm but as you go down the hill they put a new house up and you
actually feel like you're walking into their yard. If they allow this proposal, they are not following
the rules to create the buffer and do the single loaded street, then that part of the park will be
soiled. Perez hopes the Commission will use the wisdom of the people in the past, who have
made the plans to protect the park and stick with that moral decision.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2021
Page 16 of 29
Julie Gros-Louis stated she didn't come to the first meeting, but she’d like to echo what a lot of
people have said. Her question and concern is whether there has been any assessment of the
actual buffer zone that is needed to support all the species that live in Hickory Hill Park because
a lot of studies she’s recently looked up like nature conservancy for different species there's
different buffer zones that are needed between human activity and those species. Without that
kind of assessment, these are really small buffer zones for a number of these houses, so she
just wanted to voice that concern.
Jason Napoli (2659 Hickory Trail) stated he lives about a block and a half from the property that
is being discussed tonight and also serves as vice chair of the Friends of Hickory Hill Park. He
noted they’ve heard a lot about the Northeast District Plan and the Comprehensive Plan and the
0-7 vote last month. He acknowledged the developer clearly removed some lots and it's very
clear that they were focused on the view shed from one part of the park but there's still great
concern about lots 28-41. Lots 28 - 36 do go right along the First Avenue loop so there's clear
view shed impairment right there and then lots 28 – 31 are going to be exceptionally close to a
trail that goes straight up to that eastern border of the park. After the last meeting the developer
had a directive to come back with single loaded streets and this would be taken care of. Napoli
stated they are not anti-development, they are being as realistic as possible, yes it would be
wonderful not to see any development on this land, but it's not realistic, so it's just really
important to follow up and really take into consideration that 0-7 vote. He also wanted bring up a
comment that was brought up after the public comments were closed last time about how very
few of these people showed up for the Tamarack Ridge development by the same developer. It
was brought up that was also up against conservation land, but that is actually not City
conservation land that is harvest preserve and is privately owned so there was not opposition to
that and that's why people weren't involved. In this case it is City land and a City park and
they’re really fighting to get the single loaded streets and it was not relevant to the Tamarack
Ridge situation. Napoli noted 145 strong were present at the peak tonight and this is during the
community spring break so it’s an amazing turnout.
Riley Larson (205 South Mt. Vernon Drive) lives near the east side entrance to Hickory Hill Park
and wanted to echo what others have said already about opposition to the nature of the
development that's being proposed in this area. She is also not anti-development but
disappointed in the lack of flexibility in the developer’s new proposal. Larson also wanted to ask
a question about the traffic study that was a part of the plan, she is curious because she has
often complained about the traffic in that area of Iowa City and was confused about why it wasn't
stated in the last meeting that the traffic study was conducted in January of 2021 and there's a
pandemic going on so the traffic in that area is probably at an all-time low, especially with major
employers in that area not requiring people to report into their offices at this time. Therefore, she
would like to question the efficacy of a traffic study done during this time. Larson also noted
parking and access to the east side entrance of Hickory Hill Park has been at an all-time high
during the pandemic, her family struggles to find parking to access the park. So at a time when
people are being drawn to the park in higher numbers than ever, it seems confusing that they're
looking at making this kind of compromise to the land. Finally, she’d like to bring up the point
about the benefit of having a place like Hickory Hill Park, she came to Iowa City as a college
student and stayed but many of her peers have left for other places like Colorado, Montana,
Minnesota and places where people have invested in their natural areas and see them as
resources and values. When she asked her peers why they aren't coming back home to Iowa
they say that they left for a job and they fell in love with an area. Larson would love for Iowa City
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2021
Page 17 of 29
to be a place where people do fall in love with an area, and if they limit the way that people can
interact with the natural areas that is going to be less likely to happen.
Adam Weis first wanted to thank the Commission for taking so much time out of their personal
lives for this issue. At the end of the last meeting Commissioner Hensch made a comment about
how public input is one good way to affect policy and Weis appreciated that commend. He would
like to reiterate that single loaded streets are part of the Comprehensive Plan and should be
adhered to. He would also like to reiterate the comments about how the landscaping part of this
plan should follow native plantings and there's a lot of groups in the area who could help with
identifying good species such as the Friends of Hickory Hill Park, Burr Oak Land Trust, Indian
Creek Nature Center or various groups at the University of Iowa.
Katherine Beydler (1910 Winston Drive) first wanted to say she is one of those people who went
to college here, moved away for graduate school and the love was so much from undergraduate
days she moved back, and it saddens her and can they just not screw up the park as soon as
she moves back, it’s very sad. Beydler wanted to point out the reduction in the amount of
woodlands that are being preserved, from 48% to 46% and that is already below the
recommended amount of reserved woodlands. She also wanted to say the guy who made this
development should have to comply with all the sticking points of the Plans to meet the amount
of preserved woodlands, to allow for a meaningful addition of affordable housing in any Iowa City
area so the developer just needs to go back to the drawing board and think about how they were
going to purchase land, how they're going to develop it and make sure that this Plan is adhered
to and that people who buy these houses are ones who are not just extremely high class/upper
middle class income.
Eva Adderley (729 Kimball Road) just wanted to say that when the developer who submitted the
proposal was talking at the very beginning, he talked about how the new plan does technically
remove the buffer but that the expectation is that most of the tree cover and foil would remain.
But let's be real, a voluntary buffer means the buffer is not going to happen and her expectation
absolutely is not that sensitive natural habitat will be left alone if it's not required to be. For this
reason, she would like to reiterate the need for a requirement for single loaded streets and the
protected buffer. Adderley also wanted to say that she worries that in all the discussion about
the City Plan and all the amazing benefits that we in the community experience from the park,
the environmental impacts are getting lost. That area of town is incredibly important, not just for
us but for our animal neighbors. Iowa is one of the most developed states in the entire country
due to farming sprawl, nature is precious, and it is finite, when it's gone it's gone. Someone
mentioned the deer/human conflict because people don't want the deer to come to their
backyards and yes that's true and there is an overpopulation problem but that's happening
because of human destruction of the environment. Adderley noted it can seem uncomfortable or
dramatic to zoom out and look at this on a macro scale, but things like this, little bits of woodland
being destroyed, is literally why the planet is dying. The upshot is that that change starts on a
micro scale, it starts small and it starts local so she would just like to implore the Commission
members to join her and everyone else who take solace in the light dancing through the snow
dusted leaves and in the foxes and the deer and all the flowers in protecting the park and urge
them to deny this proposal and wait for one that comes back that is a valid use of our land.
Tanner King just wanted to quickly echo what others touched on about people leaving Iowa City
and what might bring them back. King stated he is actually getting ready to move to Colorado
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2021
Page 18 of 29
very soon and what he is really going to miss about Iowa City and what might bring him back
someday is just how easy it is to get to the nature. Colorado is known for great nature, but the
difference is that you have to drive to it and this is just something that might bring him back and
it's really worth protecting.
David Deardorff stated he was happy after the last meeting when he felt that the Zoning
Commission did take seriously some of the issues that were brought up. They acknowledged
how many people were here and what people were saying. Deardorff feels the Zoning
Commission made a pretty simple stipulation with regard to the development here and it was a
stipulation involving single sided streets. Therefore, everyone is a little bit mystified to come
back with another development plan that just doesn't include this. They’ve heard over and over
this is valuable land and it's going to be developed. So if this is valuable land to be developed
there are options, there are options for the Zoning Commission, there are options for the City and
there is a plan out there or a solution that someone can come up with. If this developer is really
unwilling to meet the needs of the City and is not capable of finding a solution to meet their
bottom line that aligns with the City plans already in place, then it might be time to search for a
developer who's designs perhaps do that. Deardorff noted there isn’t any obligation to push this
through, and it's also been clear that there hasn't been a comprehensive plan in regard to how is
this going to impact the environment in a quantitative way, and what has the impact been from
other developments in the area. There's just not been a comprehensive work up any of this done
and he thinks it would be in the best interest of the City to take a step back and slow this down a
little bit and look at it from a couple different angles and see what else can be done before just
trying to get it through.
Arturs Kalnins (44 Evergreen Place) states he lives off of Hickory Trail about a half mile or so
from the park and pretty much uses the park every day, year-round including days when the
temperatures are in the negatives, he dresses up his dog up and they go for a nice walk. Kalnins
noted many people have said good things and he totally supports the issue on the view shed and
in fact just the other day he was with his dog in the west prairie at the picnic table pretty much
looking at that view that was previously placed up on the screen with the hypothetical houses
and he was doing that same picture in his mind, of how it will look to have houses in that view.
He was trying to envision the height of the trees relative the height of the homes and, particularly
in the winter, clearly what was depicted in that picture was very consistent with what he saw
looking from that picnic table in the west prairie. Additionally, the noise shed will be a big deal
with the backyards facing the park and nonstop lawn mowers going. People will be building their
decks and using electric hammers and whatever else nonstop in the summer and it's going to
make a big difference. He also mentioned the potentially 40-foot building of the senior living
center and the impact that's going to have from a different spot in the park, it is going to have a
tremendous impact. Kalnins understands why people would want to have their single residences
abutting the park and why wealthy people would be willing to pay a premium for that, but he
doesn’t see why that is a particularly ideal location for a senior living center taking care of
memory patients. As somebody who just lost his dad to Alzheimer’s last year, he knows for the
last several years whether the park would have been there or not would have not been a concern
to anybody like that and clearly there are different places where something like that could be built
much more effectively and successfully. Additionally, it will involve ambulances and things
coming in and out of there 24/7 to deal with that particular population. Kalnins also wanted to
address something in the packet of information, some specific concerns that may be able to help
the Commission. The repeated fallback is the Comprehensive Plan is merely a guideline, they
are not legal requirements, but at the same time they are guidelines that were put in place for a
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2021
Page 19 of 29
very good reason and Kalnins believes they're being dismissed. This project does not use single
loaded streets, even though the guidelines would encourage that particularly around a park
where there should be buffers and one-sided streets would make a perfect buffer. Mr. Clark’s
response is again those are merely guidelines and not absolutes. Kalnins noted when a city
does a comprehensive plan they would never write things in terms of absolutes because of the
flexibility that would be required in any situation in terms of writing a general comprehensive plan
so instead they say that these are recommended guidelines used for situations where
appropriate. Kalnins stated based on developers proposed development and layout single load
roads apparently are not appropriate because they can increase access to an awareness of
Hickory Hill Park in other ways.
Laura Goddard (1807 Winston Drive) stated she serves as the treasurer on the Friends of
Hickory Hill Park board. There are two points she wanted to make before a few more general
comments, one is that in the presentation by Michael Welch at the beginning he referred to the
percentage of land that is not being developed and Goddard would like to point out that a fair
amount of the land that is not being developed is because it is not buildable due to slopes or
other issues, so it would be helpful to have the context for how much buildable land is not being
developed in this property. Goddard noted there was also some discussion about outlot B and
she wanted to be clear that from the Friends of Hickory Hill Park perspective they are clear on
that land is not part of Hickory Hill Park and that outlot B is not part of Hickory Hill Park, but it
was also mentioned maybe outlot B would at some point become part of the park in the future,
but from the Board’s perspective outlot B would not be a valuable addition to the park as it is
currently filled with invasive species which would require a significant amount of management,
either on the part of the City or of groups like the Friends of Hickory Hill Park. The last things
she’d like to mention is just to say the folks who are opposed to this development, as currently
proposed, are not a monolith, people have shared concerns from the previous meeting and now
that range the gamut from spiritual to environmental to issues of access and equity, focusing
more on the people side of things to focusing more on the animal side of things, some people are
entirely opposed to developing this property, others are not and some people present their
arguments more mathematically and others more emotionally, and she understands some may
resonate more or less with Commissioners depending on their own points. She does want to
reiterate they've talked about access and the 35-foot barrier and that resonates with her not
wanting folks to feel unwelcome and also not wanting homeowners to feel as though people are
trespassing on their land. Many folks present here today live near or adjacent to the park and get
the appeal of living close to the park, people will be excited about these properties and she
understands why the developer would be excited to sell them but speaking for the Friends of
Hickory Hill Park they are striving to find a way for both these new members of the neighborhood
and old members of the neighborhood to coexist, and they believe that by creating single loaded
streets completely from lots 38 to 41 is the best way for that coexistence.
Mei-Ling Shaw (821 North Gilbert Street) said she is moving into the neighborhood and wanted
to say thank you to all the Friends of Hickory Hill Park Board Members and people that have
supported this awareness campaign and all the work that's gone into it through the community to
make sure that this rare opportunity to protect a very special space in Iowa City. She
understands there aren't very many large tracks like this and it is a rare opportunity for the
developer, but that is why the Commissioners should definitely vote no on this proposal right now
because there is no reason to rush or to compromise when there's such a precious commodity at
stake.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2021
Page 20 of 29
Jane Bradbury asked to share her screen to show two photos. She noted the photoshopped
photo putting houses in the picture was very helpful but one thing it doesn't show is how it looks
from up close. Bradbury showed the view with little houses in the background and a big view of
the landscape, the view will be a little bit of the landscape and the sky will be blocked by a big
view of the houses. She also wanted to reiterate that the whole purpose, in her opinion, of having
the whole concept of zoning is basically predicated on the need to manage this kind of
compromise between developers profits and the public good and the environmental impact. She
hopes that the Commissioners will vote no until the developer can respect the plan that was
already put into place to protect the park and also protect the public interest, and not just a few
people that will live in the houses and the people who will profit from the from the sale of the
homes.
Phil Lutgendorf (2 Glendale Court) stated he and his wife Susan have lived in Iowa City for 35
years two blocks from the park and use it constantly. He seconds what so many other people
have said about the preciousness of having this kind of open space in the city. One place they
visit frequently is Boulder, Colorado and in the 1980s Boulder made a decision to not become
part of the urban sprawl of Denver that was that was extending all the way from Denver to Fort
Collins along the I-25 corridor and they bought up enormous amounts of open space and green
space around the town that could have been used for development and could have generated
property taxes but instead created as a network of fantastic parks and open space that has made
that one of the most desirable places to live in the United States. Lutgendorf stated he has
watched Iowa City over the last 30 some years miss opportunities to make these kinds of
visionary, forward looking plans for the future and that's why he so strongly urges the
Commission to adhere to this this Comprehensive Plan. One other thing he wanted to mention is
last year he and his wife became members of Harvest Preserve but it feels like a country club of
people who can afford to spend money to open the electronic gate into a private park of what
really should have been an extension of the beautiful Hickory Hill Park but the City was not
interested in getting that land. Lutgendorf reiterated this is an opportunity to at least try to limit
the development, there's always going to be more pressure for houses and more building but
there's never going to be more open space, once you lose it it's gone.
Nathaniel Hart (207 North Governor Street) just wanted to say thank you for allowing this sort of
space for people to talk about their concerns. He lives within a walking distance of the park and
he choose Iowa City as home because he is surrounded by like-minded people who really do
value nature and the idea of green space. He feels that this particular area that abuts the park is
so precious and valuable and they should be using the highest standards in choosing developers
coming in. Hart noted they are climate activists and are green save the planet, but Iowa is a
leader in the nation for habitat loss over development for agriculture so it's important that they
maintain that oasis found in Iowa City. Hart noted there isn’t anywhere else in the state he would
ever want to live. They need to pick developers that have the utmost respect for nature when it
is next to what is valued as this natural preserve is. Hart admitted he doesn’t know much about
the Comprehensive Plan but to have a developer come back twice, with the same proposal
essentially, is not someone who's valuing what is important to Iowa City residents and people
who are going to move in here they're just going to use the park as a backdrop for their holiday
family photos. Hart stated he doesn’t think that necessarily they value what it is about Hickory
Hill Park that's so important, so pick a developer that's going to come back with the utmost
respect for the environment, for the wishes of Iowa Citians and help protect this precious
resource.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2021
Page 21 of 29
Hannah Rapson said she wanted to sidestep the last comment and actually advocate for the
people who will buy these houses and say that hopefully they will be neighbors to the park, as
everyone here tonight are neighbors to the park and hopefully, they will care and value the
discussion that is happening right now about how to preserve the park because it will benefit
them. Rapson lives one block from the park and moved there to get closer to the park. She
uses the park every day and values it even as many others have commented being in the park
when it's negative temperatures out cross-country skiing and delighting in the easy access to this
area. One of the comments she was making earlier on the call that she wanted to elaborate on is
she believes there is importance in really considering the nature of the senior living facility’s
orientation to the road and the park and the potential use of the park by people of that facility
versus the negative impact that that facility may have on the park. She just doesn’t think it
makes sense to use a facility like that and that type of senior living facility shouldn’t be oriented
on a road that directly runs along the park. Rapson notes she lives at Davenport/Bloomington,
that last block on the road that is the most exposed to the park and it has all of the houses are on
the opposite side of the street and she really just can't imagine if the road that runs along where
her house is was a busy road where a senior living facility that needed services and had visitors
and emergency vehicles there often. She reiterated it doesn’t make sense to have a street
adjacent to the park be a through street with a high traffic need and the density allotment for this
area is actually being exceeded by adding the senior living facility. Rapson said going to the
single loaded street model is not reducing the tax base or the density in this area because the
senior living facility is quite large, actually much too large, and it's also not properly oriented, but
is also increasing the population density and the diversity of housing in this area so the reason to
not have a single loaded street based on a loss of property isn’t an issue because actually
adding the senior living facility in this area is an increase in population density and tax base and
should benefit both the builder and the City. Rapson also believes that the woodland mandate
was something like 50%, and so they are below that and even if it is improving, it’s still not at
50%. Rapson stated she has been to other P & Z presentations and she is disappointed that this
presentation didn’t use slides or basic directions and orientation within their maps and just
wanted to comment that this builder is not using any slides to present material and she believes
that's intentional and misleading to the public. Also, the orientation of the maps have been
mixed, which is also not conducive to constructive conversation and is disappointing. With
regard to the native plant comment made by the person who no longer lives in Iowa City and with
regard to the deer population issue, drought resistant and deer resistant plants which many
native plants are just do make more sense. It doesn't make sense to add woodland management
along the hillside that only exists across part of the perimeter of the single loaded street and not
toward lot 37, woodland management should be along that entire hillside as part of buffering the
view shed from the park to the existing development. By having a continued through street they
are actually adding additional property that's not part of the Comprehensive Plan, which is
already a concession, so there should be a woodland buffer that helps to protect the view shed
of that area, which is already being conceited.
Florence Boos stated she lives near Hickory Hill Park and purchased her house some years
back for exactly that reason, they’ve used the park for all sorts of things, for memorial services to
walking up the hill for moving around and she wanted to say that there's been a lot of destruction
in that park. It used to be that the surrounding areas were farmland but now you can now see
houses through a great part of the park since the First Avenue Extension was added. Also when
the Derecho came a lot of trees were blown down and the City essentially made the decision to
make it into a little more of a manicured park and they've added a lot of pathways that have
made it less wild so there are many encroachments on the original character of the park. Boos
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2021
Page 22 of 29
noted the City needs something that's a little bit wild to this similar beautiful park in the area and
it would be a tragedy to mess it up with a high senior center as well as a row of houses. So
many trees have been lost and will be lost, where will the animals go, what has been a refuge for
them will become less so, and if they wander into the street they will be killed. She begs the
Commission to take the advice of the young man who said that other places have tried to
maximize their natural beauty and the good things that they have while Iowa City is moving
towards slow bifurcation and suburban location in a way that takes away this this gem, so please
listen to all and make a plan that involves a single sided street and adequate buffer, plans for
non-lethal animal management, a senior center that is moved further from Hickory Hill Park and
other appropriate protections not only for the people who live nearby but others who might use to
park.
Kumar Narayanan (304 Brown Street) wanted to make a couple points, first is the new proposal
should not be considered given that the proposal paid no consideration for the previous points
that have been made and the input that was given at that last meeting. The proposal was
inadequate. A second point is at the last meeting Planning and Zoning Commission brought up
that this property will be developed, and it is private property. Narayanan agreed all those things
are true but the role of the Planning and Zoning Commission is to decide whether the plan is in
line with the goals of the community, he gave the example that they can’t put a nuclear plant
there as that is clearly not in line with the community. The third point is that a lot of people on
this call are actually pro-development it’s just that this particular development doesn't meet the
goals of this community and he is not confident that this developer is sensitive to the community.
The fourth point, which was raised by Commissioner Martin, was the racial justice component of
this, it is really subtle but important, he certainly would not feel comfortable entering the park in
between million-dollar houses where there's no parking lot. He feels very comfortable entering
the park on Bloomington Street with a parking lot where there's a clear access point, but he
wouldn't recommend going down that street alone at dusk. The cops have been called on him
so he understand and feels those components of the plan are just not really considered from this
viewpoint.
Carol Adderley said she has been going to Hickory Hill Park for 30 plus years and it's so deeply
restorative to so many. The second point she wanted to make is that what they hear from
everyone tonight, wherever they stand, everyone is asking the Commission to protect Hickory
Hill Park, no one is here saying yes, this plan sounds right and that in itself should give pause
and make them think this is not the way to go with this one.
Sue Forde (3129 Wintergreen Drive) wanted to second the sentiments of the many eloquent and
thoughtful speakers tonight and actually at the last meeting as well and especially reinforce that
idea that once something is built they can't go back, anything that's lost will not be able to be
replaced. She also wanted to add her doubts about the accuracy of the traffic study. Not only
was it done at a historically and artificially slow time but before the new Tamarack Trail addition
has come fully online, as there will be quite a bit more traffic, so she doesn’t feel that study was
very accurate, nor indicative of what the future is going to be like in that part of town.
Elizabeth Hill (1403 East College Street) is on the board of Friends of Hickory Hill Park and has
been a park user for over 30 years. When she moved back to her hometown of Iowa City a
couple years ago she chose to rent a house within walking distance of Hickory Hill because she
love it so much. Tonight the decision before the Commission is just a very simple policy issue
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2021
Page 23 of 29
and Comprehensive plans are developed through robust input and research processes and they
give the public bodies a common framework to protect valued resources and public investments
and they also serve as an objective basis to support zoning decisions. Hill asks the Planning and
Zoning Commission to adhere to the Comprehensive Plan to restrict any rezoning and
development of this track to single loaded streets and an explicit protection of the natural
features of this incredible area.
Mohamed Traore stated he is the Chair of the Iowa City Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
Currently the Commission is on pause but it's actually a bit of a blessing in disguise because
they would have been having a meeting right now and he wouldn’t have gotten a chance to hear
this or speak on this. Traore just wanted to say he’s grown up in Iowa City since he was three
years old and remembers going to parks and open lands and just really enjoying that, really
getting out into nature. When he was in high school they would always run through Hickory Hill
Park and it was a nice reprieve from everything and one of the main places they really had was
rural feeling. He stated if Hickory Hill Park is gone it will force a lot of those students to then
have to always run through places like downtown or more high traffic areas and that's pretty
dangerous when there are teams of over 80 to 100 kids running around town. In addition, in
terms of the biodiversity of Iowa City this development is completely detrimental to that. The City
is already massively undergoing development all over the town and in terms of environmental
impact he doesn’t know how they're going to reconcile that when they have an increasing
intensity of high-level flooding. If they're going to remove all this natural land and takeaway
areas for water to be soaked into the earth and then they're just going to have worse floods in
the future. Traore also stated in terms of traffic, this development is inevitably obviously going to
lead to more lines being needed on all the roads in the area and there's also some large
interstates and every single morning and every afternoon there going to be terrible traffic
everywhere and there's a fire station right there too so that's just not a very safe thing to do.
Traore doesn’t think it's a very safe policy and hopes the Planning and Zoning Commission just
recommends that this doesn't occur.
Anne Stanfield stated she lives in Minnesota and works for Acumen, the proposed manager of
the senior housing project, and just wanted to clarify some comments she’s heard this evening
about the benefits or potential use of the park and nature for the senior living residents. Stanfield
stated it is not necessarily accurate to assume that memory care residents and assisted living
residents will not be able to benefit from the park, there are people that can be mobile, there are
people that have staff that can take them outside to enjoy nature, it is very critical to the care for
the residents that they keep them engaged to promote their health well-being both physical and
mental. Stanfield just wanted to clarify that this is a desirable site for seniors because they will
be able to stay engaged and enjoy things at the later years of their lives.
Chris Coretsopoulos (1422 East Bloomington Street) noted in the plans for the park right now
right now they’re abutting the loop that goes off of First Avenue and there is a trail that cuts up
into the area that is going to be develop that hasn't been connected to this development at all.
So right now, one of the main ways that people go from that First Avenue the loop up to the
upper parts of the park is to cut through that area right now. There's property adjacent to that
whole thing and anytime it rains that whole area from the top field to that First Avenue loop
there's about a couple of hundred feet of mud because water has rushed down the hill and
flooded that area and made it a little bit of a swamp land, just before the creek there.
Coretsopoulos thinks that people have to worry about the run off on coming down the hill going
and filling that area.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2021
Page 24 of 29
Hensch closed the public hearing.
Signs moved to recommend approval of REZ20-0016, An application for a rezoning of
approximately 48.75 acres of land from Interim Development Single-Family (ID-RS) to Low
Density Single-Family with a Planned Development Overlay (OPD/RS-5).
Townsend seconded the motion.
Hensch began the discussion noting this is a difficult and uncomfortable position to be in
because there's a lot of passion and rightly so. He shared that he has lived in Iowa City for more
than 30 years and raised his family here, he’s worked here, his wife has taught here, his kids
were born here and raised here. Hensch has been a P&Z Commissioner for six years and as
P&Z members they meet at least twice a month, so it's hundreds of meetings and has listened to
thousands of people and read thousands and thousands of documents. So again, first off, he
realizes there's a lot of passion for the park and understands that. He also understands that this
is private property, this is not park property, and it is going to be developed and which puts them
in a “where's the compromise” spot. Hensch won't speak for anybody else but he feels he could
support a plan. No plan is perfect, and he’s never voted for a plan where he thought it was
perfect or 100% behind it but what he has to come down to is what the role is of the Commission
and is this in compliance fundamentally with the Comprehensive Plan and in compliance with the
District Plan. Those are the two questions, and if they're going to add conditions to that on what
is in the public good, and anybody that read the minutes or participated in the last meeting knows
Hensch’s big concern was the view shed and he personally believes that the developer has
compromised on that. About 41% of the 48.75 acres is going to be given up from development
for other purposes, for the park, and that will add to the size of Hickory Hill Park by 5% for
conservation easements and then for right-of-way for the trail. That dedication of the parkland,
increasing 11 acres, is a substantial gift and that that must be acknowledged. Also enhancing the
trail connection with those two curb trail connections is a substantial public good. Hensch stated
the question comes down to is this increased buffering through the removal of key developable
lots increasing the buffering distance of the lots that are abutting the park. He does believe a
positive public good is increasing the variety of housing types to this development, such as
condos, single family dwellings and then the assisted living and memory care facility, which he
thinks is desperately needed for in Johnson County. He respectfully disagrees strongly as
people think its location is wrong, the more relaxed environment access to nature, access to view
nature, being able to interact with nature, even if they can't walk down in the park, which many of
these people will be able to, but just to be able to look is a very powerful public good for the
people of Johnson County is important. He does believe that is maybe not a perfect location, but
is a good location for the assisted living memory care facility. He also agrees that the developer
should, as they as they stated in their memorandum, take them up on the offer to increase
mixture of trees proposed in the rear yards to provide additional screening for the parks view and
the additional screening through the use of trees would be a positive and would alleviate some
people's concerns. Hensch also agrees with the Parks and Rec department about acceptance of
outlot A should be a contingent upon approval of woodland management plan and then the issue
about what trees are good, what should be planted, what shrub should be planted, is something
the City's Forrester should weigh in on and approve, the City Forrester is the expert in that area.
Hensch summarized giving all those things he will support this application because he thinks
they've reached that spot where enough compromise has been given, the plan is from a very
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2021
Page 25 of 29
high-quality engineering firm and a quality developer.
Craig agrees with almost everything Hensch and noted he did a good job of summarizing things.
She noted remembering going to a work colleagues house in the late 70s on Windsor and
commented on how she was so lucky because there was nothing but woods in her backyard and
thought it was part of the park but the friend said no but it will be someday. The friend was
wrong, in fact there are now several streets between Windsor and the edge of the park and now
Craig lives on one of those streets, North Seventh Avenue, a house she built 34 years ago, so
she has been a neighbor of Hickory Hill Park in a house that backs up to the park for 34 years.
Craig also discussed how she remembers when Regina sold some property and there was a
street added and everybody was all in an uproar about the traffic and how it would damage the
view of the park. Next Hickory Heights came along, and that got done. Craig acknowledged
what Hensch said about the development being private land and thinks some people who spoke
tonight are not very realistic about what they think a decent development would be. They talked
about the single loaded streets but even with a single loaded street you're going to look up on
that ridge line and you are going to see houses so people who think the single loaded street
means the view from the park is pristine are wrong, they will look up there and see houses, the
house will just be a little bit further away. Regarding people who are worried about pesticide
runoff well if ACT plants corn or soybeans on that land the amount of pesticide runoff is going to
be way more than some houses. Craig appreciates what the developers have done and thinks it
is an improvement and but said they haven't done enough, she can take the lots that they've
pushed to the north, 37 through 40, but she can't take all the lots down below. Overall it's a good
development and she appreciates the comments that made about senior living facility and totally
agrees that is where she would want to be, right there by the park. Craig thanked staff for
reaching out to Parks and Rec and got something in writing from them about the gifted land to
the park. However overall Craig stated just not enough has been done in that south and west
portion for at the bottom so she will vote no tonight.
Elliott echoed what Craig said that this proposal doesn't go far enough for her, she appreciates
the attempt but those lots to the south just seemed like a big deal. Although it isn’t a perfect
example, because it’s not the same park, but this makes her think about Willow Creek Park and
Tag Drive. At the start of Tag Drive the houses are only on one side, however further down the
street the houses are on two sides and it's a completely different park. It's an open park to the
community when there's only houses on one side, so she will not be able to support this tonight.
Martin acknowledged how eloquent Hensch’s comments were, however, tonight she going to
respectfully disagree with him and does not believe that it is in compliance. She thinks about
how much conversation is being had, the people that have emailed the City to talk about their
views and feelings and the variety of argument or perspective from the public and she feels that
the public has spoken. Martin agreed not that this is undeveloped bubble because absolutely it
is but at the same time is it in line with the goals of the community. Yes, this is private land and
yes it's going to be developed in some way, however, there needs to be a better cohesion
between development and the community, the parks, and others and take the micro and the
macro look at this entire project. Martin stated she cannot support it as it stands.
Townsend reiterated once they do it, it can't be undone and this feels so different from the other
projects that they've talked about because usually it's just one neighborhood that's concerned
about what's going on but here it's not just the neighborhood, it's people all over the Iowa City
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2021
Page 26 of 29
area that use this park just to get away and once we take that away from them, they can't get it
back. Townsend noted at the last meeting and this meeting it’s been stated they don't want not
to develop it or they don't want to build these houses it's just that they want to do it so that it's
friendly to everybody concerned, especially those people that have to live there and those people
that come into visit there just to get away from the hectic things that are going on now.
Townsend also stated she will not be able to support it now but does think it can be worked into a
good project just not the way it is.
Signs stated he just wanted to look at the broader picture and talk about some of the process as
he appreciates the process that comes with this development. He does agree with Martin that
the community has spoken quite loudly on this matter and it's at a level he doesn’t believe he’s
ever seen in the four and a half years he’s been on the Commission. Signs also appreciates not
getting lambasted for his remarks last time because he really was concerned. Signs reiterated
he would like to take these opportunities to look at the bigger picture and just talk about the
challenges that they as Commissioners face and what they have to consider. Signs saw his
colleagues speak eloquently how they’re tasked with interpreting City Code, interpreting City
planning, interpreting a lot of things including what they feel is in the best interest of the public.
Signs acknowledged it's a hard job that none of them take lightly. He also wanted to
acknowledge all who participated tonight. Signs stated he talks a lot about the struggle between
private property rights and the community good and agrees it's a conversation that they need to
have and need to be doing it ahead of things like this. If they have places in the community that
are sacred and valuable, they need to be proactive about taking care of that. Signs means no
offense to the Friend’s group or anyone, but the Northeast District Plan was made in 1999 and
the Comprehensive Plan was revised in 2013. ACT sold this property in 2008 and according to
the letter the Commission saw, ACT reached out and had conversations with the community
leaders about the piece of property and the fact that it’s adjoined to the park. Signs noted what
they see on the Commission so often is the people come running in after the fact, after a
developer has put a tremendous amount of money into purchasing and coming up with a plan,
and then people come in and say oh nope we just can't support that and Signs thinks if they
really as a community think parks, and open space land is valuable, they need to be advocating
to the City Council to prioritize that and to spend money on that. Signs feels obligated to continue
to promote that and reiterate if you don't own the land, you don't control it, it's as simple as that.
If there is land that you want to control you've got to own it, whether the City owns it or whether a
private group (such as a nonprofit) owns it. Going back to the challenges interpreting it all these
things Signs believes 22 years is a long time from when that neighborhood plan was created. He
appreciates the amount of effort that went into it but that was 22 years ago and that's a
generation ago and a lot has changed in the community and the community’s desires and wants.
Things like cul-de-sacs and a lot of major pieces of what was in that Plan aren't the way we think
about community planning today and as Commissioners they have to take that into account.
They have to not only look at what the plan was 22 years ago but what's the plan today and
what's the plan for 10 years from now, and it's a challenge to find that position. Having said all
that, Signs admitted he was pretty disappointed with the new plan proposed by the developer, he
was pretty underwhelmed with the changes that were made and thinks as a Commission, and as
the public, they were very clear on some of the things we wanted to see in a revised plan, one of
them being one sided streets and it's just not there. So for that reason, Signs will not be
supporting this motion tonight.
Nolte echoes a lot of those comments and really appreciates the other Commissioners for their
leadership on this. In full disclosure back in 1999 Nolte was part of the original Friends at
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2021
Page 27 of 29
Hickory Hill and didn't want to see any of the houses that are there, but as Signs pointed out, it's
not his land or his decision to make. Nolte admitted he has been caught up in what does the
Comprehensive Plan encourage versus require, and how do they interpret that because it is
open to a lot of interpretation. Clearly, he values the comments that were made by the public
tonight, the passion for the park and is confident there's a way to get to a solution here, he
knows the developer and he's a good person and is trying to make the math work. Nolte
explained if someone has never done a development like this, it’s hard to understand. It’s easy
for others to say just cut half the lots out of there and somehow the math is going to work and
that's not really how it works to single load the whole street. The developer still has to pay to put
in water and a lot of other costs that go in that people aren’t fully appreciative of. Nolte is hopeful
there's a way that they can keep going and he appreciates that the developer has made some
concessions and given up some of those lots. Perhaps there is a way the City or one of the
various land trusts or some other group to come in and maybe purchase some of those lots it
can make the math work for the developer, but still create the buffer and control that land. Nolte
is optimistic there's a solution that can be figured out with this. He is less concerned about the
senior housing project; he understands the mass issue and stuff but also understand that it'll be
a beautiful place for people to retire. Overall, he is just hoping to find a way to make this happen
that can benefit everybody.
Martin wanted to reiterate that obviously this is not the parks land and there's so much put on the
park and the enjoyment of the park but one of the most important things that she thinks about in
when they’re looking at these developments is it another part of a subdivision or if it's adjacent to
another development that's been slated for future residential homes. This area is already
surrounded by that, so it is very different than so many other parcels that they've looked at,
because it's kind of an island, yes, Hickory Heights is nearby but it really is kind of an island and
so that's just something that she hopes the developers think about. For her to really be behind
something like this she feels it needs to be as unique as the situation it is in, and not just feel like
another street. She acknowledged it is not just another street in terms of the senior housing,
which is obviously needed, but she does struggle with density, and usually is a person that rather
see taller buildings and less of them, but at the same time, because of the uniqueness of the of
this location maybe this is one of those situations where it needs to be a little less dense and a
little shorter.
Signs noted at the last meeting they talked about the height of that building and he also
remembers that they talked about the fact that it really sits in a low spot in the property so the net
effect and feel of the height of the building is mitigated a little bit by typography surrounding it so
he has less concern about that piece than he does about the pieces that are west and south.
Hensch called the vote and roll call was taken. The vote was 1-6 (Craig, Elliott, Martin,
Nolte, Signs and Townsend dissenting).
CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: FEBRUARY 18, 2021:
Townsend moved to approve the meeting minutes of February 18, 2021.
Craig seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0.
Planning and Zoning Commission
March 18, 2021
Page 28 of 29
PLANNING AND ZONING INFORMATION:
Russett gave one update, City Council approved the local historic landmark rezoning of the
Highlander Hotel.
ADJOURNMENT:
Townsend moved to adjourn.
Martin 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 3/18
CRAIG, SUSAN X X X X X X O X X X X X
DYER, CAROLYN O/E O/E -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
ELLIOTT, MAGGIE -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X X X X X X X
HENSCH, MIKE X X X X X X X X X X X X
MARTIN, PHOEBE X X X X X X X X X X X X
NOLTE, MARK -- -- -- -- X X X X X X X O X X
SIGNS, MARK X X X X X X X O/E X X X X
TOWNSEND, BILLIE O/E X X X X X X X X X X X
KEY:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
--- = Not a Member